2016 | 1 | 1-2 |
Article title

Metody interpretacji ustaw w praktyce Sądu Najwyższego na Węgrzech

Title variants
Languages of publication
The present paper deals with the methods of statutory interpretation, focusing, primarily, on the Hungarian practice thereof. It uses the term ’interpretation’ in the sense of Jerzy Wróblewski’s well-known category as an activity that one does if the meaning of a given text is vague or dubious and he/she wishes to reveal the appropriate meaning of the text in question. Firstly, the paper reviews the techniques by use of which judges (or anybody else) can decide what a given word, phrase, sentence or text means, or what it does not, establishing a classification that attempts to cover the pool of the possible methods of statutory interpretation. Secondly, the article analyses and introduces, in a legal sociological way, what kind of methods and in what proportion are applied by high courts in Hungary, and, mainly, by the Supreme Court of Hungary in the judicial practice.
Artykuł naukowy traktuje o wykładni prawa dla Sądu Najwyższego na Węgrzech. Autor dokonuje analizy oraz interpretacji  charakterystycznej dla Sądu Najwyższego na Węgrzech oraz poszczególnych procesów i zjawisk związanych z wykładnią prawa. Artykuł jest również filozoficznym rozważaniem nad tym, czym jest prawo i czym jest wykładnia prawa, w ujęciu realistycznym i pragmatycznym.
Physical description
  • Atiyah P. S., Summers R. S., Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law: A Comparative Study of Legal Reasoning, Legal Theory, and Legal Institutions, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1987.
  • Balogh Zs., Marosi I., Vonzasok es taszitasok birosagok kozott: Gondolatok az alkotmanyjogi panaszrol, “Alkotmanybirosagi Szemle”, 2012, no. 1.
  • Bardi L., Jogi logika, Eotvos Jozsef Konyvkiado, Budapest 2009.
  • BeVier L. R., The Integrity and Impersonality of Originalism, “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy”, 1996, no. 2.
  • Bencze M., Diszitőelem, alcazohalo vagy tartooszlop? A buntetőbiroi gyakorlat es az alkotmany, “Fundamentum”, 2007, no. 3.
  • Bobek M., Quantity or Quality: Re-Assessing the Role of Supreme Jurisdiction in Central Europe, “EUI Working Paper Law”, 2007 no. 36.
  • Bohanek O., Comparative legal aspects of the English Common Law system and the Hungarian Roman-German legal regime, with an emphasis in regards to the constitutional differences in criminal justice, “Jogelmeleti Szemle”, 2010, no. 1.
  • Botos V., A biroi jogertelmezes utjai a Legfelsőbb Birosag gyakorlataban, “Jogelmeleti Szemle”, 2000, nr. 3.
  • Bydlinski F., Legal methodology and the concept of law, Springer-Verlag, Wien–New York 1982.
  • Colby T. B., Smith P. J., Living Originalism, “Duke Law Journal”, 2009–2010.
  • Colinvaux R.: What is Law? A Search for Legal Meaning and Good Judging Under a Textualist Lens, “Indiana Law Journal”, 1997, no. 4.
  • Darak P., Az alkotmanyjogi panasz biroi szemmel, “Alkotmanybirosagi Szemle”, 2012, no. 1.
  • Denninger E., Judicial Review Revisited: The German Experience, “Tulane Law Review”, 1984–1985.
  • Devenish G. E., The Nature of Legal Reasoning Involved in the Interpretation of Statutes. “Stellenbosch Law Review”, 1991, no. 2.
  • Diederichsen U., The Federal Constitutional Court as the supreme civil court: A study on legal methodology, “Archiv fur die civilistische Praxis”, 1998.
  • Du Plessis L. M., A Preliminary Estimation of the Role of the Presumptions of Statutory Interpretation in the New Constitutional Dispensation, “African Law Journal”, 1998.
  • Eskridge W. N., The New Textualism, “UCLA Law Review”, 1989–1990.
  • Fikentscher W.: Methoden des Rechts, J. C. B. Mohr, Tubingen 1975–1977.
  • Fruehwald S., Pragmatic Textualism and the Limits of Statutory Interpretation: Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, “Wake Forest Law Review”, 2000.
  • Garlicki L., Constitutional courts versus supreme courts. “I•CON”, 2007, no. 1.
  • Gebauer M., Uniform Law, General Principles and Autonomous Interpretation, “Uniform Law Review”, 2000, no. 4.
  • Greene A. S., The Missing Step of Textualism, “Fordham Law Review”, 2005–2006.
  • Hart H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997.
  • Heck P., Gesetzauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz, Verlag von Mohr, Tubingen 1914.
  • Hoecke M. V., Ost F., Legal Doctrine in Crisis: Towards a European Legal Science, “Legal Studies”, 1998, no. 2.
  • Hollander P, The Role of the Constitutional Court for the Application of the Constitution in Case Decisions of Ordinary Courts, “Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie”, 2000, no. 4.
  • Jakab A., Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective, “German Law Journal”, 2013, no. 8.
  • Jhering R. v., Der Zweck im Recht, Erster Band, Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf & Hartel, Leipzig 1877.
  • Keszthelyi B., A buntető jogegysegi hatarozatok elemzese, “Jogelmeleti Szemle”, 2000, no. 3.
  • Kozma Gy., Kapcsolodasok az Alkotmanybirosag es a rendes birosagok eljarasai kozott, “Alkotmanybirosagi Szemle”, 2012, no. 1.
  • Kuhn Z., Making Constitutionalism Horizontal: Three Different Central European Strategies, [in:] The Constitution In Private Relations: Expanding Constitutionalism, eds. A. Sajo, R. Uitz, Eleven International Utrecht 2005.
  • Leff A. A., The Leff Dictionary of Law: A Fragment, “Yale Law Journal”, 1984–1985.
  • Lopez E. G., Judicial Review in Spain: The Constitutional Court, “Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review”, 2008.
  • Luhmann N., Legal Argumentation: An Analysis of its Form, “The Modern Law Review”, 1995, no. 3.
  • MacCormick N. D., Argumentation and Interpretation in Law, “Argumentation”, 1995, no. 3.
  • MacCormick N. D., Summers, R. S., Interpreting statutes: a comparative study, Dartmouth Publishing Company, Aldershot 1991.
  • Makai A., Paradi A., Buntető jogertelmezes Magyarorszagon a ’90-es evekben, “Jogelmeleti Szemle”, 2000, no. 3.
  • Manzin M., A rhetorical approach to legal reasoning: The Italian experience of CERMEG, [in:] Exploring Argumentative Contexts, eds. H. v. E. Frans, G. Bart, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam 2012.
  • Naszladi G., Az alkotmanyjogi panasz kiveteles esete, “Jogtudomanyi Kozlony”, 2012, no. 11.
  • Nelson C., What is Textualism?, “Virginia Law Review”, 2005.
  • Osztovits A., A valodi alkotmanyjogi panasz egyes eljarasjogi kerdeseiről, “Alkotmanybirosagi Szemle”, 2012, no. 1.
  • Paczolay P., Megvaltozott hangsulyok az Alkotmanybirosag hataskoreiben, “Alkotmanybirosagi Szemle”, 2012, no. 1.
  • Perelman Ch., The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1963.
  • Perelman Ch., The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame 1982.
  • Pohlmullner T., Kozigazgatasi hatarozatok 1997–99, “Jogelmeleti Szemle”, 2000, no. 3.
  • Pokol B., A jogertelmezes alapjai, “Magyar Jog”, 1999, no. 11.
  • Pokol B., A felsőbirosagi jogertelmezes Magyarorszagon, “Jogtudomanyi Kozlony”, 1999, no. 11.
  • Posner R. A., Statutory Interpretation – in the Classroom and in the Courtroom, “University of Chicago Law Review”, 1983.
  • Redish M. H., Interpretivism and the Judicial Role in a Constitutional Democracy: Seeking an Alternative to Originalism, “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy”, 1996, no. 2.
  • Saunders K. W., Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, “South California Law Review”, 1992–1993.
  • Savigny F. C. v., System des heutigen Romischen Rechts. Erster Band, Berlin 1840.
  • Scalia A., A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1997.
  • Scallen E. A., Classical Rhetoric, Practical Reasoning, and the Law of Evidence, “American University Law Review”, 1995, no. 5.
  • Schauer F., Defining Originalism, “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy”, 1996, no. 2.
  • Sherry S., Textualism and Judgement, “The George Washington Law Review”, 1998, no. 5/6.
  • Smith P. J., How Different are Originalism and Non-Originalism, “Hastings Law Journal”, 2010–2011.
  • Smith P. J., Textualism and Jurisdiction, “Columbia Law Review”, 2008.
  • Spence M. M., The Sleeping Giant: Textualism as Power Struggle, “Southern California Law Review”, 1994, no. 3.
  • Stone S. A., Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000.
  • Strauss D. A., The New Textualism in Constitutional Law, “The George Washington Law Review”, 1998, no. 5/6.
  • Sunstein C. R., Five Theses on Originalism, “Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy”, 1996, no. 2.
  • Szabo I., A jogszabalyok ertelmezese, KJK, Budapest 1960.
  • Szabo M., Ars iuris: A jogdogmatika alapjai, Bibor Kiado, Miskolc 2005.
  • Toth J. Z., Az egyeni (alap)jogvedelem az Alkotmanyban es az Alaptorvenyben (I–II. resz), “Kozjogi Szemle”, 2012, no. 3 and 4.
  • Turano L., Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?: The struggle for jurisdiction between the Tribunal Constitucional and the Tribunal Supremo, “International Journal of Constitutional Law”, 2006, no. 4.
  • Windscheid B., Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Erster Band. Verlagshandlung von Julius Buddeus, Dusseldorf 1873.
  • Wroblewski J., Legal reasonings in legal interpretation, “Logique et Analyse”, 1969.
  • Wroblewski J., Legal Syllogism and Rationality of Judicial Decision, “Rechtstheorie”, 1974, no. 1.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.