Two years later, the Assembly takes stock of such progress
and notes in particular the following:
2.1 concerning the new Hungarian Church Act, it is clear that
the freedom of religion is important in Hungarian society. 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 this 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;
2.2 the right to decide to recognise a religious denomination
as a church remains within the competencies of the parliament, rather
than of an independent authority, as requested by the Assembly. There
is still no provision for the possibility to appeal against any
decision to grant or reject a request to be recognised as a church;
2.3 referring to the report on Hungary published on 16 December
2014 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the
Assembly notes with concern that the report found widespread presence
of racist and extremist organisations and movements in the country
and extremism in its political arena. These findings are also reflected
by the report on Hungary adopted by the European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on 19 March 2015. The Assembly therefore
urges Hungary to implement the recommendations by the Commissioner
for Human Rights and ECRI;
2.4 as required by the Constitutional Court, electoral constituencies
were redrawn to become more equal, a positive change recognised
by the 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;
2.5 with regard to the Constitutional Court:
2.5.1 no
statutory changes were made with respect to the limitation of its
jurisdiction on economic matters, which the Venice Commission has
clearly criticised;
2.5.2 although 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 constitution and has indeed done so in a number of its recent
decisions;
2.5.3 there is no legal requirement that Constitutional Court
judges should have been judges before. A “cooling-down” period should
be introduced in respect of members of parliament, between the end
of their political mandates and before they are eligible for election
as judges of the Constitutional Court, as recommended by the Assembly
in
Resolution 1941 (2013);
2.6 with 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 unique institution in Europe – has changed and
his powers are now limited;
2.7 concerning 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 urged the Hungarian Parliament, in its
Resolution 2035 (2015) on
the protection of the safety of journalists and of media freedom
in Europe, to pursue further reforms of its legislation in order
to improve the independence of the media regulatory authorities,
the State news agency and the public service broadcasters, to increase
transparency and pluralism in the private media, as well as to combat
racist expressions against ethnic minorities. In accordance with
Opinion 798/2015 of the Venice Commission on media legislation of
Hungary, the Assembly calls on Hungary to implement those recommendations. The
Assembly remains seized of the media situation in Hungary in the
framework of its future reports on attacks against journalists and
media freedom in Europe as well as on new methods of political influence over
independent journalism. The situation of racism and intolerance
also requires special attention;
2.8 as 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;
2.9 the Assembly recalls that certain constitutional and democracy
issues, such as the wide scope of the “cardinal laws” and the requirement
of qualified majorities for future changes pointed out by the Venice
Commission, still need to be addressed.
