Committee on Foreign Affairs – Extraordinary Meeting – Structured Dialogue with Commissioner Marta Kos
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 sittingsMarta Kos
The European parliament, you have contributed meaningfully to these reflections through its recent resolution. I welcome this engagement and look forward to hearing you today. Now let me turn to where we stand. '25 was a good year for enlargement. We have accomplished more than in the last 15 years together, and we are continuing this good work in 2026.
Montenegro continues to advance its negotiations. It had closed 14 chapters, more than a third. But I would like to stress it is not only about the numbers. I was in Podgorica last month and passed a clear message: focus on the quality of the reforms and prioritize the fundamentals. Here, I would like to thank you for your engagement.
In Podgorica, I exchanged extensively with both the government and the opposition on the two recent laws on internal affairs and security, which the SND group also brought to my attention. I made clear these two laws need not only to align with the EU as key, but genuine support across Montenegrin society, and we will closely watch how they are implemented. Albania has opened all 6 negotiating clusters in just a year. Member states are now progressing with discussion on the fulfillment of the interim benchmarks for the rule of law. I'm confident to see decisive progress in the council in the next few weeks and months.
Ukraine continues its succession path under extraordinary circumstances. The determination shown by the Ukrainians while defending its sovereignty and its citizens is truly remarkable. Remarkable. We are losing no time on the Ukrainians' EU path. We are now optimistic that with the support of the new government of Hungary, the council will soon be in the position to formally open all negotiating clusters.
Just two weeks ago, the Verkhona Rada passed important laws. This will unlock a further €2,700,000,000 of budgetary support under the Ukraine facility, and this is a crucial juncture to stabilize Ukraine's liquidity needs. The rudder session at the end of this month offers another opportunity to build on this positive trend. And we also expect that as soon as the oil flows in Druzhba pipeline again, and this could happen already this week, we will be able to provide Ukraine with the long-awaited €90,000,000,000 loan. On Moldova, despite intense pressure by Russia and the spillovers of the aggression against Ukraine, is delivering quality reforms at a strong pace.
Last month, member states have given us the mandate to start technical negotiations across all 33 negotiating chapters, and it was a recognition of Moldova's extraordinary efforts on the accession process and a great moment to speed up reforms. Just like in the case of Ukraine, we look forward to a decision by the Council to formally open all six negotiating clusters. We are also moving forward with Kosovo. We have proceeded with the lifting of measures, and now expect the government to proceed with the reforms needed to benefit from EU support. I will travel to Pristina soon to take this work forward.
But I have to say that the progress is not uniform. In Georgia, recent legislative developments raise serious concerns. An autocratic system of state control over political expression is pushing Georgia further away from the European future most of its people want. Our goal is to keep Georgia anchored to the EU and maintain our ability to defend the EU's interests. We are increasingly worried about what is happening in Serbia.
I share the concerns voiced by the MEPs from the Greens and the Renew group, from laws that undermine the independence of the judiciary to crackdowns on protesters and recurrent meddling in independent media. We are currently assessing whether the country still fulfills the conditions for payments under the EU's financial instruments. We will continue, for sure, to support Serbia on its EU path, but we expect the authorities to fully align its judicial laws with the Venice Commission's recommendations and to restore the independence of its media, including through reform of the REM. And we want to see constant improvements in the CFSP alignment. The accession process is built on the commitments on both sides, and those commitments must be respected and followed by concrete actions.
I already spoke about the changing geopolitical environment and what this means for enlargement. Let me again make it clear that fundamental reforms will always remain central. But at the same time, we can no longer expect our candidates to spend years implementing difficult reforms without having much to show for it. We need to reach our future citizens much faster. We are already doing this.
Integration into the Single Euro Payments Area is delivering tangible results, faster transactions, lower costs for businesses and citizens. Some of the same goes for roaming. Just last month, we made a proposal to the council to include all countries from the Western Balkans in our free roaming area after we welcomed Ukraine and Moldova in January. Those efforts make a real difference to millions of people that look towards Europe. I agree with those of you that want us to go further and move into areas that define country's strategic positioning, energy, infrastructure security, and, of course, the internal market.
Through the growth plans, we are linking reform progress directly to investment and economic opportunities. While Ukraine and Moldova are performing well or excellently, progress has been a lot slower in the Western Balkans. Last week, I wrote to the authorities in the region to step up their reforms or their citizens will lose out. The growth plan is strictly performance-based, as you know, and time-bound. Currently, more than €700,000,000 are at risk of being permanently lost across the region if reforms are not completed by June 26 or December 26 for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Those who deliver reforms need to feel the difference in their core structures, and this helps pro-EU governments by bringing immediate benefits to their businesses and citizens. Very important part. As we move forward, we must also address the question of safeguards. Safeguard clauses in the accession treaties are not new. They have always been part of the enlargement.
But today, the scale of enlargement, the political context, and the lessons of past accession require us to reflect on how these instruments should evolve. A lesson learned from 2004 is that we need to have safeguards that ensure new members stick to the rules, and the integrity of our union is assured even 5, 10, or 20 years down the line. Future accession treaties will need to include safeguards that are credible, effective, and capable of being applied if serious shortcomings arise after accession. With Montenegro working towards closing all chapters, its accession treaty should be the first of a new generation. This is not about creating additional criteria for the country.
But if countries go backwards on our fundamentals, such as democracy and the rule of law, the safeguards must bite, and we must always be able to protect our Union. We need this to maintain trust among the member states, trust with our citizens, and trust in the enlargement process itself. Across Europe, we are witnessing increasing pressure on democratic institutions, media, and civil society. And when it comes to defending freedom and democracy, our current and future member states are fighting the same fight as we do. In many ways, some of our candidate countries know this struggle even better than we do, just like, look at Ukraine or Moldova.
This is why we are extending our cooperation through the European Democracy Shield. This is the strategy to protect our democracy. Together with commissioner McGrath and the Cypriot presidency, we are planning still before summer a ministerial discussion of EU member states and candidates together about their involvement in the implementation of the shield. We will work with our partners to strengthen institutions, support independent media, and empower civil society. We also need to take bolder steps to establish stronger partnerships, especially in our neighborhood.
My recent engagements with our candidate country, Turkey, as well as with Armenia and Azerbaijan, need to be understood in this way. We need Turkiye in light of the changing geopolitical realities in Europe and in The Middle East. They are the fifth largest EU trading partner, with a trade volume twice as high as that with Mercosur or India. I'm speaking about Turkey. It is essential for trade routes between Europe and Asia, and any peace settlement for Ukraine will need Turkey, NATO's second army, as we will be faced with a new security environment in the Black Sea region.
I recently traveled to Ankara and agreed to explore the possibility to reduce trade barriers, but we expect Turkiye to also take steps towards us as well, and especially towards Cyprus. We also intensified our support to the ongoing peace efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Together, we want to develop new transport, energy, and digital routes across the South Caucasus. And with war raging north and south, emerging trade routes through Turkey and the South Caucasus have become essential. Since 2022, trade cargo on the route has been bigger by four times.
With the right investments, it can triple by 2020, 2030. And this is what work on the connectivity is about. At the same time, connectivity is also a contribution to peace. Now the last part, then I will finish. The simplification 2025 annual report, as agreed, that I will report it during today's dialogue.
We focused on four strengths, maximizing the impact of our external investment toolbox and reducing the administrative burden for implementing partners, avoiding duplications between the various rule of law reporting exercises for candidate countries. Disregard especially the rule of law report, which includes four candidate countries and the annual enlargement package. Shifting, very important, to performance-based instruments with the implementation of the facilities for Ukraine, Western Balkans, and Moldova. And implementation dialogues, I had two with the private businesses and civil society organizations, and I will have next year two more. Honorable members, as said at the beginning, enlargement is once again one of the European Union's most strategic politics and policies.
In many ways, we are once again facing the fundamental question of how to organize our continent to preserve peace and stability. And this is why the European Union was founded in the first place. The challenges Europe faces today once again demand courage, unity, and a vision from all of us. And your efforts and engagement are centered on building a more independent Europe and unify our continent. I would like to thank you for your contribution, and I look forward to go on with an excellent cooperation with the European Parliament and especially with your committee, Affect.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much, commissioner. Now we come to a first round with the coordinators. And, accidentally, let's meet again for the EPP. And now putting the other hat, but remain seated here, I would like to thank you for this overview and also giving direct hints to individual countries where we stand. My question is when I look to the country where I am the standing rapporteur on Ukraine, we have quite a strict conditionality, through the Ukraine facility where we have an annex with the homework for each quarter to be fulfilled.
And if it is fulfilled, yes, then the payment is in full. And if it's only partly fulfilled, it is partly done. Now, so far so good, and we have seen delays. We have seen, then they were catching up, and then you could say, okay. Now we can do the payment.
What I would like to see is a principle that could be applied in the same way for all the candidate countries. And I have the impression, amongst many, of the other candidates, we have a situation rather that there are lump sum payments done and the clear conditionality also checking where we stand in the different clusters. There is not a direct link. Is that a wrong perception that it is more leisurely done with other countries? Or, if it is right, this perception, would you tend, so to say, for the time to come, to apply this mechanism that we have for Ukraine, admitted under circumstances that are special.
But I think as it is always also about our taxpayers' money and our expectation that these countries deliver, should this mechanism not be, accordingly, applied also for the other candidates? That is my question and my comment. And now I come to the s and d group. And on behalf of Nacho Sanchez Amore, it's Andreas Schieder who takes the floor. Andreas.
Thank you, Michel. Dear
Thank you, Michael.
Andreas Schieder
I'm Martha Kossa. First, thank you for this report, and this makes me also, from what I think, enlargement should be very happy that you are responsible for the enlargement portfolio. I have three quick questions. The one is a general one. We're asking all the member and all the applicant countries to reform dramatically.
The question is how and when do we start also the reform process which needs to be taken inside the European Union to be ready for enlargement. The second is about Albania and the so called IBA approval by the council, when we can expect this and how the status is? My third and then finally, I end up to have four questions. My third one is on Montenegro. As you mentioned, also the two laws which are heavily criticized, what means monitoring and what else we can do if monitoring shows that the situation is not getting better.
And the last one is on Serbia. It's also in a political way was announced to lose up to 1,500,000,000 EU funding because of democratic backsliding. The question is how this will be done?
Thank you.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much. For the patriots of Europe, instead of Antonio Tangel Correa, it's Mister Ferrence. No. No. Not.
Oh, missus. Sorry. Dear madam. Ferrence. Sorry for that.
Thank you.
Very much.
And probably.
Viktória Ferenc
Dear madam commissioner, thank you very much for your presentation and the commission's work program, and I would like to ask questions concerning the human rights situation in Ukraine. As you have mentioned also, unfortunately, Ukraine has been at war for over 4 years, bringing many strategies. And in this content, I would like to highlight a rights violation affecting many citizens in Ukraine and deserves the European Commission's attention in its future work. Nearly, as a representative of the Hungarians in Transcarpasian six months ago, I addressed the question requiring a written answer to you in which we called on the European Commission to pay increased attention to human rights violation in Ukraine, in particular to unlawful measures carried out by recruitment offices in the context of wartime mobilization. And as you may be aware, in recent years, numerous men in Ukraine, including ethnic Hungarians from Transcarpathia, legally entitled to exemption, have reportedly been subjected to violations of their rights.
Tragically, a death also occurred in the beginning of 2026. And, regrettably, we are now actually witnessing another violation because since April 15, another ethnic Hungarian from Transcarpathian has been held at the local district recruitment center despite being entitled to exemption. And in violation of his rights, his phone has been confiscated, and he has not been allowed to leave the building on this day. So my questions, madam commissioner, in light of the seriousness of the situation and the growing number of complaints, what immediate actions will you take to address these issues? When can concrete measures be expected?
Human lives are at stake, and we therefore urge you to take swift and decisive actions. Thank you very much.
Rihards Kols
Thank you, chair. And, I mean, colleagues before me raised a valid questions on the topic we discussed today. But I would start with that integrity of the whole college of the commission, especially when it comes to the portfolio that is dedicated towards enlargement policy, is of utmost importance for this committee and for this house. And Commissioner Kos, your portfolio covers countries that had to face the truth about collaboration with the secret police of oppressive regimes: Ukraine, Moldova, and Western Balkans. And my own country, Latvia, knows exactly what it means.
It is painful. It was public, and it was necessary. Illustration is not a revenge. It is a basic condition of trust when held in public office, which brings me now to you. At your confirmation hearing, you stated on the record, quote, I was never a collaborator or informant of the secret service of Yugoslavia, end of quote.
Last month, 10 documents of the official Slovenian state archives confirmed you were registered, that is foreseen.
for any other business point.
Rihards Kols
No. No. Mister chairman, don't apply repressive measures at this point. This is very important. So confirmed, you were registered as a source at the Yugoslav directorate for state security code-named Tara in 1987, upgraded to operational collaborator Blanca in 1989, and filing reports from Cologne as late as April 1990.
The countries you are judging on the rule of law and democratic standards had to go through exactly this reckoning. So you have not. And if you have lied to this parliament about your own past, the most basic thing we can ask of the commissioner, do you believe you are fit to hold the office anymore? Thank you.
Michael Gahler
Thank you for this. And the Greens is Thomas Weitz. Oh, no. No. Sorry.
Sorry. Sorry. Hill developments. Excuse me.
Hilde Vautmans
No problem. Thank you very much, President. And I will answer the question of my colleague. Yes. I think our commission is very fit for the job because, honestly, I think she's doing the best job of the whole college, because she's a very strong woman.
She holds a portfolio, and she makes a lot of progress. And maybe that's what you don't like as a party, that progress has been made on this very important file. For me, commissioner, you have my full support. I think you're doing a great job on a very difficult topic, a difficult topic for us Europeans, because we all know that enlargement is important in this geopolitical situation. But we also know that for our European citizens, it's not so easy because a lot are afraid, afraid that enlargement will keep away their well-being.
And so for me, I always say, you have the hardest portfolio because we need enlargement on the geopolitical side, but we also need to reform before we take the next step to take in countries within. And that you know because we discussed it many times. For me, very crucial now is where do we stand with the reform of Europe, the renewal of Europe. You know the name of my party, Renew Europe. We want to renew Europe, like, you know.
So for me, where do you stand on unanimity? With maybe a smaller college, where does the commission stand on that? And then secondly, because that's what you also mentioned, for the countries who want to join, the process is very long. Sometimes too long. It takes more than one generation.
And so I think we should also reflect to speed up the procedures. But I take the example of Ukraine. I think they're fighting for our freedom. They're fighting for our values. But, of course, if they can join now, yeah, on the agriculture side, I don't know what our farmers would say about that.
So is there also a possibility to take out some policies before you take the next step? And then the last question, because I think my two minutes have gone, our colleague, Sophie Wilmes, proposed in the commission Libbey a semester on rule of law. Because I think we ask a lot of rule of law before they enter the European Union, but once they entered, we should also reflect on that system of rule of law. So, how do you support that, and how do you look to that? Thank you very much, and full support, Commissioner.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, chair, and thank you colleague Hilde Woutmans for your comments on our commissioner, which I fully share. A few questions. I mean, it's a bit difficult, 10-plus countries in two minutes. So let me focus on a few. Where are we standing with the preparation of the accession treaties to Montenegro?
Can you maybe update us whether work is being done and things are moving forward? Second question, a bit related to Albania. Also, we see quite some progress when it comes to legislation, which is, well, quite amazing progress. How do you see the progress when it comes to the implementation of the legislation that has been decided upon? Another country I would like to touch upon is Bosnia.
At what point are we brave enough to say the date and peace agreement brought an end of physical violence, but it's not a fundament for a modern civic European state. So this will not serve as a constitution that leads the country into the European Union. Are we able to say that, and are we intending to? And then one very concrete question, on integration. There was this proposal of reversed integration.
Can you say a word whether this is still debated or whether this was just, let's say, a one day fly, discussion? And on gradual integration. I support the concept, and I think with SEPA and with roaming, we've already brought quite some good deals also to the region where people, citizens, ordinary citizens feel the progress and feel that it helps them in their daily life. What additional proposals for gradual integrations beyond the one we have already granted would you see for the next steps? Thank you very much.
Michael Gahler
Thank you. Normally, I would now give the floor to the left. Mister Potenka is not here. Is there anybody else from the left? That is also, yeah.
No. No. No. No. No.
Michael Gahler
Yep. So that is another debate now. Then I come to ESN and its colleague Giselle.
Alexander Sell
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your report, Missus Kossa. The last few years, your supposed actions for the Yugoslav Starsi, you've been criticized for that recently. I don't want to comment on that because I want to look to the future, but it can be useful to look at the past for the future. So why did the Yugoslavian Republic fall apart? Because it was in debt, and the socialists had plundered the country.
And it was the citizens who had to pay for that with inflation. So Yugoslavia fell apart because it was, economically speaking, at the edge of collapse. The same as the situation that we have with Germany, although it's not with such consequences. Why am I saying this? Because you can see that there are parallels.
Germany has presently got 2700 billion euros in debt. The health insurers are going bankrupt. Many older people cannot receive treatment, and people who are paying taxes are having to face higher costs. It's not just Germany, also in France. There's higher debts, 3,000 debt for France.
When I look at these figures, it surprises me that you still wish to have further members in the European Union, that there will cost 164,000,000,000 for Ukraine with another 5,000,000,000 in rebuilding costs. Aren't you afraid that the European Union will suffer the same kind of fate as Yugoslavia? So an economic collapse with serious political consequences. Don't you think it is time to protect the European taxpayers first, rather than to put extra costs upon them?
Michael Gahler
Now I give the floor to the vice chair of the subcommittee on human rights, Martha Temido, for 3 minutes.
Marta Temido
Thank you, chair. Thank you, madam commissioner. I also want to add that we fully support your strong and hard work. I will express myself in Portuguese. I
Wanted to focus particularly on respect for the rule of law. That's one of the most pertinent issues when it comes to enlargement matters, and indeed the most sensitive matters in this particular case, because we recently adopted a report on the state of the rule of law 2025 in the effort committee where we focused on the situation of four different countries. As you've already said, that process is often difficult. We've acknowledged the progress made. We believe that progress has been made by a number of countries bringing their countries in line with the European projects, but it's not the same situation for each country.
Respect for civil society, interference in judicial powers, this situation has worsened in countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia. The freedom of expression for journalists and lawyers, amongst others, we have seen freedoms being curtailed. Judicial processes have been interfered with, and this is completely unacceptable. Now we've discussed these issues on several occasions. But given looking particularly at Serbia, the situation is worsening.
We believe we should be updated on the actions taken by the commissioner on these issues. How can the commission invest? Because that's what you're doing. Invest in these when this is ongoing. Could you perhaps channel money into civil society rather than providing it to the government who are not meeting their reforms objectives?
We have seen an increase in support provided under Protect Defenders. There has been increasing intimidation and online attacks. So what could we do along these lines? Does the commissioner believe that supporting the enlargement process, we want a courageous enlargement? We want enlargement to, of course, countries that respect the rules.
But do you think these countries are respecting our cohesion policies and supporting the EU project as a whole? Thank you.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much. Now, for the first round, back to you, commissioner.
About ten.
Okay. Ten minutes.
Marta Kos
I will try to wrap up together. To your question first, is this, what kind of perception that we are stricter to Ukraine than to other countries when it is about the reform reforms. I would like to differentiate with Ukraine that there we have three processes, which are running at the same time. One is the accession process, then it is the transformation of the economy, and then we have a pure survival. And this is what we don't have in other countries.
But to be more concrete, Ukraine is one of the best countries in delivering the reforms under the Ukrainian plan, mister Gadar. So the rate of the implementation of the reforms in Ukraine is 87%, and this is the second highest. The highest is in Moldova where it is 93. So in spite of bombing falling on the country, in spite of the country fighting for their lives for survival, they are delivering very well. And, back to your question, what can we do?
Now, indeed, we have been successful in the last time with my personal involvement, in the work of the Ukrainian parliament, Verkhona, Verkhona Radha. It is difficult because, you know, the closer we get to the possible peace, the closer we get to the elections, and there are also some other interests came into the game. But they are still delivering. Now what we will do, now one part of the 90,000,000,000 loan will go for the military, 60,000,000,000. The 30,000,000,000 will go directly to the budget.
And for this one, mister Galar or dear Michael Mihayat, sorry, we will do the reorganization of the reform agenda in the sense that there will be more reforms, but we will try to couple them and evaluate them how difficult and how easy. But once again, Ukraine is really delivering. The Western Balkans is not delivering that good. So, we have two front runners, Montenegro and Albania, and Serbia is in the last place with 30% of the delivering. Now I will answer many of you have asked about Serbia.
We are concerned about reports from the local elections. There was a high number of reported irregularities and incidents. We note also with concern the violence against the independent observers during the elections. Generally, and this is also, Martha, what you have been saying, we have the tools, and this is what I have announced before at the beginning, that we are now analyzing if Serbia is still fulfilling the criteria for the payments. We are using different instruments, but for sure, for the growth plan, for Serbia, there are the preconditions, and I quote, uphold and respect effective democratic mechanism, including a multiparty, parliamentary system, free and fair elections, pluralistic media, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law.
So what we are doing now is we will await how Serbia will react to the Venice report on the judiciary amendments. And it is clear. We expect that Serbia will 100% fulfill what the Venice Commission says. We expect Serbia that they will assure the freedom of expression, that they will assure the freedom of media. Otherwise, we will not be able to pay.
Altogether, Serbia, I'm speaking about the gross plan conditionality. 6,000,000,000 is the gross plan for Western Balkan. For Serbia, it is 1,600,000,000. Until now, it has got around 110. So it is 1.5, roughly, under the question mark.
Serbia has to deliver. We are in contact, and they have promised that they will do this. I believe, but I want to see it. And once I will see it and my team that they will really do the reverse, amendments, and also ensure free and fair elections. Serbia, this is a very important part.
Serbia will have elections this year, parliamentary, probably next year, then the presidential election. Free and fair elections, meaning that we expect that Serbia will implement all the other recommendations connected to the elections. And then, there was some question on Albania, development, dear Andreas. Yes. It is looking good.
So, it could be that, May, June, we could have this at the council discussion. Now we are discussing with the member states, with a lot of their involvement. I'm happy about this. Monitoring in Montenegro. This is always the question, but it is really we see and we noticed that you know, I will go one step back.
I can understand the candidate countries are under pressure to deliver the reforms because they have set themselves the timelines. I'm always stressing, we can't set the timelines of the accession process. So we can't say, let's say, Bosnia And Herzegovina will become a member then, and then Montenegro and so. It depends solely on how they are willing to do the reforms. That's why these two laws have been exemplary in the sense of it, it's not only that you kick the box, you have to do it right.
And the implementation is also what will happen now with the naming of the policeman, the retirement of the policeman. So this is what we'll do. Then, I agree with you completely, Hild. It is concerns of the citizens. Very important message.
We can't do the enlargement against the will of the member states and the will of the citizens. And this is also a very important task for my team, and we are already doing this. We have to be engaged. Engage also in what is happening in the countries, and we are engaging, especially in the countries where the support is below 50%, but it doesn't matter. The numbers are very different.
But when I speak about the percentages, please, it is not only what people think about the enlargement. We should take into consideration what they think is now very important for them, and what we have found out in the latest survey, it is security. I was telling you once that 56% of the citizens in Europe generally are supportive of the enlargement, but 80% of the citizens are asking the European Union to do more in the field of security. And this is what we have to do also, in the future. And I agree with you completely.
The process is too long. The methodology we are using today is made for peacetime, and it is plus minus the same as it was 40 years back when luckily Portugal and Spain have joined the EU. Plus ou moins the same. So the methodology we are using today is not made for the times when we could deliver quicker. And that's why when we have started to discuss with the member states, and this is also, Thomas, your question about the methodology or how do we go on.
We have offered three possible scenarios to the member states. It was the status quo. It was enhanced gradual integration, and it was, as you have said, reverse integration, or we called it phased integration. It is clear that where we have the most possibilities is to enhance gradual integration. Meaning, and this is now what we are discussing with the member state.
Is it possible that if a country is fulfilling all the requirements in one specific area, it could also integrate in this area in the sense of getting some rights. Once again, this is the discussion, and the member states will decide at the end. But I think this discussion is very important. It started actually after we have introduced this, and this is what we want also here in the parliament. You remember when we have had the group on enlargement discussion on this methodology. Meaning and the ideas are very different.
We know this pattern somehow from the present cooperation with third countries. For instance, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland are part of Schengen. They can participate in the council, but they can't take any decisions. So a lot is possible, but we have to have a real discussion with the member states. And this is really also important not just for Ukraine, but especially for Ukraine.
You know that, I was criticized by someone or some part of the people and appraised by the others when I said that it is impossible that Ukraine will become a member of the EU 01/01/2027. But I can understand why President Zelensky has said this. He needs assurance that if they do everything what we ask for them, first, they will be able to become a member of the EU. This assurance, dear members of the European Parliament, I can't give even if we go through the end of the accession process, and he needs also security guarantees. And it is clear for us in Europe.
I was speaking about the security issue nowadays. It is a different perception if Russia could go on with the aggression. If we ask Mihael, I see you there. If we ask people in Poland, 77% of them say yes. If we ask the others, would 70% say no, never?
But what is clear is that we have to be more independent, being able to secure our own security. And with Ukraine, it's only possible with Ukraine. It is the only battlefield democratic country who can do this. Sorry. I was a bit longer, but I have connected this to this methodology, question.
What can we do for those and, again, to heal them and to others, what can we do to those who will become a member of the EU but will not follow our rules? Thank you for this, and this is one of the most important questions. And this we will tackle in the preparation of the accession treaty of Montenegro. Namely, it is clear, and this is also what I was speaking before, the lessons learned from 2004. We have to make sure that we will not get Trojan horses in the European Union, meaning that once we have new members, they will apply to our rules and to our values.
So the accession treaty for Montenegro will be the first with the new safeguards. Safeguards are nothing new, but this will be new. So, and this is now connected to the preenlargement policy reviews. I agree with all of you. EU must also prepare itself institutionally, politically, and financially.
And, this is what we are doing by having a debate about the enlargement and also about enlargement methodology. And various leaders have been very vocal in the last days and have expressed their views on the future enlargement and what it means for the union. So, this debate will be once we start the working group on the accession treaty for Montenegro. Then on the budget, so it is, you know, it was about the budget, also the pre-accession review. Before summer, the commission intends to come forward with the financial package for Montenegro, and this will provide the first very concrete insight into the budgetary implications for the accession, not only for Montenegro, but all the other new members.
Meaning, whatever we do with Montenegro now with the accession treaty, with the safeguards, will be a catalyst for all the later. Then on fundamental values, I was speaking, how can we protect ourselves? So a special way of safeguard mechanism. We are going in the direction if the safeguards will be special, but if the new member states will fulfill all or follow all the rules we have and values, they will not even fill those safeguards. If they will go against this, they will beat, bite, heart.
And, of course, I hope that then in these scopes, you will get more insight of the preenlargement review. So it is financing, it is values, and it is decision-making process against. As our president has many times said, we would be happy if especially in the field of foreign policy, we could go to the QMV. Speaking about the number of the commissioners, the present European treaty is already enabling to have a smaller number of commissioners, two thirds of the number of the member states, but the member states have to agree on this. Yes.
Marta Kos
But I can if we will have some more time, just I would like to answer to mister Coals. Yes. I am very fit for the job I am doing. I was first confirmed in the European Parliament. Secondly, I deliver.
And third, I'm a strong believer in a EU project, and I think I'm the right person for this position.
Riho Terras
Thank you. Rio Teras. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I have a
Question about Kosovo, as you might think. You have not been visiting Kosovo as the only Western Balkans country during your time in office. Other EU officials have found the time, even despite the difficulties with the elections. So my question is why that? And when are you planning to visit Kosovo or have discussions with the official representatives of Kosovo?
Or when did you have the last discussion with the official representatives of Kosovo? And the last question is, is the commission doing anything in the field of not recognizers? Have you any talks with the countries who are not recognizing Kosovo, and what is the way ahead there? These two questions. Thank you.
Michael Gahler
Thank you. I suggest we do a ping pong now in order, because now come very specific questions probably on countries. So directly the answer, and then next is Tejas Reuttena afterwards.
Marta Kos
When I go to a candidate country, it is very concrete. There have been many politicians, as you have been right saying, mister Teras. I had already dated for a mission because of the political changes. We have postponed my mission to Kosovo, and I hope that as soon as the situation is clear, I will be there. I am in constant exchange with Prime Minister Kourtiy.
So, especially because of the lifted measures against Kosovo. So this was already all happening in the time when I wasn't there, but I took care that three packages of measures were lifted since the '25, totaling more than 400,000,000. We are also engaged in the gross plan. So, during the few days when the parliament was working, they have ratified two agreements. So, as soon as they deliver one more point, we will be able to do the prepayment.
So I'm constant engagement even if I don't go, even if I don't go, there. About the five recognizers, I follow what is happening, and the development is encouraging.
Thank you. Theiss Reiten?
Thijs Reuten
Yeah. Thank you very much, chair, and you have my full support, commissioner Cosby, because you are not in this position to then, with me or with other colleagues here, have the same discussions in five years, and you are not using all these, like, large men blah blah of unequivocal support. You actually want to do something. That's also what I want. And that's why I have a little bit of concerns about the council, because you have already been answering on the reversed accession.
But can you reflect on how the commission, in particular, I think the cabinet of the president, has floated the idea with the member states and what current processes are going on to find solutions, because I find it actually personally unacceptable that member states so irresponsibly, to be honest, should down something without presenting something else. So, want to introduce a new role. If you should do something, then present something better. Because I don't think that the member states also, in this regard, understand the urgency of the situation. I'm glad what you said about Ukraine, but maybe you can reflect a little bit on whether the member states, in your opinion, understand the urgency of the situation to find a solution that is a win-win for Ukraine and the EU, but also do something for these countries that we have promised after they came out of a war.
After the war, you get the perspective. We cannot afford, as a European Union, to make the same mistake again, nor with Ukraine, nor with these countries that are waiting for decades. And thank you very much.
Marta Kos
Thank you, Thijs. And I agree with you completely. We can't wait. When I was speaking about the new geopolitical element in the enlargement process, what is happening today? You know, you've heard me many times saying that for the first time in the accession process, we have adversaries who would like to see us fail.
And if we will not integrate our candidates or the other countries who would like to have different relations to us on time, the others could and they could influence. They have tried in Moldova. They are trying now in Armenia, which is also covered. And you have seen that we have had interference in the elections. So this is a concrete result.
That's why I agree with you. We have to all deliver. It is, you know, could also happen that if we don't do this, the other superpowers who are really powered on the interest will weaponize them against us, as we have seen like in Belarus when the migrants have been weaponized. Back to your questions. Yes.
I'm traveling around the member states. They are aware of this. But we are in the kind of, I wouldn't say discrepancy, but we have to find a good relation between merit based and other possibilities. So if we stick to the merit-based, it is true. It takes time, especially on the fundamentals.
And I think thank you for your support. We should stick to the rules of law, to the fundamentals, because we can't afford to get somebody inside who will not be capable of having this. But the other possibilities are there. I was speaking about the enhanced gradual integration. Until now, we are using mostly in the economic part, but we could use the idea in the security part where we could integrate perhaps Ukraine, earlier.
You know that some leaders from the member states want to have this deepened. Then it is also possible I was speaking before, comparing, compared to the three countries, which are the third countries. If they fulfill the criteria for internal market or they would, you know, show in. But this is now the discussion. So we also do this.
Just one example, these safeguards. We have noticed that many member states are afraid that if we just stick to, I will simplify, business as usual, our citizens will be very much concerned that we will not be able to protect our union if we go just on like this. So these new safeguards I was talking about before and which, in the opinion of the European Commission, should be a part of the accession treaty, is something completely new in the accession process. And we could also go on that, you know, whatever we do in the accession process, in the accession treaties, it is temporary, but also to define if you do this, you will lose the funds. I think that we should be more strict.
We are using the procedure, but as you know, the procedure article seven is long. Sorry.
Thank you. Zaryan Osovko.
Željana Zovko
Right. Commissioner, I will ask you a question as a rapporteur of the European Parliament in the Western Balkan investment framework, and I will ask this question in Croatia because it's quite specific. And we've because we have already lost the public relation war because of your commission and the war, the work in the field. As you are punishing those who are doing everything that they should do correctly to do this just transition, like Electroprivile de Herzegovina in Mostar, that has to pay heavy fines as opposed to the others who don't comply. And instead of my green colleagues to push their people who are making them questions to break the Dayton to do the just transition in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to do this green transition, they should stick to their work.
So I just want to ask you, in the case of Bosnia And Herzegovina, so I will say it in Croatia, The
Values that result from fossil-intensive production are equally applied to all exporters, including those that produce electricity from renewable sources like Elektroprivreda Mostar. That is how you're penalizing clean producers and undermine incentives for decarbonization that's closely linked to the energy markets of the European Union.
The measures and punishing everyone in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and you are politicizing instead of really focusing on what should be done and awarding those who are behaving as they should be behaving and not doing the political work as your commission, as your delegation is doing in the field. So when are you finally start awarding people who are complaining and who are spreading European values and who are behaving in a European way? And I advise, I mean, if you don't start doing this, you know, citizens of Bosnia Herzegovina will lose every idea on what you are doing here in Brussels. Thank you.
Marta Kos
Thank you, madam Zoko. If you speak about the CBEM, if you speak about the steel imports, they are all the measures we have for the better functioning of the European Union or in the case of steel to protect the European Union. So those measures are not against anybody. It is to protect us. This is the first point.
Second point, is you have used the word punishing. I would be the most happy person if I will be able to deliver for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I can't. If I take only the gross plan, you know the difficulties we have had that Bosnia and Herzegovina has adopted the reform agenda. This was in September after really many things we have done. From that time, we are waiting for Bosnia And Herzegovina to name the chief coordinator, and they have to ratify two laws.
Meaning, it is six months where Bosnia is losing money. And if I don't get this what we need, the European Commission, not me personally, Bosnia will lose until the end of the year an additional close to 400,000,000. This is not the European Commission working against the citizens. Once again, I would be the happiest person. It is the politicians who do not deliver on the rules we have.
And the rules for the growth plan are really important and we have
Marta Kos
follow. So, you know, saying that we are working against, we are not. We are very much engaged in the sense of how can we do, how can we help. We need two laws and naming all the chief negotiators for the accession process to start the accession process. And I, Thomas, agree with you.
I didn't answer before. The best way would be that we start the accession process, then we could go from Dayton to Brussels in the way of to see what is functioning well in Dayton and what is not functioning well. If we don't start, we can't do this. So Bosnia is a country I am one of the most engaged, but it's not working because also their politicians have to deliver. And if they don't deliver, they harm their own people.
Željana Zovko
Sorry. I didn't ask you about the reform growth plan. I asked you about CBEM and then Electroprivile that had said was that maybe your people should inform you about punishing the only company that is doing the green transition as they should, and they are being punished for this.
Okay. Next is colleague Taheresh.
Cristian Terheş
Thank you so much. I wanna ask you directly about the situation in the South Caucasus and specifically Georgia. So here's a map with Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Here's another map with the current routes that we have, that is connecting Europe with Asia. One route is going through Russia.
Another route is the so-called middle corridor, and the other one is the Southern Corridor, if you wanna call it that way, that goes through the Indian Ocean. Now with the Southern Corridor, we have a problem currently in the Hormuz Strait and the Bab El Mandeb Strait. I hope the current commission doesn't want to use the northern corridor through Russia. So the only corridor left is the middle corridor. Now in order for the middle corridor to work, because we cannot change geography, we gotta use Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Now there's a discussion, as you mentioned, to use in Armenia. It's a great project. The trip project initiated or continued, let's say, by Trump and by the EU. For some reason, the project was initiated by the EU, but we failed to actually accomplish it. So the credit right now is going to Trump.
We'll see how long it is gonna take to build that rail in South Armenia that is a few meters away from the Iranian border. So my question to you is, what is your plan exactly to make sure that this corridor is working? Because we heard, and you even mentioned here that if we are not involved in a place, somebody else will be involved in a place. Countries like China and even the US, they are looking exactly at the same map that I showed you right now. So when was the last time, for example, when you engaged in a dialogue with the Georgian authorities?
I know the commission has this attitude towards the Georgian government. But the bottom line is we cannot change geography. So if we have anything to complain about to the Georgian authorities, I have a whole list to complain to them. But how can you achieve your goal if we, not you necessarily, the European Commission, EU, is not engaging with them? A few weeks ago, a representative from the state department, Peter Andreoli, was there.
After he visited Georgia, the current secretary of state, Marco Rubio, called the prime minister of Georgia. So if they can do it, why can we not do it? You mentioned Belarus. We lost Belarus in the arms of Putin because we came from this attitude where we are great and the best, and they are nobody. So look where they are right now.
We need Georgia as we need Armenia, as we need Azerbaijan. What is your plan to keep them on our side? Thank you.
Marta Kos
Thank you so much for this question. It enables me to strengthen what we are doing in the so-called connectivity agenda. I was speaking mostly before about the enlargement, but the second big part of my work is especially the connectivity agenda, meaning connecting Europe with Central Asia exactly through the countries you have been mentioning. So I have been many times since we have had the last structured dialogue to Armenia, to Azerbaijan, to Turkey, to Georgia, because of the reasons you have mentioned. It is clear, and you are right in this respect, that especially now, because of the war in Iran, we just have to follow the map you have been showing.
So, there is no trade route in the North anymore. There are no trade routes in the South anymore. So the best is the middle corridor, the peace corridor, whatever you call it, and we are engaged. So, yes, indeed, Trump is engaged on the or there is a trip corridor, 42 kilometers, but we are engaged with Azerbaijan, and we are doing now the feasibility study for the Nakhchivan Railway. We are talking with Turkey how to better connect.
So this connectivity agenda is not just about transport. It is energy, digital, and so on. But energy is also very important because we see that nowadays we are endangered. We have had a project, so we have financed the power grid between Armenia and Georgia. And, indeed, we can't speak about a real connectivity agenda without Georgia.
And it was included in the project of enabling Armenia to get enough electricity also from Georgia. So whenever we do there and talk to Armenia, we also consider Georgia. But we will be only, and we are open to involving Georgia. We will be only capable to involve Georgia to the extent that they also show that they want to engage on other areas. Thank you once again for this impulse.
Yes. Petras?
Petras Auštrevičius
Thank you, Michael. Madam Commissioner, dear Martha, thank you very much for your dedication to enlargement, and I do commend your personal efforts in this regard. I mean, to compare with what we have had some years ago, I can't compare at all. So now we have a dedication and good luck for you, and you will have our trust and confidence in your job. No, any issues whatsoever will restrict us in this regard.
You know, if more than 30 years ago, once, dismantling the evil state, we would think in matters of bookkeeping, like left and the right sides of the balance, probably no united unified Germany and a free Europe and, you know, free states would emerge. I mean, then it was strategic thinking. Freedom of nations and the right to choose has no price. No label of price is attached. So now we have to think in a reverse side, I mean, like, integrating Europe.
You know, it's a strategic investment. Above all, it's about geopolitical security. And, indeed, it's a matter of national interest not just for a single country, not for a regional kind of agglomeration of countries, but for a whole European Union. So think strategically should probably be our motto for many years to come. And in this regard, madam commissioner, I think the member states, and in particular the council, should be promoted to think big and to come up with the decisions about the enlargement strategy.
I think the time has come for the special EU summit on enlargement. So that's why where do you think the member states stand for the time being on choosing the enlargement strategy as such? Thank you.
Thank you.
Marta Kos
Thank you, dear Petras, also for the nice words. It means a lot to me and to my team. Indeed, enlargement today is not just enlargement. It is a security strategy we have to apply. And, I would be very happy if it would be true, but I hear that, on June, European Council, there will be a discussion on the enlargement among the prime ministers.
This is what I hear. You know, it is in their hands, but we need this discussion. We need this discussion, because, you know, I told you before that even if we come to the end of the accession process, there is no guarantee for a country that it will be able to become a member of the EU. And I would also like to hear the commitment of all the member states that they support what apparently is not just a geopolitical necessity, but in our own interest. I haven't had this today yet, but the enlargement is in our own best interest because this is the best way to protect ourselves.
And we have been successful in the past. I hope we will be again. What I would love to add here is that we noticed that our model of Europe has been attacked from the East and from the West. I was at the spring session of the IMF and World Bank last week in Washington. And I have heard your civilization is in decline.
Your economy is in decline. The only real democracy is in Hungary. Now it is proven it is a democracy, what happened there. So they have been very much, in the sense of you will not survive, but we will. You know, I was also speaking about the attractiveness.
But that's dear Petros and all the others, we have to do it right. We have to do it with passion. We have to do it with energy, and we have to show the candidates that we are serious about this. I don't know if you remember. Some of you probably do, I call it Helsinki moment.
In 1999, the EU member states have brought out conclusion that they will be ready in 2002 to accept new member states once they will fulfill all the conditions. So they have given a hand to the candidates. So, you know, now you have to do this, then you will become, be, able to become a member. But we say we will be.
Ready.
Marta Kos
Ready in 2002. When you deliver, then you can enter. And then in 2004, 10 countries were able to enter. So I would like this to be my personal wish. I would like to hear many leaders of Europe speaking about or being more concrete.
Why? To give the assurance to the candidates and to the countries we have around us who would like to share our model, European model, that there is a possibility.
Michael Gahler
So next is Matetoni, and I would like, because of time that's passing, to give the floor to the remaining other five colleagues, and then you get the block answer. So, mate, please.
Matej Tonin
Yeah. Thank you very much. As my colleagues knew, I'm a committed support of enlargement because this is beneficial for all the new members. And our task is to prepare our societies and our union so that we will be able to accept new members. I think that's the most important thing, at least among the old countries.
And especially you, commissioner, you play an important role in this process. And today, you know, it was, again, asking a question about your past. And you probably know this book, which was written about the historian Igor Romerza, about the documents which were found in the Slovenian archive, which are saying that the would-be arranged employment of you at the Radio Deutsche Welle and that you were, let's say, upgraded from informants to the collaborator. Why am I asking this? Because in the Balkan region, we have specific countries where all those papers, documents are present.
Don't you see that these very sensitive documents can be used against you, and it's maybe better to openly deal with it. I think it's not good that you just reply with one sentence and say, this is not the problem. I'm performing very well. I think that you simply deal with the documents and that you move on, in a way.
Michael Gahler
Just for information, that issue was foreseen for any other business, but okay. But then, Billy,
Villy Søvndal
Dear commissioner, thank you very much for the work you do, and thank you very much for being here today. I'm going to switch to Danish. If you should ever miss one good argument why Europe is attractive, you can only look at the fact.
We simply have to think that there are countries in the queue. They're waiting to come into the EU. Maybe Trump or Putin would be delighted to have even one country which would like to join them or be close to them. So we're really a great center of attraction for these countries because we're based on solid values, which are important for people. And we saw this with the elections in Hungary, and congratulations to the Hungarians despite the interference of Putin and Trump.
They went out. They voted, particularly the younger members of society, and they ensure that all of them were sent home. But to go on to my questions, like you were saying that the 90,000,000,000 euros for Ukraine will be released or unblocked, and you said that there is a certain availability from that point of view. Now with regard to the seventeenth package of sanctions against Russia, will this be discussed? And then 14 years ago, when we had the old Danish presidency, I had negotiated with Kosovo and Montenegro.
What progress has been made since then?
Geadis Geadi
You referred to enlargement and Turkey in that context, and you referred to how important Turkey is for the EU and that considerable progress has been made. Now I have a question, which I would like to put to you. Just a few days ago, the former Minister for Defence, former president of the committee for Defence, threatened along with a colleague of burden threatened Cyprus, saying that this would be the last Easter. His colleague, Kadi, was threatened. You know him.
Christian Democrats were threatened. They were told this is going to be the last Easter. They sent off a 6 f 16s illegally to Cyprus. And then a few days ago, 15 armored vehicles, tanks were sent to the so-called dead zone, and the Turkish flag was raised. And millions of cipits are waiting for your reply.
Michał Kobosko
Thank you, chair, commissioner, dear Martha. Full support for your hard work and for the results of your work. Keep going. Full stop. Now two questions on behalf of my colleague, Helmut Braunstetter, who got sick and couldn't be here today.
One regarding Serbia, we want to thank you very much for your clear and principled stance on the Vučić government. Unfortunately, the EU is often seen by the democratic population as an accomplice to the Vučić regime, which leads to further disappointment in the EU. Therefore, your clear stance and fair criticism of the regime sends a strong message to the Serbian population, particularly to the students. So the question is, should the EU perhaps consider redirecting funding intended for the Serbian government to civil society and academia instead? Second question regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have seen the level of uncertainty in the country skyrocket since the change of administration in the White House.
We also see that Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has increased his interest in the region, and that Dodik is touring the US with lobby groups advocating for the secession of Republika Srpska. So how do you envisage the coexistence of the free ethnic groups within one country in the future, and what changes are required for the country to become unified and focused on prosperity rather than infighting? Also, having recently visited the US, how would you assess the role of the US in determining Bosnia's peaceful future? Thank you.
Thank you. Colleague Tinkinen.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Thank you, chair. I will be speaking in Finnish.
Dear commissioner, naturally, it is a difficult discussion, and you've been very honest with us. You have an important portfolio because enlargement is really important in this geopolitical situation. But enlargement as an instrument, well, it's not working. It's not going to work if we cannot also keep an eye on the problems in different countries. And therefore, I'm grateful to you that with regard to Serbia and Georgia, you've been quite clear about how you see those countries' position, especially with Georgia.
I have a couple of questions. Naturally, we cannot know when the next enlargement will take place because, of course, it depends on it’s a merit based process. But how do you see this? When could it happen, in your opinion, in the next enlargement? And then the second question, how many countries could join the European Union before we need to carry out reforms of our systems?
How many new billions of European citizens or how many new members of the European Union could we absorb before the system has to be changed? And the next question, Canada as a member of the EU, many Canadians are of the opinion that that wouldn't be a bad idea. So what do you think about that discussion with regard to membership in Canada?
Vladimir Prebilič
Thank you very much for the floor. Madam commissioner, I would like to congratulate you on your work, and I will continue Slovenian language. Imam So.
I have two questions. Before I come to my first question, I would like to say the following. We've been hearing in this parliament that the approach of the commission to new member countries for the European Union is based on this merit-based approach. All those who doubt your work, I would advise them to take a similar approach, so to use the merit bait approach to the European Parliament and to the European Union. I'm not interested in anything else, and that is what counts.
So now let's go to Macedonia and Serbia. Question regarding Serbia. So dam damage has been done. What can we do now in order to reinstate trust in Serbia? And the second question, we have been hearing about the elections in Serbia.
So, how are we going to organize? How will the elections in Serbia be organized if the legislation does not change? You have mentioned that without RMA implementation, reform, without implementation of the reform of legislation, we know who will win. What can we do? Can we do something in order for the new elections not to be contentious?
And the last question, when it comes to Northern Macedonia, we have heard several times that it is time for the accession talks to begin. Do you see a change coming up after the last elections in North Macedonia? I believe this country really deserves the talks to begin. Thank you.
Petar Volgin
Thank you, Chair, Madam Commissioner. For my group, EU enlargement must remain merit-based, reversible, and fully compliant with EU rules, and it must clearly benefit European citizens. However, Europeans become more skeptical about enlargement, with concerns mainly about corruption, migration, and the financial cost. Against this background, I would like to raise two points. First, regarding North Macedonia, the country now seems to question the negotiating framework agreed by the member states in 2022.
This raises concerns about commitment to the agreed conditions of the accession process. Second, regarding Ukraine. Despite remaining weakness in fraud and corruption control systems, the commission plans very substantial financial support, including new loans in the coming years. Given the already negative public opinion in several member states, how would you convince European citizens that enlargement remains credible and truly merit-based? And do you believe that developments like this could convince member states to reconsider the unanimity principle for enlargement decisions?
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Thomas Laff.
Tomislav Sokol
Also, thank you. I think that we shall have frozen the funds for Serbia long ago because when we see what's happening in Serbia, we see that we didn't react well to Wucic's policies. So it's not only the problem in the legislation or in justice. I think that the main problem in Serbia is that they have not gone through the catharsis process after the nineteenth war. And what he does in Serbia is highly destabilizing the countries in the region.
Unfortunately, this policy, which has a negative effect on the surrounding countries, we see it also in Montenegro. Pro-Russian and pro-Serbian forces are part of the ruling coalition, and Montenegro should become a new member state. You also saw the two new laws. The security sector has been placed under the political influence of pro-Russian and pro-Serbian forces, and they are now completely in control of the security sector. I have two questions.
Are you aware that in the ruling coalitions it was said that the European Commission asked for the adoption of these laws? Are you aware of that? Or if you are not, then you should have criticized more harshly these statements. Second question, can Montenegro with the pro-Russian and pro-Serbian forces become a new member state? I don't think that it's a solution to say, oh yes.
We are aware that there will be pro Russian proxies in the European Union. They should not be entering as such, because they should be meeting very strict requirements that we have.
Michael Gahler
Can time go so very quickly, colleague, Ferenc, and the rest of the answers and the next agenda item will be dealt with in English. I thank the interpreters for staying ten minutes longer. So, colleague, Ferenc.
Viktória Ferenc
Thank you very much, chair. Madam commissioner, I just wanted to repeat my question because I was listening very attentively after the first round of questions, but I feel I didn't get an answer to my question. So I would repeat it. What immediate action will the commission take to address the human rights violations of Ukrainians and ethnic Hungarians in the context of military mobilization? I mean, people who are entitled to exemption due to health conditions and university enrollment, etcetera?
Thank you.
Marta Kos
Sorry. I didn't forget your question. It was not enough time, madam Ferenc. So, yes, we are following the human rights situation in Ukraine too. And all the cases you have named, but not the last one, April 15, I don't know about this.
So we are addressing this issue with the Ukrainian authorities, and they are assuring us that they are handling it in accordance with the Ukrainian law. Then we had many other questions. And, mister Sundal, yes, EU is very much attractive, and it is also attractive because we respect diversity. And one of the proofs is that you could speak Danish or some other could speak their own language. But I think that our solid values are also part of this attractiveness.
And in this connection, and also with the question, later, later on when the first EU enlargement could happen. So, Montenegro has set a goal to finish the negotiations at the end of this year or the beginning of the next year. We are supporting this, but once again, it shouldn't be ticking the box. The Iceland could be a new element in the enlargement process. If the people of Iceland will decide to come back to the negotiating process, in August, we will be ready, as I have said before, since the country is very much integrated into the European Union, being a part of the European economic area, being a part of the common market, and being a part of Schengen, this could be a very quick process.
And, of course, then we have Albania. This will take a bit longer, but up to 2030, it would be possible. Then on Kosovo, we are engaging. A lot of the whole Western Balkans, it's very different. It has a different status, but we can help in the transformation process, and we are helping all the countries even if they are in a different position.
Marto, sorry. Before, I didn't answer your question on the possibility of redirecting the money from the government or not fulfilled, to the civil society organization. In the scope of the growth plan facility, this is not possible. We are able to move the money from the country which is not delivering the reforms to the country that is delivering the reforms. I was speaking before that, for the time being, already 700000000 could be lost in June.
So then we will have to consider. But since you are involved in the process, please come to us, talk to us, and I want to spend the money for the countries which was meant to be. And with your help, we can do this. Dodik is known for his inflammatory rhetorics, and sometimes it goes against the territorial integrity of the country, against the constitutional order, and we condemn all of this. We can't say for the time being what the policy of The United States is in the Western Balkans.
I was there, talking also in Washington about this. There is no constant rated action of The US, but there are individuals who are coming, especially to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we are following this very much. Some of the individuals have their own interest. And, mister Tinkernan, enlargement is not working, but it is working. So I was answering before, a bit.
So if everything goes okay, once we finish the negotiations, it is up to 1 year to 2 years to go through the ratification process. Meaning, if we would finish the negotiations with Montenegro at the end of this year, beginning of the next year, then in '28, Montenegro could be the twenty-eighth member of the EU, and internal reforms, especially regarding the financing. As I was saying before, the pre-accession review, one part will be very much recognizable once we introduce the financial package of Montenegro because this will be a new element also. One very important point, we already have quite an amount of money which we use for the candidate countries to prepare them for the EU accession. So this money is bigger than it used to be in the past.
So the difference once they will become a member of the EU and what they get now will not be that big, and we can handle this. Canada, I'm smiling. I got an email from a Canadian citizen, directly, madam commissioner, under which conditions Canada could become a member of the EU. And it intrigued me, and I was very happy to personally answer in the sense of, there are two preconditions. Once you fulfill, you are a state, but you are not a European state.
And the answer has been don't see that narrow. But I want to say that it would be good, and this is already happening, if we would be able to have some special partnership agreements with the countries who do not want to become or cannot become a member of the EU, but are valuable to us. And we, as you know, we have security and defense agreements with many countries. And speaking about the values, we are very much aligned. So let's stay online regarding this.
Thank you for your trust, Mr. Previlich. I think that it is a work of all of us that we rebuild the trust in the state institutions, in Serbia, everywhere in Europe. And, what we can do now before the elections, indeed, REM has to happen. Then all the recommendations for the voting register have to happen. And I hope that we will be able at least also to help independent media more.
Why? The lessons we have learned in Moldova at the parliamentary election last year is independent media is a matter of national security and a matter of functioning democracy. This is where we are going. And, I hope that the new Bulgarian government will help us to bring North Macedonia to start the negotiations that we will be able to start. We need that Bulgaria will introduce the constitutional changes, and I hope that both countries will be able to cooperate well.
There has been some movement on the action plan on my minorities, and this should happen in the inclusive way. Mister Volgin, the question of unanimity. For the enlargement process, based on the European treaty, we need two unanimity decisions, forgiving a status and finishing the negotiations. Now we have 150 steps where we need unanimity, so this is one point where we could be more effective and, as I was saying before, to the whole area of the foreign and security policy. Mister Sokol, yes, we are aware of this, and we are also aware of the elections Montenegro will have next year, important parliamentary elections, and important local elections.
How can we help? We have already gotten a request from the Montenegro government to help them fighting the hybrid war. This is not the first case. So we are now helping based on the experiences in Moldova, also in Armenia, also Montenegro. Ask us. So, there is no other way, you know, as I have said before, not ticking the boxes.
The laws have to be implemented. And I think that we are doing our role really well in Montenegro, even if sometimes it is difficult because of the internal disunity. You know, I don't care if there are different political parties. I don't care if there are different political views. But if there is about becoming a member of the EU, I expect them that they work together, in the inclusive way.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much. This ends this point of the agenda. I thank you very much for this detailed dialogue, also to colleagues for the questions. On point four, on under any other business, I give the floor to Milan Swear.
Milan Zver
Thank you. Thank you for the report on this structural dialogue between the European Parliament and European Commission. I believe, dear commissioner, you have realized that the portfolio you are in charge of is more difficult than you initially expected. This is reflected in your results, which are not satisfactory. But secondly, I will not ask, missus Koss, why she worked for the Yugoslav secret political police, Udba, nor why she lied about it at the hearing of the candidates for European Commission members.
In any case, I expect that missus Cost will explain this to you or public. Today, I would like to repeat the position I already put forward during the hearing process. Why key decision makers did not respond to the first signal of a security risk? And I underlined once again, again a security risk. Commissioner with such pedigree can be vulnerable to independent European politics, especially since they very likely have her files in Belgrade.
And could you imagine the process of integration of Serbia that should be controlled by her? What I want to say is that the European Commission needs autonomous, credible, and not vulnerable politicians in key positions. That's all.
Marta Kos
You know, repeating false allegations against me doesn't make them true. Udba, you were speaking about, was abolished one year after I was born. You were speaking about expecting an autonomous and credible person in this position, and I think that I am a very autonomous and credible person. You have mentioned Serbia, really. I have just explained that what we plan to do with Serbia, if they will not follow what they need to do.
So I think this is the opposite. Otherwise, I would act completely different.
Rihards Kols
Yes. Thank you. And maybe apologies that during the first part of the committee, I raised the question. Nobody is doubting, madam, of course, your professionalism and what you're doing when it comes to enlargement. Absolutely.
I also approve in a way that's, the pace that we are seeing right now is totally in comparison to that we saw in the previous term. My raised question is not about your professionalism, your current duties, but the past, and particularly based on documents that are in the Slovenian National Archives that actually state the date, the year, which is way after you were born. I named those years. And we need clear-cut answers from you. Well, I mean, your answer to my question, I'm fit for the position because this committee approved and the parliament approved.
Yes. We did. We voted for the commission, and the hearing was there. But these documents are this year, March 10. We weren't aware there were such documents in the Slovenian archive.
And the question here relates to Serbia. It's not about how tough you are at this position, and thank you for being tough on Serbia, but the question is the vulnerability that can be posed towards you when the crucial moment comes to any adversary to the EU? And that is the main question on this topic raised, not questioning your professionalism and your dedicated work to the enlargement. Thank you.
Dear colleague, Sherez?
Marjan Šarec
Yes. Thank you, dear colleagues. The question of vulnerability is only about the SDS party from Slovenia, which is right now forming the right coalition with pro Russian party. With pro-Russian, pro-Serbian party, the speaker of parliament is anti-vaxxer. He was greeted by Miloradodik, by Anna Bernabich.
He already has intention to visit Moscow because he would like to build bridges with Moscow. And this party who is today playing a role of Sancta Inquisitia is the one who is questioned about vulnerability and who collaborated with Israeli private secret service and followed our citizens. So this is vulnerability and danger for the European Union, and these are Trojan horses of the European Union because Orban, the great friend of mister Jancia, is now, he will not be in power anymore, but they will continue his heritage. So this is what worries me. The future, not the past.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Colleague Jadi?
Geadis Geadi
Very short. I'm waiting for a response regarding the threats against Cyprus, against the commissioner, against a member of European Parliament, against European citizens.
Branko Grims
Thank you. The rule of law in the European Union is very clear about the conflict of interests. So everybody in position must avoid at any cost the conflict of interest. And if there is the slightest possibility of such an existence of a conflict of interest, he is obliged to publicly declare it in advance. So my question is simple.
In your jurisdiction is also the getting close of Serbia to the European Union. And so from the many documents, also some were published in the book from mister Igor Elmerze, the commissioner. It's obvious that in the archive of the former totalitarian secret service of the socialist regime, some documents show your work in the way it can be vulnerable for you and for the European Union. So my question is very simple. Have you declared this as a conflict of interest publicly in advance before you started negotiation with Serbia, or, you have promised compromised those negotiations, and you have given a very bad example for the European Commission and the European institution as a whole.
Because in this case, if you haven't declared it in advance, you have obviously done so intentionally, and that would be probably the reason you, when you're in the hearing at the beginning, have spoken not truth, that you absolutely have not cooperated with the former totalitarian secret service of the Yugoslavia. And, that would be something very bad because it influences the relations between the European Union and one of the states which want to join the European Union. That means Serbia. And it will be all your fault. So please be very careful, and please be very clear.
Have you declared this conflict of interest in advance? Thank you.
Michael Gahler
Thank you. Are there any other colleagues who would like to take the floor? Juliana.
Željana Zovko
I would just like to clarify for the colleagues who don't know what Udba and Kos are. And for the record, I mean, we had in our enlargements, reports in the last legislature on many occasions that the amendment that Belgrade should open the archives of Woodbine and Kos, and it's one of the preconditions. I wonder why this is not still one of the conditions. And I would like to insist that this stays because we need, you know, historical memory and for clarification of this criminal network that is still operating in Western Balkan that has roots in Udba and Kos links in Western Balkans. So this is, you know, nothing to do with you, but that this is something that was amended, adopted by this European Parliament, and I would insist that your services take care of this to be respected because this was a heinous organization that was killing all the dissidents abroad, Germany and the United States of America and everywhere.
So that's just for the record. Thank you.
Thank you. Collectemido?
Marta Temido
Thank you, chair. When someone coming from the more occident part of the European Union goes into enlargement countries, always get very impressed about history is still present. But I want to assure you all that, as far as, at least from my own perspective, Europeans are more interested in their future, in their common future. And, again, transparency is a value of its own, and we have no doubt that the rules of transparency have been followed by all of us. Thank you so much.
Thank you, colleague.
Vladimir Prebilič
Would just like to remember you all. We had already this debate in the parliament, and there was a clear statement also by all the people who can measure the influence that was now being discussed, over possible or illegible cooperation with Hudba and was cleared as no influence whatsoever. So if we don't believe the institution that we are sitting in, if they cannot deliver, so who are we here? You know? So let's then start from scratch everything.
So please, you know, try not to politicize everything every time, number one. And then secondly, so if there are some, let's say, new proofs, then there are people who should take them and read them and wait for them. But I think that parliament can really have difficulty doing that because you would need to have historical background and knowledge. You would have all the documents and arguments, and then, afterwards, we can measure things. But, you know, talking about the people as we are now, today is quite problematic.
Why? Because I strongly believe in democracy, and one of the things in democracy is the presumption of innocence. So people are innocent as long as you don't prove them being guilty, and don't hear the arguments. So, please, let's measure things by the arguments, not by hearsay.
Michael Gahler
Thank you very much. I don't see any other wishes to take the floor, so last word to you.
Marta Kos
Thank you. Could I get a question repeated regarding Turkey, please? What exactly, you, what?
Geadis Geadi
Last few days, we have threats from Khulusi Akar, ex minister of defense, and they said to all Cypriots that one is going to be your last Easter. So they threaten, even your colleague, commissioner, they threaten us. They threaten all European citizens. They bring to the buffer zone 15 military troops. And you didn't do anything.
And now you said that it's a country that we must join the European Union. I want your answer.
Marta Kos
I still remember, but I didn't what I said, perhaps not every word, but I didn't say that I wanted to bring Turkey in the European Union. Turkey is a candidate country as long as the member states will not decide otherwise. What I was stressing was the role of Turkey in the connectivity agenda and the role of Turkey in the economic relations. We made with Turkey, last year 218,000,000,000 trade. This is twice as much as with the Mercosur.
So it is in the interest also of the European companies to see where we could enhance the trade relations or remove the trade barriers. Once again, I wasn't speaking about the membership of Turkey, and, of course, I condemn all the threats against the member states, and I will always do this. Regarding the rest, I will not change my response. I went through the vetting process. I went through the jury procedure.
I went through hearing in the parliament, and I was confirmed.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.