BETA

Activities of Frank ENGEL related to 2012/2130(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

2016/11/22
Committee: LIBE
Dossiers: 2012/2130(INI)
Documents: PDF(352 KB) DOC(221 KB)

Amendments (89)

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
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 d~~legality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection ~~authority~~still pending before the European Court of Justice,

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the obligations incumbent on candidate countries under the Copenhagen criteria continue to apply to the Member States after joining the EU by virtue of Article 2 TEU and the principle of sincere co-operation, and whereas all Member States should therefore be assessed on a regular basis in order to verify their continued compliance with the EU's common values;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas according to Article 7(1) TEU ~~grants~~ the EU institutions ~~the power to assess whether~~may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach ~~of the common~~by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values; whereas before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

P. whereas the common values set out in Article 2 TEU, and proclaimed in the Preambles to the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and referred to in the Preamble to the ECHR and in Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, require a separation of powers between independent institutions based on a correctly functioning system of checks and balances, and whereas core features of these principles include: respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic process of enacting laws; legal certainty; a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of opposition; effective control of the conformity of legislation with the constitution; an effective, transparent, participatory and accountable government and administration; an independent and impartial judiciary; independent media; and respect for fundamental rights;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital T a (new)

Ta. whereas there is not a "best model" throughout the rich and diverse European constitutional heritage, yet in all Member States special constitutional procedures render constitutional amendment more difficult compared to procedures governing ordinary legislation, namely through the use of a qualified majority, additional decisional processes, time delays and referenda, according to national procedures;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

V. whereas 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 unprecedented, and 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, whereas the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need to be monitored, while enforcing 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; __________________ 6deleted See Annex to Working Document No 5.

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital Y

Y. whereas the ‘national consultation’ on the draft Fundamental Law only consisted of a list of twelve questions on very specific issues drafted by the governing party in a way that could have lead to self- evident replies and which, above all, did not include the text of the draft Fundamental Law so that the public was not in a position to submit its views thereon;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z

Z. whereas following a constitutional petition by the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, the Constitutional Court of Hungary annulled on 28 December 2012 (Decision No 45/2012) more than two thirds of the transitional provisions, on the grounds that they were not of a transitional nature;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas, despite 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;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 5

~~Practice of individual members' bills and accelerated procedures~~deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE

AE. whereas important legislation, including the Fundamental Law, its second and fourth amendments, the transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law and a number of cardinal laws were enacted on the basis of individual members' bills, to which the rules set out in Act CXXXI of 2010 on the participation of civil society in the preparation of legislation and in Decree 24/2011 of the Minister of Public Administration and Justice on preliminary and ex-post impact assessment do not apply, with the consequence that legislation adopted through this streamlined procedure is subject to a restricted public debate;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AF

AF. whereas the adoption of a large number of cardinal laws in a very short time frame, including the acts on the legal status and remuneration of judges of Hungary and on the organisation and administration of courts of Hungary, as well as the acts on the freedom of religion and on the National Bank of Hungary, inevitably restricted the possibilities for an adequate consultation of the opposition parties and the civil society;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG

AG. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related laws have been substantially limited to violations of an exhaustive list of rights, thus obstructing the review of constitutionality in cases of breaches of other fundamental rights, such as the right to property, the right to a fair trial and the right not to be discriminated against;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG

AG. whereas, under the ~~Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related law~~1989 constitutional regime the newly established Hungarian Constitutional Court received the broadest possible powers thave been substantially limited to violations of an exhaustive list of rights, thus obstructing the review of constitutionality in cases of breaches of other fundamental rights, such as the right to propet can be delegated to a court of its kind, and whereas after twenty years of jurisprudence there was a broad consensus – even by members of the Court – that the powers of the Constitutional Court should be revised; and whereas in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courtys, ~~the right to a fair trial and the right not to be discriminated against;~~ which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Recital AH

AH. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law ~~left untouched the already existing right of~~introduces for the first time an explicit reference enabling the Constitutional Court to review amendments to the Fundamental Law on procedural grounds~~, and whereas it excludes in the future the Court being able to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds;~~ ; whereas the Constitutional Court never had competence to review constitutional amendments on substantive grounds stated by the Constitutional Court in its interpretation several times; and whereas the assessment of the Venice Commission on the review of constitutional amendments by constitutional courts concludes that this is a rare feature of constitutional jurisdiction, and that "such a control cannot therefore be considered as a requirement of the rule of law" (paragraph 49 of Opinion No. 679/2012 on the Revision of the Constitution of Belgium); and whereas in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Recital AM

AM. whereas the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Hungary on 8 June 2012, declaring that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC by removing the data protection supervisor from office before the end of the mandate~~, thus putting at risk the independence of the off~~; whereas the case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital AN

AN. whereas, according to the Fundamental Law and its transitional provisions, the six-year-long mandate of the former President of the Supreme Court (renamed the ‘Kúria’) was prematurely ended after two years;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BO

BO. whereas, despite the fact that the laws were amended in 2011 following negotiations with the European Commission and in May 2012 further to the decision of the Constitutional Court of December 2011, the OSCE Representative on freedom of the Media has deplored that several amendments were introduced and adopted at short notice without consulting stakeholders and that fundamental elements in the legislation have not been improved, notably the appointment of the president and members of the Media Authority and Media Council, their power over content in the broadcast media, the imposition of high fines and the lack of safeguards on the financial and editorial independence of public broadcasters;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ

BQ. whereas the Hungarian Authorities are in the process of reviewing the Fourth Amendment that imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advertising in the public media;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 11

~~Freedom of religion and recognition of churches~~deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BX

BX. whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Charter is one of the foundations of a democratic society, and whereas the role of the State in this respect should be that of a neutral and impartial guarantor of the right to exercise various religions, faiths and beliefs;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BY

BY. whereas the Act on Churches established a new legal regime for the regulation of religious associations and churches in Hungary which imposed a set of requirements for the recognition of churches and made such recognition conditional on prior approval by the parliament by a two-thirds majority;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital BZ

BZ. whereas the obligation set out in the Act on Churches to obtain recognition by the parliament as a condition to establish a church was deemed by the Venice Commission13 to be a restriction of the freedom of religion; __________________ 13 Venice Commission Opinion 664/2012 of 19 March 2012 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 (CDL-AD(2012)004).deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital CA

~~CA. whereas as a result of the entry into force of retroactive provisions of the Act on Churches more than 300 registered churches lost their legal status of church;~~deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital CB

CB. whereas at the request of several religious communities and the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act on Churches and declared in its Decision 6/2013 of 26 February 2013 some of them unconstitutional and annulled them with retroactive effect;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital CC

CC. whereas the Constitutional Court in that Decision, while not questioning the right of the parliament to specify the substantive conditions for recognition as a church, considered that the recognition of church status by a vote in Parliament might result in politically biased decisions, and whereas the Constitutional Court declared that the Act did not contain any obligation to provide detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses recognition of church status, that no deadlines were specified for the parliament's actions and that the Act did not ensure the possibility of legal remedy in cases of refusal or lack of a decision;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD

CD. whereas the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted two weeks after the decision of the Constitutional Court, amended Article VII of the Fundamental Law and elevated to the level of the constitution the power of the parliament to pass cardinal laws to recognise certain organisations engaged in religious activities as churches, thus overruling the Constitutional Court's decision;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that the process of drafting and adopting the Fundamental Law of Hungary lacked the transparency, openness, inclusiveness and ultimately the consensual basis that could be expected in a modern democratic constituent process, thus weakening the legitimacy of the Fundamental Law itself,deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Strongly criticises the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which undermine the supremacy of the Fundamental Law by reintroducing in its text a number of rules previously declared unconstitutional – i.e. incompatible on procedural or substantive grounds with the Fundamental Law – by the Constitutional Court;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Cconsiders that the extensive use of cardinal laws to regulate areas that are covered by ordinary laws in most Member States or to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualifiedwhile having been a feature of the Hungarian constitutional and legal order since 1989, the extensive use of cardinal laws, the adoption of which requires a majority, of two set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new electionsthirds, in areas where European constitutional tradition does not warrant such an approach, should be re-evaluated, in order to ensure that future governments and parliamentary majorities be allowed to legislate in a meaningful and comprehensive manner;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable and democratic legislative process as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Law;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Shar~~Underlines the opinion of the Venice Commission (No CDL-AD(201~~2)0~~1)016), ~~according to which the adoption of a large amount of legislation in a very short time frame could explain why some of the new provisions do not comply with European standards;~~ which "welcomes the fact that this new Constitution establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles. It notes that constitutions of other European States, such as Poland, Finland, Switzerland or Austria, have been used as a source of inspiration. A particular effort has been made to follow closely the technique and the contents of the ECHR and to some extent the EU Charter.";

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that the limitation of constitutional jurisdiction relating to the laws on the central budget and taxes is in contradiction with the requirements of democracy, the rule of law and the principle of judicial review, as it weakens the institutional and procedural guarantees for the protection of a number of constitutional rights and for controlling the parliament's and the government's powers in the budgetary field;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers that the limitation of constitutional jurisdiction relating to the laws on the central budget and taxes is in contradiction with the requirements of democracy, the rule of law and the principle of judicial review, as it weakens the institutional and procedural guarantees for the protection of a number of constitutional rights and for controlling the parliament's and the government's powers in the budgetary fielcontrol of central budget by constitutional courts is not a common European standard;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
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 undermine~~Underlines that according to rule of law a democratically elected Parliament has the right and duty to adopt the Constitution and Laws, and the Constitutional Court has the pri~~nciple of separation of powers and a correctly functioning system~~ght and duty to safeguard the compatibility of cthe~~cks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law~~ laws with the Constitution;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Is also extremely concerned about those provisions of the Fourth Amendment which repeal 20 years of constitutional jurisprudence, containing an entire system of founding principles and constitutional requirements, including any potential case-law affecting the application of EU law and of European human rights law;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Criticises the accelerated process of enacting important laws as it undermines the rights of the opposition parties to be effectively involved in the legislative process, thus limiting their scrutiny of the majority's and the government's action and ultimately negatively affecting the system of checks and balances;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Welcomes the fact~~Takes note that the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the ~~independence of the d~~legality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection ~~supervisor~~, which case is currently pending at the European Court of Justice;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Deplores that the above-mentioned institutional changes resulted in a clear weakening of the systems of checks and balances required by the rule of law and the democratic principle of the separation of powers;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Regrets that the numerous measures adopted – as well as some on-going reforms – do not provide sufficient assurances of constitutional safeguards as to the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Constitutional Court of Hungary;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that the premature termination of the term of office of the Supreme Court's President violates the guarantee of security of tenure, which is a key element of the independence of the judiciary;deleted

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Regrets, however, that not all the recommendations of the Venice Commission have been implemented, in particular as regards the need to limit discretionary powers of the President of the National Judicial Office in the context of the transfer of cases, which potentially affect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge, while taking note that the Hungarian government is still in the process of reviewing the matter;

2013/05/22
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. ~~Expresses concern at the effects~~Welcomes the ongoing review 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 provision of balanced information~~;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 6

~~Freedom of religion and recognition of churches~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

46. Notes with concern that the modifications introduced in the Fundamental Law by the Fourth Amendment attribute to the parliament the power to recognise, by way of cardinal laws and without the constitutional duty to justify a refusal of recognition, certain organisations engaged in religious activities as churches, which might negatively affect the duty of the State to remain neutral and impartial in its relations with the various religions and beliefs;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 7

~~Conclusion~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Concludes – for the reasons explained above – that the systemic and general trend of repeatedly modifying the constitutional and legal framework in very short time frames, and the content of such modifications, are incompatible with the values referred to in Article 2 TEU, Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6 TEU and deviate from the principles referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3 TEU; considers that - unless corrected in a timely and sufficient manner - this trend will result in a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. States that it is ready – and calls on the Council and Commission to also be prepared – in the event that Hungary does not implement the recommendations set out in paragraph 61, to take action under Article 7(1) TEU to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the common values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55

55. Expects all Member States to take the necessary steps, particularly within the Council of the European Union, to contribute loyally to the promotion of the Union's values and to cooperate with Parliament and the Commission in monitoring their observance~~, especially in the framework of the ‘Article 2 Trilogue’ referred to in paragraph 76~~;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Heading III - Subheading 3

~~Appeal to the European Council~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56

~~56. Reminds the European Council of its responsibilities within the framework of the area of freedom, liberty, security and justice;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

57. Notes with disappointment that the European Council is the only EU political institution that has remained silent, while the Commission, Parliament, the Council of Europe, the OSCE and even the U.S. administration have voiced concerns over the situation in Hungary;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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 the 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 risk;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

59. Invites the President of the European Council to inform Parliament of his assessment of the situation and rapidly engage in consultations with the President of Parliament and the President of the Commission;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 1

– to inform Parliament of its assessment of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law ~~and its impact on cooperation within the EU~~;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 3

– to focus not only on specific infringements of EU law to be remedied notably through Article 258 TFEU, but to draw the consequences of a systemic change of the constitutional and legal system of a Member State where multiple and recurrent infringements unfortunately result in a state of legal uncertainty which not longer meets the requirements of Article 2 TEU;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Kinga GÁL, Frank ENGEL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 3

– to focus ~~not~~ only on specific infringements of EU law to be remedied notably through Article 258 TFEU, but to draw the consequences of a systemic change of the constitutional and legal system of a Member State where multiple and recurrent infringements unfortunately result in a state of legal uncertainty which not longer meets the requirements of Article 2 TEUas this is what is in its mandate under the Treaty;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part

61. Urges the Hungarian authorities to implement the following recommendations without any further delay, with a view to fully restoring the rule of law and its key requirements on the constitutional setting, the system of checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to propeall the measures the European Commission as the guardian of the treaties deems necessary in order to fully comply with EU law, to implement, as swiftly as possible, the recommendations of the Venice Commission and to ultimately enact the still pending judgments of the Hungarian Constitutional Courty:

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 1

~~– to fully restore the supremacy of the Fundamental Law by removing from it those provisions previously declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2 a (new)

- to reduce the recurrent use of cardinal laws in order to leave policy areas such as family, social, fiscal and budget to ordinary legislation and majorities;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 3

– to secure a lively parliamentary system which also respects opposition forces by allowing a reasonable time for a genuine debate between the majority and the opposition and for the participation of the wider public in the legislative procedure;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 3 a (new)

- to insure the widest possible participation of all parliamentary parties in the constitutional process, even though the relevant special majority is held by the governing coalition alone;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4

– to restore the right of the Constitutional Court to review all legislation without exception with a view to counterbalancing parliamentary and executive actions and ensuring, through full judicial review, that the Fundamental Law always remains the supreme law of the land;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 5

– to fully restore the prerogatives of the Constitutional Court as the supreme body of constitutional protection, and thus the primacy of the Fundamental Law, by removing from its text the limitations on the Constitutional Court's power to review the constitutionality of any modifications of the Fundamental Law as well as the abolition of two decades of constitutional case-law;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 6

~~– to restore the case-law of the Constitutional Court issued before the entry into force of the Fundamental Law, in particular in the field of fundamental rights16 ; __________________ 16~~deleted See Working Document n° 5.

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 9

– to fully ~~restore and~~ guarantee the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that the principles of irremovability and guaranteed term of office of judges, the rules governing the structure and composition of the governing bodies of the judiciary, as well as the safeguards on the independence of the Constitutional Court, are enshrined in the Fundamental Law;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 16

– to respect, guarantee, protect and promote the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, as well as media freedom and pluralism, and to refrain from developing or supporting mechanisms that threaten media freedom and journalistic and editorial independence;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

~~On respect for fundamental rights~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 20

~~– to take positive action to ensure that the fundamental rights of all persons, including persons belonging to minorities, are respec~~deleted;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 6

~~On the freedom of religion and the recognition of churches:~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 21

– to establish clear, neutral and impartial requirements and institutional procedures for the recognition of religious organisations as churches which respect the duty of the State to remain neutral and impartial in its relations with the various religions and beliefs and to provide effective means of redress in cases of non-recognition or lack of a decision in line with the constitutional requirements set out in the above-mentioned Decision 6/2013 of the Constitutional Court;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63

63. ~~Firmly requests~~Deems appropriate that Member States be regularly assessed on their continued compliance with the fundamental values of the Union and the requirements of democracy and the rule of law bearing in mind that such an assessment must be founded on a commonly accepted European understanding of constitutional and legal dynamic;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68

68. Given the current institutional mechanism laid down in Article 7 TEU, reiterates the calls it made, in its resolution of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011), for the establishment of a new mechanism (‘Copenhagen high-level group’) to ensure compliance by all Member States with the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69

69. Reiterates that the setting-up of such a mechanism could involve the rethinking of the mandate of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which should be enhanced to include regular monitoring of Member States' compliance with Article 2 of the TEU;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70

~~70. Reiterates that, in any case, this new mechanism has to be independent from political influence, swift and effective;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 - introductory part

~~71. Recommends that this mechanism serve to:~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 – indent 1

~~– regularly monitor respect for fundamental rights, the state of democracy and the rule of law in all Member States while fully respecting national constitutional traditions;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 – indent 2

~~– conduct such monitoring uniformly in all Member States to avoid any risks of double standards between its Member States;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 – indent 3

~~– warn the EU at an early stage about any risks of deterioration of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 – indent 4

~~– issue recommendations to the EU institutions and Member States on how to respond and remedy any deterioration of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;~~deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72

72. Instructs its committee responsible for the protection within the territory of the Union of citizens' rights, human rights and fundamental rights, and for determining clear risks of a serious breach by a Member State of the common principles, to submit a detailed proposal in the form of a report to the Conference of Presidents and to the Plenary;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73

73. Emphasises that this mechanism shall not interfere with, nor duplicate, the work carried out by the Council of Europe and other international bodies, but shall operate in full cooperation with them;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74

74. Intends to convene a Conference on this issue, before the end of 2013, that brings together representatives from the Member States, the European institutions, the Council of Europe, national Constitutional and Supreme Courts, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75

75. Calls on the Hungarian authorities to inform Parliament, the Commission, the Council Presidency and the Council of Europe o~~f the procedure and the calendar they intend to follow for the implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraph 61~~n the implementation of the requested measures;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76

76. Invites the Commission ~~and the Council to each designate a representative who, together with the Parliament's rapporteur (‘Article 2 Trilogue’), will~~to carry out an assessment of the information sent by the Hungarian authorities on the implementation of the re~~commendations contained in paragraph 61~~quested measures;

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2013/05/29
Committee: LIBE