Latest news with #EUCharterofFundamentalRights
The Journal
05-06-2025
- 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
Russia Today
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Media freedom deteriorating in EU
Media freedom is deteriorating in a number of EU countries, according to a recent report by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties). The group has claimed that pluralism and freedom of speech are 'under attack' as media companies become increasingly controlled by governments and wealthy owners. In the Media Freedom 2025 report, the authors have outlined a range of pressures facing journalists and independent outlets, including legal and physical threats, declining ownership transparency, and political interference in public broadcasting. The group has warned that these factors have had a significant impact on the work of the media, limiting the diversity of opinions and the independence of publications, reducing public trust in content. Liberties has identified Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Croatia, France, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain as among the EU member states where the situation is most alarming. According to the report, public broadcasters in several of these countries are routinely manipulated by political interests, and legal protections for media workers remain weak or poorly enforced. The group also recorded at least 156 physical or verbal attacks on journalists in 2024, including cases of police intimidation and criminal defamation charges. In some states, the report notes, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are still being used to silence critical reporting, despite the EU's recent efforts to curb their abuse. Liberties also noted that Russian and Belarusian journalists working in the bloc have repeatedly faced threats and harassment and become targets of spyware, raising concerns over their safety and what effect it could be having on their work. Earlier this month, Russian state news agency RIA Novosti reported that the EU had denied its journalists accreditation for 2025, citing sanctions regulations. The outlet has appealed the decision, referencing the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and earlier EU statements that had assured journalistic activity would not be restricted. The rejection follows a broader crackdown on Russian media in the EU since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The European Council has banned Russian outlets such as RT, Sputnik and RIA across the bloc. In its 16th sanctions package adopted this February, the bloc also added eight more Russian news outlets to the blacklist, including and the Zvezda TV channel. Russian officials have repeatedly condemned the bans, arguing EU officials are afraid of people seeing a viewpoint that differs from the Western mainstream narrative and drawing their own conclusions about current events.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Top court authorizes deportations of migrants from Germany to Greece
Germany's Federal Administrative Court in the eastern city of Leipzig ruled on Wednesday that single, healthy and able-bodied migrants can be deported to Greece, despite shortcomings in the country's reception system. The court found that such individuals are not at risk of extreme hardship and therefore rejected the appeals of two men: a Somali national and another man born in northern Gaza whose nationality remains unclear. Plaintiffs had been granted protection in Greece Both men had fled their home countries in 2017 and 2018, travelling through Turkey before reaching Greece. There, both were granted international protection status and issued temporary residence permits. They later moved on to Germany and filed new asylum applications, which authorities deemed as inadmissible and deportation orders to Greece followed. Their legal challenges were rejected by lower courts, which found no substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment upon their return to Greece. Deportations to Greece have long been controversial The ruling stands in contrast to decisions by other courts that have taken a more critical view of conditions for migrants in Greece. Due to such concerns, deportations to Greece from Germany have largely stalled in recent years. German advocacy groups like Pro Asyl continue to argue that migrants face severe hardship, citing systemic barriers to accessing basic services. 'Bread, bed and soap' is the standard The federal judges confirmed the assessment of the lower court. The benchmark was whether the migrants in Greece had 'bread, bed and soap' at their disposal, said presiding judge Robert Keller. He added, "That's not much - we know that. It's a tough standard." Nevertheless, the court concluded that Greece does not violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in its treatment of asylum seekers. While acknowledging bureaucratic hurdles, the court argued that accommodation is available and that access to food and employment - whether via soup kitchens or informal labour - remains possible. Rights group criticizes ruling Pro Asyl condemned the decision as detached from reality. "We have a very different assessment of the situation," said consultant Andreas Meyerhöfer. "We know that people are at real risk of falling into destitution." He warned that renewed deportations could further worsen the already dire situation for migrants in Greece.
Russia Today
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Russian news agency denied EU accreditation
The European Union has denied accreditation for this year to Russian news agency RIA Novosti, citing compliance with the bloc's sanctions against the organization, the outlet reported on Wednesday. The news agency cited a letter from the bloc's accreditation committee informing it that while asset freezes and bans on economic resources do not directly prohibit journalistic activities, they do bar the indirect provision of economic support to sanctioned entities. This includes access to EU buildings and digital tools provided by European institutions, the letter reportedly added. However, according to RIA Novosti, in practice, the lack of accreditation in the EU not only prevents access to media events, including those held via videoconference, but also hinders the timely receipt of materials intended for publication that are distributed to accredited journalists. The news agency reported that it has filed an appeal with the accreditation committee, arguing that previous EU statements emphasized that restrictions would not impede journalistic work on EU territory. The agency referenced the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as the basis for its appeal. READ MORE: Meta bans RT as Western crackdown continues: A 2022-2024 overview The EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian media since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Outlets such as RT, Sputnik, and RIA Novosti have all been banned across the bloc, while their personnel have been targeted with sanctions. On February 24, the European Council adopted its 16th sanctions package against Russia, which included a broadcasting ban on eight additional Russian media outlets, including and the TV channel Zvezda. In a statement accompanying the sanctions, the EU accused the listed outlets of being under 'direct control of the Russian government and systematically disseminating disinformation and propaganda.' The EU has argued that such activities pose a threat to public order and security within the bloc. Moscow has slammed the sanctions against Russian media, arguing that EU officials are afraid that people would see a viewpoint that differs from the Western mainstream narrative and would start drawing their own conclusions about current events.
Euronews
04-02-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Syrian family sues Frontex over illegal pushbacks in landmark EU court case
A Syrian family wants to hold Frontex accountable for human rights violations and illegal pushbacks. If the European Court's decision confirms their claims, it could change how the agency works. This landmark case against Frontex arrived on Tuesday at the Grand Chamber of the EU Court of Justice. The European Court in Luxembourg heard arguments about Frontex's role in illegal pushbacks. Lawyers from Human Rights law firm Prakken d'Oliveira are pursuing the case, which is supported by the Dutch Council for Refugees, among others. "The case is critical because it's the first case in which the question of whether Frontex can be held responsible for human rights violations at the borders is at the heart of the case. So, the court's decision will have a big impact on Frontex's practice and how it behaves at the European borders," explains Euronews' lawyer, Lisa-Marie Komp. Sent back without processing, detained, forced to flee again At the end of 2016, the family arrived in Greece, where their asylum application was registered. However, just eleven days later, Frontex and Greek authorities forcibly placed them on a flight to Türkiye – without processing their asylum request or issuing a return decision. The parents were separated from their four young children during the flight while Frontex staff was at the scene. They were also prohibited from speaking to anyone throughout the journey. Upon arrival in Turkey, the family was immediately detained. As a result of this removal, their lawyers claim that they became victims of an illegal pushback – an unlawful practice in which individuals are forcibly removed without due process, stripping them of their fundamental right to seek and apply for asylum. Following their release, the family, fearing further removal to Syria, fled to northern Iraq. The lawsuit against Frontex was filed at the end of 2021. According to the lawyers, Frontex also violated the fundamental principle of non-refoulment, which prohibits returning anyone to a country where they face persecution or risk inhumane treatment. Both the right to seek asylum and the non-refoulement principle are binding legal obligations under EU law, enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, by separating the children from their parents during the flight, Frontex also breached children's rights, their representatives argue. Following their release, the family, fearing further removal to Syria, felt obliged to flee to northern Iraq. Monitoring and reporting duties under scrutiny The case addresses a crucial question: Can the European Border and Coast Guard Agency be held accountable for its role in illegal pushbacks? Is this practice systematically employed at the EU's external borders? "The court's decision will have an important impact on the functioning of Frontex especially. So, of course, if the court confirms that Frontex is liable for the failure to ensure the protection of fundamental rights, then Frontex must ensure that in its operations, it really ensures that fundamental rights are complied with. Even if the court were to decide that Frontex cannot be held liable, this would send a significant signal to the political arena, where often the argument is made that Frontex's presence is needed as a form of human rights monitoring. This argument, of course, is no longer valid if the court does not confirm that Frontex holds liability for fundamental rights violations," said the lawyer. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for Frontex and other EU institutions, impacting their monitoring and reporting duties and their responsibility to take meaningful action against human rights violations. The case unfolds against the backdrop of persistent, large-scale pushbacks along the EU's external borders – a practice systematically employed by European member states to prevent asylum seekers from entering Europe. As the Union's 'eyes and ears' at the borders, Frontex is responsible for safeguarding human rights. This case directly questions whether that responsibility is being fulfilled. "Through this case, the Syrian family and the supporting organisations seek to deliver a clear message: no EU institution is above the law. The Grand Chamber's decision to hear the case affirms that the European legal system is prepared to examine Frontex's role and accountability, reinforcing the EU's values of justice and human rights," says Lisa-Marie Komp. "The Syrian family is very much looking forward to the judgment because, for the family, it must be acknowledged that Frontex acted unlawfully and failed to protect their fundamental rights and thereby failed to live up to the role it has been assigned to," the lawyer added. Frontex points to member states' responsibilities Euronews contacted Frontex's Spokesperson for a reaction. The spokesperson did not want to discuss the details of the case because it is still ongoing, but he insisted that it is the responsibility of the member states. "Frontex is dedicated to upholding fundamental rights in all its activities. To this end, we put in place various safeguards, including the monitoring of returns by the Frontex fundamental rights monitors, a complaints mechanism, and serious incident reporting procedures have been adapted to better respond to ever-changing operational challenges», said Krzysztof Borowski. "Frontex requires the member states to explicitly confirm that the persons, for whose return the agency's support is requested, have been issued individual enforceable return decisions and have been granted the opportunity to seek international protection. And, in case they used this opportunity, their application was duly processed and concluded in accordance with the applicable EU legislation and international principles," he added. "In most flights organised by Frontex, fundamental rights monitors are present onboard to observe the entire operation. Frontex also collaborates closely with the Fundamental Rights Office to intervene in cases of potential rights violations and proactively prevent such issues from arising in the first place", he concluded.
