Interviews of Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) In relation to the personal asset disclosures for civil society leaders, representatives of a major human rights NGO noted during an interview (November 2015) that these restrictive provisions can be criticised, because: Expenditure of funds is already accounted for between organisation and funder; It creates a more significant burden on private citizens to account for non-public funds than exist on public officials the current asset disclosures for Members of – Parliament apparently yield no consequences for fraudulent disclosures. It is noting that civil society organisations are generally not receiving money directly from the Hungarian government, either. For a year, there have been amendments proposed to the laws in relation to voluntary associations, which would clearly affect civil society organisations, but there have been no consultations and currently civil society is not sure what has been proposed. It is also worth noting the Szabo and Vissy v Hungary case that went before the European Court on Human Rights, which relates to surveillance by the Hungarian state of citizens made without judicial warrant. The case is currently ongoing. b) A pro-democracy advocate noted that in spite of claiming – consultation on the National Anti-Corruption Programme regulations relating to asset disclosure of civil society representatives while civil society was able to consult on a – version of the draft, none of these comments were recorded and a different draft was then put through.
Interviews of Society by OGP Small Review Team, November 2015 a) In relation to the personal asset disclosures for civil society leaders, representatives of a major human rights NGO noted during an interview (November 2015) that these restrictive provisions can be criticised, because: Expenditure of funds is already accounted for between organisation and funder; It creates a more significant burden on private citizens to account for non-public funds than exist on public officials – the current asset disclosures for Members of Parliament apparently yield no consequences for fraudulent disclosures. It is noting that civil society organisations are generally not receiving money directly from the Hungarian government, either. For a year, there have been amendments proposed to the laws in relation to voluntary associations, which would clearly affect civil society organisations, but there have been no consultations and currently civil society is not sure what has been proposed. It is also worth noting the Szabo and Vissy v Hungary case that went before the European Court on Human Rights, which relates to surveillance by the Hungarian state of citizens made without judicial warrant. The case is currently ongoing. b) A pro-democracy advocate noted that – in spite of claiming consultation on the National Anti-Corruption Programme regulations relating to asset disclosure of civil society representatives – while civil society was able to consult on a version of the draft, none of these comments were recorded and a different draft was then put through.
Hungary%20Review%20Team%20Report%20Final.docx