My recent analysis titled “The confirmation process of the European Commission – power of the European populus via its electorate over „Brussels bureaucrats”?” is available on the C4EP website.
Read it here!
Additionally, me and my colleagues have started to make analyses on the candidates for the new European Commission paralel to the confirmation process. Find those as well there, if You are interested.
It has just appeared in the news that Chief Prosecutor of Hungary, Péter Polt is asking the European Parliament to suspend the immunity of MEP Péter Magyar in connection with the criminal proceedings initiated against him, to which the former orbánist patron responded by saying that he himself will request the suspension of his immunity if Orbán “joins” the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Now I don’t want to dwell on this political bullshit (I’ll look it up right now, but I don’t think I’ll find his supporting signature on the signature sheets of the referendum we initiated in 2015 on the subject of the EPPO…), let’s just stick to the legal part of the actual question.
Based on the current news, let’s state it right at the beginning: it doesn’t matter what the given member of the European Parliament asks for, wants or does not want in the given case, it doesn’t matter in the process. The European Parliament decides on the suspension of immunity, because that legal institution protects the Parliament, not the individual representative himself.
Although it is customary for the European Parliament to lift the immunity, thus “extraditin” the given MEP to the member states’ authorities in the case of common or “non-political” crimes, in the current situation, in my firm opinion, it should not do so. It is quite obvious that the hand-picked, loyal chief prosecutor of the regime is requesting the extradition of Péter Magyar because of a political mishap, and also because of a seemingly frivolous “accusation”, namely “theft”, which is abosultely a wrong legal classification of the act subject to the accusation. As I have recently described/said in several places before, for a mistake like this any second year law student is being flown straight to Kálvin square of Budapest (regardless of flying from the prestiguous Eötvös Loránd University or from the Pázmány University).
So, concluding:
This is a textbook example of a political case. And of course, you can talk about the guarantees offered by the independent courts. Well, I’m going to laugh even louder and more at this. Apart from my own personal experience with ridiculous kangaroo court proceedings against me, which I graciously set aside now, let me remind You: these are “independent” courts where the boss of the executor mafia negotiates with the head of the court about how to fire the judge he does not like for some reason (probably for trying to do his job properly). This conversation is being wiretapped and intercepted by the intelligence services (!), gets leaked out (!!!), and then nothing happens. (!!!) Where a decent judge, after initiating a preliminary decision with the European Court of Justice against the will of the government in a politically sensitive case (and the Court delivering a judgment, meaning agreeing with this judge), is being fired from her position and made subject of smear campaign by pro-government propaganda outlets. Where a significant part of the judges simply do not care about applicable EU laws or Strasbourg jurisprudence. And I could list more. Really, does anyone think that the Hungarian judiciary is independent? Well, as the country is subject to a conditionality procedure, obviously even the EU does not do that…
If the European Parliament seriously thinks that the justice system in Hungary is OK (which, by the way, it itself has questioned/refuted in recent years in all kinds of reports and so on, so we can see how serious those are), then it is even more stupid than what I usually unfortunately think.
My latest analyis is available on the c4EP website. It covers the delicate issue of the results to be expected at the upcoming elections of the European Parliament.
I am not a big fan of predictions: however, some trends are clearly visible and may be well worth to take an early look on them. What can go wrong? In the worst case, my not-too-optimistic thoughts will prove to be wrong. The more, the better, if You want my opinion… 😉
Even though we had a rocky start with our first C4EP event this fall – I managed to catch a bad cold, while I was assigned to be the moderator of the event, one of our speakers indicated that he might be late because of work, and another one cancelling just before the event because of urgent obligations related to the upcoming EU Summit – we are pleased with how our „European Elections through Young Eyes” event turned out.
We have addressed many topics from the participation of youth in the elections through the Spitzenkandidaten process, even to the „F” word, dreaded all around the EU bubble of Brussels (in this case: the federalisation of the European Union).
It was great to cooperate with our invited speakers, Krisztina and Ivan from the European Parliament, but also our audience for being with us yesterday and staying with us after the event for a cool chat with some wine. We hope that You will join us in our next events, too! Additionally, we are grateful to Press Club Brussels to make sure that everything was working without an itch. We will be back!
A detailed report on the event will follow on the C4EP website, until then You can find some more photos on its Instagram and Facebook profiles!
The first edition of the newsletter of the Centre for European Progression titled C4EPIECE is out now. The focus of the current edition is the struggle over the presidency of the Council of the European Union, but we bring You other important subjects as well from member states and the global theater.
You can read it here.
Register on the C4EP website to receive it directly every time a new edition being published!
Today the Brussels-based Euronews has asked my opinion about some of the legal questions related to the ongoing corruption scandle in the European Parliament. Their report can be found here, but You can be sure that the story is far from being closed.
The legal situation is not that simple, as neither the European Parliament nor the European Union in general has any kind of set of legal rules applicable to situations like these. Therefore, the local Belgian authorities have conducted investigations related to a crime that allegedly was targeted against the EU or one of its institutions, based on classical territorial jurisdiction, as the crime was committed in Belgium. As the European Parliament was quick to offer its full cooperation, including lifting the immunity of the MEPs involved, seemingly more serious legal-political complications will be avoided.
But the situation may not always be that simple. The famous – at least for Hungarians – case of “KGBéla” (a former MEP from the extreme-right wing party Jobbik, who was allegedly cooperating with the Russian intelligence) has opened up a question, for which I still have not found the proper answer – even if I may be the only person interested in that. This question is, if a member state is allowed to create a crime in its own legal system (see the crime of “Espionage against the institutions of the European Union” added into section 261/A of the Hungarian Criminal Code at that time) without any Union-level legal provision and any demand or request for that from the EU or its institutions. Can a member state “protect” EU institutions with its own domestic penal legislative measures? I will definitely come back to this at a later point.
Anyway, I think that to avoid these kind of problems in the future, the European Union shall turn its attention to try to settle this question.
Lattmann Tamás honlapja 