Activities of Helga TRÜPEL related to 2017/2131(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the situation in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 17 May 2017)
Amendments (15)
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education in Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the labour market and in society; regrets deeply that the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to launch an infringement procedure in May 2016;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Is of the opinion that the Commission when it was reviewing the media legislation of 2010 was not thorough enough and failed to take into consideration the values set out in Art 2. of the TFEU; recalls that in June 2015 the Venice Commission published its opinion on media legislation in Hungary, where it stated that several issues require revision as a priority, if the Hungarian authorities wish not only to improve the situation with the media freedom in the country, but also change the public perception of media freedom;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Considers that the media law of 2010 with its insufficient cross-ownership rules resulted in a distorted and imbalanced media market; stresses that the Hungarian market has become more concentrated, plenty of independent local stations disappeared and the previously flourishing segment of community radios has also been losing out; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the media outlet has been receiving public funds;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Is of the opinion that media council (into which all the members could be delegated only by the governing party since 2010) actively helped the restructuration of the radio market in order to satisfy the prevailing political needs; is outraged by the fact that the media council has failed to guarantee even the minimum level of balance in the media;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)
Paragraph 4 d (new)
4d. Emphasizes that state advertising spending disproportionately favours certain media enterprises over others; points out that state spending was higher in 2017 than ever before and state advertisements are typically awarded to media that are loyal to the government, which are predominantly controlled by oligarchs;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)
Paragraph 4 e (new)
4e. Recalls that in May 2017, the Parliament of Hungary adopted a law raising the country’s advertising tax from 5.3% to 7.5%, which raises worries about possible pressure on the remaining independent media in the country; is concerned that political party advertising is only allowed in public and private media if it is free of charge, which has raised concerns in terms of limiting access to information, since private media may not be willing to broadcast free advertising; believes that it is necessary to ensure that public advertising contracts are concluded with all media in a fair and transparent manner;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)
Paragraph 4 f (new)
4f. Emphasizes that the so-called public media broadcaster (MTVA) which includes all public radio and televisions uncritically disseminates the government’s messages, in particular it continuously reflects the anti-refugee or Stop-Soros campaigns carried out by the government; stresses that the public television M1 as a 24-hour news channel offers more possibilities than previously for propaganda and for transmitting the messages of the government;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 g (new)
Paragraph 4 g (new)
4g. Points out that the public media broadcaster does not comply with transparency requirements, it provides no publicly accessible surface for tracking the spending of public funds, and unlike many European public broadcasters it has no annual report, nor is it known how it defines public service responsibilities or how it discharges those;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that journalists of independent media are often seriously hindered while doing their job, media outlets are regularly banned from entering into the Parliament building, spaces are restricted in the Parliament for journalist to ask and interview politicians;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concerned that, after Hungary’s last independent regional newspapers were taken over by oligarchs close to the Hungarian Government, the latter has recently further extended its control over the media, with media concentration in Hungary reaching an unprecedented and grotesque level according to ‘Reporters Without Borders’; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the entrepreneur has been awarded public contracts;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 3 a (new)
Subheading 3 a (new)
Non-governmental Organisations
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Is worried by the shrinking space for civil society organisations, the attempts to control NGOs and to restrict their ability to carry out their legitimate work; regrets deeply the fact that Hungary adopted a legislation on foreign- funded NGOs (Lex NGO), which interferes unduly with fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to freedom of association; points out that the law also introduces unjustified and disproportionate restrictions to the free movement of capital and raises concerns about respect of the right to protection of private life and of personal data; emphasizes that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Points out that despite the legal proceeding at the CJEU on the “Lex NGO” the Hungarian proposed another law the, so called “Lex Stop Soros”, which intends to further restrict the right of association and the work of NGOs; deplores the intention of the Hungarian Government to force-close all Soros funded NGOs and the aim to require a state permit for NGOs to work on the field of migration;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Draws the attention to the fact that the governing party has built a network of government organised NGOs, supported by public funds, whose main activity is to echo the governments messages and to organise demonstrations on the side of the government;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Believes that the situation in the field of Higher Education, Roma education, the situation in the media and the NGOs in Hungary represent a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article2 of the TEU and warrants the launch of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure;