The Ombudsman analyses the Act on the Parliament

Based on the complaint of MPs, Máté Szabó reviewed the disciplinary competences of the speaker of the Parliament. The Commissioner, analysing the European practices in a comparative method, decided not to challenge the pertaining provisions, however, he would follow-up the legislation and its application.

Several MPs turned to the Commissioner proposing the annulment of the regulations on the disciplinary competences stipulated by the Act on the Parliament.

According to the Ombudsman Act the Commissioner is not entitled to enquire on the operation of the Parliament; therefore he has no competence to take a position on the practice of the disciplinary competences of the Speaker of the Parliament. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the possibility of challenging certain provisions of the Act on the Parliament at the Constitutional Court if they are contrary to the Basic Law. However, in the present case, the Commissioner considered the ombudsman as an independent organ of parliamentary control; therefore, it may turn to the Constitutional Court for review the procedural rules of the Parliament only in the uttermost cases.

In his response, the Ombudsman pointed out that all the surveyed standing orders of Parliaments include provisions regarding disciplinary measures ensuring their regular functioning, and they grant the possibility of imposing fines in special circumstances. Applying immediate or subsequent measures against MPs is a common possibility throughout European parliaments.

Basing on international examples, the Commissioner pointed out that neither imposing fines, nor the use of exclusion is contrary to the democratic standards; however it is necessary to establish adequate guarantees. The Ombudsman noted that the European Court of Human Rights allowed a very narrow scope in the case of disciplinary measures against MPs, as such kinds of restrictions are often considered as the limits of freedom of expression. The MP's freedom of expression is not only a fundamental right but also a guarantee ensuring democratic debate. On the other hand, the proper functioning of the Parliament, the exclusion of the obstruction of MPs may be considered as legitimate aims for limiting the freedom of expression. The legislation establishing disciplinary measures, however, must be in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law: the aim of the restriction has to be legitimate, and the measure itself must be necessary and proportionate.

Máté Szabó pointed out that in case of disciplinary measures providing the possibility to turn to the judiciary did not necessarily derive from the right to remedy. Rule of law, however, dictates that disciplinary measures should not be arbitrary and disproportionate; moreover it must guarantee fair proceedings.

The current law prescribes that the Speaker of the Parliament has to indicate the reason of the action; however, little does this rule require an extensive description of the infringement and the detailed reasoning of the sanction applied. Neither does the law impose an obligation to state reasons in the case of subsequent proposals.

Therefore the Commissioner informed the complainants and the Speaker of the Parliament that he would follow-up the legislation and its application.