Hungary’s questions for the Commission
Why is Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for justice, contradicting the European Commission’s president?
After the Hungarian parliament passed a set of changes to Hungary’s fundamental law on 11 March, the president of the European Commission and the secretary-general of the Council of Europe issued a joint statement that was neutral in wording and spirit.
The Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, and the Council of Europe’s secretary-general, Thorbjørn Jagland, spoke of “concerns raised” about the package – usually referred to as the ‘fourth amendment’ – but said that conclusions would depend on a “detailed assessment”.
As my government has stated repeatedly, we are open to such investigations into our constitutional system and await the findings of the European Commission and the Council of Europe. We are equally convinced that the amendments to our Fundamental Law are technical changes and therefore should not raise concerns about Hungary’s commitment to European norms and values.
The spirit of the Barroso-Jagland statement was, however, oddly contradicted by comments from Viviane Reding, the European Commission’s vice-president and commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship. She was quoted as saying in Berlin on 14 March that the EU’s response to the constitutional changes “could include cuts in EU payments to Hungary or restrictions on its voting rights”, adding that “You don’t play around with the constitution. You can’t go and change the constitution every six months.”
Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey
There are a number of striking features of the vice-president’s quoted statement. Firstly, her words seem to question the neutral nature of the assessment mentioned by the Commission’s president; premature talk of “cuts in EU payments” and “restrictions on voting rights” casts a doubt as to whether the findings of the assessment will be predetermined on purely political grounds.
Secondly, concerns are raised, this time on my government’s side, when a European commissioner, whose duty is, by treaty and the Commission’s own definition, to represent “the interests of Europe as a whole (as opposed to the interests of individual countries)” echoes the very words (“You don’t play around with the constitution”) of the Hungarian opposition, whose activists have illegally raided private property in their protest against the fourth amendment.
Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, it is more than disturbing when the commissioner responsible for justice and fundamental rights questions the right of a democratically elected governing majority in an EU member state to change its constitution and seeks, as the spirit of the commissioner’s words suggest, to limit its right to legislate.
Given that a large majority of the changes brought about by the fourth amendment were prescribed by a decision of Hungary’s constitutional court, we must ask whether the Commission’s vice-president was urging us to neglect a constitutional obligation of ours.
As a result, we are left with questions. Questions regarding the neutrality of the assessment about the fourth amendment of Hungary’s Fundamental Law; doubts about the real nature and motives of the investigation into Hungary’s constitutional changes; and concerns that if the spirit and the words of the president of the European Commission can be overruled in such a blunt manner by his vice-president, then on whose behalf is Commissioner Reding making statements about EU member states.
This time I believe it is the government of Hungary whose questions should be answered.
Tibor Navracsics is the deputy prime minister of Hungary and also minister of public administration and justice.