BETA

42 Amendments of József SZÁJER related to 2017/2131(INL)

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the scope of Article 7 TEU is not limited to the areas covered by Union law and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences;deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas according to Article 5 (2) TEU, under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. Article 2 TEU does not confer any material competence upon the union, hence Article 7 TEU only applies to cases when Member States act within the limits of competences conferred on the Union in the treaties. ;

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas respect of the content of Article 2 TEU by Member States cannot be, under the Treaties, the subject-matter of an action by the institutions of the Union without the existence of a specific material competence;

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution taken together do not represent a systemic threat to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and do not constitute a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 TEU;

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Submits, therefore, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, this reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine that there is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU ~~and to address appropriate recommendations to Hungary in this regard~~;

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6

(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7

(7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were restricted as a result of the constitutional reform, including with regard to budgetary matters, the abolition of the actio popularis, the possibility for the Court to refer to its case law prior to 1 January 2012 and the limitation on the Court’s ability to review the constitutionality of any changes to the Fundamental Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed serious concerns about those limitations and about the procedure for the appointment of judges, and made recommendations to the Hungarian authorities to ensure the necessary checks and balances in its Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary adopted on 19 June 2012 and in its Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary adopted on 17 June 2013.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8

(8) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the current constitutional complaint procedure affords more limited access to the Constitutional Court, does not provide for a time limit for the exercise of constitutional review and does not have a suspensive effect on challenged legislation. It also mentioned that the provisions of the new Constitutional Court Act weaken the security of tenure of judges and increase the influence of the government over the composition and operation of the Constitutional Court by changing the judicial appointments procedure, the number of judges in the Court and their retirement age. The Committee was also concerned about the limitation of the Constitutional Court’s competence and powers to review legislation impinging on budgetary matters.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

(9) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the 2018 parliamentary elections were characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate, hindering the ability of voters to make a fully informed choice. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

(10) In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultations.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11

(11) As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, the administration of courts became more centralised and the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJO.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12

(12) Since 2012, Hungary has taken positive steps to transfer certain functions from the president of the NJO to the NJC in order to create a better balance between these two organs. However, further progress is still required. GRECO, in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, called for minimising the potential risks of discretionary decisions by the president of the NJO. The president of the NJO is, inter alia, able to transfer and assign judges, and has a role in judicial discipline. The president of the NJO also makes a recommendation to the President of Hungary to appoint and remove heads of courts, including presidents and vice- presidents of the Courts of Appeal. GRECO welcomed the recently adopted Code of Ethics for Judges, but considered that it could be made more explicit and accompanied by in-service training.deleted

2018/05/17
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14

(14) In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Gaszó v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The ECtHR came to the conclusion that the violations originated in a practice which consisted in Hungary’s recurrent failure to ensure that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations are completed within a reasonable time and to take measures enabling applicants to claim redress for excessively long civil proceedings at a domestic level. The execution of that judgment is still pending.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15

(15) In its judgment of 23 June 2016, Baka v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the right of access to a court and the freedom of expression of András Baka, who had been elected as President of the Supreme Court for a six-year term in June 2009, but ceased to have this position in accordance with the transitional provisions in the Fundamental Law, providing that the Curia would be the legal successor to the Supreme Court. The execution of that judgment is still pending because the Hungarian Government denies the fact that there is a need to take measures to prevent further premature removals of judges on similar grounds, safeguarding any abuse in this regard.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17

(17) The Venice Commission identified several shortcomings in its Opinion on Act CLXIII of 2011 on the Prosecution Service and Act CLXIV of 2011 on the Status of the Prosecutor General, Prosecutors and other Prosecution Employees and the Prosecution Career of Hungary, adopted on 19 June 2012. In its report, adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO urged the Hungarian authorities to take additional steps to prevent abuse and increase the independence of the prosecution service by, inter alia, removing the possibility for the Prosecutor General to be re-elected. In addition, GRECO called for disciplinary proceedings against ordinary prosecutors to be made more transparent and for decisions to move cases from one prosecutor to another to be guided by strict legal criteria and justifications.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18

(18) In its report adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO called for the establishment of codes of conduct for members of the Hungarian Parliament (MPs) concerning guidance for cases of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MPs should also be obliged to report conflicts of interest in an ad hoc manner and this should be accompanied by a more robust obligation to submit asset declarations. This should also be accompanied by provisions that allow for sanctions for submitting inaccurate asset declarations.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19

(19) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the limited monitoring of campaign spending and the absence of thorough reporting on sources of campaign funds undercuts campaign finance transparency and the ability of voters to make an informed choice, contrary to OSCE commitments and international standards.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20

(20) On 7 December 2016, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding their space to operate in the country.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21

(21) In its judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the right to respect for private life was violated on account of the insufficient legal guarantees against unlawful secret surveillance for national security purposes, including related to the use of telecommunications. The amendment of the relevant legislation is necessary as a general measure. The execution of this judgment is, therefore, still pending.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22

(22) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that Hungary’s legal framework on secret surveillance for national security purposes allows for mass interception of communications and contains insufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with the right to privacy. It was also concerned by the lack of provisions to ensure effective remedies in cases of abuse, and notification to the person concerned as soon as possible, without endangering the purpose of the restriction, after the termination of the surveillance measure.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25

(25) On 18 October 2012, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self- Determination and Freedom of Information of Hungary. Despite the overall positive assessment, the Venice Commission identified the need for further improvements. However, following subsequent amendments to that law, the right to access government information has been significantly restricted further. Those amendments were criticised in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in March 2016.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31

(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary. The Act deprived many religious organisations of legal personality and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church, that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32

(32) In February 2013, Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled that the deregistration of recognised churches had been unconstitutional. Responding to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Hungarian Parliament amended the Fundamental Law in March 2013. In June and September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament amended Act CCVI of 2011 to create a two-tiered classification consisting of “religious communities” and “incorporated churches”. In September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament also amended the Fundamental Law explicitly to grant itself the authority to select religious communities for “cooperation” with the state in the service of “public interest activities”.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33

(33) In its judgment of 8 April 2014, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR ruled that Hungary had violated freedom of association, read in the light of freedom of conscience and religion. The execution of that judgment is still pending.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34

(34) On 9 July 2014, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights indicated in his letter to the Hungarian authorities that he was concerned about the stigmatising rhetoric used by politicians questioning the legitimacy of NGO work in the context of audits which had been carried out by the Hungarian Government Control Office concerning NGOs which were beneficiaries of the Norwegian Civil Fund. On 8-16 February 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visited Hungary and indicated in his report that significant challenges stem from the existing legal framework governing the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedoms of opinion and expression, and of peaceful assembly and of association, and that legislation pertaining to national security and migration may also have a restrictive impact on the civil society environment.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35

(35) In April 2017 a draft law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad was introduced before the Hungarian Parliament. On 26 April 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights addressed a letter to the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly noting that the draft law was introduced against the background of continued antagonistic rhetoric from certain members of the ruling coalition, who publicly labelled some NGOs as “foreign agents” based on the source of their funding and questioned their legitimacy. Similar concerns have been mentioned in the statement of 7 March 2017 of the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law, as well as in the Opinion of 24 April 2017 prepared by the Expert Council on NGO Law, and the statement of 15 May 2017 by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36

(36) On 13 June 2017, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the draft law with several amendments. In its Opinion of 20 June 2017, the Venice Commission recognised that some of those amendments represented an important improvement but at the same time some other concerns were not addressed and the amendments did not suffice to alleviate the concerns that the law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of those requirements, which appeared to be part of an attempt to discredit certain NGOs, including NGOs dedicated to the protection of human rights in Hungary.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

(43) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated that he was concerned about the deterioration of the situation as regards racism and intolerance in Hungary, with anti-Gypsyism being the most blatant form of intolerance, as illustrated by distinctively harsh, including violence targeting Roma people and paramilitary marches and patrolling in Roma- populated villages. He also pointed out that, despite positions taken by the Hungarian authorities to condemn anti- Semitic speech, anti-Semitism is a recurring problem, manifesting itself through hate speech and instances of violence against Jewish persons or property. In addition, he mentioned a recrudescence of xenophobia targeting migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, and of intolerance affecting other social groups such as LGBTI persons, the poor and homeless persons. The European Commission against Racism and Xenophobia mentioned similar concerns in its report on Hungary published on 9 June 2015.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44

(44) In its Fourth Opinion on Hungary adopted on 25 February 2016, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted that Roma continue to suffer systemic discrimination and inequality in all fields of life, including housing, employment, education, access to health and participation in social and political life. In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended the Hungarian authorities to make sustained and effective efforts to prevent, combat and sanction the inequality and discrimination suffered by Roma, improve, in close consultation with Roma representatives, the living conditions, access to health services and employment of Roma, take effective measures to end practices that lead to the continued segregation of Roma children at school and redouble efforts to remedy shortcomings faced by Roma children in the field of education, ensure that Roma children have equal opportunities for access to all levels of quality education, and continue to take measures to prevent children from being wrongfully placed in special schools and classes.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45

(45) In its judgement of 29 January 2013, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the relevant Hungarian legislation as applied in practice lacked adequate safeguards and resulted in the over-representation and segregation of Roma children in special schools due to the systematic misdiagnosis of mental disability, which amounted to a violation of the right to education free from discrimination. The execution of that judgment is still pending.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46

(46) On 26 May 2016, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Hungarian authorities in relation to both Hungarian legislation and administrative practices which result in Roma children being disproportionately over-represented in special schools for mentally disabled children and subject to a considerable degree of segregated education in mainstream schools.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47

(47) In its judgement of 20 October 2015, Balázs v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the context of a failure to consider the alleged anti-Roma motive of an attack. In its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that that there had been a violation of the right to private life on account of inadequate investigations into the allegations of racially motived abuse. The execution of both judgments is still pending.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48

(48) On 29 June - 1 July 2015, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights conducted a field assessment visit to Hungary, following reports about the actions taken by the local government of the city of Miskolc concerning forced evictions of Roma. On 26 January 2016 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights sent a letter to the Hungarian authorities expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma in Miskolc.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49

(49) In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended that the Hungarian authorities continue to improve the dialogue with the Jewish community, making it sustainable, and to give combatting anti-Semitism in public spaces the highest priority, to make sustained efforts to prevent, identify, investigate, prosecute and sanction effectively all racially and ethnically motivated or anti-Semitic acts, including acts of vandalism and hate speech, and to consider amending the law so as to ensure the widest possible legal protection against racist crime.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government- sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57

(57) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated his concern at measures taken to prohibit rough sleeping and the construction of huts and shacks, which have widely been described as criminalising homelessness in practice. The Commissioner urged the Hungarian authorities to investigate reported cases of forced evictions without alternative solutions and of children being taken away from their families on the grounds of poor socio-economic conditions. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about state and local legislation, based on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which designates many public areas as out-of-bounds for “sleeping rough” and effectively punishes homelessness.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58

(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the ground that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. The Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the ground that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, on the ground that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and on the grounds that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59

(59) In its Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of Hungary, the Council indicated that the adequacy and coverage of social assistance and unemployment benefits is limited, that the duration of unemployment benefits is still the lowest in the Union at 3 months, below the average time required by jobseekers to find employment, and that the 2015 social assistance reform streamlined the benefits system but does not seem to have guaranteed a uniform and minimally adequate living standard for those in need.deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 61

(61) For those reasons, it should be determined, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, that there is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU,

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Article 1 – paragraph 1

There is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Article 2 – paragraph 1

~~The Council recommends that Hungary take the following actions within three months of the notification of this Decision: [...]~~deleted

2018/06/25
Committee: LIBE