- the persons involved in the case
Dr. György Ádám, the defendant, was born in 1921, so he is 84 years old. He is Doctor of the Science of Law. From 1942 he is a military forced labourer. In autumn 1944 he is deported to Kőszeg, the Hugarian concentration camp, then to Lager Libenau. Two of his brothers were killed, he survived. For many decades he teaches civil rights, medical-ethics and medical rights at ELTE, Faculty of Law and at Semmelweis Medical University. Since 1990 he is in legal practice.
Lóránt Hegedűs Jr. was born in 1944, he is married, has two children. He graduated at a Calvinist theological Academy, then he became a Calvinist minister then leading minister. From 1993 he is a member of MIÉP (The Party of Hungarian Life and Justice), from 1977 he becomes the vice president of the party. From 1998-2002 he is Member of Parliament and member of the Committe on Human right, Minority and Religious Affairs and National Security. His father, Lóránt Hegedűs, is the bishop of the Calvinist Dunamelléki Egyházkerület, for many years he was the leading minister of the Calvinist Church. Regarding the statement of his son, the basis of this case, he fought for the opinion of his son.
- The pre-history of the case
The proclamation of Lóránt Hegedűs Jr. 'to the Cristian Hungarian State' was publsihed in the journal 'Ébresztő' (Wake-up Call) in 2001.
It is the journal of the 16th district Organisation of MIÉP, it is published in 12000 copies, it is distributed for free in the district and it is posted to the people who are on the organisations own list. The proclamation evoke a wide, negative respone, primarily in the left and liberal circles and media. Intellectuals demanded Mr Hegedűs's immediate replacement, especially they insisted on relieving him of his membership of the Committe on Human right, Minority and Religious Affairs, saying that it was impossible for a person with those views to be the member of such a Committee. These demands did not lead to any consequences. However, the governing coalition's bigger party, the Fidesz did not actually defend Hegedűs but it was not willing neither to distance itself from him nor take any kind of public law measures. The the Jewish Communities of Hungary started political negotiations with the government regarding the legal restriction of the so called hatred-speech. After numerous political delays the Parliament approved of the amendment of the rule, which threatened with more serious punishments the spreading of racist and exclusion views. The regulation, however, was abandoned by the Constitutional Court justified by the following: the freedom of the press and the media is a more important value than the defence of the rights of minority. After that action 43 intellectuals presented civil rights lawsuit against Lóránt Hegedűs Jr. requesting the court to establish that the political-minister breached their personal rights, requesting that the defendant be ordered to cease his illegal activities and pay the damages. The first and second degree court took up the same position: the plaintiff has no right to present such lawsuit as the writing of Lóránt Hegedűs Jr did not indicate them directly to be excluded, in other words, they were not named. It was after this measure that Dr. György Ádam presented his lawsuit - on his own. The chronicle of this case can be followed in this compilation. You can get acquanted with all the documents related to the case and read all the papers of the defendant, plaintiff and the Court.
- The counter-petition of the defendant tries to take advantage of what has often been a misinterpretation of personal suits from the courts' part. The only states the following: ' 'rights related to individuals can only be enforced personally'. However, the legal practice - in Hungary where in contrast to the Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction the legal principle, precedent does not exist - applies it in such restricted way, which is violating the law by adding. That is violation of the law by itself.
- Observations of the plaintiff
- It took many people by surprise that the Public Prosecutors Office ordered investigation regarding the article in point due to inciting people against the community. The Public Prosecutors Office brought action first against an unknown perpetrator and after having suspended Mr. Hegedűs of his parliamentary immunity against him personally. Knowing the viewpoint of the Constitutional Court and the legal practice formed accordingly it was even more surprising for the professional public opinion that the first degree court found him guilty and passed a rather heavy sentence, one year and six months imprisonment, yet suspended for three years. However, the second instance Court quashed the verdict of the first degree Court and acquitted him on the charges. His right wing followers carried him on their shoulders out of the court building and celebrated him.
- It's worth comparing the letter of lawsuit with the verdict. The sentencing judge - not everything - but interpreted and accepted György Ádám's logical justification and his principles of the law. The verdict of the first degree Court deserves special attention because in such cases the Court has never pronounced such a clear and obvious ruling. That is why it is worth comparing the latter judgements and rulings with this first one.
- Binding verdict of the Court of Appeals
The Court of second instance, entitled to deliver a binding verdict, took up an incredible direction: it started to complain. It claimed if it interpreted the law differently and approved György Ádám's lawsuit it would raise questions which could be difficult to answer'. It judged that those questions - e.g.: on what criteria could someone be regarded as member of a certain group or which group's members are worthy of personal legal remedy which are not and what could happen if the right of mass suing would on the basis of such verdict and courts would have a lot of work to do - truly these questions are very difficult to answer or possibly the court did not even bother with them and rejected the lawsuit. The binding verdict not only made a statement but essentially it made some questions. From whom it is not known.
The analysis of the verdict's ridiculousness and outrageousness can be read in the request of review.
|
|
