Report about the Implementation of the Council of Europe Recommendation to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (CM/Rec(2010)5) in Hungary
Prepared by
Háttér Support Society for LGBT People in Hungary in the framework of the ILGA-Europe project “Implementing the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on LGBT rights” with financial support from the Dutch Government
January 29, 2013
Written by: Tamás Dombos Eszter Polgári Background research by: István Károly Takács Judit Takács Expert review by: József Kárpáti Renáta Uitz
This publication was supported by ILGA-Europe’s Human Rights Violations Documentation Fund in the framework of the project “Implementing the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on LGBT rights”. This project is financially supported by the Dutch Government Department for Gender & LGBT Emancipation of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
The opinions expressed in the document do not necessarily reflect the positions of ILGA-Europe or the Dutch Government.
Háttér Support Society for LGBT People in Hungary H-1380 Budapest, Pf. 1055 HUNGARY Tel/Fax: +36 1 3292670
[email protected] / www.hatter.hu
Háttér Support Society for LGBT People in Hungary, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Executive summary................................................................................................................................................... 5
II.
Recommendations to the Hungarian Government ...................................................................................... 6
III.
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
IV. Summary report ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendix I: Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 ..................................................................................................... 26 Appendix II: Glossary....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix III: Compliance Documentation Report ............................................................................................... 36 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix....................................................................................................................................................................... 47 I. Right to life, security and protection from violence ............................................................................ 47 A. “Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents ..................................................................... 47 B. “Hate speech” ............................................................................................................................................. 63 II. Freedom of association ................................................................................................................................. 73 III. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly .................................................................................. 82 IV. Right to respect for private and family life ........................................................................................... 94 V. Employment ................................................................................................................................................... 114 VI. Education ........................................................................................................................................................ 122 VII. Health.............................................................................................................................................................. 130 VIII. Housing ......................................................................................................................................................... 139 IX. Sports ............................................................................................................................................................... 142 X. Right to seek asylum .................................................................................................................................... 147 XI. National human rights structures .......................................................................................................... 151 XII. Discrimination on multiple grounds ................................................................................................... 155 Appendix IV: Cases referred to in the report ........................................................................................................ 156 Appendix V: List of abbreviations............................................................................................................................. 174 Appendix VI: Questionnaires sent to authorities and responses received ................................................ 176
3
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Recommendation and its Appendix have so far not made a serious impact in Hungary. While an official translation was prepared and published on the website of the government, no specific action was taken to implement them. LGBT civil society organizations were not consulted about the measures needed for the implementation, and no dissemination activities were conducted targeting relevant authorities and service providers. Hungarian policymakers seem to think that Hungary fully complies with the international human rights standard and the recommendations, and thus no action is needed. While significant progress was made in the past decade in Hungary in advancing the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, this gradual process came to an end with the change to a conservative government in 2010. Despite the positive legal developments, exclusionary legislation in the field of parenting by same-sex couples, the lack of legislation on gender recognition and disproportionately low funding for gender reassignment treatments for transgender persons still amount to serious de jure discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Recent attempts by the governing parties to distance the institution of registered partnership from marriage pose a significant threat to level of legal equality secured in previous years. Moreover, legislation to protect LGBT persons from discrimination and violence often remains an empty promise due to the lack of proper implementation of existing legal rules. There are very few guidelines or protocols that help authorities and public service providers to put into practice the principle of respect for human dignity and equal treatment. Police, prison staff, lawyers, judges, teachers, doctors and social workers receive only minimal – if at all – training on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. While the principle of non-discrimination is well-established at least on the level legislation, the understanding that good quality public services would require the recognition of the specific concerns and needs of diverse population, among them those of LGBT persons, is completely lacking. When moving beyond the level of legislation and public policy to general social attitudes, the picture is much more problematic. Prejudice and hostility towards LGBT persons is very widespread; a recent scientific study found that “homosexuals” are among the most rejected social groups in Hungary. Discrimination, harassment and various forms of violence are part of the everyday experience for a large proportion of LGBT persons in Hungary. These views are often shared, in some cases even encouraged, by leading politicians. Openly homophobic and transphobic statements have become tolerated in the public discourse. Responding to these problems would require committed, comprehensive and co-ordinated actions on behalf of public authorities, including targeted programmes, awareness-raising campaigns and training. However, there is no government strategy or action plan to provide a legislative and financial framework for such measures.
5
II. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT 1.
General recommendations
1.1
Adopt a national action plan on equality based on sexual orientation and gender identity regarding all areas covered by the Recommendation and its Appendix. Extend the mandate of the Department of Equal Opportunities at the Ministry of Human Resources to specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity. Conduct regular national and sector-specific surveys to monitor attitudes towards LGBT persons. Introduce regular consultation with LGBT stakeholders in the legislative process; and conduct impact assessment of new legislation and policy measures that specifically cover their impact on LGBT persons.
1.2 1.3 1.4
2.
“Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents
2.1
Amend the Criminal Code to allow for taking into consideration hate motivation in cases of stalking and crimes against property. 2.2 Introduce a comprehensive definition for hate crimes, including homicide, crimes against property, blackmail, stalking, and violence against a member of a community. 2.3 Publish the comprehensive definition of hate crime on the websites of police, courts, prosecution and victim support services. 2.4 Disseminate comprehensive and accessible guides to potential victims of hate crimes on available legal remedies and support services. 2.5 Adopt a police protocol on responding to and investigating hate crimes, explicitly including homophobic and transphobic hate crimes. 2.6 Introduce training modules on hate crimes including specifically homophobic and transphobic hate crimes into the curricula of basic and in-service police trainings and law school curriculum. 2.7 Introduce sensitising training for police, courts, prosecution, victim support services and prison staff on discrimination against and the specific needs and concerns of LGBT persons. 2.8 Establish a network of specifically trained hate crime specialists at law enforcement authorities. 2.9 Establish reference groups with the participation of civil society representatives to monitor procedures in individual cases of hate crime. 2.10 Extend the mandate of police minority liaison officers to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, or introduce specific LGBT liaison officers. 2.11 Reform data collection on hate crimes to cover all cases falling under the comprehensive definition, so that it allows for following cases from reporting to sentencing, disaggregated by hate motivation grounds. 2.12 Introduce risk assessment of detainees prior to their placement in pre-trial detention and prison cells with specific information gathering on attitudes towards social minorities, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and previous involvement in hate-motivated incidents against them.
6
3.
Hate speech
3.1
Amend the Media Constitution to explicitly prohibit incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Extend the Internet hotline hosted by National Media Infocommunications Authority to explicitly cover homophobic and transphobic speech. Include a section in the Public Service Code on the duty to avoid stereotyping based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and on appropriate language use with regard to LGBT persons. Include coverage of sexual orientation and gender identity issues into regular media monitoring.
3.2 3.3
3.4
4.
Freedom of association
4.1
4.5
Provide earmarked funding for public services offered by LGBT civil society actors, including but not limited to health development and prevention, education, victim support, and training of public officials and law enforcement personnel. Introduce a specific funding scheme for human rights civil society actors, including organisations working in the field of LGBT human rights. In funding schemes promoting equal opportunities for vulnerable groups refer explicitly to sexual orientation and gender identity. Maintain a transparent database on public funding for non-discrimination and equal opportunity projects that allows for tracing the funds allocated to different protected grounds. Build strategic partnerships with civil society organisations representing LGBT interests.
5.
Freedom of expression
5.1
5.4
Amend the Media Act to allow civil society organisations representing LGBT interest to delegate member(s) to the Board of Public Services. Include LGBT issues into mainstream news programmes; and similarly to ethnic, national and religious groups offer targeted radio and television programmes for LGBT persons on social, political and cultural issues affecting the community. Reflect the social and cultural diversity of the Hungarian society, including sexual and gender diversity, in all production genres in the public media. Provide funding for print media for minority audiences, including LGBT persons.
6.
Freedom of peaceful assembly
6.1
Stop the discriminative police practice of banning Pride Marches on the basis of disproportionate traffic disruption. Refrain from the discriminatory practice of referring to ‘respect for public morals’ selectively in connection with LGBT assemblies. Provide sufficient security measures to protect participants of LGBT assemblies prior as well as after the events.
4.2 4.3 4.4
5.2
5.3
6.2 6.3
7
7.
Respect for private and family life
7.1
Abolish the discriminatory provisions in the Registered Partnership Act concerning taking the partner’s name and parenting. Abolish the discriminatory provision in the new Criminal Code regarding sanctioning double marriage (bigamy) but not double registered partnership. Abolish discrimination of lesbian couples in access to assisted reproductive technology. Provide an inclusive definition of family covering same-sex registered and de facto partners in the Family Protection Act. Introduce publicly available guidelines on adoption suitability criteria including the principle of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Give due attention to same-sex families in university curricula for legal studies, psychology, medicine, humanities and social sciences, and social work. Introduce sensitizing and accredited in-service training covering same-sex families for social professionals working in the field of child protection.
7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7
8.
Respect for private and family life and access to health care for transgender persons
8.1 8.2 8.3
Codify the currently existing practice regarding gender recognition. Provide full funding for gender reassignment treatments by public health insurance. Introduce a medical protocol on diagnosis and treatment for trans persons in line with the WPATH’s Standard of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People. Publish a client-oriented guide on medical treatment and social services available for trans persons and their families. Establish medical centres specializing in trans health with full medical teams, including psychological, psychiatric, endocrinological, surgical experts, and social workers. Publish a comprehensive and accessible description of the gender recognition procedure on the Internet portal of the Government. Include information on the social situation, and special health needs and concerns of trans persons into the university curricula for health care professionals. Ensure – either through legislation or interpretation – that the definition of sensitive data covers gender identity and information on past gender recognition.
8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8
9.
Employment
9.1
Extend the requirement to adopt equal opportunity plans to all public employers regardless of the number of employees and lower the threshold concerning the number of employees for private employers. Remove from the relevant legislation references to transsexualism (F64.00) as a mental condition disqualifying transgender persons from serving in the police and armed forces. Issue guidelines on the content of equal opportunity plans with specific reference to the needs of LGBT employees.
9.2 9.3
8
9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8
9.9
Issue guidelines to employers on the implementation of data protection legislation with regards to gender recognition in the context of employment. Issue a model code of conduct and non-discrimination policy with specific reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. Develop specific programmes improving the employability of trans persons to prevent longterm unemployment including trainings and financial incentives to employ them. Introduce financial incentives for employers to provide diversity trainings for their employees specifically including issues concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. Include information on equal treatment procedures and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity into publicly funded materials on employees’ rights distributed amongst the general public. Integrate equal treatment issues covering sexual orientation and gender identity into the work of publicly funded employment legal aid services.
10. Education 10.1 Amend the legislation on the National Basic Curriculum and the Framework Curricula to specifically include information on sexual orientation and gender identity. 10.2 Ensure that all textbooks and other educational materials authorized for use in public education cover sexual orientation and gender identity in an objective manner, and promote tolerance and respect for LGBT persons. 10.3 Issue a model policy of non-discrimination and anti-bullying for educational institutions with specific reference to sexual orientation and gender identity. 10.4 Integrate issues of homophobic and transphobic bullying into anti-violence and safe school programmes. 10.5 Include information on the social situation of LGBT persons and the specific needs and concerns of LGBT youth in teachers’ training curricula. 10.6 Introduce sensitising and accredited in-service training for teachers, school counsellors, school nurses and school psychologists covering sexual orientation and gender identity. 10.7 Include information on sexual health concerns of LGBT persons into compulsory sexual education in schools. 10.8 Provide moral and financial support for awareness raising school programmes provided by LGBT civil society actors, and create incentives for school administrators to invite such programmes to their schools.
11. Health – other than transgender specific health issues 11.1 Introduce sensitizing training for doctors and other medical staff on discrimination against and the specific health needs and concerns of LGBT persons as part of basic and in-service training. 11.2 Increase public funding on the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and include men who sex with men (MSM) and trans women as specific target groups for prevention campaigns. 11.3 Include LGBT persons, and LGBT youth in particular, as a specific target group in suicide prevention programmes.
9
11.4 Include questions concerning sexual orientation and gender identity in health surveys; and publish results in a format allowing for comparison between the LGBT and the general population. 11.5 Integrate the needs and concerns of LGBT persons into national and local health plans and comprehensive health test programmes. 11.6 Introduce a standardised satisfaction questionnaire for health care providers including questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. 11.7 Adopt official guidelines on the treatment of intersex children emphasizing the importance of free and informed consent. 11.8 Prepare and disseminate educational materials targeting parents of intersex children to assist them in accepting gender variance.
12. Housing 12.1 Introduce sensitizing training for social workers on discrimination against and the specific health needs and concerns of LGBT persons as part of basic and in-service training. 12.2 Issue guidelines for homeless shelters on the specific needs and concerns of LGBT persons and same-sex couples. 12.3 Commission research into the factors putting LGBT persons at a high risk of homelessness.
13. Sports 13.1 Amend existing provisions on hate speech in the Sport Act to include the prohibition of homophobic and transphobic chanting. 13.2 Include LGBT persons and their sport clubs as a specific target group in funding earmarked for the sport of vulnerable people. 13.3 Take measures to facilitate the participation of transgender and intersex persons in sports according to their preferred gender.
14. Right to seek asylum 14.1 Amend the Asylum Act to include gender identity as a separate ground for persecution. 14.2 Recognize LGBT asylum seekers as a specifically vulnerable group during the asylum procedure. 14.3 Adopt guidelines for the assessment of sexual orientation and gender identity related asylum claims. 14.4 Accept the existence of any criminal sanction based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the country of origin as conclusive evidence for persecution; and allow for individual assessment of the existence of persecution even if no criminal sanction exists. 14.5 Abandon the practice of rejecting asylum claims with the argument that persecution can be avoided by leading a discrete lifestyle. 14.6 Abolish the use of psychiatric or psychological assessment and expert opinions as a proof of sexual orientation.
10
14.7 Introduce sensitizing training for the staff of the Office of Immigration and Nationality on discrimination against and the specific needs and concerns of LGBT immigrants and asylum seekers as part of basic and in-service training. 14.8 Introduce risk assessment of asylum-seekers prior to their placement in reception and detention centres with specific information gathering on attitudes towards other social groups, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
15. National human rights structures 15.1 Strengthen the financial situation of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and the Equal Treatment Authority. 15.2 Encourage national human rights structures to play a more active role in the legislative process concerning the fundamental rights of LGBT persons, and speak out publicly in support of LGBT rights. 15.3 Conduct awareness raising and campaigns amongst the general public on issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity. 15.4 Organize in-house training for the staff of national human rights structures on the specific needs and concerns of LGBT persons.
11
III. INTRODUCTION Background On 31 March 2010 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted its Recommendation to member states “on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity”. It was an historic moment. The Recommendation is, as Council of Europe Secretary-General, Thorburn Jagland recognised, the world’s first international legal instrument dealing specifically with discrimination on these grounds, which he described as “one of the most long-lasting and difficult forms of discrimination to combat”. 1 In broad terms the Recommendation does three things: x
It emphasises the key principle, that human rights are universal and apply to all individuals, including therefore LGBT persons;
x
It acknowledges the fact of the centuries-old and continuing discrimination experienced by LGBT persons on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity;
x
It recognises that specific action is required to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by LGBT persons, and sets out the measures required of member state governments.
The Recommendation was agreed unanimously by the 47 Council of Europe member states. Although, as a Recommendation rather than a Convention, it is not legally binding, it is based solidly on the existing legally binding international and European human rights obligations of the member states, which therefore have a clear duty to implement the main elements of the Recommendation and its Appendix. The Recommendation has three parts: first, a preamble, which sets out the background to its adoption, and the key principles guiding it; second, the operative section of the Recommendation, which is very brief, listing broad measures to be taken; and thirdly, an Appendix which sets out specific measures to ensure enjoyment of rights and combat human rights violations across a wide range of areas, including hate crimes, hate speech, freedom of association, expression and assembly, right to respect for private and family life, employment, education, health and housing, sports, the right to seek asylum, and discrimination on multiple grounds. It also includes a section on the role of national human rights structures. The Recommendation is supported by an Explanatory Memorandum, which documents the international human rights instruments and legal precedents on which the individual measures in the Recommendation and the Appendix are based.
The purpose of this report The purpose of this report is to assess what progress has been made by Hungarian authorities in implementing the Recommendation, and to highlight the areas were further action is needed. By documenting which measures have, and which have not, been completed, it provides a base line
1
“Council of Europe to advance human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons” https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1607163&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackCo lorLogged=A9BACE!
12
against which to measure further progress in implementing the Recommendation in the coming years. The report has two main target audiences. First, at national level, the political leaders and civil servants who are responsible for implementing the Recommendation. And secondly, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which agreed, on adopting the Recommendation, that it would conduct a review of progress towards its implementation in March 2013. It is intended that this report will contribute to that review.
Methodology The report’s assessment of progress is based on a checklist of specific detailed measures required by the Recommendation. This list of measures is derived from the text of the Recommendation and its Appendix, supplemented by additional details set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. This checklist, and the data which Háttér Support Society for LGBT People in Hungary has compiled in order to assess progress in implementation of the individual measures of the Recommendation, are set out in Appendix III to this report, entitled “Compliance Documentation Report”. The data used to assess progress in implementation have been obtained from a number of sources: x
Responses from individual ministries to letters from Háttér listing the relevant checklist questions, and asking for comments on actions taken to implement the related measures.
x
Information from published sources, such as the reports on Hungary commissioned by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights as documentation for his report, “Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Europe”.
x
Research and documentation assembled by Háttér and other non-governmental organisations including the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, TransVanilla Transgender Association, Frigo Association, Inter Alia Foundation, Atlasz LGBT Sports Association and the Hungarian LGBT Alliance.
13
IV. SUMMARY REPORT This section summarizes the main findings of the research in highly condensed format. Detailed information, among others references to sources are included in the Compliance Documentation Report in Appendix III.
The Recommendation The operative text of the Recommendation includes four main requirements: a review of existing measures to eliminate any discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, introduction of effective measures to combat such discrimination, ensuring that victims have access to effective legal remedies, and ensuring that the recommendation is translated and disseminated as widely as possible. It also requires that member states be guided by the principles and measures contained in the Appendix to the Recommendation. The Hungarian Constitution (Act no. XX of 1949) contained a general non-discrimination clause including the prohibition of discrimination based on any other ground (Article 70/A) that has been consistently interpreted by the Constitutional Court to include sexual orientation. When the government announced its plans to draft a new constitution, LGBT and general human rights organisations campaigned for the specific inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the non-discrimination provisions. When the new constitution, entitled the Fundamental Law of Hungary was adopted in 2011, these proposals were rejected. The new constitution retains an open-ended clause on the prohibition of discrimination [Article XV(2)]. The constitutional non-discrimination provision is complemented by a comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation (Equal Treatment Act) that offers broad and far-reaching protection against discrimination specifically covering sexual orientation and gender identity. Victims of discrimination have a wide choice of remedies, including a fast and cheap procedure by a designated government agency (Equal Treatment Authority); enforcement of personality rights via civil court procedure; and sectoral remedies in media and consumer protection law; only the civil procedure allows for the awarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In addition to the set of remedies available in individual cases of discrimination, the Constitutional Court offers limited possibilities to challenge allegedly discriminatory legislation. While individual legal remedies exist to address cases of discrimination, there is no systematic equality policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, promoting the fundamental rights and well-being of LGBT people. No comprehensive review has been conducted in order to screen discriminatory legislative and other measures, and no national action plans or strategies aimed at tackling bias or prejudice in general or specifically concerning sexual orientation or gender identity have been adopted. The mandate of the governmental department on equal opportunities does not specifically include a mandate to work on LGBT issues. The Hungarian government has taken no specific action on implementing the Recommendation and its Appendix besides producing an official translation and publishing it on the website of the government. LGBT civil society organizations were not consulted about the measures needed for the implementation of the Recommendation and no dissemination activities were conducted targeting relevant authorities and service providers.
14
Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 i. “Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents The key recommendations in Section I.A of the Appendix cover training of police officers, judiciary and prison staff, the introduction of independent machinery for investigating hate crimes allegedly committed by law-enforcement and prison staff, and a range of measures to combat "hate crimes" and hate-motivated incidents on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, including hate crimes legislation. Member states are also required to gather and analyse data on the prevalence and nature of discrimination in this field. Hate crimes and other hate-motivated incidents based on sexual orientation and gender identity are quite common in Hungary. While according to official statistics the number of hate crimes including all victim groups remains quite low, research among the LGBT population in 2010 found that 16% of respondents have been victims of violent attacks due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, transgender persons being significantly more likely to become victims (26%). As opposed to widespread beliefs only a minority of incidents (25%) is related to LGBT assemblies, the majority of cases happen in everyday situations. Hate incidents are severely underreported, only every 7th respondent has reported their incidents. There is a widely shared consensus among civil society actors that even though hate crime legislation is in place, it is severely under-enforced by the relevant authorities. The Hungarian Criminal Code contains a sui generis hate crime provision called violence against a member of a community prescribing higher sanctions than similar acts of violence without a hate motivation. Hungarian courts also interpret hate motivation to be recognized as a base motive that allows for higher sanctions for some crimes (most notably homicide) not covered by the sui generis hate crimes. Current legislation covers LGBT-phobic hate crimes only implicitly, but from 1 July 2013, the relevant provision will specifically include references to sexual orientation and gender identity. Legislation does not recognize hate motivation in cases of blackmail, stalking, and crimes against property. Law enforcement and prison authorities have a well-developed mechanism for collecting and responding to complaints concerning human rights violations, yet the low number of reports indicates that victims are not well-informed or lack trust in the authorities. The topic of hate crimes is not given due attention in the basic training of the police and judiciary, and while there have been some recent initiatives to offer specialized short term training courses to both target groups, these programmes reach only a very limited number of police officers and judges. Besides the general constitutional and legal requirements of non-discrimination, there are no codes of conduct for law-enforcements agencies to ensure non-discrimination and respect for LGBT persons. Issues of sexual orientation and gender identity hardly ever feature in the basic and/or further training of the police and judiciary. The low level of awareness on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity characterizes the prison system equally. Preventing and responding to violence among inmates is allegedly a priority for the Prison Service, but the special vulnerability of LGBT inmates is not recognized. Placement of a transgender prisoners is based on their officially registered gender, exposing pregender recognition trans persons to risk of harassment and humiliating treatment. On 22 March 2012 two young men under the influence of alcohol started calling a 25-year old gay man humiliating names (“little fagot”, “cocksucker”) on the trolleybus. After getting off he was followed, physically assaulted, pushed to the ground and threatened by death. The victim reported the case to the police, but his concerns about the hate motivation were not included in the written version of his testimony. Two days later, he returned to the police supported by Háttér, and insisted on investigating the bias motivation. His request was rejected claiming that the homophobic name-calling does not constitute hate motivation, as such swearwords are commonly used by everyday people under alcoholic influence.
15
ii. “Hate speech” Section I.B. of the Appendix requires measures to combat “hate speech” on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, including laws penalising such "hate speech", promotion of good practice within media organisations and by internet service providers, public disavowal of such speech by government officials, guidelines to government officials to refrain from such speech and to promote respect for the human rights of LGBT people. Hate speech and other forms of discriminatory language on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity have been on the rise in Hungary in recent years. Organized extreme right wing groups are known to incite to hatred primarily via Internet portals and print media, and at public gatherings. Following the general elections in 2010, Jobbik, a party institutionally linked to such hate groups won seats in Parliament, and thus “mainstreamed” such forms of hate speech in parliamentary debates and in the public discourse. While leading public officials and representatives of governing parties have spoken out against similar forms of speech concerning Roma and the Jews, homo- and transphobic speech remains largely unaddressed by the governing political elite. This is a clear shift from the earlier period when the public discourse was more balanced: homophobic and transphobic statements have always been made, but were more likely to be condemned by public officials. The heightened protection afforded to freedom of expression in the Hungarian constitutional system has prevented the legislator to enact criminal or civil law provisions capable of effectively fighting widespread hate speech; proposals have been consistently quashed by the Constitutional Court. From 1 July 2013 the new Criminal Code will specifically address the most serious forms of homophobic and transphobic hate speech under the crime of incitement against a community. Due to the strict judicial interpretation requiring a clear and present danger of violence this provision has been seldom used even in response to hate speech on other grounds. While the Civil Code provides partial protection against hate speech as a violation of personality rights, its serious limitation is that it is limited to cases where identifiable individuals are targeted, while the dignity of groups is not recognized and protected under civil law. The harassment provision of the Equal Treatment Act seems capable of addressing hate speech not targeting specific individuals; however, the relatively progressive practice of the Equal Treatment Authority has been questioned by recent court decisions. The current media laws contain only general reference to the respect of human dignity and the prohibition of incitement to hatred, without specific references to sexual orientation or gender identity. The Budapest Pride March took place in Budapest on 18 June 2011. Several extreme right-wing groups officially organized counterdemonstrations with several hundred participants at Oktogon, a larger square on the route of the March. A group activists affiliated with the extreme right-wing website mozgalom.org held up signs calling for the extermination of gays (the signs showed a rope, a pink triangle referring to the persecution of gays in Nazi Germany and the words: “New treatment for the gays”), and shouting “Dirty faggots, dirty faggots!”. Following an official report, the authorities argued that the incidents did not constitute incitement to hatred as “holding up the signs might have incited hatred, but not active hatred” and thus the incident “does not reach the minimum level of criminal sanctioning. They added “that call for a certain treatment of homosexuals only indirectly with drawings and symbols” does not amount to “the open, conscious and clear ignorance of the norms of social coexistence”.
iii. Freedom of association Section II of the Appendix requires member states to take appropriate measures to ensure that LGBT organisations can gain official registration, are able to operate freely, are involved on a partnership basis when framing and implementing public policies which affect LGBT persons, and are able to access public funding earmarked for NGOs without discrimination; also, that LGBT human rights organisations are protected effectively from hostility and aggression.
16
Organized activism on issues concerning sexual orientation and gender identity started at the end of the 1980s in Hungary, the first organization being registered in 1988. The 1990s brought a proliferation of various organizations working in the field of LGBT rights: there are currently over a dozen registered civil society organizations with the explicit aim to promote their rights or offer them services. Organizations working for LGBT people can be freely founded and they can operate without restrictions, however, no specific measures have been introduced to specifically facilitate their work. In principle LGBT NGOs can apply for funds generally available for civil society organizations on a competitive basis, but there are no funds earmarked specifically for LGBT NGOs. Only a tiny fraction of public money is distributed to LGBT NGOs, and the amount has significantly decreased since the entry into power of the new government in 2010, partly as a result of thematic priority areas disadvantaging LGBT NGOs. While the legislative framework offers numerous opportunities for civil society organizations to participate in policy-making, such opportunities are severely limited in practice especially since the change of government in 2010: controversial bills are submitted by individual MPs circumventing rules of preliminary consultations, which would apply to government bills. The situation improved a bit in 2012, as LGBT NGOs that submitted opinions as part of the open consultation process, and in some cases LGBT NGOs were invited also for personal meetings to discuss their opinion. However, their opinions were most often disregarded.
iv. Freedom of expression Section IV of the Appendix requires member states to guarantee freedom of expression to LGBT people, ensuring the freedom to receive and transmit information and ideas relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, and encouraging pluralism and non-discrimination in the media. While open censorship of LGBT related materials does not exist in Hungary, and LGBT groups and organizations are free to receive and transmit information and ideas relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, LGBT organizations often find it hard to communicate their message to wider audiences. There have been no systematic monitoring or extensive research conducted to analyse the presence of and approach to LGBT issues in the media. Sporadic content analysis research shows that LGBT concerns are not mainstreamed to general news reporting and are often relegated to sensationalist forms of journalism. A survey among LGBT persons in 2010 found that 91% of respondents agreed with the statement that the media shows a distorted image about LGBT people. There have been concerns raised about the duty to respect family values and the institution of marriage in the media laws and the Family Protection Act; however, these provisions have – so far – not lead to sanctions against media content purporting a neutral or positive image of LGBT people. Several proposals have been submitted both on the national and local level by the extreme-right wing party, Jobbik and some local councillors from governing parties to ban the “promotion of sexual deviance”. So far all such proposals were voted down. The media legislation and the mandate of the media authority include the duty to respond to the needs of social minorities, in particular, national, ethnic and religious groups as well as people living with disabilities. However, sexual minorities are not mentioned in the law, thus are often disregarded in the monitoring and funding activities of the media authority. The Public Service Code also fails to include LGBT persons and while various stakeholders are represented in the Public Service Board, LGBT organizations do not have the right to delegate members.
17
v. Freedom of peaceful assembly Section IV of the Appendix also requires member states to guarantee freedom of peaceful assemblies via the protection of lawful assemblies, and condemnation by public authorities of any interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by LGBT people. Demonstrations, marches and other freedom of assembly events promoting the rights of LGBT persons have been held since the beginning of the 1990s: the first public gathering entitle Pink Picnic was organized in 1992, and since 1997 Pride Marches have been held on an annual basis in Budapest. While in the early years these events did not encounter any difficulties neither by authorities, nor by anti-gay counter-demonstrators, since 2007 heavy security measures are needed to protect marchers from violent counter-demonstrators. In recent years the police have tried to prevent the violence by banning the pride marches, however, the courts have consistently upheld the right of LGBT persons to freedom of assembly. While some smaller gatherings could proceed without any problem, in 2011 and then in 2012 Pride Marches were initially banned by the police on the basis of traffic considerations. In both cases courts found the justification untenable upon successful judicial review. In addition, unsubstantiated references to the violation of public morals in statements issued by the police before the Pride Marches remain a serious concern. Since 2007 the Pride March is surrounded by significant and violent anti-gay demonstrations. In recent years the police measures taken to protect the participants have been sufficient. However, concerns have been raised about the redundant use of extreme security measures that result in isolating the Pride March, thus restricting the participants in delivering their messages to a larger audience. Sporadic attacks committed against participants arriving at and leaving the event continue to be reported. Leading politicians in the Parliament or city councils spoke out against events planned by the LGBT community on several occasions, yet neither the government, nor its members condemned such statements publicly. No government authorities stood up for the right to freedom of assembly for LGBT persons since 2010. Criticism of the initial police ban came only from the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, opposition parties and one conservative MEP. The Christian Democrats, the junior coalition party currently in government went as far as welcoming the police decision to ban the March in a press release. Following a similar attempt a year earlier, the 2012 Budapest Pride was banned by the police with the reasoning that it was impossible to secure the circulation of the traffic in alternative ways. The decision was appealed and later overturned by the Metropolitan Court. The court reminded the police that the same argumentation had already been found illegal, and called on the police to follow the consistent judicial interpretation of the Assembly Act and refrain from discrimination.
vi. Respect for private and family life Paragraphs 18, 19, and 23-27 of Section IV of the Appendix address criminalisation of same-sex sexual acts, collection of personal data, and discrimination in access to the rights of couples and parenting. Consensual same-sex sexual acts are not criminalized since 1962, and the Constitutional Court equalized the age of consent in 2002. Following an amendment to the Civil Code in 1996 same-sex cohabiting couples are conferred the same rights and obligations as different-sex couples, except in the field of assisted reproduction. The institution of registered partnership for same-sex couples exists since 2009. The rights and obligations of registered partners are equivalent to those of spouses in most fields of life with the exception of parenting and taking the partner’s name. Since 2012 marriage is defined as a heterosexual institution in the Fundamental Law.
18
Struggling for the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships and parenting by same-sex couples has been a priority for the Hungarian LGBT movement since the early 1990s. Significant legal gains have been achieved by first extending the legal protection of de facto partnerships to same-sex couples, and more recently by introducing the institution of registered partnership for same-sex couples. Same-sex parenting, on the other hand, still remains a taboo in both the legal system and public attitudes. While research among the LGBT people in 2010 found that 54% of respondents are planning on having children (women, in particular, being more open to raising children – 65%), a recent study commissioned by the Equal Treatment Authority found that only every fourth Hungarian (25%) supports adoption rights for same-sex couples. A further problem is that these public attitudes often pervade the work of child protection and education professionals, resulting in discriminatory treatment of already existing same-sex families. Same-sex parenting remains an issue where de jure discrimination against same-sex couples continues. Even though single individuals are permitted to adopt children, the legislation prescribes authorities to give preference to adoption by married couples. Assisted reproduction is not legally available to lesbians living with their same-sex partners (whether cohabiting or in a registered partnership). Despite the positive – yet not fully sufficient – legal changes, lack of knowledge and sensitivity continues to be a significant source of problems: staff of guardianship authorities, child protection services, judges, psychologists assessing the suitability of applicants for adoption, and mediators involved in the procedures receive no guidance or training on how to deal with cases involving parents with non-mainstream sexual orientation and/or gender identity. While legislation provides heightened protection for data concerning sexual life and state of health, it is not clear whether gender identity would be covered by either. There are no guidelines to assist public and private actors, such as employers, educational institutions, service providers, in translating data protection principles into their everyday practice. On 5 August 2009 in a larger city in Northern Hungary two children raised by a lesbian couple were taken away from their parents and put under “temporary placement”. The children were born to a previous heterosexual relationship of one of the women, and the father was living abroad. The procedure leading to “temporary placement” was initiated by the father’s mother and sister. The investigator from the guardianship authority expressed her homophobic attitude several times, and refused to look at the biological mother’s partner as a partner (she was not interviewed; her income was not taken into consideration). The biological mother appealed the decision. The procedure lasted for two months until the children were finally returned to their biological mother and her partner.
vii. Respect for private and family life and access to health care for transgender persons Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of Section IV of the Appendix require member states to guarantee the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in a quick, transparent and accessible way, to remove any prior requirements for legal recognition that are abusive (including any of a physical nature), and ensure that transgender persons are able to marry once gender reassignment has been completed. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of Section VII require member states to ensure that transgender persons have effective access to appropriate gender reassignment services, and that any decisions limiting the costs covered by health insurance should be lawful, objective and proportionate. Since trans people have historically been – and to a great extent continue to be – largely invisible, state institutions were for a long time highly reluctant to deal with their issues: there are still no laws or lower level regulation on gender recognition and access to gender reassignment treatments. On the other hand, this lack of legislation provided state institutions (using their discretionary powers) with a significant degree of flexibility, so that the relevant institutions were able to establish procedures more responsive to human rights concerns that have been raised only recently in most Western European countries.
19
According to current practice medical interventions, including hormonal treatment and gender reassignment surgeries are not prerequisites for gender recognition. The only requirement is a mental health diagnosis of transsexualism supported by a gynaecology/urology specialist. The divorce requirement is currently enforced; however, legislation abolishing it has already been adopted by Parliament. The replacement of documents, such as ID cards, passports, driver’s licenses, diplomas and work permits is adequately performed after the new birth certificate containing no reference to the previous gender is issued. However, since the current practice is not codified, but it is based on the exercise of discretionary powers in individual cases, it lacks clarity, accessibility and transparency, and carries a significant risk of arbitrariness. Legislation on mandatory health insurance and related lower level regulation prescribe that only 10% of the costs of the gender reassignment treatment shall be covered by mandatory health insurance. In comparison, public funding for other treatments and medical aids fall in the range between 50-98%. The 10% funding, offered solely for gender reassignment is thus discriminatory and largely disproportionate. In addition to the issue of funding, access to adequate health care for trans and intersex persons is severely limited by the lack standards and guidelines concerning their treatment. The scarcity of care providers results in limited choice and heightened vulnerability. Trans and intersex topics are not adequately included in medical training curricula. A 2010 study among LGBT people found that even though many trans people wish to undergo medical treatments to transform their bodies in order to conform to their gender identity, only a tiny proportion have undergone full gender reassignment surgery. According to the results more than half of the respondents consulted a psychologist, 28% is undergoing hormonal treatment, but only one respondent had vaginoplasty and no one had phalloplasty. The most common reason (40%) for not having these surgeries was high medical costs that are not covered by health insurance.
viii. Employment Section V of the Appendix requires Member States to provide effective protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, including legislation prohibiting discrimination, other policy related measures to combat discrimination, and specific measures in relation to the armed forces and transgender persons. It also requires Member States to protect the privacy of transgender individuals in employment. Employment is one of the spheres of life where discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity are the most common in Hungary. Research among the LGBT population in 2007 found that 36% of respondents have suffered from discrimination, prejudice, humiliation and/or aggression based on their sexual orientation and gender identity at the workplace. A similar study in 2010 found that only 17% of LGBT respondents are fully open about their sexual orientation to their colleagues. 59% reported lying about their partner’s gender, 38% reported about avoiding private conversations with colleagues and 19% reported about difficulty to concentrate on work due to fear of being discriminated. The survey also found that transgender people are at a high risk of unemployment: 62% reported having been unemployed for over three months during their life. The Equal Treatment Act together with the Labour Code provide protection against the difference in treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in access to employment, promotion, dismissal and pay. Certain public employers have the duty to adopt workplace equal opportunity plans, the specific content is not regulated; these plans seldom go beyond referencing sexual orientation and gender identity in their non-discrimination provisions (if at all) and do not contain concrete positive measures promoting the inclusion LGBT persons at the workplace. While there are some training programmes available on diversity and non-discrimination at the workplace, very few companies actually participate in these, and LGBT issues are covered only at
20
the very basic level. There are some general materials explaining discrimination related complaint mechanisms, but these are not specific to the field of employment. Guidebooks on employee rights are usually silent on discrimination issues. There are several public programmes and funding schemes aiming at increasing the employability of vulnerable populations; the authors received no information on programmes specifically targeting transgender persons. While homosexuality was removed from the legislation concerning the health and psychological eligibility for members of the armed forces and similar positions, however, reference to transsexualism is still included. “I was going to a job interview, and I rang at the intercom. They forgot to put back the receiver and I heard them saying that based of my voice I ‘must be a faggot’. When I arrived at the office, the cleaning lady told me that there is no vacancy.” 31-year old gay man, Budapest
ix. Education Section VI of the Appendix requires member states to ensure that the right to education can be enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, including measures to provide protection from bullying and social exclusion such as equality and safety policies, codes of conduct and training programmes for staff, and measures to promote mutual tolerance and respect in schools, including objective information in school curricula and educational materials, specific information and support for LGBT pupils and students, and measures to meet the special needs of transgender students. Education is another sphere of life where discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity are common in Hungary. Research among the LGBT population in 2007 found that 49% of respondents have suffered discrimination, prejudice, humiliation and/or aggression based on their sexual orientation and gender in secondary education (36% and 38% in primary and higher education, respectively). A similar research in 2010 found that respondents were quite critical about the level of support they received from their schools and teachers: 87% of respondents agreed with the statement that their teachers could have done more to make the school more liveable for a young LGBT person. As high as 65% reported that no information whatsoever was provided on homosexuality in the school curricula, with only 7% reporting detailed discussions; the situation was even worse for transsexuality: 86% and 2% respectively. The Equal Treatment Act contains specific provisions on non-discrimination in education, and the law on public education contains general provisions on safe school environment, but no policies, codes of conduct or handbooks have been introduced to apply this principle to LGBT students. The issue of homo- and transphobic bullying does not feature in school anti-violence projects. The National Basic Curriculum does not refer to information on sexual orientation or gender identity; schools are free to choose whether to incorporate such topics into their curricula. Research results show that the majority of school textbooks remain silent on these issues, and only a small minority of schools provide detailed information. The research confirmed the continued existence of discriminatory textbooks and discriminatory comments by teachers in schools. Supporting LGBT persons to enable them to live in accordance with their sexual orientation and gender identity is severely limited by the lack of discussion on related issues in teacher training curricula.
x. Health Paragraphs 33 and 34 of Section VII of the Appendix require member states to ensure that the highest attainable standard of health can be enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Measures include taking account of the specific needs of LGBT people in the
21
development of national health plans, including suicide prevention measures, health surveys, curricula and training courses, permitting patients to identify their "next of kin" without discrimination, withdrawing medical textbooks and other documents that treat homosexuality as a disease, and ensuring no one is forced to undergo any medical treatment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While research results show that the level of open discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity by health care providers is relatively low compared to other spheres of life, it is very telling that according to research among the LGBT community in 2010 the large majority of LGB people remain silent about their sexual orientation to their doctors: only 25% are fully or partially out to their GPs, and the situations is only slightly better for specialists (37%). Hungarian data confirm findings of research carried out in other countries that LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk of mental health problems including depression, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and that this higher risk is clearly linked to the experience of discrimination and the internalization of negative attitudes towards minority sexual orientations. Research also shows several barriers, including substantial geographical inequalities in accessing sexual health prevention, testing and treatment services. There is reluctance in the health care system and among policy makers to acknowledge and address the specific health concerns and needs of LGBT persons. While the Equal Treatment Act and the Health Care Act contain references to equal treatment and respect for human dignity, there are no guidelines or campaigns to assist health care providers to translate these principles into their practice with LGBT patients. None of the large-sample health surveys conducted in recent years contained questions on sexual orientation or gender identity. While there is some awareness among Hungarian experts that LGBT people are specifically at risk of suicide, there are no public suicide prevention programmes targeting them. Some of the health concerns specific to LGB and specifically trans people are present in medical training programs, the issues covered are very scarce, and oftentimes limited to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV. LGBT concerns have been included in the monitoring and quality assessment of health-care services. Only a minor fraction of school-run educational programmes on sexual health are LGBT inclusive. A patient was regularly receiving infusion treatment for her medical condition for over five years at a hospital in a larger city in Eastern Hungary. Since the treatment was long and tiring she was often accompanied to the treatment by her female partner. On 13 March 2011 she was asked by the head nurse in the company of several other nurses to stop intimately touching her partner as several other elderly patients had complained about their behaviour. The intimate touching referred to was holding hands and stroking the others shoulder/face every once in a while. The nurse claimed she was not bothered by the behaviour, but that the other patients’ wishes had to be respected.
xi. Housing Section VIII of the Appendix requires that access to adequate housing can be enjoyed without discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity through such measures as prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rent of housing, in provision of loans for purchase of housing, in recognition of the rights of a tenant’s partner, and in the case of evictions; also, provision of related information to landlords and tenants, and measures to ensure non-discriminatory access to shelter and emergency accommodation, and to address the risks of homelessness faced by LGBT people, including young persons excluded by their families. Homelessness is one of the most alarming social problems in Hungary with the number of homeless people growing significantly every year. The problem is linked to the lack of social housing that follows from excessive privatization after the transition in 1989 resulting in a housing market dominated by private actors. While there is no specific research on homelessness among the LGBT population, general research on the situation of LGBT people shows that the factors
22
contributing to homelessness in other countries are equally present in Hungary. Research in 2007 among the LGBT community found that 36% of respondents have suffered discrimination, prejudice, humiliation and/or aggression from their families. Reports about cases of discrimination against LGBT persons and/or same-sex couples at homeless shelters show a very low awareness of the problem. While reports about discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity when renting or buying apartments remain low, this is most likely linked to a general tendency to hide such information from sellers/landlords. The Equal Treatment Act contains both general provisions and provisions specific to housing that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the sale or rent of apartments and loans for housing purposes. The problem lies in the lack of information materials that explain these provisions in plain language to private landlords. The Equal Treatment Act also covers access to shelters and emergency accommodations. A practical problem is that most domestic violence shelters target women and their children, and men escaping abusive same-sex partners might not find appropriate placement. There are no specific programmes targeting LGBT homelessness, and LGBT concerns are not included in large-scale publicly funded homelessness programs. There is a severe lack of research data on LGBT homelessness. Some university courses for social workers are inclusive of LGBT issues, but homelessness is not a specific issue discussed.
xii. Sports Section IX of the Appendix requires member states to combat sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in sports through measures to counteract and punish the use of discriminatory insults, codes of conduct for sports organisations, encouragement of partnerships between LGBT organisations and sports clubs, and anti-discrimination campaigns, and to put an end to the exclusion of transgender persons from sports activity. While Hungary takes pride in being a particularly successful sports nation, and specific efforts have been devoted to making sports activities accessible to vulnerable groups including those with disabilities or from minority ethnic communities, the issue of LGBT people in sports has remained largely ignored in Hungary. Research in 2007 among LGBT people found that every fourth respondent (23%) have suffered discrimination, prejudice, humiliation and/or aggression in sports clubs. The homo- and transphobic culture in sports is also demonstrated well by the fact that not a single known sportsperson have come out of the closet in Hungary. While the Fundamental Law and the Sport Act grants to right to sport to everyone, and the latter contains specific provisions on paying attention to equal opportunities and vulnerable groups in sports, there have been no specific measures to include LGBT persons in sports. Several sport organizations and clubs have their own codes of conduct, at most they are general enough to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, but none cover them explicitly. Anti-discrimination campaigns in sports are rare in general, and are only limited to racism and xenophobia. Organizers of sport events carry the duty to remove participants inciting to hatred, but only racist chanting is specifically mentioned. This state of play reflects the largely defensive (and not proactive) nature of governmental responses. LGBT sports associations have reported difficulties in collaborating with mainstream sports clubs and decision-makers in sports administration. While there are several sports clubs targeting LGBT people in Hungary, they receive no or minimal public funding; schemes available for the sport of disadvantage groups do not consider LGBT persons as a target group. There is a general lack of awareness about the specific concerns and barriers to participating in sports for transgender and intersex persons even among LGBT sports associations; there is no information on initiatives to address these issues.
23
In case 2012 a large scale LGBT sport event, EuroGames ‘12 took place in Budapest. While similar events are welcome and supported by public authorities, Hungarian authorities actively hindered the realization of the event. First, state-owned sporting venues were discouraged from renting space to the organizers, so a last minute change of venues had to be implemented. Second, while the organizers sent several letters and made several phone calls to the Hungarian Olympic Committee (HOC), they were unable to organize an official meeting; one of the vice-presidents of HOC refused to become the patron of the event as he was threatened that he would lose his post if he does so. Third, sports clubs were discouraged by the Mayor’s Office in Budapest from collaborating in the organization of the event.
xiii. Right to seek asylum Section X of the Appendix requires member states, where they have international obligations in this respect, to recognise a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity as a valid ground for the granting of refugee status and to ensure that asylum seekers are not sent to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened or they face the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. It also requires that asylum seekers be protected from any discriminatory policies or practices on these grounds, and that staff responsible for processing asylum requests are provided with training in the specific problems encountered by LGBT asylum seekers. While the number of asylum seekers shows a great variance over the years, Hungary remains to be a country with a moderate number of asylum-seekers receiving less than 0.5% of the world’s international protection requests in 2010, and is considered mainly a transit country (and not a destination) for asylum purposes. While a systematic collection of data on persecution grounds is not in place thus the numbers released should be taken with a caution, the number of sexual orientation and/or gender identity related asylum requests remain very low in Hungary. The Asylum Act names sexual orientation as a ground of persecution, although gender identity is not explicitly referenced, the practice of the Office of Immigration and Nationality supports that it is accepted as a ground for persecution. There is no official guidance on assessing asylum claims related to sexual orientation and gender identity, which leads to unforeseeable and inconsistent practice. For example, the argument that persecution can be avoided by leading a discrete lifestyle has been used in some, but not all recent decisions. In many cases psychological/psychiatric opinions are required to assess sexual orientation, and given their decisive role in the procedure, asylum seekers may feel pressured to consent to it. There is no separate training provided for those who work with LGBT refugees and asylum seekers within the authority neither in assessing their application, nor on how to provide a safe and supportive environment. Some gay asylum-seekers who had been held in lengthy immigration detention reported humiliating treatment, including verbal and other forms of abuse by jail guards. “Even if criminal sanctions against homosexuals or homosexual behaviour are in force, the sexual orientation can be practised in a hidden, discreet way, which prevents eventual attacks.” Office of Immigration and Nationality in the case of an Algerian asylum-seeker
xiv. National human rights structures Section XI of the Appendix requires member states to ensure that national human rights structures are clearly mandated to address discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and in particular should be able to make recommendations on legislation and policies, raise awareness amongst the general public, and – as far as national law provides – examine individual complaints and participate in court proceedings. While following the transition in 1989 an elaborate system of national human rights structures was set up in Hungary which was further strengthened by the establishment of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2005, these achievements have been significantly undermined by recent
24
constitutional reforms passed following the change of the government in 2010. While on paper both the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and the Equal Treatment Authority has mandate to investigate complaints related to sexual orientation and gender identity, and to raise awareness about the rights of LGBT persons, however, financial constraints and the appointment policy of the current government prioritizing political loyalty over professional expertise might put considerable pressure on these institutions to avoid working on LGBT issues.
25
APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDATION CM/REC(2010)5 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON MEASURES TO COMBAT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 March 2010 at the 1081st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members, and that this aim may be pursued, in particular, through common action in the field of human rights; Recalling that human rights are universal and shall apply to all individuals, and stressing therefore its commitment to guarantee the equal dignity of all human beings and the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of all individuals without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status, in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5) (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”) and its protocols; Recognising that non-discriminatory treatment by state actors, as well as, where appropriate, positive state measures for protection against discriminatory treatment, including by non-state actors, are fundamental components of the international system protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms; Recognising that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons have been for centuries and are still subjected to homophobia, transphobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination even within their family – including criminalisation, marginalisation, social exclusion and violence – on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and that specific action is required in order to ensure the full enjoyment of the human rights of these persons; Considering the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (“hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) and of other international jurisdictions, which consider sexual orientation a prohibited ground for discrimination and have contributed to the advancement of the protection of the rights of transgender persons; Recalling that, in accordance with the case law of the Court, any difference in treatment, in order not to be discriminatory, must have an objective and reasonable justification, that is, pursue a legitimate aim and employ means which are reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued; Bearing in mind the principle that neither cultural, traditional nor religious values, nor the rules of a “dominant culture” can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; Having regard to the message from the Committee of Ministers to steering committees and other committees involved in intergovernmental co-operation at the Council of Europe on equal rights and dignity of all human beings, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, adopted on 2 July 2008, and its relevant recommendations; Bearing in mind the recommendations adopted since 1981 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe regarding discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as Recommendation 211 (2007) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the
26
Council of Europe on “Freedom of assembly and expression for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered persons”; Appreciating the role of the Commissioner for Human Rights in monitoring the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the member states with respect to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; Taking note of the joint statement, made on 18 December 2008 by 66 states at the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, such as killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and “deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health”; Stressing that discrimination and social exclusion on account of sexual orientation or gender identity may best be overcome by measures targeted both at those who experience such discrimination or exclusion, and the population at large, Recommends that member states: 1. examine existing legislative and other measures, keep them under review, and collect and analyse relevant data, in order to monitor and redress any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; 2. ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively implemented to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, to ensure respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them; 3. ensure that victims of discrimination are aware of and have access to effective legal remedies before a national authority, and that measures to combat discrimination include, where appropriate, sanctions for infringements and the provision of adequate reparation for victims of discrimination; 4. be guided in their legislation, policies and practices by the principles and measures contained in the appendix to this recommendation; 5. ensure by appropriate means and action that this recommendation, including its appendix, is translated and disseminated as widely as possible.
Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 I.
Right to life, security and protection from violence
A. “Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents 1. Member states should ensure effective, prompt and impartial investigations into alleged cases of crimes and other incidents, where the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is reasonably suspected to have constituted a motive for the perpetrator; they should further ensure that particular attention is paid to the investigation of such crimes and incidents when allegedly committed by law enforcement officials or by other persons acting in an official capacity, and that those responsible for such acts are effectively brought to justice and, where appropriate, punished in order to avoid impunity. 2. Member states should ensure that when determining sanctions, a bias motive related to sexual orientation or gender identity may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance. 3. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure that victims and witnesses of sexual orientation or gender identity related “hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents are encouraged to report these crimes and incidents; for this purpose, member states should take all necessary steps to ensure that law enforcement structures, including the judiciary, have the
27
necessary knowledge and skills to identify such crimes and incidents and provide adequate assistance and support to victims and witnesses. 4. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and dignity of all persons in prison or in other ways deprived of their liberty, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, and in particular take protective measures against physical assault, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, whether committed by other inmates or staff; measures should be taken so as to adequately protect and respect the gender identity of transgender persons. 5. Member states should ensure that relevant data are gathered and analysed on the prevalence and nature of discrimination and intolerance on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and in particular on “hate crimes” and hate-motivated incidents related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
B. “Hate speech” 6. Member states should take appropriate measures to combat all forms of expression, including in the media and on the Internet, which may be reasonably understood as likely to produce the effect of inciting, spreading or promoting hatred or other forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Such “hate speech” should be prohibited and publicly disavowed whenever it occurs. All measures should respect the fundamental right to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the Court. 7. Member states should raise awareness among public authorities and public institutions at all levels of their responsibility to refrain from statements, in particular to the media, which may reasonably be understood as legitimising such hatred or discrimination. 8. Public officials and other state representatives should be encouraged to promote tolerance and respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons whenever they engage in a dialogue with key representatives of the civil society, including media and sports organisations, political organisations and religious communities.
II. Freedom of association 9. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, that the right to freedom of association can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, discriminatory administrative procedures, including excessive formalities for the registration and practical functioning of associations, should be prevented and removed; measures should also be taken to prevent the abuse of legal and administrative provisions, such as those related to restrictions based on public health, public morality and public order. 10. Access to public funding available for non-governmental organisations should be secured without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. 11. Member states should take appropriate measures to effectively protect defenders of human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons against hostility and aggression to which they may be exposed, including when allegedly committed by state agents, in order to enable them to freely carry out their activities in accordance with the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities. 12. Member states should ensure that non-governmental organisations defending the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are appropriately consulted on the adoption and implementation of measures that may have an impact on the human rights of these persons.
28
III. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly 13. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, that the right to freedom of expression can be effectively enjoyed, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, including with respect to the freedom to receive and impart information on subjects dealing with sexual orientation or gender identity. 14. Member states should take appropriate measures at national, regional and local levels to ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention, can be effectively enjoyed, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. 15. Member states should ensure that law enforcement authorities take appropriate measures to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations in favour of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons from any attempts to unlawfully disrupt or inhibit the effective enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 16. Member states should take appropriate measures to prevent restrictions on the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly resulting from the abuse of legal or administrative provisions, for example on grounds of public health, public morality and public order. 17. Public authorities at all levels should be encouraged to publicly condemn, notably in the media, any unlawful interferences with the right of individuals and groups of individuals to exercise their freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, notably when related to the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
IV. Right to respect for private and family life 18. Member states should ensure that any discriminatory legislation criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults, including any differences with respect to the age of consent for same-sex sexual acts and heterosexual acts, are repealed; they should also take appropriate measures to ensure that criminal law provisions which, because of their wording, may lead to a discriminatory application are either repealed, amended or applied in a manner which is compatible with the principle of non-discrimination. 19. Member states should ensure that personal data referring to a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are not collected, stored or otherwise used by public institutions including in particular within law enforcement structures, except where this is necessary for the performance of specific, lawful and legitimate purposes; existing records which do not comply with these principles should be destroyed. 20. Prior requirements, including changes of a physical nature, for legal recognition of a gender reassignment, should be regularly reviewed in order to remove abusive requirements. 21. Member states should take appropriate measures to guarantee the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way; member states should also ensure, where appropriate, the corresponding recognition and changes by non-state actors with respect to key documents, such as educational or work certificates. 22. Member states should take all necessary measures to ensure that, once gender reassignment has been completed and legally recognised in accordance with paragraphs 20 and 21 above, the right of transgender persons to marry a person of the sex opposite to their reassigned sex is effectively guaranteed.
29
23. Where national legislation confers rights and obligations on unmarried couples, member states should ensure that it applies in a non-discriminatory way to both same-sex and different-sex couples, including with respect to survivor’s pension benefits and tenancy rights. 24. Where national legislation recognises registered same-sex partnerships, member states should seek to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a comparable situation. 25. Where national legislation does not recognise nor confer rights or obligations on registered same-sex partnerships and unmarried couples, member states are invited to consider the possibility of providing, without discrimination of any kind, including against different sex couples, same-sex couples with legal or other means to address the practical problems related to the social reality in which they live. 26. Taking into account that the child’s best interests should be the primary consideration in decisions regarding the parental responsibility for, or guardianship of a child, member states should ensure that such decisions are taken without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 27. Taking into account that the child’s best interests should be the primary consideration in decisions regarding adoption of a child, member states whose national legislation permits single individuals to adopt children should ensure that the law is applied without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 28. Where national law permits assisted reproductive treatment for single women, member states should seek to ensure access to such treatment without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
V. Employment 29. Member states should ensure the establishment and implementation of appropriate measures which provide effective protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment and occupation in the public as well as in the private sector. These measures should cover conditions for access to employment and promotion, dismissals, pay and other working conditions, including the prevention, combating and punishment of harassment and other forms of victimisation. 30. Particular attention should be paid to providing effective protection of the right to privacy of transgender individuals in the context of employment, in particular regarding employment applications, to avoid any irrelevant disclosure of their gender history or their former name to the employer and other employees.
VI. Education 31. Taking into due account the over-riding interests of the child, member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures, addressed to educational staff and pupils, to ensure that the right to education can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; this includes, in particular, safeguarding the right of children and youth to education in a safe environment, free from violence, bullying, social exclusion or other forms of discriminatory and degrading treatment related to sexual orientation or gender identity. 32. Taking into due account the over-riding interests of the child, appropriate measures should be taken to this effect at all levels to promote mutual tolerance and respect in schools, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This should include providing objective information with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity, for instance in school curricula and educational materials, and providing pupils and students with the necessary information, protection and support to enable them to live in accordance with their sexual orientation and gender identity. Furthermore, member states may design and implement school equality and safety policies and
30
action plans and may ensure access to adequate anti-discrimination training or support and teaching aids. Such measures should take into account the rights of parents regarding education of their children.
VII. Health 33. Member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure that the highest attainable standard of health can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, they should take into account the specific needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the development of national health plans including suicide prevention measures, health surveys, medical curricula, training courses and materials, and when monitoring and evaluating the quality of health-care services. 34. Appropriate measures should be taken in order to avoid the classification of homosexuality as an illness, in accordance with the standards of the World Health Organisation. 35. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure that transgender persons have effective access to appropriate gender reassignment services, including psychological, endocrinological and surgical expertise in the field of transgender health care, without being subject to unreasonable requirements; no person should be subjected to gender reassignment procedures without his or her consent. 36. Member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure that any decisions limiting the costs covered by health insurance for gender reassignment procedures should be lawful, objective and proportionate.
VIII. Housing 37. Measures should be taken to ensure that access to adequate housing can be effectively and equally enjoyed by all persons, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; such measures should in particular seek to provide protection against discriminatory evictions, and to guarantee equal rights to acquire and retain ownership of land and other property. 38. Appropriate attention should be paid to the risks of homelessness faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, including young persons and children who may be particularly vulnerable to social exclusion, including from their own families; in this respect, the relevant social services should be provided on the basis of an objective assessment of the needs of every individual, without discrimination.
IX. Sports 39. Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity in sports are, like racism and other forms of discrimination, unacceptable and should be combated. 40. Sport activities and facilities should be open to all without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, effective measures should be taken to prevent, counteract and punish the use of discriminatory insults with reference to sexual orientation or gender identity during and in connection with sports events. 41. Member states should encourage dialogue with and support sports associations and fan clubs in developing awareness-raising activities regarding discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in sport and in condemning manifestations of intolerance towards them.
31
X. Right to seek asylum 42. In cases where member states have international obligations in this respect, they should recognise that a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity may be a valid ground for the granting of refugee status and asylum under national law. 43. Member states should ensure particularly that asylum seekers are not sent to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened or they face the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. 44. Asylum seekers should be protected from any discriminatory policies or practices on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, appropriate measures should be taken to prevent risks of physical violence, including sexual abuse, verbal aggression or other forms of harassment against asylum seekers deprived of their liberty, and to ensure their access to information relevant to their particular situation.
XI. National human rights structures 45. Member states should ensure that national human rights structures are clearly mandated to address discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, they should be able to make recommendations on legislation and policies, raise awareness amongst the general public, as well as – as far as national law so provides – examine individual complaints regarding both the private and public sector and initiate or participate in court proceedings.
XII. Discrimination on multiple grounds 46. Member states are encouraged to take measures to ensure that legal provisions in national law prohibiting or preventing discrimination also protect against discrimination on multiple grounds, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; national human rights structures should have a broad mandate to enable them to tackle such issues.
32
APPENDIX II: GLOSSARY This report uses a number of terms and concepts, which are defined and clarified below in order to facilitate the full understanding of the report. The definitions below are taken from the report Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Europe published by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe in 2011. 2 Discrimination is legally defined as unjustified, unequal treatment: – Direct discrimination occurs when for a reason related to one or more prohibited grounds (for example, sexual orientation and gender identity) a person or group of persons is treated less favourably than another person or another group of persons is, has been, or would be treated in a comparable situation; or when, for a reason related to one or more prohibited grounds, a person or group of persons is subjected to a detriment. – Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a status or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds (including sexual orientation and gender identity) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, and includes the personal sense of the body and other expressions of gender (that is, “gender expression”) such as dress, speech and mannerisms. The sex of a person is usually assigned at birth and becomes a social and legal fact from there on. However, some people experience problems identifying with the sex assigned at birth – these persons are referred to as “transgender” persons. Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation, and transgender persons may identify as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. Gender reassignment treatment refers to different medical and non-medical treatments which some transgender persons may wish to undergo. However, such treatments may also often be required for the legal recognition of one’s preferred gender, including hormonal treatment, sex or gender reassignment surgery (such as facial surgery, chest/breast surgery, different kinds of genital surgery and hysterectomy), sterilisation (leading to infertility). Some of these treatments are considered and experienced as invasive for the body integrity of the persons. Harassment constitutes discrimination when unwanted conduct related to any prohibited ground (including sexual orientation and gender identity) takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Harassment can consist of a single incident or several incidents over a period of time. Harassment can take many forms, such as threats, intimidation or verbal abuse, unwelcome remarks or jokes about sexual orientation or gender identity. Hate crime towards LGBT persons refers to criminal acts with a bias motive. Hate crimes include intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, murder or any other criminal offence where the victim, premises or target of the offence are selected because of their real or perceived connection, attachment, affiliation, support or membership of an LGBT group. There should be a reasonable suspicion that the motive of the perpetrator is the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim.
2
http://www.coe.int/t/Commissioner/Source/LGBT/LGBTStudy2011_en.pdf
33
Hate-motivated incident are incidents, acts or manifestations of intolerance committed with a bias motive that may not reach the threshold of hate crimes, due to insufficient proof in a court of law for the criminal offence or bias motivation, or because the act itself may not have been a criminal offence under national legislation. Hate speech against LGBT people refers to public expressions which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred, discrimination or hostility towards LGBT people – for example, statements made by political and religious leaders or other opinion leaders circulated by the press or the Internet which aim to incite hatred. Heteronormativity can be defined as the institutions, structures of understanding and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem coherent, natural and privileged. It involves the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is the ideal and superior to homosexuality or bisexuality. Heteronormativity also includes the privileging of normative expressions of gender – what is required or imposed on individuals in order for them to be perceived or accepted as “a real man” or “a real woman” as the only available categories. Homophobia!is defined as an irrational fear of, and aversion to, homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons based on prejudice. Transphobia refers to a similar phenomenon, but specifically to the fear of, and aversion to, transgender persons or gender nonconformity. Manifestations of homophobia and transphobia include discrimination, criminalisation, marginalisation, social exclusion and violence on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. Intersex people are persons who are born with chromosomal, hormonal levels or genital characteristics which do not correspond to the given standard of “male” or “female” categories as for sexual or reproductive anatomy. This word has replaced the term “hermaphrodite”, which was extensively used by medical practitioners during the 18th and 19th centuries. Intersexuality may take different forms and cover a wide range of conditions. LGBT people or LGBT persons is an umbrella term used to encompass lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. It is a heterogeneous group that is often bundled together under the LGBT heading in social and political arenas. Sometimes LGBT is extended to include intersex and queer persons (LGBTIQ). Sexual orientation is understood to refer to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender (heterosexual) or the same gender (homosexual, lesbian, gay) or more than one gender (bisexual). Transgender persons include persons who have a gender identity which is different from the gender assigned to them at birth and those people who wish to portray their gender identity in a different way from the gender assigned at birth. It includes those people who feel they have to, prefer to, or choose to, whether by clothing, accessories, mannerisms, speech patterns, cosmetics or body modification, present themselves differently from the expectations of the gender role assigned to them at birth. This includes, among many others, persons who do not identify with the labels “male” or “female”, transsexuals, transvestites and cross-dressers. A transgender man is a person who was assigned “female” at birth but has a gender identity which is “male” or within a masculine gender identity spectrum. A transgender woman is a person who was assigned “male” at birth but has a gender identity which is female or within a feminine gender identity spectrum. Analogous labels for sexual orientation of transgender people are used according to their gender identity rather than the gender assigned to them at birth. A heterosexual transgender man, for example, is a transgender man who is attracted to female partners. A lesbian transgender woman is attracted to female partners. Transsexual refers to a person who has a gender identity which does not correspond to the sex assigned at birth and consequently feels a profound need to permanently correct that sex and to modify bodily appearance or function by undergoing gender reassignment treatment.
34
Transvestite (cross-dresser) describes a person who regularly, although part-time, wears clothes mostly associated with the opposite gender to her or his birth gender.
35
APPENDIX III: COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION REPORT Recommendation 1. examine existing legislative and other measures, keep them under review, and collect and analyse relevant data, in order to monitor and redress any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; i.
Has a review been conducted of existing legislative and other measures which could result directly or indirectly in (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity discrimination?
Summary: NO. There has been no comprehensive review conducted in order to screen discriminatory legislative and other measures. Although there is an institutional and legal framework for reviewing draft legislation and assess their constitutionality and indirectly their compliance with international obligations, since 2010 this has been rarely used due to the practice of the current governing party that submits crucial laws through individual MPs (as private member’s bills), thus circumventing the co-ordination and review procedures, which are otherwise in place for government bills. Detailed analysis: The By-laws of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice 3 contain several provisions that make the constitutional review of draft legislation mandatory in the legislative process. The Government Office assesses the bills from constitutional and legal perspectives and prepares complex reports for the respective state secretary and the minister [1.1.1.2.3. f)]. The Department for Constitutional Affairs – within its coordination competence – submits opinions, among others, on the constitutionality of draft legislation. In addition to that, the Department answers all the constitutional inquiries that may arise in the legislative process [1.3.3.2.3.] 4 The Equal Treatment Authority (ETAuth) 5 also has an explicit mandate to comment on draft legislation or reports concerning equal treatment, and it is also entitled to submit legislative proposals on issues relating to the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunities. The ETAuth shall also inform the public and the Government about the enforcement of equal treatment. 6
3
Available at: http://www.kormany.hu/download/5/30/70000/KIM-Szervezeti%20%C3%A9s%20M%C5%B1k%C3%B6d %C3%A9si%20Szab%C3%A1lyzat.pdf. 4 The authors have not received information from the Ministry on the nature and content of such review, the above information is based on the publicly available by-laws. Similarly, there is no information available with regard to an extensive review prior the adoption of the comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. 5 See also Rec3 i). 6 Article 14 of the Act on the principle of equal treatment and promotion of equal opportunities (ETA). For further details on the ETA see the information provided under Rec2 i).
36
ii.
Are processes in place to ensure that the discrimination thus identified is redressed?
Summary: PARTIALLY. In addition to the set of remedies available in individual cases of discrimination [see Rec3 i)], the Constitutional Court offers limited possibilities to challenge allegedly discriminative legislation. Recent practice by the Government to respond to constitutionality problems by amending the Fundamental Law or affected legislation significantly questions the effectiveness of this remedy. A constitutional complaint procedure has been opened by the new Fundamental Law, but its effectiveness remains unclear. Detailed analysis: The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is defined in Article 24(2) of the new Fundamental Law. In addition, Act no. CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary 7 entered into force on 1 January 2012. Unlike the previous legislation on constitutional review, the new Act – in line with Article 24 (2) e) of the Fundamental Law – significantly narrowed standing rules for abstract review performed by the Constitutional Court. Previously anyone could turn to the Court and request the constitutional review of legal norms (the so-called actio popularis), while the current legislation only allows the Government, one-fourth of the Members of Parliament, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights to request such ex post review of legislation. Furthermore, prior to promulgation of laws passed by the Parliament the President of the Republic can request a preliminary review of constitutionality. In addition, courts of law may also refer to the Constitutional Court a question concerning the constitutionality of a legal norm to be applied in a case pending before them (Article 24(2)b) of the new Fundamental Law). So far only the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights has exercised his right to petition in defence of LGBT rights; he submitted a petition for the review of the much-criticized Act no. CCXI of 2011 on the protection of families, and the related act on family support. 8 The Constitutional Court found key provisions of the statute unconstitutional in Decision no. 43/2012 (XII. 20.). Despite the fact that the circle of petitioners entitled to initiate ex post review was significantly narrowed, the new legislation introduced a German-type of constitutional complaint procedure. Article 26 (1) of the Act on the Constitutional Court contains the following: In accordance with Article 24 (2) c) of the Fundamental Law, person or organization affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court if, due to the application of a legal regulation contrary to the Fundamental Law in their proceedings a) their rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law were violated, and b) the possibilities for legal remedy have been exhausted or no possibility for legal remedy is available.
Exceptionally, a constitutional complaint may also be submitted if due to the application of an unconstitutional legal provision or by the mere existence of the provision in question rights were violated directly (without a judicial decision) and there is no remedy available or the petitioner already exhausted those. This provision – in principle – makes it possible to challenge discriminatory legislation without an actual court procedure, however, the practice of the Constitutional Court on admitting petitions from potential victims has not been clarified yet. 9 Sadly, the Government in power since 2010 has oftentimes failed to follow the judgments of the Constitutional Court. There is a clear pattern: if the Constitutional Court finds the
7
The English text of the Act is available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2012/CDL-REF(2012)017-e.pdf. For further details see: App45 ii) iv). For the text of the amicus brief submitted to the Venice Commission – which also the ombudsman seems to have relied on – see: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid= ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhbWljdXNicmllZmh1bmdhcnl8Z3g6NWU4NWIwYjUwOTI0MzQzNw. 9 For the remedies available in individual cases of discrimination please see Rec3 i). 8
37
unconstitutionality of a law, the Government will pass it with slight modification or amend the Fundamental Law with the contested provisions (and thus they will not be subject of review any longer) or amend the constitutional basis of the decision in a way that prevents the Court to apply the same standard for the newly passed legislation. The first battle between the new Government and the that-time Constitutional Court ended with stripping the Court of its key competence, i.e. the possibility to review legislation with any budgetary implication, through a constitutional amendment. 2. ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively implemented to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, to ensure respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them; i.
Has legislation against discrimination on the grounds of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity covering employment, social security and health care, education, access to and supply of goods and services, including housing, been introduced?
Summary: YES. The comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation (ETA) offers a broad and far-reaching protection against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ETA was adopted principally in order to give effect to EU anti-discrimination directives, and replaced sectoral laws, some of which still contain references to the principle of equal treatment to be applied in compliance with the ETA. On the constitutional level the newly passed Fundamental Law does not include a specific mentioning of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, which are still subsumed under the category of ‘any other ground’. Detailed analysis: Fundamental Law On 1 January 2012 the new Fundamental Law entered into force replacing the old Constitution (Act no. XX of 1949). Despite being pronounced as modern document transferring the rights from the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, the discrimination clause fails to move significantly beyond the former text. Article XV (2) says: (2) Hungary shall ensure fundamental rights to every person without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, gender, disability, language, religion, political or other views, national or social origin, financial, birth or other circumstances whatsoever.
Although newly adopted text contains additional prohibited grounds for discrimination if compared to the previous Constitution (such as disability), yet it fails to proscribe unjustified differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Read together with the marriage defence provision of the Fundamental Law (Article L (1): “Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the nation’s survival.”), the omission creates a step back from the previous constitutional regime. Act on Equal Treatment With the adoption of Act no. CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities (ETA) the Hungarian Parliament introduced a comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in line with EU and international law obligations of the country. ETA also aimed at implementing the constitutional prohibition of discrimination, which was only regulated by scattered provisions in diverse sectoral laws before.
38
The scope of ETA covers – among others – the state, actors exercising state power, local governments, organizations exercising public powers or receiving state subsidies, educational institutions, insurance funds, social care and child protection services, parties, budgetary agencies, etc. ETA has a considerable horizontal effect as well: employers, service providers and in cases where private individuals publicly call for entering into contract (for example advertising an apartment for rent in a newspaper). However, ETA does not cover a) family law relationships; b) relationship between relatives; c) relationships of ecclesiastical entities directly connected to the religious life of churches; and d) internal operations of NGOs, legal entities or organizations without legal personality (with exceptions as defined by the Act). The following conducts constitute the violation of the principle of the equal treatment: 1. direct discrimination (Art. 8); 2. indirect discrimination (Art. 9); 3. harassment [Art. 10 (1)]; 4. unlawful segregation [Art. 10 (2)]; 5. retribution [victimization; Art. 10 (3)]. Direct discrimination is defined as acts “as a result of which a person or a group is treated or would be treated less favourably than another person or group in a comparable situation” because of his/her protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination is a result of apparently neutral acts but any person or groups having a protected characteristic are “at a considerably larger disadvantage than other persons or groups in a similar situation were or would be”. Harassment is defined as “a conduct of sexual or other nature violating human dignity [in relation to protected characteristic(s)] with the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment around the person affected.” Among the protected characteristics listed in Article 8, ETA explicitly makes reference to sexual orientation [m)] and gender identity [n)]. The inclusion of both protected grounds was a remarkable step in the protection afforded to the LGBT community as the that time constitution and other laws contained lot more limited – though open – lists. Apart from creating the general legislative framework, ETA contains specific provisions for employment, social security and health care, housing, education and training and the sale of goods and use of services. 10 Civil Code The Civil Code offers an alternative remedy through the protection of personality rights in cases where the principle of equal treatment has been violated. The Civil Code explicitly qualifies the breach of the principle of equal treatment – as defined by the ETA – as a form of violation of personality rights. Article 76 The breach of the principle of equal treatment; violation of the freedom of conscience; any unlawful restriction of personal freedom; injury to body or health; contempt for or insult to the honour, integrity, or human dignity of private persons shall be deemed as violations of personality rights. 11
Labour Code For employment relationships the Labour Code – both the 1992 and the new, 2012 one – contains the requirement of equal treatment. Act no. XXII of 1992, in Article 5 since the adoption of the ETA only refers to the principle of equal treatment. This provision shall be interpreted in the light of the comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. Article 5 (2) prescribes that (T)he consequences arising from the violation of the principle of equal treatment shall be adequately redressed and this cannot lead to the violation or restriction of other employee’s rights.
10
The English text of the ETA is available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/data/Act_CXXV_2003%20English.pdf. The specific provisions are detailed under the relevant recommendations. 11 Act no. IV of 1959 on the Civil Code.
39
The wording of Act no. I of 2012 12 is more detailed. Article 12 (1) contains the following formulation: In relation to employment, particularly with regard to remuneration, the principle of equal treatment shall be respected. The redress afforded in case this principle has been violated cannot lead to the violation or restriction of other employee’s rights.
Remuneration is meant to include any kind of financial or in-kind, directly or indirectly paid allocation that is based on a labour contract. ii.
Has a comprehensive strategy, including long-term education and awareness raising programmes, aimed at tackling discriminatory or biased attitudes and behaviour within the general public and correcting prejudices and stereotypes, been implemented?
Summary: NO. No national action plan or strategy has been passed aimed at tackling bias or prejudice in general or specifically concerning sexual orientation or gender identity. Such strategies and programmes do exist for other vulnerable groups. Detailed analysis: National equal opportunity programme In the originally adopted version of the ETA Chapter IV mandated the adoption of the Equal Opportunity Programme of the Republic. The aim of the Programme was to prevent discrimination and promote equal opportunities in all spheres of life for all affected social groups. It should have contained the governmental measures targeted at the implementation of that aim. The Programme was supposed to be proposed – after consultation with the relevant stakeholders – by the government and adopted by the Parliament. It was planned to assess the situation of social groups and identify the objectives. The Programme should have contained the necessary steps needed to positively change social attitudes, measures in order to raise awareness about the available remedies, to improve the labour situation and participation in public education of disadvantaged groups, initiatives for employers, and necessary legislative tasks for achieving the above goals. The government was supposed to report to the Parliament yearly on the implementation. Despite the promising legislative initiative, the Programme was never adopted and Act no. CIV of 2006 eliminated the relevant provisions of the ETA. Initiative for other vulnerable groups While there is no comprehensive equal opportunity strategy or action plan for the LGBT population, several policy documents aiming at promoting equal opportunities for other vulnerable groups do exist, such programmes have been adopted for women 13, people living with disabilities 14, youth 15 and the Roma. 16
12
The new Labour Code entered into force on 1 July 2012. Government Decree no. 1004/2010 (I. 21.) on the National strategy on promoting the social equality of women and men. 14 Parliamentary Decision no. 10/2006 (II. 16.) on the New national strategy on disability affairs. 15 Parliamentary Decision no. 88/2009 (X. 21.) on the National youth strategy. 16 National Social Inclusion Strategy, see http://romagov.kormany.hu/hungarian-national-social-inclusion-strategy-deeppoverty-child-poverty-and-the-roma. 13
40
Local equal opportunity programmes Article 31 of the ETA includes provisions on local equal opportunity programmes that need to be adopted by city councils for five years. The programmes shall contain an assessment of the situation of disadvantaged groups in the fields of education, housing, employment, health, and social situation, and propose a plan of action to address the problems identified. The act specifically mentions women, people in deep poverty, Roma, disabled people, children and the elderly as disadvantaged groups; LGBT people are not specifically included, although the text of the law is open to the inclusion of other vulnerable groups. On the other the hand the detailed legislation on the methodology of preparing local equal opportunity programmes no longer maintains an open list, and only contains a rigid structure not suited for the inclusion of more vulnerable groups. 17 While the adoption of the programmes is optional, from 1 July 2013 only those local governments can apply for public funds for development that have an equal opportunity program. 3. ensure that victims of discrimination are aware of and have access to effective legal remedies before a national authority, and that measures to combat discrimination include, where appropriate, sanctions for infringements and the provision of adequate reparation for victims of discrimination; i.
Do effective legal remedies for victims of (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity discrimination exist at national level?
Summary: YES. Victims of discrimination have a wide choice of remedies each of them having its advantages and disadvantages. The fastest and cheapest remedy is offered by the ETAuth, however, the ETAuth can only impose public interest fines, but no reparation to victims. The enforcement of personality rights under the Civil Code allows the court to award pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for cases of discrimination, but it is significantly slower and more expensive. The sectoral remedies – labour and media law, consumer protection – are limited to cases of discrimination that come within the scope the respective act, thus usually offer remedies in a very narrow circle. Detailed analysis: Procedures under the Act on equal treatment The ETA together with Act no. CXL of 2004 on the general rules of public procedures provide for an independent enforcement regime that is distinct from that of the Civil Code. The implementation of the ETA is overseen by a separate public body, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETAuth). Any individual may submit a petition to the ETAuth claiming the violation of the principle of equal treatment as defined by the ETA. Non-governmental and interest representation organizations may instigate procedures (actio popularis) before the ETAuth if the violation of the principle of equal treatment or a direct threat of the violation was based on such a characteristic that is an essential aspect of the individual’s personality, and the violation or a direct threat of it affects a larger group of persons who cannot be determined precisely. There is case law to support that sexual orientation is recognized as such essential aspect of the individual’s personality.18 Proceedings before the ETAuth may be instigated only within one year after getting to know about
17 18
Decree no. 2/2012 (VI. 5.) of the Ministry of Human Resources. See the argumentation of the courts in Case 5.
41
the alleged violation or within three years after the alleged violation. 19 The procedures before the ETAuth are free of charge. The allegations shall be investigated by the ETAuth or other public administration body with the authority to assess the violation of the principle of equal treatment (such as the National Consumer Authority). Besides procedures initiated by individuals or NGOs, the ETAuth shall proceed ex officio – if there are no parallel proceedings – in cases where the principle of equal treatment is violated by the State, local and minority self-governments and their bodies, organizations exercising powers as authorities, and the armed forces and law enforcement agencies. The ETAuth cannot investigate decisions and measures exercising public authority by the Parliament, the President, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office, the ombudsman, the courts and the public prosecution. In the procedures initiated for the violation of the principle of equal treatment, the injured party or the party entitled to an actio popularis must render probable that a) the injured party or group has suffered a disadvantage, or in case of an actio popularis, there is a direct danger of such disadvantage; b) the injured party or group at the time of the alleged violation that they – actually or by the perception of the offending party – possessed any of the characteristics defined by the ETA. If all the above have been rendered probable the burden of proof shifts and it is for the other party to show that a) that the facts presented by the injured party or by an organization entitled for an actio popularis have not existed; b) that it observed the principle of equal treatment or in that particular relationship it was not obliged to do so. If the ETAuth finds that the principle of equal treatment as laid down by ETA has been violated it may order that the situation constituting a violation be eliminated; prohibit the continuation of the conduct constituting a violation; order its decision be published; impose a fine; or apply a legal consequence determined by a separate act. The sanctions can be applied collectively as well. The amount of the fine may vary from 50.000 HUF to 6.000.000 HUF (appr. from 180 EUR to 21.400 EUR). Decisions of the ETAuth are subject to judicial review upon the appeal of either parties, the review falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Court. Successful cases brought under the ETA concerning sexual orientation and gender identity include the case of a gay activist, who after appearing on TV was fired from a dance school he has been attending for several year (see Case 11), several workplace harassment cases (see Cases 15 and 16), and a case ending in an out of procedure settlement concerning the refusal of a hotel to rent its facilities for a photo-shoot of cross-dressers (see Case 22). Procedures under the Civil Code The Civil Code 20 offers an alternative remedy through the protection of personality rights in cases where the principle of equal treatment has been violated. The Civil Code explicitly qualifies the breach of the principle of equal treatment – as defined by the ETA – as a form of violation of personality rights. The rules set out by the ETA concerning actio popularis and burden of proof also apply in these court proceedings. The main difference is the range of available remedies. The injured person (petitioner) may ask for the following remedies, depending on the circumstances of the case, the petitioner may: a) demand a court declaration of the occurrence of the infringement;
19 20
Article 169/H of Act no. CXL of 2004 on the general rules of public procedures. Act no. IV of 1959 on the Civil Code.
42
b) demand to have the infringement discontinued and the respondent restrained from further infringement; c) demand that the respondent make restitution in a statement or by some other suitable means and, if necessary, that the respondent, at his own expense, make an appropriate public disclosure for restitution; d) demand the termination of the injurious situation and the restoration of the previous state by and at the expense of the respondent and, furthermore, to have the effects of the infringement nullified or deprived of their injurious nature; e) file charges for punitive damages in accordance with liability regulations under civil law. If the amount of punitive damages that can be imposed is insufficient to mitigate the gravity of the actionable conduct, the court is also entitled to order the respondent to pay a public interest fine. The main deficiency of the procedures based on the violation of personality rights is that the procedures are very long and the plaintiff risks having to pay the cost of the proceedings if the case is lost. The number of court cases concerning sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is very low, but successful cases e.g. include a workplace harassment case first won before the ETAuth and later taken to court for compensation (see Case 16). Procedures before the National Media and Infocommunications Authority There are two supervisory bodies – the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMIA) and its Media Council, an organ of the NMIA – that may play a role in fighting against discrimination in advertising and incitement to hatred prohibited by the media laws. For a detailed analysis of these provisions see App6 i). The NMIA has broader – in practice less concrete – mandate when it comes to protecting individual rights and preventing and sanctioning discriminatory content. It does market analysis and it may proceed in cases when a service provider fails to fulfil its obligation under the Media Constitution 21 (Media Act, 22 Article 110). It is the Media Council, which controls and enforces the freedom of the press as defined by the Media Constitution. The Media Council performs a supervisory role in relation to content recorded by service providers, operates a programming watchdog and analysing service, and initiates awareness raising (Media Act, Article 132). Anyone can submit request to the NMIA and the Media Council to examine an activity that may not comply with the media legislation, i.e. if the relevant provisions of the Media Constitution have been allegedly violated with regard to a minority group, including the LGBT community as well.23 The petitioner is not party to the procedure, but both authorities can consider initiating a procedure ex officio. If they fail to do so, an official letter is sent to the petitioner, but according to the Media Act there is no obligation on the authorities to give reasons for the refusal. For any procedure before the two authorities the general rules of public procedures apply (Media Act, Article 145). In applying the legal consequences the Media Council shall respect the principle of equal treatment, proportionality and progressivity [Media Act, Article 185 (2)]. If the infringement is of minor significance and occurred only once, the Media Council while taking notice of the fact, may request the infringer to discontinue the unlawful conduct, refrain from further infringements and
21
Act no. CIV of 2010 on the freedom of the press. Act no. CLXXXV of 2010 on the media services and the mass media. 23 The NMIA in its response to the authors’ questionnaire explicitly identified LMBT people as a minority group deserving protection under the above cited grounds. Letter from the National Media and Infocommunications Authority no. NM/13627-2/2012; on file with the authors. 22
43
act in a law-abiding manner [Media Act, Article 186 (1)]. In case of repeated infringement, a fine not exceeding 2 million forints (appr. 6900 EUR) may be imposed in line with the gravity, nature of the infringement and the circumstances of the particular case [Media Act, Article 187 (1)]. 24 The Media Council may also order the infringer to publish a notice, and it has the right to suspend the exercise of the media service provision right for a certain period of time, or terminate the official contract in cases of repeated grave violations [Media Act, Article 187 (3) d) and e)]. While the authors know of no cases – neither successful nor failed – concerning sexual orientation or gender identity at the new NMIA or its Media Council, its predecessor, the National Radio and Television Commission decided favourably in several cases concerning biased or hateful portrayal of LGBT people on TV (see Cases 1 and 10). Procedures before the National Consumer Authority The violation of the principle of equal treatment – under defined circumstances – may be redressed through procedures of consumer protection. 25 The Hungarian system of consumer protection is based on two pillars: administrative / judicial procedures and mediation. Petitions to the court can be filed individually based on a set of facts in an individual case (the victim has standing), and in certain cases a class action is permitted by those defined by law. 26 The administrative procedure before the National Consumer Authority (NCA) is an alternative to the court procedure: it is faster and cheaper than filing a petition to the court. The NCA may impose a fine if the rights of consumers have been violated, however, reparation to the consumers cannot be prescribed. An out-of-court settlement is provided if the consumer requests the Mediation Committee to settle the case. The Committee hears the parties and shall deliver a decision in 60 days (optionally extended with 30 days). If the settlement reached by the parties meets the legal requirements, the council acting in the case confirms that, if not, a procedure is conducted. If the respondent party accepts the binding nature of the decision, the Committee will instruct it to remedy the situation. If the respondent fails to do so, the Committee may only formulate the findings in the form of recommendation. The Mediation Committee’s decisions are not subject to appeal. 27 Procedures before the Labour Inspectorate Until July 1, 2012 the Hungarian Labour Inspectorate had the mandate to enforce respect for the principle of equal treatment within labour relations including the possibility to sanction by imposing a fine. This mandate was removed with the entry into force of the new Labour Code. 28 ii.
Are there effective procedures to make victims aware of, and able to access, such remedies, even where a violation is committed by a person acting in an official capacity?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The resident equal treatment experts, the Houses of Opportunities and the awarenessraising programmes of the ETAuth provide some information to the victims of discrimination, but they are not capable of reaching out to everyone affected. There is a lack of systemic awarenessraising, especially with regard to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. 24
The rules guiding the amount of the fine are further detailed in Article 187 (3). As defined in Act no. CLV of 1997 on consumer protection. 26 Cases where a class action may be brought: unfair conditions of contract (Civil Code), the violation of competition law to the detriment of consumers, violation of the provisions on consumer protection. 27 Articles 18-37/A of the Consumer Protection Act. 28 See Act no. LXXV of 1996. 25
44
Detailed analysis: The ETAuth operates a network of equal treatment experts in each county capital since 1 September 2009. The project is funded by TÁMOP (EU-funding). The experts in the network, who are experienced attorneys, receive clients (victims of discrimination and others in need of information) for four hours every week in major cities (county capitals), and are also available for two hours in different smaller cities within the county every month. In addition to providing general information on the legislative framework and the available remedies, the experts offer concrete legal help in preparing submissions to the ETAuth. Apart from the legal help, they take part in the professional and civil partnerships, visit schools and raise awareness on the principle of equal treatment. 29 The Nation Equal Opportunities Network comprises of Houses of Opportunities in each county and the capital. The Houses focus on six target groups (women, persons living with disability, Roma, children, elderly and people living in disadvantaged regions) and aim at raising awareness and changing of social attitudes on equal treatment and equal opportunities. Their activity focuses on communication on the social level and puts heavy emphasis on collaboration with professional stakeholders. The Houses organize media campaigns, conferences, workshops, etc. However, the LGBT community is not among the target groups. 30 On the awareness-raising programmes and trainings of the Equal Treatment Authority see App45 ii). iii.
Are the remedies effective, proportionate and dissuasive?
PARTIALLY. A report on access to justice prepared for the FRA claims that while in the past the amount of compensation available via judicial procedure was quite steadily around the double of the legally set monthly minimum wage, i.e. not a very dissuasive sanction; practicing lawyers say that as of 2011 however, the average amounts have started to rise, which is a promising change in the general judicial approach. With regard to the sanctioning practice of the ETAuth, it appeared to apply fines between HUF 500,000 (EUR 1,845) and HUF 3,000,000 (EUR 11,070), with the fines imposed slightly increasing. 31 iv.
Do the remedies include, where appropriate, adequate reparation for victims?
YES. While the ETAuth, NMIA and NCA can only impose fines, if civil proceedings is initiated the plaintiff can file charges for damages in accordance with the general liability regulations under civil law, see Rec3 v). 4. be guided in their legislation, policies and practices by the principles and measures contained in the appendix to this recommendation; [no action] 5. ensure by appropriate means and action that this recommendation, including its appendix, is translated and disseminated as widely as possible
29
Letter from the Equal Treatment Authority no. EBH/505/2/2012; on file with the authors. For further information see: http://english.eselyekhaza.hu/. 31 http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1532-access-to-justice-2011-country-HU.pdf 30
45
i.
What steps have been taken to ensure as wide as possible dissemination of the Recommendation and its appendix?
The Human Rights Working Group of the government informed the authors that the Recommendation and its appendix have been translated and published on the website of the Government. 32 There is no information about further dissemination activities. 33 ii.
Have the Recommendation and its appendix been translated?
YES. The Ministry of Public Administration and Justice has prepared the translation of the Recommendation and its appendix. iii.
Have they been disseminated: i. within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities? ii. throughout public administration? iii. throughout law-enforcement structures, including the judiciary and penitentiary system? iv. to national human rights protection structures (including equality bodies)? v. throughout the educational system? vi. throughout the health-care system? vii. to representatives of public and private sector employees and employers? viii. to the media? ix. to relevant non-governmental organisations?
NO. The Human Rights Working Group claims to have “made the document widely available” (referring to publishing it on the governmental website), but no further dissemination activities were reported. 34
32
Available at http://www.kormany.hu/download/3/8d/80000/CM-Rec-2010-5-ajanlas.pdf#!DocumentBrowse. Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 34 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 33
46
Appendix I. Right to life, security and protection from violence A. “Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents 1. Member states should ensure effective, prompt and impartial investigations into alleged cases of crimes and other incidents, where the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is reasonably suspected to have constituted a motive for the perpetrator; they should further ensure that particular attention is paid to the investigation of such crimes and incidents when allegedly committed by law enforcement officials or by other persons acting in an official capacity, and that those responsible for such acts are effectively brought to justice and, where appropriate, punished in order to avoid impunity. i.
Does the training of police officers ensure that they are aware of the need to make special efforts to investigate any (a) homophobic or (b) transphobic connotations in hate crimes or hatemotivated incidents effectively, promptly and impartially, particularly where violence is involved?
NO. The Police Training College does not provide specific training on hate crimes. According to the information received from the College, the curriculum contains general classes on prejudice, discrimination, scapegoating, intergroup violence and hate speech within social science subjects (sociology, psychology, ethics, communication), and minority status and its relationship to criminality and victimization are covered under criminology, but LGBT issues are only mentioned, and not treated at greater depth. 35 The criminal law subject does not specifically cover hate crimes, and the special investigation techniques required by hate crime investigations are not covered in any subject. There have been some special one or two-day training courses on hate crimes organized by the US embassy 36 and NGOs, 37 but the trainings only reached a very limited number of police officers. ii.
Is there an independent and effective machinery for receiving and investigating reports of hate crimes or hate-motivated incidents allegedly committed by law-enforcement staff, particularly where sexual orientation or gender identity constitute one of the motives?
Summary: YES. The Independent Police Complaints Board has been set up to examine complaints submitted by victims of abuse of police power. The IPCB’s mandate, however, is limited: it cannot proceed ex officio and its decisions are not binding. Cases where the provisions of the Criminal Code have been allegedly violated, the general rules of criminal procedure apply and the military prosecution decides on pressing charges.
35
Letter from the Police Training College no. 44/356/2011, in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors. 36 Information received by the author from State Secretary Zoltán Balogh at a lobby meeting on September 23, 2011. 37 On October 19-20, 2010 Háttér Support Society for LGBT People organized a two-day training programme for 16 police officers from around the country on LGBT hate crimes. On March 9, 2012 Háttér Support Society for LGBT People organized a two-hour training for 25 police officers in Budapest working in the field of crime prevention on hate crimes.
47
Detailed analysis: As the 2007 amendment of Act no XXXIV of 1994 on the police (Police Act) a new independent monitoring body, the Independent Police Complaints Board (IPCB) was set up. IPCB works as an organ of civilian control; its members are elected for six years by the Parliament and are renowned lawyers in their field (not necessarily specialized in criminal law). According to Article 92 the IPCB proceed and investigate in complaints in the following cases: 1. failure to fulfil the obligation to perform police tasks and act in line with instructions; 2. police measures and omissions (e.g. ID check; search of cloths, luggage, vehicle; arrest, alien-policing measures; traffic related actions); 3. application and lawfulness of coercive measures (e.g. applying physical force, handcuffing, use of chemicals or electric shock devices, roadblocks, using weapons). The IPCB examines complaints submitted by victims 38 from a constitutional and human rights law perspective, outside of the hierarchical relations within the police structure. While not mentioned specifically, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity clearly constitute a fundamental rights concern. The IPCB cannot initiate procedures on the basis of general remarks, comments or public announcements, or in cases where the police action at issue has occurred in the course of another pending procedure. The IPCB cannot act ex officio and the complainant cannot be a fictional person or remain anonymous though the personal data may be requested to be removed from the final resolution. The complaints have to be submitted within 8 days from the infringement, but the procedure allows for some flexibility in this regard as complaint launched with the police within 30 days after the incident can be taken over by the IPCB. The IPCB has to conclude the procedure within 90 days from the date of submission. It is not an authority, its decisions are not binding, and there is no appeal against the resolutions. If the IPCB finds no violation of fundamental rights, or establishes that the restriction of those was lawful and justified, the resolution is forwarded to the head of the police unit where the contested measure was taken. If the IPCB finds that the complainant’s fundamental rights were breached, the complaint and the resolution is forwarded to the Head of the National Police Headquarters, who decides on the case according to the general rules of procedure applicable for public administration. Although the IPCB resolution does not bind him, in case a different decision is taken, he must present reasons for that. Judicial review is available against the decision of the Head of the National Police Headquarters. 39 There are no data available from the IPCB on hate crimes and incident allegedly committed by the police. The report on the activities between 2008 and 2010 only indicates the fundamental right that was invoked by the complainant and the fundamental right on which the resolution was based. From this it is evident that victims generally refer to human dignity that has a privileged place among the basic rights in the Hungarian constitutional system, while there are only a handful of cases where the prohibition of discrimination was mentioned, and the cases are not disaggregated according to grounds of discrimination. 40 2. Member states should ensure that when determining sanctions, a bias motive related to sexual orientation or gender identity may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance.
38
Persons who have been personally affected by the action of the police. For further information see: http://www.panasztestulet.hu/index.php?link=en_main.htm. 40 For the data see: http://www.panasztestulet.hu/files/08-10_beszamolo.pdf. 39
48
i.
Do legislative measures to combat “hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents exist? Do these measures recognise (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity as a possible motive in such crimes or incidents?
Summary: YES. The Criminal Code contains a sui generis hate crime called ‘violence against a member of a community’. The current legislation only refers to ‘any other group of society’, which according to the legislator’s intent and existing practice of the police also covers the LGBT community as well. From 1 July 2013 the Criminal Code will specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity in the hate crime provisions. Hate crimes against properties are not recognized by legislation. The court jurisprudence in this area is severely underdeveloped; many hate crime incidents are prosecuted – if at all – under less serious offences. Detailed analysis: Since 1 February 2009, LGBT communities fall within the scope of Article 174/B of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes violence against a member of a community. Before 2009, LGBT people were left without any criminal law protection against crimes motivated by homo- and transphobic hate. Hate crime provisions had existed in the Criminal Code since 1996 (violence against a member of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group), but it did not cover sexual orientation and gender identity. 41 Homo- and transphobic hate crimes were only prosecuted – if at all – as ‘ordinary’ offences such as disorderly conduct or causing bodily harm, but without accounting for the hate motivation. In response to the violent attacks during and after LGBT Pride events in 2007 and 2008, in 2008 Parliament amended the above-mentioned Article 174/B to include a general reference to ‘any other group of society’ in addition to the national, ethnic, racial and religious groups. This provision, which has been in force since 1 February 2009, prohibits the following conduct: Article 174/B (1) The person who assaults another person because that person belongs or is believed to belong to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or any other group of society, or coerces that person by violence or threats into doing or not doing or into enduring something, commits an offence and shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years. (2) The punishment shall be imprisonment from two years to eight years, if the act of crime is committed: a) by force of arms, b) in an armed manner, c) causing a considerable injury of interest, d) by torture of the injured party, e) in groups, f) by criminal conspiracy. 42
The legislator’s intent – according to the explanatory report attached to the Act – was to provide more efficient and deterrent sanctions against those violating basic rights, including the freedom of assembly. The drafters realized that groups other than those already protected were subject to discriminatory acts or violent attacks. However, despite the efforts of LGBT organizations, the amendment failed to specify which groups were protected. The government’s explanatory report claims that the groups falling within the scope of protection could not be named due to their very diversity. When establishing the offence it was considered to be decisive whether the person or persons were subject to violence or any other act prohibited by Article 174/B on the basis of their belonging to one clearly identifiable community.
41 42
Act no. XVII of 1996. Act no. LXXIX of 2008.
49
It is important to note that violence against a member of a community is a crime, which can be prosecuted ex officio, and is different in this sense from the milder forms of causing bodily harm, for which the victim must submit a private motion to have the police start an investigation. The different categorization of the acts also means different punishments: while violence against a member of a community is punishable with imprisonment, merely causing bodily harm – especially in the case of first offenders – is usually sanctioned by a fine, which has a significantly weaker deterrent effect. Háttér Support Society for LGBT People requested clarification from the Ministry of Justice on the interpretation of ‘any other group of society’, as in the parliamentary debate two proposals had directly or indirectly (by referring to the ETA) suggested the inclusion of an explicit reference to sexual minorities. The Government did not support any of these proposals. However, an official statement signed by Katalin Gönczöl, then State Secretary for Criminal Policy at the Ministry of Justice, confirmed that the legislator’s intent was to cover sexual minorities (sexual orientation and sexual or gender identity) as protected groups. 43 Since the entry into force of the amendment in 2009, there have been several police started investigations on the basis of Article 174/B for attacks based on a homophobic intent, although none of these cases have reached the courts yet. In 2012, the Parliament adopted a new Criminal Code to replace the current one, to enter into force on 1 July 2013. While the type of acts punishable as hate crimes remained the same, the list of specifically protected grounds was expanded to include sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The new provision reads as follows: Article 216. (1) The person who displays an ostensively anti-communal conduct against another person because that person belongs or is believed to belong to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or any other group of society, in particular based on disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and that conduct is suitable for inducing alarm in members of the given group, commits an offence and shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. (2) The person who assaults another person because that person belongs or is believed to belong to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or any other group of society, in particular based on disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation, or coerces that person by violence or threats into doing or not doing or into enduring something, commits an offence and shall be punishable with imprisonment from one year to five years. (3) The punishment shall be imprisonment from two years to eight years, if the act of crime is committed: a) by force of arms, b) in an armed manner, c) causing a considerable injury of interest, d) by torture of the injured party, e) in groups, f) by criminal conspiracy. (4) The person who commits preparation directed at violence against a member of a community, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to two years for a felony.
Besides the sui generis hate crime provision which only covers assault, coercion and disorderly conduct, the current – as well as the recently adopted new – Criminal Code prescribes harsher penalties for murder, causing bodily harm, violation of personal liberty, libel and unlawful detention 44 if the crime was committed with a so- called ‘base reason’. In 1995 the Supreme Court interpreted ‘base reason’ as to include motivation based on the victim’s belonging to an ethnic, national, racial or religious community, thus the bias on these grounds shall be considered as an aggravating factor. 45 In 2005 homophobic motive was also recognized as a base motive in a
43
The statement is on file with the authors. Articles 166, 170, 175, 179 and 228, respectively. 45 BH 1995.261 (Published summary of court decisions). 44
50
concrete case, 46 but since the final decision was reached in a lower court the case has not received much attention. As opposed to hate crimes against persons that can be prosecuted under the provisions analysed above, neither the current nor the new Criminal Code allows for the persecution of crimes against property as hate crimes. This means in practice that if an object or a venue is damaged because it belongs to or is used by a person belonging to a certain social group the crime can be only prosecuted as a regular crime. 47 This deficiency of the Hungarian legislation has been criticized by NGOs 48 as well as the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. 49 Even though legislation exists to combat LGBT-phobic hate crimes, it is a widely acknowledged fact that many actual hate crimes are prosecuted – if at all – as less serious offences. (See Cases 17 and 29.) Official statistics show that the number of registered hate crimes is very low 9 in 2008, 12 in 2009, 19 in 2010 and 35 in 2011. Based on the results of victim surveys among the general population an estimated 99,7% of hate crimes cases are either not reported or reported but not treated as such by the authorities, 50 the existing legislative framework is thus severely underenforced. A survey by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that only every 7th hate incident is reported. The most common reasons for not reporting were “Nothing could have been done” (51.8%) and “I didn’t have trust in the work of the authorities” (44.1%), but the number of those that said “I was afraid I would get to an even worse situation” (35.9%), “I was afraid of being humiliated and hurt” (26.4%), “I was afraid of being outed” (23.2%) and “I was too ashamed to tell” (23.2%) was also significant. 51 The dilemmas of reporting and not reporting are well illustrated by a case involving hate crime against a trans man in the gym. (See Case 27.) ii.
Does this legislation ensure that a bias motive related to (a) sexual orientation (b) gender identity may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance when determining sanctions?
YES. The sui generis hate crime (Article 174/B) has 2.5 to four times the maximum penalty in comparison with a regular assault or coercion depending on the specificities of the case. Murder with a base reason has double; causing a bodily harm with a base reason has 1.5 times the maximum penalty in comparison to acts committed without a base reason.
46
Judit Utasi (2012): A gyűlölet-bűncselekmények elemzése – esettanulmányok I-II. [Analysing hate crimes – Case-studies I-II.] In Belügyi szemle, Issue no. 1-2. 47 It is interesting to note that objects of religious significance received heightened protection from theft [new Criminal Code, 370(3) bc)], therefore, a heightened level of protection for properties of special classes is not out of the question under Hungarian law. 48 Amnesty International Magyarország, Háttér Társaság a Melegekért, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, Nemzeti és Etnikai Kisebbségi Jogvédő Iroda, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért: Javaslatok az új Büntető Törvénykönvy gyűlöletbűncselekményekre vonatkozó szabályozására. [Proposals for the hate crime provisions of the new Criminal Code] 6 March 2012. 49 http://www.ajbh.hu/allam/aktualis/htm/kozlemeny20120723.htm 50 Amnesty International Magyarország, Háttér Társaság a Melegekért, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság, Nemzeti és Etnikai Kisebbségi Jogvédő Iroda, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért: Az új Büntető Törvénykönyv gyűlölet-bűncselekményekre vonatkozó rendelkezéseinek kialakítása során figyelembe veendő szempontok. [Concerns to be into consideration in the drafting of the provisions on hate crime in the new Criminal Code] 22 February 2012. 51 For more information see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010.
51
3. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure that victims and witnesses of sexual orientation or gender identity related “hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents are encouraged to report these crimes and incidents; for this purpose, member states should take all necessary steps to ensure that law enforcement structures, including the judiciary, have the necessary knowledge and skills to identify such crimes and incidents and provide adequate assistance and support to victims and witnesses. i.
Has a simple and comprehensible definition of “hate crimes”, which includes the motive of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity been disseminated to the general public?
Summary: NO. There is no single comprehensive definition of hate crimes neither in internal use by authorities, nor disseminated to the public. Detailed analysis: According to the Human Rights Working Group, based on information from the Ministry of Interior no such simple definition was disseminated by the police. 52 This is quite problematic, because as described in App2 i) there are several provisions in the Criminal Code that come under the umbrella term of hate crimes (violence against a member of a community, murder or bodily harm with a bias motive, etc.). While there are several legal norms that refer to special types of crimes which are not necessarily defined as such in the Criminal Code (see e.g. the definition of ‘domestic violence’ 53 or ‘corruption’ 54) such a definition for hate crimes does not exist in any legislation, policy or other publicly available documents. When submitting data to the OSCE on the number of hate crimes, Hungary usually reports crimes under Article 174/B (violence against a member of a community) as well as crimes under Article 269 (incitement to hatred), but not murders and assaults with a base reason. Interestingly, for the 2007 report all murders and causing bodily harms with a so-called ‘base reason’ were reported as hate crimes, which is also problematic, as not all crimes with a base reason are hate crimes: any crime with a profit motive or motivated by revenge is also considered crimes with a base reason. This inconsistency shows well that there is no clear definition of hate crimes even within the authorities, let alone disseminated to the general public. The lack of awareness raising activities on behalf of authorities are clearly reflected in the level of awareness about the legislation among LGBT people. A survey by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that only 8% know the legislation in details, while 32% have not even heard of the fact that hate crime provisions also cover sexual orientation and gender identity. 55
52
Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. Act no. LXXII of 2009 on restraining orders because of violence between relatives. 54 ENYÜBS’10 manual no. 3/2010. 55 For more information see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010. 53
52
ii.
Do training programmes and procedures ensure that the police and judiciary possess the knowledge and skills to identify such crimes and incidents and provide victims and witnesses with adequate assistance and support?
Summary: NO. The topic of hate crimes is not given due attention in the basic training of the police and judiciary, and while there have been some recent initiatives to offer specialized short term training courses to both target groups, these programmes reach only a very limited number of police officers and judges. Detailed analysis: For training on hate crimes by the Police Training College see App1 i). Furthermore, it has to be noted that the police guidelines on victim support do not treat LGBT people as a specifically vulnerable victim group (it does so for women, children, youth, elderly people, disabled people and foreigners), and even though police guidelines treat victims of violent crimes and crimes against human dignity as a target group, hate crimes are not explicitly mentioned. 56 This means that even though the guidelines prescribe the mainstreaming of victim support concerns in the training curricula, the specific concerns for LGBT hate crime victims can be easily disregarded. Basic training for judiciary in the form of law schools is largely evasive of the topic of hate crimes against LGBT people. Research conducted in the framework of the current project found that only half of law school students receive detailed information on hate crimes, and only 16% specifically on hate crimes concerning LGBT people. 55% receive no information about the specific needs of LGBT victims, and only 8% received detailed knowledge. 57 This basic training offered by universities, is complemented by specialized training organized by the Hungarian Judicial Academy (renamed recently as the Hungarian Academy of Justice Affairs). Hate crimes are not a recurrent topic in the trainings offered by the Academy, however, a special one-day training was organized in May 2012 with the title “Crimes with a racist motivation” which – in opposition to its title – also covered LGBT-phobic crimes. The training covered the social roots of racism and prejudice and the applicable European standards. 58 Being a one-off event, the training reached only a very limited number of judges. iii.
Do training programmes and codes of conduct for the police and judiciary ensure that LGBT persons are treated in a non-discriminatory and respectful manner so that they feel safe to report hate crimes or other hate-motivated incidents, whether as victims or witnesses, in relation to their (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. Besides the general constitutional and legal requirements of non-discrimination, there are no codes of conducts to ensure the non-discrimination and respect for LGBT people. LGBT people hardly ever feature in the basic and/or further training of the police and judiciary.
56
50/2008 (OT 29.) ORFK Order on the victims supports tasks of the police. For more information see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-temak-a-koz-es-felsooktatasban. 58 For the training curriculum see: http://mba.birosag.hu/engine.aspx?page=kozponti_kepzesek. 57
53
Detailed analysis: Up until 2011 the Code of Conduct for the Hungarian Police contained specific provisions on nondiscrimination, explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. 59 With the adoption of the new Code of Conduct the non-discrimination provision was completely dropped. 60 In a response to a position paper by Háttér Support Society for LGBT People the Ministry of Interior informed the NGO that the provision was omitted because according to the general codification guidelines no lower level legislation should repeat provisions that are contained in the Constitution or other higher level legislation, i.e. there is no need to reiterate the nondiscrimination clause of the Constitution. 61 A Code of Ethics for the Hungarian Police was adopted on 4 July 2007 by the National Police Headquarters and two police trade unions. The Code contains a non-discrimination provision, but unlike gender, age, citizenship, ethnicity, religion, political or other opinion, social origin or ownership of assets, sexual orientation and gender identity are not included. 62 A Code of Ethics for Judges was adopted by the Hungarian Association of Judges on 26 February 2005, and the Code was also endorsed by the National Council of Justice on 12 April 2005. The Code of Ethics contains no provisions on non-discrimination, although it does contain the general values of respect and non-partisanship. 63 The Human Rights Working Group claims that police basic training prepares police officers to nondiscriminatory and respectful behaviour towards LGBT people via teaching the core values of human rights and dignity as enshrined in the Act on Police and via courses on social studies and communication, which cover the issues of minorities and tolerance. 64 In reality, the courses mentioned contain only very limited information on LGBT people – if at all – and are not mandatory. For example a recently developed curriculum for the basic training of police officers (“OKJ szakképzés”) covering social studies 65, communication 66 and psychology 67 contains no information whatsoever on LGBT people. The sociology textbook used in the Police Training College contains 4.5 pages on homosexuality including information on its cultural history and contemporary public attitudes towards it, but not a single mention of transgender people. Furthermore, the subject of sociology is not mandatory. 68 Research conducted in the framework of this project found that 37% and 42% of law school students receive no information whatsoever on the notion of sexual orientation or gender identity respectively, and only 16% on hate crimes concerning LGBT people. 69 [For details see App3 ii).]
59
Decree no. 62/2007 (XII. 23.) of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement on the Code of Practice of the Police, Article 4(7). 60 Decree no. 30/2011 (IX. 22.) of the Ministry of Interior on the Code of Practice of the Police. 61 Letter by the Department of Data Protection and Documentation of the Ministry of Interior no. BM/2648-4/2012. 20 January 2012. 62 http://www.police.hu/magyarendorseg/etikaikodex. 63 http://www.mabie.hu/orszagos-biroi-etikai-tanacs/etikai-kodex. 64 Article 2 (1) of Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police. 65 István Csomós (2010): Társadalmi ismeretek. [Social studies] Budapest: Nemzeti Szakképzési és Felnőttképzési Intézet. http://www.kepzesevolucioja.hu/dmdocuments/4ap/19_0725_tartalomelem_002_munkaanyag_100331.pdf. 66 István Csomós: A kommunikáció alapjai. [The basics of communication] Budapest: Nemzeti Szakképzési és Felnőttképzési Intézet, 2010. http://www.kepzesevolucioja.hu/dmdocuments/4ap/19_0725_tartalomelem_004_munkaanyag_100731.pdf. 67 István Csomós: Személyiség-lélektani alapismeretek. [The basics of personality psychology] Budapest: Nemzeti Szakképzési és Felnőttképzési Intézet, 2010. http://www.kepzesevolucioja.hu/dmdocuments/4ap/19_0725_ tartalomelem_003_munkaanyag_100531.pdf 68 Ferenc Krémer (2003): Szociológiai alapismeretek. [The basics of sociology] Budapest: Rejtjel. 69 For more information see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-temak-a-koz-es-felsooktatasban.
54
iv.
Are units within the police tasked specifically with investigating crimes and incidents linked to sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
NO. Investigating individual hate crimes cases lies within the competence of county (metropolitan) police headquarters. According to information received from the Human Rights Working Group none of these headquarters have specialized units for hate crimes. 70 v.
Are there special police liaison officers tasked with maintaining contact with local LGBT communities in order to foster a relationship of trust?
Summary: NO. Unlike for other minority groups, there are no special liaison officers keeping contact with the LGBT communities on a permanent basis. Detailed analysis: There are no special liaison officers keeping contact with the LGBT communities on a permanent basis. 71 During a discussion with a police officer representing the police at a public event, the authors were informed that the main reason for not introducing a permanent liaison officer for the LGBT community is the low level of reported homo- and transphobic crimes. 72 The fact that such a liaison officer might help not only with hate crime cases, but any investigations or other policing activity involving LGBT clients, has not been recognized by the police. On the other hand, it has become a regular practice that at larger events with a high number of LGBT participants (e.g. EuroGames, Pride Marches) a police officer is in charge to keep contact with the main organizer of the event, sharing information, responding to requests and discussing the on-the-spot decisions of the police with those organizing the event. The lack of LGBT liaison officers lies in sharp contrast with the close cooperation of the police with the Roma communities and their minority self-governments. 73 A central liaison working group at the National Headquarters and regional minority liaison working groups at each county and city police have been organized. The liaison officers responsible for managing the working groups keep contacts with the Roma minority self-governments and NGOs, regularly consult with them and discuss the cases that affected Roma persons. The cooperation covers organizing trainings – among others – for police officers in order to better understand the Roma community and handle the conflicts that may arise more effectively. The programme also aims at deconstructing stereotypes and bias towards the Roma, and facilitate the recruitment of Roma to the police forces. vi.
Is there a system of anonymous complaints or on-line complaints, or using other means of easy access, which allow reporting by third parties in order to gather information on the incidence and nature of these incidents?
Summary: NO. While there are general tools to report crimes anonymously and/or online, they are not specific to hate crimes, thus the nature of the data collection does not allow for further analysis.
70
Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 72 Personal discussion with Zoltán Németh on 3 July 2012. 73 National Police Headquarters’ Instruction no. 22/2011 (X. 21.). 71
55
Detailed analysis: The Hungarian police operate a free of charge phone line where anyone – including third parties – can report crimes anonymously. The so-called Phone Witness Programme (Telefontanú Program) started to operate in January 2001 and it was modelled after the UK Crimestoppers. It allows citizens to report on crimes that have been already committed or that are being planned, and on persons wanted by the police. It offers an easy way to submit information without personally going to the police or without revealing the reporting person’s identity. However, it is not a non-stop service; the calls are answered between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday-Thursday and until 1 p.m. on Friday. Since 1 June 2005 reports may be submitted via MMS. 74 No recent statistics are available on the number of cases and the outcomes of resulting investigations. Victims can submit anonymous reports at the central email address 75 and non-anonymous reports at the general webform, 76 but since the users receive no guidance on what kinds of information to put in the report (there are no specific forms for hate crimes), it is very unlikely that the information provided will be enough for the police to officially record the report as a hate crime and/or to start an investigation. Since the data submitted is not structured in any way (there are no specific forms for hate crimes, just a simple text field) this data collection is not suitable for further analysis to draw conclusions on the incidence and nature of hate incidents. There is no legislation or special programmes on third party reporting. 4. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and dignity of all persons in prison or in other ways deprived of their liberty, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, and in particular take protective measures against physical assault, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, whether committed by other inmates or staff; measures should be taken so as to adequately protect and respect the gender identity of transgender persons. i.
Do training programmes and codes of conduct for prison staff ensure that prisoners are treated with respect and without discrimination in relation to their (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. Although the training and Code of Ethics of the Prison Service put special emphasis on the respect of prisoners’ human rights, LGBT inmates do not constitute a specific concern for the prison authorities. There are no special programmes addressing their needs; and they only get closer supervision (and thus more attention) if they are at risk of committing suicide or suffer of some sort of mental illness.
74
Available at: http://www.police.hu/megelozes/telefontanu.
[email protected]. 76 http://www.police.hu/bejelentesek/bejelentes. 75
56
Detailed analysis: According to the information received from the National Headquarter of the Prison Service no training tailored to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity has been organized in the past 5 years. 77 The Prison Service has internal guidelines on the mental health of prisoners, especially the youth, those serving life-time imprisonment, the ones convicted for sexual crimes and those who are kept in high security units. 78 There are separate rehabilitation programmes for drug addicts, persons suffering from personality disorders, and inmates may take part in other personality development trainings, therapies, or rehabilitation programs. Vulnerable prisoners are also monitored more closely in order to reduce the risk of suicide or to prevent psychosocial illnesses. However, LGBT persons are not considered as a specific minority group within the prison population calling for special attention. Furthermore, the Code of Ethics of the Prison Service 79 has detailed rules on the expected behaviour of the staff towards prisoners. In all interactions, the domestically and internationally recognized rights of prisoners shall be respected; inmates and their family members have to be respected and they deserve humane treatment. The prison staff shall remain impartial, must refrain from physical violence, and they have the responsibility to protect prisoners from violence by other staff member. Discrimination is prohibited within the prison setting, although no specific grounds of discrimination are mentioned. The abuse of power also needs to be eliminated from their work. 80 The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has reported that via their Human Rights Legal Counselling Programme, a programme of prison visits and research they have learnt about several incidents involving LGBT inmates. A woman complained that as a disciplinary measure she was separated from her partner by placing them in different cells. Two complaints by male inmates related to degrading speech concerning their sexual orientation. The Helsinki Committee also describes that the authorities have difficulties in finding the appropriate language to describe sexual orientation, and often use euphemistic words such as “otherness” or “lifestyle”. ii.
Are there effective measures to minimise the dangers of physical assault, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, including effective procedures for determining the disciplinary or criminal liability of those responsible, including for failure of supervision?
Summary: PARTIALLY. Preventing and responding to violence among inmates is a priority for the Prison Service, however, the effectiveness of measures is questionable and the specific vulnerability of LGBT inmates is not recognized.
77
Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/66/2011 in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors; and Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 78 Measures taken in fulfilment of the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Committee of Ministers Rec(2006)2. 79 Available at: http://www.bvop.hu/download/a_bv__szervezet_etikai_kodexe_2010.pdf/a_bv__szervezet_etikai_ kodexe_2010.pdf. 80 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors.
57
Detailed analysis: According to the Hungarian Prison Service preventing and responding to harmful acts between members of the prison population is a specific priority of the prison staff. 81 The law on the prison system specifically includes that: 82 Article 11:4 Members of the prison staff have the duty to prevent inmates from assaulting or torturing each other, or to perform any other behaviour against human dignity.
The Code of Ethics of the Prison Service reiterates this duty [Article III (3)]. According to information received from the Hungarian Prison Service, the prison staff achieve these aims by regular and frequent checks, taking into consideration personal characteristics and social relations within the prison, and organizing various programmes and leisure time activities. If the prison staff are informed about any violent incidents, they initiate criminal proceedings. 83 Several reports, including an official report of the that time Parliamentary Commissioner for Fundamental Rights found that violence among prisoners and by prison staff is wide-spread evidenced by the number of suspicious deaths. 84 There are no specific prevention mechanisms (guidelines or policies) to address the dangers of physical assault, etc. against LGBT inmates; only the general legal framework applies in this regard. To a question on whether there is a risk assessment inclusive of such concerns prior to the placement of inmates the Prison Service only reported risk assessment to prevent suicide. 85 The Prison Service reported that LGBT inmates might be placed at so-called psycho-social units created to take care of prisoners with special needs. These units cater for the needs of prisoners who are physically weak, mentally challenged, inclined to commit suicide, or at greater risk of violence from other inmates, or who suffer from depression. Also young offenders are placed in such units. Currently three prisons (Budapest, Sopronkőhida and Tököl) have such units, where prepared professionals hold sessions and organize programmes for prisoners. Within this programme special emphasis is put on suicide prevention. 86 Article 119 of Act XLIII of 1996 on service relations of the members of armed forces contains that disciplinary procedure shall be initiated if a staff member fails to perform his/her duty. For details of the disciplinary procedure see App4 iii). If the breach of official duty is committed with the aim of causing unlawful disadvantage, criminal sanctions (abuse of authority) also apply. 87 iii.
Is there an independent and effective machinery for receiving and investigating reports of such crimes by prison staff?
Summary: YES. The current legislation offers several remedies against ‘crimes’ committed by prison staff. However, most of these remedies stay within the prison system: as long as the incident does not reach the level of crimes defined by the Criminal Code, the unit head or the prison director can decide on imposing disciplinary sanctions. The victim can also turn to the Commissioner for 81
Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. Act no. CVII of 1995 on the organization of penitentiary institutions. 83 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 84 Erika dr. Pajcsicsné dr. Csóré (2009): Országgyűlési Biztosi Tájékoztató a magyarországi büntetésvégrehajtásban tapasztaltakról [Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on prison conditions in Hungary] Budapest. 85 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/66/2011 in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors. 86 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/66/2011 in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors. 87 Article 225 of Act no. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code. 82
58
Fundamental Rights or the ETAuth, but none of these fora have any competence to act in criminal cases. Detailed analysis: The basic rules of the complaint mechanism available for prisoners are laid down in Ministry of Justice Decree no. 6/1996 (VII. 12.). As a general rule inmates can submit complaints in relation to their imprisonment (or detention on remand) to the head of the unit they are held in. In such cases the prisoners may ask for a personal hearing from the unit heads or the head of the institution, they may submit a written request to them directly. A mailbox (“parancsnoki láda”) is also available in each prison to allow inmates to directly send comments to the head of the institution. Against the decision or the lack of decision of the unit head, the inmate may appeal to the head of the institution. If the decision was taken by the head of the institution or if the law demands so, the National Director of the Prison Service is entitled to deliver a decision. If the first instance decision was taken by the National Director, the supervising minister is the appeal forum. The authorities have 30 days to decide, this exceptionally can be extended with another 30 days. Furthermore, there are also regular internal monitoring visits by various bodies of the National Directorate of the Hungarian Prison Service, when inmates can also report their complaints. Inmates retain full legal capacity and thus in addition to the generally applicable – above described – procedure, the inmates may directly turn to the public prosecutor exercising supervision over the prison service. A hearing may be requested as well. Communication with the public prosecutor is facilitated by biweekly visits of the supervising prosecutor to each prison facility. 88 The prosecutor has a duty to investigate all complaints. In case the suspicion arises that a member of the prison staff has committed a hate crime, the head of the prison has an obligation to turn to the prosecution. 89 In disciplinary offences by a prison staff member the head of the institution has the power to order proceedings; the military prosecution supervises the legality of such procedures. In cases of alleged violation of fundamental rights, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights may be approached, as in cases concerning data protection issues, the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information can be contacted as well. The Decree makes explicit reference to the prisoners’ right to inform and contact international organizations. Apart from the specific procedure available within the prison service, the generally available remedies are also open for inmates. They may initiate procedures for crimes contained in the Criminal Code (causing bodily harm, threatening, etc.), or turn to the ETAuth if they claim the violation of the prohibition of discrimination. 90 iv.
In the case of transgender prisoners, are there procedures to ensure that the gender identity of the individual is respected in regard to interactions with prison staff such as body searches and also particularly in the decisions taken on the placement of a prisoner in a male or female prison?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The prison authorities rely on the gender registered in official papers when the placement of a trans prisoner is decided. From there on, no different treatment is afforded to them; the general rules apply for trans prisoners too.
88
Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. Article 171 (1)-(2) of Act no. XIX of 1998on the criminal procedure. 90 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 89
59
Detailed analysis: The National Headquarter of the Prison Service reported that they consider the registered gender decisive for the placement and body search of all prisoners. 91 For post-gender recognition transgender people, this means full recognition of their gender identity without the need to undergo hormonal or surgical gender reassignment in line with the fairly liberal procedure on gender recognition. Pre-gender recognition trans people, on the other hand face significant problems as they are placed together with inmates of their birth gender. The Prison Service claims that if the prison staff are informed about the gender identity of the inmate, they pay to attention to making the placement decision to prevent conflicts. 92 Trans issues have gained some awareness among prison staff in recent years, which is documented by an article published in 2011 in the official journal of the Prison Service by a prison therapist about her experiences with a trans woman who served her sentence in a male prison. 93 Cindy – as the author called her – fully identified as a woman, but her papers have not been changed and she has not started the hormone treatment at that time – this is why she was placed together with men. She requested her admission to the psycho-social unit of the prison as she wanted to live as openly as possible as a woman. In the interview published with her she complained of inadequate reactions from the prison staff (she was interviewed in her third institution). Her special needs were not taken into consideration when assigning her a cell; it happened that she shared it with 15 other inmates. In her last prison – the one in Budapest – she was allowed to take showers alone and she was isolated during the regular search as well. However, she suggested that the prison staff should be more prepared and educated about the needs of people with gender identity disorder, and she warned that in order to avoid their sexual exploitation, these people should be paid more attention to and their psychological monitoring is unavoidable as well. The author of the article also agrees with Cindy: transgender persons shall be kept under closer medical and psychological supervision, a safe environment needs to be provided for them, i.e. not sharing the cell with more than 3 inmates, emphatic prison staff, who can show tolerance and non-biased approach towards them. This necessitates the training of prison guards. In order to protect the transgender prisoners’ basic rights, they might need certain affirmative actions, like allowing them to wear make up and female hairdo. To avoid further victimization, the prison authorities need to develop special trainings for guards on the treatment of trans inmates. While the recommendations are quite progressive, the Prison Service has not reported on any follow-up to the article. 5. Member states should ensure that relevant data are gathered and analysed on the prevalence and nature of discrimination and intolerance on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and in particular on “hate crimes” and hate-motivated incidents related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
91
Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/66/2011 in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors, and Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 92 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no. 4/II-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 93 Mária Csicsayné Solymosi (2011): „Cindy”, avagy férfitestbe zárt nőként a börtön világában. [“Cindy”, as a woman imprisoned in a man’s body in the penitentiary system] In Börtönügyi Szemle, 2011/2, p. 51-66.
60
i.
Is there research into the nature and causes of hostile and negative attitudes to LGBT people, with a view to developing effective policies to combat these phenomena?
Summary: PARTIALLY. While some research projects on the experience of discrimination and social exclusion of LGBT people, as well as on attitudes towards them has been conducted, LGBT issues are still severely under-researched in Hungary. Detailed analysis: The Ministry of Social Affairs commissioned a study in 2007 on the social exclusion of LGBT people. The study conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in collaboration with Háttér Support Society of LGBT People and Labrisz Lesbian Association found a high level of discrimination suffered by LGBT people (n=1122) especially in the media, public spaces, high schools and higher education institutions and workplaces. 94 In 2010 the ETAuth commissioned an interview and questionnaire-based research to map discrimination among others against LGBT people. Interestingly, originally sexual orientation and gender identity were not among the grounds included in the study, but the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was willing to conduct the study only if this target group was included. Furthermore, there have been several research projects and public opinion polls on various issues that included some questions concerning attitudes towards LGBT people. A report summarizing the findings of all such studies was prepared in the framework of the Citizens in Diversity, an EUfunded research project. 95 The report identified 66 empirical studies in the period between 1982 and 2010. Interestingly none of these empirical studies aimed at gaining a comprehensive picture on the nature and causes of hostile and negative attitudes towards the LGBT community, but rather were limited to very basic measurement of social distance and acceptance, or opinions about particular policy issues affecting LGBT people (marriage, adoption, non-discrimination policies). ii.
Are there regular surveys into levels of social acceptance of / hostility towards LGBT people?
NO. While there exist regular, publicly funded surveys to study the acceptance of migrants and ethnic minorities, 96 such longitudinally comparable studies of the social acceptance of / hostility towards LGBT people is not available. One polling agency did try to cover LGBT issues in their regular surveys in the past, but they dropped the relevant questions in 2008. 97 iii.
Is there an effective system for recording and publishing statistics on hate crimes and hatemotivated incidents related to (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. There is a statistical system collecting information on all recorded crimes, but it does not contain all reported incidents, does not cover all forms of hate crimes and does not disaggregate hate crimes based on victim groups. Data on sentencing of hate crimes is not available. No
94
The English language final report of the project is available at: http://mek.oszk.hu/06600/06641/06641.pdf. http://www.citidive.eu/en/. 96 TÁRKI Magyar Háztartás Panel 1992-1997 and TÁRKI Omnibusz-kutatás 1998-2012 studies, for an overview: http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2012/kitekint/20120516_idegenellenesseg.html. 97 Medián Omnibus. 95
61
summary report on hate crimes based on the data in the system is publicly disseminated. There are no regular victim surveys to assess the number of unreported hate crimes. Detailed analysis: The Police and the Prosecution Service’ maintain a joint statistical system called ENYÜBS. 98 The system supposedly contains all reported incidents, however, not in a format that allows for the proper recording and tracing of hate crimes. Firstly, the system is based on the categorization of a crime according to the assessment of the authorities; that is if a victim or witnesses perceive an incident as a hate crime, the authorities have no duty to record this information in the statistical system. If they think the incident does not reach the level of criminal sanctioning or consider the crime to be a crime other than the sui generis hate crime, there is no way to identify this case as a hate incident. Secondly, the system is based on the categorization of crimes according to various provisions of the Criminal Code combined with some analytic grouping of crimes (e.g. ‘domestic violence’ or ‘corruption’). Since there is no definition of hate crimes encompassing all forms of hate crimes [see App3 i)], the system does not allow for querying all hate crimes together, only queries on specific Articles of the Criminal Code is possible. Thirdly, since hate motivation is not separated from other forms of ‘base reasons’ there is no possibility to separate e.g. murders committed with a hate motivation from murders committed out of profit motive. Fourthly, while theoretically the system allows for disaggregating data on victim groups that are specifically mentioned in the text of the law (ethnicity, race, religion and nationality), sexual orientation and gender identity are lumped together with other grounds under the category of ‘any other groups of society’. Furthermore, data disaggregated by victim groups are not available when querying the system even for those groups where data are supposedly recorded. Finally, the system contains data only about the investigation and prosecution phase, but not about sentencing. The sexual orientation or gender identity of the victims is not recorded in the system (only their age, gender, citizenship and occupation). While data contained in the ENYÜBS system is available upon registration to journalists and researchers, neither the Police, the Prosecution Service or the Central Statistics Office publishes regular reports based on the data available in the system. There are some random reports or press releases published based on the data, but none of these covered the issue of hate crimes. In a response to questions concerning data collection on LGBT-phobic hate crimes the Human Rights Working Group responded that due to data protection legislation the Police cannot collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity. 99 There are no regular crime victim surveys in Hungary similar to the British Crime Survey (UK) or the National Crime Victimization Survey (USA), which would allow for assessing the real number of hate crimes and the level of underreporting. Victim surveys conducted by Hungarian institutions in 1996, 2000, 2003 failed to ask questions on hate crimes. The only study with relevant questions was the European Crime and Safety Survey conducted in 2005, but its one-off nature does not allow for assessing trends. To conclude, Hungarian authorities do not seem to understand the difference between collecting sensitive data on the victim’s personal characteristics and collecting statistical data on which social
98
Decree no. 59/2007. (XII. 23.) of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement on the common criminal statistical system of police and the prosecution service. 99 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors.
62
group served as the basis for the hate crime. They also disregard that such data collection happens without any problems at the Equal Treatment Authority concerning discrimination cases.
B. “Hate speech” 6. Member states should take appropriate measures to combat all forms of expression, including in the media and on the Internet, which may be reasonably understood as likely to produce the effect of inciting, spreading or promoting hatred or other forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. Such “hate speech” should be prohibited and publicly disavowed whenever it occurs. All measures should respect the fundamental right to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention and the case law of the Court. i.
Do legislative measures penalising “hate speech” on certain grounds exist? Do these measures penalise (a) homophobic and (b) transphobic “hate speech”?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The heightened protection afforded to freedom of expression in the Hungarian constitutional system has prevented the legislator to enact criminal or civil law provisions capable of effectively fighting widespread hate speech. However, these constant legislative failures do not mean that LGBT people are left without protection: the current Criminal Code punishes the most serious form of hate speech under the incitement to hatred and the new Criminal Code adds specific reference to sexual orientation and gender identity to that provision, the Civil Code enables individuals personally affected to get damages through the protection of personality rights, and the ETA’s harassment provisions seem to fill the existing gap with allowing actio popularis claims. The effect of the new media legislation in combating hate speech is yet to be seen. Detailed analysis: Criminal Code Trying to stop the spread of racist and homophobic intolerance, the Hungarian Parliament has attempted to enact more effective and tailored hate speech legislation several times. All of the proposed bills were vetoed by the then President of the Republic and later quashed by the Constitutional Court. The Court has not been willing to lower the constitutional standard of protection afforded to freedom of expression. Although all attempts aimed at broadening the criminal prohibition of hate speech beyond “incitement to hatred” have failed, the problem has definitely been kept on the agenda and legislators seem to be conscious of the problem. Apart from criminal law protection against hate speech, personality rights protection under the Civil Code and the harassment provisions of the Act on Equal Treatment offer limited possibilities of combating homophobic speech, as the emerging case-law shows. The most severe forms of hate speech are currently sanctioned by criminal law – providing very limited protection against homophobic speech. The current version of the Criminal Code 100 defines incitement to hatred as follows: Article 269 – Incitement against a community A person who incites to hatred before the general public against
100
Act no. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code (hereinafter: Criminal Code).
63
a) the Hungarian nation, b) any national, ethnic, racial group, or any group of the society, shall be punishable for such an offence with imprisonment of up to three years.
The reference to ‘any group of the society’ has been part of Article 269 since the transition when the Socialist crime of ‘Insult against the Community’ was amended. 101 The original wording of the Criminal Code as enacted in 1989 contained a second paragraph criminalizing the use of “offensive or denigrating expression” and the commission of similar acts. This provision was challenged before the Constitutional Court (ex post facto review) and in its 1992 decision the Court set the standards still applicable for hate speech legislation. The Constitutional Court in Decision no. 32/1992 (V. 26.) declared that the second paragraph of Article 269 was unconstitutional: the Court emphasized that the freedom of expression had only external limitations and that, as long as the expression remained within those limitations, it deserved protection, regardless of the veracity or value of the speech itself. While the restriction on the freedom of expression and press under Article 269(1) was justified by the historically proven harmful effect of incitement to hatred, the protection of fundamental constitutional values and the fulfilment of international obligations, Article 269(2) singled out expressions on the basis of their content. In case of the behaviour defined in paragraph (1), the impact and consequences for the individual and for society were so grave that other forms of accountability were inadequate to deal with those publicly inciting to hatred. In the case of paragraph (2), other legal means than criminal law offered adequate remedy. 102 Following the Constitutional Court’s milestone decision in 1992, Article 269(1) – incitement to hatred – remained in force unaltered. In 1996, the Parliament amended Article 269 of the Criminal Code. 103 The new wording of eliminated the reference from point a) to ‘any other nationality’ and criminalized a further act (“another act suitable for the arousal of hatred”). This provision was also challenged before the Constitutional Court, which declared that penalizing any kind of act which was capable of inciting hatred among the general public violated the constitutional principle of rule of law and legal certainty, as the provision in question (Article 269, as defined in 1996) was not clearly phrased and was not sufficiently specific. Thus, the restriction on freedom of expression was unnecessary and disproportionate. 104 The next attempt by Parliament to amend Article 269 of the Criminal Code came in 2003. The legislator’s proposed text tried to follow the Constitutional Court’s expectations and enact a provision aimed at criminalizing the milder forms of hate speech (i.e. those which do not reach the level of incitement to hatred). The adopted amendment in addition to the redefined incitement to hatred (supplemented by the criminalization of calling for violent acts) singled out certain forms of insult to dignity before the general public. The President of the Republic, before signing it, sent the Bill passed by the Parliament to the Constitutional Court for preliminary review. In Decision no. 18/2004 (V. 25.) the Constitutional Court emphasized that none of the conducts in the first paragraph reached the constitutionally required minimum level of punishability, and for this reason unnecessarily restricted freedom of expression. As regards the modified Article 269(2), the Constitutional Court found that, when trying to protect human dignity and public peace against hate speech, the legislator failed to choose the least restrictive means. The Court reiterated its earlier stand on abusive speech: according to the above-mentioned 1992 decision, criminal sanctions may be applied only in defence of other constitutional rights and only when unavoidably necessary.
101
Act no. XXV of 1989. Most of the mentioned decisions of the Constitutional Court are available in English on the Court’s website: http://www.mkab.hu/index.php?id=home_en. 103 Act no. XVII of 1996. 104 Constitutional Court Decision no. 12/1999 (V. 21.). 102
64
In 2008, the Parliament changed its approach: instead of trying to include further acts in Article 269 (incitement to hatred), a new provision was proposed. The new statutory definition of hate speech in Article 181/A of the Criminal Code would have criminalized ‘disparagement’. 105 The President of the Republic, again, requested a preliminary review from the Constitutional Court. In Decision no. 95/2008 (VII. 03.) the Court recalled that the legislator could only use the means of criminal law in extreme cases, i.e., when the expression was capable of instigating intense emotions in the majority of people, when the speech endangered fundamental rights which enjoyed a prominent place among constitutional values, and when the expression constituted a clear and present danger of breaching the public peace. In the case of the newly enacted criminal provisions, the victims of the crime were neither physical persons nor clearly defined members of a group. It was an intangible offence, which did not require the actual violation of individual rights or even any threat to them. The aim of the amendment was clearly to punish hate speech, even when the injured party could not be identified and disparagement was based on belonging to one of the protected groups. In the Constitutional Court’s opinion, it was legitimate to protect people who refused to become a “captive audience” forced to listen to hate speech. The problem with the proposal was that it would have punished all forms of hate speech, including cases in which the issue of captive audience did not arise. In conclusion, despite all the recent efforts of the Parliament, no new broader hate speech legislation has been passed, because of the increased protection afforded by the Constitutional Court to freedom of expression. 106 The restrictive interpretation and application of the current legal framework, in particular the Criminal Code provision of incitement to hatred is clearly illustrated by the reluctance of the police to investigate LGBT-related hate speech cases. For example in 2009 the report concerning signs calling for the extermination of gays at the Pride March was rejected by the police without further investigation. (See Case 26) Unlike in similar cases concerning hateful graffiti on Roma people’s houses, and other incidents involving Jewish statues where police started an investigation, the report about the desecration of the grave of Kertbeny was rejected (see Case 20). In 2012, the Parliament adopted a new Criminal Code to replace the current one on 1 July 2013. In line with amending the provision on hate crimes, the provisions on incitement against a community was also amended to specifically include sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. The new provision reads as follows: Article 332 – Incitement against a community A person who incites to hatred before the general public against a) the Hungarian nation, b) any national, ethnic, racial group, or any group of the society, in particular based on disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation, shall be punishable for such an offence with imprisonment of up to three years.
105
Bill no. T/2785 of 2008. The wording of the new provision: “(1) Any person who in relation to the Hungarian nation, any national, ethnic, racial religious group, or any group of society before the general public uses or circulates expressions which are capable of denigrating a member of a given group or violating human dignity, commits a misdemeanour punishable with imprisonment of up to two years. (2) Under paragraph (1) any person is punishable who before the general public uses gestures – especially those which are reminiscent of a totalitarian regime or ideology – which are capable of denigrating the Hungarian nation or any group of society, in particular national, ethnic, racial or religious groups, or of violating these groups’ human dignity. (3) Any person who in connection with a political party or political activity of civil organisation in relation to a public appearance a) uses or circulates expression capable of denigrating the members of that particular group, or of violating their human dignity, b) acts as described in paragraph (2) shall not be punishable.” 106 There is, however, some inconsistency in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the standards of the President resorting to preliminary review. In 2010 – by Act no. XXXVI of 2010 – the Parliament criminalized denial of the Holocaust: Article 269/C of the Criminal Code protects the “dignity of a Holocaust survivor” by prohibiting denial of the fact that the Holocaust happened. The law came into force without any constitutional objection.
65
Although the new Criminal Code will not lower the standard of protection afforded for freedom of expression, the inclusion the prohibition of homo/transphobic speech into the definition of the incitement against a community is a remarkable step forward, although the effects of the new legislation are yet to be seen. Civil Code In addition to criminal law protection against “incitement to hatred”, victims of homophobic speech – especially in cases of milder forms of expressions targeted at a particular person – may seek a remedy in civil law. The Civil Code 107 offers such remedies within the framework of protecting personality rights under the following conditions: Article 76. Any breach of the principle of equal treatment; violation of the freedom of conscience; unlawful deprivation of personal freedom; injury to body or health; contempt for or insult to the honour, integrity, or human dignity of private persons shall be deemed as violations of personality rights. Article 84. (1) A person whose personality rights have been violated shall have the following options under civil law, depending on the circumstances of the case: a) that person may demand a court declaration of the occurrence of the infringement; b) demand to have the infringement discontinued and the perpetrator restrained from further infringement; c) demand that the perpetrator make restitution in a statement or by some other suitable means and, if necessary, that the perpetrator, at his own expense, make an appropriate public disclosure for restitution; d) demand the termination of the injurious situation and the restoration of the previous state by and at the expense of the perpetrator and, furthermore, to have the effects of the infringement nullified or deprived of their injurious nature; e) file charges for punitive damages in accordance with liability regulations under civil law. (2) If the amount of punitive damages that can be imposed is insufficient to mitigate the gravity of the actionable conduct, the court shall also be entitled to penalise the perpetrator by ordering that person to pay a fine to be used for public purposes. (3) The above provisions shall also apply if the infringement occurred through the publication of an illegal advertisement. Article 85. (1) […] personality rights may only be enforced personally. A person with limited legal capacity may take action in person in protecting personality rights.
The protection of personality rights is not specifically aimed at providing legal remedies against homo/transphobic speech although, through the reference to the principle of equal treatment and human dignity, it does supply a sufficient legal basis for such civil law claims. One of the main deficiencies of the civil law regulation is that it only provides protection if the speech is targeted directly at identifiable individual(s), which makes the regulation difficult to use against general homo/transphobic expressions, no matter how harmful they may be. 108 In 2007, the Parliament tried to remedy the above-mentioned problem – the need for a victim in a strict sense – and added a subsection to Article 76 of the Civil Code 109: Article 76/A (1) The violation of personality rights shall be established in particular in the case of public and gravely insulting conduct which targets racial identity, belonging to a national or ethnic minority, religious or other conviction, sexual orientation, sexual identity or any other essential attribute of one’s personality and which refers to a group of people having such an attribute that is in a minority within society. (2) The injuring party cannot refer in defence of his contested conduct that it has been not directly and identifiably aimed at a party or parties enforcing a claim on the basis of paragraph (1). (3) The claims under Article 84 (1) may also be enforced on the motion of any social organization or public interest foundation established for the protection of human rights. These organizations can only bring a claim under Article 84
107
Act no. IV of 1959 of the Civil Code of Hungary. See the case of Péter Ádám v. Lóránt Hegedűs, jr. All documents related to the case available at: http://www.jogvita.hu/per/tartalom.html. 109 Bill no. T/3719 of 2007. 108
66
(1) point e) [punitive damages] in the interest of the insulted community and for the benefit of one of the public interest foundations. (4) The claims specified in paragraphs (1)-(3) may be enforced by initiating a legal action within 90 days after the alleged violation of rights have occurred.
The Bill was a remarkable step for the LGBT community, as it would have explicitly provided personality rights protection against homophobic and transphobic speech or conduct within the framework of the Civil Code. The President of the Republic – again in defence of freedom of expression – refused to sign it and requested a preliminary review from the Constitutional Court. In Decision no. 96/2008 (VII. 03.) the Constitutional Court declared the proposed amendment unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that only natural persons have human dignity and thus only they – in their individual capacity – are entitled to legal protection. The Court also found the definition of groups problematic: considering the great number of personal traits that are suitable for determining personality and forming a group, the legal regulation fails to reduce the restriction on freedom of expression to the minimum. The right to bring actions by civil organizations was impossible to interpret within the current legal framework, which allows for individual legal remedies only. In November 2008, the then governing party submitted to Parliament a new proposal on civil law remedies against hate speech: a bill providing the necessary legal means for protection against certain activities seriously harming a person’s dignity. 110 The proposal was passed by Parliament, but the President of the Republic sent the bill to the Constitutional Court for preliminary constitutional review and after the change of government, the ruling coalition withdrew the proposal. The newly proposed Act would have provided protection against degrading or threatening behaviour targeted at members of a group. Protected groups were identified on the basis of belonging to a national or ethnic minority, religious conviction or sexual orientation. The case is still pending before the Constitutional Court. 111 Act on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities In addition to the remedies provided by the Civil and Criminal Codes, worthy of mention is the definition of harassment in the Act on equal treatment and promotion of equal opportunities (ETA) 112 in Article 10. (1) Harassment is a conduct of sexual or other nature violating human dignity related to the person’s characteristics as defined in Article 8, with the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment around that person.
The harassment powers of the Equal Treatment Authority (ETAuth) allow it to provide a legal remedy in cases where the protection of personality rights cannot be pursued, and an actio popularis claim might be initiated on the grounds of this provision, with the possibility of the ETAuth imposing a public interest fine. For the ETA, the prohibition of harassment aims at combating behaviour and actions violating the human dignity of a person. Acts violating Article 84 of the Civil Code, cited above, may be very different, ranging from mocking an individual on the basis of their actual or assumed sexual orientation, through anti-gay/lesbian jokes, to actual physical violence. The ETAuth, 113 or the court adjudicating on the basis of the ETA, must primarily consider the affected person’s subjective perception of the situation and reach an objective decision on the basis of that perception. The rules on evidence as specified in the ETAuth’s rules of procedure are also applicable in cases of alleged harassment: petitioners must prove that they
110
Bill no. T/6219 of 2008. http://public.mkab.hu/dev/dontesek.nsf/0/602D7F6B971A69B6C1257A2500477089?OpenDocument. 112 Act no. CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and promotion of equal opportunities (hereafter: ETA). 113 For detailed information on the Equal Treatment Authority, http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/index.php?lang=en. 111
67
see:
have suffered a disadvantage (due to a violation of their dignity or the fact that, in their opinion, a hostile, degrading or offensive environment was created around them). Respondents must prove that they were not obliged to respect the principle of equal treatment (i.e., the provisions of the ETA) in the particular case or that they had acted in accordance with the law. During the procedure, naturally, respondents may defend the content of any allegedly harmful expression. 114 For harassment cases decided by the ETAuth see Cases 6, 14, 15 and 16. Media Laws The current Hungarian media regulation rests on two pillars: the basic principles and ground rules are contained in Act no. CIV of 2010 on the freedom of the press and the fundamental rules on media content (hereinafter: Media Constitution) and the detailed rules on operation and procedures are provided by Act no. CLXXXV of 2010 on the media services and the mass media (hereinafter: Media Act). According to Article 14 (1) of the Media Constitution prescribes that: The media service provider shall respect human dignity in the media content that it publishes.
Articles 17 further prescribes that (1) The media content may not incite hatred against any nation, community, national, ethnic, linguistic or other minority or any majority as well as any church or religious group. (2) The media content may not exclude any nation, community, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minority or any majority as well as any church or religious group.
The media content cannot – furthermore – violate one’s right to respect for private life. Protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation is afforded with regard to commercial advertisement by the Media Act [Article 24 (1) b)]. For procedures of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority and its Media Council concerning the violation of these provisions, see Rec3 i). For cases successfully challenged under the media law see Cases 1 and 10. ii.
Are media organisations, including those operating on the internet, encouraged to promote in their own practices (e.g. through codes of practice): i. a culture of respect, tolerance and diversity, and ii. to avoid negative and stereotyped representations of LGBT people?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The current media laws contain only general reference to the respect of human dignity and the prohibition of incitement to hatred. Sexual orientation is only mentioned in relation to commercial content – a prohibition based on EU obligation.
114
József Kárpáti, László Bihary, András K. Kádár, and Lilla Farkas (2006): Az egyenlő bánásmódról és az esélyegyenlőség előmozdításáról szóló 2003. évi CXXV. törvény magyarázata. [Commentary to the Act no CXXV of 2003 on the principle of equal treatment and promotion of equal opportunities] Budapest: Másság Alapítvány.
68
Detailed analysis: The much contested media regulation entered into force on 1 January 2011. It rests on two pillars: the Media Constitution and the Media Act. 115 The Media Constitution among the rights of the general public (Title IV) mentions the right to receive proper information on public affairs at local, national and European level and “the media system as a whole shall have the task to provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on these affairs and events” (Article 10). Article 11 further specifies this obligation without expressly referencing LGBT people – an omission that is consistent with the general line of politics of the ruling coalition: Public media service is operated in the Republic of Hungary in order to preserve and strengthen national and European identity, foster and preserve national, family, ethnic and religious communities, and promote and enrich Hungarian language and culture and minority languages and culture and meet the needs of citizens for information and culture.
Among the obligations of the press (Title VI) the Media Constitution provides for the protection of human rights and the respect for the Hungarian constitutional regime (Article 16). Article 17 says: (1) The media content may not incite hatred against any nation, community, national, ethnic, linguistic or other minority or any majority as well as any church or religious group. (2) The media content may not exclude any nation, community, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minority or any majority as well as any church or religious group.
Article 18 furthermore prohibits the invasion into one’s privacy. The Media Act among the general principles emphasizes the constitutional interest in diversity and creating and reinforcing “publicity in the democratic society” (Articles 4 and 5 respectively). In line with the EU Directive of April 2010, the Act expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (but not on gender identity) in Article 24: (1) The commercial communication broadcasted in the media service (a) may not violate human dignity; (b) may not contain and may not support discrimination on grounds of gender, racial or ethnic origin, nationality, religion or ideological conviction, physical or mental disability, age or sexual orientation; (…) (g) may not express religious, conscientious or ideological convictions except for commercial communications broadcasted in thematic media services with religious topics (…).
For the procedure before the National Media and Infocommunications Authority see: Rec3 i). iii.
Has legislation for criminalising “hate speech” on the internet been implemented, and does this cover (a) homophobic and (b) transphobic “hate speech”?
NO. There is no specific legislation criminalizing hate speech on the internet. For the overview of the current general legal framework applicable to homophobic and transphobic speech regardless of where it appears, see App6 i). iv.
Have internet service providers been encouraged to take measures to prevent the dissemination of (a) homophobic and (b) transphobic material, threats and insults?
Summary: NO. The NMIA and the Media Council have a broad mandate to monitor internet services and on the basis of that recommend state intervention or facilitate voluntary rights-enforcement. So far none of the authorities has exercised these functions. The NMIA also operates an internet hotline, but only racist and xenophobic content can be reported, there is no category to include homophobic or transphobic speech.
115
The English text of the Acts is available 199hungary_new_media_regulation_eng_web.pdf .
69
at:
http://www.mediatanacs.hu/uploads/9/12/1321457
Detailed analysis: Articles 182-184 of the Media Act set out the mandate and competence of the NMIA and its office. NMIA supervises the observance of the principles contained in the Media Constitution. 116 According to the statement received from NMIA 117 this supervisory function, however, only applies to published or aired contents. According to NMIA, in Hungary media services can be provided freely, their content is determined by the publishers only, no prior censorship applies. Service providers are responsible for the legality of their content, while what is legal and what complies with the requirements of the Media Constitution is decided by the NMIA/Media Council. Editorial freedom implies that no prior influence may be exercised by the authorities; NMIA is only entitled to review content that has already been published (in every possible manner that falls within the scope of the legislation), and if needed initiate procedures. NMIA does not deliver decisions on the alleged violations of rights of individuals but assesses whether the service provider respects human rights and human dignity in its operation. Furthermore, NMIA exercises market supervision role as well through which it evaluates whether the market players – among others – observe the principle of diversity and respect the human rights of the audience. In this role the Media Council takes decisions on the enforcement of the rights, particularly the principles enshrined in the Media Constitution. In the light of the decisions the Media Council identifies the directions of state intervention in prevention and facilitation of voluntary rights-enforcement, the methods and aspects of possible improvement and their implications on media policies. 118 NMIA also operates an Internet Hotline. 119 It allows the reporting of paedophile and racist content, websites that promote marginalizing views, drug trafficking and terrorism. Although the hotline seems to cover a broad range of illegal or semi-illegal content, among the hateful content explicitly it only mentions the ones that are racist and xenophobic, but not homo-/transphobic. NMIA took over the hotline from the Hungarian Association of Content Industry in 2011. It is important that it is not the role of the hotline to examine any online media content, such as online press, ondemand or other media content. These cases fall within the authority of the Media Council, only content providers outside the above circle can be reported through the hotline. The Internet Hotline notifies the content provider about the objectionable content calling attention to its liability by citing the applicable civil or criminal law obligations (not the media legislation as these service providers do not fall within the scope of the Media Constitution or the Media Act). In case of foreign servers, the hotlines of the relevant countries are contacted. The Internet Hotline’s actions are not authority procedures, the Media Council can not impose sanctions, it can merely call on the website or the service provider to remove the illegal content. 120
116
For details see: Rec3 i) and App6 i). Letter from the National Media and Infocommunications Authority no. NM/13627-2/2012; on file with the authors. 118 For more details on the procedures under the Media Constitution and Media Act see the answer under Rec3 i). 119 Available at: internethotline.hu. 120 To illustrate the deficiency of the hotline-procedure: Tamás Dombos, colleague of Háttér submitted a report in November 2011 against an article that was published on an internet-radio’s website. The article expressed the author’s ‘dislike’ of EuroGames, the sport even that took place in Budapest in June 2012. The article labelled lesbians and gays as sick, faggot, etc. (http://szentkoronaradio.com/belfold/2011_11_11_buziolimpiat-rendeznek-a-fovarosunkban-jovore). In its reply no. IM/32436-1/2011, the Media Council informed the petitioner that against such content the Internet Hotline has no authority to proceed, it shall be done in the separate procedure. Thus, the scope of the protection afforded by the hotline is extremely narrow: it only provides help against private, non-commercial sites that do not qualify as media providers. Correspondence on file with the authors. 117
70
v.
If there are incidents of “hate speech”, are they publicly disavowed by leading public officials?
Summary: NO. Incidents of “hate speech” are frequent by extreme right wing politicians, televisions programmes and websites. Such incidents appear most often in relation to the annual Pride March. Leading public officials tend not to disavow these incidents and criminal charges are dropped. Detailed analysis: MPs of extreme right wing party Jobbik frequently use vulgar, offensive words to refer to LGBT people in Parliament (“buzi” or “homokos”, translates to “faggot”), and call sexual minorities “sick”, “deviant” or “antihuman”. 121 The allegedly gay director of the National Theatre Róbert Alföldi has also been referred to in Parliament as “Róberta Alföldi” (female version) ridiculing his sexual orientation. 122 These utterances have remained largely unanswered except for one occasion. 123 Extreme right wing websites such as kuruc.info, szentkoronaradio.com and deres.tv openly call for violently disturbing LGBT events, such as the Pride March or the EuroGames sport event. While the racist and anti-Semitic language of these websites has been denounced by leading government officials (including Prime Minister Viktor Orbán); 124 the fact that they also include homophobic hate speech has been overlooked and ignored. Anti-LGBT counter-demonstrators at annual Pride Marches frequently incite to hatred. In 2008 Police reported that speakers at the demonstration openly called for “beating up faggots”. 125 In 2011 signs were shown that contained a pink triangle, a rope and the words “new treatment for gays”. No charges were pressed, and no public officials denounced the incidents. Furthermore, conservative public officials have distanced themselves from the LGBT community, which encourages others to use even more drastic language and/or to engage in violent activities [for the case of Mayor of Budapest, István Tarlós see App17 iii)] 7. Member states should raise awareness among public authorities and public institutions at all levels of their responsibility to refrain from statements, in particular to the media, which may reasonably be understood as legitimising such hatred or discrimination. i.
Have guidelines been issued or other measures been taken to raise awareness of public authorities/ institutions of their responsibility to refrain from such statements?
NO. According to information received from the Human Rights Working Group no such guidelines exist, however, legislation on civil servants 126 contain general rules on code of conduct (including honesty, integrity, prohibition of misuse of power) that are applicable here as well. 127
121
E.g. MP Dóra Dúró at the plenary session on 20 June, 2011; dr. Tamás Gaudi-Nagy at the meeting of the Constitutional, Judicial and Standing Orders Committee on 7 May, 2012; Előd Novák in plenary session on 3 May 2011. 122 E.g. Előd Novák at the meeting of Culture and Media Committee on 25 May 2010. 123 In the meeting Constitutional, Judicial and Standing Orders Committee mentioned above, the Chair of the Committee asked the MP to refrain from such terms in the Parliament. 124 Open letter of Viktor Orbán to US Member of the Congress Joseph Crowley. Available at: http://www.miniszterelnok.hu/in_english_article/viktor_orban_s_letter_to_mr._joseph_crowley 125 Letter of Chief Captain of the Budapest Police to the Minister of Justice and Law Enforcement on 9 July 2008; on file with the authors. 126 Act no. CXCIX of 2011 on civil servants. 127 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors.
71
ii.
Have there been cases of statements by representatives of public authorities and institutions which may reasonably be understood as legitimising such hatred or discrimination?
Summary: YES. Until the 2010 change of government the public discourse was balanced: there were always homophobic and transphobic statements especially from far-right and Christian democratic representatives, but the governing parties remained – on average – politically correct when it came to the rights of LGBT people. Since 2010, public officials more often speak openly against the LGBT community, like the mayor of Budapest or Jobbik, the extreme right wing party in the Parliament. Detailed analysis: In March 2009 in the parliamentary debate of the bill on registered partnership that was resubmitted to the Parliament after the Constitutional Court’s decision, in addition to drawing attention to the contradiction between providing partnership and parenting rights to same-sex couples, and the incentives for family planning and bearing children Márta Mátrai (FIDESZ MP) noted that the study published by the Corporate Resource Council in 2006 summarized the medical risks of homosexuality (often changed partners, high risk of HIV/AIDS, etc.). The statement was made against the adoption of the Registered Partnership Act 128 and clearly aimed at demonizing gays (no mention was made of lesbians and bisexuals). 129 In August 2009 Ilona Ékes, FIDESZ MP, that-time the party’s delegate to the Parliament’s Human Rights Committee called for the ban of the Pride March as it – in her opinion – endangered public morals, public security and order. 130 While the other parties – including the that-time governing Socialist Party (MSZP) – denounced the statement, the spokesperson of FIDESZ only said: “The party considers the issue as a matter for the police. The police shall ensure everyone the free exercise of rights, the public order and peace.” 131 No steps were taken against Ilona Ékes within the party. István Tarlós, the mayor of Budapest has been known of his ‘reservations’ towards the LGBT community. 132 In interviews Tarlós suggested that the Pride March should rather take place outside the centre of Budapest, 133 and in 2012 the City Council discussed proposals that would put further restrictions on the march (i.e. ban of ‘homosexual propaganda’, behavioural rules, etc.). 134 In December 2011, in a letter sent to the (gay) Mayor of Berlin concerning the EuroGames, the Mayor “distanced himself from the event and this way of life, both as a private person and as the mayor”. 135 Jobbik, the extreme right-wing party that has representatives in the Parliament since 2010, is a constant source of homophobic statements. Some of its MPs are regularly present at homophobic
128
For details see App24 i). The minutes of the Parliament’s session are available at: http://www.parlament.hu/internet/plsql/ ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat_aktus?p_ckl=38&p_uln=195&p_felsz=41&p_felszig=97&p_aktus=8. 130 See for example at: http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20090828-a-melegfelvonulas-betiltasat-keri-egy-fideszeskepviselo.html. 131 On the reactions see: http://index.hu/belfold/2009/08/30/meg_a_fidesz_sem_allt_ki/. 132 In 2001 as the mayor of the III. District, Tarlós tried to ban LGBT events on the biggest festival of the country, Sziget. LGBT organizations won the case in court. See Case 2. 133 See for example http://atv.hu/online-interju/20100901_tarlos_istvan_interju/, and from recently: http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20120530-a-fidesz-megtiltana-hogy-az-andrassy-uton-bugyiban-tancolo-ferfiak.html. 134 See: http://www.hatter.hu/hirszolgalat/origo-a-kulvarosba-uzne-a-bugyis-melegeket-a-fidesz. 135 http://index.hu/belfold/budapest/2011/12/28/tarlos_mentalitasaval_nem_fer_ossze_a_melegolimpia/. 129
72
demonstrations, especially among the counterdemonstrators of the Pride Marches. 136 For further homophobic statements of Jobbik MPs, see App6 v). 8. Public officials and other state representatives should be encouraged to promote tolerance and respect for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons whenever they engage in a dialogue with key representatives of the civil society, including media and sports organisations, political organisations and religious communities. i.
Has guidance been issued to public officials and state representatives in this respect?
NO. According to information received from the Human Rights Working Group no such guidelines exist, however, legislation on civil servants 137 contain general rules on code of conduct (including honesty, integrity, prohibition of misuse of power) that are applicable here as well. 138 ii.
If so, is there evidence of public officials and other state representatives promoting tolerance for LGBT people in their dialogue with civil society, and encouraging the use of responsible and nonviolent speech?
NO. There have been no public officials taking such a stance since the conservative Government took power in 2010. Previously several public officials including the then Mayor of Budapest Gábor Demszky 139 and Minister of Equal Opportunities Kinga Göncz 140 came out in support of tolerance for LGBT people. Such statements are currently limited to parties in opposition. 141
II. Freedom of association 9. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, that the right to freedom of association can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, discriminatory administrative procedures, this including excessive formalities for the registration and practical functioning of associations, should be prevented and removed; measures should also be taken to prevent the abuse of legal and administrative provisions, such as those related to restrictions based on public health, public morality and public order.
136
György Gyula Zagyva for example sues the police for kettling the counterdemonstrators in 2011: http://belfold.ma.hu/tart/cikk/a/0/100002/1/belfold/Pereli_a_Jobbik_a_rendoroket_a_melegfelvonulason_tortentek_mi att. 137 Act no. CXCIX of 2011 on civil servants. 138 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 139 http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2740. 140 http://www.szmm.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=1052&articleID=6176&ctag=articlelist&iid=1 and http://www.szmm. gov.hu/main.php?folderID=1052&articleID=4488&ctag=articlelist&iid=1. 141 LMP: http://lehetmas.hu/sajtokozlemenyek/33751/homofob-kirohanasok-helyett-befogado-tarsadalmat/, MSZP: http://www.hir24.hu/belfold/2011/05/17/mszp-fel-kell-lepni-a-homofobia-ellen/ and http://www.mszp.hu/hirek/a_ massag_elfogadasa_kozos_ugyunk.
73
i.
Are organisations whose publicly stated purpose is to work for the well-being of LGBT people, whether for their human rights, or in other ways, prevented from gaining official registration?
Summary: NO. Organizations working for LGBT people can be freely founded and they can operate without restrictions. There have been cases where some restrictions were applied (e.g. concerning the age of members or areas of activities such organizations can get involved in), but such restrictions do not seem to be enforced anymore. Detailed analysis: Associations and foundations whose explicit aim is to promoted human rights and equality of LGBT can get official registration without any serious problems, there are currently over a dozen such organizations officially registered. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court’ decision in the so-called Rainbow-case concerning age limit for members for LGBT associations has not been formally overruled yet. In its early Decision no. 26/1991 (V. 17.) the Constitutional Court emphasized that the right of children for adequate physical, mental and moral development entails a duty on the state to limit the children’s right to association, particularly when it comes to the public sphere. The state shall protect children from harmful influence, especially if they – by the reason of their age or maturity – cannot evaluate the possible consequences of their choice for their future life. Thus – reasoned the Constitutional Court – the state may exclude children (persons aged under 18) from “organizations related to homosexuality”. The limitation on the right of the child is dependent on the risk involved, and the age of the child and the nature of the organization shall be co-examined in order to assess whether the child is capable of recognizing and evaluating the different choices as to homosexuality and its impact on his or her personality and integration into the society. While this decision has not been overruled due to the lack of similar cases raising an opportunity for it, it has not been enforced either, there are several LGBT NGOs that no longer have such age limits in their statutes. When applying for registration, the Hungarian LGBT Alliance included several activities of public interest in their statutes (such as research and scientific activities, representing the rights of children and youth, crime prevention and victim support) that the court responsible for registration found incompatible with the aims of the organization. 142 The Alliance decided not to appeal the decision and conform to the request, and removed the contested provision. Following the official registration, they amended the statutes with the contested provisions and submitted the amended statutes to the court with a detailed argumentation. The changes were registered without any objection. ii.
If so, is this through the use of discriminatory administrative procedures, through restrictions based on public health, public morality or public order, or through other means?
NOT APPLICABLE.
142
Decision 16 Pk. 60.149/2009/1 of the Metropolitan Court of Budapest.
74
iii.
Are there examples of measures taken to: i. ensure that LGBT organisations can operate freely, ii. defend their interests when necessary, iii. facilitate and encourage their work?
NO. No specific measures have been introduced to specifically facilitate the work of LGBT NGOs. In 2008 an amendment to the bill on the new Civil Code contained a specific reasoning that the law should allow for the list of members of associations to be confidential data with regards to data protection concerns of associations for patients or sexual minorities. 143 Current legislation also treats membership data as confidential. iv.
Are LGBT organisations involved on a partnership basis when framing and implementing public policies which affect LGBT persons?
Summary: NO. While the legislative framework offers numerous opportunities for civil society organizations to participate in policy-making, such opportunities are severely limited in practice especially since the change of Government in 2010: bills are routinely submitted by individual MPs in order to circumvent rules on preliminary consultations, LGBT organizations are not invited in working groups and no strategic partnership agreement has been concluded with any of them. While other vulnerable groups are represented in consultative councils, the LGBT community has not received such attention. The only forum where representation was ensured, the Advisory Board of the ETAuth, ceased to exist in 2012. Detailed analysis: Act on social participation Act no. CXXXI of 2010 on the social participation in the preparation of legislation aims at providing a practical framework to include the broadest range of stakeholders into the decision-making. Through participation – according to the preamble of the act – the quality of legislation can be improved and the obstacles of effective implementation may be eliminated. The act’s scope is however limited: it applies only to legislation prepared by the ministers, although it includes the preparatory concept papers as well. 144 The law tries to ensure that the consultation is as broad as possible and it is transparent. There are two forms of consultation: 1. publishing the draft on the Internet (general consultation); 2. consulting selected stake-holders chosen by the minister responsible for the preparation of the draft legislation (direct consultation). It is mandatory to organize general consultation, i.e. all draft legislation falling within the scope of the act needs to be made accessible. While there are still pieces of legislation that has been prepared by ministries and adopted without such consultation, the accessibility of the process was significantly increased with the introduction of a centralized database of all ministries in 2011. Concerning direct consultations, ministries are encouraged to develop strategic partnership – among others – with civil society organizations to facilitate them. Since the new government took their office in 2010, the majority of bills, including many controversial bills coming before the Parliament are submitted by individual MPs thus
143 144
Amendment T/5949/152 of 2008. Acts of Parliament, Government Decrees and Decrees of ministers fall within the scope of the act.
75
circumventing the prescribed consultative process. For example, the new Fundamental Law or Act no. CCXI on the protection of families or the media laws were not introduced by the government (but as a private member’s bill), thus there was very limited consultation with the affected communities. No LGBT NGOs were consulted before the submission of either of the above mentioned bills. Strategic partnership agreements of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice No LGBT NGOs have been invited to become strategic partners of ministries. For example, the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice concluded strategic partnership agreements with 47 non-governmental organizations on the basis of the above-mentioned act on social participation on 13 March 2012. The list includes several NGOs of local interest – among them many religious NGOs – but no human rights NGOs, let alone LGBT NGOs were invited. 145 Human Rights Working Group Government Decision no. 1039/2012 (III. 22.) establish the Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) as an inter-ministerial organ entitled to propose, express opinion and assist the work of the government. The members of the HRWG are: 146 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k)
the Parliamentary state secretary of the Ministry of Interior, the state secretary of the Ministry of Human Resources (MHR) responsible for religious, ethnic and civil society relations, the state secretary of the MHR responsible for social inclusion, the state secretary of the MHR responsible for health, the state secretary of the MHR responsible for education, the Parliamentary state secretary of the Ministry of Defence, the state secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice (MPAJ) responsible for justice affairs, the state secretary of the MPAJ responsible for government communication, the Parliamentary state secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the state secretary of the MFA responsible for EU affairs, the state secretary of the Ministry of National Economy responsible for employment policy.
The HRWG has to monitor the implementation of human rights in Hungary. It needs to consult the civil society organizations working in the field of human rights, representative organizations and constitutional organs responsible for the effective enforcement of basic rights. It is the task of the HRWG to overview the obligations under human rights treaties and monitor the fulfilment of the commitments. HRWG has to follow up on the implementation of the recommendations received by Hungary in the 11th session of the Human Rights Council within the framework of Hungary’s universal periodic review. The working group may submit proposals with regard to legislation and implementation to state organs in order to enhance respect for human rights. Furthermore, the HRWG assists the communication about the human rights situation of the country. The HRWG shall have at least one meeting in every three month. One of the most important aspects of its work is to maintain a Human Rights Roundtable giving the human rights NGOs opportunity for consultation and the roundtable can submit recommendations on the work and tasks of the HRWG. The members of the Human Rights Roundtable are: a) b) c)
members of the HRWG the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, the president of the Equal Treatment Authority and the president of the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, the following persons invited by the president of the HRWG and working on issues that fall within the competence of the HRWG
145
For the press release see: http://www.kormany.hu/hu/kozigazgatasi-es-igazsagugyi-miniszterium/parlamentiallamtitkarsag/hirek/civilekkel-kotott-strategiai-partnersegi-megallapodast-a-kozigazgatasi-es-igazsagugyi-miniszterium. 146 As modified by Government Decision no. 1147/2012. (V. 11.).
76
ca) representative a constitutional organ, head of a central public administrative body, cb) NGOs, interest groups and professional organizations.
An open call for civil society representatives was launched on 28 September 2012. 147 The form included a specific category for NGOs active in the field of LGBT rights. Interestingly, press releases about the Roundtable and the call did not mention LGBT people as a specific concern. 148 In midNovember the candidates were individually informed and three LGBT groups were invited to participate in the Roundtable. Advisory Board of the Equal Treatment Authority Government Decree no. 362/2004 (XII. 26.) established the Advisory Board of the ETAuth. The five members of the Board were appointed by the that-time Prime Minister as of 20 June 2005. In May 2011 the mandate of the previous board came to an end, and the Board was soon completely abolished. The official reason for dismantling the Board was that it fulfilled its main task and by today the interpretation of the principle of equal treatment is clear and consistent. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Metropolitan Court gives clear guidance for the application of ETA. 149 Most likely, however, the real reason was that the government did not have loyal experts to appoint. The members of the former Advisory Board were outstanding scholars from various fields of human rights: they worked on the rights of Roma, children, visually impaired and LGBT people and one of them was an expert on labour law (being one of the main areas where discriminatory practices prevail). The Board was set up to help the work of the ETAuth as defined by Article 14 (1) of ETA. 150 In particular the Board issued statements on questions of interpretation, 151 submitted proposal on needed government actions, legislation, etc. 152 The Advisory Board by bringing together experts from different fields contributed to the consistent and EU and international law conform interpretation of the principle of equal treatment and its legislative proposal on marriage equality marked an important development in the field of LGBT rights advocacy. Specialized councils In line with the separate strategies on integration and equal opportunities, 153 the government has set up consultative bodies (so called “councils”) dealing with the rights of some disadvantaged or minority group where NGO may participate in policy-making or preparation of legislation. Act no. XXVI of 1998 on the rights and equal opportunities of people living with disabilities ordered the establishment of the National Council on Disability Affairs in order to assist the work of the government. It can initiate decisions, make proposals, submit opinions on the rights of people with disabilities, it coordinates among the stakeholders, and monitors and assesses the implementation of such decisions. The representatives of organizations working on the rights of people with visual
147
http://www.kormany.hu/hu/kozigazgatasi-es-igazsagugyi-miniszterium/tarsadalmi-kapcsolatokert-felelos-allam titkarsag/hirek/civil-szervezetek-is-bekapcsolodhatnak-az-emberi-jogi-kerekasztal-munkajaba. 148 See: http://www.kormany.hu/hu/emberi-eroforrasok-miniszteriuma/tarsadalmi-felzarkozasert-felelos-allam titkarsag/hirek/megalakult-az-emberi-jogi-munkacsoport. 149 See the reasons provided for the modifying act (Bill no. T/4855 of 2011). Available at: http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/04855/04855.pdf. 150 For further details see Rec3 i). 151 See for example: Statement of the Advisory Board no. 384/5/2008 (IV.10.) on harassment and sexual harassment, or Statement of the Advisory Board no. 288/2/2010 (IV.9.) on the interpretation of ‘any other status’. 152 Statement of the Advisory Board no. 6/2009 (XI. 23.) on the reasonable accommodation of people living with disabilities, or Statement of the Advisory Board no. 11/2007 (X. 5.) on the available remedies against decisions taken with regard to suitability for certain professions. 153 See under Rec2 ii).
77
and hearing impairment, physical disability, psycho-social disability, autism are regular members of the Council. 154 Similarly, Government Decision no. 1008/2009 (I. 28.) set up the Council of Social Equality between Women and Men with very similar mandate to that of the disability rights council. Civil society organizations may take part in the work of the Council pending that their basic goal is to work towards the equality of women and men. Finally, Government Decision no. 1102/2011 (IV. 15.) deals with the Roma Coordination Council explicitly aiming at ensuring civil and social participation in the preparation, implementation and assessment of the Roma integration strategy. The Roma Coordination Council has 27 members, out of which 6 are representatives of the Roma community. The Decision does not contain reference to civil society organizations, while minority self-governments, churches and government officials are listed. The Roma Coordination Council already indicates a serious step-back from the solutions applied with regard to other vulnerable communities, it minimizes the civil society participation. Despite the tangible level of homo- and transphobia in the country, LGBT issues and the communities never reached the above governmental recognition, and no similar consultative body was set up to include LGBT NGOs. It has to be noted, however, that the effectiveness of these institutions is doubtful. The Council of Social Equality between Women and Men has not had a meeting since the new Government took office in mid-2010. 10. Access to public funding available for non-governmental organisations should be secured without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
Is public funding earmarked for NGOs accessible to LGBT organisations without discrimination?
YES. In principle LGBT NGOs can apply for funds generally available for NGOs on a competitive basis. For details, see App10 ii). ii.
Has such funding been made available to LGBT organisations?
Summary: PARTIALLY. There are no funds earmarked specifically for LGBT NGOs. Only a tiny fraction of public money is distributed to LGBT NGOs, and the amount has significantly decreased since the entry into power of the new government in 2010, partly as a result of thematic priority areas disadvantaging LGBT NGOs. Detailed analysis: There are several funding schemes available for NGOs in Hungary. According to the law on personal income tax, every tax payer can freely decide on 1% of his/her income tax to be transferred to the NGO of his/her preference. 155 In 2011 7.23 billion forints (EUR 25 million) was distributed this way, among 30,918 beneficiaries. 7 LGBT NGOs have received funding between 55–3582 euros via this mechanism, altogether 2.06 million forints (EUR 7,283). The National Cooperation Fund (formerly: National Civil Fund) provides core funding and projectbased funding on a competitive basis. In 2011 2.6 billion forints (EUR 9.22 million) were distributed
154
Articles 24 and 25 of the Act no. XXVI of 1998 on the rights and equal opportunities of people living with disabilities. Act no. CXXVI of 1996 on the use of a specified amount of personal income tax in accordance with the taxpayer’s instruction 155
78
this way. 6 LGBT NGOs have received core funding between 353–2836 Euros, altogether 1.51 million forints (EUR 5.356) Besides these general funding frameworks several ministries and government agencies have funds available for NGOs working in specific thematic fields (e.g. youth, drug prevention, consumer protections, sport activities etc.) There has never been a specific call on LGBT issues, LGBT NGOs are most likely to successfully apply for funds concerning HIV/AIDS prevention and equal opportunities/vulnerable groups. It is worth noting, however, that funds available for vulnerable groups are most often limited to the Roma, women and people with disabilities, so LGBT NGOs cannot apply. Furthermore, thematic calls since the entry into power of the conservative government tend to prioritize issues (e.g. promoting family values etc.) that disadvantage LGBT NGOs. In 2011, for example Háttér has applied for a project call to promote marriage and parenting with a project proposal to encourage entering into registered partnership and having children among the LGBT community. The proposal was refused claiming that “it hardly fitted the aims of the call”. 156 The previously regular calls on funding for HIV/AIDS prevention activities have not been opened since 2011. Finally, some prioritized NGOs receive funding directly from the central state budget as a separate budget line (e.g. umbrella organizations for disabled people, certain Roma NGOs), including the Association of Large Families, an openly homophobic NGO that, e.g. in 2011 received 25 million forints this way (88.340 EUR). Assessing the openness of state funding to LGBT NGOs is made difficult by the lack of a central database containing data on all the various funding schemes, and the lack of filtering on the basis of causes. According to the Human Rights Working Group there is no data collection in place to allow for tracing how many LGBT NGOs have received financial support from the state. 157 11. Member states should take appropriate measures to effectively protect defenders of human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons against hostility and aggression to which they may be exposed, including when allegedly committed by state agents, in order to enable them to freely carry out their activities in accordance with the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities. i.
Does the state provide effective protection from hostility and aggression for LGBT human rights organisations?
Summary: PARTIALLY. There has been no serious hostility or aggression directly against LGBT human rights organizations. Hostility can be experienced rather against LGBT events and venues. Detailed analysis: There has been no serious hostility or aggression directly against LGBT human rights organizations. Some organizations have received hate mail or calls, but no direct threats have been made. Hostility is rather aimed at LGBT events (Pride Marches and the related film festival, or the EuroGames) and community spaces (bars, saunas). So far, there were relatively few such events and the police provided adequate protection after the attack, although the criminal law classification of such incidents remains a concern. See Case 8 on the Molotov-cocktails attacks against a gay club
156 157
Letter from the National Institute for Family and Social Policy on 8 March 8 2012; on file with the authors. Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors.
79
and a gay sauna, both in 2008. See also Cases 13, 19 and 31 concerning attacks against participants of the Pride March. ii.
Are there examples of measures taken by the state to create an environment conducive to the work of such organisations, enabling them freely to conduct their activities, and promoting respect for their work?
NO. There have been no specific measures taken. See also App9 iii). iii.
Are LGBT human rights organisations able to work with i.
national human rights institutions and ombudsmen,
ii.
the media,
iii.
other human rights organisations?
YES. LGBT human rights organizations have not experienced any difficulty in working with the national human rights organizations, other civil society organizations or the media. For details see: App13 iii) [media]; App45 [national human rights institutions]. For collaboration with other human rights organizations see the cases of joint press releases and other lobbying efforts by various NGOs working with human rights. 158 iv.
Are they able to take part in training sessions, international conferences and other human rights activities?
YES. There have been no restrictions – formal or informal – on LGBT human rights organizations’ work, travel, or participation in conferences. 12. Member states should ensure that non-governmental organisations defending the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons are appropriately consulted on the adoption and implementation of measures that may have an impact on the human rights of these persons. i.
Are LGBT organisations consulted on the adoption and implementation of measures affecting the rights of LGBT persons?
Summary: PARTIALLY. While in the years before 2010 LGBT NGOs were specifically invited to give their opinion on LGBT-relevant legislation, since the change of the Government in 2010 the opinion of LGBT NGOs have not been actively searched for by the Government. The situation improved a bit in 2012, as LGBT NGOs that submitted opinion as part of the open consultation process, were in some cases invited also for personal meetings to discuss their opinion. The opinions were most often disregarded.
158 See for example the joint statement of NGOs on the mandate and composition of the HRWG [App9 iv)] or the unified lobbying efforts in case of hate crimes. For the adopted text of the Criminal Code see: App2 i).
80
Detailed analysis: For the legal framework for consultation with the relevant stakeholders during the legislative process see App9 iv). Prior to the change of Government LGBT NGOs were invited specifically to consultations concerning LGBT issues, most importantly in the cases of the comprehensive equal treatment act in 2003, the second act on registered partnership, and on several occasions relating to provisions in the new Civil Code concerning issues of adoption and gender recognition. After 2010, that practice has changed significantly: until February 2012 no LGBT NGO was specifically asked for an opinion, or invited to personal meetings about legislation, even though several pieces of legislation directly affecting LGBT people were adopted. Part of the reason for this was that many of these laws were adopted circumventing the rules on public consultations [see App9 iv)]. Since the change of Government in 2010 the Hungarian LGBT Alliance submitted written opinions on six pieces of legislation, and only one of those was – partially – taken into consideration. Submissions on the Family Protection Act, the new Civil Code, the National Basic Curriculum, the Ethics Committee of the Parliament, and legislation concerning the change of school diplomas were all rejected. The only exception was the Criminal Code where provisions concerning hate crimes and next of kins were adopted, while further recommendations on double registered partnerships were disregarded. 159 Furthermore, Háttér Support Society for LGBT People submitted written opinions on seven other minor pieces of legislation since 2010, and only two of those were taken into consideration – partially. Submissions on asylum and immigration legislation, code of conduct for the police, UPR recommendations, and the Human Rights Working Group were completely disregarded. An opinion concerning the inclusion of registered partnerships on adoption forms was fully accepted; and Háttér’s joint submission with other human rights NGOs on the provisions of hate crimes in the Criminal Code was also partially accepted. 160 In response to a lobby letter sent to the Speaker of the House of the Parliament, the Office for Social Relations of the Parliament responded that no discussion on legislation concerning LGBT people was scheduled for the coming months. 161 This was the period where the Act on the Protection of Families, the new Labour Code removing provisions on equal opportunity plans and amendment to the procedure of the ETAuth was widely known to be on the agenda. The letter demonstrates that many policy makers do not recognize the broad range of issues and legislations affecting directly the life of LGBT people. ii.
Have there been such consultations regarding the implementation of this Recommendation?
NO. As of October 2012 no such consultation has taken place.
159
All these opinions are available on the website of the Alliance at: http://www.lmbtszovetseg.hu. All these opinions are available on the website of Háttér at: http://www.hatter.hu/kiadvanyaink?keys=&tipus=3 161 Letter from the Office for Social Relations of the Parliament no. TKH/1292-1/2011; on file with the authors. 160
81
III. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly 13. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure, in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, that the right to freedom of expression can be effectively enjoyed, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, including with respect to the freedom to receive and impart information on subjects dealing with sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
Have the authorities ensured the freedom to receive and transmit information and ideas relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, including: i.
activities that support the human rights of LGBT persons
YES. There have been no restrictions on receiving or transmitting information on activities that support the human rights of LGBT persons. ii.
publication of material
YES. No restriction has been placed on the publication of content on sexual orientation and gender identity. LGBT organizations are free to publish information materials, leaflets, campaign materials, 162 and several academic books, conference volumes, 163 etc. deal with the above topic as well. iii.
media coverage
Summary: PARTIALLY. The media representation of the LGBT community remains a concern: while leftleaning media services provide a balanced coverage, right-wing media still builds on stereotypes and is often openly homo- and transphobic. The previous media supervisory authority in several cases decided in favour of LGBT organizations, the current media supervisory bodies have not yet delivered similar decisions. Detailed analysis: The media coverage of LGBT issues is slightly controversial. On the one hand, privately owned news sites 164 or commercial TV and radio channels regularly cover news and events of the LGBT community 165 and especially left-wing printed and electronic newspapers provide a fair coverage
162
See for example the information booklets of Háttér Support Society for LGBT People (available at: http://www.hatter.hu/kiadvanyaink); Inter Alia Foundation’s interview volume on same-sex parenting. Bea Sándor (ed. 2010): Mi vagyunk a család, a biztonság, az otthona. [We are their family, security, home] Budapest: Inter Alia Foundation. 163 See for example the sociological research on transsexuals (Judit Takács (ed., 2006): A lélek műtétei. [Surgery of the soul] Budapest: Új Mandátum Kiadó) or the book containing conference papers on homophobia (Judit Takács (ed., 2011): Homofóbia Magyarországon [Homophobia in Hungary] Budapest: L’Harmattan). 164 See for example: http://index.hu/belfold/2009/05/08/solyom_laszlo_alairta_a_bejegyzett_elettarsi_ kapcsolatrol_szolo_torvenyt/ (about the President of the Republic signing the bill on registered partnership); or http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20120406-nem-kapott-engedelyt-a-budapesti-melegfelvonulas.html (on the police ban of the 2012 Pride March). 165 See for example: http://tv2.hu/tenyek/video/elettarsi-kapcsolat-megsemmisitve-tenyek-riport (on the Constitutional Court’s first decision on the registered partnership); or http://www.rtlklub.hu/hirek/belfold/video/132307 (on the 2011 Pride March).
82
too. 166 Press releases, statements by LGBT organizations regularly make it to the news section of the above mentioned media organizations. 167 However, the state owned and run public media (both television and radio) is usually silent, except when there is a clear clash over LGBT events, such as the Pride Marches. It is a serious concern that homophobic voices are given time, while the actual representatives of the community are not invited. 168 It is also worrying that many of the media coverage plays on the existing stereotypes and thus provides a distorted image of the LGBT community. The Pride March reports regularly show the few, unconventionally dressed participants and not the rest of the March as that would be too ‘normal’. 169 LGBT content is often accompanied with photos showing half naked man or drag queens, this way changing the focus of the news item and triggering disgust-based emotions from people who already have at least some reservations towards the community. 170 LGBT NGOs have successfully challenged biased and hateful media content in several cases at the previous media supervisory authority, the National Radio and Television Commission (NRTC). See Case 1 in 2001 where the public television’s popular weekly programme showed a report about the differing views concerning homosexuality and the Pride March, portraying the LGBT community as sick, dangerous, and harmful to young people; Case 4 in 2003 where right-wing affiliated private news channel incited to hatred, but later provided LGBT NGOs with equal airtime, and Case 10 in 2009, the first case where the media authority found that a media content provider incited to hatred against the LGBT community. While these legal cases were successful, media coverage still often remains stereotypical and biased. The survey by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences among LGBT people found that 91% of respondents (n=1627) agreed with the statement that “The media shows a distorted image about LGBT people.” In 2012 the NMIA published the results of a comprehensive study about the representation of social diversity in the news and political programmes in both public and commercial television media. The report contains detailed data on the representation of various job categories, ethnic groups, women and men, and people with disabilities, but sexual orientation and gender identity were not monitored. 171 iv.
organisation of/participation in conferences
Summary: YES. While LGBT NGOs are free to organize and participate at LGBT-related conference, public officials hardly ever accept invitations to such events.
166
For instance: http://nol.hu/belfold/melegek_az_alkotmanyozasrol (workshop on the new constitution and its compliance with the Yogyakarta Principles); or http://gepnarancs.hu/2012/06/a-rongalas-es-a-zaklatas-is-lehet-gyuloletbuncselekmeny/ (on the new hate crime legislation). 167 See among others: http://index.hu/belfold/2011/06/16/19_nagykovetseg_tamogatja_a_budapest_pride-ot/ (on the joint support of the Pride March by 19 embassies in Budapest); or http://index.hu/belfold/2012/02/28/senki_nem_fog_senki_haloszobajaba_bemenni/ (on the newly established council on family matters and the exclusionary statements expressed in the founding documents). 168 See for example the basis of Decision no. 23-3-1185/2001 of the that time National Radio and Television Council: the weekly news programme of the Hungarian TV showed a prejudicial, one-sided coverage of the Pride March. 169 See for example the coverage of the right-wing television station of the 2007 Pride: http://videa.hu/videok/hirekpolitika/melegfelvonulas-hir-tv-2007-attrocitas-biszexualis-TmQaiz6jPP1tV4ax. 170 A recent example: http://gondola.hu/cikkek/81544-Az_amerikai_nagykovet_kituntetest_ osztott_a_Hatter_Tarsasag_a.html – reporting on the award received by Háttér Support Society for LGBT People from the U.S. Embassy in Budapest. The news item merged the award ceremony with the introduction of the official swimming suit of the EuroGames, which took place later that week. 171 http://nmhh.hu/dokumentum/151857/sokszinuseg_20120627.pdf.
83
Detailed analysis: There are no direct or indirect limitations on organizing conferences on issues and topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Hungarian LGBT NGOs regularly hold conferences, 172 workshops 173 and talks 174 on topics they work on and so far there has been no pressure from the authorities that would discourage holding such events. Similarly, no limitation has been placed on participation in conferences organized by international or national organizations on sexual orientation and gender identity. 175 Representatives of the community are usually invited by the public authorities to events that touch upon LGBT issues. 176 On the other hand, government officials almost never accept the invitation of NGOs. An exception from the latter rule is the Equal Treatment Authority and the office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights – they are regular participants of LGBT events. 177 In 2012 the EuroGames has taken place in Budapest and its organization did not meet any obstacles apart from a few opposing statement from the Mayor of Budapest and other government officials [see see App7 ii)]. Finally, there has been an LGBT film and cultural festival on multiple locations a week before each Pride March and it can be organized without external interference every year. v.
dissemination/access to information on safe sexual practices?
YES. There have been no limitations on dissemination of information on safe sexual practices, but LGBT NGOs receive less and less funding for such activities [see App33 iii)]; and in 2010 LGBT venues and topics were removed from the official government programme of the World AIDS Day at the very last moment (see Case 23). ii.
Or, on the contrary, have there been cases where restrictions have been placed on freedom of expression?
Summary: NO. While there have been several petitions to the former and current media authorities against LGBT content on television, the petitions were refused by the relevant authorities. The much feared protection of family values in the media law has – so far – not lead to sanctions against media content purporting a neutral or positive image of LGBT people. Proposals by extreme-right wing Jobbik for laws and local ordinances to ban “homosexual propaganda” were voted down.
172
E.g. the full-day conference organized by the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences entitled “A homofóbia és a transzfóbia elleni küzdelem lehetőségei a mai Magyarországon” (Opportunities in the struggle against homophobia and transphobia in Hungary) on 17 May 2011 or the LGBT Business Forums organized on 20-21 May 2010, 16 June 2011 and 28-29 June 2012. 173 E.g. the trainings offered for lawyers by Háttér as part of the Equal Jus project on 11 and 26 February 2011 or workshops at the Budapest Prides and the EuroGames. 174 E.g. launching the Hungarian translation of the Yogyakarta Principles on 17 May 2010. 175 LGBT activists have participated at ILGA and ILGA-Europe events since the beginning of 1990s. 176 E.g. the roundtable on hate crimes organized by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on 13 June 2012 or the Equal Opportunities Summit on 6-7 October 2011 organized by the National Institute for Family and Social Policy (although no LGBT speakers were invited, LGBT NGOs were only invited as audience). 177 Staff of the Equal Treatment Authority were present for example at the launch of the Hungarian translation of the Yogyakarta Principles on 17 May 2010, participated in the trainings for lawyers organized by Háttér in the framework of he Equal Just project on 11 and 26 February 2011, various workshops of the Budapest Pride, and a roundtable about trans de-pathologization on 25 October 2010. Staff from the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights were present at the opening of the Budapest Pride in 2012.
84
Detailed analysis: While there have been several petitions to the former and current media authorities concerning LGBT content on television that the petitioners felt was unsuitable for TV, the NRTC and NMIA refused those petitions, and only found a violation when explicit sexual content was included. A noted case concerned the celebration of a (fake) same-sex marriage in an afternoon talk show, which resulted in a conservative Council member (now president of NMIA) publishing a press release distancing herself from the majority of NRTC for not finding a violation, as she considered that the segment violated the institution of marriage. 178 The provisions in the Media Act and the Family Protection Act on the protection of family values might undermine freedom of expression with regards to LGBT-related content. Article 83 of the Media Act contains that: (1) The objectives of public media service are as follows: (…) c) to promote and strengthen national cohesion and social integration, and to respect the institution of marriage and the value of family, (…)
This duty is confirmed by Article 5 of the Family Protection Act, which reads as follows: In order to achieve the goals enshrined in this law and for the protection of children, media service providers shall offer their services protecting the institution of family and the value of family and raising children. The state shall encourage the broadcasting of programmes and media content that carries the values of family and raising children. A separate law shall contain sanctions on violations by media service providers.
These provisions – especially taking into consideration the view expressed by current president of NMIA in a previous case (see above) – might result in sanctions against media content that provide a neutral or positive image of LGBT people. So far, no such sanctions have been imposed, but the possibility of preventive self-censorship cannot be ruled out. Since the beginning of April 2012 there have been several attempts both at the national and local level to adopt legislation to ban pride events or more generally the “propagation of homosexuality” in Hungary. The large majority of these proposals were initiated by the extreme right-wing parliamentary opposition party, Jobbik (12% of seats in Parliament), and so far have all been voted down. However, these proposals also prompted councillors of the governing FIDESZ party to also propose a similar measure in the General Assembly of the city of Budapest. It is further worrying, that no leading political figure of FIDESZ has condemned these proposals, and rather than refusing them based on human rights arguments, politicians most often used technical arguments (the text of the proposal is not clear enough, legislation in force already covers that behaviour, etc.) in the debate. 179
178 http://mediatanacs.hu/cikk/33330/Szalai_Annamaria_az_ORTT_tagja_kulonvelemenye_az_ORTT_11282009_V_28_ szamu__az_MRTL_Zrt_msorszolgaltato_RTL_Klub_csatornajan_2009_februar_6an_17_ora_17_perces_kezdettel_sugarz ott_Monikashow_cim_msorszammal_kapcsolatban_hozot. 179 See Jobbik’s proposals no. 6719, 6720, 6721 submitted on 10 April 2012 to the Parliament; Jobbik’s proposal for a local ordinance in Budapest and the FIDESZ proposal submitted in response (April 2012); the Jobbik’s proposal to amend a local ordinance in Budapest to sanction anti-social behaviour in May 2012; and after failing to pass anything in the General Assembly of Budapest the proposed district-level ordinances (District 8 by Jobbik and District 18 by FIDESZ). Furthermore, proposals in rural cities and a village (Békéscsaba, Pécs and Érpatak).
85
iii.
Have the authorities encouraged pluralism and non-discrimination in the media in respect of issues of (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. The authorities have encouraged pluralism in the media only with reference to traditional minorities and religions. Neither the media laws, nor the Public Service Code makes any mention of the inclusion of LGBT issues; rather they put heavy emphasis on culture, tradition, and preservation of national identity and family values. Detailed analysis: Media law In addition to the specific obligations to respect human dignity and prevent incitement to hatred [described under Rec3 i)], Article 13 of the Media Constitution prescribes the following: Linear media content providers engaged in news coverage operations shall provide comprehensive, factual, up-todate, objective and balanced coverage on local, national and European issues that may be of interest for the general public and on any event bearing relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation.
The Media Council shall proceed in cases where the observance of the above principles is at stake. 180 Furthermore, it is the Media Council’s task to improve media literacy and media consciousness [Media Act, Article 132 k)], although the content of this activity is rather unclear yet. The Media Council reports to the Parliament yearly about the implementation of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and about the enforcement of the principle of balanced coverage [Media Act, Article 133 a)]. The Human Rights Working Group claims that these provisions are enough the guarantee that LGBT concerns are also covered in news programs, thus promoting the culture of diversity. 181 Apart from these broad mandates, the NMIA and the Media Council have not taken any measures to encourage pluralism and non-discrimination in the media; the NMIA explicitly refused that it was a task for them as – in their opinion – this would amount to prior censorship. 182 Public Service Code The Public Service Code for the national public media 183 contains the basic rules applicable both for the public radio and television. Among the goals of the public media the document lists the provision of space for debates of the community; improvement of cultural responsibility, and furthering social cohesion and integration. Among the aims of the public media service the Code explicitly names the requirement of balanced, precise and thorough coverage, and reiterates the provision the Media Act on “facilitating and strengthening of national cohesion and social integration, and respect and support for the value of the institution of marriage and family”, providing information about constitutional rights and order, meeting the media expectations of national, ethnic, religious minorities and other communities. However, the public media can not only serve minority needs as that would run counter the principle of diversity. Although among the basic principles the Code lists the requirement to provide an overview of the cultural, scientific, religious diversity and of the different worldviews, the phrasing undoubtedly does not show any intent to include LGBT topics. The document puts a heavy emphasis on national
180
For the procedure see: Rec3 i). Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 182 Letter from the National Media and Infocommunications Authority no. MN/13627-2/2012; on file with the authors. 183 Available at: http://www.noe.hu/anyagok/noe_kozszolgalati_kodex.pdf. 181
86
heritage, preserving traditions and values, historically oppressed religions, language and the culture of Hungarians living beyond the borders and it does not mention contemporarily vulnerable groups (except for people living with disabilities). Diversity is frequently used in the above context; however, discrimination is only mentioned in relation to ‘traditional’ minorities, such as ethnic and national, or religious minorities. The implementation of the Code and respect for the principles contained therein is supervised by the Board of Public Service. The members of the Board are delegated by organizations listed in the Annex of the Media Act for 3 years (Media Act, Article 97). Human rights organizations, let alone LGBT organizations are not listed (representative organizations for people with disabilities are the only ones entitled to delegate a member). Interestingly, the Hungarian Academy of Science, the Hungarian Olympic Commission, all four historical churches, the Chamber of Commerce and organizations catering for the needs of families (i.e. protecting traditional family values and representing the so-called big families) have the privilege to delegate members (Annex 1 to the Media Act). 14. Member states should take appropriate measures at national, regional and local levels to ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention, can be effectively enjoyed, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
Have the authorities ensured freedom of peaceful assembly for LGBT people?
Summary: YES. There have been several demonstrations concerning LGBT issues that took place without any problem. On the other hand Pride Marches were banned initially by the Police in 2011 and 2012, and only later allowed by the court after a successful appeal for judicial review. Detailed analysis: Small-scale events concerning LGBT issues went peacefully without major obstacles. Several demonstrations were organized to embassies, which are usually under higher security: on 2 October 2011 Hungarian and foreign activists demonstrated against the ban of the Belgrade Pride in front of the Serbian Embassy, 184 or in March 2012 assemblies were held in front of the Russian Embassy against the proposal and then the adoption of the so-called ‘propaganda law’ in St. Petersburg. 185 In all cases the police were flexible: the notifications were always accepted without any difficulties, they were – according to the organizers – sent via email, at times less than 72 hours prior the event. 186 On the Pride Marches see: App15 i), App16 ii). 15. Member states should ensure that law enforcement authorities take appropriate measures to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations in favour of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons from any attempts to unlawfully disrupt or inhibit the effective enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
184
For the press release see: http://www.commmunity.eu/2011/10/03/betilthatnak-de-nem-megyunk-sehova/. For the event see: https://www.facebook.com/events/291173767616876/?ref=nf. 186 Interview with one of the organizers (Dorottya Karsay); on file with the authors. According to Article 6 of Act no. III of 1989 on the freedom of assembly demonstrations shall be notified to the Budapest Headquarters of the Police at least 3 day before the planned event. 185
87
i.
If there has been hostility to LGBT freedom of assembly events, have the law enforcement authorities taken reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully?
Summary: YES. While the appearance of violent anti-gay protestors previously unseen at the Pride Marches in 2007 took the Police by surprise, over the years the Police have gradually become better equipped to handle the protection of marches. The violent attacks in 2007 were part of a more general antigovernmental violent movement starting in 2006 when the police lacked the necessary equipment and expertise to effectively counter the unprecedented violence. It took the police several years to develop the infrastructure and tactical skills to provide sufficient protection for the Pride marchers. In recent years – apart from the initial ban of marches, and the public statement concerning respect for public morality – the police measures have been reasonable and never amounted to the violation of the rights of the participants, i.e. no disproportionate requests were forced on the organizers. Detailed analysis: Since 2007, heavy opposition has followed LGBT Pride Marches in Budapest. In that year, the police were unprepared. Violent counter-demonstrators and peaceful marchers were allowed to march side by side without significant police protection or separation, which put the marchers’ safety at direct risk. In 2008, police cordons were erected along the route of the march, but this still allowed counter-demonstrators to throw eggs, potatoes and even heavier and more dangerous objects (cans, stones, etc.) at Pride March participants, without effective interference from the police. As a result of these events – especially street fights between police and counter-demonstrators – several people were arrested, many of them for throwing eggs (see Case 9). The report of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights 187 published after the march emphasised that throwing eggs and other objects at peaceful marchers cannot be considered as an act protected by the right to freedom of expression. 188 A few days before the 2009 Pride March, some extreme right-wing figures published online articles, which unequivocally called for violence against the participants. 189 The Pride organisers complained to the police, claiming that that there was proof of preparation of violent crime against a member of a community. One of the suspects was charged, and found guilty, but was only sentenced to probation for two years. 190 It is important to note that despite the problems in the 2007 and 2008, the protection of the Pride Marchers can be considered adequate by today. The route of the march is protected by cordons, the side streets are closed down and counter-demonstrators are kept at necessary distance. The police engage in preliminary negotiations with the organizers, and a few days before the march another consultation is held in the light of the known counter-demonstrations. These negotiations are necessary parts of planning the security of the march and both the organizers and the police have been open for compromises in order to ensure the safety of the participants. The final agreement is only known to the parties and not shared with the general public thus preventing the counter-demonstrators from preparing. The tone and content of these discussions is respectful and
187
For further information on the legal status, tasks and competences of the Ombudsman, see: http://www.obh.hu/allam/eng/index.htm. 188 ÁJOB Projektfüzetek – Gyülekezési jogi project, 2009/1 – Freedom of assembly project. 189 Available at: http://kuruc.info/r/6/45812/. 190 Decision 17.B. 80.001/2011/6. of the District Court of Pest upheld by Decision 3l.Bf. 7662/2011/5. of the Metropolitan Court of Budapest.
88
the police aim at reaching an agreement that is capable of respecting the freedom of assembly for all, yet avoiding the violence that had taken place in 2007 and 2008. Although the Pride Marches in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 went relatively smoothly, due to extreme police protection, several participants leaving the events were attacked, which remains a concern for the organizers. ii.
In particular, have the police protected participants in peaceful LGBT demonstrations effectively?
PARTIALLY. While in recent years the Police have been able to protect the Pride March participants from violent attack while at the March, there have been sporadic attacks against those leaving the March every year. See Cases 9, 13, 19 and 31. iii.
Have the police acted with integrity and respect towards LGBT people and their supporters when policing LGBT freedom of assembly events?
PARTIALLY. There have been no systematic reports of homo- or transphobic acts or incidents by the police during LGBT demonstrations or marches. The officers – at least on the spot – treated the participants with respect in most cases. There have been only two reports of lack of respect: in 2010 following the attempts of anti-LGBT protestors to remove the flag from the main venue of the LGBT film festival, the police officer on duty told the organizers to “remove the faggot flag” to prevent further conflicts. In 2011 a group of anti-fascist activist from Austria was charged with hooliganism, after trying to protect themselves from a group of Hungarian neo-Nazis harassing them. The charges were dropped without reaching the courts. 191 16. Member states should take appropriate measures to prevent restrictions on the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly resulting from the abuse of legal or administrative provisions, for example on grounds of public health, public morality and public order. i.
Have the authorities placed restrictions on freedom of assembly events? If so, what have been the grounds?
Summary: YES. Reference to public morals in statements issued by the police before the Pride Marches has been a standard problem. In 2012 a banner was removed from a truck upon the police’s request to prevent violent incidents. Detailed analysis: Article 2 (3) of Act no. III of 1989 on the freedom of assembly (Assembly Act) contains a general, content-neutral limitation on public gatherings: The exercise of freedom of assembly shall not constitute a crime or an incitement to crime; moreover, it should not result in the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others.
Thus, the Assembly Act only refers to public order when it restricts peaceful demonstration – a limitation that is accepted under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the police regularly call participants of the Pride March to refrain from acts that violate public taste or public morals, or that may be seen as provocative acts.
191
Decision no. B. V. 4339/2011/15. of the Prosecutor’s Office of District V and XIII.
89
The first such public statement was published by the police in 2009, in which they called on the participants “to refrain from any behaviour that could potentially harm public taste”. 192 In addition to the civil society’s uproar, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights – among others – examined this issue as well in relation to the police actions taken with regard to the Pride March that year. The Head of the Budapest Police Headquarters replied to the question of interpretation in the following way: “the statement aimed at ensuring that the participants respect the generally accepted norms of social behaviour and do not commit any unlawful activity.” When the police issue a public statement, they try to phrase it in a way that is generally understandable for the general public and this is why they referred to public taste instead of public morals protected by the law on misdemeanours. The Commissioner heavily criticized the statement. First, it is very unfortunate and misleading to use public taste as it is not synonymous with public morals. Second, the police have no authorization to issue such statement, thus it did not have any legal force. Despite this, it was capable of appearing as a rule, which could suggest that the participants shall act accordingly, and this resulted in the violation of the freedom of expression and assembly. 193 A very similar statement was issued in 2010 as well: the police not only reminded the organizers of this duty at the preliminary negotiations, but a press release was published to this effect. 194 Although the Hungarian News Agency published a similar statement in 2011 as well, 195 but they issued a correction later claiming that they have accidentally used materials from the year before, and that Police also requested a correction. The spokesperson of the Police confirmed the mistake. 196 In 2012, first the minutes of the meeting about the proposal submitted by the organizing Rainbow Mission Foundation contained warnings about public morals from the side of the police. The police officer present at the meeting drew special attention to “the offences relating to public morality and sexual morality and to the fact that in case the police notice such crimes, they will take the necessary measures.” 197 Such a warning is clearly discriminatory, as similar warnings are not made in relation to any other type of assembly. Previous Pride Marches do not substantiate the concern of the police: according to the information received from the Budapest Police Headquarters the police did not initiate any proceeding against anyone for crimes against public morality in the past 15 years during the Pride events. 198 Two days before the Pride March the spokesperson of the police called on the participants to refrain from “provocative behaviour” in a media spot. 199 The call was criticized once again by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on grounds similar as in 2009. 200 Furthermore, in 2012 at the beginning of the march the liaison officer in charge asked the organizers to remove a banner showing the following text: “Gay division of Jobbik”. 201 The request took the form of ‘Information and request’, a document that is officially not binding. However, the police personnel present on location threatened the organizers that the float could not leave if the banner was displayed. Consequently, the banner was removed before the start of the march. The
192
See at: http://www.police.hu/friss/BRF-20090831_23.html. Report of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights (ÁJB) no. 6021/2009. 194 See for example: http://nol.hu/belfold/melegfelvonulas__a_rendorseg_a_kozerkolcsot_is_vedi. 195 See: http://index.hu/belfold/2011/06/17/nagy_erokkel_keszul_a_rendorseg_a_melegfelvonulasra/. 196 Telephone discussion of Tamás Dombos with the Hungarian News Agency and the Press Department of the Budapest Police on 11 July 2011. 197 Document on file with the authors. 198 Letter received from the Communications Office of the Budapest Police Headquarters on 25 May 2012. On file with authors. 199 Available at: http://index.hu/belfold/2012/07/05/garamvolgyi_ne_provokaljanak_a_melegfelvonulas_resztvevoi/. 200 AJB-5595/2012. 201 Jobbik is the extreme right-wing party in the Parliament often making openly homophobic comments and the part that submitted the ’gay propaganda’ amendment-proposals. 193
90
Police claim that the removal of the banner was needed to prevent violent attacks against the Pride March. ii.
Have conditions been placed, for example, with regard to the route or timing of demonstrations, which are not generally applied to other demonstrators?
Summary: YES. The Police banned the Pride March in 2011 and 2012 due to traffic consideration for the route proposed by the organizers. Meanwhile, this route of the Pride Marches is an often used venue for demonstrations. Several cultural and sport events, marches have taken place exactly on the same premises, yet none of them has ever been banned. Detailed analysis: The first Pride ban took place in 2008, when the police rejected the notification duly submitted by the organizers. The decision of the police emphasized that the march “would make it impossible [to secure] public transportation and traffic in general”. 202 The reasoning relied on Article 8 (1) of the Assembly Act: If the holding of an event subject to prior notification seriously endangers the proper functioning of the representative bodies or courts, or the circulation of traffic can not be secured in any other way, the police may ban the holding of the event at the place or time indicated in the notification, within 48 hours from the receipt of the notification by the authority.
The rejection sparkled an imminent outcry from left-wing 203 and liberal politicians; the Mayor of Budapest also called for a more tolerant approach from the police and the city itself. 204 The National Headquarter of the Police withdrew the rejection the next day (12 June 2008) and the march could proceed on 5 July 2008. 205 For further details see Case 7. In 2010 the Pride March could only proceed on a shortened route (half of the usual) as the police allegedly did not have enough cordons to effectively protect the participants from the counterdemonstrators. The police informed the organizers that the due to the flood prevention on the Danube, the cordons were used to protect the trees of Margit-island. 206 The march took place on the advised short route. Since 2011 the police have been trying to ban the Pride Marches on the very same grounds – the circulation of the traffic cannot be secured on any other route – and none of these rejections were withdrawn due to political or international pressure. However, both in 2011 and 2012 the Metropolitan Court quashed the decision of the National Headquarter of the Police and gave way to the Pride Marches. See Cases 24 and 30. The bans of the March are clearly discriminatory, as several major cultural and sport events, and marches have taken place exactly on the same premises, on similar days of the week (i.e. weekends) yet none of these has ever been banned. A striking example in 2012 was the Peace March (Békemenet), 207 a pro-government march that followed the same route as the Pride March. While the former was accepted by the police without hesitation, the Pride March was originally banned
202
Decision no. 111-2/593/2008, 11 June 2008. Available at: http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2737. See among others, the message of Katalin Lévay (Member of the European Parliament) http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2738. 204 See for example: http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2740. 205 On the events also see: App15 i). 206 See for example: http://index.hu/belfold/2010/07/09/nincs_eleg_kordon_a_melegfelvonulasra/. 207 A photo report is available at: http://hvg.hu/nagyitas/20120121_bekemenet_magyarorszagert_nagyitas. 203
91
at:
and allowed only after a successful judicial review. The double-standard used by the police is thus worthy of special attention. iii.
If restrictions have been placed on freedom of assembly events, has it been possible to challenge them in the courts or through other independent review mechanisms?
Summary: YES. Police bans have either been revoked by the Police itself or overruled by the courts, there have been no LGBT demonstrations that could not be held due to the intervention of authorities. Detailed analysis: Article 9 of the Assembly Act sets out the remedies available in case the police do not allow a demonstration to proceed as the organizers have submitted. There is no appeal against the decision of the police; however, the decision may be challenged through judicial review within 3 days. The court shall decide – with the participation of lay persons – in a non-contradictory procedure within 3 days after receiving the request challenging the decision of the police. The court may hold a hearing. If the petition is accepted, the court quashes the decision of the police and the demonstration can take place according to the terms set out in the original notification to the police. There is no further appeal against the decision of the court. In case of the Pride Marches all petitions submitted against the police bans have been successful so far. For details see Cases 24 and 30. . 17. Public authorities at all levels should be encouraged to publicly condemn, notably in the media, any unlawful interferences with the right of individuals and groups of individuals to exercise their freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, notably when related to the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. i.
If there have been unlawful interferences with the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, i.
Has there been encouragement to public authorities to condemn such interferences?
PARTIALLY. In 2008 when the first police ban on the Pride March was issued (and the next day withdrawn) the Mayor of Budapest spoke out in defence of the Pride March calling for tolerance. 208 Since 2010 no leading politicians from the governing parties; nor the relevant ministers have spoken out on the issue. Only democratic opposition parties 209 and one right-wing MEP raised concerns about the denial of the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly. 210 See also: App17 ii). ii.
Have public authorities actually condemned such interferences?
NO. No public authorities stood up for the right to freedom of assembly for LGBT people since 2010, criticism of the police ban came only from opposition parties and one conservative MEP [see
208
See at: http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2740. Politics Can Be Different (LMP), 2012: http://www.stop.hu/belfold/az-lmp-elfogadhatatlannak-tartja-amelegfelvonulas-betiltasat/1022702/; Democratic Coalition (DK), 2012: http://pinkvanilla.hu/cimlap/hirek/57belfold/2016-a-dk-tiltakozik-a-melegfelvonulas-betiltasa-ellen; Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), 2012: http://www.mszp.hu/hirek/elfogadhatatlan_a_melegfelvonulas_betiltasa. 210 József Szájer (FIDESZ, Member of the European Parliament) said that the reasoning of the police in 2011 was hypocritical, though he did not issue a statement in 2012. See for example: http://index.hu/belfold/2011/02/17/szajer_alszent_a_rendorseg_indoklasa/. 209
92
App17 i)/ii)]. The Christian Democrats the junior coalition party in the current government went as far as welcoming the police decision to ban the March. 211 ii.
Where there has been public hostility towards the exercise of freedom of assembly by LGBT people, have the authorities upheld this right publicly?
Summary: PARTIALLY. Prior to 2010, both the governing socialist-liberal coalition and the minority socialist government, as well as the conservative parties then in opposition publicly condemned any violence against the Pride March. Since the change of the government in 2010 conservative politicians have remained silent, and only opposition parties raised concerns. Detailed analysis: The so-far most violent attack on the Pride March that took place in 2008 and was widely condemned by leading politicians, political parties and public figures. The Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) and the Free Democrats’ Alliance (SZDSZ) expressed their solidarity with the marchers on the day of the event. The head of MSZP’s Parliamentary fraction emphasized that “sexual orientation is not a virtue or a crime, but it is a crime to attack those who take on their sexual orientation in public.” 212 The president of SZDSZ emphasized the need for social and political cooperation in order to stop extremism and street violence. 213 The that-time state secretary for equal opportunities, Edit Rauch also spoke for the participants of the march. She said that “the rights of every social group shall be respected.” 214 However, the support of the that-time opposition, currently government parties was over-politicized. While FIDESZ issued a press release, in which they refused “all forms of incitement to hatred and violence”, the head of its Parliamentary fraction added: “because of the minority government the police still [was not] in a position to ensure public order.” 215 The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights condemned the throwing of eggs and other objects at the marchers, but confirmed that the police could not protect more the Pride March by using rule of law measures. He found that the actions of the police were adequate for the protection of the participants. 216 In 2009 no major incidents happened at the venue of the Pride March. The cordons protecting the participants were moved far enough, the counter-demonstrators could not throw anything at the marchers. Despite the lack of imminent violence, several political parties expressed their solidarity, like Politics Can Be Different (LMP), 217 SZDSZ, 218 MDF and MSZP, 219 while FIDESZ and the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP) started to move away from the march. Several of their public statements called for a ban on the march, though it was not clearly a party position. The change in government in May 2010 has meant an undoubtedly different attitude towards the rights, including the freedom assembly, of the LGBT community. Voices favouring the ban of the march in the city centre have become louder and more accepted. The same parties that stood up
211
http://mno.hu/migr/budapest_buszke_lehet_a_rendorsegre__a_kdnp_udvozli_a_dontest-165076. See for example at: http://hir6.hu/cikk/12461/080705_lendvai_osszeno_ami_osszetartozik. 213 Available at: http://www.nepszava.hu/articles/article.php?id=56837#null. 214 See at: http://hir6.hu/cikk/12464/080705_elitelte_a_melegek_elleni_tamadast_rauch_edit. 215 See at: http://www.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=117307. 216 See at: http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20080707-melegfelvonulas-ombudsman-szabo-mate-szerint-nem-szabadvelemennyilvanitas-a-melegek.html. 217 See at: http://www.hatter.hu/archivum/?q=node/3147. 218 The mayor of Budapest thanked for the courage of the participants of the Pride March. http://www.meleg_celeb.abbcenter.com/?cim=1&id=90381&PHPSESSID=146681293cc703d4cb6534dfb42bedb7. 219 MSZP’s statement against the homophobic statements of Ilona Ékes [see also: App7 ii)]: http://nol.hu/belfold/mszp__a_fidesz_hivja_vissza_ekes_ilonat_az_emberi_jogi_bizottsagbol_. 212
93
against the violence in 2008 while in opposition, now – when in government – do not distance themselves from statements issued by their own members calling for the limitation of the freedom of assembly of LGBT people. Sadly, the President of the Republic whose constitutional role is to represent the unity of the society only spoke out publicly once against the attacks on the Pride March. 220 Since 2010 there have been no direct violent attacks on the Pride March, the public and political outcry related more towards the initial ban by the police of the march. 221 iii.
Or, on the contrary, have the authorities endorsed or supported hostility towards LGBT freedom of assembly events?
Summary: NO. While it cannot be claimed that authorities openly endorsed or supported hostility towards LGBT assemblies, there have been several occasions where leading politicians in the Parliament or city councils spoke out against events planned by the LGBT community and neither the government, nor its members condemned it publicly. Detailed analysis: Ilona Ékes in 2009 called for public authorities to ban the Pride March, and Mayor of Budapest István Tarlós referring to LGBT “distanced himself” from “this way of life” [see App7 ii)]. While condemning the attacks in 2007, Christian Democrats also hurried to add that they consider the Pride March a provocation, implying that marchers deserved the attack. 222
IV. Right to respect for private and family life 18. Member states should ensure that any discriminatory legislation criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults, including any differences with respect to the age of consent for same-sex sexual acts and heterosexual acts, are repealed; they should also take appropriate measures to ensure that criminal law provisions which, because of their wording, may lead to a discriminatory application are either repealed, amended or applied in a manner which is compatible with the principle of non-discrimination. i.
Does legislation criminalise same-sex sexual acts? Are there any differences in the age of consent? If either applies, what steps are the authorities taking to repeal the legislation?
Summary: NO. Consensual same-sex sexual acts are not criminalized since 1962. 223 A Constitutional Court decision equalized the age of consent in 2002. 224
220
See László Sólyom’s speech in the Parliament on 10 September 2007: “The violence that was committed by the counter-demonstrators after the homosexual demonstration cannot be tolerated either.” http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/archivum-es-konyvtar/meleg-kultura/mediatar/melegekrol-mondtak. 221 See also App16 ii). 222 http://web.archive.org/web/20071018221853/http://kdnp.hu/index.php?type=cikk&cikkid=2155 223 Abolished by Act no. V of 1961. 224 Constitutional Court Decision no. 7/2002 (VI. 28.)
94
Detailed analysis: Following the decriminalization of consensual sexual activity between men in 1961 (sexual activity between women had never been criminalized), the age of consent for same-sex and different-sex sexual was set differently (21 vs. 14). The age of consent for same-sex couples was reduced to 18 with the adoption of the Criminal Code in 1978, currently in force. 225 Finally, an equal age of consent was ordered by the Constitutional Court in 2002 by declaring the so-called fornication against nature (Article 199) unconstitutional. 226 Fornication against nature was defined as sexual contact based on consent between a person over the age of 18 and a person of the same sex between the ages of 14 and 18; however, no criminal offence was committed when the person between the ages of 14 and 18 was of the opposite sex. In addition, sexual contact between persons of 14 to 18 years of age, no matter whether they are of the same sex or of different sexes, was not a criminal offence. The Court found that sexual orientation forms an essential part of human personality and thus difference in treatment may only be justified exceptionally, and in the present case there was no reasonable and objective justification for treating same-sex couples differently. The Court ordered the review of judgments based on Article 199 if the convicted person had not yet been relieved of the unfavourable consequences of his conviction. According to the Criminal Procedure Code in force that time the public prosecutor had to initiate such review procedures. While legislation would have allowed for persons convicted of Article 199 to sue the state for compensation, 227 no clients fulfilling the necessary criteria replied to the call published by the legal aid service of Háttér in 2002. 228 ii.
Are there any criminal law provisions which, because of their wording or scope are liable to be applied in a discriminatory manner regarding i. sexual orientation or ii. gender identity?
NO. There is no criminal provision that either by wording or scope could be applied in a discriminatory way. iii.
If so, what steps are the authorities taking to remedy this situation?
NOT APPLICABLE. 19. Member states should ensure that personal data referring to a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are not collected, stored or otherwise used by public institutions including in particular within law enforcement structures, except where this is necessary for the performance of specific, lawful and legitimate purposes; existing records which do not comply with these principles should be destroyed.
225
Act no. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code. Constitutional Court Decision no. 37/2002 (IX. 4.). The English text of the decision is available at: http://www.mkab.hu/letoltesek/en_0037_2002.pdf. 227 Articles 383-385/A of the Act no. I of 1973 on criminal procedure. 228 http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=557. 226
95
i.
What steps have been taken to ensure that public authorities comply with this requirement, in respect of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity particularly with regard to records held by law enforcement authorities?
Summary: YES. Legislation provides heightened protection for data concerning sexual life and state of health, but it is not clear whether gender identity would be covered by either of them. Such sensitive data can be collected only in strictly and narrowly defined cases and there is a semi-independent authority supervising data management. Previously there have been records containing sensitive data, but there is no proof of maintaining similar ones today. Detailed analysis: Data concerning sexual orientation and gender identity have been considered as sensitive data since the first data protection legislation adopted in 1992. 229 The current data protection law adopted in 2011 230 contains the following definition of sensitive data: Article 3 (3) special data: a) personal data concerning racial or national origin, political opinion or party affiliation, religious or other philosophical belief, or membership in an interest representation organization, sex life; b) personal data concerning health, addiction, as well as criminal personal data.
Such data can be managed be manage only if 1. the individual consented to it in writing; or 2. in case of data in Article 3 (3) a) the management of such data was based on international agreement, or was ordered by law in order to enforce fundamental rights enshrined in the Fundamental Law or was in interest of national security, crime prevention or prosecution of crime; or c) in other cases if it was ordered by an act of Parliament in public interest. These provisions apply to both public authorities, as well as non-state actors. It is interesting to compare where sexual orientation (or sex life as the Hungarian legislator prefers to name it) belongs. In 1992 it was listed among medical status and addiction, while in 2011 it was included among the traditionally protected grounds and got detached from health and criminal record, and was afforded higher level of protection. The Human Rights Working Group reported that examples of data collection on sex life ordered by law include data on sex life in medical documentation to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS or indirectly by collecting data on family status inclusive of registered partnership only available for same-sex couples. Even in those cases the data collection has to be narrowly tailored to its aim. 231 While sexual orientation is clearly covered under the term of ‘sexual life’ the status of gender identity including information on prior legal gender change is unclear. A legal argumentation to understand personal data concerning health to include gender identity could be made, but there has been no case law to support or refuse that argumentation. Respect for personal data is monitored by the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NADPFI), which is autonomous – but not independent – public administration body that to a large extent took over the functions of the Commissioner for Data Protection. Anyone may submit a request to the NADPFI if he thinks that the rules for data protection have been violated, and the NADPFI is entitled to launch an official data protection procedure ex officio if it is presumed that the illegal processing of personal data concerns a wide scope of persons; concerns
229
Act no. LXIII of 1992 on the protection of personal data and the disclosure of data of public interest. Act no. CXII of 2011 on informational self-determination and freedom of information. The Act is in force since 1 January 2012. 231 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 230
96
special data, or significantly harms interests or results in the risk of damages. The NADPFI has the authority to impose fines. 232 Since its establishment in January 2012, the NADPFI has conducted no investigation on sexual orientation or gender identity related cases, however, its predecessor the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information had 11 such cases in recent years. 233 Furthermore, the Criminal Code contains specific crimes related to the protection of personal data: Article 177 – Violation of Privacy (1) The person who reveals a private secret learned by him as a result of his occupation or public mandate without good reason, commits a misdemeanour, and shall be punishable with fine. (2) The punishment shall be imprisonment of up to one year, labour in the public interest, or fine, if the crime causes considerable injury of interest. Article 177/A – Misuse of Personal Data (1) Any person who, in violation of the statutory provisions governing the protection and processing of personal data, a) is engaged in the unauthorized and inappropriate processing of personal data, b) fails to notify the data subject as required by law, c) fails to take measures concerning the security of data and thereby inflicts significant injury to the interests of another person or persons is guilty of a misdemeanour punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, community service or a fine. (2) The acts described under Subsection (1) shall be upgraded to felonies if they are committed by a public official in the course of discharging a public duty or in pursuit of unlawful financial gain or advantage. (3) Any misuse of special personal data shall be treated as a felony punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. What steps have the authorities taken to ensure that existing records are destroyed?
The police denied the existence of records based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but no information was provided on when and how those records were destroyed. 234 ii.
Have these steps been effective? Is there any evidence of: i. the continued existence of such records ii. the continuing collection of such data?
YES. There is no evidence of the existence of such records or collection of such data. The former Commissioner for Data Protection raised concerns about the collection of data on sexual orientation by the Office of National Security in 2009, but the head of the Service strongly denied the existence of such data collection. Since there were no reliable sources of information on the continued data collection, the Commissioner closed the case. 235 20. Prior requirements, including changes of a physical nature, for legal recognition of a gender reassignment, should be regularly reviewed in order to remove abusive requirements. i.
Has a review of such prior requirements been conducted?
Summary: YES. Medical interventions including hormonal treatment and gender reassignment have not been a prerequisite since around 2004. The divorce requirement has been abolished with the adoption of the new law on registries, but the legislation is not yet in force.
232
For further information see: http://www.naih.hu/general-information.html. Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 234 Letter no. 16420/9/2011, 3 June 2011. 235 Case 608/2010/T, further info at: http://abi.atlatszo.hu/index201.php?menu=beszamolok/2009/ 99&dok=beszamolok/2009. 233
97
Detailed analysis: There is no legislation in Hungary (and has never been) on gender recognition, however, there exist a long established and consistently applied procedure on officially changing one’s gender. Before the 1990s the Hungarian situation was characterized by the total lack of a care system for trans people. In the early 1990s when the first gender reassignment surgeries took place, the practical rule was that in order to change one’s birth certificate and other official documents, a person should have undergone irreversible changes. This unfair arrangement, requiring patients to go through a medical process without any help or recognition, was abandoned because of the high rate of unsuccessful surgeries. The current practice is in place since 2004: there are no medical interventions required for applying for gender recognition. The applicant is required to provide medical diagnosis of transsexualism from two psychiatry/psychology experts, as well as medical opinion from a gynaecologist/urologist. The applications are examined jointly by the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice and the Ministry of Human Resources. There is no requirement on any medical interventions such as hormone therapy or gender reassignment surgeries. 236 An amendment to the law decree on registries was adopted in 2009 to introduce divorce requirement for people requesting to officially change their gender. 237 Article 32 (3) currently reads as the following: Registering the change of gender shall be refused if the person concerned is legally married or in a registered partnership.
Following the preparation of the new Civil Code, which would have introduced changing one’s gender as a reason for automatic dissolution of marriage and registered partnership, the new Act on registries adopted at the end of 2009 dropped the divorce requirement. 238 According to this system the previous requirement of being divorced (or single) will no longer be in place, people will be free to change their gender regardless of their family status, but if they do, their marriage/registered partnership will be automatically dissolved. The entry into force of the law, however, has been postponed several times, since the new Civil Code has been revoked. The new version of the Civil Code 239 submitted to the Parliament in July 2012 no longer contains the automatic dissolution provision, and it is unclear whether the divorce requirement will be reintroduced or not. ii.
Are there still requirements which might be considered disproportionate or even abusive, 240 such as: i. irreversible sterilisation, ii. hormonal treatment, iii. preliminary surgical procedures, or proof of a person’s ability to live for a long period of time in the new gender?
236
Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. Law Decree no. 17 of 1982 on Registries, Marriage Procedure and Bearing Names. 238 Act I of 2010 on Registry Procedure. 239 Bill no. T/7971 of 2012. 240 The Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2007) 17 on gender equality standards and mechanisms, which affirms that “both women and men must have a non-negotiable right to decide over their own body, including sexual and reproductive matters. Such acknowledgement must be reflected in the development, implementation, access to, monitoring and evaluation of health-care services and in research priorities.” 237
98
NO. None of the requirements in i-iii) apply. Transgender activist consider none of the existing other requirements as disproportionate or abusive. 241 21. Member states should take appropriate measures to guarantee the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment in all areas of life, in particular by making possible the change of name and gender in official documents in a quick, transparent and accessible way; member states should also ensure, where appropriate, the corresponding recognition and changes by non-state actors with respect to key documents, such as educational or work certificates. i.
Are there procedures in operation which ensure the full legal recognition of a person’s gender reassignment?
Summary: YES. While there is no legislation on gender recognition, there exists a long established and consistently applied procedure on officially recognizing a person’s gender reassignment. However, since it is not codified, it lacks clarity, accessibility and transparency, and carries a significant risk of arbitrariness. Detailed analysis: The recognition of gender reassignment is based on a very concise statement in the law decree on registries: 242 Article 32:2 In case of a change of data the following events have to be registered: (...) d) change of the child’s sex;
Based on this provision and the general rules of administrative procedures there exists an uncodified, but consistently applied procedure which entails the following stages. The applicant submits a request to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice asking for a change of gender and name. The request has to be supported by forensic documents: the result of an examination by a gynaecologist or urologist; and the opinion of a forensic psychologist and a psychiatrist have to be attached. The request is submitted for a supporting opinion to the Ministry of Human Resources – dealing with issues of public health – and the ministries involved have 30 days to deliver a decision. If authorized, the local registrar is ordered to amend the birth registry within 8 days and accordingly alter the gender and name of the applicant. With the birth registry amended, the applicant is fully recognized in his/her new gender. In case the Ministry of Human Resources does not support the change of the gender, the local registrar refuses the change of gender by issuing an administrative decision, which is subject to appeal and judicial review according to the general rules of administrative procedure. 243 A change of name to the opposite gender without the change of gender is not possible, as the law decree on registries specifically contains that: 244
241
Correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (12 July 2012), on file with the authors. Law Decree no. 17 of 1982 on registries, marriage procedure and nearing names. 243 Description of the procedure based on the letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors, supplemented by information received by the trans organization, TransVanilla from the relevant authorities, available at: http://transvanilla.hu/informaciok/nem-es-nevvaltoztatas-menete. 244 Law Decree no. 17 of 1982 on registries, marriage procedure and nearing names. 242
99
Article 30:4 A maximum of two given names that correspond to the sex of the child can be picked by the parents from the list of given names compiled by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
The procedure described above is not codified, thus there is a fair chance of arbitrariness in the procedure due to the discretionary nature of the decision. There are no general policy guidelines or information of government websites on the procedure; the ministries only supply information on an individual basis. The practice, however, seems to be supporting of change of gender without further difficulties. It is worth noting, that while the Constitutional Court has never directly dealt with the issue of gender recognition, in a decision on marital names the Court included argumentation that supports the right of trans people to change their name. The Court in 2001 declared that “every human has an inalienable right to a name reflecting his/her (self) identity (...). This right may not be restricted by the state. Other elements of the right to a name – like the choice or the modification of the name – can be constitutionally limited. (...) [T]he right to change one’s name becomes a fundamental right for transsexuals changing their gender.” 245 ii.
Do these make possible the change of name and gender in official documents including birth certificates, identity papers, driving licences, passports, social insurance cards and numbers, electoral, land and text registers in a quick, transparent and accessible way?
Summary: YES. Following the amendment of the birth registry a new birth certificate is issued. New identity cards and passports can be applied for with reference to the new birth certificate. State agencies maintaining official registries are automatically informed about the change of name and gender. Detailed analysis: Following the amendment of the birth registry the registrar issues a new birth certificate containing only the new name and gender of the applicant, generates a new personal identification number, and informs the Personal Data and Address Register (PDAR) about the amendment. The PDAR then informs the tax authority, the social security authorities, the Financial Supervisory Authority, the State Treasury, the registry of vehicles, the authority maintaining criminal records, the armed forces and the immigration authority. 246 New identity cards, address cards, passports, driving licenses, social security and tax cards, and amendments to the land registry have to be applied for individually at the relevant authorities based on the new birth certificate. The electoral registry is based on PDAR, so there is no need for a separate amendment. 247 The procedure is relatively quick as the Ministry has 30 days to decide on the case based on the medical records, and the local registrar has 8 days to amend the birth registry following the decision, however, the procedure is far away from being transparent and accessible. There are no general policy guidelines, and awareness about the possibility and details of the procedure is very low among civil servants and service providers. One applicant, e.g. received his new birth certificate via registered postal mail to his new name, but the post office refused to hand over the letter, because he could not prove that he is the addressee, since his ID card was for his previous name.
245
Constitutional Court Decision no. 58/2001 (XII. 7.). Act no. XX of 1996 on identification methods and identification codes replacing the personal identification number. 247 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 246
100
iii.
Are there procedures to ensure corresponding changes in key documents originated by non-state actors, such as i.
diplomas,
Summary: PARTIALLY. General rules on replacing diplomas following the change of name apply to gender recognition as well. Such legislation exists for public education, but not for higher education. Detailed analysis: There is no specific legislation on amending diplomas following gender recognition, but the decree on the operation of schools contains regulation on the general procedure to replace diplomas following the change of names that is also applicable to changing of the name due to gender recognition. 248 In the public consultation leading to the adoption of the decree the Hungarian LGBT Alliance and the TransVanilla Transgender Association requested further clarification of the procedure and dropping the practice of specifying the reason for issuing a copy of the diploma on the copy itself, as it might lead to revealing information on gender change. Even if the reason stated on the copy is “change of name” this might prompt third parties to contemplate on the gender identity of the diploma holder, especially if the person does not conform completely to expected gender appearance and behaviour. 249 The recommendations were disregarded, and the provisions in the previous legislation were left untouched. On the other hand, there is no similar legislation concerning amending diplomas issued by higher education institutions. In May 2011, Háttér turned to the ministry responsible for higher education to request the drafting of similar legislation for higher education. In their response, the Ministry of National Resources confirmed that they know of the problem and a similar legislation is in preparation for higher education. No such legislation has been adopted so far. The Ministry, however, also promised to give individual guidance to institutions of higher education until the legislation is adopted so that a procedure similar to that applied by public education institutions is also followed by institutions of higher education. 250 There have been several reports – and even requests for information by education institutions – to the legal aid service of Háttér that the replacement of diplomas is not without difficulties. Educational institutions are not aware of the possibility of gender recognition, and often do not know how to respond to such requests. Insistence and reference to legislation and the letter mentioned above, however, have always worked in the past; we have no information on cases where the issuing of a new diploma was refused in the end. ii. certificates of employment, and YES. The authors received no information concerning problems with the amendment of certificates of employment. iii. insurance or banking documents? YES. The legal aid service of Háttér received one case where a trans client reported that his bank would impose extra charges for the change of his loan contract, as the pricing of the loan for males
248
Article 113 (2) of Decree no. 20/2012 of the Ministry of Human Resources on the operation of teaching-educational institutions and naming institutions of public education 249 http://m.blog.hu/lm/lmbtszovetseg/file/lmbtszov_kozoktbizcsere_2012jul.pdf. 250 Letter from the Ministry of National Resources no. 109505-1/2011; on file with the authors.
101
and females is different, and thus a full re-evaluation of his credit-worthiness is needed. Upon the intervention of Háttér, the bank has informed the client that no such extra cost will be incurred. 251 iv.
If yes, do these procedures include the protection of the person’s private life, so that no third party can become aware of the gender reassignment?
PARTIALLY. The newly issued birth certificate contains only the new name and gender of the applicant, no information on the change of gender is included. Access to birth registries containing information on the gender recognition can be made only by public bodies specifying the lawful aim of the data request, and the requests are fully logged. 252 There are reported cases where privacy concerns were originally disregarded when issuing new documents (see e.g. Case 25 about the trans pharmacist), but the mistakes were corrected upon appeal. Issuing copies of diplomas with stating the reason for issuing it on the copy itself runs the risk of being exposed as a trans person [see App21 iii)]. Interview research with trans people conducted in the framework of this project found that in few cases school personnel who have never encountered name changing procedures before, did not pay sufficient attention to the private life protection aspects. 253 22. Member states should take all necessary measures to ensure that, once gender reassignment has been completed and legally recognised in accordance with paragraphs 20 and 21 above, the right of transgender persons to marry a person of the sex opposite to their reassigned sex is effectively guaranteed. i.
Is the right of a legally recognised transgender person to marry a person of the sex opposite to their reassigned sex effectively guaranteed?
Summary: YES. Upon the official change of gender, the person is fully recognized in his/her new gender also for the purpose of entering into marriage/registered partnership. Detailed analysis: The Hungarian legal system does not apply the biological criteria in order to determine gender for the purposes of marriage. Act no. IV of 1952 on marriage, family and guardianship (Family Code) only contains the formal requirements of marriage, including the grounds of nullity. Among the latter the Code states: “only adult man and woman can conclude a marriage.” 254 Personal data of those seeking to marry is verified based on the birth certificate not containing reference to gender recognition. Thus those who have officially changed their gender are eligible to marry their partner of the opposite sex. 255 Interestingly, Decision no. 154/2008 (XII. 17.) of the Constitutional Court when assessing the constitutionality of the originally passed act on registered partnership devotes a section to summarizing the trans-related case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Without drawing further conclusions to the Hungarian law, especially the act in question, the Court reaffirmed the ECtHR’s stand that transsexuals are entitled to marry according to their newly acquired gender.
251
Case files on file with the authors. Article 6 of Law Decree no. 17 of 1982 on registries, marriage procedure and nearing names. 253 Further information about the research can be found at: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/transz2012. 254 Family Code, Article 10 (1). 255 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors; confirmed by correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (16 July 2012); on file with the authors. On officially changing one’s gender see: App21 ii). 252
102
23. Where national legislation confers rights and obligations on unmarried couples, member states should ensure that it applies in a non-discriminatory way to both same-sex and different-sex couples, including with respect to survivor’s pension benefits and tenancy rights. i.
Does legislation confer rights and obligations on unmarried couples? If so, have steps been taken to ensure that these rights and obligations apply to same-sex couples?
Summary: YES. Following an amendment to the Civil Code in 1996 same-sex cohabiting couples (“élettársak”) are conferred the same rights and obligations as different-sex couples, except in the field of assisted reproduction where only different-sex cohabiting couples are entitled for treatment. The lack of parenting rights results in indirect discrimination regarding survivor’s pension for unmarried same-sex couples. Detailed analysis: The institution of cohabitation (“élettársi kapcsolat”) has been present in the Hungarian legal system since the late 1970s 256, however, it was limited to different-sex couples living in an emotional-economic community. The question of equality between unmarried different-sex partners and same-sex partners was raised before the Constitutional Court in 1993, when the president of a gay rights organization submitted a petition to the Court. On the one hand, the petition claimed that the legislator unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples as the Family Code only contained the institution of marriage that was restricted to women and men of marriageable age and the same possibility was not available for same-sex partners. On the other hand, petitioners alleged the unconstitutionality of Article 578/G of the Civil Code which defined cohabiting partners (“élettársak”) as a woman and man living together in the same household who form an emotional and economic community outside of marriage. In its Decision no. 14/1995 (III. 13.) 257 the Constitutional Court rejected the first claim: in the Court’s interpretation the institution of marriage (which was protected by Article 15 of the that-time Constitution) was traditionally recognized and understood as the union between a man and a woman. The reasoning of the Court was supported by international human rights documents of the time: the notion of family extended primarily to different-sex couples living in marriage and raising children together. Despite the restrictive interpretation, the Court made some important findings with regard to the recognition of ‘exceptional communities’. In relation to the second claim, the Court emphasized: “An enduring union of two persons may realize such values that can call for legal acknowledgment on the basis of the equal human dignity of those affected, irrespective of the sex of the cohabiting partners.” Although the concept of cohabitation – reasoned the Court – was generally understood by the public as a union between different-sex partners, and as the Constitution did not protect that time (neither does today) de facto partnerships, the applicable standard was different from that of in case of marriage (the standard discrimination test was applied). The exclusion of same-sex partners from the rights and obligations accorded to cohabiting partners by the Civil Code was thus found to be arbitrary and in violation of human dignity.
256
József Kárpáti (2005): A regisztrált élettársi kapcsolat az új Ptk. koncepciójában. [The registered partnership in the concept of the new Civil Code] In Fundamentum, 2005/2. 257 The English version of the decision is available at http://www.mkab.hu/admin/data/file/737_14_1995.pdf.
103
Following the Court’s decision the Civil Code was amended in June 1996. 258 The reference to different-sex partners was removed thus recognizing also same-sex cohabiting partners. The text of the law, however, included the possibility for other legislation to define cohabitation differently. This possibility, however, was never used in practice, and was finally removed by the Registered Partnership Act (RPA) in 2009. 259 The only – though significant – difference that still exists between same-sex and different-sex cohabiting partners is related to their participation in assisted reproductive services. According to the original version of Act no. CLIV of 1997 on health care (Health Care Act) assisted reproduction was only open for married and different-sex cohabiting couples. This provision covers any form of healthcare service regardless of whether state operated/funded or not. The legislation was amended in 2005, the law now makes it possible for married couples, cohabiting different-sex couples and single women (regardless of sexual orientation) to participate in assisted reproduction. 260 The current legislation on assisted reproduction according to the Health Care Act is the following: Article 167 (1) Reproduction procedures may be performed on married couples or cohabiting couples of different sexes if, for reasons of health existing among either party (infertility), it is highly probable that a healthy child cannot be produced through natural means. Among common-law spouses, the procedures only may be conducted if neither of the partners is married to another person.
Survivor’s pensions are regulated by Act no. LXXXI of 1997 on social security pension benefits. According to the law spouses, divorced spouses and cohabiting partners are entitled to survivor’s pensions. In case of spouses and divorced spouses the law does not contain any minimum length for the partnership, however, cohabiting partners are only entitled to survivors pensions if they have been living together for one year and have a common child, or have been living together for ten years. The legislation applies to same-sex and different-sex couples equally, however, since same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt jointly or to adopt their partner’s child, same-sex parents are discriminated indirectly by having to prove ten years of cohabitation even in cases where they are bringing up a child together. An interesting legal case arose with regards to survivor’s pension in 2003. One of the partners of a cohabiting couple died in 2003. The application of the surviving partner for survivor’s pension was declined by the Pension Authority arguing that years of cohabitation before the entry into force of the legislation recognizing same-sex cohabitation in 1996 cannot be taken into consideration, and thus the applicant cannot prove ten years of cohabitation. NGOs Háttér, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union petitioned the Authority emphasizing the discriminatory aspect of the decision. The case was settled by a decision of the Government 261, which amended the relevant government decree 262 with the following sentence: Article 60 When applying Act No LXXXI of 1997 on Social Insurance Pensions the definition of cohabiting partners as contained in Article 685/A of Act No IV of 1959 on the Civil Code of the Republic of Hungary shall apply. When applying Article 45 (2) of Act No LXXXI of 1997 on Social Insurance Pensions, years of cohabitation before the entry into force of Act No XLII of 1996 amending Act No IV of 1959 on the Civil Code of the Republic of Hungary shall be taken into consideration regardless of the sex of the cohabiting partners.
258
Act no. XLII of 1996 on the amendment of Act of IV of 1959 on the Civil Code. Act no. XXIX of 2009 on registered partnership and related legislation and on the amendment of other statutes to facilitate the proof of cohabitation. 260 Amended by Act no. CLXXXI of 2005. The modified text came into force on 1 January 2006. 261 Government Decree no. 248/2003 (XII. 23.). 262 Government Decree no. 168/1997 (X. 6.) on the implementation of Act LXXXI of 1997 on social security pension benefits. 259
104
Succession of tenancy rights are regulated by Act no. LXXVIII of 1993 on certain rules concerning renting and sale of apartments and premises. The law confers rights to partners only in case of apartments owned by local councils, and these rights are limited to spouses (and registered partners). Unlike spouses (and registered partners), cohabiting partners, regardless of sex, are not entitled to stay in the apartment without the permission of the renter, be added to the rent agreement as co-rentee, or continue the rent upon the partner’s death. 24. Where national legislation recognises registered same-sex partnerships, member states should seek to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a comparable situation. i.
Does legislation recognise registered same-sex partnerships? If so, have steps been taken to ensure that their legal status and rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The institution of registered partnership for same-sex couples exists since 2009. The rights and obligations of registered partners are equivalent to those of spouses in most fields of life with the exception of parenting and taking the partner’s name. Some further differences exist in the minimum age for partners, the existence of a simpler divorce procedure for registered partners, and the limited number of registry offices where registered partnership ceremonies can be celebrated. Detailed analysis: The Hungarian Parliament first adopted Act no. CLXXXIV of 2007 on registered partnership in late December 2007. The Act originally aimed at opening the institution of registered partnership both for same- and different-sex couples, thus it contained a gender neutral formulation: “A registered partnership is established when two persons over the age of eighteen, being jointly present, personally declare in front of the registrar their intention to live together as registered partners.” The proposed date of entry was 1 January 2009. Several petitions were submitted to the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the legislation and the Court delivered its decision two weeks before the planned entry into force. Decision no. 154/2008 (XII. 17.) 263 found that it was not unconstitutional to establish the legal institution of registered partnership for persons of the same sex, but it was in violation of the Constitution to offer the same possibility for different-sex partners. The Act thus never came into force. The Constitutional Court’s main concern was the fact that registered different-sex partners would have enjoyed almost the same rights and benefits as married couples. Article 15 of the Constitution in force at the time of the decision, however, explicitly protected the institution of marriage and in the Court’s interpretation the objective duty of the state to preserve that institution does not allow for the introduction of a concurring institution, as it would be an explicit ‘threat’ to marriage. On the other hand, marriage was interpreted – in line with the previous Constitutional Court jurisprudence 264 – as an institution that per definition is only available to different-sex couples. As marriage is not available to same-sex couples creating such an alternative institution for them does not touch upon the constitutional protection of marriage. The Court also affirmed that same-sex couples deserved “recognition and protection on basis of the right to
263
The English translation of the decision is available at http://www.mkab.hu/admin/data/file/755_154_2008.pdf. In addition to the above mentioned Decision no. 14/1995, the Constitutional confirmed this interpretation in Decision no. 65/2007 (X. 18.). 264
105
human dignity (…) and the deductible right to self-determination, the general freedom of action, and the right to free development of one’s personality”. The Court suggested that all the ‘appropriate’ rights of spouses can be applied to registered same-sex partners, but it did not specify which rights are ‘appropriate’ and which are not. The Court explicitly noted that it is only in case of different-sex couples that the Constitution does not allow the creation of an institution very similar to marriage. Following the Court decision the Parliament soon adopted an accordingly modified Act on registered partnership (RPA) was adopted by the Parliament in May 2009 and entered into force on 1 July 2009. The RPA finally created a family law institution for same-sex couples. The aim of the act was to provide a constitutionally acceptable institution for same-sex couples; the Constitutional Court’s guidelines thus were considered during drafting. The law establishes a general equivalence between marriage and registered partnership with a few notable exceptions. The so called general reference rule in Article 3 (1) stipulates that unless the RPA otherwise provides or explicitly excludes the application of it, the rules governing marriage shall be applied to registered partnerships as well. The RPA specifies three areas where this general reference rule is not applicable: 1) registered partners cannot jointly adopt a child, registered partners cannot adopt each other’s child, and the presumption of paternity is not applicable to registered partners; 2) the rules on bearing each other’s name cannot be applied; and 3) registered partners cannot take part in assisted reproductive services. The RPA contains some other minor differences from marriage, which are worth mentioning. While according to the Family Code the minimum age for entering into marriage is the age of majority (18), 265 with special permission by the guardianship authority different-sex couples can marry at the age of 16. Such a procedure is unavailable for same-sex couples wishing to register their partnership under the age of 18. 266 RPA also allows for an out-of-court divorce procedure for registered partners if the partners are not raising children and can agree on all aspects (including the division of property) of the divorce. 267 In case both conditions are met, registered partners can get a divorce at public notaries by appearing in person at a public notary and signing the agreement. If one of the conditions is not met, or the partners choose not to take advantage of the simpler divorce procedure, the same rules on divorce apply as for spouses. Finally, registered partnership ceremonies can only be conducted by registrars in so-called “district centres” (around 300 registry offices), instead of all registry offices where marriage ceremonies can be performed (around 3200 registry offices). Similarly to the previous version, the RPA adopted in 2009 was also challenged before the Constitutional Court in an ex post facto review procedure. The Court in its Decision no. 32/2010 (III. 25) reaffirmed the findings of the first RPA-related decision: the institution of registered partnership is not in violation of the objective duty of the state to protect marriage under the Constitution. Moreover, it is a constitutional requirement stemming from the equal protection of human dignity, to provide legal protection to same-sex couples. The Court furthermore made some interesting statements that might give ground for future advocacy on full equality of married and registered partners. The decision noted that “(i)nternational examples also suggest that in some cases it might violate the prohibition of discrimination if the legislator fails to treat registered partners and married couples equally [see e.g. the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of E. B. v. France (...), and the German Federal Constitutional Court judgment of 7 July 2009 (BverfG, 1 BvR 1164/07)].” Since the petitions had not called for the revision of the law in this respect, the Court did not enter into an analysis of whether the differences created by the RPA amount to discrimination or not. It is interesting to note that the first decision quoted by the Court
265
Article 10(2) of the Family Code. Article 1 (2) of RPA. 267 Articles 36/A-D of Act no. XLV of 2008 on certain non-litigious notarial procedures. 266
106
does not concern differences between marriage and registered partnership at all, but rather discrimination based on sexual orientation in the field of parenting. It is not possible to assess whether the flawed reference is a simple mistake, or indicative of the Court’s willingness to consider the differences in the field of parenting as unconstitutional discrimination. The almost full equality between registered partners and married couples (bearing in mind the significant differences enshrined in the RPA) is (potentially) seriously affected by the adoption of the new constitution (Fundamental Law) and the Family Protection Act. The Fundamental Law adopted on 18 April 2011 includes the following provision on the protection of marriage: Article L Hungary protects the institution of marriage as a life community based on the voluntary decision of a woman and a man, and family as the guarantee of the survival of the nation.
It is important to note that while the principles of the new constitution, 268 which were adopted by the Parliament to guide the codification process, clearly linked the institution of family to the institution of marriage (“The Constitution (…) provides heightened protection to marriage as the most basic and most natural community of a man and a woman and family based on it.”), the final adopted text of the Fundamental Law does not make such a link between the two. The adoption of the new constitution, however, was followed by the adoption of a cardinal law 269, the Family Protection Act. The act was adopted on 23 December 2011 and entered into force on 2 January 2012, and it reflects the conservative approach of the governing parties. The act puts heavy emphasis on marriage and child bearing. It repeats the Fundamental Law’s commitment to the protection of marriage – defined as the union of a woman and a man – and the importance of raising children. The preamble states that the institution of family is “an institution that predates law and the state” and which “is based on moral grounds”, that “being raised in families is more secure than any other forms of upbringing” and that “families fulfil their role if the stable and firm relationship of a mother and a father is consummated by taking responsibility for a child”. The Act declares that: Article 7 (1) Family is the relationship between natural persons in an economic and emotional community that is based on a marriage between a woman and a man, or lineal descent, or family-based guardianship. (2) Lineal descent is established by way of filiation or adoption.
The definition simply excludes cohabiting partners (both different- and same-sex) and also registered partners. In relation to inheritance rights the act refers to spouses, which by the reference rule of RPA in principle applies to registered partners as well, however, there is a dispute among experts whether the reference rule contained in a more detailed act passed by simple majority can override a provision set by a cardinal law. On 17 December 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the both challenged provision unconstitutional. 270 With regards to the definition of family the Court found the law too restrictive, but not because the exclusion of same-sex couples. The Court reasoned that the protection of family in the Fundamental Law is closely linked to raising children (“family as the guarantee of the survival of the nation”) and as same-sex couples cannot have children together, they fall outside the protection of this clause. On the other hand, the Court recognized that relationships other than those based on marriage and filiation are also covered by the notion of family, such as cohabiting partners taking care of each others’ children, cohabiting couples who do not wish to have children, or cohabiting different-sex couples who cannot have children. The Court failed to reconcile this inconsistency: it was open to interpret family as a social
268
Parliamentary Resolution 2057/2011 (III.09.) on principles of the Constitution of Hungary. According to the Fundamental Law [Article T(4)], the adoption and amendment of cardinal laws require two-thirds majority in the Parliament. 270 Decision no. 43/2012 (XII. 20.). 269
107
reality (“sociological notion of family”), but fell short of explicitly granting same-sex couples the same protection. With regards to inheritance the Court went beyond the petition: not only is the provision unconstitutional because of legal uncertainty, but also it discriminatively strips same-sex couples their rights without any legitimate justification. The Family Protection Act is not the only recently adopted legislation that aims at distancing the institution of registered partnership from marriage. While the current Criminal Code equally punishes double marriage and double registered partnership, the new Criminal Code adopted in the summer of 2012 only sanctions double marriage that is the person who contracts a new marriage during the existence of his marriage, or who contracts marriage with a person living in marriage is criminally liable, but if a person contracts a marriage or a registered partnership while in a registered partnership is not. Furthermore, the new Civil Code 271 currently debated in Parliament has been recently revised to remove any reference to registered partnership, while maintaining the institution in a separate legislation. The explanatory memorandum of the proposal 272 states that since registered partners cannot be considered families, they have no place in the book of family law. The proposal was signed by the entire Parliamentary fraction of the Christian Democrats and though the Government originally rejected it, eventually – due to the pressure – supported the adoption of the amendment. The final vote on the new Civil Code is expected in February 2013. 25. Where national legislation does not recognise nor confer rights or obligations on registered same-sex partnerships and unmarried couples, member states are invited to consider the possibility of providing, without discrimination of any kind, including against different sex couples, same-sex couples with legal or other means to address the practical problems related to the social reality in which they live. i.
If same-sex couples enjoy no rights or obligations, either through access to registered partnership or through their status as unmarried couples, have the authorities considered the possibility of implementing legal or other means to address the practical problems arising from this lack of recognition?
NOT APPLICABLE. 26. Taking into account that the child’s best interests should be the primary consideration in decisions regarding the parental responsibility for, or guardianship of a child, member states should ensure that such decisions are taken without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
What steps have been taken to ensure that decisions regarding the parental responsibility for, or guardianship of a child, are taken without discrimination based on (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity?
Summary: PARTIALLY. While there is evidence that discriminatory considerations are present in certain decisions regarding the parental responsibility for, or guardianship of a child, there are no known cases where such considerations were shared by courts delivering a binding decision. Staff of
271 272
Bill no. T/7971 of 2012. Amendment no. T/7971/106 of 2012.
108
guardianship authorities, child protection services, judges and mediators involved in such procedures receive no guidance or training on how to deal with such cases. Detailed analysis: Parental responsibility and guardianship of a child are regulated by Chapter VIII of the Family Code and Chapters VIII-XII of the Act No XXXI of 1997 on the protection of children and guardianship (hereinafter: Child Protection Act). The Family Code contains that parental responsibility for a child is shared by both parents. In case the parents separate and the child is placed in the custody of one of the parents – either by an agreement between the parents or a court order – only the custodial parent has parental responsibility. The law contains the following provisions regarding the decision over the custody of children: Article 72/A (1) The custody of the child shall be decided by the parents. In case the parents cannot agree the court shall place the child with the parent who can provide a better physical, intellectual and moral development for the child.
To encourage out of court settlements parents may turn to mediation in order to resolve their dispute over the parental custody of children. 273 According to the Child Protection Act, in case the parent(s) cannot provide for the well-being of the child the local child protection services intervene. The intervention can take the form of protection, temporary placement, temporary education and long-term education. In case of protection (“védelembe vétel”) the parent(s) are required to cooperate with a family counsellor to minimize the risks to the child. Temporary placement (“ideiglenes hatályú elhelyezés”) is an emergency solution to prevent severe harm to the child, which can be ordered if “there is no one in charge of the child or physical, intellectual, emotional and moral development of the child is severely endangered by his/her family environment or him/herself”. Article 71 (2) Severe endangerment leading to temporary placement is understood to be maltreatment or negligence of the child which puts the child’s life at immediate risk, or which causes a severe and irreparable damage to the physical, intellectual, emotional and moral development of the child.
In case the family environment endangers the child’s development and the endangerment cannot be solved by protection measures, the child is placed under temporary education (“átmeneti nevelésbe vétel”). If the parent(s) do not cooperate with the child protection services or are not willing to change their behaviour or circumstances that lead to the intervention, the guardianship authority initiates the ending of parental responsibility, which is decided by court. In case the parental responsibility of both parents is ended by court, the child is placed under long-term education (“tartós nevelésbe vétel”). Neither of the two pieces of legislation contains reference to the sexual orientation or gender identity of the parents. The Human Rights Working Group confirmed that sexual orientation and gender identity of the parents shall not be taken into consideration when making decisions on custody, the sole factor in the decision should be the suitability of parenting. 274
273 274
Act no. LV of 2002 on mediation. Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors.
109
ii.
In practice, are such decisions taken on a non-discriminatory basis?
Summary: YES. While there have been several cases where former partners tried to use discriminatory arguments during the custody hearings, and even of cases where psychological experts or lower level authorities have delivered discriminatory opinions, we have received no information on cases where we found evidence that the court delivering a binding decision acted in a discriminatory manner. Detailed analysis: Since its establishment in 2001 the legal aid service of Háttér has provided legal advice and representation in several cases involving the custody and parental responsibility of children or involving visitation rights. In the majority of these cases the clients turned to our service because they were afraid that their non-heterosexual sexual orientation might surface in the court procedure over the custody of their child following separation from their former heterosexual partners, or following attempts by their former partners to use that argument in court. The service was also informed of cases where psychological experts have issues statements with grossly discriminatory statements about the suitability of a parent living with a same-sex partner to take care of a child. On the other hand, out of all relevant cases that we have identified in our archives, none ended unfavourably to our client. In no cases have we found evidence that the court delivering a binding decision acted in a discriminatory manner. Even if the court system in the last instance delivers a non-discriminatory outcome, discriminatory decisions by lower level authorities can severely harm the well-being of the child. In August 2009 two children raised by a lesbian couple were taken away from their parents and put under “temporary placement” due to the “lifestyle” of their mother (see Case 12). In another case the authorities tried to discourage an FTM transsexual from official changing his gender threatening him that he might lose custody of their children (see Case 21). Both cases ended favourably to the clients. Furthermore, there have been several cases reported where the other parent convinced the LGBT parent through intimidation to enter into an informal, out-of-court arrangement by arguing that if taken to court an unfavourable decision would be taken against them. In many cases this results in delaying divorce and limited parental custody and visitation rights compared to what could have been reached in a neutral court procedure. 27. Taking into account that the child’s best interests should be the primary consideration in decisions regarding adoption of a child, member states whose national legislation permits single individuals to adopt children should ensure that the law is applied without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
What steps have been taken to ensure that decisions regarding adoption of a child by a single person (where such adoption is permitted by national legislation), are taken without discrimination based on (a) sexual orientation (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. Even though single individuals are permitted to adopt children, the legislation prescribes authorities to give preference to adoption by married couples. Evidence shows that discriminatory views are present during the assessment of suitability and during final decisions on adoptions. Staff of guardianship authorities, child protection services and psychologists assessing the suitability of applicants receive no guidance or training on how to deal with such cases.
110
Detailed analysis: Even though the Family Code does not explicitly discuss who is permitted to become adoptive parent in Hungary (only the age, legal competence, and general ‘suitability’ are mentioned explicitly in the legislation) it is inferred from the text of the law that individuals regardless of their family status are – in theory – allowed to adopt in Hungary. The law contains no prohibition on adoption by gays or lesbians, or people living with their same-sex partners, or people living with their same-sex registered partners. The Human Rights Working Group confirmed that the sexual orientation or gender identity of the applicant does not disqualify LGBT applicants, and the decision is based solely on the suitability of the adoptive parent. The law, however, is very clear that once a child is adopted, only the spouse of the adoptive parent can adopt the child, 275 thus cohabiting partners (neither same-sex nor different-sex) and registered partners are not entitled for consecutive adoptions. The law is also clear that joint adoption and adoption of the partner’s biological child is only available for spouses. 276 The adoption procedure consists of two steps: first the applicant has to undergo a thorough investigation whether s/he is suitable to become an adoptive parent. The assessment concerns both the psychological suitability, as well as the socio-economic circumstances of the applicant. 277 If the applicant is declared suitable s/he is added to a waiting list. If the child protection service finds a child suitable for adoption, the potential parents on the waiting list are contacted. If during the personal meetings both the parents and the guardian of the child agree, an application for adoption is submitted to the guardianship authority. 278 If the office authorizes the adoption, the adoptive relationship is established. With regards to final authorization, the law contains the following provision: Article 49 (1) The guardianship authority – in conformity with the aim of adoption – shall primarily authorize the adoption of children by married persons.
This preference rule was introduced in 2002 following a legal and political debate concerning adoption of a child by a well-known drag performer (see Case 3), motivated clearly by homo- and transphobia. Article 49(1) of the Family Code has been widely criticized by human rights organizations and practicing lawyers/judges as running contrary to the best interest of children. The drafters of the principles of the new Civil Code emphasized 279 that this overall preference rule is problematic as it disregards situations in which a relative or a person previously participating in raising the child wants to adopt the child. Handing over the child to a person unrelated to the child in cases where there is a person with established emotional link to the child who is willing to adopt him/her can by no means be in the best interest of the child. A further problem is that it is not clear how the provision should be implemented in practice: how long should a child ready to be adopted wait for a suitable married partner until s/he is declared not wanted, and thus ready to be adopted by single persons as well? The first draft of the new Civil Code 280 thus would have removed this provision, however, as a result of pressure from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, the
275
Article 47 (5) of the Family Code. Article 51 (2) of the Family Code. 277 Articles 38-39 of Government Decree no. 149/1997. (IX. 10.) on guardianship authorities, and on child protection and public guardianship procedures. 278 Articles 40-41 of Government Decree no. 149/1997. (IX. 10.) on guardianship authorities, and on child protection and public guardianship procedures. 279 Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (2003) Principles of the New Civil Code. Second Book: Family Law. Available at http://jogalkotas.hu/files/ptk.csaladjog_0.pdf. 280 Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (2007) Draft of the New Civil Code. Available at http://www.jogalkotas.hu/files/ptk-normaszoveg-tervezet_20071029.pdf. 276
111
provision was added once again to the bill submitted to and then later adopted by the Parliament. The new Civil Code was revoked by the new government in 2010, and is currently debated in the Parliament. to the bill submitted to the Parliament on 11 July 2012 does not contain the relevant provision. 281 While research among the LGBT people in 2010 found that 54% of respondents are planning on having children (women, in particular, being more open to raising children – 65%), 282 a recent study commissioned by the Equal Treatment Authority found that only every fourth Hungarian (25%) supports adoption rights for same-sex couples. A further problem is that these public attitudes often pervade the work of child protection and education professionals, resulting in discriminatory treatment of already existing same-sex families. 283 ii.
In practice, are such decisions taken on a non-discriminatory basis?
Summary: NO. Anecdotal evidence about gay and lesbian persons passing the suitability test, but being put on the waiting list endlessly suggest that even though openly homophobic expert opinions are no longer issued, the system as a whole still disadvantages LGBT applicants. Detailed analysis: Statistics on adoption procedures 284 show that the large majority of applicants pass the suitability test. In 2008 1057 married couples and 162 individuals were declared suitable for adoption (first step), the application was refused in only 8 cases. In the same year 739 adoptions were authorized (second step). Unfortunately data on the proportion of adoption by individuals (as opposed to married couples) is not available. Data on the success rate of LGBT applicants in the first or second step of the adoption procedure is not available. In the LGBT Survey 2010 study out of 219 respondents who have children, only four reported getting a child through adoption. The data collection did not cover whether the applicants revealed their sexual orientation or gender identity during the adoption procedures. While the Child Protection Act authorizes child protection services to collect and store data on the official family status, as well as the de facto living arrangements of applicants, 285 anecdotal evidence shows that some LGBT applicants were not asked specific questions on these issues, and thus could avoid speaking about sexual orientation or gender identity. Háttér’s legal aid service is currently involved in the adoption procedure of a gay couple, who successfully passed the suitability assessment, and has been put on the waiting list for adoption. Not enough time to have passed to assess whether their waiting period is disproportionately longer than for other (heterosexual) couples. 28. Where national law permits assisted reproductive treatment for single women, member states should seek to ensure access to such treatment without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
281
Bill no. T/7971 of 2012 on the Civil Code. For further information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010. 283 http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/tamop/data/MTA_1hullam_english_summary-2.pdf. 284 Data collection 1210 by the Central Statistics Office. Data received via email on 28 April 2009. 285 Article 135 (5) b) of the Child Protection Act. 282
112
i.
What steps have been taken to ensure that access by single women to assisted reproductive treatment (where permitted by national legislation), is without discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Summary: PARTIALLY. Assisted reproduction is available to single women who are infertile or due to their age are at the risk of infertility soon, but is not available to lesbians living with their same-sex partners (whether cohabiting or in a registered partnership). There is no evidence to suggest that those having legal access to such treatments are hindered in practicing this right in a discriminatory manner. Detailed analysis: According to the original version of the Health Care Act adopted in 1997 assisted reproduction was only open for married and different-sex cohabiting couples. In discussions with the Minister for Equal Opportunities, LGBT organisations proposed extending artificial insemination to lesbian couples as early as 2002. 286 Following a 2005 parliamentary decision requiring the government to draw up an action plan on the problem of infertility, 287 the government proposed to amend the Health Care Act in order to extend the categories of women who were allowed to donate ova. Following proposals from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, 288 socialist and liberal MPs submitted amendments to the bill to extend assisted reproduction to single women and to liberalise surrogacy. 289 The surrogacy proposal did not gather enough support to be put to a vote, and a competing amendment about assisted reproduction for single women with slightly different wording was also submitted: it gathered more support in the committees and was adopted by Parliament. The current legislation on assisted reproduction according to the Health Care Act is the following: Article 167 (1) Reproduction procedures may be performed on married couples or cohabiting couples of different sexes if, for reasons of health existing among either party (infertility), it is highly probable that a healthy child cannot be produced through natural means. Among common-law spouses, the procedures only may be conducted if neither of the partners is married to another person. (…) (4) In the case of a single woman reproduction procedures may be performed if by way of her age or medical condition (infertility) it is highly probable that she cannot produce a child through natural means.
Assisted reproduction for women living in lesbian partnerships was not put on the agenda in the debate at all. Although the liberals strongly argued that anyone who wants to have children should have the possibility of doing so, and that no group of people should be excluded, 290 this does not seem to include lesbian women. A conservative MP criticised 291 the proposal to extend assisted reproduction to single women by arguing that it would lead to unforeseen consequences, even childbearing by same-sex couples. The topic of extending assisted reproduction services for LGBT people was raised in the parliamentary debates on RPA on the occasion that the bill included explicit exclusion of same-sex
286 See press release at http://www.hatter.hu/hirek/sajtokozlemeny-meleg-szervezetek-kozos-sajtonyilatkozata-azalkotmanybirosag-beleegyezesi-korh. 287 Parliamentary Decision no. 62/2005 (VI. 28). 288 Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (2005): Az egyes egészségügyi tárgyú törvények módosításáról. [On the amendment of certain laws on health care] TASZ Álláspont, 26. szám. Available at http://www.tasz.hu/betegjog/13. 289 Amendments no. 18093/8 and no. 18093/51. 290 Speech by Éva Mézes at the Plenary Session of the Parliament on 23 November 2005. 291 Speech by András Csáky at the Plenary Session of the Parliament on 23 November 2005.
113
couples from joint adoption and assisted reproduction. Some liberal members of Parliament raised equality concerns; however, these concerns were always rebutted on the basis that consensual decision-making requires compromises: the institution will be introduced, but only with reservations on rights. 292 The Human Rights Working Group has acknowledged that the legislation excluding lesbians cohabiting with their same-sex partners from assisted reproduction amounts to discrimination based on sexual orientation. 293 While acknowledging the exclusion of lesbians living in registered partnership or in cohabitation, the Ministry of Human Resources claims that assisted reproduction is available to single women without discrimination. 294 ii.
In practice, is such access granted on a non-discriminatory basis?
Summary: YES. Even though the legislation only makes assisted reproduction treatments available to a limited number of (infertile) single women, it is quite common for lesbian couples to use assisted reproduction treatments by circumventing the law, often with the help of their gynaecologist. Detailed analysis: Even though the legislation only makes assisted reproduction treatments available to a limited number of (infertile) single women, based on interviews with lesbian mothers 295 it is clear that many lesbian couples do use assisted reproduction treatments by circumventing the law, often with the help of their gynaecologist. Falsifying one’s family status, however, is a criminal offence punishable up to three years imprisonment. 296 Afraid of these consequences many lesbian couples decide to organize assisted reproduction for themselves by using home insemination techniques. 297 Besides the obvious medical risks involved in non-supervised insemination these women also risk criminal prosecution according to the Criminal Code: Article 173/I (1) Any person who illegally acquires, sells or places on the market for pecuniary gain human genes, cells, gametes, embryos, organs, tissues, or a cadaver or part(s) of such, commits a felony offense and shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to three years.
V. Employment 29. Member states should ensure the establishment and implementation of appropriate measures which provide effective protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment and occupation in the public as well as in the private sector. These measures should cover conditions for access to employment and promotion, dismissals, pay and other working conditions, including the prevention, combating and punishment of harassment and other forms of victimisation.
292
See the Parliamentary debate of the Constitutional, Judicial and Standing Orders Committee on 9 September 2009. Available at http://www.parlament.hu/biz38/bizjkv38/AIB/0909091.htm. 293 Letter from the Human Rights Working Group no. XX-E/6/1/2012; on file with the authors. 294 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 295 http://interalia.org.hu/sites/default/files/Interj%C3%BAk_3.pdf. 296 See under forgery in Articles 274-276 of the Criminal Code. 297 LGBT Survey 2010 results.
114
i.
Does legislation 298 exist which prohibits discrimination in employment in the public and private sector on grounds of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: YES. The ETA in addition to the general anti-discrimination provisions contains specific rules on employment. The prohibition of difference in treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity applies specifically to access to employment, promotion, dismissal and pay. Detailed analysis: The ETA unequivocally prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the Labour Code also refers to the principle of equal treatment as defined by the more general and comprehensive the ETA [see Rec2 i)]. In addition, the ETA contains detailed rules on employment in Articles 21-23. Article 21 contains the following: It is considered to be a violation of the principle of equal treatment if – in particular – the employer applies direct or indirect discrimination against the employee, especially in defining and applying the dispositions: a) for access to work, especially in public job advertisements, hiring, and regarding the conditions of employment; b) for a disposition made before the establishment of the employment relationship or other relationship related to work, related to the procedure facilitating the establishment of such a relationship; c) in establishing and terminating the employment relationship or other relationship related to work; d) in relation to any training before or during the work; e) in determining and providing working conditions; f) in establishing and providing allowances due on the basis of the employment relationship or other relationship related to work, particularly in establishing and providing wages/salaries defined in Article 12(2) of Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code; g) in relation to membership or participation in employees’ organizations; h) in the promotion system; i) in the enforcement of a liability for damages or of a disciplinary liability.
The above provision applies equally to public and private employers. However, the principle of equal treatment is not violated if a) the difference in treatment that is justified by the characteristics or nature of the work, and it is proportionate taking into account all essential and legitimate conditions considered in the hiring process; b) the difference in treatment is based directly on religious or other ideological conviction, or belonging to a national or ethnic origin fundamentally determining the nature of the organization, and it is proportional and justified by the nature of the employment activity or the conditions of its pursuit. 299
Discrimination in wages, salaries or allowances based on sex, racial origin, colour, nationality, and belonging to a national or ethnic minority cannot be justified, it automatically means the violation of the principle of equal treatment [ETA, Article 22 (2)]. Research among the LGBT population in 2007 found that 36% of respondents have suffered from discrimination, prejudice, humiliation and/or aggression based on their sexual orientation and gender at the workplace. A similar study in 2010 found that only 17% of LGBT respondents are fully open about their sexual orientation to their colleagues. 59% reported lying about their partner’s gender, 38% about avoiding private conversations with colleagues and 19% about difficulty to 298
Under the European Social Charter this legislation should cover both direct and indirect discrimination. It should also provide for the burden of proof in discrimination cases to rest with the employer. (See the Digest of Case Law of the European Committee of Social Rights – Interpretation of the Different Provisions – Article 1 – right to work – http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Digest/DigestSept2008_en.pdf). The EU Employment Directive provides the following definition of indirect discrimination: "where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a … particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons …". 299 ETA, Article 22 (1).
115
concentrate on work due to fear of being discriminated. The survey also found that transgender people are at a high risk of unemployment, 62% reported having been unemployed for over three months during their life. 300 ii.
Does it cover: i.
access to employment (including recruitment); promotion,
YES. See ETA, Article 21 f) [App29 i)]. ii.
dismissals,
YES. See ETA, Article 21 c) [App29 i)]. iii.
pay,
YES. See ETA, Article 21 f) [App29 i)]. iv.
harassment and other forms of victimisation?
YES. See ETA, Article 10 [Rec2 i)]. iii.
Have the authorities promoted other measures to combat discrimination, harassment and victimisation, in both the public and private sectors, for example: i.
adoption of codes of conduct for both employers and employees;
Summary: PARTIALLY. Certain public employers have the duty to adopt workplace equal opportunity plans, this is only optional for the private sector. The content of the plans is not regulated, previously it was, but LGBT employees were not a specific target group. Some employees’ organizations do promote the adoption of codes of conduct including reference to sexual orientation. Detailed analysis: The ETA prescribes for budget institutions and legal entities with majority State ownership that employ more than fifty people to adopt equal opportunity plans. Previously, Act no. XXII of 1992 on the Labour Code contained more detailed provisions on the content and procedure for adopting such plans. The law prescribed that equal opportunity plans had to include the assessment of the situation of employed members of disadvantaged groups, in particular women, employees over 40 years of age, Roma, people living with disabilities, parents raising two or more children under the age of 10 and single parents with small children; and address the promotion of equal opportunities of these groups, especially through training, safety at work or any other programme available at the employer’s. It must have contained the measures necessary for the accessible working environment for people with disabilities and the procedure for the implementation of the plan. LGBT people were not specifically mentioned in these provisions. The law also contained that the adoption of such plans shall be for a definite period, and be adopted jointly with trade unions (Article 70/A). The adoption of equal opportunity plans was optional for employers outside the scope of employers detailed above. The detailed provisions concerning equal opportunity plans were removed with the entry into force of the new Labour Code on 1 July 2012. The only provision that remained in the Labour Code
300
For further information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010.
116
on equal opportunity plans is that any measure concerning equal treatment and equal opportunities has to be submitted for opinion to works councils. 301 The duty for budget institutions and legal entities with majority State ownership to adopt equal opportunity plans remains on the books without any legislation specifying the content of those plans. The Hungarian Business Leaders Forum adopted a Code of Corporate Diversity and Inclusiveness that was adopted by many companies operating in Hungary, most of them multinational. 302 The Code contains that: Organisational diversity constitutes a varied composition of employees, in terms of both visible and hidden human qualities and features like age, gender, race, ethnic affiliation, disability, nationality, religion, culture, sexual orientation, external appearance, manner of thinking, marital status, level of education, etc.
The Code further includes commitments to equal opportunity and non-discrimination for everyone, respect and fairness, and respect each employee’s need to balance work and personal demands. The adoption of the Code was not the result of promotion by authorities, but rather on the own initiative of participating corporations. Budapest Esély Nonprofit Kft., a consultation firm owned by the Budapest City council operates an auditing and certification scheme called “Social label for corporate social responsibility”. 303 The auditing also includes information on how LGBT issues are dealt with at the company. ii.
training and awareness raising programmes for both employers and employees;
Summary: PARTIALLY. While there are some training programmes available on diversity and nondiscrimination at the workplace, very few companies actually participate. LGBT issues are covered only at the very basic level, meaning that sexual orientation and gender identity are often mentioned as protected grounds, but not going into details about the specific situation of LGBT employees. Detailed analysis: In 2006 the International Labour Organization (ILO) designed a training programme on nondiscrimination and social inclusion for middle and large companies in Hungary with the title of “For inclusive and diverse workplace”. According to the evaluation report published in 2007, 304 the Magyar Posta Ltd. (Hungarian Post, a state-owned company) and the Magyar Telekom Plc. (private entity) took part in the training program, which aimed at leading companies from the realizing the need for non-discriminatory policies to creating a management strategy ensuring equal opportunities and diversity at the workplace. Despite, the broad marketing of the program, only the above mentioned two companies applied clearly showing the level of interest that time. A legal awareness raising project was launched in 2009 with EU funding. This so-called JOGPONT Hálózat (Legal Point Network) 305 has 144 branches all over the country. Among the cooperating partners we find trade union and professional associations. It aims at reducing the number of cases that get to courts by providing legal advice on labour law, social security and corporate law, and registration cases. Although the broader mandate covers discrimination, no materials have been published explicitly targeting non-discrimination, let alone the needs of LGBT people. The so-called Labour Law Compass merely lists the ETAuth among the available remedies adding that “if your 301
Article 264 (2) m) of Act no. I of 2012 on the Labour Code. http://www.hblf.org/images/stories/pdf/a4_kodex_magyarkiegeszites_34final.pdf. 303 http://www.sociallabel.hu/. 304 Available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/tanulmanyok/hu/befogado_Tardos_Katalin.pdf. 305 http://www.jogpont.hu. 302
117
employer violates the principle of equal treatment, i.e. you were discriminated against, you can request help or information from them”. 306 The training programmes of the ETAuth on anti-discrimination include the field of employment as well [see App45 ii)/ii)]. There have also been NGOs offering training on the principle of equal treatment; some of them directly targeted employers. 307 A specific LGBT sensitizing training curriculum for employers were developed by Háttér with support from the PROGRESS program, but no trainings were held beyond the pilot training. iii.
distribution to employees of materials explaining their rights, complaints mechanisms and remedies;
Summary: PARTIALLY. There are some general materials published from public funding explaining discrimination related complaint mechanisms, but they are not specific to the field of employment. Guidebooks on employee rights are usually silent on discrimination issues. Detailed analysis: The ETAuth has a number of publications and videos addressing the principle of equal treatment and informing about the available remedies, 308 but only one deals exclusively with employment.309 The Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI) published an information booklet on discrimination for employees 310 and also guidelines for victims of employment discrimination that outlines the available legal remedies. 311 Recently – in 2011 – the Hungarian Helsinki Committee published a booklet on the “Methods of Combating Discrimination”. 312 The publication guides the interested persons through the process of enforcing the principle of equal treatment and it contains a selection of cases illustrating the various protected grounds. The JOGPONT Network also provides publications outlining the remedies available for employees, but contains minimal information on discrimination [App29 iii)/ii)]. iv.
recruitment efforts directed at LGBT persons;
NO. While there have been several initiatives specifically recruiting Roma or women (especially with small children) to the public sector, 313 there is no information on similar initiatives for LGBT people.
306
Available at: http://www.jogpont.hu/letoltes/JOGPONT_MunkajogiIranytu_BP_vegleges.pdf. See for example: http://mamoka.hu/attachments/082_kepzesi_referencialista_20100322.pdf - trainings by Másság Foundation in 2009. 308 Available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/cikkek/virtual_library#videok. There are videos dealing with the general remedies, Roma, visually impaired, etc., but none for LGBT people. 309 According to the 2007 report of the ETAuth a publication, Diszkrimináció miatt nem kap munkát? [You fail to get a job because of discrimination?] was distributed in Labour Centres; the publication is not available online. 310 NEKI (2009): Megkülönböztetés nélkül. Útmutató munkavállóknak. [Without Discrimination. Guidelines for Employees]. Available at: http://www.neki.hu/attachments/407_munkavallalo2.pdf. 311 Available at: http://www.neki.hu/kiadvanyok/eselytelenul/jogorvoslat.htm. It is primarily aimed at providing help for Roma victims of discrimination. 312 Available at: http://nonprofit.hu/sites/default/files/study/2012/1/diszkrimin%C3%A1ci%C3%B3-ellenik%C3%BCzdelem-m%C3%B3dszerei/A%20DISZKRIMIN%C3%81CI%C3%93%20ELLENI%20K%C3%9CZDELEM%20M%C3 %93DSZEREI_0.pdf. 313 In 2009 200 Roma persons were hired in the public sector (see for example: http://index.hu/belfold/2009/09/19/ketszaz_roma_kap_helyet_a_kozigazgatasban/). For 2011-2012 the government announced the family-friendly workplace programme offering better conditions of work for women with small children 307
118
v.
the adoption of non-discrimination policies explicitly referencing sexual orientation and gender identity;
PARTIALLY. The equal opportunity plans described in App30 ii) usually contained a nondiscrimination policy inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity as well, but their adoption has been very limited. Survey research among LGBT people by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that only every 5th (21%) respondent works at a company where there is an equal opportunity programme or code of conduct on harassment, however, over two-thirds of those cover sexual orientation and gender identity. 314 vi.
co-operation with and support for employee groupings of LGBT persons?
NO. No campaigns or information materials on diversity or non-discrimination include recommendations on such employee groups. Only very few companies (all of them multinationals, such as IBM and Morgan Stanley) have such groupings. The issue is a recurrent topic at the LGBT Business Forums organized every year since 2010, but the conference received no financial support from any public bodies. 315 iv.
Have steps been taken to abolish laws, regulations and practices which discriminate on grounds of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity in access to and career advancement within certain professions and occupations, including particularly the armed forces?
Summary: NO. While homosexuality was removed from the legislation concerning the health and psychological eligibility for members of the armed forces and other similar jobs, a reference to transsexualism is still included. Detailed analysis: Homosexuality was considered as a form psychopathy resulting in the non-eligibility of gay and lesbian persons for compulsory military service until 2002, and professional military service until 2003. 316 Similarly, non-conforming sexual orientation resulted in the exclusion from the police, firefighters employed by the municipalities, prison staff, border guard service and the disaster response until 2002 as well. 317 Interestingly, the same provisions were removed from the eligibility criteria of customs officers only in 2010, following the complaint of Háttér. 318 The same regulations still contain references to F64.00 – Transsexualism, thus – in theory – excluding trans people with a medical diagnosis from such jobs. The interpretation of this legislation varies between various ministries and public bodies. While in their original response to the authors the Ministry of Defence did not mention these restrictions, 319 after a follow-up request
(see: http://www.kimvk.hu/csaladbarat-munkahely). There have been several scholarships offered by the Police to Roma youth to become police officers, see e.g. http://www.police.hu/kepzes/romapalyazat/pafi_roma_2012.html. 314 For further information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010. 315 http://lmbtuzletihalozat.wordpress.com/. 316 See Joint Decree no. 7/1996. (VII. 30.) of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Public Health, Appendix 1, point 037 a). Replaced by Joint Decree no. 9/2002 (II. 28.) of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health and Decree no. 4/2003. (I. 31.) of the Ministry of Defence. 317 Joint Decree no. 21/2000 (VIII. 23.) of the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice and Minister without Portfolio, Appendix 1, point 014. Replaced by Joint Decree no. 28/2002. (X. 17.) of the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, Minister Leading the Prime Minister’s Office. 318 Decree no. 22/2010 (V. 13.) of the Ministry of Finance. Háttér’s opinion available at: http://www.hatter.hu/kiadvanyaink/a-hatter-tarsasag-a-melegekert-velemenye-a-vam-es-penzugyorok-egeszsegialkalmassagarol. 319 Letter from the Ministry of Defence no. 251- 71/2012; on file with the authors.
119
asking specifically about transsexualism in the relevant legislation, they changed their position and responded that the legislation means that trans people – regardless of where they are in the transition process, so even if fully living according to the preferred gender – are disqualified.320 Neither the Police, 321 nor the Prison Service 322 included such a restriction. Follow-up questions have been sent to both the Police and the Prison Service, however, no answer has been received. v.
Specifically in relation to the armed forces: i.
Have measures been taken to provide protection for LGBT persons against investigations, warnings, harassment, bullying, cruel initiation rites, humiliation and other forms of illtreatment?
Summary: PARTIALLY. While general prohibition of such behaviour is present in both legislation and trainings for staff, no information on whether these principles are applied specifically with regards to LGBT people has been received. Detailed analysis: Apart from the generally applicable restrictions in non-discrimination legislation, there are specific provisions available for the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence in its response to the authors’ questionnaire emphasized that the principle of equal treatment as defined by the ETA applies to the armed forces as well. In fulfilling the social duty and the obligations as employer, the Hungarian Army fully respects this requirement. In addition to equal treatment and equal opportunities, and the historical military virtue, the general human values play a privileged role for the Ministry. Thus, it strictly monitors the observance of the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, unlawful segregation and victimization, the respect for diversity and human dignity. 323 Article 6 of Act no. XCV of 2001 on the status of full-time soldiers also contains the principle of equal treatment. The Ministry of Defence claims that every military unit has an equal opportunities expert, who receives trainings and has consultations on a yearly basis. The Ministry also claims that social disadvantages, discrimination and means to fight discrimination are part of the training curricula and the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunities shall be part of the decision-making on recruitment and hiring. 324 ii.
Do codes of conduct and training address the need to combat discrimination against LGBT persons and promote tolerance and respect?
Summary: PARTIALLY. While the Code of Ethics of the Army does contain the general duty to respect human dignity and tolerate human differences, and according the Ministry of Defence there are regular trainings on these issues; sexual orientation and gender identity are not mentioned specifically in the code, and the Ministry provided no information on whether the trainings specifically deal with LGBT people.
320
Letter from the Ministry of Defence no. 251-104/2012; on file with the authors. Letter from the National Police Headquarters no. 21990/8/2012.ált; on file with the authors. 322 Letter from the Hungarian Prison Service no 4/11-5/69/2012; on file with the authors. 323 Letter from the Ministry of Defence no. 251-71/2012; on file with the authors. 324 Letter from the Ministry of Defence no. 251-71/2012; on file with the authors. 321
120
Detailed analysis: The Code of Ethics of the Army 325 among the basic values and virtues of military service mentions respect for human dignity and for human diversity. It entails accepting the personal differences to such extent that it does not endanger the military profession. It is the duty of a soldier “with the respect to human dignity to accept and tolerate human differences.” In his behaviour the soldier shall not put others in uncomfortable, degrading or derogatory position, personal comments and intrigues must be avoided. In fulfilling his duty, a soldier cannot violate the personality rights and self-respect of others. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not specifically mentioned. Furthermore, Instruction no. 29/2011 (III. 10.) of the Ministry of Defence on the equal opportunities guidelines for 2011/2012 puts a special emphasis on the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunities in military training; it aims at reducing bias among the staff and enhancing tolerance for diversity. Equal treatment is part of the human resources policy of the Ministry and its subordinate organs. 326 The guidelines for 2011–2012 only include the Roma and ethnic/national minorities as specific groups to work with [Article 3 d) and g)]. vi.
Do measures designed to combat discrimination in employment fully and effectively cover transgender persons?
YES. Article 8 n) of the ETA lists gender identity as a protected ground [see Rec2 ii)] and the specific rules on discrimination in employment duly apply as well [see App29 i)]. vii.
Have employment programmes focusing specifically on employment opportunities for transgender persons been developed?
NO. While there are several public programmes and funding schemes available for vulnerable populations, such state programmes only consider the Roma, women and people living with disabilities as vulnerable groups. 327 The authors received no information on programmes specifically targeting transgender persons, and the TransVanilla Transgender Association reported that they have not heard of such programmes either. 328 30. Particular attention should be paid to providing effective protection of the right to privacy of transgender individuals in the context of employment, in particular regarding employment applications, to avoid any irrelevant disclosure of their gender history or their former name to the employer and other employees. i.
Have measures been taken to avoid disclosure of transgender persons’ gender history or former name in the context of employment?
NO. The authors received no information about the existence of such measures, and the TransVanilla Transgender Association reported that they have not heard of such measures. 329
325
Published in Appendix no. 1 of Instruction no. 67/2003 (HK 18.) of the Ministry of Defence. Letter from the Ministry of Defence no. 251-71/2012; on file with the authors. 327 Most recently see calls no. GOP-2012-3.5.1 and TÁMOP-5.3.8-11 of the National Development Agency. 328 Correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (12 July 2012); on file with the authors. 329 Correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (12 July 2012); on file with the authors. 326
121
VI. Education 31. Taking into due account the over-riding interests of the child, member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures, addressed to educational staff and pupils, to ensure that the right to education can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; this includes, in particular, safeguarding the right of children and youth to education in a safe environment, free from violence, bullying, social exclusion or other forms of discriminatory and degrading treatment related to sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
Have i. equality and safety policies, ii. codes of conduct and iii. handbooks
ii.
for educational staff been introduced or updated to ensure that LGBT pupils and students receive their education in a safe environment, free from violence, bullying, social exclusion or other forms of discriminatory and degrading treatment?
Summary: NO. The Public Education Act contains general provisions on safe school environment and the ETA contains specific provisions on non-discrimination in education, but no policies, codes of conduct or handbooks have been introduced or updated to apply this principle to LGBT students. The issue of homo- and transphobic bullying does not feature in school anti-violence projects. Detailed analysis: The ETA contains specific provisions on non-discrimination in education (ETA, Articles 27-29), “including any care, education and training a) carried out in accordance with requirements approved or mandated by the State, or b) whose organisation is supported by the State.” The Act further contains that Educational institutions shall not allow the operation of any groups pursuing extracurricular activities, pupil or student societies and other organisations of pupils, students or parents, whose objectives are to discredit, stigmatise or exclude other individuals or groups. 330
Act no. CXC of 2011 on national public education (Public Education Act) contains that: Article 25 (5) Educational-teaching institutions shall take care of the supervision of children and students placed in their custody and create healthy and safe conditions for school education and teaching. Article 46:2 The personality, human dignity and rights of the child or student shall be respected, and protection against physical and psychological violence shall be provided. The child and student shall not be subjected to physical or psychological punishment, torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. Article 46:3 The child or student has the right to: (…)
330
ETA, Article 27 (4). For further details on the ETA see Rec2 i).
122
b) be educated and taught in a safe and healthy environment in an educational or educational-teaching institution (…)
The Ministry of Human Resources has not reported on any policies, codes of conduct or handbooks in use that would help schools apply this principle to LGBT students. The Ministry only informed the authors that according to the legislation it is the head of the educational institution who is responsible for adopting school policies and the pedagogical programme of the school. 331 They also added that with the handing over of schools from local government to the state (a cornerstone of the new educational system adopted in 2011) the state will have the responsibility to monitor, develop and support such activities in schools. 332 Reducing violence and aggression in schools has been a priority in public education in recent years. A Committee for Safer Schools consisting of experts in the field was set up by the Minister of Education in March 2008. The Committee prepared a set of recommendations, 333 commissioned a research on existing school policies, 334 and issued several statements. 335 None of these documents addressed homophobic and transphobic bullying. In response to the recommendations of the Committee, the Hungarian Institute of Educational Research and Development initiated a “Movement for Violence-Free and Health Conscious Schools”. They organized several conferences and published a collection of best practices, homophobic and transphobic bullying was not directly addressed. On the local level, the Ferenc Mérei Institute of Pedagogy, an agency of the City Council of Budapest has a permanent working group on reducing aggression in schools with a rich website. 336 The only reference to homophobic bullying on the website is a research report summarizing existing literature from the UK on school violence. 337 iii.
Do initial and in-service training programmes for teachers and other educational staff address the need for them to i.
treat their LGBT pupils and students with respect
ii.
be able to detect, analyse and effectively respond to and combat discrimination on these grounds in schools?
NO. A focus group research among students of teacher training colleges concluded that students found themselves rather incompetent in dealing with LGBT issues. They would not know what to say if a student asked about homosexuality, let alone if a gay student turns to them for help. They reported of not having received any training on such issues as part of their professional education. 338
331
Article 69 of the Act no. CXC of 2011 on national public education. Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 333 http://www.nefmi.gov.hu/letolt/kozokt/iab_af_080605.pdf. 334 http://www.nefmi.gov.hu/letolt/kozokt/koloknet_tanulmany_091030.pdf. 335 For all related materials see: http://www.nefmi.gov.hu/kozoktatas/gyorseleres/iskola-biztonsagaert. 336 http://www.budapestedu.hu/agresszio. 337 http://www.budapestedu.hu/data/cms54664/agresszio_zaro.pdf. 338 György Mészáros (2011): Tanári szerepvállalás a homofóbia elleni küzdelemben. [Teachers’ role in the struggle against homophobia] In Judit Takács (ed. 2011) Homofóbia Magyarországon. Budapest: L’Harmattan. 332
123
iv.
Is there support for the mounting of school campaigns and cultural events against homophobia and transphobia, including the participation, where appropriate, of representatives of LGBT organisations?
Summary: NO. Labrisz Lesbian Association in collaboration with Szimpozion Association has been running a school programme on sexual orientation since 2000. The project has received no public funding, and in the year of its launch the Ministry of Education called for schools to boycott the program. Detailed analysis: Labrisz Lesbian Association started a school programme entitled “Melegség és megismerés” (Getting to Know Gays and Lesbians) in 2000 with the support from the EU PHARE program. Since 2007, the programme is run jointly with Szimpozion Association. In the programme a gay man and a lesbian woman visit high schools to tell their personal stories about sexual orientation, and introduce students to the most important terminology. In 2000 a letter was sent to 1300 high schools offering the programme for free; only 7 schools responded. The same year an extreme right wing MP interpellated the minister of education on the program, who said in Parliament that no schools should participate in the program. 339 The ministry responsible for education has somewhat developed its position since then, as in a newspaper article in 2010 about the program, the conservative state secretariat for education said that such discussions have a place in schools, even though they also added that the priority of the government is education on family values. 340 32. Taking into due account the over-riding interests of the child, appropriate measures should be taken to this effect at all levels to promote mutual tolerance and respect in schools, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This should include providing objective information with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity, for instance in school curricula and educational materials, and providing pupils and students with the necessary information, protection and support to enable them to live in accordance with their sexual orientation and gender identity. Furthermore, member states may design and implement school equality and safety policies and action plans and may ensure access to adequate anti-discrimination training or support and teaching aids. Such measures should take into account the rights of parents regarding education of their children. i.
Is information on i. sexual orientation ii. gender identity
ii.
provided in school curricula and sex and health education classes?
Summary: NO. The National Basic Curriculum does not refer to information on sexual orientation or gender identity; schools are free to choose whether to incorporate such topics into their curricula. Research results show that the majority of school textbooks remain silent on these issues, and only a small minority of schools provide detailed information on these matters.
339 340
Oral question by MP Tibor Erkel to the Minister of Education no. A/3602. on 18 December, 2000. http://mno.hu/belfold/tiz_ev_300_alkalom_az_iskolak_falain_belul_beszelnek_a_massagrol-202143.
124
Detailed analysis: The regulation of school curricula is divided at the moment. Until September 2013, the former National Basic Curriculum is in force, while from 2013 the new rules will be applicable, however, only in first, fifth and ninth grades, which means that in principle the former legislation will still be in force for years. Currently the applicable National Basic Curriculum (NBC) is contained in Government Decree no. 243/2003 (XII. 17.). While there are certain values and goals therein which are broad enough to cover the questions of sexual orientation and gender identity, these topics are not specifically mentioned in the document. The current NBC sets up a system in which only the core values and competencies are regulated by NBC, which is complemented by so called framework curricula (detailed below), within which schools are free to design their own curricula. This decentralized system means that the exact content of the curricula varies from school to school; schools are free to include the topics of sexual orientation and gender identity, but they have no specific duty to do so. Among the common values of teaching, the NBC includes: [t]he spirit of the NBC is defined by the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic and Hungarian laws, in particular the Act on public education, national and international norms on human rights, the rights of the child, the rights of national and ethnic minorities and the equality of the sexes. The NBC helps the operation of schools in which educational and learning process are organized on the basis of democratic values, humanism, the respect for the individual, freedom of religion, development of personality, cooperation between basic communities (family, nation, the community of European nations, humanity), the equality of peoples, nations, ethnic groups and sexes, the values of solidarity and tolerance. NBC strives to strengthen a school system supporting the realization of equal opportunities. 341
The NBC also defines the basic competences schools must develop in students. One of these is “Social and Citizens’ Competence”, including knowledge of citizens’ basic rights as defined by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other international documents. The Decree makes reference, in particular, to making students aware of diversity and cultural identities in Europe. “Physical and moral health” is also listed among the key competences. The school – according to the Decree – is an inevitable source of information on sexual culture and sexual behaviour, and it is the task of teachers to prepare children and adolescents for a healthy family life. 342 For primary and secondary schools, the NBC is supplemented by a Ministry of Education decree concerning framework curricula. 343 The decree contains framework curricula developed by the ministry for various types of schools, and a procedure for educational institutions to submit their own framework curricula. Schools develop their own curricula based on NBC and one of the framework curricula contained in the annex. There are currently nearly 70 framework curricula authorized, some of which concern only one subject or a few grades, some others all subjects in all 12 grades of public education. The topic of homosexuality is directly mentioned in only few of the framework curricula. The Catholic Framework Curriculum from 2008 for examples mentions homosexuality in 11thgrade biology teaching. The module on Regulation and reproduction, within the general topic of “Hormone Systems and Reproduction”, devotes a section to sexuality and family planning. The Decree prescribes a general framework regarding matters, which should be covered during these classes: in addition to ethical considerations surrounding family planning (especially abortion), homosexuality and infertility (possible causes, in vitro fertilization, etc.) are to be taught. The sessions covering this topic must also cover “decisions and choices in the light of Christian values”.
341
NBC, Section II – Common values of school teaching and education. NBC, Section III – Common goals of school teaching and education. 343 Decree no. 17/2004 of the Ministry of Education on issuing and validating framework curricula. 342
125
The Framework Curriculum for Competence Developing Educational Programme also covers the topic of homosexuality as part of the natural sciences subject area, with a separate, 15.5 hours long module on sexuality of adults. The aim of the module is to establish health-conscious behaviour and the need for and interest in valuable human relationships. The module also explicitly sets out, as one of its aims, to prepare students to live according to their chosen sexual identities. One of the problems, which must be explored in schools, is the changing social perception of homosexuality and the level of tolerance of sexual differences. Related activities are: individually gathering information (for example, from the media) about LGBT communities, and in-class discussions about society’s attitudes towards differences in this field. Teachers are to provide students with new information and knowledge about sexuality, different sexual orientations, and different gender identities. Finally, the general subject area curriculum for vocational training proposes that schools should include in their teaching plans for 10th-grade students four sessions about (human) reproduction. In these classes, the primary and secondary sexual differences between men and women are to be described, together with the concept of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The drafters envisage discussions and demonstrations about the male and female body, guided debates about gender identity, the equality of the sexes, and tolerance of non-heterosexuality. Students should be able to realise that “homosexuality is not merely a matter of choice (but is also determined genetically) and that an important role is played by the family in the development of personality”. To replace the ten-year old National Basic Curriculum, the conservative Government adopted Decree no. 110/2012 (VI. 4.) on issuing, introducing and applying of the National Basic Curriculum (NBCnew) in June 2012. As mentioned above, the NBCnew will only be applicable from September 2013 in selected grades, which will create a confusing system having two, barely reconcilable basic curricula in force at the same time. According to NBCnew the aim of the public education is to educate future generations in order to ensure that they:
-
are responsible citizens of the country; have patriotic feelings; have realistic self-recognition and strong moral judgment; find their place in the family, closer and broader community, and in the sphere of employment; aspire to full and long-lasting relationships; are capable of taking responsible decisions in relation to their own life and those who they take care of; are capable of independent orientation, forming of opinion and acting; know and understand the natural, social, cultural phenomena and processes; consider the maintenance of cultural and natural diversity as a value and task. 344
In line with the above objectives NBCnew has detailed description of the key areas of education. Among others the first of these is the moral education of children: it aims to prepare pupils for the “value-conflicts” they might face in life, and it will help them to understand the essential questions of life and the world around them. The key competences students are expected to acquire are for example sense of duty, value of work, helpfulness, respect and honesty, empathy, rejection of corruption, patience, understanding and acceptance. Another area is self-consciousness and social culture, which also puts heavy emphasis on raising a generation that has respect for work and is moderate; thus can live in mutual respect in the society. On the other hand, competences such as critical thinking; creativity; ability to take initiatives, solve problems, cooperate with others, assess the risks; decision-making, managing emotions, relationship culture, and social tolerance; as well as the importance of developing positive attitudes, which are based on the respect of human rights,
344
NBCnew, Section I. I.1.
126
including equality, democracy, religious and ethnic diversity are also included. 345 Among the democratic values, the NBCnew mentions rule of law, participation in decision-making, social justice, self-determination, solidarity, acceptance and tolerance. 346 A novelty of NBCnew is that on the basis of the new act on national public education 347 religious education or alternatively classes on ethics are mandatory part of the curriculum (Article 37). The content of the religious education is exclusively decided by the church delivering the classes. With regards to ethics, NBCnew speaks of “Sexuality, love. Marriage. Family, founding a home”, and separately of “Prejudice, trust, compassion” in grades 5-8, and the following vague, but potentially LGBT inclusive issues for grades 9-12: 348 3.1. Me and You. Love, friendship, relationship, sexuality. Parents and children. home, family. 3.2. Me and Us. Individual and community. Citizenship and patriotism. The order of freedom: rights and duties. 3.3. Us and Them. Majority and minority. Solidarity, mutual help. The question of social justice. 3.4. Morals and politics. Individual interest and public good. Participation in public life. Clean public life. Freedom of speech and the responsibility of public speaking the information society.
In fact, the Ministry of Human Resources has informed the authors that the introduction of the ethics subject insures that information on sexual orientation and gender identity are provided in an age appropriate manner. 349 Sexual culture and sexual education are not mentioned often in the NBCnew: one of the rare occasions is where the need to prepare students for family life is described. The section follows the narrow understanding of family as is envisaged in other laws adopted by the same government. The Family Protection Act e.g. contains that: 350 Information on the value of human life, healthy lifestyle, preparation for marriage, responsible partnerships and family life shall be part of primary and secondary education curricula.
Some schools might interpret this as an encouragement to spread distorted, prejudicial views on LGBT issues in schools. Education on physical and mental health is also silent about the need to raise awareness on sexual life, different sexual orientations and gender identity – it seems that for the legislator these do not form part of mental health. 351 Recommendations by the Hungarian LGBT Alliance on how to include more LGBT-related information in the NBCnew were completely disregarded. 352 The new Framework Curricula following the adoption of the NBCnew were published on 21 December 2012. 353 The importance of creating a tolerant environment towards minorities is mainstreamed in the curricula all through the 12 years of public education. However, there is not a single mention of sexual orientation and/or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people in the 6036 pages long document. The most thorough discussion of the issues is featured in biology classes for grade 10 for students specialising in natural sciences (students aged 16). The curriculum prescribes the discussion on “social groups with different sexual cultures” and the differentiation between chromosomal, genital and psycho-sexual sex/gender. General biology classes for grades 7-8 and 10 provide general detailed information (10-13 hours) on human reproduction, including topics such as contraception, STDs, masturbation, abortion, “different gender/sexual behaviours” and “gender roles for girls and women, boys and men.” History, social and civil studies, as well as
345
NBCnew, Section II.1. NBCnew, Section II.3.4. A). 347 Act no. CXC of 2011. 348 NBCnew, Section II.3.4. C), Ethics for grade 5-8 (3.2. and 3.3.). 349 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 350 Article 3 (2) of Act no. CCXI of 2011. 351 NBCnew, Section I. I.1.1. 352 http://m.cdn.blog.hu/lm/lmbtszovetseg/file/lmbtszov_nat_2012marc.pdf. 353 Decree no. 51/2012 of the Ministry of Human Resources on issuing and validating framework curricula. 346
127
ethics contain discussion on human rights, social groups, identity, multiculturalism, stereotypes, social groups, freedom and choice, norms, prejudice, and inequalities. The examples used by the curricula are exclusively religious, national and ethnic minorities. Discussion of gender roles is remains within the conservative, traditional gender norms. Research on the implementation of the previous NBC also demonstrates that LGBT issues are often disregarded in school curricula. A content analysis of school textbooks performed in the framework of the current project showed that less than 20% of textbooks cover LGBT-related issues when it would be necessary. The research followed a benchmark methodology where certain key knowledge areas were identified that would require the discussion of LGBT topics (such as reproduction and sexuality in biology; ancient Greece and the holocaust in history; public attitudes towards minorities in ethics and social studies; LGBT authors and poets in literature, etc.). All the textbooks covering these issue areas were analysed to assess whether they include discussion on sexual orientation and gender identity. 16 biology, 43 literature, 9 ethics and social studies, 18 history, 23 art history, 12 music and 7 film and media studies textbooks were analysed. All together 23 books contained information on related topics, 18% of all textbooks examined. The highest proportion was in ethics and social studies (44%), followed by biology (37.5%) and history (28%). Art history, film and media studies and music textbooks were the least inclusive with no mentioning of LGBT information when discussing the lives and works of LGBT artists and musicians. Literature textbooks fell in the midrange with 19% containing LGBT information when discussing the lives and works of LGBT authors/poets. On the type of coverage (whether the information respectful and objective) see App32 ii). Survey research among the LGBT community also confirms that only a small minority of schools cover LGBT issues in their educational program. The research was conducted by Háttér and the Sociology Institute at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2010. The block on school experiences was completed by 1966 respondents. 65% reported that no information was provided on homosexuality at all, with only 7% reporting detailed discussions. The situation for transsexuality was even worse: 86% and 2% respectively. Only 15% reported on some discussions on prejudices against LGBT people, and 9% on the rights of LGBT people. 94% agreed or rather agreed with the statement that “There has been not enough information on issues affecting LGBT people in the school curriculum”. The large majority of students thus leave schools without any information on sexual orientation and gender identity. Furthermore, while 69% of respondents reported participating in school organized sex education programs, only 13% of those programmes were inclusive of LGBT issues. 354 iii.
Is it provided in a respectful and objective manner?
Summary: PARTIALLY. Research results show a mixed picture with a continued existence of discriminatory textbooks and discriminatory comments by teachers in schools. Detailed analysis: The content analysis of school textbooks [for details on methodology, see App32 i)] found that the large majority of textbooks that do include a discussion on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity are neutral (74%), 17% are openly discriminatory and only 9% are committed to promoting social acceptance of LGBT people. Discriminatory portrayals include the association of homo- and bisexuality with sexually transmitted diseases, questioning the suitability of homosexual couples to raise children, calling homosexuality unnatural; and finally an ethics book that talks about the
354
For more information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010.
128
Christian position on homosexuality as an unacceptable perversion without calling attention to other attitudes towards homosexuality also present in society. A survey among LGBT people by the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2007 found that 10%, 14%, 13% of respondents reported on distorted or lacking representation in curriculum in elementary, high school and higher education institutions. 355 A similar research in 2010 found that 8% of respondents experienced homophobic or transphobic content in the curriculum. Taking into consideration the low number of respondents reporting having a discussion at all on LGBT topics in school settings [see App32 i)], the results are quite alarming. iv.
Are LGBT pupils and students provided with the necessary information, protection and support to enable them to live in accordance with their sexual orientation and gender identity?
Summary: NO. Research results show that LGBT people would expect much more information and support from their teachers, and that teachers find themselves incompetent in dealing with such support requests. Detailed analysis: As clear from the analysis above [see App32 i-ii)] many schools do not provide any information on LGBT issues in their curriculum. Survey research among the LGBT community in 2010 found that 94% agreed or rather agreed with the statement that “There has been not enough information on issues affecting LGBT people in the school curriculum”; 87% with the statement that “My teachers could have done more to make the school more liveable for a young LGBT person”, and 75% with the statement that “When I was younger I would have needed more educational materials on sexual orientation and gender identity”. Of those experiencing bullying or discrimination by other students, 59% reported that teachers did nothing in response, while 17% openly approved of the students’ behaviour. Of the 19% experiencing disadvantage because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in schools, 29% reported of having been harassed or humiliated by the teachers themselves. v.
Are measures taken to adequately meet the special needs of transgender students in their school life, for example with regard to change of name or gender in school documents?
NO. While there is no clear legislative basis for it, trans people under the majority age of 18 are refused access to medical treatment as well as official gender recognition. 356 The Ministry of Human Resources reported of no measures to meet the special needs of transgender students, and there is no information available on such measures from other sources either.
355
Judit Takács et al. (2008): Social Exclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) People in Hungary. Budapest: Institute of Sociology Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 356 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors.
129
VII. Health 33. Member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure that the highest attainable standard of health can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, they should take into account the specific needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the development of national health plans including suicide prevention measures, health surveys, medical curricula, training courses and materials, and when monitoring and evaluating the quality of health-care services. i.
Do i.
the design of national health plans,
NO. The National Public Health Programme for the period of 2003-2013 contains only minimal reference to the specific health needs of LGBT people: homosexuals appear as a specific target group for HIV/AIDS testing campaigns. While the programme contains specific sections on equal opportunities, substance abuse, and mental health, especially suicide prevention, LGBT people do not feature in those sections. ii.
health surveys,
NO. None of the large-sample health surveys conducted in recent years (Hungarostudy Health Panel 2002, 2005; National Health Interview Survey 2000, 2003; European Health Interview Survey 2009) contained questions on sexual orientation or gender identity, so the data does not allow for analysing the specific health needs of LGBT people. iii.
suicide prevention programmes,
NO. While there is some awareness among Hungarian experts that LGBT people are specifically at risk of suicide, 357 there are no public suicide prevention programmes targeting them. The Hungarian materials prepared in the framework of the large-scale OSPI-Europe 358 project funded by the European Commission, for examples, do not mention LGBT people as a specific risk group, and do not lists LGBT organizations active in the field of mental health. 359 The LGBT targeted counselling hotline operated by Háttér does not receive any public funding for its activities. iv.
medical training programmes,
Summary: PARTIALLY. While some health concerns specific to LGB and specifically trans people are present in medical training programs, the issues covered are very scarce, and is oftentimes limited to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV/AIDS; and very basic information on gender identity disorders in psychiatry and various intersex conditions in genetics and endocrinology.
357
Béla Buda (2001): Az öngyilkosság. Orvosi és társadalomtudományi tanulmányok. [Suicide. Studies from medical and social sciences] Budapest: Animula. http://www.pszichologuskepzo.hu/cikkek/2011/20110926-az-ongyilkossag-megelozesenek-lehetosegei.html. 358 Optimizing suicide prevention programs and their implementation in Europe. For more information see: http://www.ospi-europe.com/. 359 http://www.depressziostop.hu/.
130
Detailed analysis: Research conducted within the framework of this project found that most medical universities offer some courses that deal with the issues that concern LGBT people, but the range of issues is limited. According to the survey with current and recently graduated students of medical universities, the most often cited topic in relation to which LGBT people are mentioned in the curricula are sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV/AIDS (53% and 63% have received detailed information about it, 360 and only in 14% and 8% have received no information) and intersex conditions (39% as opposed to 20%). On the other hand 74% have received no information about health inequalities or access barriers for LGBT people; 73% about the process of coming out; 65% about substance abuse for LGBT people; 53% about the mental health of LGBT people (73% of specific issues concerning LGBT youth); and 55% about transitioning. 58% disagreed with the statement that “The university has provided me for the professional treatment of health problem that specifically affect LGBT people; 73% disagreed with the statement that “The university has prepared me for the practical issues of dealing with LGBT people”. 61% agreed with the statement that “The university should have paid more attention to the specific health needs of LGBT people.” 361 v.
training courses and materials
NO. The authors received no information on specific training courses or materials concerning the health needs of LGBT people. vi.
the monitoring and quality assessment of health-care services
NO. Between 2007 and 2010 the National Health Insurance Supervisory Authority had a clear mandate to monitor, supervise and assess the quality of health care services. It was a forum to enforce patients’ rights, and it exercised supervisory authority power over the use of health insurance funds. The mandate of the Authority was taken over by the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service. The work of these authorities is supported by the National Institute for Quality- and Organizational Development in Healthcare and Medicines. The Ministry of Human Resources reported that no specific LGBT concerns have been included in the monitoring and quality assessment of health-care services. take into account specific needs in relation to (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity? A general comment: In response to the questions above, the Ministry of Human Resources responded that legislation prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, thus national health plans, health surveys and suicide prevention programmes contain no discriminatory sections. 362 The Ministry does not seem to recognize the difference between nondiscrimination and responding to specific needs. ii.
Do training programmes for health professionals enable them to deliver the highest attainable standard of health-care to all persons, with full respect for (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
NO. According to research conducted in the framework of this project 58% of current and recently graduated medical university students responding to the questionnaire disagreed with the statement that “The university has provided me for the professional treatment of health problem
360 Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1-4 how detailed the coverage was, if it was covered all. Scores of 3 and 4 were interpreted as “detailed information”. 361 For further information about the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-temak-a-koz-esfelsooktatasban. 362 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors.
131
that specifically affect LGBT people”; and 73% disagreed with the statement that “The university has prepared me for the practical issues of dealing with LGBT people”. [See also App33 i)/iv)] iii.
Are education, prevention, care and treatment programmes and services in the area of sexual and reproductive health available to LGBT people, and do they respect their needs?
Summary: NO. Assisted reproduction is not available to lesbian women living in registered or de facto partnership, and surrogate parenthood is banned. Only a minor fraction of school-run educational programmes on sexual health are LGBT inclusive. Detailed analysis: Since 2006, the Health Care Act 363 makes it possible for single women (regardless of sexual orientation) to participate in assisted reproduction. 364 The current legislation is the following: Article 167 (1) Reproduction procedures may be performed on married couples or on two persons of opposing genders living together as common-law spouses if, for reasons of health existing among either party (infertility), it is highly probable that a healthy child cannot be produced through natural means. Among common-law spouses, the procedures only may be conducted if neither of the partners is married to another person. (…) (4) In the case of a single woman reproduction procedures may be performed if by way of her age or medical condition (infertility) it is highly probable that she cannot produce a child through natural means. (…)
Although the Health Care Act mentions married couples, by virtue of an exception in Article 3(4) of the RPA, Article 167(1) of the Act on health care 365 does not apply to registered partners. RPA lists among the few differences between marriage and registered partnership participation in assisted reproduction, in addition to joint adoption of children, and the right to take the partner’s name. Article 165 of the Health Care Act defines single women as “a woman of age who at the time of starting the procedure is neither married to, nor cohabiting with a partner.” This means that lesbians cohabiting with their partners or living in registered partnerships are not allowed to participate in assisted reproduction. Single women are allowed to participate (regardless of sexual orientation) if they are infertile or, due to age, likely to become infertile soon. The reference in Article 167(1) to “two persons of opposing genders living together as common-law spouses” is arguably contrary to the principle of Karner v. Austria (2003). While the original Health Care Act adopted in 1997 would have allowed surrogacy (but postponed the entry into force of relevant provisions), the conservative Government in 1999 removed the relevant provisions of the law, and banning all reproductive services not specifically mentioned in the law, effectively making surrogacy illegal in Hungary. The provisions disproportionately disadvantage gay men, for whom surrogacy would be the easiest way to have biological children. Survey research among the LGBT community found while 69% of respondents reported participating in school organized sex education programmes, only 13% of those programmes were inclusive of LGBT issues [for details on methodology, see App32 i)]. The National AIDS Committee set up in the middle of the 1990s is a consultative body bringing together representative of state bodies, experts and civil society actors involved in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. 366 Civil society representatives of men who have sex with men (MSM) are not
363
Act no. CLIV of 1997 on health care. Amended by Act no. CLXXXI of 2005. The modified text came into force on 1 January 2006. 365 Available in English at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/E.C.12.HUN.3-Annex10.pdf. 366 Instruction no. 6/2005 (EüK. 18.) of the Ministry of Health on the National AIDS Committee. 364
132
directly represented in the Committee. Even though it is supposed to meet at least four times a year, since the change of Government in 2010 the meetings are less frequent, none were held in 2012 (as of September 2012). A first National AIDS Strategy was adopted in 2004–2010, 367 which even Government representative agrees has failed. 368 A new strategy for the period of 2011-2015 has been in preparation for over two years. The budget of the Committee has been significantly reduced over the years, while in the early 2000 it disposed over 100 million HUF (EUR 353,000), in 2011 only 15 million HUF (53 thousand) was distributed for HIV/AIDS prevention, and none in 2012. The disregard for the issue, and especially how it affects the MSM community is well shown in the turmoil concerning the World AIDS Day in 2010, when an official of the Ministry of Human Resources cancelled all LGBT related components of the programme a day before the event (see Case 23). Several NGOs criticized the centralized treatment of HIV+ patients, which meant that patients living outside of Budapest had to travel for medical treatment to the capital. While the legislation was amended in 2010, the decentralization is not implemented according to plans causing severe problems in accessing the needed health services, which has been criticized by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights as well. 369 A coalition of NGOs have also criticized the current legislation for naming venereal clinics, rather than departments of internal medicine as responsible for taking care of HIV+ patients. 370 While according to the relevant legislation STD counselling is a compulsory part of every HIV testing, there are no protocols to guide medical professionals on how to perform this task. 371 The comprehensive health test programme of Hungary 2010-2020 is the largest health prevention campaign currently in operation, with 125 testing locations a year. The programme also includes a guidebook on health prevention distributed among those participating in the testing. No testing or information on HIV/STD prevention is provided in the framework of the program. iv.
Are health professionals and social workers encouraged to create an environment that is reassuring and open to young LGBT persons, for example through information campaigns?
Summary: NO. The Ministry of Human Resources reported no such activities, only that health professionals have to respect patient rights and other professional and ethical norms. 372 Detailed analysis: In response to the authors the Ministry of Human Resources reported only one activity, that of Metamor Klub at the Semmelweis University, which targets transsexuals to provide them with information about trans life and treatment options. However, the club ceased to operate in June 2011, and its activities do not fit the question at hand. The Health Care Act contains references to equal treatment (Article 7), respect for human dignity (Article 10), the right to appropriate and continuously accessible health care justified by his health condition (Article 7), the right to access information on medical services and prevention [Article 5 (3)], and the right to self-determination (Article 15). The ETA contains specific provisions
367
http://www.oefi.hu/aids.pdf. http://magyarnarancs.hu/belpol/tavaly_ketszer_is_-_medgyaszai_melinda_a_nemzeti_aids_bizottsag_nab_elnoke _az_egeszsegugyi_miniszterium_egeszsegpolitikai_szakallamtitkara-71968. 369 AJB-3144/2010. 370 http://tasz.hu/files/tasz/imce/2011/civil_allaspont.doc. 371 http://tasz.hu/betegjog/velemenyeztuk-ii-nemzeti-hivaids-strategia-2011-2015-ogy-hatarozat-tervezetet. 372 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 368
133
concerning equal treatment in the field of social security and health care, prohibiting discrimination in prevention and testing programmes, access to treatment and placement in health institutions. 373 The Code of Ethics of the Hungarian Medical Chamber also contains the general provision on equal treatment and non-discrimination (II.1.3 8.), and contains that medical services shall not be refused solely on the basis of race, colour, gender, language, religion, political or other views, national or social origin, financial, birth or other circumstances (II.2.2 6), but sexual orientation and gender identity are not specifically mentioned. A survey by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences among LGBT people found that 58% of respondents agreed with the statement that “I am afraid to share problems related to my sexual orientation/gender identity with my doctor.” The research also found that every 9th person (11%) who was out to their GPs has been subject to discriminatory comments or treatment. It is thus not surprising that only 16% are fully, and 10% partly open about their sexual orientation or gender identity to the GPs. 374 v.
Are patients in hospital or otherwise the subject of medical emergencies, free to identify their "next of kin", and are rules on issues regarding "next of kin" applied without discrimination on grounds of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: YES. Patients are free to decide whom to keep in contact or whom to entrust with the responsibility to make medical decision. In case the patient does not specify such a person, next of kins as defined by law inclusive of cohabiting and registered partners shall be informed and make decisions. Detailed analysis: According to Article 3 r) of the Health Care Act the term ‘next of kin’ refers to: “spouse, direct-line relative, adopted, step and foster child, adoptive, step and foster parents, sibling, cohabiting partner.” Read together with legislation concerning registered partners and cohabiting partners, the wording of the text allows for recognizing same-sex partners as next of kins. Furthermore, Article 16 guarantees the right to name in writing any person to be responsible for making medical decision and receiving information. If such person is not named, next of kins are made responsible in an order set by Article 16 (2) of the law. The authors have no information about discriminatory practices on the recognition of next of kins, however, the legal aid service of Háttér received information of an incident where a same-sex couple was asked to stop “behaving intimately” as it disturbed other patients (see Case 28). 34. Appropriate measures should be taken in order to avoid the classification of homosexuality as an illness, in accordance with the standards of the World Health Organisation. i.
Has homosexuality been removed from the national classification of diseases?
YES. Hungary follows the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and it was transposed into the Hungarian legal system by Decree no. 42/1995 (XI. 14.) of the Ministry of Public Health. No other national classification of diseases exists in the domestic law.
373 374
ETA, Article 25. For further information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-kutatas-2010.
134
ii.
Have all policy documents, medical textbooks and training materials which may previously have treated homosexuality as a disease been corrected or withdrawn?
YES. The Ministry of Human Resources reported that no policy documents prepared by the Ministry refer to homosexuality as a disease, but the Ministry has no competence on influencing the content of medical textbooks or university training curricula. Research on the content of medical textbooks performed in the context of this project found that no psychiatry textbooks contained reference to homosexuality as a disease. On the other hand the fact that homosexuality is no longer considered a disease by established classifications of diseases means also that these books remain silent on the issue, meaning that potentially out-dated views of students are left unreflected. 375 iii.
Are measures in place to ensure that no one is forced to undergo any form of treatment, protocol or medical or psychological test or confined in a medical institution because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The Health Care Act contains provisions on the right to self-determination that in principle guarantee that people are not subjected to forced treatment or testing. There have been reports that psychiatrists abuse their role in the gender recognition process to enlist trans people in “voluntary” medical research. Reparative therapy is offered by several psychologists (supposedly on a voluntary basis), no professional association has officially condemned such practice. Detailed analysis: The Fundamental Law in Article III (2) contains the following general rule: “All medical and scientific experiments on human subjects without their free and informed consent shall be prohibited.” The Health Care Act furthermore contains more specific provisions on the right to self-determination, which may only be restricted in the cases and in the ways defined by law. The right is further specified to mean that the patient is free to decide whether he wishes to use health care services, and which procedures to consent to or to refuse. The consent should be on the basis of appropriate information, free from deceit, threats and pressure. 376 Exceptions by law include compulsory treatment of psychiatric patients threatening the integrity of themselves or others, and treatment of certain contagious diseases, but those cases are not related to sexual orientation or gender identity. There are several psychologists and psychiatrists offering reparative therapy in Hungary. In February 2010 Ilona Ékes, Member of the Parliament for the conservative FIDESZ, at a press conference to call for banning the Pride March, showed a documentary video entitled Understanding homosexuality prepared by the Deutsches Institut für Jugend und Gesellschaft which purported homosexuality as a curable condition. The video was shown several times on the conservative news channel Echo TV. On 6 October 2012 a conference was organized by Hungarian Association for Integrative Psychotherapy that propagated reparative therapy for over 120 participants. 377 The conference was officially accredited by the Semmelweis University, and was worth 6 CPE Points.
375
For more information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-temak-a-koz-esfelsooktatasban. 376 Article 15 of Act no. CLIV of 1997. 377
http://www.oftex.hu/project_o/system/launch.php?pg=./oftex/KONG_Adatlap.php?msgid=48202&tableid=0&retcode= konglist.
135
The legal aid service of Háttér has received reports that a well-established psychiatrist often requested to issue medical opinion on transsexualism needed for official gender recognition uses his position of authority to enlist his patients in his medical research on transsexualism (including e.g. Magnetic resonance imaging). While the participation is “voluntary”, the patients feel obliged to participate as they fear that the much needed diagnosis would otherwise be refused. 35. Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure that transgender persons have effective access to appropriate gender reassignment services, including psychological, endocrinological and surgical expertise in the field of transgender health care, without being subject to unreasonable requirements; no person should be subjected to gender reassignment procedures without his or her consent. i.
Do transgender persons have effective access to appropriate gender reassignment services, including psychological, endocrinological and surgical expertise?
Summary: NO. Access to adequate health care for trans and intersex persons is severely limited by the lack standards and guidelines concerning their treatment. The scarcity of care providers results in limited choice and heightened vulnerability. Trans and intersex topics are not adequately included in medical training curricula. Detailed analysis: While the Ministry of Human Resources claimed that both human and technical infrastructure for gender reassignment surgeries are available in Hungary, including pre- and post-operative care; 378 research conducted in the framework of this project, as well as opinion by transgender groups do not share that opinion. The first gender reassignment surgeries (GRS) took place in Hungary in the early 1990s. Before the 1990s the Hungarian situation was characterized by the total lack of a care system for trans people. During the 1990s undergoing GRS was a pre-requisite for the official change of gender; however, this practice was dropped in 2004, because of the high rate of unsuccessful surgeries. Since 2004, GRS – or for that matter any medical intervention – are not required, which leaves surgery as an optional treatment for which the state takes no responsibility. There exist no medical protocols concerning the diagnosis of transsexualism, or the medical interventions performed on trans people. 379 The development of such a protocol was promised as early as 2004, and explicitly commissioned by the Minister of Health in 2009, various drafts have been circulated (the latest in August 2011), but no final version was adopted. There are no established paths for psychological, endocrinological or surgical care; trans people acquire information from each other and community websites about healthcare institutions offering gender reassignment treatments and trustable doctors. The various specialists involved in the process (psychiatrist, endocrinologist, surgeon) do no form a team, often times they are located at different institutions, sometimes even in different cities. While the quality of gender reassignment surgeries have somewhat improved in the past years, trans people still find it hard to find competent endocrinologists. Often, the trans patients are better informed about the available hormonal products than the doctors themselves. Furthermore, as opposed to well-established medical consensus among specialists concerning the sequence of hormonal and surgical
378 379
Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. Letter from the Ministry of Health no. 4904-2 /2009-0003EGP; on file with the authors.
136
treatment, TransVanilla reported that most endocrinologists require hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries as a prerequisite to hormonal treatment to female-to-male, as opposed to the consensus among specialists to leave irreversible treatment to the end of the transition process. The quality of phalloplasties – if performed at all – is abysmal. 380 Effective access to treatment is also hindered by the exceptionally low funding from the public health system for gender reassignment treatments [see App36 i-ii)] Survey research among trans people by Háttér and the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2010 (n=90) found that only a small minority of trans people reached have accessed gender reassignment services. While 54% of them had consulted a psychologist or psychiatrist, and 17% had officially changed their gender, only 5 % underwent vaginoplasty genital surgery and none phalloplasty. Most common barriers listed were lack of financial resources (32%) and fear of risks (12%); however, 24% also said they do not think all medical interventions are necessary. 381 ii.
If it was the practice to make transgender persons undergo therapy to accept their birth gender, has this practice now been abandoned?
YES. The Ministry of Human Resources reported that undergoing therapy to accept their birth gender is not a pre-requisite for official gender recognition, although they did not provide information whether such therapies exist. 382 Since the level of awareness among Hungarian medical professionals concerning trans issues is still very low, and trans people are required to ask for the expert opinions of psychiatrists, it might easily happen that a trans person encounters a psychiatrist who believes that such therapy (i.e. therapy to accept their birth gender) can be beneficial. According to our interview data this happens very rarely. The TransVanilla Transgender Association also reported that they do not know of such therapeutic practice. 383 iii.
Have measures been adopted to ensure that no child has their body irreversibly changed by medical practices designed to impose a gender identity without his or her full, free and informed consent, in accordance with his or her age and maturity?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The Health Care Act contains that for persons without legal capacity (such as those of minor age) consent shall be given by the legal guardian, but the opinion of the patient shall be taken into account to the extent professionally possible. Such consent can be given only to procedures that do not lead to serious or lasting impairment to the health. No protocols or guidelines are in place to implement this principle with regard to trans or intersex children. Detailed analysis: Article 16 of the Health Care Act contains that: (2) If a patient has no or limited legal capacity, and there is no person entitled to make a statement on the basis of Paragraph a) Subsection (1), the following persons, in the order indicated below, shall be entitled to exercise the right of consent and refusal within the limits set out in Subsection (4), subject to the provisions of Paragraph b) of Subsection (1):
380
Information base on correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (16 July 2012); on file with the authors. 381 It has to be noted that a very wide range of available treatments, including facial surgery, epilation, hair implants and liposuction were also listed. 382 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 383 Correspondence with TransVanilla Transgender Association (12 July 2012), on file with the authors.
137
a) the patient’s legal representative, in the absence thereof, b) the following individuals with full disposing capacity and sharing household with the patient: ba) the patient’s spouse or common-law spouse, in the absence thereof, bb) the patient’s child, in the absence thereof, bc) the patient’s parent, in the absence thereof (…) (5) In making decisions on the health care to be provided, the opinion of a patient with no or limited legal capacity shall be taken into account to the extent professionally possible also in cases where the right of consent and refusal is exercised by the person defined in Subsection (2).
While these general provisions – in theory – ensure that irreversible changes are not imposed by medical professionals except in those few cases where required to save the life of the child, there are no official protocols or guidelines that clearly include such guidance. Interviews with medical professionals specializing in the care for intersex people conducted in the framework of this project confirmed that the current practice is based on the understanding that medical practices designed to impose a gender identity on children without their free and informed consent, in accordance with their age and maturity, should be avoided. However, it seems that in most cases intersex babies are registered as female because of the generally shared view of surgeons that it is easier to live a satisfactory life as a “constructed female”. 36. Member states should take appropriate legislative and other measures to ensure that any decisions limiting the costs covered by health insurance for gender reassignment procedures should be lawful, objective and proportionate. i.
Where legislation provides for the coverage of necessary health-care costs by public or private social insurance systems, is such coverage for gender reassignment treatment ensured?
Summary: NO. Legislation in force since December 2006 puts gender reassignment treatments in the category of treatments only partially funded by public health insurance. A government decree sets fees at 90% of the cost of the treatment, thus public health insurance covers only 10% of the costs of gender reassignment treatments. Detailed analysis: According to Act LXXXIII of 1997 on mandatory health insurance (MHIA) persons entitled for public insurance receive partial funding for treatment to alter external sexual characteristics unless the aim of the treatment is to construct external sexual characteristics in line with the genetically defined sex following a developmental disorder. 384
On the basis of equity the health insurer – within the confines of the budget of the National Health Insurance Fund – can fully or partially assume, among others, the costs of procedures that have been approved in Hungary but fall outside the funding scheme or the costs of health care services that are provided at a fee only. 385 MHIA’s implementing Government Decree sets the fee payable by the patient for treatments to alter external sexual characteristics at 90% of the amount that the health provider may claim from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF). 386 However, the actual cost paid for treatments on the other hand varies significantly between health care providers and on a per patient basis as well.
384
Article 23 k). MHIA, Article 26 (1). 386 Government Decree no. 284/1997. (XII. 23.), Appendix I, par. 6. 385
138
Since there are no established funding protocols (it is not clear 90% of what to pay), prices are often negotiated on an individual basis. Some medical personnel would record gender reassignment treatments under a different label thus making them free. There is a general procedure on equity-based coverage of health treatments set by the NHIF. 387 The order classifies among others treatment to alter external sexual characteristics among the health services where the fees may be taken over on grounds of equity. 388 In evaluating the application the following facts are to be taken into consideration: (d) the social situation of the insured person. Taking over 100% of the partial fees shall be authorized only if according to the statement of the insured person the average income per person does not exceed twice the amount of the minimum old age pension, or 2.5 times the amount for insured persons living alone. In all other cases taking over maximum 70% of the partial funding shall be authorized. 389
Setting the eligibility criteria so low, almost all patients who have a regular income lose the possibility for equity-based funding. Furthermore, even if they are eligible, they depend on the discretion of the authorities as there is no automatic procedure for taking over the fees by the NHIF. Thus, trans patients are put in a very vulnerable position: their right to gender reassignment is dependent on the goodwill of medical personnel and the health insurance authorities, and often the only option for them is to pay bribes (“hálapénz”) to access treatment. ii.
If yes, is it ensured in a reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory manner?
NO. As described above [App36 i)], only 10% costs for the gender reassignment treatments are covered by the National Health Insurance Fund. While the Ministry of Human Resources argues that there are several other medical interventions for which the patient has to pay for, and thus this limitation is reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory, 390 the 10% coverage is exceptionally low. In comparison, public funding for other treatments and medical aids (e.g. prosthesis, spectacle-glasses etc.) fall in the range between 50-98%. It is unclear how the legislator set the different categories for funding, treatment to alter external sexual characteristics falls within the same group as going to a sanatorium or getting dental prosthesis.
VIII. Housing 37. Measures should be taken to ensure that access to adequate housing can be effectively and equally enjoyed by all persons, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; such measures should in particular seek to provide protection against discriminatory evictions, and to guarantee equal rights to acquire and retain ownership of land and other property. i.
Does legislation prohibit discrimination in such areas as: i.
the sale or rent of housing;
Summary: YES. The ETA contains both general provisions and provisions specific to housing that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the sale or rent of apartments.
387
Instruction no. 28/2008 (Eb.K.10.) of the National Health Insurance Fund (OEP). Part B, Section I, 2. dd). 389 Part B, Section IV, 2. d). 390 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 388
139
Detailed analysis: The ETA [see Rec2 i)] covers the sale or rent of housing as well. According to Article 5 a) of the ETA the scope of the act covers situations – i.e. the principle of equal treatment shall be respected – when someone makes a proposal to persons not defined preliminarily to enter into a contract. In addition to this, the ETA contains a specific provision on housing: Article 26 (1) In particular it constitutes a violation of the principle of equal treatment if individuals on the basis of a characteristic defined in Article 8 a) are directly or indirectly discriminated against in respect of granting state or municipality housing subsidies, benefits, and interest subsidies; b) are put in a disadvantageous position in determining the conditions of selling or renting state or municipality owned apartments or plots. (2) The issuance of occupancy or other construction permits by the relevant authorities shall not be denied or tied to any condition on grounds that are directly or indirectly based on characteristics defined in Article 8. (3) The conditions of access to housing shall not aim at artificially separating groups based on characteristics defined in Article 8 in any settlement or part thereof without the voluntary decision of the affected group.
Article 8 of the ETA specifically prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. ii.
the provision of loans for purchase of housing;
YES. Articles 5 a) and 30 of the ETA cover the provisions of loans for housing purposes as well, thus discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited in such procedures as well. This interpretation was also confirmed by the Advisory Board of the ETAuth: the financial services regulated by Act no. CXII of 1996 fall under the scope of the ETA; the principle of equal treatment shall be respected in their service. 391 iii.
the recognition of the rights of a tenant’s partner;
YES. Registered partners are recognized to the same extent as spouses, while cohabiting partners – regardless of gender – are not recognized. For further info see App 23 i). iv.
evictions
YES. The relevance of partnership for evictions according to Hungarian law is minimal 392, but partners are recognized without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. ii.
Are provisions in place to ensure non-discriminatory access to shelter and other emergency accommodation is provided in regard to (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
PARTIALLY. The ETA [Rec2 i)] contains specific provisions for social security and health care. The principle of equal treatment shall be observed in this regard during the application and provision of personal care services. 393 Premises for stay include shelters and other emergency accommodation run by the state or the municipality. 394 A practical problem is that most domestic violence shelters target women and their children, and men escaping abusive same-sex partners might not find appropriate placement. There have been reports of discriminatory behaviour towards same-sex couples and LGBT people at homeless shelters (see for example Case 14).
391
Statement of the Advisory Board no. 10.007/2/2006. A moratorium on evections shall not be observed if the person living together with the debtor has another place of dwelling. (Article 182/A (3) a) of Act LIII of 1994 on judicial execution. 393 ETA, Article 24 b). 394 See also: App37 i). 392
140
iii.
Is information available to landlords and tenants aimed at preventing such discrimination?
NO. The authors received no information about the existence of such information materials. The professional training of real-estate agents does not touch upon the issue of equal treatment, the curriculum only deals with contract and tax law, loans and revenues, registration. 395 iv.
Are adequate and effective legal or other remedies available to victims of such discrimination?
YES. On the remedies available to victims of discrimination see: Rec3 i). v.
Are any awareness raising campaigns conducted among housing agencies in order to level-up their knowledge on anti-discrimination provisions?
NO. The authors received no information about the existence of such information materials. 38. Appropriate attention should be paid to the risks of homelessness faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, including young persons and children who may be particularly vulnerable to social exclusion, including from their own families; in this respect, the relevant social services should be provided on the basis of an objective assessment of the needs of every individual, without discrimination. i.
Have social programmes, including support programmes, been established to address factors which increase the vulnerability to homelessness of LGBT people, especially children and young people, including schemes of neighbourhood support and security?
Summary: NO. The Ministry of Human Resources confirmed that there are no specific programmes targeting LGBT homelessness, and LGBT concerns are not included in large-scale publicly funded homelessness programs. Homelessness, especially an adequate response and help to the situation of those affected, has been on the agenda of governments for many years, but no comprehensive national supporting strategy has been adopted yet. Detailed analysis: The Ministry of Human Resources confirmed that there are no programmes targeting LGBT homelessness, claiming that the experience of service providers do not support the claim that LGBT homeless people would require special programs. 396 The large-scale EU funded TÁMOP 5.3.3. projects targeting the social inclusion of homeless people did not include LGBT people as a specific target group. Awareness about LGBT homeless people among service providers is relatively low, although some academic articles have been published in recent years. 397 The problem of homelessness is further exacerbated by the fact that the cornerstone of the current conservative government’s homelessness policy is not support or prevention, but criminalization. In 2011 the government criminalized living permanently on the streets putting further burden on
395
See for example: http://www.2007kapos.hu/tanfolyamok/ingatlanszakmai_kepzesek/ingatlankozvetito_es_ ertekbecslo_tanfolyam.html?ad=1252833731&gclid=CLOFiJahkrECFUJL3wodKXMHfA, or http://www.ingatlantanfolyam.hu/szakmai_es_vizsgakovetelmenyek_ingatlankozvetito_tanfolyam.pdf. 396 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 397 See e.g. Erzsébet Budai (2004): Női homoszexualitás a hajléktalanságban. [Female homosexuality in homelessness] In Háló: a Szociális Szakmai Szövetség hírlevele. 10(8-9), 10-13.
141
the people already disadvantaged by living without a shelter. 398 The Constitutional Court in Decision no. 38/2012 (XI. 14.) declared the criminalizing provision unconstitutional and quashed it on the same day. While a national strategy on homelessness has been in preparation for years, the issue of homelessness remains an issue that is rather addressed on municipality level instead, resulting in very diverse solutions. The district of the homeless expert of the governing party, FIDESZ, was the first one that banned living in the streets, even before the already repealed act on misdemeanours was adopted. On the other hand, some support programmes do exist especially in Budapest. The 8th district was one of the first districts that adopted a programme aiming at resocializing homeless people (strictly those who were registered in the district before losing their home). The programme is called LÉLEK (Soul): it consists of helping with housing, lifestyle, psychological support and establishing an existence. 399 Those living in the 8th district for at least 5 years are eligible for the programme that runs a house where chosen people can immediately move in. At the same time they also get jobs and the programme helps with legal and administrative matters. The idea is to allow people to settle in and work, and later start a new life independently from the social care system. The programme does not target any specific groups among the homeless, and no specific considerations for LGBT people are included. A very similar one is run in the 10th district in collaboration with the Baptist church. 400 Some similar projects were also financed by the TÁMOP 5.3.3. project mentioned above. ii.
Have the relevant agencies been provided with training and awareness-raising programmes to ensure that they are aware of and sensitive to the needs of LGBT people facing homelessness, particularly young persons?
NO. The Ministry of Human Resources does not know of such trainings. 401 The research on university curricula conducted as part of the current project has identified some university courses for social workers inclusive of LGBT issues, but homelessness was not a specific issue discussed. 402
IX. Sports 39. Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity in sports are, like racism and other forms of discrimination, unacceptable and should be combated. 40. Sport activities and facilities should be open to all without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, effective measures should be taken to prevent, counteract and punish the use of discriminatory insults with reference to sexual orientation or gender identity during and in connection with sports events.
398
Article 186 of Act no. II of 2012 on misdemeanours. For further details see: http://mandiner.hu/cikk/20120227_lelek_egy_uj_program_a_hajlektalanok_megsegitesere. Ironically, the mayor advocating for criminalization leads this very district. 400 See: http://baptistasegely.hu/tevekenysegunk/2012-01-10/lelek-program-indul-kobanyan. 401 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 402 See e.g. the course Intercultural social work at the University of Szeged. For more information on the research see: http://www.hatter.hu/programjaink/kutatasok/lmbt-temak-a-koz-es-felsooktatasban 399
142
i.
What measures have been taken to prevent the risk of exclusion from participation in sports on grounds of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. While the Fundamental Law and the Sport Act grants to right to sport to everyone, and the latter contains specific provisions on paying attention to equal opportunities and vulnerable groups in sports, there have been no specific measures to include LGBT people in sports. Detailed analysis: Article XX (2) of the Fundamental law contains that the exercise of the right to physical and mental health shall be promoted by “supporting sports and regular physical exercise”. The preamble of Act no. I of 2004 on sport (Sport Act) confirms that The Hungarian Parliament declares that everyone has a fundamental right to sport, and this right is ensured by the state whether in the form of competitive sport, leisure sport, student- or university sport, the sport of disabled people or health promotion.
Furthermore, Article 49 contains that: In order to realize the socially beneficial aims of sport, the state: (…) e) in line with equal opportunities, supports the sport of children and youth, the sport of women and families, the sport of disadvantaged social groups, and the sport of disabled people, (…)
Besides this general state responsibility, the Ministry of Human Resources reported of no activities to prevent the risk of exclusion of LGBT people from sport activities. The Ministry claims that its State Secretariat for Sport has received no official request or complains concerning sexual orientation discrimination in sports. 403 As opposed to this, Frigo Association, the organizer of the EuroGames ‘12 LGBT sport event reported that they had met several obstacles when organizing the event. First, state-owned sporting venues were discouraged from renting venues to the organizers, and so a last minute change of venues had to be implemented. Second, while they sent several letters and made several phone calls to the Hungarian Olympic Committee (HOC), they were unable to organize an official meeting; one of the vice-presidents of HOC refused to become the patron of the event as he was threatened he would lose his post if he does so. 404 Third, sports clubs were discouraged by the Mayor’s Office in Budapest from collaborating in the organization of the event. See App40 ii)/ii). On the other hand, measures addressing the discrimination against Roma in sports, for example, are well-established. The Parliament in 2007 adopted the Roma Inclusion Decade Programme Strategic Plan 405 calling for ensuring access of talented Roma children to sports via special scholarships and investment in sporting facilities targeting the Roma. 406
Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. Correspondence with Frigo (24 July 24 2012); on file with the authors. 405 Parliamentary Decision no. 68/2007 (VI. 28.). 406 Section VII. 5. 403 404
143
ii.
By encouraging, for example: i.
the drawing up and dissemination of codes of conduct on questions relating to sport and sexual orientation or gender identity for sports organisations and clubs,
Summary: NO. While several sport organizations and clubs have their own codes of conduct, at most they are general enough to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, but none covers them explicitly. The Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation Rec(92)14 on the revised Code of Sports Ethics has been translated and published in Hungarian, 407 but the Ministry reported no further activities. Detailed analysis: Several sport federations and clubs have drawn up their own code of ethics; many of these are available to the public as well. As a general feature of these it can be observed that only a minority of these codes contain general non-discrimination provisions, and none of them includes questions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity specifically. The Principles of Universal Hungarian Sport contained within the Statutes of the Hungarian Olympic Committee provide that: Any form of discrimination whether targeting a country or an individual, based on race, religion, political (sic!), gender or any other form (sic!) is irreconcilable with the Olympic Movement and the Hungarian sport.
Furthermore, the Statutes contain that the Hungarian Olympic Committee “condemns all forms of discrimination”, and combats “all forms of discrimination and violence”. 408The Hungarian Olympic Committee also has a Code of Ethics, 409 but it is not accessible publicly and the Committee refused to make it available to the authors claiming that it is currently being revised. 410 Of the positive ones, 411 the Code of Ethics of the Hungarian Football Federation contains that: 412 Equality and prohibition of discrimination: We ensure equal treatment in all our relationships with individuals as well as sports associations, we do not discriminate based on race, gender or age.
The Code of Ethics of Hungarian Basketball Federation for example contains that: 413 3.9 It has to be ensured that action is taken against discrimination, harassment, psycho-terror, libel or any other form of abuse, and that specific procedures are to be developed against such behaviour.
Several other major sport federations do not have such codes of conduct, or have one, but it does not contain even the most general non-discrimination provisions. 414 While the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation Rec(92)14 on the revised Code of Sports Ethics has been translated and published in Hungarian, 415 it is not clear how much effort state agencies have put into promoting this tool, or how much the adoption of the above mentioned
407
Available at: http://www.europatanacs.hu/pdf/CM_Rec(1992)14.pdf. Available at: http://mob.hu/images/MOB121123_MOB%20Alapszab%C3%A1ly%20v%C3%A9gleges.pdf. 409 MOB decision no. 9/KH06. 410 See conversation with dr. Zsigmond Nagy (director for international affairs, Hungarian Olympic Committee) on 6 December 2012. On file with the authors. 411 Hungarian Rising Generation Sport Association – http://www.munse.hu/etikai-kodex; the one for the Debrecen Sport Centre and Sport School – http://www.dbsportcentrum.hu/sportiskola/dokumentumok/etikai_kodex.pdf. 412 http://www.mlsz.hu/download/7/b9/b0000/etikai-kodex.pdf. 413 http://img.hunbasket.webpont.com/art/orig/24304_MKOSZ_Etikai_kodex.pdf. 414 See for example the Hungarian Golf Federation (http://hungolf.hu/anyagok2007/etikai_kodex.pdf); the Hungarian Fencing Federation (http://www.hunfencing.hu/images/stories/mvsz/etikaiszabalyzat2.doc) or the Hungarian Handball Federation (http://keziszovetseg.hu/upload/file/MKSZ%20Etikai%20K%C3%B3dex_2010.pdf). 415 Available at: http://www.europatanacs.hu/pdf/CM_Rec(1992)14.pdf. 408
144
codes were encouraged by the Ministry or other relevant agencies. The Ministry of Human Resources has not reported on any activities related to this question. 416 ii.
partnerships between associations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and sports clubs,
NO. Frigo Association, the organizer of the EuroGames ‘‘12 LGBT sport event reported that while they asked for collaboration from several sports clubs and sports federations; they received no support for the event. Furthermore, they also reported that they had received information that leaders of sport clubs were told by the Sport Department at the Office of the Mayor of Budapest that if they support the event they will receive no funding from the local government. 417 iii.
anti-discrimination campaigns in the sports world,
NO. The Ministry of Human Resources reported no such activities. 418 The authors have no information on anti-discrimination campaigns focusing on exclusion based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Campaigns against racism are also quite rare, but not non-existent. 419 iv.
support for sports clubs set up by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons themselves.
NO. While there are several sports clubs targeting LGBT people in Hungary (Atlasz LGBT Sport Association, Friss Gondolat Association, Charme Hungary SameSex Dance Club), they receive no or minimal public funding. As described in App39 i) the Sport Act specifically defines supporting the sport of disabled and disadvantaged social groups as a state responsibility. While the sport of disabled people receive a separate line in the central state budge (230 million forints, EUR 812,720 in 2012), 420 and there are several calls for funding for the sport of disadvantage groups, these do not consider LGBT people as a target group. 421 iii.
Have effective measures been taken to prevent, counteract and punish the use of discriminatory insults during and in connection with sports events?
Summary: NO. Although there is a complex set of legislation aiming at eliminating discriminatory incidents in sport events, their implementation is far from effective. Homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist banners and chanting is widespread. Detailed analysis: The Criminal Code punishes harsher forms of discriminatory insults during and in relation to sports events. Article 271/A criminalizes disorderly conduct: (1) Any conduct of violent or intimidating resistance against the actions of security officers to maintain order in a public event, if it does not result in a more serious criminal act, shall be construed as a minor offense and shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to two years, work in community service, or a fine. (2) If it does not result in a more serious criminal act, it shall be punished according to paragraph (1) if someone enters into, stays in or throws anything into premises closed for spectators or groups of spectators in a sport event.
416
Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. Correspondence with Frigo (24 July 2012); on file with the authors. 418 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 419 See e.g. the campaign by Ferencváros Sport Association (http://www.futballista.hu12/09/28/fradi-kampany-arasszizmus-ellen-video/) 420 Act no. CLXXXVIII of 2011 on the budget. 421 Call SPO-HH-2011 in 2011 for example target disabled people, children in state care and Roma people. 417
145
(3) The punishment shall be imprisonment of up to three years for disorderly conduct committed in groups or with any weapon.
In addition to the specific crime applicable in the context of sport events, in many cases the offences would amount to incitement to hatred, though despite the evident facts, the prosecution and the courts are reluctant to use this provision of the Criminal Code [See App6 i)]. 422 Act no. II of 2012 on misdemeanours further criminalizes milder instances of hooliganism and breaching the public peace. Article 169 (1) who (…) c) in events falling within the scope of the act on freedom of assembly or in sport events falling within the scope of the Government Decree on the security of sport events appears or is present with the face covered in a way that is suitable to make it impossible for the authorities or the responsible official person to identify him/her commits a misdemeanour. Article 170. Who displays a provocative anti-communal conduct that is capable of inducing shock or fear in others commits a misdemeanour.
The Sport Act contains further constraints on spectators of sport events. According to Article 71 (1) d) a person can be let enter a sport event if “she/he does not possess banner inciting to hatred against others, flag or otherwise prohibited symbols of despotism.” Furthermore, Article 71(2) raises the obligation of the organizers: The organizer shall remove the participants, who endanger holding a sport event or the personal and material security of others, or shall call to stop those, who display conduct in relation to unsportsmanlike supporting, chanting that is racist, incites to hatred or creates fear or shock in others.
The above referenced Government Decree 423 on the security of sport events details the applicable precautionary measures for larger sport events, including the necessity of a security plan from the organizers. Failing to meet the requirements of the order may result in fines. iv.
In particular: i.
Has homophobic and transphobic chanting at or around sports events been made a criminal offence?
NO. Homophobic or transphobic chanting at or around sports events have not been specifically criminalized yet. For the current legislation see: App40 iii). ii.
Have the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events, the European Sports Charter and ECRI’s General Policy Recommendation No.12 been implemented in respect of (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
Summary: NO. While the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events was incorporated in the Hungarian legal system, and the Sport Act refers to the European Sport Charter; there have been no specific implementation measures with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. Detailed analysis: The European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events was transposed into the Hungarian legal system by Act no. LXIII of 2003, thus it became a legally
422 423
Article 269 of the Criminal Code. For further details see: App6 i). Government Decree no. 54/2004 (III. 31.)
146
binding document in Hungary as well. However – in addition to the relevant measures described in App40 iii) – there has been no explicit legislation adopted as implementing the Convention. The Preamble of the Sport Act refers to the European Sports Charter when reaffirming: The Parliament of Hungary accepts the European Sport Charter and passes its law on sports in compliance with that (…).
The translation of the Charter was also published by the Hungarian authorities. 424 The Ministry of Human Resources provided no information on steps taken in implementing these documents with regards to sexual orientation and gender identity. No information on the implementation of ECRI’s General Policy Recommendation No. 12 has been provided either. 425 v.
Have specific appropriate measures been taken to: i.
put an end to the exclusion of transgender persons from sports activity or competitions,
ii.
remove the obstacles encountered by them in participating in sport (dressing room access),
iii.
recognize their preferred gender?
NO. The authors received no information about the existence of such measures from the relevant ministry 426 or from LGBT sports associations. 427 41. Member states should encourage dialogue with and support sports associations and fan clubs in developing awareness-raising activities regarding discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in sport and in condemning manifestations of intolerance towards them. i.
Have steps been taken to encourage dialogue with, and support for sports associations and fan clubs in i.
developing awareness-raising activities
ii.
condemning homophobic and transphobic behaviour during and in connection with sports events?
NO. The authors received no information about such steps from the relevant ministry 428 or from LGBT sports associations. 429
X. Right to seek asylum 42. In cases where member states have international obligations in this respect, they should recognise that a well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity may be a valid ground for the granting of refugee status and asylum under national law.
424
Available at: http://www.europatanacs.hu/pdf/CM_Rec(1992)14.pdf. Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 426 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 427 Correspondence with Frigo (24 July 2012); on file with the authors. 428 Letter from the Ministry of Human Resources no. 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ; on file with the authors. 429 Correspondence with Frigo (24 July 2012); on file with the authors. 425
147
i.
Is a well founded fear of persecution based on (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity recognized as a valid ground for the granting of refugee status and asylum?
Summary: YES. The Asylum Act explicitly mentions that “acts committed on account of the sexual orientation of the person concerned” may constitute a well-founded fear of persecution. Although gender identity is not explicitly referenced in the act, the practice supports that it is considered as a possible ground for persecution that is accepted in the asylum procedure. Detailed analysis: The basic rules of the asylum procedure are contained in Act no. LXXX of 2007 (Asylum Act). Article 60 explicitly recognizes the well-founded fear of persecution based on sexual orientation: (1) Upon the examination of the criteria of recognition, all acts shall be regarded as acts of persecution which are sufficiently serious by their nature, repetition or accumulation, to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular, the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery or servitude and the principle to tie any punishment to statutory provisions. (2) Persecution may, in particular, take the form of the following acts: a) acts of mental or physical violence, including acts of sexual violence; b) acts committed on account of the sexual orientation of the person concerned; c) acts committed in connection with the childhood of the person concerned; d) legal provisions or administrative measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner; e) disproportionate or discriminatory measures implemented in criminal proceedings, including disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; f) denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; g) punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses related to recognition as a refugee or as a beneficiary of subsidiary protection.
Recent research of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee identified over 20 cases where the applicant referred to sexual orientation or gender identity as a ground for persecution. Some of these applicants were granted asylum. Although gender identity is not mentioned in the law, there has been one case identified where the applicant referred to the gender identity and was granted asylum. 430 ii.
Are staff responsible for processing asylum requests provided with training in the specific problems encountered by LGBT refugees or asylum seekers?
NO. There is no separate training provided for those who work with LGBT refugees and asylum seekers within the Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN). 431 The only training we received information about was a two-day regional seminar on the gender aspects of asylum in March 2011 organized by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee organized in the framework of an EU funded project (GENSEN), with the participation of some staff from OIN. A half-day-long session was devoted to LGBT issues at the event with a professional trainer. 432
430
Fleeing Homophobia, Seeking Safety in Europe. Best Practices on the (Legal) Position of LGBT Asylum Seekers in the EU Member States. Hungarian Questionnaire by Gábor Gyulai, Hungarian Helsinki Committee (Hereinafter: Fleeing Homophobia), p. 4. Available at: http://www.rechten.vu.nl/nl/Images/Hungary%20questionnaire_tcm22-236589.pdf. Since the files of the Hungarian Immigration Authority are not accessible, the authors relied on the findings of the above study. 431 Letter from the Office of Immigration and Nationality no. 106-Ji-10745/3/2011, in response to a questionnaire assessing the implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles; on file with the authors. 432 Fleeing Homophobia, p. 11.
148
iii.
Are asylum requests turned down on the ground that the claimant can escape persecution in the country of origin by keeping his or her sexual orientation or gender identity secret?
Summary: PARTIALLY. There are examples for rejected asylum requests on this ground, however, compared to the overall number of cases, it cannot be said that this is the rule. Detailed analysis: According to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s experience, decision-makers use this argument from time to time. In the case of an Algerian applicant, the OIN stated that “even if criminal sanctions against homosexuals or homosexual behaviour are in force, the sexual orientation can be practiced in a hidden, discreet way, which prevents eventual attacks”. The applicant, however, received the refugee status. In another case concerning a Liberian woman the authority questioned her sexual orientation and found that even if the applicant was a lesbian, if she did not make her sexual orientation public she could avoid the consequences of her behaviour. 433 Similarly, courts use this argument at times. The number of available cases is low and in the publicly available court decisions personal information, including the country of origin is omitted, thus it is almost impossible to establish any trend from the judgments. However, it is a remarkable example that in 2009 the court stressed that the attacks always had taken place in the evening or at night in the country of origin and the applicant had attracted the attention of homophobes by publicly showing his affection for his partner. 434 43. Member states should ensure particularly that asylum seekers are not sent to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened or they face the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. i.
What procedures are in place to ensure compliance with this obligation?
Summary: PARTIALLY. There are no specific procedures to ensure that asylum seekers are not sent back to countries where they would face persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, however, the general rules of asylum procedure apply for such cases as well. Detailed analysis: The OIN does not deem it necessary to develop guidelines, instructions, circulars, etc. specifically on LGBT asylum-seekers. Thus, the relevant provisions applicable for such cases are in the Asylum act and in Government Decree no. 301/2007 (XI. 9.) on the implementation of the Asylum Act. In line with the applicable EU law, Article 2 of the Asylum Act contains the following definition of safe country of origin: h) safe country of origin: the country included in the shared minimum list of third countries regarded as safe countries of origin approved by the Council of the European Union or in the national list stipulated by a Government Decree or part of these countries; the presence of the country of origin on any of such lists is a rebuttable presumption with regard to the applicant according to which no persecution is experienced in general and systematically in that country or in a part of that country, no torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is applied, and an efficient system of legal remedy is in place to address any injury of such rights or freedoms.
433 434
Fleeing Homophobia, p. 31. Case no. 21.K.32987/2009/5.
149
This means that no one can be sent back to a country where his or her life or freedom would be threatened. The key issue in the asylum procedure is to establish sexual orientation and gender identity should those be the alleged ground for persecution. First, the OIN examines the asylumseeker’s narrative and declarations. The officer taking the record asks questions about the individual circumstances, reasons for escaping the country of origin and the conditions there. The structure of the interviews – according to the study of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee – is very similar. If there are severe contradictions in the asylum-seekers statements, the rejecting decision is based on the inconsistency and sexual orientation or gender identity is not examined separately. Only in cases where the personal story is considered credible will the OIN study the asylum-seeker’s sexual orientation or gender identity and the risk or actual persecution on any of these grounds. In examining this, the OIN may ask for a psychological or psychiatric expert opinion with the consent of the applicant. Usually the consent is given. However, no such expert’s opinions are requested when the ground of persecution is political opinion, religion, etc. The study confirmed that in case transgender applicants or visibly effeminate gay men the OIN refrains from using such examination. 435 Furthermore, the OIN has a specialized unit on country of origin information, and it provides high quality materials. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has no knowledge of any LGBT-specific problem in this respect. In most of the cases concerning LGBT asylum-seekers the OIN examines whether there are criminal sanctions in force on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The lack of it supports the lack of persecution. 436 ii.
Are there documented cases where asylum seekers have been returned to such a country?
YES. Unfortunately, there are cases where asylum seekers are returned to their home country, which – for example – contains criminal law provisions against homosexuality. The report of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee mentioned a sad example where the existence of criminal sanctions against LGBT people was not sufficient to convince the authority about the existence of a risk of persecution. The reason for rejecting the request of the Algerian applicant was that that he could escape the sanctions and hostility if he stayed in the closet. 437 44. Asylum seekers should be protected from any discriminatory policies or practices on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, appropriate measures should be taken to prevent risks of physical violence, including sexual abuse, verbal aggression or other forms of harassment against asylum seekers deprived of their liberty, and to ensure their access to information relevant to their particular situation. i.
What measures have been taken to comply with this requirement?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The most widely used measure is to allow LGBT applicants to live in private accommodation. OIN also claims that in case of conflict with others, LGBT asylum-seekers can request to be placed somewhere else; and the necessary arrangements are made immediately.
435
Fleeing Homophobia, p. 14. Fleeing Homophobia, p. 22. 437 Fleeing Homophobia, p. 21-22. For similar cases see: App42 iii). 436
150
Detailed analysis: OIN reports that in recent years most of the LGBT asylum seekers, in fact lived in Budapest private accommodation during the asylum procedure. Furthermore, the authorities claim that they can provide adequate respect for the special needs of such asylum-seekers, i.e. preventing conflict with others accommodated in the detention centre. In case of conflict with others, LGBT asylum-seekers can request to be placed somewhere else. The authorities, according to the OIN, make the necessary arrangements immediately. 438 In a lobbying meeting with OIN, the official refused further preventive measure arguing that placing LGBT applicants in specialized units would draw further attention to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and thus increase the risk of victimization. Other measures, such as placing the applicants in different rooms from those coming from the same ethnic group or religion (which most likely persecuted the person in his/her home country) have not been considered. 439 ii.
In particular, have the staff of administrative detention centres, police and medical staff and voluntary organisations with access to such cases, received appropriate training and information on issues regarding (a) sexual orientation and (b) gender identity?
NO. There is no separate training for public authorities addressing the special needs and concerns of LGBT people. However, the UNCHR guidelines on gender and asylum were translated into Hungarian and widely distributed by the UNCHR office. The GENSEN training mentioned in App42 ii) was also attended by several representatives of OIN.
XI. National human rights structures 45. Member states should ensure that national human rights structures are clearly mandated to address discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; in particular, they should be able to make recommendations on legislation and policies, raise awareness amongst the general public, as well as – as far as national law so provides – examine individual complaints regarding both the private and public sector and initiate or participate in court proceedings. i.
Are national human rights structures clearly mandated to address discrimination on grounds of (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity?
Summary: YES. The ETA includes references to both sexual orientation and gender identity, and thus the Equal Treatment Authority has clear mandate. The mandate of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights does not specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity, but the term “most vulnerable social groups” is interpreted inclusively. Detailed analysis: Article 8 of the ETA explicitly mentions sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected characteristic, thus any unjustified discrimination based on the grounds of those is prohibited. The ETA – as described in Rec2 i) – outlaws direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, segregation 438 439
Fleeing Homophobia, p. 37. Personal discussion with dr. Zoltán Szabó on 13 December 2011.
151
and victimization. The body entrusted with enforcing and implementing the ETA is the Equal Treatment Authority (ETAuth), which was set up on 1 February 2005. The ETAuth deals with individual complaints and actio popularis submissions as well within the scope of the ETA. 440 Act no. CXI of 2011 on Commissioner for Fundamental Rights does not mention LGBT persons. The Act mandates the Commissioner to “pay special attention, especially by conducting proceedings ex officio, to the protection of” – among others – “the rights of the most vulnerable social groups” [Article 1 (2)], which may be interpreted as to include the LGBT community as well. 441 ii.
In practice do they i.
make recommendations on legislation and policies,
PARTIALLY. In 2007 the Advisory Board of the Equal Treatment Authority – that was abolished in 1 February 2012 – submitted a legislative proposal to the Government requesting to open up the institution of marriage for LGB persons as well. 442 The proposal lacked the necessary political will. There have been no other recommendations concerning LGBT issues, even when several discriminatory laws were adopted [see App24 i)]. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights has issued several opinions that condemned the Police for calling on participants of the Pride March to respect public taste and morality, and refrain from provocation. 443 Furthermore, the Commissioner also submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court with regards to same-sex couples in the new Family Protection Act [see App45 ii)/iii)]. ii.
conduct awareness-raising among the general public
Summary: PARTIALLY. The Equal Treatment Authority conducts general anti-discrimination awareness raising activities, but the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity hardly ever feature in them. The focus of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights’ current awareness raising activities is children’s rights, and issues concerning LGBT children have not been included. Detailed analysis: According to the ETAuth it cooperates with civil society organizations, participates in events organized by NGOs and other stakeholders, conducts workshops and roundtable discussions in order to raise awareness among the general public. The ETAuth has been present in the biggest festival in Hungary, Sziget regularly. 444 In addition to dealing with individual cases, the ETAuth tries to reach the (potential) victims of discrimination through different project activities. 445 TÁMOP (a project co-financed by the EU) offers complex communication means for the ETAuth for public sensitizing and promotion of attitude change. In the framework of the project 70 three-day training sessions were organized by the ETAuth. The trainings are accredited and participants receive a certificate upon completion. Within the training two modules are offered: 1. information on equal opportunities and sensitization; 2. anti-discrimination law and case-law. The practical component of the training is based on the analysis of real discrimination cases. The trainings do cover some issues of sexual
440
For details on the remedies see: Rec3 i). The English text of the law is available at: http://www.obh.hu/allam/eng/index.htm. 442 EBHTT/10.007/10/2007. 443 AJB 6021/2009 and AJB-5595/2012. 444 Letter from the Equal Treatment Authority no. EBH/505/2/2012; on file with the authors. 445 No specific information on these has been received from the Equal Treatment Authority. 441
152
orientation and gender identity, but is largely focused on Roma issues, and none of the cases used throughout the training concern sexual orientation or gender identity. 446 iii.
examine individual complaints
Summary: YES. Both the Equal Treatment Authority and the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights has such a mandate. Detailed analysis: The ETAuth has a clear mandate for examining individual complaints [for further details see: Rec3 i)]. Act no. CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights in Article 18 (1) opens the possibility for individuals to turn to the Commissioners if – in their judgment – an act or omission by authority (as defined by the Act) 447 infringes their fundamental right or presents an imminent danger thereto provided that the person has exhausted the available remedies, excluding the judicial review of administrative decision. The Commissioner may not conduct inquiries into the activities of the Parliament, the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office, the courts and the prosecution. According to the information received from the Commissioner, no complaint has been received from LGBT persons. 448 iv.
participate in court proceedings
Summary: YES. Although both the ETAuth and the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights have mandate to participate in court proceedings (the former before ordinary courts, the latter before the Constitutional Court), only the Commissioner has exercised his rights in this regard. Detailed analysis: On the basis of ETA Article 14 (1) b) the ETAuth may – ex officio – initiate actio popularis in defence of the rights of persons or groups and according to Article 18 on the request of the victim it may participate in court proceedings on the alleged violation of the principle of equal treatment (personality rights and labour law cases). Thus far the ETAuth has not exercised these rights. 449 The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights is not entitled to participate in ordinary court proceedings, however, he may submit petition to the Constitutional Court for abstract (ex post facto) review should he consider a law to be in violation with the Fundamental Law (Article 24). He is also entitled to petition the Court in order to examine legislation’s conflict with international treaties (Article 32). The Commissioner has exercised these rights several times in defence of basic rights.
446
Information based on one of the authors who attended a training session on 25-27 January 2011. Article 18: a) a public administration organ, b) a local government, c) a nationality self-government, d) a public body with mandatory membership, e) the Hungarian Defence Forces, f) a law-enforcement organ, g) any other organ acting in its public administration competence, in this competence, h) an investigation authority or an investigation organ of the Prosecution Service, i) a notary public, j) a bailiff at a county court, k) an independent bailiff, or l) an organ performing public services. 448 Letter from the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights no. AJB-4244/2012; on file with the authors. 449 Confirmed by email received on 22 June, 2012 from dr. Katalin Gregor at ETAuth; on file with the authors. 447
153
In May 2012 the Commissioner submitted a petition – in response to an individual complaint – to the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Family Protection Act. 450 The petition – in defence of same-sex couples and families – attacks the definition of family. He recalls that the Constitutional Court since 1995 consistently interpreted the notion of marriage as an institution for men and women only, but – he emphasized – the Court saw the need for a marriage-like institution for same-sex couples. These couples are, however, not considered as families in the wording of the new act. The ombudsman claims that the law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation as it excludes all forms of families that same-sex couples can form. In such cases the constitutional test of necessity and proportionality applies, and such justification has been advanced in support of the restrictive definition of family. The definition also violates the rights of those different-sex couples who live outside marriage. 451 The Constitutional Court on 27 June 2012 suspended the entry into force of Article 8 of the Family Protection Act dealing with inheritance rights. 452 v.
speak out in support of the exercise of rights by LGBT people, for example, when freedom of assembly events are opposed, in relation to (a) sexual orientation or (b) gender identity?
Summary: PARTIALLY. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights have spoken out many times in support of LGBT people’s right to freedom of assembly, and recently against the discriminatory provisions of the Family Protection Act. In recent years, the Equal Treatment Authority has never stood up in defence of LGBT rights publicly. Detailed analysis: The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights have spoken out many times in support of LGBT people’s rights related to the exercise of the freedom of assembly. The Commissioner has a freedom of assembly project monitoring – among others – the Pride Marches and the actions of the police in relation to those. The project started in 2008 when the Commissioner’s staff members participated in the march. Although the report noted that there were numerous incidents, the Commissioner did not find the violation of fundamental rights. 453 In 2011 the Commissioner requested information from the police on the reasons of banning the extended route of the Pride March. 454 He has also started an inquiry procedure in 2012 to assess the legality of police actions. 455 The petition of the Commissioner to the Constitutional Court regarding the Family Protection Act was also widely publicized. Since the replacement of the previous president of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2010, the ETAuth has never stood up in defence of LGBT rights publicly. The authors received information that the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice attempted to put political pressure on the supposedly independent authority not to publicize cases concerning LGBT people.
450
For further details on the Act see: App24 i). AJB-4159/2012. 452 Decision no. II/3012/2012. 453 Gyülekezési Jogi Projekt (Freedom of Assembly Project), 2009/1. 454 See at: http://www.bumm.sk/52065/ombudsman-vizsgalja-a-budapesti-melegfelvonulas-betiltasat.html. 455 See at: http://www.obh.hu/allam/aktualis/htm/kozlemeny20120713.htm. 451
154
XII. Discrimination on multiple grounds 46. Member states are encouraged to take measures to ensure that legal provisions in national law prohibiting or preventing discrimination also protect against discrimination on multiple grounds, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity; national human rights structures should have a broad mandate to enable them to tackle such issues.
155
APPENDIX IV: CASES REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT Case 1: Hate speech on MTV Date, time and location: 8 July 2001, 7 p.m. Source of information: case file at Háttér Description: The weekly news magazine of Hungarian National Television (MTV), ‘Hét’ (Week) showed a short report shortly before the Pride March. The report contained an interview with a the sexual psychologist who categorized homosexuality as a personality disorder harmful for the youth, biblical quotes were read condemning homosexuality and fictional story was shown about a raped and HIV-infected young man who had grown up in state care. Legal outcome: The NRTC found that the television violated the principle of balanced coverage, since it transmitted a distorted image of homosexuals that could contribute to the growth of social intolerance towards the group. Further, the program failed to provide a realistic overview of the problems of homosexuals. Keywords: 456 MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 32 Freedom from incitement to discrimination; MT24 90 Others.
Case 2: Sziget-case Date, time and location: 10 July 2001, Budapest Source of information: case file at Háttér Description: The organizers of Sziget Festival on 10 July 2001 signed an agreement with the mayor of Budapest III. District, István Tarlós (currently the mayor of Budapest) and the representatives of the Budapest Police Headquarters on banning programs on the Festival that raise awareness on or in other way relate to homosexuality in order to protect the rights of the youth and the interest of those having different opinion. The agreement emphasized that “the festival shall be what it is. A festival on music and culture.” The agreement was preceded by a letter from the mayor to the organizers in which he warned them that if homosexuality is “glorified” in the festival, the organizers risk the holding of the entire event. Legal outcome: Háttér brought legal action for violating personality rights (the principle of nondiscrimination). The District Court before delivering the judgment suspended the implementation of the agreement, thus Háttér and the Magic Mirror could participate in the festival. In March 2002 the court delivered its judgment: it held that the agreement was null and void, as it was contrary to Article 70/A of the that-time Constitution that prohibited discrimination. The court relied on the constitutional interpretation of the provision and emphasized that it prohibited differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation as well since it was subsumed under ‘any other ground’. The court balanced the rights of the group represented by Háttér with the interests allegedly served by the agreement. It did not treat raising awareness on homosexuality as a direct and concrete threat, the respondents could not prove that the programs aimed at recruiting or “converting” young people. The judgment of the District Court became binding; no appeal was pursued in the case.
456
Keywords based on HURIDOCS (2001): Micro-Thesauri. A Tool for Documenting Human Rights Violations. Micro-thesauri used: MT2: Violations typology; MT3: Rights typology; MT4: Types of acts; MT24: Types of perpetrators.
156
Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 16 Freedom of expression; MT4 10 01 05 Prohibition of performances, MT4 12 01 06 Banning of a meeting/mass action; MT 24 01 01 02 Local government official.
Case 3: Adoption by a well-known drag performer Date, time and location: October 2001 Source of information: media Description: RK had been a well-known drag performer at Budapest gay venues all throughout the 1990s; he had also undergone partial gender reassignment treatment. In the early 2000s he decided to settle down and adopt a child. He passed the suitability assessment and found a child he wanted to adopt via open adoption procedure. The news of the pending adoption procedure made it to the media, several complaints have been made. The Christian Democratic Minister of Social and Family Affairs intervened in the case against RK and the Prosecutor’s Office appealed the suitability decision. Legal outcome: The case ended only four years later in 2005: the adoption of the child was authorized and could remain with RK who had been taking care of the child since his birth. To stop similar cases from happening the Government prepared an amendment to the Family Code, which was adopted in 2002 [see App27 i)]. Keywords: MT2 04 09 Instances of violations through other forms of discrimination; MT3 01 42 Right to found a family; MT4 07 01 Direct actions which violate the right to found a family; MT24 01 Executive.
Case 4: Hate speech on HírTV Date, time and location: 12 July 2003, Budapest Source of information: case file at Háttér Description: Two years after the hate speech on MTV, again in relation to the Pride March events, HírTV – a right-wing affiliated news channel – organised a talk show in which the participants openly incited hatred against the LGBT community. The Háttér Support Society for LGBT People submitted a complaint to the NRTC. In the meantime, the television channel provided an equal amount of time for representatives of the LGBT community to rebut the stereotypical and hateful statements made in the impugned program. Legal outcome: As the television channel provided airtime to representatives of the LGBT community, Háttér withdrew its complaint. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 32 Freedom from incitement to discrimination; MT4 90 Other; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 5: Excluding a gay student from the Theology Faculty Date, time and location: 10 October 2003, Budapest Source of information: case files at Háttér legal aid Description: The Faculty of Theology of the Károli Gáspár University run by the Hungarian Reformed Church primarily educates theologians, ministers and teachers of religious education. On 10 October 2003, the Faculty Council adopted a statement on the religious and moral approach
157
towards homosexuality, claiming that the University could not, according to the Bible, support same-sex relationships, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, or the training of teachers of religious education and ministers who were sexually active gays or lesbians. On the same day, an openly gay student was expelled from the University, because his sexual orientation made him unsuitable for the career of a minister. Legal outcome: The student appealed the decision ordering his expulsion from the university. The Metropolitan Court quashed the Faculty Council’s decision: the scope of the Act on Higher Education also extends to universities maintained by churches. According to the Act, a student may be expelled from a university only as a result of a disciplinary proceeding. The internal rules of the University made no mention about gay students being unsuitable for training, and the decision of the Faculty Council did not meet the formal requirements of the Act on Public Administration in force at that time. In the end, the student in question continued his studies at another university. In a parallel proceeding, the Háttér Support Society for LGBT People (as plaintiff) submitted an actio popularis complaint (based on the ETA) on 10 February 2004, alleging breach of the right to equal treatment as defined in Article 76 of the Civil Code. The basis of the submission was the statement adopted in October 2003 and made public in January 2004: Háttér argued that, in practice, the Faculty Council’s position made participation in the education offered dependent upon a person’s sexual orientation, thus excluded non-heterosexuals as a social group from the education of ministers and theology teachers, and made heterosexuality a precondition for admission to the Faculty of Theology. The first instance court summarily dismissed the petition submitted in defence of openly gay students. The Court of Appeals also decided in favour of the university. In its more detailed judgment, the Court of Appeals emphasized that, in the case of religion-based education, the educational institute was entitled to express its religious views and principles, to take a stand matching its moral convictions and religious dogma, and make decisions about eligibility to be trained as a minister in line with its beliefs. In the view of the Court of Appeals, because the Faculty Council’s statement was based on the religious principles advocated by the Reformed Church, the university in question had not arbitrarily discriminated, and had not exceeded the limits of its constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and religion. Háttér, in response to the negative judgment, submitted a motion for review by the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court rejected the petition, the judgment clarified important questions relating to the application of the ETA. First of all, the court stressed that a religious entity may be exempt from the principle of equal treatment when exercising religious functions, but this does not mean that all church-related activities fall into this category. On the contrary, the ETA covers church-run universities. Second, Háttér, as an organization interested in representing the LGBT community, had the right under the ETA to initiate actio popularis proceedings in defence of the principle of equal treatment. Lastly, the Supreme Court considered whether the university was obliged to respect the principle of equal treatment in this particular case. The court found that the university could provide a rational explanation for its position regarding openly gay students training to be ministers or teachers of religion, because they must comply with the moral teachings of the church. In this situation, the ETA explicitly provides an exemption. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination, MT3 02 13 Access to education; MT4 55 01 Direct actions which violate the right to education; MT 24 11 04 01 School administration.
158
Case 6: Harassment in school Date, time and location: 2006, exact date and location is not known Source of information: decision of the ETAuth (Decision no. 611/2006), available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/jogesetek/jogesetek Description: The head of the school that the petitioner’s child attended in front of appr. 20 other students asked the following question from the girl: “Are you [and your friend] lesbians or what?” In addition to this, the head of the school refused to sign and hand over the certificate the child received for her excellence in sports. In the mother’s view, this was capable of creating a hostile environment for her daughter. Legal outcome: The ETAuth held a hearing on the facts of the case. The petitioner withdrew the statement that the head of the school did not give the child the certificate. Both the petitioner and the child’s teacher acknowledged that in the new academic year there were no signs of hostile environment around the child, she was happy and maintained her social contacts on the same level as before the incident. The ETAuth also warned the petitioner for using pejorative language against lesbians and gays. Thus, the petition was eventually rejected by the ETAuth since – according to its reasoning – the head of the school had never intended to violate the human dignity of the child, and in the proceedings she apologized several times for her question, while admitting that it could have given rise to misunderstandings. Importantly, the decision emphasized: “Harassment always presupposes the intention of the respondent to create a hostile environment. It is rarely one single act, most of the time it is composed of a series of actions which result in creating a degrading environment around the targeted person.” In later the decisions the ETAuth has abandoned this approach and does not require the intention of the respondent any more for finding the violation of the prohibition of harassment. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 0131 Freedom from discrimination; MT4 02 01 03 Psychological assault, harassment; MT24 11 04 02 Teachers.
Case 7: Pride ban 2008 Date, time and location: 11 June 2008 Source of information: case file at Háttér, http://pride.hu/article.php?sid=2737 Description: In 2008 the police, for the first time in the history of Pride marches, rejected the notification duly submitted by the organizers. The decision of the police emphasized that the march “would make it impossible [to secure] public transportation and traffic in general”. The reasoning of the decision relied on Article 8 (1) of the Assembly Act: “If the holding of an event subject to prior notification seriously endangers the proper functioning of the representative bodies or courts, or the circulation of traffic cannot be secured in any other way, the police may ban the holding of the event at the place or time indicated in the notification, within 48 hours from the receipt of the notification by the authority.” The rejection sparkled an imminent outcry from left-wing and liberal politicians; the Mayor of Budapest also called for a more tolerant approach from the police and the city itself. Legal outcome: The National Headquarter of the Police withdrew the rejection the next day (12 June 2008) and the march could proceed on 5 July 2008. Keywords: MT2 0309 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 0113 Freedom of assembly; MT4 12 01 06 Banning of a meeting/mass action; MT24 01 01 04 Police.
159
Case 8: Attack against gay bar and sauna Date, time and location: 27 June and 2 July 2008, Action Bar and Magnum Sauna, Budapest Source of information: media Description: At around 2.30 a.m. on 27 June 2008 a Molotov-cocktail was thrown to the entrance of a known gay venue. It was unequivocally a protest against the Pride march as the organizer of the event, Rainbow Mission Foundation was registered at the address of Action Bar. Nobody was injured, but significant material damage was caused. The attackers made a threatening phone call to the bar prior to the incident. A few days later, on 2 July 2008 a similar attack took place at an openly gay sauna operating in the 8th district of Budapest: four Molotov-cocktails were thrown at the sauna in the early hours. A few chairs burned down and the receptionist suffered minor burning injuries. Before the attack, a phone call was made to the establishment to confirm that there were people on the premises. Legal outcome: The police started the investigation for hooliganism. LGBT organizations published a joint statement calling on the police to re-classify the incidents and investigate for hate crimes as the attack – in the light of the preceding phone call to confirm that the place was open and there were several people in the establishment – was capable of seriously injuring or killing people. Downgrading the offense to hooliganism – according to the statement – signalled that hate crime committed against LGBT people was considered as a morally more acceptable act, thus it violated legal certainty and encouraged the perpetrators to keep committing similar acts. The well-known radical right-wing figure, György Budaházi and his 16 fellows (all members of the Hunnia movement) were eventually charged for terror plot (for other offenses allegedly committed by them) and also for both Molotov-cocktail attacks. The attacks against gay venues were prosecuted as criminal damage (Article 324), which does not allow for taking into consideration hate motivation. The case is still pending. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 01 Right to life; MT4 01 01 21 Attempted killings; MT24 02 03 Private army, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 9: Attack against Pride March participants 2008 Date, time and location: 5 July 2008, Budapest Source of information: media Description: Following the violent incidents at the Pride March in 2007 the Police strengthened the security measures and put up cordons separating the participants of the March and the anti-gay protesters. However, the cordons did not stop the protesters to get close to the participants and throw acid-filled eggs, rotten vegetables, stones and larger objects like cans at the marchers. Events planned for the end of the route had to be cancelled and marchers had to be evacuated via closing down a metro line as the anti-gay protesters were trying to attack the marchers gathering in a closed off-area at the end of the route. Socialist MEP Katalin Lévai and openly gay Secretary of State Gábor Szetey were being evacuated in a police car, but the car was attacked and the windows were smashed. Gábor Horn, a liberal MP was also attacked leaving the end of the route by a group of three shouting anti-Semitic comments. József Orosz, a reporter was harassed, spit at and knocked down losing his consciousness. Orosz publicly came out as gay after the incident. Legal outcome: The attackers arrested at the March were all charged with hooliganism. The Pest Central District Court acquitted one of them: the defendant allegedly had only been carrying one egg, and threw it at the marchers believing that his action was not illegal. The court in its reasoning confirmed that, due to prevailing public opinion and the differing opinion on the legal nature of
160
the act, he could reasonably have believed that his act (throwing the egg) was not criminally punishable. The other defendant was eventually convicted for breach of the peace: unlike the first offender, he resisted the police and tried to hide his face while throwing eggs at the marchers. He was fined less than 200 EUR. Those demonstrators who clashed violently with the police were treated more severely by the authorities: those who were part of the group which attacked the police were given suspended prison sentences and were also prohibited from attending any kind of public gathering where more than fifty people were present. The question concerning the legality of throwing objects not suitable for causing bodily harm was finally settled by the Supreme Court on 29 September 2008. The statement confirmed that when a person throws objects at another person – even if those objects are not capable of causing physical harm, the thrower commits a crime. The act is considered as defamation (through actions, not words) or, in more serious cases, hooliganism. The Prosecutor General also confirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that defamation is punishable only on private motion; no investigation can be started ex officio. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Right to security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assault; MT24 02 05 Civilian crowd or mob, MT 01 01 04 Police.
Case 10: Hate speech on EchoTV Date, time and location: 18 July 2009, 3 p.m. Source of information: case file at Háttér Description: The television program ‘Képtelenségek’ (Nonsense) covered the Pride march and apart from showing previously recorded footage (i.e. from a police press conference), guests were invited too. The presenter categorized homosexuality as a deviant behaviour, and in the case of the Pride it was not about the protection of human rights but about glorifying deviancy. Furthermore, a guest expressed opinions such as recognizing same-sex relationships would lead to the decomposing of the society and lesbian and gay people are like ‘cancer cells’. Finally, the press conference from which statements were shown related to an event the Hungarian Gárda (a para-military, extremist group) and not to the Pride march, thus the warning of the illegality of uniforms, etc. showed a very distorted picture of the LGBT community in addition to the factually false and hateful statements. Legal outcome: The Hungarian LGBT Alliance supported by the legal aid service of Háttér submitted a complaint first to EchoTV, then to the National Radio and Television Commission (NRTC). The Complaint Board first rejected the complaint. The NRCT, however, overturned the decision and found the violation of the that-time in force media legislation, according to which no content could be capable of inciting hatred towards a minority group. The program contained openly homophobic and hateful statements that violated the LGBT community’s human rights and human dignity and fuelled hatred towards them. As NRTC found that the TV channel violated the media law five times in 2008, and twice in 2009, its operation was suspended for 90 minutes. The NRTC also adopted a text, which needs to be shown during the period of suspension. EchoTV appealed against the decision. In November 2010 the Metropolitan Court upheld the decision and sanctions of the NRTC. Both the procedural and the substantive claims of EchoTV were rejected. In the ordinary appeal process the case reached the Metropolitan Court of Appeals that in April 2011 upheld the NRTC decision without modifying or amending it the judgment of the first instance court. Finally, EchoTV submitted a motion for review to the Supreme Court that partly overturned the lower courts’ judgments. The Supreme Court found that NRTC had no legal basis to prescribe the text that needs to be shown during the blackout of the television (which clearly indicated the reason for the sanction, i.e. the violation of the human rights of the LGBT community). The rest of the sanctions remained in force. The case is still pending before courts as EchoTV requested the re-opening of the trial.
161
Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 32 Freedom from incitement to discrimination; MT4 90 Other; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 11: Discrimination at dance school Date, time and location: August 2008, Budapest Source of information: decision of the ETAuth (Decision no. 102/2009), available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/jogesetek/hu/102-2009.pdf. Description: The petitioner attended the respondent dance school between 2002 and August 2008. He continuously attended various dance schools in addition to the one in the case and has been an active LGBT rights activist as well. Before his re-registration in August 2008, the director of the dance school informed the petitioner that he was advised not to attend the school any longer (“he should not even register”). As a reason the director mentioned that he openly identified as gay in the media, which – according to him – was an aberration, and this deviant lifestyle could destroy the reputation of the school. The petitioner thus claimed that the only reason for discouraging him to re-register was his homosexuality and the fact that his sexual orientation became publicly know. The ETAuth held a public hearing in the case. In the hearing the respondent director emphasized that the dance school operates as a club of friends, it is not maintained by the company that was part of the procedure as well. He admitted that he had a phone talk with the petitioner and told him that he saw and recognized him in a TV program. He admitted telling the petitioner that he was a persona non grata. However, the director mentioned that the main reason for refusing the reregistration of the petitioner was not his sexual orientation, but his irreconcilable behaviour (the other members “could not establish human contacts” with him). Furthermore, he represented a dancing style that did not fit into the profile of the dance school. The statements of the director concerning the internal order and background of the school, and its relationship with the company were contradictory. The ETAuth however concluded that the school was indeed maintained by the company. Legal outcome: The ETAuth found that the dance school violated the principle of equal treatment and ordered the school to refrain from the unlawful actions in the future and imposed a fine of 200.000 forints (appr. 715 EUR). The ETAuth also published the final decision on its website. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination; MT4 90 Other; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 12: Children taken away from lesbian mother Date, time and location: 5 August 2009, Miskolc Source of information: case file at Háttér Description: In August 2009 in a larger city in Northern Hungary two children raised by a lesbian couple were taken away from their parents and put under “temporary placement”. The children were born to a previous heterosexual relationship of one of the woman, the father was living abroad. The procedure leading to the “temporary placement” was initiated by the father’s mother and sister. The investigator from the guardianship authority expressed her homophobic attitude several times, and refused to look at the mother’s partner as a partner (she was not interviewed; her income was not taken into consideration). Legal outcome: The mother appealed the decision. The procedure lasted for two months until the children were finally given back to the mother and her partner. There is no information on whether disciplinary measures were put forward against the official taking the first, discriminatory decision.
162
Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 43 Respect for family life; MT4 31 01 Direct actions which violate the rights of children and juveniles; MT24 01 01 Executive, MT24 11 05 Professionals performing activities in abuse of their profession.
Case 13: Physical assault of Pride volunteer in 2009 Date, time and location: 5 September 2009, Budapest Source of information: media Description: Following the 2009 Pride March the victim was waiting for a tram close to the end of March wearing the official T-shirt of the Pride. A group of three assaulted her, she suffered injuries healing within 8 days. Legal outcome: The incident was widely publicized in the media, and the police reported to investigate the case as disorderly conduct committed by a group, disregarding the hate aspect. Several NGOs have complained to the police regarding the qualification of the case, which lead the police to start investigation based on Article 174/B, the first known investigation of that crime on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The outcome of the case is unknown. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults; MT24 02 05 Civilian crowd or mob, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 14: Harassment in a homeless shelter Date, time and location: 2009, exact date and location is not known Source of information: decision of the ETAuth (Decision no. 499/2009), available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/jogesetek/jogesetek Description: A lesbian couple living in a homeless shelter alleged that the remarks made by the employees of the shelter questioned their sexual orientation, and that the employees failed to protect them from other residents. The couple was expelled from the shelter twice when they got into conflict with other residents allegedly on account of the abusive language the others used. None of these incidents – according to the petitioners’ submission – was adequately investigated by the management of the shelter. Legal outcome: The ETAuth held a hearing in the case, where the social worker of the foundation running the shelter, the receptionist and the head of the institution were heard. The shelter was able to justify its actions: it could provide documentary evidence that the complainants had disturbed others several times with their behaviour, and many complaints had been submitted against them. Moreover, another lesbian couple who were former residents of the shelter supported the position adopted by the authorities, stating that they had not experienced any kind of hostile attitude during their stay. The complaint was thus rejected by the ETAuth. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination, MT3 02 03 02 Right to adequate housing; MT4 51 01 Direct actions which violate the right to adequate housing; MT24 99 Unknown.
Case 15: Harassment at local TV channel Date, time and location: Summer 2009 – summer 2010
163
Source of information: decision of the EAuth (Decision no. 985/2010), available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/jogesetek/hu/985-2010.pdf Description: The petitioner worked at the local cable TV for about a year. He dealt with marketing issues and also served as a presenter and reporter. In his account the harassment started after a vacation where he had to share room with his male colleague. From there on, his boss showed a very hostile attitude towards both of them, not only in private but also in front of other employees. The boss failed to help in their work and their assumed relationship became a standard topic of conversation between their colleagues, who slowly broke the contact with them. In his submission the respondent denied the allegations, and claimed that the facts had been wilfully distorted. The respondent argued that the petitioner and his colleague treated others in a condescending manner and most likely this was the main reason for the tension with them. He further added that he got to know the sexual orientation of the petitioner only in the proceedings taken against him and he never commented on that previously. The petitioner provided records and called witnesses who confirmed that the respondent several times harassed him and his colleague in front of others on the basis of their assumed sexual orientation, thus created a hostile and degrading environment around them. He emphasized that the petitioner and his colleague did not meet the social expectations that “this will sooner or later bring trouble”. He also recalled that “in his times” “these people” were beaten up, and no matter that effeminate men are accepted today, in the countryside this could not be tolerated. He also added that the personality of the petitioner could not make him fit to appear on screen, and his colleagues many times enjoyed the company of men who could be seen in Népliget (a park known as cruising area in Budapest). The boss also complained to the mother of the petitioner that her son behaved like a girl. Even the cleaning lady made follow up comments on the story based on what she heard from the respondent. Legal outcome: The ETAuth found that the respondent was not only aware of the harassment but was the instigator of that. The ETAuth reasoned that the employer violated the prohibition of direct discrimination when the petitioner was removed from his position of presenter and reporter and could not appear on the TV channels programs because of his assumed sexual orientation. Furthermore, it constituted harassment that the respondent created a hostile environment, which constituted a violation of the petitioner’s human dignity. The ETAuth took into consideration that the events eventually led to the termination of the petitioner’s employment. The respondent was banned from future infringements and ordered to pay a fine of 1.000.000 forints (appr. 3570 EUR). Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination, MT3 02 11 Right to work; MT4 02 01 03 Psychological assault, harassment; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 16: Harassment at telecom company Date, time and location: 2010, exact date and location is not known Source of information: decision of the ETAuth (Decision no. 49/2010), available at: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/jogesetek/jogesetek Description: The petitioner submitted a complaint against his former employer for creating a hostile working environment around him on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employer widely shared the confidential information received in a friendly conversation and the sexual orientation of the petitioner thus became a standard topic for discussion. Legal outcome: As part of the procedure, witnesses were questioned and confirmed that one of the employers regularly mocked the petitioner and told jokes about his sexual orientation. During the hearing, the employer admitted that although his remarks had been made “in good faith”, he might have offended the employee, but he had not intended to harass him within the meaning of the ETA’s definition. The company where both people worked tried to defend itself by emphasizing
164
that it could not assume responsibility for remarks made by its employees, but the ETAuth rejected this argument. The reasoning behind this decision stressed the fact that violating the prohibition of harassment does not presuppose intentional acts; actions or behaviour, which potentially have the effect of creating a degrading environment could also be illegal. In practice, expressions or jokes not intended to humiliate the person towards whom they were directed but which, in the subjective perception of the victim, were degrading, fall under the prohibition of harassment. The company was fined approximately 800 EUR. The decision lowered the threshold for establishing harassment set in the Harassment in school case (decision no. 611/2006), especially by making it possible to violate the prohibition of harassment with non-intentional acts. Creating a hostile environment needs no longer be intended, as long as it is the result (based on the victim’s subjective perception) of the perpetrator’s conduct. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination; MT4 02 01 03 Psychological assault, harassment; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 17: Physical assault at nationalist bar Date, time and location: 13 June 2010, Dessewffy utca, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: The victim was returning home from a club in Budapest widely known as a gay venue. Just a few blocks from this venue, he passed by Klub64, a venue operated by László Toroczkai, head of the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement. The venue defines itself as a „national club” where well-known extreme right-wing musical groups (including Fejbőr (Headskin), Romantikus Erőszak (Romantic Violence), Hun Vér (Hun Blood)) often perform. When passing the victim was hit several times without any warning, while his attackers shouted „dirty fagot”. The victim lost his consciousness; he suffered injuries healing over eight days, he needed dental care over a longer period of time. Legal outcome: The victim reported the case to the 7th District Police Station, where he was told that in case his injuries heal within eight days an investigation would be only started if he filed a private motion, while the police will automatically start the investigation if the injuries heal over eight days. He was requested to call the police once the medical examination was completed. He was not informed of the fact that in case he was victim of a hate crime there is no need for filing a motion. Upon the completion of the medical examination he informed the police that his injuries would heal in over eight days. The victim also reported his case to the LGBT media. The Police published a press release claiming that his injuries would heal in less than eight days, and that the victim did not want to file a motion. The police press release did not touch upon the circumstances of the case which indicated an incident motivated by homophobic hate. The case was not investigated. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults; MT24 90 Other, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 18: Physical assault at Pride opening 2010 Date, time and location: 4 July 2010, Művész Film Theatre, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: The 15th Budapest Pride LGBT Film and Cultural Festival opened on July 4, 2010 at Művész Film Theatre. To protest against the event, several people with clothing characteristic of
165
extreme right-wing movements appeared in the area surrounding the theatre, and were verbally harassing people who were approaching the theatre. In one occasion they tried to remove the rainbow flag marking the Festival at the entrance of the theatre. As atrocities were expected, there were several policemen stationed in the area. Rather than acting against those who harassed participants and wanted to remove the flag, a policeman suggested to the organizers to remove the “fagot flag” because it provoked the protesters. R.C. was heading to the opening ceremony when in one of the nearby streets he was verbally harassed and hit. Following the incident several policemen appeared on the site, but even though the perpetrator had not left the area, rather than seizing the perpetrator they surrounded the victim and started to question him aggressively. It was only thanks to LGBT activists present nearby, who started to chase the perpetrators and call the attention of the police to their presence that the perpetrators were caught by the police. R.C. suffered light injuries healing within eight days. The police asked R.C. on the spot if he wants to file a motion, he – still in shock from the incident and the threatening questioning by the police – refused it. R.C. was not informed that in case the incident was a hate crime there is no need for filing a motion. Legal outcome: Háttér – whose activists were at the scene and thus had first-hand experience of the police’s behaviour – submitted a complaint to the police about the unprofessional handling of the case. The police report found that no mistakes had been made. Later the police re-qualified the incident as a hate crime, questioned the victim and witnesses, and recommended indictment on the account of hate crime to the prosecution. The prosecution once again re-qualified the incident as disorderly conduct disregarding the hate motive, and suspended indictment for a year due to the young age of the perpetrators. The perpetrators were ordered to attend social skills development training. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults; MT24 90 Other, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 19: Physical assault after Pride 2010 Date, time and location: 10 July 2010, Kálvin tér, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: R.D. was heading home after the Budapest Pride gay pride march held on 10 July 2010. He got on the metro line M3 at Deák tér where he was taken by a special train carrying only participants of the pride march (thus he was easily identified as coming from the march). There were several other people coming from the pride march on the same metro train. The participants noticed early on a group of 3-5 young men who were staring at those coming from the march. R.D. heard them saying comments about him among themselves. In order to avoid the atrocity, R.D. decided to get off the train earlier than planned at Kálvin tér. The group followed him and three of them started hitting and kicking the victim, who fell to the floor. Two of the perpetrators escaped, while the third one was seized by employees of the Budapest Transport Company. Even though R.D. clearly identified him as his attacker, they let him go. R.D. suffered injuries healing in less than eight days. After the medical examination R.D. went to the 9th District Police Station to report the crime. Legal outcome: The police started investigating the case as a hate crime from the very beginning, but the police involved in the procedure were exhibiting uncertainty and unease on several occasions. One of the first questions of the first policemen to deal with the case for example was “and, eghm, oh my God, how should I ask this, well why do you think it happened?” The police leading the interrogation on the other hand said the following sentence when he learnt the victim was gay: “I don’t have any problems with gays, my wife has several gay friends, but they are
166
completely normal, it’s not the same category as those in the City Park, those gipsy whores who pick this up in prison.” The perpetrators were not identified. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults; MT24 02 05 Civilian crowd or mob; MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 20: Desecration of the grave of Kertbeny Date, time and location: 22 July 2010, Kerepesi Cemetery, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: Károly Kertbeny was an early gay rights activist of Hungarian origin, whose grave became a memorial place for LGBT people in Hungary. On 22 July 2010 an extreme right wing online news portal published an article with pictures about an action taken against the grave of Kertbeny. The grave was covered in black textile and a sentence calling for the killing of gays from the Bible was written on it. The article was entitled “The grave of the old fag covered”, and several hateful comments were attached by readers. Legal outcome: The Rainbow Mission Foundation with support from the legal aid service of Háttér reported the incident and asked for investigating it as incitement to hatred. The police rejected the report claiming that the act did not constitute a crime as the element of “large audience” was missing, and a quotation from the Bible is not enough for active incitement to hatred. Upon complaint the prosecution also rejected considering the incident a crime, revoking the argument concerning “large audience” but maintaining that incitement is an active conduct and the clear and present danger of violence was missing. In similar cases concerning hateful graffiti on Roma people’s houses, and similar incidents involving Jewish statues police investigations were initiated. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 27 Respect for one’s honour, MT3 01 33 Freedom from incitement to hatred; MT4 14 01 01 Defamation; MT24 90 Other, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 21: Trans father threatened Date, time and location: 2011 Source of information: information received from TransVanilla Transgender Association Description: In 2011 a FTM transsexual parent initiated the official change of gender at the registry office of his town. The registrar expressed her disapproval over his decision and threatened to call the child protection services to investigate whether the child can remain with him. The child protection services never arrived; there is no information whether this was because the registrar changed her mind, or because her complaint was disregarded. The family lived under pressure for months in fear that the child protection services can knock on their door any day. Legal outcome: No complaint was submitted. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 43 Respect for family life; MT4 02 01 03 Psychological assault, harassment; MT24 01 01 02 Local government officials, MT24 11 05 Professionals performing activities in abuse of their profession.
167
Case 22: Discrimination at hotel photo shoot Date, time and location: 2011, hotel near Budapest Source of information: decision of the ETAuth (Decision no. 1007/2011), case-file at Háttér Description: The victim reserved on the Internet a room in the hotel, for the explicit purpose of taking photos in wedding dress in the scenic garden of the hotel. When the colleague of the hotel dealing with sales realized that after a phone call that it would be a photo-shoot involving crossdressers, he rejected the request claiming that the management does not authorize “such” photo sessions and does not allow the hotel to appear in “such” pictures. The victim claimed that the only reason for rejection was his gender identity, since similar photo shoots regularly take place in the garden of the hotel. Legal outcome: The victim was represented by Háttér before the ETAuth. In the hearing the manager of the hotel explained that the permission was rejected because the date was not suitable for the event, as the hotel was full and it would have been difficult to provide the space necessary. He emphasized that similar photo sessions with cross-dressers had already taken place in the garden and only unfortunate misunderstandings led to initiating the procedure before the ETAuth. He was acted in good faith and was cooperative from the first moment. In the hearing the parties concluded a friendly settlement that was approved by the ETAuth as well. The hotel apologized and confirmed that the photo-shoot can take place on an agreed date in the spring. Furthermore, they ensured the applicant and the ETAuth of doing everything in order to respect the requirement of equal treatment in the future. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination; MT4 90 Other; MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 23: World AIDS Day 2010 Date, time and location: November, 2010, Budapest Source of information: László Mocsonaki, correspondence on file with authors Description: In late 2010 the Ministry for National Resources (now Ministry of Human Resources) instructed the National Institute for Health Development to – in collaboration with civil society organization – organize the program of the AIDS Day. After about one month of negotiations a final program was concluded. As part of the project volunteers of the Red Cross were to distribute condoms and information materials in major subways with high pedestrian traffic and Háttér Support Society for LGBT People also proposed to distribute free condoms and lubricants on December 1 and the following weekend in LGBT bars and clubs in Budapest and other bigger cities. Háttér also offered free advise in the bigger locations. Shortly before the event the state secretary responsible for the finances cut off the costs of condoms as the distribution of those would unnecessarily incite young people to engage in sexual activities. He also made the organizers delete the advocacy planned in gay clubs and bars. Instead the state secretary suggested including the following specification: “awareness raising and prevention in venues often visited by young people in and outside Budapest.” In line with the change, the Ministry requested the adjustment of the budget as the gay venues and the free condoms fell out of the program. The incident clearly illustrate the approach of the current government to LGBT rights and issues: on its face they collaborate with the representative NGOs but in the end the approved program does not contain any of the proposals that have been agreed on. Legal outcome: No legal action was taken.
168
Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination, MT3 02 04 Right to health; MT4 53 41 Instance of non-fulfilment of the right to health; MT24 01 01 01 National-level officials.
Case 24: Pride ban 2011 Date, time and location: 11 February 2011 Source of information: case file with the authors Description: In 2011, the original notification to hold a Pride march – submitted on 30 September 2010 – was initially accepted by the police. Due to the EU Presidency that Hungary held in the first half of 2011 and in opposition to the that-time only draft of the new Fundamental Law (passed in April 2011) the organizers wished to extend the route and march to the Parliament. The modification of the route was, however, rejected and the entire march was banned. The reasoning of the police was detailed: they listed all the traffic lines that would have been remotely affected by the march and they concluded that it was possible to rearrange the circulation of traffic. Legal outcome: The organizers appealed the ban, and the Metropolitan Court quashed the decision of the National Headquarter of the Police and gave way to the Pride march. The court found that the police acted unlawfully when considering the effects of the modification the already acknowledged original route was banned. The procedure of the police violated the principle of legal certainty and the protection of acquired rights, in addition to Article 8 (1) of the Assembly Act. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 13 Freedom of assembly; MT4 12 01 06 Banning of a meeting/mass action; MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 25: License for trans pharmacist Date, time and location: 31 May 2011, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: A trans woman completed a degree in pharmaceutical sciences and became a head pharmacist in the Hungarian countryside while still being officially male. In 2011 she changed her gender and started replacing her documents to reflect her new name and gender. While she had no problem obtaining a new diploma, when requesting an amendment to her pharmacy license she met an obstacle. The Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State would only issue a new license that contained both her birth name and her new name and thus the new license would have revealed to everyone that she had undergone gender reassignment. Legal outcome: The applicant turned to the legal aid service of Háttér Support Society for LGBT People who helped her put together an appeal. The appeal argued that forcing a trans person to out herself every time she has to show her pharmacy license was an unacceptable breach of human dignity and privacy, and given the transphobic social attitudes in Hungary it would expose the applicant to higher level of discrimination. In the appeal procedure the Hungarian Office of Health Authorization and Administrative Procedures shared the applicants concerns that the amended license containing both her birth name and her new name was a breach of human dignity and ordered the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State to issue a new pharmacy license that does not contain reference to the applicant’s birth name. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 28 Privacy; MT4 30 01 02 03 Restriction on or revocation of work license; MT24 01 01 01 National-level officials.
169
Case 26: Hate speech at Budapest Pride 2011 Date, time and location: 18 June 2011, Budapest, Hungary Source of information: case files at Háttér legal aid, media Description: The Budapest Pride March took place in Budapest on 18 June 2011. Several extreme right-wing groups officially organized counterdemonstrations with several hundred participants at Oktogon, a larger square on the route of the March. Based on the experience of violent attacks in the previous years the police decided to separate the participants of the March and the counterdemonstrators. When the March was approaching, counter-demonstrators at Oktogon were fenced off and could not leave the Oktogon area, while the route of the March took a slight detour to avoid the direct contact between the two groups. It was only the result of this police intervention which prevented violent attacks on the March. At Oktogon a group activists affiliated with the extreme right-wing website mozgalom.org held up signs calling for the extermination of gays (the signs showed a rope, a pink triangle referring to the persecution of gays in Nazi Germany and the words: “New treatment for the gays”). The demonstrators were constantly shouting “Dirty faggots, dirty faggots!” A news portal interviewed a participant of the counter-demonstration who told to the camera: “We are waiting here for the gays… We will beat them up!” When the fences were lifted the counter-demonstrators rushed after the March and tried to disrupt the closing speeches at Kossuth tér. The demonstrators were constantly shouting “Dirty faggots, dirty Jews!” A former leader of the extreme right-wing paramilitary group Hungarian Garda was seen to give out commands to a group of men dressed in military-style uniform. When asked by a journalist what they were doing, they responded “We will catch them”. Several participants of the Pride March leaving the premises were verbally harassed and violently attacked. László Toroczkai one of the organizers of the counter-demonstration published an article a few days later on an extreme rightwing website in which he described how proud he was of the people that came to the counterdemonstration, and how the counter-demonstrators have “shown strength” and “made gypsies, Jews, niggers and police run to their houses in fear” and how they “patrolled the streets of the city” undercover later during the day. Legal outcome: The organizers of the Pride March (Rainbow Mission Foundation) in cooperation with the legal aid service of Háttér reported the incidents to the police. They also submitted a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Board (IPCB) claiming the police failed to act when they witnessed criminal activity among the counterdemonstrators. The IPCB refused to investigate the incident arguing they have no competency. The police started an investigation, but closed it in a few weeks time arguing that no crime has been committed. The NGOs submitted a complaint, but the Prosecutor’s Office upheld the police decision. The authorities argued that the incidents did not constitute incitement to hatred (Article 269) as “holding up the signs might have incited hatred, but not active hatred” and thus the incident “does not reach the minimum level of criminal sanctioning”. The authorities argued that the incidents did not amount to preparation for violence against a member of the community [Article 174/B. (3)] as telling a journalist that one is planning to commit a crime “is not enough to establish a direct intent to commit a crime”. The authorities claimed that the incidents did not amount to violence against a member of a community [Article 174/B. (1) a)] as holding up signs “that call for a certain treatment of homosexuals [i.e. their extermination – added by Háttér] only indirectly with drawings and symbols” does not amount to “the open, conscious and clear ignorance of the norms of social coexistence”. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents; MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 33 Freedom from incitement to hatred; MT4 02 01 03 02 Death threats; MT24 02 05 Civilian crowd or mob, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
170
Case 27: Physical assault against transmen at gym Date, time and location: 2 December 2011, 23:00, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: Z.L. is a transsexual man who has officially changed his gender and is undergoing gender reassignment treatment. He has been visiting a local gym for over ten years; he started going there when he was still female. After he started his medical treatment he stopped going to the gym for a while in fear of being harassed. When he felt confident he started to frequent the gym, but only by arriving in gym-clothes and avoiding the usage of the changing room. After 1.5 years he decided to use the male changing room. On the second night another regular guest at the gym started harassing him claiming that “You have no place here, I don’t want to see you here again”. When Z.L. responded that he is also a man and can use all the service available, the harasser told him “I will tell you who you are, you dirty whore”, and punched Z.L. in the face. Z.L. took his bag and left the changing room. The attacker followed him and insisted on talking to the people at the reception so that they will never let Z.L. use the male changing room again. The receptionist agreed with the attacker. When Z.L. asserted his rights as a male client the attacker continued threatening him with violence if he ever saw him again. When Z.L. said he will press charges the attacker responded “I have just been released from prison and you want to report me to the police. Don’t make me laugh. I will strike you dead in no time.” The receptionist added that “You are lucky I work here, and cannot say whatever I want”, implying that he agreed with the attacker. Legal outcome: The victim decided not to report the incident to the police or the Equal Treatment Authority in fear of being victimized again by the perpetrator who has a criminal record. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents; MT3 01 09 Security of person MT3 01 31 Freedom from discrimination, MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults; MT24 90 Others, MT24 21 01 01 Local or national corporations.
Case 28: Harassing patient with her partner at hospital Date, time and location: 13 March 2012, Debrecen Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: A patient was regularly receiving infusion treatment for her medical condition for over five years at a hospital in a larger city in Eastern Hungary. Since the treatment was long and tiring she was often accompanied to the treatment by her female partner. On 13 March 2011 she was asked by the head nurse in the company of several other nurses to stop intimately touching her partner as several other elderly patients had complained about their behaviour. The intimate touching referred to was holding hands and stroking the others shoulder/face every once in a while. The nurse claimed she was not bothered by the behaviour, but that the other patients’ wishes have to be respected. Legal outcome: The victim decided not to report the incident to any authorities as she suffered such a humiliation that she was not willing to relive the incident during the official procedure. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 28 Privacy; MT4 04 Violations against the right to privacy; MT24 11 05 Professionals performing activities in abuse of their profession.
Case 29: Physical assault on public transportation Date, time and location: 22 March 2012, Lövölde tér, Budapest
171
Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: The victim was travelling home on a trolleybus when two young men under the influence of alcohol started calling the victim humiliating names (“little fagot”, “cocksucker”). He got off the trolley at Lövölde tér and whispered to himself: “Come on!”. The two men got off the trolleybus and followed him. They tried to kick him, but spilt beer over themselves instead. One of the guys started assaulting him and threatened to kill him. The victim fell to the ground and was kept being punched in the face. The victim’s nose was broken. Legal outcome: The victim reported the case to the police detailing the name calling and the circumstances indicating a hate crime. His concerns were not included in the written version of his testimony. He contacted the legal aid service of Háttér, and two days later he supplemented his report by specifically calling on the police to investigate the case as a hate crime. On 8 May 2012 the police suspended the investigation qualifying it as bodily harm, disregarding the hate aspect. Háttér submitted a complaint which was rejected by the prosecution claiming that the name calling does not constitute hate motivation, as such swearwords are commonly used by everyday people under alcoholic influence. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 0109 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults, MT4 02 01 03 02 01 Death threats against the victim; MT24 90 Others, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 30: Pride ban 2012 Date, time and location: 5 April 2012. Source of information: case file with the authors Description: The notification of the Pride organizers submitted in time was rejected by the National Headquarter of the Police. Similarly to the 2011 decision, the reasoning was detailed: the police listed all the traffic lines that would have been remotely affected by the march and they concluded that it was possible to rearrange the circulation of traffic. Legal outcome: The Metropolitan Court overturned the decision of the police. The court emphasized that the police may only consider if the circulation of the traffic could be ensured on alternative routes and there is no proportionality analysis in the decision-making as it was the case prior the 2004-amendment. This ground may only be referred to – reasoned the court – if it is supported by relevant evidence, and the mere fact that a demonstration causes traffic disruption cannot justify the banning of it. The police have no legal basis to weigh the interest of the nonparticipants against the rights of the participants and decide in favour of the former. Keywords: MT2 03 09 Instances of infringement upon the rights of vulnerable groups; MT3 01 13 Freedom of assembly; MT4 12 01 06 Banning of a meeting/mass action; MT24 01 01 04 Police.
Case 31: Verbal and physical assaults after Pride 2012 Date, time and location: 7 July 2012, Budapest Source of information: case-file at Háttér Description: Participants of the 2012 Pride March were leaving the end scene of the March via the route suggested by the police. Right outside the police cordons a larger group of anti-gay protesters dressed in clothes usually associated with extreme right wing groups were verbally harassing those leaving the premises. A mother with her small child carrying balloons was also
172
harassed, and the balloons punched. Two brothers were also harassed and one of them kicked by an anti-gay protester. Legal outcome: The two brothers requested help from the police present nearby, but he refused claiming he was only responsible for guiding the traffic. Soon other police officers arrived, and started questioning the attackers still present. The police started investigating the case as a hate crime, the victims and several witnesses were questioned. While the perpetrators were identified on the spot, the file was tossed around several police units for months. The case is still pending at the police. Keywords: MT2 01 02 Violent or coercive acts by non-state agents, MT2 03 03 02 Acts of omission through failure to enforce laws protecting vulnerable groups; MT3 01 09 Security of person; MT4 02 01 01 Physical assaults, MT4 02 01 03 Psychological assault, harassment; MT24 90 Others, MT24 01 01 04 Police.
173
APPENDIX V: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Assembly Act – Act no. III of 1989 on freedom of assembly Asylum Act – Act no. LXXX of 2007 on asylum Child Protection Act – Act no. XXXI of 1997 on the protection of children and guardianship Civil Code – Act no. IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (current) Criminal Code – Act no. IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code (new) Criminal Code – Act no. C of 2012 on the Criminal Code ETA – Act no. CXXV of 2003 on equal treatment and the promotion of equal opportunities ETAuth – Equal Treatment Authority Family Code – Act no. IV of 1952 on marriage, family and guardianship Family Protection Act – Act no. CCXI on the protection of families FIDESZ – Hungarian Civic Union (right-wing party in the governing coalition since 2010) Háttér – Háttér Support Society for LGBT People in Hungary Health Care Act – Act no. CLIV of 1997 on health care HRWG – Human Rights Working Group IPCB – Independent Police Complaints Board Jobbik – The Movement for a Better Hungary (extreme right-wing parliamentary party in opposition in the Parliament since 2010) KDNP – Christian Democratic People’s Party (in the governing coalition since 2010) LMP – Politics Can Be Different (green party in opposition in the Parliament since 2010) Media Act – Act no. CLXXXV of 2010 on the media services and the mass media Media Constitution – Act no. CIV of 2010 on the freedom of the press and the fundamental rules on media content MHIA – Act LXXXIII of 1997 on mandatory health insurance MSZP – Hungarian Socialist Party (governing party between 2002 and 2010, currently in opposition) NADPFI – National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information NBC – National Basic Curriculum; Government Decree no. 243/2003 (XII. 17.) NBCnew – National Basic Curriculum; Government Decree no. 110/2012 (VI. 4.) NCA – National Consumer Authority NHIF – National Health Insurance Fund NMIA – National Media and Infocommunications Authority NRTC – National Radio and Television Commission OIN – Office of Immigration and Nationality PDAR – Personal Data and Address Register Police Act – Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the police
174
Public Education Act – Act no. CXC of 2011 on national public education RPA – Act no. XXIX of 2009 on registered partnership and related legislation and on the amendment of other statutes to facilitate the proof of cohabitation Sport Act – Act no. I of 2004 on sport SZDSZ – Alliance of Free Democrats (liberal party, not in the Parliament since 2010)
175
APPENDIX VI: QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSES RECEIVED
176
Dr. Pintér Sándor úr részére Belügyminisztérium 1051 Budapest, József Attila utca 2-4. 1903 Budapest, Pf.: 314. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEE PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Belügyminisztérium által tett, illetve a M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV PHOOpNOHWpQHN azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Belügyminisztérium bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXs formában válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás melléklete I. -RJD]pOHWKH]DEL]WRQViJKR]pVD]HUĘV]DNNDOV]HPEHQLYpGHOHPKH] A. *\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´pVHJ\pEJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOWLQFLGHQVHN 1. A tagállamoknak EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO D]RQ iOOtWyODJRV EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV LQFLGHQVHN KDWpNRQ\ J\RUV pV SiUWDWODQ NLYL]VJiOiViW DPHO\HN HVHWpEHQ pVV]HUĦ gyanú merült fel arra vonatkozóan, hogy az áldozat szexuális irányultsága, illetve nemi identitása motivációként szoOJiOW D] HON|YHWĘ V]iPiUD D WDJiOODPRNQDN WRYiEEi EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO KRJ\ D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN kivizsgálását különös figyelem kísérje olyan esetekben, amikor azokat állítólagosan UHQGYpGHOPLV]HUYHNPXQNDWiUVDLYDJ\PiVKLYDWDORVPLQĘVégben eljáró személyek követték el; a tagállamoknak azt is biztosítaniuk kell, hogy az ilyen cselekményekért IHOHOĘVV]HPpO\HNHWKDWpNRQ\DQD]LJD]ViJV]ROJiOWDWiVHOpiOOtWViNpV– amennyiben annak helye van – a büntetlenség elkerülése érdekében megbüntesVpNĘNHW K1. $ UHQGĘUWLV]WHN NpS]pVH VRUiQ WXGDWRVtWMiN-H KRJ\ NO|QOHJHV HUĘIHV]tWpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN bármely (a) homofób vagy (b) transzfób összefüggés hatékony, gyors és pártatlan kivizsgálására a J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN LOOHWYH J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD incidensek nyomozása során, különösen ha H]HQFVHOHNPpQ\HNHUĘV]DNRWLVPDJXNEDQIRJODOWDN" K2. Létezik-H IJJHWOHQ pV KDWpNRQ\ LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HU D YpOHOPH]HWWHQ D EĦQOG|]Ę V]HUYHN V]HPpO\]HWHiOWDOHON|YHWHWWJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUĘOYDJ\J\ĦO|OHW motLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNUĘOWHWW bejelentések kivizsgálására, különösen amikor a szexuális irányultság vagy a nemi identitás merül fel indítékként? 3. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D szexuális irányultsággal, illetve QHPL LGHQWLWiVVDO NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´ YDODPLQW PiV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHN iOGR]DWDLW pV WDQ~LW D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN MHOHQWpVpUH EiWRUtWViN H FpOEyO D tagállamoknak minden szükséges lépést meg kell tenniük annak biztosítására, hogy a jogalkalmazó szervek – a bíróságokat is beleértve – rendelkezzenek az ilyen EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN EHD]RQRVtWiViKR] V]NVpJHV LVPHUHWHNNHO pV V]DNpUWHOHPPHO V PHJIHOHOĘ VHJtWVpJHW pV WiPRJDWiVW Q\~MWVDQDN D] iOGR]DWRNQak és a tanúknak. K3. Eljuttatták-H D N|]YpOHPpQ\KH] D J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN N|]pUWKHWĘ pV iWIRJy meghatározását, amely magában foglalja (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással NDSFVRODWRV LQGtWpNRW LV" SpOGiXO UHQGĘUVpJL KRQODSRNRQ vagy a közösségben terjesztett szórólapok segítségével) K4. Biztosítják-H D NpS]pVL SURJUDPRN pV HOMiUiVRN KRJ\ D UHQGĘUVpJ pV D EtUyViJRN UHQGHONH]]HQHN D PHJIHOHOĘ WXGiVVDO pV NpSHVVpJJHO D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN felismerésére, valamint az iOGR]DWRNQDN pV WDQ~NQDN Q\~MWDQGy PHJIHOHOĘ VHJtWVpJUH pV támogatásra?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K5. $ UHQGĘUVpJL pV EtUyViJL NpS]pVHN pV PDJDWDUWiVL NyGH[HN EL]WRVtWMiN-e, hogy az LMBT személyeket diszkrimináció-mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék annak érdekében, hogy ezen személyek, akár áldozatként, akár tanúként, biztonságosnak érezzék (a) a szexuális LUiQ\XOWViJXNNDO pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVXNNDO |VV]HIJJĘ J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV J\ĦO|OHWPRWLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNMHOHQWpVpW" K6. Léteznek-e ol\DQ HJ\VpJHN D UHQGĘUVpJHQ EHOO DPHO\HNQHN IHODGDWD NLIHMH]HWWHQ D D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJKR] pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVKR] NDSFVROyGy EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN nyomozása? K7 Léteznek-H RO\DQ VSHFLiOLV UHQGĘUVpJL NDSFVRODWWDUWyN DNLNQHN D IHODGDWD D helyi LMBT N|]|VVpJHNNHOYDOyNDSFVRODWWDUWiVpVDUHQGĘUVpJJHONDSFVRODWRVEL]DORPQ|YHOpVH" K8. Létezik-e olyan anonim vagy online panaszok benyújtására alkalmas rendszer, vagy más N|QQ\HQ KR]]iIpUKHWĘ FVDWRUQD DPHO\ OHKHWĘYp WHV]L D] LO\HQ LQFLGHQVHN Karmadik személyeken NHUHV]WOL EHMHOHQWpVW DQQDN pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ LQIRUPiFLyW OHKHVVHQ J\ĦMWHQL H]HQ LQFLGHQVHN J\DNRULViJiUyOpVWHUPpV]HWpUĘO" 4. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN D EHE|UW|Q]|WW YDJ\ szabadságuktól más módon megfosztott személyek – beleértve a leszbikus, meleg, ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HNHW LV – biztonságának és méltóságának biztosítása érdekében, és – különösen – YpGĘLQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN D W|EEL fogvatartott, illetve a személyzet által elkövetett fizikai biQWDOPD]iV QHPL HUĘV]DN valamint a szexuális visszaélés egyéb formái ellen; az intézkedéseket olyan módon NHOOPHJWHQQLKRJ\DWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNQHPLLGHQWLWiVDPHJIHOHOĘYpGHOHPEHQ részesüljön, és tiszteletben legyen tartva. K9 A börtönszemélyzetet megcélzó képzések és magatartási kódexek biztosítják-e, hogy a fogvatartottakat (a) szexuális irányultságon és (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQpVWLV]WHOHWWXGyPyGRQNH]HOMpN" K10. Léteznek-e hatékony intézkedések, amelyHNFpOMDDIL]LNDLWiPDGiVRNDQHPLHUĘV]DNYDJ\ más szexuális zaklatás veszélyének minimalizálása; így például léteznek-H D IHOHOĘV|N IHJ\HOPL YDJ\ EQWHWĘMRJL IHOHOĘVVpJUH YRQiViW FpO]y LQWp]NeGpVHN LGH pUWYH D]W LV KD D IHOHOĘVVpJ D PHJIHOHOĘIHOJ\Hlet hiányából adódik? K11. Létezik-H IJJHWOHQ pV KDWpNRQ\ HOMiUiV D E|UW|QV]HPpO\]HW iOWDO HON|YHWHWW LO\HQ MHOOHJĦ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUĘOV]yOyEHMHOHQWpVHNIRJDGiViUDpVNLYL]VJiOiViUD" K12. $ WUDQV]QHPĦ IRJYDWDUWRWWDN HVHWpEHQ OpWH]QHN-e olyan eljárások, amelyek biztosítják az egyén nemi identitásának tiszteletben tartását a börtönszemélyzettel való kapcsolattartás, ideértve D UXKi]DW iWYL]VJiOiViW pV D PRWR]iVW YDODPLQW NO|Q|VHQ D QĘL YDJ\ IpUIL E|UW|QEHQ YDOy HOKHO\H]pVUĘOKR]RWWG|QWpVVRUiQ" 5. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás PLDWWLPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVpVLQWROHUDQFLDHOĘIRUGXOiVLJ\DNRULViJiUDpVWHUPpV]HWpUH valamint – különösen – a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|let-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´-UH pV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHNUH YRQDWNR]yDGDWRNJ\ĦMWpVpWpVHOHP]pVpW K13. Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQsek nyilvántartására, valamint az ezzel kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére? IV. A magán- pVFVDOiGLpOHWWLV]WHOHWEHQWDUWiViKR]IĦ]ĘGĘMRJ 19. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos személyes adatot közintézmények – beleértve különösen a 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
rendészeti struktúrán belüli közintézményeket – QHP J\ĦMWHQHN QHP WiUROQDN pV más módon sem használnak, kivéve, ha az specifikus, törvényes és legitim célra V]NVpJHV D]H]HQHOYHNQHNPHJQHPIHOHOĘQ\LOYántartásokat meg kell semmisíteni. K14. Milyen intézkedéseket történtek annak érdekében, hogy biztosítsák, a közhatalmi szervek eleget tesznek ennek az elvárásnak (a) a szexuális irányultságra és (b) a nemi identitásra YRQDWNR]yDQNO|Q|VHQDEĦQOG|]ĘV]ervek által kezelt nyilvántartások tekintetében? K15. 0LO\HQ OpSpVHN W|UWpQWHN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D PHJOpYĘ Q\LOYiQWDUWiVRNDW megsemmisítsék? X. Menedékkéréshez való jog 42. Olyan esetekben, amikor ebben a vonatkozásban nemzetközi kötelezettségeik vannak, a tagállamoknak el kell ismerniük, hogy a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ OG|]WHWpVWĘO YDOy PHJDODSR]RWW IpOHOHP D QHP]HWL MRJEDQ érvényes ok lehet a menekült státusz és a menedék megadására. K16. A menekültstátusz odaítélése során (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson DODSXOyOG|]WHWpVWĘOYDOyPHJDODSR]RWWIpOHOPHWpUYpQ\HVLQGRNNpQWIRJDGMiNHO" K17. Biztosítanak-HNpS]pVHNHWDPHQHNOWNpUHOPHNIHOGROJR]iVipUWIHOHOĘVV]HPpO\HNQHND]RNUyO a speciális problémákról, amelyekkel az LMBT menekültek szembesülnek? 43. $WDJiOODPRNQDNNO|Q|VHQD]WNHOOEL]WRVtWDQLXNKRJ\DPHQHGpNNpUĘNHWQHNOGMpN vissza olyan országba, ahol szexuális irányultságuk, illetve nemi identitásuk alapján életüket vagy szabadságukat veszély fenyegetné, vagy ahol kínzás, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód vagy büntetés kockázatának vannak kitéve. K18. Milyen eljárás biztosítja ezen kötelezettség betartását? 44. $ PHQHGpNNpUĘNHW YpGHOHPEHQ NHOO UpV]HVtWHQL D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJRQ LOOHWYH nemi identitáson alapuló diszkriminatív politikákkal vagy gyakorlatokkal szemben; NO|Q|VHQ PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQL D V]DEDGViJXNWyO PHJIRV]WRWW PHQHGpNNpUĘNNHO V]HPEHQL IL]LNDL HUĘV]DN – beleértve a szexuális visszaélést, a verbális agressziót és a zaklatás egyéb formáit is – NRFNi]DWiQDN PHJHOĘ]pVpUH valamint arra, hogy biztosítva legyen számukra az egyedi helyzetük szempontjából releváns információkhoz való hozzáférés. K19. Milyen intézkedéseket tettek annak érdekében, hogy megfeleljenek ennek az elvárásnak? K20. Kaptak-HPHJIHOHOĘNpS]pVWpVLQIRUPiFLyNDWD]LGHJHQUHQGpV]HWLĘUL]HWHWHOOiWyLQWp]PpQ\HN GROJR]y D UHQGĘUVpJ pV D] RUYRVL V]HPpO\]HW YDODPLQW D] LO\HQ KHO\HNKH] KR]]iIpUpVVHO UHQGHONH]Ę |QNpQWHV V]HUYH]HWHN D D V]H[XiOLV LUiQyultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással |VV]HIJJĘSUREOpPiNUyO"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Csóti András részére országos parancsnok Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága 1054 Budapest, Steindl Imre u. 8. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Parancsnok Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEE PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága iOWDO WHWW LOOHWYH D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] mellékeltük az ajánlás mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWel: Budapest, 2012. június 26.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás melléklete 1. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO D]RQ iOOtWyODJRV EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV incidensek hatékony, gyorVpVSiUWDWODQNLYL]VJiOiViWDPHO\HNHVHWpEHQpVV]HUĦJ\DQ~ merült fel arra vonatkozóan, hogy az áldozat szexuális irányultsága, illetve nemi identLWiVD PRWLYiFLyNpQW V]ROJiOW D] HON|YHWĘ V]iPiUD D WDJiOODPRNQDN WRYiEEi EL]WRVtWDQLXNNHOOKRJ\D]LO\HQEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNpVLQFLGHQVHNNLYL]VJiOiViWNO|Q|V figyelem kísérje olyan esetekben, amikor azokat állítólagosan rendvédelmi szervek munkatársai vaJ\ PiV KLYDWDORV PLQĘVpJEHQ HOMiUy V]HPpO\HN N|YHWWpN HO D WDJiOODPRNQDN D]W LV EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO KRJ\ D] LO\HQ FVHOHNPpQ\HNpUW IHOHOĘV személyeket hatékonyan az igazságszolgáltatás elé állítsák, és – amennyiben annak helye van – a büntetlenség elkerülpVHpUGHNpEHQPHJEQWHVVpNĘNHW K1. Létezik-H IJJHWOHQ pV KDWpNRQ\ LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HU D YpOHOPH]HWWHQ D EĦQOG|]Ę V]HUYHN V]HPpO\]HWHiOWDOHON|YHWHWWJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUĘOYDJ\J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNUĘOWHWW bejelentések kivizsgálására, különösen amikor a szexuális irányultság vagy a nemi identitás merül fel indítékként? 4. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN D EHE|UW|Q]|WW YDJ\ szabadságuktól más módon megfosztott személyek – beleértve a leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális és trans]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHWLV– biztonságának és méltóságának biztosítása érdekében, és – különösen – YpGĘLQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN D W|EEL IRJYDWDUWRWW LOOHWYH D V]HPpO\]HW iOWDO HON|YHWHWW IL]LNDL EiQWDOPD]iV QHPL HUĘV]DN YDODPLQW D szexuális visszaélés egyéb formái ellen; az intézkedéseket olyan módon kell megtenni, KRJ\ D WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN QHPL LGHQWLWiVD PHJIHOHOĘ YpGHOHPEHQ UpV]HVOM|Q pV tiszteletben legyen tartva. K2. A börtönszemélyzetet megcélzó képzések és magatartási kódexek biztosítják-e, hogy a fogvatartottakat (a) szexuális irányultságon és (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQpVWLV]WHOHWWXGyPyGRQNH]HOMpN" K3. Léteznek-H KDWpNRQ\ LQWp]NHGpVHN DPHO\HN FpOMD D IL]LNDL WiPDGiVRN D QHPL HUĘV]DN YDJ\ más szexuális zaklatás veszélyének minimalizálása; így például léteznek-H D IHOHOĘV|N IHJ\HOPL YDJ\ EQWHWĘMRJL IHOHOĘVVpJUH YRQiViW FpO]y LQWp]NeGpVHN LGH pUWYH D]W LV KD D IHOHOĘVVpJ D PHJIHOHOĘIHOJ\HOHWKLiQ\iEyODGyGLN" K4. Létezik-e független és hatékony eljáUiV D E|UW|QV]HPpO\]HW iOWDO HON|YHWHWW LO\HQ MHOOHJĦ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUĘOV]yOyEHMHOHQWpVHNIRJDGiViUDpVNLYL]VJiOiViUD" K5. $ WUDQV]QHPĦ IRJYDWDUWRWWDN HVHWpEHQ OpWH]QHN-e olyan eljárások, amelyek biztosítják az egyén nemi identitásának tiszteletben tartását a börtönszemélyzettel való kapcsolattartás, ideértve D UXKi]DW iWYL]VJiOiViW pV D PRWR]iVW YDODPLQW NO|Q|VHQ D QĘL YDJ\ IpUIL E|UW|QEHQ YDOy HOKHO\H]pVUĘOKR]RWWG|QWpVVRUiQ"
BÜNTETÉS-VÉGREHAJTÁS ORSZÁGOS PARANCSNOKA
Szám:
4/11-5/69/2012.
Tárgy: nemi identitás elleni diszkrimináció
Dombos Tamás
Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Budapest
1132, Csanády u. 4/B
[email protected]
Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr!
Áttekintettük a Háttér Társaság a Melegekért szervezet által, az Európa Tanács szexuális szóló ajánlásnak irányuJtságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni illetve a témára vonatkozó Magyarországi végrehajtására vonatkozó kérdésfelvetése it. Tájékoztatom, hogy a feltett kérdések közül a Kl., a K3., és a K4. kérdések összefüggéseit tekintve, azokra együttesen az alábbiakban reagál unk: Kl. kérdés: Létezik-e független és hatékony intézményrendszer a véle/mezetten a
szervek személyzete által elkövetett vagy motiválta tett bejelentések kivizsgálására, különösen, amikor a szexuá/is irányultság vagy a nemi identitás merül fel indítékként? K3. kérdés: Léteznek-e hatékony intézkedések, amelyek célja a fizikai támadások, a nemi vagy más szexuá/is zaklatás veszélyének minimalizálása, így példáulléteznek-e a fegyelmi vagy vonását célzó intézkedések, ide érteve azt is, ha a a felügyelet hiányából adódik? K4. kérdés: Létezik-e független és hatékony eljárás a börtönszemélyzet által elkövetett ilyen sz ó/ó bejelentések fogadására és kivizsgálására?
>-
Bármely fogvatartottat, bárki ért fizikai támadás, nemi szexuális zaklatás, motiválta incidens, esetén a büntetés-végrehajtás [bv.] személyi állományára a szakfeladataikat meghatározó törvények és szabályzatok és részrehajlás nélküli intézkedési kötelezettségeket írnak A szabályok és figyelmen kívül hagyása, a vétkes személlyel szemben fegyelmi és következményeket alapozhatnak meg. A személyi állomány tagja ellen a bv. szerv jogosult és köteles eljárni, vétkessége esetén fegyelmi büntetést kiszab ni.
vagy
-2 -
>-
vélelmezett elkövetésekor a megindításáról, a bv. független ügyészség dönt és jár el, ebben az esetben az szemben szankció kiszabása a bíróság jogköre. Amennyiben a bv. személyi állományával kapcsolatban felmerül a (Btk. 174/B.§ Közösség tagja elleni elkövetésének megalapozott gyanúja, akkor a szóló 1998. évi XIX. tv. 171.§ (1)-(2) bekezdése alapján a bv. szerv köteles feljelentést tenni az illetékes ügyészségen.
>-
A fegyveres szervek hivatásos állományú tagjainak szaigálati viszonyáról szóló 1996. évi XLIII. tv. 119.§ (1) bekezdése alapján a bv. szerv köteles fegyelmi eljárást is elrendelni, és lefolytatni. A fegyelmi eljárások törvényességét a katonai ügyészség felügyeli.
>-
Ezen túl, a fogvatartottak elhelyezésével, ellátásával, kezelésével, valamint személyiségük fejlesztésével foglalkozó személyi állomány napi tevékenységében különös hangsúlyt kap a börtönpopuláció egymás sérelmére elkövetett cselekményeinek megakadályozására, visszaszorítására való törekvés. Az rendszeres és gyakori alkalmazásával, az egyéni személyiségjegyek és a szociális kapcsolati rendszerek figyelembe vételével, a prograrnak és a tevékenységek magas szakmai elvárásoknak való megfelelésével igyekeznek a bv. intézetek szakemberei a fizikai támadásokat, az magatartási megnyilvánulásokat megakadályozni, csökkenteni. Amennyiben a bv. személyzet tudomására jut bármilyen cselekmény, azonnal feljelentéssei élünk az el személy esetében.
>-
Továbbá, a Büntetés-végrehajtási Szervezet Etikai Kódexe is rendelkezik a hasonló esetekre: •
•
•
A személyi állomány tagjainak tartózkodniuk kell bármilyen fizikai, vagy mentális az általuk felügyelt fogvatartottakkal szemben, és minden rendelkezésükre álló eszközzel meg kell akadályozniuk, hogy mások ilyen magatartást tanúsítsanak. A személyi állomány tagjainak tartózkodniuk kell a munkájuk végrehajtása során, és minden rendelkezésre álló eszközzel meg kell akadályozniuk, hogy más személyek a diszkrimináció eszközével élhessenek. Az etikai eljárás megindításáról, az illetékességgel bizottság az állományilletékes parancsnokhoz írásban benyújtott panasz kézhezvételét 8 napon belül dönt. Az eljárás lefolytatása esetén azt 60 napon belül határozattal kell lezárni. A helyi etikai bizottságok által hozott érdemi határozatokkal szemben 15 napon belül fellebbezés nyújtható be, amelyet az országos etikai bizottság 30 napon belül bírál el. Az etikai bizottság eljárása eredményeként, megállapíthatja, hogy etikai vétség nem történt, vagy megállapíthatja valamely etikai szabály megsértésének a vétségét, vagy a vétség súlyának más eljárást kezdeményez (szabálysértés, fegyelmi, Az etikai bizottság az alábbi szankciókat tartalmazó határozatokat hozhatja: szóbeli figyelmeztetés; írásbeli figyelmeztetés; szakmai alkalmasság vizsgálatának kezdeményezése az állományilletékes parancsnoknáL
-3 -
);;. A fogvatartottak jogképessége nem korlátozott, ezért jogorvoslati joggal rendelkeznek, bármikor fordulhatnak panasszal (valamint: feljelentéssel, bejelentéssel, keresettel, kérelemmel) a büntetés-végrehajtás törvényességi felügyeleti és jogvédelmi ügyészhez, továbbá a nemzetközi emberi jogi szervezethez is. A bv .. ügyésznek kéthetente kötelessége az illetékességébe tartozó bv. szervnél személyesen megjelenni, és végezni a fogvatartottakkal való bánásmóddal kapcsolatban. Itt bármelyik fogvatartott jogosult az ügyészhez fordulni és panasszal élni. A panaszt az ügyész köteles kivizsgálni. );;. A személyi állomány tagjának intézkedéseit is részletesen szabályazza a büntetésvégrehajtási szóló 1995. évi CVII. törvény. A személyi állomány tagja a bv. szervezet feladatkörében, szaigálati beosztásának (munkakörének) a ellátása során a jogszabályokban meghatározott intézkedések megtételére jogosult és köteles. Az intézkedés nem okozhat olyan hátrányt, amely nyilvánvalóan nem áll arányban annak törvényes céljával. Több lehetséges és alkalmas intézkedés közül azt kell választani, amely az eredményesség biztosítása mellett a legkisebb személyi korlátozással, sérüléssei vagy károkozással jár. Az nem alkalmazhat kínzást, kényszervallatást, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmódot, az erre vonatkozó utasítást köteles megtagadn i. A személyi állomány tagja az ilyen magatartás tanúsítóját a cselekmény abbahagyására felszólítani, vele szemben intézkedni, vagy az intézkedésre jogosult személynek jelentést tenni köteles. );;. A személyi állomány tagja köteles megakadályozni, hogy a fogvatartottak egymást magatartást bántalmazzák, sanyargassák, vagy egyéb, az emberi méltóságot tanúsítsanak. K2. kérdés: A börtönszemélyzetet megcélzó képzések és magatartási kódexek biztosítják-e, hogy a fogvatartottakat (a) szexuális irányu/tságon és (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék?
);;. Kifejezetten a K2. kérdésre, illetve témára irányuló képzés nincs, viszont a fent említett joganyag( ok) oktatása a személyi állomány minden tagjánál megtörténik. KS. kérdés: A fogvatartottak esetében, léteznek-e olyan eljárások, amelyek biztosítják az egyén identitásának tiszteletben tartását a börtönszemélyzettel való kapcsolattartás, ideértve a ruházat átvizsgálását és a motozást, valamint különösen a vagy férfi börtönben való hozott döntés során?
);;. A büntetés-végrehajtási intézetbe a személyes adatok alapján kerül befogadásra a fogvatartott Abban az esetben, ha a személyes iratai szerint férfi, akkor férfiként, ha akkor kerül befogadásra, elhelyezésre. Szexuális irányultság alapján jogszabály különbségtételt nem tesz A intézkedések végrehajtása során, pl. személymotozás esetében is, ezt kell alapul venni. Azaz egy homoszexuális férfi fogvatartottat férfi személyi állományú tag motozhat meg. );;. Amennyiben a bv. személyzetnek tudomása van a fogvatartott személy nemi identitásának figyelemmel járnak el az egyén irányultságáról, az elhelyezés során minden esetben konfliktusmentes kapcsolatrendszerének kialakítása érdekében.
-4-
Véleményünket az alábbiakban összegzem.
A büntetés-végrehajtási szervezet a "Miniszteri Bizottság CM/Rec(2010)5. sz. Ajánlása a tagállamok felé a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás alapján diszkrimináció leküzdését célzó szóló dokumentum 19. pontját maradéktalanul betartva nem nem tárol, és más módon sem használ szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos személyes adatot, így annak esetleges nyilvánosságra kerülése az érintett fogvatartott történhet. A személyi állomány képzése, napi feladatellátása során komplex egészként kezeli a fogvatartott személyekkel való bánásmódot, ami nem alapul vallási, etnikai és egyéb megkülönböztetésen, de természetesen figyelembe veszi az emberi "mássággal" kapcsolatos eltéréseket is. Ennek a kezelési módszerek minél alkalmazását igyekszik megvalósítani, ami pid. megjelenik a speciálls csoportok kialakításában csoport; pszicha-szociális körlet). A fogvatartott személyek egymás sérelmére elkövetett cselekmények (köztük a nemi az egységes fegyelmi szabályozás keretében vonják más szexuális zaklatás) a bv. szervek az ilyenkor szükséges vonásra intézkednek.
vagy
Az általános panaszjogi eljárások biztosítása mellett biztosított a fogvatartott személyek beadványainak, kérelmeinek "közvetlenül" a bv. szerv való eljuttatása az ú.n. "parancsnoki láda" kialakításával, a Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága [BVOP] szakterületeinek során az felé jelzéssel, valamint a bv. szerveknél 2 hetente kontrollt folytató ügyészek részére kapcsolat felvételi A fogvatartott nemi identitását bármilyen módon bejelentést eddig még nem kaptunk. adatot figyeimét arra, hogy az anyag alaphangon - tévesen Szeretnénk felhívni a feltételezi, hogy a bv. szervek nem fordítanak figyelmet a más beállítottságú elítéltekre és a személyzet további hátrányos megkülönböztetést alkalmaz velük szembe. Korábban a TASZ is félre tájékoztatta a közvéleményt az emlékezetes "Vér, drog, a börtönökben" cikkel. Általánosságban, a bv. intézetekben nem szenvednek semmilyen hátrányt a más nemi identitású igyekeznek olyan elhelyezést biztosítani, ahol védettek a többi fogvatartottóL A emberek, helyzetük kezelése érdekében több speciális prograrnon vehetnek részt, erre a feladatra szakosodott civil szervezetek, alapítványok segítségét is igénybe veszik. '
Budapest, 2012. július
/:2.". Üdvözlettel:
Csóti András részére országos parancsnok Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága 1054 Budapest, Steindl Imre u. 8. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Parancsnok Úr! Köszönettel megkaptuk a 2012. június 26-áQNHOWN|]pUGHNĦ DGDWLgénylésünkre adott 2012. július 12-én kelt, 4/II-5/69/2012. számon iktatott válaszukat. $YiODV]OHYpONDSFViQDN|YHWNH]ĘSRQWRVtWyNpUGpVekre szeretnénk választ kapni: Az 57/2009. ( X. 30.) IRM–ÖM–PTNM együttes rendelet 1. melléklet 037 Személyiség- és viselkedés- zavarok alatt „AN” (Alkalmatlan PLQĘVtWpVW tU HOĘ D %12 )-65 kódszámú betegségekre, így az F64.0 Transzszexualizmus, ) .HWWĘV-V]HUHSĦ WUDQV]YHV]WLWL]PXV és az F64.8 A nemi identitás egyéb zavara betegségekre is, vagyis a WUDQV]V]H[XiOLVLOOHWYHWUDQV]QHPĦ személyekre. K1. Következik-H IHQWL V]DEiO\R]iVEyO KRJ\ D WUDQV]V]H[XiOLV LOOHWYH WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN büntetés-végrehajtási szolgálatra DONDOPDWODQPLQĘVtWpVWNDSQDN" $PDJ\DUMRJJ\DNRUODWOHKHWĘYpWHV]LKRJ\DWUDQV]V]H[XiOLVNpQWGLDJQRV]WL]iOWszemélyek nemük hivatalos megváltoztatását kezdeményezzék a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztériumnál, LOOHWYHQHPLiWDODNtWyEHDYDWNR]iVRNEDQ KRUPRQWHUiSLDPĦWpWLEHDYDWNR]iVRN YHJ\HQHNUpV]W K2. Az egészségügyi alkalmasság megítélése szempontjából van-H MHOHQWĘVpJH DQQDN KRJ\ D] érintett személy a nemváltás jogi és orvosi folyamatában hol tart? Az egészségügyi alkalmasság V]HPSRQWMiEyOÄJ\yJ\XOWQDN´WHNLQWKHWĘ-e egy nemváltáson átesett személy? Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-DODSMiQDIHQWLNpUGpVHNUHQDSRQEHOOOHKHWĘOHJHOHNWURQLNXVIRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek. 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. december 3.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Dr. Hatala József részére RUV]iJRVUHQGĘUIĘNDSLWiQ\ 2UV]iJRV5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\ViJ 1139 Budapest, Teve u. 4-6. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt 5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVHOOHQLLQWp]NHGpVHNV]pOHVN|UpW|OHOLIHO$]DMiQOiVRNDODSMiWDWDJiOODPRNN|WHOH]Ę pUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpW UpV]EĘO iOO HJ\ U|YLG UHQGHONH]Ę UpV]EĘO pV HJ\ KRVV]DEE PHOOpNOHWEĘO DPHO\ UpV]OHWHVHEEHQ kerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiV YpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHV UpV]OHWHV LQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO $] LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘ D] LQWHUQHWHQ D] alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az aMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiVDWHUOHWpQD]2UV]iJRV5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\ViJáltal tett, illetve D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN (1. sz. melléklet) az ajánlás mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a 2UV]iJRV 5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\ViJ bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. 2011. június 3-iQHJ\KDVRQOyNpUGĘtYYHONHUHVWNPHJD]2UV]iJRV5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\ViJRW, amely a UHQGĘUVpJLJ\DNRUODWQDNDYogyakarta alapelvek a nemzetközi emberi jogi szabályok alkalmazásáról a szexuális irányultsággal és nemi identitással kapcsolatban való megfelelését vizsgálta. Az ORFK 16420/9/2011/ált. számú, 2011. szeptember 1-én kelt válaszlevelüket köszönettel megkaptuk. Válaszlevelükben néhány kérdésre nem érkezett válasz, illetve további pontosító kérdések megválaszolására lenne szükség. Ezen kérdések listáját a levelünkhöz mellékelt 2. sz. melléklet tartalmazza. (POpNH]WHWĘOOHYHOQNK|]FVDWROWXND]HUHGHWLNpUGpVHNOLVWiMiWLV Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül OHKHWĘOHJ elektronikus formában válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás megvalósítása pUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. június 26. Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
1. sz. melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás melléklete I. -RJD]pOHWKH]DEL]WRQViJKR]pVD]HUĘV]DNNDOV]HPEHQLYpGHOHPKH] A. *\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´pVHJ\pEJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOt incidensek 1. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO D]RQ iOOtWyODJRV EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV LQFLGHQVHNKDWpNRQ\J\RUVpVSiUWDWODQNLYL]VJiOiViWDPHO\HNHVHWpEHQpVV]HUĦJ\DQ~ merült fel arra vonatkozóan, hogy az áldozat szexuális irányultsága, illetve nemi LGHQWLWiVD PRWLYiFLyNpQW V]ROJiOW D] HON|YHWĘ V]iPiUD D WDJiOODPRNQDN WRYiEEi EL]WRVtWDQLXNNHOOKRJ\D]LO\HQEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNpVLQFLGHQVHNNLYL]VJiOiViWNO|Q|V figyelem kísérje olyan esetekben, amikor azokat állítólagosan rendvédelmi szervek munkatársDL YDJ\ PiV KLYDWDORV PLQĘVpJEHQ HOMiUy V]HPpO\HN N|YHWWpN HO D WDJiOODPRNQDN D]W LV EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO KRJ\ D] LO\HQ FVHOHNPpQ\HNpUW IHOHOĘV személyeket hatékonyan az igazságszolgáltatás elé állítsák, és – amennyiben annak helye van – a büntetlenség elNHUOpVHpUGHNpEHQPHJEQWHVVpNĘNHW K1. $ UHQGĘUWLV]WHN NpS]pVH VRUiQ WXGDWRVtWMiN-H KRJ\ NO|QOHJHV HUĘIHV]tWpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN bármely (a) homofób vagy (b) transzfób összefüggés hatékony, gyors és pártatlan kivizsgálására a J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN LOOHWYH J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN Q\RPR]iVD VRUiQ NO|Q|VHQ KD H]HQFVHOHNPpQ\HNHUĘV]DNRWLVPDJXNEDQIRJODOWDN" K2. Létezik-H IJJHWOHQ pV KDWpNRQ\ LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HU D YpOHOPH]HWWHQ D EĦQOG|]Ę V]HUYHN V]HPpO\]HWHiOWDOHON|YHWHWWJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUĘOYDJ\J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNUĘOWHWW bejelentések kivizsgálására, különösen amikor a szexuális irányultság vagy a nemi identitás merül fel indítékként? 3.
$ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D szexuiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJJDO LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiVVDO NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´YDODPLQWPiVJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOWLQFLGHQVHNiOGR]DWDLWpVWDQ~LW D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN MHOHQWpVpUH EiWRUtWViN H FpOEyO D tagállamoknak minden szükséges lépést meg kell tenniük annak biztosítására, hogy a jogalkalmazó szervek – a bíróságokat is beleértve – rendelkezzenek az ilyen EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN EHD]RQRVtWiViKR] V]NVpJHV LVPHUHWHNNHO pV V]DNpUWHOHPPHOVPHJIHOHOĘVHJtWVpJHWpVWiPRJDWást nyújtsanak az áldozatoknak és a tanúknak.
K3. Eljuttatták-H D N|]YpOHPpQ\KH] D J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN N|]pUWKHWĘ pV iWIRJy meghatározását, amely magában foglalja (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással kapcsolatos indítékot is? (péOGiXO UHQGĘUVpJL KRQODSRNRQ YDJ\ D N|]|VVpJEHQ WHUMHV]WHWW szórólapok segítségével) K4. Biztosítják-H D NpS]pVL SURJUDPRN pV HOMiUiVRN KRJ\ D UHQGĘUVpJ pV D EtUyViJRN UHQGHONH]]HQHN D PHJIHOHOĘ WXGiVVDO pV NpSHVVpJJHO D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHk IHOLVPHUpVpUH YDODPLQW D] iOGR]DWRNQDN pV WDQ~NQDN Q\~MWDQGy PHJIHOHOĘ VHJtWVpJUH pV támogatásra? K5. $ UHQGĘUVpJL pV EtUyViJL NpS]pVHN pV PDJDWDUWiVL NyGH[HN EL]WRVtWMiN-e, hogy az LMBT személyeket diszkrimináció-mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék annak érdekében, hogy ezen személyek, akár áldozatként, akár tanúként, biztonságosnak érezzék (a) a szexuális
LUiQ\XOWViJXNNDO pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVXNNDO |VV]HIJJĘ J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV J\ĦO|OHWPRWLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNMHOHQWpVpW" K6. Léteznek-H RO\DQ HJ\VpJHN D UHQGĘUVpJHQ EHOO DPHO\HNQHN IHODGDWD NLIHMH]HWWHQ D D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJKR] pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVKR] NDSFVROyGy EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN nyomozása? K7 Léteznek-H RO\DQ VSHFLiOLV UHQGĘUVpJL NDSFVRODWWDUWyN DNLNQHN D IHODGDta a helyi LMBT N|]|VVpJHNNHOYDOyNDSFVRODWWDUWiVpVDUHQGĘUVpJJHONDSFVRODWRVEL]DORPQ|YHOpVH" K8. Létezik-e olyan anonim vagy online panaszok benyújtására alkalmas rendszer, vagy más N|QQ\HQ KR]]iIpUKHWĘ FVDWRUQD DPHO\ OHKHWĘYp WHV]L D] LO\HQ LQFLGHQsek harmadik személyeken NHUHV]WOL EHMHOHQWpVW DQQDN pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ LQIRUPiFLyW OHKHVVHQ J\ĦMWHQL H]HQ LQFLGHQVHN J\DNRULViJiUyOpVWHUPpV]HWpUĘO" 5.
A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás miatti megkülönböztetés pVLQWROHUDQFLDHOĘIRUGXOiVLJ\DNRULViJiUDpVWHUPpV]HWpUHYDODPLQW – különösen – a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos ÄJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´-UH pV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHNUH YRQDWNR]y DGDWRNJ\ĦMWpVpWpVHOHP]psét.
K13. Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN Q\LOYiQWDUWiViUD YDODPLQW D] H]]HO kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére? IV. A magán- és csaliGLpOHWWLV]WHOHWEHQWDUWiViKR]IĦ]ĘGĘMRJ 19. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos személyes adatot közintézmények – beleértve különösen a rendészeti struktúrán belüli közintézményeket – nem J\ĦMWHQHN QHP WiUROQDN pV PiV módon sem használnak, kivéve, ha az specifikus, törvényes és legitim célra szükséges; D]H]HQHOYHNQHNPHJQHPIHOHOĘQ\LOYiQWDUWiVRNDWPHJNHOOVHPPLVtWHQL K14. Milyen intézkedéseket történtek annak érdekében, hogy biztosítsák, a közhatalmi szervek eleget tesznek ennek az elvárásnak (a) a szexuális irányultságra és (b) a nemi identitásra YRQDWNR]yDQNO|Q|VHQDEĦQOG|]ĘV]HUYHNiOWDONH]HOWQ\LOYiQWDUWiVRNWHNLQWHWpEHQ" K15. Milyen lépések történtek annak biztosítására, KRJ\ D PHJOpYĘ Q\LOYiQWDUWiVRNDW megsemmisítsék? 44. $ PHQHGpNNpUĘNHW YpGHOHPEHQ NHOO UpV]HVtWHQL D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJRQ LOOHWYH QHPL identitáson alapuló diszkriminatív politikákkal vagy gyakorlatokkal szemben; NO|Q|VHQ PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQi a szabadságuktól megfosztott PHQHGpNNpUĘNNHO V]HPEHQL IL]LNDL HUĘV]DN – beleértve a szexuális visszaélést, a verbális agressziót és a zaklatás egyéb formáit is – NRFNi]DWiQDN PHJHOĘ]pVpUH valamint arra, hogy biztosítva legyen számukra az egyedi helyzetük szempontjából releváns információkhoz való hozzáférés. K19. Milyen intézkedéseket tettek annak érdekében, hogy megfeleljenek ennek az elvárásnak? K20. Kaptak-HPHJIHOHOĘNpS]pVWpVLQIRUPiFLyNDWD]LGHJHQUHQGpV]HWLĘUL]HWHWHOOiWyLQWp]PpQ\HN dolgozó, a UHQGĘUVpJ pV D] RUYRVL V]HPpO\]HW YDODPLQW D] LO\HQ KHO\HNKH] KR]]iIpUpVVHO UHQGHONH]Ę |QNpQWHV V]HUYH]HWHN D D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\Xltsággal és (b) a nemi identitással |VV]HIJJĘSUREOpPiNUyO"
2. sz. melléklet Pontosító kérdések a 16420/9/2011/ált. számon iktatott adatkérésre vonatkozó válaszok kapcsán NpUGpV WUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNUHQGĘULV]ROJiODWD $0HO\MRJV]DEiO\ RN ]iUMiNNLWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNIRJODONR]WDWiViWDUHQGĘUVpJNO|QE|]Ę pozícióiban? %$WLODORPFVDNDUHQGĘULiOORPiQ\HJ\HVpozícióira vonatkozik (hivatásos állomány) vagy YDODPHQQ\LUHQGĘUVpJLSR]tFLyUD N|]DONDOPD]RWWDNN|]WLV]WYLVHOĘNLV " NpUGpV V]H[XiOLVLUiQ\XOWViJRQDODSXOyJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNEQWHWKHWĘVpJH $NpUGpVEHQDQHPLLGHQWLWiVRQDODSXOyJ\ĦO|OHt-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HVHWpEHQDYiODV]NLWpUUi KRJ\D]LO\HQPDJDWDUWiVWRNDN|]|VVpJWDJMDHOOHQLHUĘV]DNWpQ\iOOiViEDWN|]KHWQHNDV]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJUDYRQDWNR]yNpUGpVUHYLV]RQWHJ\pUWHOPĦÄQHP´YROWDYiODV] 10/A. Mi alapján esnek más elbírálás alá a szexuális irányultságon (meleg, leszbikus, biszexuális V]HPpO\HNHOOHQL pVDQHPLLGHQWLWiVRQ WUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHOOHQL DODSXOyJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN" 16-NpUGpV NLV]ROJiOWDWRWWKHO\]HWĦHOMiUiVDOiYRQWDN $NpUGpVD]HOMiUiVDOiYRQWV]HPpO\HNUH EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\YDJ\V]DEiO\VpUWpV IHOWpWHOH]HWW HON|YHWĘMpUH YRQDWNR]RWWDKLYDWNR]RWWXWDVtWiVFVDND]iOGR]DWLVWiWXV]EDQOpYĘKiWUiQ\RV KHO\]HWĦV]HPpO\HNUHYRQDWNR]LN.pUMNYiODV]ROMDQDNDNpUGpVUHD]HOMárás alá vontak vonatkozásában! 30. kérdés (rendezvények biztosítására vonatkozó útmutató) $NpUGpVDMRJV]DEiO\RNQiOUpV]OHWHVHEEDUHQGH]YpQ\HNEL]WRVtWiViQDNUpV]OHWHLUHLVNLWHUMHGĘ gyakorlati útmutató létezésére kérdezett rá. Ilyen gyakorlati útmutatyNNOI|OGLUHQGĘUVpJHNHVHWpQ pl. az alábbiak: Egyesült Királyság: Manual of Guidance on Keeping the Peace 2010; 1 Kanada: Emergency Preparedness Guidelines For Mass, Crowd-Intensive Events; 2 Egyesült Államok: Crowd management and civil disobedience guidelines; 3 Ausztrália: Planning Safe Public Events Practical Guidelines. 4 30/A. Létezik-HDUHQGĘUVpJQHNDIHQWLSpOGiNKR]KDVRQOyDQDJ\V]iP~UpV]WYHYĘWYRQ]yWtJ\ többek között a gyülekezési jog hatálya alá tartozó rendezvények biztosítására vonatkozó gyakorlati útmutatója? Ha igen, mi a címe, hivatalos dokumentum esetén az utasítás/ intézkedés száma? NpUGpV HOĘtWpOHWHNNHONDSFVRODWRVNpS]pVHN $$YiODV]EDQHPOtWHWWÄNLVHEEVpJL|VV]HN|WĘN´IHODGDWN|UpWPHO\MRJV]DEiO\YDJ\EHOVĘ iránymutatás szabályozza? 1
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2010/201010UNKTP01.pdf
2
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2008/ps-sp/D82-40-1995E.pdf
3
http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/CrowdMgtGuidelines.pdf
4
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/Ncphome.nsf/Page/2AD4C6694C8CB4EDCA256D87007E12B9
%$]|VV]HN|WĘNIHODGDWN|UHNLWHUMHG-e valamennyi kisebbségi csoportra (így az LMBT emberekre is), vagy kizárólag a roma kisebbséggel tartják a kapcsolatot? 41/C. Az J\HOHWLV]ROJiODWRWWHOMHVtWĘUHQGĘU|NN|]ODNRPPXQLNiFLyVpVNRQIOLNWXVNH]HOĘ WUpQLQJHNHQKiQ\DQYHWWHNUpV]W"$UpV]WYHYĘNV]iPDKRJ\DQDUiQ\OLND]LO\HQIHODGDWN|UWEHW|OWĘ UHQGĘU|NV]iPiKR]" 41/D. A közrendvédelmi szolgálati ágban dolgozó tiszthelyettes állomány tagjai közül a kRQIOLNWXVPHJHOĘ]ĘNH]HOĘWUpQLQJen hányan YHWWHNUpV]W"$UpV]WYHYĘNV]iPDKRJ\DQDUiQ\OLN D]LO\HQIHODGDWN|UWEHW|OWĘUHQGĘU|NV]iPiKR]" NpUGpV WUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNPRWR]iVDHOKHO\H]pVH $NpUGpVUHQHPpUNH]HWWpUGHPLYiODV]0LQWD]WDYiODV]LVPHJHUĘVtWLD]HOMiUiVDOiYRQW nemének megKDWiUR]iVDD]HOMiUiVV]HPSRQWMiEyODODSYHWĘMHOHQWĘVpJĦ D]RQRVQHPĦHOMiUy V]HPpO\UHYRQDWNR]yHOĘtUiVPLDWW $WUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHVHWpEHQDQHPHOG|QWpVHQHP PDJiWyOpUWHWĘGĘHQHJ\V]HUĦ$SUREOpPDN|UUpV]OHWHVNLIHMWpVpWOGA Háttér Társaság a MelHJHNpUWYpOHPpQ\HDUHQGĘUVpJ~MV]ROJiODWLV]DEiO\]DWiQDNWHUYH]HWpUĘO. 5 A szervezetünkhöz pUNH]HWWSDQDV]RNDODSMiQDUHQGĘU|NHOMiUiVDHNpUGpVNDSFViQWHOMHVHQYiOWR]y.pUMNKRJ\ válaszoljanak az eredeti 59. kérdésre, vagy ha az ORFK álláspontja szerint a kérdés a hatályos MRJV]DEiO\RNpVLUiQ\PXWDWiVRNDODSMiQQHPHOG|QWKHWĘH]WYiODV]XNEDQMHOH]]pN 61. kérdés (közterületen folytatott szexuális tevékenység üldözése) 61/A. Mely tényállás alapján zajlik az eljárás ezekben az ügyekben? 61/B. Folytat-HDUHQGĘUVpJNLIHMH]HWWHQD]LO\HQFVHOHNPpQ\HNIHOGHUtWpVpUHLUiQ\XOyDNFLyNDW (közismert találkozóhelyek elleni razziák)? 61/C. Ha igen, hány ilyen razziára került sor az ország területén az elmúlt 5 évben (éves bontásban)? 62-64. kérdés (LMBT személyek nyilvántartása) A 90-103. kérdésre adott válasz szerint a 70-80-as években volt ilyen nyilvántartás. $.LNH]GHPpQ\H]WHDQ\LOYiQWDUWiVPHJVHPPLVtWpVpW SOPLQLV]WpULXPIJJHWOHQHOOHQĘU]Ę V]HUYUHQGĘUVpJEHOVĘNH]GHPpQ\H]pVH " 64/B. A nyilvántaUWiVPHJVHPPLVtWpVpWKLYDWDORVUHQGĘUVpJLUHQGHONH]pV XWDVtWiVLQWp]NHGpV határozat) rendelte el? Ha igen, milyen számon hivatkozható? 64/C. Készült-HDNDUWRQRNPHJVHPPLVtWpVpUĘOMHJ\]ĘN|Q\Y"+DLJHQPLO\HQV]iPRQ hivatkozható? 66. kérdés (LMBT fogvatartottak elkülönítése) A kérdésre nem érkezett érdemi válasz; a nem, a szexuális irányultság és a nemi identitás mint YpGHWWWXODMGRQViJRNPiVWWDNDUQDN QHP QĘYDJ\IpUILV]H[XiOLVLUiQ\XOWViJ KRPR-, hetero- vagy ELV]H[XiOLVQHPLLGHQWLWiV WUDQV]QHPĦ vagy sem). A kérdés pontosítva:
5
http://www.hatter.hu/kiadvanyaink/a-hatter-tarsasag-a-melegekert-velemenye-a-rendorseg-uj-szolgalatiszabalyzatanak-terve
66/A. Elkülönítik-e a homo- vagy biszexuális férfi fogvatartottakat a heteroszexuális férfi fogvatartottaktól; elkülönítik-e a homo- YDJ\ELV]H[XiOLVQĘLIRJYDWDUWRWWDNDWDKHWHURV]H[XiOLVQĘL fogvatartottaktól? 66/B. Elkülönítik-HDWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHWPLQGDQĘLPLQGDIpUILIRJYDWDUWRWWDNWyO" 70-71. kérdés (biztonsági kockázatelemzés) A kérdésbe egy sajnálatos fogalmazási hiba csúszott, az „elítéltek” helyett a kérdés a „fogvatartottakra” vonatkozott. A kérdések helyesen: 70/A. A zárka-beosztások elkészítésekor végeznek-e kockázat-elemzést a fogvatartottak közti HUĘV]DNRVNRQIOLNWXVRNDWHONHUOHQGĘ" 71/A. Ha igen, a kockázat-elemzés kiterjed-e a fogvatartottak szexuális kisebbségekkel NDSFVRODWRVHVHWOHJHVHOĘtWpOHWHV beállítottságára vagy szexuális kisebbségekkel szembeni korábbi HUĘV]DNRVPDJDWDUWiVXNUD" 104-107. kérdés (LMBT témájú rendezvények) A gyülekezési jogról szóló 1989. évi III. törvény 7. § b) pontja szerint a bejelentésnek tartalmaznia kell a rendezvény céOMiWLOOHWĘOHJQDSLUHQGMpW. A 18/2011. (IX. 23.) ORFK utasítás szerint 43. bekezdése szerint a demonstrációkhoz kapcsolódó releváns adatokat D]J\HOĘadója köteles rögzíteni$5HQGĘrségi Szövegbányász RendszeUXJ\DQDNNRUOHKHWĘYpWHV]LDRobotzsaru Dokumentumtárában való szabadszavas keresést. Szabadszavas keresés (javasolt kulcsszavak: LMBT, homoszexuális, leszbikus, meleg, homofób) az LMBT emberek emberi jogaival foglalkozó UHQGH]YpQ\HNNLHOpJtWĘHQEHD]RQRVtWKDWyDN.pUMNDIHQWLPyGV]HUWDQDODSMiQD kérdésekre válaszolni szíveskedjenek! 94. kérdés (emberölések) $0DJ\DU.|]WiUVDViJ5HQGĘUVpJH%ĦQHOHP]pVL6]DEiO\]DWiQDNNLDGiViUyOV]yOy ; 25).XWDVtWiVV]iP~PHOOpNOHWHV]HULQWD]HPEHU|OpVEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNVSHFLILNXV profilelemzéséhez kapcsolódóan a sértettre vonatkozóan annak szexuális beállítottságát nyilván kell tartani (39. kérdés). Kérjük a nyilvántartás alapján a kérdésre válaszolni szíveskedjenek! 96- NpUGpVH J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN A kérdés nem az áldozat szexuális irányultságára vagy nemi identitására vonatkozott, hanem, KRJ\PLO\HQV]HPSRQW PHO\FVRSRUWKR]YDOyYpOWYDJ\YDOyVWDUWR]iV YROWDJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\DODSMD$NpWNpUGpVIHOWHYpVN|]|WWLNO|QEVpJUĘOLOOHWYHDJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUHYRQDWNR]yDGDWJ\ĦMWpVVHONDSFVRODWRVN|YHWHQGĘHOMiUiVUyOOGD]adatvédelmi biztos ABI-4209-.V]iPRQNLDGRWWYpOHPpQ\pW PHOOpNHOYH .pUMNHUĘVtWVpNPHJKRJ\ szemben DMRJV]DEiO\iOWDODGRWWOHKHWĘVpJJHOpVSpOGiXOD](J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ diszkriminációs bHMHOHQWpVHNQ\LOYiQWDUWiViUDYRQDWNR]yJ\DNRUODWiYDODJ\ĦO|OHWEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNUH N|]|VVpJWDJMDLHOOHQLHUĘV]DN YRQDWNR]yQ\LOYiQWDUWiVEDQQHPV]HUHSHO KRJ\DJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\WPHO\WiUVDGDOPLFVRSRUWKR]WDUWR]iVDODSMiQN|YHWWpNHO 98. kérdés (D]RQRVQHPĦHNN|]|WWLSDUWQHUNDSFVRODWLHUĘV]DN $](J\VpJHVQ\RPR]yKDWyViJLpVJ\pV]VpJLEĦQJ\LVWDWLV]WLNDLUHQGV]HUNLW|OWpVL~WPXWDWyMD V]HULQWDEĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNHVHWpQQ\LOYiQNHOOWDUWDQLDVpUWHWWQHPpW D D]HON|YHWĘQHPpW (24. kérdés, 1. NyGQpJ\]HW pVD]HON|YHWĘpVDVpUWHWWNDSFVRODWiW F W|EEHNN|]|WW pOHWWiUVD volt élettársa, alkalmi szexuális partnere, rendszeres szexuális partnere, bejegyzett élettársa, volt
bejegyzett élettársa, bejelentett élettársa, volt bejelentett élettársa). Ezen adatok alapján az D]RQRVQHPĦHNN|]|WWLSDUWQHUNDSFVRODWLHUĘV]DNHVHWHLHJ\pUWHOPĦHQEHD]RQRVtWKDWyDN.pUMND fenti módszertan alapján a kérdésekre válaszolni szíveskedjenek! 101-102. kérdés (hátrányos megkülönböztetés miatti eljárások) A kérGpVPHJYiODV]ROiViKR]QLQFVV]NVpJD]/0%7HPEHUHNUĘOYH]HWHWWQ\LOYiQWDUWiVUD D hátrányos megkülönböztetés alapja és az áldozat csoport-KRYDWDUWR]iVDN|]|WWLNO|QEVpJUĘOOG 96- NpUGpVQpO $](J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJSODKiWUiQ\RVPHJNO|QE|]WHWps alapján kivizsgált panaszokat védett tulajdonság szerinti elkülöníti. 6 8J\DQDNNRUDUHQGĘUVpJLHOOHQL KiWUiQ\RVPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVPLDWWD](%+PHOOHWWSDQDV]WHKHWĘD)JJHWOHQ5HQGpV]HWL 3DQDV]WHVWOHWQpOD]ÈOODPSROJiUL-RJRN2UV]iJJ\ĦOpVL%L]WRViQiO emellett bírósági eljárás LQGtWKDWyDV]HPpO\KH]IĦ]ĘGĘMRJRNPHJVpUWpVHPLDWWYDODPLQWD]pULQWHWWHNpanasszal fordulhatnak D]LQWp]NHGpVWIRJDQDWRVtWyUHQGĘULV]HUYKH] is. 101/A. Rendelkezik-HDUHQGĘUVpJ|VV]HVtWpVVHODUHQGĘUVpJHQEHOOD]5WY § (1) pontja alapján kivizsgált hátrányos megkülönböztetéssel kapcsolatos panaszok kapcsán indult eljárásokról? 101/B. Rendelkezik-HDUHQGĘUVpJ|VV]HVtWpVVHODUHQGĘUVpJJHOV]HPEHQPiVIyUXPRNHOĘWW]DMOy hátrányos megkülönböztetéssel kapcsolatos panaszok kapcsán indult eljárásokról?
A fenti kérdésekre adott válaszok mellett kérjük, küldjék meg részünkre az alábbi dokumentumokat. 1. Az ORFK hatályos képzési terve 2. A 20/2010. (OT 10) ORFK utasítás 36. pontjához tartozó módszertani útmutató 3. $]~MIHOV]HUHOĘNFVDOiGRQEHOOLHUĘV]DNNDOpViOGR]DWVHJtWpVVHONDSFVRODWRVNpS]pVH során használt tananyagok (tankönyv, jegyzet, Powerpoint állományok). Nyilvános IRUJDORPEDQHOpUKHWĘNLDGYiQ\RNHVHWpQHOpJVpJHVKDDNLDGYiQ\ELEOLRJUiILDLDGDWDLW adják meg.
6
3O 7iMpNR]WDWyD](J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ pYLWHYpNHQ\VpJpUĘOR http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/data/2009beszamolo.pdf
ORSZÁGOS RENDÖR-FÖKAPITÁNYSÁG HIVATALA Szám: 21990/
J
Budapest, Teve u. 4-6. 1903 Bp. Pf.: 314115. sz W: 443-5797 Fax: 443-5778 Q:
[email protected]
/2012.ált.
Tárgy: válasz a Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Egyesület megkeresése Boross Zsigmond Attila r. alezredes Tel.:443-5567 E-mail:
[email protected]
Dombos Tamás úrnak
Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Egyesület
Budapest Csanády utca 4/b. l l 32
Tisztelt Dombos Úr!
Országos
Úr megbízása alapján tájékoztatom, hogy az Országos (ORFK) áttekintette mind a tavalyi ll O pontos megjelölt, mind az Európa Tanács vonatkozó idei ajánlásának idézett felvetéseit A szakterületek megfogalmazott kérdésekre adott- állásfoglalását amelléklet tartalmazza. Munkájához további sikereket kívánok!
Budapest, 2012. szeptember ,,.$ .
" Tisztelettel:
Melléklet: 8 lap
Melléklet
A Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Egyesület 110 kérdése kapcsán megfogalmazott korábbi válaszok kiegészítése, valamint az Európa Tanács ajánlásai vonatkozásában az ORFK álláspontja.
A ll 0 PONTOS
MEGVÁLASZOLÁSÁNAK KIEGÉSZÍTÉSE:
A statisztikai adatszolgáltatásra csak az Egységes Nyomozó Hatósági és Ügyészségi Bünügyi Statisztika (ENYÜBS) alapján jogosult, minden más rendelkezésre álló adat a nyomozások a munka szervezését biztosítja, így az információkból nem szolgáltatunk statisztikai jellegü adatokat. Az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságrói szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 3. § 3. pontjának b) alpontja alapján a szexuális életre vonatkozó személyes adat különleges adatnak mely adatoknak a kezelését az 5. és 6. §-ban szabályazza a jogszabály. A szóló 1994. évi XXXIV. törvény 90. § 3. pontja hatalmazza fel a a különleges személyes adatok kezelésére. A megnevezett adatkörök nem közérdekü adatnak. A a különleges személyes adatokat általános statisztikai célból azonban nem gyüjti, és az ENYÜBS rendszer sem tartalmazza.
2-3. pont: Tiltják-e jogszabályok a dolgozói számára a szexuális irányuJtságon alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést, zaklatást? Tiltják-e jogszabályok a dolgozói számára a nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést, zaklatást? Igen, Magyarország Alaptörvénye (2011. április 25.) XV. Cikk (2) bekezdése értelmében: "Magyarország az jogokat mindenkinek, bármely megkülönböztetés, nevezetesen faj, szín, nem, fogyatékosság, nyelv, vallási, politikai vagy más vélemény, nemzeti vagy társadalmi származás, vagyoni, születési vagy egyéb helyzet szerinti különbségtétel nélkül biztosítja. "
4-S. pont: Lehetövé teszik-e a jogszabályok a leszbikus, meleg vagy biszexuális személyek foglalkoztatását a pozícióiban? Lehetövé teszik-e a személyek foglalkoztatását a jogszabályok a pozícióiban? Hivatásos állományba vételt a fegyveres szervek hivatásos állományú tagjainak szolgálati viszonyáról szóló 1996. évi XLIII. tv. (Hszt.) 37. §, 37/A § és a 37/B §-a szabályozza. A részletes felvételi eljárási szabályokat a belügyminiszter felügyelete, irányítása alá tartozó egyes fegyveres szervekkel hivatásos szolgálati viszonyban állók szolgálati viszonyáról és a személyügyi igazgatás szóló 64/2011. (XII.30.) BM rendelet 2. §, 3. §-a, illetve senior állományba vétel esetén a 6. § és 7. § állapítja meg. Az jogszabályhelyeken a közalkalmazotti állomány foglalkoztatásával egyes eljárási szabályokról szóló 31/2001. (BK 12.) BM utasítás, továbbá a közszolgálati szóló 20 ll . évi CXXIX. törvény sem tartalmaz olyan rendelkezést, mely kizárná a leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális illetve transznemü személyeket a hivatásos szolgálati, közalkalmazotti és a közszolgálati jogviszonyban foglalkoztatottak
5/A. pont: Mely jogszabály(ok) zárják ki pozícióiban?
személyek foglalkoztatását a
Melléklet
2
Nincs ilyen, nem is lehet ilyen jogszabályt létrehozni Magyarország Alaptörvényének (2011 . április 25.) XV. Cikk (2) bekezdése értelmében.
10. pont: Létezik-e külön tényállás az áldozat szexuális irányultsága miatt elkövetett
Nem létezik. ll. pont: Létezik-e külön tényállás az áldozat nemi identitása miatt elkövetett
Nem létezik.
16. pont: Létezik-e a a kiszolgáltatott helyzetben veszélyeztetett fogyatékosok, külfóldiek stb.) tartozó eljárás alá vont csoportokhoz (pl. személyekkel való különleges bánásmódra vonatkozó útmutatója? Nem létezik.
17. pont: Ha igen, ez kifejezetten kitér-e szexuális irányultság vagy nemi identitás szerinti kisebbségi csoportokra? Mivel nincs ilyen útmutató, az nem tér ki semmire.
29-34. pont: Az szállásokra, elhelyezésére - vonatkozó kérdések.
fogdákra - ott
Az szállásokra, fogdákra vonatkoztatva az általános ellátására létrehozott szervnél (a továbbiakban: nincs megfogalmazott útmutató.
személyek
a
feladatok kérdésekben
30/A. pont: Létezik-e a a fenti példákhoz hasonló, nagy számú vonzó, így többek között a gyülekezési jog hatálya alá tartozó rendezvények biztosítására vonatkozó gyakorlati útmutatója? Ha igen mi a címe, hivatalos dokumentum esetén az utasítás/intézkedés száma? Igen. Az Országos a gyülekezési jogról szóló 1989. évi III. törvény (a továbbiakban: Gytv.) hatályba lépése óta több a témával foglalkozó módszertani útmutatót dolgozott ki, így: a gyülekezési jogról szóló 1989. évi III. törvény hatálya alá tartozó rendezvények bejelentése során a eljárás feladatainak végrehajtására (2007) ellátva; "Nem nyilvános" a közterületen tartott rendezvényekkel kapcsolatos eljárásról, figyelemmel az Alkotmánybíróság 75/2008. (V.29.) AB határozatában foglaltakra (2008). Az egységes joggyakorlat kialakítása érdekében az ORFK Rendészeti folyamatban van egy, a Gytv. hatálya alá tartozó demonstrációk kezelésével kapcsolatos módszertani útmutató kidolgozása, iránymutatást adva a szerveknek a rendezvények
Melléklet
3
biztosításának egységes végrehajtására.
tervezése, végrehajtása során
feladatok országosan
36-37. pont: Van-e az ORFK-nak terve? Ha igen, ez kifejezetten kitér-e aszexuális irányultság vagy nemi identitás szerinti kisebbségi csoportokra? Igen, van. A kérdésre vonatkozó rendelkezéseket az Országos Tervének szóló 112010. (OT ll.) ORFK intézkedés tartalmazza.
41/A. pont: A válaszban említett "kisebbségi vagy iránymutatás szabályozza? A általános önkormányzatok közötti utasítás.
feladatkörét mely jogszabály
feladatok ellátására létrehozott szerv és a roma kisebbségi kapcsolattartásról szóló 22/2011. (X. 21.) ORFK
41/B. pont: Az feladatköre kiterjed-e valamennyi kisebbségi csoportra (így az LMBT emberekre is), vagy kizárólag a roma kisebbséggel tartják a kapcsolatot? Az
feladata kizárólag a roma kisebbséggel való kapcsolattartás.
41/C. pont: Az ügyeleti szolgálatot tréningeken hányan vettek részt? A számához? az ilyen feladatkört Az ügyeleti szalgálatot és tréninget
közül a kommunikációs és száma hogyan aránylik
számára folyamatosan szerveznek kommunikációs
41/D. pont: A közrendvédelmi szolgálati ágban dolgozó tiszthelyettes állomány tagjai közül a l tréningen hányan vettek részt? A száma hogyan aránylik az ilyen feladatkört számához? A
közrendvédelmi
márciusi vezetésével).
59. pont: A
szolgálati
ágban dolgozó tiszthelyettesi állomány tagjai (intézkedés-lélektani) tréningen vettek részt (2009. alapján 10-14 csoportokban, az alapellátó pszichológusok
személyek motozása, elhelyezésének szabályozása.
A fogvatartás során a fogvatartottal az emberi méltóság tiszteletben tartásával kell bánni. Tilos a fogvatartottat megalázó bánásmódban részesíteni. (A fogdák szóló 1911995. (XII. 13.) BM rendelet (a továbbiakban: BM rendelet) l. §-ának (2) fogdába befogadáskor a fogvatartott testének átvizsgálása bekezdése.) A nem történhet módon és az átvizsgálás alatt más fogvatartott, illetve a fogvatartottal ellentétes személy nem lehet jelen. A testüregek átvizsgálását csak orvos végezheti, amelynek során a vizsgálatot orvoson kívül a vizsgálat elvégzésében egészségügyi dolgozó, valamint a vizsgált személlyel azonos lehet jelen. (A szóló 1994. évi XXXIV törvény 18. § (5) és (6) bekezdése.)
Melléklet
4
61/A. pont: Mely tényállás alapján zajlik az eljárás ezekben az ügyekben? A közterületen folytatott szexuális tevékenység a szankcionált.
illetve a szabálysértési jog által
A a szabálysértési eljárásról és a szabálysértési nyilvántartási szóló 2012. évi Il. törvény (a továbbiakban: Szabs. tv.) 192. § (1) bekezdése értelmében, aki közterületen, vagy nyilvános helyen, vagy közforgalmú közlekedési eszközön a közerkölcsbe magatartást tanúsít, szabálysértést követ el (közerkölcs megsértése). A tényállást eikövetési magatartás például a hiányos öltözetben, tanga típusú vagy ruhátlanul közterületi tartózkodás, továbbá alsónadrágban, közterületen szexuális mozdulatok imitálása, a közforgalmú tömegközlekedési eszközön mások által hallhatóan, azonos személlyel szemben trágár- akár nem szexuális tartalmú -kifejezések használata. szóló 1978. évi IV. törvény 208. §-a értelmében, aki magát nemi A vágyának kielégítése végett más módon mutogatja vétséget követ el (szeméremsértés). A Szabs. tv. 192. § (l) bekezdésében nevesített közerkölcs megsértése szabálysértés a szóló 1994. évi XXXIV. törvény (a elkövetése esetén a továbbiakban: Rtv.) 13. §(l) bekezdéseszerint intézkedési kötelezettség terheli. az Rtv. V. fejezetében nevesített Az említett szabálysértés észlelése esetén a intézkedések, valamint a Szabs. tv. által biztosított figyelmeztetés, helyszíni bírság kiszabása és a szabálysértési feljelentés megtételére jogosult.
61/B. pont: Folytat-e a kifejezetten az ilyen cselekmények felderítésére irányuló akciókat (közismert találkozóhelyek elleni razziák)? A
nem folytat ilyen akciókat.
61/C. pont: Ha igen, hány ilyen razziára került sor az ország területén az elmúlt öt évben (éves bontásban)? Nem történt ilyen razzia, ezért a
66. pont: Elkülönítik-e a személyeket? Az
nem tud adatot szolgáltatni.
fogdákon belül a leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális vagy
szállásokon elhelyezettek nincsenek elkülönítve.
661A. pont: Elkülönítik-e a homo- vagy biszexuális férfi fogvatartottakat heteroszexuális férfi fogvatartottaktól; elkülönítik-e a homo- vagy biszexuális fogvatartottakat a heteroszexuális fogvatartottaktól?
a
Nem. A fogvatartás szabályainak alkalmazásakor a fogvatartottak között nem lehet miatt. A fogvatartás során el hátrányos megkülönböztetést alkalmazni a nem (A BM rendelet l. §-ának (3) bekezdése, valamint a 18. § kell különíteni a férfiakat a (l) bekezdés a) pontja.)
Melléklet
5
66/B. pont: Elkülönítik-e a fogvatartottaktól?
személyeket mind a
mind a férfi
Igen, elkülönítik
67. pont: Ha igen, a részükre kijelölt körletek mutatói (zsúfoltság, infrastruktúra állapota), illetve a rájuk vonatkozó rendszabályok eltérnek-e a fogdákban általánosan megszokottaktól? Az
szállásokon nincs a részükre kialakított körlet.
68. pont: van-e a fogvatartottaknak azonos bejegyzett élettárs) kapcsolatot tartani?
partnerükkel (élettárs,
Az szállásokon fogvatartott és hozzátartozója vagy más személy közötti kapcsolattartásra (látogató fogadása) egyeztetés szerinti a látogatás napján legalább negyvenöt perc kerülhet sor, amely kérelemre az szállás engedélyével további harminc perccel meghosszabbítható. látogató esetében szerint soron kívül - legalább hatvan perc van biztosítva. A látogatás gyakorisága nincs korlátozva. kapcsolattartásra az készülékek kerültek elhelyezésre. Az
szállásokon az
részére nyilvános
kapcsolattartása levelezés és csomagküldés útján is gyakorolható.
szálláson kiépítésre került az internet, így a külföldiek részére Valamennyi rendelkezésre bocsátott számítógépeken is biztosított a kapcsolattartás.
69. pont: van-e a fogvatartottaknak biztonsági okokból magánzárkában elhelyezésüket kérni? Az szállásokon a külföldiek elkülönítése okból történhet, amely az erre a célra rendszeresített helyiségben kerül végrehajtásra.
70-71. pont: Zárkabeosztáskor végeznek-e kockázatelemzést? A külföldiek befogadásakor, ezt a körletekbe elhelyezéskor az szállások állománya nagy figyelmet fordít a faji, etnikai, vallási és nemi konfliktusok elkerülése érdekében a külföldiek zárkabeosztására.
70/A. pont: A zárka-beosztások elkészítésekor végeznek-e kockázat-elemzést a fogvatartottak közötti konfliktusokat Igen, végeznek
71/A. pont: Ha igen, a kockázat-elemzés kiterjed-e a fogvatartottak szexuális kisebbségekkel kapcsolatos esetleges beállítottságára vagy szexuális magatartásukra? kisebbségekkel szembeni korábbi
Melléklet
6
Igen, kiterjed.
72-73. pont: Van-e
a fogvatartottaknak
panaszaik eljuttatására?
Amennyiben az a intézkedés vagy annak elmulasztása, továbbá társaival kapcsolatban panaszt, kérelmet terjeszt azt az szállás állománya átvételi elismervényen veszi át. Az által írásban benyújtott panaszok, beadványok és szállásokon zárható dobozok kerültek kérelmek zárt kezelése érdekében az elhelyezésre, amelyeket csak az szállás vagy helyettese nyithat fel, aki intézkedik az átvételi elismervények átadására, további eljárás lefolytatására vagy a szervnek megküldésre. beadványok hatáskörrel
84. pont: Vizsgálják-e a
alkalmassági vizsgálatok során a
Nem, mivel az egzakt módon és interjús formában - nem Vizsgálják viszont a hivatás gyakorlásához szükséges személyes kompetenciák (pl.: tolerancia) meglétét és szintjét.
94. pont: A leszbikus, meleg, vagy biszexuális személyek terhére elkövetett emberölésekkel kapcsolatos (a) bejelentések, (b) megindult eljárások, (c) vádemelési javaslattal záruló eljárások száma. A hivatkozott (13/2001. (X. 2.) ORFK utasítás alapján nem minden emberölés tartozik a specifikus profilelemzéssei kapcsolatos adatszolgáltatási kötelezettség alá ügyek közé, ezért ez eleve nem teljes és nem statisztikai célú adatbázis. Másodsorban az 5. számú melléklet 39. kérdése, mely valóban a szexuális beállítartságra vonatkozik négy kategória kiválasztását teszi lehetövé a sértettre vonatkozóan (l -Heteroszexuális, 2-Biszexuális, 3-Homoszexuális, 4-Nem ismert), mivel a pontok kiválasztása csak a biztos tények alapján történhet, és a szexuális beállítottság csak nagyon kis százalékban ki, ezért az itt megadott információk adatot közölni arra vonatkozóan, hogy ténylegesen hány olyan alapján nem lehet emberölés történt, melynél a sértett leszbikus, meleg vagy biszexuális személy volt. Az ilyen esetekben is különbséget kellene tenni abban, hogy az volt-e tudomása a és ez volt-e az indítéka. Erre vonatkozó statisztikai adatok nem állnak rendelkezésre, és a már hivatkozott ENYÜBS rendszer sem tesz lehetövé egy ilyen leválogatást.
98. pont: Az azonos partner terhére elkövetett partnerkapcsolati kapcsolatok (a) bejelentések, (b) megindult eljárások, (c) vádemelési javaslattal záruló eljárások száma. A kérdéssel kapcsolatban pontosítani kell, hogy a partnerkapcsolati kategórián a a Btk. 197. § szerinti közösülés jogsértést érti-e, vagy más vonatkozásában is szüksége van adatokra. A pontos megjelölésén kívül, az ENYÜBS útmutató 15-ös kódszótára - "Az és a sértett kapcsolata" - alapján meg kell adni a keresett kapcsolatok fogalmait, valamint a vizsgálni kívánt
Melléklet
7
104-107. pont: Az LMBT személyekjogai és rendezvényeik. A rendezvény-bejelentésekkel kapcsolatban a szervek rögzítik a nevét, a de nem rögzítenek olyan adatot, a nemi rendezvény célját és az identitást, szexuális irányultságot meg lehet állapítani. A demonstrációk engedélyezésének a kérdésköre, és az azzal kapcsolatos releváns adatok meghatározása nem tartozik a feladataink Szövegbányász Rendszerrel kapcsolatban közé, de a szövegben hivatkozott információ, hogy jelenleg a supportja, és a feltételei nem biztosítottak, keresésre megbízhatóan nem használható. Az ENYÜBS rendszerben pedig a kérdésre vonatkozó adatot nem a
108-109. pont: Az LMBT dolgozók aránya és nyilvántartása a
belül.
A fegyveres szervek hivatásos állományú tagjainak szolgálati viszonyáról szóló 1996. évi meghatározza a XLIII. törvény 199. § (3) bekezdés és a 7. számú melléklete adatok körét. A dolgozók szexuális személyügyi nyilvántartásokban és nem irányultságára illetve nemi identitására vonatkozó adatokat nem hány leszbikus, rendelkezünk nyilvántartással azon számadatról sem, hogy a dolgozó van. meleg, biszexuális illetve Kért dokumentumok:
3. pont: Az új családon belüli képzése során használt tananyagok.
és áldozatsegítéssel kapcsolatos
A megjelölt dokumentumok az ORFK Humánigazgatási Szolgálat feladatkörében tananyagokat érintik, amelyek olyan jegyzetek és amelyek nem el nyilvános forgalomban, az saját szellemi termékei.
Az EURÓPA TANÁCS AJÁNLÁSÁHOZ KAPCSOLÓDÓAN:
3. pont K4: Biztosítják-e a képzési programok és eljárások, hogy a bíróságok rendelkezzenek a tudással és képességgel az ilyen és incidensek felismerésére, valamint az áldozatoknak és tanúknak nyújtandó segítségre és támogatásra?
és a
A családon belüli és áldozatvédelem témakörben szervezett képzések során rendszeresen kapnak felkészítést az ügyeletes tisztek és tiszthelyettesek.
3. pont KS: A és bírósági képzések és magatartási kódexek biztosítják-e, hogy az LMBT személyeket diszkrimináció-mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék annak érdekében, hogy ezen személyek, akár áldozatként, akár tanúként, biztonságosnak érezzék (a) a szexuális irányultságukkal és más motiválta incidensek jelentését? Magyarország Etikai Kódexét közös nyilatkozatból idézet: (a Kódex) "a közösség érdekeit szolgáló, értékrendjét pozitívan befolyásoló, az viselkedési formákat összesíti, olyan általános elvárásokat deklarál,
Melléklet
8
melyeket hivatásunk érdekei, hagyományai valamennyi szakterületen megkívánnak "
5. pont K9: Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányuJtságon és (b) a nemi és motiválta incidensek identitáson alapuló nyilvántartása, valamint ezzel kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére? A Magyar eljárásai során sem a sértett, vonatkozásában nem adatot fajra, nemre, vallásra, szexuális irányultságra vagy nemi identitásra, tehát a szexuális és irányultságon és a nemi identitáson alapuló motíválta nyilvántartással, statisztikával nem rendelkezünk.
l.
44. pont Kl3: Kaptak-e ellátó intézmények dolgozó, a ilyen helyekhez hozzáféréssel irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással
képzést és információkat az idegenrendészeti és az orvosi személyzet, valamint az önkéntes szervezetek (a) a szexuális problémákról?
Az idegenrendészeti szakterület nem részesül speciális képzésben a szexuális irányultsággal problémákról. és a nemi identitással
dr. Gömbös Sándor úr részére KLYDWDOYH]HWĘ 2UV]iJRV5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWányság Hivatala 1039 Budapest, Teve u. 4-6. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt +LYDWDOYH]HWĘ Úr! Köszönettel megkaptuk a 2012. június 26-án NHOW N|]pUGHNĦ DGDWLgénylésünkre adott 2012. szeptember 21-én kelt, 21990/8/2012.ált. számon iktatott válaszukat. $YiODV]OHYpONDSFViQDN|YHWNH]ĘSRQWRVtWyNpUGpVekre szeretnénk választ kapni: Az 57/2009. (X.30.) IRM–ÖM–PTNM együttes rendelet 1. melléklet 037 Személyiség- és viselkedés- zavarok alatt „AN” (Alkalmatlan) PLQĘVtWpVW tU HOĘ D %12 )-65 kódszámú betegségekre, így az F64.0 Transzszexualizmus, ) .HWWĘV-szeUHSĦ WUDQV]YHV]WLWL]PXV és az F64.8 A nemi identitás egyéb zavara betegségekre is, vagyis a WUDQV]V]H[XiOLVLOOHWYHWUDQV]QHPĦ személyekre. K1. Következik-H IHQWL V]DEiO\R]iVEyO KRJ\ D WUDQV]V]H[XiOLV LOOHWYH WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN UHQGĘUL szolgálatra aONDOPDWODQPLQĘVtWpVWNDSQDN" $PDJ\DUMRJJ\DNRUODWOHKHWĘYpWHV]LKRJ\DWUDQV]V]H[XiOLVNpQWGLDJQRV]WL]iOWszemélyek nemük hivatalos megváltoztatását kezdeményezzék a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztériumnál, LOOHWYHQHPLiWDODNtWyEHDYDWNR]iVRNEDQ KRUPRQWHUiSLDPĦWpWLEHDYDWNR]iVRN YHJ\HQHNUpV]W K2. Az egészségügyi alkalmasság megítélése szempontjából van-H MHOHQWĘVpJH DQQDN KRJ\ D] érintett személy a nemváltás jogi és orvosi folyamatában hol tart? Az egészségügyi alkalmasság V]HPSRQWMiEyOÄJ\yJ\XOWQDN´WHNLQWKHWĘ-e egy nemváltáson átesett személy? Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-DODSMiQDIHQWLNpUGpVHNUHQDSRQEHOOOHKHWĘOHJHOHNWURQLNXVIRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek. 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. december 3.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Dr. Hende Csaba úr részére Honvédelmi Minisztérium 1055 Budapest, Balaton utca 7-11. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEE mellékleWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Honvédelmi Minisztérium által tett, illetve a M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV PHOOpNOHWpQHN azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Honvédelmi Minisztérium bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás melléklete V. Foglalkoztatás 29. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN RO\DQ PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHN PHJKR]DWDOiW pV YpJUHKDMWiViW NHOO biztosítaniuk, amelyek a foglalkoztatás és munkavégzés területén hatékony védelmet Q\~MWDQDN D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ megkülönböztetéssel szemben mind a köz-, mind pedig a magánszférában. Ezeknek az intézkedéseknek ki kell terjedniük a foglalkoztatáshoz való hozzáférés, továbbá az HOĘPHQHWHO pV D] HOERFViWiVRN IHOWpWHOHLUH YDODPLQW D IL]HWpVL pV HJ\pE munkavégzési feltételekre, beleértve a zaklatás és az áldozattá tétel más formáinak PHJHOĘ]pVpWOHN]GpVpWpVPHJEQWHWpVpW K1. Történtek-e lépések annak érdekében, hogy eltöröljék azokat a jogszabályokat, szabályzatokat és gyakorlatokat, amelyek (a) szexuális irányultság és (b) nemi identitás szerint hátrányosan NO|QE|]WHWQHNPHJDPXQNiKR]MXWiVpVD]HOĘPHQHWHOVRUiQEL]RQ\RVV]DNPiNpVIRJODONR]iVRN esetpEHQtJ\NO|Q|VHQDIHJ\YHUHVHUĘNQpO" K2. $IHJ\YHUHVHUĘNNHONDSFVRODWEDQNO|Q|VHQ i.
Történtek-e intézkedések annak érdekében, hogy megvédjék az LMBT embereket a Q\RPR]iVRNWyO ILJ\HOPH]WHWpVHNWĘO ]DNODWiVWyO EXOO\LQJWyO D NHJ\HWOHQ EHDYDWiVL szertartásoktól, megalázásoktól és egyéb, embertelen bánásmódtól?
ii.
A képzések és magatartási kódexek kitérnek-e az LMBT emberekkel szembeni diszkrimináció elleni küzdelem szükségességére és a tolerancia és tisztelet HOĘPR]GtWiViUD"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
HONVÉDELMI MINISZTÉRIUM +80È132/,7,.$,)ė26=7È/< Nyt. szám: 251- 71/2012.
Elektronikusan továbbítandó! E-mail:
[email protected]
Dombos Tamás úr Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Egyesület Budapest
Tárgy: Európa Tanács ajánlásai Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr! Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló GLV]NULPLQiFLy HOOHQL N]GHOHPUĘO V]yOy DMiQOiViQDN YpJUHKDMWiVD WHUOHWén a honvédelmi WiUFiWpULQWĘWHUOHWHNYRQDWNR]iViEDQD]DOiEELDNUyOWiMpNR]WDWRP Magyarország Alaptörvénye XV. cikkének 2) pontja értelmében Magyarország az DODSYHWĘ MRJRNDW PLQGHQNLQHN EiUPHO\ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV QHYH]HWHVHQ IDM V]tQ QHP fogyatékosság, nyelv, vallás, politikai vagy más vélemény, nemzeti vagy társadalmi származás, vagyoni, születési vagy egyéb helyzet szerinti különbségtétel nélkül biztosítja. $] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGUyO pV D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJ HOĘPR]GtWiViUyO V]yOy pYL CXXV. Törvény (a továbbiakban: Etv.) 8. § m) és n) pontja értelmében egy személy vagy csoport valós vagy vélt szexuális irányultsága vagy nemi identitása miatt nem részesülhet NHGYH]ĘWOHQHEE EiQiVPyGEDQ PLQW DPHO\EHQ PiV |VV]HKDVRQOtWKDWy KHO\]HWEHQ OHYĘ személy vagy csoport részesül, részesült vagy részesülne. Az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. Törvény 3. § a) értelmében a faji eredetre, a nemzetiséghez tartozásra, a politikai véleményre vagy pártállásra, a vallásRV YDJ\ PiV YLOiJQp]HWL PHJJ\Ę]ĘGpVUH D] érdekképviseleti szervezeti tagságra, a szexuális életre vonatkozó személyes adat különleges DGDWQDNPLQĘVO$SRQWD DOSRQWEDQIRJODOWNO|QOHJHVDGDWDNNRUNH]HOKHWĘKDD] adatkezeléshez az érintett írásban hozzájárul, illetve törvényben kihirdetett nemzetközi V]HU]ĘGpV YpJUHKDMWiViKR] V]NVpJHV YDJ\ D]W D] $ODSW|UYpQ\EHQ EL]WRVtWRWW DODSYHWĘ MRJ pUYpQ\HVtWpVH WRYiEEi D QHP]HWEL]WRQViJ D EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN PHJHOĘ]pVH YDJ\ OG|]pVH érdekében vagy honvédHOPLpUGHNEĘOW|UYpQ\HOUHQGHOL Az Etv. OHIHNWHWWH D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGUD pV HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJUH YRQDWNR]y KD]DL V]DEiO\R]iV DODSMDLW $] |QNpQWHV DODSRQ V]HUYH]ĘGĘ 0DJ\DU +RQYpGVpJ WiUVDGDOPL N|WHOH]HWWVpJH pV DODSYHWĘ IRJODONR]WDWiVSROLWLNDL pUGHNH PHJIHOelni a törvény
2 N|YHWHOPpQ\HLQHN$KRQYpGHOPLWiUFDV]iPiUDD]HJ\HQOĘHVpO\HNpVD]HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyG biztosítása, valamint a történelmi-W|UWpQHWL P~OWEDQ J\|NHUH]Ę NDWRQDL HUpQ\HN YiOODOiVD PHOOHWW D] iOWDOiQRV HPEHUL pUWpNHN LV NLHPHONHGĘ IRQWRVViJJDO Etrnak. A tárca kiemelt figyelmet fordít D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyG DONDOPD]iViUD D N|]YHWOHQ pV N|]YHWHWW PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV ]DNODWiV MRJHOOHQHV HONO|QtWpV PHJWRUOiV PHJHOĘ]pVpUH pV PHJV]QWHWpVpUH D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJ HOĘPR]GtWiViUD, a Katonai Etikai Kódexben megfogalmazott elvárások, valamint D] HWLNXVDQ PĦN|GĘ N|]V]ROJiODW pV D V]ROJiODWL jogviszony írott és íratlan szabályainak betartására, illetve az emberi értékek, a méltóság és az egyediség tiszteletben tartására. $ 0DJ\DU +RQYpGVpJ KLYDWiVRV pV V]HU]ĘGpVes állományú katonáinak jogállásáról szóló 2001. évi XCV. Törvény 6. §-a értelmében a szolgálati viszonnyal kapcsolatban az HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyGN|YHWHOPpQ\pWPHJNHOOWDUWDQL $KLYDWiVRVpVV]HU]ĘGpVHVNDWRQDLV]ROJiODWUDYDODPLQWDNDWRQDLRNWDWiVLLQWp]Ppnyi tanulmányokra való egészségi, pszichikai és fizikai alkalmasság elbírálásáról, továbbá az HJpV]VpJJ\L V]DEDGViJ D V]ROJiODWPHQWHVVpJ pV D FV|NNHQWHWW QDSL V]ROJiODWL LGĘ engedélyezésének szabályairól szóló 7/2006. (III. 21.) HM rendelet értelmében hivatásos, V]HU]ĘGpVHVpV|QNpQWHVWDUWDOpNRVNDWRQDLV]ROJiODWUDHJpV]VpJLOHJSV]LFKLNDLODJpVIL]LNDLODJ azok alkalmasak, akiknek nincs olyan egészségi, fizikai vagy pszichikai elváltozásuk, betegségük vagy fogyatékosságuk, amely a katonai szolgálat teljesítését kizárja, illetve annak VRUiQ HJpV]VpJL IL]LNDL pV SV]LFKLNDL iOODSRWXN MHOHQWĘV URVV]DEERGiViQDN YHV]pO\H QHP várható. Katonai szolgálatra pszichikailag az a személy alkalmas, aki megfelel a katonai szolgálat által támasztott szellemi, érzékelési, személyiségbeli, értékrendi és pályamotivációs követelményeknek. A 2011– pYHNUH YRQDWNR]y HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJL LUiQ\HOYHN NLDGiViUyO V]yOy 29/2011. (III. 10.) HM utasítás értelmében a tárcánál a szervezeti tudatosság erĘsítése mellett nagy hangsúly helyH]ĘGLN az esélyegyenlĘséggel és egyenlĘ bánásmóddal kapcsolatos ismeretek bĘvítésére, valamint a személyi állomány felkészítése során fokozott figyelmet kap az elĘítéletesség csökkentésére, az eltérĘ gondolkodás elfogadására irányuló törekvés. Az egyenlĘ bánásmód és az esélyegyenlĘség kérdései szerves részét képezik a tárca és alárendelt szervezetei tervezési és cselekvési rendszereinek, kiemelten a humánerĘforrás-tervezésnek. 0LQGHQ NDWRQDL V]HUYH]HWQpO PĦN|GLN HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJL UHIHUHQV UpV]NUH pYHV rendszerességgel kerül sor szakmai továbbképzésre és konzultációra. $ NpS]pVHN YH]HWĘL felkészítések és a továbbképzések rendszerébe beépítésre került a társadalmi hátrányok, a diszkrimináció és a megkülönböztetés elleni fellépés eszközrendszere, a személyi döntések HOĘNpV]tWpVpEHQ pV D G|QWpVKR]DWDOL IRO\DPDWEDQ D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyG LOOHWYH D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJDODSHOYHLNHUOQHNpUYpQ\HVtWpVUH A Ä.DWRQDL(WLNDL.yGH[´N|]]pWpWHOpUĘODÄ+RQYpGVpJL(WLNDL7DQiFV´OpWHVtWpVpUĘOpV feladatairól szóló 67/2003. (HK 18) HM utasítás rögzíti a katonai szolgálat kiemelt erkölcsi DODSpUWpNHLW$.DWRQDL(WLNDL.yGH[EHQIRJODOWpVDNDWRQDLV]ROJiODWRWWHOMHVtWĘNNHOV]HPEHQ WiPDV]WRWW HJ\LN DODSYHWĘ HOYiUiV D Wisztelet: a magyar és egyetemes kultúra értékeinek, a történelmi múlt és katonahagyományok és jelképek tisztelete mellett, a szolgálat és az emberi PpOWyViJ WLV]WHOHWH D] HPEHUL NO|QE|]ĘVpJHN V]HPpO\LVpJHN HOIRJDGiVD RO\DQ PpUWpNEHQ hogy az ne képezhesse akadályát a katonai hivatásnak, továbbá a szakmai és rendfokozati WHNLQWpO\ PHJEHFVOpVH $ .yGH[ HJ\pUWHOPĦHQ PHJKDWiUR]]D KRJ\ D KLYDWiVRV pV V]HU]ĘGpVHVNDWRQDD]HPEHULPpOWyViJWLV]WHOHWEHQWDUWiViYDOYHJ\HWXGRPiVXOpVWROHUiOMDD]
3 HPEHUL NO|QE|]ĘVpJHNHW, szolgálatteljesítése során senkit ne hozzon kellemetlen, megalázó vagy méltatlan helyzetbe, kerülje a személyeskedést, az intrikus magatartást(]HQW~OPHQĘHQ tisztelettel viszonyul bajtársaihoz, aliUHQGHOWMHLKH]pVIHOHWWHVHLKH]IHOHOĘVVpJHWpUH]EDMWiUVDL iránt. A Magyar Honvédség katonai szervezeteinél - D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJL UHIHUHQVHN jelentései alapján - V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ EiUPLQHPĦ megkülönböztetés nem történt. 7iMpNR]WDWRP KRJ\ D KRQYpGHOPL WiUFD HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJL UHIHUHQVH 6]DEyQp 6]DEy Andrea alezUHGHV D +RQYpGHOPL 0LQLV]WpULXP +XPiQSROLWLNDL )ĘRV]WiO\ NLHPHOW IĘWLV]WMH (telefon: (1) 474-1111/21-771 m.. e-mail:
[email protected]). Amennyiben a IHQWLHNHQ W~OPHQĘHQ NpUGpVN YDJ\ pV]UHYpWHON YDQ Nérem, hogy munkatársammal V]tYHVNHGMHQHJ\H]WHWQLDIHQWLHOpUKHWĘVpJHNYDODPHO\LNpQYDJ\V]HPpO\HVWDOiONR]yNHUHWHLQ belül. $ KiWUiQ\RV PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV IHOV]iPROiVD pV D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJ HOĘPR]GtWiVD érdekében kifejtett tevékenységükhöz további sok sikert kívánok! Budapest, 2012. május 29
- n.
Tisztelettel:
Kovács Tamás s. k. IĘRV]WiO\YH]HWĘ
Készült: 1 példányban Egy példány: 3 lap hJ\LQWp]Ę WHO 6]DEyQp6]DEy$QGUHDDOH]UHGHV + 36 1 474-1111/21-771)
Kovács Tamás úr részére IĘRV]WiO\YH]HWĘ Honvédelmi Minisztérium HumiQSROLWLNDL)ĘRV]WiO\ 1055 Budapest, Balaton utca 7-11. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt FĘRV]WiO\YH]HWĘÚr! Köszönettel megkaptuk a 2012. április 25-pQNHOWN|]pUGHNĦDGDWLgénylésünkre adott 2012. május 29-én kelt, 251- 71/2012. számon iktatott válaszukat. $YiODV]OHYpONDSFViQDN|YHWNH]ĘSRQWRVtWyNpUGpVekre szeretnénk választ kapni: A 7/2006. (III. 21.) HM rendelet 1. melléklet 037 Személyiség- és viselkedés- zavarok alatt „E” (Egészségileg alkalmatlan PLQĘVtWpVWtUHOĘD%12)-65 kódszámú betegségekre, így az F64.0 Transzszexualizmus, ).HWWĘV-szHUHSĦWUDQV]YHV]WLWL]PXV és az F64.8 A nemi identitás egyéb zavara betegségekre is, vagyis a WUDQV]V]H[XiOLVLOOHWYHWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\ekre. K1. Következik-H IHQWL V]DEiO\R]iVEyO KRJ\ D WUDQV]V]H[XiOLV LOOHWYH WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN KLYDWiVRVpVV]HU]ĘGéses katonai szolgálatra DONDOPDWODQPLQĘVtWpVWNDSQDN" $ PDJ\DU MRJJ\DNRUODW OHKHWĘYp WHV]LN KRJ\ D WUDQV]V]H[XiOLVNpQW GLDJQRV]WL]iOW személyek nemük hivatalos megváltoztatását kezdeményezzék a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi 0LQLV]WpULXPQiO LOOHWYH QHPL iWDODNtWy EHDYDWNR]iVRNEDQ KRUPRQWHUiSLD PĦWpWL EHDYDWNR]iVRN vegyenek részt. K2. Az egészségügyi alkalmasság megítélése szempontjából van-H MHOHQWĘVpJH DQQDN KRJ\ D] érintett személy a nemváltás jogi és orvosi folyamatában hol tart? Az egészségügyi alkalmasság V]HPSRQWMiEyOÄJ\yJ\XOWQDN´WHNLQWKHWĘ-e egy nemváltáson átesett személy? Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-DODSMiQDIHQWLNpUGpVHNUHQDSRQEHOOOHKHWĘOHJHOHNWURQLNXVIRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek. 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. június 14.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
HONVÉDELMI MINISZTÉRIUM +80È132/,7,.$,)ė26=7È/< Nyt. szám: 251-104/2012.
Elektronikusan továbbítandó! E-mail:
[email protected]
Dombos Tamás úr Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Egyesület Budapest Tárgy: Válasz pontosító kérdésekre Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr! Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló GLV]NULPLQiFLy HOOHQL N]GHOHPUĘO V]yOy DMiQOiViQDN YpJUHKDMWiVD WHUOHWpQ a honvédelmi WiUFiW pULQWĘ WHUOHWHN YRQDWNR]iViEDQ IHOWHWW SRQWRVtWy NpUGpVHLYHO NDSFVRODWEDQ D] alábbiakról tájékoztatom: A megkeresésében hivatkozott, D KLYDWiVRV pV V]HU]ĘGpVHV katonai szolgálatra, valamint a katonai oktatási intézményi tanulmányokra való egészségi, pszichikai és fizikai alkalmasság elbírálásáról, továbbá az egészségügyi szabadság, a szolgálatmentesség és a FV|NNHQWHWW QDSL V]ROJiODWL LGĘ HQJHGpO\H]pVpQHN V]DEiO\DLUyO szóló 7/2006. (III. 21.) HM rendelet (a továbbiakban: Rendelet) kiadásának jogi alapját a Magyar Honvédség hivatásos és V]HU]ĘGpVHV iOORPiQ\~ NDWRQiLQDN MRJiOOiViUyO szóló 2001. évi XCV. törvény (a továbbiakban: Hjt.) EHNH]GpVpQHN F SRQWMD EL]WRVtWMD $ 5HQGHOHW HOĘNpV]tWpVH VRUiQ D WiUFD V]HP HOĘWWWDUWRWWD D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyG N|YHWHOPpQ\pQHN PHJWDUWiViW PLQW D szolgálati viszony egyik fontos alapelvét és alapkövetelményét (Hjt. 6. §). A Rendelet orvos-szakmai szempontból az egészségi alkalmassági fokozat megállapításához a Betegségek Nemzetközi Osztályozására (a továbbiakban: BNO) szolgáló objektív kódrendszert alkalmazza, amely - ahogy azt levelében Ön is említi - a transzszexualizmust a BNO F64.00 diagnózis kódon tartja nyilván. A Rendelet 037. számú táblázata nem tesz különbséget, hogy az érintett személy a nemváltás jogi és orvosi IRO\DPDWiEDQKROWDUW DPHJOpYĘDODSGLDJQy]LVWPLQĘVtWLPHO\HWQHPEHIRO\iVROD]HVHWOHJHV nemváltás ténye. Kérem, válaszom szíves tudomásulvételét. Budapest, 2012. július
- n. Tisztelettel:
Kovács Tamás s.k. IĘRV]WiO\YH]HWĘ Készült: 1 példányban Egy példány: 1 lap hJ\LQWp]Ę WHO Szabóné Szabó Andrea alezredes (+ 36 1 474-1111/21-771)
Dr. Navracsics Tibor úr részére Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium 1055 Budapest, V. Kossuth Lajos tér 2-4. Postacím: 1357 Budapest, Pf. 2. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni küzdelHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás két réV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEE PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium iOWDOWHWWLOOHWYHDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWOpSpVHNIHOĘOpUGHNOĘGQN/HYHOQNK|]PHOOpNHOWND]DMiQlás és mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás 1. [A tagállamok] YL]VJiOMiN iW pV IRO\DPDWRVDQ YL]VJiOMiN IHOO OpWH]Ę MRJV]DEiO\L pV HJ\pE LQWp]NHGpVHLNHW YDODPLQW J\ĦMWVpN pV HOHPH]]pN D UHOHYiQV adatokat annak érdekében, hogy minden szexuális irányultságon, illetve nemi identitáson alapuló közvetlen vagy közvetett megkülönböztetés figyelemmel legyen kísérve, és orvoslásra kerüljön; K1. Készült-e átfogó felülvizsgálat azon jogszabályokról és egyéb LQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO DPHO\HN közvetlen vagy közvetett formában (a) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést valósíthatnak meg? K2. Létezik-e olyan eljárás, amely biztosítja, hogy az így azonosított hátrányos megkülönböztetés kiküszöbölésre kerül? 2. [A tagállamok] DOHV]ELNXVPHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHPEHULMRJDL tiszteletben tartásának biztosítása, valamint az ilyen személyek iránti tolerancia HOĘPR]GtWiVD pUGHNpEHQ EL]WRVtWViN D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWVágon, illetve nemi identitáson alapuló megkülönböztetés leküzdését célzó jogszabályi és egyéb intézkedések elfogadását és hatékony végrehajtását; K3. Létezik-e olyan jogszabály, amely tiltja (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést a foglalkoztatás, a szociális biztonság és egészségügy, az oktatás, a lakhatás és az áruk forgalma és szolgáltatások igénybevétele területén? K4. Létezik-e olyan átfogó stratégia, ideértve a hosszú távú oktatási és tudatosságnöveOĘ SURJUDPRNDW DPHO\QHN FpOMD D GLV]NULPLQiFLy YDJ\ D W|EEVpJL WiUVDGDOPRQ EHOOL HOĘtWpOHWHV KR]]iiOOiVpVPDJDWDUWiVNH]HOpVHpVD]HOĘtWpOHWHNpVV]WHUHRWtSLiNHOOHQLN]GHOHP" 3. [A tagállamok] biztosítsák, hogy a megkülönböztetés áldozatai tudomással bírjanak a QHP]HWL KDWyViJRN HOĘWW UHQGHONH]pVUH iOOy KDWpNRQ\ MRJRUYRVODWRNUyO pV hozzáféréssel rendelkezzenek e jogorvoslatokhoz, s hogy a megkülönböztetés leküzdését célzó intézkedések – szükség esetén – a jogsértések szankcióit, és a megkülönböztetés álGR]DWDL V]iPiUD Q\~MWDQGy PHJIHOHOĘ MyYiWpWHOW LV IRJODOMiN magukban. K5. Létezik-e hatékony jogorvoslat (a) a szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetés áldozatai számára? K6. Léteznek-e hatékony eljárások annak érdekében, hogy az áldozatok tudomást szerezzenek és KR]]iIpUMHQHN H]HNKH] D MRJRUYRVODWL OHKHWĘVpJHNKH] NO|Q|VHQ D]RNEDQ D] HVHWHNEHQ DKRO D MRJVpUWpVWKLYDWDORVPLQĘVpJEHQHOMiUyV]HPpO\N|YHWWHHO" K7. (]HNDMRJRUYRVODWLOHKHWĘVpJHNKDWpNRQ\DNDUiQ\RVDNpVNHOOĘYLVV]DWDUWyHUĘWMHOHQWHQHN" K8. (]HN D MRJRUYRVODWL OHKHWĘVpJHN PDJXNEDQ IRJODOMiN-e, amennyiben ez szükséges, az iOGR]DWRNPHJIHOHOĘNiUWDODQtWiViW"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
5. [A tagállamok] PHJIHOHOĘ HV]N|]|NNHO pV LQWp]NHGpVVHO EL]WRVtWViN KRJ\ H]HQ Ajánlás – beleértve annak Mellékletét is – OHIRUGtWiVUD pV D OHKHWĘ OHJV]pOHVHEE körben terjesztésre kerüljön. K9. 0LO\HQ OpSpVHNHW WHWWHN D] $MiQOiV pV PHOOpNOHWH OHKHWĘ OHJV]pOHVHEE N|UEHQ W|UWpQĘ terjesztése érdekében? K10. Lefordították-e magyar nyelvre az Ajánlást és mellékletét? K11. Terjesztették-HĘNHW i.
DOHV]ELNXVPHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦN|]|VVpJHQEHOO"
ii.
a közigazgatáson belül?
iii.
a bĦQOG|]ĘV]HUYHNN|UpEHQLGHpUWYHDEtUyViJRNDWpVIRJYDWDUWiVLLQWp]PpQ\HNHW"
iv.
az emberi jogok védelmét szolgáló nemzeWL LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HUEHQ LGHpUWYH D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGpUWIHOHOĘVLQWp]PpQ\HNHW "
v.
az oktatási rendszerben?
vi.
az egészségügyi rendszerben?
vii.
a köz- és magánszféra munkavállalói és munkáltatói körében?
viii.
a médiában?
ix.
a releváns nem-kormányzati szervek körében?
K12. Terjesztették-e az ajánlást és annak mellékletét: i.
D EĦQOG|]pV LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HUpEHQ LGHpUWYH D EtUyViJRNDW pV D IRJYDWDUWiVL intézményeket?
ii.
D] HPEHUL MRJRN YpGHOPpW V]ROJiOy QHP]HWL LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HUEHQ LGHpUWYH D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGpUWIHOHOĘVLQWp]PpQ\Hket)?
Az Ajánlás melléklete I. -RJD]pOHWKH]DEL]WRQViJKR]pVD]HUĘV]DNNDOV]HPEHQLYpGHOHPKH] A. Ä*\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´pVHJ\pEJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOWLQFLGHQVHN 2. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a szankciók meghatározása során a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos elfogultsági motivációt súlyosbító körülményként lehessen figyelembe venni. K13. Készült-e kutatás az LMBT emberekkel szembeni ellenséges és negatív beállítódás WHUPpV]HWpUĘOpVRNDLUyODMHOHQVpJJel szembeni hatékony politikák kidolgozása érdekében? K14. Léteznek-e rendszeres felmérések az LMBT emberek társadalmi elfogadottságának / HOXWDVtWiViQDNV]LQWMpUĘO" K15. Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN Q\LOYiQWDUWiViUD YDODPLQW D] H]]HO kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K16. Léteznek-H MRJV]DEiO\RN D J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN ellen? Elismerik-e ezek jogszabályok (a) a szexuális irányultságot és (b) a nemi identitást mint OHKHWVpJHVLQGtWpNRWD]LO\HQWtSXV~EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HNpVLQFLGHQVHNNDSFViQ" K17. Biztosítják-e ezen jogszabályok, hogy (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással kapcVRODWRV HOĘtWpOHWHV LQGtWpNRW D EQWHWpV NLV]DEiVD VRUiQ PLQW V~O\RVtWy N|UOPpQ\W mérlegelhessék? 3. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJJDO LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiVVDO NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|OHWbĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´ YDODPLQW PiV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHN iOGR]DWDLW pV WDQ~LW D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN MHOHQWpVpUH EiWRUtWViN H FpOEyO D tagállamoknak minden szükséges lépést meg kell tenniük annak biztosítására, hogy a jogalkalmazó szervek – a bíróságokat is beleértve – rendelkezzenek az ilyen EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN EHD]RQRVtWiViKR] V]NVpJHV LVPHUHWHNNHO pV V]DNpUWHOHPPHO V PHJIHOHOĘ VHJtWVpJHW pV WiPRJDWiVW Q\~MWVDQDN D] iOGR]DWRNQDN és a tanúknak. K18. Eljuttatták-e a kö]YpOHPpQ\KH] D J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN N|]pUWKHWĘ pV iWIRJy meghatározását, amely magában foglalja (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással NDSFVRODWRV LQGtWpNRW LV" SpOGiXO UHQGĘUVpJL KRQODSRNRQ YDJ\ D N|]|VVpJEHQ WHUMHV]WHWW szórólapok segítségével) K19. Biztosítják-H D NpS]pVL SURJUDPRN pV HOMiUiVRN KRJ\ D UHQGĘUVpJ pV D EtUyViJRN UHQGHONH]]HQHN D PHJIHOHOĘ WXGiVVDO pV NpSHVVpJJHO D] LO\HQ EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN felismerésére, valamint az áldozatoknak és tanúknak nyújtandó megfHOHOĘ VHJtWVpJUH pV támogatásra? K20. $ UHQGĘUVpJL pV EtUyViJL NpS]pVHN pV PDJDWDUWiVL NyGH[HN EL]WRVtWMiN-e, hogy az LMBT személyeket diszkrimináció-mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék annak érdekében, hogy ezen személyek, akár áldozatként, akár tanúként, biztonságosnak érezzék (a) a szexuális LUiQ\XOWViJXNNDO pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVXNNDO |VV]HIJJĘ J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV PiV J\ĦO|OHWPRWLYiOWDLQFLGHQVHNMHOHQWpVpW" K21. Léteznek-H RO\DQ HJ\VpJHN D UHQGĘUVpJHQ EHOO DPHO\HNQHN IHODGDWD NLIHMH]etten (a) a V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJKR] pV E D QHPL LGHQWLWiVKR] NDSFVROyGy EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV LQFLGHQVHN nyomozása? K22. Léteznek-H RO\DQ VSHFLiOLV UHQGĘUVpJL NDSFVRODWWDUWyN DNLNQHN D IHODGDWD D KHO\L /0%7 N|]|VVpJHNNHOYDOyNDSFVRODWWDUWiVpVDUHQGĘUVpggel kapcsolatos bizalom növelése? K23. Létezik-e olyan anonim vagy online panaszok benyújtására alkalmas rendszer, vagy más N|QQ\HQ KR]]iIpUKHWĘ FVDWRUQD DPHO\ OHKHWĘYp WHV]L D] LO\HQ LQFLGHQVHN KDUPDGLN V]HPpO\HNHQ keresztüli bejelentést annak érdekében KRJ\ LQIRUPiFLyW OHKHVVHQ J\ĦMWHQL H]HQ LQFLGHQVHN J\DNRULViJiUyOpVWHUPpV]HWpUĘO" 5. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás PLDWWLPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVpVLQWROHUDQFLDHOĘIRUGXOiVLJ\DNRULViJiUDpVWHUPpV]HWpUH valamint – különösen – a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´-UH pV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHNUH YRQDWNR]yDGDWRNJ\ĦMWpVpWpVHOHP]pVpW K24. Készült-e kutatás az LMBT emberekkel szembeni ellenséges és negatív beállítódás WHUPpV]HWpUĘOpVRNDLUyODMHOHQVpJJHOV]HPEHQLKDWpNRQ\SROLWLNiNNLGROJR]iVDpUGHNpEHQ" K25. Léteznek-e rendszeres felmérések az LMBT emberek társadalmi elfogadottságának / HOXWDVtWiViQDNV]LQWMpUĘO"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K26. Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN Q\LOYiQWDUWiViUD YDODPLQW D] H]]HO kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére? B. Ä*\ĦO|OHWEHV]pG´ 6. $WDJiOODPRNQDNPHJIHOHOĘLQWp]kedéseket kell tenniük minden olyan kifejezési forma – EHOHpUWYH D PpGLiEDQ pV D] LQWHUQHWHQ PHJMHOHQĘ NLIHMH]pVL IRUPiNDW LV – OHN]GpVpUH DPHO\HW pVV]HUĦHQ ~J\ OHKHW pUWHQL PLQW DPL YDOyV]tQĦVtWKHWĘHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN HOOHQL J\ĦO|OHWUH XV]tWy J\ĦO|OHWHW WHUMHV]WĘ YDJ\ J\ĦO|OHWHW HOĘPR]GtWy LOOHWYH D PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV PiV IRUPiLUD XV]tWy YDJ\ D PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV PiV IRUPiLW WHUMHV]WĘ YDJ\ HOĘPR]GtWy KDWiVW NHOW $] LO\HQ ÄJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGHW´ WLOWDQL NHOO pV HOĘIRUGXlása esetén nyilvánosan el kell utasítani. Az intézkedéseknek – az Egyezmény 10. cikkével és a Bíróság esetjogával összhangban – tiszteletben kell tartaniuk a véleménynyilvánítás V]DEDGViJiKR]IĦ]ĘGĘDODSYHWĘMRJRW K27. Létezik-e olyan jogszabály, amely EQWHWLD]HJ\HVFVRSRUWRNNDOV]HPEHQLJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGHW" (]HNDMRJV]DEiO\RNEQWHWLN D DKRPRIyEpV E DWUDQV]IyEJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGHW" K28. Létezik-HRO\DQMRJV]DEiO\DPHO\EQWHWLD]LQWHUQHWHVJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGHWpVH]NLWHUMHG-e (a) a homofób és (b) a WUDQV]IyEJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGUH" K29. Bátorítják-H D PpGLD V]HUHSOĘLW LGHpUWYH D] LQWHUQHWV]ROJiOWDWyNDW DUUD KRJ\ VDMiW J\DNRUODWXNEDQ SOPDJDWDUWiVLNyGH[HLNEHQ HOĘPR]GtWViN i.
DWLV]WHOHWWROHUDQFLDpVVRNV]tQĦVpJNXOW~UiMiQDNNLDODNtWiViWpV
ii.
az LMBT emberek negatív és sztereotipikus megjelenítésének visszaszorítását?
K30. Bátorítják-e az internet-szolgáltatókat arra, hogy tegyenek intézkedéseket (a) a homofób és E DWUDQV]IyEDQ\DJRNIHQ\HJHWpVHNpVWiPDGiVRNWHUMHV]WpVpQHNPHJHOĘ]pVpUH" 7. A tagállamokQDN D KDWyViJRN pV D N|]LQWp]PpQ\HN N|UpEHQ PLQGHQ IHOHOĘVVpJL szinten tudatosítaniuk kell, hogy kötelesek tartózkodni az olyan – különösen a médiában tett – Q\LODWNR]DWRNWyO DPHO\HN pVV]HUĦHQ D] LO\HQ J\ĦO|OHWHW LOOHWYH megkülönböztetést legitimálónak éUWKHWĘN K31. Bocsátottak-e ki iránymutatásokat vagy foganatosítottak egyéb intézkedéseket az állami KDWyViJRNV]HUYHNV]iPiUDDQQDNpUGHNpEHQKRJ\WXGDWRVtWViND]LO\HQMHOOHJĦNLMHOHQWpVHNWĘO való tartózkodás kötelezettségét? 8. $ WLV]WYLVHOĘNHW pV D] iOODP PiV NpSYLVHOĘLW EiWRUtWDQL NHOO DUUD KRJ\ D FLYLO társadalom – beleértve a médiumokat, a sportszervezeteket, a politikai szervezeteket és a vallási közösségeket is – YH]HWĘ NpSYLVHOĘLYHO IRO\WDWRWW SiUEHV]pGN VRUiQ PR]GtWViN HOĘ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN LUiQWL toleranciát, valamint az ilyen személyek emberi jogainak tiszteletben tartását. K32. Adtak-HNLHUUHYRQDWNR]yLUiQ\PXWDWiVWDN|]WLV]WYLVHOĘNQHNpViOODPLNpSYLVHOĘNQHN" II. Egyesülési szabadság 10. A nem kormányzati szervek számára rendelkezésre álló közpénzekhez való KR]]iIpUpVW V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQNHOOEL]WRVtWDQL K33. $ NLIHMH]HWWHQ FLYLO V]HUYH]HWHNQHN Q\~MWRWW N|]SpQ]HN HOpUKHWĘHN-e PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQD]/0%7V]HUYH]HWHNV]iPiUDLV"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
hátrányos
III. A véleménynyilvánítás és a békés gyülekezés szabadsága 13. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D véleménynyilvánítás szabadságához való jogot az Egyezmény 10. cikkével összhangban hatékonyan, szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás alapján W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV QpONO pV D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJJDO LOOHWYH D QHPL identitással kapcsolatos témákra vonatkozó információk megismeréséhez és terjesztéséhez való szabadság tiszteletben tartásával lehessen élvezni. K34. Bátorították-e a hatóságok a médián belüli pluralizmust és diszkrimináció-mentességet (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással kapcsolatos kérdések megtárgyalása során? 17. A hatóságokat minden szinten arra kell bátorítani, hogy nyilvánosan – nevezetesen a médiában – tWpOMHQHNHOPLQGHQD]HJ\pQHNHWpVD]HJ\pQHNFVRSRUWMDLWPHJLOOHWĘD véleménynyilvánítás és a békés gyülekezés szabadságának gyakorlásához való jogba történĘ MRJHOOHQHV EHDYDWNR]iVW NO|Q|VHQ KD ezen események a leszbikus, PHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHPEHULMRJDLYDONDSFVRODWRV K35. Ha volt jogtalan beavatkozás a szólás és gyülekezés szabadságába, bátorították-e a közhatalmi szerveket ezek elítélésére? IV. A magán- pVFVDOiGLpOHWWLV]WHOHWEHQWDUWiViKR]IĦ]ĘGĘMRJ 18. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN EL]WRVtWDQLXN NHOO KRJ\ D] D]RQRV QHPĦ EHOHHJ\H]Ę IHOQĘWW NRU~ személyek közötti szexuális cselekményeket kriminalizáló diszkriminatív jogszabályok – beleértve az D]RQRV QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN N|]|WWL V]H[XiOLV cselekmények, illetve a heteroszexuális cselekmények vonatkozásában megkívánt beleegyezési korhatár tekintetében fennálló különbségeket is – megsemmisítésre kerüljenek; a tagállamoknak annak biztosítására is megfeleOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO tenniük, hogy a megfogalmazásuk miatt esetlegesen diszkriminatív alkalmazáshoz YH]HWĘ EQWHWĘMRJL UHQGHONH]pVHN PHJVHPPLVtWpVUH YDJ\ PyGRVtWiVUD NHUOMHQHN illetve a megkülönböztetés-PHQWHVVpJ HOYpYHO |VV]HHJ\H]WHWKHWĘ PyGRQ NHUOMHnek alkalmazásra. K36. Létezik-HRO\DQMRJV]DEiO\DPHO\EQWHWLD]D]RQRVQHPĦHNN|]|WWLV]H[XiOLVNDSFVRODWRNDW" Van különbség a beleegyezési korhatárban? Ha bármelyik kérdésre a válasz igen, milyen intézkedéseket tettek a hatóságok a jogszabályok megváltoztatása érdekében? K37. Létezik-HRO\DQEQWHWĘMRJLUHQGHONH]pVDPHO\V]|YHJH]pVHYDJ\KDWiO\DPLDWWDONDOPD]KDWy olyan módon, hogy az (a) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést valósítson meg? K38. Ha igen, milyen lépéseket tettek a hatóságok a helyzet orvosolása érdekében? 19. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos személyes adatot közintézmények – beleértve különösen a rendészeti struktúrán belüli közintézményeket – QHP J\ĦMWHQHN QHP WiUROQDN pV más módon sem használnak, kivéve, ha az specifikus, törvényes és legitim célra V]NVpJHV D]H]HQHOYHNQHNPHJQHPIHOHOĘQ\LOYiQWDUWiVRNDWPHJNHOOVHPPLVtWHQL K39. Milyen intézkedéseket történtek annak érdekében, hogy biztosítsák, a közhatalmi szervek eleget tesznek ennek az elvárásnak (a) a szexuális irányultságra és (b) a nemi identitásra YRQDWNR]yDQNO|Q|VHQDEĦQOG|]ĘV]HUYHNiOWDONH]HOWQ\LOYiQWDUWiVRNWHNLQWHWpEHQ" K40. Milyen lépések törtéQWHN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D PHJOpYĘ Q\LOYiQWDUWiVRNDW megsemmisítsék?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
20. $ QHPYiOWiV MRJL HOLVPHUpVpKH] V]NVpJHV HOĘ]HWHV IHOWpWHOHNHW – beleértve a fizikai WHUPpV]HWĦYiOWR]iVRNDWLV– rendszeresen felül kell vizsgálni annak érdekében, hogy a visszaéléVV]HUĦN|YHWHOPpQ\HNHOWiYROtWiVUDNHUOMHQHN K41. Készült-e átfogó felülvizsgálat ezen korábbi követelményekre vonatkozóan? K42. Léteznek-H WRYiEEUD LV DUiQ\WDODQQDN YDJ\ PHJDOi]yQDN WHNLQWKHWĘ N|YHWHOPpQ\HN PLQW például: i.
visszafordíthatatlan sterilizáció;
ii.
hormonkezelés;
iii.
HOĘ]HWHVVHEpV]HWLEHDYDWNR]iVRN YDJ\
iv.
bizonyíték arra, hogy az érintett hosszú ideje képes az új neme szerint élni? 21. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ D személy nemváltásának teljes jogi elismerése – különösen a név és a nem hivatalos GRNXPHQWXPRNEDQ W|UWpQĘ J\RUV iWOiWKDWy pV KR]]iIpUKHWĘ PyGRQ HV]N|]|OW PHJYiOWR]WDWiViQDNDOHKHWĘYpWpWHOpYHO– az élet minden területén biztosított legyen; amennyiben szükséges, úgy a tagállamoknak a nagy fontosságú dokumentumok – így az oktatási bizonyítványok és a munkaigazolások – nem állami V]HUHSOĘN általi elismerését és megváltoztatását is biztosítaniuk kell.
K43. Léteznek-e olyan eljárások a gyakorlatban, amelyek biztosítják az egyén nem-átalakításának teljes jogi elismerését? K44. /HKHWĘYpWHV]LN-HH]HQHOMiUiVRNDQpYpVDQHPJ\RUViWOiWKDWypVHOpUKHWĘPyGRQW|UWpQĘ megváltoztatását a hivatalos dokumentumokban, ideértve a születési anyakönyvi kivonatot, a személyazonosításra szolgáló iratokat, jogosítványt, társadalombiztosítási kártyát és számot, valamint a választási, ingatlan- és adózási nyilvántartásokat? K45. Léteznek-e olyan eljárások, amelyek biztosítják ezen változások átvezetését a nem-állami V]HUHSOĘNiOWDONLDGRWWIRQWRVGRNXPHQWXPRNRQtJ\Séldául i.
az iskolai bizonyítványokban;
ii.
a munkavállalási engedélyekben;
iii.
a biztosítási és banki iratokban?
K46. Ha igen, ezek az eljárások tartalmaznak-e az érintettek magánéletének védelmét célzó rendelkezéseket, hogy harmadik felek ne szerezhessenek tudomást a nem-átalakításról? 22. A tagállamoknak minden szükséges intézkedést meg kell tenniük annak biztosítására, hogy amint a fenti 20. és 21. bekezdés szerinti nemváltás befejezetté YiOW pV MRJLODJ HOLVPHUpVW Q\HUW D WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN ~M QHPNNHO HOOHQWpWHV nHPĦ V]HPpO\HNNHO W|UWpQĘ Ki]DVViJN|WpVKH] YDOy MRJD KDWpNRQ\DQ EL]WRVtWYD legyen. K47. Hatékonyan biztosított-H D MRJLODJ HOLVPHUW WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN MRJD DUUD KRJ\ D QHPiWDODNtWiVV]HULQWLQHPNNHOHOOHQNH]ĘQHPĦV]HPpOO\HOKi]DVRGKDVVDQDN" 23. Ha a nemzeti jogszabályok nem összeházasodott párok vonatkozásában jogokat és kötelezettségeket állapítanak meg, akkor a tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a nemzeti jogszabályok – EHOHpUWYH D W~OpOĘ IpO Q\XJHOOiWiViUD YDODPLQW EpUOHWL MRJiUD vonatkozó jogszabályokat is – megkülönböztetés-mentesen kerüljenek alkalmazásra PLQGD]D]RQRVQHPĦPLQGD]HOWpUĘQHPĦSiURNYRQDWNR]iViEDQ 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K48. Léteznek-e olyan jogszabályok, amelyek jogokat biztosítanak vagy kötelezettségeket rónak a Ki]DVViJRQ NtYO HJ\WW pOĘ SiURNra? Ha igen, történtek-e lépések annak érdekében, hogy EL]WRVtWViNH]HNDMRJRNpVN|WHOH]HWWVpJHND]D]RQRVQHPĦSiURNUDLVYRQDWNR]]DQDN" 24. +D D QHP]HWL MRJV]DEiO\RN HOLVPHULN D] D]RQRV QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN N|]|WWL EHMHJ\]HWW élettársi kapcsolatot, akkor a tagállamoknak törekedniük kell arra, hogy az ilyen élettársi kapcsolat jogi helyzete, jogai és kötelezettségei azonosak legyenek az |VV]HKDVRQOtWKDWy KHO\]HWEHQ OpYĘ KHWHURV]H[XiOLV SiURN MRJL KHO\]HWpYHO MRJDLYDO és kötelezettségeivel. K49. Elismeri-e a jog D] D]RQRV QHPĦHN N|]|WWL EHMHJ\]HWW pOHWWiUVL NDSFVRODWRNDW" +D LJHQ történtek lépések annak érdekében, hogy biztosítsák, a jogi helyzetük és jogaik, valamint kötelezettségeik azonosak a heteroszexuális párokéval? 25. Ha a nemzeti jogszabályok nem ismerik el D] D]RQRV QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN N|]|WWL bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatot és az össze nem házasodott párokat, és nem UXKi]QDNMRJRNDWpVN|WHOH]HWWVpJHNHWD]LO\HQNDSFVRODWEDQpOĘV]HPpO\HNUHDNNRU a Miniszteri Bizottság felhívja a tagállamokat arra, hogy fontolják meg az azonos QHPĦ SiURNDW N|UOYHYĘ WiUVDGDOPL UHDOLWiVVDO NDSFVRODWRV J\DNRUODWL SUREOpPiN NH]HOpVpUH V]ROJiOy MRJL pV HJ\pE HV]N|]|N PLQGHQIDMWD PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘO – EHOHpUWYH D] HOWpUĘ QHPĦ SiURNNDO V]HPEHQL PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVW LV – mentes biztosítiViQDNDOHKHWĘVpJpWD]D]RQRVQHPĦSiURNYRQDWNR]iViEDQ K50. +DD]D]RQRVQHPĦSiURNVHPEHMHJ\]HWWpOHWWiUVNpQWVHPSHGLJKi]DVViJRQNtYOHJ\WW pOĘSiUNpQWQHPpOYH]QHNMRJRNDWpVN|WHOH]HWWVpJHNHWPpUOHJHOWpN-e a hatóságok jogi vagy más OHKHWĘVpJHk bevezetését annak érdekében, hogy kezeljék az elismerés hiányából adódó gyakorlati problémákat? 26. )LJ\HOHPPHODUUDKRJ\DJ\HUPHNIHOHWWLV]OĘLIHOJ\HOHWLMRJJDOLOOHWYHJ\iPViJJDO kapcsolatos döntések meghozatala során a gyermek legjobb érdekének kell HOVĘGOHJHVPHJIRQWROiVQDNOHQQLHDWDJiOODPRNQDNEL]WRVtWDQLXNNHOOKRJ\D]LO\HQ G|QWpVHN V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQNHUOMHQHNPHJKR]DWDOUD K51. Milyen lépések történtek annak biztosítáViUDKRJ\DV]OĘLIHOJ\HOHWLMRJUyOYDJ\DJ\HUPHN feletti gyámságról szóló döntéseket (a) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló KiWUiQ\RVPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQKR]]iNPHJ" 27. Figyelemmel arra, hogy a gyermek örökbefogadásával kapcsolatos döntések PHJKR]DWDOD VRUiQ D J\HUPHN OHJMREE pUGHNpQHN NHOO HOVĘGOHJHV PHJIRQWROiVQDN lennie, azon tagállamoknak, amelyek nemzeti joga egyedülálló személyek számára is engedélyezi gyermekek örökbefogadását, biztosítaniuk kell a jogszabályok szexuális LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘO PHQWHV alkalmazását. K52. Milyen intézkedéseket történtek annak biztosítására, hogy a gyermekek egyéni |U|NEHIRJDGiVD VRUiQ DKRO D QHP]HWL MRJ H]W OHKHWĘYp WHV]L D G|QWpVHNHW D) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló megkülönböztetés nélkül hozzák meg? 28. +DDQHP]HWLMRJHJ\HGOiOOyQĘNV]iPiUDLVHQJHGpO\H]LD]DVV]LV]WiOWUHSURGXNFLyV eljárást, akkor a tagállamoknak törekedniük kell annak biztosítására, hogy az ilyen HOMiUiVKR] YDOy KR]]iIpUpV V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVOHJ\HQ K53. 0LO\HQ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW W|UWpQWHN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D] HJ\HGOiOOy QĘN PHVWHUVpJHV megtermékenyítésre irányuló eljárásokhoz való hozzáféUpVH DKROH]WDQHP]HWLMRJOHKHWĘYpWHV]L V]H[XiOLVLUiQ\XOWViJRQDODSXOyPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVOHJ\HQ"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Szíjgyártó Judit asszony részére WLWNiUViJYH]HWĘ Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága 1055 Budapest, V. Kossuth Lajos tér 2-4. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt TLWNiUViJYH]HWĘAsszony! Köszönettel megkaptuk 2012. május 29-én kelt, XX-E/1/3/2013 számon iktatott levelét, amelyben egyesületünket arról tájékoztatta, hogy az Európa Tanács ajánlása kapcsán egyesületünk által a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium részére küldött 53 kérdést az illetékes minisztériumok részére megküldték. Tájékoztatjuk a Munkacsoportot, hogy az Európa Tanács vonatkozó ajánlásával kapcsolatban nem csak a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztériumot, hanem valamennyi érintett minisztériumot LOOHWYH iOODPLJD]JDWiVL V]HUYHW PHJNHUHVWN D] DMiQOiV NO|QE|]Ę pontjaihoz kapcsolódó, összesen 133 kérdéssel. A kérdéslistákat az egyes miniszterek, YDODPLQWD0LQLV]WHUHOQ|NVpJHWYH]HWĘiOODPWLWNiUIHODGDW- pVKDWiVN|UpUĘO 9,, Korm. rendelet alapján állítottuk össze. A kiküldött leveleket jelen levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Megkeresésünkre az alábbiak szerinti érkeztek válaszok: Belügyminisztérium: A válaszadást hatáskör hiányában megtagadta (BM/6458/4/2012) (PEHUL(UĘIRUUiVRN0LQLV]WpULXPa: A megkeresésWLOOHWpNHVVpJEĘOD.|]LJD]JDWiVLpV Igazságügyi Minisztériumba továbbította (20404-1/2012-MIK), majd részletekbe nem PHQĘYiODV]WDGWDN 20518-3/2012/SZTAJ) (J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ A kérdéseket érdemben megválaszolta (EBH/505/2/2012.) Honvédelmi Minisztérium: A kérdéseket érdemben megválaszolta (251-71/2012) Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium: A megkeresését az Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkárságának továbbította (XX-NMFO/2374/2/2012) Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium: Nem érkezett válasz Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság: A kérdéseket érdemben megválaszolta (MN/13627/2/2012) $ODSYHWĘ-RJRN%L]WRViQDN+LYDWDOD A kérdéseket érdemben megválaszolta (AJB/4244/2012) 0LQW D] D IHQWLHNEĘO NLGHUO D] DMiQOiV által leginkább érintett belügyi, igazságügyi, illetve RNWDWiVLHJpV]VpJJ\LpVV]RFLiOLVWHUOHWHNpUWIHOHOĘVPLQLV]WpULXPRNUpV]pUĘOpUGHPLYiODV] 2012. április 25-én megküldött kérdéseinkre a mai napig nem érkezett, ezért kérjük 7LWNiUViJYH]HWĘ $VV]RQ\W KRJ\ D] LOOHWpNHV PLQLV]WpULXPRN ILJ\HOPpW D YiODV]DGiV fontosságára felhívni szíveskedjen. Természetesen tisztában vagyunk vele, hogy a kért 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
DGDWRN |VV]HJ\ĦMWpVH NRPRO\ IHODGDW GH Et]XQN EHQQH KRJ\ PLYHO H]HNUH D] DGDWRNUD D Kormány által összeállítandó hivatalos országjelentés elkészítéséhez is szükség lesz, ezzel aránytalan terhet az állami szervekre nem rovunk. SegítségükHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. június 15.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK
Dombos Tamás
úr részére Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
Budapest
Csanády u. 4/B. 1132 lktatószám: )(X-E Jco
!11 (.20A?-)
Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr!
Az Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport megkapta a Háttér Társaság a Melegekért megkeresését, amelyben ötvenhárom kérdést tettek fel az Európa Tanács ajánlásával kapcsolatban . Tájékoztatom, hogy az Emberi Jogi Munkacsoportot létrehozó 1039/2012 (11.22.) Korm. Határozat alapján az emberi jogi tárgyú megkeresések megválaszolását a Munkacsoport koordinálja. Ezek alapján a megkeresésre a tájékoztatást tudom adni:
K 1.
A jogszabályok és egyéb intézkedések
során általánosan
szempont az
biztosítása, amelybe beletartozik a szexuális irányuilságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetés kérdése is. Mindemellett Magyarország igen átfogó antidiszkriminációs joganyaggal rendelkezik. Az Alaptörvény XV. cikke általános jelleggel rögzíti a hátrányos megkülönböztetés tilalmát. Az
bánásmódról
szóló 2003. évi CXXV. törvény 8. §-a pedig tilt mindenféle
és az
hátrányos megkülönböztetést szexuális irányultság vagy nemi identitás miatt. Hazánk egyúttal törekszik nemzetközi kötelezettségvállalásainak maradéktalan teljesítésére is. Erre tekintettel nemzeti jogalkotásában maximálisan figyelembe veszi a joganyagot,
valamint
kiemeit
figyelmet
fordít
az
ajánlás
jelleggel
nemzetközi megfogalmazott
jogi
instrumentumokra is. Elmondható tehát, hogy Magyarország minden lehetséges jogi eszközzel törekszik összes állampolgára védelmére.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel. : +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI )OGI MUNKACSOPORT ElNÖK A TÁMOP-5.5.5/08/1 .,A diszkrimináció elleni küzdelem- a társadalmi szemléletformálás és hatósági Bánásmód Hatóság végzett kutatást "Az
projekt keretében az
munka
bánásmóddal kapcsolatos jogtudatosság növekedésének mértéke - fókuszban a
a romák, a
fogyatékos és az LMBT emberek" címmel, melynek keretében vizsgálták többek között az LMBT embereket
diszkrimináció jellegzetességeit, e védett csoport szociodemográfiai
jogtudatosságuk
mértékét,
diszkriminációs
tapasztalataikat,
valamint az
bánásmód
követelményével kapcsolatos ismereteket. E kutatás zárótanulmánya nyilvános, az interneten
K 2-8.
A kérdések megválaszolása az
Bánásmód Hatóság hatáskörébe tartozik, amelynek
tájékoztatása alapján az Ön - a hatósághoz 2012. április 27-én e-mailen, majd 2012. május 4-én postai úton eljutatott- analóg megkeresése során már megválaszolásra kerültek.
K 9-12.
A Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium lefordította az Ajánlást, valamint annak mellékletét, és a nyilvánosság felé a
legszélesebb kör számára a
tette. Az ajánlás és melléklete
http://www.kormany.hu/download/3/8d/80000/CM-Rec-201 0-5-
ajanlas. pdf#! DocumentBrowse oldalról.
K 13-14. A kérdések megválaszolása az
Bánásmód Hatóság hatáskörébe tartozik, amelynek
tájékoztatása alapján az ön - a hatósághoz 2012. április 27-én e-mailen , majd 2012. május 4-én postai úton eljutatott-analóg megkeresése során már megválaszolásra kerü ltek.
K 15.
A
statisztikai adatszolgáltatás során a szexuális jelleget nem szerepeltetik az érintett szervek.
Az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságrói szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 3. § 3 ponlja szerint a szexuális életre vonatkozó személyes adat különleges adatnak
A
szóló 1994. évi XXXIV. tv. (továbbiakban: Rtv.) 82. § (1) bekezdése sze ri nt a a kOiönleges adatok közül kezeli: a) a büntetett
b)
vonatkozó adatot, valamint tevékenysége során egyéb
sértettnek a
személyes adatot és az
egészségügyi adatát, továbbá
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága: emberijogimunkacsooort@kim .gov.hu 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1 -795-4258, +36-1-795-437 4, fax: 06 1 795 0534
vagy a
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK c) a külön törvényben szabályozott közigazgatási feladatköréhez kapcsolódóan az ott meghatározott
különleges adatokat. A (2) bekezdés szerint a rendörség kezelheti azokat a különleges adatokat, amelyeknek kezeléséhez tájékoztatás után írásban hozzájárult
az érintett
Tekintettel arra, hogy a rendörség kizárólag a törvényben meghatározott adatok kezelésére jogosult, ezért fel sem merülhet annak a
hogy a rendörség szexuális irányultságra, illetve nemi
identitásra vonatkozó nyilvántartást vezessen.
K 16-17.
A
szóló 1978. évi IV. törvény (Btk.) 174/B. §-ában foglalt .. közösség tagja
elleni
büntetendövé nyilvánítja a nemzeti, etnikai, faji vagy
vallási csoport tagja elleni
túl a lakosság egyes csoportjai elleni
Ez a szélesebb megfogalmazás lehetövé teszi , hogy a
is. védelem valamennyi olyan
közösség, csoportosulás tagjára kiterjedjen, akit a csoporthoz való tartozása vagy annak vélelmezése vagy fenyegetéssel kényszerítettek valaminek a megtételére,
miatt bántalmaztak, avagy meg nem tételére vagy
Amint azt a közösség elleni izgatás tényállását vizsgáló 30/1992.
(V. 22.) AB határozat kifejtette, az Alkotmánybíróság értelmezésében a lakosság egyes csoportjai kitétel mögött .. az
nézetrendszer (párttagok, egyesületek, mozgalmak stb.
egyéb, tulajdonképpen bármely ismérv szerint
vagy
személyek védelmének szándéka húzódik
meg". Más, illetve súlyosabb
motiválta
esetén (pl. testi sértés, emberölés) a
törvényhozó által megfogalmazott .. aljas indokból" való elkövetés minösített esetét állapíthatja meg a jogalkalmazó, vagyis ezekben az esetekben egy törvény által megfogalmazott minösftett van szó, mely szigorúbb büntetéskiszabásátteszi lehetövé.
K 18. A Belügyminisztérium rendelkezésére álló ismeretek szerint nem történt olyan eset, amikor az általános rendörségi feladatot ellátó szerv bármilyen formában a közvélemény felé tájékoztatást meghatározásáról. A rendörség arra fordít figyelmet, hogy
nyújtott volna a a saját állományát felkészftse az ilyen minösitésére, annak érdekében, hogy a
cselekmények felismerésére és hatáskörébe tartozó eljárások
törvényes lefolytalására kerüljön sor.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-437 4, fax: 06 1 795 0534
jogi és
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSO PORT
ELNöK
K 19. A képzési prograrnak tartalmaznak olyan tantárgyakat és tantárgyi elemeket, amelyek oktatása során a tanintézetek
ráirányítják
tanulók figyeimét a
a felkészitésen
gyülölet-
és incidensek felismerésére, valamint az áldozatoknak és a tanúknak nyújtandó támogatásra. A deviáns viselkedések konfliktuskezelési problémáinak lélektani háttere és kommunikációs eszközei szituációs tréningek keretében kerülnek feldolgozásra. A kommunikáció és társadalmi ismeretek oktatása során a multikulturális társadalmak problémáinak elemzése okán kiemeit téma, a szubkulturális csoportként Európa országaiban együtt vallási közösségek gyakran jellegzetesen
etnikai, kuiturális és/vagy
életmódja. A rendvédelmi munkával és a rendvédelmi
magatartásával szembeni elvárás fontos eleme az
gondolkodás, ennek
az oktatásban hangsúlyos azon társas kompetenciák fejlesztése, melyek a különbözö másságat
csoportok elfogadásában fontos szerepet játszanak. Például:
empátia, önfegyelem,
és problémamegoldó készség, konfliktus-
megoldó készség. A képzési programok és módszerek megalapozzák a tudást és felkészítik a képzésben
tagjaitól elvárható
a szexuális irányultságú, illetve nemi identitással
kapcsolatos indítékból elkövetett
esetén
problémák kezelésére.
A bírák, bírósági titkárok központi képzésein , továbbképzésein rendszeresen történik büntetö anyagi jogi oktatás, képzés. Ennek keretében természetesen az ún.
is az
oktatás témáját képezik. A tanúknak nyújtandó "segítség" módját és mértékét az eljárási jogszabály, a Be. határozza meg , amely az eljárási jogról tartott képzések tematikájában szerepel. Az áldozatsegítéssel kapcsolatos állami feladat nem tartozik a bíróságak hatáskörébe. Az "áldozattal", a
sértettjével azonban a bírósági eljárásokban humánusan bánnak, ügyelve azonban
arra, hogy elkerüljék az elfogultság látszatát.
K20. A
szakképzésben biztosított a felkészítés arra, hogy a rendvédelmi
az LMBT
személyeket diszkrimináció-mentesen és tisztelettudó módon kezeljék. A szakképzés során kiemeit törvényben meghatározott követelmények elsajátítása. Az Rtv. 2. § (1)
szerepet kap a bekezdése értelmében a
védelmet nyújt az életet, a testi épséget, a vagyonbiztonságot
közvetlenül
cselekménnyel szemben, felvilágosítást és segítséget ad a
vagy
rászorulóknak. A
tiszteletben tartja és védelmezi az emberi méltóságot, óvja az ember
jogait. A kommunikáció és társadalmi ismeretek témakörén belül az oktatás tárgyát képezik a kisebbség és másság elfogadásával, a velük szembeni toleráns viselkedéssel, illetve
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
l o
:
.,, o
j
. ....
.r--
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK intézkedéssei összefüggö
szabályok. A Rendöri Hivatás Etikai Kódexének 4. ponlja a
hátrányos
5. pontja az
és segitségnyújtásról fogalmaz meg
elvárásokat. Ezen elvárások tartalmával a képzés során minden magatartási kódex ismerete, tartalmának részletes elemzése
megismerkedik. A ad a
munka
során az elvárható diszkrimináció mentes, emberi méltóságot minden esetben tiszteletben tartó intézkedések végrehajtásához.
Az
írt képzések- is - biztosltják, hogy a Magyarország Alaptörvényének XV. Cikkében Irt
diszkrimináció tilalmára, valamint a bíróságak szervezetéröl és igazgatásáról szóló 2011 . évi CLXI. tv. 7. §-ában Irt, a biróság
alapelvére figyelemmel, az LMBT személyek semmiféle
megkülönböztetésben nem részesülnek a bíróságak elötti eljárásokban. A bíróságokon a központi képzések mellett helyi
képzéseket, továbbképzéseket is tartanak
blrósági titkárok, bírák számára. Ezeken szintén szerepelhet a civil szervezet kérdéseiben felvetett témakör. A helyi szinten szervezett képzések pontos tematikájáról azonban információval az Országos Bírósági Hivatal nem rendelkezik.
K21. A rendörség szervezetén belül nem létezik olyan külön szervezettel
egység , amely
kifejezetten ilyen cselekmények nyomozását végzi. Az egyes ügyekben a budapesti és a megyei folytatják le az eljárásokat.
K22. Nincsenek olyan speciális
kapcsolattartók, akiknek a feladata a helyi LMBT közösségekkel
való kapcsolattartás.
K23. Az ORFK Központi Panasziroda postai úton és elektronikus úton a www.police.hu "állampolgári bejelentések"
valamint a
[email protected] e-mail eimen fogadja be a
panaszokat és bejelentéseket E bejelentések nyilvántartása a beadvány tartalma alapján történik. [gy olyan nyilvántartást a rendörség nem vezet, amely alapján pontos adat az olyan bejelentésekröl, melyekben LMBT személy érintett.
Ez a gyakorlat egyébiránt a
diszkrimináció-mentes Ogyintézést teljes mértékben biztosítani tudja.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374. fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSO PORT ElNÖK K 24-25. A kérdések tartalma azonos a 13-14. pontban feltett kérdésekkel.
K26. A kérdés tartalma azonos a 15. pontban feltett kérdéssel.
K 27-28. A Btk. a 269. §-ában szabályazza a közösség elleni izgatás többek között a homofób és transzfáb
mely büntetni rendeli
is. (A tényállás "lakosság egyes csoportjai"
fogalmi elemének értelmezéséhez utalunk a 16-17. kérdéshez adott válaszra.) E
csak nagy nyilvánosság
értelmezésére a Btk. a
valósulhat meg. A "nagy nyilvánosság" fogalmának rendelkezést tartalmazza: 137. § 12. pont: "nagy
nyilvánosságon a
a sajtó, egyéb tömegtájékoztatási eszköz, sokszorosítás,
elektronikus
hálózaton való közzététel úlján
elkövetésétisérteni kell."
K 29-30.34. A Médiatanács egyrészt a sajtószabadságról és a médiatartalmak
szabályairól szóló 2010.
évi CIV. törvény (továbbiakban Smtv.) és a médiaszolgáltatásokról és a tömegkommunikációról szóló 2010. évi CLXXXV. törvény (továbbiakban Mttv.) rendelkezésiben foglalt kötelezettségek felügyelete révén mozd ítja
hogy a médiatartalmak szolgáltatói,
tiszteletben tartsák az
emberi jogokat, és az alkotmányos rendet. A kiegyensúlyozott tájékoztatásra vonatkozó törvényi kötelezettség tekintetében folytatott eljárásai révén a társadalom minden csoportja, így az LMBT emberek számára is biztosítja annak
hogy a tájékoztató
egy adott közéleti
kérdés kapcsán a releváns álláspontok megjelenhessenek,
ezzel a
kultúrájának kialakítását. A fenti tevékenységél a Médiatanács az alábbi törvényi rendelkezések alapján fejti ki:
Smtv. : 13. § A tájékoztatási tevékenységet
lineáris médiaszolgáltatások kötelesek a
számot tartó helyi, országos, nemzeti és európai, valamint a Magyar Köztársaság polgárai és a magyar nemzet tagjai számára közzétett tájékoztató,
bíró
illetve híreket szaigáitató
vitatott
az általuk
sokoldalúan,
tárgyilagosan és kiegyensúlyozottan tájékoztatni. E kötelezettség részletes szabályait törvény az arányosság és a demokratikus közvélemény biztositása követelményeinek állapítja meg. Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel. : +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI jOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK 14. § (1) A médiatartalom-szolgáltatónak az általa közzétett médiatartalmakban, illetve azok készítése során tiszteletben kell tartania az emberi méltóságot. 16. § A médiatartalom-szolgáltató köteles tiszteletben tartani a Magyar Köztársaság alkotmányos rendjét, tevékenysége során nem sértheti az emberi jogokat. 17. § (1) A médiatartalom nem lehet alkalmas valamely nemzet, közösség, nemzeti , etnikai , nyelvi és más kisebbség vagy bármely többség, továbbá valamely egyház vagy vallási csoport elleni keltésére. (2) A médiatartalom nem lehet alkalmas valamely nemzet, közösség, nemzeti , etnikai, nyelvi és más kisebbség vagy bármely többség, továbbá valamely egyház vagy vallási csoport kirekesztésére.
Mttv.: 181. § (1) Az Smtv. kiegyensúlyozaUsági
13. §-ában és e törvény 12. § (2) bekezdésében
kötelezettség
illetve bármely
megsértése esetén
a kifejezésre
meghatározott
nem juttatott álláspont
vagy hallgató (a (2)-(6) bekezdés alkalmazásában a továbbiakban:
hatósági eljárást kezdeményezhet A kérelem elbírálására a JBE médiaszolgáltatók és a közszolgálati
médiaszolgáltatók
médiaszolgáltatások
médiaszolgáltatásai
vonatkozásában
a Hivatal
tekintetében
rendelkezik
a
hatáskörrel.
Médiatanács, A
más
kiegyensúlyozott
tájékoztatás kötelezettségének megsértése miatt a Hatóság hivatalból nem indíthat eljárást. (2) Az (1) bekezdésben meghatározott hatósági eljárás kezdeményezését köteles kifogásával a médiaszolgáltatóhoz fordulni. A ismétlés esetén az utolsó
a
az általa kifogásolt tájékoztatás
számított hetvenkét órán belül írásban kérheti a
médiaszolgáltatótól azon álláspont -
a kifogásolt tájékoztatás közzétételéhez hasonló
közötti - közzétételét, amelynek közzététele a kiegyensúlyozott tájékoztatáshoz szükséges. Nem élhet a kifogásolás jogával a kifejtésére ezen álláspont valamely
ha az ismertetésre nem került álláspont már
kapott, vagy ha e
a
kapta, de azzal nem élt. (3) A médiaszolgáltató a kifogás elfogadásáról vagy elutasításáról annak negyvennyolc órán belül dönt. A a döntés
a
haladéktalanul írásban értesíteni kell. A
számított negyvennyolc órán belül - a döntés közlésének elmaradása
esetén a kifogásolt vagy sérelmezett tájékoztatás és kezdeményezhet
az a
számított
érintett
médiaszolgáltató
HatóságnáL
A
Hatóságnál
számított trz napon belül - a kifogásolt pontos akkor
megnevezésével
hatósági
is
eljárás,
eljárást ha
a
médiaszolgáltató a kifogást elfogadó nyilatkozata ellenére a kifogásban foglaltakat nem teljesíti. Ebben az esetben a Hatóságnál a kifogás teljesítésére vállalt
lejártát
negyvennyolc
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
j
_
1"" "1 ' ' [:.;
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK órán belül kell a hatósági eljárást kezdeményezni. A Hatóság ügyintézési határideje tizenöt nap, amely indokolt esetben egy alkalommal, legfeljebb nyolc nappal meghosszabbítható. (4) A médiaszolgáltató köteles a Hatóság felhívására haladéktalanul rendelkezésre bocsátani a vitatott felvételét. (5) Amennyiben a Hatóság döntése szerint a médiaszolgáltató megsértette a tájékoztatás kiegyensúlyozottságát, a médiaszolgáltató a Hatóság által megjelölt döntésében foglaltaknak
-
és módon - a Hatóság
magyarázat nélkül köteles a Hatóság döntését vagy a
döntésben meghatározott közleményt közzétenni, vagy
adni a
az
szemben ezen túl a 186-187. §-ban meghatározott
álláspontja megjelenítésére. A jogkövetkezmények nem alkalmazhatók.
(6) Az (1 )-(5) bekezdésben meghatározott eljárás illetékmentes, a díj megfizetésére sem
igazgatási szolgáltatási
Az eljárásban hozott határozattal kapcsolatos jogorvoslatra a 163-
165. §-ban foglaltakat kell
alkalmazni azzal, hogy a Médiatanács
felülvizsgálatát az ügyfé l, illetve az eljárás egyéb
határozatának
jogszabálysértésre hivatkozással a
tizenöt napon belül a Médiatanács ellen indított keresettel kérheti. A a keresetet peres eljárásban, harminc napon belül bírálja el.
E rendelkezések érvényesülését a Médiatan ács hatósági eljárás keretében információ
ezen
eljárások
megtalálható
(www.mediatanacs.hu) a Médiatanács éves
A
a
Médiatanács
honlapján
beszámolóiban.)
és a diszkrimináció-mentességet, a homofáb és transzfáb tartalmak megjelenésének
elkerülését a Médiatanács tehát ezen általános jogi kereteken belül eljárva képes
illetve
mozdítja
További mozgásteret jelent a Médiatanács számára az online és nyomtatott médiatartalomszolgáltatókkal a társszabályozás keretében
Az önszabályozó szervezetekkel
olyan magatartási kódexek kerültek kialakításra, amelyek érvényesülését e (A Médiatanács azonban, amennyiben megítélése szerint e
szervezetek maguk
folyamatosan, elégtelen módon müködik, maga is eljárhat egyes panaszok, beadványok tekintetében, lsd. Mttv. 190-196.§) Az önszabályozó szervezetek magatartási kódexei szintén megtalálhatóak a Médiatanács honlapján. Ezen kódexek
az alábbi rendelkezések
ki
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK Az online tartalomszolgáltatókat
Magyarországi Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesületének
magatartási kódexe: "5. § (1) A médiatartalom-szolgáltatónak az általa közzétett médiatartalmakban, iletve azok készítése során tiszteletben kell tartania az emberi méltóságot. (2) Az emberi méltóság megsértésének
különösen: (... )
c) egyes személyeknek, társadalmi csoportoknak, közösségeknek másokhoz képest alacsonyabb való bemutatása,
emberi méltóságuk megkérdöjelezése.
(.. ) 1O. § (2) A médiatartalom-szolgáltató által közvetített médiatartalom nem lehet alkalmas az ( 1) bekezdésben
meghatározott valamely közösség
kirekesztésére.
médiatartalomnak
különösen: a) az érintett közösség társadalmon belüli elszigetelésre b) az érintett közösség tagjait
emberi és személyhez
tartozásuk miatt - való megfosztásra (3) A
vagy
felhívás vagy erre való utalás, jogoktól-a közösséghez való
felhivás vagy arra való utalás.
véleményeknek, álláspontoknak a demokratikus tájékoztatás célját
szolgáló bemutatáskor a médiatartalom-szolgáltatónak adott médiatartalom jellege, illetve
módon kell eljárnia. Ennek módját az
szerkesztöje határozza meg ."
A Magyar Elektronikus
Egyesülete
magatartási kódexe
szintén
hasonló
rendelkezéseket tartalmaz:
"5. § (2) Az emberi méltóság megsértésének minösülhet különösen: (... ) c) egyes személyeknek, társadalmi csoportoknak, közösségeknek másokhoz képest alacsonyabb való bemutatása,
emberi méltóságuk
9. § (1) A médiatartalom-szolgáltató által közzétett médiatartalom nem lehet alkalmas valamely (.. ) közösség (... )és más kisebbség( ... ) elleni
keltésére.
(2) A médiatartalom-szolgáltató által közzétett médiatartalom nem lehet alkalmas az (1) bekezdésben meghatározott
valamely
közösség
kirekesztésére.
médiatartalomnak
minösülhet
különösen: a) az érintett közösség társadalmon belüli elszigetelésre b) az érintett közösség tagjait tartozásuk miatt - való megfosztásra
emberi és személyhez
felhívás vagy erre való utalás, jogoktól-a közösséghez való
felhívás vagy arra való utalás.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-437 4, fax: 06 1 795 0534
P:"'?:t !:_'-
-1
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT
ELNöK (3) A
vagy
véleményeknek, álláspontoknak a demokratikus tájékoztatás célját
szolgáló bemutatáskor a médiatartalom-szolgáltatónak adott médiatartalom jellege, illetve
módon kell eljárnia. Ennek módját az
határozza meg."
A Médiatanács tehát mind az általános hatósági tevékenysége során, mind a társzabályozó szervezetekkel
keretében felügyeli és
az online, nyomtatott és
hagyományos (televíziós, rádiós) médiatartalmakban a
a diszkrimináció-mentesség
követelményének érvényesülését, illetve fellép a
emberi jog
(így pl. a homofób,
transzfób) tartalmakkal szemben.
K 31-32.
Nincs ilyen iránymutatás. A közszolgálati jogviszonyban szabályokat állapítanak meg a közszolgálati
azonban szigorú magatartási
szóló 2011. évi CXCIX. törvény vonatkozó
rendelkezései: ,.Általános magatartási követelmények 9. § (1) A kormányzati szaigálati jogviszonyban és a közszolgálati jogviszonyban (a továbbiakban együtt: közszolgálat) a köz szolgálatának társadalmi bizalom fenntartásának szem
alapján és a jó közigazgatásba vetett tartásával kell eljárni.
(2) A jogok gyakorlása és a kötelezettségek teljesftése során a kell eljárni, továbbá kölcsönösen együtt kell
és a tisztesség elvének
és nem lehet olyan magatartást
tanúsftani, amely a másik fél jogát, jogos érdekét sérti. 10. § (1) Tilos a rendeltetésellenes joggyakorlás. E törvény alkalmazásában rendeltetésellenes a jog gyakorlása különösen akkor, ha az mások jogos érdekeinek csorbftására, érdekérvényesftési korlátozására, zaklatására, véleménynyilvánításának elfojtására irányul, vagy ehhez vezet. (2) A közsza/gálati
a munkaidején kívOI sem tanúsíthat olyan magatartást, amely -
különösen munkakörének jellege, a munkáltató szervezetében elfoglalt helye alapján - közvetlenül és ténylegesen alkalmas munkáltatója helytelen megítélésére, az általa betöltött beosztás tekintélyének,
a munkáltató jó hfrnevének, a jó közigazgatásba vetett társadalmi bizalomnak, valamint a közszalgá/at céljának veszélyeztetésére."
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI jOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK K33. A kifejezetten civil szervezeteknek nyújtott közpénzek
hátrányos
mentesen az LMBT szarvezetek számára is. A Nemzeti Fejlesztési ügynökség adatbázisa nem tartalmaz olyan
mely kimutatná, hogy LMBT szarvezetek számára hány esetben
került erre sor- az Ügynökség abban tudna csak segíteni, hogy adott, konkrét szervezetlszervezetek részesültek-e juttatásban.
K35. A kérdés nehezen
Egyrészt nem derül ki, hogy kinek kellett volna "bátorítani" a
közhatalmi szerveket a szólás és a gyülekezés szabadságába történt jogtalan beavatkozás "elftélésére". Másrészt nem
pontosan, hogy az "elftélés" fogalma alatt mit kell érteni. A
rendörséget tekintve, amely a legtöbb gyülekezési szabályok alá és hatásköre arra terjed ki, hogy a
rendezvényt biztosítja, feladat-
vagy szabálysértést, esetlegesen a
hatáskörébe utalt közigazgatási szabályszegést észlelve vagy arról tudomást szerezve intézkedjen, illetve megindítsa a hatáskörébe tartozó eljárást. A
esetében természetesen szó
sem lehet arról, hogy az ilyen cselekményeket a rendörség "elítélje", a cselekmény megítélése a lefolytatott
alapján a bíróság hatáskörébe tartozik. Amennyiben a szólás és a
gyülekezés szabadságába történt jogtalan beavatkozás szabálysértési tényállást valósít meg és annak elbírálása a rendörség hatáskörébe tartozik, úgy a szabálysértési hatóság feladata a cselekmény jogi minösítése és a törvényi tényállási elemek megvalósítása esetén a megállapítása vagy - az elzárással sújtható szabályszegések esetében - az
eljárás
lefolytatása a bíróság döntésének megalapozása érdekében. Amennyiben a kérdés arra irányul, hogy a rendörség kapott-e úgy
bátorítást arra, hogy a jelzett cselekményeket morális szempontból elítélje,
nincs tudomásunk, de megítélésünk szerint a rendörségnek nem is ez a feladata, hanem
a cselekmények jogi megítélése érdekében a hatáskörébe tartozó intézkedések megtétele, eljárások lefolytatása.
K 36-38. Nem létezik olyan jogszabály, amely bünteti az azonos
közötti (nem
szexuális
kapcsolatokat. Nincs különbség a beleegyezési korhatárban. Nem létezik olyan
rendelkezés, amely szövegezése vagy hatálya miatt alkalmazható olyan
módon, hogy az (a) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést valósítana meg.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK K 39-40.
A szexuális életre vonatkozó adatok kezelése Általános: A szexuális életre, szexuális orientáltságra vonatkozó adatok mind az uniós, mind a magyar adatvédelmi szabályok (korábbi Avtv. - 1992. évi LXIII. törvény - és a jelenleg hatályos lnfotv. - 2011. évi CXII. törvény az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságrói -) alapján melyek kezelésére minden esetben szigorúbb
egyaránt különleges, szenzitfv adatnak
szabályokat kell alkalmazni az általános adatvédelmi rendelkezéseknéL
Az lnfotv. 3. § 3. pontja alapján a törvény alkalmazása során a szexuál is életre vonatkozó személyes adat különleges adat, mely
az érintett írásos hozzájárulásával
valamint, ha az törvényben kihirdetett nemzetközi Alaptörvényben biztosított
végrehajtásához szükséges, azt az
jog érvényesítése, a nemzetbiztonság , a
vagy üldözése érdekében vagy honvédelmi felhatalmazás alapján
törvény elrendeli (5.§) . A törvényi
adatkezelésre példa az egészségügyi dokumentációban meghatározott
betegségek esetén, orvosilag indokolt esetben a homoszexuális életmódra való utalás (pl. HIV esetében a kentaktus személyek védelme okán) vagy a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat fakadó adatkezelés, de ezekben az esetekben is az adatkezelési jogalapot, az adatkezelés célhoz kötöttségét és a tisztességes adatkezelés elvét minden esetben szigorúan, módon kell értelmezni. Az Alkotmánybíróság 65/2002. (XII.3.) AB határozatában leszögezte, hogy "A különleges személyes adatoknak
szexuális szakásakkal
adatok kezelésével
szemben követelményként érvényesül, hogy az adatkezelésnek konkrét célhoz kötöttnek kell lennie. Az adatkezelési cél túlságosan tág módon
meghatározása, azaz ha nincs összefüggésben az
adatkezelés a megjelölt céllal, továbbá, ha arra bizonytalan esetkörben kerül sor, illetve arra nem a szükséges mértékre korlátozott szemé/yi kör jogosult, akkor az adatkezelés meghatározott cél nélkül, illetve korlátlan módon válik lehetövé."
A Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatósághoz (NAIH) 2012. január 1-i fennállása óta még nem érkezett szexuális adatkezeléssei kapcsolatos beadvány, de az adatvédelmi biztos az elmúlt években kb. 11 ügyben folytatott ilyen
vizsgálatot. Az
két fontosabb állásfoglalás:
A 4209/2010/K sz. ügyben 2010 novemberében egy meleg egyesület tett fel kérdéseket konzultációs céllal: " GyOjthetöek-e védett csoport szerint elkülönített statisztikai adatok kisebbségek ellen irányu/6 bOncselekmények esetén? Anonim, önkéntes alapon kitöltött elégedettség-felmérésekben feltehet6-e szexuális irányultságra, illetve nemi identitásra vonatkozó kérdés?"
A személyes adatok
és a közérdekü adatok nyilvánosságáról szóló 1992. évi LXIII. törvény
(a továbbiakban : Avtv.) 2. § 1. pontja szerint személyes adat: bármely meghatározott természetes Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI jOGI MUNKACSOPORT ElNÖK személlyel kapcsolatba hozható adat, az adatból levonható, az érintettre vonatkozó következtetés. A személyes adat az adatkezelés során mindaddig
e
amíg kapcsolata az érintettel
helyreállítható. Az Avtv. 2. § 2. pontja értelmében különleges adat: a faji eredetre, a nemzeti és etnikai kisebbséghez tartozásra, a politikai véleményre vagy pártállásra, a vallásos vagy más világnézeti az érdek-képviseleti szervezeti tagságra, az egészségi állapotra, a kóros személyes adat. Az Avtv. 3. § (2)
szenvedélyre, a szexuálís életre vonatkozó adat, valamint a
ha az adatkezeléshez az érintett írásban
bekezdése alapján különleges adat akkor hozzájárul, vagy azt törvény elrendeli. A fentiek alapján megállapítható, hogy nem
személyes adatnak egy információ, ha nem
hozható kapcsolatba meghatározott természetes személlyel. Ennek alapon kitöltött elégedettség-felmérésekben
anonim, önkéntes
szexuális irányultságra, illetve nemi identitásra
vonatkozó kérdés. Ugyancsak az
"védett csoport" szerint
elkülönített, az érintettel nem összekapcsolható statisztikai adat a kisebbségek ellen irányuló esetében. Természetesen az adatok, a válaszadók anonimitását az adatkezelés egész folyamatában biztosítani kell, beleértve az adatok felvételét is. Gondosan ügyelni kell arra, hogy már a válaszadás idején se álljon
olyan helyzet, mely a
a felvett adatok és az érintettek közötti kapcsolat
helyreállítását lehetövé tenné.
a sértett, tanú vagy a terhelt párkapcso/atára, szexuá/is életére vonatkozó kérdés, ha az az ügy szempontjából releváns?"
a támadás áldozat által vélt motivációja, ha arról az áldozat önként (külön rákérdezés nélkül) beszámol?"
a támadás áldozatának szexuá/is irányultsága/nemi identitása, ha arról az áldozat önként (külön rákérdezés nélkül) beszámol?" " Rákérdezhet-e a nyomozó a sértett által vélelmezett motivációra, ha azt a sértett nem emlfti, de más miatt felmerül a
gyanúja?"
a nyomozónak a sértett
által
szexuá/is irányultságára,
illetve nemi identitására vonatkozó megállapítása, ha felmerül a Többi kérdése mind a
gyanúja?"
eljárás alatt a szexuális életre vonatkozóan
illetve
adatok körére irányult. Általánosságban elmondható, hogy bármely hatósági, illetve bírósági eljárásban
a szexuális életre vonatkozó kérdés, valamint az erre adott válasz
ha ez az ügy megítélése szemponljából releváns tény kicteritése céljából szükséges, valamint a tény kicterítéséhez elengedhetetlen és arra alkalmas. A bírósági eljárás során pedig az eljáró bíróság dönt a bizonyítási eljárásról, a figyelembe vett bizonyítékokról és azok
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected]
1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1 -795-4258. +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
.
.
,'.,l EMBERI ]OGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK "Rákérdezhet-e a nyomozó a sértett szexuális irányultságára, ha azt a sértett nem emlfti, de más körOimények miatt felmerol a
gyanúja?"
Fontos megjegyezni, hogy a legtöbb esetben a fent emlitett kérdéseknek az eljárás alá vont személy szándékának kiderítése a célja, így az eljárás szempontjából a sértett tényleges szexuális irányultsága legtöbbször nem lényeges. Az említett kérdések
az egyedi ügyben
eljáró hatóság/bíróság dönt. " - A 608/2010/T számú ügyben a 2010. februárban kapott válasz szerint "Az NBH határozottan cáfolja
a homoszexuálisokról vezetett nyilvántartás létét. Az NBH megkeresésére nem
nem megbízható forrásból származó információ alapján kerOlt sor, ezért nincs ok az NBH által közöltekben kételkedni."
-A témához közvetetten kapcsolódik, hogy az adatvédelmi biztos 1997-ben és igénybevételével határozottan kiállt az anonim módon is anonimitása
is helyszíni HIV-szürés valódi
mellett (855N/1997) , aminek eredményeképp mind a jogszabályban , mind a
gyakorlatban erre van Konkrét: A konkrét kérdésekre válaszolva tehát a NAl H a szexuális irányultsággal összefüggö jogellenes adatkezelések ügyében panaszbeadványra vagy hivatalból minden esetben vizsgálatot indítana. Az Infotörvény 60 . § (4) b) pontja szerint a személyes adatok védelméhez való jog érvényesülése
érdekében a Hatóság köteles adatvédelmi hatósági eljárást indítani, ha a bejelentésen alapuló vizsgálat alapján vagy egyébként
a személyes adatok jogellenes kezelése, és a
jogellenes adatkezelés különleges adatokat érint. Az adatvédelmi hatósági eljárásban az ügyintézési két hónap. 61. § (1) Az adatvédelmi hatósági eljárásban hozott határozatában a Hatóság a) elrendelheti a valóságnak nem
személyes adat helyesbítését,
b) elrendelheti a jogellenesen kezelt személyes adatok zárolását, törlését vagy megsemmisítését,
c) megtilthatja a személyes adatok jogellenes kezelését vagy feldolgozását, d) megtilthatja a személyes adatok külföldre
továbbítását vagy átadását,
e) elrendelheti az érintett tájékoztatását, ha azt az
jogellenesen tagadta meg, valamint
f) bírságot szabhat ki.
(2) A Hatóság elrendelheti határozatának - az
azonosltó adatainak közzétételével
- nyilvánosságra hozatalát, ha azt az adatvédelem érdekeinek, illetve nagyobb számú érintett e törvény szerinti jogainak védelme megköveteli. (3) Az (1) bekezdés f) pontjaszerint kiszabott bírság mértéke
tízmillió forintig terjedhet.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1 -795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ElNÖK (4) A Hatóság annak eldöntésében, hogy indokolt-e a bírság kiszabása, illetve a bírság mértékének megállapításában az eset összes körülményeit - így kOlönösen a jogsértéssel érintettek körének nagyságát, a jogsértés súlyát és a jogsértés
jellegét - veszi figyelembe.
(5) A bírósági felülvizsgálat kezdeményezésére irányadó keresetindítási felülvizsgálat kezdeményezése esetén a bíróság adatok nem
illetve nem
lejártáig , illetve
döntéséig a vitatott adatkezeléssei érintett meg.
K41 . Hazánkban a nem-váltásnak nem
a hormonterápia megkezdése vagy a nemi átalakító
azaz semmilyen "fizikai
változás" ehhez nem szükségeltetik. Ennek következtében
átfogó felülvizsgálat sem készült jelen
K42. Ahogyan azt már a fentiekben jeleztük, átfogó felOlvizsgálat nem készOlt a témában. Az Egészségügyért
Államtitkárságnak nincsen tudomása arról, hogy a beteg beleegyezése nélkül
bármilyen egészségügyi beavatkozás történt volna a nem-átalakítások során. Arra azonban már volt hazánkban is precedens, hogy az ügyfél ismételt nem-változtatás iránt nyújtott be kérelmet, és indokolásában arra hivatkozott, hogy nem tudott az adott nemnek
hosszú távon élni.
A 42. sz. kérdés a) pontjához - az egészségügyi indokból, az önrendelkezési jog hiányában végzett sterilizációval összefüggésben tájékoztatom,
tétel
hogy a
korábbi szabályai
felülvizsgálatra és módosításra kerültek még 2008-ban az egyes egészségügyi tárgyú törvények módosításáról szóló 2008 . évi XXVIII. törvénnyel. Így az (a továbbiakban: Eütv.)
szóló 1997. évi CLIV. törvény
tételre vonatkozó rendelkezései ma már
garanciát
biztosítanak a tájékoztatási, illetve az önrendelkezési jog érvényesülésének ezen a terOleten is. A tételre vonatkozó jogszabályi rendelkezések az alábbiak tekintetében változtak: differenciáltan, hozzájárulás)
meghatározásra
jogi garanciák beépítése mellett (bírósági eljárás, gyámhatósági került,
hogy
személyeken milyen esetben a 3 hónapos várakozási
korlátozottan el a
cselekvöképes
és
tételi eljárás,
26. életévet be nem töltött személy esetén 6 hónapra módosult,
került a kérelem esetében a közokirati vagy teljes bizonyító az egészségügyi indokból
magánokirati forma
meddövé tételi eljárás feltételei szigorúbbá váltak
azáltal, hogy konjunktív feltételként
került, hogy csak abban az esetben
amennyiben más fogamzásgátlási módszer nem lehetséges, vagy egészségOgyi okból nem alkalmazható és a terhesség a
életét, testi épségét, egészségét közvetlenül veszélyeztetné, vagy a
születendö gyermek orvosilag
súlyos fogyatékosságban szenvedne.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága: emberijogimunkacsoport@kim .gov.hu 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel. : +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ELNÖK Az Eütv. 187. § (1)-(2) és (6) bekezdései alapján tehát a müvi orvosi javallat alapján csak részletes tájékoztatást alapján
tétel egészségügyi indokból, a
írásbeli beleegyezése
Ezen jogi garanciák, és a vonatkozó jogszabályi rendelkezések betartása a
beleegyezési jog gyakorlása nélkül végzett sterilizációs esetek
K43. Magyarországon a nem-átalakítással kapcsolatos eljárásra nincs jogi szabályozás, ennek hiányában az eljárás rendjét a gyakorlat alakltotta ki. neme megváltozásának anyakönyvezésére irányuló kérelmét a Közigazgatási és
A
Igazságügyi Minisztériumhoz nyújlja be. Az
a házasságkötési eljárásról és a rendelet (a továbbiakban : At.) 30. § (4) bekezdése
szóló 1982. évi 17.
alapján a kérelemben meg kell jelölni a nem megváltozásának engedélyezése esetén viselni kívánt, az új nemnek
legfeljebb két utónevet, továbbá - ha rendelkezésre áll - csatolni kell a
születési anyakönyvi kivonatot, valamint a kérelem elbíráláshoz szükséges, rendelkezésére álló orvosi igazolásokat, leleteket, amennyiben mütétre is sor került, a kórházi zárójelentéseket Az At. 32. § (3) bekezdése rögzlti, hogy a nem megváltozásának a születési anyakönyvbe
bejegyzését meg
kell tagadni, ha az érintett személy házassága vagy bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolata fennáll. Ez alapján a nem- és névváltoztatás csak akkor
ha a
szabad családi állapotú
hajadon, elvált, özvegy, elvált bejegyzett élettárs, özvegy bejegyzett élettárs), így az érintettnek nyilatkeznia kell családi állapotáról is. Az iratok továbbításra kerülnek az Emberi
EMMI Egészségpolitikai
Minisztériumába (a továbbiakban: EMMI). Az
a becsatolt egészségügyi dokumentációk áttekintését
amennyiben indokoltnak látja a
nemének kijavítását -
szakvélemény az ügyfél kérelmével együtt továbbításra kerül a illetékes
-
szakvéleményt állít ki. A születési helye szerint
aki az érintett személy születési anyakönyvi bejegyzésében az érintett
személy nemét és utánevét kijavítja.
K44. A nem megváltozását a születés helye szerint illetékes
jegyzi be a születési
anyakönyvbe a közigazgatási hatósági eljárás és szaigáitatás általános szabályairól szóló 2004. évi CXL. törvény (a továbbiakban: Ket.) 33. § (1) bekezdés harmadik fordu lata alapján nyolc napon belül.
Az
a házasságkötési eljárásról és a
szóló 6/2003. (lll. 7.) BM rendelet
60. § (1) bekezdésének e) pontja értelmében a nem megváltozásának anya könyvi bejegyzésével az érintett személy utánevét is ki kell javítani az anyakönyvi bejegyzésben . Az a nem és az utónév anyakönyvi kijavitását
intézkedik a polgárok személyi
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-437 4, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUN KACSOPORT ELNÖK adatainak és lakcímének nyilvántartásában
módosftására, valamint új személyi azonosítót
(korábbi elnevezés szerint személyi számot) képez, a
részére pedig új születési
anyakönyvi kivanatot állít ki. Az anyakönyvi alapbejegyzés teljesítése, valamint az anyakönyvbe utólag bejegyzett adatváltozás -
ideértve a nem és utónév kijavítását is - Ket. 82. § (2) bekezdése alapján határozatnak kijavítás (döntés) Az
az
új névre és
nemre szóló
a anyakönyvi
A
anyakönyvi kivonat kiállításával értesíti. kivonattal
lehet felkeresni
személyazonosító okmányok/útlevél, személyazonosító igazolvány,
az okmányirodát a engedély, valamint a
lakcimet igazoló hatósági igazolvány kicserélése céljából. A nem és utónév kijavítása iránti kérelmet - amennyiben az EMMI nem tartja indokoltnak az határozattal utasítja el. A határozat ellen a Ket. 98. § (1)
anyakönyvi kijavítást - az bekezdése alapján jogorvoslatnak van helye.
A választói névjegyzék a polgárok személyiadat- és lakcímnyilvántartásán alapul, melyet az értesít. A személyazonosító jel helyébe
azonosítási módokról és az azonosító kódok használatáról szóló
1996. évi XX. törvény 37. § (1) bekezdése rendelkezik arról, hogy a személyiadat- és lakcímnyilvántartás szerve kapcsolati kód alkalmazásával köteles adatot szaigáitatni az állami adóhatóságnak, a társadalombiztosítási szervnek, a Pénzügyi Szervezetek Állami Felügyeletének és a kincstárnak.
K45. Ezen iratok kijavítására vonatkozóan a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium nem rendelkezik információval.
K46. Az At. 40. § (2) bekezdése alapján az ügyfél részére anyakönyvi kivonat adható ki, amely az anyakönyvezett adatokat a kiállítása
szerinti állapotnak
tartalmazza.
ha az ügyfelet születési anyakönyvi kivonat bemutatására kötelezik, az kizárólag a nem megváltozása utáni adatokat fogja tartalmazni, a korábbi nemére és utánevére vonatkozó információk nem derülnek ki sem az okiratból, sem a személyi azonosítóbóL
K47. Erre az esetre vonatkozó kifejezett rendelkezést jogszabályaink nem tartalmaznak. A házasságkötés a hatályos anyakönyvi szabályok alapján lehetséges.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1 -795-4258, +36-1 -795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
h . If. l''
-·
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT ElNÖK A házasságról, a családról és a gyámságról szóló 1952. évi IV. törvény (a továbbiakban: Csjt.) 2. § (1) bekezdése
szerint
házasság
akkor jön
létre,
ha
az
egyottesen
házasulók
az
személyesen kijelentik, hogy egymással házasságot kötnek. A Csjt. 3. § (1) bekezdésében foglaltak szerint a házasulóknak a házasságkötést
az
ki kell jelenteniük, hogy házasságuknak legjobb tudomásuk szerint nincs törvényes akadálya , egyszersmind igazolniuk kell, hogy házasságkötésük törvényes feltételei fennálln ak. A Csjt. 1O. § (1) bekezdése rögzíti továbbá, hogy házasságot nagykorú férfi és különbözö
köthet, azaz házasság kizárólag
között jöhet létre.
Az Ogyfél a személyes adatait a születési anyakönyvi bejegyzés alapján kiállított születési anyakönyvi kivonattal igazolja. Az
a házasságkötési eljárásról és a
szóló 1982. évi
rendelet (a továbbiakban: Anyakönyvi tvr.) 40. § (2) bekezdése értelmében az
17.
anyakönyvi kivonat az anyakönyvezett adatokat a kiállítása szerinti állapotnak tartalmazza.
következöen az anyakönyvi kivanaton az Ogyfél azon adatai kerülnek feltüntetésre,
amelyek az okirat kiállításakor
megilletik, így abból nem derül ki a nem- és névváltoztatás ténye. A
nem és az új nemnek új nemnek
utónév javításával
a kijavítást
az
személyi azonosítót is képez az Ogyfél részére.
K48. A Polgári
szóló 1959. évi IV. törvényben (a továbbiakban: Ptk.) foglaltak szerint
házasságon kívül, de a jog által elismerten együtt illetve azonos
is. A Ptk.
párok az élettársak, akik lehetnek különnemüek,
685/A. § fogalom meghatározó rendelkezése szerint tehát élettársi
kapcsolat áll fenn két olyan házasságkötés vagy bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat létesitése nélkül közös háztartásban érzelmi és gazdasági közösségben (életközösségben) együtt
személy között, akik
közül egyiknek sem áll fenn mással házassági életközössége, bejegyzett élettársi életközössége vagy élettársi kapcsolata, és akik nem állnak egymással egyenesági rokonságban vagy testvéri, féltestvéri kapcsolatban. A Pt. 578/G. § (1) bekezdése ad szabályozást az élettársak vagyoni viszonyaira, miszerint az élettársak együttélésük alatt a szerzésben való közremüködésük arányában szereznek közös tulajdont. Ha a
aránya nem állapítható meg , azt azonos számít.
háztartásban végzett munka a szerzésben való Az azonos
jogilag elismerten együtt
kell tekinteni. A
párokra (és az ö jogi helyzetükre) vonatkozó
szabályokat a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatról, az ezzel
valamint az élettársi viszony
igazolásának megkönnyitéséhez szükséges egyes törvények módositásáról szóló 2009 . évi XXIX. törvény (a továbbiakban: bejegyzett élettársakról szóló tv.) tartalmazza, ez
a 49. pontnál
kerül kifejtésre.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel. : +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
-. EMBERI jOGI MUNKACSO PORT ElNÖK
K49.
A bejegyzett élettársakról szóló tv. szerint az azonos
bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolata jogilag
elismert. A bejegyzett élettársakról szóló tv. 1. § (1) bekezdése szerint ugyanis bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat akkor jön létre, ha az életévét betöltött, azonos
együttesen
két, tizennyolcadik
személy személyesen kijelenti, hogy egymással bejegyzett élettársi
kapcsolatot kíván létesíteni. A bejegyzett élettársakról szóló tv. nemcsak definiálja a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat fogalm át, hanem annak joghatásait is rögzíti. Az említett törvény 3. § (1) bekezdése értelmében, ha e törvény zárja ki,
nem rendelkezik, vagy e törvény a rendelkezés alkalmazását nem
alkalmazni kell
- a házasságra vonatkozó szabályokat a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatra, - a házastársra vagy házastársakra vonatkozó szabályokat a bejegyzett élettársra vagy bejegyzett élettársakra, - az özvegyre vonatkozó szabályokat az elhunyt bejegyzett élettárs
bejegyzett élettársára,
- az elvált személyre vonatkozó szabályokat arra a személyre, akinek bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatát megszü ntették, - a hajadonra,
vonatkozó szabályokat arra a személyre, aki még nem volt házas, és
bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatot még nem létesített, és - a házaspárra vonatkozó szabályokat a bejegyzett élettársakra. A bejegyzett élettársakról szóló tv. 3. §-a a továbbiakban a 3. § (1) bekezdésben fogla ltaktól rendelkezéseket fogalmaz meg, így például a bejegyzett élettársakra a házastársak által
közös
gyermekké fogadásra vonatkozó szabályok nem alkalmazhatóak, a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat apasági véleimet nem keletkeztet, a házastársak névviselésére vonatkozó rendelkezések nem alkalmazhatóak a bejegyzett élettársakra.
K50.
Az azonos nemO párokat bejegyzett élettársként a fent kifejtettek szerint illetik meg jogok és terhelik kötelezettségek.
K 51.
A hatályos jogszabályok alapján a
felügyeleti jogról illetve a gyermek feletti gyámságról való
döntések során a szexuális irányultságot vagy nemi identitást nem veszik figyelembe. A vizsgálódás szempontját a döntések során az képezi, hogy a
a gyermeket
gondozza,
nevelje.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága: emberijogimunkacsoport@kim. gov.hu 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel.: +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI JOGI MUNKACSOPORT
ElNöK K 52. Hatályos jogunkban - mint ahogyan arra már a 49. pontnál is utaltunk - a bejegyzett élettársakra a házastársak által
közös gyermekké fogadásra vonatkozó szabályok nem alkalmazhatóak. A
Csjt. 49. § (1) bekezdése szerint a gyámhivatal-az örökbefogadás céljának érdekében
a házasságban
örökbefogadók által
-a gyermek
örökbefogadást engedélyezi. A
Csjt. 47. § (5) bekezdése alapján az örökbefogadott személyt az örökbefogadás fennállása alatt csak az örökbefogadó házastársa fogadhatja örökbe, az örökbefogadó halála után azonban más személy is. Az utóbbi esetben a korábbi örökbefogadás megszünik. Mind a közös, mind pedig az egyéni örökbefogadás esetén a gyámhatóságokról, valamint a gyermekvédelmi és gyámogyi eljárásról szóló 149/1997. (IX. 10.) Korm. rendelet 38. § (1) bekezdésében foglalt szempont érvényesül, azaz az örökbefogadás
eljárás lefolytatásának célja
annak megállapítása, hogy az örökbefogadó személyisége és körülményei alapján alkalmas-e gyermek örökbefogadására. Aszexuális irányultság és nemi identitás nem kizáró körülmény. A Csjt.
47. § (1) bekezdése szerint örökbefogadó csak az a teljesen
nagykorú személy lehet,
aki - a külön jogszabályban meghatározott - örökbefogadás elötti tanácsadáson és tanfolyamon eredménnyel részt vett, és személyisége, valamint körülményei alapján - a gyámhivatal örökbefogadás
eljárása során
hozott határozata értelmében -
alkalmas a gyermek (A rokoni, illetve a
örökbefogadására, továbbá a gyermeknéllegalább 16, legfeljebb 45 évvel házastársi örökbefogadás esetén a
illetve a
tanfolyam
el kell
tekinteni.) A helyettes szülök, a
a családi napközit
képzésének szakmai és
valamint az örökbefogadás elötti tanácsadásról és
tanfolyamról
szóló 29/2003. (V. 20.) ESzCsM rendeletben foglaltak szerint az örökbe fogadni szándékozó szülö az örökbefogadéi tanfolyamot
pszichológus által végzett szakmai tanácsadáson vesz részt,
melynek célja hogy az örökbe fogadni szándékozó
a
-személyisége és családstruktúrája alapján -
együtt megalapozott döntést tudjon hozni arról, alkalmas-e
örökbefogadéi tanfolyam célja a
Az
megismertetése az örökbefogadás társadalmi és jogi
hátterével, az örökbe fogadható gyermekek speciális helyzetével és az örökbefogadással együtt járó konfliktusok kezelésének módjaival.
Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2-4. tel. : +36-1-795-4258, +36-1-795-437 4, fax: 06 1 795 0534
EMBERI jOGI MUNKACSOPORT ElNÖK K53. Az emberi reprodukcióra vonatkozó
jogi szabályokat az Eütv. 165. §- 169. §-ai tartalmazzák.
Az EOtv. 167. § (1) bekezdése alapján az emberi reprodukcióra irányuló eljárás házastársi, illetve a
a
közötti élettársi kapcsolatban lehetséges:
"167. § (1) Reprodukciós eljárás házastársi vagy
el,
személyeknél
amennyiben
közötti élettársi kapcsolatban álló
bármely félnél fennálló egészségi ok
következtében a kapcsolatból természetes úton nagy
egészséges gyermek nem
származhat. Élettársak esetén reprodukciós eljárás csak abban az esetben
amennyiben
az élettársak egyike sem áll házastársi kapcsolatban." Az egyedülálló
esetében a reprodukciós eljárás kivételes jelleggel
el. Ezt az Eütv. 167.
§ (4) bekezdése mondja ki: "167 . § (4) Egyedülálló
esetében a reprodukciós eljárás akkor
életkora vagy egészségi állapota
el, amennyiben a
következtében gyermeket természetes úton nagy
nem vállalhat. A reprodukciós eljárás megkezdésére, a tájékoztatásra, a nyilatkozatra e fejezet rendelkezései
irányadók. A reprodukciós eljárás során testen kívül
létrejött és be nem ültetett embrióval kapcsolatos, e fejezet szerinti rendelkezési jogot az egyedülálló gyakorolja
azzal,
hogy
rendelkezési
jogáról
közokiratban
vagy
teljes
bizonyító
magánokiratban lemondhat." Az Eütv. fent hivatkozott bekezdése ugyan kifejezetten nem tartalmaz az egyedülálló irányultságára vonatkozó utalást, azonban az Eütv. 167. § (1)
szexuális
az a következtetés
vonható le - ha a törvény már az azonos
élettársi kapcsolatában sem engedélyezi a
reprodukciós eljárást -, hogy az egyedülálló
esetében is szempontként jelentkezik a szexuális
irányultság.
Remélem, hogy tájékoztatásommal a segítségére voltam!
Budapest, 2012. július 13.
Üdvözlettel:
Az Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport elnöke Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Titkársága:
[email protected] 1055 Budapest, Kossuth tér 2·4. tel. : +36-1· 795-4258, +36-1 · 795-4374, fax: 06 1 795 0534
Dr. Réthelyi Miklós úr részére 1HP]HWL(UĘIRUUiV0LQLV]WpULXP 1055 Budapest, Szalay utca 10-14. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]Dbb PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a 1HP]HWL (UĘIRUUiV 0LQLV]WpULXP által tett, LOOHWYH D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV és mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a 1HP]HWL (UĘIorrás Minisztérium bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás és mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás 1. [A tagállamok] YL]VJiOMiN iW pV IRO\DPDWRVDQ YL]VJiOMiN IHOO OpWH]Ę MRJV]DEiO\L pV HJ\pE LQWp]NHGpVHLNHW YDODPLQW J\ĦMWVpN pV HOHPH]]pN D UHOHYins adatokat annak érdekében, hogy minden szexuális irányultságon, illetve nemi identitáson alapuló közvetlen vagy közvetett megkülönböztetés figyelemmel legyen kísérve, és orvoslásra kerüljön. K1. Készült-e átfogó felülvizsgálat azon jogszabályokról és egypE LQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO DPHO\HN közvetlen vagy közvetett formában (a) szexuális irányultságon vagy (b) nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést valósíthatnak meg? K2. Létezik-e olyan eljárás, amely biztosítja, hogy az így azonosított hátrányos megkülönböztetés kiküszöbölésre kerül? 2. >$WDJiOODPRN@DOHV]ELNXVPHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHPEHULMRJDL tiszteletben tartásának biztosítása, valamint az ilyen személyek iránti tolerancia HOĘPR]GtWiVD pUGHNpEHQ EL]WRVtWViN D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOtságon, illetve nemi identitáson alapuló megkülönböztetés leküzdését célzó jogszabályi és egyéb intézkedések elfogadását és hatékony végrehajtását. K3. Létezik-e olyan jogszabály, amely tiltja (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést a foglalkoztatás, a szociális biztonság és egészségügy, az oktatás, a lakhatás és az áruk forgalma és szolgáltatások igénybevétele területén? K4. Létezik-e olyan átfogó stratégia, ideértve a hosszú távú oktatási és tudatosságnöYHOĘ SURJUDPRNDW DPHO\QHN FpOMD D GLV]NULPLQiFLy YDJ\ D W|EEVpJL WiUVDGDOPRQ EHOOL HOĘtWpOHWHV KR]]iiOOiVpVPDJDWDUWiVNH]HOpVHpVD]HOĘtWpOHWHNpVV]WHUHRWtSLiNHOOHQLN]GHOHP" 5. [A tagállamok] PHJIHOHOĘHV]N|]|NNHOpVLQWp]NHGpVVHOEL]WRVtWViNKogy ezen Ajánlás – beleértve annak Mellékletét is – OHIRUGtWiVUD pV D OHKHWĘ OHJV]pOHVHEE N|UEHQ terjesztésre kerüljön. K5. 0LO\HQ OpSpVHNHW WHWWHN D] $MiQOiV pV PHOOpNOHWH OHKHWĘ OHJV]pOHVHEE N|UEHQ W|UWpQĘ terjesztése érdekében? K6. Lefordították-e magyar nyelvre az Ajánlást és mellékletét? K7. Terjesztették-HĘNHW i.
DOHV]ELNXVPHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦN|]|VVpJHQEHOO"
ii.
a közigazgatáson belül?
iii.
a bĦQOG|]ĘV]HUYHNN|UpEHQLGHpUWYHDEtUyViJRNDWpVIRJYDWDUWiVLLQWp]PpQ\HNHW"
iv.
az emberi jogok védeOPpW V]ROJiOy QHP]HWL LQWp]PpQ\UHQGV]HUEHQ LGHpUWYH D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGpUWIHOHOĘVLQWp]PpQ\HNHW "
v.
az oktatási rendszerben? 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
vi.
az egészségügyi rendszerben?
vii.
a köz- és magánszféra munkavállalói és munkáltatói körében?
viii.
a médiában?
ix.
a releváns nem-kormányzati szervek körében?
Az Ajánlás melléklete I. -RJD]pOHWKH]DEL]WRQViJKR]pVD]HUĘV]DNNDOV]HPEHQLYpGHOHPKH] A. Ä*\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´pVHJ\pEJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOWLQFLGHQVHN 5. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás PLDWWLPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVpVLQWROHUDQFLDHOĘIRUGXOiVLJ\DNRULViJiUDpVWHUPpV]HWpUH valamint – különösen – a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással NDSFVRODWRV ÄJ\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´-UH pV J\ĦO|OHW iOWDO PRWLYiOW LQFLGHQVHNUH vonDWNR]yDGDWRNJ\ĦMWpVpWpVHOHP]pVpW K8. Készült-e kutatás az LMBT emberekkel szembeni ellenséges és negatív beállítódás WHUPpV]HWpUĘOpVRNDLUyODMHOHQVpJJHOV]HPEHQLKDWpNRQ\SROLWLNiNNLGROJR]iVDpUGHNpEHQ" K9. Léteznek-e rendszeres felmérések az LMBT emberek társadalmi elfogadottságának / HOXWDVtWiViQDNV]LQWMpUĘO" K10. Létezik-e hatékony rendszer (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló J\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN pV J\ĦO|OHW PRWLYiOWD LQFLGHQVHN Q\LOYiQWDUWiViUD YDODPLQW D] H]]Hl kapcsolatos statisztikák közzétételére? B. Ä*\ĦO|OHWEHV]pG´ 7. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN D KDWyViJRN pV D N|]LQWp]PpQ\HN N|UpEHQ PLQGHQ IHOHOĘVVpJL szinten tudatosítaniuk kell, hogy kötelesek tartózkodni az olyan – különösen a médiában tett – nyilatkozatoktól, amelyeN pVV]HUĦHQ D] LO\HQ J\ĦO|OHWHW LOOHWYH PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWOHJLWLPiOyQDNpUWKHWĘN K11. Bocsátottak-e ki iránymutatásokat vagy foganatosítottak egyéb intézkedéseket az állami KDWyViJRNV]HUYHNV]iPiUDDQQDNpUGHNpEHQKRJ\WXGDWRVtWViND]LO\HQMHOOHJĦNLMHOHQWpVHNWĘO való tartózkodás kötelezettségét? 8. $ WLV]WYLVHOĘNHW pV D] iOODP PiV NpSYLVHOĘLW EiWRUtWDQL NHOO DUUD KRJ\ D FLYLO társadalom – beleértve a médiumokat, a sportszervezeteket, a politikai szervezeteket és a vallási közösségeket is – YH]HWĘ NpSYLVHOĘLYHO IRO\WDWRWW SiUEHV]pGN VRUiQ PR]GtWViN HOĘ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN LUiQWL toleranciát, valamint az ilyen személyek emberi jogainak tiszteletben tartását. K12. Adtak-e ki erre vonatkozó iránymutatást a köztisztviselĘNQHNpViOODPLNpSYLVHOĘNQHN" II. Egyesülési szabadság 10. A nem kormányzati szervek számára rendelkezésre álló közpénzekhez való KR]]iIpUpVW V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQNHOOEL]WRVtWDQL K13. A kLIHMH]HWWHQ FLYLO V]HUYH]HWHNQHN Q\~MWRWW N|]SpQ]HN HOpUKHWĘHN-e PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQD]/0%7V]HUYH]HWHNV]iPiUDLV" III. A véleménynyilvánítás és a békés gyülekezés szabadsága
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
hátrányos
17. A hatóságokat minden szinten arra kell bátorítani, hogy nyilvánosan – nevezetesen a médiában – tWpOMHQHNHOPLQGHQD]HJ\pQHNHWpVD]HJ\pQHNFVRSRUWMDLWPHJLOOHWĘD véleménynyilvánítás és a békés gyülekezés szabadságának gyakorlásához való MRJED W|UWpQĘ MRJHOOHQHV EHDYDWNR]iVW NO|Q|VHQ KD D EHDYDWNR]iV OHV]ELkus, PHOHJELV]H[XiOLVpVWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHPEHULMRJDLYDONDSFVRODWRV K14. Ha volt jogtalan beavatkozás a szólás és gyülekezés szabadságába, bátorították-e a közhatalmi szerveket ezek elítélésére? IV. A magán- és családi élet tiszteletben tartásához IĦ]ĘGĘMRJ 28. +DDQHP]HWLMRJHJ\HGOiOOyQĘNV]iPiUDLVHQJHGpO\H]LD]DVV]LV]WiOWUHSURGXNFLyV eljárást, akkor a tagállamoknak törekedniük kell annak biztosítására, hogy az ilyen HOMiUiVKR] YDOy KR]]iIpUpV V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ megkülönbözWHWpVWĘOPHQWHVOHJ\HQ K15. 0LO\HQ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW W|UWpQWHN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D] HJ\HGOiOOy QĘN PHVWHUVpJHV PHJWHUPpNHQ\tWpVUHLUiQ\XOyHOMiUiVRNKR]YDOyKR]]iIpUpVH DKROH]WDQHP]HWLMRJOHKHWĘYpWHV]L szexuális irányultságon alapuló megkülönE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVOHJ\HQ" VI. Oktatás 31. $ J\HUPHN PLQGHQHN IHOHWW iOOy pUGHNpUH NHOOĘ ILJ\HOHPPHO D WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ D] RNWDWiVEDQ WHYpNHQ\NHGĘNQHN pV D WDQXOyNQDN FtP]HWW MRJV]DEiO\L pV egyéb intézkedéseket kell tenniük annak biztosítására, hogy az oktatáshoz való jog V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘO PHQWHVHQ KDWpNRQ\DQ OHJ\HQ pOYH]KHWĘ H] NO|Q|VHQ D J\HUPHNHN pV D ILDWDORN HUĘV]DNWyO LVNRODL EiQWDOPD]iVWyO WiUVDGDOPL NLUHNHV]WpVWĘO YDODPLQW D Vzexuális LUiQ\XOWViJJDO LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiVVDO NDSFVRODWRV PHJNO|QE|]WHWĘ pV PHJDOi]y EiQiVPyG HJ\pE IRUPiLWyO PHQWHV EL]WRQViJRV N|UQ\H]HWEHQ W|UWpQĘ WDQXOiVKR] való jogának a biztosítását foglalja magában. K16. Készítettek-e az oktatási területen dolgozókat megcélzó i.
HJ\HQOĘVpJLpVEL]WRQViJLV]DEiO\]DWRNDW
ii.
magatartási kódexeket; vagy
iii.
kézikönyveket
annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy az LMBT tanulók és diákok biztonságos környezetben, HUĘV]DNWyEXOO\LQJWyOWiUVDGDOPLNLUHNHV]WpVWĘOYDJ\PiVGLV]Nriminatív és megalázó bánásmódtól mentesen tanulhassanak? K17. A tanárok és más oktatási területen dolgozók alapképzése és továbbképzése során kitérneke annak szükségességére, hogy i.
az LMBT tanulókkal tisztelettel kell bánni;
ii.
fel kell ismerni, értékelni és hatékonyan válaszolni az ilyen típusú iskolai diszkriminációra, és küzdeni kell ellene?
K18. Támogatják-e a homofóbia és transzfóbia elleni iskolai kampányokat és kulturális eseményeket, ideértve - ahol alkalmazható - D] /0%7 V]HUYH]HWHN NpSYLVHOĘLQHN UpV]YpWHOpYHO zajló programokat? 32. $J\HUPHNPLQGHQHNIHOHWWiOOypUGHNpUHNHOOĘILJ\HOHPPHOPLQGHQ V]LQWHQPHJIHOHOĘ intézkedéseket kell tenni a kölcsönös tolerancia és tisztelet szexuális irányultságtól, LOOHWYHQHPLLGHQWLWiVWyOIJJHWOHQHOĘPR]GtWiViUDD]LVNROiNEDQ(QQHNPDJiEDQNHOO 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
foglalnia a szexuális irányultsággal, illetve nemi identitással kapcsolatos objektív tájékoztatásnyújtást – például az iskolai tanrendben és az oktatási anyagokban –, valamint azon szükséges információk, védelem és támogatás megadását a WDQXOyNQDN pV D KDOOJDWyNQDN DPHO\HN OHKHWĘYp WHV]LN V]iPXNUD KRJ\ V]H[XiOLV irán\XOWViJXNQDN LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiVXNQDN PHJIHOHOĘHQ pOKHVVHQHN 7RYiEEi D tagállamok szakpolitikákat és akcióterveket dolgozhatnak ki és hajthatnak végre az LVNROiQ EHOOL HJ\HQOĘVpJ pV EL]WRQViJ PHJWHUHPWpVpUH pV KR]]iIpUpVW EL]WRVtWKDWQDN PHJIHOHOĘ Dntidiszkriminációs tréningekhez, támogatásokhoz és oktatási segédanyagokhoz. Az ilyen intézkedéseknek figyelembe kell venniük a J\HUPHNLVNROi]WDWiViYDONDSFVRODWRVV]OĘLMRJRNDW K19. Az iskolai tananyagban és a szexuális és egészségügyi neveléssel foglalkozó órák során biztosítanak-e részletes információkat (a) szexuális irányultságról és (b) a nemi identitásról? K20. Az LMBT diákok kapnak-HPHJIHOHOĘLQIRUPiFLyWYpGHOPHWpVWiPRJDWiVWDQQDNpUGHNpEHQ hogy a szexuális irányultságuknak és nemi identitáVXNQDNPHJIHOHOĘHQpOKHVVHQHN" K21. Léteznek-HDWUDQV]QHPĦGLiNRNLVNRODLpOHWHVRUiQIHOPHUOĘVSHFLiOLVLJpQ\HLWPHJIHOHOĘHQ NLHOpJtWĘLQWp]NHGpVHNtJ\SpOGiXOYDQ-HOHKHWĘVpJDQpYYDJ\DQHPPHJYiOWR]WDWiViUDD]LVNRODL dokumentumokban? VII. Egészség 33. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ MRJDONRWiVL pV HJ\pE LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUDKRJ\D]HOpUKHWĘOHJPDJDVDEEV]LQWĦHJpV]VpJKDWpNRQ\DQV]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘO PHQWHVHQ legyen élvH]KHWĘ NO|Q|VHQ D QHP]HWL HJpV]VpJJ\L WHUYHN NLGROJR]iVD YDODPLQW az egészségügyi szolgáltatások színvonalának figyelemmel kísérése és kiértékelése során a tagállamoknak figyelemmel kell lenniük a leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális és WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN specifikus igényeire, beleértve az öngyilkosság-PHJHOĘ]Ę intézkedéseket, az egészségügyi felméréseket, az egészségügyi tanrendeket, valamint a képzési kurzusokat és tananyagokat. K22. i. A nemzeti egészségügyi terv; ii.
az egészségügyi felmérések;
iii.
az öngyilkosság-PHJHOĘ]pVLSURJUDPRN
iv.
az orvosi képzési programok;
v.
a képzések és tananyagok;
vi.
D]HJpV]VpJJ\LV]ROJiOWDWiVRNIHOJ\HOHWHpVPLQĘVpJHOOHQĘU]pVH
PHJIHOHOĘHQ ILJ\HOHPEH YHV]LN-e (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással kapcsolatos sajátos szükségleteket? K23. Az egészségügyben dolgozókat megcélzó képzések felkészítik-HĘNHWDUUDKRJ\D]HOpUKHWĘ OHJPDJDVDEE V]LQWĦ HJpV]VpJJ\L HOOiWiVW PLQGHQNL V]iPiUD EL]WRVtWViN D D V]H[XiOLV irányultság és (b) a nemi identitás teljes tiszteletben tartása mellett? K24. $ V]H[XiOLV pV UHSURGXNWtY HJpV]VpJ WHUOHWpQ PĦN|GĘ RNWDWiVL PHJHOĘ]pVL HOOiWiVL pV J\yJ\tWiVL SURJUDPRN pV V]ROJiOWDWiVRN HOpUKHWĘHN-e az LMBT emberek számára, és figyelembe veszik-e sajátos szükségleteiket? K25. Bátorítják-e az egészségügyben dolgozókat és a szociális munkásokat arra, hogy a fiatal LMBT személyek számára támogató és nyitott környezetet alakítsanak ki, például információs kampányokon keresztül? 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K26. /HKHWĘVpJN YDQ-e a kórházi betegeknek vagy az egyéb egészségügyi szükséghelyzetben OpYĘNQHN DUUD KRJ\ V]DEDGRQ HOG|QWKHVVpN NL PLQĘVO N|]HOL KR]]iWDUWR]yMXNQDN pV D N|]HOL hozzátartozóra vonatkozó szabályokat (a) szexuális irányultságon és (b) nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció nélkül alkalmazzák-e? 34. Az Egészségügyi 9LOiJV]HUYH]HW VWDQGDUGMDLYDO |VV]KDQJEDQ PHJIHOHOĘ intézkedéseket kell tenni annak elkerülésére, hogy a homoszexualitás betegségként kerüljön besorolásra. K27. Törölték-e a betegségek nemzeti osztályozásából a homoszexualitást? K28. Kijavították-e vagy visszavonták-e azokat a szakpolitikai dokumentumokat, egészségügyi tankönyveket és képzési anyagokat, amelyek a homoszexualitást korábban betegségként kezelték? K29. Léteznek-e intézkedések annak biztosítására, hogy senkit se kényszerítsenek kezelésre, orvosi vagy pszichológiai tesztek elvégzésére, illetve senkit se zárjanak egészségügyi intézménybe szexuális irányultsága vagy nemi identitása miatt? 35. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN EL]WRVtWiViUD KRJ\ D WUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNpVV]HUĦWOHQN|YHWHOPpQ\HNQHNYDOyPHJIHOHOpVLN|WHOH]HWWVpJ QpONO KDWpNRQ\ KR]]iIpUpVVHO UHQGHONH]]HQHN D PHJIHOHOĘ QHPL iWDODNtWy V]ROJiOWDWiVRNKR] EHOHpUWYH D WUDQV]QHPĦ HJpV]VpJJ\L HOOiWiV WHUOHWpQ rendelkezésre álló pszichológiai, endokrinológiai és sebészeti szakértelemhez való hozzáférést is; beleegyezése nélkül senkit nem lehet nemi átalakító eljárás alá vetni. K30. Hatékonyan hozzáférnek-HDWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNDPHJIHOHOĘQHP-átalakító ellátásokhoz, beleértve a pszichológiai, endokrinológiai és seEpV]HWLV]DNpUWHOPHWLJpQ\OĘHOOiWiVRNDW" K31. +DDNRUiEELJ\DNRUODWV]HULQWDWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNQHNUpV]W NHOOHWWYHQQLNDV]OHWpVL QHPNHOIRJDGiViWHOĘVHJtWĘWHUiSLiNRQPHJV]QWHWWpN-e ezt a gyakorlatot? K32. Elfogadtak-e olyan intézkedéseket, amelyek azt hivatottak biztosítani, hogy a gyermekek testét ne lehessen a gyermek - pOHWNRUiQDN pV IHMOHWWVpJpQHN PHJIHOHOĘ - teljes, szabad és PHJIHOHOĘLQIRUPiFLyQDODSXOyEHOHHJ\H]pVHQpONORUYRVLODJYLVV]DIRUGtWKDWDWODQXOPHJYiOWR]WDWQL annak érdekében, hogy valamely nemi identitást kényszerítsenek rá? 36. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN PHJIHOHOĘ MRJV]DEiO\L pV PiV LQWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQLN DQQDN biztosítására, hogy a nemi átalakító eljárások társadalombiztosítás által fedezett költségeit korlátozó határozatok törvényesek, objektívek és arányosak legyenek. K33. Ahol a jogszabály biztosítja az állami vagy magán társadalombiztosítási rendszeren keresztül az egészségügyileg szükséges ellátások költségeinek fedezetét, ez a költségtérítés vonatkozik-e a nemi átalakító beavatkozásokra is? K34. +DLJHQH]WpVV]HUĦHQQHP|QNpQ\HVHQpVGLV]NULPLQiFLyWyOPHQWHVHQEL]WRVtWMiN" VIII. Lakhatás 38. 0HJIHOHOĘ ILJ\HOPHW NHOO IRUGtWDQL D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ személyek – beleértve a társadalmi kirekesztésnek, azon belül a saját családjukból való kirekesztésnek potenciálisan különösen kitett fiatal személyek és gyermekek – hajléktalanná válásának kockázatára; ebben a vonatkozásban a releváns szociális szolgáltatásokat az egyéni szükségletek objektív értékelése alapján, megNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘOPHQWHVHQNHOOQ\~MWDQL K35. Léteznek-e olyan szociális programok, ideértve a támogató programokat, amelyek célja, hogy csökkentsék az LMBT emberek, különösen a gyermekek és fiatalok, hajléktalanságnak való kitettségét, ideértve a közösségLWiPRJDWypVEL]WRQViJLKiOy]DWRNPĦN|GWHWpVpW" 1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K36. Léteznek-e olyan, az érintett szervezeteket megcélzó képzési és tudatosságnövelési programok, amelyek biztosítják, hogy e szervezetek munkatársai tudatában legyenek és érzékenyek legyenek a hajléktalanságnak kitett LMBT emberek, különösen a fiatalok, sajátos szükségleteire? IX. Sport 39. A sportban a homofóbia, a transzfóbia, valamint a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV – a rasszizmushoz és a diszkrimináció egyéb formáihoz hasonlóan – HOIRJDGKDWDWODQpVOHN]GHQGĘ 40. A sporttevékenységeknek és a sportlétesítményeknek szexuális irányultság, illetve QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVWĘO PHQWHVHQ PLQGHQNL V]iPiUD KR]]iIpUKHWĘQHN NHOO OHQQLN LOOHWYH Q\LWYa kell állniuk; különösen, hatékony intézkedéseket kell tenni a sportesemények alatt és azokkal összefüggésben, szexuális irányultságra, illetve nemi identitásra utalással elkövetett diszkriminatív LQ]XOWXVRNPHJHOĘ]pVpUHPHJEQWHWpVpUHpVHOOHQLQWp]NHGpsek tételére. K37. 0LO\HQLQWp]NHGpVHNW|UWpQWHNDVSRUWEDQYDOyUpV]YpWHOEĘO D V]H[XiOLVLUiQ\XOWViJRQpV E QHPLLGHQWLWiVRQDODSXOyNLUHNHV]WĘGpVYHV]pO\pQHNPHJHOĘ]pVpUH" K38. Bátorították-e például: i.
a sporttal és a szexuális irányultsággal vagy nemi identitással kapcsolatos magatartási kódexek elkészítését és terjesztését a sportszervezetek és sportklubok körében;
ii.
D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HNHW NpSYLVHOĘ V]HUYH]HWHN pV sportklubok közötti partnerséget;
iii.
a sport világában folytatott antidiszkriminációs kampányokat;
iv.
a leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális és transznemĦ V]HPpO\HNHW W|P|UtWĘ VSRUWNOXbok támogatását?
K39. Történtek-e hatékony intézkedések a sporteseményeken vagy azokkal összefüggésben HOĘIRUGXOyGLV]NULPLQDWtYVpUWpVHNPHJHOĘ]pVpUHYLVV]DV]RUtWiViUDpVPHJEQWHWpVpUH" K40. Így különösen: i.
%ĦQFVHOHNPpQQ\pQ\LOYiQtWRWWiN-e a homofób és transzfób skandálást a sporteseményeken vagy azok környékén?
ii.
Végrehajtották-H $ VSRUWHVHPpQ\HNHQ WDQ~VtWRWW Qp]ĘL HUĘV]DNUyO pV LOOHWOHQ YLVHONHGpVUĘO szóló európai egyezmény, az Európai Sport Charta és az ECRI 12. számú általános politikai ajánlását (a) a szexuális irányultsággal és (b) a nemi identitással kapcsolatban?
K41. Történtek-e konkrét intézkedések: i.
DWUDQV]QHPĦVSRUWROyNYHUVHQ\EĘOYDOyNL]iUiViQDNPHJHOĘ]pVpUH
ii.
D VSRUWEDQ YDOy UpV]YpWHONHW DNDGiO\R]y WpQ\H]ĘN PHJV]QWHWpVpUH |OW|]ĘNK|] YDOy hozzáférés;
iii.
a választott nemük elismerésére? 41. A tagállamoknak bátorítaniuk kell a sportegyesületekkel és a szurkolói klubokkal folytatandó párbeszédet, és támogatniuk kell a sportegyesületeket és a szurkolói NOXERNDW D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HNNHO V]HPEHQ D VSRUWEDQPHJMHOHQĘGLV]NULPLQiFLyYDONDSFVRODWRVWXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘWHYpNHQ\VpJHN
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
kifejlesztésében, valamint az megnyilvánulásainak elítélésében.
ilyen
személyekkel
szembeni
intolerancia
K42. Történtek-H OpSpVHN DQQDN pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ HOĘVHJtWVpN D SiUEHV]pGHW pV WiPRJDWiVW nyújtsanak a sportegyesületek és rajongói klubok részére: i.
WXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘNDPSiQ\RNNLGROJR]iVD; és
ii.
a sporteseményeken vagy azokkal összefüggésben tapasztalható homofób és transzfób magatartások elítélése során?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
NEMZETI ERÓFORIZÁS MlNISZTÉRIUM MINISZTERI
Iktatószám: 20404-1120 12-MIK
Bence Viktória (795-3224)
Dombos Tamás részére
Háttér Társaság aMelegekért Budapest Csanády u. 4/B. 1132
Tárgy: Tájékoztatás
Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr! Dr. Réthelyi Miklós miniszter úr köszönettel megkapta levelét, melyet az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni szóló ajánlásának magyarországi végrehajtásával kapcsolatosan írt. a Közigazgatási és
Ezúton tájékoztatom tisztelettel, hogy megkeresését Igazságügyi Minisztériumba továbbítottam. A válaszadásig szíves türeimét kérve, Budapest, 2012.
üdvözlettel:
r
i
i
f
(
Schmidt Ágota
EMBERI E5ė)255È6OK MINISZTÉRIUMA SZOCIÁLIS LAKOSSÁGI ÉS TÁJÉKOZTATÁSI OSZTÁLY Iktatószám: 20518-3/2012/SZTAJ
ÜgyLQWp]Ę 'U Veres Gábor Telefon: 06-1-795-3016
Dombos Tamás úr részére Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
[email protected]
Tisztelt Dombos Tamás úr! Dr. Réthelyi Miklós volt miniszter úr illetve a Szociális Ügyfélszolgálatinkhoz is eljuttatott megkeresésére figyelemmel azok mellékletére is szakmaL IĘRV]WiO\DLQNNDO HJ\H]WHWYH D magyar kormányzati álláspontról az alábbi tájékoztatást adom: Magyarország átfogó diszkrimináció ellenes joganyaggal rendelkezik. Magyarország Alaptörvényének XV. cikke kimondja a hátrányos megkülönböztetés tilalmát. A 2003. évi &;;9W|UYpQ\D]HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyGUyOpVD]HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJHOĘPR]GtWiViUyO SHGLJ kimondja a hátrányos megkülönböztetés tilalmát szexuális irányultság vagy nemi identitás miatt. Magyarország egyúttal törekszik nemzetközi kötelezettségvállalásainak maradéktalan teljesítésére is. Ezért nemzeti jogalNRWiViEDQDOHJPHVV]HPHQĘEEHNLJILJ\HOHPEHYHV]L D N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦQHP]HWN|]LMRJDQ\DJRWpVH]]HO|VV]KDQJEDQKR]]DPHJW|UYpQ\HLW. A N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦMRJDQ\DJPHOOHWWWHUPpV]HWHVHQNLHPHOWILJ\HOPHWIRUGtWD]DMiQOiVMHOOHJJHO megfogalmazott jogi instrumentumokra is, amilyen az Európa Tanács ajánlása is a szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni kü]GHOHPUĘO Magyarország eddig is arra törekedett, hogy a jog eszközével a leghatékonyabb védelmet tudja nyújtani minden állampolgára, és így minden kisebbsége számára. A nemzetközi összehasonlításban – NO|Q|VHQ(XUySD7DQiFVWDJiOODPLV]LQWĦ|VV]HKDVRQOításban – is elért NLHPHONHGĘGLV]NULPLQiFLyHOOHQHVMRJJ\DNRUODWRWpVKDWpNRQ\MRJDONDOPD]iVW0DJ\DURUV]iJ D M|YĘEHQ LV D KD]DL W|UYpQ\HNQHN pV QHP]HWN|]L N|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLQDN PHJIHOHOĘHQ folytatja. (QQHN PyGMiUyO pV HUHGPpQ\HLUĘO -ban az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottságát tájékoztatni fogjuk. Megkeresését megköszönve, kérem tájékoztatásom elfogadását! Budapest, 2012. május 24. Üdvözlettel: Dr. Veres Gábor RV]WiO\YH]HWĘ Postacím: 1373 Budapest, Pf: 609
E-mail:
[email protected]
Schmidt Ágota asszony részére PLQLV]WHULNDELQHWIĘQ|N Emberi (UĘIRUUiVok Minisztériuma 1055 Budapest, Szalay utca 10-14. Dr. Veres Gábor úr részére RV]WiO\YH]HWĘ Emberi (UĘIRUUiVok Minisztériuma Szociális Lakossági és Tájékoztatási osztály 1055 Budapest, Szalay utca 10-14.
Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
7LV]WHOW.DELQHWIĘQ|N$VV]RQ\Tisztelt 2V]WiO\YH]HWĘ Úr! Köszönettel megkaptuk a 2012. április 25-pQ NHOW N|]pUGHNĦ DGDWLJpQ\OpVQNUH DGRWW 2012. május 8-án kelt, 20404-1/2012-MIK számon iktatott, illetve 2012. május 24-én kelt, 205183/2012/SZTAJ számon iktatott válaszukat. 2012. május 8-i levelükben arról tájékoztattak bennünket, hogy a megkeresésünket LOOHWpNHVVpJEĘO D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV Igazságügyi Minisztériumba továbbították. A kérdéslistát D] HJ\HV PLQLV]WHUHN YDODPLQW D 0LQLV]WHUHOQ|NVpJHW YH]HWĘ iOODPWLWNiU IHODGDW- és KDWiVN|UpUĘO 9,, .RUPUHQGHOHW alapján állítottuk össze. $1HP]HWL(UĘIRUUiV Minisztériumhoz címzett megkeresésünkben az alábbi területekre vonatkozó kérdéseket WHWWN IHO $] HJ\HV WHUOHWHN PHOOHWW D IHODGDWN|UW D PLQLV]WpULXP V]iPiUD HOĘtUy jogszabályhelyet is feltüntettük: (VpO\HJ\HQOĘVpg
41. § m)
Oktatás
41. § i)
Egészségügy
41. § d)
Hajléktalanság
67. § h)
Sport
41. § k)
2012. május 24-i levelükben kérdéseinkre válaszul az Alaptörvény és a 2003. évi CXXV. törvény rendelkezéseit idézték. Megkeresésünkben ugyanakkor 42 konkrét kérdést tettünk fel, ezek közül mindössze egyre (K3 – átfogó antidiszkriminációs jogi szabályozás léte) kaptunk érdemi választ. Felhívnánk figyelmüket, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26. § (1) bekezdési szerint az állami IHODGDWRWHOOiWyV]HUYQHNOHKHWĘYpNHOOWHQQLHKRJ\DNH]HOpVpEHQOpYĘN|]pUGHNĦDGDWRWpV N|]pUGHNEĘO Q\LOYiQRV DGDWRW EiUNL PHJLVPHUKHVVH Az adatok megismerésére vonatkozó kérelem csak akkor utasítható el, ha annDN PHJLVPHUKHWĘVpJpW W|UYpQ\ D 27. § (2) bekezdése által meghatározott indokból korlátozza. Mivel ilyen körülmény az általunk
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
igényelt adatok vonatkozásában nem áll fenn, kérjük, hogy a fennmaradó 41 további kérdés vonatkozásában adatszolgáltatási kötelezettségüknek eleget tenni szíveskedjenek. 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. június 15.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
EMBERI MINISZTÉRIUMA MINISZTERI Iktatószám: 20518-5/20 12.SZTAJ
dr. Veres Gábor Tel: 06-1-795-3016
Dombos Tamás úr részére Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
[email protected]
Tisztelt Dombos Tamás! Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni szóló ajánlásának hazai végrehajtásával kapcsolatos megkeresésére kérem, engedje meg, hogy az alábbi tájékoztatást adjam. Az I. és IV. fejezetek vonatkozásában információírn szerint a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium az Emberi Jogi Munkacsoport Elnöke már részletes tájékoztatást adott Önnek. VI. Oktatás A nemzeti szóló 2011. évi CXC. törvény 25. § (5) bekezdése rendelkezik a tanulók biztonságos és egészséges környezeti feltételeinek biztosításáról a szerint: "A nevelési-oktatási intézménynek gondoskodnia kell a rábízott gyermekek, tanulók l, a nevelés és oktatás egészséges és biztonságos feltételeinek l," valamint a törvény 46. § (2) bekezdése további garanciákat ad a tanulók számára a formában: " A gyermek, a tanuló személyiségét, emberi méltóságát és jogait tiszteletben kell szemben. A gyermek és tartani, és védelmet kell számára biztosítani fizikai és lelki alá testi és lelki fenyítésnek, kínzásnak, kegyetlen, embertelen, a tanuló nem megalázó büntetésnek vagy bánásmódnak"
Szintén e paragrafus (3) bekezdésében, mely a tanulók jogait tárgyalja, a b) pontban a olvasható, hogy a gyermeknek, a tanulónak joga, hogy "a nevelési és a nevelésioktatási intézményben biztonságban és egészséges környezetben neveljék és oktassák". kötelességeit és A fentebb idézett törvény 69. §-a határozza meg az intézmény feladatait, miszerint "(1) A köznevelési intézmény d) az intézményi szabályzatok elkészítéséért, e) jóváhagyja az intézmény pedagógiai programját". Ugyanennek a paragrafusnak a (2) bekezdés g) pontja szerint a "A nevelési-oktatási intézmény felel a és oktató munka egészséges és biztonságos feltételeinek megteremtéséért". A Nemzeti Alaptanterv 2012. az etika tantárgy megjelenésével biztosítja a felvetett kérdésekben a tanulók életkori sajátosságainak figyelembevétele melletti ismeretek átadását, és a köznevelési intézmények továbbá a nevelési-oktatási intézmények névhasználatáról szóló EMMI rendeletben- melynek közigazgatási egyeztetése 2012. július 20-án zárult - további szabályozásokra kerül sor, melyek elfogadás esetén számos ponton megnyugtató módon kezelik a kérdést. 2013 januárjától, az állami feladatellátás kezdete után, amikor feláll az intézmények és a rendszere, akkor ezeket a jogszabályi pedagógusok 25 éve nem végrehajtását mind személyes mind intézményi helyeket és azok kötelesség szempontjából az állam fogja számon kémi, illetve fejleszteni, szaktanácsadással segíteni. szóló -jelenleg hatályos - 11/1994. (VI. 8.) A nevelési-oktatási intézmények a név NKM rendelet 4. számú mellékletének ll. pontja alapján van megváltoztatására az iskolai dokumentumokban. VII. Egészségügy K.22. Magyarország Alaptörvénye kimondja, hogy mindenkinek joga van a testi és lelki
egészséghez. Ezen jog érvényesülését Magyarország többek között az egészségügyi ellátás megszervezésével segíti Az egészségügyi szolgáltatások igénybevétele során az szóló 1997. évi CLIV. törvény (a továbbiakban: Eütv.) 2.§ (2) bekezdése szerint érvényesülnie kell az Az Eütv. emellett azt is kiemeli, hogy minden betegnek joga van jogszabályban meghatározott keretek között - az egészségi állapota által indokolt, folyamatosan és az bánásmód követelményének egészségügyi ellátáshoz. bánásmód követelménye az bánásmódról és az szóló 2003. évi CXXV. törvény értelmében magában foglalja többek között azt is, hogy valakit vagy valamely csoportot nem, nemi identitás, egészségi vagy családi állapot, világnézeti illetve politikai vagy más vélemény miatt nem lehet Az
2
nincs
bánásmódban részesíteni úgy, hogy ennek tárgyilagos médegelés szerint indoka.
A hazai jogszabályi környezet tehát az egészségügyi ellátórendszert garantálja azt, hogy a betegeket nemi identitásuk avagy szexuális irányultságuk miatt ne érje indokolatlanul hátrány. a nemzeti egészségügyi tervben, az egészségügyi felmérésekben, az Ennek öngyilkosság prevenciós programokban, az orvosi képzési programokban, a képzésekben és tananyagokban nem találunk speciális, a nemi identitás és a szexuális irányultság szempontjából diszkriminatívnak részeket. A mentális zavarokon belül a Betegségek Nemzetközi Osztályozásában azaz betegségnek tekintett nemi identitás zavarait (pl. F64.0 Transzszexualizmus) és a szexuális preferencia rendellenességeit a pszichiátriai szakirodalom tartalmazza, az orvosok képzési terve tartalmának összeállítása azonban az egyes egyetemek kompetenciája. A Semmelweis Egyetemen a pszichiátria tantárgy oktatásának részét képezi a szexuális zavarok és a nemi identitás zavarainak oktatása. Ezen zavaroknak mindössze definíció említése történik, a lehetséges terápiás módszerek ismertetése mellett társadalmi vonatkozásaikra, megkülönböztetésre nem térnek ki az oktatás során. Az egészségügyi szolgáltatások felügyelete és során sem kerültek speciális szempontok kidolgozásra.
K.23. A K22. pontra adott válaszban ismertetettek szerint a hazai jogszabályok garantálják az bánásmód követelményének érvényesülését az egészségügyi ellátórendszeren belül is. Az egészségügyi dolgozók gyakorlatorientált képzése az Eütv. és más vonatkozó jogszabályokban foglaltaknak történik. K.24. Az Eütv. értelmében reprodukciós eljárás kizárólag házastársi vagy közötti élettársi kapcsolatban álló személyeknél el, amennyiben bármely félnél fennálló egészségi ok következtében a kapcsolatból természetes úton nagy egészséges gyermek nem származhat. Élettársak esetén reprodukciós eljárás amennyiben az élettársak egyike sem áll házastársi csak abban az esetben kapcsolatban. Az Eütv. tehát azonos élettársak esetében nem teszi a reprodukciós eljárások elvégzését. Az Eütv. emellett egyedülálló esetében is teszi reprodukciós eljárás elvégzését akkor, amennyiben a életkora vagy egészségi állapota következtében gyermeket természetes úton nagy nem vállalhat. Az Eütv. az egyedülálló esetében nem tesz különbséget szexuális identitás avagy nemi irányultság alapján.
K.25. A hallgatók számára is nyilvános a Semmelweis Egyetem Pszichiátriai és Pszichoterápiás Klinikáján METAMOR (transzszexuális) Klub, transzszexuálisok támogatására, a transzszexuális léttel kapcsolatos fontos információk átadására és a gyógykezelési bemutatására.
3
Az egészségügyi dolgozóknak minden esetben a betegjogokat és az Eütv. más garanciális rendelkezéseit és a szakmai, etikai szabályokat betartvakell eljárniuk. K.26. Az Eütv. fogalommeghatározásai között szerepel (3.§ r) pont) a közeli hozzátartozó definíciója. Az Eütv. tekintetében tehát közeli hozzátartozó: a házastárs, az egyeneságbeli rokon, az örökbefogadott, a mostoha- és a nevelt gyermek, az örökbefogadó, a mostoha- és a a testvér, valamint az élettárs.
Az egyes betegjogokra vonatkozó rendelkezések azonban ennél differenciáltabbak, tehát nem minden esetben a közeli hozzátartozó fogalmát használják. A kapcsolattartás jogán belül is személyi kör lehet a beteg mellett, ha az súlyos állapotú vagy kiskorú avagy például
K.27. Hazánk a WHO által kiadott Betegségek Nemzetközi Osztályozása X. Revízióját (illetve a pszichiátriai betegségek tekintetében a DSM-IV.-et) használja, amelyben nem szerepel betegségként a homoszexualitás, így azt hazánkban sem tekintik annak. K.28. Az Emberi Minisztériuma Egészségügyért Államtitkársága által készített, aktuális egészségügyi szakmapolitikai dokumentumokban a homoszexualitás az kérdésre adott válaszban foglaltaknak nem szerepel betegségként. Az egészségügyi tankönyvek tartalmára illetve az egyetemek képzési tervének összeállítására Államtitkárságnak nincsen döntési kompetenciája. vonatkozóan a Egészségügyért K.29. Az Eütv. részletesen szabályazza a betegek ömendelkezési jogát. Az Eütv. alapján a beteget megilleti az ömendelkezéshez való jog, amely kizárólag törvényben meghatározott esetekben és módon korlátozható. Az ömendelkezési jog gyakorlása keretében alapelvnek az, hogy a beteg szabadon döntheti el, hogy kíván-e egészségügyi ellátást igénybe venni, illetve annak során mely beavatkozások elvégzésébe egyezik bele, illetve melyeket utasít vissza.
döntésekben részt vegyen. A betegnek joga van arra, hogy a kivizsgálását és kezelését eltekintve bármely egészségügyi beavatkozás elvégzésének A törvényben foglalt és mentes, feltétele, hogy ahhoz a beteg tájékoztatáson alapuló beleegyezését adja. az is, hogy a beteg a beavatkozás elvégzéséhez való beleegyezését bármikor visszavonhatj a. Az Eütv. a beteg illetve mások védelme érdekében a közvetlen vagy állapotú pszichiátriai betegeknél illetve betegeknél teszi lehetövé azt, gyógykezelés alá vonhassák A hogy beleegyezésük nélkül gyógykezelés elrendelésének szigorú eljárásjogi, garanciális szabályai vannak. A törvényben foglalt feltételek fennállásának hiányában tehát a beteg beleegyezése nélkül nem lehetséges egészségügyi beavatkozást végezni.
4
K.30. Hazánkban a nemi átalakító elvégzéséhez szükséges személyi és tárgyi feltételek rendelkezésre állnak, beleértve a betegek és utágondozását is. K.31. A hazai gyakorlat szerint a név és nem megváltoztatásának engedélyezéséhez nincsen szükség a születési nemük elfogadását terápián való részvétel igazolására. K.32. A K29-es kérdésre adott válaszban kifejtettek szerint az Eütv. az önrendelkezési jogra vonatkozó szabályozásában alapelvként szerepel, hogy bármely egészségügyi beavatkozás és elvégzésének feltétele az, hogy ahhoz a beteg mentes, tájékoztatáson alapuló beleegyezését adja.
Amennyiben a beteg a beleegyezés és a visszautasítás jogának gyakorlására a megjelölt sorrendben az alábbi személyek jogosultak: a) a beteg törvényes ennek hiányában b) a beteggel közös háztartásban ba) házastársa vagy élettársa, ennek hiányában bb) gyermeke, ennek hiányában be) ennek hiányában bd) testvére, ennek hiányában be) ennek hiányában bj) unokája; c) a b) pontban megjelölt hozzátartozója hiányában a beteggel közös háztartásban nem ca) gyermeke, ennek hiányában cb) ennek hiányában cc) testvére, ennek hiányban cd) ennek hiányában ce) unokája.
Az egy sorban nyilatkozattételre jogosultak ellentétes nyilatkozata esetén a beteg egészségi állapotát várhatóan befolyásoló döntést kell figyelembe venni. személyek nyilatkozata - a beteg korának és pszichés A fenti felsorolásban tájékoztatását kizárólag a által javasolt invazív állapotának beleegyezésre terjedhet ki. E nyilatkozat azonban a beavatkozással beavatkozásokhoz kockázatoktól eltekintve nem érintheti hátrányosan a beteg egészségi állapotát, így különösen nem vezethet súlyos vagy maradandó egészségkárosodásához. A nyilatkozatról a beteget válását azonnal tájékoztatni kell. A beteg speciális tájékoztatásán fontos garanciális szabály az, hogy az egészségügyi ellátással kapcsolatos döntésekben a illetve korlátozottan beteg véleményét a szakmailag lehetséges mértékig figyelembe kell venni abban az esetben is, ha a beleegyezés, illetve a visszautasítás jogát más gyakorolja.
5
Az Eütv. tehát védelmet visszafordíthatatlan megváltoztatására.
biztosít
a
gyermekek
testének
orvosilag
Emellett hazánkban a nem és névváltoztatás engedélyezésére kizárólag 18 év felett kerülhet sor. K.33. Az Eütv. értelmében minden betegnek joga van - jogszabályban meghatározott
keretek között - az egészségi állapota által indokolt, folyamatosan az bánásmód követelményének egészségügyi ellátáshoz.
és
A hazai finanszírozási jogszabályokban meghatározott keretek a A egészségbiztosítás ellátásairól szóló 1997. évi LXXXIII. törvény értelmében a nemi jellegek megváltoztatására irányuló beavatkozásra a biztosítottak részleges térítés mellett jogosultak:"23. § A biztosított részleges térítés mellett jogosult k) nemi jellegek megváltoztatására irányuló beavatkozásra, kivéve, ha rendellenesség miatt a genetikailag meghatározott nem jegyeinek kialakítása a cél." A térítési díj ellenében igénybe egyes egészségügyi szolgáltatások térítési díjáról szóló nemi jellegek 284/1997. (XII. 23.) Korm. rendelet l. számú mellékelte alapján a megváltoztatására irányuló beavatkozásért részleges térítési díj mértéke annak az összegnek a 90 százaléka, amely az ellátásért a külön jogszabályban foglaltak szerint az egészségbiztosító felé elszámolható. K.34. A hazai finanszírozási jogszabályok számos egyéb egészségügyi beavatkozás elvégzését is térítési díj fizetése mellett teszik lehetövé a biztosítottak számára. Az válaszban hivatkozott rendelkezések nem önkényesnek és diszkriminációmentesnek K.15. A K24-es kérdésre adott válaszban kifejtettek szerint az egyedülálló eljárásokhoz való hozzáférése szexuális irányultságorr alapuló
reprodukciós mentes.
VIII. Lakhatás K.35. Kifejezetten erre a területre irányuló prograrnak nem léteznek, a jelenlegi hajléktalan-
ellátási tapasztalatok sem támasztják alá annak szükségességét, hogy a hajléktalanságon belül külön intézkedést igényelne az LMBT emberek helyzete. Az Európai Uniós források terhére megvalósított prograrnak közül számos olyan van, melyben hajléktalan ember is részt vehet. Kifejezetten a hajléktalan emberek számára kiírt pályázat pedig a TÁMOP 5.3.3. program. A kiírás - építve az elmúlt évek hazai forrásból teremt a komplex megvalósult lakhatási programjainak tapasztalataira is megoldások megteremtésére, a hajléktalanságból való utak kialakítására, így a hajléktalan-ellátás hatékonyságának növelésére.
6
Az utcán számának csökkentése érdekében a projekt célja az utcán, közterületen emberek társadalmi integrációjának foglalkoztathatóságuk fejlesztésével, foglalkoztatási esélyeik növelésével, önálló életvitelük 1. a hajléktalan ellátó intézmények alkalmassá tétele az utcáról befogadására és megtartására: " az utcán intézményi befogadásának a hajléktalan ellátó intézmények fejlesztésével, az utcán bekerülését, befogadását feltételek kialakításával, " az utcán részére intézményi felszabadítása a hajléktalan-ellátó önálló lakhatásának támogatásával, foglalkoztathatóságuk intézményben helyzetük javításával, fejlesztésével, " az utcáról befogadottak részére új, a beilleszkedést segítö, innovatív intézményi szolgáltatások kialakítása, 2. azon utcán élök esetében, akiknél az intézményi elhelyezés nem indokolt, önálló életvitelének javítása önálló lakhatásuk támogatásával és f'l)glalkoztathatóságuk javítása személyre szabott képzésekkel, fejlesztésekkeL A Hajléktalanokért Közalapítvány 2012-ben hirdette meg a "Vissza az utcáról programot", melynek célja az életet krízishelyzetek és felszámolása, illetve az utcán hajléktalan emberek számának csökkentését célzó pályázati prograrnak megvalósítása nyílt pályázati felhívás közzétételével. A pályázaton belül támogathatóak olyan innovatív, személyre szabott megoldásokat alkalmazó, a helyi viszonyokhoz alkalmazkodó programok, amelyek révén a krízishelyzetben vagy fenyegetett, a közterületen egyének, párok, csoportok, családok utcán élése és lakhatási problémáik tartósan megoldhatóak. K.36. Nincs tudomásunk olyan programokról, melyek kifejezetten a hajléktalanságnak kitett LMBT emberekkel kapcsolatban tréningeket, továbbképzéseket foglalnának magukban. Számos, a hajléktalansággal, hajléktalan emberek helyzetével kapcsolatos, illetve a határterületeket kérdésekkel foglalkozó - köztük társadalmi érzékenyítést is célzó továbbképzési program szerepel a szociális ágazat kínálatai között.
IX. Sport Magyarország Alaptörvényének Szabadság és fejezetében a XX. cikk kimondja, hogy "(1) Mindenkinek joga van a testi és lelki egészséghez"(l ), melynek értelmében Magyarország, mint minden magyar állampolgárt megilletö alapjogot, támogatja a sportolást és a rendszeres testedzést Ugyanezen fejezet XV. cikke értelmében: "(2) Magyarország az jogokat mindenkinek bármely megkülönböztetés, nevezetesen faj, szín, nem, fogyatékosság, nyelv, vallás, politikai vagy más vélemény, nemzeti vagy társadalmi származás, vagyoni, születési vagy egyéb helyzet szerinti különbségtétel nélkül biztosítja."
7
Az Alaptörvénnyel összhangban a sportról szóló 2004. évi L törvény (a továbbiakban: Stv.) is az "Magyarország kinyilvánítja, hogy minden joga van a sporthoz, és e jogát az állam biztosítja, függetlenül attól, hogy embemek a diák-, sportról, a fogyatékkal versenysportról, a sportjáról vagy az egészség van szó." A sporttevékenységek és a sportlétesítmények az Alaptörvényben, illetve az Stv.-ben foglaltak alapján szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi identitás alapján mentesen mindenki számára és nyitva állnak. A
szóló 1978. évi IV. törvény 269. §-a értelmében három évig szabadságvesztéssei az, aki nagy nyilvánosság valamely nemzeti, etnikai, faji, vallási csoport vagy a lakosság egyes csoportjai ellen uszít. A közösség elleni izgatás tényállása kiterjedhet a homofób és transzfób skandálásokra is a sporteseményeken vagy azok környékén. Magyarország Kormánya, illetve az Emberi Minisztériuma mint a sportért minisztérium tehát adódóan - a jogszabályi háttér megteremtésével biztosítja, hogy a sport területén ne jelenhesserr meg hátrányos megkülönböztetés. A nem kormányzati szférában, az autonóm, civil sportszervezetek körében az egyes rendelkezéseket, mint például a szervezetek fegyelmi szabályzata tartalmazhat bánásmód elvével Magyar Labdarúgó Szövetség szabályzata, melynek értelmében az ellentétes cselekedetet fegyelmi kell vonni. Minisztériuma Sportért Fontosnak tartjuk megjegyezni, hogy az Emberi Államtitkársághoz nem érkezett olyan hivatalos megkeresés, amelynek tárgya a szexuális megkülönböztetés, illetve arra vonatkozó egyéb irányultságból fakadó, sportban panasz lett volna. A tájékoztatás szíves elfogadását kérem. Budapest, 2012. augusztus "ll"
Novák Katalin
8
Dr. Matolcsy György úr részére Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium 1051 Budapest, József nádor tér 4. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]Dbb PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium által tett, LOOHWYH D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás és mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): V. Foglalkoztatás 29. $ WDJiOODPRNQDN RO\DQ PHJIHOHOĘ LQWp]NHGpVHN PHJKR]DWDOiW pV YpJUHKDMWiViW NHOO biztosítaniuk, amelyek a foglalkoztatás és munkavégzés területén hatékony védelmet Q\~MWDQDN D V]H[XiOLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ megkülönböztetéssel szemben mind a köz-, mind pedig a magánszférában. Ezeknek az intézkedéseknek ki kell terjedniük a foglalkoztatáshoz való hozzáférés, továbbá az HOĘPHQHWHO pV D] HOERFViWiVRN IHOWpWHOHLUH YDODPLQW D IL]HWpVL pV HJ\pE munkavégzési feltételekre, beleértve a zaklatás és az áldozattá tétel más formáinak PHJHOĘ]pVpWOHN]GpVpWpVPHJEQWHWpVpW K1. Létezik-e olyan jogszabály, amely tiltja (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést mind a köz-PLQGDPDJiQV]IpUiEDQW|UWpQĘIRJODONR]WDWiV során? K2. Ez a jogszabály kiterjed-e: i.
a munkához jutásra (ideértve az álláshirdetéseket);
ii.
D]HOĘPHQHWHOUH
iii.
az elbocsátásra,
iv.
a fizetésekre;
v.
zaklatásra és az áldozattá tétel más formáira?
K3. $ KDWyViJRN HOĘPR]GtWRWWiN-e a hátrányos megkülönböztetéssel, zaklatással és az áldozattá tétellel szembeni egyéb intézkedések megtételét mind a köz-, mind a magánszférában, így például támogatták-e: i.
magatartási kódexek elfogadását mind a munkáltatók, mind a munkavállalók számára,
ii.
PXQNiOWDWyNDWpVPXQNDYiOODOyNDWPHJFpO]yNpS]pVHNHWpVWXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘSURJUDPRNDW
iii.
a jogokról, panaszmechanizmusokról és jogorvoslatokról szóló anyagok terjesztését a munkavállalók körében,
iv.
NLIHMH]HWWHQD]/0%7V]HPpO\HNHWPHJFpO]yNDPSiQ\RNDWDPXQNDHUĘWRERU]iVWHUOHWpQ
v.
olyan antidiszkriminációs szabályzatok elfogadását, amelyek kifejezetten kitérnek a szexuális irányultságra és a nemi identitásra,
vi.
D]/0%7PXQNDYiOODOyLFVRSRUWRNNDOYDOyHJ\WWPĦN|GpVWpVD]RNWiPRJDWiVD"
K4. Történtek-e lépések annak érdekében, hogy eltöröljék azokat a jogszabályokat, szabályzatokat és gyakorlatokat, amelyek (a) szexuális irányultság és (b) nemi identitás szerint hátrányosan NO|QE|]WHWQHNPHJDPXQNiKR]MXWiVpVD]HOĘPHQHWHOVRUiQEL]RQ\RVV]DNPiNpVIRJODONR]iVRN HVHWpEHQtJ\NO|Q|VHQDIHJ\YHUHVHUĘNQpO"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
K5. A foglalkoztatás terén tapasztalható megkülönböztetés ellen hozott intézkedések teljesen és hatékonyaQOHIHGLNDWUDQV]QHPĦV]HPpO\HNHW" K6. Kidolgoztak-e kifeje]HWWHQ D WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN PXQNDYiOODOiVL OHKHWĘVpJHLQHN EĘYtWpVpW célzó foglalkoztatási programokat? 30. Különös figyelmet kell fordítani arra, hogy az alkalmazással – különösen az álláspályázatokkal – |VV]HIJJpVEHQ D WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN SULYiWV]IpUiKR] YDOy joga hatékony védelemben részesüljön annak érdekében, hogy nemi történetük vagy korábbi nevük ne váljon szükségtelenül ismertté a munkaadó, illetve a többi munkavállaló számára. K7. Történtek-H LQWp]NHGpVHN DQQDN PHJHOĘ]pVH pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ D WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN korábbi neme vagy neve a foglalkoztatás kapcsán nyilvánosságra kerüljön? VIII. Lakhatás 37. ,QWp]NHGpVHNHW NHOO WHQQL DQQDN pUGHNpEHQ KRJ\ D PHJIHOHOĘ ODNKDWiVKR] YDOy hozzáférés szexuálLV LUiQ\XOWViJ LOOHWYH QHPL LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpVQpONOPLQGHQV]HPpO\V]iPiUDKDWpNRQ\DQpVHJ\HQOĘHQOHJ\HQ pOYH]KHWĘ D] LO\HQ LQWp]NHGpVHNQHN NO|Q|VHQ D GLV]NULPLQDWtY NLODNROWDWiVRNNDO szemben kell védelmet nyújtaniuk, valamint a föld- és egyéb tulajdonjog PHJV]HU]pVHpVPHJWDUWiVDWHNLQWHWpEHQNHOOHJ\HQOĘMRJRNDWJDUDQWiOQLXN K8. Tiltják-e a jogszabályok (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló diszkriminációt olyan területeken, mint: i.
a lakások értékesítése és bérbeadása;
ii.
a lakásvásárlásra biztosított kölcsönök folyósítása;
iii.
DEpUOĘSDUWQHUHMRJDLQDNHOLVPHUpVH
iv.
kilakoltatás?
K9. Léteznek-e olyan rendelkezések, amelyek célja a hajléktalanszállókhoz és más szükségszállásokhoz való hozzájutás területén biztosítani (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló diszkriminációtól való mentességet? K10. +R]]iIpUKHWĘN-HDEpUEHDGyNQDNpVDEpUOĘNQHNDKiWUiQ\RVPHJNO|QE|]WHWpVPHJHOĘ]pVpW célzó információk? K11. Létezik-H PHJIHOHOĘ pV KDWpNRQ\ MRJL YDJ\ PiV MRJRUYRVODWL OHKHWĘVpJ D] LO\HQ WtSXV~ diszkrimináció áldozatainak? K12. Léteznek-e a szociális bérlakásokat üzemeltetĘV]HUYH]HWHNKH]V]yOyD]DQWLdiszkriminációs UHQGHONH]pVHNPHJLVPHUWHWpVpWFpO]yWXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘNDPSiQ\RN"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Dr. Matolcsy György úr részére Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium 1051 Budapest, József nádor tér 4. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Miniszter Úr! 2012. április 27-pQ N|]pUGHNĦ DGDWLJpQ\OpVVHO IRUGXOWXQN D 0LQLV]WpULXPKR] D] Európa Tanács szexuális LUiQ\XOWViJRQ YDJ\ QHPL LGHQWLWiVRQ DODSXOy GLV]NULPLQiFLy HOOHQL N]GHOHPUĘO V]yOy ajánlásának magyarországi végrehajtása kapcsán. Megkeresésünket emailben (
[email protected],
[email protected]) és postai úton is eljuttattuk a Minisztérium részére. 2012. június 8-iQWHOHIRQRQpUGHNOĘGWQNDGDWNpUpVQNVRUViUyODNNRUD]WDYiODV]WNDSWXNKRJ\D válaszadás folyamatban van. 2012. július 16-iQLVPpWpUGHNOĘGWQND]DGDWNpUpVVRUViUyODPLNRU azt a választ kaptuk, hogy az akta elkeveredett, de meglett és a válaszadás folyamatban van. Az HOP~OW NpW KpWEHQ W|EE HVHWEHQ LV pUGHNOĘGWQN D] DGDWNpUpV VRUViUyO D NO|QE|]Ę J\LQWp]ĘN egymásra mutogattak, az adatkérés sorsáról érdemi felvilágosítást nem tudtak adni. Az adatkérés benyújtása óta közel 6 hónap telt el, arra válasz mégsem érkezett. Az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a N|]pUGHNĦDGDWLJpQ\OpVHNPHJYiODV]ROiViUDD 0LQLV]WpULXPQDN 15 napja van. Tekintettel a kérdések |VV]HWHWWVpJpUHHKDWiULGĘPHJWDUWiViWQHPYiUWXNHO$]HOP~OWKDWKyQDS azonban elégnek kellett volna lennie a kért válaszok megadására, mint ahogy valamennyi más, a SURMHNW NHUHWpEHQ PHJNHUHVHWW iOODPL V]HUY tJ\ D %HOJ\PLQLV]WpULXP D] (PEHUL (UĘIRUUiVRN Minisztériuma, a Honvédelmi Minisztérium, a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium, a Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos ParancsnoNViJD D] (J\HQOĘ %iQiVPyG +DWyViJ D 1HP]HWL Média- pV +tUN|]OpVL +DWyViJ D] 2UV]iJRV 5HQGĘU-IĘNDSLWiQ\ViJ pV D] $ODSYHWĘ -RJRN Biztosának Hivatala) hónapokkal H]HOĘWW UpV]OHWHV pUGHPL YiODV]RNDW DGRWW D WHYpNHQ\VpJL területükkel kapcsolatos kérdésekre. .pUMNH]pUWD0LQLV]WpULXPRWKRJ\DIHOWHWWNpUGpVUHDOHKHWĘOHJU|YLGHEELGĘQEHOOYiODV]ROQL szíveskedjenek.
Üdvözlettel: Budapest, 2012. október 4.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Szalai Annamária asszony részére Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság 1376 Budapest, Pf. 997. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEb PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság által WHWW LOOHWYH D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV mellékletének azon pontjait, amelyek terén a Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, leKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás és mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): I. Ä*\ĦO|OHW-EĦQFVHOHNPpQ\HN´pVHJ\pEJ\ĦO|OHWiOWDOPRWLYiOWLQFLGHQVHN %Ä*\ĦO|OHWEHV]pG´ 6. $WDJiOODPRNQDNPHJIHOHOĘLQWp]NHGpVHNHWNHOOWHQQLNPLQGHQRO\DQ kifejezési forma – EHOHpUWYH D PpGLiEDQ pV D] LQWHUQHWHQ PHJMHOHQĘ NLIHMH]pVL IRUPiNDW LV – OHN]GpVpUH DPHO\HW pVV]HUĦHQ ~J\ OHKHW pUWHQL PLQW DPL YDOyV]tQĦVtWKHWĘHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ V]HPpO\HN HOOHQL J\ĦO|OHWUH XV]tWy J\ĦO|OHWHW WHUMHV]WĘ YDJ\ J\ĦO|OHWHW HOĘPR]GtWy LOOHWYH D PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV PiV IRUPiLUD XV]tWy YDJ\ D PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV PiV IRUPiLW WHUMHV]WĘ YDJ\ HOĘPR]GtWy KDWiVW NHOW $] LO\HQ ÄJ\ĦO|OHWEHV]pGHW´ WLOWDQL NHOO pV HOĘIRUGXOiVD HVHWpQ nyilvánosan el kell utasítani. Az intézkedéseknek – az Egyezmény 10. cikkével és a Bíróság esetjogával összhangban – tiszteletben kell tartaniuk a véleménynyilvánítás V]DEDGViJiKR]IĦ]ĘGĘDODSYHWĘMRJRW K1. Bátorítják-H D PpGLD V]HUHSOĘLW LGHpUWYH D] LQWHUQHWV]ROJiOWDWyNDW Drra, hogy saját J\DNRUODWXNEDQ SOPDJDWDUWiVLNyGH[HLNEHQ HOĘPR]GtWViN i.
DWLV]WHOHWWROHUDQFLDpVVRNV]tQĦVpJNXOW~UiMiQDNNLDODNtWiViWpV
ii.
az LMBT emberek negatív és sztereotipikus megjelenítésének visszaszorítását?
K2. Bátorítják-e az internet-szolgáltatókat arra, hogy tegyenek intézkedéseket (a) a homofób és (b) DWUDQV]IyEDQ\DJRNIHQ\HJHWpVHNpVWiPDGiVRNWHUMHV]WpVpQHNPHJHOĘ]pVpUH"
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Prof. Dr. Szabó Máté úr részére $ODSYHWĘ-RJRN%L]WRViQDN+LYDWDOD 1051 Budapest, Nádor u. 22. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Szabó Máté Biztos Úr! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\ hosszabb PHOOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén az $ODSYHWĘ-RJRN%L]WRVDáltal tett, illetve a M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV PHOOpNOHWpQHN azon pontjait, amelyek terén a $ODSYHWĘ -RJRN Biztosa bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás és mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): XI. Nemzeti emberi jogi intézmények 6. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a nemzeti emberi jogi intézmények HJ\pUWHOPĦ IHOKDWDOPD]iVVDO UHQGHONH]]HQHN D Vzexuális irányultság, illetve nemi LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV NH]HOpVpUH NO|Q|VHQ OHKHWĘYp NHOO tenni számukra, hogy jogalkotással és szakpolitikákkal kapcsolatosan ajánlásokat tegyenek, növeljék a tudatosságot a közvéleményben, és – amennyiben azt a nemzeti jog elrendeli – vizsgálják ki mind a magán- PLQG D N|]V]IpUiW pULQWĘ HJ\pQL panaszokat, és indítsanak bírósági eljárásokat, illetve vegyenek részt ilyen eljárásokban. K1. Az emberi jogok védelmét szolgáló nemzeti intézményrendszer rendelkezik-e kifejezett mandátummal (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció terén? K2. A gyakorlatban (a) a szexuális irányultsággal vagy (b) a nemi identitással összefüggésben: i.
tesznek-e a jogszabályokkal és a szakpolitikákkal kapcsolatban ajánlásokat;
ii.
végeznek-HDN|]YpOHPpQ\N|UpEHQMRJWXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘWHYpNHQ\VpJHW
iii.
vizsgálnak-e egyéni panaszokat;
iv.
részt vesznek-e bírósági eljárásokban;
v.
felszólalnak-e az LMBT emberek jogainak gyakorlása mellett, például amikor a gyülekezési szabadság alá tartozó HVHPpQ\HNHWHOOHQ]ĘKDQJRNMHOennek meg a nyilvánosságban?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Dr. Honecz Ágnes asszony részére (J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ 1024 Budapest, Margit krt. 85. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! 2010-EHQ D OHV]ELNXV PHOHJ ELV]H[XiOLV pV WUDQV]QHPĦ HPEHUHNNHO V]HPEHQL KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés magas szintje miatt érzett aggodalomtól vezetve az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága a tagállamoknak szóló ajánlást fogadott el, amely az ilyen típusú hátrányos megkülönböztetés elleni intézkedések széles körét öleli fel. Az ajánlások alapját a tagállamok N|WHOH]ĘpUYpQ\ĦHPEHULMRJLN|WHOH]HWWVpJYiOODOiVDLNpSH]LN Az Európa Tanács Miniszterek Bizottsága 2013-ban áttekinti, hogy a tagállamok mennyiben tettek eleget az ajánlásban foglaltaknak. $] DMiQOiV PDJ\DU Q\HOYĦ D .|]LJD]JDWiVL pV ,JD]ViJJ\L 0LQLV]WpULXP iOWDO NpV]tWHWW fordítását levelünkhöz mellékeltük. Az ajánlás kpWUpV]EĘOiOOHJ\U|YLGUHQGHONH]ĘUpV]EĘOpVHJ\KRVV]DEE melOpNOHWEĘODPHO\UpV]OHWHVHEEHQkerülnek kifejtésre azon alapelvek és intézkedések, amelyeket jogszabályalkotás, más közpolitikai eszközök és gyakorlati lépések révén kell a tagállamoknak végrehajtaniuk. Az Európa Tanács egyben egy indokolást is közzétett, amely további iránymutatást tartalmaz az DMiQOiVYpJUHKDMWiViKR]V]NVpJHVUpV]OHWHVLQWp]NHGpVHNUĘO$]LQGRNROiVHOpUKHWĘD]LQWHUQHWHQ az alábbi címen: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1570957 Jelen levelünkben az ajánlás végrehajtása területén a (J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJáltal tett, illetve D M|YĘEHQ WHUYH]HWW OpSpVHN IHOĘO pUGHNOĘGQN /HYHOQNK|] PHOOpNHOWN D] DMiQOiV PHOOpNOHWpQHN azon pontjait, amelyek terén a (J\HQOĘ %iQiVPyG +DWyViJ bír hatáskörrel. Az ajánlásokhoz kapcsolódóan olyan konkrét kérdéseket fogalmaztunk meg, amelyek az ajánlások végrehajtása érdekében szükséges részletes intézkedésekre kérdeznek rá. Ezen intézkedések explicit módon szerepelnek vagy az ajánlás és mellékletének szövegében vagy az indokolásban. Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a mellékelt dokumentumban található kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJ HOHNWURQLNXV IRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek, részletezve mind az ajánlás PHJYDOyVtWiVDpUGHNpEHQHGGLJPHJWHWWPLQGSHGLJDM|YĘEHQWHUYH]HWWLQWp]NHGpVHNHW 6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. április 25.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
Melléklet Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció HOOHQLN]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Az Ajánlás mellékletének releváns pontjai (félkövér szöveg) és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó, a YpJUHKDMWiVUDYRQDWNR]yHOOHQĘU]ĘNpUGpVHN GĘOWEHWĦVV]|YHJ): Az Ajánlás melléklete XI. Nemzeti emberi jogi intézmények 45. A tagállamoknak biztosítaniuk kell, hogy a nemzeti emberi jogi intézmények HJ\pUWHOPĦ IHOKDWDOPD]iVVDO rendelkezzenek a szexuális irányultság, illetve nemi LGHQWLWiV DODSMiQ W|UWpQĘ PHJNO|QE|]WHWpV NH]HOpVpUH NO|Q|VHQ OHKHWĘYp NHOO tenni számukra, hogy jogalkotással és szakpolitikákkal kapcsolatosan ajánlásokat tegyenek, növeljék a tudatosságot a közvéleményben, és – amennyiben azt a nemzeti jog elrendeli – vizsgálják ki mind a magán- PLQG D N|]V]IpUiW pULQWĘ HJ\pQL panaszokat, és indítsanak bírósági eljárásokat, illetve vegyenek részt ilyen eljárásokban. K1. Az emberi jogok védelmét szolgáló nemzeti intézményrendszer rendelkezik-e kifejezett mandátummal (a) a szexuális irányultságon és (b) a nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció terén? K2. A gyakorlatban (a) a szexuális irányultsággal vagy (b) a nemi identitással összefüggésben: i.
tesznek-e a jogszabályokkal és a szakpolitikákkal kapcsolatban ajánlásokat;
ii.
végeznek-HDN|]YpOHPpQ\N|UpEHQMRJWXGDWRVViJQ|YHOĘWHYpNHQ\VpJHW
iii.
vizsgálnak-e egyéni panaszokat;
iv.
részt vesznek-e bírósági eljárásokban;
v.
felszólalnak-e az LMBT emberek jogainak gyakorlása mellett, például amikor a gyülekezési szabadság alá tartozó HVHPpQ\HNHWHOOHQ]ĘKDQJRNMHOennek meg a nyilvánosságban?
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
(*<(1/ė%È1È60Ï'+$7Ï6È* Szám: EBH/505/ 2 /2012. hJ\LQWp]Ę dr. Gregor K. Dombos Tamás úr Háttér Társaság a Melegekért Budapest Csanády u. 4/B. 1132 Tisztelt Dombos Tamás Úr! A hatósághoz 2012. április 27-én e-mailen, majd 2012. május 4-én postai úton érkezett N|]pUGHNĦ DGDWLJpQ\OpVVHO NDSFVRODWRV PHJNHUHVpVpUH D kérdések sorrendjében az alábbiak szerint tájékoztatom: K1.-hez: $] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyGUyO pV D] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJ HOĘPR]GtWiViUyO V]yOy pYL &;;9 törvény (Ebktv.) 8. §-ában védett tulajdonságként szerepel a szexuális orientáció és a nemi identitás. Az Ebktv. további rendelkezései értelmében ezen védett tulajdonságokkal UHQGHONH]Ę V]HPpO\HNNHOFVRSRUWRNNDO V]HPEHQ WLORV D N|]YHWOHQ KiWUiQ\RV megkülönböztetés, a közvetett hátrányos megkülönböztetés, a zaklatás és a jogellenes elkülönítés. A törvény értelmében a foglalkoztatás, a szociális biztonság és egészségügy, a lakhatás, az oktatás és képzés valamint az áruk forgalma és szolgáltatások igénybe vétele területein tilos hátrányos megkülönböztetést alkalmazni a szexuális irányultság valamint a QHPLLGHQWLWiVYpGHWWWXODMGRQViJRNNDOUHQGHONH]ĘV]HPpO\HNNHOFVRSRUWRNNDOVzemben is. A 2005. február 1-MpQ OpWUHM|WW (J\HQOĘ %iQiVPyG +DWyViJ - amely 2012. január 1-WĘO DXWRQyP iOODPLJD]JDWiVL V]HUYNpQW PĦN|GLN-, azon kívül, hogy egyedi kérelmekre, vagy N|]pUGHNĦ LJpQ\pUYpQ\HVtWpVUH MRJRVXOWDN iOWDO HOĘWHUMHV]WHWW SDQDV]RN alapján eljár, meghatározott esetekben, az Ebktv. 4. § a)-d) pontja alá tartozó szervekkel szemben hivatalból is felléphet és eljárást indíthat. K2. I-hez: A hatóság mellett 2012. február 1-MpW PHJHOĘ]ĘHQ PĦN|GĘ 7DQiFVDGy 7HVWOHW -ben a EBHTT/10.007/10/2007. számon jogalkotási javaslattal fordult az akkori Kormányhoz, javasolva a házasság jogintézményének megnyitását az LMBT emberek számára is.
2 K2 II-hez: A hatóság tevékenyen részt vesz a társadalom tagjai jogtudatosságának növelése érdekében, együtWPĦN|GLN D WiUVDGDOPL pV pUGHNYpGHOPL V]HUYH]HWHNNHO UpV]W YHV] LO\HQ V]HUYH]HWHN PHJKtYiViUDUHQGH]YpQ\HLNHQHOĘDGiVRNDWWDUWYDJ\NHUHNDV]WDOEHV]pOJHWpVHNHQMHOHQLNPHJ rendszeresen jelen van a Sziget rendezvényen a Civil sátorban. A 2009. április 1-jén indult TÁMOP 5.5.5/08/1-2008-0001 „A diszkrimináció elleni küzdelem- D WiUVDGDOPL V]HPOpOHWIRUPiOiV pV KDWyViJL PXQNDHUĘVtWpVH´ HOQHYH]pVĦ HXUySDL uniós támogatású és hazai társfinanszírozású projekt keretében a hatóság tevékenységi köre NLEĘYOW pV Dlkalmassá vált arra, hogy a hatósági jogalkalmazáson túlmutató társadalmi igényeknek is megfeleljen. Magyarországon a diszkrimináció több társadalmi csoportot érint és az élet számos területén YDQ MHOHQ %iU D MRJV]DEiO\RN LOO D +DWyViJ PĦN|GpVH OHKHWĘséget ad az érintetteknek a hátrányos megkülönböztetéssel szembeni fellépésre, a diszkriminációs jelenségek gyakran UHMWYH PDUDGQDN PHUW D] pULQWHWWHN QHP UHQGHONH]QHN PHJIHOHOĘ LVPHUHWHNNHO D MRJpUYpQ\HVtWpVWHUpQLOOHWYHQLQFVOHKHWĘVpJNpOQLD]RNNDO A Hatóság a hatósági jogkörén túl a projekt eszközeivel is törekszik arra, hogy a jogalkalmazás területén felhalmozódott WXGiViYDO pV WDSDV]WDODWDLYDO YiOWR]WDVVRQ H]HQ D KHO\]HWHQ V]HSWHPEHUpWĘO PĦN|GLN D projekt kereteiben létrehozott megyei egyenOĘEiQiVPyG-referensi hálózat, amely az ügyfelek N|]HOpEHQ PHJ\HL pV NLVWpUVpJL V]LQWHNHQ LV OHKHWĘYp WHWWH D +DWyViJ V]ROJiOWDWiVDLQDN elérését. A TÁMOP-program komplex kommunikációs eszközöket nyújt a hatóság számára ahhoz, hogy a társadalmi érzékenyítéVKH] V]NVpJHV NHGYH]Ę DWWLWĦGYiOWR]iVRNDW HOpUMH $QQDN pUGHNpEHQKRJ\ D]pOHWV]iPRVWHUOHWpQ PĦN|GĘGLV]NULPLQiFLyVPHFKDQL]PXVRNDW feltárja, a TÁMOP-SURMHNWQHNUpV]HHJ\WHUOHWUHNLWHUMHGĘKiWWpUNXWDWiVLV $](J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ-es indXOiVDyWDDIĘYiURVEDQPĦN|GLN7HUOHWHLV]HUYHL QLQFVHQHN $ KDWyViJL HOMiUiVRNEDQ IĘ V]DEiO\NpQW D WiUJ\DOiVRN D SDQDV]RV ODNKHO\pQ ]DMODQDN D] pUGHNOĘGĘ J\IHOHN D]RQEDQ FVXSiQ D IĘYiURVL 0DUJLW N|U~WL LURGDKi]EDQ kereshették fel személyesen a hatóság munkatársait. Ezen a helyzeten változtatott a TÁMOP-projekt azzal, hogy megalakította és 2009. szeptember 1-WĘO PĦN|GWHWL D] HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyG-UHIHUHQVL KiOy]DWRW $ KiOy]DWEDQ HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyG-referensek tartanak hetente ingyenes ügyfélfogadást a megyeszékhelyeken, fogadják a diszkrimináció áldozatait pVPiVpUGHNOĘGĘNHW$V]HSDUiOWEL]DOPLKHO\]HWHNUHLVDONDOPDVIpOIRJDGiVLN|UQ\H]HWEHQD] ügyfelek nem csupán tanácsadást vehetnek igénybe. A referensek szakmai segítséget nyújtanak a panaszos beadvány elkészítésében és továbbítják azt a Hatósághoz. Az HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyG-UHIHUHQVHN PLQGHQ HVHWEHQ QDJ\ V]DNPDL WDSDV]WDODWWDO UHQGHONH]Ę J\YpGHN DNLN UHQGV]HUHV LGĘN|]|QNpQW IHONHUHVLN PHJ\pMN NLVWpUVpJL N|]SRQWMDLW LV $] ügyfélfogadáson túl széles körben kapcsolódnak be a helyi szakmai és civil partnerségbe, LVNRODL SURJUDPRNED N|]UHPĦN|GQHN D GLV]NULPLQiFLyPHQWHVVpJ N|YHWHOPpQ\pQHN WXGDWRVtWiViEDQ D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyG N|YHWHOPpQ\pYHO NDSFVRODWRV WXGiVPHJRV]WiVEDQ A referensek ügyfélfogadásának adatai a TÁMOP-SURMHNWKRQODSMiQHOpUKHWĘHN A 2010. szeptemberben indított, több mint 70 tréning lebonyolításával tervezett sorozat a hatósági jogalkalmazó munkatársak fejlesztette tananyagon alapuló, 30 órás, akkreditált NpS]pVHNEĘOiOO $NpS]pVLSURJUDPNpWPRGXOMD HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJLLVPHUHWHNpVV]HPOpOHWIRUPiOypU]pNHQ\tWĘ tréning, valamint antidiszkriminációs jogi ismeretek és esetjog. A képzés gyakorlati része a hatósági eljárásban vizsgált konkrét diszkriminációs ügyek elemzésén alapul, s e tekintetben
3 SiUDWODQ OHKHWĘVpJHW MHOHQW D IHQWL FpORN HUHGPpQ\HV PHJYDOyVXOiViEDQ $ NpS]pV VLNHUHV elvégzését Tanúsítvány igazolja. $NpS]pVLSURJUDPHUHGPpQ\HNpQWDUpV]WYHYĘNNpSHVVpYiOQDNDGLV]NULPLQiFLyNO|QE|]Ę formáinaN IHOLVPHUpVpUH D MRJpUYpQ\HVtWpV PHJIHOHOĘ PyGMiQDN PHJYiODV]WiViUD MRJpUYpQ\HVtWĘ NpSHVVpJN KDWpNRQ\DEEi YiOLN MiUWDVViJXN D] HVHWMRJEDQ Q|YHNV]LN $ UpV]WYHYĘNQHN OHKHWĘVpJN Q\tOLN HOVDMiWtWDQL D N|]pUGHNĦ LJpQ\pUYpQ\HVtWpVKH] V]NVpJHV kompetenciáNDW pV D] pUGHNpUYpQ\HVtWpVKH] V]NVpJHV LVPHUHWHNHW $] HVpO\HJ\HQOĘVpJL ismeretek elsajátításán túl további célunk a téma iránti szakmai és személyes elkötelezettség NLDODNtWiVD pV PHJHUĘVtWpVH D] DWWLWĦGUHQGV]HU IHMOHV]WpVpYHO $ NpS]pV IHMOHV]WL D]RNDW a V]HPpO\HV pV V]DNPDL NpV]VpJHNHW DPHO\HN D UpV]WYHYĘNHW KR]]iVHJtWLN DKKR] KRJ\ D] HJ\HQOĘ EiQiVPyG HOYpW NRQNUpWDQ pUYpQ\UH WXGMiN MXWWDWQL PXQNiMXNEDQ D] élethelyzeteikben. A képzések célcsoportja igen tág, részt vesznek rajta, akik érintettek valamilyen védett WXODMGRQViJXNPLDWWPiVIHOĘOD]RNDNLNLO\HQV]HPpO\HNNHOPXQNiMXNYDJ\HJ\pEKHO\]HWN miatt kapcsolatba kerülhetnek. $] (J\HQOĘ %iQiVPyG +DWyViJ D 7È023-projekt kutatási programján keresztül a diszkriminációs mechanizmusok feltátására törekszik. Távlati célunk, hogy kutatási anyagainkat eljuttassuk a foglalkoztatás és a közigazgatás minden érintettjéhez. Kutatási programunkban a 7-es számot viseli az országos reprezentatív - fókuszban a romák, a fogyatékos emberek és az LMBT-közösség - mintavételen alapuló közvélemény-kutatás az HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyGGDONDSFVRODWRVMRJWXGDWRVViJQ|YHNHGpVpQHNWpPiMiEDQ Az országos reprezentatív kutatást a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Szociológiai Kutatóintézetének neves kutatói végzik. A kutatás célja részben a magyar társadalom MRJWXGDWRVViJiQDNWRYiEEiDOHJLQNiEEGLV]NULPLQiOWYpGHWWWXODMGRQViJ~FVRSRUWRN DQĘN URPiNIRJ\DWpNNDOpOĘNpV/0%7HPEHUHN KHO\]HWpQHNIHOWpUNpSH]pVH $ NXWDWiV HOVĘ KXOOiPiEDQ D] IĘV PLQWiW IĘV DOPLQWiN HJpV]tWHWWpk ki. A kutatás második hulláma 2013-ban esedékes, amelyben a kutatók mérik majd azt is, hogy történt-e bármilyen változás a jogtudatosság tekintetében két év alatt a TÁMOP 5.5.5. projekt hatására, illetve kvalitatív módszereket (fókuszcsoportok) is alkalmazva mélyebb bepillantást Q\HUKHWQNPDMGDQĘNURPiNIRJ\DWpNNDOpOĘNpV/0%7-emberek kapcsán. A TÁMOP-SURMHNWHQ EHOO VDMiW NXWDWiVW LV YpJ]QN D NpS]pVHLQNHQ UpV]WYHYĘN N|UpEHQ XJ\DQFVDNNpWKXOOiPEDQ(]OHKHWĘVpJHWWHUHPWDUUDKRJ\|VV]HKDVRQOtWsuk a jogtudatosság PpUWpNpQHNQ|YHNHGpVpWDNpS]pVHQUpV]WYHYĘNpVDPDJ\DUODNRVViJN|]|WW K2.III-hoz: A hatóság a 2004. évi CXL. törvény (Ket.) 169/B. § (2) bekezdése alapján kérelemre vagy hivatalból vizsgálatot folytat annak megállapítására, hogy megsértették-H D] HJ\HQOĘ bánásmód követelményét.
4 K2 IV-hez: A hatóság az Ebktv. EHNH]GpVE SRQWMDDODSMiQDN|]pUGHNĦLJpQ\pUYpQ\HVtWpVMRJD alapján pert indíthat a jogaikban sértett személyek és csoportok jogainak védelmében, a 18. § (1) EHNH]GpVHDODSMiQSHGLJD]HJ\HQOĘEiQiVPyGN|YHWHOPpQ\pQHNPHJVpUWpVHPLDWWLQGXOW eljárásokban - különösen személyiségi jogi per, munkaügyi per során- a jogsérelmet V]HQYHGHWWIpOPHJKDWDOPD]iVDDODSMiQNpSYLVHOĘNpQWMiUKDWHO K2V-höz: A hatóság feladatait a Ket. 169/B § (1) –(2) bekezdései, valamint az Ebktv. 14. § (1) bekezdés b)-L SRQWMDL KDWiUR]]iN PHJ D] LW IHOVRUROWDN V]HULQW MRJRVXOW D KDWyViJ IHOOpSQL D] HJ\HQOĘ bánásmód követelményének érvényre juttatása érdekében. Remélem, hogy tájékoztatásommal segítségére voltam, és engedje meg, hogy felhívjam a figyelmét a hatóság http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu honlapján éves bontásban található jogesetek rövid összefoglalóira, amelyek között a szexuális orientáció/nemi identitás védett WXODMGRQViJJDO UHQGHONH]ĘNWĘO pUNH]HWW SDQDV]RN érdemi döntéssel lezárult esetei is megtalálhatók, valamint a TÁMOP 5.5.5. projekt keretében végzett kutatások megállapításai is olvashatók. Budapest, 2012. május „ 07 „. Üdvözlettel:
Dr. Honecz Ágnes Elnök s.k.
1024 Budapest, Margit krt. 85. Tel.: +361-336-7849 +361-336-7445
Dr. Honecz Ágnes asszony részére (J\HQOĘ%iQiVPyG+DWyViJ 1024 Budapest, Margit krt. 85. Tárgy: Az Európa Tanács szexuális irányultságon vagy nemi identitáson alapuló diszkrimináció elleni N]GHOHPUĘOV]yOyDMiQOiViQDNmagyarországi végrehajtása
Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Köszönettel megkaptuk a 2012. április 25-pQNHOWN|]pUGHNĦDGDWLJpQ\OpVQNUHDGRWWPiMXV 7-én kelt, EBH/505/2/2012 számon iktatott válaszukat. A válaszlevél NDSFViQDN|YHWNH]ĘSRQWRVtWyNpUGpVekre szeretnénk választ kapni: K1. Indított-e a Hatóság az Ebktv. 14. § (1) bekezdés b) pontja alapján pert a jogaikban sértett személyek és csoportok jogainak védelmében? K2. Ha igen, hány ilyen pert indított a Hatóság? K3. Ezek közül hány esetben indult a per a sértettek i)
szexuális irányultságával,
ii) nemi identitásával kapcsolatban? Kérjük, hogy az információs önrendelkezési jogról és az információszabadságról szóló 2011. évi CXII. törvény 26-31. § alapján a fenti kérdésekre 15 napon belül, OHKHWĘOHJHOHNWURQLNXVIRUPiEDQ válaszolni szíveskedjenek.
6HJtWVpJNHWHOĘUHLVN|V]|QMNGY|]OHWWHO Budapest, 2012. június 14.
Dombos Tamás Háttér Társaság a Melegekért
1132 Budapest, Csanády u 4/B. i Tel./fax: (1) 329-2670 E-mail:
[email protected] i Web: www.hatter.hu
+iWWpU7iUVDViJD0HOHJHNpUW0DLOYiODV]DLHPDLOUH
'RPERV7DPiV WGRPERV#KDWWHUKX!
YiODV]DLHPDLOUH *UHJRU.DWDOLQGU NDWDOLQJUHJRU#HEKJRYKX! &tP]HWW WGRPERV#KDWWHUKX WGRPERV#KDWWHUKX!
M~QLXV
7LV]WHOW'RPERV7DPiV .pUpVpQHNPHJIHOHOĘHQWiMpNR]WDWRPKRJ\DKDWyViJD](ENWY EHNH]GpVE SRQWMDDODSMiQ N|]pUGHNĦLJpQ\pUYpQ\HVtWĘNpQWSHUHVHOMiUiVWQHPNH]GHPpQ\H]HWW hGY|]OHWWHO 'U*UHJRU.DWDOLQ +DWyViJLpV-RJL)ĘRV]WiO\YH]HWĘMH GU+RQHF]ÈJQHVHOQ|NPEEyO
(]HQ]HQHWpVDQQDNEiUPHO\FVDWROWDQ\DJDEL]DOPDVMRJLYpGHOHPDODWWiOODQ\LOYiQRVN|]OpVWĘOYpGHWW$]]HQHWHWNL]iUyODJD FtP]HWWLOOHWYHD]iOWDODPHJKDWDOPD]RWWDNKDV]QiOKDWMiNIHO+DgQQHPD]]HQHWFtP]HWWMH~J\NpUMNKRJ\WHOHIRQRQYDJ\HPDLO EHQpUWHVtWVHHUUĘOD]]HQHWNOGĘMpWpVW|U|OMHD]]HQHWHWYDODPLQWDQQDN|VV]HVFVDWROWPHOOpNOHWpWDUHQGV]HUpEĘO+DgQQHPD] ]HQHWFtP]HWWMHDEEDQD]HVHWEHQWLORVD]]HQHWHWYDJ\DQQDNEiUPHO\FVDWROWPHOOpNOHWpWOHPiVROQLDHOPHQWHQLHD]]HQHW WDUWDOPiWEiUNLYHON|]|OQLHYDJ\D]]DOYLVV]Dp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
KWWSV PDLOJRRJOHFRPPDLOX"XL LN IEH YLHZ SW T HEKJRYKX TV WUXH VHDUFK TX¬
