Dictum of the day, or on omissions

 During the hearing, I enquired from the Government’s representative whether the Hungarian legislation provided for the personal data not only of tax defaulters but also of other “rule-breakers” to be made public. For instance, what about traffic violators, in particular those who have developed the habit of driving under the influence? Those who misappropriate property? Bribe-givers and takers? Disclosers of State secrets? Sexual offenders? Polygamists? Those guilty of domestic violence? Exam cheaters? Criminals “in general”? The list could go on: killers, bank robbers, criminal gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers, smugglers, illegal arms traders, etc. From the representative’s cursory response, I understood that indiscriminate tax defaulters were in good company: there is a register of sexual offenders, the entries in which are publicly accessible. As to the other mentioned and unmentioned categories of “rule-breakers”, I took the omission to answer my direct question as confirmation that they have been spared. The public is informed as to where a tax defaulter lives, but not a serial killer or a child abductor.

I almost exclaimed: “But where is everybody?” But no. This question was asked by Enrico Fermi in a loftier context than that of the present case. So I did not enquire any further.

Concurring opinion of judge Kuris in L.B. v. Hungary [GC], no. 36345/16, 9 March 2023

Dictum of the day, or on horrors

The Court appoints itself-instead of Congress or expert agency-the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent. 

West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. _____ (2022), Kagan, J., dissenting

Dictum of the day, or on inconvenient truths

In the current political context in Europe, this judgment may not surprise anyone. My hope is that it will be reversed one day when the political mood changes. 

Partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque joined by Judge Harutyunyan, in Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, 31 January 2019

Dictum of the day, or on magic tricks

Consequently, the Government believed here that the six-month rule had been observed. By employing the six-month rule, the majority thus pulled the rabbit out of the hat. That must have come as a pleasant surprise for the Government! Indeed, not only had the Government been unaware that there was a rabbit to be pulled, they had not even equipped themselves with the hat. And now (also in the context of that pending case), they could say “why bother, if the Grand Chamber has rabbits in ample supply?” – and hats too!

Joint partly dissenting, partly concurring opinion of judges Yudkivska, Vehabovic and Kuris in Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, 20 March 2018

Dictum of the day, or on hard truths

Koji je to datum u savremenoj historiji koji ispunjava taj uvjet, a da ga svi prihvate kao takvog? Da ima simboliku zajedničkog sjećanja koje doprinosi jačanju kolektivnog identiteta? Pa sam kolektivni identitet je sporan u ovoj zemlji?! Koje je to zajedničko sjećanje koje ima zajedničku simboliku? Savremena historija ne nudi odgovor, daljnja historija ne nudi odgovor, daleka historija ne nudi odgovor?! Gorko ukazujem na to da bi se, možda, u vremenu ranog srednjeg vijeka našao takav datum, ali sumnjam, jer bi jednima smetalo, npr., krunisanje u pravoslavnom manastiru, drugima ljiljan kao iskaz katoličke vjernosti na zastavi, a trećima historijska činjenica ko je srušio tu tvorevinu ranog srednjeg vijeka!

Odluka o dopustivosti i meritumu Ustavnog suda BiH, br. U-3/13 od 26.11.2015., Izdvojeno mišljenje o neslaganju Zlatka M. Kneževića

Dictum of the day, or on cute little hats

[P]okušavam da zamislim kako bi bilo koji sud reagovao kada bi npr. pristojna dama, možda upravo u svojstvu svjedoka, ušla u sudnicu sa simpatičnim šeširićem na glavi.

Odluka o dopustivosti i meritumu USBiH, AP-3947/12, 9. juli 2015., Izdvojeno mišljenje o neslaganju sudije Mirsada Ćemana

 

Dicta of the day, or on superpowers

What we can decide, we can undecide. But stare decisis teaches that we should exercise that authority sparingly. Cf. S. Lee and S. Ditko, Amazing Fantasy No. 15: "Spider-Man," p. 13 (1962) ("[I]n this world, with great power there must also come—great responsibility").

 

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC 576 U.S. _______ (2015) 

 

Dictum of the day, or on self-restraint

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to  say what the law is.”  Marbury v.  Madison , 1 Cranch 137,  177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others.  But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. / Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all  possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

King v. Burwell 576 U.S. _____ (2015) 21.

Dictum of the day, or on Children of a Lesser God

Refugees, migrants and foreign nationals are the first to be singled out in a dehumanised and selfish society. Their situation is even worse when they are seriously ill. They become pariahs whom Governments want to get rid of as quickly as possible. It is a sad coincidence that in the present case the Grand Chamber decided, on the World Day of the Sick, to abandon these women and men to a certain, early and painful death alone and far away. I cannot desert those sons of a lesser God who, on their forced path to death, have no one to plead for them.

S.J. v. Belgium, app. no. 70055/10, 19 March 2015, Dissenting opinion of judge Pinto de Albuquerque, para. 12. 

Dictum of the day, or Guillotine!

Ustavni sud na ovom mjestu može samo ponoviti da je kod svakog zakona, a osobito sistemskog zakon a, nomotehnički aspekt važan jer i on pod određenim okolnostima može imati ustavno značenje. Svaka pojedina zakonska odredba u pravilu je dio normativne cjeline koja uređuje neki zakonski institut ili društveni odnos. Ona ponekad može biti neodvojiva od ostalih zakonskih odredaba i stoga-u slučaju utvrđenja njezine nesuglasnosti s Ustavom izravno utjecati na opstojnost i svrhu cjelokupnog uređenja tog zakonskog instituta ili društvenog odnosa [...] [K]od obuhvatnih ocjena ustavnosti sistemskih zakona, kao što je ObiZ/14, teško je pronaći granicu ili "formulu" kojom bi se neosporeni dijelovi mogli razgraničiti od osporenih dijelova zakona, a da to ne stvori ozbiljne probleme u upravnoj i sudskoj praksi i, umjesto rješavanja problema, dovede do još dubljih strukturalnih poremećaja od onih koji prijete ili su već nastali uslijed primjene samog osporenog zakona.

Rješenje Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske, br. U-I-3101/2014, od 12.01.2015., para. 761. i 767.3.