Dr. György Ádám versus Lóránt Hegdűs Jr.

Two years ago, first time in his life, György Ádám took legal action in his own case. The professor of law brought an action against Lóránt Hegedűs Jr. because of his article published in a MIÉP journal, 'Ébresztő'(Wake-up Call). In the article Mr. Hegedűs talks about the exclusion of Jews therefore, the plaintiff asked the state to defend him - even if formally - from the exclusion. According to the verdict of the second degree Court in case of discriminative offence against an ethnic minority a member of the group not named in the offence has no right to ask for individual legal defence nor has he the right to defend himself or the group. The peak of the absurd situation: the court rejected the lawsuit with reference to a judgement on a case about a debate over the name of a toilet paper.

The following lines appeared in 'Ébresztő', a district Hungarian journal of MIÉP (Party of Hungarian Life and Justice), written by Lóránt Hegedűs Jr.: 'the army riff-raff from Galicia... So, Hungarian, hear the only message of survival of the thousandth year of the Christian Hungarian. State... exclude them! Because if you do not do it, they will do it to you!

Letter of lawsuit

The article in 'Ébresztő

Jew Laws (1939-1342)

The counter-petition of the defendant tries to take advantage of what has often been a misinterpretation of personal suits from the courts' part. The law only defines: 'rights related to individuals can only be enforced personally.

Counter-petition of the defendant

Observations of the plaintiff

Lóránt Hegedűs Jr. insulted the personal rights of György Ádám. According to the court the creation of hatred is directed against every individual who is considered Jew by others, accordingly, against the plaintiff as well. According to the justification of the verdict personal concern does not necessarily mean referring to someone by name as there are number of other methods to make adverse statements without actually naming a concrete person.

Verdict of the first degree

Counterappeal

Tiszaeszlári case (attachment)

The City Court changed the judgement of the first degree Court and rejected the lawsuit of the plaintiff. The court did not deliver verdict on the case itself yet it was only dealing with whether the plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant at all.

Verdict of the Court of Appeals

The 740 Ruling

'The defendant insulted my personal rights with the parts inciting to exclusion' - argued György Ádám in his request of review submitted to the Supreme Court.

Request of review

Rejection of the request

Letter to Zoltán Lomniczi

'The law does not deal with direct concern - argued György Ádám in his petition for retrial -, the only condition is that personal rights can only be enforced personally. What kind of concern has to be proven?' The petition for retrial was rejected in December 2004. The solicitor appealed against the ruling in January 2005.

Petition for retrial

Theology and anti-semitism

Interpretation of section 269

What does the term Jewish mean?

The rejection of petition, answer of the rejection