Kosař, David & Šipulová, Katarína. The Strasbourg Court Meets Abusive Constitutionalism: Baka v. Hungary and the Rule of Law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 10, 83–110 (2018). Published online November 2, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s40803-017-0065-y.
This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights responded to a textbook case of abusive constitutionalism: the forced removal of András Baka, Chief Justice of the Hungarian Supreme Court, after he publicly criticized judicial reforms initiated by Viktor Orbán’s government. The authors argue that while Baka’s dismissal exemplified a structural attack on judicial independence in Central and Eastern Europe, the Grand Chamber failed to meet the moment. They contend that the Court stretched existing doctrine under Articles 6 and 10, blurred the meaning of the rule of law, and avoided addressing the underlying structural issue—namely, the expansive powers of court presidents in post-communist judiciaries, which make these roles attractive targets for political capture. The article situates Baka’s removal within a broader regional pattern, critiques the ECtHR’s reasoning as insufficiently principled or persuasive, and concludes that the Strasbourg Court is institutionally ill-equipped to tackle systemic rule-of-law backsliding, especially when political actors restructure courts through constitutional amendments.