Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 26 February 2020
(OR. en)
5775/20
LIMITE
JAI 90
FREMP 10
POLGEN 10
AG 9
NOTE
From:
General Secretariat of the Council
To:
Delegations
Subject:
Values of the Union - Hungary - Article 7 (1) TEU Reasoned Proposal -
Report on the hearing held by the Council on 10 December 2019
As provided for in 10641/2/19 REV2 (paragraph 23 of the Annex), delegations will find in the
Annex the formal report on the hearing of Hungary, held on 10 December 2019, in accordance with
Article 7(1) TEU.
5775/20
GSC/mc
1
JAI.A
LIMITE
EN
ANNEX
On 10 December 2019, the Council heard Hungary in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU. The
hearing was conducted during the meeting of the General Affairs Council and lasted approximately
two hours.
In line with the standard modalities for hearings referred to in Article 7(1) TEU (10641/2/19
REV2), the substantive scope of the issues to be covered by the hearing was agreed by Coreper on
27 November 2019 (14402/19). The hearing covered three of the topics included in the reasoned
proposal by the European Parliament of 12 September 2018: independence of the judiciary and of
other institutions and the rights of judges; freedom of expression; academic freedom.
At the start of the hearing, the Presidency reminded the participants that the hearing would be
conducted in accordance with the standard modalities (10641/2/19 REV2).
The Hungarian delegation was then given the floor so that it could make its introductory general
comments. Subsequently, the delegation presented its initial remarks on the topics of the hearing,
covering: recent reforms concerning the judiciary; the configuration and regulation of the
Hungarian media market; the functioning of the Hungarian higher education system and the
creation of the Eötvös Loránd Research Network.
The Commission was then given the floor and presented its remarks.
Afterwards, 12 delegations intervened to put questions to Hungary: BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, IE, IT,
LU, NL, PT, SE and SI.
5775/20
GSC/mc
2
ANNEX
JAI.A
LIMITE
EN
Those questions concerned:
- the omnibus bill submitted on 12 November 2019, and its possible effects on the
independence of the judiciary, through the extension of political influence over the judiciary
and the change in the relations between the Constitutional Court, public administration and
judgments by ordinary courts; the proposed public consultations on the bill; why state and
public authorities could file constitutional appeals that were normally for individuals or non-
state actors; the division of powers between the President of the National Judicial Office
(NJO) and the National Judicial Council (NJC);
- media pluralism and how Hungary intended to address concerns in this area; the merger that
had created Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA) and the lack of review
and oversight by competition authorities; stricter rules on journalists’ access to Parliament;
the proposed measures to ensure the independence and the pluralism of the Hungarian
Media Council;
- the higher education bill, the scope for foreign universities to operate in Hungary, and the
case of the Central European University;
- the creation of the new Eötvös Loránd Research Network and the risks of political influence
over research funding;
- the role played by NGOs in a democratic and open society and how Hungary intended to
preserve it.
The Hungarian delegation was given the opportunity to reply to the remarks by the Commission and
to provide detailed answers after each question by delegations.
In particular, the Hungarian delegation stated that the omnibus bill of 12 November 2019 was
intended to address a number of technical issues left open by the decision to withdraw the proposed
reform of the administrative courts and that a public consultation of stakeholders, especially of the
courts, had been carried out. The delegation further stated that the additional avenues for
constitutional appeals did not affect the right of individuals to file a complaint, but were rather
meant to ensure better protection of individual rights and public interests through the action of
public authorities. Moreover, the delegation expressed the view that requests for preliminary rulings
in Hungary were above the EU average and that the appointment of the new President of the NJO
would resolve the tensions between the NJO and NJC. According to the delegation, past personal
conflicts showed clearly that checks and balances worked.
5775/20
GSC/mc
3
ANNEX
JAI.A
LIMITE
EN
The Hungarian delegation stated that the merger creating KESMA had been a decision by a private
foundation, not by the government. The merger had been exempted from scrutiny by competition
authorities as a project of national significance; subsequent activities of KESMA, however, were
not exempt from the scrutiny of the competition and media authorities. The delegation further
considered that there was no threat to freedom of expression. The Hungarian media legislation had
undergone close scrutiny by the Venice Commission and the European Commission at the
beginning of the 2010s: in its present form, the Hungarian delegation considered that it was in line
with EU standards. Moreover, the delegation stated that measures were in place to ensure the
independence of the members of the Hungarian Media Council, notably their appointment by the
Parliament by a two-thirds majority and for a non renewable nine-year mandate.
The Hungarian delegation was of the view that the real situation in Hungary in the field of higher
education was not that reported by the media. Concerning the Central European University, the
delegation stated that the University’s activities at Bard College in the State of New York did not
seem to constitute real higher education activity and therefore the university failed to comply with
Hungarian law, unlike 16 other foreign universities operating in Hungary.
The Hungarian delegation stated that the Eötvös Loránd Research Network was independent from
the government and had been created to ensure better funding for research.
The Hungarian delegation stated that over 6 000 NGOs from all walks of life were operating in
Hungary, and that they were entirely free to engage within their own remit; however, responsibility
for political choices lay with elected leaders.
After questions and answers, the Hungarian delegation presented its closing comments.
The Presidency concluded that the General Affairs Council would remain seized of this matter.
5775/20
GSC/mc
4
ANNEX
JAI.A
LIMITE
EN