A classic problem reloaded in Hungary: who should be the final interpreter of the constitution?

One of the interesting innovations of the Hungarian Fundamental Law of 2011 was to define authoritatively the methods of interpretation of its own text. According to this unusual but not unprecedented approach, the provisions of the constitution should be interpreted in accordance with their purposes, the preamble (ʻNational Avowal’) and the achievements of the historical constitution (i.e. the unwritten constitution effective before the end of the WWII). Then, a constitutional amendment repealed all Constitutional Court rulings prior to the entry into force of the new Fundamental Law. The goal of this modification was hardly any than to compel the Court to change its jurisprudence, adapting it to the values of the parliamentary majority. The paper examines who is the final interpreter of the constitution in the contemporary Hungarian constitutional law context, and what are the arguments for different options.