Changes from plenary report to adopted text

RemovedPROPOSALS

RemovedThe Committee on Culture and Education calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

RemovedAct amending the National Higher Education Act

Removed1. Acknowledges that in the absence of unified Union norms or models in the field of education, it is for the Hungarian government to establish, and periodically review, the most appropriate regulatory framework applicable to foreign universities on its territory and to seek to improve this framework, as also stated in the conclusions of the Venice Commission; stresses, however, that according to Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the Union is to contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their actions, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems as well as their cultural and linguistic diversity; stresses furthermore that the education laws implemented by the Hungarian government must be fully compatible with the internal market freedoms and fundamental rights;

Removed2. Recalls that, in April 2017, following the adoption of the Act amending the National Higher Education Act in Hungary, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission for an opinion and that in its conclusions the Venice Commission stated that the introduction of more stringent rules coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences for foreign universities which were already established in Hungary and had been lawfully operating there for many years appeared highly problematic from the standpoint of rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees.

Removed3. Acknowledges that the Hungarian government has acceded to some of the demands in the resolution of the European Parliament of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, in particular as regards the suspension of the deadlines established in the Act amending the National Higher Education Act and the launching of a dialogue with the US authorities responsible for the Central European University; regrets, however, that the cooperation agreement between the Hungarian government and the government of the Central European University’s country of seat, which has been ready since last year, still has not been signed by the Hungarian Prime Minister; regrets furthermore that the Hungarian Government has not rescinded the Act amending the National Higher Education Act;

Removed4. Notes, further, that suspending deadlines on a long-term basis is not conducive to planning certainty for universities, their teaching staff and students; welcomes, in that connection, the fact that the Hungarian authorities visited the US State of New York on 13 April 2018 with a view to allaying the Hungarian government’s remaining reservations about the Central European University; regrets, however, that the cooperation agreement between the Hungarian government and the government of the Central European University’s country of seat remains unsigned and unratified although the Hungarian authorities indicated during the visit that the Central European University would now meet the requirements of Lex CEU; calls, therefore, on the Hungarian government to unblock and pursue the conclusion of the cooperation agreement on the Central European University, which has already been negotiated, with the US State of New York, so that the university can carry out its work properly;

Removed5. Regrets that the legal dispute between the Commission and Hungarian government concerning the Act amending the National Higher Education Act has not been settled so far, leading to the initiation by the Commission of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union; stresses that, while Hungary has the right to have its own education laws, those laws must not run counter to the internal market freedoms, in particular the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, and to the right to academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct business, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

RemovedSegregation of Roma children

Removed6. Expresses concern over the fact that multiple forms of daily discrimination in general and the segregation of Roma children in education in particular remain a structural and deep-rooted phenomenon in Hungary and in other European countries, contributing to the social exclusion of Roma and reducing their chances of integration in the education system, the labour market and in society as a whole; recalls that the issue of Roma segregation has been subject of a number of recommendations from the Commission and therefore calls on the Hungarian government to follow those recommendations and implement effective measures;

RemovedMedia policy

Removed7. Is of the opinion that the Commission, when reviewing the media legislation of 2010, was not thorough enough and failed to take into consideration the values set out in Article 2 TFEU; recalls that in June 2015 the Venice Commission published its opinion on media legislation in Hungary, where it stated that several issues require revision as a priority, if the Hungarian authorities wish not only to improve the situation with regard to media freedom in the country, but also to change the public perception of media freedom;

Removed8. Considers that the media law of 2010 with its insufficient cross-ownership rules resulted in a distorted and imbalanced media market; stresses that the Hungarian market has become more concentrated, plenty of independent local stations disappeared and the previously flourishing segment of community radios has also been losing out; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the media outlet has been receiving public funds;

Removed9. Is of the opinion that media council (into which all the members could be delegated only by the governing party since 2010) actively helped the restructuration of the radio market in order to satisfy the prevailing political needs; is outraged by the fact that the media council has failed to guarantee even the minimum level of balance in the media;

Removed10. Emphasises that state advertising spending disproportionately favours certain media enterprises over others; points out that state spending was higher in 2017 than ever before and state advertisements are typically awarded to media that are loyal to the government, which are predominantly controlled by oligarchs;

Removed11. Recalls that in May 2017, the Parliament of Hungary adopted a law raising the country’s advertising tax from 5,3 % to 7,5 %, which raises worries about possible pressure on the remaining independent media in the country; is concerned that political party advertising is only allowed in public and private media if it is free of charge, which has raised concerns in terms of limiting access to information, since private media may not be willing to broadcast free advertising; believes that it is necessary to ensure that public advertising contracts are concluded with all media in a fair and transparent manner;

Removed12. Emphasises that the so-called public media broadcaster (MTVA), which includes all public radio and television stations, uncritically disseminates the government’s messages and, in particular, continuously reflects the anti-refugee or Stop-Soros campaigns carried out by the government; stresses that the public television station M1 as a 24-hour news channel offers more possibilities than previously for propaganda and for transmitting the messages of the government;

Removed13. Points out that the public media broadcaster does not comply with transparency requirements, provides no publicly accessible information for tracking the spending of public funds and, unlike many European public broadcasters, has no annual report, and that is it not known how it defines or discharges public service responsibilities;

Removed14. Recalls that media freedom and pluralism are fundamental rights enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and constitute the essential foundations of democratic societies; urges, therefore, the Hungarian government to guarantee media freedom and pluralism as a key value of the Union;

Removed15. Stresses, with reference to the ‘Democracy Index 2017’, published recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), and to the 2018 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders that, as a result of State intervention and increased State control, media freedom and pluralism have been a source of major concern in Hungary in the past years; expresses its concerns, in that connection, over the sale and subsequent closure of Népszabadság, one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Hungary;

Removed16. Stresses that journalists of independent media are often seriously hindered while doing their job, media outlets are regularly banned from entering the Parliament building and spaces are restricted in the Parliament for journalist to ask and interview politicians;

Removed17. Is concerned that the Hungarian government, after Hungary’s last independent regional newspapers were taken over by oligarchs close to the government, has recently further extended its control over the media, with media concentration in Hungary reaching an unprecedented and grotesque level according to ‘Reporters Without Borders’; believes that it is necessary to strengthen the transparency of media ownership, especially if the entrepreneur has been awarded public contracts;

Removed18. Regrets that the pro-government news website 888.hu recently published a black list of journalists working for foreign media, who are described as foreign propagandists for Soros, and that this clearly runs counter to the principle of media freedom;

RemovedNon-governmental organisations

Removed19. Is deeply worried by the shrinking space for civil society organisations in Hungary; regrets in this regard the attempts of the Hungarian government to control NGOs and to restrict their ability to carry out their legitimate work, notably through the Lex NGO and the Lex Stop Soros;

Removed20. Points out that the Lex NGO, a law on foreign-funded NGOs, interferes unduly with fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to freedom of association, introduces unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on the free movement of capital and raises concerns about the respect for the right to protection of private life and of personal data; emphasises that the Commission was therefore forced to initiate proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the Lex NGO; regrets deeply the fact that, despite the ongoing proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the Lex NGO, the Hungarian government introduced another law in February 2018, the so-called Lex Stop Soros, which intends to further restrict the right of association and the work of NGOs; deplores in this regard the intention of the Hungarian government to force-close all Soros-funded NGOs and to require a state permit for NGOs to work in the field of migration; is deeply concerned that the proposed laws could serve as a model within the Union that will undermine the valuable work of civil society organisations fighting for the respect of human rights, a danger that the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has recently underlined; draws further attention to the fact that the governing party has built a network of government-organised NGOs, supported by public funds, whose main activity is to echo the government’s messages and to organise demonstrations on the side of the government;

RemovedIn general

Removed21. Believes that the situation in the field of higher education, Roma education, media freedom and pluralism and the situation of NGOs in Hungary represent a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU); therefore urges the Commission to continue to deploy all means available under the Treaties; 22. is of the opinion, in this connection, that the launch of the Article 7 TEU procedure is warranted in order to uphold the Union’s common values and to guarantee the rule of law;

Removed23. Calls on the Commission to continue to closely monitor the unfolding legislative process and the extent to which the proposals breach Union law, including fundamental rights, and to make any evaluation promptly and publicly available;

Removed24. Calls on the OSCE/ODIHR to engage in a follow up process within the election observation mission activities after the outcome of the Hungary’s parliamentary elections and to closely monitor the misuse of the freedom of expression and the abuse of the administrative resources;

Removed25. Calls on the Commission to increase funding for independent projects in the field of media freedom and pluralism such as, among others, the Media Pluralism Monitor, mapping violations to media freedom and supporting journalists under threat.