State of Danger (Hungary)

State of Danger (Hungary)
Name	State of Danger (Hungary)
Native name	Rendkívüli jogrend
Onset	2020-03-11
Ended	2020-06-16 (formal legislative repeal 2020-06-16)
Declared by	Viktor Orbán
Legal basis	Fundamental Law of Hungary
Main measures	Emergency decrees, suspension of certain laws, extended detention powers
Affected	Hungary

State of Danger (Hungary) The State of Danger declared in Hungary in March 2020 was a formal emergency regime instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic under the leadership of Viktor Orbán, invoking provisions in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and interacting with institutions such as the Országgyűlés and the Constitutional Court of Hungary. It produced a sequence of emergency decrees, parliamentary acts, and judicial reviews involving actors including the European Commission, Council of Europe, Amnesty International, and domestic parties such as Fidesz and DK (political party). The period prompted debates linking Hungarian measures to precedents like the State of Emergency (France) and legal instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

Background and legal basis

The declaration referenced provisions in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and drew on prior practice under administrations led by Viktor Orbán and institutional frameworks including the Országgyűlés and the Constitutional Court of Hungary. Hungarian lawmakers considered statutes including the Act on the Protection against Communicable Diseases and emergency-related rules debated among parties like Fidesz, MSZP, Jobbik, LMP – Hungary’s Green Party, and DK (political party). Comparators in doctrine cited cases from the European Court of Human Rights, rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and analyses by jurists affiliated with institutions such as the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Central European University. Internationally, observers referenced instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and critiques by NGOs including Human Rights Watch.

Declaration and timeline

On 11 March 2020 Viktor Orbán addressed the Országgyűlés and the President of Hungary, leading to passage of an act authorizing measures comparable to earlier extraordinary regimes seen in the histories of the Weimar Republic, the Second Polish Republic, and emergency practice under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The law empowered the Prime Minister of Hungary to issue emergency decrees; subsequent decrees were promulgated by ministries such as the Ministry of Interior (Hungary) and the Ministry of Human Capacities. The timeline included interactions with authorities like the Hungarian Defence Forces and the National Directorate-General for Disaster Management, while parliamentary oversight invoked committees including the Committee on National Security (Országgyűlés). Key dates featured announcements involving the Semmelweis University and public health institutions such as the National Public Health Center (Hungary).

Government measures and powers

Decrees granted powers to officials including the Prime Minister of Hungary and ministers to adopt regulations affecting institutions like the Judiciary of Hungary and the Hungarian National Bank. Measures addressed activities of agencies such as the National Tax and Customs Administration and impacted sectors overseen by ministries including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Hungary), the Ministry of Justice (Hungary), and the Ministry of Human Capacities. Actions raised concerns relating to rights protected by instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, drawing scrutiny from bodies such as the European Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the Venice Commission. The regime involved policing by forces such as the Hungarian Police and detention practices examined by legal scholars at institutions like Eötvös Loránd University.

Political and public response

Domestic political reactions spanned the spectrum from support by Fidesz and allies including KDNP (Christian Democratic People's Party) to criticism from opposition groups such as DK (political party), MSZP, Jobbik, and LMP – Hungary’s Green Party. Civic organizations including Amnesty International, Transparency International, and local NGOs connected to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee mobilized analyses and campaigns. Media outlets including Magyar Nemzet, Index.hu, 444.hu, and international press such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and Le Monde reported debates over parliamentary procedure, publishing bylines from commentators linked to universities such as Corvinus University of Budapest and research centers like the Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly. Street protests and petitions involved activists associated with groups like Momentum Movement and trade unions such as the Hungarian Trade Union Confederation.

Legal challenges and judiciary review

Litigation was brought before the Constitutional Court of Hungary and references to preliminary rulings were considered in relation to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Legal arguments cited jurisprudence from courts including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and comparative law from the Federal Constitutional Court (Germany). NGOs such as the Hungarian Helsinki Committee submitted complaints and amicus briefs; academic critiques originated from scholars at Central European University and Eötvös Loránd University. Debates involved legal instruments including the Fundamental Law of Hungary, proposals for emergency oversight by the Országgyűlés and legal limits articulated in the European Convention on Human Rights.

International reactions and implications

The State of Danger drew reactions from the European Commission, statements by members of the European Parliament including representatives of European People's Party and Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, and commentary from the Council of Europe and the United Nations Human Rights Council. Financial institutions such as the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund monitored economic effects, while diplomatic reactions involved capitals including Berlin, Brussels, Washington, D.C., and Budapest missions. The episode affected Hungary’s relations with neighbors like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and global partners including China and United States interlocutors, raising questions about compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the future of cooperation within frameworks such as the Visegrád Group and the European Union.

Category:2020 in Hungary Category:States of emergency