In your speech and in a recent interview, you mentioned the shrinking civil space and the freedom of NGOs as key concerns. How do you envisage a monitoring mechanism you spoke about – and how would you give teeth to such an initiative?
We are at an early stage, we are not drawing attention to the problem. Because there is no agreed level, a shared level of sensitivity to the threats of the civil society in the EU. The focus has been historically outside, while we allowed the situation to deteriorate inside without even noticing. That’s the first step. In terms of where we go, the FRA will publish a report in a few months' time which will contain a number of suggestions, one of which might be establishing an observatory for the protection of the civil society. This suggestion came out of a consultation we did a few months ago and it was proposed in a context where there is no one place you can go to get all the information what’s happening across the member states. It’s a good idea; whether we will be the ones who set it up or we would support somebody else to set it up, that has to be explored.
Do you see there being more room for maneuver for the FRA to step up support for NGOs? Do you plan to be more vocal on this?
Absolutely. The FRA has a responsibility not just to collaborate closely with the civil society but also to play its appropriate role in supporting civil society. One of the initiatives we have taken recently is to reform the way society engages with our agency. We have something called the Fundamental Rights Platform to which any group whose purposes are compatible with human rights can associate themselves, and this is not just a way we speak to the civil society about our work, but also listen to them how we can better help them.
The civil society is the oil that keeps democracy moving, and if we allow deterioration there, then it has a negative impact for the whole democratic spirit of any state. So we've got to pay close attention.
Do you have any particular comments on what’s happening between NGOs and the Hungarian government?
I share the views of the European Commission, the United Nations and the European Commissioner for Human Rights that the newly adopted law is problematic from a human right point of view. There are issues about its compliance both with international law and European Union law that need to be addressed. We are not alone: we share the view of different international human rights bodies.
Do you think there is any justification for the Hungarian government's argument that these NGOs need to be more transparent and with the law in question the government has better oversight?
What I look at primarily is not the motivation for an action but the impact of an action. What we see primarily is this law seems to restrict human rights to a degree that goes beyond the limits of international law, which requires when you limit rights that are core to having a healthy civil society, like the right to freedom of association, when you limit that right you have to honor the principle of necessity and proportionality. What the international observers are suggesting is that this law goes further than allowed by the principles of necessity and proportionality.
There is a lot of discussion, particularly in Brussels in NGO circles lately, to call on the EU to better support civil organizations inside the Union directly. There are support schemes for financing NGOs in third countries, but inside the EU there are some funds that are available but its not a properly explored possibility. Did the Commission ask your opinion about this, or do you plan to channel in your remarks?
I did work on the boards of several NGOs in the past and I have experienced this real curiosity that NGOs in the richest corner of the world are often the poorest NGOs because they don’t have access to, for example, the development funding that would be available in many third countries. So we can have a very weak civil society sector in some European states because of the absence of access to reliable secure funding. There is an issue there and we carried out a research that will be reflected in an upcoming report. But as I said, I’m not a spokesperson for the Commission, we are independent, but we talk to them and I know they are interested. But where they are going with reflection you have to ask them.
We are certainly pushing every relevant actor in Europe, including the European Commission, to be more vigorous and recognize the need to support civil society.
Do you agree that civil organizations of the western and eastern member states are facing different challenges? Do you think that their problems can be addressed under the same framework?
I wouldn’t agree with you. Our analysis has shown that yes, the situation is different from country to country, but it does not fall down on some neat east–west line. By the way, we find that line in our work all the time. There is an assumption of an east-west division, but when we test it we find that it’s not there - usually meaning that the problems are as bad west of that line as they are east, only maybe less obvious. So for examples in some countries that you would describe as on the western side of the line, we have changes to tax laws that impact negatively for NGOs, such as what is a charitable purpose of tax exemption. We have the imposition of lobbying regulations, which put an onerous burden on NGOs. You have attacks not by the state usually but you have physical attacks on NGOs if they represent the wrong causes. They represent Muslim or Jewish communities, or the LGBT community, and you don’t always find that these attacks are investigated by the police in a vigorous way. We have problems all across Europe. I usually avoid this east-west logic until its proven to me.
In Hungary, a majority of the media is either state media or captured by private interests close to the government. This leads to a situation where only very few independent media sources exist, and the majority of the people get their daily information through these sources. Do you see any role for FRA in this situation?
Media freedom is a high concern for the Agency - it is absolutely critical to a thriving, human rights-respecting society. We published a report exactly on this issue of the commission colloquium that took place last November, in which we, using our research unit in every EU member state, mapped what is the nature of the threats on media freedom. It’s everything from attacks on journalism - women journalists are far more affected then men - a refusal to acknowledge the journalistic nature of a lot of social media, the allowance of monopolistic "tendencies" it’s a very wide range. But it’s a serious problem. We all wait for the EC following their colloquium. On FRA’s side, we will watch all the dimensions of free speech and media freedom. For example, we will very soon look into the issue of human rights and algorithms since these techniques have an enormous implications including for online social media. That’s one example how we try to stay ahead of the game.
