Activities of Péter NIEDERMÜLLER related to 2017/2131(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
The situation in Hungary (debate) HU
Amendments (28)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
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)
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 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)
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 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the current level of corruption, and the lack of transparency and accountability of public finances and the ineligible expenditure or overpricing of the financed projects, affects Union funds in Hungary; considers that this might represent a breach of the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and warrants the launch of the procedure under Article 7(1) TEU;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
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 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 6
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 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – subheading 2 a (new)
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 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17 a (new)
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 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)
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 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 c (new)
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.
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 d (new)
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 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 29
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 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 31
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 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38
Annex I – point 38
(38) In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, also known as the “Stop-Soros Package” (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. On 3 March 2018, UN human rights experts warned that the bill would lead to undue restrictions on the freedom of association and the freedom of expression in Hungary. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 22 March 2018 requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on the compatibility of the “Stop Soros” draft legislative package with international human rights standards.
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 38 a (new)
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 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 48
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 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51
Annex I – point 51
(51) On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. The Fundamental Rights Officer of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency visited Hungary in October 2016 as well as in March 2017, owing to the Officer’s concern that the Agency might be operating under conditions which do not commit to the respect, protection and fulfilment of the rights of persons crossing the Hungarian-Serbian border, that may put the Agency in situations that de facto violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Fundamental Rights Officer concluded in March2017 that the risk of shared responsibility of the Agency in the violation of fundamental rights in accordance with Article 34 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation remains very high.
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51
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 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 53
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 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 a (new)
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 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56 a (new)
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 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 57
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 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 a (new)
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 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58 c (new)
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)
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)
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.