The Curia (Hungary’s supreme court) has clearly and grossly interfered in the parliamentary elections “as it has taken a mandate away from the electors of the government parties”; the body has clearly not risen to the challenge of its task intellectually, Bertalan Havasi, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s press chief told the news portal PestiSrácok.hu outlining the Prime Minister’s position on the matter.
The news portal wrote in an article published on Saturday that the Constitutional Court also took the view that the Curia invalidated thousands of votes cast by electors beyond the borders unlawfully, but according to the body’s ruling, there is no scope for appeal, and in consequence, Fidesz has lost one mandate in Parliament. Nonetheless, its two-thirds majority is still safe. They added that the National Election Commission supplemented with members from the opposition and later the Curia invalidated more than four thousand votes cast beyond the borders with reference to the fact that they were posted in self-addressed, non-standard envelopes – rather than in the envelopes supplied for return posting – or to the fact that the envelopes were damaged.
The news portal contacted Bertalan Havasi, the Prime Minister’s press chief, who outlined Mr Orbán’s position: “with its decision, the Curia has taken a mandate away from our electors. The Curia has clearly and grossly interfered in the elections. Studying the ruling of the Constitutional Court it is evident that the Curia has not risen to the challenge of its task intellectually”, he stated.
PestiSrácok.hu also contacted Miklós Szánthó, Director of the Centre for Fundamental Rights, who said in reply that by virtue of the fact that the Council of the Curia headed by Tamás Kovács “created a ‘new’ cause of invalidity, it effectively deprived Fidesz of its 134th mandate. At the same time – as the Constitutional Court itself ruled on the matter –, a judgement which disregards the law is arbitrary, cannot be fair as a matter of course and is incompatible with the fundamental principle of the rule of law.”
This is called “the judicial state” where instead of the elected legislature laws are created by irresponsible judges. In our case, this is further aggravated by the circumstance that the Curia’s decision – which was contrary to the available documentary evidence – was also politically motivated: during the course of its procedure the court contacted the election office expressly to find out whether, if the votes in question cast beyond the borders were declared valid, the Fidesz-KDNP party alliance would be awarded an additional mandate on their party list or not. This led to the impression – as was also confirmed by the Constitutional Court – that the Curia sought to render its decision dependent on what specific impact the outcome of its decision would have on the final number of votes awarded to one of the nominating organisations, Mr Szánthó pointed out in the article.