29 Amendments of Kārlis ŠADURSKIS related to 2012/2130(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 37
Citation 37
– having regard to the ongoing infringement proceedings in Case C- 288/12 brought by the European Commission against Hungary over the independence of the dlegality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data pProtection authoritystill pending before the European Court of Justice,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 40
Citation 40
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 41
Citation 41
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and pursuant to Article 6 TEU, the Charter has the same legal value as the Trebecame legally binding and Member Staties, hence transforming values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights must ensure its full application when implementing EU law;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas according to Article 7(1) TEU grants the EU institutions the power to assess whethermay determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the commonby a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 by a Member State, and to engage politically with the country concerned in order to prevent and redress violations, while the ultimate purpose of the means laid down in Article 7(2) and (3) TEU is to penalise and remedy any serious and persistent breach of common values; whereas before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the scale of the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unfull compliance with the applicable preocedented, andural requirements, explains why so many European institutions and organisations (the European Union, Council of Europe, OSCE) as well as the U.S. Administration have deemed it necessary to assess the impact of some reforms carried out in Hungary, wherea; whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States, thus the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need tthe same pattern should also be monitored, while enforcingotherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties, and whereas there should be no double standards in the treatment of Member States is not respected;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V – footnote 6
Recital V – footnote 6
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
Recital AP
AP. whereas key safeguards for judicial independence, such as irremovability, guaranteed term of office, the structure and composition of the governing bodies, are not regulated in the Constitution but are – together with detailed rules on the organization and administration of the judiciary – still set out in the amended cardinal laws,; whereas it should be emphasized that the former Constitution did not contain more detailed rules on these issues either, and those have never been criticised; whereas, therefore thus the provisions of the Fundamental Law cannot be regarded as setbacks at any ways; and whereas in certain Member States the constitution does not refer to the judicial structure of the given country at all, or does not include any detailed regulation related to this (e.g. among others in Austria, France, Estonia, Finland or Germany);
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BX
Recital BX
BX. whereas freedom of thought, conscience and religion as enshrined in Article 9 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Charter is one of the foundations of a democratic society, and w, and whereas according to the Treaty of Lisbon the legislation on the reas the role of the State in this respect should be that of a neutral and impartial guarantor of the right to exercise various religions, faiths and beliefslation between the State and the churches belongs to the Member States' competence; thus there are many differences in how churches are recognized in Member States from official state religion (e.g.: Denmark, Greece, Malta) up to solely operating in the form of associations (e.g.: France);
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that respect for legality, including a transparent, accountable and democratic procthe "Union is founded on the valuess of enacting laws, and for a strong system of representative democracy based on free elections and respecting the rights of the opposition are key elements of the concepts of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and proclaimed in the Preambles to both the Treaty on the European Union and the Charter,respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail" as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the extensive use of cardinal laws to regulate areas that are covered by oin Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, the number of areas subject to cardinaryl laws in most Member States or to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new electionhas more or less remained steady since then and has never been a source of criticism so far, not even during the accession negotiations, and not even when the socialist-liberal coalition between 1994-1998 governed with two- thirds majority amending a great number of cardinal acts at will, therefore challenging solely the current Hungarian government is politically biased; and underlines that use of two-third majority laws is common in many other Member States, such as Austria, France, Spain or Romania, and whereas in Austria more than 50 subject matters are to be regulated by two-third majority laws;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable andis in full compliance with the applicable procedural requirements, and is part of the democratic legislative process, as in practice it restricts public debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Lawnobody more accountable than a Member of Parliament who may be dismissed by the electors at the next elections. Denying this right of the members of Parliament with reference to the democratic values common to EU member States would lead us to a conclusion that democratically elected MPs cannot exercise their representative roles;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Takes note that in several Member States the competences of the constitutional court is limited or restricted to a certain type of procedures, furthermore, there is no legal regulation for the competences of the constitutional court regarding the supervision of the constitution or any amendments thereof among others in Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia, France or Portugal; and takes note that in several Member States does not even exist the institute of a separate constitutional court at all (e.g. among others in Finland or in Greece, or the Danish system of courts, which are based on a unified structure, or in Ireland, where Supreme Court can deal with constitutional issues);
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is deeply concerned about this shift of powers in constitutional matters to the advantage of the parliament and to the detriment of the Constitutional Court, which severely undermineUnderlines that according to rule of law a democratically elected Parliament has the right and duty to adopt the Constitution and Laws, and the Constitutional Court has the principle of separation of powers and a correctly functioning systemght and duty to safeguard the compatibility of cthecks and balances, which are key corollaries of the rule of law laws with the Constitution;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores that the creation of the state- owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) as the single news provider for public service broadcasters, while all major private broadcasters are expected to have their own news service, has meant it has a virtual monopoly on the market, as most of its news items arUnderlines that Member States remain free to organise their public service broadcasting in a way they deem appropriate while preserving media pluralism, in line with the Amsterdam Protocol attached to the fTreely available; recalls the recommendation of the Council of Europe to eliminate the obligation on public broadcasters to use the national news agency as it constitutes an unreasonable and unfair restriction on the plurality of news provisionaty; takes note of the recent statement of the European Commission with regard to the French media bill that the Commission in no way intends to comment on and evaluate draft national laws;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Objects the use of double standards in the treatment of a Member States; stresses that same situations, legal provisions should be treated similarly, otherwise the principle of equality of the Member States before the Treaties is not respected;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. ReaffirmsTakes note of the fact that its present resolution is not only about Hungary, but inseparably about the European Union as a whole, and its democalthough several issues raised are present in the legal system and practic reconstruction and development after the fall of the 20th century totalitarianisms. It is about the European family, its common values and standards, its inclusiveness and its capacity to engage in dialogue. It is about the need to implement Treaties which all Member States have voluntarily acceded to. It is about the mutual help and mutual trust that the Union, its citizens and Member States need to havee of several Member States; Regrets that the principle detailed in Article 4(2) - according to which "the Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent ifn these Treaties are to be more than just words on paper but the legal basis for a true, just and open Europe respecting fundamental rightsir fundamental structures, political and constitutional" - was not taken into account;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Shares the idea of a Union which is not only a ‘union of democracies’ but also a ‘Union of Democracy’, based upon pluralistic societies where respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail; and stresses that the freely elected Parliaments are excepted as basic elements of democracy;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Expects all Member States to take the necessary steps, particularly within the Council of the European Union, to contribute loyally to the promotion of the Union's values and to cooperate with Parliament and the Commission in monitoring their observance, especially in the framework of the ‘Article 2 Trilogue’ referred to in paragraph 76;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
Paragraph 60 – indent 4
– to adopt a more comprehensive approach to addressing any potential risks of serious breach of fundamental values in a given Member State at an early stage and immediately to engage in a structured political dialogue with the relevant Member State and the other EU institutions without applying double standards; this structured political dialogue should be coordinated at the highest political level of the Commission and have a clear impact on the full spectrum of negotiations between the Commission and the Member State concerned in the various EU fields;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Paragraph 60 – indent 5
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Paragraph 60 – indent 6
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
Paragraph 60 – indent 9
– to regularly monitor the correct functioning of the European area of justice and to take action when the independence of the judiciary is put at risk in any Member State without applying double standards, with a view to avoiding the weakening of mutual trust between national judicial authorities, which would inevitably create obstacles to the correct application of the EU instruments on mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation;
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
Paragraph 60 – indent 10
– to ensure that Member States guarantee correct implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights with respect to media pluralism and equal access to information, when these effect EU-law;
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
Paragraph 60 – indent 14
– to address the issue ofparticipate cooperatively in the ongoing dialogue with the Hungarian government on the conformity with EU law of the new provision of the Fourth Amendment enabling the Hungarian Government to impose a special tax in order to implement EU Court of Justice judgments entailing payment obligations when the state budget does not have sufficient funding available and when the public debt exceeds half of the Gross Domestic Product, and to suggest adequate measures to prevent what may result in a breach of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.;
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
Paragraph 61 – introductory part
61. Urges the Hungarian authorities to implement the following recommendations without any further delay, with a view to fully restoring the rule of law and its key requirements Stresses that it has no mandate to make recommendations to the Hungarian authorities; repeats its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary, which "Instructs the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in cooperation with the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, the constitutional setting, the system of checks and balances and the independence of the judiciary, as well as strong safeguards for fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, media and religion and the right to property:o follow up the issue of whether and how the recommendations of the Commission and the European Parliament set out in point 4 of this resolution have been implemented and to present its findings in a report;"