Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
Opinion 720/2013 (2013)

- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In 2012, Hungary adopted a new constitution that limited the power of the Constitutional Court (the court) and expanded the power of the legislature. In 2013, the Hungarian legislature, with a two-thirds majority, adopted the Fourth Amendment to the 2012 constitution (fourth amendment). The explicit purpose of the fourth amendment was to overrule multiple, specific court decisions. In response to the activities in Hungary, the secretary general of the Council of Europe (plaintiff) requested that the European Commission for Democracy through Law (also known as the Venice Commission) review the fourth amendment to determine its conformity with Hungary’s obligations to constitutionalism, rule of law, and democracy as a member of the Council of Europe. The minister of foreign affairs of Hungary also requested that the Venice Commission review the fourth amendment for its compatibility with Hungary’s international commitments as a member of the Council of Europe. In response, the Venice Commission investigated and subsequently issued an opinion that raised concerns about the fourth amendment and the actions of the Hungarian legislature.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.