31 Amendments of Lívia JÁRÓKA related to 2012/2130(INI)
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 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. whereas a need for a new constitution has been existed since the amendment of the communist 1949 Constitution in 1989, regarded as provisional; whereas the adoption of the Fundamental Law of Hungary – which was- passed on 18 April 2011, exclusively with the votes of the members of the governing coalition and on the basis of a draft text prepared by the representatives of the governing coalition – was conducted in the exceptionally short time frame of one month, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text; finalised after a one-year long preparatory phase and more than one month long parliamentary debate dedicated exclusively to the Constitution- making process, where two opposition parties, based on their own political decision, chose to stay away from the discussions at the parliamentary sessions and remained reluctant to formulate proposals;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas, despite that Decfollowing that Decision - stating that permanent constitutional requirements must be formulated in the Fundamental Law instead of transitional provision,s - the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law all the transitional provisions annulled by the Constitutional Court based on formal reasons, with the exception of the provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulled provisions;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AB
Recital AB
AB. whereas the use of cardinal laws in Hungary has constitutional tradition since 1989, whereas the previous Constitution contained 28 subject matters and the Fundamental Law of Hungary refers to 26 subject matters to be defin(more or less the same matters) to be regulated by cardinal laws (that is laws the adoption of which requires a two-thirds majority), which cover a wide range of issues relating to Hungary's institutional system, the exercise of fundamental rights and important arrangements in society; and whereas the use of two-thirds majority laws - or so called "organic act" - 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-thirds majority laws;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AD
Recital AD
AD. whereas a number of issues, such as specific aspects of family law and the tax and pension systems, which usually fall under the ordinary decision-making powers of a legislature, are regulated by cacardinal laws are subject to the control of Constitutional Court in the same manner as ordinalry laws;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AL
Recital AL
AL. whereas the new Freedom of Information Act, adopted in July 2011, reformed the data protection institution by estabolisheding the institutionNational Authority for Data Protection instead of the Commissioner on Data Protection and Freedom of Information, thus prematurely terminating the six-year-long mandate of the Commissioner and transferring its powers to the newly-establishedtransferring its powers to the newly-established Authority with a new status which attaches legal consequences to its procedures; whereas in its Decision No. 3076/2013. the Constitutional Court confirmed that the restructuring of an organisation may be an explicit constitutional reason for the shortening of the mandate of civil servants; whereas the independence of the new National Agencuthority for Data Protection whose independence is currently under review by the Court of Justice of the European Unionhas not been questioned by the European Commission and as regards the independence of the Authority the Venice Commission acknowledged that it is far better ensured in Hungary than in many other European states; and whereas the European Commission initiated infringement procedure on the legality of the termination of the mandate of the former Commissioner for Data Protection, which case is currently pending before the European Court of Justice;
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 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AQ
Recital AQ
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BS a (new)
Recital BS a (new)
BSa. whereas the Hungarian government adopted the Act CCIII of 2011 (currently Act XXXVI of 2013) on the elections of the Members of Parliament of Hungary, which allows minority representatives for the first time to gain a seat in the Parliament, thus finally assures the political representation of minorities, requested over almost for two decades; and whereas the adopted Act CLXXIX of 2011 on the Rights of Minorities recognises and guarantees rights to its thirteen recognised nationalities and their members in the main areas of interest for the protection of their identity - education, culture, private and public use of the mother tongue, access to media and participation - and aims to improve and strengthen the available institutional arrangements for nationality self- government in these areas; and whereas in its Opinion CDL-AD(2012)011 the Venice Commission confirms that "Hungary has continued to pay particular attention to the promotion and protection of minority rights and to make specific efforts to ensure protection and preservation of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity, traditions and cultural heritage of its nationalities";
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BU
Recital BU
BU. whereas the lack and inadequacy of reaction by the law enforcement authorities during the previous government in cases of racially motivated crime12 - most notably in the case of the 2008-2009 'Roma killings', the most serious series of crime in Hungarian criminal history -, as well as in the case of violence against peaceful commemorators and innocent civilians by police forces in the autumn of 2006 acting on the orders of the government, infringing the most fundamental rights, human dignity and all acknowledged European values, has resulted in mistrust of the police forces;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital BW
Recital BW
BW. whereas, although intolerance against the members of Roma and Jewish communities is not a problem solely associated with Hungary and other Member States are faced with the same predicament, recent events have raised concerns as to the increase in anti-Roma and anti-Semitic discourse in Hungary; whereas the firm stance and zero tolerance of the Hungarian government against any incident of a racist motive, the repeated public stances of both the President and the Prime Minister against all forms of racism and intolerance, as well as the positive steps taken on the matter, (such as criminalising Holocaust- denial, establishing the Holocaust Remembrance Day, introducing Roma and Jewish history in the national curricula or dedicating 2014 as the Hungarian Holocaust Memorial Year) must be acknowledged;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that content regulations should be clear, allowing citizens and media companies to foresee in which cases they will be infringing the law and to determine the legal consequences of possible violations; notes with concernwelcomes that in despite of such detailed content regulations, recent anti-Roma public stances remained unsanctioned by Hungary's Media Authority and calls for balanced application of the legislationhaving only residual jurisdiction over cases of hate speech, Hungary's Media Authority has recently issued penalties for anti- Roma public stances;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Notes that the Hungarian Parliament has enacted legislation in criminal and civil areas to combat racial incitement and hate speech; welcomes in particular the Fourth Amendment, which provides the opportunity of effectuating civil actions against manifestations violating the dignity of communities - codifying the findings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court's resolutions of 1992 and 2008, as well as following the 1997 recommendations of the Council of Europe on tackling hate speech - and further strengthens the legal protection regarding the dignity of communities by supplementing the provisions of the Penal Code concerning incitement against a community and violence against a member of a community; points out, however, that legislation on its own cannot achieve the goal of creating a society free from intolerance and discrimination throughout Europe;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Underlines that the authorities in all Member States have a positive obligation to act to avoid violation of the rights of persons belonging to minorities and cannot remain neutral when faced with such violations; welcomes therefore the 2011 amendment of the Penal Code to prevent campaigns of extreme right groups aiming at the intimidation of Roma communities, threatening with up to three years imprisonment the 'provocative unsocial behaviour' which induces fear in a member of a national, ethnic, racial or religious community;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Acknowledges the eminent role of the Hungarian Government in launching the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies during its EU presidency in 2011 as well as its Framework Agreement of Cooperation with the National Roma Self-Government, defining specific numerical commitments until 2015 to foster the employment, education and health care for Roma;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 f (new)
Paragraph 45 f (new)
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 g (new)
Paragraph 45 g (new)
45g. Welcomes that as from 1 July 2013, Hungarian local governments can only receive financial support from public finances, EU funds or programmes based on international agreements, if they have an appropriate Equal Opportunities Program in effect;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
Paragraph 60 – indent 3
– to focus not only on specific infringements of EU law to be remedied notably through Article 258 TFEU, but to draw the consequences of a systemic change of the constitutional and legal system of a Member State where multiple and recurrent infringements unfortunately result in a state of legal uncertainty which not longer meets the requirements of Article 2 TEU;
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 485 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
Paragraph 61 – indent 20
– to takecontinue taking positive actions to ensure that the fundamental rights of all persons, including persons belonging to minorities, are respected;
Amendment 530 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76