Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Hungary / Kúria / Mfv.I.10.116/2015/6.

Former civil servant v state entity (anonymised)
Policy area
Employment and social policy
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Curia
Typ
Decision
Decision date
02/12/2015

Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union

Title IV: Solidarity

Article 30 - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Hungary / Kúria / Mfv.I.10.116/2015/6.

    Key facts of the case: 

    The plaintiff, a former financial administrator, submitted a petition for review (felülvizsgálati kérelem) to the Curia. On 7 March 2011 he was dismissed without reasons on the basis of Section 17 (1) of Act no. XXIII of 1992 on the legal status of civil servants (1992. évi XXIII. törvény a köztisztviselők jogállásáról) as in force at the time. Before the lower courts and in his petition for review the plaintiff claimed that his dismissal was unlawful, and it violated the prescribed procedure and the principle of equal treatment. He further argued that the dismissal did not serve the purpose for which the applied provision was adopted (rendeltetésellenesség) as at the time of his dismissal it was foreseeable that Section 17 (1) would be quashed. The Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) quashed Section 17 (1) of the Act and excluded its application only after 8 April 2011. The plaintiff also alleged procedural irregularities in the former employer’s procedure. The Nyíregyháza Regional Court (Nyíregyházi Törvényszék) when deciding on the appeal referred to the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union: when adopting the applied provision Hungary did not implement EU law and for this reason the Charter was inapplicable to the case

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Curia dismissed the petition for review. As the Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) invalidated the applied provision only after his dismissal, the plaintiff cannot claim that his dismissal was unlawful. Furthermore, the Curia found that with reference to the decision of the CJEU that established that by adopting the Act on the legal status of civil servants Hungary did not implement EU law and for that reason the alleged violation of the Charter cannot be considered as a legal basis for review.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    In the view of [the plaintiff] Section 17 (1) of [Act no. XXIII of 1992 on the legal status of civil servants] violates the principle of rule of law enshrined in Article 2 (1), the right to work guaranteed by Article 70/B (1), the right to hold a public office regulated by Article 70 (6), the right to a court contained in Article 57 (1), and the right to human dignity defined by Article 54 (1) of Act no. XX on the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic. Besides this, the mentioned provision of [Act no. XXIII of 1992 on the legal status of civil servants] violates Article B (1), Article 12, Article XXIII (8), Article 28 (1) and Article 2 of the Fundamental Law (Magyarország Alaptörvény), furthermore it breaches Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and indirectly contradicts Article 24 of the European Social Charter.

    According to the Court of Justice of the European Union in its decision delivered in case no. C-332/13 with the adoption of [Act no. XXIII of 1992 on the legal status of civil servants] Hungary did not implement the law of the Union, thus the legal situation does not fall under its competence. Following from this the alleged violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter cannot serve as a basis for a petition of review, the impugned provision of [Act no. XXIII of 1992 on the legal status of civil servants] may not violate them (par. 12-13 of the above decision).

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    [A felperes] álláspontja szerint a Ktv. 17. § (1) bekezdése a Magyar Köztársaság Alkotmányáról szóló 1949. évi XX. törvény (Alkotmány) 2. § (1) bekezdésében szabályozott jogállamiság elvét, a 70/B. § (1) bekezdése szerinti munkához való jogot, a 70. § (6) bekezdésében szabályozott közhivatal viseléséhez való jogot, az 57. § (1) bekezdésében lévő bírósághoz fordulás jogát, és az 54. § (1) bekezdésében szabályozott emberi méltósághoz való jogot sérti. Emellett a Ktv. említett rendelkezése sérti az Alaptörvény B) cikk (1) bekezdését, a 12. cikket, a XXIII. cikk (8) bekezdését, a 28. cikk (1) bekezdését és a 2. cikket, emellett az Alapjogi Charta 30. cikkébe ütközik, közvetve sérti az Európai Szociális Charta 24. cikkét.

    Az Európai Unió Bíróságának a C-332/13. számú ügyben meghozott határozata szerint a Ktv. megalkotásával Magyarország nem az Unió jogát hajtotta végre, a jogi helyzet nem tartozik az uniós jog alkalmazási körébe. Ebből következően az Alapjogi Charta és az Európai Szociális Charta megsértése a felülvizsgálati kérelmet nem alapozhatja meg, a Ktv. támadott rendelkezésének a fentiekbe ütközése nem állhat fenn (említett végzés 12. -13.).