2017/2131(INL) | [ParlTrack]

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Jo LEINEN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Strongly emphasises that all Member States share and must uphold the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, as these values are the core of the European Union;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Reminds that the Venice Commission stated in its "opinion on the draft law on the transparency of organisations receiving support from abroad" (endorsed on 17 June 2017) that such law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination;

Amendment 11 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Jo LEINEN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Points out that the Venice Commission stated in its opinion on Act XXV of 4 April 2017 on the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2201 on National Tertiary Education that it appears highly problematic from the standpoint of rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees to foreign universities who are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully operating there for many years; furthermore reminds that the European Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the grounds that its National Tertiary Education Law as amended on 4 April 2017 disproportionally restricts EU and non- EU universities in their operations and needs to be brought back in line with Union law;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Is worried by~~Reiterates its deep concern about the recent developments in Hungary, wh~~ere there are serious concerns about~~ich are jeopardising and hampering the fulfilment of the principles of the Rule of Law and the principles stated in Article 2 TEU, including, inter alia, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, academic freedom, the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, freedom of assembly and association, the right to equal treatment, social rights, the defence of civil society organisations, the rights of people belonging to minorities, including Roma, Jews and LGBTI people, the functioning of the constitutional system, the independence of the judiciary and of other institutions;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is worried by the recent developments in Hungary, where there are serious concerns about the fulfilment of the principles of the Rule of Law and the principles stated in Article 2 TEU, including the functioning of the constitutional system, the independence of the judiciary and of other institutions and the systematic removal of checks and balances, freedom of expression, academic freedom, human rights, the right to equal treatment, social rights, the defence of civil society organisations~~, the functioning of the constitutional system, the independence of the judiciary and of other institutions~~;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that the term citizenship itself entails a clear political will of equality between individuals; underlines that the values and principles on which the Union is based are defining a sphere where every European citizen can identify himself or herself with, irrespective of the political or cultural differences linked to national identity; is concerned about the public use of nationalist considerations based on exclusive identities coming from Hungarian officials;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Is concerned about the impact of constitutional and legislative reforms on the judiciary; calls for the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to be restored in full; recommends to review the functioning and powers of the National Judicial Council to ensure that it can fulfil its role as Hungary’s independent body of judicial self-government;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4 c. Is concerned about the reintroduction at the constitutional level of provisions that should fall into the scope of ordinary law and were already found unconstitutional, with the aim to avoid constitutional review; stresses that this practice jeopardises the principles of a constitutional State under the rule of law;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4 d. Is worried by the shrinking space for civil society organisations, the attempts to control NGOs and to restrict their ability to carry out their legitimate work, such as the adoption of the Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad and introduction of the so-called 'Stop Soros' legislative package;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4 e. Expresses its concerns at the politicized fines of the Hungarian State Audit Office and most recent decision of the National Electoral Committee on national lists which clearly limits the possibilities of smaller parties to run for elections and especially to form coalitions for the elections;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Deeply regrets the antagonistic and misleading rhetoric sometimes used by the Hungarian institutions referring to the European Union; recalls the objectives stated in Article 3(1) and (2) TEU that Hungary accepted to attain when joining the Union in 2004; reminds that joining the European Union was a voluntary act based on the national sovereignty with a broad consensus all over the Hungarian political spectrum;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recalls that the content of Article 2 TEU reflects binding and well- established principles of international law endorsed by all the Member States; stresses, therefore, that the full respect, protection and promotion of the rule of law, democracy and human rights represents also a common responsibility and an obligation arising from the fact of simply belonging to the international community;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Deeply regrets the antagonistic and misleading rhetoric sometimes used by the Hungarian institutions referring to the European Union and the deliberate choice of the authorities to put in place legislation directly breaching Union values; recalls the objectives stated in Article 3(1) and (2) TEU that Hungary accepted to attain when joining the Union in 2004;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Believes that if a serious and persistent breach of the rule of law by a Member State has been established, the Commission as the 'guardian of the Treaties' should use every tool at its disposal to defend the fundamental values on which the Union is founded, including the activation of Article 7 TEU; highlights that an appropriate response to the violation of Union fundamental values requires a combination of adequate legal instruments and political will, despite the difficulty to reach a decision in the European Council because of the unanimity requirement;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Emphasises that the infringement procedure has shown its limits in addressing systematic violations of Union values because of its main focus on technical matters which allow governments to propose formal remedies while keeping the laws breaching Union law in force; believes that in the case of the violation of the principle of sincere cooperation embodied in Article 4 TEU, the Commission has no legal obstacle preventing it from building on infringement cases to identify a pattern amounting to a breach of Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Takes note of the rule of law framework established by the Commission in 2014 and regrets that the Commission did not respond to Parliament’s call to activate that framework, as contained in its resolutions of 10 June 2015 and 16 December 2015 on the situation in Hungary; points out that this mechanism falls short in preventing an emerging systemic threat to the rule of law and urges the creation of a common Union mechanism based on proper expertise and independence to respond to breaches of the rule of law and fundamental rights at Member State level;

Amendment 24 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Jo LEINEN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

~~6. Recalls that its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental righ~~deleted Texts1 asked the Commission to submit by September 2017 a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF); notes that this proposal is yet to come; _________________ 1dopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1 asked the Commission to submit by September 2017 a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF); notes that this proposal is yet to come and would be of utmost importance since there is an inconsistency between the Union’s support for the rule of law and democracy as far as accession and third countries are concerned and its support within the Union and its Member States; _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.

Amendment 26 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Jo LEINEN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1 asked the Commission to submit by September 2017 a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF); notes that this proposal is yet to come~~; _________________ 1~~ and that there is an urgent need to set-up an efficient mechanism to safeguard Union's fundamental values considering the increasing frequency of the violations of Union law by some Member States; _________________ 1 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409. Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Is concerned that Hungary, in which 6.3 % of its wealth (gross national income) is generated by Union investment and which is one of the countries that benefits most from EU funding, does not participate in the creation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), which will be in charge of investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice offences against the Union’s financial interests; is therefore of the opinion that, for the sake of sound financial management and transparency of the Union’s budget, the participation in the work of the EPPO should be a pre- condition to access EU funding and urges the Commision to ascertain how a strong conditionality between the respect of rule of law and access to EU funding could be introduced;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Believes that the current situation in Hungary represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and warrants the launch of procedure set out in Article 7(1) TEU ;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. Whereas the free participation of a fully developed civil society is a key aspect of a democratic decision-making process;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Reminds that, according to Article 49 TEU, candidate countries must demonstrate that they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria in order to become members of the European Union and the Commission has a duty to demand full compliance with them; stresses that, once part of the Union, Member States have a corresponding obligation to respect and protect the principle of the rule of law and its constitutive elements, and that the Union principle of mutual trust does not exonerate them from evaluating the compliance of the other Member States with the Union law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by Union law;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. Whereas Union legislation is the product of collective decision-making in which all Member States participate;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

A c. Whereas, in accordance with Article 9 TEU and Article 20 TFEU, every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union; whereas the European Citizenship shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Recital A d (new)

A d. Whereas AFCO Committee visited Hungary in November 2016;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Recalls that these values enshrined in Article 2 TEU are protected by the procedure established in Article 7~~(1)~~ TEU; is of the opinion, however, that the Union should be equipped with an additional and more structured framework to monitor and assess the respect and promotion of the principles set out in Article 2 TEU; recalls, in this regard, that in its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights it asked the Commission to submit, by September 2017, a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF); regrets that this proposal is yet to come;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Reiterates its call to the Commission to make full use of the expertise of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in monitoring the situation of fundamental rights in the Union by proposing a revision of the FRA’s founding Regulation in order to grant it wider and more independent powers and greater human and financial resources;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Reminds that the Venice Co~~nvent~~mmission defines the essential characteristics of the Rule of Law as legality, legal certainty and prohibition of arbitrariness, access to justice, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and equality before the law; recalls that Hungary recognises the Venice Commission since its accession to the Council of Europe in 1990;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 8 #

Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Jo LEINEN, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Shares the concerns expressed by the Venice Commission in its opinions on Hungarian legislation since 2011, including the opinions on the Fundamental Law and the amendment thereto; believes that many of those concerns have not been properly addressed and remain relevant;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Reiterates that the Venice Commission concluded already in its opinion on the fourth and most current amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary on 17 June 2013 that the measures taken amount to a threat for constitutional justice and for the supremacy of the basic principles contained in the Fundamental Law of Hungary; furthermore the Venice Commission stated that the limitation of the role of the Constitutional Court leads to a risk that it may negatively affect the separation of powers, the protection of human rights and the rule of law;

source: 616.862

2018/03/26 CULT 76 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)

-1. Recalls that according to Article165 of the TFEU the Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity;

Amendment 10 #

Petra KAMMEREVERT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that the Hungarian Government has acceded to some of the demands in the Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, notably as regards the suspension of the deadlines established in the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and the launching of a dialogue with the ~~relevant~~ US authorities~~; not~~ responsible for Central European University; deplores, however, the fact that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that the Hungarian Government has acceded to ~~some of~~ the demands in the Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, notably as regards the suspension of the deadlines established in the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and the launching of a dialogue with the relevant US authorities; notes, however, that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that the Hungarian Government has acceded to some of the demands in the Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, notably as regards the suspension of the deadlines established in the Act amending the National Higher Education Act, which was the main obstacle identified by the Venice Commission in its decision of 7 October 2017, and the launching of a dialogue with the relevant US authorities; notes, however, that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and that it has no reason to do so, in particular in the absence of a definitive ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 13 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Acknowledges that the Hungarian Government has acceded to some of the demands in the Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, notably as regards the suspension of the deadlines established in the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and the launching of a dialogue with the relevant US authorities; notes~~, however,~~ with concern, however, that the agreement between Hungary and the government of the Central European University’s country of seat has been ready since last year and still not signed by the Hungarian Prime Minister; notes furthermore that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act;

Amendment 14 #

Petra KAMMEREVERT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes, further, that suspending deadlines is not conducive to planning certainty for universities, their teaching staff and students; points out, in that connection, that the Hungarian authorities called off at the last minute a visit to the US State of New York scheduled for 2 March 2018, the purpose of which was to have been to allay the Hungarian Government’s remaining reservations about Central European University; calls, therefore, on the Hungarian Government to reschedule the visit for a date in the near future and to sign the cooperation agreement which has already been negotiated with the US State of New York so that Central European University can carry out its work properly;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets deeply ~~that~~ the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, since the Act amending the National Higher Education Act runs counter to internal market freedoms, notably the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to the right to academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct business, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rightsbefore the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets deeply~~Notes that the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have ~~not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Jus~~led to a constructicve ~~of the European Union, since~~dialogue on the Act amending the National Higher Education Act ~~runs counter to internal market freedoms, notably the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to~~, as the latter could undermine the right to academic freedom, and the right to education ~~and the freedom to conduct business,~~ enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets ~~deeply~~ that the ~~Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the~~legal dispute between the Commission and Hungarian Government ~~have no~~concerning the Act ame~~t with success so far and that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, since the Act amending the National Higher Education Act runs~~nding the National Higher Education Act have not been settled so far, leading to initiation by the Commission of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union; Hungary has the right to have her own education laws but those must not counter to internal market freedoms, notably the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to the right to academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct business, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regrets deeply~~Acknowledges that the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, since initiated an infringement procedure because according to the evaluation of the Commission the Act amending the National Higher Education Act runs counter to internal market freedoms, notably the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to the right to academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct business, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; notes that the Hungarian Government does not agree with the evaluation of the Commission and that therefore the Commission decided to bring the case to the European Court of Justice; acknowledges that the legal procedure is ongoing;

Amendment 19 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that in respect of the rule of law and appropriate procedures, it is advisable to await the CJEU decision on the Higher Education Act and then accordingly urge the Hungarian Government to find a legislative solution compatible with the EU Internal Market freedoms; notwithstanding the CJEU decision, calls the Hungarian Government to unblock and pursue the conclusion of agreement with the New York State on the Central European University;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 20 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Expresses its regret, that the Commission often applies double standards for introducing solutions that are also applied in other Member States; therefore considers that the Commission’s targeting of Hungary is unjustified and politically driven;

Amendment 21 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, that the Hungarian Government is engaging in exhaustive dialogue with the Commission on current reforms and is providing comprehensive explanations in this regard; stresses that Hungary has responded in a comprehensive and timely manner to all inquiries made by the Commission;

Amendment 22 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Stresses that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies to actions of the EU and the Member States when implementing EU legislation; stresses that Declaration No 1 concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union stipulates that ‘the Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the Treaties’;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that in February 2018, the Hungarian government introduced in Parliament the ‘Stop Soros’ package, a legislative proposal made up in the sphere of three bills that target civil society organisations working on migration;

Amendment 24 #

Curzio MALTESE, Martina MICHELS, Nikolaos CHOUNTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Is deeply concerned that the proposed laws could serve as a model within the EU that will undermine the valuable work of civil society organisations fighting for the respect of human rights, a danger that the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has recently underlined;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Believes that the current situation in Hungary represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values as referred to in Article 2 of the TEU;

Amendment 26 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Subheading 2

~~B. Segregation of Roma children~~deleted

Amendment 27 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Draws attention to the fac~~Points out that the sintegregation ofproblems encountered by Roma children in education i~~n Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon which contribu~~s a phenomenon which has long been observed in eastern Europe, in States with sizeable Roma communities and in particular in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and that this phenomenon could exacerbates tohe problem of the social exclusion of ~~Roma,~~the Roma and could perhaps reduc~~ing~~e their chances of integration in the labour market and in society, even though it affects only 45% of Roma children, and not the majority of them;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education in some European countries, including Hungary, remains a ~~widespread~~structural and deep- rooted phenomenon which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the labour market and in society; recalls that this problem has been subject of a number of recommendations from the European Commission to the countries concerned and encourages those countries to follow the recommendations in order to deal with this issue effectively;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, in April 2017, following the adoption of the Act amending the National Higher Education Act in Hungary, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission for an opinion and that in its conclusions the Venice Commission acknowledged that, in the absence of unified European norms or models in the field, it belongs to the Hungarian state to establish, and periodically review, the most appropriate regulatory framework applicable to foreign universities on its territory, and to seek to improve this framework. Also, it is up to the Hungarian authorities to assess when and whether this framework needs to be updated and adapted to new challenges. The Commission also stated that the introduction of more stringent rules coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which were already established in Hungary and had been lawfully operating there for many years, appeared highly problematic from the standpoint of rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees.

Amendment 30 #

Curzio MALTESE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Martina MICHELS, Nikolaos CHOUNTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education in Hungary ~~remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon~~is a challenge which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the labour market and in society;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Draws attention to the fact that the ~~segreg~~multiple forms of daily discrimination of Roma children in education in Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon, which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the education system, labour market and in society;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Draws attentio~~Expresses concern to the fact that the discrimination and segregation of Roma children in education in Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the labour market and in society as a whole;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education in Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon which contributes to the social exclusion of Roma, reducing their chances of integration in the labour market and in society; regrets deeply that the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to launch an infringement procedure in May 2016;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that in 2012 the Council of Europe acknowledged that in all the countries where Roma children face ‘school segregation’ the phenomenon can largely be explained by the fact that some Roma parents prefer to remove their children from schools with large numbers of Roma pupils; points out, in that connection, that the attempt made by the Czech Government in 2012 to close down the ‘separate’ schools ran into opposition from a large section of the public, voiced in the form of a petition, with the result that the government was forced to rethink its proposal in part;

Amendment 35 #

4b. Notes that as part of their accession process, and then as EU Member States, all the countries of eastern Europe which have sizeable Roma minorities have carried out significant reforms to support that community; notes, in particular, that since 1993 at the latest Hungary has recognised the Roma as a protected community and that a 2013 law bans people from making derogatory remarks about them; notes that many other States have taken practical steps to foster the integration of the Roma, in particular Romania, which has introduced a number of forms of pro- Roma positive discrimination in the area of access to higher education; notes that these measures have not led to the Roma becoming satisfactorily assimilated into the societies in question;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Notes that the situation of the Roma minorities in both eastern and western Europe must be the subject of an objective and impartial assessment and that due account should be taken of the obstacle to assimilation into society in the States referred to above which the way of life chosen by most of that community may pose; notes that many eminent European politicians from across the spectrum have acknowledged this; points out, for example, that in 2014 former Commissioner Viviane Reding emphasised that Roma minorities must also make an effort to integrate in the Member States by adapting their way of life as required;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recognizes that Hungary has taken several steps to reduce and prevent segregation, in which Hungary has amended the Act on Equal Treatment and Promotion of Equal Opportunities as well as the Act on Public Education and several pieces of legislation aimed at enforcing these amendments. In addition, the government, in line with EU and national medium- and long-term strategies, has taken actions to promote access to quality education for Roma children. The implementation of these measures should be continued and the monitoring of their effectiveness is necessary to be ensured;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Is of the opinion that the Commission when it was reviewing the media legislation of 2010 was not thorough enough and failed to take into consideration the values set out in Art 2. of the TFEU; recalls that in June 2015 the Venice Commission published its opinion on media legislation in Hungary, where it stated that several issues require revision as a priority, if the Hungarian authorities wish not only to improve the situation with the media freedom in the country, but also change the public perception of media freedom;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers that the media law of 2010 with its insufficient cross-ownership rules resulted in a distorted and imbalanced media market; stresses that the Hungarian market has become more concentrated, plenty of independent local stations disappeared and the previously flourishing segment of community radios has also been losing out; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the media outlet has been receiving public funds;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that, in April 2017, following the adoption of the Act amending the 2011 National Higher Education Act in Hungary, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission for an opinion and that in its conclusions the Venice Commission stated that the introduction of more stringent rules coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which were already established in Hungary and had been lawfully operating there for many years, ~~appeared highly~~might be problematic from the standpoint of ~~rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees.~~freedom of education;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Is of the opinion that media council (into which all the members could be delegated only by the governing party since 2010) actively helped the restructuration of the radio market in order to satisfy the prevailing political needs; is outraged by the fact that the media council has failed to guarantee even the minimum level of balance in the media;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Emphasizes that state advertising spending disproportionately favours certain media enterprises over others; points out that state spending was higher in 2017 than ever before and state advertisements are typically awarded to media that are loyal to the government, which are predominantly controlled by oligarchs;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Recalls that in May 2017, the Parliament of Hungary adopted a law raising the country’s advertising tax from 5.3% to 7.5%, which raises worries about possible pressure on the remaining independent media in the country; is concerned that political party advertising is only allowed in public and private media if it is free of charge, which has raised concerns in terms of limiting access to information, since private media may not be willing to broadcast free advertising; believes that it is necessary to ensure that public advertising contracts are concluded with all media in a fair and transparent manner;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 f (new)

4f. Emphasizes that the so-called public media broadcaster (MTVA) which includes all public radio and televisions uncritically disseminates the government’s messages, in particular it continuously reflects the anti-refugee or Stop-Soros campaigns carried out by the government; stresses that the public television M1 as a 24-hour news channel offers more possibilities than previously for propaganda and for transmitting the messages of the government;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 g (new)

4g. Points out that the public media broadcaster does not comply with transparency requirements, it provides no publicly accessible surface for tracking the spending of public funds, and unlike many European public broadcasters it has no annual report, nor is it known how it defines public service responsibilities or how it discharges those;

Amendment 45 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection, the closure and subsequent sale of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis-à-vis a critical press;deleted

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; ~~deplores, in this connection,~~emphasises that the closure and subsequent sale of Népszabadság~~, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis- à-vis a critical pres~~ was a response to the newspaper’s profitability problems;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)~~, that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection, the closure and subsequ~~ and to the 2017 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, that media freedom in Hungary has beent salource of ~~Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing~~major concern in the past years; urges the Hungarian Ggovernment~~’s intolerance vis- à-vis a critical press~~ to guarantee media freedom and pluralism as a key value of the European Union;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom and pluralism in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection, the closure and subsequent sale of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis-à-vis a critical press;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out, however, that the amendment to the 2011 National Higher Education Act adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 4 April 2017 affects only six foreign universities established in Hungary and imposes on them certain obligations which are intended to enable the authorities to scrutinise the lawfulness and the quality of the teaching they provide, in particular by insisting on the conclusion of bilateral agreements between the State of origin and Hungary and the issuing of work permits for teachers who are not EU citizens;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection, the ~~closure and~~ subsequent sale and closure of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis-à- vis a critical press;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Stresses~~Is deeply concerned, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection, the closure and subsequent sale of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis-à-vis a critical press;

Amendment 52 #

Curzio MALTESE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Martina MICHELS, Nikolaos CHOUNTIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that journalists of independent media are often seriously hindered while doing their job, media outlets are regularly banned from entering into the Parliament building, spaces are restricted in the Parliament for journalist to ask and interview politicians;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that media freedom and pluralism are fundamental rights enshrined in Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and constitute essential foundations of democratic societies;

Amendment 54 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Is concerned that, after Hungary’s last independent regional newspapers were taken over by oligarchs close to the Hungarian Government, the latter has recently further extended its control over the media, with media concentration in Hungary reaching an unprecedented and grotesque level according to ‘Reporters Without Borders’;deleted

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Is concerned that, a~~fter Hungary’s last independent regional newspapers were taken over by oligarchs close to the Hungarian Government, the latter has recently further extended~~ccording to ‘Reporters Without Borders’, the level of media concentration in Hungary has now reached too high a level, as its ~~control over the media, with media concentration in Hungary reaching an unprecedented and grotesque level according to ‘Reporters Without Borders’~~unfortunately also the case in many other Member States, even in western Europe and in France;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 59 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the pro-government news website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this clearly runs counter to the principle of media freedomWelcomes the fact that the Hungarian government decided in 2017 to end the highly criticized poster campaign depicting the U.S. financier George Soros with the caption “Don’t let Soros have the last laugh”, which was considered as anti- Semitist encouragement too;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that, the Venice Commission guidelines and opinions are not binding and may, but need not be, considered by the governments of the Member States; notes that the Hungarian Government is sovereign in its actions;

Amendment 60 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the ~~pro-government news~~independent and privately owned website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media~~, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this clearly runs counter to the principle of media freedom~~;

Amendment 61 #

Curzio MALTESE, Liadh NÍ RIADA, Martina MICHELS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the pro-government news website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this is clearly ~~runs counter to the principle of media freedom~~the personal opinion of the website’s staff which is covered by freedom of expression, an assertion which may be tested in the Hungarian courts if the persons whose names appear on the list bring legal action; emphasises that trivial details such as this should not inform a serious analysis of the situation with regard to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Hungary;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Note~~Regrets that the pro-government news website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this clearly runs counter to the principle of media freedom;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Subheading 3 a (new)

Non-governmental Organisations

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Is worried by the shrinking space for civil society organisations, the attempts to control NGOs and to restrict their ability to carry out their legitimate work; regrets deeply the fact that Hungary adopted a legislation on foreign- funded NGOs (Lex NGO), which interferes unduly with fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to freedom of association; points out that the law also introduces unjustified and disproportionate restrictions to the free movement of capital and raises concerns about respect of the right to protection of private life and of personal data; emphasizes that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 65 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Points out that despite the legal proceeding at the CJEU on the “Lex NGO” the Hungarian proposed another law the, so called “Lex Stop Soros”, which intends to further restrict the right of association and the work of NGOs; deplores the intention of the Hungarian Government to force-close all Soros funded NGOs and the aim to require a state permit for NGOs to work on the field of migration;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 67 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to continue to deploy all means available under the Treaties, in order to uphold the Union’s common values and to conduct a political dialogue with the Hungarian authorities, the other Member States and the European Parliament, in ~~order to guarantee the rule of law, in particular in the areas of education and freedom of the media~~particular as regards education and freedom of the media, while respecting Hungary’s sovereignty and governmental freedom; insists that Hungary must not be stigmatised on the basis of very broad criteria, such as the situation of minorities or the media; notes that all these matters must be the subject of an impartial and objective debate in which both sides can put their case and must not be exploited to put pressure on Hungary, in particular in the context of its firm stance on taking in migrants;

Amendment 68 #

Jana TOOM

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Urges the leaders of the EU institutions to regard the results of the referendum of 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom as an important signal of wider discontent into the current direction of the EU; calls on them, for the benefit of the EU, to reflect on ways the Union should be reformed in order to bring the decision-making process closer to citizens and guarantee better compliance with the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 7 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recalls that the Government of Hungary was elected with a two-thirds majority and continues to enjoy increasing support; whereas the current Hungarian Government has a strong democratic mandate to pursue educational reform;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Draws the attention to the fact that the governing party has built a network of government organised NGOs, supported by public funds, whose main activity is to echo the governments messages and to organise demonstrations on the side of the government;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Believes that the situation in the field of Higher Education, Roma education, the situation in the media and the NGOs in Hungary represent a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article2 of the TEU and warrants the launch of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the European Commission to urgently finalise the infringement procedures steps, taking into consideration the declaration made by the Hungarian government which has questioned the ruling of the European Court of Justice concerning the infringement procedure which the European Commission launched against Hungary for failing to implement the community’s decision on the relocation of asylum-seekers, and warrants the launch of the Article 7 TEU procedure;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Calls on the Commission, to continue to closely monitor the unfolding legislative process and the extent to which the proposals breach EU law, including its Fundamental Rights and to make the evaluation promptly and publicly available;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Calls on the OSCE to set up an election observation mission to Hungary’s parliamentary elections not only with a limited mandate, to closely monitor the misuse of the freedom of expression, the abuse of the administrative resources and the election campaign that continues to vilify civic organisations engaged in public interest causes;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8d. Calls on the Commission to increase funding for independent projects in the field of media freedom and pluralism such as the Media Pluralism Monitor among others, mapping violations to media freedom and supporting journalists under threat;

Amendment 76 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 e (new)

8e. Calls on the Commission to create robust funding instrument to support independent NGO-s to have their voices heard and to fulfil their missions in an increasingly hostile environment;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Stresses that pursuant to Article 5 of the TEU, which lays down the principle of subsidiarity in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union acts only if and in so far as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States;

Amendment 9 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

source: 619.376

2018/04/10 FEMM 96 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Citation 1 a (new)

– having regard to the report of the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice1a, 27th of May, 2016, __________________ 1a http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pa ges/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20027&L angID=E

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas although Hungary has a strong national health system and public health insurance, and despite the recommendations of various UN treaty monitoring bodies, the cost of modern contraception is wholly excluded from Hungary's health scheme, offering no coverage or reimbursement for any women or for any method of contraception, which poses an obstacle to modern family planning;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas Hungary’s constitutions definition of family “marriage and partner-child relationships” is outdated and based on conservative beliefs; whereas same-sex marriage is banned; whereas almost 70% of the respondents in the 2014 Fundamental Rights Agency’s LGBT survey avoid certain locations or places in fear of being harassed or assaulted of being LGBTI;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas Hungary has taken into consideration the remarks and recommendations of the Venice Commission and redrafted the original proposal of the Hungarian Act on the transparency of organizations supported from abroad;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas Hungary has been strongly criticized by various international human rights organisations for its backlash regarding human rights and the restrictions against the civil society, including women´s rights organisations;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas the emergency pill or morning after pill remains available upon prescription only, against the recommendation from the European Commission that emergency contraceptive can be sold over-the-counter since 2015;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas the Venice Commission recognised that the acceptance of the amendments they had proposed represent an important improvement on Hungary’s Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas undocumented migrant women are not entitled to access any health care that is not emergency care, resulting in them being prevented from obtaining ordinary prenatal care and frequently are only able to obtain medical assistance once labour has begun;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights are not sufficiently upheld and whereas Hungary is one out of few member states that demands a prescription for all types of emergency contraception;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas out of the 47 members of the Council of Europe only 22 ratified the Istanbul Agreement, and another 21 member signed the Agreement but have not yet ratified;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas despite concerns of the CEDAW Committee, which called on the government to ensure access to safe abortion without subjecting women to mandatory counselling and a medically unnecessary waiting period, this legal precondition is still in practice, along with stigmatization practices employed by the medical counsellors; whereas medical abortion is not available and whereas the Hungarian government has never responded to requests to justify its decision to prohibit the EU-wide registered drug;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)

– having regard to the reasoned opinions by the EU Commission with regards to EU law on equal treatment of men and women in employment and occupation (Equal Treatment Directive, Directive 2006/54/EC) as well as the Maternity Leave Directive (Council Directive 92/85/EEC), 27th of April 2017,

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe commended also in its resolution that the Hungarian Act on the transparency of organizations supported from abroad does not include the controversial term of ‘foreign agent’ and provides for a judicial rather than and administrative review;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)'s Concluding observations from 2013 called on Hungary, amongst other recommendations, to review its family and gender-equality policies to ensure that the former do not restrict the full enjoyment by women of their right to non- discrimination and equality, to ensure appropriate remedies for victims of discrimination on the grounds of intersecting factors and to systematically carry out gender impact assessments of current and proposed laws and ensure that the new legislative framework does not bring a regression with its implementation; whereas these recommendations to Hungary have not been duly implemented by any government up to now, and whereas no implementation plan has been elaborated for these recommendations;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas the latest representative research carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights shows that the rate of the victims of physical and /or sexual violence in Hungary falls below the EU average;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital B g (new)

Bg. whereas harmful gender stereotypes and assumptions about women’s roles in society are widespread in Hungarian society, including discrimination on grounds of sex; whereas the Hungarian government takes a regressive approach to gender issues, and uses the promotion of ‘family mainstreaming’ – replacing gender mainstreaming – in the context of a desired demographic increase , and misinterprets and misuses the concepts of ‘gender’ and ‘gender equality’;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital B g (new)

Bg. whereas the rate of employment among women in Hungary has seen a significant rise compared to the 2010 level;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital B h (new)

Bh. whereas gender-based and domestic violence is widespread in Hungary; whereas at least 50 women die every year to the hands of their relatives or partners; whereas hundreds of thousands of women are regularly abused in their families; whereas according to2015 data from the European Institute for Gender Equality, 27.7% of women in Hungary have experienced physical and/or sexual violence since age 15; Whereas the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) found in 2015 that 21% of women in Hungary have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a partner since the age of15, and 6% in the past 12 months; whereas according to women’s rights organisations, the perpetrator is in 95 per cent of the cases of violence a man, and the victim is a women or girl; whereas many women are reluctant to report abuse since they are being confronted with a hostile environment in police stations and courts; whereas law enforcement officers and the judiciary are largely ineffective in pursuing and prosecuting abusers, which deters victims of violence from reporting and fosters distrust in authorities; whereas there is a culture of victim-blaming from both authorities and social circles;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital B h (new)

Bh. whereas there is no collection of data about ethnicity regarding health status records or the provision healthcare services;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital B i (new)

Bi. whereas Hungary signed the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention) in 2014, but has not yet ratified it; whereas progress on the ratification has stalled since February 2017;

Amendment 28 #

Marijana PETIR, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI, Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Recital B j (new)

Bj. whereas Hungary does not have a holistic strategy or action plan on preventing and combating violence against women, although legislation was introduced that criminalized domestic violence in 2013; whereas the legislation is insufficient (f.e. sexual violence is not included in the offense of domestic violence) and problematic in its language and implementation;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the efforts taken in recent years to achieve a better reconciliation of work and private life; recalls the Commission's proposal for a directive on work-life balance for parents and carers1 presented in April 2017 and encourages the Hungarian government to contribute to its swift adoption; __________________ 1__________________ 1 COM(2017)0253. COM(2017)0253.

Amendment 3 #

Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of respect for the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of people belonging to minorities, and whereas these values are universal and common to the Member States (Article 2 of the TEU);

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Note~~Commends the efforts taken in recent years to achieve a better reconciliation of work and ~~private~~family life; recalls the Commission's proposal for a directive on work-life balance for parents and carers1 presented in April 2017 and encourages the Hungarian government to contribute to its swift adoption; __________________ 1 COM(2017)0253. COM(2017)0253.

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes the efforts taken in recent years to achieve a better reconciliation of work and private life to which end Hungary allocated a funding of 14 billion HUF for the ‘Women in families and at work’ project;; recalls the Commission's proposal for a directive on work-life balance for parents and carers1 presented in April 2017 and encourages the Hungarian government to contribute to its swift adoption; __________________ 1 COM(2017)0253.

Amendment 32 #

Marijana PETIR, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Deplores the fact that Hungary has still not met the Union’s Barcelona Targets, and calls on the Hungarian Government to give those targets priority and to tailor its family policies to the needs of the most vulnerable members of society as well;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deplores the reinterpretation and narrowing of gender equality policies towards family policies and recalls the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2010-2021), which Hungary has not yet implementedRecognizes that in order to provide the full freedom of choice for women, a nurturing environment must be established for starting and raising a family, so that no extra burden would affect women’s choice in balancing work and family life;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Deplor~~Welcomes the reinterpretation and narrowing of gender equality policies towards family policies and recalls the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2010-2021), which Hungary has not yet implemenefforts of the Hungarian government to complement the policies aimed at achieving equality between men and women with family policies; invites Hungary to share the best practices in this field with other EU Member Stateds;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deplores the reinterpretation and narrowing of gender equality policies towards family policies and recalls the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2010-2021), which Hungary has not yet implemented; condemns the wilful misinterpretation of the terms gender and gender equality; emphasises that the aim of gender equality policy in all areas of society must be to ensure that no one is disadvantaged on the grounds of his/her gender, that every individual’s rights are safeguarded and can be exercised and that the involvement of women and men in the life of society at all levels on the basis of equal rights is guaranteed; calls, therefore, for a return to the idea of gender mainstreaming as an analytical and policy-making tool and for the national strategy to be implemented with these objectives in all areas;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Deplores the reinterpretation and narrowing of gender equality policies towards family policies and recalls the National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2010-2021), which Hungary has not yet implemented; highlights the importance of the empowerment of women especially with regards to their political, economic and social rights as a precondition for an environment where families can flourish;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Hungarian government to implement the recommendations of the UN CEDAW Committee issued in 2013 without further delay and to elaborate and update its stalled "National Strategy for the Promotion of Gender Equality – Goals and Objectives 2010–2021" or to replace it by a new Gender Equality Strategy, ensuring concrete deadlines and responsible actors, and providing funding and monitoring mechanisms for its effective implementation; and to consult throughout the process with women’s rights NGOs;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the very low number of women in political decision-making positions; deplores, in that connection, the fact that until now only 10% of the members of the Hungarian Parliament have been women, the lowest proportion in any EU Member State; emphasises that the involvement of women in political decision-making on an equal footing with men is fundamental to effective democracy;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas ~~Hungary occupies, with 50.8 points, the second to last place in the European comparison of the European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Equality Index 2017 an~~the European Institute for Gender Equality’s Gender Equality Index (GEI) 2017 is not a useful tool for policy recommendations in 2018, as it only takes into account the statistical data from 2013, 2014, and 2015; whereas, nevertheless, it should be noted tha~~s, furthermore, lost 1.6 po~~t Hungary outperformed other Member States in 5 out of 6 core domaints ~~since 2010~~constituting the GEI;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Not~~Strongly deplores the very low number of women in political decision- making positions; recalls the recommendations by the UN CEDAW and the OSCE to implement legislative quotas for national elections; stresses that political parties should lead by example with regards to equal opportunity and gender balance;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the very low number of women in political decision-making positions; points out that better balance between work and family life and shared parental responsibility between mothers and fathers are important steps towards higher representation of women in political decision making on all levels;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Highlights that Hungary has adopted a cardinal law on the protection of families and is committed to build a family-friendly country establishing the necessary conditions. In addition, the Government has decided to dedicate 2018 the Year of the Family;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recommends to introduce effective legislative measures – such as quotas as temporary special measures – to increase women’s participation in political life and decision-making;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Deplores the narrow definition of family which discriminates against cohabitants and same-sex couples; reminds Hungary that discrimination on term of sexual orientation is prohibited;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes that the current employment rate of women is 61.2%, while the greatest improvement in women’s employment is detectable in the group of women who raise children under the age of 6, given the positive measures taken by the Hungarian Government since 2010 in order to help families and women with children, among others the child care fee extra, the new day-care system of children;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Welcomes that between 2010 and 2016 the available seats in nurseries increased by around 23%, while in 2017 Hungary has introduced a new and more flexible nursery system that aligns better with local circumstances and helps women to go back to the labour market;

Amendment 47 #

Marijana PETIR, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Welcomes that since 2010 the Hungarian Government has adopted and implemented several social, social inclusion, family policy, health policy and educational measures, addressed among others to Roma, such as Roma mother- child health programme, training Roma health guardians, training Roma health representatives as well as early childhood development programs;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the introduction in Hungary of restrictive regulations and policies affecting civil society in general has also significantly hindered women's rights NGOs such as PATENT Association, NANE Association, both providing unique services for victims of gender-based and domestic violence, and the Hungarian Women's Lobby; whereas amongst the negative direct implications for civil society organisations working to advance women’s rights are the risk of being excluded from tax and other benefits;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Is concerned about the impact of Hungary’s Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds on civil socie~~Acknowledges the necessity for~~ganisations that receive funds from the EU, EEA and third countries and on the future~~ the transparent and lawful functioning of non- governmental organisations, which include many women's rights organisations, which are crucial for the functioning and progress of society;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is worried about the shrinking space for civil society organisations and the attempts to control NGOs restricting their ability to carry out their legitimate work; is concerned about the impact of Hungary’s Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds on civil society organisations that receive funds from the EU, EEA and third countries a~~nd on the futur~~s well as the introduction of the so-called 'Stop Soros' legislative package; highlights that these developments negatively impact the functioning of non- governmental organisations, ~~which~~ includeing many ~~women's rights organis~~organisations working for the rights of women, LGBTI people, people with disabilities, ethnic and religious minorities, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other groups in a vulnerable situations, which are crucial for the protection of fundamental human rights and the functioning and progress of society;

Amendment 52 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Is concerned about the impact of Hungary’s Law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Foreign Funds on civil society organisations that receive funds from the EU, EEA and third countries and on the future functioning of non-governmental organisations, which include many women's rights organisations, which are crucial for the functioning and progress of society since they provide services, professional and public awareness raising and capacity building as well as advocate for and contribute to legislative and policy changes to improve gender equality;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Urges the Hungarian government to end the harassment of civil society organisations that work to promote and improve democracy and human rights issues and to repeal the laws that stigmatize non-governmental organisations that use foreign funding; encourages the government to instead use the expertise and experiences of women’s rights NGOs when planning and implementing legislative and policy measures in the field of gender equality and women's rights, and to make adequate use of the established consultative forums in this regard;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes with concern the mood in society which has been fuelled by the policies implemented in recent years, and condemns the mistrust and hostility which many women's rights advocates and academics encounter as a result of their work and their insistence on standing up for their views;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Proposes to set up an internal European Democracy Fund for the strengthened support of civil society and NGOs working in the fields of democracy and human rights to be managed by the Commission in order to strengthen civil society actors such as girls and women’s rights organisations;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Regrets that the developments in Hungary have led to a serious deterioration of the rule of law over the past few years, without which no rights can be guaranteed sufficiently in a non- discriminatory fashion regarding women and women of minorities such as Roma, migrants and LBT women;

Amendment 58 #

Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Is concerned about the hostile climate towards migrants and refugees in Hungary; condemns the hate speeches coming from state/government officials; calls on the Hungarian government to ensure human rights of migrants and refugees are reinforced;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women ~~in Hungary, as in all other Member States,~~ is a persistent structural violation of human rights; ~~calls on~~praises the Hungarian government ~~to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible~~for its constant efforts to prioritize and tackle violence against women and children and domestic violence by sensitizing its police force and educating the public;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas according to EIGE’s Gender Equality Index 2017 due to the limited availability of high-quality EU- wide comparative data, the actual analysis for certain social factors, such as sexuality, ethnicity, nationality or religion is not available,

Amendment 60 #

Marijana PETIR, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; ~~calls on~~acknowledges that the Hungarian gGovernment ~~to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible~~stepped up efforts, in accordance with European standards, to diminish violence against women and domestic violence, and creating stricter regulation to support these efforts;

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; ~~calls on the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible;~~

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; calls on the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible and to urge other EU Member States to do the same; condemns, in that connection, the fact that domestic violence must be perpetrated twice before being treated as a criminal offence; calls for bodies which provide information, advice and assistance to receive ongoing funding, as a way of offering women effective protection and safety;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; calls on the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible; points out that a misinterpretation and ideologisation of the concept of gender has dominated the public discourse in Hungary preventing a comprehensive approach to the Convention which is a key corner stone in fighting violence against women;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that violence against women in Hungary, as in all other Member States, is a persistent structural violation of human rights; calls on the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention ~~as soon as possibl~~without limitations and as soon as possible and commit to incorporating its provisions into domestic law, an important step to change the cultural norm of domestic abuse and protecting women and girls victims of violence;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Hungarian government to amend the Criminal Code so the definition of domestic violence includes all acts of physical violence, including physical harm, bodily injury or assault; sexual violence; stalking and harassment; the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; and coercive control, i.e. psychological and economic violence that is part of a pattern of domination through intimidation, isolation, degradation, and deprivation, as well as physical assault; to amend the Criminal Code and Act on Restraining Orders to expand the scope of domestic violence victims to include and protect all victims, including who do not cohabitate or have children with their abuser, or not considered as relatives (e.g. intimate partners), and expand the period of the ban on contact for as long as needed; to amend criminal and procedural legislation to ensure that domestic violence constitutes a crime and is subject to public prosecution with penalties;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recognises the efforts taken in the anti-human trafficking laws and encourages the government to continue and improve its data collection, improve the services for trafficking victims and to tackle the demand by criminalise buying services from victims of trafficking, including sexual services;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Strongly recommends to train law enforcement officers and the judiciary on best practice standards on responding to domestic violence, in cooperation with victims support organizations and in line with international human rights standards; provide adequate trainings and give due attention to the role of medical staff in the prevention of and response to domestic violence; and increase the capacity of health care personnel for this purpose;

Amendment 68 #

Marijana PETIR, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls on the Commission to continue its dialogue with the Hungarian government, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, and to address its concerns, and in particular to clarify misleading interpretations of the Istanbul Convention on the definition of gender- based violence and the definition of gender in Article 3(c) and (d), in accordance with the General Remarks of the Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 7 #

Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas only 10.1% of the members of the Hungarian national parliament are women, which represents the lowest number within the EU; whereas there is no female minister in the national government;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to self-determination and, in this context, the ~~importance of respecting their sexual and reproductive rights~~ir freedom to make decisions about having sex or conceiving a child, including the respect of p~~atients'~~regnant women's rights to a safe ~~and non-violent~~ birth;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to ~~self-determination and, in this context, the importance of respecting their sexual and reproductive rights, including the respect of patients' rights to~~ a safe and non-violent birth;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to self-determination and, in this context, the importance of respecting their sexual and reproductive rights, including the respect of women patients' rights to a safe ~~and~~, non-violent ~~birth~~woman-centred birth; emphasises, in that connection, the importance of unrestricted access to impartial information and value-neutral counselling;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to self-determination and, in this context, the importance of respecting their sexual and reproductive rights, including access to swift abortion care, by making sure that emergency contraception are easy accessible and the respect of patients' rights to a safe and non-violent birth;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Urges the Hungarian government to ensure access to affordable contraceptive methods by (partially) covering the costs of modern contraceptive methods under its public health insurance and to improve access to emergency contraception by eliminating the prescription requirement;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Notes that from 2010 to 2015 the number of abortions in Hungary decreased by 22.9%, which is the effect of introducing social and financial facilitations for parents;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Welcomes the joint recruitment campaign launched by the Hungarian Police with the Fraternal Association of European Roma Law Enforcement Officers in 2016, targeting especially Roma girls and young Roma women, with the aim promoting diversity in law enforcement and increasing the number of female Roma police officers.

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Calls on the Hungarian government to remove barriers in the access to safe abortion services such as the unavailability of medical abortion, biased counselling and the mandatory waiting period requirements;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses the need to fully respect the principle of subsidiarity and the competence of Member States to legislate on reproductive and sexual rights;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Acknowledges the programs launched aiming to foster the education and employment Roma women, where social caretakers, nurses and social assistants will be trained in the social, child welfare, child protection and education institutions, as well as the state, church organisation, foundations will get support for the employment of Romani women;

Amendment 8 #

Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Marijana PETIR

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas it is a legitimate expectation towards non-governmental organisations to have transparent financial background;

Amendment 80 #

Lívia JÁRÓKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

~~7. Strongly condemns, in this context, the ill-treatment and discrimination of Roma women in fields such as access to healthcare;~~deleted

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Strongly condemns, in this context, the~~Notes the ongoing efforts of the Hungarian government to reduce the inequalities and strengthen social inclusion in the area of healthcare; encourages Hungary to continue in this endeavour and avoid any ill-treatment and discrimination of Roma women in ~~fields such as~~ access to healthcare;

Amendment 82 #

Marijana PETIR, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Strongly condemns, in this context,~~Condemns the ill-treatment and discrimination of Roma women in fields such as access to healthcare;

Amendment 83 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Strongly condemns, in this context, the ill-treatment and discrimination of Roma women as well as other minorities in fields such as access to healthcare; pronounces the particularly harmful restrictions for undocumented migrant women who are excluded from any access to medical care that is not emergency care;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Strongly condemns, in this context, the ill-treatment and discrimination of Roma women in fields such as access to healthcare; draws attention, in that connection, to the cases of forced sterilisation which have come to light, which constitute an unacceptable violation of the human rights of the women concerned;

Amendment 85 #