XL - Eiropas Parlaments - Europa

16-02-2011 125
For my own part, I prefer, when you invite me to come, to make clear what is at stake, to be able to come armed with facts
and figures. Is what has happened today a coincidence? The answer I will give to that comes, in a way, straight from my
heart.
We are talking about an entire procedure: it started at the end of December and we are now half way through February – so
it has taken a bit more than seven weeks. Well, in the light of the six years I have been in office in the European
institutions, that is quite speedy. My experience so far has been that things are rarely so speedy that I feel we can solve a
problem within seven weeks.
Having said that, the background to today’s outcome is fascinating. We have a combination of factors. Firstly, we are not
talking about this issue for the first time. You have invited me to discuss it before. You have been quite clear, so there has
been no doubt about what is at stake – no doubt about what every party in this House thinks on this question.
Secondly, we are talking about a very important issue. I do not need to explain to you that the issue of freedom of
expression and freedom of the press is what is at stake for the Commission; and that it would be ridiculous if we did not
make that a top priority with regard to defending democracy. Was it a coincidence that the previous item on the agenda
this afternoon was the situation in Egypt? You have been talking about creating democracy, so there is a clear thread here,
and you can be absolutely certain that the Commission is aware of that and is, indeed, doing its utmost to defend
democracy and to repair it where it may have been attacked.
The third issue is, of course, the Hungarian Presidency. Let us not be naive. Of course our friends in this Member State
within the family of Europe are aware that, for those in the chair, noblesse oblige. So from their side too there has been an
approach of doing their utmost to solve the problem. The final point I would make in this explanation, in so far as I can
offer one, is that the European Parliament has been crystal clear: you have been fighting and you have been keeping the
outside world informed via the press – via a free press, I would add. So do not underestimate your own role.
Having said that, for me the whole combination of factors is, at the end of the day, the explanation of why we have this
result at this point of time. Fundamental rights are the issue that has been at stake: there is no doubt about that. Anyone
who thinks that I am interested only in peace and quiet does not know me in the least, because I am fighting for
democracy. I do have a fair bit of experience and I have had a longer life in politics than most of you.
Let me touch, also, on a couple of the specific issues about which I was asked. What about the independence of the media
regulator? Our preliminary analysis of the Hungarian law concludes that the procedures for nominating and electing the
president and members of the media council are no different from those that are commonly accepted in Europe. We have
to acknowledge – whether it furthers our case or not – that the governing party holds a two-thirds majority, and that, in a
democracy, is a simple fact.
(Applause)
On the question of the application of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are applying the directive – the
AVMS Directive – and the Treaty, and that implies of course applying Article 11 of the Charter. So there is no doubt about
that.
Mr Moraes said there was no judicial review of decisions by the media authority. A decision by the Media Council, passed
in its capacity as an authority of the first instance, cannot be appealed via an administrative procedure. However, as
provided for in Article 163, an official decision of the Media Council may be challenged in court in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lodging of the appeal does not have suspensory effect but the code may be
invoked to suspend the execution of the decision.
Ms Weber said that the protection of sources under the Hungarian media law is insufficient. If we take press freedom as a
basic European principle, that should be the starting point and the ultimate end in all our thinking on this subject. I have
always defended press freedom at European level and I will continue – and I promise you the Commission will continue –
to promote it untiringly. The right of journalists to protect their sources is one of the main principles guaranteeing the
effective exercise of press freedom. Journalists should never be required to reveal their sources unless it is necessary for
them to do so for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and that principle is valid whatever the political climate. In fact,
it needs to be defended with more passion whenever the press and the media generally are in a weaker position, as is the
case nowadays.
The Directive on privacy and electronic communications currently in force requires the Member States to ensure the
confidentiality of communications. However, the directive does not apply to activities which fall outside the scope of the
EU treaties. That is to say that EU law does not apply to matters relating to public security, defence, state security or the
enforcement of criminal law and, moreover, under the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have the possibility of
taking measures that could restrict an individual’s right to privacy, in accordance with their own rules and with the