Latest news with #Ćapeta
The Journal
5 days 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
5 days ago
- Politics
- Euronews
Hungary's LGBTQ+ law breaches EU regulation, top court advocate says
Hungary infringed EU law by prohibiting or restricting access to LGBTI content when it adopted legislation designed to protect children and counter paedophilia, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has said in an opinion. Advocate General Ćapeta also suggested that Hungary breaches fundamental EU values, enshrined in Article 2 of the EU's Treaty. Advocates General's opinions are non-binding, though judges consider them and in most though not all cases tend to follow them. If the judges of the Court agree with the opinion of the Advocate General, they could demand that Hungary revoke or amend the law and could also fine Budapest. The case is considered a landmark for human rights suits within the European Union, and the European Parliament and 16 EU member states have joined themselves to the action, demanding that Hungary annuls the law. The law created tensions in Hungarian society The law was adopted back in 2021 by the Hungarian parliament in a push for what the government called child protection and the fight against paedophilia. But opponents and the LGBTI community saw it as a Russian style anti-LGBTI campaign that poses a threat to fundamental rights. The law prohibits the portrayal of LGBTI people or sex relationships involving underage people in education and media. For example, the law stipulated that books containing photos of same sex relationships had to be wrapped in foil in bookshops, and meant that several TV-programs with similar content were moved to overnight slots. The adoption of the law led to protests against the government, and the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Hungary in the same year, saying the law is in breach of EU law and values. This year, Hungary issued a ban on gay pride events held in public spaces, based on the child protection law. The European Commission is currently investigating whether this legislation is in line with EU law. But Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath said at a debate at the European Parliament that the Budapest Pride poses no danger for children. The UK's secretary of state for business and trade has told Euronews he is hoping that British holidaymakers will be able to use e-gates in Europe 'as soon as possible' following the agreement struck with the EU in May. The European Union and the UK announced an agreement on 19 May to strengthen cooperation, the first such deal reached since the UK left the bloc in 2020. Jonathan Reynolds, the UK , delivers a keynote address during the Brussels Economic Security Forum on Thursday. As well as outlining new arrangements linked to travel, defence and fishing, the 'reset' focuses on farming, an industry heavily impacted by Brexit. Under the terms of the new deal, British animal and plant products are expected to face fewer checks when exported to the EU. For example, the UK could once again be allowed to export raw sausages and burgers to the EU for the first time since Brexit — thanks to the proposed SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) agreement. However, the implementation details are still pending. Under the new deal, British travellers will be able to take advantage of the faster e-gate passport checks at many EU airports, but full details have yet been released on when this will be introduced. 'We hope it is as soon as possible because part of the agreement is the Commission saying there's no legal impediment to the use of e-gates,' Reynolds told Euronews. Reynolds said that the e-gates carried 'huge efficiency advantages', adding: 'I want people who are going on their summer holiday from the UK to have the ease and use of that.' Reynolds said his focus now is on implementing the May agreement, and dismissed opposition arguments against the agreement from the UK's Conservative and Reform parties. 'I think there is a coalition [in the UK] we can build that doesn't want to look to the past,' he said, saying such a coalition recognised the relationship as valuable in terms of trade, rather than revolving around issues of EU membership and constitutional issues. 'Let's not forget on fishing, there is no less access, no diminishing of the UK position from what is already the case and actually what is already the case is better than it had been in some previous years,' Reynolds said. There will 'always be people who want to not move on. That's politics. And my political opponents in the UK have stated that', Reynolds said, but he said he was confident that such arguments would not prevail in a future election.
The Guardian
13-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Top EU court adviser finds Denmark's ‘ghetto law' is direct discrimination
Denmark's 'ghetto law', which allows the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of residents have a 'non-western' background, constitutes direct discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, a senior adviser to the EU's top court has found. Danish social housing law categorises neighbourhoods on the basis of unemployment, crime, education, income and immigrant population. Those where more than 50% of residents are from a 'non-western' backgrounds are labelled a 'parallel society', formerly referred to as a 'ghetto'. If, in addition to unfavourable socioeconomic conditions, a neighbourhood has also had an immigrant population of more than 50% for the last five years, it is labelled a 'transformation area', formerly known as a 'hard ghetto'. This requires the public housing association to propose a plan to cut social housing by 40% – including by selling properties, demolition or conversion and terminating the lease of the former tenants - by 2030. The European court of justice (ECJ) said in a statement on Thursday that Tamara Ćapeta, an advocate general, had found in a non-binding legal opinion that 'the division between 'western' and 'non-western' immigrants and their descendants is based on ethnic origin.' The statement added: 'She considers that, although 'non-westerners' are an ethnically diverse group, what unites that group is not a commonality of factors that form 'ethnicity' within that group, but rather the perception by the Danish legislature that this group does not possess the characteristics of the other group, the 'westerners'.' The ECJ follows the advice of its advocates general most of the time. Although tenants whose leases were terminated were not selected on the basis of their non-western origin, 'they nevertheless suffer direct discrimination on the basis of the ethnic criterion,' Ćapeta found, according to the statement. She said the legislation put tenants in a vulnerable position in terms of housing which led to worse treatment than those in neighbourhoods where the majority of the population was of 'western' origin. 'The ethnic criterion used by Danish legislation stigmatises the ethnic group whose structural disadvantage in their ability to integrate into Danish society was recognised, thus curtailing rather than enhancing their chances to integrate into that society,' the statement said. The case was referred to the ECJ by Denmark's eastern high court after tenants on the Mjølnerparken estate in Copenhagen and Schackenborgvænge estate in Slagelse challenged the legality of development plans based on Danish social housing law. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Louise Holck, the director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, which was involved in the case, welcomed the ruling, which she said could have broad implications if it is agreed upon by the ECJ. 'Her interpretation of the directive ensures effective protection against discrimination based on ethnicity. If the court reaches the same conclusion as the advocate general, the Parallel Societies Act could be in violation of EU law,' she said. 'In that case, the state must correct the situation to ensure that citizens are not discriminated against and amend the law to comply with EU regulations. This case is both important and a matter of principle, as it could have implications for everyone who has been subjected to the same treatment.' The Parallel Society Act, formerly known as the ghetto law, came into force in July 2018, but Denmark has had regulations targeting so-called 'ghetto areas' since 2010. The Danish minister of social affairs and housing, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, said she had noted the advocate general's proposal, but would not take action until the ECJ makes a final decision, which is expected in the spring.
