The text of the Petition is as follows:

The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Hungary
1015 Budapest, Donáti u. 35-45

Esteemed Constitutional Court:

The undersigned Hungarian citizens,
Dr. András Fodor, 1024 Budapest, Buday László u. 6,
Dr. György Kádár, 1028 Budapest, Szilágyi E. utca 4 and
József Marton, 6726 Szeged, Sas utca 2/5,

invoking our right under Public Law XXXII of 1989,

submit a Constitutional Law complaint to the Constitutional Court of the 
Hungarian Republic, urgently requesting the Court to issue an order to cease 
violations of the Constitution through failure to fulfill obligations under 
the Constitution and the laws of Hungary and the requirements of 
international law, as manifested by the harmful and untenable situation 
permanently jeopardizing the flora and fauna in the Szigetköz since the 
blocking of the Danube at Cunovo (Dunacsuny) in October 1992.

The diversion of the Danube and the catastrophically low volume of water 
allowed to reach the Old Danube (the natural riverbed) are in violation of 
the following legal obligations:

1. The Constitution of the Hungarian Republic, which declares in Paragraph 5: 
"The state [government] of the Hungarian Republic safeguards the nation's 
territorial integrity, as well as its borders as defined by international 
treaties," whereas the arbitrary diversion of the boundary river is a 
unilateral revision of the border.
2. The Rio Agreement on Biodiversity: "Public Law LXXXI of 1995, ratifying 
the Agreement on Biological Diversity;" the Ramsar Agreement: "An agreement 
regarding wilderness waters of international significance, particularly 
habitats for water fowl, Public Law XLII of 1993;" the 1991 Agreement of 
Espoo about the study of environmental impact transcending national 
boundaries, and the 1992 Helsinki Agreement about the protection of streams 
crossing national boundaries and lakes shared by neighboring countries.
3. The International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Slovakia had no 
right to arbitrarily divert the Danube, by blocking the riverbed at Cunovo 
(Dunacsuny), to its territory in the sector between Cunovo (Dunacsuny) and 
Dunakiliti.

Therefore, we request the esteemed Constitutional Court to,

1. Find that the Constitution and international treaties and agreements have 
been violated. 
2. Order the Hungarian Government to find a solution for the Szigetköz 
situation in accord with the interests of the flora and fauna, as well as the 
above cited laws, international treaties and agreements, and the Ruling made 
in The Hague; that is, to instruct the Hungarian Government to

A. Take every necessary step in its power  (including negotiations to that 
end with Slovakia) to halt the diversion of the Danube above Dunacsuny; a 
diversion that is illegal, as well as incompatible with the Treaty of 1977.
B. Initiate and accept only such an agreement with Slovakia, which would be 
based on the 100% return of the Danube into its original riverbed above 
Dunakiliti; restore the water supply in the sector below Dunakiliti in an 
environmentally friendly manner and utilizing at 21st century engineering and 
technological standards (without resorting to blocking the riverbed, 
constructing dams or causing the formation of artificial reservoirs); would 
primarily serve the preservation of the flora and fauna of Szigetköz and 
Csallóköz, the Delta of the erstwhile Pannon Sea, and would relinquish only 
the excess water to Slovakia for energy production, rather than a splitting 
of the water resources.
C. Retract the draft agreement delivered to Slovakia on December 9, 1999, 
which ignores the above cited international treaties and Hungarian laws in 
force at the time, as well the interests of Hungary. 
D. In any future negotiations with Slovakia regarding the Danube, make every 
effort to avoid considerations aimed at  "subjugating" nature and to 
effectively protect nature and the environment, and follow expert advice in 
safeguarding the Hungarian drinking water supply. 
E. In the event Slovakia declines to negotiate on the basis of the above, 
[the Hungarian Government] should, in the spirit of the previous Ruling, 
initiate a second round [of the lawsuit] at the International Court of 
Justice in The Hague.

Explanation

1. On October 22-24, 1992, ignoring every international treaty, The Czech and 
Slovak Republic (the legal predecessor of Slovakia) arbitrarily blocked the 
natural riverbed of the Danube at Cunovo (Dunacsuny) and, under the pretext 
of supplying water to the Gabcikovo (Bos) hydroelectric station, diverted the 
Danube, which forms an approximately 150 kilometer long section of state 
boundary between Hungary and Slovakia, into an artificial canal running 
through Slovak territory. Aside from the absence of an engineering 
justification for this move, because the water supply to Gabcikovo (Bos) 
could be secured from Dunakiliti as well, this arbitrary revision of the 
international boundary has severely violated the territorial integrity of the 
Hungarian Republic and contrary to the Constitution, [successive] Hungarian 
governments have tolerated this move. [Moreover,] the draft agreement 
submitted to Slovakia on December 9, 1999, by the Hungarian Commissioner for 
the Danube, lends legitimacy to this move, even though Paragraph 5 of the 
Hungarian Constitution declares that "The Government of the Hungarian 
Republic safeguards the freedom and power of the people, the independence of 
the nation and its territorial integrity, as well as its borders as defined 
by international treaties."
2. The situation as it now exists and is being tolerated and is about to be 
lent legitimacy, is in conflict with the Ramsar Agreement, which has been 
adhered to by Hungary (An agreement regarding wilderness waters of 
international significance, particularly habitats for water fowl, Public Law 
XLII of 1993), and the Rio de Janeiro agreement on biological diversity 
(Public Law LXXXI of 1955) by which Hungary has undertaken to safeguard the 
habitat of wildlife in wilderness bodies of water and [secure] in situ 
"biological diversity." With the diversion of the Danube in the Delta of the 
erstwhile Pannon Sea at Szigetköz and Csallóköz, whose flora and fauna, 
unique to the entire planet, has already suffered apparently irreversible 
damage and the deterioration of living conditions of various species of 
wildlife that have lived for millennia in the forests of the floodplain 
continues. In the final analysis,  the thinning out and destruction of 
various species of flora and fauna is a still ongoing process (Attachment No. 
1)
3. In August 1992, prior to the diversion of the Danube, the Prime Minister 
of the Hungarian Republic made it abundantly clear that the illegal behavior 
of the Czechoslovak Republic  -- through continuation of work to divert [the 
water] in a manner incompatible with the 1977 Treaty for the construction of 
the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros hydroelectric power plant -- has made it necessary 
for Hungary to abrogate the 1977 Treaty and in the spirit of this just 
position to turn for legal remedy to the International Court of Justice in 
The Hague. On the other hand, in the closing arguments before the Court 
reached its decision in 1997, the then Government of Hungary did not deem it 
necessary to emphasize this legal point and even though, based on their 
familiarity with the sum total of the Hungarian arguments, the Chief Justice 
and several of his colleagues judged the abrogation of the 1977 Treaty 
justified, the majority of the International Court of Justice ruled against 
the Hungarian Republic for the abrogation of the Treaty.
4. The Ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague has also 
validated the arguments of the 1992 Government of the Hungarian Republic and 
found against the (Czech and) Slovak Republic for the illegal construction in 
1997 of the dam at Cunovo (Dunacsuny) and the illegal diversion of the 
Danube. (Attachment No. 2: Ruling, Paragraph 78.) The Court has also found 
that there is no need to erect any new object (Ruling, Paragraph 134). On the 
other hand, since 1997 the governments of the Hungarian Republic have failed 
to act and continue delaying any effective measures to enforce the judgement 
against Slovakia, thus they tolerate and, in fact, perpetuate the violation 
of the Constitution as noted in Point 1 and the breach of international 
treaties noted in Point 2. Most recently, the Position Paper presented on 
December 9, 1999, by the Hungarian Commissioner for the Danube, appears to 
accept the illegal diversion of the Danube as accomplished fact.
5. In the absence of an agreement, The Hague Ruling offers an opportunity for 
the Hungarian Republic to request the International Court of Justice to 
revisit the issue and, as the Slovak Republic does not wish to negotiate 
about halting the diversion at Cunovo (Dunacsuny), the agreement [as it now 
stands] is not acceptable because it would be tantamount to the surrender of 
the basic interests of the Hungarian Republic, a perpetuation of the above 
mentioned violation of the Constitution and the breach of international 
treaties. In the meantime, with the growth of environmental consciousness and 
nature preservation, it can be rightly assumed that the Government of the 
Hungarian Republic may turn once again with confidence to the International 
Court of Justice to obtain an environmentally more favorable ruling. The 
first Ruling itself makes this possible and also opens the way for the 
possible inclusion of a third party (such as international NGOs representing 
mankind).
6. The draft agreement presented to Slovakia on December 9, 1999, runs 
counter to the interests of nature and also the previous Hungarian positions 
inasmuch as it is our understanding that it includes the proposal for the 
construction of bottom dams -- the so-called seven-dam solution (Attachment 
No. 3, Figure 4) -- despite its rejection by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in 
September 1999. In this Hungary  agrees that the ecological conditions of the 
Danube can be improved by damming of the water without a substantial increase 
in the water flow received. Thus far, this argument was part exclusively of 
the Slovak arguments, Hungary had emphasized the exact opposite in The Hague. 
What's more the Danube has never been winding in Szigetköz, it had split into 
branches and every major flood had redrawn these branches. The nearly 
stagnant lakes created by winding [the river] would collect sludge 
sedimentation, promoting the precipitation of heavy metals and other 
pollutants, which would jeopardize the largest drinking water reservoir of 
Central Europe, which is located below this region. Good quality drinking 
water is one of the indispensable preconditions of healthy living. In this 
region, it is still available where nature put it, however experts predict 
that the shortage of drinking water already in evidence in other parts of the 
world, will also become apparent in Europe between 2020 and 2040 and water 
will become a more important strategic commodity than oil is today, thus its 
contamination cannot be tolerated because that would endanger the health of 
hundreds of thousands of people, whereas

a. according to Paragraph 18 of the Constitution, "The Hungarian Republic 
recognizes and enforces every [citizen's] right to a healthy environment,
b. and Paragraph 70/D of the Constitution declares:

1. Those living in the territory of the Hungarian Republic are entitled to 
the highest possible level of physical and spiritual health.
2. The Hungarian Republic guarantees this right… through the safeguarding 
both the manmade and the natural environment.

The Hague Ruling prioritized the various goals, and stated that the 
protection of nature and the environment is the most important consideration 
and everything else must be subordinated to it.

7. The present conditions are in violation of the following international 
agreements,  treaties, laws and decrees, as well:

a. The treaties of Trianon and Paris, which had defined the international 
borders, agreements about their interpretation and application, and the 
Treaty signed in Prague on October 13, 1956 about the precise alignment of 
the boundaries - Tvr. 15 of 1958.
b. The Agreement signed in Budapest on May 31, 1976, about regulation of 
management of the Danube and other waterways serving as international borders 
- Decree Number 55/1978 (XII. 10) MT.
c. The London agreements of October 28, 1992, calling for the return of the 
entire water volume into the main riverbed.
d. The Belgrade Agreement of 1948 regulating Danube shipping - Tv. XIII. of 
1949.
e. The Bucharest Agreement of 1958 regulating fishing in the Danube - tvr. 9 
of 1962.

8. There exists an engineering solution (A Compromise Plan developed with the 
assistance of international NGOs,  Attachment Number 3) that satisfies all 
the above requirements and gives priority to nature conservation, which we 
call to the attention of the Esteemed Court and Government; [a solution, 
which too has been] ignored by the office of the Commissioner for the Danube 
despite Decree Number 163/1997. (IX. 30.), and has failed to adequately 
inform the public regarding the Danube.

Budapest, January 4, 2000

Dr. András Fodor, dipl. Geneticist, assistant professor
Dr. György Kádár, dipl. Physicist, scientific consultant
József Marton, dipl. Environmentalist