The European Commission for Democracy through Law, also known as the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body that scrutinizes constitutional laws to ensure they adhere to democratic principles, released further criticism towards Hungary. An objective opinion is very much needed in a context of highly political, therefore highly biased debate about the new constitution of Hungary between the European Union and the Hungarian government.Currently the two most recent issues on the table are the ones concerning the freedom of religion and the independence of the judiciary. The opinions about the two questions were released on March 19.
On the freedom of religion, the opinion points out that „As a whole, the Act constitutes a liberal and generous framework for the freedom of religion. However, although few in number, some important issues remain problematic and fall short of international standards”. Recognizing the need for the new law in order to prevent some religious organizations from abusing the possibility of receiving public funding, the Venice Commission approved most of the law. At the same time, they criticized the unreasonably excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church. Concerns about the way the recognition procedure could be based on political decisions were raised, also pointing out the fact that the de-registration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches is not in line with international standards.
As a reaction to the critiques, some members of the Hungarian Socialist Party had already called for amending the law. Another opposition party, LMP indicated indicated that it will submit amendment motions because of the Venice Commission report, calling for an independent court to decide whether an organization is a church or not, rather than the Parliament.
The second issue concerning the legal status and remuneration of the judges, and the organization and administration of courts was addressed by the Venice Commission in a twice as long, 30-page opinion. Firstly, the radical nature of the change brought to the judicial system through the new law is emphasized. While accepting the need for changing the old legislation, the Commission pointed out a set of problematic elements, which together “threatens the independence of the judiciary”. The most important cause for this is said to be the concentration of powers in the hands of one person, the President of The National Judicial Office – a power that is unprecedented in Europe. Also, the President is elected without consultation of the members of the judiciary and not accountable in a meaningful way to anybody except in cases of violation of the law. Moreover, the very long term of office (nine years) adds to these concerns. After listing in 16 bullet points the main amendments to be made in the laws, the report explicitly points out that in the current form, the laws are „not only contradict European standards for the organization of the judiciary, especially its independence, but are also problematic as concerns the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.”
Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics said the cabinet will take issue with many points in the Venice Commission’s report. In reality, the government proposal that was submitted to the Parliament only slightly reduced the powers of the head of the National Judicial Office, according to Venice Commission secretary Thomas Markert, who also pointed out that transferring the now concentrated powers to a pluralistic body would be way more fortunate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment