Activities of Rui TAVARES related to 2012/2130(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012) PDF (352 KB) DOC (221 KB)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
– 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’), and 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 tTransitional pProvisions’), This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
– having regard to the Second Amendment of 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 Fundamental LawTransitional Provisions,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 17
Citation 17
– having regard to 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 tTransitional pProvisions (with thsome exception ofs 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 real transitional nature in this document,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 28
Citation 28
– having regard to the letter of 8 March 2013 sent by the Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr János Martonyi, to all his counterparts in the Member States of the EU explaining the purpose of the Fourth Amendment,
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the comprehensive and systematic constitutional and institutional reforms (a root-and-branch revision of the legal system), which the new Hungarian Government and Parliament has carried out in an exceptionally short time frame6 is unprecedented, and 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, whereas the situation in other Member States, although following a different pattern, may also need to be monitored, while enforcing 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;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
X. 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 month35 calendar days calculated from the presentation of proposal (T/2627) to the Parliament, thus restricting the possibilities for a thorough and substantial debate with the opposition parties and civil society on the draft text;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AA
Recital AA
AA. whereas, despite that Decision, the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, adopted on 11 March 2013, integrates into the text of the Fundamental Law allmost of the tTransitional pProvisions annulled by the Constitutional Court, with the exception of as well as other provision requiring electoral registration, as well as other previously- annulled provisionss found unconstitutional previously;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AF b (new)
Recital AF b (new)
AFb. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the possibility for two new kinds of constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court has been introduced, while the actio popularis for ex post review has been abolished;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AG
Recital AG
AG. whereas, under the Fundamental Law, the powers of the Constitutional Court to review budget-related lawsof ex post review of the constitutionality of budget-related laws from a substantive point of view have been substantially limited to violations of an exhaustive list of rights, thus obstructing the review of constitutionality in cases of breaches of other fundamental rights, such as the right to property, the right to a fair trial and the right not to be discriminated against;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AL
Recital AL
AL. whereas the new Freedom of Information Act, adopted in July 2011, abolished the institution 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-established National Agencuthority for Data Protection; whose independence isereas such changes are currently under review by the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Amendment 120 #
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 ConstitutionFundamental Law but are – together with detailed rules on the organization and administration of the judiciary – still set out in the amended cardinal laws,
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AU
Recital AU
AU. whereas on 11 March 2013 the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act No XX of 2013 amending the upper age limits with a view to partly complying with the rulings of the Hungarian Constitutional Court of 16 July 2012 and of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2012;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital CC
Recital CC
CC. whereas the Constitutional Court in that Decision, while not questioning the right of the parliament to specify the substantive conditions for recognition as a church, considered that the recognition of church status by a vote in Parliament might result in politically biased decisions, and whereas the Constitutional Court declared that the Act did not contain any obligation to provide detailed reasoning of a decision which refuses recognition of church status, that no deadlines were specified for the parliament's actions and that the Act did not ensure the possibility of effective legal remedy in cases of refusal or lack of a decision;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the above-mentioned Decision of 28 December 2012 of the Constitutional Court declaring that the Hungarian Parliament exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted a number of tpermanent and general rules in the Transitional pProvisions of the Fundamental Law containing permanent and general rules,
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers that use of the individual members' bills procedure to implement the constitution (through cardinal laws) does not constitute a transparent, accountable and democratic legislative process as in practice it restricts publict lacks the guarantees of ensuring meaningful social debate and consultation, and that it could run counter to Fundamental Law itself, which makes it an obligation for the government (and not individual members) to submit to the parliament the bills necessary for the implementation of the Fundamental Law;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. ConsidersWelcomes the introduction of a possibility for two new types of constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court; considers, however, that the limitation of constitutional jurisdiction relating to the laws on the central budget and taxes is in contradiction with the requirements of democracy, the rule of law and the principle of judicial review, as it weakens the institutional and procedural guarantees for the protection of a number of constitutional rights and for controlling the parliament's and the government's powers in the budgetary field;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that after the entry into force of the Fourth Amein light of the systematic amendments of the Fundamental Law at political will the Constitutional Court can no longer fulfil its role as the supreme body of constitutional protection as the legislature is now entitled to modify the Fu, especially since the Fourth Amendamental Law as it wishes even in the case of the explicitly prohibits the Court to review constitutional amendments contradicting other constitutional requirements and principles;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Regrets, however, that not all the recommendations of the Venice Commission have been implemented, in particular as regards the need to limit discretionary powers of the President of the National Judicial Office in the context of the transfer of cases, which potentially affect the right to a fair trial and the principle ofght to a lawful judge;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Regrets, however, that as regards presiding judges, Act XX of 2013 provides for their reinstatement in their original executive posts only if these judicial positions are still vacant, with the consequence that not allonly a few unlawfully dismissed judges are guaranteed to be reinstated in exactly the same position with the same duties and responsibilities they were holding before their dismissal;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Welcomes the continued constructive dialogue with international actors and stresses that the fruitful cooperation between the Council of Europe and the Hungarian Government bore tangible results, as reflected in Act XXXIII of 2013, which address severalome of the concerns previously highlighted in the legal assessments of media legislation, notably in relation to the appointment and election procedures for the presidents of the Media Authority and the Media Council;
Amendment 541 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Invites the Commission and the Council to each designate a representative who, together with the Parliament's rapporteur (‘Article 2 Trilogue’), will carry out an assessment of the information sent by the Hungarian authorities on the implementation of the recommendations contained in paragraph 61, as well as follow up on future possible modifications ensuring their compliance with Article 2;