Parliamentary Assembly

Draft resolution

1In June 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 1941 (2013) on a request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary. Expressing its concern “about the erosion of democratic checks and balances as a result of the new constitutional framework in Hungary”, the Assembly pointed out that “[t]he assessments of the constitution and several cardinal laws by the Venice Commission and Council of Europe experts raise a number of questions with regard to the compatibility of certain provisions with European norms and standards, including with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights”. More specifically, the Assembly:

1.1called on the Hungarian authorities to continue the open and constructive dialogue with the Venice Commission and all other European institutions and to take a specific set of measures with regard to the Act on Freedom of Religion and the Status of Churches, the Act on Elections of Members of the Parliament, the Act on the Constitutional Court, the Acts on the Judiciary and media legislation;

1.2noted that the new Hungarian Parliament, for the first time in the history of free and democratic Hungary, had amended the former constitution – inherited from the one-party system – into a new and modern Fundamental Law through a democratic procedure, after intensive debates in the parliament and with contributions from Hungarian civil society;

1.3while pointing out that, taken separately, each of the concerns outlined was inherently serious, warned against “the sheer accumulation of reforms that aim to establish political control of most key institutions while in parallel weakening the system of checks and balances”;

1.4decided, in conclusion, not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary but resolved “to closely follow the situation in Hungary and to take stock of the progress achieved in the implementation of this resolution”.

2Two years later, the Assembly takes stock of such progress and notes in particular the following:

2.1concerning the new Hungarian Church Act, it is clear that the freedom of religion is important in Hungarian society and there are no restrictions on Hungarian citizens following their chosen faith. However, in considering the registration of churches, the European Court of Human Rights found in its judgment of 8 April 2014 a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), read in the light of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), as such act violated the rights of religious communities when it stripped them of their church status. On 15 May 2015, the Hungarian authorities informed the Council of Europe that six churches were about to sign an agreement, while four others were about to sign a partial agreement, but this fact does not ensure compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights;

2.2as required by the Constitutional Court, electoral constituencies were redrawn to become more equal, a positive change recognised by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR). The opposition parties, however, claim that the situation is still not fair. Although the Assembly recommendations, echoed by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR, regarding the need for an independent body to deal with the drawing of electoral districts have not been met, the main concern does not seem to be the Act on the Election of Members of Parliament but the Act on Electoral Procedures, which has not so far been examined by the Venice Commission;

2.3with regard to the Constitutional Court:

2.3.1no statutory changes were made with respect to the limitation of its jurisdiction on economic matters, which the Venice Commission has clearly criticised;

2.3.2although no statutory changes were made following the opinion of the Venice Commission on the possibility for the Constitutional Court to refer back to its case law, the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in a decision taken in 2013, stated that it was possible to refer back to the substance of its case law created under the former Communist era constitution and has indeed done so in a number of its recent decisions;

2.3.3there is no legal requirement that Constitutional Court judges should have been judges before. A “cooling-down” period in respect of members of parliament between the end of their political mandates and before they could be elected as judge of the Constitutional Court should be introduced;

2.4with regard to the judiciary, the issue of the transfer of cases between judges was resolved through legislative amendments in the framework of the dialogue with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Generally, the position of the Chairperson of the National Judicial Office – a quite unique institution in Europe – has changed and his powers are now limited;

2.5concerning the issues related to the media, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, in his report on Hungary published in December 2014, pointed out that media in Hungary still suffered from both an inadequate legal framework and political pressures. For its part, the Assembly, at its January 2015 part-session, invited the Venice Commission to identify the provisions which pose a danger to the right to freedom of expression and information through the media in the Hungarian Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media Services and Mass Media, in the Hungarian Act CIV of 2010 on the Freedom of the Press and the Fundamental Rules of Media Content, and in the Hungarian tax laws on progressive tax on advertising revenue for media. The Venice Commission is expected to adopt its opinion on 19 and 20 June 2015;

2.6as regards the recent debate on the reintroduction of the death penalty in Hungary, the Assembly strongly underlines once again that the prohibition of the death penalty is enshrined in the core values of the Council of Europe and welcomes the withdrawal of any proposal on this matter.

3In conclusion, the Assembly welcomes the measures taken by the Hungarian authorities and their ongoing co-operation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and encourages them to continue the open and constructive dialogue with the different Council of Europe interlocutors and other international organisations. It therefore resolves to ask the Hungarian authorities to endeavour to solve the outstanding issues, but that special examination of these matters by the Assembly should now be concluded.