111 Amendments of Kinga GÁL related to 2017/2131(INL)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
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 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas despite repeated calls from Parliament on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that Union values are fully respected in Hungary, the situation has not been addressed and mHungary has always been ready for dialogue at all levels to discuss the legality of any specific measure and respond to any concerns remain;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution taken together representare specific policy issues, the majority of which have either already been satisfactorily concluded or are currently being discussed in the course of regular dialogues between Hungarian authorities and relevant EU or international bodies. These specific individual concerns are unrelated to the fulfilment of fundamental European values and the principles of rule of law and thus fall short of representing a systemic threat to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and by no means constitute a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 31 #
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 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3
Annex I – point 3
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 5
Annex I – point 5
(5) A wide range of actors at the national, European and international level, have repeatedly expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary, including the institutions and bodies of the Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations (UN), as well as numerous civil society organisations, but these are to be considered legally non-binding opinions, since only the Court of Justice of the European Union may interpret the provisions of the Treaties.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6
Annex I – point 6
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6
Annex I – point 6
(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times, predominantly following the suggestions of the Venice Commission and the European Commission.. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The Venice Commission welcomed in its opinion that the Fundamental Law establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles, as well as acknowledged the efforts to establish a constitutional order in line with the common European democratic values and standards, and to regulate fundamental rights and freedoms in compliance with binding international instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances, despite the fact that an ad hoc parliamentary committee of 45 members, representing all parliamentary parties was established for the necessary political debate concerning the Fundamental Law, and a national consultative body was also set up in January 2011, followed by a large scale public survey on the draft based on a questionnaire of 12 questions. Furthermore, several public debates were organized on the values and aims of the Fundamental Law, with the involvement of universities, churches and the civil society, as a result of which almost a million citizens expressed their opinion on the draft constitution.
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7
Annex I – point 7
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7
Annex I – point 7
(7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were prestricterved and broadened 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 2012especially in terms of the scope of the right to initiate ex ante legality review of legislative drafts and by reinforcing its competence and gaining practical competences for ex post legality review. The abolition of the actio popularis was explicitly requested by the Constitutional Court of Hungary itself and the limitation on the Court’s abils regarding the review of constitutional amendments is also in line wityh to reviewhe position of the cConstitutional Court which explicitly of any changes to the Fuconfirmed in its case-law that the Court had no competence to review the substance of such amendamental Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed sers, as it is itself subordinate to the constitution and cannot review the constitution. In its Opinions the Venice Commission also identified a number of positive elements of the reforms, such as provisiouns concerns about those lim budgetary guarantees, the fact that the Hungarian authorities have taken up the Commission’s suggestion to rule out the re-election of Constitautions and about the procedureal Court Judges; it appreciated that the Act provides for a time limit for the appointment of new judges, and made in order to ensure commendations to the Hungntinuity, functional immunity of the judges, as well as that there is a provision on the extension of the mandate of the incumbent member in case the Parlian 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. ment fails to elect a new member to the Constitutional Court within the time- limit. Rules on the ex post review of legal acts were warmly welcomed by the Venice Commission. Provisions on access to the Constitutional Court out of time in exceptional circumstances were also considered as positive elements. Although no statutory changes were made following the opinion of the Venice Commission on the possibility for the Constitutional Court to refer back to its case law, the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in a decision taken in 2013, stated that it was possible to refer back to the substance of its case law created under the former constitution and has indeed done so in a number of its recent decisions.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8
Annex I – point 8
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8
Annex I – point 8
(8) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the current constitutional complaint procedure affords more limited access to the Constitutional Court, does not provide for a time limit for the exercise of constitutional review and does not have a suspensive effect on challenged legislation. It also mentioned that the provisions of the new Constitutional Court Act weaken the security of tenure of judges and increase the influence of the government over the composition and operationn reality however, following the abolishment of the actio popularis in line with the explicit request of Constitutional Court of Hungary, the introduction of a truly effective constitutional complaint has considerably increased the competences of the Constitutional Court by, since it changing the judicial appointments procedure, the number of judges in the Court and their retirement age. The Committee was also concerned about the limitation of the Constitutional Court’s competence and powers to review legislation impinging on budgetary matters exercise constitutional control over the whole of the judiciary and is able to annul any court judgment in the case of its unconstitutionality.
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9
Annex I – point 9
Amendment 50 #
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 concludstated 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 EHowever, on the other hand, the preliminary findings and conclusions of the OSCE also noted within the context of the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections that fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, the campaign was animated, media coverage was extensive, voters had a wide range of political options, the public broadcaster fulfilled its mandate to provide free airtime to contestants, online media provided a platform for pluralistic, issue-oriented political debate. The OSCE also added that the electoral legal framework formed an adequate basis for democratic elections, the right to seek an effective remedy for electoral violations was inclusive and generally respected, and the election administration fulfilled its mandate in a professional and transparent manner and enjoyed overall confidence among stakeholders. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. 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 identified the delineation of single-member constituencies as positive change, in line with international standards and good practice that as required by the Constitutional Court, electoral constituencies are less unequal than previously, when the differences violated the constitutional principles. It was considered as an element that might improve the administration of elections.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10
Annex I – point 10
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10
Annex I – point 10
(10) In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultation in line with the principle of democracy, providing an opportunity for the people to voice their opinions on certain priority issues. The national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several questions regarding issues that significantly affect the life of the Hungarian people, such as migration policy, energy prices, tax- and labour policies or the transparency of civil society organizations supported from abroad. The Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultations and is so far only Member State of the EU which was ready to ask its citizens on how to cope with the migration crisis.
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11
Annex I – point 11
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11
Annex I – point 11
(11) As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, the administration of courts became more centralised and the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, even though the Commission’s last communication on the EU Justice Scoreboard of 11th April 2017 clearly shows that the Hungarian justice system performs above or well above the EU average in terms of independence, quality and efficiency. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJO, as result of which the competences of the National Judicial Council and the competences of the president of the National Judicial Office have been properly balanced for a year, so the case is closed and has no connection whatsoever to issues related to the fundamental values of the EU.
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12
Annex I – point 12
Amendment 66 #
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. 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 70 #
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 InstituteThe Commission continuously monitored the implementation of the new Hungarian law on retirement and on 20th November 2013 acknowledged the measures of Hungary to make its retirement law compatible with EU law; the Commission was further stated that a majority of the removed judges did not return to their original posiisfied with the implemented remedies concerning the affected judges, prosecutors and public notaries, including the right of reinstatement without judicial procedure, and the right to compensations. __________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2012, Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687.
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14
Annex I – point 14
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14
Annex I – point 14
(14) In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Gaszsó v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The ECtHR came to the conclusion that the violations originated in a practice which consisted in Hungary’s recurrent failure to ensure that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations are completed within a reasonable time and to take measures enabling applicants to claim redress for excessively long civil proceedings at a domestic level. The execution of that judgment is still pending. new Code of Civil Procedure of Hungary adopted in 2016 provides for the acceleration of civil proceedings and the new Code of Criminal Proceedings contributes to the expediency and effectiveness of proceedings. Hungary has duly informed the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that the new law creating an effective remedy for prolonged procedures will be adopted by October 2018.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15
Annex I – point 15
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15
Annex I – point 15
(15) In its judgment of 23 June 2016, Baka v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the right of access to a court and the freedom of expression of András Baka, who had been elected as President of the Supreme Court for a six-year term in June 2009, but ceased to have this position in accordance with the transitional provisions in the Fundamental Law, providing that the Curia would be the legal successor to the Supreme Court. The execution of that judgment is stNo further general measures were found necessary apart from the necessarilly pending because the Hungarian Government denies the fact that there is a need to take measures to prevent further premature removals of judges on similar grounds, safrovided restitutio in integrum – since the violation found by the Court resulted from a one-time constitutional reform of the Hungarian judicial system – and the general measures solicited by the Committee of Ministers’ decision of 10th March 2017 are not related to the implementation of the judgment since the existence of related guarantees (reguarding any abuse in this regardll Hungarian judges except the president of the Supreme Court) has never been called into question by the Court.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 16
Annex I – point 16
(16) On 29 September 2008, Mr András Jóri was appointed Data Protection Supervisor for a term of six years. However, with effect from 1 January 2012, the Hungarian Parliament decided to reform the data protection system and replace the Supervisor with a national authority for data protection and freedom of information. Mr Jóri had to vacate office before his full term had expired. On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice held that the independence of supervisory authorities necessarily includes the obligation to allow them to serve their full term of office and that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2. Hungary amended the rules on the appointment of the president of the Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, based on the suggestions of the European Commission, presented an apology by sending a ministerial letter to András Jóri, issued a public notice to András Jóri and to the Hungarian news agency, as well as paid the agreed sum of compensation. Mr Jóri considered the material and moral compensation as fair and accepted it voluntarily, furthermore he declared that he had no more claims and so the case was closed in a mutually satisfactory manner. __________________ 2 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995 P. 31).
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17
Annex I – point 17
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17
Annex I – point 17
(17) The Venice Commission identified several shortcomings in its Opinion on Act CLXIII of 2011 on the Prosecution Service and Act CLXIV of 2011 on the Status of the Prosecutor General, Prosecutors and other Prosecution Employees and the Prosecution Career of Hungary, adopted on 19 June 2012. In its report, adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO urged the Hungarian authorities to take additional steps to prevent abuse and increase the independence of the prosecution service by, inter alia, removing the possibility for the Prosecutor General to be re-elected. In addition, GRECO called for disciplinary proceedings against ordinary prosecutors to be made more transparent and for decisions to move cases from one prosecutor to another to be guided by strict legal criteria and justifications. The 2017 GRECO Compliance Report however, which assesses the implementation of the 2015recommendations, acknowledged the progress made by Hungary and a report is to be submitted by 30th June 2018 on the progress in implementing the recommendations, which means that there is an ongoing dialogue between the GRECO and Hungarian authorities.
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18
Annex I – point 18
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18
Annex I – point 18
(18) In its report adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO called for the establishment of codes of conduct for members of the Hungarian Parliament (MPs) concerning guidance for cases of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MPs should also be obliged to report conflicts of interest in an ad hoc manner and this should be accompanied by a more robust obligation to submit asset declarations. This should also be accompanied by which arise in an ad hoc manner. Although the current regulation can be considered rather strict even by European standards, it is recommended to consider introducing provisions that allow for sanctions for submitting inaccurate asset declarations.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19
Annex I – point 19
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19
Annex I – point 19
(19) In its statement of preliminary findings and conclusions 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 until after the elections undercuts campaign finance transparency and the ability of voters to make an informed choice, contrary to OSCE commitments and international standards. However, there has not been any deterioration or declining trend at all in the last few years or as compared to the date of Hungary’s accession to the EU. On the contrary, the Act LXXXVII of2013 on the Transparency of Political Campaign Financing set the maximum amount allowed to be spent for campaign activities, established strict rules on the use of such funds and on the monitoring of campaign spending. Although the preliminary conclusions of the OSCE would claim for a more detailed reporting and monitoring system also during, and not only after, the elections, the Act opted for an ex-post monitoring and controlling mechanism. While the potential maximum limits are set out by law in advance, the Act also introduced a requirement according to which all candidates and nominating organisations, within 60 days after the final results of the elections, shall make public all their actual campaign spending, also including the sources and purposes of the spending. The State Audit Office has the competence to monitor and control whether the legal requirements have been met.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20
Annex I – point 20
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20
Annex I – point 20
(20) On 7 December 2016, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding their space to operate in the country. , in line with the fact that the OGP is a multilateral initiative based on voluntary membership and therefore it is only up to the free decision of participating countries to join or to withdraw. It must be further noted that not all the EU Member States are members of the OGP, e.g. Austria, Belgium and Slovenia.. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding their space to operate in the country, which is exactly the reason of the Hungarian withdrawal, since the opinions of international NGOs constantly criticising Hungary have been widely accepted in the organisation’s reports but the government response has been completely neglected and thus the organisation has become a forum for the reproof of a few countries, instead of discussing and exchanging good government practices.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21
Annex I – point 21
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21
Annex I – point 21
(21) In its judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the right to respect for private life was violated on account of the insufficient legal guarantees against unlawful secret surveillance for national security purposes, including related to the use of telecommunications. Nevertheless, the case did not concern actual measures of surveillance but only the possibility of the application of such measures sufficed to establish the applicants’ victim status within the meaning of the Convention. The amendment of the relevant legislation is necessary as a general measure. The execu and the need for amendments has not been called into question ofby this judgment is, therefore, still pendinge Hungarian Government either. Proposals for amendment of the Act on National Security Services are currently being discussed by the experts of the competent ministries of Hungary.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22
Annex I – point 22
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22
Annex I – point 22
(22) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that Hungary’s legal framework on secret surveillance for national security purposes allows for mass interception of communications and contains insufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with the right to privacy. It, whereas the concern on the possibility of “mass interception of communications” results from an error of fact and misunderstanding of the Hungarian legal situation. The already existing legal infrastructure ensures independent external control of secret information gathering activities carried out by national security services. The appropriate legal tools provided by the Privacy Act empower the Data Protection Authority (DPA) to detect illegal secret information gathering and to take actions against the infringement. The data obtained during the DPA investigation – including national classified information – can be used by the DPA in the administrative proceedings for data protection, for example, to prohibit the unlawful processing of personal data, to order the deletion of the illegally processed data, to order the notification of the concerned data subjects in case the data controller refused to inform the affected person unlawfully, and also to impose a fine. The UN Human Rights Committee was also concerned by the lack of provisions to ensure effective remedies in cases of abuse, and notification to the person concerned as soon as possible, without endangering the purpose of the restriction, after the termination of the surveillance measure. The concluding observations of the Committee however, did not take into consideration the tool of a subsequent revision by the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information in cases of secret information collection.
Amendment 108 #
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. Whereas in reality, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media as of July 2012 allows journalists to hide their information sources in administrative and judicial procedures in line with European standards, following the decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, as well as the recommendations of the Council of Europe. 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 sharaddressed 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 defamHungarian Government, as a result of which the Council of Europe’s Secretary General has concluded in 2013 that the fundamental problems of Hungarian media legislation shoulhad been repealsolved.
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24
Annex I – point 24
(24) In its Opinion of 22 June 2015 on Media Legislation, the Venice Commission insisted on the need to change the rules governing the election of the members of the Media Council to ensure fair representation of socially significant political and other groups and that the method of appointment and the position of the Chairperson of the Media Council or the President of the Media Authority should be revisited in order to reduce the concentration of powers and secure political neutrality; the Board of Trustees should also be reformed along those lines. The Venice Commission also recommended the decentralisation of the governance of public service media providers and that the National News Agency not be the exclusive provider of news for public service media providers. 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 also 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 Media Authority of Hungary however, is an autonomous regulatory agency subordinated solely to law, the President of which is appointed by the President of Hungary, while previously it was appointed by the Prime Minister. As a further step towards media independence, members of the Media Council (responsible for media contents and the freedom of press) are elected by a qualified majority of the Parliament for 9 years.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24 a (new)
Annex I – point 24 a (new)
(24a) As it was also noted by the Venice Commission in its Opinion of 22 June 2015, the Hungarian authorities responded to the criticisms from international bodies and NGOs. First, the Constitutional Court struck down certain norms contained in the “media package” as anti-constitutional and required the Government to make changes to the provisions pertaining, in particular, to the regulation of media content and protection of journalists’ sources. Second, in 2011-2012 the “media package” was subjected to revision. Yet, many domestic and international observers were not satisfied with those reforms. The amendments were said to be fragmentary and not addressing the key problems detected earlier. The Hungarian Government, on their side, defended their positions referring to the examples of similar regulations in other European states. The Venice Commission also acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian government, over the years, to improve on the original text of the Media Acts, in line with comments from various observers including the Council of Europe, and positively noted the willingness of the Hungarian authorities to continue the dialogue.
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24 b (new)
Annex I – point 24 b (new)
(24b) It also has to be noted that the vast majority of the widely criticised rules of the Hungarian media legislation (e.g. illegal media content, balanced news coverage, sanctions, criminal law provisions on defamation) were not invented after 2010, but had already been existing since well before 2010 and substantially were in force also at the date of Hungary’s accession to the EU. In fact, the post-2010 revision of the Hungarian media laws dating back to 1995 and partly even 1986 aimed at better protecting the editorial and journalistic freedom of expression and the independence of the Media Authority than the previous laws did. In addition, as a consequence of continuous dialogues with international organisations and EU institutions, the Hungarian media legislation has even further been improved after its original adoption of 2010. In its statement of 29 January 2013, the Council of Europe Secretary General welcomed that discussions in the field of media have led to several important changes being agreed, notably concerning the mandate, nomination and appointment of the President of the National Media Authority and President of the Media Council, as well as the regulation of TV and radio content. The Secretary General also added that the protection of journalistic sources had already been strengthened.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25
Annex I – point 25
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25
Annex I – point 25
(25) On 18 October 2012, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self- Determination and Freedom of Information of Hungary. Despite the overall positive assessment, the Venice Commission identified the need for further improvements. However, following subsequent amendments to that law, the right to access government information has been significantly restricted further. Those amendments were criticised in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in March 2016. The report acknowledges however, that the charges defined by the Hungarian Act for direct costs of information requests appeared to be entirely reasonable and reflect real costs. Hungary recognises the importance of access to public information as a means to provide for transparency in the government sector and the amendments to the Act strike a proper balance between the fundamental rights of data subjects and the interests and rights of data controllers, respectively.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25 a (new)
Annex I – point 25 a (new)
(25a) Notwithstanding, it is to be noted that the original text of the Act CXII of 2011 provided for wide-ranging possibilities for exercising the right of access to public information. The subsequent limitations thereto, aimed at striking a necessary and proportional balance between the rights of the applicants and the interests of data controllers, did not concern the essence of the right to access to information. As it was also acknowledged by the 2018 country report of the European Commission, the Data Protection Authority has taken a progressive position in transparency-related cases and so did courts as well as the Constitutional Court, who generally decide in favour of public access to information. This also shows that serious or systemic problems cannot be identified in the Hungarian legal system.
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 26
Annex I – point 26
(26) In its statement of preliminary findings and conclusions adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections concluded that access to information as well as the freedoms of the media and association have been restricted, including by recent legal changes and that media coverage of the campaign was extensive, yet highly polarised and lacking critical analysis. It further noted that politicisation of the ownership, coupled with a restrictive legal framework, had a chilling effect on editorial freedom, hindering voters’ access to pluralistic information. By contrast, opposition media altogether reaches a considerably wider public in Hungary than pro-government media outlets. The ownership and political spectrum of Hungarian media is more diverse, and the freedom of the press is more prevalent than in most Western European countries; the diversity of the Hungarian media scenery was perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that most Hungarian media outlets actively campaigned against the Fidesz-KDNP alliance ahead of the 8th April elections.
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 26 a (new)
Annex I – point 26 a (new)
(26a) However, on the other hand, the preliminary findings and conclusions of the OSCE also noted within the context of the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections that fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, the campaign was animated, media coverage was extensive, voters had a wide range of political options, the public broadcaster fulfilled its mandate to provide free airtime to contestants, online media provided a platform for pluralistic, issue- oriented political debate. The OSCE also added that the electoral legal framework formed an adequate basis for democratic elections, the right to seek an effective remedy for electoral violations was inclusive and generally respected, and the election administration fulfilled its mandate in a professional and transparent manner and enjoyed overall confidence among stakeholders.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27
Annex I – point 27
(27) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about Hungary’s media laws and practices that restrict freedom of opinion and expression. It was concerned that, following successive changes in the law, the current legislative framework does not fully ensure an uncensored and unhindered press. It noted with concern that the Media Council and the Media Authority lack sufficient independence to perform their functions and have overbroad regulatory and sanctioning powers. However, sanctions maybe imposed when media administration rules are violated and serious monetary penalties may only be levied in case of a recurring violation and the Media Council shall also take into account the principles of graduality and proportionality. The amount of the penalty is also limited and there are proper legal remedies against penalties.
Amendment 127 #
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 domestic and international rules on academic freedom, the freedom of expression and assembly and the right to, 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 international 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 association, as well as academic freedom. The criticised legislative amendments however do not affect the freedom of thought or expression, or artistic and academic freedom. The European Commission itself has also stated that it is not without precedent that Member States of the EU enact special legal requirements for institutions of higher education with headquarters in a foreign country; Sweden, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Netherlands and Greece, or multiple states of Germany have much stricter rules in many aspects than the new Hungarian law.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 29
Annex I – point 29
(29) On 17 October 2017, the Hungarian Parliament extended the deadline for foreign universities operating in the country to meet the new criteria to 1 January 2019 by the explicit request of the concerned institutions and following the recommendation of the Presidency of the Hungarian Rectors’ Conference; the Venice Commission has explicitly welcomed the prolongation in its related opinion. Negotiations between the Hungarian Government and foreign higher education institutions affected, in particular, the Central European University, are still ongoing, while the legal limbo for foreign universities remains however, the swift and smooth conclusion of the agreements between Hungary and her Thai, Chinese and – with one exception – American partners demonstrates that the new legislation does not impose impossible conditions on foreign higher education institutions and that the amendment does not jeopardise the freedom of higher education..
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 30
Annex I – point 30
(30) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the grounds that the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education disproportionally restricts Union and non-Union universities in their operations and that the Act needs to be brought back in line with Union law. The Commission foundIn the course of the infringement procedure, the Commission imposed far shorter deadlines on Hungary thatn the new legislation runs counter to the right of academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business as provided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”) and the Union’s legal obligations under international trade lawdecade- long standard and rejected the Hungarian requests for the extension of the deadline, seriously undermining Hungary’s right to defence. The Commission did not justify the shorter than usual deadlines, merely referred to the ‘specific nature of the case’ in its appeal, without explaining exactly what the term refers to. The procedure however is still pending and ultimately the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is competent to establish whether or not Hungary infringed EU law. It would contradict the basic legal and constitutional principles to prejudge the decision of the Court of Justice.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31
Annex I – point 31
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31
Annex I – point 31
(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary. The Act deprivedreviewed the legal personality of many religious organisations of legal personality and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14 in line with the practices of EU Member States, the majority of which make a clear difference between the legal status of historic churches and the status of other denominations. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church, that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not. By contrast, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights recognises the right of states to create various legal categories for religious communities, with the only prerequisite that some kind of a legal form shall be available without obstacles.
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32
Annex I – point 32
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32
Annex I – point 32
(32) In February 2013, Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled that the deregistration of recognised churches had been unconstitutional. Responding to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Hungarian Parliament amended the Fundamental Law in March 2013. In June and September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament amended Act CCVI of 2011 to create a two-tiered classification consisting of “religious communities” and “incorporated churches”. In September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament also amended the Fundamental Law explicitly to grant itself the authority to select religious communities for “cooperation” with the state in the service of “public interest activities”. The provision assures the state the possibility to grant to organisations conducting religious activities special status as ‘church’. The religious community recognised by the Parliament as ‘church’ functions as a public law entity, whereas the ‘organisation conducting religious activity’ is a private law association. The rules of granting the status of a public law entity are more stringent than those on private law entities. The majority of Member States makes a clear difference between the legal status of historic churches and the status of other denominations and there are various legal forms for this distinction. In several Member States some churches are listed in the constitution, while others are subject to separate regulations or different ‘sui generis’ statuses provided for them. The case-law of the ECtHR recognises the right of states to create various legal categories for religious communities, the basic prerequisite of which is that some kind of a legal form shall be available without obstacles.
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33
Annex I – point 33
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33
Annex I – point 33
(33) In its judgment of 8 April 2014, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR ruled that Hungary had violated freedom of association, read in the light of freedom of conscience and religion. The execution of that judgment is still pending. The Constitutional Court of Hungary found that certain rules governing the conditions of recognition as a church were unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to bring the relevant rules in line with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant Act was accordingly submitted to the Parliament in December 2015 but it did not obtain the necessary majority; however, just satisfaction has been paid to the applicants either on the basis of friendly settlements or pursuant to the judgments of the Court.
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33 a (new)
Annex I – point 33 a (new)
(33a) The adoption of Act CCVI of 2011 and all the subsequent amendments thereto had the intention to fully ensure both the individual and collective freedom of religion, in accordance with the Fundamental Law, longstanding Hungarian legal traditions and international standards. The differentiation between legal status of different categories of religious communities did not aim at substantially affecting their freedom of religion, but only intended to express the differences in the duration and social support of their activities as well as in their ability to participate in fulfilling tasks of public interest. Such a differentiation is not unique in the European Union; several Member States have different categories of religious communities, some of them based on a ministerial or a parliamentary decision (e.g. in Austria, Belgium, Spain or Lithuania), some others by legislative means or even specifically at constitutional level (e.g. in Greece, Malta, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom).
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34
Annex I – point 34
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34
Annex I – point 34
(34) On 9 July 2014, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights indicated in his letter to the Hungarian authorities that he was concerned about the stigmatising rhetoric used by politicians questioning the legitimacy of NGO work in the context of audits which had been carried out by the Hungarian Government Control Office concerning NGOs which were beneficiaries of the Norwegian Civil Fund. The investigations in question did not at all concern the activities of the organisations, but these were accountability measures regarding the financial operations. The Hungarian Government signed an agreement with the Norway grants as a result of which the payments of the grants continue to operate undisturbed, complying with the transparency criteria of the rule of law. On 8-16 February 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visited Hungary and indicated in his report that significant challenges stem from the existing legal framework governing the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedoms of opinion and expression, and of peaceful assembly and of association, and that legislation pertaining to national security and migration may also have a restrictive impact on the civil society environment. However, tens of thousands of organisations participate in tenders run by the Trust for National Cooperation, and both the number of supported projects and the amount of funding has increased in Hungary compared to previous years.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35
Annex I – point 35
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35
Annex I – point 35
(35) In April 2017 a draft law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad was introduced before the Hungarian Parliament. On 26 April 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights addressed a letter to the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly noting that the draft law was introduced against the background of continued antagonistic rhetoric from certain members of the ruling coalition, who publicly labelled some NGOs as “foreign agents” based on the source of their funding and questioned their legitimacy; the term “foreign agents” is however absent from the law and the Venice Commission stated in its opinion that the term ‘organisation receiving support from abroad’ is neutral and descriptive. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also acknowledged in its resolution 2162 (2017) that the Hungarian law did not include some of the controversial term ‘foreign agent’ or the specific and thus discriminatory reference to NGOs which defend human rights, and that it provided for a judicial rather than administrative review. Consequently, it can be acknowledged that the overall purpose of the Act is in line with relevant international guidelines, including those elaborated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Similar concerns have been mentioned in the statement of 7 March 2017 of the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law, as well as in the Opinion of 24 April 2017 prepared by the Expert Council on NGO Law, and the statement of 15 May 2017 by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. According to the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Association as well as the expert opinion of the Venice Commission on the issue, the freedom to seek, receive and use resources can be subject to requirements related to the prevention of money laundering or terrorism and such resources may also legitimately be subject to reporting and transparency requirements.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36
Annex I – point 36
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36
Annex I – point 36
(36) On 13 June 2017, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the draft law with several amendments. In its Opinion of 20 June 2017, the Venice Commission recognised that some of those amendments represented an important improvement but at the same time some other concerns were not addressed and the amendments did not suffice to alleviate the concerns that the law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination. In 2013 however, the Venice Commission explicitly acknowledged that there may be various reasons for a state to restrict foreign funding; including the prevention of money-laundering and terrorist financing and that it is justified to require the utmost transparency in matters pertaining to foreign funding. Consequently, ensuring transparency is a legitimate aim and the Hungarian law implements no restriction on funding whatsoever. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of those requirements, which appeared to be part of an attempt to discredit certain NGOs, including NGOs dedicated to the protection of human rights in Hungary.
Amendment 152 #
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, in the view of the Commission, indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission concludalleged 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. This procedure is still pending and ultimately and exclusively the European Court of Justice is competent to establish whether or not Hungary infringed EU law pursuant to Article 19(3)a of TEU and Article 260(1) of TFEU and any statement assuming the violation of EU law until the final decision is a mere presumption.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38
Annex I – point 38
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38
Annex I – point 38
(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with The Draft Law package foresees to expose those activities and associations funded from abroad that, circumventing the Hungarian law and order, intend to foster illegal immigration. The Package has not yet been adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, but is subject to scrutiny by its competent committees and is consequently open to furtheir activitiemendments.
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 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 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 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 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49
Annex I – point 49
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49
Annex I – point 49
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49 a (new)
Annex I – point 49 a (new)
(49a) The Hungarian Government has several times declared a ‘zero tolerance policy’ against anti-Semitism and– as acknowledged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – Hungarian Jewish life is experiencing a renaissance and Hungarian Jews live in peace and safety. The current Hungarian Government has among others, established the Holocaust Documentation Centre and Memorial Collection in 2002, ordered that the life annuity of Holocaust survivors shall be raised by 50% in 2012, established the Hungarian Holocaust – 2014 Memorial Committee in 2013, declared the year of 2014 as Holocaust Memorial Year, launched renovation and restoration programmes of several Hungarian synagogues and Jewish cemeteries and is currently preparing for the 2019 European Maccabi Games to be held in Budapest. In recognition of the Hungarian Government’s firm stance against anti-Semitism, Hungary was awarded the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2015-2016 by the unanimous decision of 31 countries.
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50
Annex I – point 50
Amendment 208 #
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 minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police. Hungary however has enacted powerful legal instruments to combat hate crimes and hate speech; the Hungarian Penal Code strictly punishes inciting violence or hatred against a member of a community, as well as the public denial of Holocaust, and the Government has established a Working Group Against Hate Crime providing training for police officers and helping victims to cooperate with the police and report incidents. By reason of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law the ‘freedom of expression may not be exercised with the aim of violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation or of any national, ethnic, racial or religious community’; the amendment has been greeted as a historic step by many – in particular by Jewish – communities, as it makes the fight against hate speech more efficient.
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51
Annex I – point 51
(51) On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. The extraordinary circumstances and emergency situation urged the Hungarian Government to address the situation with quick legal responses and despite the urgent government actions, each application for international protection is thoroughly examined on an individual basis. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. However, no court case has so far been reported where Hungarian border police officers have been charged of abusing asylum seekers.
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52
Annex I – point 52
(52) On 3 July 2014, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention indicated that the situation of asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situations needs robust improvements and attention to ensure against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Similar concerns about detention, in particular of unaccompanied minors, have 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. On 21-27 October 2015 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Hungary and indicated in its report a considerable number of foreign nationals’ (including unaccompanied minors) claims that they had been subjected to physical ill- treatment by police officers and armed guards working in immigration or asylum detention facilities. On 7 March 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed his concerns about a new law voted in the Hungarian Parliament envisaging the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers, including children, for the entire length of the asylum procedure. On 8 March 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement similarly expressing his concern about that law. On 31 March 2017, the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture urged Hungary to address immediately the excessive use of detention. Despite all this, asylum seekers in Hungary are not detained or deprived of their liberty since they can leave the transit zone freely at any time. Pursuant to the Directive2013/33/EU, Member States may designate such areas not only based on considerations of public interest and public order, but also to ensure the availability of applicants during the procedure; this measure is also permitted by Article 72 TFEU.
Amendment 220 #
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. Hungary pays special attention to the needs of different age and social groups, including but not limited to separated placement, 24/7 presence of social workers, separate accommodation facilities for both families and unaccompanied minors, continuous security service and CCTV video surveillance system to ensure the prevention of any kind of violence, sexual exploitation or abuse. Hungarian authorities trained experts for the successful identification of victims of human trafficking (including sexual exploitation) and unaccompanied children are under supervision by social workers 24 hours a day. Between the age of 14 and 18, three meals a day as well as clothing, health care, education, and religious practice are provided in transit zones and children under the age of 14 are placed in special care institutions inside the country where they get five meals a day. Furthermore, as from 1st January2018 additional regulations were introduced favouring minors in general and unaccompanied minors in specific; among others a specific curriculum was developed for minor asylum seekers.
Amendment 226 #
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 at first instance found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. The ECtHR at first instance 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 and therefore it is vital to refrain from prejudging its outcome and thereby attempting to influence the final decision of the ECtHR. The primary responsibility lies with the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in determining whether or not the right to asylum-shopping shall be recognised by international law.
Amendment 231 #
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 of 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. In the course of the procedure however, the Hungarian Government is in continuous dialogue with the Commission in order to take into account the Commission’s concerns to the fullest possible extent and also the Commission has accepted several of the originally challenged Hungarian provisions to be in line with EU law. __________________ 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 235 #
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. 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 d in line with Article 72 TFEU, which permits Member States to exercise their powers, as regards maintaining public order and internal security in mass migration crisis situations; Hungary therefore, upon intercepting persons inside the country but in connection with an illegal border crossing, exercises its rights in line with Article 72 TFEU with a view to maintain law and order and hence fulfils her obligations stemming from the Schengen Border Code. 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 is fully in line with international and EU standards, since Serbia is a candidate country for EU membership and its accession to the European Union is underway; as there is still no EU list determines safe third countries, Member States can freely decide in this issue. 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 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 lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid, whereas in reality the age assessment of minor asylum seekers is conducted by the medical staffs in the transit zones with scientific methods and the special needs of minors are fully addressed in line with international and EU standards. In accordance with the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, refugees have not only rights but also duties towards the country in which they find themselves which require, in particular, conforming to its laws and regulations as well as to the measures taken for the maintenance of public order.
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57
Annex I – point 57
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57
Annex I – point 57
(57) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated his concern at measures taken to prohibit rough sleeping and the construction of huts and shacks, which have widely been described as criminalising homelessness in practice, which is arguably an overstatement considering that the Fundamental Law of Hungary declares a dignified living as a goal of the state and thus includes a provision on taking care of people without shelter and - in accordance with the position of the European Parliament- is aiming to abolish homelessness affecting public areas. The Commissioner urged the Hungarian authorities to investigate reported cases of forced evictions without alternative solutions and of children being taken away from their families on the grounds of poor socio-economic conditions. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about state and local legislation, based on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which designates many public areas as out- of-bounds for “sleeping rough” and effectively punishes homelessness, whereas the prohibition of residing in public areas is not unique to Hungary but it is a common internationally accepted practice that homeless people are not allowed in certain public areas. 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 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58
Annex I – point 58
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58
Annex I – point 58
(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the ground that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. As far as this claim is concerned, the Government of Hungary considers the maintenance and increase in the number of jobs and the expansion of employment as the primary task in the world of work; the government policy is therefore linked to the relatively short duration of job-search support, aiming at encouraging active job search and improving labour market prospects for those who lose their jobs. The Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the ground that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, on the ground that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and on the grounds that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families. Contrary to the special monitoring mechanisms related to the European Social Charter, Hungary has performed at or above the level of EU- average in 8 out of the 12 indicators of the renewed Social Scoreboard of the European Pillar of Social Rights, published by the European Commission. 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 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 a (new)
Annex I – point 58 a (new)
(58a) In accordance with the Treaties, social and employment policies are strictly of Member States’ competence. Regarding the social rights mentioned in the draft report, specific EU standards were adopted only in the areas of workplace health and safety. Due to their falling into Member States’ competence, social rights show significant divergence based on economic development and other societal factors and therefore can hardly be interpreted and measured within the framework of Article 2 of TEU.
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59
Annex I – point 59
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59
Annex I – point 59
(59) In its Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of Hungary, the Council indicated that the adequacy and coverage of social assistance and unemployment benefits is limited, that the duration of unemployment benefits is still the lowest in the Union at 3 months, below the average time required by jobseekers to find employment, and that the 2015 social assistance reform streamlined the benefits system but does not seem to have guaranteed a uniform and minimally adequate living standard for those in need. In reality however, the relevant services of the Hungarian system guarantee a minimal income for people in their active years and the 2015 reform lead to a more transparent welfare system and granted municipalities the right to create a system of provisions which better corresponds to local needs; they can determine the types and checklists for the services under their jurisdiction, and so they can regulate further forms of care tailored to the need of the local population. However, 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 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59 a (new)
Annex I – point 59 a (new)
(59a) Acknowledges the commitment of the Hungarian Government to establish a ‘workfare society’ and achieving the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the EU with 3.8%; further acknowledges the crucial acts Hungary has implemented in order to diminish the trap-like effect of the dependence on welfare in the disadvantaged areas of the country, for example the public employment program which plays a significant role also in social policy and the European Commission has recognised the substantial steps that have been taken to encourage a transition to the primary labour market from public employment.
Amendment 259 #
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 a that the circumstances presented fall short of proving any clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU,
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 262 #
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