Judicon held its kick-off meeting in Budapest, 16th October, 2015. The participants discussed the methodology and country-specific issues of the research.
As the outcome of the workshop, a revised methodology was accepted and the participants agreed to test its applicability on a comparative sample of 15 decisions from each country in the project. It was also accepted that in the first phase of the research, the decisions of the Constitutional Courts will be analyzed while parliamentary voting behavior will be in the focus of the second workshop.
As for the country-specific issues, among others, it was discussed that in the Polish case, the “signal” instrument is not binding for the parliament. It is a separate, formal instrument but in the relation between the constitutional court and the parliament it is next to nothing. In the Czech case, it is an intention of the Constitutional Court to minimalize the interference with the legislative. In Poland, procedural cases are typical (e.g. law on lustration). Very often, the principle of clarity is referred to while the effect is more like in case of a substantial unconstitutionality. In Germany, sometimes it is impossible to identify the judges with dissenting opinions.