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 #

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 #

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 #

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 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

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

Amendment 80 #

Anna ZÁBORSKÁ, Marijana PETIR

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 #

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; notes that Hungarian law and healthcare regulations clearly forbid any distinction in terms of ethnicity or gender;

Amendment 86 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines that since there is no collection of data about ethnicity regarding health status records or the provision of healthcare services, the health characteristics of Roma population, including Roma women can only be estimated;

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Welcomes the establishment of Women in Research Careers Presidential Commission within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences which aims to increase the proportion of women among professors and the doctors of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as well as raising the interest of girls in education in natural sciences;

Amendment 88 #

Marijana PETIR, Norbert ERDŐS, György HÖLVÉNYI, Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

~~8. Condemns the attacks on free teaching and research, in particular on gender studies, which have become the target of defamation campaigns.~~deleted

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

~~8. Condemns the attacks on free teaching and research, in particular on gender studies, which have become the target of defamation campaigns.~~deleted

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas Hungary is one of the top countries of origin of victims of human trafficking within the EU;

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Condemns the attacks on free teaching and research, in particular on gender studies, which represent an attempt to analyse power relationships, discrimination and gender relations in society and find solutions to forms of inequality and have become the target of defamation campaigns.

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Condemns the attacks on free teaching and research, in particular on gender studies, which have become the target of defamation campaigns.; calls for the fundamental democratic principle of educational freedom to be fully restored and safeguarded;

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Emphasises the importance of prejudice- and stereotype-free upbringing and education; calls for this to be taken into account when a new national curriculum is drawn up, with a view to guaranteeing in the future the provision of education which does not encourage stereotyping and the denigration of women and girls, and also of men and boys;

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. 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 the procedure set out in Article7(1) TEU;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that the current situation in Hungary represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 of the TEU and warrants the launch of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure;

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Expresses concern at the policies implemented in recent years and the use of rhetoric and symbols to create an attitude, widely held in society, which reduces women to the role of mothers and grants them respect only in that role; points out that this restricts the freedom of both women and men to develop and take decisions and deprives women of their rights;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Emphasises that women’s rights and equal rights are shared, fundamental European values; deplores the fact that Hungary is increasingly turning its back on these values and thus leaving itself isolated;

source: 620.825

2018/04/12 CONT 38 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)

- having regard to the Analysis of the Use and Impact of European Union Funds in Hungary in the 2007-2013 programming period commissioned by the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office and prepared by KPMG Tanácsadó Ltd. and its subcontractor GKI Gazdaságkutató Corp.;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the Worldwide Governance Indicators 2016 underline that Hungary has made steps backwards in the field of government effectiveness, rule of law and control of corruption;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the Coun~~try Specific~~cil Recommendations of ~~the Commission~~11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of Hungary1a highlighted the need to improve the transparency of public finances ~~and~~, to strengthen ~~public procurement structures and the anti-corruption framework;~~transparency and competition in public procurement by implementing a comprehensive and efficient e-procurement system, and to strengthen the anti-corruption framework; _________________ 1a OJ C 261 9.8.2017, p. 71

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the Country Specific Recommendations of the Commission under the European Semester between 2014-2017 (CSRs) highlighted theat Hungary needs to improve the transparency of public finances and strengthen public procurement structures and ~~the anti-corruption framework;~~ its anti-corruption framework; whereas, according to the CSRs, limited progress has been made in the transparency of public finances with the adoption of the Public Procurement Act, but important actions were delayed, especially in the field of e-procurement, and the indicators show that competition and transparency are still unsatisfactory in public procurement; whereas, according to the CSRs, no progress has been registered as regards the improvement of the anti-corruption framework and no changes are envisaged in the National Anti-Corruption Programme to make it more effective in preventing corruption and applying dissuasive sanctions; whereas, according to the CSRs, the prosecution of high-level corruption cases remains the exception;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the monitoring institutions, such as the Court of Auditors and the Prosecutor General, are separate from the executive branch and are independent bodies according to the Basic Law and the relevant cardinal laws of Hungary; whereas in practice they do not, however, seem to have independence and autonomy from the ruling political elite as both the president of the Court of Auditors and the Prosecutor General have close links to Hungary’s ruling political party and are therefore not completely independent in carrying out their duties;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas the number of investigations carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for 2013-2016 in relation to Hungary, at 41, is the second highest in the Union; whereas 85 % of the investigations were concluded with judicial and financial recommendations, which is the highest in the Union;

Amendment 15 #

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas Hungary was the Member State with the highest amount of financial correction applied in 2016, amounting to a total of EUR 211 million;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas the financial impact of OLAF investigations relating to Hungary in the areas of Structural Funds and Agriculture for 2013-2016 reached 4,16 %, which is the highest in the Union and about 900 % higher than the Union average;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas less than 10 % of the information coming to OLAF from Hungary in 2016 came from public sources;

Amendment 18 #

Benedek JÁVOR

Draft opinion
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas there are no Union rules on the transparency of OLAF recommendations at any stage of the procedures; whereas the transparency of such recommendations is, therefore, entirely at the discretion of the Hungarian authorities;

Amendment 19 #

Fa. whereas the Transparency Index (TI) of public procurement in Hungary between 2015–2016 remained far below the 2009–2010 level; whereas, since 2011, Union-funded tenders were characterised by significantly lower TI values in each year compared to non-Union-funded tenders; whereas the detailed analysis shows that the level of transparency was significantly weaker in 2016 than in 2015;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas in the 2007-2013 period, Hungary was allocated EUR 25,3 billion, and for the 2014-2020 period Hungary has been allocated EUR 25 billion under the cohesion and structural funds;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) was established in in the framework of enhanced cooperation between 21 Member States but Hungary decided not to participate in its establishment;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas estimations show a very high level of direct social loss in Hungary, reaching 15-24 % in total contract value in the 2009-2016 period, which amounts to at least between EUR 6,7 billion and EUR 10,6 billion;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital F c (new)

Fc. whereas a vibrant civil society sector should play a vital role in promoting the transparency and accountability of governments with respect to their finances and their fight against corruption;

Amendment 23 #

Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Cătălin Sorin IVAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. 1. Regrets that the developments in Hungary have led to an increasing level of corruption and a serious deterioration of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights over the past few years, including the functioning of the constitutional system, the independence of the public prosecution, the Court of Auditors and of other controlling institutions, and that there are many worrying allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest, which, taken together, could represent an emerging systemic threat to the rule of law in this Member State;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Believes that the current level of corruption, and the lack of transparency and accountability of public finances and the ineligible expenditure or overpricing of the financed projects, affects Union funds in Hungary; considers that this might represent a breach of the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and warrants the launch of the procedure under Article 7(1) TEU;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls its recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, in which it noted that the anti- corruption monitoring by the Commission was to be pursued through the European Semester process, took the view that anti- corruption might be overshadowed by other economic and financial matters in that process, and called on the Commission to lead by example, resuming the publication of the anti-corruption report and committing to a much more credible and comprehensive anti- corruption strategy; points out that the fight against corruption is a matter of police and judicial cooperation, a policy area where Parliament is co-legislator and has full powers of scrutiny;

Amendment 26 #

Dennis de JONG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Emphasises that whistleblowers and investigative journalists play an essential role in helping Member States prevent and tackle any breaches of the principle of integrity or misuse of power at national level; stresses that, in this regard, whistleblowers and investigative journalists contribute greatly to increasing the democratic quality of, and the trust in, public institutions by making them directly accountable to citizens and more transparent; calls on Hungary to adopt provisions protecting whistleblowers and investigative journalists in its national law and to apply such provisions consistently and without delay;

Amendment 27 #

1b. Recalls its Resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of a Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, specifically calling for the establishment of an annual report on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (European DRF Report) with country- specific recommendations, including a specific focus on corruption;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. NCriticizes shortcomings in public procurement practices in Hungary; notes with concern that the share of contracts awarded after public procurement procedures that received only a single bid remains very high, at 36% in 2016, in Hungary, which is the second highest number in the Union; after Poland and Croatia (45 %)1a; requests information about the companies that act as single bidders in Hungary; demands an investigation on whether the tenders are made with the aim of earmarking contracts to certain companies; _________________ 1aSee Public procurement – a study on administrative capacity in the EU, p. 101 onwards

Amendment 29 #

Marco VALLI, Laura AGEA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern that the share of contracts awarded after public procurement procedures that received only a single bid remains very high, at 36%, in Hungary, which is the second highest number in the Union; is of the view that the Commission needs to implement an effective monitoring tool to avoid the perpetration of practices that run counter to the spirit of the Procurement Directive and to provide for legislative integration in order to remedy the weaknesses hitherto detected;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas Union funds amount to A. 1,9-4,4 % of the Hungarian GDP and account for over half of public investment and without those funds the Hungarian GDP would have decreased in the 2007- 2013 period; whereas, despite Union funding, the competitiveness of the country decreased;

Amendment 30 #

Dennis de JONG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern that the share of contracts awarded after public procurement procedures that received only a single bid remains very high, at 36%, in Hungary, which is the second highest number in the Union; calls on the Hungarian government to publish a complete annual list on its website of all contractors who obtained contracts with a value of more than EUR 15 000, and to include on this list the name and address of the contractor, the type and subject of the contract, its duration, its value, the procedure followed and the responsible authority;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Regrets that government effectiveness in Hungary has diminished since 19961b and that it is one of the Member States with the least effective governments in the Union; notes with concern that all Hungarian regions are well below the Union average in terms of quality of government; notes that the low quality of government in Hungary1c hinders economic development and reduces the impact of public investment; _________________ 1bSee Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Quality of governance varies substantially in Europe, p. 137 1cSee Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Map 6 European Quality of Government index, 2017

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Notes that the regional innovation performance1d in the Hungarian regions is still only moderate; notes that Hungary has not yet reached the Europe 2020 target to invest 3 % of its GDP in Research and Development (R&D)1e; asks Hungary to foster growth and employment and to invest Union funds in innovation; _________________ 1dSee Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Map 5 Regional innovation performance, 2017 1eSee Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, Map 6 European Quality of Government index, 2017

Amendment 34 #

Marco VALLI, Laura AGEA, Wim van de CAMP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Encourages Hungary to use Union funds to continue modernising its economy and to strengthen its support for SMEs; underlines the fact that in Hungary 30,24 % of the Union financial contribution under Horizon 2020 is for SME participants while the SME applicant success rate stands at 7,26 %, which is lower that the EU-28 SME applicant success rate; notes furthermore that the success rate for all applications dropped from 20,3 % (FP7) to 10,8 % (Horizon 2020), which ranks Hungary 26th for Horizon 2020;

Amendment 35 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission to incentivise Member States to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and, in case Member States are not willing, spending of Union funds should be suspended.deleted

Amendment 36 #

3. Calls on the Commission to incentivise Member States to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) ~~and, in case Member States are not willing, spending of Union funds should be suspended~~.

Amendment 37 #

Dennis de JONG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that Hungary has the highest percentage in the Union of financial recommendations from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) regarding the Structural Funds and Agriculture for the 2013-2016 period; stresses that the overall financial impact of OLAF cases in Hungary is four times higher than that of national investigations; calls on the Commission and on Hungary to take the necessary efforts to combat fraud with respect to Union funds.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Deplores the fact that the Commission suspended the publication of the anti-corruption report; urges the Commission to change its decision and to regularly publish such a report;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas Cohesion Funds’ (ERDF, CF, ESF) payments from the Union to Hungary between 2004 and 2017 amounted to EUR 30,15 billion; whereas the amount of financial correction resulting from Union audits amounts, to date, to an approximate amount of EUR 940 million for the ERDF, CF and ESF and is expected to exceed EUR 1 billion;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Union financial contribution for participants in Hungary is EUR 288,1 million under the FP7 and EUR 174,9 million under Horizon 2020;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas Hungary had one of the highest absorption rates of Union funds among the Member States who joined the Union after 2004;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)

Ac. whereas the Hungarian GDP has grown 16,1 % between 2004 and 2016, which is just slightly above the Union average and considerably lower than the growth rates of the other Visegrád countries (Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia);

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas since 2008 Hungary has fallen by 19 points in the Corruption Perception Index, making it one of the worst performing Member States in terms of fighting corruption;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas, according to the Global Competitiveness Index 2017-2018, corruption, governmental favouritism and the lack of transparency of governmental policymaking are the biggest obstacles for businesses in Hungary ;

source: 620.785

2018/05/17 LIBE 67 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 41, 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 b (new)

- having regard to FRA annual reports of 2016 and 2017,

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on ~~the values of~~respect for the bedrock of values enshrined in particular in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights1a, the European Social Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two New York covenants affirming 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 also set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) ~~and whereas those values~~, which values are common to the Member States, and constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union; __________________ 1 a Does not apply to English version.

Amendment 12 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Union is founded on the values of 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 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and whereas those values, which are common to the Member States and are values to which all Member States have freely subscribed, constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union;

Amendment 13 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas any clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU does not concern solely the individual Member State where the risk materialises but has an impact on the other Member States, mutual trust between them and on the very nature of the Union and its citizens’ rights;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas any clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU does not concern solely the individual Member State where the risk materialises but has an impact on the very nature of the Union and ~~its citizens’ rights~~the rights of its citizens and all those present on its territory;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the declining respect for fundamental freedoms in Hungary, since 2010, includes appropriations of state and of non-state media by the ruling Fidesz party and deliberate diffusion of hate and xenophobic propaganda, namely aimed at negatively influencing public opinion towards refugees, asylum seekers and migrants; includes also growing political interference in the independence of the judiciary and efforts to restrain non- governmental organisations’ actions in Hungary, as well as the integrity of the constitutional system; and includes pervasive corruption, conflicts of interests and corruption-like practices linked to members of the government; whereas the situation in Hungary demands concerted action from the European Union, namely in the condemnation of these breaches of fundamental freedoms and citizens’ rights, and corresponding sanctions suspending structural funds to Hungary while these breaches persist;

Amendment 16 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas Article 7 , paragraph 1, TEU constitutes a preventive phase endowing the Union with the capacity to intervene in the event of a clear risk of a serious breach of common values; whereas such preventive action provides for a dialogue with the Member State concerned and is intended to avoid possible sanctions;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the scope of Article 7 TEU is not limited to the areas covered by Union law and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences;deleted

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas according to Article 5 (2) TEU, under the principle of conferral, the Union shall 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. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. Article 2 TEU does not confer any material competence upon the union, hence Article 7 TEU only applies to cases when Member States act within the limits of competences conferred on the Union in the treaties. ;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas respect of the content of Article 2 TEU by Member States cannot be, under the Treaties, the subject-matter of an action by the institutions of the Union without the existence of a specific material competence;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 b (new)

- having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas despite repeated calls from Parliament on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that Union values are fully respected in Hungary, the situation has not been addressed and many concerns remain; whereas the Hungarian authorities’ disregard for fundamental freedoms, rule of law and liberal democratic values has led to a systemic threat to the rule of law and democracy, impacting the image and the overall cohesiveness of the Union, as well as its effectiveness and credibility in the defence of fundamental rights, human rights and democracy globally;

Amendment 21 #

Heinz K. BECKER, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas despite repeated calls from Parliament on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that Union values are fully respected in Hungary, the situation has not been addressed and mHungary has always been ready for dialogue at all levels to discuss the legality of any specific measure and respond to any concern~~s remain~~;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)

(11a) the need to consistently combat anti-Semitism and prosecute anti-Semitic statements and hateful statements against Jews

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 12 a (new)

(12a) Protection of the acquired rights;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 12 b (new)

(12b) The functioning of the new electoral law;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution ~~taken together represent~~are specific policy issues, the majority of which have either already been satisfactorily concluded or are currently being discussed in the course of regular dialogues between Hungarian authorities and relevant EU or international bodies. These specific individual concerns are unrelated to the fulfilment of fundamental European values and the principles of rule of law and thus fall short of representing a systemic threat to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and by no means constitute a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 26 #

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution ~~taken together represent a systemic threat to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and~~ constitute a clear risk of a ~~serious~~ breach of the values of Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution taken together do not represent a systemic threat to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and do not constitute a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 TEU;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes the outcome of the parliamentary elections in Hungary, which took place on the 8th April 2018, which ensured the re-election of the previous ruling party - Fidesz, however highlights the fact that the new electoral law, introducing the system of single- member constituencies, was implemented in order to favour of the governing party. The new system is undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis.

Amendment 29 #

Jörg MEUTHEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Submits, therefore, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, this reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and to address appropriate recommendations to Hungary in this regard;deleted

Amendment 3 #

József SZÁJER, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 c (new)

- having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Submits, therefore, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, this reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine that there is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU ~~and to address appropriate recommendations to Hungary in this regard~~;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Submits, therefore, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, this reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine that there is a clear risk of a ~~serious~~ breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and to address appropriate recommendations to Hungary in this regard;

Amendment 33 #

Jörg MEUTHEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Instructs its President not to forward this resolution and the reasoned proposal for a Council decision annexed hereto to the Commission and the Council and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

Amendment 34 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 1 a (new)

(1a) According to Article 49 TEU, accession to the Union requires respect for and the promotion of the values referred to in Article 2. The accession of Hungary was a voluntary act based on national sovereignty, with a broad consensus across the Hungarian political spectrum.

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3

~~(3) The European Parliament also noted that the Hungarian authorities have repeatedly failed to take the actions recommended in its previous resolutions.~~deleted

Amendment 36 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 4

(4) In its resolution of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, the European Parliament stated that the current situation in Hungary represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU. and justified the triggering of the procedure provided for in Article 7, paragraph 1, TEU;

Amendment 37 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 5

(5) A wide range of actors at the national, European and international level, have repeatedly expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary, includingIn its 2003 Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union1 a, the Commission cites the reports of international organisations and NGOs as sources of information enabling respect for common values to be monitored. In this regard, the Commission cites the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE and the NGOs Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights. These bodies and NGOs and also the EU institutions and bodies ~~of the Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations (UN), as well as numerous civil society organisations.~~are among the players at the national, European and international level which have repeatedly expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary. __________________ 1a COM(2003) 606

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 5

(5) A wide range of actors at the national, European and international level, have repeatedly expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary, ~~including the institutions and bodies of the Union,~~ the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations (UN), as well as numerous civil society organisations, but these are to be considered legally non-binding opinions, since only the Court of Justice of the European Union may interpret the provisions of the Treaties.

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 5

(5) A wide range of actors at the national, European and international level, have ~~repeatedly~~ expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary, including the institutions and bodies of the Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations (UN), as well as numerous civil society organisations.

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 d (new)

- having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989,

Amendment 40 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6

(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances.deleted

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6

(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times - 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’), 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 Transitional Provisions’), the First Amendment to the Fundamental Law, tabled by the Minister for National Economy on 17 April 2012 and adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 4 June 2012, establishing that the Transitional Provisions are part of the Fundamental Law, to the Second Amendment to 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 Transitional Provisions, the Third Amendment to the Fundamental Law, tabled on 7December 2012, adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 21 December 2012 and establishing that the limits and conditions for acquisition of ownership and for use of arable land and forests and the rules concerning the organisation of integrated agricultural production are to be laid down by cardinal law, 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 Transitional Provisions (with some exceptions 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 genuinely transitional nature in this document. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances.

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6

(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times, predominantly following the suggestions of the Venice Commission and the European Commission.. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The Venice Commission welcomed in its opinion that the Fundamental Law establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles, as well as acknowledged the efforts to establish a constitutional order in line with the common European democratic values and standards, and to regulate fundamental rights and freedoms in compliance with binding international instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances, despite the fact that an ad hoc parliamentary committee of 45 members, representing all parliamentary parties was established for the necessary political debate concerning the Fundamental Law, and a national consultative body was also set up in January 2011, followed by a large scale public survey on the draft based on a questionnaire of 12 questions. Furthermore, several public debates were organized on the values and aims of the Fundamental Law, with the involvement of universities, churches and the civil society, as a result of which almost a million citizens expressed their opinion on the draft constitution.

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6

(6) Since its adoption and entry into force in January 2012, the Constitution of Hungary (the “Fundamental Law”) has been amended six times, which is entirely a matter of Hungarian sovereignty. The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances.

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7

(7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were restricted as a result of the constitutional reform, including with regard to budgetary matters, the abolition of the actio popularis, the possibility for the Court to refer to its case law prior to 1 January 2012 and the limitation on the Court’s ability to review the constitutionality of any changes to the Fundamental Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed serious concerns about those limitations and about the procedure for the appointment of judges, and made recommendations to the Hungarian authorities to ensure the necessary checks and balances in its Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary adopted on 19 June 2012 and in its Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary adopted on 17 June 2013.deleted

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7

(7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were pres~~trict~~erved and broadened as a result of the constitutional reform, ~~including with regard to budgetary matters, the abolition of the actio popularis, the possibility for the Court to refer to its case law prior to 1 January 2012~~especially in terms of the scope of the right to initiate ex ante legality review of legislative drafts and by reinforcing its competence and gaining practical competences for ex post legality review. The abolition of the actio popularis was explicitly requested by the Constitutional Court of Hungary itself and ~~the~~ limitation ~~on the Court’s abil~~s regarding the review of constitutional amendments is also in line wityh t~~o review~~he position of the cConstitutional Court which explicitly ~~of any changes to the Fu~~confirmed in its case-law that the Court had no competence to review the substance of such amendament~~al Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed ser~~s, as it is itself subordinate to the constitution and cannot review the constitution. In its Opinions the Venice Commission also identified a number of positive elements of the reforms, such as provisiouns con~~cerns about those lim~~ budgetary guarantees, the fact that the Hungarian authorities have taken up the Commission’s suggestion to rule out the re-election of Constitaution~~s and about the procedure~~al Court Judges; it appreciated that the Act provides for a time limit for the appointment of new judges~~, and made~~ in order to ensure co~~mmendations to the Hung~~ntinuity, functional immunity of the judges, as well as that there is a provision on the extension of the mandate of the incumbent member in case the Parlian authorities to ensure the necessary checks and balances in its Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary adopted on 19 June 2012 and in its Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary adopted on 17 June 2013. ment fails to elect a new member to the Constitutional Court within the time- limit. Rules on the ex post review of legal acts were warmly welcomed by the Venice Commission. Provisions on access to the Constitutional Court out of time in exceptional circumstances were also considered as positive elements. Although no statutory changes were made following the opinion of the Venice Commission on the possibility for the Constitutional Court to refer back to its case law, the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in a decision taken in 2013, stated that it was possible to refer back to the substance of its case law created under the former constitution and has indeed done so in a number of its recent decisions.

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 7

(7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were restricted as a result of the constitutional reform, including with regard to budgetary matters, the abolition of the actio popularis, the possibility for the Court to refer to its case law prior to 1 January 2012 and the limitation on the Court’s ability to review the constitutionality of any changes to the Fundamental Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed serious concerns about th~~ose limitations and about the~~ e procedure for the appointment of judges, and made recommendations to the Hungarian authorities to ensure the necessary checks and balances in its Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary adopted on 19 June 2012 and in its Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary adopted on 17 June 2013, whereas the new rules on the composition of the Constitutional Court (election based on qualified majority and high level professional requirements) are high level guarantees of the independence of judges, as it does the reduction of the length of appointment from 12 to 9 years and the exclusion of their reappointment.

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 8

(8) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the current constitutional complaint procedure affords more limited access to the Constitutional Court, does not provide for a time limit for the exercise of constitutional review and does not have a suspensive effect on challenged legislation. I~~t also mentioned that the provisions of the new Constitutional Court Act weaken the security of tenure of judges and increase the influence of the government over the composition and operation~~n reality however, following the abolishment of the actio popularis in line with the explicit request of Constitutional Court of Hungary, the introduction of a truly effective constitutional complaint has considerably increased the competences of the Constitutional Court by, since it changing the judicial appointments procedure, the number of judges in the Court and their retirement age. The Committee was also concerned about the limitation of the Constitutional Court’s competence and powers to review legislation impinging on budgetary matters exercise constitutional control over the whole of the judiciary and is able to annul any court judgment in the case of its unconstitutionality.

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

(9) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the 2018 parliamentary elections were characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate, hindering the ability of voters to make a fully informed choice. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections.deleted

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 e (new)

- having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), and to the Council Decisions(EU) 2017/865 and (EU) 2017/866 of 11 May 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

(9) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights ~~conclud~~stated that the 2018 parliamentary elections were characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate, hindering the ability of voters to make a fully informed choice. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic EHowever, on the other hand, the preliminary findings and conclusions of the OSCE also noted within the context of the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections that fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, the campaign was animated, media coverage was extensive, voters had a wide range of political options, the public broadcaster fulfilled its mandate to provide free airtime to contestants, online media provided a platform for pluralistic, issue-oriented political debate. The OSCE also added that the electoral legal framework formed an adequate basis for democratic elections, the right to seek an effective remedy for electoral violations was inclusive and generally respected, and the election administration fulfilled its mandate in a professional and transparent manner and enjoyed overall confidence among stakeholders. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. The Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections identified the delineation of single-member constituencies as positive change, in line with international standards and good practice that as required by the Constitutional Court, electoral constituencies are less unequal than previously, when the differences violated the constitutional principles. It was considered as an element that might improve the administration of elections.

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

(9) In 2011, Fidesz politician János Lázár, has proposed a redesign to Hungarian voting districts; considering the territorial results of previous elections, this redesign is favouring the right-wing politicians according to the opposition. Since then, the law has been passed by the Fidesz-majority Parliament. Formerly it took twice as many votes to gain a seat in some election districts as in some others. Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the 2018 parliamentary elections were characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for genuine political debate, hindering the ability of voters to make a fully informed choice. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single- member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections.

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 9

(9) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the 2018 parliamentary elections were characterised by a pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining the ability of candidates to compete on an equal basis. Voters had a wide range of political options but intimidating and xenophobic rhetoric, media bias and opaque campaign financing constricted the space for ~~genuine~~ political debate~~, hindering the ability of voters to make a fully informed choice~~. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections.

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

(10) In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultation in line with the principle of democracy, providing an opportunity for the people to voice their opinions on certain priority issues. The national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several questions regarding issues that significantly affect the life of the Hungarian people, such as migration policy, energy prices, tax- and labour policies or the transparency of civil society organizations supported from abroad. The Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultations and is so far only Member State of the EU which was ready to ask its citizens on how to cope with the migration crisis.

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

Amendment 57 #

Michał BONI, Heinz K. BECKER, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

(10) In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations, enabling the Hungarian people to express its opinions directly, thus strengthening democracy. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultations.

Amendment 59 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

(10) In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations, including one on migration and terrorism launched in May 2015. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Government subsequently continued to have recourse to similar consultations.

Amendment 6 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 f (new)

- having regard to the signing of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) by Hungary on 14 March 2011,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10

Amendment 61 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – subheading 2 a (new)

having regard to Act CXI of 2012 on the Amendment of Act CLXI of 2011 on the organisation and administration of courts and Act CLXII of 2011 on the legal status and remuneration of judges in Hungary and to Act XX of 2013 on the legislative amendments relating to the upper age limit applicable in certain judicial legal relations.

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11

(11) As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, the administration of courts became more centralised and the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJO.deleted

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11

(11) As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, ~~the administration of courts became more centralised and~~ the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, even though the Commission’s last communication on the EU Justice Scoreboard of 11th April 2017 clearly shows that the Hungarian justice system performs above or well above the EU average in terms of independence, quality and efficiency. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJO, as result of which the competences of the National Judicial Council and the competences of the president of the National Judicial Office have been properly balanced for a year, so the case is closed and has no connection whatsoever to issues related to the fundamental values of the EU.

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12

Amendment 67 #

Heinz K. BECKER, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12

(12) Since 2012, Hungary has taken positive steps to transfer certain functions from the president of the NJO to the NJC in order to create a better balance between these two organs. However, further progress is still required. GRECO, in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, called for minimising the potential risks of discretionary decisions by the president of the NJO. The president of the NJO is, inter alia, able to transfer and assign judges, and has a role in judicial discipline. The president of the NJO also makes a recommendation to the President of Hungary to appoint and remove heads of courts, including presidents and vice- presidents of the Courts of Appeal. The GRECO report acknowledges particularly the amendments that were made concerning the rules of judicial recruitment and selection procedures between 2012 and 2014 in Hungary, through which the National Judicial Council has received a stronger supervisory function in the selection process; the National Judicial Council thereby has a decisive mandate in the appointing and promoting procedure of judges. GRECO welcomed the recently adopted Code of Ethics for Judges, but considered that it could be made more explicit and accompanied by in-service training.

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 29 May 2017 on combating anti-Semitism (2017 / 2692 (RSP)),

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 6

— having regard to 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 rights7 , __________________ 7 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.deleted

Amendment 9 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

- having regard to OLAF annual 2016 report,

source: 622.145

2018/06/25 LIBE 196 amendments...

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 d (new)

(20d) According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018 the high level of corruption was one of the most problematic factors for doing businesses in Hungary. Since 2008 Hungary has fallen by 19 points in the Corruption Perception Index.

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21

(21) In its judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the right to respect for private life was violated on account of the insufficient legal guarantees against unlawful secret surveillance for national security purposes, including related to the use of telecommunications. Nevertheless, the case did not concern actual measures of surveillance but only the possibility of the application of such measures sufficed to establish the applicants’ victim status within the meaning of the Convention. The amendment of the relevant legislation is necessary as a general measure~~. The execu~~ and the need for amendments has not been called into question ofby th~~is judgment is, therefore, still pending~~e Hungarian Government either. Proposals for amendment of the Act on National Security Services are currently being discussed by the experts of the competent ministries of Hungary.

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 21

(21) In its judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the right to respect for private life was violated on account of the insufficient legal guarantees against unlawful secret surveillance for national security purposes, including related to the use of telecommunications. The amendment of the relevant legislation is necessary as a general measure. A member of the European Union ought to adhere to the protection of its citizens’ right to privacy to the highest degree possible. This judgment suggest that Hungary is not fully upholding its obligations to its citizens. The execution of this judgment is, therefore, still pending.

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22

(22) In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that Hungary’s legal framework on secret surveillance for national security purposes allows for mass interception of communications and contains insufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with the right to privacy~~. It~~, whereas the concern on the possibility of “mass interception of communications” results from an error of fact and misunderstanding of the Hungarian legal situation. The already existing legal infrastructure ensures independent external control of secret information gathering activities carried out by national security services. The appropriate legal tools provided by the Privacy Act empower the Data Protection Authority (DPA) to detect illegal secret information gathering and to take actions against the infringement. The data obtained during the DPA investigation – including national classified information – can be used by the DPA in the administrative proceedings for data protection, for example, to prohibit the unlawful processing of personal data, to order the deletion of the illegally processed data, to order the notification of the concerned data subjects in case the data controller refused to inform the affected person unlawfully, and also to impose a fine. The UN Human Rights Committee was also concerned by the lack of provisions to ensure effective remedies in cases of abuse, and notification to the person concerned as soon as possible, without endangering the purpose of the restriction, after the termination of the surveillance measure. The concluding observations of the Committee however, did not take into consideration the tool of a subsequent revision by the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information in cases of secret information collection.

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 22

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23

(23) On 22 June 2015 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Media Legislation (Act CLXXXV on Media Services and on the Mass Media, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media) of Hungary, which called for several changes to the Press Act and the Media Act, in particular concerning the definition of “illegal media content”, the disclosure of journalistic sources and sanctions on media outlets. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. Those concerns had been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. The Commissioner also mentioned the issues of concentration of media ownership and self-censorship and indicated that the legal framework criminalising defamation should be repealed. In contrast, all recent changes of media ownership have occurred within the regular framework of market economy and civil law dynamics. The functioning and considering the powerful legal and constitutional safeguards of media freedom in Hungary, there are no legal options to o limit media freedom at all.

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23

(23) On 22 June 2015 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Media Legislation (Act CLXXXV on Media Services and on the Mass Media, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media) of Hungary, which called for several changes to the Press Act and the Media Act, in particular concerning the definition of “illegal media content”, the disclosure of journalistic sources and sanctions on media outlets. Whereas in reality, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media as of July 2012 allows journalists to hide their information sources in administrative and judicial procedures in line with European standards, following the decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, as well as the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. Those concerns had been ~~shar~~addressed by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. The Commissioner also mentioned the issues of concentration of media ownership and self-censorship and indicated that the legal framework criminalising defamHungarian Government, as a result of which the Council of Europe’s Secretary General has concluded in 2013 that the fundamental problems of Hungarian media legislation ~~shoul~~had been re~~peal~~solved.

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23

Amendment 110 #

Michał BONI, Heinz K. BECKER, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23 a (new)

(23a) In its 2017 report on press freedom the Freedom House raised serious concerns about the freedom of the press in Hungary. This is due to independent media being extorted from the market, partly through acquisition of regional newspapers by government-affiliated owners and creation of government friendly private outlets, as well as selective awarding of advertising contracts by government and state-owned companies, which results in depriving independent media outlets from income. The limited advertisement market and extensive government spending on social advertising encourages media to avoid controversial subjects to maintain good relations with public and private advertisers.

Amendment 111 #

Michał BONI, Heinz K. BECKER, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23 b (new)

(23b) Both the Freedom House in its report of 2017 as well as Mertek Media Monitor observe that the government also seeks to control the media through selective allocation of radio broadcasting frequencies. This together with exerting their influence over public broadcasters and raising the profile of friendly private outlets deprives independent media from having a fair access to the market.

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24

(24) In its Opinion of 22 June 2015 on Media Legislation, the Venice Commission insisted on the need to change the rules governing the election of the members of the Media Council to ensure fair representation of socially significant political and other groups and that the method of appointment and the position of the Chairperson of the Media Council or the President of the Media Authority should be revisited in order to reduce the concentration of powers and secure political neutrality; the Board of Trustees should also be reformed along those lines. The Venice Commission also recommended the decentralisation of the governance of public service media providers and that the National News Agency not be the exclusive provider of news for public service media providers. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. Those concerns had also been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. The Media Authority of Hungary however, is an autonomous regulatory agency subordinated solely to law, the President of which is appointed by the President of Hungary, while previously it was appointed by the Prime Minister. As a further step towards media independence, members of the Media Council (responsible for media contents and the freedom of press) are elected by a qualified majority of the Parliament for 9 years.

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24 a (new)

(24a) As it was also noted by the Venice Commission in its Opinion of 22 June 2015, the Hungarian authorities responded to the criticisms from international bodies and NGOs. First, the Constitutional Court struck down certain norms contained in the “media package” as anti-constitutional and required the Government to make changes to the provisions pertaining, in particular, to the regulation of media content and protection of journalists’ sources. Second, in 2011-2012 the “media package” was subjected to revision. Yet, many domestic and international observers were not satisfied with those reforms. The amendments were said to be fragmentary and not addressing the key problems detected earlier. The Hungarian Government, on their side, defended their positions referring to the examples of similar regulations in other European states. The Venice Commission also acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian government, over the years, to improve on the original text of the Media Acts, in line with comments from various observers including the Council of Europe, and positively noted the willingness of the Hungarian authorities to continue the dialogue.

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 24 b (new)

(24b) It also has to be noted that the vast majority of the widely criticised rules of the Hungarian media legislation (e.g. illegal media content, balanced news coverage, sanctions, criminal law provisions on defamation) were not invented after 2010, but had already been existing since well before 2010 and substantially were in force also at the date of Hungary’s accession to the EU. In fact, the post-2010 revision of the Hungarian media laws dating back to 1995 and partly even 1986 aimed at better protecting the editorial and journalistic freedom of expression and the independence of the Media Authority than the previous laws did. In addition, as a consequence of continuous dialogues with international organisations and EU institutions, the Hungarian media legislation has even further been improved after its original adoption of 2010. In its statement of 29 January 2013, the Council of Europe Secretary General welcomed that discussions in the field of media have led to several important changes being agreed, notably concerning the mandate, nomination and appointment of the President of the National Media Authority and President of the Media Council, as well as the regulation of TV and radio content. The Secretary General also added that the protection of journalistic sources had already been strengthened.

Amendment 115 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25

~~(25)~~ On 18 October 2012, the Venice ~~(25)~~ Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self- Determination and Freedom of Information of Hungary. Despite the overall positive assessment, the Venice Commission identified the need for further improvements. However, following subsequent amendments to that law, the right to access government information has been significantly restricted further. Those amendments were criticised in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in March 2016. Furthermore, in the report from the mission to assess the pre-election environment and the preparations for the elections, undertaken from 29 January to 1 February 2018, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights noted that the 2016 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act brought restrictive changes, including the introduction of high fees for the expenses associated with managing information requests, and new grounds for refusing to respond to requests.

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25

(25) On 18 October 2012, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self- Determination and Freedom of Information of Hungary. Despite the overall positive assessment, the Venice Commission identified the need for further improvements. However, following subsequent amendments to that law, th~~e right to access government information has been significantly restricted further. Th~~ose amendments were criticised in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in March 2016. The report acknowledges however, that the charges defined by the Hungarian Act for direct costs of information requests appeared to be entirely reasonable and reflect real costs. Hungary recognises the importance of access to public information as a means to provide for transparency in the government sector and the amendments to the Act strike a proper balance between the fundamental rights of data subjects and the interests and rights of data controllers, respectively.

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25 a (new)

(25a) Notwithstanding, it is to be noted that the original text of the Act CXII of 2011 provided for wide-ranging possibilities for exercising the right of access to public information. The subsequent limitations thereto, aimed at striking a necessary and proportional balance between the rights of the applicants and the interests of data controllers, did not concern the essence of the right to access to information. As it was also acknowledged by the 2018 country report of the European Commission, the Data Protection Authority has taken a progressive position in transparency-related cases and so did courts as well as the Constitutional Court, who generally decide in favour of public access to information. This also shows that serious or systemic problems cannot be identified in the Hungarian legal system.

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25 a (new)

(25a) Hungary also lost 2 places in Reporters Without Borders' 2018 World Press Freedom Index (RSF), so that it now occupies 73rd place, compared to 40th place in 2011.

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 26

(26) In its statement of preliminary findings and conclusions adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections concluded that access to information as well as the freedoms of the media and association have been restricted, including by recent legal changes and that media coverage of the campaign was extensive, yet highly polarised and lacking critical analysis. It further noted that politicisation of the ownership, coupled with a restrictive legal framework, had a chilling effect on editorial freedom, hindering voters’ access to pluralistic information. By contrast, opposition media altogether reaches a considerably wider public in Hungary than pro-government media outlets. The ownership and political spectrum of Hungarian media is more diverse, and the freedom of the press is more prevalent than in most Western European countries; the diversity of the Hungarian media scenery was perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that most Hungarian media outlets actively campaigned against the Fidesz-KDNP alliance ahead of the 8th April elections.

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 26

(26) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections concluded that access to information as well as the freedoms of the media and association have been restricted, including by recent legal changes and that media coverage of the campaign was extensive, yet highly polarised and lacking critical analysis. It further noted that politicisation of the ownership, coupled with a restrictive legal framework, had a chilling effect on editorial freedom, hindering voters’ access to pluralistic information. , which in turn contributed to a highly biased atmosphere, misleading the general population into favouring the ruling party. This has been concluded to be at odds with the international standards.

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 26 a (new)

(26a) However, on the other hand, the preliminary findings and conclusions of the OSCE also noted within the context of the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections that fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, the campaign was animated, media coverage was extensive, voters had a wide range of political options, the public broadcaster fulfilled its mandate to provide free airtime to contestants, online media provided a platform for pluralistic, issue- oriented political debate. The OSCE also added that the electoral legal framework formed an adequate basis for democratic elections, the right to seek an effective remedy for electoral violations was inclusive and generally respected, and the election administration fulfilled its mandate in a professional and transparent manner and enjoyed overall confidence among stakeholders.

Amendment 123 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27

(27) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about Hungary’s media laws and practices that restrict freedom of opinion and expression. It was concerned that, following successive changes in the law, the current legislative framework does not fully ensure an uncensored and unhindered press. It noted with concern that the Media Council and the Media Authority lack sufficient independence to perform their functions and have overbroad regulatory and sanctioning powers. However, sanctions maybe imposed when media administration rules are violated and serious monetary penalties may only be levied in case of a recurring violation and the Media Council shall also take into account the principles of graduality and proportionality. The amount of the penalty is also limited and there are proper legal remedies against penalties.

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27 a (new)

(27a) On 7 May 2018 the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media expressed major concern over the denial of accreditation to several independent journalists, which prevented them from reporting from the inaugural meeting of Hungary’s new parliament. It was further noted that such event should not be used as a tool to curb the content of critical reporting and that such practice sets a bad precedent for the new term of Hungary’s parliament.

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27 a (new)

(27a) On 13 April 2018, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media strongly condemned the publication of a list of more than 200 people by a Hungarian media outlet which claimed that over 2,000 people, including those listed by name, are allegedly working to “topple the government”. The list was published by the Hungarian magazine Figyelő on 11 April, and includes many journalists as well as other citizens.

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27 b (new)

(27b) On 4 May 2018, three journalists received a notification from the press office of the Hungarian parliament, informing them that their accreditation request to report from the inaugural meeting of Hungary’s new parliament on 8 May was denied. On 7 May 2018, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media expressed concern over the denial of accreditation to the journalists, noting that the three media outlets are regarded as critical towards the work of the government.

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 28

(28) On 6 October 2017, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act XXV of 4 April 2017 on the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully operating there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. Those universities and their students are protected by domestic and international rules on academic freedom, the freedom of expression and assembly and the right to, and freedom of, education. The Venice Commission recommended that the Hungarian authorities, in particular, ensure that new rules on requirement to have a work permit do not disproportionally affect academic freedom and are applied in a non-discriminatory and flexible manner, without jeopardising the quality and international character of education already provided by existing universities. The concerns about the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education have also been shared by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of opinion and expression, on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and on cultural rights in their statement of 11 April 2017. In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of such constraints on the freedom of thought, expression and association, as well as academic freedom. The criticised legislative amendments however do not affect the freedom of thought or expression, or artistic and academic freedom. The European Commission itself has also stated that it is not without precedent that Member States of the EU enact special legal requirements for institutions of higher education with headquarters in a foreign country; Sweden, the Czech Republic, Poland, the Netherlands and Greece, or multiple states of Germany have much stricter rules in many aspects than the new Hungarian law.

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 28

(28) On 6 October 2017, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act XXV of 4 April 2017 on the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully operating there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. Those universities and their students are protected by dn its opinion, the Venice Commission found that states have a large room for manoeuvre when it comes to regulating the operational conditions for institutions of higher education. The body also underlined that it is a legitimate goal to provide greater transparency in order to guarantee a quality education and to protect future students. The opinion also acknowledged that some st~~ic and international rules on academic freedom, the freedom of expression and assembly and~~ates do not allow foreign universities to operate at all, furthermore, that Hungary has the right to, create and freedom of, education. The Venice Commission recommended that the Hungarian authorities, in particular, ensure that new rules on requirement to have a work permit do not disproportionally affect academic freedom and are applied in a non-discriminatory and flexible manner, without jeopardising the quality and intview regulation concerning institutions of higher education operating within her territory. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully opernational character of education already provided by existing universities. The concerns about the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education have also been shared by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of opinion and expression, on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and on cultural rights in their statement of 11 April 2017. In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of such constraints on the freedom of thought, expression and associang there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. At the same time, legislation may not distinguish between past and future institutions, but an appropriate deadline must be set for fulfilling the conditions. Not only would it be discriminatory if the introduced system of conditionalities would apply only for new institutions, ~~as well as academic freedom~~but would also actually prevent transparency.

Amendment 129 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 29

(29) On 17 October 2017, the Hungarian Parliament extended the deadline for foreign universities operating in the country to meet the new criteria to 1 January 2019 by the explicit request of the concerned institutions and following the recommendation of the Presidency of the Hungarian Rectors’ Conference; the Venice Commission has explicitly welcomed the prolongation in its related opinion. Negotiations between the Hungarian Government and foreign higher education institutions affected, in particular, the Central European University, are still ongoing~~, while the legal limbo for foreign universities remains~~ however, the swift and smooth conclusion of the agreements between Hungary and her Thai, Chinese and – with one exception – American partners demonstrates that the new legislation does not impose impossible conditions on foreign higher education institutions and that the amendment does not jeopardise the freedom of higher education..

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 29

(29) On 17 October 2017, the Hungarian Parliament extended the deadline for foreign universities operating in the country to meet the new criteria to 1 January 2019. Negotiations between the Hungarian Government and foreign higher education institutions affected, in particular, the Central European University, are still ongoing, while the legal limbo for foreign universities remains. Notes that the Central European University complied with the new requirements imposed by the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education in due time, but the Hungarian Government is reluctant to sign the reached agreement.

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 30

(30) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the grounds that the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education disproportionally restricts Union and non-Union universities in their operations and that the Act needs to be brought back in line with Union law. ~~The Commission found~~In the course of the infringement procedure, the Commission imposed far shorter deadlines on Hungary thatn the new legislation runs counter to the right of academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business as provided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”) and the Union’s legal obligations under international trade lawdecade- long standard and rejected the Hungarian requests for the extension of the deadline, seriously undermining Hungary’s right to defence. The Commission did not justify the shorter than usual deadlines, merely referred to the ‘specific nature of the case’ in its appeal, without explaining exactly what the term refers to. The procedure however is still pending and ultimately the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is competent to establish whether or not Hungary infringed EU law. It would contradict the basic legal and constitutional principles to prejudge the decision of the Court of Justice.

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31

(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted 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. The Act deprived many religious organisations of legal personality and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion 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, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church, that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not.deleted

Amendment 133 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31

(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted 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. The Act ~~deprived~~reviewed the legal personality of many religious organisations ~~of legal personality~~ and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14 in line with the practices of EU Member States, the majority of which make a clear difference between the legal status of historic churches and the status of other denominations. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012~~, responding to international pressure,~~ the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion 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, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church, that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not. By contrast, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights recognises the right of states to create various legal categories for religious communities, with the only prerequisite that some kind of a legal form shall be available without obstacles.

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31

(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted 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. The Act, which was adopted on 30 December 2011 and entered into force on 1 January 2012, deprived many religious organisations of legal personality and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion 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, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church, that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not.

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31

(31) In 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted 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. The Act deprived many religious organisations of legal personality and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14. On 16 December 2011, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion 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, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church,. Furthermore, it indicated that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not.

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32

Amendment 137 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32

(32) In February 2013, Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled that the deregistration of recognised churches had been unconstitutional. Responding to the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Hungarian Parliament amended the Fundamental Law in March 2013. In June and September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament amended Act CCVI of 2011 to create a two-tiered classification consisting of “religious communities” and “incorporated churches”. In September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament also amended the Fundamental Law explicitly to grant itself the authority to select religious communities for “cooperation” with the state in the service of “public interest activities”. The provision assures the state the possibility to grant to organisations conducting religious activities special status as ‘church’. The religious community recognised by the Parliament as ‘church’ functions as a public law entity, whereas the ‘organisation conducting religious activity’ is a private law association. The rules of granting the status of a public law entity are more stringent than those on private law entities. The majority of Member States makes a clear difference between the legal status of historic churches and the status of other denominations and there are various legal forms for this distinction. In several Member States some churches are listed in the constitution, while others are subject to separate regulations or different ‘sui generis’ statuses provided for them. The case-law of the ECtHR recognises the right of states to create various legal categories for religious communities, the basic prerequisite of which is that some kind of a legal form shall be available without obstacles.

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33

(33) In its judgment of 8 April 2014, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR ruled that Hungary had violated freedom of association, read in the light of freedom of conscience and religion. The execution of that judgment is still pending. The Constitutional Court of Hungary found that certain rules governing the conditions of recognition as a church were unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to bring the relevant rules in line with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant Act was accordingly submitted to the Parliament in December 2015 but it did not obtain the necessary majority; however, just satisfaction has been paid to the applicants either on the basis of friendly settlements or pursuant to the judgments of the Court.

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 33 a (new)

(33a) The adoption of Act CCVI of 2011 and all the subsequent amendments thereto had the intention to fully ensure both the individual and collective freedom of religion, in accordance with the Fundamental Law, longstanding Hungarian legal traditions and international standards. The differentiation between legal status of different categories of religious communities did not aim at substantially affecting their freedom of religion, but only intended to express the differences in the duration and social support of their activities as well as in their ability to participate in fulfilling tasks of public interest. Such a differentiation is not unique in the European Union; several Member States have different categories of religious communities, some of them based on a ministerial or a parliamentary decision (e.g. in Austria, Belgium, Spain or Lithuania), some others by legislative means or even specifically at constitutional level (e.g. in Greece, Malta, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom).

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34

Amendment 143 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34

(34) On 9 July 2014, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights indicated in his letter to the Hungarian authorities that he was concerned about the stigmatising rhetoric used by politicians questioning the legitimacy of NGO work in the context of audits which had been carried out by the Hungarian Government Control Office concerning NGOs which were beneficiaries of the Norwegian Civil Fund. The investigations in question did not at all concern the activities of the organisations, but these were accountability measures regarding the financial operations. The Hungarian Government signed an agreement with the Norway grants as a result of which the payments of the grants continue to operate undisturbed, complying with the transparency criteria of the rule of law. On 8-16 February 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visited Hungary and indicated in his report that significant challenges stem from the existing legal framework governing the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedoms of opinion and expression, and of peaceful assembly and of association, and that legislation pertaining to national security and migration may also have a restrictive impact on the civil society environment. However, tens of thousands of organisations participate in tenders run by the Trust for National Cooperation, and both the number of supported projects and the amount of funding has increased in Hungary compared to previous years.

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34 a (new)

(34a) On 12 April 2018, the weekly Figyelo published a list of 200 names of personalities accused of belonging to ‘a network of speculators in the service of George Soros’; Prime Minister Viktor Orban had stated during the election campaign that he had in his possession a list of 2000 persons paid by George Soros; these announcements have created a climate of mistrust towards a certain number of civil society players which has the capacity to undermine freedom of expression, freedom of association and academic freedom in Hungary.

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 35

(35) In April 2017 a draft law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad was introduced before the Hungarian Parliament. On 26 April 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights addressed a letter to the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly noting that the draft law was introduced against the background of continued antagonistic rhetoric from certain members of the ruling coalition, who publicly labelled some NGOs as “foreign agents” based on the source of their funding and questioned their legitimacy; the term “foreign agents” is however absent from the law and the Venice Commission stated in its opinion that the term ‘organisation receiving support from abroad’ is neutral and descriptive. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also acknowledged in its resolution 2162 (2017) that the Hungarian law did not include some of the controversial term ‘foreign agent’ or the specific and thus discriminatory reference to NGOs which defend human rights, and that it provided for a judicial rather than administrative review. Consequently, it can be acknowledged that the overall purpose of the Act is in line with relevant international guidelines, including those elaborated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Similar concerns have been mentioned in the statement of 7 March 2017 of the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law, as well as in the Opinion of 24 April 2017 prepared by the Expert Council on NGO Law, and the statement of 15 May 2017 by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. According to the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Association as well as the expert opinion of the Venice Commission on the issue, the freedom to seek, receive and use resources can be subject to requirements related to the prevention of money laundering or terrorism and such resources may also legitimately be subject to reporting and transparency requirements.

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36

Amendment 149 #

Soraya POST, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36

(36) On 13 June 2017, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the draft law with several amendments. In its Opinion of 20 June 2017, the Venice Commission recognised that some of those amendments represented an important improvement but at the same time some other concerns were not addressed and the amendments did not suffice to alleviate the concerns that the law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination. In 2013 however, the Venice Commission explicitly acknowledged that there may be various reasons for a state to restrict foreign funding; including the prevention of money-laundering and terrorist financing and that it is justified to require the utmost transparency in matters pertaining to foreign funding. Consequently, ensuring transparency is a legitimate aim and the Hungarian law implements no restriction on funding whatsoever. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of those requirements, which appeared to be part of an attempt to discredit certain NGOs, including NGOs dedicated to the protection of human rights in Hungary.

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 36

(36) On 13 June 2017, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the draft law with several amendments. In its Opinion of 20 June 2017, the Venice Commission recognised that some of those amendments represented an important improvement but at the same time some other concerns were not addressed and the amendments did not suffice to alleviate the concerns that the law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of those requirements, which appeared to be part of an attempt to discredit certain NGOs, including NGOs dedicated to the protection of human rights in Hungary and those working to promote the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37

(37) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to start legal proceedings against Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, due to provisions in the NGO Law which indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission concluded that Hungary had violated the right to freedom of association and the rights to protection of private life and personal data enshrined in the Charter, read in conjunction with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital. According the European Court of Justice, a prior declaration may be a proportionate measure since unlike prior authorisation it does not entail the suspension of transactions, but still allows national authorities to exercise effective supervision in order to prevent infringements. The Hungarian legislation applies an even more moderate tool, since merely an ex post declaration shall be produced which is by definition incapable of restricting the movement of capital.

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37

(37) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to start legal proceedings against Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, due to provisions in the NGO Law which, in the view of the Commission, indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission ~~conclud~~alleged that Hungary had violated the right to freedom of association and the rights to protection of private life and personal data enshrined in the Charter, read in conjunction with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital. This procedure is still pending and ultimately and exclusively the European Court of Justice is competent to establish whether or not Hungary infringed EU law pursuant to Article 19(3)a of TEU and Article 260(1) of TFEU and any statement assuming the violation of EU law until the final decision is a mere presumption.

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37

(37) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to start legal proceedings against Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, due to provisions in the NGO Law which indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission concluded that Hungary had violated the right to freedom of association and the rights to protection of private life and personal data enshrined in the Charter, read in conjunction with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, defined in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and art. 26 points 2 and 63 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Amendment 154 #

József SZÁJER, Kinga GÁL, Lívia JÁRÓKA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37 a (new)

(37a) On 28 February 2018, the Budapest Metropolitan Court ruled at first instance that the Prime Minister's Office had violated the right of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) to a good reputation in the ‘Stop Soros’ national consultation questionnaire. The Court ruled that the statements in question 5 regarding the HHC were false and cast the HHC in a misleading light. The Court asked the Hungarian government to apologise and pay HUF 2 million in damages to the HHC.

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. On 8 March 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance warned that the bill would lead to undue restrictions on the freedom of association and the freedom of expression in Hungary. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities. On 22 March 2018, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on the draft legislative package.

Amendment 157 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with The Draft Law package foresees to expose those activities and associations funded from abroad that, circumventing the Hungarian law and order, intend to foster illegal immigration. The Package has not yet been adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, but is subject to scrutiny by its competent committees and is consequently open to furtheir a~~ctivitie~~mendments.

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. On 3 March 2018, UN human rights experts warned that the bill would lead to undue restrictions on the freedom of association and the freedom of expression in Hungary. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 22 March 2018 requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on the compatibility of the “Stop Soros” draft legislative package with international human rights standards.

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities. One of these draft laws aims to tax any external NGO funding from outside Hungary, including EU funding, at a rate of 25% which could constitute a misappropriation of EU funds and it questions the compatibility of such a provision with European law.

Amendment 160 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL, Jaromír ŠTĚTINA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38

Amendment 162 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Kati PIRI, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38 a (new)

(38a) Ensuring an enabling environment for civil society is an obligation under international human rights and EU law. The measures of the Hungarian government’s to obstruct the work of civil society organisations are contrary to the EU’s founding principles as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – subheading 8 a (new)

Right to strike

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38 a (new)

(38a) Since December 2010 Strikes in Hungary are illegal in principle, when the government of Victor Orban passed an amendment to the so-called Act on strikes. The changes mean that strikes will, in principle, be allowed in companies associated with governmental administration through public service contracts. The amendment does not apply to professional groups that simply do not have such a right, such as train drivers, police officers, medical personnel and air traffic controllers. The problem lies somewhere else, mainly in the percentage of employees who must take part in the strike referendum, to make it important - up to 70%. Then the decision on the legality of strikes will be taken by a labour court that is completely subordinate to the state. In 2011, nine applications for strike permits were submitted. In seven cases they were rejected without giving a reason; two of them were processed, but it proved impossible to issue a decision.

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39

(39) On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The Working Group also pointed out that a woman’s right to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such groups. On the other hand, the Working Party acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian Government to strengthening the reconciliation of work and family life by introducing generous provisions in family support system and in relation with early childhood education and care as well as further acknowledged the cooperation of the Hungarian Government with the international human rights mechanism and its engagement in frank and open dialogue.

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39

(39) On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The Working Group also pointed out that a woman’s right to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such groups. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian Parliamentary elections expressed on 9 April 2018 similar concerns as the UN Working Group, and especially noted a concerning underrepresentation of women in the political life, and also the absence of any instruments to promote the positive inclusion of females in this field.

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39

(39) On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The ~~Working Group also pointed out that a~~artificial confrontation of families and womaen’s right ~~to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such group~~s is however extremely harmful, since establishing a family-friendly environment is necessary for the empowerment of women and their freedom of choice. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 39

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 40

(40) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed regret that patriarchal stereotyped attitudes still prevail in Hungary with respect to the position of women in society, and noted with concern discriminatory comments made by political figures against women. It also noted that the Hungarian Criminal Code does not fully protect female victims of domestic violence. By contrast, Hungarian law provides a strong protection for women against violence; the legal definition of ‘violence committed in a relationship’ in the Criminal Code of Hungary covers a broader range of actions to be considered as abuse and since 2013 punishes these actions more severely than before and as of 1st January 2008 harassment constitutes a sui generis criminal act. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 40

(40) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed regret that patriarchal stereotyped attitudes still prevail in Hungary with respect to the position of women in society, and noted with concern discriminatory comments made by political figures against women. These observations are furthermore underlined by the fact that Hungary is ranked as one of the worst performing countries in the Union when it comes to the representation of females in the national Parliament, with a consistent percentage of around 10% of seats held by women. It also noted that the Hungarian Criminal Code does not fully protect female victims of domestic violence.

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 40

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 41

(41) On 27 April 2017, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on Hungary to correctly implement Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council3, given that Hungarian law provides an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex that is much broader than the exception provided by that Directive. On the same date, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Hungary for non- compliance with Directive 92/85/EEC of the Council4 that stated that employers have a duty to adapt working conditions for pregnant or breastfeeding workers to avoid a risk to their health or safety; however, the closure of the case is soon to be expected, since the amendments introduced by the Hungarian Government resolved all the disputed issues in question. The Fundamental Law of Hungary sets forth mandatory provisions for the protection of parents’ workplaces and for upholding the principle of equal treatment; consequently, there are special labour law rules for women and for mothers and fathers raising children. __________________ 3 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23). 4 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1).

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 41

(41) On 27 April 2017, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on Hungary to correctly implement Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council3, given that Hungarian law provides an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex that is much broader than the exception provided by that Directive. On the same date, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Hungary for non- compliance with Directive 92/85/EEC of the Council4 that stated that employers have a duty to adapt working conditions for pregnant or breastfeeding workers to avoid a risk to their health or safety. therefore the Hungarian Government has committed itself to amend the necessary provisions of the Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities, as well as the Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code. __________________ 3 Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23). 4 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1).

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 42

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 42

(42) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the constitutional ban on discrimination does not explicitly list sexual orientation and gender identity among the grounds of discrimination and that its restrictive definition of family could give rise to discrimination as it does not encompass certain types of family arrangements, including same-sex couples. Against all of these, sexual orientation and gender identity fall under strict constitutional protection in Hungary, since the Fundamental Law contains an open list, which forbids discrimination based on ‘any other circumstances’ and the Hungarian Act on Equal Treatment explicitly forbids discrimination based on both grounds ever since 2004. The Committee was also concerned about acts of violence and the prevalence of negative stereotypes and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, particularly in the employment and education sectors. ~~It also mentioned forced placement in medical institutions, isolation and forced treatment of large nu~~The Hungarian Penal Code strictly punishes inciting violence or hatred against any members of ~~persons with mental, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, as well as reported violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and allegations of a high number of n~~a societal group and explicitly on the grounds of disability, gender identity or sexual orientation; this felon-y i~~nvestigated deaths in closed institution~~s threatened with an imprisonment up to three years.

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 42 a (new)

(42a) Also in the same concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about forced placement in medical institutions, isolation and forced treatment of large numbers of persons with mental, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, as well as reported violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and allegations of a high number of non-investigated deaths in closed institutions.

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

Amendment 178 #

Heinz K. BECKER, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

(43) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated that he was concerned about the deterioration of the situation as regards racism and intolerance in Hungary, with anti-Gypsyism being the most blatant form of intolerance, as illustrated by distinctively harsh, including violence targeting Roma people and paramilitary marches and patrolling in Roma-populated villages. However, it was exactly the current Hungarian Government that initiated the amendment of the Penal Code in 2011 in order to prevent campaigns of extreme right paramilitary groups, by introducing the so called ‘crime in uniform’, threatening any provocative unsocial behaviour inducing fear in a member of a national, ethnic or religious community with three years of imprisonment. He also pointed out that, despite positions taken by the Hungarian authorities to condemn anti-Semitic speech, anti-Semitism is a recurring problem, manifesting itself through hate speech and instances of violence against Jewish persons or property. In addition, he mentioned a recrudescence of xenophobia targeting migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, and of intolerance affecting other social groups such as LGBTI persons, the poor and homeless persons. The European Commission against Racism and Xenophobia mentioned similar concerns in its report on Hungary published on 9 June 2015. While racism, xenophobia and intolerance are not any more prevalent in Hungary than in any other Member State, the Hungarian Act on Equal Opportunities provides an even stronger protection than the Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, since it extends its rules to cover all grounds of discrimination. According to the Action and Protection Foundation’s report (January-June 2017) the number of anti- Semitic actions in Hungary decreased compared to the number of the previous years. During the first half of 2017 the Foundation identified 18 anti-Semitic hate crimes, while in 2016 there were 23, in 2015’s first half there were 26 hate crimes action. It is also worth examining domestic data in an international comparison. Hungarian laws and legal norms identify the following five offenses related to hatred or incitement of hatred including anti-Semitic or Holocaust denying, denigrating acts: (1) violating the dignity of a member of a national, religious etc. community, as well as the dignity of a community itself (being also an aggravating circumstance if it serves a motive for another crime), (2) the denial or belittling in public of crimes committed by totalitarian (Nazi and Communist) regimes, punishable with up to 3 years of imprisonment (3) the use of totalitarian symbols in public, (4) establishing and running paramilitary groups or institutions, and (5) hate speech by MPs in the Parliament additionally sanctioned by the House Rules. Moreover, the rules of the Criminal Code have been tightened regarding “uniformed crime”. It was largely due to the Hungarian Government’s firm stance against anti- Semitism that by the unanimous decision of 31 countries, Hungary was awarded the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2015-2016 with a high international recognition of Jewish and non-Jewish organisations and personalities. As a result of the Hungarian Chairmanship’s year-long endeavours and lobbying in EU institutions, EU and IHRA member states, the EU’s new data protection draft legislation (GDPR) was amended in line with IHRA commitments.

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 43

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44

(44) In its Fourth Opinion on Hungary adopted on 25 February 2016, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted that Roma continue to suffer systemic discrimination and inequality in all fields of life, including housing, employment, education, access to health and participation in social and political life. In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended the Hungarian authorities to make sustained and effective efforts to prevent, combat and sanction the inequality and discrimination suffered by Roma, improve, in close consultation with Roma representatives, the living conditions, access to health services and employment of Roma, take effective measures to end practices that lead to the continued segregation of Roma children at school and redouble efforts to remedy shortcomings faced by Roma children in the field of education, ensure that Roma children have equal opportunities for access to all levels of quality education, and continue to take measures to prevent children from being wrongfully placed in special schools and classes. In its Report of the Field Assessment Visit to Hungary, 29 June – 1 July 2015, ODIHR stated that the worst situation of Roma people occurred in the town called Miskolc. The local authorities adopted a model of anti- Roma measures, even before the change of the local decree of 2014, and that public figures in the city often made anti- Roma statements. For example, it was reported that in February 2013, Ákos Kriza - Mayor of Miskolc - said he wanted to clean the city of “anti-social, perverted Roma” who allegedly illegally benefited from the Nest program (Fészekrakó program) for housing benefits and people living in social flats with rent and maintenance fees. His words meant the beginning of a series of evictions, and during this month, fifty apartments were removed from 273 apartments in the appropriate category - also to clean up the land for are novation of a stadium.

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44

(44) In its Fourth Opinion on Hungary adopted on 25 February 2016, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted that Roma continue to suffer systemic discrimination and inequality in all fields of life, including housing, employment, education, access to health and participation in social and political life. In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended the Hungarian authorities to make sustained and effective efforts to prevent, combat and sanction the inequality and discrimination suffered by Roma, improve, in close consultation with Roma representatives, the living conditions, access to health services and employment of Roma, take effective measures to end practices that lead to the continued segregation of Roma children at school and redouble efforts to remedy shortcomings faced by Roma children in the field of education, ensure that Roma children have equal opportunities for access to all levels of quality education, and continue to take measures to prevent children from being wrongfully placed in special schools and classes. In this spirit, the Hungarian Government has taken several substantial measures to foster the inclusion of Roma ever since it took office in 2010; among others adopted the Job Protection Action Plan on 4th July 2012 to protect the employment of disadvantaged employees and foster the employment of the long-term unemployed; adopted the “Healthy Hungary 2014–2020” Healthcare Sectoral Strategy to reduce health inequalities; in 2014 adopted a strategy for the period of 2014 to 2020 for the treatment of slum-like housing in segregated settlements.

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 44 a (new)

(44a) The Hungarian Government is deeply committed to achieve the integration of Roma people; the issue was put to the political agenda of the European Union as the initiative of the Hungarian presidency in the first half of 2011, by initiating the EU Framework Strategy on Roma inclusion, which was not only based on a human rights approach but also from the aspects of poverty and social inclusion, recognising that a complex approach is necessary for genuine solutions. Furthermore, the Hungarian Government in 2014 updated the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy, and established a three-year action plan for its implementation by designating responsible persons, deadlines and available funds.

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45

(45) In its judgement of 29 January 2013, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the relevant Hungarian legislation as applied in practice lacked adequate safeguards and resulted in the over-representation and segregation of Roma children in special schools due to the systematic misdiagnosis of mental disability, which amounted to a violation of the right to education free from discrimination. ~~The execution of that judgment is still pending~~Continuous consultations are in place for resolving practical issues in this regard, the Hungarian Government has taken several steps to solve these questions, also including fulfilling the decision of the ECtHR.

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 45

(45) In its judgement of 29 January 2013, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the relevant Hungarian legislation as applied in practice lacked adequate safeguards and resulted in the over-representation and segregation of Roma children in special schools due to the systematic misdiagnosis of mental disability, which amounted to a violation of the right to education free from discrimination. ~~The execution of that judgment is still pending~~Despite the complexity of the issue in which one cannot expect quick and tangible results from day to day, the improving tendency in Hungary is evident.

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46

(46) On 26 May 2016, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Hungarian authorities in relation to both Hungarian legislation and administrative practices which result in Roma children being disproportionately over-represented in special schools for mentally disabled children and subject to a considerable degree of segregated education in mainstream schools. From the very beginning of the infringement procedure, the Hungarian Government actively conducted dialogues with the Commission, as a result of which the Hungarian Government amended the concerned legislation and took actions in order to ensure compliance with the legal obligations; Commissioner Věra Jourová has also confirmed that the amendments were adequate to remedy the Commission’s concerns.

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 46

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47

(47) In its judgement of 20 October 2015, Balázs v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the context of a failure to consider the alleged anti- Roma motive of an attack. In its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that that there had been a violation of the right to private life on account of inadequate investigations into the allegations of racially motived abuse. The execution of both judgments is still pending, since the proposal for a law pronouncing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kampala amendments concerning Article 8 of said Statute is still in the process of being adopted by the Hungarian Parliament. Nevertheless, the Commission was notified about the proposed modifications in the legislation as well as the amendment of the Penal Code and the Director General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers notified Hungary that said modifications will align national legislation with the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA.

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 47

(47) In its judgement of 20 October 2015, Balázs v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the context of a failure to consider the alleged anti- Roma motive of an attack. In its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that that there had been a violation of the right to private life on account of inadequate investigations into the allegations of racially motived abuse. ~~The execution of both judgments is still pending~~In these cases however, the judgements had been formulated before the amendment of the Hungarian Penal Code with the purpose of implementing the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA; the modification of the fact pattern of the crime of ‘inciting violence or hatred against the community’ entered into force on 28th October 2016.

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48

(48) On 29 June - 1 July 2015, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights conducted a field assessment visit to Hungary, following reports about the actions taken by the local government of the city of Miskolc concerning forced evictions of Roma. On 26 January 2016 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights sent a letters to the ~~Hungarian authorities expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma in Miskolc.~~ governments of Albania, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Serbia and Sweden expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma. Based on the appeal of the government office in charge, the Supreme Court annulled the relevant articles in its decision of 28 April 282015 and the Equal Treatment Authority of Hungary also carried out an investigation and rendered a decision in July 2015, calling on the local government to cease all evictions and to develop an action plan on how to offer housing in accordance with human dignity. The action plan was adopted on 21April 2016 and in the meantime a social housing agency was also established and adequate housing was provided for Roma families. In its decision of 14 October 2016, the Equal Treatment Authority found that the municipality fulfilled its obligations.

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49

(49) In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended that the Hungarian authorities continue to improve the dialogue with the Jewish community, making it sustainable, and to give combatting anti-Semitism in public spaces the highest priority, to make sustained efforts to prevent, identify, investigate, prosecute and sanction effectively all racially and ethnically motivated or anti-Semitic acts, including acts of vandalism and hate speech, and to consider amending the law so as to ensure the widest possible legal protection against racist crime.deleted

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49

(49) In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended that the Hungarian authorities continue to improve the dialogue with the Jewish community, making it sustainable, and to give combatting anti-Semitism in public spaces the highest priority, to make sustained efforts to prevent, identify, investigate, prosecute and sanction effectively all racially and ethnically motivated or anti- Semitic acts, including acts of vandalism and hate speech, and to consider amending the law so as to ensure the widest possible legal protection against racist crime of any kind.

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49 a (new)

(49a) The Hungarian Government has several times declared a ‘zero tolerance policy’ against anti-Semitism and– as acknowledged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – Hungarian Jewish life is experiencing a renaissance and Hungarian Jews live in peace and safety. The current Hungarian Government has among others, established the Holocaust Documentation Centre and Memorial Collection in 2002, ordered that the life annuity of Holocaust survivors shall be raised by 50% in 2012, established the Hungarian Holocaust – 2014 Memorial Committee in 2013, declared the year of 2014 as Holocaust Memorial Year, launched renovation and restoration programmes of several Hungarian synagogues and Jewish cemeteries and is currently preparing for the 2019 European Maccabi Games to be held in Budapest. In recognition of the Hungarian Government’s firm stance against anti-Semitism, Hungary was awarded the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2015-2016 by the unanimous decision of 31 countries.

Amendment 203 #

Heinz K. BECKER, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Michał BONI

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49 a (new)

(49a) In its judgment of 17 January 2017, Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, and in its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning two Roma persons who were victims of abuse, threats and racist insults during a demonstration against the Roma.

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49 a (new)

(49a) Hungary, like other EU Member States, should legally enshrine IHRA`s working definition of Anti-Semitism as the basis for criminal, media and educational measures.

Amendment 205 #

Soraya POST, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns - financed with public money – which have featured fear-mongering and Islamophobic statements and pictures, and led to increased intolerance against Muslims, migrants and people perceived as such. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police. Roma in Hungary, especially in rural areas, are also subject to disproportionate and discriminatory practices by the police. In a case regarding the village of Gyöngyöspata, the HCLU initiated an action popularis lawsuit based on the Equal Treatment Act to denounce the local police that was solely giving fines to Roma for minor traffic offences. The first instance judgement found that the practice constituted harassment and direct discrimination against the Roma even if the individual measures were lawful. The second instance court and the Supreme Court ruled that HCLU could not substantiate discrimination, misusing the special rules on burden of proof. HCLU turned to ECHR concerning the rules on burden of proof and the right to appeal.

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police. The Fundamental Rights Officer of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency visited Hungary in October 2016 and in March 2017 to check that the conditions under which the Agency operates allow it to ensure the respect, protection and enforcement of the rights of persons crossing the Hungarian- Serbian border. These conditions involve the risk of a de facto violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Fundamental Rights Officer concluded in March 2017 that the risk of the Agency bearing a share of the responsibility in the event of a violation of fundamental rights, in accordance with Article 34 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, remains very high.

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police. Hungary however has enacted powerful legal instruments to combat hate crimes and hate speech; the Hungarian Penal Code strictly punishes inciting violence or hatred against a member of a community, as well as the public denial of Holocaust, and the Government has established a Working Group Against Hate Crime providing training for police officers and helping victims to cooperate with the police and report incidents. By reason of the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law the ‘freedom of expression may not be exercised with the aim of violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation or of any national, ethnic, racial or religious community’; the amendment has been greeted as a historic step by many – in particular by Jewish – communities, as it makes the fight against hate speech more efficient.

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50

(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. ~~It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities~~Despite the sporadic occurrence of segregation of Roma children, like in several other Member States, Hungary has introduced convincing legal, fin particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti- Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the polancing and institutional measures and a number of government actions to facilitate access to quality education for Roma children. The Hungarian Inclusion Strategy for example focuses on promoting integrated education, reducing segregation, breaking the intergenerational transmission of disadvantages, and establishing an inclusive school environment. Furthermore, the Act on National Public Education was extended with additional guarantees as of January 2017, and the Hungarian Government initiated official audits in 2011-2015, followed by actions by government offices.

Amendment 210 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Birgit SIPPEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50 a (new)

(50a) On 23 February 2018, three organisations - the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), the Validity Foundation and the European Network on Independent Living - asked the Hungarian government and the Commission to suspend and reformulate projects aimed at removing people from specialised institutions funded by the Commission and managed by the Hungarian government. The estimated cost of these projects affecting 2 500 persons with disabilities is HUF 24 billion (EUR 76 million). The analysis of the projects by these organisations shows a violation of EU funding rules, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the obligations of Hungary under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51

(51) On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. The Fundamental Rights Officer of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency visited Hungary in October 2016 as well as in March 2017, owing to the Officer’s concern that the Agency might be operating under conditions which do not commit to the respect, protection and fulfilment of the rights of persons crossing the Hungarian-Serbian border, that may put the Agency in situations that de facto violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Fundamental Rights Officer concluded in March2017 that the risk of shared responsibility of the Agency in the violation of fundamental rights in accordance with Article 34 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation remains very high.

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51

(51) On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. The extraordinary circumstances and emergency situation urged the Hungarian Government to address the situation with quick legal responses and despite the urgent government actions, each application for international protection is thoroughly examined on an individual basis. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. However, no court case has so far been reported where Hungarian border police officers have been charged of abusing asylum seekers.

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51

(51) On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. Given the worsening situation of asylum-seekers in Hungary the UN Refugee Agency called on 10 April 2017 for a temporary suspension of all transfers of asylum-seekers to Hungary from other European States under the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51 a (new)

(51a) In 2015, out of 480 judicial appeals relating to applications for international protection, there were 40 positive decisions, i.e. 9%. In 2016, for 775 appeals, there were 5 positive decisions, i.e. 1% while there were 0 appeals in 2017. While there is no reason to question the independence of the judiciary in Hungary as a whole and in particular the courts of first instance, this trend in the rate of rejections of applications for international protection raises concerns about the autonomy and the role of judges of the second instance.

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52

(52) On 3 July 2014, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention indicated that the situation of asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situations needs robust improvements and attention to ensure against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Similar concerns about detention, in particular of unaccompanied minors, have been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. On 21-27 October 2015 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Hungary and indicated in its report a considerable number of foreign nationals’ (including unaccompanied minors) claims that they had been subjected to physical ill- treatment by police officers and armed guards working in immigration or asylum detention facilities. On 7 March 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed his concerns about a new law voted in the Hungarian Parliament envisaging the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers, including children, for the entire length of the asylum procedure. On 8 March 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement similarly expressing his concern about that law. On 31 March 2017, the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture urged Hungary to address immediately the excessive use of detention. Despite all this, asylum seekers in Hungary are not detained or deprived of their liberty since they can leave the transit zone freely at any time. Pursuant to the Directive2013/33/EU, Member States may designate such areas not only based on considerations of public interest and public order, but also to ensure the availability of applicants during the procedure; this measure is also permitted by Article 72 TFEU.

Amendment 217 #

Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52

(52) On 3 July 2014, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention indicated that the situation of asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situations needs robust improvements and attention to ensure against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Similar concerns about detention, in particular of unaccompanied minors, have been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. On 21-27 October 2015 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Hungary and indicated in its report a considerable number of foreign nationals’ (including unaccompanied minors) claims that they had been subjected to physical ill- treatment by police officers and armed guards working in immigration or asylum detention facilities. On 7 March 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed his concerns about a new law voted in the Hungarian Parliament envisaging the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers, including children, for the entire length of the asylum procedure. On 8 March 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement similarly expressing his concern about that law. On 31 March 2017, the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture urged Hungary to address immediately the excessive use of detention and explore alternatives. Coercive measures and use of force in the processing of migrants falls short of European standards and should be improved at the earliest possible opportunity. Furthermore, in case of insufficient capacity or lack of resources the appropriate authorities should seek assistance from European Boarder and Coast Guard Agency.

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52 a (new)

(52a) In its first report on Hungary’s implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, published in May 2015, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) found that insufficient measures had been taken to identify possible human trafficking victims among asylum seekers and irregular migrants. In its latest report, published in March 2018, GRETA again criticised Hungary for its inability and unwillingness to detect potential victims of trafficking in human beings among migrants and asylum seekers in the country and called on the Hungarian authorities to adopt a legal framework for the identification of victims of human trafficking among third country nationals who were not legally resident and to step up its procedures for identifying victims of such trafficking among asylum seekers and irregular migrants.

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52 a (new)

(52a) In its judgment of 5 July 2016, O.M. v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights found that here had been a violation of the applicant's right to freedom and security, in particular a failure to take into account the applicant's vulnerability in a closed centre because of his sexual orientation.

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53

(53) On 12-16 June 2017, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees visited Serbia and two transit zones in Hungary. In his report, the Special Representative made several recommendations, including a call on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures, including by reviewing the relevant legislative framework and changing relevant practices, to ensure that all foreign nationals arriving at the border or who are on Hungarian territory are not deterred from making an application for international protection. On 5-7 July a delegation of the Council of Europe Lanzarote Committee (Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) also visited two transit zones and made a number of recommendations, including a call to treat all persons under the age of 18 years of age as children without discrimination on the ground of their age, to ensure that all children under Hungarian jurisdiction are protected against sexual exploitation and abuse, and to systematically place them in mainstream child protection institutions in order to prevent possible sexual exploitation or sexual abuse against them by adults and adolescents in the transit zones. Hungary pays special attention to the needs of different age and social groups, including but not limited to separated placement, 24/7 presence of social workers, separate accommodation facilities for both families and unaccompanied minors, continuous security service and CCTV video surveillance system to ensure the prevention of any kind of violence, sexual exploitation or abuse. Hungarian authorities trained experts for the successful identification of victims of human trafficking (including sexual exploitation) and unaccompanied children are under supervision by social workers 24 hours a day. Between the age of 14 and 18, three meals a day as well as clothing, health care, education, and religious practice are provided in transit zones and children under the age of 14 are placed in special care institutions inside the country where they get five meals a day. Furthermore, as from 1st January2018 additional regulations were introduced favouring minors in general and unaccompanied minors in specific; among others a specific curriculum was developed for minor asylum seekers.

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53

(53) On 12-16 June 2017, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees visited Serbia and two transit zones in Hungary. In his report, the Special Representative stated that the violent expulsions of migrants and refugees from Hungary to Serbia raised concerns under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the ECHR. The Special Representative also noted that the restrictive practices of admission of asylum seekers in the Röszke and Tompa transit areas often encourage asylum seekers to seek illegal means of crossing the border, using traffickers. The Special Representative concluded that Hungarian legislation and practices needed to be aligned with the requirements of the ECHR. In his report, the Special Representative made several recommendations, including a call on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures, including by reviewing the relevant legislative framework and changing relevant practices, to ensure that all foreign nationals arriving at the border or who are on Hungarian territory are not deterred from making an application for international protection. On 5-7 July a delegation of the Council of Europe Lanzarote Committee (Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) also visited two transit zones and made a number of recommendations, including a call to treat all persons under the age of 18 years of age as children without discrimination on the ground of their age, to ensure that all children under Hungarian jurisdiction are protected against sexual exploitation and abuse, and to systematically place them in mainstream child protection institutions in order to prevent possible sexual exploitation or sexual abuse against them by adults and adolescents in the transit zones.

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53

(53) On 12-16 June 2017, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees visited Serbia and two transit zones in Hungary. In his report, the Special Representative made several recommendations, including a call on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures, including by reviewing the relevant legislative framework and changing relevant practices, to ensure that all foreign nationals arriving at the border or who are on Hungarian territory are not deterred from making an application for international protection. In his report, the Special Representative stated that violent pushbacks of migrants and refugees from Hungary to Serbia raise concerns under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the ECHR. The Special Representative also noted that the restrictive practices of admission of asylum-seekers into the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa often make asylum- seekers look for illegal ways of crossing the border, having to resort to smugglers and traffickers with all the risks that this entails. The Special Representative concluded that it is necessary that the Hungarian legislation and practices are brought in line with the requirements of the ECHR. On 5-7 July a delegation of the Council of Europe Lanzarote Committee (Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) also visited two transit zones and made a number of recommendations, including a call to treat all persons under the age of 18 years of age as children without discrimination on the ground of their age, to ensure that all children under Hungarian jurisdiction are protected against sexual exploitation and abuse, and to systematically place them in mainstream child protection institutions in order to prevent possible sexual exploitation or sexual abuse against them by adults and adolescents in the transit zones.

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54

(54) In its judgment of 14 March 2017, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. The ECtHR also found that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia, as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of detention at the Röszke transit zone. The case is currently pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. It must be highlighted that the case raises serious issues of general importance affecting the interpretation and application of the Convention and the legal order of several High Contracting Parties, as well as poses serious social challenges, since the legal interpretation favouring asylum-shopping would pave the way for potential abuses with international protection and would adversely affect the merit of refugee status. It would further contradict the explicitly reiterated principles in the ECtHR’s legal practice recognising the right of states to control the entry and stay of aliens on their territories.

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54

(54) In its judgment of 14 March 2017, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, the ECtHR at first instance found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. The ECtHR at first instance also found that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia, as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of detention at the Röszke transit zone. The case is currently pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR and therefore it is vital to refrain from prejudging its outcome and thereby attempting to influence the final decision of the ECtHR. The primary responsibility lies with the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in determining whether or not the right to asylum-shopping shall be recognised by international law.

Amendment 227 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Birgit SIPPEL, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 a (new)

(54a) On 14 March 2018, Ahmed H., a Syrian resident in Cyprus who had tried to help his family flee Syria and cross the Serbian-Hungarian border in September 2015, was sentenced by a Hungarian court to 7 years' imprisonment and 10 years expulsion from the country on the basis of charges of ‘terrorist acts’; this condemnation questions the application of the laws against terrorism in Hungary as well as the right to a fair trial;

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 a (new)

(54a) In its judgment of 6 September 2017 in Case C-643/15 and C-647/15, the Court dismisses in their entirety the actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary against the provisional mechanism for the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers. Slovakia and Hungary voted against the adoption of the contested decision in the Council and have asked the Court of Justice to annul the decision.

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 b (new)

(54b) On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the legal proceedings initiated by Hungary and Slovakia against Council Decision 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015. However, since that decision, Hungary has not relocated a single asylum seeker and has not complied with the decision.

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 c (new)

(54c) In 2017, out of 3397 applications for international protection filed in Hungary, 2880 applications were rejected - a very high rejection rate of 69.1%.

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55

(55) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to move forward on the infringement procedure against Hungary concerning its asylum legislation by sending a reasoned opinion. The Commission considers that the Hungarian legislation does not comply with Union law, in particular Directives 2013/32/EU5, 2008/115/EC6 and 2013/33/EU7 of the European Parliament and of the Council and several provisions of the Charter, although a crisis situation caused by mass immigration is a circumstance in which Article 72 TFEU entitles Member States ‘to exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security’ and the Asylum Procedures Directive enables Member States to determine the place for lodging the application for international protection in person. It must be underlined that applicants in Hungary cannot be considered to be in detention since everyone wishing to do so can leave the transit zone, only the admittance into the Schengen zone is not permitted until the necessary procedures are finished. In the course of the procedure however, the Hungarian Government is in continuous dialogue with the Commission in order to take into account the Commission’s concerns to the fullest possible extent and also the Commission has accepted several of the originally challenged Hungarian provisions to be in line with EU law. __________________ 5 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 6 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98). 7 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96).

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55

(55) On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to move forward on the infringement procedure against Hungary concerning its asylum legislation by sending a reasoned opinion. The Commission considers that the Hungarian legislation does not comply with Union law, in particular Directives 2013/32/EU5, 2008/115/EC6 and 2013/33/EU7 of the European Parliament and of the Council and several provisions of the Charter, although a crisis situation caused by mass immigration is a circumstance in which Article 72 TFEU entitles Member States ‘to exercise the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security’ and the Asylum Procedures Directive enables Member States to determine the place for lodging the application for international protection in person. It must be underlined that applicants in Hungary cannot be considered to be in detention since everyone wishing to do so can leave the transit zone, only the admittance into the Schengen zone is not permitted until the necessary procedures are finished. __________________ 5 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). 6 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98). 7 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96).

Amendment 233 #

Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55 a (new)

(55a) In the AIDA (Asylum Information Database) report on Hungary updated on 31 December 2017, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee highlights several elements that violate respect of the right of asylum, in particular the failure to respect the right of a person to file an application for international protection in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, the increasing number of reports of violence perpetrated at the Hungarian-Serbian border by the police, the lack of legal status of transit zones, the failure to respect the principle of access to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the ECHR, difficulties in accessing legal aid, non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR, lack of identification procedures for vulnerable persons, practices of age assessment of unaccompanied minors which fail to respect the fundamental rights of children.

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55 a (new)

(55a) On 15 June 2017 the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary for failure to comply with its legal obligations under the temporary emergency relocation scheme, established under two Council decisions in September 2015 (Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601). Despite confirmation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the validity of the EU relocation scheme and of the EU’s right to require Member States to receive refugees, as expressed in its judgment of 6 September, Hungary has continued to infringe its legal obligations by refusing to contribute to the implementation of the relocation decisions. On 7 December 2017 the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the grounds of its failure to comply with legal obligations concerning relocation.

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56

(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary~~, and d~~ in line with Article 72 TFEU, which permits Member States to exercise their powers, as regards maintaining public order and internal security in mass migration crisis situations; Hungary therefore, upon intercepting persons inside the country but in connection with an illegal border crossing, exercises its rights in line with Article 72 TFEU with a view to maintain law and order and hence fulfils her obligations stemming from the Schengen Border Code. Decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push- backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker is fully in line with international and EU standards, since Serbia is a candidate country for EU membership and its accession to the European Union is underway; as there is still no EU list determines safe third countries, Member States can freely decide in this issue. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid, whereas in reality the age assessment of minor asylum seekers is conducted by the medical staffs in the transit zones with scientific methods and the special needs of minors are fully addressed in line with international and EU standards. In accordance with the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, refugees have not only rights but also duties towards the country in which they find themselves which require, in particular, conforming to its laws and regulations as well as to the measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56

(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. Nevertheless, the term ‘transit zone’ defines solely the location rather than the type of the procedure and the asylum procedures conducted in the transit zones of Hungary are equally full value ‘in merit’ procedures. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push-backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the However, both the Asylum Procedure Directive (2013/32/EU) and the Reception Directive (2013/33/EU) allows Member States to require that applicants report to the competent authorities or to appear in front of them in person and the authorities may decide on their placke of ~~adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid~~residence.

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56

(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was introduced in July 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and is detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border. The Committee noted with concern that expulsions had been carried out indiscriminately and that persons subjected to this measure were not able to apply for asylum or to appeal against this measure. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push- backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid.

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56

(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push- backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid. Notes that now, according to the new the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (COM(2016)0467 – C8-0321/2016 – 2016/0224(COD)) the medical age assessment will be a measure of a last resort. Therefore the Parliament calls on Hungary to provide proper age assessments of asylum seekers.

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56

Amendment 240 #

Soraya POST, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56 a (new)

(56a) whereas, in March 2018, a Hungarian court upheld the sentence against Ahmed H, a Syrian refugee mischievously accused of carrying out terrorist acts at the border in 2015, under the prerogative of the country’s counter- terrorism laws, which have been widely criticised by civil society organisations and human rights groups as “draconian” and “vague”, and Amnesty International described the verdict as a “blatant misuse of terrorism-related provisions”; whereas the European Parliament has, in its 17 May 2017 Resolution, already recognised the trial as “unfair”; calls on the Hungarian authorities to stop the harassment and smear campaign against Ahmed H and ensure he receives a fair trial;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56 a (new)

(56a) UN bodies and civil society have stated concerns about the constant association of migrants and Muslims with terrorism, which has led to discriminatory targeting of innocent people under counter-terrorism legislation. The confluence of draconian counter- terrorism laws and crackdown on refugees has led to at least in one instance the government misusing counter- terrorism legislation against a refugee who was helping his family go through the border. Ahmed H. was sentenced for 7 years in prison for an “act of terror.”

Amendment 242 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56 a (new)

(56a) Is concerned about the mood in society which has been fuelled by the policies implemented in the recent years and the “tax financed” campaigns led by the government against refugees, minorities and other citizens.

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57

(57) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated his concern at measures taken to prohibit rough sleeping and the construction of huts and shacks, which have widely been described as criminalising homelessness in practice, which is arguably an overstatement considering that the Fundamental Law of Hungary declares a dignified living as a goal of the state and thus includes a provision on taking care of people without shelter and - in accordance with the position of the European Parliament- is aiming to abolish homelessness affecting public areas. The Commissioner urged the Hungarian authorities to investigate reported cases of forced evictions without alternative solutions and of children being taken away from their families on the grounds of poor socio-economic conditions. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about state and local legislation, based on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which designates many public areas as out- of-bounds for “sleeping rough” and effectively punishes homelessness, whereas the prohibition of residing in public areas is not unique to Hungary but it is a common internationally accepted practice that homeless people are not allowed in certain public areas. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57

(57) In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated his concern at measures taken to prohibit rough sleeping and the construction of huts and shacks, which have widely been described as criminalising homelessness in practice. The Commissioner urged the Hungarian authorities to investigate reported cases of forced evictions without alternative solutions and of children being taken away from their families on the grounds of poor socio-economic conditions. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about state and local legislation, based on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which designates many public areas as out- of-bounds for “sleeping rough” and effectively punishes homelessness. On 15 February 2012 and 11 December 2012 the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called on Hungary to reconsider legislation allowing local authorities to punish homelessness and to uphold the Constitutional Court’s decision decriminalising homelessness.

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58

Amendment 247 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58

(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the ground that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. As far as this claim is concerned, the Government of Hungary considers the maintenance and increase in the number of jobs and the expansion of employment as the primary task in the world of work; the government policy is therefore linked to the relatively short duration of job-search support, aiming at encouraging active job search and improving labour market prospects for those who lose their jobs. The Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the ground that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, on the ground that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and on the grounds that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families. Contrary to the special monitoring mechanisms related to the European Social Charter, Hungary has performed at or above the level of EU- average in 8 out of the 12 indicators of the renewed Social Scoreboard of the European Pillar of Social Rights, published by the European Commission. Moreover, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58

(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the ground that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. The Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the ground that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, on the ground that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and on the grounds that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families. With regard to trade union rights, the Committee has stated that the right of workers to paid leave is not sufficiently secured, that no promotion measures have been taken to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements, while the protection of workers by such agreements is clearly weak in Hungary and in the civil service the right to call a strike is reserved to those unions which are parties to the agreement concluded with the government; the criteria used to determine public servants who are denied the right to strike go beyond the scope of the Charter; public service unions can only call a strike with the approval of the majority of the staff concerned.

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58

(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the grounds that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected enough by occupational health and safety regulations,; that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient,; that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate,; that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate,; that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short; and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. TFurthermore, the Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the grounds that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate~~, on the ground~~; that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties; and ~~on the grounds~~ that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families.

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 a (new)

(58a) The UN Committee on the Rights of Children’s report on ‘Concluding observations on the combined third, fourth and fifth periodic reports of Hungary’, published in 14 October 2014, voiced concerns over an increasing number of cases where children are being taken away from their family based on poor socio economic condition. Parents may lose their child due to unemployment, lack of social housing and lack of space in temporary housing institutions. Based on a study by European Roma Right Centre, this practice disproportionately affects Roma families and children.

Amendment 251 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 a (new)

(58a) In accordance with the Treaties, social and employment policies are strictly of Member States’ competence. Regarding the social rights mentioned in the draft report, specific EU standards were adopted only in the areas of workplace health and safety. Due to their falling into Member States’ competence, social rights show significant divergence based on economic development and other societal factors and therefore can hardly be interpreted and measured within the framework of Article 2 of TEU.

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 b (new)

(58b) Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the grounds that Hungary fails to protect its citizens against extreme poverty. Hungary’s workfare program pays less to citizens than the statutory minimum wage. The program creates dependencies and undermines democracy and the rule of law.

Amendment 253 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Soraya POST

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 c (new)

(58c) This winter, 149 people froze to death in Hungary by mid-February. This was reported by the Internet portal “24.hu” on Tuesday, citing the Hungarian Social Forum (MSZF), a network of independent aid organisations. 47 percent of the victims are people living in poverty and frozen to death in their unheated homes, the report said. The others died of frostbite they had suffered outdoors.

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 d (new)

(58d) 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. Calls on the Hungarian government to ratify the Istanbul Convention as soon as possible.

Amendment 255 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 e (new)

(58e) Recognises the efforts taken in the anti-human trafficking laws and encourages the government to continue and improve the services of victim support by strengthening victim- and women rights organisations.

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59

Amendment 257 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59

(59) In its Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of Hungary, the Council indicated that the adequacy and coverage of social assistance and unemployment benefits is limited, that the duration of unemployment benefits is still the lowest in the Union at 3 months, below the average time required by jobseekers to find employment, and that the 2015 social assistance reform streamlined the benefits system but does not seem to have guaranteed a uniform and minimally adequate living standard for those in need. In reality however, the relevant services of the Hungarian system guarantee a minimal income for people in their active years and the 2015 reform lead to a more transparent welfare system and granted municipalities the right to create a system of provisions which better corresponds to local needs; they can determine the types and checklists for the services under their jurisdiction, and so they can regulate further forms of care tailored to the need of the local population. However, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States. This issue clearly falls under the national competence of Member States.

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 59 a (new)

(59a) Acknowledges the commitment of the Hungarian Government to establish a ‘workfare society’ and achieving the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the EU with 3.8%; further acknowledges the crucial acts Hungary has implemented in order to diminish the trap-like effect of the dependence on welfare in the disadvantaged areas of the country, for example the public employment program which plays a significant role also in social policy and the European Commission has recognised the substantial steps that have been taken to encourage a transition to the primary labour market from public employment.

Amendment 259 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 61

(61) For those reasons, it should be determined~~, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, that there is a~~ that the circumstances presented fall short of proving any clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU,

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 61

(61) For those reasons, it should be determined, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, that there is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU,

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Article 1 – paragraph 1

There is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Article 1 – paragraph 1

There is ano clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Article 2 – paragraph 1

~~The Council recommends that Hungary take the following actions within three months of the notification of this Decision: [...]~~deleted

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 12

(12) Since 2012, Hungary has taken positive steps to transfer certain functions from the president of the NJO to the NJC in order to create a better balance between these two organs. However, further progress is still required. GRECO, in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, called for minimising the potential risks of discretionary decisions by the president of the NJO. The president of the NJO is, inter alia, able to transfer and assign judges, and has a role in judicial discipline. The president of the NJO also makes a recommendation to the President of Hungary to appoint and remove heads of courts, including presidents and vice- presidents of the Courts of Appeal. ~~GRECO~~On 2 May 2018, the NJC held a session where it unanimously adopted decisions concerning the practice of the president of the NJO with regard to declaring calls for applications to judicial positions and senior positions unsuccessful. The decisions found the president’s practice unlawful. GRECO also welcomed the recently adopted Code of Ethics for Judges, but considered that it could be made more explicit and accompanied by in-service training.

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 13

(13) Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court of Justice”) of 6 November 2012 in Case C-286/12, Commission v. Hungary1, which held that by adopting a national scheme requiring the compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act XX of 2013 which provided that the judicial retirement age is to be gradually reduced to 65 years of age over a ten year period and set out the criteria for reinstatement or compensation. In its report of October 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute stated that a majority of the removed judges did not return to their original positions, although the amendments introduced by Act XX of 2013 provided the possibility for retired judges to return to their former posts at the same court under the same conditions as prior to the regulations on retirement, or if they were unwilling to return, they received a 12-month lump sum compensation for their lost remuneration, and could file for further compensation before the court; the individual choices of the judges cannot therefore be held against Hungary. __________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2012, Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687.

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 13

(13) Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court of Justice”) of 6 November 2012 in Case C-286/12, Commission v. Hungary1, which held that by adopting a national scheme requiring the compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act XX of 2013 which provided that the judicial retirement age is to be gradually reduced to 65 years of age over a ten year period and set out the criteria for reinstatement or compensation. ~~In its report of October 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute~~The Commission continuously monitored the implementation of the new Hungarian law on retirement and on 20th November 2013 acknowledged the measures of Hungary to make its retirement law compatible with EU law; the Commission was further stat~~ed that a majority of the removed judges did not return to their original posi~~isfied with the implemented remedies concerning the affected judges, prosecutors and public notaries, including the right of reinstatement without judicial procedure, and the right to compensations. __________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2012, Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687.

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14

(14) In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Gaszó v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The ECtHR came to the conclusion that the violations originated in a practice which consisted in Hungary’s recurrent failure to ensure that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations are completed within a reasonable time and to take measures enabling applicants to claim redress for excessively long civil proceedings at a domestic level. The execution of that judgment is still pending.deleted

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 14

(14) In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Gaszsó v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The ECtHR came to the conclusion that the violations originated in a practice which consisted in Hungary’s recurrent failure to ensure that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations are completed within a reasonable time and to take measures enabling applicants to claim redress for excessively long civil proceedings at a domestic level. The ~~execution of that judgment is still pending.~~ new Code of Civil Procedure of Hungary adopted in 2016 provides for the acceleration of civil proceedings and the new Code of Criminal Proceedings contributes to the expediency and effectiveness of proceedings. Hungary has duly informed the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that the new law creating an effective remedy for prolonged procedures will be adopted by October 2018.

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 15

(15) In its judgment of 23 June 2016, Baka v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the right of access to a court and the freedom of expression of András Baka, who had been elected as President of the Supreme Court for a six-year term in June 2009, but ceased to have this position in accordance with the transitional provisions in the Fundamental Law, providing that the Curia would be the legal successor to the Supreme Court. ~~The execution of that judgment is st~~No further general measures were found necessary apart from the necessarilly p~~ending because the Hungarian Government denies the fact that there is a need to take measures to prevent further premature removals of judges on similar grounds, saf~~rovided restitutio in integrum – since the violation found by the Court resulted from a one-time constitutional reform of the Hungarian judicial system – and the general measures solicited by the Committee of Ministers’ decision of 10th March 2017 are not related to the implementation of the judgment since the existence of related guarantees (reguarding a~~ny abuse in this regard~~ll Hungarian judges except the president of the Supreme Court) has never been called into question by the Court.

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 16

(16) On 29 September 2008, Mr András Jóri was appointed Data Protection Supervisor for a term of six years. However, with effect from 1 January 2012, the Hungarian Parliament decided to reform the data protection system and replace the Supervisor with a national authority for data protection and freedom of information. Mr Jóri had to vacate office before his full term had expired. On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice held that the independence of supervisory authorities necessarily includes the obligation to allow them to serve their full term of office and that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council2. Hungary amended the rules on the appointment of the president of the Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, based on the suggestions of the European Commission, presented an apology by sending a ministerial letter to András Jóri, issued a public notice to András Jóri and to the Hungarian news agency, as well as paid the agreed sum of compensation. Mr Jóri considered the material and moral compensation as fair and accepted it voluntarily, furthermore he declared that he had no more claims and so the case was closed in a mutually satisfactory manner. __________________ 2 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995 P. 31).

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17

(17) The Venice Commission identified several shortcomings in its Opinion on Act CLXIII of 2011 on the Prosecution Service and Act CLXIV of 2011 on the Status of the Prosecutor General, Prosecutors and other Prosecution Employees and the Prosecution Career of Hungary, adopted on 19 June 2012. In its report, adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO urged the Hungarian authorities to take additional steps to prevent abuse and increase the independence of the prosecution service by, inter alia, removing the possibility for the Prosecutor General to be re-elected. In addition, GRECO called for disciplinary proceedings against ordinary prosecutors to be made more transparent and for decisions to move cases from one prosecutor to another to be guided by strict legal criteria and justifications.deleted

Amendment 77 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Miltiadis KYRKOS, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Birgit SIPPEL, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17 a (new)

(17a) The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expresses in its Report 2015 deep concern that, following the significant legislative reform implemented during Hungary’s incumbent government’s first term in office, the independence and impartiality of the Hungarian judiciary can’t be guaranteed and the rule of law guarantees remain weakened.

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17 a (new)

(17a) On 2 May 2018, a report of the National Judicial Council, composed of 15 judges elected by their peers, mandated to examine how the President, Tunde Hanro, discharged her duties, has called into question the autonomy of the Hungarian judicial system. The Council states in its report that Ms Hanro has used her position of power to influence the appointment of senior judges.

Amendment 80 #

Michał BONI, Carlos COELHO, Frank ENGEL

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18

(18) In its report adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO called for the establishment of codes of conduct for members of the Hungarian Parliament (MPs) concerning guidance for cases of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MPs should also be obliged to report conflicts of interest in an ad hoc manner and this should be accompanied by a more robust obligation to submit asset declarations. This should also be accompanied by provisions that allow for sanctions for submitting inaccurate asset declarations. Moreover, the asset declarations should be made public online to allow for genuine popular oversight; standard electronic database should be put in place to allow for all declarations and modifications thereof to be accessible in a transparent manner.

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18

(18) In its report adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO called for the establishment of codes of conduct for members of the Hungarian Parliament (MPs) concerning guidance for cases of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MPs should also be obliged to report conflicts of interest in an ad hoc manner and this should be accompanied by a more robust obligation to submit asset declarations. This should also be accompanied by which arise in an ad hoc manner. Although the current regulation can be considered rather strict even by European standards, it is recommended to consider introducing provisions that allow for sanctions for submitting inaccurate asset declarations.

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19

(19) In its statement of preliminary findings and conclusions adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the limited monitoring of campaign spending and the absence of thorough reporting on sources of campaign funds until after the elections undercuts campaign finance transparency ~~and the ability of voters to make an informed choice~~, contrary to OSCE commitments and international standards. However, there has not been any deterioration or declining trend at all in the last few years or as compared to the date of Hungary’s accession to the EU. On the contrary, the Act LXXXVII of2013 on the Transparency of Political Campaign Financing set the maximum amount allowed to be spent for campaign activities, established strict rules on the use of such funds and on the monitoring of campaign spending. Although the preliminary conclusions of the OSCE would claim for a more detailed reporting and monitoring system also during, and not only after, the elections, the Act opted for an ex-post monitoring and controlling mechanism. While the potential maximum limits are set out by law in advance, the Act also introduced a requirement according to which all candidates and nominating organisations, within 60 days after the final results of the elections, shall make public all their actual campaign spending, also including the sources and purposes of the spending. The State Audit Office has the competence to monitor and control whether the legal requirements have been met.

Amendment 85 #

Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19

(19) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the limited monitoring of campaign spending and the absence of thorough reporting on sources of campaign funds undercuts campaign finance transparency ~~and the ability of voters to make an informed choice~~, contrary to OSCE commitments and international standards. This OSCE report however, did not include the official audit report of The State Audit Office (the enforcement authority for state aids) concerning the 2018 parliamentary elections, as it had not been completed at the time.

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 19 a (new)

(19a) According to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index on perceived levels of corruption in 2017, published by Transparency International, Hungary ranks 66th with a score of 45 out of 100, three points less than a year ago and 10 points less than in 2012. Numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and business associations have reported that corruption in Hungary poses a significant risk to companies, especially in the areas of tax administration and public procurement. Public procurement is an area that is particularly vulnerable to local irregularities due to robust informal relations between businesses and politicians. Even though corruption in the public and private sectors is considered a crime that is expressly punishable under the Hungarian Criminal Code, that legislation is not being properly implemented.

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20

(20) On 7 December 2016, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership~~. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding their space to operate in the country.~~ , in line with the fact that the OGP is a multilateral initiative based on voluntary membership and therefore it is only up to the free decision of participating countries to join or to withdraw. It must be further noted that not all the EU Member States are members of the OGP, e.g. Austria, Belgium and Slovenia.. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding their space to operate in the country, which is exactly the reason of the Hungarian withdrawal, since the opinions of international NGOs constantly criticising Hungary have been widely accepted in the organisation’s reports but the government response has been completely neglected and thus the organisation has become a forum for the reproof of a few countries, instead of discussing and exchanging good government practices.

Amendment 89 #

Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Tanja FAJON, Dietmar KÖSTER, Monika BEŇOVÁ, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Péter NIEDERMÜLLER, Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Soraya POST, Sylvie GUILLAUME

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20

(20) On 7 December 2016, while co- chaired by the French government, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee, which brings together 75 countries and hundreds of civil society organisations campaigning around the world for transparency of public life, in co-construction with civil society, received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership~~. T~~; this occurred while the Government of Hungary ~~had been~~was under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations in particular regarding their space to operate in the country.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) Between 2012 and 2017, Hungary operated its highly disturbing residency bond program that offered residence permit to some 20 000 people according to reports of investigative journalism. Those who acquired such bonds could maintain a permanent residence permit without limitation. The foreigners did not invest in the residency government bonds directly, but did so through designated intermediary companies with opaque ownership structures. These companies charge 40 000- 60000 euro service fees for their operations, and were hand-picked by the Economic Committee of the Parliament without public tender or legal oversight. Such conditions have created a hotbed for corruption.

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) Calls on the European Commission to immediately impose concrete measures reacting and getting redress to the investigation in Hungary, made by OLAF, which submitted financial and judicial recommendations to the European Commission and the Hungarian authorities, in view of the “serious irregularities” and “conflicts of interest” it found over street-lightning contracts granted to Elios Innovativ Zrt - a company at the time controlled by the Hungarian Prime-Minister’s son-in-law; whereas this and other investigations not only shed light on misuse of EU structural funds but also increase concerns on public contracts awarded to family members of the Prime Minister of Hungary;

Amendment 92 #

Laura FERRARA, Ignazio CORRAO, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) In 2016 OLAF published its report where completed its investigation of the EUR 1.7 billion euro transport project in Hungary, in which the main participants were international companies. By using its cross-border powers, OLAF conducted investigations in Hungary and traced the links between projects and enterprises. The investigation showed very serious irregularities, as well as, possible fraud and corruption in the implementation of the projects. OLAF also launched an investigation into European Union- funded projects, run by a company controlled by the son-in-law of the Prime Minister - Viktor Orban. There is a treat that the tender could have been set up.

Amendment 93 #

Louis MICHEL, Gérard DEPREZ, Nathalie GRIESBECK, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Petr JEŽEK, Morten PETERSEN, Angelika MLINAR

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) According to the anti-corruption report published by the Commission in 20141 b, corruption is perceived as widespread (89%) in Hungary. According to the 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International, Hungary has lost 10 points in six years, making it one of the lowest ranked states in the European Union. Hungary is one of the greatest recipients of EU funds and more than half of public investment comes from EU funds. Hungary, however, has refused to participate in the European Public Prosecutor's Office set up to combat infringements affecting the Union budget. __________________ 1b COM(2014) 38

Amendment 94 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) As highlighted in its 2016 Annual Report, as well as in its answers to several letters from Members of the European Parliament1a, the European Central Bank is closely monitoring the operations of the Hungarian Central Bank and its foundations, in particular of the Pallas Athene programmes. The 2017 ECB Annual Report mentions that some concerns have now been alleviated, nonetheless the ECB continues its monitoring. The ECB should not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings for non-compliance with Article 123 TFEU banning monetary financing. __________________ 1a See most recently the answer to the letter with reference QZ-016 dated 10 April 2018

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) Hungary receives substantial funding through payments from the Structural and Cohesion Funds. In a 2016 report by the European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF), OLAF investigators found ‘serious irregularities’ in projects co- financed by the European Union, including projects managed by a company that was once co-owned by the son-in-law of Prime Minister Viktor Orban. This highlights dangerous conflicts of interest in the country and shows serious irregularities in the use of EU funds in the country and substantial fraud against the financial interests of the Union.

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)

(20a) The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has conducted 42 investigations in Hungary, 85% of which have resulted in judicial and financial recommendations, of which only 33% have been followed by the Hungarian national authorities. OLAF has in particular denounced ‘serious irregularities’, ‘conflicts of interest’ and referred to ‘an organised fraud scheme’ in the context of an investigation into the award of a public contract for street lamps financed by EU funds.

Amendment 97 #