## Facts

- In 1991–1992, Hungary had a single national television broadcaster, National Television, which was publicly owned and headed by an appointed chairman.
- The government believed National Television was not supportive of the prime minister’s government.
- The Prime Minister proposed a personnel change: the chairman of National Television would be dismissed, and the vice-chairman would assume the chairmanship.
- Under the applicable constitutional and statutory arrangement, the President of the Republic had a role in appointments and dismissals for certain offices, including this position.
- The President refused to endorse the Prime Minister’s proposed dismissal and resulting replacement.
- The Prime Minister petitioned the Constitutional Court for an abstract interpretation of the Constitution to clarify whether, and on what grounds, the President could refuse to carry out the proposed dismissal and related appointment.
- The Court treated the matter as a constitutional interpretation proceeding, issuing guidance on the President’s powers rather than resolving a private-law dispute between parties.

## Issues

1. When statutory prerequisites for an appointment are satisfied, may the President still refuse to appoint the proposed person, and if so on what grounds?
2. Is the President’s review limited to checking statutory prerequisites, or may the President consider whether the proposed person’s appointment would threaten the democratic functioning of state organs?
3. May the President impose additional substantive or procedural requirements beyond those provided by statute for appointment or dismissal?
4. What rules govern presidential refusal to grant a proposed dismissal (relief from office), including situations where dismissal would shift powers to another office-holder?
5. Must the President give reasons for refusing an appointment or dismissal, and what must those reasons disclose?

## Decision

- The Court held that if statutory prerequisites for appointment are met, the President may refuse to appoint only in exceptional circumstances where the President has well-founded reason to conclude that fulfilling the proposal would seriously disturb the democratic functioning of the state organization.
- The President’s review, when relying on this exceptional ground, must focus only on the proposed person; the President may not use the appointment power to address general regulatory deficiencies or abstract concerns unrelated to the nominee.
- The President may not require additional conditions for appointment or dismissal beyond statutory prerequisites.
- For dismissal, the President must refuse to grant the dismissal if the statutory prerequisites for dismissal are not satisfied.
- The Court stated that the exceptional “serious disturbance of democratic functioning” ground may apply by analogy in the dismissal setting where the dismissal would result in powers being exercised by a person whose appointment would itself meet the standard for refusal.
- Any presidential refusal must be reasoned: it must indicate either (a) which statutory precondition is missing, or (b) the concrete facts that support the conclusion that the proposed appointment (or the dismissal’s immediate consequence) would seriously and directly threaten democratic functioning.

## Legal Principles

- In a parliamentary form of government, the President’s appointment and dismissal role is generally limited and cannot operate as a broad political veto over the government’s personnel decisions.
- Where statutes set eligibility and procedural preconditions, the President is bound by those rules and cannot add new requirements.
- A refusal despite satisfaction of statutory preconditions is permissible only as an exceptional measure aimed at preventing a serious, immediate, and directly threatening disruption to democratic functioning that cannot be prevented by other means.
- The “serious disturbance” assessment must be tied to the person proposed and to the affected organ’s ability to perform its basic tasks, including providing organizational protection for fundamental rights.
- Presidential refusal cannot be used as a substitute for legislation or for correcting gaps in the general legal framework; those concerns must be handled through the constitutional tools allocated for that purpose.
- Reason-giving is constitutionally required to constrain discretion and to make clear whether the refusal rests on missing statutory conditions or on concrete facts meeting the exceptional disruption standard.

## Conclusion

The Constitutional Court’s Decision 36/1992 (Vl. 10.) set tight limits on the Hungarian President’s power to block proposed appointments and dismissals connected to public office: if legal prerequisites are met, refusal is allowed only in rare cases where the proposed person’s taking office would seriously and directly endanger the democratic operation of state organs; the President may not impose extra-statutory conditions; and any refusal must state clear legal or factual grounds.


Presidential Appointment Case, Decision 36/1992 (Vl. 10.) AB hat (1992)