HUNGARIAN PRIME minister Viktor Orban has agreed to ease draconian new media laws which provoked criticism in Europe that his country was unfit to assume the EU’s rotating presidency.
After the controversy eclipsed the opening weeks of Hungary’s six-month spell as chair of EU ministerial meetings, Mr Orban’s administration pledged yesterday to amend the law within a fortnight via a fast-track legislative procedure.
Hungary had been defending the law in the face of criticism from France, Britain and Luxembourg and threats of legal action from the European Commission. The law included provision for fines of up to €724,000 on media deemed to breach its provisions.
Budapest had said it had been subjected to “false accusations” and “distortions of actual facts” but the tone changed markedly when the government said it had decided to amend the legislation to meet concerns raised by the Commission.
EU digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said she was “very pleased” with the decision.
“We will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with the Hungarian authorities to ensure that the agreed changes are now incorporated into Hungarian law and that the revised law is consistently applied in practice.”
However, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) media freedom chief Dunja Mijatovic said in a statement that Budapest should further amend the law to protect commitments to “media pluralism and the free flow of information”. The Commission raised objections in the law which related to the requirements for “balanced coverage” and an obligation on media not to “cause offence”.
It also objected to new requirement to register media and measures related to media companies established in other member states. These included the possibility of fines for non-compliance even if broadcasting from other member states.
“The current media law includes very broadly applicable provisions that media content may not ‘cause offence’, even by implication, to individuals, minorities or majorities,” said the Commission.
Such provisions were considered by the Commission to be disproportionate and it was felt they could give rise to a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as any published content or broadcast that displeased certain persons or groups could be at risk of prohibition and/or fines.
