Latest news with #CourtofJustice
The Journal
3 hours ago
- Politics
- The Journal
Hungary's infamous ban on LGBTQ+ content deemed to be violation of EU law
A HUNGARIAN LAW that harshly restricts access to LGBTQ-related content is a violation of European Union law, according to the Advocate General of the EU's Court of Justice. By banning content about LGBTQ+ sexualities and gender identities from being available to under-18s, Hungary is infringing on the treaty that sets out the EU's fundamental principles, the Advocate General's formal legal opinion stated. The Treaty of the European Union outlines that the EU is 'founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities'. By calling into question the equality of LGBTQ+ people, Hungary has 'negated' several of the EU's fundamental values, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta said. It has also 'significantly deviated from the model of a constitutional democracy'. In 2021, Hungary's parliament passed a bill that effectively banned communicating with children and teenagers about sexual orientations and gender identities . The impacts affected education programmes, meaning students could not be educated about LGBTQ+ identities, and media like books and movies, including movies that depict LGBTQ+ being classified as 18+. The European Commission brought an infringement action before the Court of Justice against Hungary over the law and Ćapeta has now set out her legal opinion that the Court rule the action is well-founded. She said the legislation infringed on the freedom enshrined in EU law to provide and receive services. Advertisement It also interferes with fundamental rights protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation; respect for private and family life; freedom of expression and information; and the right to human dignity. Capéta said these interferences cannot be justified by the reasons put forward by Hungary, which tried to argue for the law on the basis of protection of the 'healthy development of minors' and the 'right of parents to raise their children according to their personal convictions'. The Advocate General said the Hungarian legislation is not limited to shielding minors from pornographic content, which was already prohibited by the law in Hungary prior to the 2021 legislation, and goes as far as prohibiting the portrayal of ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people. She said that Hungary has not offered any proof of a potential risk of harm of content that portrays ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people to the healthy development of minors and that consequently, its legislation is 'based on a value judgment that homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status as heterosexual and cisgender life'. The EU legal system recognises that there can be different visions among member states about how common values should be implemented in practice, and that disagreements about fundamental rights should not result in a finding of an infringement of the Treaty of the European Union. However, Hungary's actions in this case are not a matter of a 'disagreement', Capéta said. She said that LGBTQ+ people being deserving of equal respect in member states is 'not open to contestation through dialogue'. She said: Disrespect and marginalisation of a group in a society are the 'red lines' imposed by the values of equality, human dignity and respect for human rights. As such, 'by calling into question the equality of LGBTI persons, Hungary is not demonstrating a disagreement or a divergence about the content of the values of the European Union'. 'Instead, that Member State has negated several of those fundamental values and, thus, has significantly deviated from the model of a constitutional democracy, reflected in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union.' An Advocate General's opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice but gives the Court a proposed legal solution to cases it is responsible for. Related Reads 'Weeping for this country': Struggle continues in Hungary as Ireland joins Europe in stance against anti-LGBT+ bill The judges of the court are now beginning deliberations on the case. If the Court of Justice finds a member state has failed to fulfil obligations of EU law, the the country must comply with the Court's judgment 'without delay' or face further action like financial penalties. 'No place in the EU' Dávid Vig, director of Amnesty International Hungary, said the Advocate General's opinion 'made it clear the [anti-LGBTQ+] law has no place in Hungary and the European Union'. 'The discriminatory law violates several human rights and promotes the idea that the life of LGBTI people is not of equal value,' Vig said. In March of this year, the Hungarian parliament passed legislation that restricts freedom of assembly and consequently prohibited LGBTQ+ Pride marches . LGBTQ+ rights organisation ILGA-Europe said the today's opinion from the Advocate General should mean the anti-Pride legislation is also considered to be violating EU law. 'The AG's opinion is very clear in that Hungary breaches EU law and the Treaties by enacting the anti-LGBTI legislation from 2021,' said ILGA-Europe's advocacy director Katrin Hugendubel. 'The new package of amendments adopted this year to criminalise Pride marches and their organisers builds directly on that unlawful legislation and must therefore also be considered a violation of EU law.' Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Euronews
2 days ago
- General
- Euronews
Top EU court rules migrants with minors not aiding illegal immigration
The Court of Justice of the European Union on Tuesday ruled in favour of migrants' rights in a case filed by an Italian court regarding what can be considered aiding and abetting illegal immigration. The court ruling noted that, in the case of a third-country national entering the EU irregularly accompanied by a child in their care, their conduct "cannot be regarded as aiding and abetting illegal immigration." "In fact, the parent in this case assumes an obligation related to his or her personal responsibility towards the child in accordance with fundamental rights, in particular respect for family life and the child," the president of the EU's highest legal authority, Koen Lenaerts, explained in his judgment. With this preliminary ruling, the court agrees with the Court of Bologna, which filed the proceedings in July 2023 following the entry into Italy of a Congolese citizen in 2019. The woman entered the country at the airport border of Bologna with two minors — her daughter and niece, over whom she had actual care following the death of the niece's mother — using false documents. She said she fled Congo after receiving threats from her ex-partner and took the two minors with her because she feared for their physical well-being. She was arrested and is being prosecuted for facilitating unauthorised entry into Italy. The Italian court had asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) whether the 2002 directive on the facilitation of illegal immigration was compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The referring court doubted whether the directive provides for humanitarian assistance as a justification for making the crime of aiding and abetting not punishable. In other words, it was asking the EU court about the scope of the general offence of facilitation of unauthorised entry, provided for by EU law. "The court answers that the conduct of a person who, in breach of the rules governing the movement of people across borders, brings into the territory of a member state minors who are third-country nationals and are accompanying him or her, and over whom he or she exercises actual care, does not fall within the scope of that offence," the ruling on Tuesday said. It added that this conduct "does not constitute facilitation of illegal immigration, which EU law seeks to combat" but rather "the exercise by that person of his or her responsibility stemming from the family relationship and the actual care over those minors." Lenaerts went further, stating that the interpretation is necessary, also in light of the fundamental right to asylum. He explained that, because the woman had made an application for international protection, she could not be regarded as staying illegally on the territory. This is the case so long as no decision has been given on her application at first instance, Lenaerts explained. Police in the Hungarian capital issued an order on Tuesday denying a request to hold an pro-LGBTQ+ event in Budapest, a consequence of recent steps by the right-wing government aimed at banning the popular Budapest Pride march. The police's decision to prohibit the event planned for later this month came after Hungary's parliament passed legislation in March that allowed the government to ban public events by LGBTQ+ communities. That was followed a month later by a constitutional amendment banning such events. Both moves were slammed by legal scholars and critics decried it as another step towards authoritarianism by what they call an autocratic government. In its justification for prohibiting the Budapest event, which organisers requested to take place on 28 June, the city's police argued that "it cannot be ruled out, or is even inevitable, that a person under the age of 18 will be able to engage in legally prohibited conduct" if attending the proposed march. The police also contended that the march could result in "passive victims," who, "because of the assembly's march-like nature, did not wish to attend the assembly but, because of its public nature, nevertheless become a bystander." In a statement, the organisers called the police decision "a textbook example of tyranny." "The police did not ban Pride but the rainbow parade that was originally allowed but in our opinion this is legally absurd," Amnesty International spokesperson Áron Demeter, one of the organisers of the march, told the news outlet. The ban on LGBTQ+ events, which the government says ensures children's rights to moral, physical and spiritual development, allows for fines on people organising or taking part in Pride events and the use of facial recognition software to identify them. Hungary's contentious "child protection" legislation prohibits the "depiction or promotion" of homosexuality to anyone under the age of 18. Hungarian officials have given contradictory statements as to whether or not the new policies amount to a full ban on Budapest Pride. In a speech to supporters in February, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán advised organisers "not to bother organising this year's parade," calling it "wasted money and time." The Budapest Police attached photographs and videos to its statement depicting scenes from previous Budapest Pride events, ostensibly as evidence to corroborate its view that the march was likely to violate the new laws banning public displays of homosexuality. France, Germany and Spain were among at least 20 European Union nations who last month called on Hungary to revise its legislation banning LGBTQ+ events, expressing concern that it runs contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, freedom, equality and respect for human rights enshrined in EU treaties. Organisers of Budapest Pride, which draws tens of thousands annually and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, have vowed that the event will go ahead as planned despite the threat of legal sanctions.
NZ Herald
15-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Jane Clifton: Citizenship-for-investment all the rage but now facing a legal slap down
Legacy: Maltese anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated in 2017. Photo / Getty Images It's not uncommon for the very wealthy in any country to gather their skirts in a huff during periods of fiscal policy upheaval and threaten to go where they're appreciated. But at a time when the practice of economic immigration – citizenship in exchange for investment – has never been more popular, it has just received a severe legal knock. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled Malta's 'golden passport' system illegal, a decision not only binding on the EU's smallest member, but one which throws several other countries' citizenship rules into doubt. The EU has long disapproved of its members seeking investment-luring advantages using low taxes and citizenship as bait, so for it, the Malta decision is a handy discipline rod. The court ruled it was illegal for a nation to effectively sell citizenship as a financial transaction, holding the now-common practice of counting an applicant's new domestic investment toward the granting or acceleration of citizenship to be an illicit transaction. Several other European countries, including Hungary Italy, Portugal and Greece, will now also have to review their investment-favouring passport rules. The ruling may also confound capital flight ambitions outside the EU, should other courts have occasion to review the legal principles and concur with the European court. There's a well-publicised new trend for Americans to abandon the United States in dismay at the Trump administration, and some wealthy folk are also noisily leaving Britain as its government makes controversial fiscal changes. Many countries, including New Zealand, offer accelerated residency and citizenship to those who agree to inject prescribed amounts into their economies in approved ways and for a regulation number of years. Although this can grate with the non-wealthy – as in the case of New Zealand's most famous absentee citizen, tech billionaire Peter Thiel – the economic activity it generates is generally well tolerated. The EU might have put up with the practice but for its surging popularity with Russian oligarchs. Few were bothered about efforts by the diminutive island state of Malta (population 563,000) to attract investment and generate job creation until Russian moneybagses took a sudden interest in becoming Maltese. Introduced in 2013, Malta's scheme had, by 2017, lured only NZ$1.9 million in new investment. Following the barrage of sanctions against Russia for its Ukraine invasion, this tally rose to an estimated NZ$47m. Several of the now 96 Maltese golden passporteers are Russian businesspeople listed as banned by many other countries. Malta and potentially other European countries will view the ruling as a crimp on their sovereignty, and may argue that post-Brexit Britain, for one, continues to benefit from Russian money of shady provenance. However, other concerns include the wealthy incomers' boosting of housing unaffordability. Spain and Portugal have had to review house-buying obligations on citizenship applicants for that reason. A further hitch in Malta is that a probable majority of golden passport holders remain mere visitors. They've acquired citizenship to gain access to the EU Schengen zone – all 29 countries– without falling foul of residency-time-related tax penalties. Although the incomers buy or build expensive homes, many are empty most of the time, leaving some areas virtual ghost towns. Perhaps the policy's most haunting legacy is the 2017 car bomb assassination of Maltese journalist, Daphne Caruana Galizia. Visitors and residents alike can hardly miss the well-garlanded memorial in downtown Valetta commemorating her exposure of corruption and money laundering in Malta. Her investigations pointed to the golden passport scheme facilitating actual and potential corruption. How simple, innocent and unmercenary were the days when New Zealand and Australia boosted its workforces last century with the humble 'Ten Pound Pom' scheme.
The Journal
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Journal
Ireland given two months to begin implementing hate speech laws or face legal action from EU
IRELAND HAS TWO months to begin implementing hate speech laws or face being taken to the Court of Justice of the EU. Under existing EU rules on combating racism and xenophobia, the European Commission believes Ireland is allegedly 'failing' to comply with laws, first agreed to in 2008, surrounding the criminalisation of race-based violence and hatred. In the Commission's monthly infringement package, which details what countries it believes are failing to comply with European law, Ireland has been given two months to begin implementing laws preventing racially-charged hate speech. The state has also been told that it must implement legislation against the denial, condoning of and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust. The Commission has threatened legal action if the necessary measures are not implemented. The government has repeatedly pointed to existing legislation that criminalises the incitement to hatred and hate speech, under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. In 2017, the Irish Courts Service said just five people were convicted under the law . The existing legislation is not good enough in the eyes of the European Commission, however. It today warned Ireland and Finland that laws must be amended within two months or face the possibility of being referred to the Court of Justice of the EU. Ireland can be compelled to begin implementing the laws or fined for not doing so by that court. Advertisement The Commission's opinion reads: 'While Ireland notified some transposition measures in the meantime, the Commission considers that Ireland still fails to transpose the provisions related to criminalising the public incitement to violence or hatred against a group or a member of such group based on certain characteristics, as well as the conducts of condoning, denial, and gross trivialisation of international crimes and the Holocaust.' Hate crime legislation came into effect at the end of December last year but controversially omitted references to hate speech , defined as public incitements to violence of hatred against a group or member of a group based on certain characteristics. At the time that the hate offences were agreed to, then-justice minister Helen McEntee conceded that Ireland's legislation around the crimes were outdated when compared to other European member states. Despite this, the decision was taken in September last year to remove legislation relating to hate speech from the act due to a lack of consensus within government at the time . The laws were also the subject of protest by far-right agitators and conspiracy theorists as well as the Irish Council of Civil Liberties and People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy . The Journal has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. Separately today, the Commission has also warned Ireland of its failure to fully implement laws on the prevention of adverse effects on the climate by landfills and comply correctly with European Arrest Warrant procedures. Ireland was also among 19 countries that have yet to fully implement new European standards around cybersecurity. The state has also been given two months to take action on these infringes. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
RTÉ News
07-05-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
EU sues several countries for not properly implementing Digital Services Act
The European Commission said in a statement it had decided to take the Czech Republic, Spain,Cyprus, Poland and Portugal to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to implement the Digital Services Act (DSA) effectively. It said these countries had failed to designate or empower a national Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) and to lay down th erules on penalties applicable to infringements under the DSA. The DSA is a landmark law that requires online companies to do more to tackle illegal and harmful content on their platforms.
