French MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Greens/EFA) has been asked to resume the European Parliament’s work on respect for the Rule of law in Hungary, which is the subject of a specific procedure known as ‘Article 7’ initiated at the request of MEPs (see EUROPE 12094/14). In an interview with EUROPE on Monday 4 November, she detailed her main mission: to keep Parliament’s message alive and to keep up the pressure on the Member States (interview by Solenn Paulic).
Agence Europe - What is your assessment one year after the beginning of the ‘Article 7’ procedure against Hungary?
Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield - This ‘Article 7’ procedure had never been initiated by the European Parliament. It is therefore necessary to first emphasise the innovative aspect of this approach.
This Article 7, like Article 50 of the Treaty for Brexit, is also very briefly worded. The institutions did not know how to manage this.
On the ground, things have not progressed in the right direction, and there have been setbacks in some areas such as research and universities. The situation has also worsened for migrants.
Hungary has always defended itself very well. With Poland, it’s different, and we’re not fooled. The Member States are much more aggressive with Poland than with Hungary, and the reason is largely political. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz [party] is still in the EPP.
Should Article 7 be abandoned? It must be supplemented, but as long as we are not in a federalist system, as long as there is the rule of unanimity, as long as the Commission is not totally independent and as long as the power of the European Parliament remains relative, any political mechanism without political will will be useless.
I never thought I would change the world: my job is simply to act. And it is clear that Hungarian civil society is demanding. It considers itself helped by this view of Hungary.
How do you take over the work of Judith Sargentini, who has been strongly criticized by Viktor Orbán’s government?
I meet many representatives from civil society and institutions, and I was already well aware of the situation in Hungary from our Hungarian members of the European Green Party.
Right now, I have no contact with the government, I’m not on their radar, obviously, and they don’t seem to know what purpose I serve. And perhaps rightly so, because Article 7 has been activated, so normally nothing happens afterwards.
However, the Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) wanted the work to continue and appointed a rapporteur. For the time being, an on-site mission has not been authorized, for organizational reasons. The question of a mission will arise again in 2020.
My first task will be to keep Parliament’s work alive and respected. The idea of a second report is not yet relevant. It could also be read as a defeat and a victory for the Hungarian government. It could turn against us.
What is your relationship with the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU, which has made respect for the Rule of law a priority?
The idea is to invite the Finnish Presidency to the LIBE Committee by the end of the year or very early next year to take stock. Finland has been extremely active. I find them very courageous; they have put the subject very high on the agenda and allowed it to be discussed.
A first hearing was held on Hungary (see EUROPE 12328/1). It is embarrassing and diplomatically unpleasant to be the subject of hearings conducted by your peers... I hope that we will have a second hearing before the end of the year.
The Finnish Presidency is in agreement that Parliament should be represented in the EU Council [during the work concerning the Rule of law in Hungary, editor’s note]. But it is the EU Council that does not want this.
We have asked the European Parliament’s Legal Service to see what can be done. Because Article 7 does not provide for the presence of Parliament, but it does not prohibit it either.
In any case, there is a real concern that the subject will come up again during the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU [first half of 2020, editor's note]. And Germany, which will take over the EU Council Presidency on 1 July 2020, is also a little ambiguous with regard to Hungary. The Germans are very firm on human rights, but with Hungary they have an old diplomatic and economic relationship that makes them less aggressive.
Does the future ‘von der Leyen’ Commission inspire confidence in you on the issue of the rule of law?
It’s one of the things where I have some confidence. The ‘von der Leyen’ Commission can build on the work of Frans Timmermans [from the ‘Juncker’ Commission] and I feel, in general, that this Commission is willing to make progress on these issues.
The few interviews I have had, along with the Member States, indicate a concern that these problems should not spread. We are all aware that it is our common future that is being undermined.