36 Amendments of Jean-Pierre AUDY related to 2012/2130(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
– having regard to the ongoing infringement proceedings in Case C- 288/12 brought by the European Commission against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection authoritystill pending before the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41
Citation 41
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas Article 4(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) stipulates that competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), by virtue of the principle of conferral, allows the Union to 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;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 7(1) TEU, by an exactly defined procedure, grants the EU institutions the power to assess whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas the Commission, under Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, ‘ensure[s] the application of the Treaties ... [and] oversee[s] the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union’;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas any Member State of the European Union is absolutely free to review its constitution and whereas the very meaning of democratic alternation is that it enables a new government to enact legislation reflecting the will of its people and its values and political commitments;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas the tumultuous history of democratic traditions in Europe shows that reforming a constitution requires utmost care and due consideration of procedures and guarantees aimed at preserving, among other things, the rule of law, the separation of powers and the hierarchy of legal norms – the constitution being the supreme law of the land;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the scale of the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unfull compliance with the applicable preocedented, andural requirements, explains why so many European institutions and organisations (the European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE) as well as the U.S. Administration have deemed it necessary to assess the impact of some reforms carried out in Hungary, wherea; whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States, thus the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need tthe same pattern should also be monitored, while enforcingotherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties, and whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States is not respected;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W a (new)
Recital W a (new)
Wa. whereas the Commission, in the exercise of its responsibility for overseeing the application of Union law, has to show the utmost skill, respect the independence of others, and act diligently, swiftly, and without delay, especially when it is called upon to deal with a case in which a Member State may have committed a serious breach of Union values;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. whereas the adoption of the Fundamental Law of Hungary – which was passed on 18 April 2011, exclusively with the votes of the members of the governing coalition and on the basis of a draft text prepared by the representatives of the governing coalition – was conducted in the exceptionally short time frame of one month, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text; whereas, however, it has not been established that such an exceptionally short time frame was unconstitutional;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas, despitein the wake of that Decision, the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law all the transitional provisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously annulled provisions;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ
Recital BQ
BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advertensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) on an equal basis and free of charge, and it does not affect at all political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); whereas similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy and was also recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in one of its recent judgments; and whereas the Hungarian Government is ing in the public media; consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic procthe "Union is founded on the valuess of enacting laws, and for a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition are key elements of the concepts of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and proclaimed in the Preambles to both the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter,respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Firmly reiterates that, while the drafting and the adoption of a new constitution falls within the scope of Member States’ competences, Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that the constitutional processes and the contents of constitutions are in conformity with the commitments entered into by every Member State under the EU Accession Treaties, that is to say, the common values of the Union, the Charter and the ECHR;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RegretConsiders that the process of drafting and adopting the Fundamental Law of Hungary lacked themight have benefited from greater transparency, openness, and inclusiveness and ultimately thea more substantial consensual basis of the kind that could be expected in a modern democratic constituent process, thus weakening the legitimacy of the Fundamental Law itself;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that after the entry into force of the Fourth Amendment the Constitutional Court can no longer fulfil its role as the supreme body of constitutional protection as the legislature is now entitled to modify the Fundamental Law as it wishes even in the case of the constitutional amendments contradicting other constitutional requirements and principles;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely undermines the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning system of checks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Expresses concern at the effects of the provision of the Fourth Amendment banning political advertising in the commercial media, as although the announced aim of this provision is to reduce political campaign costs and create equal opportunities for the parties, it jeopardises the provTakes note that the Fourth Amendment ensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) on an equal basis and free of charge with the aim to create equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media as well as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; it does not affect at all political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); takes note that the Hungarian Government is in consultation with the European Commission of balanced informationwith a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising; underlines that a similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores that the creation of the state- owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) as the single news provider for public service broadcasters, while all major private broadcasters are expected to have their own news service, has meant it has a virtual monopoly on the market, as most of its news items arUnderlines that Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting in a way they deem appropriate while preserving media pluralism, in line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the fTreely available; recalls the recommendation of the Council of Europe to eliminate the obligation on public broadcasters to use the national news agency as it constitutes an unreasonable and unfair restriction on the plurality of news provisionaty; takes note of the recent statement of the European Commission with regard to the French media bill that the Commission in no way intends to comment on and evaluate draft national laws;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Is concerUnderlineds that public service broadcasting is controlled by an extremely centralised institutional system which takes the real operational decisions without publin line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the Treaty (on the System of the Public Broadcasting in the Members States) the system of the public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, scrutiny; underlines that biased and opaque tendering practices and the biased information ofocial and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism, and Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting reaching a wide audience distort the media marketay they deem appropriate;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Calls on the Member States tohat are not complying with their Treaty obligations to respect, guarantee, protect and promote the Union’s common values, which is an indispensable condition for respecting the substance of Union citizenship and for building a culture of mutual trust enabling effective cross-border cooperation and a well functioning EU area of freedom, security and justice, to do so without delay;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Considers that the European Council cannot remain inactive in cases where one of the Member States is faced with changes that may negatively affect thebreaches a concrete fundamental rights or rule of law in that country, and therefore the rule of law in the European Union at large, in particular when mutual trust in the legal system and judicial cooperation may be put at risks it affects negatively the European Union; stresses furthermore that the European Council cannot use double standards when looking at Member States and its infringements;
Amendment 354 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – introductory part
Paragraph 60 – introductory part
60. Calls on the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties: and as the body responsible for ensuring that Union law is correctly applied, under the supervision of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
– to ensure that Member States, which are signatories to it, guarantee correct implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to media pluralism and equal access to information;
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14 b (new)
Paragraph 60 – indent 14 b (new)
– to work independently, conscientiously, quickly and with a high level of competence;
Amendment 377 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14 c (new)
Paragraph 60 – indent 14 c (new)
– wherever a problem of interpretation arises with a Member State, particularly Hungary, concerning the application of Union law, to bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union without delay;
Amendment 394 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 1
Paragraph 61 – indent 1
– to fully restore the supremacy of the Fundamental Law by removing from it those provisions previously declared unconstitutional by threpeal or amend those provisions of Hungarian law which the Commission has declared to conflict with European Union law or, where there has been a dispute Constitutional Court the interpretation of Union law, with the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 411 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4
Paragraph 61 – indent 4
Amendment 418 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 5
Paragraph 61 – indent 5
Amendment 533 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to inform Parliament, the Commission, the Council PresidencyPresidencies of the Council and of the European Council, and the Council of Europe, of the procedure and the calendar they intend to follow for the implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraph 61;
Amendment 546 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77
77. Asks the Conference of Presidents to activate the mechanism laid down in Article 7(1) TEU in case the replies from the Hungarian authorities to the above- mentioned recommendations do not comply with the requirements of Article 2 TEU as duly established by an interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 550 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Parliament, President and Government of Hungary, to the Presidents of the Constitutional Court and the Kúria, to the Council, the European Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the U.S. Secretary of State.