In a resolution adopted on Wednesday 17 May, the European Parliament has raised its tone towards Hungary, stating that it is ready to trigger the so-called Article 7 (of the Treaty of the European Union) procedure on respect of rule of law against the country led by Viktor Orbán (see EUROPE 11789).
Adopted with 393 votes in favour, 221 against and 64 abstentions, the resolution says that the situation in Hungary justifies the triggering of the procedure that can lead to sanctions.
MEPs note a serious worsening of the rule of law and democracy, and controversial laws that should be suspended or withdrawn, and they call for European funds to Hungary to be monitored.
Although German national Manfred Weber, the leader of the European Parliament's EPP Group (which is Viktor Orbán's political family), had not given any instruction to the members of his group on how to vote due to their internal differences, 67 of them decided to back this resolution. Others abstained, especially among the French delegation, and Weber for his part voted against the resolution.
According to the resolution adopted, MEPs have tasked the Parliament's civil liberties committee (LIBE) with drafting a formal resolution for a vote in plenary, which means that a further stage will be needed to confirm this call to trigger Article 7.
The resolution also calls on the Hungarian government to repeal the legislation restricting the rules for asylum seekers (legislation which is the subject of a Commission infringement procedure) and for non-governmental organisations, and to reach an agreement with the US authorities allowing the Central European University to remain in Budapest as a free institution.
The MEPs also call on the Commission to monitor closely the Hungarian government's use of EU funds, especially in the area of asylum and migration, public communication, teaching, social integration and economic development, so that there can be a guarantee that any co-financed project fully respects the primary and secondary legislation of the EU.
In the view of the MEPs, the recent developments in Hungary have led to a serious deterioration in the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights – which represents a real test of the EU's ability to defend its founding values.
On 26 April, the Commission decided to launch an infringement procedure against Hungary on the subject of the Central European University, and on Wednesday 17 May, it continued its action in the area of legislation on asylum. Unlike its action on Poland, however, the Commission did not deem it appropriate to open the so-called 'rule of law procedure', which includes Article 7, because it does not consider that Hungary presents systematic threats to the rule of law, as Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans stated.
According to a Parliament source, the Parliament's action is especially motivated by exasperation, including within the EPP ranks, in the face of Orbán's actions. In the beginning, the whole group was ready to back a resolution against him, but the addition of the mention of "Article 7" gave some MEPs cold feet. Without the mention of this article, the EPP would have backed the resolution as a single bloc, the source stated.
The procedure provided for in Article 7 can be triggered by a third of the member states, by the European Parliament (in the case of the prevention mechanism provided for in Article 7, paragraph 1 of the TEU) or by the European Commission.
In order to verify the existence of a clear risk of serious violation of the rule of law, the Council, after approval from the European Parliament, must act on the decision of four fifths of its members and reach an identical threshold if it wants to address its recommendations to the member state concerned. The Council must hear the member states concerned before adopting such a decision.
In order to verify the existence of a serious and persistent violation of the rule of law, the Council must act by unanimity, after approval from the European Parliament. The member state concerned must first be invited to present its observations. In order to sanction a member state for the serious and persistent violation of the rule of law, the Council must act by qualified majority. In order to revoke or amend these sanctions, the Council must also act by qualified majority. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic and Pascal Hansens)