1088 Budapest, Rákóczi út 5.; Tel: (36 1) 381 23 47; E-mail: Ez az e-mail-cím a szpemrobotok elleni védelem alatt áll. Megtekintéséhez engedélyeznie kell a JavaScript használatát.
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 10:197–208.


Approximating Hungarian Law to Community Law


I. Introduction

When I get to my office at about eight o’clock in the morning and sit down at my desk stirring a cup of weak and sour coffee, my eyes usually fall on a map on the wall opposite to me. The map, which is an official publication of the European Commission, is designed to show the European Union and its Member States. However, due to the rigid facts of geography, the map has to cover the whole territory of Europe. The designers of the map have felt it necessary to distinguish the Union and its member states from the rest of the continent by nice graphic means. EU Member States appear in different bright colours, while other European countries form a big uniform white area with no shades of colour. I like this map. It helps me face the practical problems of approximating Hungarian law to EC legislation. Looking at this cartographic masterpiece makes me sober and disillusioned, a state of mind absolutely indispensable for those dealing with approximation of laws in the administrations of Central and Eastern European countries.

The story of approximation of laws is far from being a fairy tale. My article has no objective of painting beautiful pinkish pictures of our activities in this field. Perhaps some diplomats would consider it desirable to describe the status of law harmonization in whitewashing, embellishing terms. However, I expect professional debates not to hide real problems but rather explore them and propose solutions. Furthermore, I do not believe in too tactful ways of presenting a country’s achievements and failures. Frankness pays in the long run. Last but not least, the more one accomplishes, the more critical one can afford to be to oneself.


II. Harmonization as a means – to what end?

Harmonization is a means to reach an end, not an end in itself1. This statement is supported by Article 3 of the EC Treaty which refers to approximation of laws as an “activity” of the Community. This seems applicable also to approximation of laws based on an association agreement. Article 67 of the Europe Agreement qualifies approximation of laws as the major precondition for Hungary’s economic integration into the Community2. In keeping with the approach reflected by this provision, the European Commission’s White Paper3 of 1995 gives the associated countries guidance to their preparation for integration into the internal market of the European Union. In this lengthy and detailed document, alignment with the rules of the internal market is again seen as a precondition for, or a means to, economic integration and it is put into a wider economic and institutional context. It is, however, still crystal clear from both the Europe Agreement and the White Paper that legislative alignment will not automatically lead to the associated countries’ economic integration into the internal market of the Community let alone their full, genuine accession4. This has the effect that the end to which approximation of laws is a means remains vague and indefinite, or at least, not entirely and precisely determined.

There are plenty of uncertainties. It is very difficult even for Member States to predict the results of the IGC5. Therefore, associated countries are left bewildered and helpless as to the basic institutional and legal framework of what they are, nevertheless, longing for. More specifically, they still do not know what status will be offered to them after the conclusion of the accession negotiations.

What these countries hope for is, of course, full membership of the Union. However, with the possibility of a two- or three-speed EU and the long-lasting debate on decision making, they cannot but worry about their future position within a restructured Union6.

Timing of our integration is also doubtful. There are no reliable timetables for either the economic integration or the full membership of Central and Eastern European countries. It is only Europe Agreements where, in addition to general provisions on approximation of laws, deadlines are set by more specific provisions in relation inter alia to establishment, capital movements, intellectual property rights, trade liberalization and competition rules. Unlike the Commission’s White Paper, Europe Agreements do provide for the timeframe of the two stages. The association established by these agreements includes a transition period of a maximum duration of ten years divided into two successive stages, each in principle lasting five years. In Central Europe where people have become extremely suspicious of temporary, transitional or provisional arrangements of any kind, the question inevitably arises: if Europe Agreements provide for a transition period, what this transition will lead to. For replying to this question it does not, unfortunately, seem sufficient to simply refer to the preamble of, for example, Hungary’s Europe Agreement. Although this preamble cautiously acknowledges “Hungary’s firm intention to seek full integration in the political, economic and security order of a new Europe” and its “final objective to become a member of the Community”, in the provisions concerning the transition period and its two stages there is no reference to Hungary’s intentions or objectives, nor can these provisions be construed as establishing any link between the “transitional period” and Hungary’s full integration or Community membership. This conclusion is supported by the wording of the Agreement: it is only Hungary’s intention or objective to seek full integration and become a member of the Community, and, although the association “will help to achieve” this objective, it only lays “a basis for Hungary’s integration into the Community”. As a result, Europe Agreements are somewhat open-ended. They have established an association including a two-stage, ten-year-long transition period, but they have not provided for anything that would follow the expiration of the second stage.

The Commission’s White Paper is not that open-ended. It is yet part of a pre-accession strategy7. Please note that this is still a “pre-accession strategy”, a strategy only to prepare the associated countries of Central Europe for membership. It is really amusing to observe how the Commission’s efforts to avoid any direct reference to these countries’ accession have resulted in new linguistic monsters such as “pre-accession strategy” or “structured dialogue”. Since the White Paper is one of the cornerstones of this “semi-accession” strategy, it does expressly refer to accession. However, it does so in a rather unpromising way. Alignment with the internal market is distinguished from accession, the latter requiring “acceptance of the acquis communautaire as a whole”. In other words, even total alignment will suffice neither for membership, nor, at least, for commencing negotiations on accession. But why shall we bring legislation, almost unconditionally, into full line with internal market rules if not for the sake of accession? This controversial approach of the White Paper and the whole pre-accession strategy is reflected by the fact that the duration of stages into which measures are broken down is not defined by the White Paper. It is quite hard to find out the meaning of stages having no starting and closing dates.

And here we are getting to the core of our problems. Approximation of laws is brought about in Central and Eastern Europe without a clear perspective. These countries are simply not given the possibility of knowing in what broader legal, economic and institutional context they will have to apply harmonized legislation after they become member of the European Union. They even cannot guess yet whether, and on what terms, membership is available to them. It is left in deepest dark when accession may take place. This makes planning and doing systematic work very difficult in the field of law harmonization.

One might argue that the White Paper has, at least, identified the key measures in each sector of the internal market and suggested a sequence in which the approximation of legislation should be tackled. Indeed, one may find long lists and less longer explanations of Community legal instruments in the White Paper, which is a great help to those, for example, dealing with a handful of very specific directives on veterinary hygiene. However, the White Paper only describes the means but it is silent on the end to which alignment with the internal market may lead. It cautiously avoids mentioning anything that would resemble the European Economic Area8 and repeatedly emphasizes that even full implementation of its recommendations cannot be seen as a guarantee of EU membership9.

Another argument may well be that Central and Eastern European countries may benefit from approximation of laws even if they cannot accede to the European Union in the foreseeable future. This argument seems right if one considers that approximation to Community legislation may help us complete the transformation of the legal system, which we have been carrying out anyway10. Requirements of law harmonization do often meet domestic needs. If approximation of laws is closely coordinated with the efforts to modernize society and economy it can really contribute to the development of Central and Eastern European countries. On the other hand, one should not forget that the nature of these countries’ law harmonization obligations is somewhat unusual, because it lacks any form of mutuality. A new Member State acceding to the EU must, of course, conform to the acquis communautaire, accepting the obligations in EC law in full, subject to derogations and transitional periods agreed on an individual basis. However, the acquis becomes applicable on a reciprocal basis. In contrast, an associated country such as Hungary, which brings its legislation into line with EC legislation, does not gain any immediate benefit from this in its relationship with the European Union11. There is, for example, no automatic mutual recognition of products conforming to EC requirements or standards, and Hungary has no say in the legislative process which leads to new measures. Nor is trade liberalization under Europe Agreements made dependent on the progress of law harmonization.


III. Practical problems related to approximation of laws

What follows now is a summary of our practical problems related to the day-to-day management of approximation of laws. By way of introduction, I wish to point out that these daily practical problems are mainly due to the lack of a clear perspective for approximation of laws I have referred to in chapter II. I do not presume that listing these dilemmas and questions will amount to breath-taking theoretical excitement. Nevertheless they do exist and we have to solve them.

a) Concerning the sources of Community law to be taken into account in the law harmonization exercise, there have been controversial views in Hungary. According to those taking account only of the wording of Article 67 of the Europe Agreement, approximation of laws should be limited to secondary sources of Community law, that is, the acts of the Community institutions12. This approach denies the necessity of taking other sources of Community law into consideration. Others argue that Community legislation cannot be separated from the Founding Treaties and other international agreements by which the Community is bound, or from general principles of law identified by the Court of Justice and other parts of its case law13. It seems more correct to say that there are elements, provisions of both primary and secondary sources of Community law to which an associated country’s legislation can reasonably and sensibly approximated, and there are other parts of both primary and secondary sources of Community law with which legislation of a non-Member State cannot and need not be brought into line. Furthermore, it is indispensable for associated countries to study and take account of the experience Member States have with regard to the relationship between Community law and national law14. It is most dangerous for a Polish, Czech or Hungarian draftsman to propose legislation only on the basis of the text of a given directive, without being aware of the wider legal and economic context of the directive, and without knowing how it was implemented by Member States.

b) Approximation of laws is, at least at first sight, a quantitative challenge for the associated countries. The response to this challenge was inevitably drawing up plans and programmes for law harmonization. This approach is supported also by the White Paper which has invited associated countries to establish national work programmes for the implementation of its recommendations15. In Hungary, a Government Decision16 has called on the Minister of Justice to submit a comprehensive law harmonization programme for the first five-year stage fixed in the Europe Agreement. It was in line with this Government Decision that the Minister of Justice, in agreement with the other ministers concerned, presented a comprehensive law harmonization programme to the Government in May, last year. The programme17 included about 470 pieces of Community legislation with which Hungarian legal rules should be brought into line. That programme covered the following fields of legislation: customs law, company law, banking law, financial services and insurance law, company accounts and taxes, intellectual property, protection of workers at the workplace, rules on competition, protection of health and life of humans, animals and plants, food legislation, consumer protection, technical rules and standards, transport law and environment protection. In addition to this comprehensive programme based on the Europe Agreement, a national strategy for the implementation of the White Paper was adopted by the Government18 in December, 1995. Adoption of these work programmes for approximation of laws a major breakthrough. These programmes have made our work foreseeable and systematic, and they have channelled law harmonization into the general working of state administration and legislation.

These programmes have, however, caused, as an undesirable side effect, dangerous misunderstandings. First of all, they have brought about the danger of a rigidly quantitative approach to approximation of laws. This approach may lead to thoughtless or rash legislative dumping which leaves out of account the status of Hungarian economy and the basic values, principles and institutions of our legal system. Therefore, we have to try and ensure that approximation of laws as based on the relevant work programmes will never take the form of mechanically, piece by piece translating Community directives into Hungarian legal rules which would stand alone and isolated from other parts of the legal system.

Furthermore, it is nice and impressive to have comprehensive programmes for approximation of laws but it is extremely difficult not to let them remain dead letter. Unfortunately, despite its undeniable achievements, Hungarian administration has not fully succeeded in effectively implementing law harmonization programmes. Surprisingly enough, at the level of Acts of Parliament more progress has been made than by decrees of the Government or ministers.

In 1995, as many as fifteen Acts were adopted by the Hungarian Parliament which had the aim of harmonizing Hungarian legislation with Community law. These included–among others–the Acts on national standardization, patents, public procurement, insurance activities and insurance companies, general rules of environment protection, foodstuffs, customs and water management. In 1996, in terms of approximation of laws, the Hungarian Parliament was not less productive: new harmonization-related Acts were adopted on, e. g. the prohibition of unfair market behaviour and restriction of competition, radio and television, development of regions, credit institutions, securities and stock exchange. The legislative work has been going an ever since covering, among others, trademarks and geographical designations, consumer protection, company law including the legal framework for the establishment of branches, wines, plant health.

c) It is a general requirement set by a number of Hungarian legal instruments that a proposal for a new piece of legislation has to be based on an analysis of the social and economic conditions to be regulated. This requirement has to be met also when legislation aiming at law harmonization is being prepared. Impact analysis is needed to determine the appropriate pace, timetable, method and institutional infrastructure of law harmonization.

In this respect, governments of associated countries cannot, and should not, count on the EU’s technical assistance. Firstly, because this sort of assistance has not been offered. Second, because it is really up to these countries to establish their own priorities and determine their own timetable in the light of their economic, social and political realities. They have to look after their own interests. The European Union and its Member States lack the information necessary to fulfil this task, and they cannot always be regarded as having interests identical to those of the associated countries. However, an underpaid, overburdened administration engaged in a dumping of new legislation is not always able to carry out the analysis of impacts, costs and benefits that would be necessary for well-founded legislative action. This upgrades the role lobby groups, professional and other non-governmental organizations play in adapting the pace of law approximation to the process of economic and social reform and to the interests of those concerned. In order to increase the impact these organizations may have on approximation of laws, ministries should invent new, efficient means of having regular contacts with such organizations.

d) Coordination of European integration matters19 is quite a hot potato. Administrations of Central and Eastern European countries have never been faced with such a manifold and momentous task as preparing for accession to the European Union. Furthermore, DGs of the Commission and legislative areas of the Community do not correspond with the usual structure of national governments and traditional branches of national law. This makes coordination of legislative and administrative activities more important and, at the same time, more difficult than ever. Naturally, it takes some time to build up the appropriate structures for coordinating European integration matters. There have, of course, been errors and mistakes, and not all our attempts have been successful. We have sometimes chosen false tracks or dead-end streets. For example, it was only in October 1996 that our Government took a decision20 on uniting, merging those two separate programmes for law approximation that had existed until then and been coordinated by different coordinators. Another example can be that, for the time being, we have got three Sub-Committees for Approximation of Laws. One is working within the Parliament’s Standing Committee on European Integration, another forms part of the Inter-ministerial Committee for European Integration, and the third one is a Sub-Committee of the Association Committee.

In the respective Government decisions, the Minister of Justice has been appointed to be the main co-ordinator of law harmonization activities. He has to observe and ensure, even in the case of draft legislation prepared by other ministries, that law harmonization requirements are met. The Minister of Justice is also responsible for planning and controlling the whole process of approximation of laws. In performing his tasks, he can rely on the provisions of Act No I of 1994, which has promulgated the Europe Agreement. Article 3 of this Act provides that “in the course of the preparation and conclusion of the international agreements of the Republic of Hungary, and in the preparation and formulation of its legislation, the harmony thereof with the Europe Agreement shall be ensured.” Therefore, while preparing and enacting Hungarian legislation, whether in the form of Acts or Decrees, the law harmonization requirements following from Article 67 of the Europe Agreement must be met.

e) It is a basic requirement that the process of approximation should take place in a clear and transparent way. Only if this requirement is met is it possible to monitor the process and to inform both decision-makers and the general public about aspects of law harmonization.

It has been in order to attain these objectives that Hungarian provisions relative to the legislative process have been amended21. As a result of these modifications, an explanation of a bill must give the MPs information on the extent to which the proposed legislation is compatible with EC law. This requirement applies also to all submissions to the Government. If the proposed legislation is not compatible with the corresponding Community legislation, the difference must be explained and substantiated in detail.

Furthermore, Hungarian rules on drafting techniques were also amended last year22. Before that, legal instruments aiming at harmonization had not referred to either the Europe Agreement or the relevant piece of Community legislation. Neither was Hungarian legal language consistent in its references to sources of Community law. To promote transparency and to unify basic legal terminology, it has been made a requirement that reference should be made in harmonization-related pieces of legislation to the Europe Agreement and the relevant Community legislation. The reference has to be placed among the final provisions of legal instruments.

Our latest report to the Government on approximation of laws has, however, pointed out that these law-drafting requirements have frequently been neglected by some ministries. This is due to the novelty and the unusual nature of these requirements and it will naturally take some time to make civil servants, draft-makers to accept and fulfil these requirements.

f) Although it may sound self-evident, it has to be noted that harmonization with Community law may only be brought about by adopting Hungarian legislation. No Community directive may be implemented by issuing a standard, or such instruments of public administration which are not sources of law. On the other hand, for harmonization with European standards corresponding Hungarian standards need to be adopted instead of creating new pieces of legislation for that purpose. Furthermore, law harmonization is not necessarily synonymous with the adoption of new legal instruments. It can also take the form of deregulation. Therefore, the Hungarian Government’s wide-ranging deregulation work plan and its law harmonization programmes are linked to each other. The aim of deregulation is to render the legal system more transparent by doing away with over-regulation as well as with regulation in an overtly complicated manner. Once the legal system is made transparent, it becomes better disposed to undergo harmonization with EC law.

g) In addition to approximation of laws in the strict sense, we face a number of other tasks in the process of preparing for EU membership.

Firstly, there is an ever growing need for education and training of Community law and other European-integration-related subjects for Hungarian students and lawyers as well as for members of other professions. This need can be met only by a comprehensive approach combining courses at the universities with post-graduate studies and intensive short-term training courses. The Ministry of Justice is very much in favour of, and wishes to support, the establishment of a network consisting of a number of European integration training centres. These centres would be able to play a prominent role both in university education and post-graduate training. In addition, their activities could contribute to developing regional cooperation and increasing public awareness of, and confidence in, European integration.

Secondly, one of the main messages of the White Paper is that a merely formal transposition of legislation will not be enough to achieve the desired economic impact of approximation of legislation, and, accordingly, equal importance should be attached to the establishment of adequate structures for implementation and enforcement23. The latter task is described in the White Paper as the main challenge for the associated countries and, in particular, the problems of the judiciary are clearly identified with unconcealed criticism: “all the CEECs face the problem of a shortage of resources in the judiciary, with the result that courts and administrative tribunals are severely overloaded and speedy access to justice is far from being assured”24. It is in this context that attention should be drawn to the importance of increasing the efficiency of the judicial system by introducing and developing new electronic, computerized methods and tools, including the establishment of a country-wide network among the courts. These future developments would, to a large extent, facilitate and accelerate the work of the courts and, by enabling them to save time and energy, would enhance the efficiency of the whole judiciary. Furthermore, an extensive computer network within the courts would provide an excellent opportunity for continuing training for the judiciary in EU legal matters in the form of distance education.

The third point I would like to raise, namely the issue of translations, may seem to be of less importance. However, in my view, it is not the case at all. The fact that the translation of Community legislation forms a major part of the preparations for integration into, and accession to, the European Union has recently been highlighted by a series of Roundtables on translation methodology under the aegis of the Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office of the Commission. Translation activities, which have been present in approximation programmes of various ministries, are becoming more and more important. Translation of Community legislation, its publication in Hungarian and the preparation of a legal dictionary are essential elements in the legal groundwork for the approximation of laws. However, the consistency and quality of translations need to be improved to a large extent. It is in this respect that the Ministry of Justice has proposed a comprehensive and well-coordinated translation programme for the implementation of which we wish to rely on the Phare funds available.

Finally, I should like to refer to the constitutional aspects of acceding to the European Union. We will have to examine in the very near future how either the present Hungarian constitution or the planned new one will address, and respond to, questions related to the transfer of sovereignty and supremacy of Community law over national legislation. We will be confronted with the question if and how our constitutional system can accept that Community law has supremacy over both ordinary laws and the constitution itself, and in particular, over provisions concerning fundamental rights25


IV. Bottlenecks of law harmonization

I would like to devote the last part of this article to what I call bottlenecks of law harmonization.

The first bottleneck is obtaining information necessary for approximation of laws. The difficulty of relying on Phare-funded26 EU experts is that they tend to underestimate both the complexity of the problems they have to deal with in Central Europe and the preparedness of their Central European counterparts. Furthermore, management of Phare is extremely time consuming and cumbersome. Some even dare to air their suspicion that the complexity of Phare rules shows the lack of the Commission’s confidence in national administrations of Central and Eastern European countries. The most difficult is to gain information on how Member States implement their obligations under Community law. It still remains to be seen if the situation will really improve in this respect with the establishment of the TAIEX Office27.

The second bottleneck can be found at high level decision making fora of the administration. Impressive but false statements may have very destructive effects at such meetings. High-ranking officials often do not know how to approach, how to deal with, approximation of laws, to which they cannot apply their old daily routine. Sometimes they claim that Hungary should not be an „eminent student” of approximation of laws arguing that even Member States occasionally fail to meet their Community law obligations. These views, of course, fail to take account of the relevant case law of the Court of Justice. Other opinions, according to which it would be enough for Hungary to implement only by and large its law harmonization obligations, again neglect the post-Francovich case law28 of the Court of Justice.

The next bottleneck is the parliamentary process of having a bill passed. MPs are usually, in general, support the idea of European integration. But when they face the actual and concrete consequences of what integration requires and when lobby groups manage to reach parliamentary levels of decision making, sometimes they suddenly find themselves opposing what integration would require in specific legislative terms.




Shaw: Harmonization and the four freedoms: Observations in the light of the EU/Hungary Europe Agreement and the United Kingdom experience. ELTE Conference Paper, September 1995, Budapest, p. 2.


Approximation of Hungarian legislation to Community law is one of the objectives of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part. Under Article 67 of the Europe Agreement, the Contracting Parties recognize that major precondition for Hungary’s economic integration into the Community is the approximation of that country’s legislation of the Community. This Article requires Hungary to ensure that its future legislation is compatible with Community legislation as far as possible. Article 68 lists those areas that approximation of laws should, in particular, extend to. Finally, Article 69 stipulates that the Community should provide Hungary with technical assistance for the implementation of law harmonization measures (OJ L 347, 31 December 1993).
For an in depth analyses see Juhász: Társulási szerződésünk az Európai Közösségekkel és annak tagállamaival (Our Association Agreement with the European Communities and their Member States, in: Európajogi Tanulmányok I., ed.: Mádl, Budapest, 1993; Hargita: A Magyar–EK társulási megállapodás (Hungary–EC Association Agreement), in: Az Európai Közösség és Magyarország az 1990-es évek közepén, ed.: Izikné Hedri, Palánkai, Budapest, 1993, pp. 75–80.
Meisel: A társulási szerződés és előzményei (The Association Agreement and its Forerunners), Integrációs füzetek I., Budapest, 1994, pp. 141–150.


White Paper; Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration into the Internal Market of the Union; Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 03. 05. 1995, COM(95) 163 final; see also Király: A magyar jogharmonizáció sajátosságai (Characteristics of the harmonization of laws in Hungary), in: Európajogi Tanulmányok, ed.: Mádl, Budapest, 1996, pp. 158–172; Király: Magyarország érettsége az Európai Közösség tagságára a négy szabadság területén (Hungary’s preparedness for membership of the European Community in respect of the four freedoms), Magyar Jog, 1995/4, pp. 237–247; Gordos: Az Európai Unió egységes belső piaca (The Internal Market of the European Union), Európa Fórum, 1994/4, pp. 14–17; Ficsor: Jogharmonizáció a Fehér Könyv előtt és után (Approximation of laws before and after the White Paper), Magyar Jog, 1995/11, pp. 647–659.


White Paper, p. 2 and 5, Executive Summary and point 1.8


European Commission – Intergovernmental Conference 1996, Commission opinion – Reinforcing political union and preparing for enlargement, Brussels, Luxembourg, 1996, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 3–23; European Union, Council – Report of the Council on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union, Brussels, 1995, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 5–38; European Commission – Intergovernmental Conference 1996, Commission report for the Reflection Group, Brussels, Luxembourg, 1995, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp. 3–100; Kende, Valki: Az Európai Unió fontosabb intézményei (Main Institutions of the European Union), Európai Tükör, 1996/1., pp. 64–78.


Mádl: Quo vadis Europa?, in: Európajogi Tanulmányok (ed.: Mádl), Budapest, 1996, pp. 173–213,


The European Union’s pre-accession strategy for the associated countries of central Europe published by the European Commission


Agreement on the European Economic Area, Brussels–Luxembourg, 1992, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Blanchet, Piipponen, Westman-Clément: The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), A Guide to the Free Movement of Goods and Competition Rules, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 1–500; The European Economic Area EC–EFTA, Kluwer, 7 European Monographs, Stuyck, Looijestijn-Claire (eds.)


White Paper, p.2 and 5, Executive Summary and point 1.8


Kecskés: A jogösszehasonlítás eredményei és a kodifikáció (Results of Comparative Law and Codification), Jogtudományi Közlöny, 1995/1, pp. 20–21.


Shaw (note 1) pp. 15–16.


Kecskés: (note 10) pp. 22–23.


Mathijsen: A Guide to European Union Law, London, 1995, pp. 158–160; Shaw: European Community Law, Macmillan, London, 1993, pp. 98–116; Hartley: The Foundations of European Community Law, pp. 52–53.


Oppenheimer: The Relationship between European Community Law and National Law: The Cases, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 1–924; 26/62, N. V. Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administrative der Belastingen (1963) ECR 1; 6/64, Costa v. ENEL (1964) ECR 585; 106/77, Administrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal Spa, (1978) ECR 629; C–106/89 Marleasing SA v. La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA, (1990) ECR I–4135; C–6 and 9/90, Francovich v. Italian Republic, Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic (1991) ECR I–5357.


White Paper, p.40, point 6.10


Government Decision No 2004/1995. (I. 10.) Korm.


Government Decision No 2174/1995. (VI. 15.) Korm.


Government Decision No 2403/1995. (XII. 12.) Korm.


Fitzmaurice: A nemzeti politikai dimenzió (The Dimension of National Politics), in: Európai közjog és politika (ed.: Kende), Osiris–Századvég, Budapest, 1995, pp. 79-96.


Government Decision No 2282/1996. (X. 25.) Korm.


Article 5 of Act No 1 of 1995 promulgating the Europe Agreement has, to this effect, amended; Article 40 of Act No XI of 1987 on the Rules of Legislation


Decree of te Minister of Justice No 13/1995. (VI. 29.) amending Decree of the Minister of Justice No 12/1987. (XII. 29. on the Rules of Drafting Legislation


White Paper, p.4. point 1.6 and p. 23, point 3.25–3.26


White Paper, p.30, point 4.30


Berke: Az európai közösségi jog alkotmányos korlátai (The constitutional limitation of European Community Law), in: Európajogi Tanulmányok, ed.: Mádl, Budapest, 1996, pp. 9–49.


Hirschler, Kováts, Krekó, Kvassinger, Losoncz: Phare – Segélyprogram Magyarországon (Phare – Assistance Programme in Hungary), ITDH, Budapest, 1996, pp. 5–147.


Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office, European Commission


Shaw (note 13) pp. 117–180; C–6 and 9/90, Francovich v. Italian Republic, Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic (1991) ECR I–5357