Activities of Marie-Christine VERGIAT related to 2017/2131(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
The situation in Hungary (debate) FR
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded PDF (655 KB) DOC (134 KB)
Amendments (25)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Union is founded on the values ofrespect for the bedrock of values enshrined in particular in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights1a, the European Social Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two New York covenants affirming respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as also set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and whereas those values, which values are common to the Member States, and constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union; __________________ 1 a Does not apply to English version.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas any clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU does not concern solely the individual Member State where the risk materialises but has an impact on the very nature of the Union and its citizens’ rightsthe rights of its citizens and all those present on its territory;
Amendment 56 #
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. The Hungarian government also conducted consultations entitled ‘Migration and Terrorism’ in May 2015 and against a so- called ‘Soros Plan’ in October 2017. These consultations draw dangerous parallels between terrorism and migration and promote the fantasy of a so-called conspiracy against Hungary.
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 11
Annex I – point 11
(11) As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, the administration of courts became more centralised and the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJOC.
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 17 a (new)
Annex I – point 17 a (new)
(17a) On 2 May 2018, a report of the National Judicial Council, composed of 15 judges elected by their peers, mandated to examine how the President, Tunde Hanro, discharged her duties, has called into question the autonomy of the Hungarian judicial system. The Council states in its report that Ms Hanro has used her position of power to influence the appointment of senior judges.
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20
Annex I – point 20
(20) On 7 December 2016, while co- chaired by the French government, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee, which brings together 75 countries and hundreds of civil society organisations campaigning around the world for transparency of public life, in co-construction with civil society, received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership. T; this occurred while the Government of Hungary had beenwas under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations in particular regarding their space to operate in the country.
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 a (new)
Annex I – point 20 a (new)
(20a) The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has conducted 42 investigations in Hungary, 85% of which have resulted in judicial and financial recommendations, of which only 33% have been followed by the Hungarian national authorities. OLAF has in particular denounced ‘serious irregularities’, ‘conflicts of interest’ and referred to ‘an organised fraud scheme’ in the context of an investigation into the award of a public contract for street lamps financed by EU funds.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 20 b (new)
Annex I – point 20 b (new)
(20b) Hungary has lost 19 points in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index since 2008, making the country the lowest ranked of the European Union Member States, while Hungary benefits from European funding amounting to 4.4% of its GDP or more than half of public investment.
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 25 a (new)
Annex I – point 25 a (new)
(25a) Hungary also lost 2 places in Reporters Without Borders' 2018 World Press Freedom Index (RSF), so that it now occupies 73rd place, compared to 40th place in 2011.
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 34 a (new)
Annex I – point 34 a (new)
(34a) On 12 April 2018, the weekly Figyelo published a list of 200 names of personalities accused of belonging to ‘a network of speculators in the service of George Soros’; Prime Minister Viktor Orban had stated during the election campaign that he had in his possession a list of 2000 persons paid by George Soros; these announcements have created a climate of mistrust towards a certain number of civil society players which has the capacity to undermine freedom of expression, freedom of association and academic freedom in Hungary.
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 37 a (new)
Annex I – point 37 a (new)
(37a) On 28 February 2018, the Budapest Metropolitan Court ruled at first instance that the Prime Minister's Office had violated the right of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) to a good reputation in the ‘Stop Soros’ national consultation questionnaire. The Court ruled that the statements in question 5 regarding the HHC were false and cast the HHC in a misleading light. The Court asked the Hungarian government to apologise and pay HUF 2 million in damages to the HHC.
Amendment 159 #
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. One of these draft laws aims to tax any external NGO funding from outside Hungary, including EU funding, at a rate of 25% which could constitute a misappropriation of EU funds and it questions the compatibility of such a provision with European law.
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 49 a (new)
Annex I – point 49 a (new)
(49a) In its judgment of 17 January 2017, Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, and in its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning two Roma persons who were victims of abuse, threats and racist insults during a demonstration against the Roma.
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50
Annex I – point 50
(50) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police. The Fundamental Rights Officer of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency visited Hungary in October 2016 and in March 2017 to check that the conditions under which the Agency operates allow it to ensure the respect, protection and enforcement of the rights of persons crossing the Hungarian- Serbian border. These conditions involve the risk of a de facto violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Fundamental Rights Officer concluded in March 2017 that the risk of the Agency bearing a share of the responsibility in the event of a violation of fundamental rights, in accordance with Article 34 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, remains very high.
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 50 a (new)
Annex I – point 50 a (new)
(50a) On 23 February 2018, three organisations - the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), the Validity Foundation and the European Network on Independent Living - asked the Hungarian government and the Commission to suspend and reformulate projects aimed at removing people from specialised institutions funded by the Commission and managed by the Hungarian government. The estimated cost of these projects affecting 2 500 persons with disabilities is HUF 24 billion (EUR 76 million). The analysis of the projects by these organisations shows a violation of EU funding rules, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the obligations of Hungary under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Amendment 214 #
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. On 10 April 2017, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for an immediate suspension of Dublin transfers to Hungary.
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 51 a (new)
Annex I – point 51 a (new)
(51a) In 2015, out of 480 judicial appeals relating to applications for international protection, there were 40 positive decisions, i.e. 9%. In 2016, for 775 appeals, there were 5 positive decisions, i.e. 1% while there were 0 appeals in 2017. While there is no reason to question the independence of the judiciary in Hungary as a whole and in particular the courts of first instance, this trend in the rate of rejections of applications for international protection raises concerns about the autonomy and the role of judges of the second instance.
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 52 a (new)
Annex I – point 52 a (new)
(52a) In its judgment of 5 July 2016, O.M. v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights found that here had been a violation of the applicant's right to freedom and security, in particular a failure to take into account the applicant's vulnerability in a closed centre because of his sexual orientation.
Amendment 221 #
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 stated that the violent expulsions of migrants and refugees from Hungary to Serbia raised 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 in the Röszke and Tompa transit areas often encourage asylum seekers to seek illegal means of crossing the border, using traffickers. The Special Representative concluded that Hungarian legislation and practices needed to be aligned with the requirements of the ECHR. 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. 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 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 a (new)
Annex I – point 54 a (new)
(54a) On 14 March 2018, Ahmed H., a Syrian resident in Cyprus who had tried to help his family flee Syria and cross the Serbian-Hungarian border in September 2015, was sentenced by a Hungarian court to 7 years' imprisonment and 10 years expulsion from the country on the basis of charges of ‘terrorist acts’; this condemnation questions the application of the laws against terrorism in Hungary as well as the right to a fair trial;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 b (new)
Annex I – point 54 b (new)
(54b) On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the legal proceedings initiated by Hungary and Slovakia against Council Decision 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015. However, since that decision, Hungary has not relocated a single asylum seeker and has not complied with the decision.
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 54 c (new)
Annex I – point 54 c (new)
(54c) In 2017, out of 3397 applications for international protection filed in Hungary, 2880 applications were rejected - a very high rejection rate of 69.1%.
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 55 a (new)
Annex I – point 55 a (new)
(55a) In the AIDA (Asylum Information Database) report on Hungary updated on 31 December 2017, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee highlights several elements that violate respect of the right of asylum, in particular the failure to respect the right of a person to file an application for international protection in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, the increasing number of reports of violence perpetrated at the Hungarian-Serbian border by the police, the lack of legal status of transit zones, the failure to respect the principle of access to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the ECHR, difficulties in accessing legal aid, non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR, lack of identification procedures for vulnerable persons, practices of age assessment of unaccompanied minors which fail to respect the fundamental rights of children.
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 56
Annex I – point 56
(56) In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was introduced in July 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and is detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border. The Committee noted with concern that expulsions had been carried out indiscriminately and that persons subjected to this measure were not able to apply for asylum or to appeal against this measure. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push- backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid.
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 58
Annex I – point 58
(58) The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the ground that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. The Committee also concluded that in Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the ground that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, on the ground that equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and on the grounds that it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families. With regard to trade union rights, the Committee has stated that the right of workers to paid leave is not sufficiently secured, that no promotion measures have been taken to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements, while the protection of workers by such agreements is clearly weak in Hungary and in the civil service the right to call a strike is reserved to those unions which are parties to the agreement concluded with the government; the criteria used to determine public servants who are denied the right to strike go beyond the scope of the Charter; public service unions can only call a strike with the approval of the majority of the staff concerned.