2012/2130(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 c (new)

- Having regard to the fact that on several points the rapporteur obviously goes beyond the competence of the European Parliament,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17

– having regard to the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 8 February 2013 in the form of an individual member's bill and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 11 March 2013, which, among other provisions, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law the tTransitional pProvisions (with thsome exception ofs including the provision requiring voter registration) annulled by the Constitutional Court of Hungary on 28 December 2012 on procedural grounds (Decision No 45/2012), and remaining provisions of a real transitional nature in this document,

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AF a (new)

AFa. whereas the Act XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly has vested the Speaker of the Parliament with an extensive discretionary power to limit MPs' free expression in the Parliament;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AF b (new)

AFb. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the possibility for two new kinds of constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court has been introduced, while the actio popularis for ex post review has been abolished;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 6

~~Weakening of c~~Checks and balances: Constitutional Court, Parliament, Data Protection Authority

Amendment 103 #

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

Amendment 104 #

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 laws~~of ex post review of the constitutionality of budget-related laws from a substantive point of view 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;

Amendment 105 #

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);

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG a (new)

AGa. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related laws are temporary in nature and limited in scope; and whereas the constitutional rules on the powers of the Constitutional Court regarding budget-related laws do not affect the right of the Constitutional Court regarding the unlimited ex ante review of all budget-related legislative acts, regarding the unlimited ex post review of all legal acts other than acts of Parliament (e.g. government decrees), regarding the full ex ante and ex post review of all budget-related legislative acts from a procedural point of view and regarding full ex ante and ex post review of all budget-related legislative acts with regard to their compliance with international treaty obligations;

Amendment 107 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG b (new)

AGb. whereas the Constitutional Court may ensure an effective fundamental rights protection even under the scope of restriction;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AH

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;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AI

AI. whereas the Constitutional Court, in its ~~above-mentioned~~ Decision 4561/2012,1 held that ~~‘Constitutional legality has not only procedural, formal and public law validity requirements, but also substantial ones. T~~"one of the most important arguments against the extension of the powers of the cConstitutional ~~criteria of a democratic State under the rule of law are at the same tim~~Court to the review of the Constitution is that the cConstitutional values, principles and fundamental democratic freedoms enshrined in international treaties and accepted and acknowledged by communities of democratic States under the rule of law, as well as the ius cogens, which is partly the same as the foregoing. As appropriate, the Constitutional Court may even examine the free enforcement andCourt cannot create and cannot alter the Constitution which it is designed to protect and which it must apply as a yardstick in the course of the constitutional review of legislation. This is confirmed by the fact that, throughout its operation, the Constitutional Court has consistently refused to review the Constitution or its provisions. (...) Within the system of the division of powers, the power of the cConstitutional~~isation of the substantial requirements, guarantees and values of democratic States under the rule of law.’ (Point IV.7 of the Decis~~ Court, too, is a limited power. Following from this, the Constitutional Court will not draw the review the Constitution and new amendments to the Constitution within its competence without express authorisation in the Constitution);."

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the Part V of the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's Decision No 45/2012, which among other states, that "following the decision of the Constitutional Court, it is the task and the responsibility of the constituent power to clear up the situation after the partial annulment. The Parliament shall make an evident and clear legal situation. The Parliament shall revise the subject matters of the annulled non-transitional provisions and decide on which matters should be re-regulated and on which level of legal sources. That is also for the Parliament to decide on which provisions to be re-regulated should be incorporated into the Fundamental Law and which should be laid down on level of [ordinary or cardinal] Acts",

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ

AJ. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law further stipulates that the rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted before the entry into force of the Fundamental Law shall be repealed~~, and reintroduces into the Fundamental Law a number of~~ (just as it happened in Poland in 1997 when the new Constitution entered into force), and whereas it should be however emphasized that with this decision the Parliament made it clear that the Constitutional Court was not tied to its decisions adopted on the basis of the former Constitution and that it may come to the same conclusions as before, nor does this provisions prev~~iously annulled by the Constitutional Court8~~ ent the Constitutional Court from referring to its earlier decisions as they form part of the so-called historical constitution (constitutional traditions) of Hungary that is specifically recognised by the Fundamental Law as a source of interpretation; and whereas the Constitutional Court has exactly done this in its Decision 10/2013. (IV. 25.) or Resolution No. III/3440/2012, when referring to pre-existing Constitutional Court decisions;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ

AJ. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law further stipulates that the rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted before the entry into force of the Fundamental Law shall be repealed, and ~~reintroduces~~by doing so explicitly contradicts to the Constitutional Court's Decision No 22/2012 in which the Court established that its statements made on the fundamental values, human rights and freedoms and on the constitutional institutions that have not been changed fundamentally by the Fundamental Law, remain valid; whereas the Fourth Amendment reintroduced into the Fundamental Law a number of provisions previously ~~annulled~~declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court8 ;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AK

AK. whereas ~~a non-parliamentary body, the~~the establishment of a Budget Council, with ~~limited democratic legitimacy, has been granted the power to veto the adoption of the general budget, thus restricting the scope for action of the democratically elected legislature~~strong powers over national spending was required under the 2008 IMF loan and EU balance of payment assistance agreement in order to limit the powers of political parties to adopt irresponsible budgetary measures, because the democratically elected socialist governments between 2002 and 2010 paid no attention to fiscal reality or the long-term financial interests of the country; and whereas the 2012 country- specific recommendations endorsed by the European Council called for further strengthening of this institution;

Amendment 113 #

Claude MORAES

Motion for a resolution
Recital AK

AK. whereas a non-parliamentary body, the Budget Council, with limited democratic legitimacy, has been granted the power to veto the adoption of the general budget, thus restricting the scope for action of the democratically elected legislature and allowing the President of the Republic to dissolve the Parliament;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AK a (new)

AKa. whereas the Budget Council may exercise a veto only as a last resort exceptional measure, when Parliament is to adopt a budget leading to the growth of state indebtedness; and whereas otherwise the ordinary function of the Council is to undertake a preliminary review of the draft national budget and to make recommendations;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AL

AL. whereas the new Freedom of Information Act, adopted in July 2011, reformed the data protection institution by estabolisheding the ~~institution~~National Authority for Data Protection instead of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, thus ~~prematurely terminating the six-year-long mandate of the Commissioner and transferring its powers to the newly-established~~transferring its powers to the newly-established Authority with a new status which attaches legal consequences to its procedures; whereas in its Decision No. 3076/2013. the Constitutional Court confirmed that the restructuring of an organisation may be an explicit constitutional reason for the shortening of the mandate of civil servants; whereas the independence of the new National A~~genc~~uthority for Data Protection ~~whose independence is currently under review by the Court of Justice of the European Union~~has not been questioned by the European Commission and as regards the independence of the Authority the Venice Commission acknowledged that it is far better ensured in Hungary than in many other European states; and whereas the European Commission initiated infringement procedure on the legality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data Protection, which case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;

Amendment 116 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Recital AL

AL. whereas the new Freedom of Information Act, adopted in July 2011, abolished the institution of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, thus prematurely terminating the six-year-long mandate of the Commissioner and transferring its powers to the newly-established National A~~genc~~uthority for Data Protection; wh~~ose independence is~~ereas such changes are currently under review by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 117 #

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;

Amendment 118 #

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

Amendment 119 #

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~~was ended after two years, as the position ceased to exist in its original form due to the complete restructuring of the judiciary and the changes in the functions of the president and the vice-president of the Kúria; and whereas in its Decision No. 3076/2013. the Constitutional Court held that such an institutional restructuring was a sufficient ground for the early termination of the office of the President, as well as in its Decision No. 45/2012 these rules have been recognised as real and valid transitional provisions; furthermore whereas the European Commission has opted not to initiate an infringement procedure on this issue;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 28

– having regard to the letter of 8 March 2013 sent by the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr János Martonyi, to all his counterparts in the Member States of the EU explaining the purpose of the Fourth Amendment,

Amendment 120 #

Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS

Motion for a resolution
Recital AP

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AP

AP. whereas key safeguards for judicial independence, such as irremovability, guaranteed term of office, the structure and composition of the governing bodies, are not regulated in the Constitution but are – together with detailed rules on the organization and administration of the judiciary – still set out in the amended cardinal laws,; whereas it should be emphasized that the former Constitution did not contain more detailed rules on these issues either, and those have never been criticised; whereas, therefore thus the provisions of the Fundamental Law cannot be regarded as setbacks at any ways; and whereas in certain Member States the constitution does not refer to the judicial structure of the given country at all, or does not include any detailed regulation related to this (e.g. among others in Austria, France, Estonia, Finland or Germany);

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ

~~AQ. whereas the independence of the Constitutional Court is not set forth in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and neither is the independence of the autonomous administration of the judiciary;~~deleted

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ

AQ. whereas the ~~independence of~~Fundamental Law defines the Constitutional Court ias ~~not set forth in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and neither is the independence~~an autonomous organ regulated in a chapter separated from that of any other state organ; and whereas the Cardinal Act on Constitutional Court explicitly states that the Members of the aConstitution~~omous administration of the judiciary~~al Court are independent and only subordinated to law;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ

AQ. whereas the independence of the Constitutional Court is not set forth in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and neither is the independence of the ~~autonomous~~ administration of the judiciary;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ a (new)

AQa. whereas the respective Act on the judiciary states - and it also follows from the Fundamental Law - that due to the principle of lawful judge, no one can be deprived from his/her legal judge, thus the purpose of the rule on case-transfer is to guarantee the fundamental right to a decision within a reasonable time and to distribute the case-loads of courts evenly; and whereas the procedure of allocation of a case has to be initiated by the court in charge with sound justification and never initiated by the President of the National Judicial Office;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AR

AR. whereas ~~the a~~according to the Fourth Amendment of the ~~cardin~~Fundamental lLaw~~s on the judiciary as regards the power of the President of the National Judicial Office to transfer cases from~~ the system of transfer of cases is being revised (Bill T/10593), and further constitutional guarantees were introduced: only groups of cases not individual cases may be transferred to other courts, the President of the National Judicial Office has no influence whatsoever on which court hears a given case, meaning the pre~~siding court to another court to ensure the adjudication~~gulation does not provide for the possibility of an ad hoc or ad personam appointment of the proceeding judge ofr c~~ases within a reasonable period~~hamber; whereas the details of timhe ne~~ither lays down objective criteria for the selection of the cases to be transferred nor entrusts the National Judicial Council with the mandate to adopt objective selection criteria~~w mechanism were elaborated in consultation with the European Commission; and whereas the possibility of transfer of cases exists in the Netherlands as well regulated by the new Law on the Judiciary (Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie) that came into force on 1 January 2013;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AR

AR. whereas the amendment of the cardinal laws on the judiciary as regards the power of the President of the National Judicial Office to transfer cases from the presiding court to another court to ensure the adjudication of cases within a reasonable period of time ~~neither~~fails to lays down objective normative criteria for the selection of the cases to be transferred ~~nor entrusts the National Judicial Council with the mandate to adopt objective selection criteria~~;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AT

AT. whereas the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, adopted on 6 November 2012, states that the radical lowering of the retirement age for Hungarian judges as well as prosecutors and notaries from 70 to 62 years of age constitutes unjustified discrimination on grounds of age, and whereas two complaints were submitted by two groups of Hungarian judges to the ECtHR on 20 June 2012 seeking a ruling to establish that Hungary's legislation on lowering the retirement age for judges violates the ECHR;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 30

– having regard to the joint statement of 11 March 2013 by President Barroso and Secretary General Jagland recalling their concerns regarding the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law with respect to the principle of the rule of law; and having regard to the confirmation made by Prime Minister Orbán, in his letter addressed to President Barroso on 8 March 2013, of the full commitment of the Hungarian Government and Parliament to the European norms and values,

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AU

AU. whereas on 11 March 2013 the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act No XX of 2013 amending the upper age limits with a view to complying with the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court of 16 July 2012 and of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012; whereas, the Hungarian Government regularly informed the Commission on the developments; whereas in its letter to Vice-President Reding from 17 May 2013 Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics submitted all the data proving the execution of the CJEU judgement;

Amendment 131 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Recital AU

AU. whereas on 11 March 2013 the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act No XX of 2013 amending the upper age limits with a view to partly complying with the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court of 16 July 2012 and of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AU a (new)

AUa. whereas the governing majority in Parliament reformed the election system in a unilateral manner without striving for consensus with the opposition,

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AU b (new)

AUb. whereas the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR prepared a joint opinion on the Act on the Election of Members of Parliament of Hungary on 15 and 16 June 2012,

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV

AV. whereas as part of the recent electoral reform the Hungarian Parliament passed, on 26 November 2012, on the basis of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative, the Act on the election procedure, which aimed to replace the previous automatic voter registration of all citizens with residence in Hungary by a system of voluntary registration as a condition for exercising the individual's right to vote,

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV a (new)

AVa. Whereas the recent survey of Zero Project 2013 in cooperation with 374 persons with disabilities, experts and academics as well as NGOs, foundations and international organizations in 116 countries and the World Future Council states that in Hungary any voter with disabilities receives all necessary support to vote in secret.

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV b (new)

AVb. Whereas the recent survey of Zero Project 2013 in cooperation with 374 persons with disabilities, experts and academics as well as NGOs, foundations and international organizations in 116 countries and the World Future Council states that in Hungary any voter with disabilities receives all necessary support to vote in secret in contrast to the practice of other EU Member States;

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV c (new)

AVc. Whereas one of the principles of the Act XXXVI of 2013 on the election procedure in Hungary (Article 2) expressly prescribes that the need of people with disabilities, including people with metal health disabilities, shall be taken into account in accordance with the support of the chosen person by the disabled or two persons from the local electoral committee to help the disabled person to vote if he/she personally requests (Article 181);

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AV d (new)

AVd. Whereas one of the principles of the Act XXXVI of 2013 on the election procedure in Hungary (Article 2) expressly prescribes that the need of people with disabilities, including people with metal health disabilities, shall be taken into account in accordance with the support of the chosen person by the disabled or two persons from the local electoral committee to help the disabled person to vote if he/she personally requests (Article 181);

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AW

AW. whereas the Second Amendment of the Fundamental Law enshrining the requirement of voter registration was tabled as an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative on the same day as the draft law on the election procedure, namely on 18 September 2012, and was adopted on 29 October 2012,

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 35

– having regard to the statements by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of 15 February 2012 and of 11 December 2012 calling on Hungary, respectively, to reconsider legislation ~~criminalizing~~on homelessness and to uphold the Constitutional Court's decision ~~decriminalising~~in this regard, and having regard to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment that recognize the right to adequate housing and the commitment to provide access to housing for every homeless~~ness~~ person,

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AX

AX. whereas, as a clear proof of functioning of checks and balances following the petition of the President of the Republic of 6 December 2012, the Constitutional Court established that the registration requirement represents an undue restriction on the voting rights of Hungarian residents, and is therefore unconstitutional, while considering voter registration for citizens residing abroad as justified; and whereas Parliament respecting the ruling of the Constitutional Court withdrew the debated provisions from the code on the electoral procedure;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AY

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AY

AY. whereas, while considering voter registration for citizens residing abroad as justified, the Constitutional Court in its decision of 4 January 2013 further held that exclusion of the possibility of personal registration of voters without an address liv the aim of rules on the political advertisements in the Fourth Amendment was to create truly equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media as well as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; whereas the Constitutional Court ing i~~n Hungary is discriminatory an~~ts above Decision held that the provisions allowing the publication of political advertisements only in the public media service during the electoral campaign, ~~and the rules banning the publ~~constitute a disproportionate limitation of the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press; and whereas the electoral provisions have been revised in view of the Decision, thus the restrications ofn the publication of opinion polls ~~within six days before the elections, disproportionally limit~~have been lifted and the rules of political advertisements have been amended as follows: internet, billboard, cinema, newspaper etc. advertisements will be unconstrained, and audio-visual advertising can only take place through the national media under pre-established, proportionate conditions, free~~dom~~ of ~~expression and freedom of the press,~~charge; whereas the consultations concerning the application of these rules are in progress with the European Commission;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BD

BD. whereas Member States have a duty to constantly promote and protect freedom of opinion, expression, information and the media, and whereas, ~~should these freedoms be placed at serious risk or violated in a Member State, the Union is obliged to intervene in a timely and effective fashion,~~the Union may intervene on the basis of its competences as enshrined in the Treaties ~~and in the Charter~~, to protect the European ~~democratic and pluralistic order and~~ fundamental rights;

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BF

BF. whereas criticism of ~~a number of the~~several provisions of Hungarian Media lregisulation has been voiced by Parliament and the Commission, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of right to freedom of opinion and expression, and by a large number of international and national journalists' organisations, editors and publishers, NGOs active in the area of human rights and civil liberties, and Member States; whereas much of this criticism has subsequently turned out to be unfounded and unjustified;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BJ

BJ. whereas the Commission has raised concerns regarding the conformity of the Hungarian media law with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the acquis communautaire in general, notably in relation to the obligation to offer balanced coverage applicable to all audiovisual media service providers, and has also questioned whether that law complies with the principle of proportionality and respects the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter, the country of origin principle and registration requirements, and whereas, in March 2011, following negotiations with the Commission, the Hungarian Parliament amended the ~~law to address the points raised by the Commission~~regulation according to the negotiation between the parties;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BK

BK. whereas the OSCE has expressed serious, in certain issues factually mistaken, reservations regarding the material and territorial scope of Hungarian legislation, the politically homogeneous composition of the Media Authority and Media Council, the disproportionate penalties imposed, the lack of an automatic procedure for suspending penalties in the event of an appeal to the courts against a Media Authority ruling, the violation of the principle of the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the protection of family values;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BL a (new)

BLa. 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;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BN

BN. whereas an analysis by Council of Europe experts11 (which assessed compliance of the Media Acts as proposed for amendment in 2012 with Council of Europe standard-setting texts in the field of media and freedom of expression) recommended that specific provisions on registration and transparency, content regulation, obligations on news coverage, protection of sources, public service media and regulatory bodies be thoroughly revised, clarified or in some cases eliminated; and whereas on the basis of this analysis and on the Decision No.165/2011 of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the Parliament, in July 2012, adopted the Act LXVI of 2012 amending the media legislation, which was prepared in consultation with the Council of Europe, establishing the procedural guarantees of the right to the protection of sources of information, narrowing the scope of the Press and Media Act as to press products, and creating a framework for the constitutional operation of the Media and Communications Commissioner;

Amendment 149 #

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

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 35

Amendment 150 #

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

Amendment 151 #

Claude MORAES

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 overturning several provisions as unconstitutional regarding the content regulation of the printed press, the protection of the sources of journalists, the requirement of data provision, and the institution of the Media and Telecommunications Commissioner, 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;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BP

BP. whereas, ~~further to~~as a result of the dialogue conducted with the EU and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe through an exchange of letters and expert meetings, further legal amendments were ~~tabl~~adopted ion ~~February~~25 March 2013 by the Act XXXIII of 2013 in order to strengthen ~~and guarantee~~ the independence of the ~~media regulatory bodies, notably in respect of the rules relating to the conditions of the appointment and elec~~President of the Media Authority, to preclude the possibility of re-appointment of the President of the Authority as well as of the re-election of the Members of the Media Council, to set out legal obligations to consult NGOs and to take their proposals into consideration ofin the ~~President of the National Media and Infocommunications~~nomination procedure, to set higher professional requirements for the appointment of the President of the Authority and the Members of the Media Council, and ~~concerning,~~to maintain only the requirement of 'balanced' coverage, while respe~~ctively, the nomination procedure, the person making the appointment and repeated appointment~~aling the adjectives 'comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective' as suggested by the Council of Europe; and whereas all the above steps prove the constructiveness of the Hungarian government in considering the criticism and suggestions to the media regulation, as these amendments were favourably received and deemed to constitute appropriate guarantees by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe;

Amendment 153 #

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;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ

BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advertising in the public media; and also imposes a broad and potentially vague prohibition on speech aimed at violating the dignity of groups, including the Hungarian nation, that may be used to arbitrarily interfere with freedom of expression and may have a chilling effect on journalists, and also on artists and others;

Amendment 155 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ

BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment ~~imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advert~~ensures 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 in~~g in the public media;~~ consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BQ

BQ. whereas the Fourth Amendment ~~imposes press restrictions as it bans all political advertising during electoral campaigns except for advert~~ensures 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 in~~g in the public media~~ consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising;

Amendment 157 #

Claude MORAES, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Boris ZALA, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Recital BR

BR. whereas the National Media and Infocommunications Authority and the Media Council have not conducted assessments on the effects of the legislation on the quality of journalism, the degrees of editorial freedom and the quality of working conditions for journalists;deleted

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BS

BS. whereas the respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities is explicitly recognised among the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and the Union is committed to promoting these values and combating social exclusion, racism, anti- Semitism and discrimination;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BS a (new)

BSa. whereas the right not to suffer discrimination is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Amendment 16 #

Claude MORAES, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Boris ZALA, Hannu TAKKULA

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,

Amendment 160 #

Kinga GÁL, Edit BAUER, László TŐKÉS, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Recital BS a (new)

BSa. whereas the Hungarian government adopted the Act CCIII of 2011 (currently Act XXXVI of 2013) on the elections of the Members of Parliament of Hungary, which allows minority representatives for the first time to gain a seat in the Parliament, thus finally assures the political representation of minorities, requested over almost for two decades; and whereas the adopted Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities recognises and guarantees rights to its thirteen recognised nationalities and their members in the main areas of interest for the protection of their identity - education, culture, private and public use of the mother tongue, access to media and participation - and aims to improve and strengthen the available institutional arrangements for nationality self- government in these areas; and whereas in its Opinion CDL-AD(2012)011 the Venice Commission confirms that "Hungary has continued to pay particular attention to the promotion and protection of minority rights and to make specific efforts to ensure protection and preservation of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity, traditions and cultural heritage of its nationalities";

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BT

BT. whereas the responsibility of Member States to ensure that the fundamental rights of all are respected, irrespective of their ethnicity or belief, covers all levels of public administration as well as the law enforcement authorities and also implies actively promoting tolerance and firmly condemning phenomena such as racial violence ~~and hate speech~~, anti-Semitic and anti-Roma hate speech, particularly when it is expressed in official or public forums including in the Hungarian parliament;

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BT a (new)

BTa. whereas the Fourth Amendment of the Hungarian Fundamental Law states that the right to freedom of speech may not be exercised with the aim of violating the human dignity of other people introducing the sanctioning of hate- speech in the highest level of legislation, welcomed by several minority organisations, and whereas this type of regulation exists in a very few other Member States;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BU

BU. whereas the lack of reaction by the law enforcement authorities in cases of racially motivated crime12 has resulted in mistrust of the police forces; __________________ 12 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/20/33/Add. 1)deleted

Amendment 164 #

Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kinga GÁL

Motion for a resolution
Recital BU

BU. whereas the lack and inadequacy of reaction by the law enforcement authorities during the previous government in cases of racially motivated crime12 - most notably in the case of the 2008-2009 'Roma killings', the most serious series of crime in Hungarian criminal history -, as well as in the case of violence against peaceful commemorators and innocent civilians by police forces in the autumn of 2006 acting on the orders of the government, infringing the most fundamental rights, human dignity and all acknowledged European values, has resulted in mistrust of the police forces;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BW

Amendment 166 #

Claude MORAES, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Boris ZALA, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Recital BW

BW. whereas, although intolerance against the members of Roma and Jewish communities is not a problem solely associated with Hungary and other Member States are faced with the same predicament, recent events have raised concerns as to the increase in anti-Roma and anti-Semitic discourse in Hungary; whereas the firm stance and zero tolerance of the Hungarian government against any incident of a racist motive, the repeated public stances of both the President and the Prime Minister against all forms of racism and intolerance, as well as the positive steps taken on the matter, (such as criminalising Holocaust- denial, establishing the Holocaust Remembrance Day, introducing Roma and Jewish history in the national curricula or dedicating 2014 as the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial Year) must be acknowledged;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BW

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BW a (new)

BWa. whereas the imposition of retroactive tax and pensions legislation has increased social vulnerability and poverty on a massive scale, a fact which is not only causing great uncertainty among the people, but also constitutes a violation of private ownership rights and is undermining fundamental civil liberties;

Amendment 169 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 11

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

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 37

Amendment 170 #

Kinga GÁL, László SURJÁN, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Jacek PROTASIEWICZ

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

Amendment 171 #

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 w~~, and whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the re~~as 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~~lation between the State and the churches belongs to the Member States' competence; thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France);

Amendment 172 #

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

Amendment 173 #

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 requirement~~freedom of religion is entirely ensured by the Fundamental Law (Article VII) stating that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to choose or change religion or any other persuasion, and the freedom for every person to proclaim, refrain from proclaiming, profess or teach his for ther re~~cognition of churches and made such recognition conditional on prior ap~~ligion or any other persuasion by performing religious acts, ceremonies or in any other way, whether individually or jointly with others, in the public domain or in his or her proiva~~l by the parliament by a two-thirds majority~~te life. (...) The Churches shall be autonomous and the State shall cooperate with the Churches for community goals";

Amendment 174 #

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

Amendment 175 #

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~~Opinion No CDL- AD(2012)004 of the Venice Commission underlined that the Hungarian regulation in place „constitutes a liberal and generous framework for the freedom of religion.";

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital BZ – footnote 13

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

Amendment 177 #

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

Amendment 178 #

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~~due to the loopholes in the previous regulation more than 300 state- subsidised registered churches operated in Hungary (among others church of the UFO-believers, of witches, etc.) many of them misusing the offered benefits, not conducting religious activity; and whereas following the new regulations more than 30 are already granted a state-subsidised church status, these covering more than 90% of the Hungarian believers;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CB

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 38

– having regard to the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 on the radical lowering of the retirement age for Hungarian judges, and having regard to the subsequent adoption of the Act No XX of 2013 amending the Act CLXII of 2011 - adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 11 March 2013 - to comply with the decision of the European Court of Justice,

Amendment 180 #

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 effectspecific concerns raised by the Constitutional Court on the recognition of state subsidized churches have been addressed by Parliament under a new bill (No. T/10750) amending the Act on Churches, according to which the proposed new legislation sets out clear conditions for recognition as a state subsidized church, contains an obligation for detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses church status, specifies deadlines for the procedure of recognition and ensures the possibility of legal remedy at the Constitutional Court in cases of refusal or lack of a decision. Any religious community can freely use the denomination "church";

Amendment 181 #

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

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CC

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CC

Amendment 184 #

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 effective legal remedy in cases of refusal or lack of a decision;

Amendment 185 #

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

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD a (new)

- Whereas the elements of the constitutional system of the Member States fall into the competencies of the European Commission, the European Parliament and which parts belong solely to the competences of the Member States according to the Lisbon Treaty are not defined,

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD b (new)

- Whereas the norms of democracy and the rule of law equally valid to each Member State are not defined precisely and consistently,

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 40

~~– having regard to the upcoming report by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,~~deleted

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital CD c (new)

- Whereas this resolution refers to a single Member State without examining how the norms asserted herein are implemented in other Member States and without comparing them with each other,

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 12 a (new)

I suggest that the entire report should be dismissed and removed from the agenda.

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic process of enacting laws and adopting a Fundamental Law, 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;

Amendment 193 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that ~~respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic proc~~the "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 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
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 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Regrets that, from the point of view of protecting European core values, the EU institutions have not always managed in the past to live up to their own standards; maintains, therefore, that it falls to them in particular to take a stand in order to safeguard European fundamental rights as referred to in Article 2 TEU, both at Union level and in Member States;

Amendment 197 #

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

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets that the process of drafting and~~Takes note that the adoptingon of the Fundamental Law of Hungary ~~lacked the transparency, openness, inclusiveness and ultimat~~was finalised after a one-year long preparatory phase and more than one month long parliamentary debate dedicated exclusively to the cCons~~ensual basis that could be expected in a modern democratic constituent process, thus weakening the legitim~~titution- making process, where two opposition parties, based on their own political decision, chose to stay away from the discussions at the parliamentary sessions and remained reluctant to formulate proposals, as well as that 'national consultation' took placye ofn the draft Fundamental Law ~~itself,~~;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 f (new)

- Having regard to the fact that the report does not take into consideration the position and findings of the Hungarian Government,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 40

~~– having regard to the upcoming report by the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,~~deleted

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Considers that the process of drafting and adopting the Fundamental Law of Hungary ~~lacked the~~might have benefited from greater transparency, openness, and inclusiveness and ultimately ~~the~~a 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 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes that the Fundamental Law of Hungary reiterates as well as reaffirms the articles of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Hungary, as the fourth country in the EU, recognizes the Hungarian sign language (HSL) as a fully fledged language and it defends the HSL as part of Hungarian culture in Article H.

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring that the Hungarian Parliament exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted a number of transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law containing permanent and general rules,deleted

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring that ~~the Hungarian Parliament exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted~~"it is the task and the responsibility of the constituent power to clear up the situation after the partial annulment. The Parliament shall make an evident and clear legal situation. The Parliament shall revise the subject matters of the a nnu~~mber of~~ lled non-transitional provisions ~~of the Fundamental Law containing permanent and general rules,~~and decide on which matters should be re-regulated and on which level of legal sources. That is also for the Parliament to decide on which provisions to be re-regulated should be incorporated into the Fundamental Law and which should be laid down on level of [ordinary or cardinal] Acts";

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring that the Hungarian Parliament exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted a number of tpermanent and general rules in the Transitional pProvisions of the Fundamental Law ~~containing permanent and general rules~~,

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes that the Fundamental Law of Hungary particularly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other views, national or social origin, financial, birth or other circumstances whatsoever in Article XV as well as that Hungary shall adopt special measures to protect children, women, the elderly and persons living with disabilities in accordance with the Articles 20-26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Welcomes that Hungary adopted special measures to protect children, women, the elderly and persons living with disabilities in accordance with Articles 20-26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 208 #

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

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 41

~~– having regard to the upcoming assessment of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law by the European Commission,~~deleted

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 212 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that in its above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012, the Constitutional Court gave a clear ruling on ~~both substantive and~~ procedural standards of constitutionality by declaring that: 'In democratic States under the rule of law, constitutions have constant substantial and procedural standards and requirements. The substantial and procedural constitutional requirements shall not be set lower in the era of the Fundamental Law than they were at the time of the Constitution (Act). The requirements of a constitutional State under the rule of law continue to be constantly enforced requirements in the present and they are programs for the future. The constitutional State under the rule of law is a system of constant values, principles and guarantees~~‘14~~ '; considers such a clear-cut and dignified statement to be valid for the European Union and all its Member States;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that the common values of the Union of democracy and the rule of law require a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition and that according to Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR elections should guarantee the 'expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislator‘', which is the very case in Hungary;

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes that the Act XXXVI of 2013 on the election procedure in Hungary, Article 42 in particular, prescribes that, upon request, people with disabilities shall be provided with admonitions in Braille, relevant information in easy-to-read form, voting sample in Braille at polls as well as full accessibility of polls, including paying particular attention to the needs of the wheelchair users. In addition, based on Article 50 of the before mentioned act, disabled voters can ask to be registered at another, more accessible polls to cast their votes in the given constituency in accordance with the obligation of the creation of at least one fully accessible poll in every constituency in Article 81;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Welcomes that the Act XXXVI of 2013 on the election procedure in Hungary, Article 42 in particular, prescribes that, upon request, people with disabilities shall be provided with admonitions in Braille, relevant information in easy-to-read form, voting sample in Braille at polls as well as full accessibility of polls, including paying particular attention to the needs of the wheelchair users. In addition, based on Article 50 of the before mentioned act, disabled voters can ask to be registered at another, more accessible polls to cast their votes in the given constituency in accordance with the obligation of the creation of at least one fully accessible poll in every constituency in Article 81;

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers 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 qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new elections;deleted

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 218 #

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;

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Considers that the ~~extensive~~ use of cardinal laws ~~to regulate areas that are covered by o~~in Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, the number of areas subject to cardinaryl laws in most Member States or to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new electionhas more or less remained steady since then and has never been a source of criticism so far, not even during the accession negotiations, and not even when the socialist-liberal coalition between 1994-1998 governed with two- thirds majority amending a great number of cardinal acts at will, therefore challenging solely the current Hungarian government is politically biased; and underlines that use of two-third majority laws is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-third majority laws;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 41

~~– having regard to the upcoming assessment of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law by the European Commission,~~deleted

Amendment 220 #

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

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 222 #

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 i~~n practice it restricts public~~t lacks the guarantees of ensuring meaningful social 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;

Amendment 223 #

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~~is in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process, as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Lawnobody more accountable than a Member of Parliament who may be dismissed by the electors at the next elections. Denying this right of the members of Parliament with reference to the democratic values common to EU member States would lead us to a conclusion that democratically elected MPs cannot exercise their representative roles;

Amendment 224 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Shares the opinion of the Venice Commission (No CDL-AD(2012)001), 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, although it reminds that the Commission admitted that there was a need to improve the efficiency of the previous system;

Amendment 225 #

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.";

Amendment 226 #

Claude MORAES, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Welcomes the fact that when the members of the two institutions met in Eger on 16 May 2013, the Presidents of the Hungarian and Romanian constitutional courts, Péter Paczolay and Augustin Zegrean, issued a joint statement stressing that constitutional courts bear a special responsibility in countries ruled by a two-thirds majority;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Recalls that the constitutional majority raised the number of constitutional judges from 11 to 15 and abolished the requirement of reaching an agreement with the opposition regarding the election of constitutional judges. Is concerned that due to these measures 8 out of the 15 current constitutional judges have been elected by the 2/3 majority exclusively (with one exception), including two new members who were appointed directly from their position of Member of Parliament.

Amendment 228 #

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

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of democracy and the rule of law as set out in Article 2 TEU, on unequivocal respect for fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the ECHR, and on the recognition of the legal value of such rights, freedoms and principles, as is further demonstrated by the EU’s forthcoming accession to the ECHR pursuant to Article 6(2) TEU;(Does not affect English version.) (Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 230 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Considers~~Understands that a democratic system that is founded on the rule of law does not necessarily need a constitutional court in order to function properly; recalls however the opinion No. CDL-AD (2011)016 of the Venice Commission stating that in states having opted for a constitutional court, this court should be entitled to assess the compliance of all laws with the human rights guaranteed in the constitution, and especially with human rights of such a particular importance: the right not to be discriminated and the right not to be unduly deprived of its possessions; considers therefore 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;

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Considers~~Welcomes the introduction of a possibility for two new types of constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court; considers, however, 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;

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Takes note that in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal; and takes note that in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courts, which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that as declared by the Constitutional Court in its Decision No 45/2012, 'Constitutional legality has not only procedural, formal and public law validity requirements, but also substantial ones [...]. As appropriate, the Constitutional Court may even examine the free enforcement and the constitutionalisation of the substantial requirements, guarantees and values of democratic States under the rule of law‘;'; also recalls the Constitutional Court's Decision 61/2011 stating "one of the most important arguments against the extension of the powers of the Constitutional Court to the review of the Constitution is that the Constitutional Court cannot create and cannot alter the Constitution which it is designed to protect and which it must apply as a yardstick in the course of the constitutional review of legislation. This is confirmed by the fact that, throughout its operation, the Constitutional Court has consistently refused to review the Constitution or its provisions. (...) Within the system of the division of powers, the power of the Constitutional Court, too, is a limited power. Following from this, the Constitutional Court will not draw the review the Constitution and new amendments to the Constitution within its competence without express authorisation in the Constitution."

Amendment 235 #

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

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Considers that ~~after the entry into force of the Fourth Ame~~in light of the systematic amendments of the Fundamental Law at political will 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 Fu~~, especially since the Fourth Amendament~~al Law as it wishes even in the case of the~~ explicitly prohibits the Court to review constitutional amendments contradicting other constitutional requirements and principles;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of ~~democracy and the rule of law~~respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 TEU, on unequivocal respect for fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the ECHR, and on the recognition of the legal value of such rights, freedoms and principles, as is further demonstrated by the EU’s forthcoming accession to the ECHR pursuant to Article 6(2) TEU; (The values listed in Article 2 TEU should all be mentioned in the recital.)

Amendment 240 #

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;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Considers that after the entry into force of the Fourth Amendment the Constitutional Court's ca~~n no longer~~pacity to 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~~should be assessed by the Venice Commission;

Amendment 242 #

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

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 244 #

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;

Amendment 245 #

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 undermines~~Underlines the importance of 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 246 #

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;

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

Amendment 249 #

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 lawTakes note that all effects of the 20 years of constitutional jurisprudence are still valid, there is no objection for the Court to arrive to the same conclusions, and takes note that the Court already used its previous decisions as a source of interpretation;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU constitute the core of the rights ~~attached to the status of~~enjoyed by persons living within the EU and especially by EU citizens, irrespective of their nationality ~~or cultural and political identitie~~and no matter where they might consider themselves to belong in cultural or religious terms, and whereas ~~citize~~such persons can fully enjoy those rights only if the EU’s fundamental values and principles are upheld;

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Is also concerned about~~Takes note of the ongoing dialogue between the Hungarian government and European Commission on the conformity with EU law of the provision of the Fourth Amendment which enables the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product;

Amendment 251 #

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

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Criticises the accelerated process of enacting important laws as it undermines~~Takes note that the rights of the opposition ~~parties to be effectively involv~~is ensured inby the ~~legislative process, thus limiting their scrutiny of the majority's and the govern~~rules of procedure of Hungarian Parliament and the adoption of all laws were in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirement's a~~ction and ultimately negatively affecting the system of checks and balance~~nd part of the democratic legislative process;

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Stresses that protection against removal from office during the term of office is an essential element of the requirement of the independence of national data protection authorities under EU law; Takes note that in the Hungarian case removal from office was due to the reform of the data protection institution, by establishing the National Authority for Data Protection instead of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and by transferring its powers to the newly-established Authority, with a new status which attaches legal consequences to its procedures;

Amendment 255 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the independence of the data protection supervisor;~~deleted

Amendment 256 #

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;

Amendment 257 #

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

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 259 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the values set out in Article 2 TEU have to be addressed politically and legally, this being an indispensable foundation of our democratic society, and whereas, therefore, Member States, as well as all the EU institutions, must commit themselves to them, clearly and unambiguously;

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Deplore~~Underlines that the National Authority for Data Protection is entrusted with a more extensive supervision and intervention powers thatn the ~~above-mentioned~~Commissioner has been: on the one hand it is provided with the investi~~tutional changes resulted in a clear weakening of the systems of checks and balances required by the rule of law and the democratic principl~~gative powers necessary to carry out its tasks (the right of access to contentious data, the right to conduct interrogations), and on the other hand it is entitled to initiate legal proceedings; underlines furthermore that the Venice Commission acknowledged that the protection of data is far better ensured in Hungary thanks to the Agency than in many other European states, as stated in its Opinion (CDL-AD(2012)023) "the current version of the Act includes particularly detailed provisions aiming at guaranteeing – directly and, in most cases, indirectly – the Authority's independence. It is worth saying that some of the se~~paration of powers~~ guarantees may not always be found in corresponding legislation of other European countries.";

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Deplor~~Underlines that the above-mentioned institutional changes ~~resulted in a clear weakening~~have to be assessed in the context of the systems of checks and balances required by the rule of law and the democratic principle of the separation of powers;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Expresses its disquiet at the infringements of the right to organise, as for instance in the case of teachers, who are admittedly allowed to form specialist trade unions, whereas the relevant powers-that-be are insisting that they will not negotiate with any professional association other than the ‘Hungarian Chamber of Teachers’:

Amendment 263 #

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

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. ~~Regrets that~~Takes note that as a result of the numerous measures adopted ~~– as well as some on-going reforms – do not provid~~there are sufficient assurances of constitutional safeguards as to the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Constitutional Court ofin the Hungaryian legislation;

Amendment 265 #

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

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that the premature termination of the term of office of the Supreme Court's President did not violates the guarantee of security of tenure, ~~which is a key element of the independence of the judiciary~~as - according to the Decision No 3076/2013 of the Constitutional Court - the previously detailed institutional restructuring was a sufficient ground for the early termination of the office of the President; and underlines that the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court should be respected by the European actors in line with the spirit of respect of democracy and rule of law; finally notes that the European Commission has opted not to initiate an infringement procedure on this issue;

Amendment 267 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. ~~Welcomes the above-mentioned~~Takes note of the Decision No 33/2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring the compulsory termination of the service of judges at the age of 62 unconstitutional, a~~s well as the above-mentioned d~~ proof of the functioning of checks and balances, as well as the Decision of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 November 2012, which held that the radical lowering of the retirement age of judges in Hungary constitutes unjustified discrimination on grounds of age and is therefore in breach of Council Directive 2000/78/EC;

Amendment 268 #

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;

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Regrets, however, that not all~~Welcomes that most of the recommendations of the Venice Commission have been implemented~~, in particular as regards the need to limit discretionary powers of the President of the National Judicial Office~~ regarding the system and independence of judiciary; as regards those recommendation s which affect the transfer of cases, according to the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law the system of transfer of cases is being revised (Bill T/10593), and further constitutional guarantees were introduced: only groups of cases not individual cases may be transferred to other courts, the President of the NJO has no influence whatsoever on which court hears a given case, meaning the ~~context of the transfer~~regulation does not provide for the possibility of an ad hoc or ad personam appointment of the proceeding judge ofr c~~ases, which potentially affect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge;~~ hamber; and welcomes that the details of the new mechanism were elaborated in consultation with the European Commission; takes note that similar transfer of certain categories of cases exists in the Netherlands;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas respecting and promoting such common values is not only an essential element of the European Union's identity but also an explicit obligation deriving from Article 3(1) and (5) TEU, and therefore a sine qua non for becoming an EU Member State as well as for fully preserving membership prerogatives, the essential element of which are unfortunately not taken fully into account by several Member States, when concrete breaches of these values are identified;

Amendment 270 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. ~~Regrets, how~~Believer,s that ~~not all~~ the recommendations of the Venice Commission ~~have~~should 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 could affect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge;

Amendment 272 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Takes note of the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics on 3 March 2013 on the visit of the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Dean Spielmann to the Hungarian Parliament, that the transfer of cases is only a short term solution and is needed in order to reduce the workload and fasten the decision-making process of the courts of the capital region, thus improving the efficiency of the judicial system as a whole; furthermore takes note of the fact underlined by Dean Spielmann that 75% of the Hungarian cases at the European Court of Human Rights are in connection with the delay of the court decisions;

Amendment 28 #

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 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;(Does not affect English version.) (Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 29 #

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;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 g (new)

- Having regard to the fact that the report provides untrue statements about the Hungarian situation,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas Article 6(3) TEU underscores that fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR and as arising from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, constitute general principles of Union law, and whereas such rights are a common heritage and ~~asset~~strength of democratic European states;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and pursuant to Article 6 TEU, the Charter ~~has the same legal value as the Tre~~became legally binding and Member Staties~~, hence transforming values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights~~ must ensure its full application when implementing EU law;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
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 35 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas Article 7(1) TEU 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~~but the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU isare unsuitable and have proven ineffective, given the impossibility of employing them to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values;

Amendment 36 #

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;

Amendment 37 #

Kinga GÁL, Edit BAUER, László TŐKÉS, Csaba SÓGOR

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the ~~scope of Article 2 TEU is not restricted by the lim~~Charter does not apply to every situation of ~~Article 51(1) of the Charter and the scope of Article 7 TEU is not limited to the policy areas covered by~~an alleged violation of fundamental rights as according to Article 51(1) it applies to Member States only when they are implementing EU law, a~~nd whereas as a consequence the EU can also act in the event of a breach of, or a clear~~s repeatedly stated by Vice-President Viviane Reding in the former replies to MEPs when rais~~k of a breach of, the common values in areas falling under Member State's competenc~~ing concrete breaches of fundamental rights in Member States;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas respect for the Union's common values goes hand in hand with the EU's commitment to diversity, translated into the obligation for the Union to respect ‘the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities’, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional' as stated in Article 4(2) TEU;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas respect for the Union’s common values goes hand in hand with the EU’s commitment to diversity, translated into the obligation for the Union to respect ‘the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities’ as stated in Article 4(2) TEU; whereas, therefore, the values set out in Article 2 TEU cannot be played off against the obligation under Article 4 TEU to respect national identity; whereas, on the contrary, the European core values listed in Article 2 TEU make up the basic framework within which Member States can preserve and develop their national identity;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 h (new)

- Having regard to the fact that based on the aforementioned the report is one-sided and biased,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas, in the framework of the Treaties, respect for 'national identities‘ (Article 4(2)TEU) and for 'different legal systems and traditions of the Member States’ (Article 67 TFEU) are intrinsically associated with the principles of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3)TEU), mutual recognition (Articles 81 and 82 TFEU) and thus mutual trust;deleted

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas, in the framework of the Treaties, respect for ‘national identities’ (Article 4(2)TEU) and for ‘different legal systems and traditions of the Member States’ (Article 67 TFEU) are intrinsically associated with the principles of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), mutual recognition (Articles 81 and 82 TFEU) and thus mutual trust, as well as with respect for cultural and linguistic diversity (Article 3(3) TEU);

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas a departure from, or a violation of, the Union's common values by a Member State cannot be justified by national traditions nor by the expression of a national identity when such departure results in the deterioration of the principles at the heart of the European integration, such as the rule of law or the principle of mutual recognition, with the consequence that a referral to Article 4(2) TEU is applicable only so far as a Member States respects the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;deleted

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas a ~~departure from, or a~~ violation of, the Union’s common principles and values by a Member State cannot be justified by national traditions nor by the expression of a national identity when such ~~departure~~a violation results in the deterioration of the principles which are at the heart of ~~the~~ European integration, such as democratic values, the rule of law, or the principle of mutual recognition, with the consequence that a referral to Article 4(2) TEU is applicable only so far as a Member State respects the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas a departure from, or a violation of, the Union’s common values by a Member State cannot be justified by national traditions nor by the expression of a national identity when such departure results in the deterioration of the principles at the heart of the European integration, such as the rule of law or the principle of mutual recognition, with the consequence that a referral to Article 4(2) TEU is applicable only so far as a Member State respects the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU;(Does not affect English version.)

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital N

N. whereas, therefore, not only the credibility of the Member States and of the EU on the international scene, but also the Union’s objectives in its external action, would be undermined if Member States were not able or willing to live up to the standards to which they have agreed and bound themselves by signing the Treaties;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas respect by the Member States for the same set of fundamental values is an indispensable condition for ensuring mutual trust and consequently the correct functioning of mutual recognition, which is at the heart of the ~~creation and development of the internal market as well as of the~~ European area of freedom, security and justice, and whereas, therefore, any attempt to disrespect or weaken the common values adversely affects the ~~whole~~ construction of ~~the~~a European process of ~~econom~~democratic, social and ~~political~~economic integration based on solidarity;

Amendment 47 #

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

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital P

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 i (new)

- Having regard to the fact that the report unduly violates the volume requirements for an own-initiative report provided by the European Parliament,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Q a (new)

Qa. whereas over the course of Hungary’s centuries-long history, the peaceful coexistence of nationalities and ethnic groups has enhanced the nation’s cultural richness and its prosperity; and whereas Hungary should be called upon to continue that tradition and take resolute steps to curb any attempts to discriminate against individual groups;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R

R. whereas Hungary is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international legal instruments ~~obliging~~, it to respects and implements all its obligations under international law and international democratic principles;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R a (new)

Ra. whereas in September 2006 following the leak of former Socialist Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech in which he confessed that during the electoral campaign the Socialist government forged data to hide the real economic situation of the country and said that they "were lying during morning, night and evening to win the elections" the EU did not taken any steps for intervention and whereas the left-wing block of the EP also blocked to raise the issue within the EP;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R b (new)

Rb. whereas in September and October 2006 thousands of people were continuously protesting against the Socialist Government on the streets of Budapest which demonstrations were brutally repressed by the police; whereas masses of severe human rights violations took place against peaceful commemorators; innocent civilians and several journalists were beaten up, tortured and detained unlawfully by the police forces acting on the order of the government infringing the most fundamental rights and human dignity, and all acknowledged European values; and whereas in these cases the European Parliament remained silent;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R c (new)

Rc. whereas incontestable evidence has been revealed during the investigation in the 'Portik-Laborc' case proving that during the Socialist government before 2010 the intelligence was in close contact and collaboration with most known actors of organized crime in Hungary, also aiming at discredit the FIDESZ being back then in opposition and to hinder its success in the upcoming 2010 election;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R d (new)

Rd. whereas the 8 years of the disastrous economic governance of the Socialists and Liberals between 2002 and 2010 led to the raise of public debt of Hungary from 53 per cent to above 80 per cent of GDP and made Hungary the first EU country to ask for an IMF bailout in 2008 in the beginning of the economic crisis;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital R e (new)

Re. whereas the 8 years of the disastrous economic governance of the Socialists and Liberals between 2002 and 2010 led to the raise of public debt of Hungary from 53 per cent to above 80 per cent of GDP and made Hungary the first EU country to ask for an IMF bailout in 2008 in the beginning of the economic crisis;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital S

S. whereas following the 2010 general elections in Hungary the democratically elected governing majority gained more than two thirds of the seats in parliament~~, enabling it to rapidly initiate intens~~ with a clear mandate to reform and change the non-functioning pillars of the system, enabling it to initiate legislative activity to reshape the ~~whole~~ constitutional order of the country (the Constitution has been amended twelve times and the Fundamental Law four times so far) and thus substantially modify theo improve its institutional framework ~~as well as a number of fundamental aspects of public life~~;

Amendment 58 #

Kinga GÖNCZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital S

S. whereas following the 2010 general elections in Hungary the governing majority gained more than two thirds of the seats in parliament, enabling it to rapidly initiate intense legislative activity to reshape the whole constitutional order of the country (the former Constitution has been amended twelve times and the Fundamental Law four times so far) and thus substantially modify the institutional framework as well as a number of fundamental aspects of ~~public~~not only public but also private life;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital S

S. whereas following the 2010 general elections in Hungary the governing majority gained more than two thirds of the seats in parliament, enabling it to rapidly initiate intense legislative activity to reshape the whole constitutional order of the country (the Constitution has been amended twelve times and the Fundamental Law four times so far) and thus substantially modify the institutional and legal framework as well as a number of fundamental aspects of public life;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13

– having regard to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, adopted on 18 April 2011 by the National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic, which entered into force on 1 January 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fundamental Law’), and the transitional provisions of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, adopted on 30 December 2011 by the National Assembly, which also entered into force on 1 January 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tTransitional pProvisions’), This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
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 its values and political commitments, provided that, in so doing, it does not breach the values and principles of democracy and the rule of law prevailing in Europe;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
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 62 #

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;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
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 64 #

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.

Amendment 65 #

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 and Parliament 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;

Amendment 66 #

Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Jacek PROTASIEWICZ

Motion for a resolution
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 un~~full compliance with the applicable preoced~~ented, and~~ural 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 t~~the same pattern should also be monitored, ~~while enforcing~~otherwise 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 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

Amendment 68 #

Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Jacek PROTASIEWICZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital V – footnote 6

~~6. See Annex to Working Document No 5.~~deleted

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital W

W. whereas a cooperative and open dialogue bhas~~ed on openness, inclusiveness, solidarity and mutual respect~~ been continuously taking place between the European institutions and the Hungarian authorities ~~is necessary in the framework of the ab~~on all questions raised by the Commission and whereas Prime Minister Orbán repeatedly assured his openness towards constructive dialogue, as well as the full commitment of the Hungarian Gove-rnment~~ioned community of democratic values~~ and Parliament to the European norms and values, among others also reassured in his letter addressed to President Barroso on 8 March 2013;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

– having regard to the Second Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 18 September 2012 in the form of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 29 October 2012, introducing the ~~requirement~~possibility of voter registration into the Fundamental Law,; and having regard to the Decision No 1/2013 of the Constitutional Court, which annulled the provision in respect of Hungarian citizens living in Hungary and uphold the possibility in respect of Hungarian citizens living abroad, having regard to the fact that the Parliament accepting the ruling of the Constitutional Court, as a proof of the functioning of checks and balances, withdrew the debated provision;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
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 71 #

Kinga GÖNCZ

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 after tabling the draft law, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text;

Amendment 72 #

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;

Amendment 73 #

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; whereas, however, it has not been established that such an exceptionally short time frame was unconstitutional;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital X

X. whereas a need for a new constitution has been existed since the amendment of the communist 1949 Constitution in 1989, regarded as provisional; whereas the adoption of the Fundamental Law of Hungary ~~– which was~~- passed on 18 April 2011, exclusively with the votes of the members of the governing coalition and on the basis of a draft text prepared by the representatives of the governing coalition – was ~~conducted in the exceptionally short time frame of one month, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text;~~ finalised after a one-year long preparatory phase and more than one month long parliamentary debate dedicated exclusively to the Constitution- making process, where two opposition parties, based on their own political decision, chose to stay away from the discussions at the parliamentary sessions and remained reluctant to formulate proposals;

Amendment 75 #

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~~35 calendar days calculated from the presentation of proposal (T/2627) to the Parliament, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital X a (new)

Xa. whereas the draft constitutional text submitted to the Hungarian Parliament on 14 March 2011 was the one produced by the elected representatives of the Fidesz-KDNP coalition and not the working document based on the discussions within the ad hoc parliamentary committee, even though that committee had been set up expressly for the purpose of drafting the new Fundamental Law; whereas this situation exacerbated the failure to consult the opposition;

Amendment 77 #

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

Amendment 78 #

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 thereonwith the aim of seeking the opinion of the citizens on a number of fundamental questions instead of commenting on the draft text itself;

Amendment 79 #

Kinga GÖNCZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital Y

Y. whereas the ‘'national consultation’' on ~~the draft Fundamental Law~~constitution-making 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;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15

– having regard to the Second Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 18 September 2012 in the form of an individual member's bill and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 29 October 2012, introducing the requirement of voter registration into the ~~Fundamental Law~~Transitional Provisions,

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Y

Y. whereas the ‘national consultation’ on the draft Fundamental Law ~~only~~, in which constitutional reform was presented to citizens from the outset as a necessity admitting of no other choice, consisted of a list of twelve questions on very specific issues drafted by the governing party ~~in a way~~; and whereas thate co~~uld have led to self- evident replies and which, above all,~~nsultation did not include the text of the draft Fundamental Law so that the ~~public was not in a position to submit its views thereon~~voters could not possibly have obtained or read the text and therefore could not have been in any real position to decide;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital Z

Amendment 82 #

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~~formal reasons considering parts of these being non-transitional, stating that "it is a constitutional requirement that the Fundamental Law can only be modified or amended on the basis of Article S) of the Fundamental Law. The provisions modifying or amending the normative text of the Fundamental Law have to be built into the normative text of the Fundamental Law ("order of incorporation")";

Amendment 83 #

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

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas, ~~despite that Dec~~following that Decision - stating that permanent constitutional requirements must be formulated in the Fundamental Law instead of transitional provision,s - 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 based on formal reasons, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulled provisions;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas, ~~despite~~because of thate Decision, the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law ~~all the transitional provisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulled~~most of the transitional provisions;

Amendment 86 #

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~~most of the tTransitional pProvisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, ~~with the exception of~~ as well as other provision ~~requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulled provisions~~s found unconstitutional previously;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas, ~~despite~~in 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 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA a (new)

AAa. whereas the debt brake introduced in the Fundamental Law was among the first to enshrine the golden rule on responsible fiscal policy which has become one of the essentials of an emerging European economic union;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AB

AB. whereas the use of cardinal laws in Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, whereas the previous Constitution contained 28 subject matters and the Fundamental Law of Hungary refers to 26 subject matters ~~to be defin~~(more or less the same matters) to be regulated by cardinal laws (that is laws the adoption of which requires a two-thirds majority)~~, which cover a wide range of issues relating to Hungary's institutional system, the exercise of fundamental rights and important arrangements in society~~; and whereas the use of two-thirds majority laws - or so called "organic act" - is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-thirds majority laws;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17

– having regard to the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law, tabled on 8 February 2013 in the form of an individual member's bill in full accordance with the procedural requirements of legislative initiative and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 11 March 2013, which~~, among other provisions,~~ integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law the transitional provisions (with the exception of the provision requiring voter registration) a~~nnull~~s requested by the Constitutional Court of Hungary on 28 December 2012 on procedural grounds (Decision No 45/2012),

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AC

AC. whereas since the adoption of the Fundamental Law the parliament has enacted 49 ~~cardinal laws7 (in one and a half years)~~laws7 that contain provisions of cardinal law value, in many cases these being simple majority laws which contain only those few provisions requiring two- third majority which amend cardinal laws;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

AD. whereas ~~a number of issues, such as specific aspects of family law and the tax and pension systems, which usually fall under the ordinary decision-making powers of a legislature, are regulated by ca~~cardinal laws are subject to the control of Constitutional Court in the same manner as ordinalry laws;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 5

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

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 5

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

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading I - Subheading 5

PAccelerated legislative procedures, practice of individual members' bills ~~and accelerated procedures~~, parliamentary debate

Amendment 95 #

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

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AF

Amendment 98 #

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 religll the cardinal laws safeguarded all the legal requirements foreseen for adoption of such laws, when enacted on the basis of individual members' bills in full accordance with the procedural requirements to initiate legislation and onwith the ~~National Bank of Hungary, inevitably restricted the possibilities for an adequate consultation of the opposition parties and the civil society~~longstanding constitutional right of an individual MP right to submit bills to the Parliament;

Amendment 99 #

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, including dialogue between management and labour and the machinery for consulting civil society organisations, trade unions, and interest groups;

source: PE-510.840

2013/05/29 LIBE 279 amendments...

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Regrets, however, that as regards presiding judges, Act XX of 2013 provides for their reinstatement in their original executive posts only if these judicial positions are still vacant, with the consequence that not all unlawfully dismissed judges are guaranteed to be reinstated in exactly the same position with the same duties and responsibilities they were holding before their dismissalTakes note that the Act XX of 2013 complies with the decision of the European Court of Justice and that the Hungarian Government regularly informed the Commission on the developments; and takes note of the letter of Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics to Vice-President Reding from 17 May 2013 on the execution of the ECJ judgement;

Amendment 274 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a permanent scoreboard on justice in all 27 EU Member States as put forward by Vice-President Reding, which shows that safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is a general concern of the EU; underlines that in several Member States serious concerns might be raised on these issues;

Amendment 276 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a permanent scoreboard on justice in all 27 EU Member States as put forward by Vice-President Reding, which shows that safeguarding the independence of the judiciary is a general concern of the EU, but calls for its enlargement to cover also criminal justice, fundamental rights, the Rule of law and democracy, as already requested by the European Parliament;

Amendment 277 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 3 a (new)

The electoral reform

Amendment 278 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)

34a. Recalls that the redrawing of electoral districts, the adoption of the Act on the election of members of parliament of Hungary and the Electoral procedural law considerably change the legal and institutional framework for the next elections due in 2014, regrets therefore that these laws were adopted unilaterally by the ruling parties lacking a broad consultation with the opposition.

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)

34b. Is concerned that in the present political environment the current provisions of the nomination procedure of the members of the National Election Committee do not adequately guarantee a balanced representation and its independence;

Amendment 280 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 c (new)

34c. Welcomes the fact that the Hungarian authorities requested the opinion of the Venice Commission on the Act on the Election of Members of Parliament of Hungary on 20 January 2012; considers however that a comprehensive analysis is needed for the evaluation of the fundamentally changed electoral landscape.

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Acknowledges the efforts of the Hungarian authorities that led to legislative changes aimed at addressing a number of the ~~shortcoming~~inaccuracies identified in the field of media regulation in order to improve media legislation and to bring it into line with the further requirements communicated by the EU and the Council of Europe ~~standards~~;

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Welcomes the continued constructive dialogue with international actors and stresses that the ~~fruitful~~ cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Hungarian Government bore tangible results, as reflected in Act XXXIII of 2013, which addresses several concerns previously highlighted in the legal assessments of media legislation, notably in relation to the appointment and election procedures ofor the presidents of the Media Authority and the Media Council;

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

36. Welcomes the continued constructive dialogue with international actors and stresses that the fruitful cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Hungarian Government bore tangible results, as reflected in Act XXXIII of 2013, which address s~~everal~~ome of the concerns previously highlighted in the legal assessments of media legislation, notably in relation to the appointment and election procedures for the presidents of the Media Authority and the Media Council;

Amendment 284 #

Claude MORAES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36

Amendment 285 #

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~~;

Amendment 286 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
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 information~~with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising; underlines that a similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy;

Amendment 287 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37

37. ~~Expresses concern at the effects of the pro~~Takes note that the Fourth Amendment ensures the publication of political advertisings via public media (radio and television) o~~f the Fourth Amendment banning political advertising in the commercial~~n an equal basis and free of charge with the aim to create equal opportunities for the political parties in the electronic media, as ~~although the announced aim of this provision is to reduce political campaign costs and create equal opportunities for the parties, it jeopardises the provision of balanced information~~well as reduce campaign costs and contribute to the transparency and verifiability of campaign financing; this does not at all affect political advertisings not displayed through broadcasting services (e.g. posters, flyers, internet); takes note that the Hungarian Government is in consultation with the European Commission with a view to fine-tuning the rules on political advertising; underlines that a similar restriction exists in a number of European countries, such as France and Italy;

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38

38. Reiterates its call on the Hungarian authorities to take action in order to make or commission pro-active regular assessments on the impact of the legislation on the media environment (reduction of the quality of journalism, instances of self-censorship, restriction of editorial freedom and erosion of the quality of working conditions and job security for journalists)Stresses that the previous concerns related to the market entry of media services and press products, according to which the prior licensing procedure of the authorities implied an unjustified restriction of the freedom of the press, have subsequently proved to be unfounded opinions;

Amendment 289 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

39. Deplores that the ~~creation of the~~ state- owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) has been declared to be 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 are freely available; recalls~~and recalls in this connection 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 provision;

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
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 291 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39

Amendment 292 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40

~~40. Notes that the national competition authority needs to make regular assessments of the media environments and markets, highlighting potential threats to pluralism;~~deleted

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41

41. Stresses that measures to regulate the access of media outlets to the market through broadcast licensing and authorising procedures, and through rules on the protection of state, national or military security and public order ~~and rules on public morality should not be abused for purposes~~should be strictly circumscribed to prevent abuse and the risk of imposing political or partisan control or censorship on the media, and underlines that a proper balance needs to be ensured in this respect; by the same token condemns the enactment of rules on public morality and takes the view that freedom of expression can only be assured by ethical charters or codes of behaviour;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)

41a. Acknowledges that, contrary to the previous criticisms, during the application of the legal regulations in the interest of the full achievement of the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press, the law enforcement bodies only resort to restrictions when absolutely necessary (e.g. a violation of the dignity of minorities) in the event of a conflict with other fundamental rights;

Amendment 295 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. Is concerned that public service broadcasting is controlled by an extremely centralised institutional system which takes the real operational decisions without public scrutiny; underlines that biased and opaque tendering practices and the biased information of the public service broadcasting reaching a wide audience distort the media market, and highlights in this context the case of Klub Rádió, which the Media Council decided in December 2011 to deprive of its licence to broadcast in Budapest, following an application procedure which seemed designed to ensure that it would lose its licence;

Amendment 296 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

42. ~~Is concer~~Underlineds that ~~public service broadcasting is controlled by an extremely centralised institutional system which takes the real operational decisions without publ~~in 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, s~~crutiny; underlines that biased and opaque tendering practices and the biased information of~~ocial 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 ~~reach~~ing a w~~ide audience distort the media market~~ay they deem appropriate;

Amendment 297 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42

Amendment 298 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43

43. Recalls that content regulations should be clear, allowing citizens and media companies to foresee in which cases they will be infringing the law and to determine the legal consequences of possible violations; ~~notes with concern~~welcomes that in despite ~~of such detailed content regulations, recent anti-Roma public stances remained unsanctioned by Hungary's Media Authority and calls for balanced application of the legislation~~having only residual jurisdiction over cases of hate speech, Hungary's Media Authority has recently issued penalties for anti- Roma public stances;

Amendment 299 #

Claude MORAES, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Boris ZALA, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech; welcomes in particular the Fourth Amendment, which provides the opportunity of effectuating civil actions against manifestations violating the dignity of communities - codifying the findings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court's resolutions of 1992 and 2008, as well as following the 1997 recommendations of the Council of Europe on tackling hate speech - and further strengthens the legal protection regarding the dignity of communities by supplementing the provisions of the Penal Code concerning incitement against a community and violence against a member of a community; points out, however, that legislation on its own cannot achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe;

Amendment 300 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech;, points out, however, that legislation on its own cannot achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe, especially when it is not being actively implemented;

Amendment 301 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44

44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech; ~~points out, however, that legislation on its own cannot~~considers that the adopted legislative measures are the most important starting point to achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe, as concrete measures can only be built upon firm legislation;

Amendment 302 #

Kinga GÁL, Edit BAUER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. UWelcomes the adoption the Act CCIII of 2011 (currently Act XXXVI of 2013) on the elections of the Members of Parliament of Hungary enabling minority representation and the Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities, as well as the firm stance and zero tolerance of the Hungarian government against any racist incidents, against all form of intolerance and positive steps taken - such as criminalising Holocaust-denial, establishing the Holocaust Remembrance Day, introducing Roma and Jewish history in national curricula or dedicating 2014 as the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial Year - which further strengthen the system of minority protection in Hungary, and which could serve as a model for many other Member States within the EU; underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and cannot remain neutral when faced with such violations;

Amendment 303 #

Claude MORAES, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Boris ZALA, Hannu TAKKULA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and cannot remain neutral when faced with such violations; welcomes therefore the 2011 amendment of the Penal Code to prevent campaigns of extreme right groups aiming at the intimidation of Roma communities, threatening with up to three years imprisonment the 'provocative unsocial behaviour' which induces fear in a member of a national, ethnic, racial or religious community;

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45

45. Underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities ~~and~~, cannot remain neutral and should take the necessary legal, educational and political measures when faced with such violations;

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)

45a. Acknowledges the eminent role of the Hungarian Government in launching the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies during its EU presidency in 2011 as well as its Framework Agreement of Cooperation with the National Roma Self-Government, defining specific numerical commitments until 2015 to foster the employment, education and health care for Roma;

Amendment 306 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 b (new)

45b. Regrets the fact that, with regard to homelessness, the social security system focuses primarily on declaring it illegal for homeless people to stay in public areas and laying down punishments for this, and calls for social inclusion measures.

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 c (new)

45c. Notes with concern repeated changes to the legal order restricting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, for instance by seeking to exclude same-sex couples and their children, but also other diverse forms of families, from the definition of 'family' in the Fundamental Law; stresses that this runs against recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, and fuels a climate of intolerance vis-à-vis LGBT people;

Amendment 308 #

Gianni VATTIMO, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 d (new)

45d. Expresses serious concern on the insertion of provisions in the Hungarian Constitution through the Fourth Amendment that enable the Parliament or local governments to criminalize homelessness, in contradiction to the Hungarian Constitutional Court previous judgment that had abolished, among others, similar provisions contained in the Petty Offence Act, stating that criminalizing the status of homelessness is unconstitutional, since it violates human dignity; calls on the Hungarian authorities to delete this provision from the Constitution, and calls on the Commission and the Council to do the same;

Amendment 309 #

Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 e (new)

45e. Sharply criticises the inclusion in the Fundamental Law of provisions criminalising homelessness after these provisions had been ruled invalid because unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, and emphasises that the Government’s desire to criminalise the homeless – frequently reiterated, first in the Petty Offences Act, then in the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law – runs counter to the values of the European Union set out in the Treaties, and targets a particularly vulnerable group by means of legislation that violates individual rights;

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 f (new)

45f. Welcomes the establishment of the institutional framework for the implementation of the government's social inclusion policy, in particular: - the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Social Inclusion and Roma Affairs, for providing governmental coordination for improving the social conditions and promoting the integration of those living in extreme poverty, - the Roma Coordination Council for the socialization of inclusion policies and for the monitoring of the framework agreement between the government and the National Roma Self-Government, and - the Türr István Training and Research Institute, for providing assistance in operating the public employment system and the social inclusion of marginalized communities;

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 g (new)

45g. Welcomes that as from 1 July 2013, Hungarian local governments can only receive financial support from public finances, EU funds or programmes based on international agreements, if they have an appropriate Equal Opportunities Program in effect;

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 6

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

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 6

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

Amendment 314 #

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

Amendment 315 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46

Amendment 316 #

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 constit~~that according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the relation between state and churches belongs solely to the Member States' competence, thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France); takes note that the freedom of religion is entirely ensured by the Fundamental Law (Article VII) stating that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to choose or change religion or any other persuasion, and the freedom for every person to proclaim, refrain from proclaiming, profess or teach his or her religion or any other persuasion by performing religious acts, ceremonies or in any other way, whether individually or jointly with others, in the public domain or in his or her private life. (...) The Churches shall be autional duty to justify a refusal of recognition, certain organisations engaged in religious activities as churches, which might negatively affect the duty of the State to remain neutral and impartial in its relations with the variousomous and the State shall cooperate with the Churches for community goals"; takes note that the specific concerns raised by the Constitutional Court on the recognition of state subsidized churches have been addressed by Parliament under a new bill (No. T/10750) amending the Act on Churches, according to which the proposed new legislation sets out clear conditions for recognition as a state subsidized church, contains an obligation for detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses church status, specifies deadlines for the procedure of recognition and ensures the possibility of legal remedy at the Constitutional Court in cases of refusal or lack of a decision. Any religionus ~~and beliefs;~~ community can freely use the denomination "church";

Amendment 317 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading II - Subheading 7

~~Conclusion~~deleted

Amendment 318 #

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

Amendment 319 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Concludes ~~– for the reasons explained above –~~that the major constitutional reform has been completed during 2011-2012, thatus the re is no "systemic and general trend ~~of repeatedly~~" for modifying the ~~constitutional and legal framework in very short time frames, and the content of such modifications, are~~system; takes note of the currently ongoing "fine-tuning of a system" regarding amendments of legislation mainly as a result of the activity of the Constitutional Court, which proves the well-functioning of the checks and balances in Hungary; the pure fact of changing and adopting of laws can not be considered as incompatible with ~~the~~ values referred to in Article 2 TEU, Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6 TEU and deviate from the principles referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3 TEU; considers that - unless corrected in a timely and sufficient manner - this trend will of the Treaties; it is of the opinion that it is for the European Commission to identify instances of incompatibility with EU law and for the European Court of Justice to adjudicate any such case; where sultch in ~~a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU~~compatibility was identified the correcting measures were immediately adopted by the Hungarian government;

Amendment 321 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47

47. Concludes – for the reasons explained above – that the systemic and general ~~trend of~~ repeatedly modif~~ying~~ication of 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 -this constitutes a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and considers that, unless corrected in a timely and sufficient manner -, this ~~trend will result in a clear risk of a serious breach~~will lead to the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 ~~TEU~~;

Amendment 322 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)

47a. Objects the use of double standards in the treatment of a Member States; stresses that same situations, legal provisions should be treated similarly, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;

Amendment 323 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS, Jacek PROTASIEWICZ, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. Reaffirms that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union a~~s a whole, and~~nd all its dMem~~ocratic re~~ber States, its construction and development ~~after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family,~~during the 20th century, particularly after the fall of the totalitarian regimes, and about its future; it is about its common values and standards, ~~its inclusiveness and~~ its capacity to engage in dialogue~~. It is about~~, the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to~~. It is about~~, the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its ~~citizens and~~ Member States and citizens need to have if these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper ~~but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respect~~and to form a legal basis enabling fundamental rights to be respected;

Amendment 324 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48

48. ~~Reaffirms~~Takes note of the fact that its present resolution is ~~not only~~ about Hungary, ~~but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democ~~although several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn the~~se Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rights~~ir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;

Amendment 325 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘UnDemocratic Union’, with a shared foundation of Ddemocra~~cy’, based~~tic principles, based in particular upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail;

Amendment 326 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49

49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘Union of Democracy’, based upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail; and stresses that the freely elected Parliaments are excepted as basic elements of democracy;

Amendment 327 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Reaffirms that while in times of economic and social crisis one may yield to the temptation to disregard constitutional principles, the credibility and robustness of constitutional institutions play a pivotal role in underpinning economic, fiscal and social policies; however there is also a need for a much stronger fiscal and budgetary responsibility in order to safeguard the interest of the future generations in a society;

Amendment 328 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50

50. Reaffirms that, while in times of economic and social crisis one may yield to the temptation to disregard constitutional principles, the credibility and robustness of constitutional institutions play a pivotal role in u~~nderpinn~~pholding economic~~, fiscal and social policies~~ and social cohesion and avoiding a retreat into cultural isolationism;

Amendment 329 #

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

Amendment 330 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 331 #

Kārlis ŠADURSKIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 332 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

Amendment 334 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51

51. ~~States that it is ready – and c~~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(12) TEU to determine the existence of a ~~clear risk of a serious~~serious and persistent breach by Hungary of the common values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)

51a. Regrets that the numerous human rights association, NGOs and research institutes, who issued documents analysing the Hungarian situation and legislative changes, fail to provide factually correct information, furthermore regrets that the assessments of international organisations are often based on unfounded press information;

Amendment 336 #

Motion for a resolution
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 337 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52

52. Calls on the Member States to comply with their Treaty obligations to respect, guarantee, protect and promote the Union’s common values, which is an indispensable condition for respecting democracy and thus the substance of Union citizenship and for building a culture of mutual trust enabling effective cross-border cooperation and a ~~well functioning EU~~genuine area of freedom, security and justice;

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53

53. Considers that it is the moral and legal duty of all Members States, as well as of the Union institutions, to defend the European values as enshrined in the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights to which every Member State is a signatory and to which the EU will soon accede;

Amendment 339 #

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;deleted

Amendment 340 #

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~~;

Amendment 341 #

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~~;

Amendment 342 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading III - Subheading 3

~~Appeal to the European Council~~deleted

Amendment 343 #

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

Amendment 344 #

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;~~Does not affect English version (linguistic amendment to French)

Amendment 345 #

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

Amendment 346 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

Amendment 347 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57

Amendment 348 #

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

Amendment 349 #

Kinga GÁL, Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON, Georgios PAPANIKOLAOU

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~~breaches a concrete fundamental rights or rule of law in that country, a~~nd 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~~s 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 350 #

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~~breaches the concrete fundamental rights or rule of law in that country, a~~nd 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~~s 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 351 #

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

Amendment 352 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

Amendment 353 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59

Amendment 354 #

Motion for a resolution
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 355 #

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~~;

Amendment 356 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 2 a (new)

- to launch objective investigation and start infringement proceeding if well grounded - without applying double standards -, whenever a Member State violates the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when implementing EU legislation;

Amendment 357 #

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

Amendment 358 #

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 TEU;

Amendment 359 #

Renate WEBER

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 and practice 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;

Amendment 360 #

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;

Amendment 361 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 4

– to adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing any potential risks of serious breach of fundamental values in a given Member State at an early stage and immediately to engage in a structured political dialogue with the relevant Member State and the other EU institutions without applying double standards; this structured political dialogue should be coordinated at the highest political level of the Commission and have a clear impact on the full spectrum of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State concerned in the various EU fields;

Amendment 362 #

Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5

– to create – as soon as risks of violations of Article 2 TEU are identified – an ‘Article 2 TEU/Rule of Law Alarm Agenda’ to be dealt with by the Commission with exclusive priority and urgency, coordinated at the highest political level and fully taken into account in the various EU sectoral policies until full compliance with Article 2 TEU is restored and any risks of violation thereof are defused;deleted

Amendment 363 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Patrick LOUIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5

– to create – as soon as risks of violations of Article 2 TEU are identified – an ‘'Article 2 TEU/~~Rule of Law~~ Alarm Agenda’' to be dealt with by the Commission with exclusive priority and urgency, coordinated at the highest political level and fully taken into account in the various EU sectoral policies until full compliance with Article 2 TEU is restored and any risks of violation thereof are defused;

Amendment 364 #

Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Kārlis ŠADURSKIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 6

– to hold meetings at technical level with the services of the Member State concerned but not to conclude any negotiations in any policy fields other than Article 2 TEU-related ones until full compliance with Article 2 TEU has been ensured;deleted

Amendment 365 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 7

– to apply a horizontal approach involving all the Commission services concerned in order to ensure respect for the rule of law in all fields, including the economic and social sector;

Amendment 366 #

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

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8

– to update its 2003 communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2003) 606) and to draw up a detailed proposal for a swift and independent monitoring mechanism and an early warning system;deleted

Amendment 367 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8

– to ~~update~~implement its 2003 communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2003) 606) ~~and to draw up a detailed proposal for a swift and independent monitoring mechanism and an early warning system;~~

Amendment 368 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 8 a (new)

- to draw up a detailed proposal for a swift and independent monitoring mechanism applying to all Member States, based on objective indicators developed on Article 2 TEU; an evaluation and early warning system; a list of proportionate and progressive measures and sanctions, including freezing or withdrawal of EU funds, to be taken in cases of clear risk of a serious breach, or existence of a serious and persistent breach, by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 369 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 9

– to regularly monitor the correct functioning of the European area of justice and to take action when the independence of the judiciary is put at risk in any Member State without applying double standards, with a view to avoiding the weakening of mutual trust between national judicial authorities, which would inevitably create obstacles to the correct application of the EU instruments on mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation;

Amendment 370 #

Motion for a resolution
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 371 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 10

– to ensure that Member States guarantee correct implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to media pluralism and equal access to information, when these effect EU-law;

Amendment 372 #

Renate WEBER, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Nils TORVALDS, Baroness Sarah LUDFORD, Gianni VATTIMO, Louis MICHEL, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 13

– to address these issues in the framework of the implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in order to improve cooperation between regulatory bodies of the Member States and the Commission, bringing forward as soon as possible a ~~legislative proposal~~revision and aime~~d at reviewing Article 30 of that Directive~~ndment of the Directive and notably of its Articles 29 and 30;

Amendment 373 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14

– to address the issue of the conformity with EU law of the new provision of the Fourth Amendment enabling the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product, and to suggest adequate measures to prevent what may result in a breach of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.deleted

Amendment 374 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14

– to ~~address the issue of~~participate cooperatively in the ongoing dialogue with the Hungarian government on the conformity with EU law of the new provision of the Fourth Amendment enabling the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product, and to suggest adequate measures to prevent what may result in a breach of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.;

Amendment 375 #

Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14 a (new)

– to adopt a European Homelessness Strategy, as called for by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 September 2011 on an EU Homelessness Strategy (P7_TA(2011)0383) to ensure that the fundamental rights of homeless people are respected in the Member States and that they are not criminalised simply because they have nowhere to go;

Amendment 376 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

– 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 378 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)

60a. Deplores the Commission’s agenda as reflected in its announcement on 3 May 2013 that the infringement proceedings against Hungary for excessive deficit may be dropped, and calls on the Commission to give more consideration to the positions and work of the European Parliament before taking or announcing economic decisions in respect of a Member State, to ensure that all the European Union’s institutions maintain a coherent approach to the Union's values as a whole;

Amendment 379 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 b (new)

60b. Reminds the Commission that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the European Union’s forthcoming accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, reaffirm a new architecture for European Union law, a structure with human rights more than ever at its heart, thus conferring on the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, greater responsibilities in this area;

Amendment 380 #

Motion for a resolution
Heading III - Subheading 5

~~Recommendations to the Hungarian Authorities~~deleted

Amendment 381 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

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 property: On the Fundamental Law: – to fully restore the supremacy of the Fundamental Law by removing from it those provisions previously declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court; – to fully apply the recommendations of the Venice Commission and, in particular, to revise the list of policy areas requiring a qualified majority in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and with a view to ensuring future meaningful elections; – 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; On checks and balances: – 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; – 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; – 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 rights1; – to restore the prerogatives of the parliament in the budgetary field and thus secure the full democratic legitimacy of budgetary decisions by removing the restriction of parliamentary powers by the non-parliamentary Budget Council; – to provide clarifications on how the Hungarian authorities intend to remedy the premature termination of the term of office of senior officials with a view to securing the institutional independence of the data protection authority; On the independence of the judiciary: – 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; 1 See Working Document n° 5. – to promptly and correctly implement the above-mentioned decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 and of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, by enabling the dismissed judges who so wish to be reinstated in their previous positions, including those presiding judges whose original executive posts are no longer vacant; – to establish objective selection criteria, or to mandate the National Judicial Council to establish such criteria, with a view to ensuring that the rules on the transfer of cases respect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge; – to implement the remaining recommendations laid down in the Venice Commission’s opinion No CDL- AD(2012)020 on the cardinal acts on the judiciary that were amended following the adoption of Opinion CDL-AD(2012)001; On the media and pluralism: – to fulfil the commitment to further discuss cooperation activities at expert level on the more long-term perspective of the freedom of the media, building on the most important remaining recommendations of the 2012 legal expertise of the Council of Europe; – to ensure timely and close involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including media professionals, opposition parties and civil society, in any further review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society, and in the process of implementation; – to observe the positive obligation arising from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence under Article 10 ECHR to protect freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy; – 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; – to make sure that legally binding procedures and mechanisms are in place for the selection and appointment of heads of public media, management boards, media councils and regulatory bodies, in line with the principles of independence, integrity, experience and professionalism, representation of the entire political and social spectrum, legal certainty and continuity; – to provide legal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law; – to provide legal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law; – to ensure that rules relating to political information throughout the audiovisual media sector guarantee fair access to different political competitors, opinions and viewpoints, in particular on the occasion of elections and referendums, allowing citizens to form their own opinions without undue influence from one dominant opinion-forming power; On respect for fundamental rights – to take positive action to ensure that the fundamental rights of all persons, including persons belonging to minorities, are respected; On the freedom of religion and the recognition of churches: – 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; __________________ 16deleted See Working Document n° 5.

Amendment 382 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61

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 property: On the Fundamental Law: – to fully restore the supremacy of the Fundamental Law by removing from it those provisions previously declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court; – to fully apply the recommendations of the Venice Commission and, in particular, to revise the list of policy areas requiring a qualified majority in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and with a view to ensuring future meaningful elections; – 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; On checks and balances: – 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; – 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; – 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 rights1; – to restore the prerogatives of the parliament in the budgetary field and thus secure the full democratic legitimacy of budgetary decisions by removing the restriction of parliamentary powers by the non-parliamentary Budget Council; – to provide clarifications on how the Hungarian authorities intend to remedy the premature termination of the term of office of senior officials with a view to securing the institutional independence of the data protection authority; On the independence of the judiciary: – 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; – to promptly and correctly implement the above-mentioned decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 and of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, by enabling the dismissed judges who so wish to be reinstated in their previous positions, including those presiding judges whose original executive posts are no longer vacant; – to establish objective selection criteria, or to mandate the National Judicial Council to establish such criteria, with a view to ensuring that the rules on the transfer of cases respect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge; – to implement the remaining recommendations laid down in the Venice Commission’s opinion No CDL- AD(2012)020 on the cardinal acts on the judiciary that were amended following the adoption of Opinion CDL-AD(2012)001; On the media and pluralism: – to fulfil the commitment to further discuss cooperation activities at expert level on the more long-term perspective of the freedom of the media, building on the most important remaining recommendations of the 2012 legal expertise of the Council of Europe; – to ensure timely and close involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including media professionals, opposition parties and civil society, in any further review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society, and in the process of implementation; – to observe the positive obligation arising from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence under Article 10 ECHR to protect freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy; – 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; – to make sure that legally binding procedures and mechanisms are in place for the selection and appointment of heads of public media, management boards, media councils and regulatory bodies, in line with the principles of independence, integrity, experience and professionalism, representation of the entire political and social spectrum, legal certainty and continuity; – to provide legal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law; – to ensure that rules relating to political information throughout the audiovisual media sector guarantee fair access to different political competitors, opinions and viewpoints, in particular on the occasion of elections and referendums, allowing citizens to form their own opinions without undue influence from one dominant opinion-forming power; On respect for fundamental rights – to take positive action to ensure that the fundamental rights of all persons, including persons belonging to minorities, are respected; On the freedom of religion and the recognition of churches: – 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; __________________ See Working Document No 5.deleted

Amendment 383 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part

Amendment 384 #

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~~ Stresses that it has no mandate to make recommendations to the Hungarian authorities; repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, the constitutional setting, the system of checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:o follow up the issue of whether and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"

Amendment 385 #

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~~ Repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, t~~he constitutional setting, the system~~o follow up the issue of cwhe~~cks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:~~ther and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"

Amendment 386 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part

Amendment 387 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 1

~~On the Fundamental Law:~~deleted

Amendment 388 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 1

~~On the Fundamental Law:~~deleted

Amendment 389 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 1

~~On the Fundamental Law:~~deleted

Amendment 390 #

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

Amendment 391 #

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

Amendment 392 #

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

Amendment 393 #

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

Amendment 394 #

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 th~~repeal 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 Con~~stitutional Court~~ the interpretation of Union law, with the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 395 #

Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 1 a (new)

– to take a new approach, finally assuming its responsibilities towards homeless and hence vulnerable people, as set out in the international treaties on human rights to which Hungary is a signatory, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and thus to promote fundamental rights rather than violating them by including in its Fundamental Law provisions that criminalise homeless people;

Amendment 396 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2

– to fully apply the recommendations of the Venice Commission and, in particular, to revise the list of policy areas requiring a qualified majority in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and with a view to ensuring future meaningful elections;deleted

Amendment 397 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2

Amendment 398 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 2

to fully apply the recommendations of the Venice Commission and, in particular, to revise the list of policy areas requiring a qualified majority in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and with a view to ensuring future meaningful elections;deleted

Amendment 399 #

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;

Amendment 400 #

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

Amendment 401 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 3

Amendment 402 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 3

Amendment 403 #

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

Amendment 404 #

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;

Amendment 405 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 2

~~On checks and balances:~~deleted

Amendment 406 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 2

~~On checks and balances:~~deleted

Amendment 407 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 2

~~On checks and balances:~~deleted

Amendment 408 #

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

Amendment 409 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4

Amendment 410 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4

Amendment 411 #

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

Amendment 412 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4

Amendment 413 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4

Amendment 414 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 4 a (new)

- to strive for consensus when electing the members of the Constitutional Court with a meaningful involvement of the opposition and to ensure that the members of the court are free from political influence.

Amendment 415 #

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

Amendment 416 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 5

Amendment 417 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 5

Amendment 418 #

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

Amendment 419 #

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

Amendment 420 #

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.

Amendment 421 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 6

Amendment 422 #

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 See Working Document n° 5.deleted

Amendment 423 #

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 See Working Document No 5.deleted

Amendment 424 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 6 – footnote 16

~~16. See Working Document n° 5.~~deleted

Amendment 425 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 7

– to restore the prerogatives of the parliament in the budgetary field and thus secure the full democratic legitimacy of budgetary decisions by removing the restriction of parliamentary powers by the non-parliamentary Budget Council;deleted

Amendment 426 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 7

Amendment 427 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 7

to restore the prerogatives of the parliament in the budgetary field and thus secure the full democratic legitimacy of budgetary decisions by removing the restriction of parliamentary powers by the non-parliamentary Budget Council;deleted

Amendment 428 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 8

– to provide clarifications on how the Hungarian authorities intend to remedy the premature termination of the term of office of senior officials with a view to securing the institutional independence of the data protection authority;deleted

Amendment 429 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 8

Amendment 430 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 8

to provide clarifications on how the Hungarian authorities intend to remedy the premature termination of the term of office of senior officials with a view to securing the institutional independence of the data protection authority;deleted

Amendment 431 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 3

~~On the independence of the judiciary:~~deleted

Amendment 432 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 3

~~On the independence of the judiciary:~~deleted

Amendment 433 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 3

~~On the independence of the judiciary:~~deleted

Amendment 434 #

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;deleted

Amendment 435 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 9

Amendment 436 #

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;deleted

Amendment 437 #

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;

Amendment 438 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 10

– to promptly and correctly implement the above-mentioned decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 and of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, by enabling the dismissed judges who so wish to be reinstated in their previous positions, including those presiding judges whose original executive posts are no longer vacant;deleted

Amendment 439 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 10

Amendment 440 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 10

to promptly and correctly implement the above-mentioned decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012 and of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, by enabling the dismissed judges who so wish to be reinstated in their previous positions, including those presiding judges whose original executive posts are no longer vacant;deleted

Amendment 441 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 11

– to establish objective selection criteria, or to mandate the National Judicial Council to establish such criteria, with a view to ensuring that the rules on the transfer of cases respect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge;deleted

Amendment 442 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 11

Amendment 443 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 11

to establish objective selection criteria, or to mandate the National Judicial Council to establish such criteria, with a view to ensuring that the rules on the transfer of cases respect the right to a fair trial and the principle of a lawful judge;deleted

Amendment 444 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12

– to implement the remaining recommendations laid down in the Venice Commission's opinion No CDL- AD(2012)020 on the cardinal acts on the judiciary that were amended following the adoption of Opinion CDL-AD(2012)001;deleted

Amendment 445 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12

Amendment 446 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12

to implement the remaining recommendations laid down in the Venice Commission’s opinion No CDL- AD(2012)020 on the cardinal acts on the judiciary that were amended following the adoption of Opinion CDL-AD(2012)001;deleted

Amendment 447 #

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

On the electoral reform

Amendment 448 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12 a (new)

- to ensure balanced representation within the National Election Committee

Amendment 449 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 12 b (new)

- to invite the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ ODIHR to carry out a joint analysis of the comprehensively changed legal and institutional framework of the elections and to invite the ODIHR for a Needs Assessment Mission and a long and short term election observation.

Amendment 450 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 4

~~On the media and pluralism:~~deleted

Amendment 451 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 4

~~On the media and pluralism:~~deleted

Amendment 452 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 4

~~On the media and pluralism:~~deleted

Amendment 453 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 13

– to fulfil the commitment to further discuss cooperation activities at expert level on the more long-term perspective of the freedom of the media, building on the most important remaining recommendations of the 2012 legal expertise of the Council of Europe;deleted

Amendment 454 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 13

Amendment 455 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 13

to fulfil the commitment to further discuss cooperation activities at expert level on the more long-term perspective of the freedom of the media, building on the most important remaining recommendations of the 2012 legal expertise of the Council of Europe;deleted

Amendment 456 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 14

– to ensure timely and close involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including media professionals, opposition parties and civil society, in any further review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society, and in the process of implementation;deleted

Amendment 457 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 14

Amendment 458 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 14

to ensure timely and close involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including media professionals, opposition parties and civil society, in any further review of this legislation, which regulates such a fundamental aspect of the functioning of a democratic society, and in the process of implementation;deleted

Amendment 459 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 15

– to observe the positive obligation arising from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence under Article 10 ECHR to protect freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy;deleted

Amendment 460 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 15

Amendment 461 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 15

to observe the positive obligation arising from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence under Article 10 ECHR to protect freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy;deleted

Amendment 462 #

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

Amendment 463 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 16

Amendment 464 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 16

Amendment 465 #

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

Amendment 466 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 17

– to make sure that legally binding procedures and mechanisms are in place for the selection and appointment of heads of public media, management boards, media councils and regulatory bodies, in line with the principles of independence, integrity, experience and professionalism, representation of the entire political and social spectrum, legal certainty and continuity;deleted

Amendment 467 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 17

Amendment 468 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 17

to make sure that legally binding procedures and mechanisms are in place for the selection and appointment of heads of public media, management boards, media councils and regulatory bodies, in line with the principles of independence, integrity, experience and professionalism, representation of the entire political and social spectrum, legal certainty and continuity;deleted

Amendment 469 #

Renate WEBER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 17

– to make sure that objective, legally binding procedures and mechanisms are in place for the selection and appointment of heads of public media, management boards, media councils and regulatory bodies, in line with the principles of independence, integrity, experience and professionalism, representation of the entire political and social spectrum, legal certainty and continuity;

Amendment 470 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 18

~~– to provi~~de le~~gal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law;~~ted

Amendment 471 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 18

~~– to provi~~de le~~gal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law;~~ted

Amendment 472 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 18

~~to provi~~de le~~gal guarantees regarding full protection of the confidentiality of sources principle and to strictly apply European Court of Human Rights-related case-law;~~ted

Amendment 473 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 19

– to ensure that rules relating to political information throughout the audiovisual media sector guarantee fair access to different political competitors, opinions and viewpoints, in particular on the occasion of elections and referendums, allowing citizens to form their own opinions without undue influence from one dominant opinion-forming power;deleted

Amendment 474 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 19

Amendment 475 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 19

to ensure that rules relating to political information throughout the audiovisual media sector guarantee fair access to different political competitors, opinions and viewpoints, in particular on the occasion of elections and referendums, allowing citizens to form their own opinions without undue influence from one dominant opinion-forming power;deleted

Amendment 476 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

~~On respect for fundamental rights~~deleted

Amendment 477 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

~~On respect for fundamental rights~~deleted

Amendment 478 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

~~On respect for fundamental rights~~deleted

Amendment 479 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

~~On respect for fundamental rights~~deleted

Amendment 480 #

Renate WEBER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – subheading 5

On respect for ~~fundamental right~~rights of persons belonging to minorities

Amendment 481 #