Committee on Foreign Affairs Ordinary meeting Joint meeting Joint committee procedure - AFET and DEVE
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AFET European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDavid McAllister
Just no. We won't have a question. Just vote in favor, against, or abstention.
David McAllister
I have, at the moment, 88 colleagues present. 82 have participated. Six, for whatever reason. Five are missing. 4.
Okay. 4. Two people are still sleeping. Okay. Two are boycotting this important vote.
We have 65 in favor, 7 against, and 14 abstentions, so we can proceed with the actual vote. And I must say that Chloe and Hildegard have presented us with a very long voting list. Let's try to get through it as quickly as possible. Compromise amendment one was adopted in favor, against, and with abstentions. Compromise amendment two was adopted in favor, against, with abstentions.
Compromise amendment three was adopted in favor, against, with abstentions. We now go to compromise Amendment 5. Who's in favor, against, or abstaining? Adopted. Compromise amendment six, in favor against abstentions, was adopted. Compromise amendment seven was adopted in favor, against, and with abstentions.
We move on to compromise amendment nine: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment 10: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 11: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment 12: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 13 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
We go to.
Vote reset.
David McAllister
Pardon ? We go to 51. The vote is now closed. This has been clearly rejected, 73 to 11. Compromise amendment 14 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
We go to Amendment 372. And this is the second part, and it is again a roll call vote. Yes? So, the vote is open. The vote is closed, and this has also been clearly rejected.
We move on to compromise amendment 15. In favor, against, abstentions: adopted. Compromise amendment 16: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment 17: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 18: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 19: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment 20: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 21: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment 22 is in favor, against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment 26 is in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment 27 is in favor. Against. Adopted.
28 in favor. Adopted against abstentions.
Compromise amendment 29: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 30: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 31: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment 32 is in favor. Adopted against abstentions.
Compromise amendment 33 is in favor. Adopted against abstentions. We go to amendment 619. Where is that? Oh, there it is.
Ericsson.
Show of hands.
David McAllister
So, show of hands. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. Compromise amendment 33A in favor.
Adopted against abstentions. Compromise amendment 34 is in favor. Adopted against abstentions. Then we go to compromise amendment 35 in favor. Adopted against abstentions.
Compromise amendment 36 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. We go to compromise amendment 37, adopted in favor, against abstentions. We move on to amendment 670, which has been withdrawn. Compromise amendment 37a was adopted in favor, against, and with abstentions. Compromise amendment 38 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
We go to compromise amendment 39, adopted in favor, against, and abstentions. We move on to compromise amendment 40a: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. For whatever reason, we now go to amendment eight: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Wait a moment. Where's 8?
Right before 41.
Where is 41?
Castle. Yes. Yes.
David McAllister
Oh, sorry. Okay. So 0 to 8. Yeah. It was probably rejected, but we'll have a roll call vote.
The vote is open. Amendment Eight. Check. We'll check. There were colleagues calling for the check.
Amendment eight, Magfad Riel Leuven. So, can we close the vote? Closed. But this has been rejected. Compromise amendment 41 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
Compromise amendment 42 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. We move on to amendment 63. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions.
That has been rejected. Compromise amendment 43, in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment 44, in favor?
Adopted against abstentions. We move on to amendment 91. Who's in favor, against, or abstaining? This has been rejected. Compromise amendment 45.
Thank you. What did I say?
And then we go to 92 as well.
Oh, there.
Yep.
David McAllister
Okay. Well, now we have 92 in favor, Mister Storm, against abstentions and rejections. Compromise amendment 45 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise amendment 46 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. We move on to compromise amendment 47: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted.
And then we can already go to the final vote. This is a roll call vote, and the vote is open. The vote is closed, and the draft report has been adopted by 60 votes in favor, 23 votes against, and 5 abstentions. So, congratulations to our co-rapporteurs. We move on to item number six, the amending regulation 2021/947 as regards increased efficiency of the external action guarantee.
The co-rapporteurs are Charles Gurens and myself. Charles, would you like to take the floor, please? I
I suggest we move on to the vote immediately.
David McAllister
So, then we take the very long voting list. So, we have exactly one vote: approval of the provisional agreement resulting from institutional organ negotiations. This is a roll call, and the vote is open. The vote is closed. And this has been adopted. 63 in favor, 17 against, and 8 abstentions.
Congratulations, dear Charles.
Great. Thank you.
David McAllister
You to our colleagues. Have a wonderful day. David. David. Sorry.
Thank you to our colleagues. May I please ask all DAV colleagues to leave the room? Colleagues, please, may I now ask you to leave the room? We have more votes on our AFID agenda. So, item number seven: we come to the vote on the draft report for the recommendation concerning an enhanced EU-Canada cooperation, for which Tobias Kramer, S&D's rapporteur, is responsible.
Tobias, would you like to take the floor?
Tobias Cremer
I mean, I think it's very clear. Canada is the most... Well, wait a moment.
David McAllister
Colleagues, for God's sake, can you now please be quiet? We want to continue. It can't be that difficult. Please, Tobias. It will.
Tobias Cremer
Be very quick. Canada, I think, is very clearly the most European country outside of Europe. It's time that our relationship and our alliances also mirror that reality, and I want to thank everybody for the really good negotiations. I hope this very broad consensus will be reflected here. If we can't improve our relations with Canada, with whom can we?
Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Very well said. Thank you, Tobias, for your excellent work. We begin now with the votes. Compromise amendment one: who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment two in favor? Against? Abstentions are adopted. Compromise amendment three: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted.
Compromise amendment four: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. We move on to compromise amendment five. In favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. We now move on to amendment 184. Barna and others, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions.
We'll check this one. This is amendment 184. The vote is open. Are you open?
Yeah. Sorry.
Yeah. Sorry.
David McAllister
The vote is closed. This has been adopted. 34 in favor, 28 against. Compromise Amendment six: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment seven: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted.
We go to amend Article 195, Vale and others. Who's in favor? Against and abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment eight, in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise amendment nine, in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. We have a vote on Amendment 26. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are rejected. 31 in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment 34 in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. We vote on the draft text as amended. This is a roll-call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed, and this report has been adopted with 47 in favor and 13 against. Congratulations to Tobias. Item number 8. We now vote on the draft opinion for the interim report on the proposal for the next MFF, for which the rapporteur is Dan Barna.
Dan, would you like to take the floor? Ben, now.
Dan Barna
Thank you to all the colleagues for their involvement. So, let's proceed to vote. Thank you.
David McAllister
Right. Then we begin with the formal vote, a long voting list once again. Compromise amendment one: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment two: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment three: in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Compromise amendment four: in favor, against, abstentions adopted. We move on to compromise amendment five: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment six: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise amendment seven was adopted in favor, against, and with abstentions. Compromise amendment eight was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
Compromise amendment nine was adopted in favor, with abstentions. What a lovely voting list. We can already move on to the final vote. This is a roll call vote on the draft text, as amended. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and this has been adopted. 47 in favor, 12 against, and 5 abstentions. Congratulations, Dan Barna. We come to item number 9. We now vote on the Drois draft opinion for the Commission's 2025 Rule of Law Report, the annual report 2025, for which the rapporteur is our colleague Adrian Vasquez Lazara.
Would you like to take the floor? That is not the case; then we can immediately begin with the formal vote. Hello? We begin with compromise 6. Okay.
Dwight is a bit different from Aftet. So, we obviously skip the first five compromises, and we start with compromise six. Who is in favor? Against abstentions. That's adopted. Compromise amendment seven in favor?
Adopted against abstentions. Compromise amendment eight in favor? Adopted against abstentions. Compromise amendment nine, in favor? Adopted against abstentions.
Compromise 10 in favor? Adopted against abstentions. Compromise 11 adopted in favor, against, abstentions. Compromise amendment 12: in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to amendment 108, presented by our colleague Teodorescu Meve.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions. We'll check this one. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and it has been narrowly rejected. Compromise amendment 13 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise amendment 14 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise amendment 15 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Compromise 16 was adopted in favor, against abstentions.
Compromise 17 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise 18 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. We move on to amendment 127 presented by Marta Timido and others. Who's in favor, against, or abstaining? We'll check this one.
The vote is open. Amendment 127. The vote is closed, and it has been narrowly rejected. Compromise amendment 19, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We move on to amendment 132: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Compromise amendment 20: in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. We move on to amendments 143, 144, and 145. The first one is 143. Mr. Tinkinen: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
A 144 in number. 143 fell.
But which one?
144.
144.
David McAllister
And then a 145 in favor, against abstentions. We'll check 145. The vote is open.
Disclose.
David McAllister
Disclose. This has clearly been adopted. Compromise, 21 in favor. Again, abstentions were adopted. Then we go to.
21 bis.
David McAllister
21 bis. Okay. Who's in favor, against, or abstaining? Adopted. Compromise 22 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Compromise amendment 23 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
At 161, our colleague Tehirsh is in favor, against abstentions. I will have to check this one at 161. The vote is open. It's closed. That is clearly adopted.
À 162, Raza Gung Nevechiye, in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. A 163 in favor? Against.
Abstentions are adopted. Compromise 24 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Compromise 25 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Compromise 26 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Compromise 27 was adopted with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
Compromise 28 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. Amendment 184, who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Then, amendment 46 in favor?
Adopted against abstentions. Compromise 29 was adopted in favor, against abstentions. 186 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 188 in favor, abstentions adopted again. Compromise one in favor.
Again, abstentions were adopted. Compromise amendment two is in favor. Again, abstentions were adopted. Compromise three in favor. Again, abstentions were adopted.
Compromise four in favor. Again, abstentions were adopted. We go to amendment 83. Koligtehirsh in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Compromise five was adopted in favor, with abstentions. Compromise 30 in favor.
Again, abstentions are adopted. And we move on to the final vote on the draft as amended, and this is, as always, a roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. This has been adopted.
43 in favor, 12 against, and 5 abstentions. Colleagues, we managed to do all the votes exactly in 30 minutes as planned. Thank you very much for the good cooperation. So, may I please ask you once again to be seated?
I mean, in time.
David McAllister
So, right. Can I now ask all the groups of people who are still standing at the entrance to move? You can continue your conversations, but please do so outside the room. Item number 10: the 2025 Commission report on Georgia. We begin with the presentations of our draft reports on enlargement today.
The first draft report is on the 2025 Commission report on Georgia. Unfortunately, dear colleagues, Georgia has continued its dramatic democratic backsliding. In fact, Georgia received a damning verdict from the commission as the "worst report ever prepared for a candidate country." Georgia is considered a candidate country in name only. There are many reasons for such an evaluation, but the responsibility for the very negative trajectory of Georgia lies squarely with the ruling party.
The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed its solidarity with the Georgian people and their unwavering support for their legitimate European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. I would now like to give the floor to our rapporteur to present the draft report. Dear Raza Yugenevichine, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Rasa Juknevičienė
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. My main message is exactly the same as our chairman already mentioned. Unfortunately, the situation continues to deteriorate, and it is doing so rapidly. And, of course, I put in my notes the same quotation from the commission because, better than they, I cannot say more about the situation in Georgia. The 2025 report is described as the worst ever prepared for a candidate country in the history of enlargement.
In line with the European Council conclusions of 19 December 2024, the report makes clear that Georgia is now a candidate country in name only. In this draft report, due to word limits, we deliberately focused more on new developments and avoided repeating what has already been stated in previous reports. With deep disappointment, we note that Georgian Dream has not only suspended but effectively reversed Georgia's European path. There has been regression on all 9 priorities that were conditions for granting candidate status. While claiming that EU integration remains a strategic goal, senior officials and government-affiliated media are running a systematic anti-EU campaign built on disinformation and conspiracy narratives.
The report stresses the importance of targeted sanctions against those responsible for democratic backsliding, electoral fraud, human rights violations, and the persecution of political opponents, including Bidzina Ivanishvili and other key officials. I am not surprised that Viktor Orban has supported this pro-Russian government, but I deeply regret that larger member states failed to adopt sanctions earlier. That was a grave mistake. We, too, must be self-critical. The EU did not deliver when it mattered.
The report warns that continued repression, attempts to ban opposition parties, and restrictions on civil society could ultimately lead to the suspension of visa-free travel, for which the ruling authorities would bear full responsibility. Finally, I would like to thank Commissioner Martha Kos for the good cooperation and for her principled stance on Georgia and enlargement more broadly. I also want to thank the European Parliament for standing firmly with the Georgian people and for keeping Georgia high on its political agenda. Let us also recall the Sakharov Prize nomination and remind everyone that Sakharov Prize laureate Mzia Moglobelli remains imprisoned. We will not stop fighting for her and others' freedom.
I hope there will be many amendments to further strengthen this report with additional important elements. We worked very constructively with the shadows before, and I sincerely hope that this cooperation will continue. Colleagues, my sincere thanks, really. Thanks to the shadows from other groups for your cooperation and your deep involvement in this process. Thank you. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, Raza. We now come to the shadow rapporteurs, and they will each speak for two minutes. And the first is Tobias Kremer.
Tobias Cremer
Thank you. And I want to, first of all, thank you, Raza, for this very good report in a very difficult time. I think you put it quite clearly that, when we are looking for a definition of democratic backsliding, we no longer need a dictionary. We just need to fly to Tbilisi at the moment. Georgian Dream is doing everything it can to undermine the European ambitions of its own people.
They are going to Russia. They're making them dependent on Putin. I think it's a very shortsighted strategy geopolitically for them, but it is a horrific strategy for their people, who now have less freedom than they ever had and cannot demonstrate freely. We even had Georgian Dream using World War One chemical weapons against their own people in demonstrations. That is just utterly unacceptable if what the BBC has been reporting proves true, and the evidence suggests it is.
So, at this stage, I think the commission report is absolutely right in saying this must be the worst report for a candidate country that we have ever had. And I think it is very important, and I think Raza has already met the tone in many ways to show that we, as the European Parliament, take a very clear stance here, to say also from our perspective, Georgia, the Georgian Dream has to decide where they want to go. Do they want to go towards Europe? Then they have to act and change. Or do they want to be part of the Russian orbit? In that case, they should actually just withdraw any ambitions and be honest with their population. Because they keep lying to their population and to everybody else, I want the Georgia dream to actually be honest.
The only thing that really still gives hope about Georgia is the Georgian people, the courage of people like Muzi Amal Gubili, whom we have given the Zaharov Prize for very good reason. It's the people we meet when we go to Georgia who still go on the street, knowing all of the danger they put themselves in. So we will continue to table amendments, especially to see how we can effectively put sanctions on the Georgian Dream government without harming the Georgian population. But our position here is clear. Georgia belongs to Europe, but the Georgian Dream does not.
David McAllister
Thank you. For the Patriots, I don't have a request to take the floor. Then, for the ECR, Malgorzata Gozhevska. Is she present? She's not present.
For the renewal, the shadow is Omar Spike, but I understand that our colleague, Mr. Getha, will speak.
Unfortunately,
Speaker 20
We can only share Raza's conclusions. I simply wanted to say that we need to look at things coldly and objectively. Georgia will not come back to the path towards democracy and the European Union until Russia and Putin have lost in Ukraine. The conclusion is very simple. In order to help Georgia, we have to help Ukraine.
To help democracy, we have to help Ukraine. Thank you.
David McAllister
Next is for the Green, Sergei Lagodinsky. Is he present? That is not Sundal. Oh, Viddy Sundal, please.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you very much. Just a very short remark. What we've seen in Georgia is, unfortunately, a systematic violation of every basic democratic rule. The Jordan dream has changed. They are facing east, towards Russia.
It's their choice, but I very much agree with what Tobias said. They should be honest about that. That is a choice to make because that is not what the population wants. We have a brave population who continue protesting against the taking away of their democratic rights. I think we should do everything we can to support these brave young people who, in spite of being beaten by police and put in prison, still continue.
But that means that the way to the EU is not possible with the president's governance there, but I think it's important we keep supporting civil society there. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you very much. For the left, would somebody like to take the floor? That is not the case. For the ESN group, that is also not the case. I understand that the chairman of the parliament's delegation for Sophocaucus, Niels Userkovs, is not present.
So, I can now give the floor to other members wishing to speak for one minute. Is there anyone who would like to take the floor? We have a number. We have Mr. Sanchez Amor and Mr. Brown. Okay.
Mister Sanchez Amor.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Well, thank you, David. I completely share the words of my colleagues, and especially, I would like to thank Raza because Raza is not only the rapporteur for the season on access, in which everyone interested in the Caucasus has a policy, and I think it's excellent. I would like to add a call to the opposition forces in Georgia. They have to be generous. They have to create a kind of common offer.
I'm not asking about electoral alliances, but the impression is Georgian Green is, for sure, crushing the opposition parties. They have to try to offer a political option to regain democracy in the country, and this is one of the tasks we have: the duty to help these parties try to reach this level of understanding among them. Thank you.
Grzegorz Braun
So, again, the European Union is preaching and teaching democracy. You say democratic backsliding; maybe it's just regaining sovereignty and independence. You say that it is regressive. Maybe it's a recovery. Maybe more and more people are coming back to common sense.
They are watching. They are listening. They understand how bad the European Union project is. They can see energy prices rising, they can hear warmongering, and they simply choose peace and sovereignty. And since when is the BBC an expert on chemical weapons?
Maybe it was because they were alarming the world about Saddam's chemical weapons. So, please give me a break with BBC News. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
I now give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Mr. Jean Baptiste Le Brat, the acting head of unit of Georgia South Caucasus, the East unit of DG ENER. Are you present? Sir, the floor is yours for 2 minutes.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mister Chair, Madam Rapporteur, honorable members. First of all, we'd like to thank Madam Raupertur for her draft report. Many of the concerns it raises echo the assessment provided by the commission in its 2023 report on Georgia issued last November. Overall, the commission's report reflected a clear lack of political commitment by the Georgian authorities to progress on the EU path. As was said, the report noted backsliding on the fundamentals of the accession process across the board, as well as on most of the nine steps, which are key reforms on the basis of which the EU granted candidate status to Georgia.
The commission concluded that it considers Georgia a candidate country in name only, while at the same time reaffirming its solidarity with the Georgian people and their European aspirations. Regretfully, since the publication of the report, Georgian authorities have continued to engage in hostile anti-EU rhetoric as well as taken more measures that go in the wrong direction. We are particularly alarmed by draft logistics amendments on foreign funding and political activity, which passed the second reading last week in the Georgian Parliament. This initiative, in our view, marks a further escalation in the authorities' efforts to severely restrict the country's civic and democratic space. To conclude, I'd like to recall that EU institutions, including the Commission, have been consistent in their response to Georgia's democratic backsliding.
The commission has downgraded high-level political contacts and suspended bilateral assistance directly benefiting the authorities. More recently, considering that authorities have continued to undermine the core principle on which visa liberalization is based, the commission has initiated procedures to activate the revised visa suspension mechanism. Once adopted, this measure will ensure, in the first phase, the uniform application across the EU of the suspension of visa exemption for Georgian diplomatic service and official passport holders. Just a final word to underline once again that the Commission stands ready to consider the return of Georgia to its EU accession path if the Georgian authorities take credible steps to reverse their course of action. Thank you for your attention.
David McAllister
Thank you very much, Mr. LeBron. I now give the floor to the representative of the EAS, Emeric DuPaul, the deputy head of division for Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the EAS. Are you present? Please, sir, the floor is yours.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting the EAS to say a few words on developments in Georgia. First of all, let me say that we fully agree with the assessment, as the actions taken by Georgia fall short of your expectations of a candidate country. We also note with concern the serious backsliding in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which continues to this date with the recent legislative amendments, which my colleague referred to. By doing so, Georgian authorities have, of course, imposed a de facto halt on the accession process, and these actions also contradict Georgia's commitment as a candidate country, despite their stated ambitions to join the EU by 2030. In that context, we have been clear about our expectations towards the authorities.
These expectations entail the immediate release of justly detained politicians, journalists, and activists; reversing repressive legislation; and adopting democratic, comprehensive, and sustainable reforms in line with the core principles of European integration. We also expect the aggressive narrative against the EU, the EU ambassadors, and our head of delegation, to which Madame Rapporteur refers, to stop. We have also heard your call to hold accountable those responsible for democratic backsliding and human rights violations, and discussions continue in this regard. Madam Robert Tard, you have also outlined in your draft report a decrease in the foreign policy alignment of Georgia. Indeed, Georgia should step up its efforts towards full CFSP alignment, in particular when it comes to the restrictive measures taken in the context of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.
It has actually been low for many years. We will also continue to call on the Georgian authorities to refrain from actions and statements that run counter to EU positions on foreign policy. And last but not least, we expect Georgia to cooperate to prevent the circumvention of EU restrictive measures. Mr. Chair, I am a reporter.
All these recent developments are unfortunately steering Georgia further away from the EU path, but we are, however, mindful that the large majority of the population has true European aspirations. And we remain ready to support these aspirations as well as all efforts towards a democratic, stable, and European future for Georgia. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. I don't see any further requests to take the floor, so I will go back to Arupatur Raza. Would you like to conclude?
Rasa Juknevičienė
Just a few short remarks. Thank you, colleagues. Really, we are almost on the same page. Understood, thank you for your insights. And my thoughts at the end of this debate are like this.
Georgia is an example of how a state can be taken over from within through democratic elections, by the way. Elections happened in 2010. And, through the systematic takeover of institutions one by one, including the media and law enforcement, they came to the situation we have today. Moldova and Ukraine went through the same thing but did not give up. They were able to resist despite the very bloody events happening in Ukraine.
And, of course, my colleague Bernard, you are right. The war in Ukraine is a fundamental factor in the fate of the peoples who experienced the colonial policy of the Russian Empire. It's all over the perimeter, all over the Eastern Partnership countries. We are seeing the same situation or attempts to overcome it. Georgia is an important part of the region.
Important processes are taking place in it, especially in the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We cannot elaborate on Georgia itself without looking more broadly into the region. So we must participate more actively as an institution, as the European Union, because this region is a strategically important region of Europe. It's the European part of the European continent. So today, we have the Armenian delegation in the parliament.
So I think we will do our best to help those nations fight against this Russian colonial imperialistic approach, and we are here because of that. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Raza Yuknevichsen. Thank you. Good discussion. The deadline for amendments for this report is set on March 18 at 12:00, and we hope to vote on the report in our committee on either April 4 or May 5 before we have the plenary debate and vote in June. We move on to item number 11: the 2025 Commission report on Montenegro. The commission.
Rapporteur Marian Šarec, a warm welcome to you. Dear colleagues, Montenegro is the frontrunner in the enlargement process, having advanced furthest in its accession process. After having provisionally closed 6 negotiating chapters last year, it closed an additional chapter just last month, bringing the total of provisionally closed chapters to 13. Montenegro's accession path is underpinned by its ambitious target of concluding negotiations this year. However, a lot of work still lies ahead.
It is important that all actors remain focused on the strategic goal of EU membership and continue adopting and implementing key EU-related reforms. Last week, our committee traveled to Podgorica and Tirana. So, members who participated are also welcome to use this occasion for their reflections on that visit to Montenegro. Please let me remind you that the Albania report will be discussed later in our agenda. I would now like to give the floor to our rapporteur to present his draft report.
Dear Marianne, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, Montenegro remains the most advanced candidate for membership of the European Union. Over the past year, tangible progress has been achieved. Additional negotiating chapters have been provisionally closed, bringing the total to 13. The country has set itself an ambitious objective to conclude accession negotiations by 2026.
Marjan Šarec
This report acknowledges that progress. At the same time, it clearly emphasizes that the decisive phase of the process still lies ahead. Let me begin with foreign and security policy. Montenegro remains fully aligned with the European Union's common foreign and security policy, including restrictive measures. This confirms its strategic orientation and geopolitical reliability.
At a time of increased external interference, hybrid threats, and disinformation campaigns, such alignment sends an important message of stability. However, the core of the accession process remains the rule of law. Chapters 23 and 24, judiciary and fundamental rights, and justice, freedom, and security continue to be the key benchmarks of progress. The report calls for further strengthening of judicial independence and efficiency, faster and more transparent appointments within the judiciary and prosecution services, and sustainable results in the fight against high-level corruption and organized crime. We also stress the need to reduce judicial backlogs and to ensure full alignment of visa policy with that of the European Union.
In the area of democracy, the report welcomes amendments to the electoral framework, improvements in campaign finance oversight, and enhanced representation of women. At the same time, it highlights the need for constructive political dialogue and stability, as reforms cannot be effectively implemented without cooperation between the government and parliament. Media freedom remains a fundamental value. We condemn all forms of attacks against journalists and underline the importance of independent regulatory authorities and a pluralistic media landscape. Civil society must be involved in policymaking, not as a formality, but as a genuine partner.
In the social sphere, the report notes continued discrimination against vulnerable groups and the persistence of gender-based violence. The European path also means ensuring full respect for the fundamental rights of all citizens. As regards the economy, the report welcomes Montenegro's participation in the EU growth plan for the Western Balkans and the progress made in absorbing EU funds. We encourage continued fiscal responsibility, stronger administrative capacity, and a determined fight against corruption in public procurement. Particular attention is devoted to the environment and energy.
Chapter 27 remains one of the most demanding chapters. Concrete steps are required to improve air quality, waste management, nature protection, and the implementation of climate policies. Environmental standards are not just technical details. They are part of the European identity and directly linked to the quality of life. Public opinion surveys show that nearly 70% of Montenegrin citizens support membership in the European Union.
This is a significant message. The European perspective remains firmly anchored in society. Our task as the European Parliament is to remain consistent, fair, and clear. This report is balanced. It recognizes achievements, clearly identifies challenges, and encourages further reforms.
Montenegro has made significant progress. However, the final success will depend on sustainable results in the rule of law, political stability, and the ability to place the strategic objective of membership above day-to-day politics. If such maturity is maintained, the goal of concluding negotiations by 2026 is attainable. I already look forward to working closely with all the shadow reporters on this report. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, dear Mayan Sharec. We now come to our shadow reporters. Reinhold Lopatka is not present.
Got it.
Micha Galla?
Yes. Thank you. Give.
David McAllister
But we'll first go through the shadows, and then we still have to catch the eye of all others. Kostas Mavridis, two minutes.
Costas Mavrides
Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank the Rabortez for this good draft report. It underlines Montenegro's steady progress on EU-related reforms and supports its ambition and timeline of closing all chapters by the end of this year. Indeed, Montenegro is the most advanced candidate country in assessing the EU. At the same time, I wish to underline that the accession progress depends solely on the candidate country's fulfillment of the current political criteria, which assure its commitment to the values and the rule of law of the EU.
Having said that, progress still remains to be made for Montenegro. Reforms should not only be adopted, but also thoroughly implemented, and not at the cost of the involvement of civil society. The electoral reform is a welcome development, and work can now start on fully implementing all other outstanding OSC recommendations. In the area of the judiciary, Montenegro still needs to demonstrate a credible record of final convictions for corruption cases and ensure the judiciary's effectiveness. We also welcome Montenegro's full alignment with the EU's common foreign and security policy, including the EU's restrictive measures.
However, the report could still be developed further when it comes to Montenegro's resilience in combating foreign interference. As Montenegro gets closer to the EU, foreign malign interference will only intensify, and more needs to be done. A strong media regulator also needs to be in place to ensure political independence. Therefore, our amendments will move in this direction, aiming to strengthen the report. This year is critical to show that Monje Negro can really be the 28th member of the EU in 2028, and it has full support to achieve that.
David McAllister
Thank you, Costas. For the Patriots, the rapid shadow is Israelislav Zohr. Oh, there you are. Please.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you, Chair. I will switch to Czech language.
Colleagues, I'd like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for the work done. This report provides a very balanced perspective. Montenegro is among the front runners in the Balkans. Six chapters were closed last year, and a further chapter was concluded at the start of this year. So the leaders in the country wish to conclude all chapters by 2026.
So, it's a clear commitment towards the EU accession criteria. There's a further major point that needs to be raised, however. It's not just the accession country that is responsible. The EU also has its own work to do, and much work remains to be done. Yes, we do need to close the chapters, but true progress on '23 and '24 includes independence of the judiciary and the fight against organized crime.
So, EU enlargement is not a one-sided process. The EU must also do its part. Stability in the Balkans will guarantee stability for Europe as a whole. Thank you. And so, enlargement is an investment in the future peace of the continent.
Actual membership should not be a theoretical construct. It must be a long-term commitment, the fruit of long-term labor. Thank you very much.
Speaker 38
Colleagues, we have to acknowledge the merit that Montenegro remains the most advanced candidate country in the Western Balkans for EU accession. The respectable ambition to close all negotiation chapters by 2026 is made difficult by the domestic political dynamics that risk weakening the pace of reforms. The accession process of Montenegro requires deep structural transformations, including ensuring a truly independent judicial system. It also requires sanctioning and combating high-level corruption and organized crime, and it requires the separation of powers in the state, as well as a free and pluralist media. 80% of the population wants to join the European family.
Speaker 37
And if they carry out the necessary reforms, we have to welcome them in the European Union without delay. I would like to remind you once again of a reality we cannot ignore. EU enlargement is not only an opportunity for our partners in the Western Balkans. It is also a guarantee of peace, stability, and security for the European continent. Thank you.
Villy Søvndal
Thank you very much, Thier, and thank you to colleague Saric for presenting the solid basis for further work on the report. For years, Montenegro has been a front runner in the enlargement process. The one shows a small multiethnic and multi-confessional society in the Western Balkans that can clearly choose Europe without delay. Now, we are entering a crucial period, potentially the year when all negotiation chapters should be closed. Precisely because of that, we expect the most from Montenegro.
This is a moment for the government of Montenegro and the political forces to demonstrate maturity, responsibility, and results. There are a couple of major outstanding things I would like to be pressed on further in the report. First, the digital appointment should be completed in a transparent, merit-based manner. Without a fully functional and independent judiciary, there will be no completion of ongoing cases, which is key for the track record on the fight against corruption. Second, attacks on journalists must stop. The recent arrest of Peter Komnenich is deeply worrying.
Third, there must be no shared deals. Being an EU member requires transparency, public procurement, and full respect for procedures. Fourth, the state must show determination in resolving communal issues such as a water treatment plant. And finally, a message to the Commission ahead of next year's crucial elections: we should fully integrate Montenegro into the digital single market to protect it from foreign disinformation and malicious interference, similar to what has been done in Moldova during the last election. Montenegro belongs to the European Union, but belonging means delivering on the rule of law, on transparency, and on democratic standards.
This is the year to prove it. Thank you.
Giorgos Georgiou
I'd
I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur for their comments as well. Montenegro is the furthest advanced on its path toward EU membership. That's widely understood. Many chapters have been concluded in recent times, and it's a very clear indication of that. But really, this is not just a technical exercise that needs to be carried out and negotiated.
There's a deep-rooted institutional transformation and reform process that underpins this. Montenegro does have a real need for reforms. So, critical infrastructure—some aspects are not quite right yet. There's also the fight against corruption that needs to be continued, and tangible results must be found. Thirdly, media freedom and civil society, that again is still on the to-do list.
So, the establishment of a fair and free space for journalists to do their work is also part of a state governed by the rule of law. 2026 is going to be a key year. We have limited time and many challenges. So, there needs to be a strong message from us. Yes, progress has been made, but reforms must be accelerated.
And it's only if we can see that earnest effort taking place that we can allow Montenegro to join the European Union. From the left, we will make our contribution to ensure that this work can be done. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. The ESN is not appointed as a shadow rapporteur. I now give the floor to Michael Gala.
To Lopatka instead of In.
Yeah. Lopatka's team.
Michael Gahler
Yes. Reinhard Lopatka asked me to read out his statement. So he says, I would like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur Marian Scharets for his proactive, detailed, and wide-ranging approach, and for the strong draft he has developed on this important topic. As the shadow for EPP and Montenegro, I would like to highlight a clear message. Montenegro remains the frontrunner of the Western Balkans in the EU accession process.
All 33 negotiating chapters have been opened, and 13 have been closed with strong momentum over the past couple of years. This is the result of sustained political commitment and broad public support for EU membership. Credible reforms must be met with a credible European perspective. At the same time, progress must be deep, not only fast. The commission report is clear.
The decisive test remains the rule of law areas: judicial independence, fight against corruption, and the proper functioning of democratic institutions. They are the foundation of EU membership. We welcome the strong steps taken to strengthen the judiciary and public administration. Now, we're looking forward to the continued implementation. Laws adopted must be laws applied.
Institutions created must be institutions that function independently and effectively. If Montenegro delivers on the fundamentals, especially on Chapters 23 and 24, the EU must be ready to move forward without hesitation. In today's security and economic environment, integrating Montenegro and the wider Western Balkans is an investment in stability, security, prosperity, and European unity. Montenegro has consistently aligned itself fully with the EU's foreign and security policy, including all sanctions, and this policy alignment should be acknowledged. At the same time, enlargement will only strengthen the Union if reforms are irreversible.
The credibility of our enlargement policy depends on strict conditionality and objective assessment. 2026 will be decisive. Montenegro has a real opportunity to complete the negotiations soon. Responsibility lies in Podgorica, but equally here in Brussels and the member states. We must support a merit-based, predictable enlargement process.
Montenegro can succeed, and this success will depend on consistent reform, political stability, and an ongoing, unwavering commitment to European values. End of quote. And if I have just the flow of one phrase or one sentence that I found interesting last week when we were there in Montenegro, from all the major stakeholders: the president, prime minister, president of the parliament, and foreign minister. We heard about this European vocation, the value-based approach, and still an interesting dynamic between the president and prime minister. There were quite some issues, apparently, where they disagreed with the pace of progress. And the president of the parliament is said to have, although he didn't mention it, another agenda behind, but that's just an additional remark from my impression from last week.
Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Alright. Thank you, Miche. Other members would like to take the floor. I have Davoski on my list. Anyone else?
Mr. Brown and Marta Timido. Right. First is Davor.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I think that it's important to stress the importance of an independent, sovereign European Montenegro, also for regional peace and stability—a Montenegro that will not be controlled by Belgrade or any other country in that respect. That's why this EU negotiation process is so important. We mentioned last year that part of the ruling coalition is really very committed to that goal, but part of the ruling coalition is not. And the last developments proved that when one of the members of the ruling coalition, Mister Knezhevich and his party, left the coalition and is now challenging the government on identity issues like the laws on citizenship and language, then it can compromise exactly the independence, sovereignty, as well as the European vocation of the country.
The key question is how the ally, at this moment or up until this moment, Mr. Knezhevich, who is the speaker of the parliament, Mr. Mandich, will react to that—whether he will go that way or keep the government's position towards a sovereign, independent, and European Montenegro. Independence of the judiciary, in this sense, continues to be essential, as many colleagues have mentioned. We have seen prosecutions in cases of corruption involving people from the former government, as well as court rulings declaring Mr. Kneziewicz and Mandich not guilty for the attempted coup in 2016 by some group members who tried to derail Montenegro's accession to NATO. But, of course, that as such is not proof of an independent judiciary, so it is necessary to have a solid track record. Including respect for property rights, the restitution issue continues to be essential, especially for members of national minorities.
It is important to say that there was an improvement in good neighborly relations during this reporting period. There are still many other things to do, but there was an improvement that should be noted. And I think, to conclude, that while Montenegro could sound too ambitious, it needs to be encouraged to continue with that ambition. Whether that will be the end of this year to conclude all the negotiating chapters or not, we cannot commit to 2020, but we can, of course, commit to continue supporting Montenegro in its EU road, and I'm sure that this resolution is a good opportunity to send such positive encouragement. Thank you.
David McAllister
Since we're good on time, I'm a bit more generous with the speaking time, but still try to limit yourself to a maximum of two minutes. Next is our colleague, Timidore.
Marta Temido
Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much to the rapporteur, Marianne Sarek, our colleague, who also had the opportunity to be with us last week during the mission. My own remarks regarding the mission encompass all that has been said. Montenegro achieved important progress regarding its accession path to the European Union. However, reform implementation remains a challenge.
Civil society organizations that we had the opportunity to meet during our mission clearly mentioned that more needs to be done to discuss and engage citizens in processes. The independence of the judiciary and the appointment of members of the Supreme Court, as long as the rule of law remains, still need more progress to be made. And if it is true that Montenegro can have access to the ambition of becoming the 28th member state of the European Union in 2028. We must support this ambition without complacency and pay attention to signs. We saw some signs that need attention, namely the tensions between some national authorities and, as our colleague Keller already mentioned, the reference to other agendas that some other actors have of their own. Thank you so much.
Sunčana Glavak
Thank you very much. I will continue in Croatia. So, please. I
I would first of all like to thank Mr. Sharnitz for his exhaustive report and constructive approach. We have visited Montenegro on several occasions together. I would like to raise a couple of flags. It is true what Mr. Galer said. The internal dynamics that one can feel going on between the parliament and the president are impeding better progress in Montenegro.
However, we should always bear in mind that Montenegro will hold elections next year, probably in June, which means that we are already in campaign time. I'm afraid that tensions could rise, and they would certainly not help the progress of Montenegro, which I can definitely commend, coming from Croatia, a neighboring friendly country. On the other hand, the political framework is very important for the reforms that we would like to see accomplished exactly as they have been envisaged. However, in our numerous meetings, both official and unofficial, we can see that they are still lacking financial support for the reforms that have been adopted so far. As far as foreign influence is concerned, those influences are now off the stage.
There are still some attempts at influence in the cultural sphere, where Serbia has considerable influence, and to a lesser extent, Russia. We should not neglect this. They are attempting to polarize society on the basis of identity, and at the end, I would also like to highlight the position of the minorities. I hope that especially the Croatian minority will continue to enjoy all the rights that it has. Thank you very much.
Grzegorz Braun
God bless Montenegro and its people. Here is my message for them. You still have time to back up. You still have time to reconsider committing this grave mistake that you are about to make. My people in my mother country, Poland, were also overenthusiastic about the European Union.
Now, it's changing. Only ten years ago, less than 7% of Polish people were pro-poll exit. Now it's almost 25%. So, we are doing very well. We are doing better and better, and hopefully, we'll see our independence regained.
You, Montenegrins, do not have to lose your independence to this Euro-Soviet, Euro-Nazi, ugly, and deadly project that the European Union currently is. So, please reconsider. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
I now give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Miss Heinke Feit. Please.
Speaker 53
Thank you, Chair. Mister Aperture, honorable members, thank you for presenting this draft report. I largely concur with the commission's findings, as evidenced in its latest report on Montenegro, as well as with the latest developments in the country. The Commission welcomes the Montenegro government's steady commitment to EU-related reforms, which has resulted in significant progress, bringing the total number of provisionally closed chapters to 13. Yet, as this draft report rightly underlines, several challenges have to be addressed by Montenegro in its final stretch of accession negotiations. Key reforms have yet to be adopted across different chapters; notably, the rule of law requires deeper reforms.
Speaker 54
Judicial appointments must be completed through a merit-based and transparent process, and high-level corruption cases must be proactively investigated and prosecuted. As also underlined in your draft report, Montenegro still needs to fully align its visa policy with that of the EU. Montenegro needs to further amend the law on financing of political entities and election campaigns without delay to bring it fully in line with the recommendations from the OSCE, ODIHR, GRECO, and with European standards. This is crucial to advance in the fulfillment of the closing benchmarks. The Commission welcomes that the government of Montenegro recently adopted the proposal to amend the Constitution of Montenegro following thorough consultation with the European Commission.
We are now looking forward to the adoption of these amendments by the Parliament of Montenegro. We share your concerns with regard to disinformation and foreign interference, which pose a direct risk to Montenegro's stability and democratic resilience. The commission is committed to working with Montenegro to counter these threats. To conclude, to achieve this ambitious objective, all political actors must stay focused and maintain momentum towards successfully concluding the accession negotiations. Political stability and constructive cross-party cooperation will be more important than ever.
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. I now give the floor to the EAS representative, Mr. Clive Rombault.
Speaker 55
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, 2026 is an important year for Montenegro, marking 20 years of independence, and they're hosting the EU Western Balkan Summit in June and the Berlin Process Summit in autumn, which underscore political momentum for enlargement. The role of parliamentarians in strengthening political dialogue to keep Montenegro firmly anchored on its EU accession path is vital. And AFET's visit last week put the European Parliament's engagement in Montenegro into clear perspective and action. We welcome the European Parliament's draft report on the 2025 Commission report, recognizing Montenegro as a front runner for EU accession and supporting the country's ambition to provisionally close all chapters by the end of this year.
This is key to the momentum of the enlargement process, which is of vital importance in the current geopolitical circumstances. In the final stage of EU accession, Montenegro needs to prioritize concrete progress on the rule of law and the fundamentals, and fully align with the EU visa policy. Advancing EU reforms demands sustained political focus, cross-party consensus, and dialogue between the institutions and with civil society. The political tensions between the Prime Minister and the President, illustrated by the recent case of President Milatovich Miyatovich's apologies for returning key laws to Parliament before promulgating them, underline the need to avoid unnecessary delays of key EU reforms and key appointments. Judicial appointments need to be accelerated through merit-based and transparent procedures, including appointments to the judicial and prosecutorial councils and the Constitutional Court, which remain incomplete.
We welcome that the report urges handling sensitive issues, such as identity-related discussions, in an inclusive way that avoids polarization, given Montenegro's multiethnic character. With a view to the 2027 elections, we share the concerns expressed in the report about malign foreign interference, destabilizing activities, hybrid threats, and disinformation campaigns in Montenegro. To enhance the country's resilience, we are working to define the appropriate tools for tailored EU support. In response to requests by Montenegrin authorities, the EAS and the Commission performed last week an assessment mission, drawing also on know-how based on the member states and the Eastern Partnership, including Moldova and Armenia. The report welcomes Montenegro's full CFSP alignment, including restrictive measures, and the EU-Montenegro security and defense dialogue was opened by the HRVP on December 2.
Montenegro is a NATO ally and makes a tangible contribution to EU CSDP missions. We are with Montenegro on security and defense. In February, €6,000,000 in European Peace Facility assistance was approved. Montenegro has expressed interest in receiving further EPF assistance measures; we plan for support to continue. The report calls for good neighborly relations and regional cooperation in the enlargement process.
Moving towards resolving bilateral issues with Croatia would help Montenegro move forward, including closing Chapter 31, and help showcase Montenegro as a model for the region. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
David McAllister
Thank you. No further requests to take the floor. To sum up, Mayan?
Speaker 30
I would just like to thank all the colleagues for their remarks. I'm sure that as a team, we will be able to deliver a well-balanced and appropriate report. And thanks to Theresa Steinhuklova from the secretariat for excellent cooperation. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, colleagues. The deadline for amendments to this report is set for March 5 at 11:00. We hope to vote on the report in our committee in May, and the vote is foreseen for June. It's 10:30, and exactly on time, we move on to item no. 12. The next item on our agenda is the consideration of the draft interim report in view of the constant procedure on a broad package of agreements to consolidate, deepen, and expand the bilateral relations with the Swiss Confederation.
They will be presented by our rapporteur, Christophe Grudler. Switzerland and the EU are close political allies, with a long-standing partnership founded on common values. They are also major economic partners, with a strong mutual interest in shared prosperity. The conclusion of negotiations on a broad package of agreements that seek to further strengthen and modernize our bilateral relations marks an important milestone in our partnership. I am glad to note that yesterday, the General Affairs Council adopted its decision to sign the package of agreements with Switzerland on behalf of the European Union.
We now, I guess, all hope for a successful ratification of this package. This draft interim report kicks off a scrutiny process on the Parliament side, as our consent is needed to conclude the process on the EU side. Let me now give the floor to our rapporteur to present his draft report. Dear Christophe Gudler, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Christophe Grudler
You, Chairman. Colleagues, today we are opening and starting a very important political debate in the parliament, and this is about the new agreements between the EU and Switzerland. And in our jargon, we call it the bilateral three. And we need to start with one simple reality: Switzerland is neither a member of the EU nor the EEA yet. It's at the heart of Europe.
And every day, our economies, our regions, and our citizens are very closely linked. Hundreds of thousands of people cross the border to work, to study, to trade, to get health care, and to live. So, the relationship between the EU and Switzerland is unique in Europe. It's not an internal relationship, but it's not an external relationship like the others. And that is why we have these new agreements, so that they can arrange this special relationship.
So, the question here is: do we want to consolidate and even improve this relationship? Or do we want to allow it to become more uncertain on the basis of agreements that follow one another? And the negotiations on these bilaterals are not new. For more than 10 years now, the EU and Switzerland have been trying to update this relationship that came into being between 1990 and 2000, after the Swiss did not join the EEA. So, we have a range of bilateral agreements here, and this means that Switzerland can participate in a targeted manner in some of our European policies.
But the problem here is that these were not agreements designed for the long term, especially when you look at how EU rules have changed. In 2021, when the discussion around the previous agreements failed, we were left at an impasse. And the Parliament publicly said that it regretted that failure. But since then, there has been water under the bridge. And I'd perhaps like to say, under the bridges in Bern and under the bridges in Brussels.
And the package of agreements that was concluded in December 2025 will allow us to get out of this deadlock. And these agreements come at a time when we have a very different global context. There is a war in Ukraine. You have the unpredictability of the U. S.
And the White House, in particular. The Europeans and the Swiss do realize that history is pushing us to work together better. So, we need to update what we already have so that it will still work in the future, but we also need to cooperate better in some key areas. The resolution that I'm presenting today is a starting point for the political work that the parliament will be doing on these agreements. And the aim here is to work together and analyze the agreements point by point.
We need to think about what will change for citizens in our countries in the EU, and what will change in terms of guaranteeing free movement, which is a key pillar of Europe. We want to think about mobility for young people. We want to improve cross-border transport, and we want to avoid electricity blackouts by having greater cooperation on energy matters. And these are very practical matters for citizens, whether they are in the EU or in Switzerland. Now, as you have seen, my proposed resolution first focuses on the state of relations with Switzerland.
That's a country with which we share much history and geography. And then there are some general considerations as well on these three bilateral agreements. And they recall that the agreements guarantee what we currently have between European citizens and Swiss citizens who have to cross the border, and they don't need to worry about being checked each time. Then, it also includes some points where we will be asked for our opinion, and other committees will be asked for their opinion in light of their expertise. And there will be opinions requested from several committees.
And I think that it's important that we take a clear look at these agreements. Yes, of course, they are not perfect. They have come out of negotiations. So, it's in the spirit of compromise here that everyone on the Swiss side and the EU side finds enough points of common interest so that we can move forward. We need to be particularly vigilant on some points, for example, social protection, unfair competition, fair competition, sorry, speaker corrects, and the practical implementation of the agreements.
And this is precisely the role of the European Parliament. It needs to be very demanding on those points. And then finally, I'd like to say that these bilaterals are part of a package. It's a compromise that was negotiated as a whole, and there was a balance between the different parties to the agreement. And the Parliament will therefore have one single vote at the end of the process on those agreements.
And colleagues, the main question here is a very simple one. When faced with an unstable world, will Europe and Switzerland decide to isolate themselves? Or will Europe and Switzerland decide to strengthen each other mutually? Our resolution, therefore, needs to answer that question. Thank you, Chairman, for your patience.
And I am looking forward to working with all of you on the file because it is very close to my heart. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, Christophe. The Chedra Potters get the floor for 2 minutes each, and Micha Galla will read out Reinhold Lopatka's statement.
Michael Gahler
Yes. Thank you very much. And once again, on behalf of Reinhold Lopatka, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Christoph Grudler, for this solid initial draft and for the clear structure he has proposed for this important file. The relationship between the European Union and Switzerland is not an abstract one. It is built on dense economic interdependence, close cultural and linguistic ties, and a shared understanding of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.
The draft rightly reflects this depth of cooperation and the mutual interest in maintaining and stabilizing it. So far, the interim report strikes a balanced and measured tone. It recognizes Switzerland's serenity and its specific democratic system, while equally underlining the need to safeguard the integrity of the union's internal market and legal order. It rightly points to the importance of ensuring that existing agreements remain aligned with present-day realities and that appropriate mechanisms for legal alignment are in place to guarantee predictability and legal certainty for citizens and businesses on both sides. In this sense, the package is not about changing the nature of the relationship but about placing it on a more stable footing.
It is clearly in the interest of both sides to have a shared commitment to structured and reliable cooperation with clearly defined rights and obligations that are accepted by both parties. Our task in the coming months will be to ensure that the final report provides clear political guidance ahead of the consent procedure and helps create the conditions for a smooth and successful ratification of the package. At the same time, we should be clear that we are still at an early stage of our work. The core thematic sections still need to be developed. I look forward to working closely with the Rapporteur and shadow colleagues across political groups and committees to refine the text and to arrive at a coherent and forward-looking parliamentary position on this key partnership.
Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you, Schoenherr.
Andreas Schieder
Thank you. I'm going to speak in German today because it is one of the official languages in Switzerland. And I'd like to thank our rapporteur. I'd like to thank him for the excellent work he has done. Switzerland, well, the Swiss system when it comes to the economy and social matters, and so on, is something very similar to what we have in the EU.
Speaker 59
And this is actually why we need to look at a new form of the relationship that we have with them, because it would affect workers, tourism, trade in the future, and so on. And we want to make that possible in the future. The EU has developed a lot in many areas, so that's why we need to make these adjustments. And this is a debate which, above all, has been very difficult in Switzerland. In the European Parliament, we have discussed Switzerland quite a lot, and then we postponed those discussions as well because the Swiss decision-makers didn't want to move forward with these relationships.
Now, a compromise has been found, and that's a good thing. We need to recognize the fact that the Swiss have a very old democracy, and it has its own rules. And they might seem very difficult, but we have been able to establish a good relationship with them. And this is a basis that seems to be one the Swiss can live with. And we have to remember as well that Switzerland has only got the EU as a neighbor, apart from Liechtenstein.
David McAllister
Mister Vilemski, for the Patriots, isn't here. Mister Vilemski, for the ECR, is not present either. Privilege for the Greens is not here either. And Mrs. Kilonen, on the left, is not here either. They didn't appoint a shadow.
Brought to repertoires for opinion. And the first is for Inter, Juliana Zofko, please.
Željana Zovko
Thank you, Chairman. Switzerland is a like-minded and strategic partner of the European Union, particularly in the current geopolitical and economic context. I welcome this report and its clear recognition of the importance of the modernized EU-Switzerland framework. The comprehensive package of agreements represents a significant step forward. It reduces the technical barriers, strengthens the conformity assessments, modernizes agricultural trade, and supports the mobility of persons.
Most importantly, it enhances legal certainty for economic operators and deepens economic integration to the mutual benefit of both sides at a time when ratification will soon enter a sensitive phase in Switzerland, including populist attempts to block these agreements, notably the announced 1 to 10 million Swiss referendum. It is essential that this Parliament sends a clear and positive signal of openness, stability, and partnership. Our message must be one of reliability and strategic vision. As an interpreter for the opinion, I tend to reflect on several key priorities. I will strongly emphasize the strategic importance of the EU-Switzerland trade and investment partnership.
The EU is Switzerland's largest trading partner, accounting for 53% of its total trade in goods and services, while Switzerland was the EU's fourth largest trading partner in 2024 in terms of imports, exports, and overall trade. Second, we should aim higher. While the bilateral approach has served us well, it remains fragmented. I believe we should encourage the Commission to explore a mandate for negotiating a comprehensive and modern EU-Switzerland free trade agreement, including areas not currently covered by bilateral agreements, notably trading services. In parallel, a modern investment protection agreement would significantly enhance legal certainty for investors on both sides.
Third, we must underline the global dimension of our partnership. The EU and Switzerland should intensify cooperation on WTO reform, restore a fully functioning dispute settlement system, update the rule book to reflect economic realities, and strengthen transparency to counter protectionism and unilateral measures. In a world of increasing fragmentation, strengthening relations with trusted, rule-based, and economically advanced partners is a strategic necessity, and I look forward to working constructively with colleagues.
David McAllister
Thank you. I don't see any further upper tiers of opinion from the committees. Andreas Schwab, you have just arrived. Are you already capable of immediately taking the floor? People are longing to hear and see you.
Andreas Schwab
Mister Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that your rapporteur, Mister Grudler, who is sitting here next to me, has done an excellent job. I would just like to add to what he has been preparing and present some small considerations on behalf of the Internal Market Committee, which I have the pleasure to represent here. I would like to say that the Swiss agreement that is on the table is extremely important in relation to other countries in Europe that are not members of the European Union. And so, I totally share the approach of Christoph Grudler: we have to look for a balance of rights and duties. This has to be done with a very strong reflection on how to create a just approach for those who want to use a single market but are not members of the European Union.
Mister Chairman, a second element which is very important for me personally is the cooperation across the cross-border regions. You know that my constituency is located between Basel and Constance. And in these regions, citizens—not only European citizens but also Swiss citizens—will have a huge advantage from this agreement because it will put our cooperation on another level. Therefore, I warmly welcome the developments that have been achieved. And finally, Mister Chairman, innovation and a really sensible use for the citizens is what we have to look at.
And here, Horizon Europe, Erasmus, and the programs of interregional cooperation, Interreg, are important, as well as any civil protection measures that we can share. It's important that citizens living in the border regions take advantage of the improvements and understand that what we do here together between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation is in the interest of every single citizen. That's, I think, a bit of an approach that we would like to defend, and I'm sure that the AFIT committee, Mr. Chairman, will support that, and we will have very strong support for these bilaterals together. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, Andreas. I now give the floor to other members wishing to speak. Is there anyone?
Grzegorz Braun
Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. Brown, please. Well, it's a real pleasure to discuss Switzerland because it's probably the best example showing that there is life in Europe outside the European Union. So, I'm a bit afraid that these negotiations and contacts with Euro call hosts might spoil what is best about Switzerland, which is its very existence. Thank you very much.
God bless Switzerland and its people.
David McAllister
No further comments. Then I give the floor now to the representative of the Commission, Mr. Nicholas van Lingen.
Speaker 65
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable members. We welcome, from the Commission side, the constant support this House and this Committee have shown to our attempts to improve the relationship with Switzerland. It hasn't been easy. It hasn't been short, but I think we are now in a better place than we have ever been in a long time.
Speaker 66
Many of the elements that underpin this relationship are mentioned in the draft interim report and are important to recall. Because what we need to look at first is the starting basis that we have. It's a good one. We have proximity. We have exchanges.
Colleagues also gave some statistics. Forced trading partner, over 2,000,000 people living, working, and studying in Switzerland or in the EU, shared values and interests, a long-standing relationship based on a great number of agreements, but Switzerland is not part of the EA. It decided, in 1992, to choose a different track. And here, this is not replacing the EA, but it is pursuing the bilateral track. But we cannot be complacent, and that's, I think, the second point I would like to highlight here.
The agreements of 1999 are showing their age. Several agreements are stuck in that period because the legislation has not been updated. There are several areas in which we could still cooperate further, aligning with our priorities. This is the case for research, education, cohesion, health, and electricity. And in the current context of uncertainty, we think it's important to strengthen the US economy and engage with partners to build bridges and create opportunities for citizens and businesses.
Finally, it's important to create legal certainty and a level playing field, and to ensure that there's a proper balance of rights and duties, as Mr. Schwab rightly recalled. So, what does this package bring to our relationship? It brings concrete benefits to citizens who work, study, live, and conduct research on both sides of the borders, and it also brings opportunities for businesses. It allows us to stabilize and modernize existing agreements and feels ready to develop the internal market. It has allowed us to deepen and expand the relationship in new areas such as electricity and health.
And let's not forget, we added a parliamentary dimension with the establishment of a parliamentary committee that will allow the regular involvement of the European Parliament. Final remarks. What is important, and I think this was also stressed by Mister Gudler, is the importance of recalling that this is a package. It's a balanced package. It takes into account the interests and sensitivities of both sides.
It was negotiated and is presented for conclusion as a package, with several of those agreements linked to one another. Failure to ratify would weaken the relationship at a time when our cooperation is more important than ever. As the interim report is completed in different committees, we look forward to exchanges with the different committees and to continue the exchanges with the Affect Committee here. Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, Mr. Von Lingen. And now, I finally give the floor to the representative of the EAS, Miss Luciana Sandupenka.
Speaker 67
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honorable members, we welcome the initiative of this report and convey our appreciation to honorable member Grudler. The report comes at a significant moment in the process related to the bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland. And it also speaks to the importance of interparliamentary dialogue and interparliamentary diplomacy. It also builds on the mission of the AFET committee to Switzerland in September.
Following the conclusion on December 24 of the political negotiations on a broad package of agreements for the stabilization and development of bilateral relations, and following the General Affairs Council's approval yesterday, the upcoming signature by the respective presidents will mark a new milestone. The ratification process shifts to the parliaments and the people. Ratification by both sides would mark an important step towards modernizing the bilateral relationship, enhancing stability and mutual trust, and ensuring a clear, predictable framework. This will be to the benefit of both citizens and businesses. As we live in a world marked by war on the European continent, geopolitical tensions, and economic uncertainty, closer relations are more important than ever.
Speaker 68
In this context, please allow me a few words on the foreign and security policy cooperation, which is excellent and long-standing across a wide range of thematic and geographic areas. Switzerland remains a longstanding contributor to EU missions and operations. In the context of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, Switzerland has aligned with EU packages of sanctions, provided support to Ukrainian refugees, and also organized the Birgenstock peace summit on Ukraine. During the past years, cooperation on foreign and security policy has further increased with dialogues on security, defense, and sanctions. The council approved last year Switzerland's participation in PESCO projects on military mobility and cyber ranges, and we are continuously working towards strengthening the EU's engagement and cooperation on foreign and security policy with Switzerland.
I really hope we can come back very soon with more information on that. And to conclude, Mister Chair, we are looking forward to the evolution of this report and to the inputs arriving from contributing committees. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
David McAllister
Thank you, Mr. Miss Sandupenka. To conclude, Christophe Gudler. Two minutes.
Merci. Thank you.
Christophe Grudler
You. Thank you. Firstly, to my fellow members of the European Parliament, those were very good comments. And I'd like to thank the European Commission as well for negotiating those agreements upstream, and I'd like to thank the EEAS as well. I took good note of all your comments. We are going to start our work in Parliament on the agreements, and we'll be able to amend the text in AFET and also in the committees for opinion.
Over the next few months, we will work together on the European Parliament's official position. And I really hope that this will be political work. It will be very demanding as well. And I hope it will be accessible to the public too, because these agreements aren't just legislative texts for us alone. No.
These will affect citizens' daily lives, and that's why the European Parliament needs to make sure the promises are kept.
David McAllister
Right. Thank you, Christophe. Colleagues, the deadline for amendments to this report is set for April 16 at 12:00. The vote on the draft interim report is to be set after Parliament receives an official referral for consent from the Council. We move on to the next item, item number 13.
That is for the 2025 commission report on Turkey. Nacho Sanchez Amor is our rapporteur. Turkey is a candidate for EU accession, although, let's put it this way, it is not an easy case. The gap with the values and interests of the European Union is continuing to grow. In its last progress report of 2025, the Commission again identified serious backsliding in the rule of law, a deteriorating human rights situation in Turkey, and raised questions about adherence to basic democratic principles.
At the same time, beyond the accession process, constructive engagement in EU-Turkey relations is needed. The country remains a strategic partner, a NATO ally, and a country with which the European Union has intensive relations in the areas of security, trade, economy, and migration. Our colleague, Nacho Sanchez Amor, is experienced in mastering this balancing act in EU-Turkey relations, and therefore, I look forward to hearing from him now on his latest report. Please, Nacho.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Well, thank you, David, and thank you for the trust of my colleagues, and thank you for the excellent collaboration that I have with the delegation of the joint parliamentary committee and my colleague Kefalojanis as the leader. It's a very frustrating task. I really envy the colleagues who had the opportunity today to say that the country I take care of on behalf of the parliament is progressing. I envy a lot when I hear about Front Runner. It's not the case for Turkey regarding the accession process.
And for that reason, it's really frustrating, but at least we have to say that we have a good collaboration with the authorities. I always praise the fact that, even being very critical in many issues of domestic backsliding, I have always been received friendly and kindly by the authorities. And I keep always a really open channel with the civil society that is suffering this democratic backsliding. This is one of the reasons for continuing with this task. The main political rationale of the report is to distinguish between membership and partnership.
Membership is the accession process, is normative, and is related to the fundamentals and democracy. No progress at all. On the contrary, it is a fully authoritarian backsliding. Membership, David, evokes the case. We have to find a way to deal with Turkey as an important neighbor in many fields.
And in that sense, my proposal to my colleagues for approving this year's report has to deal with this double soul. Let's be realistic. Let's be practical. Let's encounter, even if in a transactional way, some channels to deal with Turkey in customs unions. In visa liberalization, there are seven benchmarks that have not been fulfilled.
In security and defense, taking into account the legitimate and very reasonable concerns of Cyprus and Greece. The problem of Made in Europe, the recent proposals of Made in Europe, shortening the value channels, and trying to produce in Europe the things we need has created some concerns in Turkey, like the same with our trade agreement with India and Mercosur, and we have to try to tackle this. At high-level talks, the parliament consistently requests the resumption of every high-level talk because it is cynical. It's completely cynical that everybody is going to Ankara—the commission, the council, the high officials—and now we maintain this stance of not having high-level talks. And for that reason, it's better to resume the high-level talks after the formal suspension of this format in the council some years ago.
One thing I would like to express today is that the shouting silence of the Commission and the Council regarding the democratic situation in Turkey is greatly damaging the image of the European Union. Great. We are losing the pro-European, pro-democratic civil society in Turkey because the Commission, the Council, and the External Service never raise the issues of the situation of democracy, or if they do, it is just one phrase in a very general way. And this is very damaging for the image of the European Union, and that has created the impression that only the European Parliament has taken care of the democratic situation, which is not the case. It's to promote democracy and to take care of democracy; it is an obligation of every institution of the European Union.
It's not only the role of the Parliament. And finally, I have to say that the last development, even having this hope of the peace process ongoing in the Turkish parliament regarding the Kurdish issue, I think it is now in a position in which the recent nomination for Minister of Justice of the former prosecutor who has been crushing the opposition, including the mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, this prosecutor who is the spearhead of the repression has been nominated Minister of Justice. And this is again a test for Turkey. Do you really want to approach the European Union by nominating as Minister of Justice the prosecutor who has been the frontliner in the political repression? I'm afraid the report is not going to be very optimistic in this regard.
Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you, dear Natural, for the hard work. We now come to the. First is Isabelle Vislalima for the EPP.
Thank you, Chair.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
I'd like to thank Nacho Sanchez Amar for all the work he's put into this draft and for his attitude and approach generally when it comes to this report on Turkey. The chair said it right at the start. Turkey is a candidate country, even though negotiations have been frozen. So it is natural here to stress a number of aspects linked to the fact that it is indeed a candidate country we're dealing with. Whether we focus on civil society, the government, or the opposition, they have a clear aspiration to join the European Union.
But, of course, as Nacho already said, we state that there has been absolutely no progress when it comes to fundamental rights, and that, of course, becomes determining in terms of accession. Now, I would say that I'm happy that Nacho has named Dimamoglu in the draft. I think there are other names that will need to be included there, too. It was people we had put forward previously, like Demirtas. There are a large number of people.
I'm not going to name them all, but I think we need to name more people by name in the text. I think we can also refer to the work of the Council of Europe because Turkey is, after all, a Council of Europe member as well. Because Turkey has not sufficiently aligned with its decisions. There are other questions which I'm sure will become apparent in the report, but I'd like to once again thank Nacho for his very constructive approach always to negotiations, always in the spirit of seeking consensus, which means that this truly is a European Parliament report. It's not a report emanating from one person or one political group.
It's really a European Parliament report. So, thanks once again, and I'm sure that our future negotiations will be constructive. Thank you.
Speaker 73
The report correctly states that Turkey's accession process has been frozen since 2018 and that, under the current circumstances, accession negotiations cannot be resumed. Within the Patriots group, we have different views, different national views on the future of EU-Turkey relations, and I, as a Patriots shadow, am mindful of this diversity. However, for my national delegation, EU accession for Turkey is fundamentally undesirable and should be formally ended. The report omits several key issues, which I intend to address through amendments. For example, the report fails to reflect the persecution Christian and Jewish communities face in Turkey, including hate speech in Turkey's media.
Speaker 72
In addition, the report does not sufficiently address Turkey's political engagement with the EU-listed terrorist organization Hamas, nor does it examine the role of state-linked Turkish media in promoting anti-European, anti-Semitic, or Islamist narratives that may undermine social cohesion in some member states. I intend to table amendments on these issues, and I look forward to working constructively with the rapporteur and colleagues from other political groups on this report. Thank you.
Speaker 71
Are we speaking Greek? Last.
This year, I was once again the shadow rapporteur for my group with my dear colleague, Mr. Sanchez. Our cooperation was very fruitful, and the result was this report. I hope that we can continue in the same vein this year. We are talking about a candidate country to the European Union, and this country is mocking us. They are occupying the territory of an EU member state.
Speaker 74
I don't know to what extent we can tolerate that. How can we consider a country occupying European territories as a candidate country? And they are disregarding the rights of the citizens of Cyprus. There are a number of points that I'd like to add to this report: the respect for the territorial integrity of Syria, financing of terrorist organizations based in Turkey, threats to Israel, persecution of Kurds, and a number of other points which run counter to the principle of the rule of law in Turkey. You cannot have a country that acts contrary to the principles of good neighborliness.
We cannot have a country that threatens Cyprus with a curse. We should demand that Turkey lift these threats. We cannot tolerate that the country continues to occupy territories in Cyprus. I would also like to strike out any mention of the head of these occupied territories; this is not a recognized role, and it gives attention to Turkish policy. I hope we will continue in good collaboration.
David McAllister
Good on time the entire morning. But as expected, when it comes to Turkey, we have lots of requests to take the floor, and I will now have to be stricter with time. It's two minutes maximum for the shadows, and two minutes for your information is 120 seconds. I think there is no discussion on that. Malik Asmani is next.
Malik Azmani
Let's try it in 2 minutes. Thank you, Mister Thierry, dear rapporteur, dear Nasser St. Saint Samor. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Nasser St. Saint Samor and his team are thanked for their hard work in preparing this report on the progress of Turkiye as a candidate country of the European Union.
Overall, the report reflects many points that closely align with the positions of the New York group. We appreciate the approach that has been taken, which builds upon the positions of this house over many years. We acknowledge that at a time of rapid geopolitical change, both the European Union and Turkey share strategic interests and also face common challenges that require closer cooperation, but also need respect, of course, for our European values, democracy, and the rule of law, and not the rule of the strongest. That said, as you know, we firmly believe that resuming the accession process is not possible under the current circumstances. Progress requires clear political will.
And Mr. Nacho Sanchez Amor knows that our opinion is that, in the meanwhile, we need to strengthen the modernization of the EU-Turkey Association Agreement. For the partnership to become stronger and more credible, Turkey must take concrete steps towards democratic reforms, such as judicial processes, and also make great efforts to align with and implement the EU foreign and security policy objectives, including alignment with the EU sanctions framework. The amendments I will propose reflect these priorities and aim to maintain a strong approach to security, human rights, and Turkey's commitment to the rule of law. In addition, I intend to propose amendments that will address the role of the Turkey diaspora within the European Union, the protection of minority rights, the support for human rights defenders and free media, and the urgent need to combat practices such as honor killings, but also, as mentioned, to keep the door open for pragmatic cooperation.
Thank you very much.
David McAllister
Thank you, Malik, and thank you for sticking exactly to your two minutes. Next is Mr. Privilege from the Greens, who is not present, then Mr. Georgiou for the Left. Two minutes, please.
Giorgos Georgiou
Turkey expresses its will for European perspectives. We are aware of this, and we know full well that Turkey will never be part of the European Union. Even though we're keenly aware of this, we are trying to give it some opportunity to renew its visa policy to participate in political dialogue. But Turkey proceeds to engage in strong violations of international law. The international rule of law has not just been violated in Greenland or Ukraine.
For over 50 years, Turkey has been trampling on such rights, and we're seeing the evolution of two separate states in Cyprus. Naturally, I'd like to thank Mr. Sanchez Amore for his preliminary comments. But as far as we are concerned, we need a report that realistically describes the situation surrounding Turkiye. They must return to the path towards democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. Mister Frohli from the ESN is not present. Is our colleague Keflagiannis from the joint pollinatory committee not present? Then I can give the floor to the other members. I have five members who wish to take the floor: Mr. Mavridis, Mr. Gala, Mr. Goma, Mr. Stier, and Mr. Papadakis.
It's one minute each. The first speaker is Mr. Mavridis.
Costas Mavrides
Thank you, Chair. This time, I was speaking in my mother tongue. Turkey.
It is on the accession path, and it must thus be assessed according to well-known criteria. We have seen complete failure when it comes to human rights, democratic principles, an independent judiciary, and a great number of other aspects. Second, foreign policy and defense policy. Well, you could say that there is a type of Ottoman imperialism here, which reigns over the entire Eastern Mediterranean and threatens all the countries there. And then we've got the occupation of territories in Cyprus.
Turkish troops must be withdrawn, and Turkey must begin to practice European standards. When it comes to the customs union, Turkey has committed to making this a reality, including with the Republic of Cyprus. To conclude, Turkey wants to set its own rules and make the European Union yield to Turkey, not the opposite. So, we need to take the necessary decisions.
Q. Next is Mr. Gala.
Michael Gahler
Yes. Thank you. And I would like to support, in general, the line that Nacho has taken, especially emphasizing the accession aspect. I don't even say a process because that means movement, an accession aspect, and there is this NATO partnership aspect. I think it is good to make this difference.
We need Turkey in this security defense area, especially because they play a constructive role in Ukraine. But I think indeed on the accession aspect, we should be very clear and tough. And it is a nonstarter to have a situation where not only Mayor Imamoglu, but also other major leaders of the opposition, are simply imprisoned for political reasons. Let's be clear on that: that is not the way forward. And otherwise, I think we will find a broad consensus.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Christophe Gomart
I'll be speaking French. I've always been astonished that Turkey remains a candidate country for the EU. Unlike what our rapporteur, Nacho Sanchez, has said, there is no democratic progress. In fact, we're seeing backsliding. Turkey remains a candidate country as it becomes increasingly imperialist, whether in Africa or in the Middle East.
Turkey is fighting the Kurds. We're fighting the Islamic State. Turkey still has a presence in Cyprus. We have a very specific partnership with Turkey. Yes.
And as Mikael Galle just said, we have a specific relationship there in terms of international rules. But it seems incredible and incomprehensible to me that there is still a candidate country. Should we continue to give Turkey money within this framework? Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Davos Dia.
Davor Ivo Stier
Thank you, Chair. And I also agree with the rapporteur about this distinction between membership and partnership. Now, in the turbulent times of changing international order, Turkey has been increasing its power and influence in Central Asia, in the Caucasus, the Black Sea Basin, in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, but also in the Western Balkans. Now, when we talk about partnership, it is true. But we also need to understand that Turkey sees this partnership more as a former empire than as a future EU member.
So, we need to be pragmatic. We need to cooperate, but we also need to understand the true nature of the relationship. Thank you.
Kostas Papadakis
Thank you, Chair. We'll speak in Greek. This.
The report retains this tactic of distance in the Aegean and economic cooperation. We have a dogma here. We are seeing threats of war against Greece.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Kostas Papadakis
So we've seen agreements for the Eurofighter between France, Spain, Italy, and the UK. We also have the European Parliament report on these relations. This means that we're turning to Turkey joining the safe program, but we have nothing on the occupied territories or Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. So, we have a so-called Turkish Republic in Cyprus in the North, and that is not globally recognized. We should condemn this silence, this lack of reaction on this point, and we must react before it is too late.
Željana Zovko
Thank you. I would like to thank the Rapporteur and commend this very optimistic and positive approach that the Rapporteur is trying to take towards Turkey. And I do understand the whole philosophy that we need Turkey and Ukraine, and we need them in peacekeeping missions. You know, they're military engagements, but we cannot close our eyes even under the urgencies that we have adopted here in the European Parliament on the respect of the rights of different religious minorities, Christians, and the fact that Turkey cannot play the same role as they used to play many years ago in certain international fields. I mean, they have to change their approach to Cypriot issues, especially now that we have a Cypriot presidency.
We have to send a stronger message, and we also have to lose this hypocritical approach towards certain authoritarian regimes. And, otherwise, we will be paying, by our voters also, my priest, towards the way we behave here in this European Parliament. Thank you.
David McAllister
Thank you. No further requests to take the floor from colleagues. So I finally give the floor for brief interventions to the representatives of the Commission and the EAS. We begin with.
Speaker 82
Mister Stanif. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the European Parliament. Let me begin by appreciating the opportunity to present the Commission's short comments on the European Parliament's draft report on Turkey and to appreciate the members of the European Parliament's important role in EU-Turkey relations. First, I would like to emphasize that the Commission's and European Parliament's assessment of the situation in Turkey and its preparedness to resume accession negotiations is to a very large degree aligned. With that, we welcome the conclusions of the European Parliament's draft report.
Turkey remains a candidate country and key partner for the European Union. However, accession negotiations have been at a standstill since 2018, and the underlying facts leading to this assessment still hold, notably in light of the further backsliding in the areas of fundamental rights and the rule of law, including the judiciary, witnessed in 2025. On numerous occasions, the commission has called on Turkey to apply the highest democratic standards and to implement the European Court of Human Rights' judgment. The commission has underlined in its annual 2025 enlargement report that the arrests and charges brought against elected officials, opposition figures, political activists, civil society and business representatives, journalists, and others give rise to increasing questions regarding Turkey's adherence to its democratic traditions. And this message has been constantly raised in bilateral meetings.
Let me also remind you that the Commission and HR VP reacted to the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Imamoglu in the joint statement on 03/19/2025, immediately after his arrest. At the same time, the current geopolitical situation calls for a stronger partnership with Turkey. In sync with the European Parliament's recommendations to deepen cooperation in areas of mutual strategic interest, concrete steps were taken on the issues of joint interest. A number of high-level dialogues took place. We improved bilateral trade relations, and Turkey implemented specific measures to prevent the circumvention of fuel sanctions against Russia.
Turkey and Kyiv cooperate effectively on supporting refugees. We should remember that the country still holds 2,500,000 refugees. I would also like to express the Commission's appreciation for your support on the regional connectivity agenda, which is extremely important to bring the regions of the South Caucasus closer to Europe. I would like to repeat here that Turkey is expected to respect international law, good neighborly relations, and the sovereignty of the EU member states. We actively support the negotiations on a fair, comprehensive, and viable settlement of the Cyprus issue within the EU framework and in accordance with the relevant EU security resolutions. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 84
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to complement DIS. We welcome this exchange and the converging assessments with the European Parliament draft report. Foreign and security policy matters have gained prominence in EU-Turkey relations given the geostrategic realities. The mounting geopolitical challenges that we are facing have underscored the strategic regional role of Turkey.
We need to collaborate with Turkey to advance the EU's strategic goals in the region and beyond. First and foremost, to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia, and ensure a sustainable de-escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean; but also to stabilize Syria for security in the Black Sea region, develop connectivity in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and so on. It is in due strategic interest to further pursue the ongoing reengagement with Turkey in areas of common interest and keep the country on side. In this respect, there has been an intensification of dialogues and consultations with Turkiye on foreign and security policy, with a focus on regional developments in line with the recommendations of the 23rd. Most recently, we held the political director's dialogue on January 27 and resumed the counterterrorism dialogue in November.
Regretfully, as underlined by the European Parliament, Turkiye's formal CFSP alignment rate remains very low, and this is a significant signal of shared values and strategic orientation, which we expect from our partners, first and foremost from new candidate countries. But beyond statistics, Turkey has shown constructive and progressive engagement with the EU on foreign and security policy matters. So, the EU keeps pursuing an intensification of dialogue with Turkey on foreign and security policy to strengthen cooperation on convergence while trying to bridge points of divergence. Thank you very much.
Nacho Sánchez Amor
Well, briefly to the colleagues. As the shadow knows, we share with the shadows what we call the working draft, a long version. But the colleagues only having the text that has been published have a very short version for formal reasons; we can do differently. I insist in my call to the commission and the external service; it's not enough to come out with a very weak statement on the day Imamoglu was detained. We need a complete approach to Turkey in which the fundamentals are raised not only in bilateral private meetings but also publicly to be heard by Turkish society.
Because what we are losing is not Erdogan or the minister. We are losing the pro-European society in Turkey, and they need to hear voices other than those in the parliament. Thank you.
David McAllister
Right. Thank you very much, Nacho. Thank you very much, colleagues. The deadline for amendments for this report is set on March 6 at 12:00, and we hope to vote on the report here in the committee on May 4 or May 5. Thank you very much.
We move on to the next item, and we will be in the safe hands of our vice chair, Hannah, to chair it. Thank you very much. See you this afternoon. You.
They are the best. I
I gave it to you.
What? Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Here we are.
Speaker 85
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here today. We are now at the point of exchange regarding the use of the role of the International Community Health Court (ICHC) in a fragmented international order. I'm so glad I can share this meeting today because of the importance of the ICC in our society, the great job they are doing, and what you represent. So, dear colleagues, this is our next point of order, and it's my honor to welcome the first vice president of the ICC, Judge Rosario Salvatoria Itala, for this discussion.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Welcome, and thank you for your work. In an increasingly fragmented international order, the International Criminal Court occupies a difficult but essential place. We have found ourselves in a world marked by geopolitical rivalries, selective engagement with international norms, and growing contestation over universal principles. Yet, precisely because power politics are back, the ICC matters. The court does not replace diplomacy, nor can it resolve conflicts, but its role is not a word; it is foundational to uphold accountability where national systems fail or refuse to act to maintain international order.
For the European Union, the ICC is not just a legal institution but a strategic investment in a rules-based international order. Supporting the court means defending the credibility of international law, even when it's politically uncomfortable. In a fragmented world, the ICC's effectiveness depends less on its status and more on political backing. The question before us is whether we are prepared to keep and maintain the support that you should have. We should support you.
The principle, not by force, and, of course, international law and all your efforts should always prevail. With that introduction, Judge Aitala, I will give you the floor for ten minutes of introductory remarks, after which we'll have an exchange with the members, including me, for some questions that we think are important because we have the great chance to have you here to answer all of us. So, thank you, and the floor is yours for 10 minutes.
Speaker 87
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for having me, and I am very grateful to you all for sharing your time with me. We have been engaging in the last two years as President of the ICC with EU institutions, but I do firmly believe that this is the institution to engage with now because this is the seat of European democracy. And on a personal note, I would like to say that I've never felt so European as I did back in 2024, when, being an Italian resident in the Netherlands, I was able to vote for a Dutch candidate who was then elected. And then I really had the feeling of belonging to something bigger than my own constituency. I believe that it is really time for all of us to think and rethink where we come from.
There are certain values that we take for granted, which are being shaken very seriously by the current political situation. And I'm talking about the primacy of human dignity, the rejection of atrocities, the rejection of any of the repulsive generations of politics which have gone through all the twentieth century, and regretfully, we still witness in the ICC and everyone can witness every single day. The banning of the use of force, the use of armed force in international relations, and the ban on hatred. That hatred that has originated the genocide of the Jews, the extermination of Muslims in Bosnia, Herzegovina, of the Yazidis in Syria, and so on and so forth. When I speak to my students, I keep teaching at universities.
I always tell them that if you take the treaty of the EU, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, and you squeeze it, blood will come out of it. And this is the blood of billions of innocent people: children, women, men, and elderly, who were slaughtered on this continent. This is the continent that gave rise to the First and Second World Wars. And this is where we come from. And this is also where the ICC comes from.
Let me be very clear. There wouldn't be an International Criminal Court without the European Union, but there cannot be any European Union without the International Criminal Court. What happened on 17 July 1998 was that the Rome Statute was approved by 120 to 7. Let's keep this figure in mind. 120 states voted in favor, seven against. Bought it against, and a number abstained. It was not a new idea.
That dream came from the end of World War II. It came with the Convention on Genocide. It came from what this continent had experienced. Now, those values underlying the European Union and the ICC are a danger. I'm a passionate historian.
And regretfully, I believe that the atmosphere we are breathing right now in Europe and in other parts of the world resembles horribly the climate that this continent was living after the end of the First World War. At that time, the war had raised a generation of violent men who were singing the praise of war as a virtue. And people, civilians were experiencing the same sentiments of horror and paranoid, paralyzing obsession as soldiers in trenches, wrapped in terror and waiting for the next move of the enemy. We are witnessing a subversion of those values. There is a generalized political failure to address this subversion of values, and there is also an intellectual disaster that comes with indifference.
Now, going to the ICC. The ICC this year is acting as one of the few institutions in the world able to confront the rise of violence as a measure of interpersonal connections and international relations. In the very first years of the life of the ICC, the court was moving quite slowly. It was difficult to get it going. And it was, in a way, muddling along with many statements and too few achievements.
In recent years, we have been committing ourselves to respond to the desperate cry for truth, justice, and human dignity that comes from millions of people. Now you see the distinguished members of the European Parliament. We are here. We are warm. We are well-fed.
We are treated with respect. We are treated with dignity. Out there, there are millions of people throughout the world who live in abuse, who are bombed, kidnapped, detained illegally, stabbed to death, discriminated against, and persecuted. And we, in the courts, think about those people every day.
Morning.
Speaker 87
And every night, I confess on a personal note that many nights I cannot sleep. After what I see during the day, I am unable to sleep. I always ask myself, have I done enough? Could I do more to give them dignity? And those people, those victims, always ask us the same question.
They always ask, "Why?" Why me? Why my sister, my mother, my family, my village? What have we done? We want to know what has happened.
Now, the political question before all of us, not only you but all of us as European citizens, is the following. What kind of societies do we foresee? What kind of world do we want to leave to our children and our grandchildren? Because those millions of people see the ICC as the last resort for dignity. And if you deprive them of hope, they will hate.
And hatred sheds innocent blood, blood calls for vengeance, and vengeance sheds other innocent blood. And this is the eternal cycle of violence. We can stop it. We can stop it together. In the last four years, as you know, the world has undergone a dramatic shift, and the court is experiencing these changes.
One permanent member of the UN Security Council has convicted a number of judges, mainly because we are doing our job defending children and other innocent victims. And the judges of the Ukraine chamber, over which I preside, have been convicted for up to 15 years. And another permanent member of the UN Security Council has declared the court as an unusual and extraordinary threat, and they have sanctioned judges and prosecutors. Now you will understand what it means for us. I have spent 34 years in the judiciary, in diplomacy, in university, and we are now listed or convicted together with terrorists, with tags, with crooks, with drug traffickers.
Now, what has happened right now is that there are powers out there who want to crush the International Criminal Court to make it impossible for the Court to realize their wrong statute. But what we are doing is just what you have asked us to do. We were elected by state parties, and we are realizing the statutes that your states have elaborated, approved, signed, and ratified. Now let me be very clear, and I'll go to the end, Madam Chair. We will never give up.
And we will never give up because we don't have any choice but to protect those who are in need. And for us, all victims are the same. No matter where they come from, their nationality, ethnicity, religion, or gender. And the courts paradoxically have never been so efficient, so active, so fast, and so committed as they are now. Many of our activities remain secret for obvious reasons, so it's not only the conflicts you have in mind.
There are many other situations we're looking at. I will only cite one: Afghanistan. We have issued a response to the leadership of the Taliban, who are making the lives of girls and women in Afghanistan impossible due to gender persecution. Women are not allowed to speak in public. They are not allowed to physically make their voice heard in the streets.
They cannot go to school. They only take low-level jobs. The courts have become truly the courts of humanity, and we beg you to oppose the stated objective of certain powers to force us, the court, to betray victims. This we will never do. I will conclude by thanking you and by recalling the many resolutions that the European Parliament has entered on the ICC, the latest of which is dated 21 January 2026.
You have expressed concern that the ICC, its officials, and cooperating partners face threats or attacks. You reaffirm its firm support for the ICJ and the ICC as essential, independent, and impartial judicial bodies. You welcome the EU's continued financial support of the ICC at a particularly challenging time for international justice and deplore the persistent failure to activate the EU bloc's shield to protect the ICC from the extraterritorial effects of sanctions. We are very grateful for this. We beg you to continue supporting the court. And I will conclude by saying that I believe that, at some stage, we will all be asked by history the very same question. And the question will be: where were you?
What were you doing when those millions of people were living in misery? What were you doing when those who were elected by 125 free, sovereign states in the world were attacked? Where were you? Where European citizens are listed today, they cannot perform basic financial operations with European companies in your territory. My French colleague was unable to make a reservation on a European platform for a hotel in France.
He was unable to. He received an email saying, "You're a listed criminal." You're not allowed to do this. This is the question we will be asked by history. So, I believe this is our shared responsibility.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Really, we are thankful. That was really impressive, if I may say. I will have some remarks myself later. But first of all, thank you for your nice speech. I would like to open the first round of questions and comments.
Michael Gahler
Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. I do not have much to say because I fully share, first, your assessment, and I am also fully in agreement with the resolution that we have passed as the European Parliament. I mean, the ICC is, in a way, even a European baby.
I mean, it's the initiation that came from us and was supported then by many other countries. I think it is essential that in this critical phase, where we have so many not only conflicts but also, well, leaders around that are as they are. But we have to remain steadfast in this regard and support what we have co-created. So everything that you said and pledged finds my full support. Thank you.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Thank you very much. I will have handed the floor to Nacho from S&D. But once I'm from the S and D group, I will proceed to take the floor. So, in 06/2025, the United States imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, declaring a national emergency and authorizing asset freezes and travel bans against court officials. As a result, roughly one-third of ICC judges have reportedly been affected by restrictive measures, as you just mentioned, including loss of access to credit cards, financial services, and travel-related platforms.
This development is deeply concerning. The IECC has historically played a crucial role in the global fight against impunity. It has delivered landmark judgments and arrest warrants in cases such as Thomas Lubanga Dilo, involving child soldiers, in Kenya, and most recently, an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin concerning the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. At that time, everybody was happy. So the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and investigations concerning alleged crimes by members of the Israeli government have marked an inflection point, leading to renewed criticism of the ICC and raising broader questions about the credibility and resilience of international justice.
The European Parliament has consistently reaffirmed its support for the court and for the EU's blocking status as a tool to counter the extraterritorial effects of third-country sanctions, but we are still waiting for it to be activated. Questions? What discussions has the ICC had with the European Commission to ensure the effective activation and enforcement of the EU blocking statute in response to these EU sanctions? And second, what additional political, legal, or financial measures can the European Union take to safeguard the independence, functioning, and institutional integrity of the ICC, and to protect its judges and staff from external pressure? Thank you.
Is there anybody from ICR?
Hana Jalloul Muro
New department's Greens, Hannah Neumann, from Greens. Thank you.
Hannah Neumann
Thank you. First of all, it's quite telling that ECR and the Patriots are not here. But first of all, thank you for your remarks. And I think there is, nevertheless, very broad support in this house for the work of the ICC, and we are all quite frustrated with what happened to a number of judges of the ICC after they were put on the US sanctions list. First of all, it's unacceptable that they are put on the US sanctions list.
Second, it is unacceptable that we, as the European Union, cannot protect them from the damage resulting from these sanctions. I have a few questions in this regard, actually. I mean, you said the EU, unlike ICC state parties, is not a member of the Rome Statute, but there is a cooperation agreement between the EU and the ICC. So, I'm still trying to understand what legal obligation the European Union has under this EU-ICC cooperation agreement to assist the courts and their judges. And I know, I mean, we have asked for the blocking statute to be activated. Of course, the ICC has also asked for the blocking statute to be activated, and you have had discussions with the commission on this.
So, do you know why the Commission has not, after your outreach to them, activated the blocking statute? Did they give you any reasons? I mean, this discussion started in the summer. That's like seven months ago. So, that's the first question I have.
And the second one is that I understand the ICC is trying to shift, at the moment, when it comes to digital technologies, to financial aspects and everything away from a US focus on applications, programs, and everything. What measures do you think you should focus on in order to build more digital and financial autonomy based on your experiences? What is it that is lacking, for example? What is it that you cannot replace, where we would need to step up on the EU level also for our institution, by the way? I mean, this whole European Parliament is run on Microsoft.
It kind of scares me, and we all have these wonderful Apple phones. Your colleague yesterday in the drug committee said, and colleagues, I mean, just imagine that her Apple account was blocked overnight. Imagine they are blocking your Apple account overnight. We are all doomed. I mean, let's be very clear, and we really need to make sure that we have a different approach to that.
And then the last question is, what other measures are there beyond the blocking statute? Because that's the most prominent one on the table. When it came to Greenland, we also discussed the anti-coercion instrument. Is that something you think we should also discuss with regard to the situation of the ICC? Article 70 of the Rome Statute provides that the ICC has retaliatory power in the event of illegal offenses against its officials.
Speaker 91
Is that something you have ever considered, and what could it look like? Thank you.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Thank you very much, Hannah. And now the floor is for the left, Marco Denga. Thank you, the floor is yours.
Marc Botenga
Thank you very much, indeed, Madam Chair. And I thank our guest for this very detailed analysis, which we share. Now, today, we see the court under attack; that clearly is because the court is targeting, or now has got, Israel in its crosshairs. And I think if the ICC didn't tow the US line, we wouldn't be where we are now. You simply did your duty.
You carried out your mandate on the crimes committed by the Israeli government in Gaza, especially. So what this shows is that, aside from grand speeches on international law that have been held by various different U. S. Administrations, we see there are two parallel international orders: a legal international order for the Africans and so on, as people have said. And then there's the other world order for Western nations and the Americans.
Well, it's true that we have voted on good tax, but I think there is some hypocrisy on the part of the European government. They're continuing to welcome members of the Israeli government. They're taking pictures of themselves, posing next to members of the Israeli government, when, in fact, the government is subject to an arrest warrant. And I think we should have a detailed reflection on what's going on, and I'll be asking politicians and leaders to do that. I think we now need to stand up and shoulder our responsibility.
If you have a prime minister who is under an arrest warrant from the ICC, should they really be allowed to cross European airspace using an aircraft? Let's be clear here. Let's not share a platform with some members of the government whose head of government is under an arrest warrant. Now, just to repeat and echo what Hannah said a little bit. What should Europe be doing?
What should it be doing better? Now I know we can call out China and Russia, but we are much more timid when it comes to the United States and will never really get tough on them unless they're really threatening territory in Greenland. So, what expectations do you have concretely and specifically? Obviously, there's a distinction between your role and that of a parliamentarian. I think if we really care about the ICC and its role, then surely there must be certain steps that we can take to protect your colleagues, to protect the staff of the ICC, and to protect and shield the institution as a whole.
And I think it would be useful for us to have a concrete discussion of what we can do and take two or three specific individual measures that can concretely support the ICC and allow it to function. Based on what you said and what I heard from your colleagues, I understand that the risk we have today is that the ICC will become powerless and unable to function. So, I think I'd like to know what measures we can take that will give some tangible, concrete protection for you and your colleagues. Thank you.
Hana Jalloul Muro
And I will give the floor to Chloe Dell. Please, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Chloé Ridel
Thank you very much. I'm going to speak French. I'd like to thank you for joining us today. We met a year ago in The Hague before Trump was re-elected. You have also come to our subcommittee here as well.
And back then, you already warned us that there was the possibility that there would be a U. S. Sanctions against the court or its judges. And you were right because just a few months later, the court prosecutor and the judges were sanctioned. And for a year and a half now, in the European Parliament, we have, in this socialist group in particular, continued to ask the European Commission to act to protect the court and its judges and to activate the blocking instrument.
And yesterday, in the DRUB subcommittee, we had someone from the commission who came, and they confirmed that they could activate the blocking instrument if a majority in the European Parliament or a majority in the Council did not prevent them from doing so. And you said in your introduction that the European Parliament voted by a majority for this instrument to be activated so that the International Criminal Court could be protected. And this still has not happened. The commission has not done anything. And we know that it's not because there is a legal obstacle here, but because there is a lack of political will to take action.
So, I think we need to keep asking for this, not only of the Commission, but also of the European heads of state, to make sure that they also make the same decision. We need to protect the ICC. And we also need to open people's eyes to the sovereignty risks here. Donald Trump is going against the ICC. He's also sanctioning judges elsewhere, such as a judge in Brazil who convicted Bolsonaro.
And this is a tactic that they are now applying. They intimidate judges when they don't like their decisions, and they feel that they can do so because they are so powerful when it comes to the economy, tech, and digital developments as well. And this is having a devastating effect. We need to be sovereign in Europe when it comes to financial and digital services so that you have alternatives to the American services you used in the past to run the ICC. So, you have our full support, and we will continue to urge the Commission to take action to protect you.
Cecilia Strada
Thank you very much, Cher, and thank you so much, Vice President Raetalla, for taking the time to meet with us today. Of course, I also share all the concerns raised by my colleagues personally. I've been asking officially, along with other colleagues, including Chloe Riedel. I've been asking for over 1 year to the European Commission to activate the blocking statute, and now we have resolutions calling to activate the blocking statute, but still no reply from the commission. Actually, I find this outrageous, and not only because we cannot abandon the victims—millions of victims—but also because we cannot put at risk the lives of the next victims.
Because, as I understand it, the work of international justice is not only protecting the victims but also ensuring accountability to deter future crimes. And so, really, I think it's outrageous that the commission does not protect its own judiciary system, and I cannot understand why. And so, my full solidarity to the court. Then, I had some questions in my mind, but they were already brilliantly asked by Honorable Neumann. So, I will not waste your time, and thank you very much. Thank you.
Elio Di Rupo
Thank you very much. Eliot, please. The floor is yours. Thank you.
I'm
I am going to speak French as well. We really are faced with a situation where the rule of law and European sovereignty are at risk. You said this. There were 7 countries that didn't support this in Rome, and that included the US. They are not only issuing sanctions against the ICC and its judges, but also against national courts.
And this is something that is unacceptable. What I think is really unacceptable is that there is a very broad consensus when it comes to using the provisions available, particularly the blocking instrument. There were things that the commission could do on its initiative, and you would just have to have a blocking majority against it for that not to happen. But we could perhaps just be naive here. Maybe you could wonder why the commission is not acting.
But we cannot accept this balance of powers as it stands between the Parliament and the Commission. If the Parliament allows the Commission not to act on such a fundamental issue. And we keep hearing these speeches about the rule of law, human rights, and so on. Well, we're getting these speeches from the President, the Commission, and the commissioners. But then, at the same time, they are allowing the rule of law to be eroded and the rules not to be respected.
Speaker 99
There are, of course, the trade relations between the EU and the U.S. S. There is the digital tech and military link with the U. S. But yes or no, do we have a certain amount of dignity?
Elio Di Rupo
And I think that when it comes to someone like Trump, I have been in politics for years, and I'm not a psychiatrist, but through my experience, you become one. And I think that the EU does need to show, through an act from the Commission, that enough is enough. They need to activate these resources. They need to list the steps taken by the US, which are in conflict with European freedoms. And we cannot just allow the ICC to undergo these kinds of attacks.
This is something that goes just beyond politics. We're talking about human dignity. It's not just about defending the court alone. We're defending humanity. Everyone who has suffered massacres and war crimes, well, we need to remember them, as we could be the same.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Now, from Greens, please, Mr. Sander. The floor is yours. Thank you.
Villy Søvndal
Yeah. Thank you very much for your personal presentation; it was very strong. Thank you for that. When you reach my age, you will have been in a world with the biggest progress for mankind ever. If you measure the development in democracy, the fight against poverty, or life expectancy, you can see the progress that has taken place broadly.
That's part of European history, and we all know why. Because we had a world of rules. We had a world of trying to help those who were poor, those who were in trouble. That's a world that no longer exists because of the US, because of Netanyahu, because of a couple of other guys, Putin, etc. So, we are one of the islands of strong defense in this world of rules.
And I think the good message is that we are not alone. A lot of countries, if you listen to the Canadian Prime Minister's speech in Davos, still want a world based on rules, order, respect, negotiations, and doing something to help those who do not have many chances in this life. And I think the most important thing for Europe right now is to reach out to strengthen these alliances. And, as another thing, could you say what else we could do, seen from your point of view, which we do not do well enough now, to strengthen the support we want to give to the very good work you are doing? Thank you.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Thank you very much. And now, I will give the floor back to Mr. Giacor Sarrio, Salvator Aitala, for answers, ten minutes, and the floor is yours. I know there are a lot of questions for such a short time. We can give you more minutes.
Speaker 87
No. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful for your words and your questions. Okay. Without any particular order, yes, we have reached out.
We've been reaching out to all European institutions, including the Council and the Commission, at different levels: presidency level and working level. What they think is not for me to say, and this is not my prerogative. I respect the European Commission and its decision. What connects to another set of questions is: what can be done beyond what has already been done? Well, first, there is a need for political support.
So, whatever initiative has political significance. For example, to my knowledge, the word ICC hasn't appeared in any council conclusions, at least during the last years. I've never seen it. Second, companies tend to overcomply with sanctions. By the way, what we are calling sanctions in international law, referring to some recent studies, are not really sanctions.
Sanctions are something different. These are legitimate means to address violations of international law. Let's say these coercive measures tend to overcomply. What does it mean? There is no reason for a European bank to close an account or deny a transaction within the European Union, within the SEPA zone, the Single Euro Payments Area.
And 85% of our transactions are within that system. But companies need to be reassured. They need to be reassured that they will not become the target of secondary sanctions. For example, they need to be reassured that there is a political willingness to allow them to continue cooperating with the court. And this we've been discussing, but I have also said it involves very useful exchanges with different services within the commission.
Now, it will be done again, and it's not for me to say I wouldn't go that far. Article 70, excuse me, I will not comment on decisions of the court. This is something I cannot do. You will understand I never make comments on cases before us, not even in the upset, whether Article 7 would be applicable. I apologize for this, but it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that. However, I just wanted not to ignore your question and respond.
I think that one fundamental point that needs to be kept in mind is that the court is not a separate entity. The court is part of the legal system of all states in the European Union. The relationship between the court and the internal judicial system is one of complementarity, or, if you wish, from the opposite perspective, the primacy of internal systems. In other words, the courts would step in when state parties are genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute. So, the court is part of this system.
I am not only an Italian citizen, but I am also a European judge in this respect. Not only because I am also a judge in Italy, but at this very moment, I act as a European judge. And this also carries a number of consequences in terms of immunity, official actions, personal immunities, diplomatic immunities, and so on. If there is any legal obligation, I think it was you, madam, who had any legal obligation.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.