Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
2017/2131(INL) Situation in Hungary
Lead committee dossier: LIBE/8/10381
Legal Basis RoP 45
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | AFCO | PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite (ALDE) | |
| Opinion | CONT | GRÄSSLE Ingeborg (EPP) | |
| Opinion | CULT | KAMMEREVERT Petra (S&D) | |
| Opinion | FEMM | NOICHL Maria (S&D) | |
| Lead | LIBE | SARGENTINI Judith (Verts/ALE) | METSOLA Roberta (EPP), WEIDENHOLZER Josef (S&D), JUREK Marek (ECR), MICHEL Louis (ALDE), VERGIAT Marie-Christine (GUE/NGL), FERRARA Laura (EFD), BAY Nicolas (ENF) |
Legal Basis RoP 45
Subjects
Activites
-
2018/09/12
Vote in plenary scheduled
-
2018/09/11
Debate in plenary scheduled
-
2018/07/04
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A8-0250/2018
summary
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report (Initiative - Rule 45 and 52 of the Rules of Procedure) by Judith SARGENTINI (Greens/EFA, NL) on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded. 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. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. The EU has the task of safeguarding these common values by making use of the process under Article 7 TEU. It can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences. The committee considered that Hungary is at risk of seriously breaching the values of the European Union. This motion for a resolution sets out a series of facts and trends which, taken together, represent a systemic threat to the values of Article 2 of the EU Treaty and constitute a clear risk of serious breach of it. The Hungarian authorities have consistently been ready to discuss the legality of any specific measure but failed to take all the actions recommended in Parliament’s previous resolutions. In its resolution of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, 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 warrants the launch of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure. Members consider that it is necessary to request the Council to come forward with appropriate measures to restore inclusive democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights in Hungary. Accordingly, they propose that the European Parliament submit a reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine whether 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. Their main concerns relate particularly to the following: the functioning of the constitutional and electoral system; the independence of the judiciary and of other institutions; the rights of judges; corruption and conflicts of interest; privacy and data protection and freedom of expression; academic freedom; freedom of religion; the right to equal treatment; the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including Roma and Jews, and protection against hateful statements against such minorities; the fundamental rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees; economic and social rights. The draft resolution recalled that the accession of Hungary, which requires respect for and the promotion of the values referred to in Article 2, was a voluntary act based on a sovereign decision, with a broad consensus across the Hungarian political spectrum.
-
A8-0250/2018
summary
-
2018/06/25
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2017/07/06
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0250/2018
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 505 |
2017/2131(INL)
2018/02/05
AFCO
32 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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 #
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.
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 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 #
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
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
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
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Reminds that the Venice Co
Amendment 8 #
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 #
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
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Acknowledges that the Hungarian Government has acceded to
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 #
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
Amendment 14 #
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
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Regrets
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 19 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education in Hungary
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to the fact that the
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Draws attention to the fact that the segregation of Roma children in education
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,
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses,
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;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
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
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
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 52 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Is concerned that, a
Amendment 57 #
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’; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the entrepreneur has been awarded public contracts;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the
Amendment 61 #
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
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
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 #
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 #
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
Amendment 68 #
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, including by triggering Art. 7 TEU if necessary;
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 #
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 #
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 #
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;
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 #
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
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.
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
Amendment 32 #
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.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
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
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
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 #
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.
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
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
Amendment 53 #
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 LGBTI and women's rights organisations, which are crucial for the functioning and progress of society;
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
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 #
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;
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;
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
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 #
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
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the importance of the right of women to
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
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the importance of the right
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Strongly condemns, in this context,
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 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
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
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas the Country Specific Recommendations of the Commission under the European Semester between 2014-2017 (CSRs) highlighted th
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 #
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 %,
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 #
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 #
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
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 #
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.
Amendment 29 #
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 Amendment 30 #
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 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, indicating that there are strong risks of corruption in Hungarian public procurement tenders;
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 36 #
3. Calls on the Commission to incentivise Member States to join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
Amendment 37 #
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
Amendment 12 #
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 #
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
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 #
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 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 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
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
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 Amendment 3 #
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
Amendment 31 #
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
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
Amendment 33 #
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 #
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 Amendment 36 #
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
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 5 (5)
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,
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 5 (5) A wide range of actors at the national, European and international level, have
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 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 6 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,
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 Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 7 (7) The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were pres
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 7 (7)
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
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 9 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
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 (9) In its statement adopted on 9 April 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
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
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
Amendment 56 #
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 consultations. The Hungarian government also conducted consultations entitled ‘Migration and Terrorism’ in May 2015 and against a so- called ‘Soros Plan’ in October 2017. These consultations draw dangerous parallels between terrorism and migration and promote the fantasy of a so-called conspiracy against Hungary.
Amendment 57 #
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 consultations, such as in the case of the so-called “Soros plan” national consultation based again on false statements targeting particularly the person of George Soros and the EU, and inducing hatred towards migrants.
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
Amendment 59 #
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 #
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 (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
Amendment 61 #
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 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,
Amendment 64 #
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 NJ
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 12 Amendment 66 #
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.
Amendment 67 #
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 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
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
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
Amendment 106 #
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 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. In line with the UN Human Rights Committee findings, the Freedomhouse organisation has acknowledged some positive development in the area of surveillance and privacy in its 2017 Freedom on the Net report. However, many concerns in regards to privacy and data protection remain and are highlighted.
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
Amendment 109 #
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
Amendment 110 #
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 #
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
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 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 25 Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 25 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
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
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 #
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
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. I
Amendment 129 #
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
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.
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 31 Amendment 133 #
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
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
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 32 Amendment 137 #
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
Amendment 138 #
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”, in practice giving itself a discretionary power to recognise a religious organisation, with a two-thirds vote, rather than relying on decisions of the administration or the courts.
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 #
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 (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 operators and beneficiaries of the Norwegian Civil Fund. 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.
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
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 36 Amendment 149 #
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
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
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
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 #
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 #
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.
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,
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
Amendment 160 #
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,
Amendment 161 #
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
Amendment 162 #
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 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
Amendment 168 #
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. Additionally, there is a clear verbal discrimination against women in the school publishing.
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 (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. Parliament highlights the fact that Hungary has signed the Istanbul Convention and that the European Union has acceded to it.
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 Council
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
Amendment 174 #
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. The Committee was also concerned about acts
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,
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 #
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.
Amendment 179 #
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. 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, in a speech held on 15. March 2018 in Budapest, the Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orban, used polemic attacks including clearly anti-Semitic stereotypes against George Soros, that according to the European Parliament`s Anti-Semitism Resolution, which appeals the importance of the IHRA working definition on Anti- Semitism, that serves as a model for all EU citizens, would have been assessed as punishable. 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.
Amendment 180 #
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. 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. Notes the answer to those accusations made by the Hungarian Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister during the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting, held on 26 April 2018, however does not put faith in those explanations. According to Fundamental Rights Agency annual report, 2017 the situation of Roma people in Hungary worsen since 2016.
Amendment 181 #
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. 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
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
Amendment 185 #
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,
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
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.
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 (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. The Hungarian authorities should prevent any such practices, as inclusive education has shown itself to be one of the best instruments to address segregation.
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.
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
Amendment 198 #
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 letter to the Hungarian authorities expressing concerns about the treatment of Roma in Miskolc. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and the Deputy- Commissioner for the Rights of National Minorities issued a joint opinion on 5 June 2015 about the fundamental rights violations against the Roma in Miskolc, the recommendations of which the local government failed to adopt.
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 49 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 #
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 #
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
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
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
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.
Amendment 210 #
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
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 (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. On 10 April 2017, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for an immediate suspension of Dublin transfers to Hungary.
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
Amendment 217 #
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
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
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 (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 2017, 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
Amendment 224 #
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
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 #
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
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
Amendment 233 #
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,
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,
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
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
Amendment 239 #
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
Amendment 240 #
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 #
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
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
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
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 #
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 #
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 #
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
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
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
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Article 1 – paragraph 1 There is
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Article 1 – paragraph 1 There is
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Article 2 – paragraph 1 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.
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. Hungary
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.
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 14 Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 14 (14) In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Ga
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.
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
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 17 Amendment 77 #
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
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 #
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
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
Amendment 85 #
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
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
Amendment 89 #
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
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 #
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 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 20 a (new) 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 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 20 b (new) (20b) Hungary has lost 19 points in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index since 2008, making the country the lowest ranked of the European Union Member States, while Hungary benefits from European funding amounting to 4.4% of its GDP or more than half of public investment.
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 20 b (new) (20b) Following a two-year investigation, OLAF has found “serious irregularities” around infrastructure projects co-financed by EU cohesion fund and connected to prime minister Viktor Orban’s son-in-law, indicating both high levels of corruption and conflict of interests.
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Annex I – point 20 c (new) (20c) Several indicators signal high levels of misconduct regarding EU funds. The share of contracts awarded after public procurement procedures that received only a single bid remains high at 36% in 2016. Hungary has the highest percentage in the Union of financial recommendations from OLAF in the areas of Structural Funds and Agriculture for the 2013-2016 period at 4,16% (which is 900% higher than the EU average). Hungary decided not to participate in the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
source: 622.146
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2019-07-06Show (23) Changes | Timetravel
| activities |
|
| commission |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| committees/4 |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
LIBE/8/10381New
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 46
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 45
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
| procedure/subtype |
Old
Legislative initiativeNew
|
| procedure/summary |
|
2018-09-12Show (13) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/3/committees |
|
| activities/3/date |
Old
2017-07-06T00:00:00New
2018-09-11T00:00:00 |
| activities/3/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
| activities/4 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/3/date |
2017-11-30T00:00:00
|
| committees/3/rapporteur |
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 045New
Rules of Procedure EP 45 |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
| procedure/subject/2 |
Old
1.20 Citizen's rightsNew
8.30.10 Principles common to the Member States, EU values |
2017-10-27Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
2017-09-30Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2/shadows/0 |
|
| committees/2/shadows/0 |
|
2017-09-26Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| other/0 |
|
2017-09-21Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/date |
2017-09-04T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
| committees/0/date |
2017-09-04T00:00:00
|
| committees/0/rapporteur |
|
2017-09-14Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2/shadows |
|
| committees/2/shadows |
|
2017-08-03Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/2/date |
2017-08-31T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| committees/2/date |
2017-08-31T00:00:00
|
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2017-07-12Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
LIBE/8/10381
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2017-07-08Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|