removal of leaders of independent institutions and the “court-packing” of the Constitutional Court. As shown by the international criticism e.g. on behalf of the European Union and the Council of Europe, several rules adopted by the governing majority are not in compliance with democratic values and international standards. The series of governmental attacks against Hungarian NGOs, which organizations operate by their nature as checks and critics of the state power and fight for reinforcing the rule of law and ensuring the protection of human rights, is another step in the process aimed at establishing an ‘illiberal state’.” government, rendering them unable to issue invoices or to benefit from a scheme that allows tax payers in Hungary to donate 1 percent of their income to the civil society and religious organizations of their choice. […] Independence of the Judiciary 2012, when the new constitution entered into force, a series of legal and constitutional changes have undermined the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Despite some positive changes to the laws regulating the administration of the courts, the president of the National Judicial Office, a post appointed by the parliament for a body responsible for the administration of the courts, retains the power to block candidates nominated by the National Judicial Council for judicial appointments by declaring the process void and restarting it. The constitution, its March 2013 Fourth Amendment, and related laws have restricted the powers of the constitutional court undermining its ability to serve as a check on the executive authority. According to the fourth constitutional amendment, the court can no longer review laws pertaining to the central budget and taxation issues and is not able to hear actio popularis cases brought by NGOs and others to litigate issues of broader public concern. The court is also prevented from consulting its own case law prior to January 2012. The Fourth Amendment restricts the court from ruling on the substance of constitutional amendments, a measure which allowed the government to reintroduce via a constitutional amendment the power to criminalize homelessness despite a law doing so having been previously struck down by the court as unconstitutional (discussed in more detail below).
Interviews of Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) In relation to the personal asset disclosures for civil society leaders, representatives of a major human rights NGO noted during an interview (November 2015) that these restrictive provisions can be criticised, because: Expenditure of funds is already accounted for between organisation and funder; It creates a more significant burden on private citizens to account for non-public funds than exist on public officials – the current asset disclosures for Members of Parliament apparently yield no consequences for fraudulent disclosures. It is noting that civil society organisations are generally not receiving money directly from the Hungarian government, either. For a year, there have been amendments proposed to the laws in relation to voluntary associations, which would clearly affect civil society organisations, but there have been no consultations and currently civil society is not sure what has been proposed. It is also worth noting the Szabo and Vissy v Hungary case that went before the European Court on Human Rights, which relates to surveillance by the Hungarian state of citizens made without judicial warrant. The case is currently ongoing. b) A pro-democracy advocate noted that – in spite of claiming consultation on the National Anti-Corruption Programme regulations relating to asset disclosure of civil society representatives – while civil society was able to consult on a version of the draft, none of these comments were recorded and a different draft was then put through.
government, requesting all information and documents that pertained to their projects that were supported by the NGO Fund… On June 21, Lazar declared NGOs must hand over documents requested by KEHI, as ‘the law applies to all Hungarian citizens.’ The NGOs affected by the investigation questioned the legal mandate for the audits, complained of a lack of legal remedies, and called the investigation politically motivated. “On July 9, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for rights, Nils Muiznieks, sent a letter to Lazar stating ‘the stigmatizing rhetoric used in Hungary against NGOs active in the field of promoting human rights and democratic values, with politicians questioning the legitimacy of their work, is of great concern.’ The commissioner also called upon authorities to suspend audits until their legal basis was clarified. On July 26, Prime Minister Orban gave a speech in which he referred to some NGOs in the country as ‘paid political activists…attempting to promote foreign interests.’ “On August 6, the National Investigative Office (NNI) opened an investigation against ‘unknown perpetrators’ on allegations of misappropriation of NGO funds and ‘unlicensed financial activity.’ On September 8, NNI agents raided the offices of Okotars and DemNet, conducting searches of their accounting and information technology companies and the private residences of two employees.” Interviews of Civil Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) Interview with representatives of a major human rights NGO in Hungary (November 2015) confirmed that there has been consistent messaging from different state actors that negatively portrays civil society as an enemy of State. So pervasive are these
funds from Norway. The 13 include the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), one of the country’s leading human rights NGOs and a frequent critic of the government. […] “The organizations targeted are well-known and respected human rights, democracy, and anti-corruption organizations. In addition to HCLU, they include Transparency International and NANE, a women’s rights organization.” Rights Watch, June 24, 2014 Dispatches: Hungary’s Contempt for Civil Society “The Hungarian government continues to show contempt for civil society. In the latest move, authorities have zeroed in on NGOs that receive funding from the Norwegian government. “The demands are linked to an ongoing dispute between the two governments, with Budapest accusing Oslo of interfering in Hungarian political affairs through funding Hungarian civil society organizations. “On June 19, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), a leading human rights organization; NANE, a women’s rights organizations; and Transparency International, K-Monitor, and Atlatszo, all organizations, received letters from the Government Control Office, responsible for financial inspections, requesting data on their activities funded under the Norway Grants. It’s unclear how many other groups have received letters. “The demands follow the June 2 government financial inspections of Hungarian NGOs that distribute funds from the Norway Grants. Prior to the arbitrary inspections, the Hungarian Prime against civil society organizations, while in reality, the Government and the relevant public authorities only wished to examine the operation of a small group of civil society organizations against which a suspicion of mismanagement has risen… we would find it unfortunate if the operation of and the cooperation with the civil society organizations would be judged based on measures concerning a specific group of NGOs.” corruption
democracy, civil society, environmental awareness, and independent media. “The Hungarian government is trying to silence rights groups, think-tanks, and organizations that demand transparency in government decisions and lead the fight against corruption. The government strategy: dry up their financial resources and run a smear campaign to discredit them in the public eye. The recent police raids achieve both objectives. Potential charges are unlikely to hold up in court, but no matter – protracted legal wrangling will still go a long way towards dismantling and discrediting these organizations and blocking their financial resources. Fidesz, the ruling party, has already successfully used the prosecutors office and the police force to accomplish similar goals against opposition parties and politicians. “The Hungarian government would like you to think that these nonprofits are partisan groups trying to influence elections with foreign money. Prime Minister Viktor Orban called them ‘activists financed from abroad’ and a threat to the sovereignty of the Hungarian state in a speech this summer. This sounds eerily similar to Russia’s law that classifies all NGOs that receive international funding as ‘foreign agents,’ which is clearly intended to discredit them. According to the Hungarian government and the state-controlled media, these NGOs are mouthpieces for a ‘liberal’ agenda. “So who are these allegedly menacing foreign groups funneling money into Hungary? Once such group is the Norway Fund, which supported Ökotárs Foundation and DemNet Hungary. But the regime’s logic breaks down when you see that Norway Fund also gives ten times that amount to development programs for the Hungarian government. By this reasoning, the Hungarian government is also a ‘foreign agent.’
“The groups targeted by the Hungarian government all have one thing in common: they are criticizing the Hungarian administration in one way or another – whether on their track record in human rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, or transparency and measures. The government feels threatened by these organizations because they have the potential to damage Hungary’s reputation abroad – and rightly so, as the regime has failed to promote democratic values, makle [sic] a more transparent system, and protect minority citizens. “The regime’s targeting of NGOs follows clear political lines. Gábor Mabda, the principal investigator of the case at Government Control Office (the body that started the investigation that led to the police raid on September 8th),was a parliamentary candidatefor MIÉP—an anti-Semitic ultranationalist party and a former ally of Jobbik in 1998 and 2002. The police searched for and seized documents specifically related to 13 other NGOs that receive foreign funding on a ‘hit-list’ issued by an official in the Prime Minister’s office, even though their activity and funding is perfectly legal. It appears that the police were executing a political order. A politician from the Prime Minister’s office issued a statement that the police’s actions were excessive—a not-so-credible effort by the government to distance itself from the event, especially as Orbán himself did not condemned the police action, but welcomed it. “Meanwhile, the same office that is pursuing these ‘investigations’ into NGOs has not touched a stack of numerous government corruption cases that have piled up in the last four years.” Testimony Deputy Assistant Secretary Hoyt Yee, U.S. Department of State corruption
“Upon the complaints of NGOs (including the Transparency International Hungary) the Ombudsperson of Hungary concluded in a letter sent to Lázár on 23 July 2014 that the interpretation of Norway shall be also taken into account with regard to the audit of the funds. However, the Ombudsperson did not take any further action. “11 September 2014 The scope of the state audit is extended: On 11 September 2014 it was announced that the scope of the GCO’s audit had been extended to funds received by the Ökotárs in the framework of the Cooperation Programme, and also to funds received from other state budget sources. “18-24 September 2014 The tax number of fund operators is suspended: On 18 September 2014, the tax number of the consortium’s fourth member, the Kárpátok Foundation was suspended, […] “Between September 18 and 22, the tax authority suspended the four consortium members’ tax numbers due to noncompliance with KEHI audits. The NGOs appealed the tax authority’s decision. When the deadline for processing the appeal passed at the beginning of November, the tax authority extended the deadline by another 30 days. The case remained pending at the end of November. On October 22, without required consultation with audited organizations, KEHI submitted its report to the cabinet alleging numerous irregularities, such as retroactive changing of dates and manipulation of project evaluation scoring systems. The Government of Norway did not acknowledge the legitimacy of KEHI’s audit report and stated the donor countries would base their evaluation of the NGO fund on an independent audit.” Interviews of Civil Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) Representatives of a major human rights organization confirmed in an interview (November 2015) that the audits were far broader than four Norwegian funds, and note that justifications for audits were very vague. They noted that several audits of civil society are still ongoing, and that only criminal charges have since been dropped against certain civil society groups. In fact there is a pending FOI request in relation to the audits to try and determine who authorized/instigated the audit proceedings i.e. whether it was the Prime Minister, or a Minister, but have so far been refused access to this information.
technology companies and the private residences of two employees. The NNI confiscated documents and computer equipment. Immediately following the raids, KEHI announced it had broadened the investigation to cover activity related to a Swiss NGO block grant as well. On September 13, approximately 1,000 persons demonstrated against government intimidation and police measures against NGOs.” Interviews of Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) Police raid at the offices of the two organisations (Demnet and Ökotárs Foundation) was confirmed in an interview (November 2015) with representatives of a human rights NGO. Interference with the OGP Process ungarian NGOs participated in the development of the country’s OGP Action Plan were very critical of the process, claiming that no real consultation or meaningful discussion took place between the government and civil society. From the very beginning of the process of drafting the second OGP Action Plan, participating NGOs have repeatedly asked the government to take the necessary measures to restore trust and collaboration with E-mails from CSOs to OGP SU regarding consultation on OGP Process Paul Maassen <paul.maassen@opengovpartnership.org> Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM To: Alonso Cerdan <alonso.cerdan@opengovpartnership.org> Forwarded message From: xxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxxxx@transparency.hu> Date: 22 August 2015 at 10:34 Subject: Re: New Hungary plan online To: Paul Maassen <paul.maassen@opengovpartnership.org>, "xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@tasz.hu" <xxxxxxxxxxxx@tasz.hu>, xxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@kmonitor.hu> Response letter from the government of Hungary (July 8, 2015), p. 20: “The letter of concern voices concerns… which would oblige the heads of civil society organizations to declare their private assets… the possibility to extend the personal scope of the obligation to submit an asset declaration. This measure takes into consideration the tendency that civil society is getting increasingly involved in
important for the Government, but it requires transparency from the civil organizations, and elaborated that NGOs should not only account for where their money comes from, but also for their leaders’ personal assets. As far as I understood from all of you, there wasn't a real consultation. The plan does mention comments made by civil society (and what they did with them) and very explicitly mentions Kmonitor and TI as coimplementors of some of the commitments. Were you aware of that? Best Paul Paul Maassen Director, Civil Society Engagement Open Government Partnership Support Unit ------ Forwarded message From: xxxxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@kmonitor.hu> Date: 24 August 2015 at 12:30 Subject: Re: New Hungary plan online To: Paul Maassen <paul.maassen@opengovpartnership.org> Hi Paul, As xxxxxxxx said, we did not participate in the process, since the government did not give any answer on our request to reopen the debate on the FOI Act. There was a meeting in January I guess, where we evaluated the previous action plan, and recommended to keep some of the unfulfilled commitments for the second AP. I guess these are those, where they mentioned us. I heard that the government received a letter from OGP and has just drafted its response. Could you share the letter from OGP with us, or at least give some infos on its content? Thank you, best, xxxxxxxx transparency but can be reasonably expected. It is an actual risk that an organization’s budget management is unlawful and the financial and material resources of the organization are used unlawfully and without authorization. Organizations like this are non-transparent not just for third parties, but for its members and employees as well. Similar abuses were revealed recently not only in connection with organizations receiving grants from the Norway Fund and caused a significant loss of public trust. “Using the ability to exert pressure in order to gain undue advantage or benefits is another problem that exist in Hungary as well as internationally and is considerably harder to detect than infringements related to