JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Author: pmadmin

Hungary: MEPs condemn Orbán’s death penalty statements and migration survey -Press release

Posted on

The European Parliament asks the European Commission to assess the situation in Hungary and to establish an EU mechanism to monitor democracy, the rule of law and human rights annually across the EU, in a resolution voted on Wednesday. Reinstating the death penalty in Hungary would breach the EU Treaties and Charter of fundamental rights, and the wording of the Hungarian government’s public consultation on migration is “highly misleading, biased and unbalanced”, it says.

In the resolution wrapping up the 19 May plenary debate with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, MEPs condemn Mr Orbán’s repeated statements on the possibility of reinstating the death penalty in Hungary and stress the duty of prime ministers to “lead by example”.

Death penalty would trigger EU Treaty Article 7 sanctions

The death penalty is “incompatible with the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights on which the union is founded”, they stress, adding that any member state reintroducing the death penalty would be “in violation of the Treaties and of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights”. They note that a serious breach by a member state would trigger the EU Treaty Article 7 procedure, which could lead to the withdrawal of its voting rights in the Council.

Migration consultation misleading, biased and unbalanced

MEPs also denounce the Hungarian government’s public consultation on migration. Although “public consultation can be an important and valuable tool for governments to develop policies”, “the content and the language used in this particular consultation is “highly misleading, biased, and unbalanced; establishing a biased and direct link between migratory phenomena and security threats”, they say.

Need for better monitoring of democracy and the rule of law

They call on the Commission to “immediately initiate an in-depth monitoring process on the situation of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary and to report back on this matter to the European Parliament and Council before September 2015”.

The Commission is also asked to present a proposal to establish an EU mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, as a tool for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties as signed by all member states, MEPs say. They also instruct Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to help elaborate this proposal by drafting a non-binding resolution to be voted by Parliament as a whole by the end of this year.

The resolution was passed by 362 votes to 247, with 88 abstentions.

Background for editors

On 28 April, Mr Orbán made a statement claiming the need for a public debate on the death penalty. Following a phone conversation with him on 30 April, European Parliament President Martin Schulz issued a statement saying that Mr Orbán had assured him that the Hungarian government had no plans to take any steps to reintroduce the death penalty and that the Hungarian government would respect and honour all EU Treaties and legislation. However, on the next day, 1 May, Mr Orbán then reiterated his statements on the issue in a national public radio interview.

The public consultation on migration was launched by the Hungarian government in May.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs debated death penalty on 7 May, after Parliament’s Conference of Presidents (President Schulz and political group leaders) had asked the committee to examine the situation in Hungary as a “matter of urgency”.
Procedure:  non-legislative resolution

Investigative journalism fund – Greens press release

Posted on

Commission under fire for blocking proposed fund

The Greens/EFA group in the EU Parliament today submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission for blocking a proposed funding programme under the EU budget aimed at promoting cross-border investigative journalism. The complaint focuses on the Commission’s use of dubious administrative procedures not to implement a programme for investigative journalism, despite the fund having been proposed by the European Parliament in 2009 and officially included as an EU budget line from 2010-14 (1). Commenting on the case, Green MEP Benedek Javor said:

“It is unacceptable that the Commission has used underhand administrative methods to block this important initiative. The role of investigative journalism in a democracy is vital, as has been confirmed by the recent Luxembourg Leaks revelations. The EU should be doing all in its power to promote this important democratic tool and that was the reason the European Parliament proposed this fund. It is inexplicable and reflects badly on the credibility of the EU for the Commission to go to such lengths to prevent this programme from taking off.”

Green budgetary spokesperson Helga Truepel said:

“We are now calling on the Ombusman to investigate the matter and the methods used by the Commission to block the funding. In particular, it is important to clarify how the conclusions of the feasibility study carried out were altered and who in the Commission was responsible for this. The Greens/EFA group will continue to push for this programme to be included in the negotiations on the forthcoming EU budget, as we have done in the past.”

(1) The European Parliament proposed a research grant scheme to support cross-border investigative journalism in 2009. A budget line was included in the EU budget between 2010 and 2014 but the European Commission made sure the fund was not implemented during that period and the budget line was dropped in 2015 without any trial run either as a pilot project or a preparatory action.

In addition, the conclusions of the feasibility study commissioned in the framework of the preparatory actions and carried out by an expert team were reversed from positive to negative when the study was finally published in March 2015. The expert team last week issued a statement complaining about the manipulation of its findings: http://www.aej-uk.org/investigative-pr.pdf

A European statute for whistleblowers

Posted on

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Democracy in our time faces serious challenges. I won’t attempt to take stock of them now, but one of the challenges to mention would surely be the credibility of the democratic ideal. While authoritarian ideologies are on the rise even on the European periphery, the question whether democracy can live up to the ideals that make it preferable to other forms of government is urgent.

Corporate influence on governance and corruption are at the top of the list of phenomena that undermine the credibility of democracy. I come from a country in which, after the fall of the Communist regime when we tried to make a new start with democracy, we ran into problems that soon led to disillusion and disenchantment. Besides the inability of democratic governments to deal with the social crisis that emerged from the transformational crisis of the economy, corruption was the factor that contributed most to the deterioration of social trust, the decay of trust in fairness, in the accountability of power, in the rule of law, and ultimately in democracy itself. Now my country is taking an authoritarian turn. It should be taken as a warning signal. Democracy is not bulletproof. Its institutions cannot themselves sustain their own legitimacy. Democracy is also a stance on the norms of social cooperation, and it is only if this stance is shared by the large majority that democracy is in the safe. So corruption is not just a criminal matter. It is a failure of social cooperation that is potentially destructive of the democratic ideal.

It is partly because in most cases corruption is the business of the people of power. This is obvious in the case of political corruption, but it equally applies to other cases, too. Even at a normal workplace, if a corrupt transaction is to take place, it requires at least one player who is entrusted with responsibility and discretional power to make decisions. Corruption is an abuse of this power and trust. If corruption is relatively scarce, then it is an irregularity, a disturbance in the normal flow of social cooperation. If corruption is widespread, then it is a general experience about how the people in charge exercise their power.

There is an important consequence of this fact. If corruption is the business of the people of power, then those who stand up against it by exposing particular cases to law-enforcement or to the public are in danger. Even in countries in which corruption is perceived to be the rule rather than the exception, particular corrupt deals are usually made in secrecy. The latency of corruption is the bottleneck that prevents authorities to stand up against it, or in some case, it is the excuse for them to turn a blind eye. Secrecy is maintained in part by the ability of powerful people to crush the lives of those who would want to expose their wrongdoings. The extent to which a society comes to the aid and protection of the people who come forward and blow the whistle nevertheless, is a measure of a society’s democratic stance on social cooperation.

We are not doing particularly good in this respect. Legal provisions for whistleblower-protection are scarce in most EU countries. Very few member states have a comprehensive legislation providing for safe and accessible procedures for whistleblowers, and effective guaranties that would protect them against the retaliation and vengeance of those who they have crossed. About half of the member states have partial legislation on the subject providing legal protection to employees who come forward to report wrongdoings they witness at their workplace. In some EU countries the legal protection of whistleblowers is next to none.

If it is true that whistleblower protection is an issue that is central to the quality and credibility of democracy, then it is a proper subject for agreements and conventions that set international standards on such matters. The United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2003 is the first legal instrument that is global, adopts a fairly comprehensive approach to corruption, and is binding to its parties at least in some of its provisions. Regrettably, the protection of whistleblowers is not among the Convention’s binding provisions. Similar is the situation at the European level. There are EU policies, including binding legislation, on several aspects of corruption, but not on whistleblower protection. In October 2013, the last Parliament clearly expressed its wish to change this. In its resolution about the final report of the CRIM Committee it called on the Commission to draft a directive on the subject. The last Commission, however, declined. In this year’s Report on the protection of the EU’s financial interest, the Parliament restated its call for EU legislation on whistleblower protection. This is part of the reason we are here.

In most cases whistleblowers speak out because they feel moral obligated to protect the public interest. They do so at great personal cost. They risk their jobs, careers, often the peace and normality of their personal lives, and sometimes their safety and possibly even their lives. By blowing the whistle they usually unleash an enemy that is powerful and has every resources to use the law against them. It should be clear that the law and the society stands by their side.

If there is a progress is achieved in this matter, it is usually because of the activism and endurance of NGOs that are pushing for it. I am honoured to welcome the representatives of some of these NGOs here today. Our goal is to create a platform that influences European law-making. I pass the floor to you in the hope that it will work.

 

Biodiversity is too low on the political agenda

Posted on

Benedek Jávor’s article on Europe’s World:

Biodiversity is not high enough on the political agenda, despite the fact that trends recently reported are almost entirely negative. The European Environment Agency’s 2015 State of the Environment Report confirms that Europe’s natural capital is not yet being protected, conserved and enhanced in line with the ambitions of the 7th Environment Action Programme. Longer-term trends are especially alarming. Challenges such as the loss of soil functions, land degradation and climate change continue to threaten the ecosystem services that underpin economic activities and wellbeing.

On the global scale, we are experiencing an enormous loss of diversity with the ever-growing rate of species extinction. As the UN warns in its Global Biodiversity Outlook, several ecosystems are approaching a ‘tipping point’ and if current trends continue, we may see them never recover.

Europe is not on track to meet its overall target of halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services

As for Europe’s biodiversity, the State of the Nature report freshly launched by the European Commission stresses that it continues to be eroded due to cumulative pressures. Currently, a large proportion of protected species (60%) and habitat types (77%) in the EU are considered to be in unfavourable conservation status, and a significant share of previously unfavourable assessments have deteriorated further. The status of species and habitats depending on agricultural and forestry ecosystems are especially worrying.

The report also confirms that Europe is not on track to meet its overall target of halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020, even though some more specific targets are being met. Improvements are basically limited to local or regional level, and have not yet scaled up to European level.

I am nevertheless convinced that the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the two nature directives – the Birds and Habitats Directives – play a central role in the EU’s biodiversity and nature conservation policies; if implemented well and effectively, they provide a very useful framework and effective solutions for biodiversity and nature protection.

The European Commission is currently working on an in-depth evaluation of the nature directives with a possibility to review or even revise them in 2016  – the former mainly resulting in changes to the annexes, the latter bringing more substantial changes. The mid-term review of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy is also coming this year. I see much risk inherent in these processes. As the initial reactions of stakeholders indicate, we can expect very different interests to be clashing here.

To achieve the EU’s main biodiversity targets, no weakening of the nature directives is acceptable

And with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s words about ‘business-friendly’ legislation and cutting ‘green tape’ in mind, I fear that the Commission will not necessarily focus on correcting the malfunctioning bits of legislation as well as providing and enabling a framework for improved implementation. However, several case studies and assessments clearly point out that this is exactly what is much needed. Scientific evidence shows that the natural directives are not obstacles to sustainable economic development. The economic benefits from only the Natura 2000 network, created by the Habitats Directive, have been estimated in the order of €200-300bn a year, while the annual costs associated with managing and protecting the network are approximately €5.8bn.

The nature directives are recognised worldwide and have already contributed substantially to short-term improvements in the status of specific species and habitats. Besides, they can bring substantial benefits in the longer run both in social and economic terms.

Thus, any changes to the directives have to be done with extreme care, not allowing industrial and economic lobbying forces to dilute important elements of the legislation such as by the broader use of exemptions or any other flexibility mechanisms or the biased application of the concept of biodiversity offsetting.

To achieve the EU’s main biodiversity targets, no weakening of the nature directives is acceptable. The European Commission and member states should instead put more effort into enforcing and implementing them as well as upscaling effective measures. These measures should be taken immediately, encompassing the creation of connected and ecologically coherent networks of protected areas (green infrastructure), the proper management of these sites with a focus on species, habitats and ecosystems as well as the integration of biodiversity concerns in various fields and sectors including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, transport and industry to reduce the pressures on biodiversity.

Together with fellow MEPs, I will keep an eye on the Commission’s plans and actions deriving from the evaluation of the nature directives and make sure there are no backward steps in biodiversity protection and nature conservation in Europe, but rather that we live up to our legacy and step up our efforts.

 

EU nature protection – Greens/EFA

Posted on

New report must focus attention on need to defend EU rules on nature and birds.

The European Commission today presented its State of Nature report, which looks at the status of species and habitats protected under EU legislation on birds and nature over a 6 year period (2007-12). The report underlined concerns about the endangered status of species and habitats, as well as the EU’s goal of halting biodiversity loss. Commenting on the report, Green environment spokesperson Bas Eickhout said:

“This report should be a warning signal for European policy makers about the need to redouble our efforts to protect our indigenous nature and address biodiversity loss. With some in the European Commission sharpening their knives ahead of a review of EU legislation on birds and habitats, this report should serve as a rallying call to ensure these essential rules are not just maintained but properly enforced.”

Green environment spokesperson Benedek Javor added:

“While EU rules on birds and habitats have helped improve the status of some species, it is clear that many habitats and species are still in precarious situations. Despite some local improvements the majority of habitats and species in Europe have an unfavourable conservation status and the main EU target of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services’ by 2020 will not be achieved if the efforts are not upscaled. The report underlines the numerous, manmade threats to habitats and it is clear that more needs to be done to address this. Ahead of the mid-term review of the EU’s biodiversity strategy and with EU rules on birds and habitats in the line of fire, this report could not have come at a more timely moment. We hope its findings will be central to considerations on these issues.”

05.20.2015.
Greens/EFA

Whistleblower protection

Posted on

It is difficult to imagine corruption without the contribution of players who have the ability to abuse resources – mostly public resources – for the purpose of generating a private; only people with some kind of power in their hands are able to act as such. In order to prevent those powerful people from misusing public money we need people to counter them. Today, we cannot talk about a serious anti-corruption policy without meaningful protection for these brave men and women.

Whistleblowers play an important role in a democracy ensuring vital information in the public interest is brought to light. The level of the extent to which legal means and guarantees that serve to protect whistleblowers as well as the level of specially protected reporting channels are shockingly uneven when it comes to the different Member States. In view of the anomalies of different regulations, the weakness of national institutions, and recent atrocities and lawsuits brought against whistleblowers, it is high time that whistleblowers were guaranteed protection minimum across Europe.

The resolution voted by the EP in March on the report on the fight against fraud has demanded the Commission to propose legislation to this end and stop stalling.

Strasbourg, 29th April 2015

Benedek Jávor MEP

Shale gas extraction becomes cheaper in Hungary

Posted on

Today in Parliament the Hungarian government, with a majority, made an amendment in the law, reducing the drilling fee of shale gas drilling from 12% to 2%, which is more than puzzling, since despite the huge amount of Hungary’s resources, shale gas is hard to access in the country: in order to extract shale gas, the drilling has to go deeper, the use of chemical substances has to be increased, and the drilling will take place on densely populated areas. In addition, due to the demand for technology and capital, extraction is made possible for foreign companies only, whereas the Hungarian state could have only made profit through an increased drilling fee. Such a law will entail a greater risk for negative environmental consequences, the cost of which will be paid by the country and its citizens.

 

The shipment of the damaged fuel assemblies violated directive 2011/70/Euratom

Posted on
According to Dialogue for Hungary the shipment to the Russian Federation of the damaged fuel assemblies of the 2003 Paks incident violated the 2011 EU directive on the exportation of nuclear waste.
 
According to Benedek Jávor, member of the party and the European Parliament, the contract including the specifics of the shipment is legally questionable. The damaged assemblies were shipped last year through Ukraine, which meant taking serious safety risks. In addition, as it turned out, the shipment contract also pertained to the final disposal of nuclear waste.
 
Following his inquiry to the Euratom Supply Agency, Mr. Jávor was informed that despite the Hungarian government’s lack of effort to inform the ESA, the original contract of 2010 was amended in 2013. According to ESA, however, the Agency’s signature, “when required, is a necessary condition” for the validity of the contract. Following these developments, Mr. Jávor will now turn to the European Commission with the concern that the Hungarian government might have conducted the shipment of damaged fuel assemblies on the basis of a legally dubious contract.
 

ESA response to Benedek Javor (click here).

20th April 2015