Vineri, 24 iunie a.c., cu ocazia Sesiunii ordinare a Adunării Parlamentare a Consiliului Europei (APCE), de la Strasbourg, senatorul Titus Corlăţean, membru al Delegaţiei române la APCE, a transmis o scrisoare în atenţia tuturor membrilor Adunării ce conţine consideraţii critice pe tema manierei în care noua Constituţie a Ungariei tratează problema minorităţilor naţionale şi a exercitării unor competenţe extrateritoriale prin încălcarea suveranităţii statelor vecine, precum Slovacia, transmite Romanian Global News.

Punctele de vedere exprimate în scrisoare se întemeiază, între altele, pe avizul Comisiei de la Veneţia privind examinarea noii Legi fundamentale maghiare, dat publicităţii în data de 20 iunie a.c. Acesta subliniază necesitatea respectării standardelor existente în materie, în special Convenţia-cadru a Consiliului Europei privind protecţia minorităţilor naţionale, care vizează protecţia drepturilor individuale ale persoanelor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale, şi nu drepturile colective ale acestora şi respectiv alte standarde juridice care consfinţesc autonomia locală pe criterii administrative, cu respectarea principiului descentralizării, şi respingerea autonomiei pe criterii etnice.

Comisia de la Veneţia socoteşte că exprimarea din articolul D al noii Constituţii maghiare, potrivit căruia „Ungaria poartă responsabilitatea sorţii maghiarilor care trăiesc dincolo de frontierele sale” este nefericită, întrucât utilizarea termenului „responsabilitate” poate fi interpretat ca dând autorităţilor maghiare posibilitatea de a adopta decizii şi de a întreprinde acţiuni în afara Ungariei în favoarea unor persoane care sunt de origine maghiară, dar sunt cetăţeni ai altor state şi, prin urmare, se ajunge la un conflict de competenţe între autorităţile ungare şi cele ale statului respectiv.

Textul în limba engleză al scrisorii se regăseşte mai jos. Este de menţionat în
acest context că şi Delegaţia slovacă la APCE a pus în circulaţie un punct de vedere
care prezintă similitudini cu cel exprimat de preşedintele Comisiei pentru politică
externă a Senatului.

Dear colleagues,

I would like to draw your attention to a number of issues related to the protection of
national minorities, as resulted from the new Constitution of Hungary and the recently
adopted opinion of the Venice Commission, making reference inter alia to this topic.
I will also express below several points of concern from this perspective.

Article D of the new Constitution defines “a special responsibility” of Hungary towards
Hungarians living abroad. This is not a new topic. Some of you may recall a similar
attempt in 2001, when a so-called status law has been promoted, aimed at granting
special rights to Hungarians from neighboring countries and also promoting an ethnic
ID, to be given to those supposedly belonging to the “Hungarian nation”. That
initiative, which also raised preoccupation in neighboring countries, led to the
adoption of the Report of the Venice Commission on the preferential treatment of
national minorities by their kin-states. The Report concluded that, within the
framework set by the Council of Europe’s relevant documents, the primary
responsibility for protecting the national minorities lies with the state of residence.
Preferential treatment to kin-minorities abroad could be legitimate in the fields of
culture and education, but even in that case they should be granted in accordance
with general principles of international law such as the territorial sovereignty of states,
pacta sunt servanda, friendly neighborly relations and prohibition of discrimination.
Unfortunately, what we see today in article D of the Constitution is a disregard of
these principles. Equivocal references to matters that fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of neighboring states, such as development of communities, safeguarding
of fundamental rights, and local self-government are in no way in agreement with the
principles mentioned above. The idea of collective rights for national minorities,
stated in the same article D, goes against the international legal standards
through which our countries agreed to pursue the protection of national minorities
and undermines the very system built by the Council of Europe in this regard. This
system is explicit in saying that rights foreseen by the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities, which we together agreed to, are of individual
nature and concern persons belonging to national minorities, and not collectivities.
As you might know, I myself have requested two months ago a clarification from the
Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers, Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu. The written
question I have submitted was related to the political statements made by Hungarian
senior officials who stated that Hungary supports and asks granting collective rights,
particularly self-

The reply of Mr. Davutoglu stressed that the Council of Europe Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, including the Vienna Declaration
of 9 October 1993, and the Committee of Minister’s Resolution (97) 10 are making
reference solely to „the rights of persons belonging to national minorities”.

In my opinion, promoting collective rights for national minorities will undermine all our
achievements in this field.

Of course, we all know that, under the international law, indigenous peoples who are
in a minority position enjoy specific collective rights with regards to exploitation of
natural resources in a traditional manner. However, trying to extrapolate that idea to
national minorities is counterproductive.

My final thought concerns the confusion that surrounds the concept of citizenship, in
the light of the new Hungarian Constitution and amendments to the Hungarian law on
citizenship. There are doubts that citizenship appears to be possibly granted solely
on ethnic grounds and in a collective manner. This would be a clear breach of the
CoE’s convention on nationality, which stipulates that nationality is a legal bond
between the citizen and the state, which should not be related to the person’s ethnic
origin.

These points are to a great extent based upon the opinion released by the Venice
Commission, on the 20th of June 2011. This document provides in-depth and
substantive analysis of the provisions of the new Hungarian Constitution.
These are just thoughts that, I hope, deserve attention, further discussion and
clarification. I remain convinced that we must pursue such discussions in good faith
and with an aim at preserving dialogue and friendly relations between all member
states of the Council of Europe.

I remain at your disposal for further questions.
Sincerely yours,

Titus Corlăţean
Member of the Romanian Delegation to PACE
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate of Romania