12 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2017/2131(INL)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that, in April 2017, following the adoption of the Act amending the 2011 National Higher Education Act in Hungary, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission for an opinion and that in its conclusions the Venice Commission stated that the introduction of more stringent rules coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which were already established in Hungary and had been lawfully operating there for many years, appeared highlymight be problematic from the standpoint of rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees.freedom of education;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
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 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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and the launching of a dialogue with the relevant US authorities; notes, however, that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and that it has no reason to do so, in particular in the absence of a definitive ruling by the Court of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 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets deeplyNotes that the Commission’s attempts to settle the legal dispute with the Hungarian Government have not met with success so far and that the Commission was forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Jusled to a constructicve of the European Union, sincedialogue on the Act amending the National Higher Education Act runs counter to internal market freedoms, notably the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to, as the latter could undermine the right to academic freedom, and the right to education and the freedom to conduct business, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Draws attention to the facPoints out that the sintegregation ofproblems encountered by Roma children in education in Hungary remains a widespread and deep-rooted phenomenon which contribus a phenomenon which has long been observed in eastern Europe, in States with sizeable Roma communities and in particular in the Czech Republic and Hungary, and that this phenomenon could exacerbates tohe problem of the social exclusion of Roma,the Roma and could perhaps reducinge their chances of integration in the labour market and in society, even though it affects only 45% of Roma children, and not the majority of them;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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)
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 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’ published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), that media freedom in Hungary has been considerably restricted in the past year as a result of State intervention and increased State control; deplores, in this connection,emphasises that the closure and subsequent sale of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary, once again revealing the Hungarian Government’s intolerance vis- à-vis a critical pres was a response to the newspaper’s profitability problems;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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 extendedccording to ‘Reporters Without Borders’, the level of media concentration in Hungary has now reached too high a level, as its control over the media, with media concentration in Hungary reaching an unprecedented and grotesque level according to ‘Reporters Without Borders’unfortunately also the case in many other Member States, even in western Europe and in France;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the pro-government news website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this is clearly runs counter to the principle of media freedomthe personal opinion of the website’s staff which is covered by freedom of expression, an assertion which may be tested in the Hungarian courts if the persons whose names appear on the list bring legal action; emphasises that trivial details such as this should not inform a serious analysis of the situation with regard to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Hungary;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
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 mediaparticular as regards education and freedom of the media, while respecting Hungary’s sovereignty and governmental freedom; insists that Hungary must not be stigmatised on the basis of very broad criteria, such as the situation of minorities or the media; notes that all these matters must be the subject of an impartial and objective debate in which both sides can put their case and must not be exploited to put pressure on Hungary, in particular in the context of its firm stance on taking in migrants;