On the possible suspension of Péter Magyar’s EP immunity

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:

  1. a hand-picked party figure, loyal chief prosecutor of the regime,
  2. on the basis of a frivolous accusation,
  3. for the political benefit of the regime.

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.

What results are to be expected at the upcoming European elections?

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… 😉

My latest analysis on social media in political campaigns

My latest analysis is now available on the C4EP website:

https://c4ep.eu/how-can-social-media-help-political-campaigns/

I have made an overview on actual advantages/disadvantages of the use of modern social media, based on latest experience of the 2019 European elections, getting prepared for the one in June of 2024.

Additionally, if You happen to be in Brussels around the elections, we organise an event for the evening of 12 June, and You are welcome to attend. We will have wine – and cookies, too. 😉

More information and registration (required):

LinkedIn event / Facebook event / Direct registration link

Could Trump quit the US from the NATO?

Reading an interview of John Bolton by the le Figaro, You find a statement from him even put into the title by the editor: “Il est très probable que Trump quittera l’Otan s’il est réélu” – “It is very likely that Trump will leave NATO if he is re-elected”

Is this possible?

Regardless of Trump, it is a very interesting question if the US President can really withdraw his/her country from an international organization. Based on the US Constitution, in order to ratify an international treaty, he/she needs the support of two-third of the US Senate: there is no specific rule about this, but I think it would be illogical if he/she could just decide on his/her own to terminate one. As by that way, the President would gain legislative power – as the US Constitution immediately treats the text of ratified international treaties as federal law, if the President could decide to terminate those without the Senate, he/she would essentially change the text of federal laws.

The actual practice has been constant until the twentieth century, until when all treaty terminations have been backed/initiated by the Congress and the Senate accordingly. But after that a new practice have emerged, and the President has started to terminate treaties with his unilateral authority, which has become standard practice, not often challenged by the legislator. Not until 1978, the so-called Goldwater v. Carter case, where the decision of President Jimmy Carter (terminating a mutual defense treaty with the government of Taiwan, as part of the US’ recognition of the government of China) was challenged in front of the US Supreme Court. Unfortunately it has not been dealing with the merits of the constitutional question, some of the justices qualifying it a “nonjusticiable political question”. This position has not changed ever since.

Concluding, Trump could do it, but it is fair to say that a presidential decision of such gravity (taking the US out of NATO) would surely see strong opposition and a possible new round in front of the Supreme Court. Never any terminations before has even come close to the importance of this, so the Court could use this case to finally give a conclusive answer, which – according to my own opinion – should be the one two paragraphs above.

But let’s hope we never have to see it.

From Russia, with Love – some issues of espionage against the European Union

Is the European Union able to handle the problem of Russian – or any other – espionage against its institutions? My latest C4EP analysis sheds some light on the issue:

https://c4ep.eu/from-russia-with-love-some-issues-of-espionage-against-the-european-union

“Hungary’s Sovereignty Protection Act is the Orbán government’s latest attack on pluralism”

I have given a few thoughts to the Heinrich Böll Stiftung a few days ago on the subject. I think that the subject will not go away for a long time, as the European Commission will put some elements of that a least to an infringment…

You can read the report here.

Giving a foreign policy leg to the EU – assisting, complementing or substituting member states?

Read my analysis on the matter on the C4EP website:

https://c4ep.eu/giving-a-foreign-policy-leg-to-the-eu-assisting-complementing-or-substituting-member-states

Youth employment with the institutions of the EU – a highway for the youth towards the future or a Brussels cul-de-sac?

Read my latest analysis on the C4EP website:

https://c4ep.eu/youth-employment-with-the-institutions-of-the-eu-a-highway-for-the-youth-towards-the-future-or-a-brussels-cul-de-sac