The situation surrounding President Sulyok Tamás has once again taken a dramatic turn, as the National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority (NAIH) announced its intention to investigate whether he must disclose the correspondence between himself and the Venice Commission. This decision was initiated following a request from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ). According to the NAIH's response letter sent to the TASZ, President Péterfalvi Attila indicated that the outcome of this investigation would likely lead to the disclosure of documents related to Sulyok’s submission to the Venice Commission and the subsequent response received.
Previously, Sulyok had only disclosed that he sought a statement from the Venice Commission regarding concerns about being removed from office, requesting urgent examination of the matter. However, both the inquiry and the response have remained confidential, even under public interest data requests. The justification given for withholding these documents was that they contain arguments deemed essential for supporting decisions, which could potentially affect the positions of the Venice Commission and the president, as well as protect them from undue external influence.
Despite this, President Péterfalvi argued that the removal of the president and the circumstances surrounding it represent matters of significant public interest, thus making the submitted petition and the commission's response public information. He emphasized that since the Venice Commission is an international body, it does not fall under the scope of Hungary's information laws, meaning that legal restrictions on disclosure should not apply in such cases.
According to the TASZ, President Sulyok now faces another critical decision: either voluntarily release the documents or wait for the NAIH to formally demand their disclosure. Earlier attempts to prevent his removal via the Constitutional Court were unsuccessful after seven judges recused themselves due to conflicts of interest, rendering the court unable to deliberate on the issue. Following this, Polt Péter, the president of the Constitutional Court, removed the matter from the agenda, despite having previously signed off on it quickly. It was also noted that the judge who prepared the proposal supported Sulyok's position.
In parallel developments, it has been revealed that removing Sulyok from office could be achieved relatively simply through an amendment to the Basic Law, which would nullify his mandate upon its enactment. If Sulyok refuses to sign the amendment, proceedings could be initiated against him, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. Although the process itself might take time, once the vote occurs, the president ceases to exercise his powers, and the Speaker of Parliament assumes the role until a new president is elected, who would then sign the amendment, thereby ending Sulyok's term.
The government has already submitted the proposed amendment for social consultation, but the deadline has passed, suggesting that the draft will soon be presented to Parliament.
Former President Áder János criticized the planned removal of Sulyok as unconstitutional, describing it as a "constitutional coup," "legal carpet bombing," the beginning of a "cold civil war," or the arrival of an "Orwellian world." He argued that political opinions should not serve as grounds for legal procedures against the head of state. Áder pointed out that the reasons cited by the current government—such as Sulyok's silence on the Szőlő Street child protection case or comments made by Prime Minister Orbán—are merely political accusations rather than valid legal justifications for removal.
He further contended that the claim that Sulyok does not embody national unity is not sufficient grounds for removal, emphasizing that the Basic Law clearly outlines the legal framework for removing a president, which requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority based on evidence of constitutional violations. Áder referenced historical precedents, including the forced resignation of former leaders like Nagy Ferenc and Tildy Zoltán, drawing parallels to the current situation involving Sulyok.
Áder also recalled the case of Göncz Árpád, who signed the Bokros package without objections, despite the Constitutional Court finding parts of it unconstitutional. He suggested that the current government should follow this precedent by allowing the president to remain in office unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
If the proposed constitutional amendment is accepted, Áder warned that it would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the rule of law and the legitimacy of future presidents. He urged the government to reconsider its approach, arguing that true adherence to constitutional principles would require withdrawing the amendment.
4 reports
444.huIndependentCenterFactual 92Objective 782 days agoThe National Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority (NAIH) has stated that President Sulyok Tamás must disclose the content of his communication with the Venice Commission regarding an alleged attempt to remove him from office. This follows a request by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ), which initiated an investigation into the Sandor Palace. While Sulyok previously claimed he sought an urgent review from the Venice Commission due to potential removal, he has kept both the petition and the commission’s response confidential, citing legal protections. However, NAIH President Péterfalvi argues these documents are of public interest and their disclosure would not hinder future decisions, especially since the Venice Commission is not bound by Hungary’s information laws. Meanwhile, Sulyok attempted to prevent his removal through the Constitutional Court but failed after seven judges recused themselves. The government could also remove him via a constitutional amendment, which would end his mandate if he refuses to sign it. The amendment is set to be submitted to Parliament soon.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—Sulyok's claim of confidentiality and NAIH's argument for transparency—without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both parties involved and does not use biased language or selective sourcing.
Why these scores (Factual 92 · Objective 78): The article accurately reports the NAIH's investigation into Sándor-palota initiated by TASZ, citing the unusual pre-announcement of the outcome. It includes relevant details from the primary source such as the NAIH's stance on the documents being public interest data and the reference to the Velenc
TelexIndependentRightyesterdayFormer President Áder János criticized the planned removal of Constitutional Court President Sulyok Tamás during an interview with Csuhaj Ildikó on public television. He described the situation as a 'constitutional coup,' 'legal carpet bombing,' and the beginning of a 'cold civil war' or an 'Orwellian world.' Áder argued that political opinions cannot justify legal proceedings against Sulyok and claimed that the government is using political declarations rather than constitutional procedures to remove him. He stated that the justification provided by the current government—that Sulyok does not embody national unity—is insufficient under the Constitution. Áder also warned that the new president would lack legitimacy if Sulyok were removed through unconstitutional means. The government had given Sulyok until the end of May to resign voluntarily, threatening to proceed with a constitutional amendment to remove him otherwise. Sulyok submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court in June, but seven judges recused themselves, leaving the court unable to rule on the matter. Additionally, Sulyok requested a statement from the Venice Commission regarding his removal, though he did not披露具体
Bias read (Right): The article presents former President Áder’s strong criticism of the government’s actions against Sulyok, using highly charged terms like 'constitutional coup' and 'Orwellian world.' It frames the government’s move as politically motivated and unconstitutional, emphasizing Áder’s perspective without
Magyar NemzetParty-alignedRightyesterdayÁder János, former President of Hungary, has criticized a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at removing current President Sulyok Tamás from office. He argues that this move would constitute a 'constitutional coup' and violate the Hungarian Basic Law by retroactively altering the constitution. Áder highlights historical precedents, such as the Bokros package, which was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court but signed by then-President Göncz Árpád without opposition. He warns that if the amendment passes, the new president would lack legitimacy and fail to embody national unity, as the outgoing president would be removed through unconstitutional means. Áder urges the ruling Tisza Party to reconsider the amendment if they truly intend to uphold the rule of law.
Bias read (Right): The article presents Áder János’s perspective, who is a conservative figure, criticizing a constitutional amendment from the ruling party (Tisza Party) as a 'constitutional coup.' The framing emphasizes the illegitimacy of the proposed change and aligns with traditional conservative views on the inv
444.huIndependentCenteryesterday According to János Áder, they want to remove Sulyok Tamás unconstitutionallyFormer President Áder János criticized the proposed removal of President Sulyok Tamás as unconstitutional, calling it a constitutional coup, a legal attack on the judiciary, and the beginning of a cold civil war or an Orwellian scenario. He emphasized that removing a president from office requires a formal legal process initiated by parliament with two-thirds support, based on evidence of constitutional violations. Áder argued that the current government's reasons—such as Sulyok's silence on child protection issues and remarks by Prime Minister Orbán—are politically motivated and insufficient grounds for removal. He drew historical parallels to the forced removals of leaders like Ferenc Nagy and Zoltán Tildy during Hungary's early post-war period, suggesting similar illegitimacy in Sulyok's potential removal.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Áder János's criticisms of the proposed removal of Sulyok Tamás, including his strong language describing the situation as unconstitutional and drawing historical comparisons. However, it does not exhibit overt bias toward one side, providing direct quotes from Áder and briefly,
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
HU
