88 Amendments of Lívia JÁRÓKA related to 2017/2131(INL)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Hungary occupies, with 50.8 points, the second to last place in the European comparison of the European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Equality Index 2017 anthe European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Equality Index (GEI) 2017 is not a useful tool for policy recommendations in 2018, as it only takes into account the statistical data from 2013, 2014, and 2015; whereas, nevertheless, it should be noted thas, furthermore, lost 1.6 pot Hungary outperformed other Member States in 5 out of 6 core domaints since 2010constituting the GEI;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas according to EIGE’s Gender Equality Index 2017 due to the limited availability of high-quality EU- wide comparative data, the actual analysis for certain social factors, such as sexuality, ethnicity, nationality or religion is not available,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
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. ;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
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;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
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;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. NoteCommends the efforts taken in recent years to achieve a better reconciliation of work and privatefamily life; recalls the Commission's proposal for a directive on work-life balance for parents and carers1 presented in April 2017 and encourages the Hungarian government to contribute to its swift adoption; __________________ 1 COM(2017)0253. COM(2017)0253.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. DeplorWelcomes the reinterpretation and narrowing of gender equality policies towards family policies and recalls the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2010-2021), which Hungary has not yet implemenefforts of the Hungarian government to complement the policies aimed at achieving equality between men and women with family policies; invites Hungary to share the best practices in this field with other EU Member Stateds;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6
Annex I – point 6
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the very low number of women in political decision-making positions; points out that better balance between work and family life and shared parental responsibility between mothers and fathers are important steps towards higher representation of women in political decision making on all levels;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Highlights that Hungary has adopted a cardinal law on the protection of families and is committed to build a family-friendly country establishing the necessary conditions. In addition, the Government has decided to dedicate 2018 the Year of the Family;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7
Annex I – point 7
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that the current employment rate of women is 61.2%, while the greatest improvement in women’s employment is detectable in the group of women who raise children under the age of 6, given the positive measures taken by the Hungarian Government since 2010 in order to help families and women with children, among others the child care fee extra, the new day-care system of children;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7
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 e 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, whereas the new rules on the composition of the Constitutional Court (election based on qualified majority and high level professional requirements) are high level guarantees of the independence of judges, as it does the reduction of the length of appointment from 12 to 9 years and the exclusion of their reappointment.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Welcomes that between 2010 and 2016 the available seats in nurseries increased by around 23%, while in 2017 Hungary has introduced a new and more flexible nursery system that aligns better with local circumstances and helps women to go back to the labour market;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8
Annex I – point 8
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Welcomes that since 2010 the Hungarian Government has adopted and implemented several social, social inclusion, family policy, health policy and educational measures, addressed among others to Roma, such as Roma mother- child health programme, training Roma health guardians, training Roma health representatives as well as early childhood development programs;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9
Annex I – point 9
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9
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, whereas the electoral districts in Hungary are defined with a view to the full application of the principle of proportionality, as also acknowledged by the decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10
Annex I – point 10
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; calls onpraises the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possiblefor its constant efforts to prioritize and tackle violence against women and children and domestic violence by sensitizing its police force and educating the public;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11
Annex I – point 11
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12
Annex I – point 12
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12
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. The GRECO report acknowledges particularly the amendments that were made concerning the rules of judicial recruitment and selection procedures between 2012 and 2014 in Hungary, through which the National Judicial Council has received a stronger supervisory function in the selection process; the National Judicial Council thereby has a decisive mandate in the appointing and promoting procedure of judges. 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.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 13
Annex I – point 13
(13) Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court of Justice”) of 6 November 2012 in Case C-286/12, Commission v. Hungary1, which held that by adopting a national scheme requiring the compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act XX of 2013 which provided that the judicial retirement age is to be gradually reduced to 65 years of age over a ten year period and set out the criteria for reinstatement or compensation. In its report of October 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute stated that a majority of the removed judges did not return to their original positions, although the amendments introduced by Act XX of 2013 provided the possibility for retired judges to return to their former posts at the same court under the same conditions as prior to the regulations on retirement, or if they were unwilling to return, they received a 12-month lump sum compensation for their lost remuneration, and could file for further compensation before the court; the individual choices of the judges cannot therefore be held against Hungary. __________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2012, Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687.
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to self-determination and, in this context, the importance of respecting their sexual and reproductive rightsir freedom to make decisions about having sex or conceiving a child, including the respect of patients'regnant women's rights to a safe and non-violent birth;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14
Annex I – point 14
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15
Annex I – point 15
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17
Annex I – point 17
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the joint recruitment campaign launched by the Hungarian Police with the Fraternal Association of European Roma Law Enforcement Officers in 2016, targeting especially Roma girls and young Roma women, with the aim promoting diversity in law enforcement and increasing the number of female Roma police officers.
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Acknowledges the programs launched aiming to foster the education and employment Roma women, where social caretakers, nurses and social assistants will be trained in the social, child welfare, child protection and education institutions, as well as the state, church organisation, foundations will get support for the employment of Romani women;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18
Annex I – point 18
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19
Annex I – point 19
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19
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. This OSCE report however, did not include the official audit report of The State Audit Office (the enforcement authority for state aids) concerning the 2018 parliamentary elections, as it had not been completed at the time.
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Underlines that since there is no collection of data about ethnicity regarding health status records or the provision of healthcare services, the health characteristics of Roma population, including Roma women can only be estimated;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20
Annex I – point 20
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Welcomes the establishment of Women in Research Careers Presidential Commission within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences which aims to increase the proportion of women among professors and the doctors of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as well as raising the interest of girls in education in natural sciences;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21
Annex I – point 21
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22
Annex I – point 22
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23
Annex I – point 23
(23) On 22 June 2015 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Media Legislation (Act CLXXXV on Media Services and on the Mass Media, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media) of Hungary, which called for several changes to the Press Act and the Media Act, in particular concerning the definition of “illegal media content”, the disclosure of journalistic sources and sanctions on media outlets. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. Those concerns had been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. The Commissioner also mentioned the issues of concentration of media ownership and self-censorship and indicated that the legal framework criminalising defamation should be repealed. In contrast, all recent changes of media ownership have occurred within the regular framework of market economy and civil law dynamics. The functioning and considering the powerful legal and constitutional safeguards of media freedom in Hungary, there are no legal options to o limit media freedom at all.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25
Annex I – point 25
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 28
Annex I – point 28
(28) On 6 October 2017, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act XXV of 4 April 2017 on the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully operating there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. Those universities and their students are protected by dn its opinion, the Venice Commission found that states have a large room for manoeuvre when it comes to regulating the operational conditions for institutions of higher education. The body also underlined that it is a legitimate goal to provide greater transparency in order to guarantee a quality education and to protect future students. The opinion also acknowledged that some stic and international rules on academic freedom, the freedom of expression and assembly andates do not allow foreign universities to operate at all, furthermore, that Hungary has the right to, create and freedom of, education. The Venice Commission recommended that the Hungarian authorities, in particular, ensure that new rules on requirement to have a work permit do not disproportionally affect academic freedom and are applied in a non-discriminatory and flexible manner, without jeopardising the quality and intview regulation concerning institutions of higher education operating within her territory. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully opernational character of education already provided by existing universities. The concerns about the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education have also been shared by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of opinion and expression, on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and on cultural rights in their statement of 11 April 2017. In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of such constraints on the freedom of thought, expression and associang there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. At the same time, legislation may not distinguish between past and future institutions, but an appropriate deadline must be set for fulfilling the conditions. Not only would it be discriminatory if the introduced system of conditionalities would apply only for new institutions, as well as academic freedombut would also actually prevent transparency.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31
Annex I – point 31
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32
Annex I – point 32
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33
Annex I – point 33
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34
Annex I – point 34
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35
Annex I – point 35
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36
Annex I – point 36
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37
Annex I – point 37
(37) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to start legal proceedings against Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, due to provisions in the NGO Law which indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission concluded that Hungary had violated the right to freedom of association and the rights to protection of private life and personal data enshrined in the Charter, read in conjunction with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital. According the European Court of Justice, a prior declaration may be a proportionate measure since unlike prior authorisation it does not entail the suspension of transactions, but still allows national authorities to exercise effective supervision in order to prevent infringements. The Hungarian legislation applies an even more moderate tool, since merely an ex post declaration shall be produced which is by definition incapable of restricting the movement of capital.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38
Annex I – point 38
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39
Annex I – point 39
(39) On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The Working Group also pointed out that a woman’s right to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such groups. On the other hand, the Working Party acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian Government to strengthening the reconciliation of work and family life by introducing generous provisions in family support system and in relation with early childhood education and care as well as further acknowledged the cooperation of the Hungarian Government with the international human rights mechanism and its engagement in frank and open dialogue.
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39
Annex I – point 39
(39) On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The Working Group also pointed out that aartificial confrontation of families and womaen’s right to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such groups is however extremely harmful, since establishing a family-friendly environment is necessary for the empowerment of women and their freedom of choice. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 40
Annex I – point 40
(40) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed regret that patriarchal stereotyped attitudes still prevail in Hungary with respect to the position of women in society, and noted with concern discriminatory comments made by political figures against women. It also noted that the Hungarian Criminal Code does not fully protect female victims of domestic violence. By contrast, Hungarian law provides a strong protection for women against violence; the legal definition of ‘violence committed in a relationship’ in the Criminal Code of Hungary covers a broader range of actions to be considered as abuse and since 2013 punishes these actions more severely than before and as of 1st January 2008 harassment constitutes a sui generis criminal act. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 41
Annex I – point 41
(41) On 27 April 2017, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on Hungary to correctly implement Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council3, given that Hungarian law provides an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex that is much broader than the exception provided by that Directive. On the same date, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Hungary for non- compliance with Directive 92/85/EEC of the Council4 that stated that employers have a duty to adapt working conditions for pregnant or breastfeeding workers to avoid a risk to their health or safety; however, the closure of the case is soon to be expected, since the amendments introduced by the Hungarian Government resolved all the disputed issues in question. The Fundamental Law of Hungary sets forth mandatory provisions for the protection of parents’ workplaces and for upholding the principle of equal treatment; consequently, there are special labour law rules for women and for mothers and fathers raising children. __________________ 3 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23). 4 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1).
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 41
Annex I – point 41
(41) On 27 April 2017, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on Hungary to correctly implement Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council3, given that Hungarian law provides an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex that is much broader than the exception provided by that Directive. On the same date, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Hungary for non- compliance with Directive 92/85/EEC of the Council4 that stated that employers have a duty to adapt working conditions for pregnant or breastfeeding workers to avoid a risk to their health or safety. therefore the Hungarian Government has committed itself to amend the necessary provisions of the Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities, as well as the Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code. __________________ 3 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23). 4 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1).
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 42
Annex I – point 42
(42) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the constitutional ban on discrimination does not explicitly list sexual orientation and gender identity among the grounds of discrimination and that its restrictive definition of family could give rise to discrimination as it does not encompass certain types of family arrangements, including same-sex couples. Against all of these, sexual orientation and gender identity fall under strict constitutional protection in Hungary, since the Fundamental Law contains an open list, which forbids discrimination based on ‘any other circumstances’ and the Hungarian Act on Equal Treatment explicitly forbids discrimination based on both grounds ever since 2004. The Committee was also concerned about acts of violence and the prevalence of negative stereotypes and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, particularly in the employment and education sectors. It also mentioned forced placement in medical institutions, isolation and forced treatment of large nuThe Hungarian Penal Code strictly punishes inciting violence or hatred against any members of persons with mental, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, as well as reported violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and allegations of a high number of na societal group and explicitly on the grounds of disability, gender identity or sexual orientation; this felon-y investigated deaths in closed institutions threatened with an imprisonment up to three years.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43
Annex I – point 43
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43
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. However, it was exactly the current Hungarian Government that initiated the amendment of the Penal Code in 2011 in order to prevent campaigns of extreme right paramilitary groups, by introducing the so called ‘crime in uniform’, threatening any provocative unsocial behaviour inducing fear in a member of a national, ethnic or religious community with three years of imprisonment. 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. While racism, xenophobia and intolerance are not any more prevalent in Hungary than in any other Member State, the Hungarian Act on Equal Opportunities provides an even stronger protection than the Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, since it extends its rules to cover all grounds of discrimination. According to the Action and Protection Foundation’s report (January-June 2017) the number of anti- Semitic actions in Hungary decreased compared to the number of the previous years. During the first half of 2017 the Foundation identified 18 anti-Semitic hate crimes, while in 2016 there were 23, in 2015’s first half there were 26 hate crimes action. It is also worth examining domestic data in an international comparison. Hungarian laws and legal norms identify the following five offenses related to hatred or incitement of hatred including anti-Semitic or Holocaust denying, denigrating acts: (1) violating the dignity of a member of a national, religious etc. community, as well as the dignity of a community itself (being also an aggravating circumstance if it serves a motive for another crime), (2) the denial or belittling in public of crimes committed by totalitarian (Nazi and Communist) regimes, punishable with up to 3 years of imprisonment (3) the use of totalitarian symbols in public, (4) establishing and running paramilitary groups or institutions, and (5) hate speech by MPs in the Parliament additionally sanctioned by the House Rules. Moreover, the rules of the Criminal Code have been tightened regarding “uniformed crime”. It was largely due to the Hungarian Government’s firm stance against anti- Semitism that by the unanimous decision of 31 countries, Hungary was awarded the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2015-2016 with a high international recognition of Jewish and non-Jewish organisations and personalities. As a result of the Hungarian Chairmanship’s year-long endeavours and lobbying in EU institutions, EU and IHRA member states, the EU’s new data protection draft legislation (GDPR) was amended in line with IHRA commitments.
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44
Annex I – point 44
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44
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. In this spirit, the Hungarian Government has taken several substantial measures to foster the inclusion of Roma ever since it took office in 2010; among others adopted the Job Protection Action Plan on 4th July 2012 to protect the employment of disadvantaged employees and foster the employment of the long-term unemployed; adopted the “Healthy Hungary 2014–2020” Healthcare Sectoral Strategy to reduce health inequalities; in 2014 adopted a strategy for the period of 2014 to 2020 for the treatment of slum-like housing in segregated settlements.
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44 a (new)
Annex I – point 44 a (new)
(44a) The Hungarian Government is deeply committed to achieve the integration of Roma people; the issue was put to the political agenda of the European Union as the initiative of the Hungarian presidency in the first half of 2011, by initiating the EU Framework Strategy on Roma inclusion, which was not only based on a human rights approach but also from the aspects of poverty and social inclusion, recognising that a complex approach is necessary for genuine solutions. Furthermore, the Hungarian Government in 2014 updated the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy, and established a three-year action plan for its implementation by designating responsible persons, deadlines and available funds.
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45
Annex I – point 45
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45
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 pendingContinuous consultations are in place for resolving practical issues in this regard, the Hungarian Government has taken several steps to solve these questions, also including fulfilling the decision of the ECtHR.
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45
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 pendingDespite the complexity of the issue in which one cannot expect quick and tangible results from day to day, the improving tendency in Hungary is evident.
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46
Annex I – point 46
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46
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. From the very beginning of the infringement procedure, the Hungarian Government actively conducted dialogues with the Commission, as a result of which the Hungarian Government amended the concerned legislation and took actions in order to ensure compliance with the legal obligations; Commissioner Věra Jourová has also confirmed that the amendments were adequate to remedy the Commission’s concerns.
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47
Annex I – point 47
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47
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, since the proposal for a law pronouncing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kampala amendments concerning Article 8 of said Statute is still in the process of being adopted by the Hungarian Parliament. Nevertheless, the Commission was notified about the proposed modifications in the legislation as well as the amendment of the Penal Code and the Director General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers notified Hungary that said modifications will align national legislation with the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA.
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47
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 pendingIn these cases however, the judgements had been formulated before the amendment of the Hungarian Penal Code with the purpose of implementing the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA; the modification of the fact pattern of the crime of ‘inciting violence or hatred against the community’ entered into force on 28th October 2016.
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48
Annex I – point 48
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48
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 letters to the Hungarian authorities expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma in Miskolc. governments of Albania, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Serbia and Sweden expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma. Based on the appeal of the government office in charge, the Supreme Court annulled the relevant articles in its decision of 28 April 282015 and the Equal Treatment Authority of Hungary also carried out an investigation and rendered a decision in July 2015, calling on the local government to cease all evictions and to develop an action plan on how to offer housing in accordance with human dignity. The action plan was adopted on 21April 2016 and in the meantime a social housing agency was also established and adequate housing was provided for Roma families. In its decision of 14 October 2016, the Equal Treatment Authority found that the municipality fulfilled its obligations.
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49
Annex I – point 49
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50
Annex I – point 50
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50
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 minoritiesDespite the sporadic occurrence of segregation of Roma children, like in several other Member States, Hungary has introduced convincing legal, fin 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 polancing and institutional measures and a number of government actions to facilitate access to quality education for Roma children. The Hungarian Inclusion Strategy for example focuses on promoting integrated education, reducing segregation, breaking the intergenerational transmission of disadvantages, and establishing an inclusive school environment. Furthermore, the Act on National Public Education was extended with additional guarantees as of January 2017, and the Hungarian Government initiated official audits in 2011-2015, followed by actions by government offices.
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53
Annex I – point 53
(53) On 12-16 June 2017, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees visited Serbia and two transit zones in Hungary. In his report, the Special Representative made several recommendations, including a call on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures, including by reviewing the relevant legislative framework and changing relevant practices, to ensure that all foreign nationals arriving at the border or who are on Hungarian territory are not deterred from making an application for international protection. On 5-7 July a delegation of the Council of Europe Lanzarote Committee (Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) also visited two transit zones and made a number of recommendations, including a call to treat all persons under the age of 18 years of age as children without discrimination on the ground of their age, to ensure that all children under Hungarian jurisdiction are protected against sexual exploitation and abuse, and to systematically place them in mainstream child protection institutions in order to prevent possible sexual exploitation or sexual abuse against them by adults and adolescents in the transit zones. However, relevant reports highlighted the fact that thousands of unaccompanied minors disappeared during their illegal journey towards the Western EU Member States, therefore the placement of minors between 14 and 18 years of age should be considered in line with their primary interest to avoid them being victims of human smuggling and human trafficking.
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54
Annex I – point 54
(54) In its judgment of 14 March 2017, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. The ECtHR also found that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia, as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of detention at the Röszke transit zone. The case is currently pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. It must be highlighted that the case raises serious issues of general importance affecting the interpretation and application of the Convention and the legal order of several High Contracting Parties, as well as poses serious social challenges, since the legal interpretation favouring asylum-shopping would pave the way for potential abuses with international protection and would adversely affect the merit of refugee status. It would further contradict the explicitly reiterated principles in the ECtHR’s legal practice recognising the right of states to control the entry and stay of aliens on their territories.
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55
Annex I – point 55
(55) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to move forward on the infringement procedure against Hungary concerning its asylum legislation by sending a reasoned opinion. The Commission considers that the Hungarian legislation does not comply with Union law, in particular Directives 2013/32/EU5, 2008/115/EC6 and 2013/33/EU7 of the European Parliament and of the Council and several provisions of the Charter, although a crisis situation caused by mass immigration is a circumstance in which Article 72 TFEU entitles Member States ‘to exercise the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security’ and the Asylum Procedures Directive enables Member States to determine the place for lodging the application for international protection in person. It must be underlined that applicants in Hungary cannot be considered to be in detention since everyone wishing to do so can leave the transit zone, only the admittance into the Schengen zone is not permitted until the necessary procedures are finished. __________________ 5 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 6 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98). 7 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96).
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56
Annex I – point 56
(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. Nevertheless, the term ‘transit zone’ defines solely the location rather than the type of the procedure and the asylum procedures conducted in the transit zones of Hungary are equally full value ‘in merit’ procedures. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push-backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the However, both the Asylum Procedure Directive (2013/32/EU) and the Reception Directive (2013/33/EU) allows Member States to require that applicants report to the competent authorities or to appear in front of them in person and the authorities may decide on their placke of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aidresidence.
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57
Annex I – point 57
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58
Annex I – point 58
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59
Annex I – point 59
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 61
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,
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
There is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1