People are free in a state where the consequences of their actions are predictable and where clean and transparent rules apply not only to them, but also to state authorities. In a state where the people know what the state expects from them, but they also know what they can expect from the state.
On 20 April 2012, Hungarian Minister of Justice and Public Administration, Mr. Tibor Navracsics submitted to Parliament a draft Parliamentary Resolution not to execute the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) taken in the case of Fratanolo v Hungary.
Fact sheets prepared by the HHC, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Eötvös Károly Policy Institute on some of the cardinal changes related to the rule of law in Hungary
The HHC, the HCLU and the Eötvös Károly Institute analysed the new laws on the court system and the Prosecution Service of Hungary.
The HHC and other Hungarian NGOs met the rapporteurs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission, and presented concerns related to the legislative steps of the Hungarian Government taken in the past 18 months, with special regard to the so-called cardinal laws.
Hungarian NGO’s send alternative answers to Viviane Reding, EU Fundamental Rights Commissioner
The Eötvös Károly Public Policy Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union analysed the draft of the new Constitutional Court Act, to be adopted under the new Hungarian Constitution. The three NGOs found that under the proposed new rules, the Constitutional Court would only be able to ensure respect for constitutional provisions to a limited extent. In turn, the powers of Parliament would increase and fundamental rights protection would weaken.
In their letter sent to the President of the European Commission, the Eötvös Károly Institute, the HHC and the HCLU claim that Hungarian legal provisions on the Data Protection Commissioner of Hungary violate relevant EU directives. The NGOs suggest the Commission to initiate a proceeding against Hungary.
On 21/09/2011, human rights NGOs met with delegates of the Hungarian Government to discuss future steps of implementing the recommendations accepted by the government in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and Transparency International Hungary jointly evaluated the first three months of the newly formed Parliament.
The Venice Commission issued an opinion on the new Constitution (the “Fundamental Law”) of Hungary in June 2011. Due to the lack of an official Hungarian translation and the misleading statements of government party representatives, the public may have a false impression of the content of the opinion. Therefore, the Eötvös Károly Institute, the HHC and the HCLU have prepared a joint analysis on the reactions of the Government in light of the Venice Commission’s opinion.
The Venice Commission issued an opinion on the new Constitution of Hungary in June 2011. Due to the lack of an official translation and the misleading statements of government party representatives, the public may have a false impression on the content on the opinion. Therefore, the Eötvös Károly Institute, the HHC and the HCLU have prepared a joint analysis on the opinion and the related reactions of the governance.
The opinion of the Venice Commission on the new Constitution of Hungary and the planned cardinal acts is on the agenda of the European Parliament tomorrow. The Hungarian Government declared publicly that it rejects the opinion of the Venice Commission, even though it considered the Commission as an important experts’ body before, e.g. in the case of the Slovakian language law. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee warns the Government that cardinal acts should be adopted in line with the opinion of the Venice Commission, otherwise Hungary will isolate itself from other democratic European states.
Ferenc Kőszeg, Founding President of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee gave a speech on 12 May 2011 in Moscow, on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the foundation of the Moscow Helsinki Group.
The HHC calls on the members of the Hungarian Parliament to not support the election of Béla Pokol as a new member of the Constitutional Court. Mr. Pokol has expressed his views about the separation of power and checks and balances numerous times. In a recent article, for example, Mr. Pokol claimed that “if in a given community a national or ethnic minority’s behavior leads to a higher crime rate then the principle of equal treatment might be discarded.”
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has prepared a summary on the events of concern happened in Hungary in the course of the country’s EU presidency, with special regard to the signs of racism and intolerance and the adoption of the new Constitution of Hungary.
Reducing, curtailing or altering special pension schemes with a retroactive effect would violate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting the right to property. The HHC, in partnership with the Independent Police Trade Union, is ready to provide legal assistance to police officers if Parliament decides to retroactively revoke police officers’ right to an early pension.
Reducing, curtailing or altering special pension schemes with a retroactive effect would violate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting the right to property. The HHC, in partnership with the Independent Police Trade … Read more
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee warns the Hungarian Parliament that reducing, curtailing or altering special pension schemes with a retroactive effect would violate the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to property.
Those Hungarians who decided not to return fully to the state’s pension scheme from their private pension funds lost their right to the portion of the state pension they would have received based on future contributions.
Those Hungarians who decided not to return fully to the state’s pension scheme from their private pension funds lost their right to the portion of the state pension they would have received based on future contributions.