12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Prior to World War II, Hungary had no written constitution. The Arany Bulla (Golden Bull) in 1222, the Pragmatica Sanctio in 1723, and the Compromise of 1867 were considered basic laws, because they regulated the relations between the king and the “nation” (i.e., the nobility) and contained certain safeguards against tyrannical (arbitrary) government. Before the Compromise, justice was administered by the local (county) government for all inhabitants without state-wide supervision, except for the serfs who were subject to their landlords. The Compromise of 1867, which created a constitutional dual monarchy for Austria and Hungary, was the outgrowth of the revolution of 1848. The immediate results of this revolution were the emancipation of the serfs and the establishment of the Ministry of Justice. Law No. IV of 1869 unified the judicial system nationally by removing judicial power from the jurisdiction of the counties.
1 Law No. V of 1875. Dr. Gyula Térfy and Dr. Bé1a Térfy, eds., Igazságügyi Zsebtörvénytár [Judicial Handbook] (Budapest: Károly Grill, 1948), p. 1532.
2 Law No. XXXIII of 1896 amended by Law No. XXXVI of 1908 and by Law No. XXXIV of 1930. Ibid., p. 1717.
3 Criminal Procedure, Sec. IX, Art. 141. Ibid., p. 1739.
4 Criminal Procedure, Sec. XI, Art. 145. Ibid., p. 1750.
5 Criminal Procedure, Sec. XII, Arts. 169-191. Ibid., pp. 1755-60.
6 Criminal Procedure, Sec. I, Art. 1. Ibid., p. 1717.
7 Criminal Procedure, Sec. XVIII, Arts. 306-314. Ibid., pp. 1784-86.
8 Criminal Procedure, Sec. XIII, Arts. 205-209. Ibid., pp. 1762-63.
9 Criminal Procedure, Sec. XVIII, Art. 329. Ibid., p. 1790. The verdict was announced in the name of the “Holy Crown,” which refers to the crown used at Stephen's (the first Hungarian king) coronation in 1000 A.D. and sent by Pope Sylvester II as a symbol of recognition of the newly established Christian state, the new defender of the Christian faith. The Crown of the Hungarian kings was considered a legal person, owner of the land, and symbol of statehood. It became the expression of the inviolability of the frontiers of the Hungarian Crown-lords. See Eckhart, Ferenc, A Szentkorona-Eszme Torttnete, 1941 (Budapest)Google Scholar.
10 Criminal Procedure, Sec. V, Arts. 53-83. Térfy, op. cit., pp. 1729-34.
11 Law No. XL of 1879. Ibid., pp. 1532 and 1607.
12 Criminal Code, Part I, Sec. I, Art. 1. Ibid., p. 1532.
13 Criminal Code, Part I, Sec. I, Art. 20. Ibid., p. 1535.
14 Criminal Code, Part I, Sec. III , Art. 61. Ibid., pp. 1539-40.
15 Criminal Code, Part I, Sec. V, Arts. 69-75. Ibid., pp. 1541-42.
16 Criminal Code, Part I, Sec. VII, Arts. 76-94. Ibid., pp. 142-44.
17 Judges were appointed for life on good behavior; they were not subject to transfer and enjoyed a special status regarding their classification for compensation.
18 Law No. II of 1939. Térfy, op. cit., p. 1542.
19 Law No. XVIII of 1938 and Law No. XVII of 1938. Ibid., pp. 1682 and 1705.
20 Law No. XVIII of 1933, Law No. XVIII of 1940, Law No. XXVI of 1931, and Law No. X of 1937. Ibid., pp. 1552, 1644, and 1663.
21 Law No. IV of 1939 and its various amendments, which all were repealed by Law No. XXV of 1946. Ibid., pp. 1946-47. No Jews were deported before the formal Nazi occupation of March 19, 1944.
22 Law No. VII of 1945 amended by Law No. XXXIV of 1947. Ibid., p. 1878.
23 ibid., p. 1690.
24 Similar restrictions can be found in the Soviet Joint Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of May 20, 1932. For details see Gsovski, Vladimir and Grzybowski, Kazimierz, eds., Government, Law and Courts in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (2 vols.; New York: Praeger, 1959), II, 950 Google Scholar.
25 Law No. XX of 1949 effective on August 20, 1949.
26 Constitution, Sec. VI, Art. 41.
27 Constitution, Sec. VII, Arts. 43 a nd 44.
28 For a comparison of Edict No. 13 of 1953 with the Soviet counterpart see Gsovski and Grzybowski, op. cit., I, 721-24.
29 Law No. XXII of 1948. Térfy, op. cit., p. 1909.
30 Knowing of this practice, lawyers sometimes privately asked non-Communist judges to give short prison terms to their clients to avoid the labor camp. This information is taken from my own experience as a former member of the Hungarian bar.
31 Law No. II of 1950 is the General Part of the Hungarian Criminal Code. Gsovski and Grzybowski, op. cit., I, 1023-30. Soviet Penal Code see Szirmai, Z., ed., The Federal Criminal Law of the Soviet Union (Leiden: Documentation Office for East European Law, University of Leiden, 1959), p. 8 Google Scholar.
32 I once represented the head of the accounting and finance department of a nationalized heating company. My client was sentenced because of negligence in expected financial supervision. According to the case, one of the foremen (thirty in number) saved materials and working time of his team and used them for his own gain. His activity was not reported in any official paper. My client, the accountant, discovered and reported this activity to the police. According to the verdict, the accountant was found to be careless and guilty for not observing this illegal activity sooner. It was an omission which endangered the economic order of the Republic.
33 Under the Communists the rule of law is replaced by the principle of “socialist legality.“ It is a guiding principle which requires observance of law not legally interpreted but viewed and interpreted according to the dictates of the Communist Party policy. Vyshinsky stated the policy clearly in 1935, as follows: “There might be a collision and discrepancies between the formal commands of law and those of the proletarian Revolution. These collisions must be solved only by the subordination of the formal commands of law to those of party policy.” Statement of Vyshinsky, cited in Gsovski and Grzybowski, op. cit., I, 44.
34 Because socialist legality changes according to the current policy of the Communist Party, it is the role of the Minister of Justice to supply his subordinates with such political information.
35 The Soviet Penal Code contains a similar regulation. Confiscation is provided by statutes in cases of crimes against the democratic order of the state, crimes against cooperatives, treason, crimes against national defense, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against the people, revelation of state and official secrets, crimes endangering the national economy, crimes against the economic plan, crimes of profiteering, and crimes against public supply, and violations of foreign currency regulations.
36 Law No. V of 1961. A Magyar Népköztársaság Büntető Törvénykönyve [The Criminal Code of the Hungarian People's Republic] (Budapest: Ministry of Justice, 1962), hereafter cited as Criminal Code of 1961.
37 Magyar Nemzet, Dec. 16, 1961 (Magyar Nemzet is the third largest newspaper in Communist Hungary).
38 Criminal Code of 1961, A r t. 1, p p. 35-36.
39 Ibid., Art. 2, p. 37. It is very similar to the Soviet Basic Prindples of the Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republic. Part II, Sec. 7. Szirmai, op. cit., p. 39.
40 ibid., Art. 34, p. 89.
41 Ibid., Art. 37, p. 93. The maximum term of imprisonment according to the Soviet Basic Principles … of 1958 is fifteen years. Part HI, Sec. 23. Szirmai, op. cit., p. 49.
42 Ibid., Art. 64, p. 128. The Soviet counterpart gives a list of crimes in which cases the death penalty—as an exceptional punitive measure—may be awarded. Part III, Sec. 22. Szirmai, op. cit., p. 49.
43 Ibid., Arts. 42-44, pp. 100-102. The arrangement is identical with the Soviet Criminal Code of 1958. Part III, Sec. 25. Szirmai, op. cit., p. 53.
44 Ibid., Art. 70, p. 138. This arrangement is more liberal than the Soviet conditional sentence.
45 Ibid., Art. 80, pp. 158-62. The rehabilitation possibilities are more restricted in the Soviet Code of 1958. Part IV, Sec. 47. Szirmai, op. cit., pp. 69-70.
46 This is quite obvious in cases involving espionage (described in Art. 131, p. 236) and crimes against the right of habeas corpus (described in Art. 262, pp. 443-47). Just observing the outlook, we will find that espionage is defined in the Compilation by one short (and vague) paragraph, while in the new Code, it is elaborated in five paragraphs.
47 ibid., Arts. 194, 224, 225, 227, 230, pp. 328, 369, 371, 376, and 384.
48 ibid., Art. 64, p. 128.
49 The age limit in the Soviet Code is eighteen years. It is interesting to note that two years ago Hungary was accused by the West of executing youths several years after they had participated in the Revolution of 1956, that is, when they reached the age limit of twenty. The question is regulated in Art. 36, p. 92.
50 Before this Code went into effect, the age limit was twelve years. In the Soviet Code the age limit is sixteen years.
51 si Appearing in the Code in Chap. 9, p. 210.
52 The Compilation of 1952 did not include the military Criminal Code.
53 Unauthorized border crossing, the abuse of the passport, and the illegal use of explosives were classified by the Compilation of 1952 as crimes against the People's Republic (first category); they are placed now under crimes against public security and public order (fourth category). Unlawful disposal of goods under attachment was classified as a crime against the government and administrative order (third category); it is placed today under crimes against socialist property (eighth category).
