“The head of state may be legitimately criticized — even publicly, with stated reasons — by the prime minister or, after an election, by the prospective prime minister, but calling on him to resign in the course of direct contact constitutes a violation of the constitution,” former Constitutional Court judge Bela Pokol said.
Regarding the call for resignation and the criticism of the head of state, Bela Pokol wrote that a prime minister-designate
may do so in parliament by stating specific reasons, on the basis of the applicable constitutional provision — Article 13(2) of the Fundamental Law — by initiating the president’s removal from office, and then, following a two-thirds parliamentary resolution approving it, by submitting a motion to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. Taking such a step outside this framework, however, constitutes a violation of constitutional rules.
According to the expert, it can be stated that Peter Magyar committed a constitutional violation even before taking office.
As is known, following the Tisza Party’s election victory, Peter Magyar called on the heads of the Kúria, the Hungarian Competition Authority, the National Office for the Judiciary, and the Constitutional Court, as well as the president of the republic, to resign. The Tisza Party leader later stated that they plan to remove the aforementioned public officeholders while respecting the rule-of-law framework.
Szóljon hozzá!
Jelenleg csak a hozzászólások egy kis részét látja. Hozzászóláshoz és a további kommentek megtekintéséhez lépjen be, vagy regisztráljon!