[ad_1]
Hungary has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to annul the European Parliament resolution requesting the European Council to declare a serious violation of the fundamental values of the EU in the proceedings under Article 7 of the EU Treaty. In his findings issued on Thursday, Advocate General Michal Bobek stated that the appeal was admissible but unfounded.
The background of the case is that Hungary has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to annul the resolution of the European Parliament (EP) of 12 September 2018 (Sargentini report) in which it asked the European Council to declare that the EU De In accordance with Article 7 (1) of the Treaty, a serious violation by Hungary of the fundamental values of the Union constitutes a clear threat.
According to Hungary, during the vote on the contested resolution, the European Parliament seriously violated the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and its own Regulation for the adoption of the contested resolution. During the vote, only votes for and against were counted among the votes cast by members of parliament, excluding abstentions, which, in the opinion of the Hungarian government, is contrary to the aforementioned provisions. According to Hungary, if abstentions had been taken into account, the result of the vote would have been different, as the votes cast would not have reached the required two-thirds majority. For this reason, Budapest questioned the validity of the decision before the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
In his opinion delivered on Thursday, Advocate General Michal Bobek asked the Court to dismiss Hungary’s action to initiate a procedure to establish a clear risk of a serious violation of EU fundamental values by that Member State. According to the Advocate General, although the action is admissible, it must be considered unfounded.
Do abstentions count?
When examining the application from a linguistic point of view, the Advocate General considered that the concepts of “abstention” and “vote cast” were mutually exclusive. While an abstainer requests that their vote for or against a proposal be taken into account and wishes to be treated as if they had not voted at all, the concept of “cast vote” implies that a person actively voted for or against the proposal.
The Advocate General also stated that the voting rules of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament established at the time of voting on the Sargentini report that “only votes in favor and against will be taken into account to determine whether a text has been put to a vote or rejected, except when for which the Treaties provide for a special majority “, and therefore stays clearly ruled out. The fact that said provision refers, as an exception to the general rule established therein, to a situation in which “ the Treaties provide for a special majority ” does not affect the validity of said conclusion, since the Treaties have not so far planned such exception.
The members were duly informed
The Advocate General also concluded that Whereas the MEPs were duly informed a day and a half before the vote the fact that abstentions will not be counted as votes cast, knew the rules of the voting procedure and, consequently, they could exercise their voting rights subject to these rules.
The action is unfounded
Finally, the Advocate General rejects Hungary’s argument that by not seeking the opinion of the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the interpretation of the Rules on Voting, the President of the EP violated his obligation to dispel the alleged uncertainty about this provision . The Rules of Procedure of the EP do not contain the obligation to consult this committee to interpret the voting rules. In those circumstances, the Advocate General proposes that: Dismiss the appeal brought by Hungary as unfounded.
The Opinion of the Advocate General is not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Communities, but practice shows that the Opinion of the Advocate General does not differ from the final judgment in the vast majority of cases. It is the responsibility of the Advocate General, acting with total impartiality and independence, to present to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a proposal for a legal solution to the case entrusted to him, whose judges will begin to deliberate on the present case at a later date.
[ad_2]
