Conference organised by the Embassy of France in Hungary, the Embassy of Netherlands in Hungary and the Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre for Social Sciences, and the French Institute in Budapest

Date and place: September 23rd and 24th 2021 at the Institute for Legal Studies, Centre for Social Sciences (4 Tóth Kálmán Street, 1097 Budapest) or online

Languages: English and French (simultaneous translation)

Constitutional lawyers in Europe have shown a particular interest in national constitutional traditions and their effects on the practice of constitutional law in their national laws. More specifically, they have conducted research about the practice and the case law of the European Union, based on the common constitutional traditions of the Member States. The question arises whether there is a more transparent method of enforcing and understanding the different constitutional traditions of the Member States and whether these case law practices can be used and taken on by the European Union in its case law and legislation.

The analysis of national constitutional cultures and traditions goes beyond the traditional methods used by lawyers. However, the construction of a legal order based on constitutional traditions is a legal duty, resulting in the creation of law and the enforcement of normative rules.

The comparison between the two countries, France and Hungary, is particularly relevant, with on one hand France, the cradle of constitutional traditions, and on the other hand Hungary, which has adopted the most recent constitution in Europe and is still looking for its constitutional identity. As both countries are members of the European Union, we should also study the other constitutional traditions of the other EU member states in order to define the role of these traditions in the formation of constitutional identities both at national and European level.

Three main topics will be addressed at the conference:

1. The national perspectives of constitutional identity and their relation to the EU legal order;
2. The EU law perspective – the nature of the related provisions, the legal conflicts and solutions;
3. The theoretical approach: what are the possible elements of identity, and how this distinctive element of cooperation can be captured by legal constitutional terms.

Megjelent a Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law legújabb, 2022. évi számának call for papers-e, mely elérhető a Hungarian Yearbook honlapján, a www.hungarianyearbook.com oldalon. A Hungarian Yearbook hagyományos, nemzetközi jogi és európajogi tárgyú írásokkal foglalkozó rovatai (New developments in international law, New developments in European law, Hungarian state practice, Case notes, Book reviews, Conference reports) mellett a 2022. évi tematikus fejezet a bős-nagymarosi vízlépcsőperben született ítélet 25. évfordulójához kötődő, míg az évfordulós rovat a magyar-amerikai diplomáciai kapcsolatok 100 éves évfordulójának emléket állító írásokat vár. A kéziratok leadási határideje 2022. április 15. lesz. Bővebb információk elérhetőek a www.hungarianyearbook.com oldalon, illetőleg forduljanak bizalommal a Yearbook szerkesztőihez (Szabó Marcel főszerkesztő, Gyeney Laura és Láncos Petra szerkesztők, valamennyien a PPKE JÁK Európajogi Tanszékének munkatársai). 

Attila Sipos: The liability of the air carrier for damages and the state of health of the air passenger • Accidents and Diseases (COVID-19)

Ákos Tussay: Plague discourse, quarantine and plague control in early modern England: 1578–1625

A kötet az európai jogösszehasonlítás modern történetének bemutatására vállalkozik Thomas Kuhn paradigma-elméletének segítségével. Legfontosabb állítása, hogy a tudományos értelemben – nem a joggyakorlat szemszögéből megközelítve – felfogott jogösszehasonlítás modern története a 19. század második felében kezdődik az angol és a német kultúrkörben. Valójában a modern európai jogösszehasonlítás történetét három paradigma határozta meg: a történeti és összehasonlító jogtudomány, a droit comparé, és a második világháborút követő időszak jogösszehasonlítása. Tovább, e paradigmák egyes esetekben egymással párhuzamosan is fejtettek ki hatást. Napjainkban a jogösszehasonlítás ismét átalakulóban van, különösen a posztmodern filozófia hatására, de a kötet álláspontja szerint ez nem tekinthető egy új paradigma kialakulásának - tudományos forradalomnak -, hanem sokkal inkább a ma uralkodó paradigmán belül zajló átalakulási folyamatról beszélhetünk.

2021. június 25-én kerül sor a Debreceni Egyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Karának szervezésében az 5. CEENELS (Central and Eastern European Network of Legal Scholars) nemzetközi jogtudományi konferenciára, amely a rendszerváltás után a kelet-közép európai régió országai által átvett nyugati típusú jogintézmények adekvát mivolta, és az azokat ért kihívások körül forog. A konferencián többek között előadnak: Jiri Pribán (Director of the Centre of Law and Society, School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University): The Rule of Law and Constitutional Power: Separated, Enhanced and Instrumentalised Bojan Bugaric (Professor of Law, Department of Law, University of Sheffield): Work, Family, Fatherland: the Political Economy of Populism in Central and Eastern Europe Andreas Funke (Chair of Public Law and Legal Philosophy, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg): Constitution-making in terms of Basic Law Perpetuation: Experiences from the German Reunification Rafal Manko (Faculty Member, Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law, University of Amsterdam): The Nomos of Central Europe, or Five Theses on Legal Form in the Periphery

Speaker: Karin Leijon, Uppsala University, Department of Government

How national courts actually behave when engaging in the preliminary ruling procedure (Article 267 TFEU), and what motivates individual national judges to be either active or passive in this procedure, have important implications for the functioning of the EU legal system and the pace of EU legal integration. In this talk, Karin Leijon will first briefly present the findings from a comparative study on whether national courts allow the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to decide politically sensitive cases (i.e. cases in which national policies are at stake) and, whether national courts express opinions in the referrals (i.e. supporting EU law or defending national law). Second, Leijon will also discuss the motives informing the actions of individual (Swedish) judges with regard to the referral of cases and the expression of opinions in the requests for preliminary rulings.

Thanks to the European integration’s stimulation of intra-EU trade and mobility, the number of economic transactions and the migration of people have increased remarkably, calling for a clear and effective legal framework. In response to this need, the EU has made extensive use of its competences created by the Treaty of Amsterdam and has enacted various European private international law (“EU PIL”) instruments, taking over most of the field of national private international laws. EU PIL instruments are applied increasingly and gained a determinative significance in civil matters. Nevertheless, national litigants, judges and authorities are still facing challenges in cross-border matters. EU PIL rules need to be applied in a uniform manner. Furthermore, parties and legal counsels engaged in cross-border litigation assume higher risks and incur higher costs.

Nonetheless, the value of private international law unification can be preserved only if the EU PIL instruments are applied correctly and uniformly, hence, the European endeavours in the field should not and cannot stop at statutory unification but need to embrace the judicial practice and make sure that besides the vertical communication between the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) and national courts, there is also a horizontal communication between national courts, authorities and the legal community in general. This is crucial for businesses, consumers and families engaged in cross-border mobility, who may be dissuaded from exercising their free movement rights, if encountering unpredictability, uncertainty and unreasonably high costs. Member State courts have a very significant role in the creation of a “Europe of law and justice” and the success of EU PIL in fulfilling its function, to a large extent, centres around Member State courts’ correct and adequate application of the EU PIL rules.

The CEPIL project inquires whether EU PIL functions optimally in the CE Member States in order to secure “a Europe of law and justice”. It examines whether EU PIL instruments are applied in CE Member States in a correct and uniform manner, whether Member State courts deal appropriately with disputes having a cross-border element and whether the current legal and institutional architecture is susceptible of securing legal certainty and an effective remedy for cross-border litigants.

The projects research output will be published by Kluwer International.