EU asked to intervene in “worrying” Hungarian constitution
11/04/2011
Submitted by
ILGA-Europe
Original source: http://www.neurope.eu/articles/EU...ng-Hungarian-constitution/105787.php
As Hungary finalises its new constitution, the European Commission has been asked to investigate its compatibility with EU law.
Speaking in the plenary chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 5 April, Liberal Group leader, Guy Verhofstadt, questioned Commission resident Jose Manuel Barroso, on the issue, describing the draft constitution as “worrying”.
According to Verhofstadt, the constitution represents a breach of the fundamental EU principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. “We all agree that the EU is more than a common market”, he said, before asking Barroso what the Commission will do to “defend the common European principles of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights”.
“You can be sure the European Commission will follow this matter”, answered Barroso, adding that the Commission will follow developments, and any implications for the EU as regards Union law or other international commitments. He hoped the constitution “will reflect the values on which the EU is based”. Many MEPs, as well as European NGOs, are not so sure. Some constitutional lawyers in Hungary have also expressed doubts that it will be compatible with EU human rights laws.
The draft text of the constitution was released on 14 March, and has been subsequently translated (with errors) into English. The parliamentary debate on the text began a week later, on 21 March. The constitution is expected to be adopted on 18 April. Now, in the final days before adoption, human rights NGOs are asking for the European Commission to intervene, at it had done during the controversy surrounding the new media laws in the country. Several issues are causing serious concern, and hope is being placed in the Commission’s ability to intercede and “question the behaviour” of the Hungarian government.
This is not the first time that Hungary, which holds the current EU presidency, has come under fire for its human rights record. On 31 March, Amnesty International issued a report highlighting government failings on human rights at the halfway point in its presidency, including “constitutional reforms hostile to homosexual people, the harassment of Roma communities by extremists, and a new media law which threatens freedom of expression”.
This time around, serious concerns are been raised both on the content of the text, as raised publicly by Verhofstadt and others, and also the manner in which it has so-far been drafted. For the Belgian MEP, the constitution offers the real prospect of banning both abortion and gay marriages, a concern shared by human rights groups, and it will see “a curbing on the institutions of government”. One clause in the draft, and raised by Verhofstadt in parliament,which would allow parents to vote on behalf of their under-age children, has reportedly been abandoned, but further concerns that it will allow for the prospect of life imprisonment have been raised by Hungarian NGOs as well as Amnesty international.
“The minimum requirement for creating a stable Constitution is that the fundamental law is adopted in a process which entails the possibility of the law being accepted by the overwhelming majority of society. The current, highly unusual way of designing the Constitution makes one doubt whether this document will be worthy of being called the Constitution of Hungary”, reads an analytical text, jointly compiled by the human rights group, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Eötös Károly Institute, which sets out objections to the constitution both in content, including an allegiance to a “national creed”, and the manner in which it has been brought into being.
The text, which outlines the most problematic aspects of the draft constitution, reinforces the fears expressed by Verhofstadt. As well as outlining various points of discrimination, the document also looks at how “the draft Constitution reduces even further the remaining checks and balances on state power”, including curtailments of the constitutional court, and the extension of the tenures of current, key judicial and political posts. The chief Prosecutor, as well as the head of the national Audit Office will now remain in the hands of the governing Fidesz party for three election cycles, while the government majority can fill the Chair of the National Bank until 2022.
Furthermore, “as of March, 2011 we are not aware of the persons who are in reality framing the new Constitution for Hungary”, the document states. “The only political body that has had a democratic legitimacy in this matter is the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee, which was vested with the responsibility to prepare the Constitution. The Ad-Hoc Committee officially stopped its work at the end of 2010. However, the document that the Ad-Hoc Committee subsequently prepared was labeled as a “working document,” in sharp contrast with the original mission of the Ad-Hoc Committee”.
“The Hungarian Parliament, the only legal body that can amend and adopt the Constitution, has never given any mandate to the Government to work on the text of the new Constitution. Instead, the Parliament, via a decree, invited every member of the Parliament on 7th March to introduce a draft Constitution by 15th March. The decree only requested the government to provide the MPs with assistance in their work”.
The fears expressed by these, and other groups, is that this constitution represents not the will of the people but the desires of one single political party. For them, the hope is that the EU, in the shape of the Commission and Parliament, will repeat its actions form the media case, and ensure that democratic rights continue to exist in all member states.
As Hungary finalises its new constitution, the European Commission has been asked to investigate its compatibility with EU law.
Speaking in the plenary chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 5 April, Liberal Group leader, Guy Verhofstadt, questioned Commission resident Jose Manuel Barroso, on the issue, describing the draft constitution as “worrying”.
According to Verhofstadt, the constitution represents a breach of the fundamental EU principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. “We all agree that the EU is more than a common market”, he said, before asking Barroso what the Commission will do to “defend the common European principles of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights”.
“You can be sure the European Commission will follow this matter”, answered Barroso, adding that the Commission will follow developments, and any implications for the EU as regards Union law or other international commitments. He hoped the constitution “will reflect the values on which the EU is based”. Many MEPs, as well as European NGOs, are not so sure. Some constitutional lawyers in Hungary have also expressed doubts that it will be compatible with EU human rights laws.
The draft text of the constitution was released on 14 March, and has been subsequently translated (with errors) into English. The parliamentary debate on the text began a week later, on 21 March. The constitution is expected to be adopted on 18 April. Now, in the final days before adoption, human rights NGOs are asking for the European Commission to intervene, at it had done during the controversy surrounding the new media laws in the country. Several issues are causing serious concern, and hope is being placed in the Commission’s ability to intercede and “question the behaviour” of the Hungarian government.
This is not the first time that Hungary, which holds the current EU presidency, has come under fire for its human rights record. On 31 March, Amnesty International issued a report highlighting government failings on human rights at the halfway point in its presidency, including “constitutional reforms hostile to homosexual people, the harassment of Roma communities by extremists, and a new media law which threatens freedom of expression”.
This time around, serious concerns are been raised both on the content of the text, as raised publicly by Verhofstadt and others, and also the manner in which it has so-far been drafted. For the Belgian MEP, the constitution offers the real prospect of banning both abortion and gay marriages, a concern shared by human rights groups, and it will see “a curbing on the institutions of government”. One clause in the draft, and raised by Verhofstadt in parliament,which would allow parents to vote on behalf of their under-age children, has reportedly been abandoned, but further concerns that it will allow for the prospect of life imprisonment have been raised by Hungarian NGOs as well as Amnesty international.
“The minimum requirement for creating a stable Constitution is that the fundamental law is adopted in a process which entails the possibility of the law being accepted by the overwhelming majority of society. The current, highly unusual way of designing the Constitution makes one doubt whether this document will be worthy of being called the Constitution of Hungary”, reads an analytical text, jointly compiled by the human rights group, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Eötös Károly Institute, which sets out objections to the constitution both in content, including an allegiance to a “national creed”, and the manner in which it has been brought into being.
The text, which outlines the most problematic aspects of the draft constitution, reinforces the fears expressed by Verhofstadt. As well as outlining various points of discrimination, the document also looks at how “the draft Constitution reduces even further the remaining checks and balances on state power”, including curtailments of the constitutional court, and the extension of the tenures of current, key judicial and political posts. The chief Prosecutor, as well as the head of the national Audit Office will now remain in the hands of the governing Fidesz party for three election cycles, while the government majority can fill the Chair of the National Bank until 2022.
Furthermore, “as of March, 2011 we are not aware of the persons who are in reality framing the new Constitution for Hungary”, the document states. “The only political body that has had a democratic legitimacy in this matter is the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee, which was vested with the responsibility to prepare the Constitution. The Ad-Hoc Committee officially stopped its work at the end of 2010. However, the document that the Ad-Hoc Committee subsequently prepared was labeled as a “working document,” in sharp contrast with the original mission of the Ad-Hoc Committee”.
“The Hungarian Parliament, the only legal body that can amend and adopt the Constitution, has never given any mandate to the Government to work on the text of the new Constitution. Instead, the Parliament, via a decree, invited every member of the Parliament on 7th March to introduce a draft Constitution by 15th March. The decree only requested the government to provide the MPs with assistance in their work”.
The fears expressed by these, and other groups, is that this constitution represents not the will of the people but the desires of one single political party. For them, the hope is that the EU, in the shape of the Commission and Parliament, will repeat its actions form the media case, and ensure that democratic rights continue to exist in all member states.
