Situation in Hungary following the adoption of Assembly Resolution 1941

I want to thank Mr. Watters for his work on this report, which was considerable, given the range and complexity of the issues to be investigated. I also want to acknowledge the willingness and openness of the Hungarian authorities to engage with the Secretary General, with the Venice Commission and others in their efforts to implement the resolution of the Assembly in 2013.

Ultimately the recommendation in respect of the examination of democratic standards in Hungary is that that examination should be concluded. I accept that recommendation but I have to be honest and confess I do have some reservations.

These reservations arise from the lack of progress on several of the issues which were the original cause for concern and also from the emergence of new issues which raise questions around the complete adherence to or respect for the rule of law.

On the positive side, the Venice Commission were happy that the Judiciary now had more independence. Similarly they were satisfied about progress on the treatment of churches and the Court of Human Rights acknowledged that their requirements were in the process of being met. Notwithstanding these positive developments there are still several outstanding issues in respect of the restrictions on the Constitutional Court, legislation on elections and about the drawing of constituency boundaries. However, the real area of concern for me is the alleged restrictions on freedom of speech, and they persist to this day. The Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe has highlighted the lack of a legal framework and the existence of political pressures. Without unrestricted access to objective information, informed decisions cannot be made by an electorate, no matter how transparent and fair the election process itself is.

Since the decision to examine all these issues there have been further utterances and developments that give cause for concern. For example the remark about the death penalty, about the shortcomings of a liberal democracy, the decision to poll all citizens on the dangers to their livelihoods caused by migrants and of course last week the announcement to build a wall along its border with Serbia to stop immigration.

None of these developments are in themselves illegal. However, taken together they begin to raise questions about the commitment to the values of the Council of Europe and particularly respect for the rule of law. At best they can be viewed as provocative, ethically questionable and would be a real worry in any country where the government commands such a large majority.

Notwithstanding that, I welcome the progress and the genuine engagement that has taken place, and the recommendation that that constructive dialogue should continue with the Council of Europe institutions. However, I worry about the finality of a decision which suggests no further special examination is necessary. It may not be. But vigilance is necessary and I would suggest this matter should come up for consideration again in future sessions, at least to ensure that dialogue does continue.