174 Amendments of Kinga GÁL related to 2012/2130(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
– having regard to the Second Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 18 September 2012 in the form of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 29 October 2012, introducing the requirementpossibility of voter registration into the Fundamental Law,; and having regard to the Decision No 1/2013 of the Constitutional Court, which annulled the provision in respect of Hungarian citizens living in Hungary and uphold the possibility in respect of Hungarian citizens living abroad, having regard to the fact that the Parliament accepting the ruling of the Constitutional Court, as a proof of the functioning of checks and balances, withdrew the debated provision;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
Citation 17
– having regard to the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 8 February 2013 in the form of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 11 March 2013, which, among other provisions, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law the transitional provisions (with the exception of the provision requiring voter registration) annulls requested by the Constitutional Court of Hungary on 28 December 2012 on procedural grounds (Decision No 45/2012),
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)
Citation 17 a (new)
- having regard to the Part V of the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's Decision No 45/2012, which among other states, that "following the decision of the Constitutional Court, it is the task and the responsibility of the constituent power to clear up the situation after the partial annulment. The Parliament shall make an evident and clear legal situation. The Parliament shall revise the subject matters of the annulled non-transitional provisions and decide on which matters should be re-regulated and on which level of legal sources. That is also for the Parliament to decide on which provisions to be re-regulated should be incorporated into the Fundamental Law and which should be laid down on level of [ordinary or cardinal] Acts",
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 30
Citation 30
– having regard to the joint statement of 11 March 2013 by President Barroso and Secretary General Jagland recalling their concerns regarding the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law with respect to the principle of the rule of law; and having regard to the confirmation made by Prime Minister Orbán, in his letter addressed to President Barroso on 8 March 2013, of the full commitment of the Hungarian Government and Parliament to the European norms and values,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 35
Citation 35
– having regard to the statements by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of 15 February 2012 and of 11 December 2012 calling on Hungary, respectively, to reconsider legislation criminalizingon homelessness and to uphold the Constitutional Court's decision decriminalisingin this regard, and having regard to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that recognize the right to adequate housing and the commitment to provide access to housing for every homelessness person,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
– having regard to the ongoing infringement proceedings in Case C- 288/12 brought by the European Commission against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection authoritystill pending before the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 38
Citation 38
– having regard to the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 on the radical lowering of the retirement age for Hungarian judges, and having regard to the subsequent adoption of the Act No XX of 2013 amending the Act CLXII of 2011 - adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 11 March 2013 - to comply with the decision of the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41
Citation 41
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas respecting and promoting such common values is not only an essential element of the European Union's identity but also an explicit obligation deriving from Article 3(1) and (5) TEU, and therefore a sine qua non for becoming an EU Member State as well as for fully preserving membership prerogatives, the essential element of which are unfortunately not taken fully into account by several Member States, when concrete breaches of these values are identified;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and pursuant to Article 6 TEU, the Charter has the same legal value as the Trebecame legally binding and Member Staties, hence transforming values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights must ensure its full application when implementing EU law;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas according to Article 7(1) TEU grants the EU institutions the power to assess whethermay determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the commonby a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values; whereas before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the scope of Article 2 TEU is not restricted by the limCharter does not apply to every situation of Article 51(1) of the Charter and the scope of Article 7 TEU is not limited to the policy areas covered byan alleged violation of fundamental rights as according to Article 51(1) it applies to Member States only when they are implementing EU law, and whereas as a consequence the EU can also act in the event of a breach of, or a clears repeatedly stated by Vice-President Viviane Reding in the former replies to MEPs when raisk of a breach of, the common values in areas falling under Member State's competencing concrete breaches of fundamental rights in Member States;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas respect for the Union's common values goes hand in hand with the EU's commitment to diversity, translated into the obligation for the Union to respect ‘the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities’, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional' as stated in Article 4(2) TEU;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas Hungary is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international legal instruments obliging, it to respects and implements all its obligations under international law and international democratic principles;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)
Recital R a (new)
Ra. whereas in September 2006 following the leak of former Socialist Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech in which he confessed that during the electoral campaign the Socialist government forged data to hide the real economic situation of the country and said that they "were lying during morning, night and evening to win the elections" the EU did not taken any steps for intervention and whereas the left-wing block of the EP also blocked to raise the issue within the EP;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R b (new)
Recital R b (new)
Rb. whereas in September and October 2006 thousands of people were continuously protesting against the Socialist Government on the streets of Budapest which demonstrations were brutally repressed by the police; whereas masses of severe human rights violations took place against peaceful commemorators; innocent civilians and several journalists were beaten up, tortured and detained unlawfully by the police forces acting on the order of the government infringing the most fundamental rights and human dignity, and all acknowledged European values; and whereas in these cases the European Parliament remained silent;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R c (new)
Recital R c (new)
Rc. whereas incontestable evidence has been revealed during the investigation in the 'Portik-Laborc' case proving that during the Socialist government before 2010 the intelligence was in close contact and collaboration with most known actors of organized crime in Hungary, also aiming at discredit the FIDESZ being back then in opposition and to hinder its success in the upcoming 2010 election;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R d (new)
Recital R d (new)
Rd. whereas the 8 years of the disastrous economic governance of the Socialists and Liberals between 2002 and 2010 led to the raise of public debt of Hungary from 53 per cent to above 80 per cent of GDP and made Hungary the first EU country to ask for an IMF bailout in 2008 in the beginning of the economic crisis;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas following the 2010 general elections in Hungary the democratically elected governing majority gained more than two thirds of the seats in parliament, enabling it to rapidly initiate intens with a clear mandate to reform and change the non-functioning pillars of the system, enabling it to initiate legislative activity to reshape the whole constitutional order of the country (the Constitution has been amended twelve times and the Fundamental Law four times so far) and thus substantially modify theo improve its institutional framework as well as a number of fundamental aspects of public life;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the scale of the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unfull compliance with the applicable preocedented, andural requirements, explains why so many European institutions and organisations (the European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE) as well as the U.S. Administration have deemed it necessary to assess the impact of some reforms carried out in Hungary, wherea; whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States, thus the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need tthe same pattern should also be monitored, while enforcingotherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties, and whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States is not respected;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V – footnote 6
Recital V – footnote 6
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas a cooperative and open dialogue bhased on openness, inclusiveness, solidarity and mutual respect been continuously taking place between the European institutions and the Hungarian authorities is necessary in the framework of the abon all questions raised by the Commission and whereas Prime Minister Orbán repeatedly assured his openness towards constructive dialogue, as well as the full commitment of the Hungarian Gove-rnmentioned community of democratic values and Parliament to the European norms and values, among others also reassured in his letter addressed to President Barroso on 8 March 2013;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. whereas a need for a new constitution has been existed since the amendment of the communist 1949 Constitution in 1989, regarded as provisional; whereas the adoption of the Fundamental Law of Hungary – which was- passed on 18 April 2011, exclusively with the votes of the members of the governing coalition and on the basis of a draft text prepared by the representatives of the governing coalition – was conducted in the exceptionally short time frame of one month, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text; finalised after a one-year long preparatory phase and more than one month long parliamentary debate dedicated exclusively to the Constitution- making process, where two opposition parties, based on their own political decision, chose to stay away from the discussions at the parliamentary sessions and remained reluctant to formulate proposals;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Y. whereas the ‘'national consultation’' on the draft Fundamental Law only consisted of a list of twelve questions on very specific issues drafted by the governing party in a way that could have lead to self- evident replies and which, above all, did not include the text of the draft Fundamental Law so that the public was not in a position to submit its views thereonwith the aim of seeking the opinion of the citizens on a number of fundamental questions instead of commenting on the draft text itself;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Z
Recital Z
Z. whereas following a constitutional petition by the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, the Constitutional Court of Hungary annulled on 28 December 2012 (Decision No 45/2012) more than two thirds of the transitional provisions, on the grounds that they were not of a transitional natureformal reasons considering parts of these being non-transitional, stating that "it is a constitutional requirement that the Fundamental Law can only be modified or amended on the basis of Article S) of the Fundamental Law. The provisions modifying or amending the normative text of the Fundamental Law have to be built into the normative text of the Fundamental Law ("order of incorporation")";
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas, despitebecause of thate Decision, the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law all the transitional provisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulledmost of the transitional provisions;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AB
Recital AB
AB. whereas the use of cardinal laws in Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, whereas the previous Constitution contained 28 subject matters and the Fundamental Law of Hungary refers to 26 subject matters to be defin(more or less the same matters) to be regulated by cardinal laws (that is laws the adoption of which requires a two-thirds majority), which cover a wide range of issues relating to Hungary's institutional system, the exercise of fundamental rights and important arrangements in society; and whereas the use of two-thirds majority laws - or so called "organic act" - is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-thirds majority laws;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AC
Recital AC
AC. whereas since the adoption of the Fundamental Law the parliament has enacted 49 cardinal laws7 (in one and a half years)laws7 that contain provisions of cardinal law value, in many cases these being simple majority laws which contain only those few provisions requiring two- third majority which amend cardinal laws;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AD
Recital AD
AD. whereas a number of issues, such as specific aspects of family law and the tax and pension systems, which usually fall under the ordinary decision-making powers of a legislature, are regulated by cacardinal laws are subject to the control of Constitutional Court in the same manner as ordinalry laws;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 5
Heading I - Subheading 5
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
Recital AE
AE. whereas important legislation, including the Fundamental Law, its second and fourth amendments, the transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law and a number of cardinal laws were enacted on the basis of individual members' bills, to which the rules set out in Act CXXXI of 2010 on the participation of civil society in the preparation of legislation and in Decree 24/2011 of the Minister of Public Administration and Justice on preliminary and ex-post impact assessment do not apply, with the consequence that legislation adopted through this streamlined procedure is subject to a restricted public debatethe use of the individual members' bills procedure is in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AF
Recital AF
AF. whereas the adoption of a large number of cardinal laws in a very short time frame, including the acts on the legal status and remuneration of judges of Hungary and on the organisation and administration of courts of Hungary, as well as the acts on the freedom of religll the cardinal laws safeguarded all the legal requirements foreseen for adoption of such laws, when enacted on the basis of individual members' bills in full accordance with the procedural requirements to initiate legislation and onwith the National Bank of Hungary, inevitably restricted the possibilities for an adequate consultation of the opposition parties and the civil societylongstanding constitutional right of an individual MP right to submit bills to the Parliament;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 6
Heading I - Subheading 6
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG
Recital AG
AG. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related law1989 constitutional regime the newly established Hungarian Constitutional Court received the broadest possible powers thave been substantially limited to violations of an exhaustive list of rights, thus obstructing the review of constitutionality in cases of breaches of other fundamental rights, such as the right to propet can be delegated to a court of its kind, and whereas after twenty years of jurisprudence there was a broad consensus – even by members of the Court – that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be revised; and whereas in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courtys, the right to a fair trial and the right not to be discriminated against; which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG a (new)
Recital AG a (new)
AGa. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related laws are temporary in nature and limited in scope; and whereas the constitutional rules on the powers of the Constitutional Court regarding budget-related laws do not affect the right of the Constitutional Court regarding the unlimited ex ante review of all budget-related legislative acts, regarding the unlimited ex post review of all legal acts other than acts of Parliament (e.g. government decrees), regarding the full ex ante and ex post review of all budget-related legislative acts from a procedural point of view and regarding full ex ante and ex post review of all budget-related legislative acts with regard to their compliance with international treaty obligations;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG b (new)
Recital AG b (new)
AGb. whereas the Constitutional Court may ensure an effective fundamental rights protection even under the scope of restriction;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AH
Recital AH
AH. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law left untouched the already existing right ofintroduces for the first time an explicit reference enabling the Constitutional Court to review amendments to the Fundamental Law on procedural grounds, and whereas it excludes in the future the Court being able to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds; ; whereas the Constitutional Court never had competence to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds stated by the Constitutional Court in its interpretation several times; and whereas the assessment of the Venice Commission on the review of constitutional amendments by constitutional courts concludes that this is a rare feature of constitutional jurisdiction, and that "such a control cannot therefore be considered as a requirement of the rule of law" (paragraph 49 of Opinion No. 679/2012 on the Revision of the Constitution of Belgium); and whereas in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AI
Recital AI
AI. whereas the Constitutional Court, in its above-mentioned Decision 4561/2012,1 held that ‘Constitutional legality has not only procedural, formal and public law validity requirements, but also substantial ones. T"one of the most important arguments against the extension of the powers of the cConstitutional criteria of a democratic State under the rule of law are at the same timCourt to the review of the Constitution is that the cConstitutional values, principles and fundamental democratic freedoms enshrined in international treaties and accepted and acknowledged by communities of democratic States under the rule of law, as well as the ius cogens, which is partly the same as the foregoing. As appropriate, the Constitutional Court may even examine the free enforcement andCourt cannot create and cannot alter the Constitution which it is designed to protect and which it must apply as a yardstick in the course of the constitutional review of legislation. This is confirmed by the fact that, throughout its operation, the Constitutional Court has consistently refused to review the Constitution or its provisions. (...) Within the system of the division of powers, the power of the cConstitutionalisation of the substantial requirements, guarantees and values of democratic States under the rule of law.’ (Point IV.7 of the Decis Court, too, is a limited power. Following from this, the Constitutional Court will not draw the review the Constitution and new amendments to the Constitution within its competence without express authorisation in the Constitution);."
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ
Recital AJ
AJ. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law further stipulates that the rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted before the entry into force of the Fundamental Law shall be repealed, and reintroduces into the Fundamental Law a number of (just as it happened in Poland in 1997 when the new Constitution entered into force), and whereas it should be however emphasized that with this decision the Parliament made it clear that the Constitutional Court was not tied to its decisions adopted on the basis of the former Constitution and that it may come to the same conclusions as before, nor does this provisions previously annulled by the Constitutional Court8 ent the Constitutional Court from referring to its earlier decisions as they form part of the so-called historical constitution (constitutional traditions) of Hungary that is specifically recognised by the Fundamental Law as a source of interpretation; and whereas the Constitutional Court has exactly done this in its Decision 10/2013. (IV. 25.) or Resolution No. III/3440/2012, when referring to pre-existing Constitutional Court decisions;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AL
Recital AL
AL. whereas the new Freedom of Information Act, adopted in July 2011, reformed the data protection institution by estabolisheding the institutionNational Authority for Data Protection instead of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, thus prematurely terminating the six-year-long mandate of the Commissioner and transferring its powers to the newly-establishedtransferring its powers to the newly-established Authority with a new status which attaches legal consequences to its procedures; whereas in its Decision No. 3076/2013. the Constitutional Court confirmed that the restructuring of an organisation may be an explicit constitutional reason for the shortening of the mandate of civil servants; whereas the independence of the new National Agencuthority for Data Protection whose independence is currently under review by the Court of Justice of the European Unionhas not been questioned by the European Commission and as regards the independence of the Authority the Venice Commission acknowledged that it is far better ensured in Hungary than in many other European states; and whereas the European Commission initiated infringement procedure on the legality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data Protection, which case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
Recital AM
AM. whereas the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary on 8 June 2012, declaring that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC by removing the data protection supervisor from office before the end of the mandate, thus putting at risk the independence of the off; whereas the case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AN
Recital AN
AN. whereas, according to the Fundamental Law and its transitional provisions, the six-year-long mandate of the former President of the Supreme Court (renamed the ‘Kúria’) was prematurely ended after two yearswas ended after two years, as the position ceased to exist in its original form due to the complete restructuring of the judiciary and the changes in the functions of the president and the vice-president of the Kúria; and whereas in its Decision No. 3076/2013. the Constitutional Court held that such an institutional restructuring was a sufficient ground for the early termination of the office of the President, as well as in its Decision No. 45/2012 these rules have been recognised as real and valid transitional provisions; furthermore whereas the European Commission has opted not to initiate an infringement procedure on this issue;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
Recital AP
AP. whereas key safeguards for judicial independence, such as irremovability, guaranteed term of office, the structure and composition of the governing bodies, are not regulated in the Constitution but are – together with detailed rules on the organization and administration of the judiciary – still set out in the amended cardinal laws,; whereas it should be emphasized that the former Constitution did not contain more detailed rules on these issues either, and those have never been criticised; whereas, therefore thus the provisions of the Fundamental Law cannot be regarded as setbacks at any ways; and whereas in certain Member States the constitution does not refer to the judicial structure of the given country at all, or does not include any detailed regulation related to this (e.g. among others in Austria, France, Estonia, Finland or Germany);
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ
Recital AQ
AQ. whereas the independence ofFundamental Law defines the Constitutional Court ias not set forth in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and neither is the independencean autonomous organ regulated in a chapter separated from that of any other state organ; and whereas the Cardinal Act on Constitutional Court explicitly states that the Members of the aConstitutionomous administration of the judiciaryal Court are independent and only subordinated to law;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ a (new)
Recital AQ a (new)
AQa. whereas the respective Act on the judiciary states - and it also follows from the Fundamental Law - that due to the principle of lawful judge, no one can be deprived from his/her legal judge, thus the purpose of the rule on case-transfer is to guarantee the fundamental right to a decision within a reasonable time and to distribute the case-loads of courts evenly; and whereas the procedure of allocation of a case has to be initiated by the court in charge with sound justification and never initiated by the President of the National Judicial Office;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AR
Recital AR
AR. whereas the aaccording to the Fourth Amendment of the cardinFundamental lLaws on the judiciary as regards the power of the President of the National Judicial Office to transfer cases from the system of transfer of cases is being revised (Bill T/10593), and further constitutional guarantees were introduced: only groups of cases not individual cases may be transferred to other courts, the President of the National Judicial Office has no influence whatsoever on which court hears a given case, meaning the presiding court to another court to ensure the adjudicationgulation does not provide for the possibility of an ad hoc or ad personam appointment of the proceeding judge ofr cases within a reasonable periodhamber; whereas the details of timhe neither lays down objective criteria for the selection of the cases to be transferred nor entrusts the National Judicial Council with the mandate to adopt objective selection criteriaw mechanism were elaborated in consultation with the European Commission; and whereas the possibility of transfer of cases exists in the Netherlands as well regulated by the new Law on the Judiciary (Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie) that came into force on 1 January 2013;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AU
Recital AU
AU. whereas on 11 March 2013 the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act No XX of 2013 amending the upper age limits with a view to complying with the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court of 16 July 2012 and of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012; whereas, the Hungarian Government regularly informed the Commission on the developments; whereas in its letter to Vice-President Reding from 17 May 2013 Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics submitted all the data proving the execution of the CJEU judgement;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AV
Recital AV
AV. whereas as part of the recent electoral reform the Hungarian Parliament passed, on 26 November 2012, on the basis of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative, the Act on the election procedure, which aimed to replace the previous automatic voter registration of all citizens with residence in Hungary by a system of voluntary registration as a condition for exercising the individual's right to vote,
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AW
Recital AW
AW. whereas the Second Amendment of the Fundamental Law enshrining the requirement of voter registration was tabled as an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative on the same day as the draft law on the election procedure, namely on 18 September 2012, and was adopted on 29 October 2012,
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AX
Recital AX
AX. whereas, as a clear proof of functioning of checks and balances following the petition of the President of the Republic of 6 December 2012, the Constitutional Court established that the registration requirement represents an undue restriction on the voting rights of Hungarian residents, and is therefore unconstitutional, while considering voter registration for citizens residing abroad as justified; and whereas Parliament respecting the ruling of the Constitutional Court withdrew the debated provisions from the code on the electoral procedure;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AY
Recital AY
AY. whereas, while considering voter registration for citizens residing abroad as justified, the Constitutional Court in its decision of 4 January 2013 further held that exclusion of the possibility of personal registration of voters without an address liv the aim of rules on the political advertisements in the Fourth Amendment was to create truly equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media as well as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; whereas the Constitutional Court ing in Hungary is discriminatory ants above Decision held that the provisions allowing the publication of political advertisements only in the public media service during the electoral campaign, and the rules banning the publconstitute a disproportionate limitation of the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press; and whereas the electoral provisions have been revised in view of the Decision, thus the restrications ofn the publication of opinion polls within six days before the elections, disproportionally limithave been lifted and the rules of political advertisements have been amended as follows: internet, billboard, cinema, newspaper etc. advertisements will be unconstrained, and audio-visual advertising can only take place through the national media under pre-established, proportionate conditions, freedom of expression and freedom of the press,charge; whereas the consultations concerning the application of these rules are in progress with the European Commission;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BD
Recital BD
BD. whereas Member States have a duty to constantly promote and protect freedom of opinion, expression, information and the media, and whereas, should these freedoms be placed at serious risk or violated in a Member State, the Union is obliged to intervene in a timely and effective fashion,the Union may intervene on the basis of its competences as enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter, to protect the European democratic and pluralistic order and fundamental rights;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BF
Recital BF
BF. whereas criticism of a number of theseveral provisions of Hungarian Media lregisulation has been voiced by Parliament and the Commission, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of right to freedom of opinion and expression, and by a large number of international and national journalists' organisations, editors and publishers, NGOs active in the area of human rights and civil liberties, and Member States; whereas much of this criticism has subsequently turned out to be unfounded and unjustified;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BJ
Recital BJ
BJ. whereas the Commission has raised concerns regarding the conformity of the Hungarian media law with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the acquis communautaire in general, notably in relation to the obligation to offer balanced coverage applicable to all audiovisual media service providers, and has also questioned whether that law complies with the principle of proportionality and respects the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter, the country of origin principle and registration requirements, and whereas, in March 2011, following negotiations with the Commission, the Hungarian Parliament amended the law to address the points raised by the Commissionregulation according to the negotiation between the parties;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BK
Recital BK
BK. whereas the OSCE has expressed serious, in certain issues factually mistaken, reservations regarding the material and territorial scope of Hungarian legislation, the politically homogeneous composition of the Media Authority and Media Council, the disproportionate penalties imposed, the lack of an automatic procedure for suspending penalties in the event of an appeal to the courts against a Media Authority ruling, the violation of the principle of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the protection of family values;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BN
Recital BN
BN. whereas an analysis by Council of Europe experts11 (which assessed compliance of the Media Acts as proposed for amendment in 2012 with Council of Europe standard-setting texts in the field of media and freedom of expression) recommended that specific provisions on registration and transparency, content regulation, obligations on news coverage, protection of sources, public service media and regulatory bodies be thoroughly revised, clarified or in some cases eliminated; and whereas on the basis of this analysis and on the Decision No.165/2011 of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the Parliament, in July 2012, adopted the Act LXVI of 2012 amending the media legislation, which was prepared in consultation with the Council of Europe, establishing the procedural guarantees of the right to the protection of sources of information, narrowing the scope of the Press and Media Act as to press products, and creating a framework for the constitutional operation of the Media and Communications Commissioner;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BP
Recital BP
BP. whereas, further toas a result of the dialogue conducted with the EU and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe through an exchange of letters and expert meetings, further legal amendments were tabladopted ion February25 March 2013 by the Act XXXIII of 2013 in order to strengthen and guarantee the independence of the media regulatory bodies, notably in respect of the rules relating to the conditions of the appointment and elecPresident of the Media Authority, to preclude the possibility of re-appointment of the President of the Authority as well as of the re-election of the Members of the Media Council, to set out legal obligations to consult NGOs and to take their proposals into consideration ofin the President of the National Media and Infocommunicationsnomination procedure, to set higher professional requirements for the appointment of the President of the Authority and the Members of the Media Council, and concerning,to maintain only the requirement of 'balanced' coverage, while respectively, the nomination procedure, the person making the appointment and repeated appointmentaling the adjectives 'comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective' as suggested by the Council of Europe; and whereas all the above steps prove the constructiveness of the Hungarian government in considering the criticism and suggestions to the media regulation, as these amendments were favourably received and deemed to constitute appropriate guarantees by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ
Recital BQ
BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advertensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) on an equal basis and free of charge, and it does not affect at all political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); whereas similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy and was also recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in one of its recent judgments; and whereas the Hungarian Government is ing in the public media consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BR
Recital BR
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BS a (new)
Recital BS a (new)
BSa. whereas the Hungarian government adopted the Act CCIII of 2011 (currently Act XXXVI of 2013) on the elections of the Members of Parliament of Hungary, which allows minority representatives for the first time to gain a seat in the Parliament, thus finally assures the political representation of minorities, requested over almost for two decades; and whereas the adopted Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities recognises and guarantees rights to its thirteen recognised nationalities and their members in the main areas of interest for the protection of their identity - education, culture, private and public use of the mother tongue, access to media and participation - and aims to improve and strengthen the available institutional arrangements for nationality self- government in these areas; and whereas in its Opinion CDL-AD(2012)011 the Venice Commission confirms that "Hungary has continued to pay particular attention to the promotion and protection of minority rights and to make specific efforts to ensure protection and preservation of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity, traditions and cultural heritage of its nationalities";
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BT a (new)
Recital BT a (new)
BTa. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Hungarian Fundamental Law states that the right to freedom of speech may not be exercised with the aim of violating the human dignity of other people introducing the sanctioning of hate- speech in the highest level of legislation, welcomed by several minority organisations, and whereas this type of regulation exists in a very few other Member States;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BU
Recital BU
BU. whereas the lack and inadequacy of reaction by the law enforcement authorities during the previous government in cases of racially motivated crime12 - most notably in the case of the 2008-2009 'Roma killings', the most serious series of crime in Hungarian criminal history -, as well as in the case of violence against peaceful commemorators and innocent civilians by police forces in the autumn of 2006 acting on the orders of the government, infringing the most fundamental rights, human dignity and all acknowledged European values, has resulted in mistrust of the police forces;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BX
Recital BX
BX. whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Charter is one of the foundations of a democratic society, and w, and whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the reas the role of the State in this respect should be that of a neutral and impartial guarantor of the right to exercise various religions, faiths and beliefslation between the State and the churches belongs to the Member States' competence; thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France);
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BY
Recital BY
BY. whereas the Act on Churches established a new legal regime for the regulation of religious associations and churches in Hungary which imposed a set of requirementfreedom of religion is entirely ensured by the Fundamental Law (Article VII) stating that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to choose or change religion or any other persuasion, and the freedom for every person to proclaim, refrain from proclaiming, profess or teach his for ther recognition of churches and made such recognition conditional on prior apligion or any other persuasion by performing religious acts, ceremonies or in any other way, whether individually or jointly with others, in the public domain or in his or her proival by the parliament by a two-thirds majorityte life. (...) The Churches shall be autonomous and the State shall cooperate with the Churches for community goals";
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BZ
Recital BZ
BZ. whereas the obligation set out in the Act on Churches to obtain recognition by the parliament as a condition to establish a church was deemed by the Venice Commission13 to be a restriction ofOpinion No CDL- AD(2012)004 of the Venice Commission underlined that the Hungarian regulation in place „constitutes a liberal and generous framework for the freedom of religion.";
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BZ – footnote 13
Recital BZ – footnote 13
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital CA
Recital CA
CA. whereas as a result of the entry into force of retroactive provisions of the Act on Churches more than 300 registered churches lost their legal status of churchdue to the loopholes in the previous regulation more than 300 state- subsidised registered churches operated in Hungary (among others church of the UFO-believers, of witches, etc.) many of them misusing the offered benefits, not conducting religious activity; and whereas following the new regulations more than 30 are already granted a state-subsidised church status, these covering more than 90% of the Hungarian believers;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital CB
Recital CB
CB. whereas at the request of several religious communities and the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act on Churches and declared in its Decision 6/2013 of 26 February 2013 some of them unconstitutional and annulled them with retroactive effectspecific concerns raised by the Constitutional Court on the recognition of state subsidized churches have been addressed by Parliament under a new bill (No. T/10750) amending the Act on Churches, according to which the proposed new legislation sets out clear conditions for recognition as a state subsidized church, contains an obligation for detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses church status, specifies deadlines for the procedure of recognition and ensures the possibility of legal remedy at the Constitutional Court in cases of refusal or lack of a decision. Any religious community can freely use the denomination "church";
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital CC
Recital CC
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital CD
Recital CD
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic procthe "Union is founded on the valuess of enacting laws, and for a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition are key elements of the concepts of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and proclaimed in the Preambles to both the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter,respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the process of drafting andTakes note that the adoptingon of the Fundamental Law of Hungary lacked the transparency, openness, inclusiveness and ultimatwas finalised after a one-year long preparatory phase and more than one month long parliamentary debate dedicated exclusively to the cConsensual basis that could be expected in a modern democratic constituent process, thus weakening the legitimtitution- making process, where two opposition parties, based on their own political decision, chose to stay away from the discussions at the parliamentary sessions and remained reluctant to formulate proposals, as well as that 'national consultation' took placye ofn the draft Fundamental Law itself,;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring that the Hungarian Parliament exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted"it is the task and the responsibility of the constituent power to clear up the situation after the partial annulment. The Parliament shall make an evident and clear legal situation. The Parliament shall revise the subject matters of the a nnumber of lled non-transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law containing permanent and general rules,and decide on which matters should be re-regulated and on which level of legal sources. That is also for the Parliament to decide on which provisions to be re-regulated should be incorporated into the Fundamental Law and which should be laid down on level of [ordinary or cardinal] Acts";
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that in its above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012, the Constitutional Court gave a clear ruling on both substantive and procedural standards of constitutionality by declaring that: 'In democratic States under the rule of law, constitutions have constant substantial and procedural standards and requirements. The substantial and procedural constitutional requirements shall not be set lower in the era of the Fundamental Law than they were at the time of the Constitution (Act). The requirements of a constitutional State under the rule of law continue to be constantly enforced requirements in the present and they are programs for the future. The constitutional State under the rule of law is a system of constant values, principles and guarantees‘14 '; considers such a clear-cut and dignified statement to be valid for the European Union and all its Member States;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the common values of the Union of democracy and the rule of law require a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition and that according to Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR elections should guarantee the 'expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislator‘', which is the very case in Hungary;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the extensive use of cardinal laws to regulate areas that are covered by oin Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, the number of areas subject to cardinaryl laws in most Member States or to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new electionhas more or less remained steady since then and has never been a source of criticism so far, not even during the accession negotiations, and not even when the socialist-liberal coalition between 1994-1998 governed with two- thirds majority amending a great number of cardinal acts at will, therefore challenging solely the current Hungarian government is politically biased; and underlines that use of two-third majority laws is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-third majority laws;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable andis in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process, as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Lawnobody more accountable than a Member of Parliament who may be dismissed by the electors at the next elections. Denying this right of the members of Parliament with reference to the democratic values common to EU member States would lead us to a conclusion that democratically elected MPs cannot exercise their representative roles;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. SharUnderlines the opinion of the Venice Commission (No CDL-AD(2012)01)016), according to which the adoption of a large amount of legislation in a very short time frame could explain why some of the new provisions do not comply with European standards; which "welcomes the fact that this new Constitution establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles. It notes that constitutions of other European States, such as Poland, Finland, Switzerland or Austria, have been used as a source of inspiration. A particular effort has been made to follow closely the technique and the contents of the ECHR and to some extent the EU Charter.";
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the limitation of constitutional jurisdiction relating to the laws on the central budget and taxes is in contradiction with the requirements of democracy, the rule of law and the principle of judicial review, as it weakens the institutional and procedural guarantees for the protection of a number of constitutional rights and for controlling the parliament's and the government's powers in the budgetary fielcontrol of central budget by constitutional courts is not a common European standard;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Takes note that in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal; and takes note that in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courts, which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that as declared by the Constitutional Court in its Decision No 45/2012, 'Constitutional legality has not only procedural, formal and public law validity requirements, but also substantial ones [...]. As appropriate, the Constitutional Court may even examine the free enforcement and the constitutionalisation of the substantial requirements, guarantees and values of democratic States under the rule of law‘;'; also recalls the Constitutional Court's Decision 61/2011 stating "one of the most important arguments against the extension of the powers of the Constitutional Court to the review of the Constitution is that the Constitutional Court cannot create and cannot alter the Constitution which it is designed to protect and which it must apply as a yardstick in the course of the constitutional review of legislation. This is confirmed by the fact that, throughout its operation, the Constitutional Court has consistently refused to review the Constitution or its provisions. (...) Within the system of the division of powers, the power of the Constitutional Court, too, is a limited power. Following from this, the Constitutional Court will not draw the review the Constitution and new amendments to the Constitution within its competence without express authorisation in the Constitution."
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely undermineUnderlines that according to rule of law a democratically elected Parliament has the right and duty to adopt the Constitution and Laws, and the Constitutional Court has the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning systemght and duty to safeguard the compatibility of cthecks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law laws with the Constitution;
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is also extremely concerned about those provisions of the Fourth Amendment which repeal 20 years of constitutional jurisprudence, containing an entire system of founding principles and constitutional requirements, including any potential case-law affecting the application of EU law and of European human rights lawTakes note that all effects of the 20 years of constitutional jurisprudence are still valid, there is no objection for the Court to arrive to the same conclusions, and takes note that the Court already used its previous decisions as a source of interpretation;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is also concerned aboutTakes note of the ongoing dialogue between the Hungarian government and European Commission on the conformity with EU law of the provision of the Fourth Amendment which enables the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Criticises the accelerated process of enacting important laws as it underminesTakes note that the rights of the opposition parties to be effectively involvis ensured inby the legislative process, thus limiting their scrutiny of the majority's and the governrules of procedure of Hungarian Parliament and the adoption of all laws were in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirement's action and ultimately negatively affecting the system of checks and balancend part of the democratic legislative process;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that protection against removal from office during the term of office is an essential element of the requirement of the independence of national data protection authorities under EU law; Takes note that in the Hungarian case removal from office was due to the reform of the data protection institution, by establishing the National Authority for Data Protection instead of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and by transferring its powers to the newly-established Authority, with a new status which attaches legal consequences to its procedures;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the factTakes note that the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection supervisor, which case is currently pending at the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. DeploreUnderlines that the National Authority for Data Protection is entrusted with a more extensive supervision and intervention powers thatn the above-mentionedCommissioner has been: on the one hand it is provided with the investitutional changes resulted in a clear weakening of the systems of checks and balances required by the rule of law and the democratic principlgative powers necessary to carry out its tasks (the right of access to contentious data, the right to conduct interrogations), and on the other hand it is entitled to initiate legal proceedings; underlines furthermore that the Venice Commission acknowledged that the protection of data is far better ensured in Hungary thanks to the Agency than in many other European states, as stated in its Opinion (CDL-AD(2012)023) "the current version of the Act includes particularly detailed provisions aiming at guaranteeing – directly and, in most cases, indirectly – the Authority's independence. It is worth saying that some of the separation of powers guarantees may not always be found in corresponding legislation of other European countries.";
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Regrets thatTakes note that as a result of the numerous measures adopted – as well as some on-going reforms – do not providthere are sufficient assurances of constitutional safeguards as to the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Constitutional Court ofin the Hungaryian legislation;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the premature termination of the term of office of the Supreme Court's President did not violates the guarantee of security of tenure, which is a key element of the independence of the judiciaryas - according to the Decision No 3076/2013 of the Constitutional Court - the previously detailed institutional restructuring was a sufficient ground for the early termination of the office of the President; and underlines that the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court should be respected by the European actors in line with the spirit of respect of democracy and rule of law; finally notes that the European Commission has opted not to initiate an infringement procedure on this issue;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Welcomes the above-mentionedTakes note of the Decision No 33/2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring the compulsory termination of the service of judges at the age of 62 unconstitutional, as well as the above-mentioned d proof of the functioning of checks and balances, as well as the Decision of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 November 2012, which held that the radical lowering of the retirement age of judges in Hungary constitutes unjustified discrimination on grounds of age and is therefore in breach of Council Directive 2000/78/EC;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Regrets, however, that not allWelcomes that most of the recommendations of the Venice Commission have been implemented, in particular as regards the need to limit discretionary powers of the President of the National Judicial Office regarding the system and independence of judiciary; as regards those recommendation s which affect the transfer of cases, according to the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law the system of transfer of cases is being revised (Bill T/10593), and further constitutional guarantees were introduced: only groups of cases not individual cases may be transferred to other courts, the President of the NJO has no influence whatsoever on which court hears a given case, meaning the context of the transferregulation does not provide for the possibility of an ad hoc or ad personam appointment of the proceeding judge ofr cases, which potentially affect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge; hamber; and welcomes that the details of the new mechanism were elaborated in consultation with the European Commission; takes note that similar transfer of certain categories of cases exists in the Netherlands;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Takes note of the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics on 3 March 2013 on the visit of the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Dean Spielmann to the Hungarian Parliament, that the transfer of cases is only a short term solution and is needed in order to reduce the workload and fasten the decision-making process of the courts of the capital region, thus improving the efficiency of the judicial system as a whole; furthermore takes note of the fact underlined by Dean Spielmann that 75% of the Hungarian cases at the European Court of Human Rights are in connection with the delay of the court decisions;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Regrets, however, that as regards presiding judges, Act XX of 2013 provides for their reinstatement in their original executive posts only if these judicial positions are still vacant, with the consequence that not all unlawfully dismissed judges are guaranteed to be reinstated in exactly the same position with the same duties and responsibilities they were holding before their dismissalTakes note that the Act XX of 2013 complies with the decision of the European Court of Justice and that the Hungarian Government regularly informed the Commission on the developments; and takes note of the letter of Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics to Vice-President Reding from 17 May 2013 on the execution of the ECJ judgement;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a permanent scoreboard on justice in all 27 EU Member States as put forward by Vice-President Reding, which shows that safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is a general concern of the EU; underlines that in several Member States serious concerns might be raised on these issues;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Acknowledges the efforts of the Hungarian authorities that led to legislative changes aimed at addressing a number of the shortcominginaccuracies identified in the field of media regulation in order to improve media legislation and to bring it into line with the further requirements communicated by the EU and the Council of Europe standards;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Welcomes the continued constructive dialogue with international actors and stresses that the fruitful cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Hungarian Government bore tangible results, as reflected in Act XXXIII of 2013, which addresses several concerns previously highlighted in the legal assessments of media legislation, notably in relation to the appointment and election procedures ofor the presidents of the Media Authority and the Media Council;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Expresses concern at the effects of the proTakes note that the Fourth Amendment ensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) of the Fourth Amendment banning political advertising in the commercialn an equal basis and free of charge with the aim to create equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media, as although the announced aim of this provision is to reduce political campaign costs and create equal opportunities for the parties, it jeopardises the provision of balanced informationwell as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; this does not at all affect political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); takes note that the Hungarian Government is in consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising; underlines that a similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Reiterates its call on the Hungarian authorities to take action in order to make or commission pro-active regular assessments on the impact of the legislation on the media environment (reduction of the quality of journalism, instances of self-censorship, restriction of editorial freedom and erosion of the quality of working conditions and job security for journalists)Stresses that the previous concerns related to the market entry of media services and press products, according to which the prior licensing procedure of the authorities implied an unjustified restriction of the freedom of the press, have subsequently proved to be unfounded opinions;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores that the creation of the state- owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) as the single news provider for public service broadcasters, while all major private broadcasters are expected to have their own news service, has meant it has a virtual monopoly on the market, as most of its news items arUnderlines that Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting in a way they deem appropriate while preserving media pluralism, in line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the fTreely available; recalls the recommendation of the Council of Europe to eliminate the obligation on public broadcasters to use the national news agency as it constitutes an unreasonable and unfair restriction on the plurality of news provisionaty; takes note of the recent statement of the European Commission with regard to the French media bill that the Commission in no way intends to comment on and evaluate draft national laws;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Acknowledges that, contrary to the previous criticisms, during the application of the legal regulations in the interest of the full achievement of the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, the law enforcement bodies only resort to restrictions when absolutely necessary (e.g. a violation of the dignity of minorities) in the event of a conflict with other fundamental rights;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Is concerUnderlineds that public service broadcasting is controlled by an extremely centralised institutional system which takes the real operational decisions without publin line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the Treaty (on the System of the Public Broadcasting in the Members States) the system of the public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, scrutiny; underlines that biased and opaque tendering practices and the biased information ofocial and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism, and Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting reaching a wide audience distort the media marketay they deem appropriate;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech; points out, however, that legislation on its own cannotconsiders that the adopted legislative measures are the most important starting point to achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe, as concrete measures can only be built upon firm legislation;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. UWelcomes the adoption the Act CCIII of 2011 (currently Act XXXVI of 2013) on the elections of the Members of Parliament of Hungary enabling minority representation and the Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities, as well as the firm stance and zero tolerance of the Hungarian government against any racist incidents, against all form of intolerance and positive steps taken - such as criminalising Holocaust-denial, establishing the Holocaust Remembrance Day, introducing Roma and Jewish history in national curricula or dedicating 2014 as the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial Year - which further strengthen the system of minority protection in Hungary, and which could serve as a model for many other Member States within the EU; underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and cannot remain neutral when faced with such violations;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Notes with concern that the modifications introduced in the Fundamental Law by the Fourth Amendment attribute to the parliament the power to recognise, by way of cardinal laws and without the constitthat according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the relation between state and churches belongs solely to the Member States' competence, thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France); takes note that the freedom of religion is entirely ensured by the Fundamental Law (Article VII) stating that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to choose or change religion or any other persuasion, and the freedom for every person to proclaim, refrain from proclaiming, profess or teach his or her religion or any other persuasion by performing religious acts, ceremonies or in any other way, whether individually or jointly with others, in the public domain or in his or her private life. (...) The Churches shall be autional duty to justify a refusal of recognition, certain organisations engaged in religious activities as churches, which might negatively affect the duty of the State to remain neutral and impartial in its relations with the variousomous and the State shall cooperate with the Churches for community goals"; takes note that the specific concerns raised by the Constitutional Court on the recognition of state subsidized churches have been addressed by Parliament under a new bill (No. T/10750) amending the Act on Churches, according to which the proposed new legislation sets out clear conditions for recognition as a state subsidized church, contains an obligation for detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses church status, specifies deadlines for the procedure of recognition and ensures the possibility of legal remedy at the Constitutional Court in cases of refusal or lack of a decision. Any religionus and beliefs; community can freely use the denomination "church";
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Concludes – for the reasons explained above –that the major constitutional reform has been completed during 2011-2012, thatus the re is no "systemic and general trend of repeatedly" for modifying the constitutional and legal framework in very short time frames, and the content of such modifications, aresystem; takes note of the currently ongoing "fine-tuning of a system" regarding amendments of legislation mainly as a result of the activity of the Constitutional Court, which proves the well-functioning of the checks and balances in Hungary; the pure fact of changing and adopting of laws can not be considered as incompatible with the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6 TEU and deviate from the principles referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3 TEU; considers that - unless corrected in a timely and sufficient manner - this trend will of the Treaties; it is of the opinion that it is for the European Commission to identify instances of incompatibility with EU law and for the European Court of Justice to adjudicate any such case; where sultch in a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEUcompatibility was identified the correcting measures were immediately adopted by the Hungarian government;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Objects the use of double standards in the treatment of a Member States; stresses that same situations, legal provisions should be treated similarly, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. ReaffirmsTakes note of the fact that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democalthough several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rightsir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘Union of Democracy’, based upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail; and stresses that the freely elected Parliaments are excepted as basic elements of democracy;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Regrets that the numerous human rights association, NGOs and research institutes, who issued documents analysing the Hungarian situation and legislative changes, fail to provide factually correct information, furthermore regrets that the assessments of international organisations are often based on unfounded press information;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Expects all Member States to take the necessary steps, particularly within the Council of the European Union, to contribute loyally to the promotion of the Union's values and to cooperate with Parliament and the Commission in monitoring their observance, especially in the framework of the ‘Article 2 Trilogue’ referred to in paragraph 76;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Considers that the European Council cannot remain inactive in cases where one of the Member States is faced with changes that may negatively affect thebreaches the concrete fundamental rights or rule of law in that country, and therefore the rule of law in the European Union at large, in particular when mutual trust in the legal system and judicial cooperation may be put at risks it affects negatively the European Union; stresses furthermore that the European Council cannot use double standards when looking at Member States and its infringements;
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 60 – indent 2 a (new)
- to launch objective investigation and start infringement proceeding if well grounded - without applying double standards -, whenever a Member State violates the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when implementing EU legislation;
Amendment 360 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
– to focus not only on specific infringements of EU law to be remedied notably through Article 258 TFEU, but to draw the consequences of a systemic change of the constitutional and legal system of a Member State where multiple and recurrent infringements unfortunately result in a state of legal uncertainty which not longer meets the requirements of Article 2 TEUas this is what is in its mandate under the Treaty;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
– to adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing any potential risks of serious breach of fundamental values in a given Member State at an early stage and immediately to engage in a structured political dialogue with the relevant Member State and the other EU institutions without applying double standards; this structured political dialogue should be coordinated at the highest political level of the Commission and have a clear impact on the full spectrum of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State concerned in the various EU fields;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8
Paragraph 60 – indent 8
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
– to regularly monitor the correct functioning of the European area of justice and to take action when the independence of the judiciary is put at risk in any Member State without applying double standards, with a view to avoiding the weakening of mutual trust between national judicial authorities, which would inevitably create obstacles to the correct application of the EU instruments on mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation;
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
– to ensure that Member States guarantee correct implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to media pluralism and equal access to information, when these effect EU-law;
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
– to address the issue ofparticipate cooperatively in the ongoing dialogue with the Hungarian government on the conformity with EU law of the new provision of the Fourth Amendment enabling the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product, and to suggest adequate measures to prevent what may result in a breach of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.;
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
61. Urges the Hungarian authorities to implement the following recommendations without any further delay, with a view to fully restoring the rule of law and its key requirements Stresses that it has no mandate to make recommendations to the Hungarian authorities; repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, the constitutional setting, the system of checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:o follow up the issue of whether and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"
Amendment 387 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 1
Paragraph 61 – subheading 1
Amendment 391 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 1
Paragraph 61 – indent 1
Amendment 396 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2
Paragraph 61 – indent 2
Amendment 400 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 3
Paragraph 61 – indent 3
Amendment 405 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 2
Paragraph 61 – subheading 2
Amendment 409 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4
Paragraph 61 – indent 4
Amendment 415 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 5
Paragraph 61 – indent 5
Amendment 420 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 6
Paragraph 61 – indent 6
Amendment 424 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 6 – footnote 16
Paragraph 61 – indent 6 – footnote 16
Amendment 425 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 7
Paragraph 61 – indent 7
Amendment 428 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 8
Paragraph 61 – indent 8
Amendment 431 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 3
Paragraph 61 – subheading 3
Amendment 434 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 9
Paragraph 61 – indent 9
Amendment 438 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 10
Paragraph 61 – indent 10
Amendment 441 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 11
Paragraph 61 – indent 11
Amendment 444 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12
Paragraph 61 – indent 12
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 4
Paragraph 61 – subheading 4
Amendment 453 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 13
Paragraph 61 – indent 13
Amendment 456 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 14
Paragraph 61 – indent 14
Amendment 459 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 15
Paragraph 61 – indent 15
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 16
Paragraph 61 – indent 16
Amendment 466 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 17
Paragraph 61 – indent 17
Amendment 470 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 18
Paragraph 61 – indent 18
Amendment 473 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 19
Paragraph 61 – indent 19
Amendment 476 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5
Amendment 481 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
Amendment 492 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 6
Paragraph 61 – subheading 6
Amendment 496 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 21
Paragraph 61 – indent 21
Amendment 501 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63
Paragraph 63
63. Firmly requests that Member States be regularly assessed on their continued compliance with the fundamental values of the Union and the requirements of democracy and the rule of law without pointing at a single Member State and not dealing with the others where similar concerns could be raised; firmly requests furthermore that similar situations in Member States should be monitored along the same pattern, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
Amendment 503 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Calls for closer cooperation between Union institutions and other international bodies, particularly with the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, and for use to be made of their expertise in upholding the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law; stresses however that the Venice Commission is a consultative body of the Council of Europe submitting recommendations to the Council of Europe Member States, which recommendations were not compulsory on those Member States so far;
Amendment 504 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
Amendment 505 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Calls on all EU institutions to launch a joint reflection and debate – as also requested by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and Finland in their above-mentioned letter to Commission President – on how to equip the Union with the necessary tools for it to fulfil its Treaty obligations on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, while avoiding any risks of applying double standards between its Member Statestowards its Member States otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
Amendment 506 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
Amendment 509 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
Amendment 513 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Reiterates that, in any case, this new mechanism has to all kinds of mechanism of the European Union which relates to monitoring of Member States should be independent from political influence, swift and effective;
Amendment 519 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
Amendment 525 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
Amendment 527 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading IV
Heading IV
Amendment 530 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
Amendment 543 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
Amendment 549 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Parliament, President and Government of Hungary, to the Presidents of the Constitutional Court and the Kúria, to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the Fundamental Rights Agency, and the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the U.S. Secretary of State.;