Székely Nép, 2010 (46. évfolyam, 59-60. szám)
2010-03-01 / 59. szám
SZEKLER VICTORY AT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Interview with Atty. Sándor Rozsnyai by Lajos Silvester The European supreme court for individual human rights decided in favor of former mayor of St. George, Almos Albert in the case for the annulment of a protocol issued by one official of the county administration, and which was approved by two Romanian courts previously. This decision has not only importance in human rights, but also in matters of minority political rights. This is the report of Attorney Sándor Rozsnyai, the defender of Almos Albert: PRELIMINARIES Mayor Almos Albert, upon receiving the governmental order for the proper use of national symbols, removed from the steeple of the city hall the Romanian national flag, however let it remain standing at the entrance. This act was considered hurtful for the county administration under Mr. Horia Grama. The head of the office, Mr. Codrin Munteanu prepared a protocol, which stated the mayor for taking down the flag and also for using the Hungarian name of the city committed a hurtful act, and penalized him with the amount of 50-50 million lei. The mayor maintained that the governmental order did not requested that the flag should be placed on the top of the building, only on the tap of the entrance. Therefore, there was no transgression committed. He demanded the annulment of the protocol and payment of the penalty. Since two Romanian courts upheld the protocol, the mayor paid the penalty, but appealed the penalty at the European Union court of justice in Strasbourg. A LOST CASE According to the decision of the court in Strasbourg the Romanian state is the looser, the protocol is considered annulled, the mayor receives back not only the penalty in the sum of 2,755 Euro, but also 2,000 Euro in compensation for wrong done, and 2,000 Euro for court expenses. Mr. Albert declared that he will repay out of the penalty the loan that he received from Radio Kossuth. The Strasbourg decision, beyond its sentimental value, has important impact on minority political rights. PROFESSIONAL OR POLITICAL ARGUMENTS During my studies in Kolozsvár (Cluj) my professor, Dr. Ionescu, was formerly the legal adviser of State Secretary Titulescu. The Hungarian optants demanded the return of their properties left in Romania and appropriated by the Romanian government. According to Professor Ionescu the Hungarians were entitled to their properties, and their attorney was successful in his argumentation, but they still did not receive back their properties, because the political situation would not allowed it. We learned an important lesson, which we applied in our future legal arguments. Legality must be placed above politics. Our aim was to lead the court to look at the case of Almos Albert strictly from a legal and not from a political perspective. We were convinced that if political arguments were brought in, the case would be lost. Besides, the case was placed to the county court in Bako (Bacau) of Moldova. They argued that it would not be safe in St. George (Sft. Georghe.) The county official, the author of the protocol, argued that if his protocol would be annulled, the Hungarian Democratic Party of Romania, the RMDSZ, would take over the county. Otherwise he is a fairly normal human being, who gives us the respect, but in both courts in Moldova he was hung up on the RMDSZ. The presiding judge ordered him to stop this business about the RMDSZ, but he kept on repeating it. In spite of this, we lost at both courts. Since both courts would not use legal arguments, their decisions could not have become legally valid. They could not put into it that the RMDSZ would take over the county if the protocol were annulled. Therefore their decisions were not of legal force. We could have mentioned that according to the Resolutions of Gyulafehervar (Aba Iulia), every nationality can use its own name in its administration. But we did not do that, knowing the righting of the press, the parliamentary interpretations and what we have learned at the university. UNEMOTIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS We were attacking the protocol that described penalties for two reasons: that the flag was take down and Hungarian city name was used in the document. They would not describe the locality from which the flag was taken down nor the place were the city name was to be found. We argued that no law is decreeing that the flag must be on the top of Page 3
