Public and/or Private? Remedies Against the Different Decisions on Social Care Services in Hungary
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2024.2.10Keywords:
administrative law, Hungary, litigation, private law, public law, remedies, social care servicesAbstract
Purpose: The paper examines the multi-layered remedy system in social care services in Hungary. It first analyses remedies related to the obligation of public service provision, especially remedies against normative tools for public service provision (such as decrees on fees and service standards) and the omission of duties by public bodies obliged to perform these services. A secondary focus is on remedies against the decisions and omissions by service provider institutions.
Design and Approach: Hungarian legislation interprets social care services as legal relationships governed by private law with partial public law regulation. The public remedy against the decisions of the service providers is complaints, which are governed by sector-specific (public) regulations. The research examines the remedy system using legal study methods based on dogmatic analysis and involves an examination of judicial practice, namely Hungarian courts decisions on major public law remedies.
Findings: Based on dogmatic and empirical analysis, the study reveals that Hungarian judicial practice has interpreted public law remedies, specifically complaints, in various ways. Following an amendment of legal regulation, the civil law-based interpretation now prevails. Although this practice has been consolidated, tensions can be observed, especially in the case of omissions.
Practical implications: The paper suggests a legislative solution to mitigate these tensions, recommending that decisions establishing social care services be formalised as public decisions.
Originality: The paper is based on a dogmatic analysis of the social care remedy system and, as a new element, contains an in-depth analysis of the Hungarian judicial practice on this issue.
Downloads
References
Braye, S. and Preston-Shoot, M. (2017). Social work and the law. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli and M. Payne, eds., Social Work. 3rd edition. London: Macmillan Education, pp. 90-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-08215-2_8
CCD (2024) Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteménye At< https://eakta.birosag.hu/anonimizalt-hatarozatok>, accessed 10th September 2024.
Dombrovszky, B. (2024). Oktatásügy és esélyegyenlőség az ítélkezésben: szakmai és szakpolitikai elemek a bíróság előtt. Állam- és Jogtudomány, 65(1), pp. 3-37. https://doi.org/10.51783/ajt.2024.1.01
Dombrovszky, B. and Hoffman, I. (2023). When social policy walks into the justice system. Central European Journal of Public Policy 17(2), pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2023-0013
Dragos, D. C. (2022). Administrative Justice in Transitional States. In M. Hertogh, R. Kirkham, R. Thomas, J. Tomlinson, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press, pp. 285-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190903084.013.35
Ecsédi, O. (2016). Magyarázat az Szt. 101. §-ához. In Hoffman, I. and Mattenheim, G., eds, Nagykommentár a szociális törvényhez. Budapest: Wolters Kluwer Hungary, pp. 487-494.
Gál, R. I. (2017). Long-term care for the elderly in Hungary. In B. Greve, ed., Long-term Care for the Elderly in Europe. Development and Prospects. Abingdon (UK) and Northampton (MA, USA): Routledge, pp. 8-22.
Fazekas, M. and Asbóth, M. (2024). A humán-közszolgáltatások. In Fazekas, M, ed. Közigazgatási jog. Általános rész II. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, pp. 115-159.
Fuglinszky, Á. (2015). Kártérítési jog. Budapest: HVG-Orac.
Herczog, M. (2015). Poor Children, Poor Services, Poor Outcomes: Child Poverty and Its Impact on Referral and Placement in Public Care System in Hungary. In E. Fernandez et al., eds., Theoretical and Empirical Insights into Child and Family Poverty. Children’s Well-Being, Cham: Springer, pp. 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17506-5_15
Hoffman, I., Fazekas, J. and Rozsnyai, K. (2016). Concentrating or Centralising Public Services? The Changing Roles of the Hungarian Inter-municipal Associations in the last Decades. Lex localis – Journal of Local Self-governments, 14(3), pp. 451-471. https://doi.org/10.4335/14.3.451-471(2016)
Hoffman, I. and Rozsnyai, F. K. (2024). Broadening judicial protection against failures to act? - Recent Hungarian developments. International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 10(ahead of print), pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPLAP.2024.10066623
Horowitz, Donald L. (1977). The Courts and Social Policy. Washington D. C. (USA): The Brookings Institution
Hungler, S. and Pozsár-Szentmiklósy, Z. (2023). Hungary. In A. Nussberger and D. Landau, eds. The justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. Cambridge (UK), Antwerp, Chicago (US, IL): Intersentia, pp. 183-202.
Kiss, V. et al. (2021). An empirical study of actions on custodianship in Hungary. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 78(101719), pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2021.101719
Kiss, V. and Tóth, F. R. (2021). Kutatásmódszertani megjegyzések az alávetett csoportok joghoz való viszonyának megismeréséhez. Állam- és Jogtudomány, 62(3), pp. 43-73. https://doi.org/10.51783/ajt.2021.3.03
Kokemoor, A. (2020). Sozialrecht. München: Verlag Vahlen.
Kovač, P. (2017). Innovative Administrative Procedure Law: Mission Impossible? The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 10(2), pp. 93-117. https://doi.org/10.1515/nispa-2017-0013
Kovač, P. (2021). Debureaucratization Limits in Administrative Procedures Codification: Lessons from Slovenia. Administrative Sciences 11(1), pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010001
Krémer, B. (2009). Bevezetés a szociálpolitikába. Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó.
KSH (2024). A tartós bentlakásos és átmeneti elhelyezést nyújtó szociális intézményekben ellátottak ellátási típusonként, At<https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/szo/hu/szo0026.html>, accessed 10th September 2024.
Maurer, H. and Waldhoff, C. (2020.) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. München: Verlag C. H. Beck
Nagy, M. (2019). Administrative law. In: A. Harmathy, ed., Introduction to Hungarian law. 2nd edition. Alphen am Rijn: Kluwer Law International, pp. 23-45.
Nagy, M. (2022). Szerződés a közigazgatási jogban. Jogtudományi Közlöny 77(4), pp. 137-146. -
OBH (2023.) A bírósági ügyforgalmi adatai 2023, At<https://birosag.hu/sites/default/files/2024-04/kiadvany.2023.ev_ertek.xls>, accessed 10th September 2024.
Rozsnyai, F. K. (2019). Current Tendencies of Judicial Review as Reflected in the New Hungarian Code of Administrative Court Procedure. Central European Public Administration Review, 17(1), pp. 7-23. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2019.1.01
Rozsnyai, F. K. (2020). Hatékony jogvédelem a közigazgatási perben. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó.
Rozsnyai, F. K. (2021). The Procedural Autonomy of Hungarian Administrative Justice as a Precondition of Effective Judicial Protection. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 30(4), pp. 491-503. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.4.491-503
Rozsnyai, F. K. (2022). Az eljárási kötelezettség aktuális kérdései. KözigazgatásTudomány 2(1), pp. 125-139. https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v2i1.32
Szikra, D. (2014.) Democracy and welfare in hard times: The social policy of the Orbán Government in Hungary between 2010 and 2014. Journal of European Social Policy, 24(5), pp. 486-500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928714545446
Szikra, D. and Öktem, K. G. (2023). An illiberal welfare state emerging? Welfare efforts and trajectories under democratic backsliding in Hungary and Turkey. Journal of European Social Policy, 33(2), pp. 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221141365
Virág, Cs. and Völcsey, B. (2020). A korlátozott precedensrendszer és a polgári perjog kapcsolata. Magyar Jog 67(3), pp. 125-135.
Webley, L. and Samuels, H. (2012). Public Law. Text, Cases and Materials. 2nd edition. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 István Hoffman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
