Activities of Balázs HIDVÉGHI related to 2023/2113(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Report on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law report (debate)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Reiterates that an independent judiciary is the backbone of the rule of law, as it is a precondition for an effective remedy when rights and freedoms are withheld or violated; underlines that an independent and effective judiciary is vital for the implementation of EU law, given that the Commission relies on the national judicial authorities to enforce EU law; expresses its concern that this ‘presumption of compliance’ becomes the ‘pretence of compliance’ when the Commission ignores national judicial authorities’ shortcomings; notes with concern that while some judicial systems may be robust on paper, in some cases they are not immune to state capture, political interference or nepotism; is aware of the fact that this is difficult to detect by simply assessing the formal structures; therefore urges the Commission to conduct a more qualitative analysis, including contextual elementsacknowledges that the organization of the judiciary is a competence of the Member States under Article 5 of the TEU;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission finds wide disparities between EU Member States in terms of judicial independence and safeguards; notes that the report mentions a number of positive initiatives and ongoing developments concerning the Councils of the Judiciary, notably in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Hungary; highlights, however, that an independent assessment shows that of the four ‘super milestones’ related to the independence of the judiciary in Hungary only one can be considered fully implemented;28 notes that the Commission finds that concerns on the Councils for the Judiciary still have to be addressed in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus; notes with concern that disciplinary proceedings may be used as a means to curtail judicial independence, as is the case in Poland and Bulgaria; notes that the Commission has, finally, referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for violations of EU law by its Constitutional Tribunalnotes that the Commission finds that concerns on the Councils for the Judiciary still have to be addressed in Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Spain and Cyprus; regrets the lack of equal standards when it comes to addressing judicial independence in the EU; __________________ 28 Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Updated summary assessment on Hungary’s compliance with the four super milestones aimed at restoring the independence of the judiciary, 9 October 2023.
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Acknowledges the crucial role civil society and a healthy civic space play in upholding and protecting the rule of law, and reiterates its call for a separate chapter to be dedicated to the condition of civil society in Member States; notes that the Commission finds that Malta, Ireland, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Germany have announced or initiated efforts to improve the framework for civil society, and finds that civil society faces particular challenges in Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy and France, and continued serious systemic restrictions in Hungary and Poland; calls on all Member States to accept civil society organisations (CSOs) as important stakeholders in democratic life and to create an enabling environment for civil society;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that democratic andUnderlines that the annual rule of law backsliding and the undermining of minority rights often go hand in hand, once more underlining the need for a comprehensive approach to monitoring democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF) in the future reports; regrets the lack of progress on protectreport should not be used to carry out ideological campaigns against individual Member States while hiding behind minority protection and perceived freedom rights; calls on the Commission to refrain from interfering minorities across the EU; condemns hate speech, including by government or political officials, against minority groups the competences of Member States and to respect their constitutional identity;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. RecognisUnderlines that the annual rule of law report has become a benchmark for the EU institutions’ work on rule of law issues in the EU and in specific Member Statesview cycle is a tool created by the Commission which has no legal basis in the Treaties; regrets that the rule of law report often portrays political demands that fall outside the competence of the Union as general requirements for the rule of law; underlines that this fully discredits the rule of law report as a whole;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Regrets the fact that the annual rule of law report does not present an objective and substantiated picture of the rule of law situation in Member States; notes with concern that the Commission often reiterates the opinion of civil society organisations that are financed from abroad or by the Commission itself without verifying these allegations and presenting justification or evidence; notes with concern that the Commission ignores the position of the constitutional organs of the Member States and rather takes into account the politically biased opinions of certain civil society organisations; believes that more time should be devoted to the Commission’s understanding of national constitutional traditions and specificities;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. AcknowledgNotes that the Commission's rule of law report has become more comprehensive since its inception in 2020; regrets, however, that the 2023 edition of the report was not significantly expanded by adding a comprehensive new pillar; reiterates its position that the report should cover the full scope of thedeplores the fact, however, that Member States are not scrutinised according to the same indicators and methodology; regrets that the 2023 annual report often contains factually unfounded findings based on valgues of Article 2 TEU, as these cannot be seen concerns, value judgements and double standards in isorelation; calls on the Commission to expand the scope of to some Member States; notes with concern the improper methodology and the lack of uniform standards in the report next year;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Considers that the conclusions of the 2023 report are often built on the findings of political activist NGOs funded from abroad; notes that the disproportionate number of references to findings of such NGOs entails that the Commission outsourced the work on the report to NGOs without checking the factual correctness of their statements; considers that the sources of the report are one-sided and politically biased, and thus, its findings are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is concerned that the Commission, in its ef uses the respect fort to be factual and even- handed, sometimes ends up being too diplomatic and imprecise when identifying rule of law problems in Member States; regrets that the use of euphemistic language and the artificially equal number of conclusions and recommendhe rule of law and fundamental rights as a pretext to put political pressure on certain Member States to change their policies in fields such as migrations per Member State conceals the very real differences between Member States; believes that the assessment of the fulfilment of the recommendatolicy or family law; underlines that the Commissions should be more precise and qualitative, not relying only on legislative changes but also on real and independent evidence of their implementation in practice; notes the sometimes stark differences between the summaries of country chapters and the in-depth content of the chapnot use the report and other mechanisms to excerpt pressure on Member States as regards the handling of specific cases; underlines that political debaters themselves, suggesting an editorial interventionshould not be disguised as legal debates;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. CondemnNotes the total lack of progress in the ongoing Article 7(1) TEU procedures; urges the Council to address all new developments affecting the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights; reiterates its call on the Council to address recommendations in the framework of this procedure, underlining that any further delaying of such action would amount to a breach of the rule of law principle by the Council itself; insists that Parliament’s role and competences be respectedclose the procedures immediately as they are openly political procedures which harm European cooperation and destroy European unity;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Calls on the Commission to include, strictly monitor and safeguard the DRF conditions in all budgetary instruments and processes; calls on the Commission in this regard not to unblock any cohesion funds for Hungary unless all enablingas conditions have been fully met and the judiciary in that Member State can be considered fully independent on paper and in practice; calls on the Commission and the Council to apply the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation further and without delay where needed, and not to lift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary until all the milestones have been effectively fulfilled; calls on the Commission to rigorously verify that the rule of law related milestones in the various Member State recovery and resilience plans are fulfilled as a condition for disbursing funding when Member States make payment requests; calls on the Commission to assign the primary responsibility for the application of these conditions to the Commissioners responsible for the rule of lawlift the measures adopted in the case of Hungary under the Conditionality Regulation; calls on the Commission to stop using legal tools and mechanisms to excerpt political pressure on certain Member States;