9 Amendments of Carlos COELHO related to 2017/2131(INL)
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 10
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 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 18
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 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 23 a (new)
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)
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 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25
Annex I – point 25
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 27 a (new)
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 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 32
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 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34
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 161 #
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. 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 legislative package will deprive NGOs of legal remedy to appeal against arbitrary decisions.