Plenary session
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
PLENARY European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSiegfried Mureşan
We propose to invest more in our competitiveness in research and innovation. If we do not invest more in research and innovation, we will end up buying technologies from other countries in the future. This is why a clear focus on competitiveness, on research, innovation, on large infrastructure projects like military mobility, and energy infrastructure projects, which would make Europe more resilient and stronger.
Likewise, we are aware that we can only be safe in Europe if our neighborhood, if our neighboring countries, many of them EU candidate countries, are safe and are protected. This is why we are proposing for each candidate country, our neighbors, countries that are defending European values together with us, we are proposing a separate dedicated funding to each candidate country.
When it comes to how the budget should be managed, we want transparency. We want democratic control, and that can only be safeguarded with the strong role of the European Parliament.
On the size of the budget, the European Commission proposed the budget and it says, well, we should allocate some of the money to beneficiaries, but also pay back the debt made with Next Generation EU. We believe that paying back debt should not be made at the expense of beneficiaries, at the expense of programs. And we propose to allocate the whole budget as proposed by the European Commission to programs, and to pay back the debt through the introduction of new own resources above and beyond the ceilings of the budget. This allows us to allocate 10% more to those programs and projects which I described, and which we all need very much.
On the introduction of own resources, we as parliament have three new proposals of sources of revenues for the European Union, which would make our budget more transparent, more predictable, and more European. A digital levy, an own resource based on transactions with cryptocurrency, and an own resource based on online gaming and gambling. Because if we want to fund our priorities properly, to avoid cuts, to pay back debt, and not to increase the contribution of member states significantly, then own resources are unavoidable, particularly the one on digital.
Because if the world's largest digital giants are benefiting from our single market, it is fair for them to also contribute something in resources to the budget. We cannot cut funding to our farmers, to our researchers.
While the global technological giants enjoy a free ride in Europe single market. This is what we're proposing as a European Parliament. Many thanks to my co-rapporteur, a strong budget for a strong Europe.
Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you. Thank you very much, rapporteur. And I have the pleasure of giving applause to Mr. Larech.
Carla Tavares
President, commissioner Seraphin, colleagues, it's been 9 months.
Since the European Commission presented its proposal for the next financial framework today, we're debating and voting on the parliament's mandate. We've taken a path to get here, and we know that this multi-annual budget is more than an instrument. It is a roadmap for our priorities.
The union needs the right resources to respond to a rapidly changing geopolitical, economic, and social environment. We want more ambition with at least 1.27% of EU GNI being spent, keeping NextGen EU debt service costs outside the framework.
Our approach is responsible and justified, a 10% increase on the commission's proposal geared towards the Europe the union strategic objectives strengthening cohesion, investing in the future, and securing our social model.
In our report, we make it clear that we do not agree with amendments leading to the fragmentation of the single market or the renationalization of the budget. The approach of the NRPPs weakened the policies enshrined in the treaties, leads to less transparency, and means that beneficiaries of funds don't enjoy predictability. It jeopardizes the European dimension of spending, weakens market level governance, challenges the principles of subsidiarity, and proportionality. So that's not the way to go.
We want the CAP, the CFP, cohesion policy, European Social Fund, and a Home Affairs Fund to be maintained. And to have their own appropriations with favor of specific funding for the outermost regions. These are key pillars of European solidarity. We want regional and local authorities to be fully involved in the design, implementation, and assessment of all programs.
We are in favor of a strengthened European Social Fund. We with funding dedicated to social objectives, and we want the European pillar of social rights to be fully implemented. We also think that housing should be a cross-program priority enshrined in the next MFF.
Investing in competitiveness without safeguarding traditional policies, and vice versa, is a false dilemma. Cohesion and competitiveness are two sides of the same coin. We're in favor of allowing the EU to act more in key areas.
Such as defense and security, research and innovation, green and digital, infrastructure, and health. Education and culture. All of these are prerequisites if we are going to be able to compete on global markets.
To have a stronger EU economy and become more sovereign. To achieve all of this, we have to strengthen programs such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus, and Agora EU. And because the environment and citizens' health are challenges of the present and the future, we want to ensure lasting support to life and for health.
The EU must assert its role as a global actor. Externally, we have to recognize that there are many geopolitical challenges, and the US is withdrawing. We cannot leave a void that others will fill. Without our values.
Today's vote is a vote of confidence in the European project. In our ability to act, protect, and build the future of Europe. It is a sign of commitment to a Europe that is not accepting defeat, that advances in unity, and that responds to the challenges of our time.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much, reporter. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Seraphin, and without further ado, I give him the floor.
Please don't.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Honorable members, I would like to thank both Apporteurs madam Tavares and mister Muresan, for their important and timely work. And I would like to stress a word, timely. Because the urgency to reach an agreement still in 2026 could not be more obvious.
We only need to look at the world around us. We have a war on our continent. In the Middle East. Spikes in energy prices and trade tensions. We should not expect the years ahead of us to be easier.
On the contrary, this is why a timely agreement on the multi-annual financial framework is more important than ever. It is by design. The MFF is by design. An anchor of predictability. It provides certainty in an uncertain world. But precisely because the world around us is becoming more unstable, we also need to build in a degree of flexibility. This flexibility was built into the commission proposal. I can only hope that it will be also in the results of the negotiations, and we will continue to explain the importance of flexibility in the months to come.
Honorable members, the commission has proposed a budget that reflects the scale of our common challenges. We want to invest more in competitiveness, security, and our global role while preserving strong support for long standing policies like cohesion and CEP.
This house agrees with this ambition, and I see this reflected in your report also when it comes to the distribution of the increases you are requesting. But we must also be honest, we cannot afford everything.
Member states are under significant fiscal pressure. This inevitably means that we have to make choices. And we have to finance those choices responsibly. So the key question is how to match the ambition with the resources. The only viable route towards an ambitious budget goes through the adoption of new own resources.
I count on the parliament's continued support here. Our proposal for national and digital partnership plans also is in this logic of flexibility that I have just outlined. The NRPPs are not about weakening cohesion or CP or social objectives. On the contrary, they're about giving member states and regions the possibility to use the limited resources in the best possible way.
Honorable members, let me be clear. My role is to build bridges. The commission stands ready to act as an honest broker to work with this house and with the council to find common ground and a timely agreement. This is more than ever the time for European unity.
Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much, commissioner. Now for the Foreign Affairs Committee, Dan Barna has the floor.
Dan Barna
The. Multi-annual budget being debated today must support a vision for a truly resilient Europe in the current geopolitical context.
We cannot afford to sacrifice agriculture. And we cannot afford to fail to support competitiveness. In fact, we cannot afford to allocate too few funds to the next budget.
To secure our role as a credible global actor in an increasingly volatile world, an ambitious increase in the global Europe instrument to €225,000,000,000 is necessary. The parliament's report provides the necessary support to Ukraine.
We have a real opportunity through this budget to become the undisputed leader in global development and humanitarian aid for countries in need of support. We need dedicated budget lines for each enlargement candidate country, coupled with strict conditionality that requires a suspension of programs in the event of a deterioration of the rule of law.
However, European funds must also have a geopolitical dimension that contributes to Europe's economic security, and under no circumstances should they finance entities whose objectives compete with the EU economy or seek to destabilize its democracy.
Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much for the Security and Defense Committee, Miss Draxinimann. President, ladies and gentlemen, with this MFF, we're on the right path. Security and defense are being focused on more, and it's high time that this happened.
Recent years have shown how vulnerable Europe is, and how quickly our situation can change. Must be able to prepare in due time to be able to react decisively to wars.
If you rely on others, become history. We need more flexibility in the budget, because it allows us to react quickly. More quickly, and allows us to act. And the MFF can lay the foundations for that. But that in and of itself is not sufficient. We need a genuine European defense union. And that means commitment from everybody and the drive from everybody to make sure the existing structures can be changed.
Security, ladies and gentlemen, is something that cannot be organized solely on national lines. Either we defend the union together or we fail together, and that is not an option. We cannot rely on others supporting us if problems crop up. We've seen what happened when that happens.
Speaker 8
Let us go beyond the cross-party divisions and protect the life here. What a good, thank you very much for the development committee. It now Niels Goeking.
President, colleagues, I really want to thank Missus Tavares and Mister Moulazan for their cooperation in recent times. We see an escalating geopolitical situation. The EU must remain a steadfast and reliable partner, and that's why we have to have true partnerships, €200,000,000,000 for Global Gateway and through other actions are a good basis for the next seven years. And it's a way of investing in ourselves, too. Because as a growing, if we're going to grow, we must tap outside markets.
Speaker 9
And so we are creating roots in new markets and creating prospects for the rest of the world, including Africa. So we are growing our own, we see that our own market is shrinking, but we are reducing our dependencies. We need win-wins, and that means not acting against our own interests.
The fact that we are giving more money to humanitarian aid shows that we're showing more solidarity. This may need to be ring fenced, and it should not be politicized.
Speaker 11
Commissioner president, to begin with, I need to thank the Boi rapporteurs on their excellent work.
In the face of huge challenges that we are facing today, the new budget must be ambitious and directed towards security, growth, and equalizing developmental opportunities. It must be the center of deepening European integration. Therefore, it has to be at 1.27% of G and I, excluding the payback on next generation EU.
We need a strong budget indeed, and we need a strong negotiating mandate for Zigfried Muresan so that our position in the trilogue can be taken into account. So I'm calling upon all political groups to support this report.
Commissioner. It's us. It's European parliamentarians. We are on the first line in the political battle. We know the expectations of European citizens. We know their problems. We know what they expect from us, politicians, and from the European Union.
This is why I call upon you to take into consideration our position, because we are elected by Europeans, and then we elected you, we appointed you to put into practice our policies. So during the trialogue, please take into consideration the position of the European Parliament.
Klára Dobrev
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. There are things we do agree on in this house, or at least the majority. Need a stronger, bigger, and more resilient Europe. But there are things we do not agree on.
How to achieve this? The European right is talking, in the last two years at least, always about simplification, deregulation. They call it competitiveness, but what I see is really that multinationals do not have to care for their workers or for the environment anymore. This is the competitiveness of big business.
We, Social Democrats, say that this is putting profit before people, and we would always like to put people before profit. That's what we are going to agree to. So that's why we are standing very firm on a stand-alone reinforced European Social Fund for quality education, for universal health care, and for the social protection for all.
Because, colleagues, this is a choice: Europe that protects or Europe that looks away. And we, Social Democrats, will not agree to a budget. Where Europe looks away. Thank you very much.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Firstly, I would like to congratulate and thank the laboratories of this action. Mister Morrison and Mister Tavares.
Dear colleagues, it's the first time where in a report for the MFF, we recognize fully that the legal owners of land in occupied Cyprus for decades do not have the right to their own property.
It's a fundamental right. This is a full infringement of international law by Turkey, which has been in occupation illegally of the northern territories of the Republic of Cyprus. And the responsibilities of Turkey are huge, and no resolution will change anything in the occupying power that is Turkey and Cyprus. Nothing will change that.
And we've made the first step, but we need to introduce new legislation. The European Union must make sure that its principles are respected and, in practice, support those who have lost their homes for over half a century now.
Thank you.
Maria KULENÁN
Thank you very much. I can't see Boris. Butka, so I give the floor on behalf of the transport committee to Maria Kulenán. Thank you very much. President, constructive cooperation with Mister Morshan and Miss Tavares has been very helpful.
We've represented the transport committee for the multi-annual financial framework for 2028 to 2024, which is important for security, but also for the climate in Europe. It's not just a question of expenditure. It's about genuine investments.
In the way that the single market works, and promoting European resilience. We need a predictable form of funding for trans-European networks for cross-border projects for the promotion of mobility that has to remain front and center. We need to improve freight traffic as well, to make sure that this works across the whole territory of the EU.
Need a green transition for transport investments in rail, better transport systems, and an ambitious overall European approach to guarantee competitiveness. Need to make sure that here, the internal climate goals and the global goals are respected.
We cannot see them as separate sectors. Transport is the backbone of the European economy. We need to be sustainable and safe for the future of Europe, and investments need to reflect that.
Dragos Pideer for the Reggie Committee.
Speaker 16
President, colleagues, I would like to start by congratulating and thanking our colleagues, Miss Davarech and Miss Zigvid Mureshan. Regional development policy is the main instrument for structural investment and the basis of our solidarity. However, today, this tool is put under pressure and at risk of marginalization.
As the president of the Reggie Committee, I salute the fact that this report reflects the demands of our committee and has in mind an increase of about 78,000,000,000 and a separate line for the regional development fund, because these financing tools have proven a lot of benefits in all European regions.
Including Romania. Reggie supports including these regional policies in the national and regional partnership plans, and supports in implementing these plans. With regard to Decoment, commitment, the proposal to move from n plus three to n plus ten months would come with two big pressures on regional authorities.
I support the mayors who plead for a modern cohesion policy that is flexible and adapted to the new challenges and that has a robust financial tool. The cohesion policy must remain the main pillar for convergence and for the development of the European regions.
Thank you.
Nicola Procaccini
Now, in the face of a budget proposal that is reducing and renationalizing European policies, and damaging citizens and businesses, we need to show a different pathway forward.
And this is something I say as a rapporteur for the agriculture committee: slashing the cap by 20% is unacceptable, excluding local and regional authorities from managing resources is as well.
This means our farmers were more exposed while they are facing enormous challenges due to the increase in prices for fertilizers and fuel, and then facing also the great challenge of climate change.
They need much more if we want to make sure that they've got the right kind of support in the face of inflation. We need to introduce new tools as well against climate and market risks.
The value of the Europe commissioner is measured by its concrete results in our regions, and that is missing from your proposal. Today, this parliament is calling for a changing direction, and we need to do this in order to live up to the promise that we made to the citizens that elected us.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Bertrand Rauson, now for the fisheries committee. You, president. Ladies and gentlemen, the budget means making choices, and those are choices that need to be made. But cutting the fisheries budget by 67% the commission's proposing, obviously, is not on. It wouldn't do justice to the challenges that fisheries is facing at the moment.
We need money. To carry out fleet modernization, to have innovative fishing gear, but also for generational renewal. As rapporteur for the fisheries committee, I'm pleased, therefore, that the budget committee has taken on most of what we suggested. And this means that we're managing to repair the commission's proposal and getting a decent budget for fisheries of €6,500,000,000. And a budget of €1,500,000,000 for international fisheries policies.
I would like to ask the rapporteurs to look into the possibilities for support for fisheries coming from the EU facility and also from the European Competition Competitiveness Fund. We all know how important fisheries are for our food security. To make sure that fisheries is future proofed, we have to make sure we invest. And we need to make sure the budget is commensurate to that challenge.
President.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Commissioner Seraphin, colleagues. Defining the next MFF is about choosing what kind of EU we want. In our draft report, the Parliament is in favor of an ambitious but realistic budget.
I'm the rapporteur for the opinion of the cult committee. And I would like to highlight the increase in funding for youth education, culture, sport, media, and the defense of the values.
We see a substantial increase for the appropriations given to Erasmus Plus and Agora EU. Compared to the commission program commission proposal. Excuse me. These programs safeguard cultural identity and European values, and they're vital to preserving the European project and for future generations.
To conclude, let me thank the reporters Sukfried, Murasan, and Kalata Varej. Congratulations on your excellent and productive work. Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. Victor Nagrescu, now for the Legal Affairs Committee.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you. Thank you very much, mister president. President. Mr. Commissioner, euros 890,000,000,000 for justice. This is the amount we asked for in the new budget.
Euros $500,000,005.15, $590,000,000 more than the actual budget of the €890,000,000. We want to guarantee independent judiciary, simplify procedures and the UU legislation to make sure everyone has access to justice, including disabled people, or people living abroad.
We are responsible for the fight against corruption, and we wanted this funding to be used against cross-border crime, drug trafficking, and corruption. We want regulation for online gambling and a good digital levy on gambling.
Speaker 22
And thank you very much for the proposal. So European money can no longer be stolen, and Europe just will have all the tools at its disposal to take. Dear colleagues, for the AFCO committee, one Fernando Lopez Aylar.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
President, commissioner, AFCO, in the parliament, on the MFF, points to the treaties. The parliament is a budgetary authority. We must be consulted and informed throughout this whole process, this whole budget development cycle. We must also say that we are concerned about the structures underpinning the funds.
The CAP cohesion, regional funds, structural funds, these continue to exist in name only, but the new merging of them into envelopes is not to the liking of the parliament. Let me also point out the issue of conditionality. Conditionality must be upheld and complied with if you are to access EU funds. And there again, I point to our role as a budgetary authority. And the MFF needs to unblock issues that are in gridlock in the council, including the review of the treaties.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Lina Galvesto for the FEMA committee.
Lina Gálvez
Police as representative of women's rights and gender equality committee, I wish to underline the importance of sending a strong, ambitious, and united message on the nest. MFF, which will, after all, shape not only our parliamentary work in the coming years, but also the European Union itself.
It is also vital that we remind ourselves of why we do this, of what are the principles and goals. For the reasons I am very grateful to the rapporteur that have incorporated many of our key proposals in their opinion.
Gender equality, it is not just right. But a means to nurture a fair society where everybody can achieve their potential. And I'll also like to remind that it's in writing our treaties.
To do this, we must crack down on the scourge of gender-based violence and fully support sexual and reproductive health and services. Not only with kind words, but with resources.
We need to have budgets at all levels from the mff itself down to programs. That fully reflects the European Union's values and ambitions. Recognizing that the budget had never been gender neutral and must be drawn up with anti-discrimination in mind from the very beginning and throughout the process. Specific quantifiable targets are needed, along with comparable, robust, and gender-disaggregated data.
Finally, we need fully support right-based organizations, including those supporting women's rights. Thank you very much.
Beaucoup, thank you, Anna. Good to follow Carlo.
Any colleague, it's a colleague.
Speaker 25
Danas, dear colleagues, today, we are not voting only on apps figures, but we are voting about the direction of the euro of Europe in the upcoming decade. In the world marked by challenges, technological delays in Europe, and economic pressures, one thing is clear. Europe cannot and will not be able to fulfill its ambitions without a realistic budget. This is why parliament must be clear.
We want a stronger Europe and investments that follow this.
The financial framework that is not burdened by the repayment of loans and the increase of 10% in resources. We want new own resources to secure stable financing without additional burdens to the European economy and citizens.
These resources must be used and directed towards where it is needed the most: security, territorial development, and on NRPPs, we'll manage almost half of the European budget, and this is why they must respond to real needs of European citizens and regions with predictability.
The countries that develop faster through cohesion funds, and there are many of them among us, including my country, Croatia, show how important investments in cohesion are healthy and necessary. Cohesion is also the agriculture as the basis of the European project.
They must remain strong and clearly defined, but also with new investments in security, migration management, and competitiveness.
With less administrative burden that suffocates the beneficiaries, resources must be directed towards projects and reforms. We must be honest about one thing, and this is that EUR 1, no matter the creativity, can be spent only once.
If we want a more secure and more competitive Europe, we must be ready to finance it.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Sandra Gomez Lopez. We mostly agree. On ambition to invest more, to respond to crises, to protect citizens, and to turn the EU into a stronger union.
But the reality is that there is an uncomfortable question that we're sidestepping: How are we going to foot the bill? And thus, it doesn't add up anymore. The commission and the governments like more funds, programs, and more EU investment. However, they don't like to talk about income, own resources, and true funding. But the reality is crystal clear. Without own resources, there's no autonomy. Without autonomy, there is no strong union.
Since 2020, the member states' governments have blocked any progress in the council. We cannot continue on this path. We need an important step forward. We, in this parliament, are linking the approval of the MFF to the existence of new own resources. We can't have budgets without deciding how they're funded.
We need more ambition. Not more money, just to pay off next gen EU. We need to be able to pay for new programs without cutting cohesion in agriculture. And if anything falls, then we must replace it with something else. What we need to have is courage, political courage to apply what we want to.
And we say to the Council and Commission, can't have a long term budget without resources to underpin it. Europe cannot be more. If we are not willing to pay for more.
Jordan Bardella
Thank you. You, president, commissioner. At a time when European families are counting every penny, we are examining today what ought to be the most transparent political text. The budget of the EU for the next 7 years. Each taxpayer should be able to follow the exchanges that we have today, because this has got to do with their taxes and how their money is going to be used.
It's got to do with their future at the heart of it. Because the EU is not just a matter of figures. It's a vision, and it is about what lies behind the political project. And that is of some concern today.
Due to the method, how can one avoid being alarmed when there are these methods to provide the EU with a budget before the French elections, which are set to take place next spring, going against the usual logic of the timeline, and that is to force the hand of the upcoming president of the Republic of France.
And it's of concern because of the sums that we're talking about, almost €2,000,000,000,000, a huge increase. This is throwing caution to the wind, and it's unprecedented. There's a really simple question that needs to be asked here.
Who's going to be losing out? For France alone, this would mean contributing around 20,000,000,000. And who's going to be missing out on that money? Well, French taxpayers. You talk about new own resources.
Put plainly, this means new EU taxes on e-waste, yet another tax levied on tobacco, on big European companies. You talk about massively increasing foreign spending as well. But distributing ever more money to third countries, to pump more funding into programs that are not really useful. All of this to say that you have yet to prove that you are being effective in your spending. But you continue to spend more money.
Is this the idea that's been come up with by President von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, or is it the work of Pedro Sanchez? We see things differently.
We want to slash useless spending. We want to stop spending money we need at home. Elsewhere. We want to ring-fence funds for farmers and thereby protect them, to put a stop to illegal immigration rather than encouraging it. That is what will make European nations stronger.
We want to draw down, we want to reduce spending pumped into the EU by European nations, and we will do everything it takes to live up to this democratic challenge.
The next speaker is Mr. Zonka.
Bogdan Rzońca
President, commissioner, we are worried by the situation the European Union is in at the moment. We believe that the document that we're discussing is not a strategy, but it's a list of our Wishful Thinking projects.
Let's ask a simple question, what works and what doesn't? Where competencies are blocked and what should be kept at the European level and what should remain at the level of member states.
There's too little being said about savings, totally different from seven years ago. We talked too little of savings, and this is expected by our voters so that we can show that the EU can save money as well.
We're also worried by the new own resources. This means for the fiscalization of the year. Have we had the mandate to do that? No. So the tax union is being implemented in this document.
We don't like it. Also, European added value is extended, and the EU budget should focus on what we do together: security, agriculture, competitiveness, support to regions, infrastructure. There's not enough on those things in the document.
Finally, before we grow our global level of ambition, let's first take care of fundamental things. Safe borders, the economy, technology, cohesion. So less illusion, more discipline. Less centralization, more subsidiarity.
The budget should remain an investment tool for investments and not a mechanism for growing competence and spending beyond control. Please tell me, Commissioner, where is the money for the European Globalization Fund? Unfortunately, companies have been falling in Europe. Every month we are passing bills to bring assistance to countries.
And it's a positive question, an honest one because I would like to share that with my voters. Thank you.
Billy Kelleher
Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to Miss Kelleher. President, commissioner, Pierre, colleagues. In our report, have a strong, responsible, ambitious, and realistic position. Our citizens want Europe to do more, not less. In every single area, we need more funding.
That's why we must invest in our strategic autonomy in key sectors, to support industry, youth, research, health, culture, the environmental transition. We must grapple with tomorrow's challenges, and we must do that at European level.
The budget is also a way to protect our values. I, together with my group, Renu, welcome that we have a clear parliament position on the protection of the rule of law in the budget and for the budget. In fact, the EU budget is also a budget of solidarity, and must stay that way.
The parliament can only say yay or nay to this. But we have a clear position. We won't approve the next multi-annual financial framework if the next MFF doesn't have new own resources.
And there, we agree with your position. Commissioner. We need true European income to finance our mission. Let's have a responsible, realistic, and ambitious budget to serve the interests of the European people.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you. Thank you very much, dear colleague. The next speaker is Miss Heinke.
Nina HEINKE
Dear colleagues, member states come up over and over again with new tasks for Europe. Solve for us the challenges of migration. Go ahead. Make digitalization happen. By the way, the best tool to actually cut bureaucracy, I would say, are, you know, organize our defense spending.
Can Europe please deliver here? Can Europe please deliver there? But when we are then actually talking about the budget, the member states want less money and more renationalization of decision-making power.
When colleagues, it is so obvious that the opposite is needed. We need more European money, and we need to spend it on common aims instead of the hobby horses of national governments. There is a multitude of examples that show that. In defense spending, for example, we are still too fragmented.
We spent a lot of money.
Nina HEINKE
We spent it in a completely inefficient way, and very often not even properly coordinated amongst member states. If we do not need one thing, it is more of that. So, yes, simpler rules. But without losing sight of our common tasks and the European direction that we want this budget to take.
And ladies and gentlemen, we can see games being played, and we need to let the scales fall from their eyes. Chancellor's friend Osler van der Leyen has been given a letter to set out all sorts of abstruse conditionality points for simplification. Which aren't in the power of the commission.
I really didn't believe it. A CDU approach that is really serving the interests of Donald Trump is not what we need now. We need a stronger European Union. With a stronger European budget. To be frank, we're at a juncture where this should be clear.
European citizens have never asked more for greater cohesion in Europe. Now we can show this with a future-proof budget that will help us do that.
João Oliveira
What do you got, President, Commissioner Seraphin.
The commission's proposal for the next MFF was a poor starting point. This report just deals with the worst aspects, but the political priorities in the MFF proposal are all about militarization. It doesn't deal with economic and territorial asymmetries.
There will be a concentration of power in the commission so that the commission can coerce the member states, and then there will be new own resources. Will strangle the national budgets.
More money for war, but less money to deal with poverty, build schools and houses. Multinationals will see that, they'll have even more money. But SMEs, fishermen and fisherwomen, farmers will have less money.
The only time that the commission simplifies is for itself. There's never a simplification for the end beneficiaries of the MFF. Cohesion, agriculture, and fisheries are losing out in this budget. Science, technology, industrial production, steelmaking, airports, only will these be funded if it's for military purposes. There's very little for the member states and for the people, though.
And every single region, every single territory will be controlled and checked up on by the commission, the commission imposing what it wants. Thanks to the European semester and its recommendations. So if you want money, then you have to follow the orders of the commission.
This is not just a wrong distribution of money. But it is done based on the wrong goals. This is so unfair, unjust distribution of funds. You will harm those who at least develop. And you will help those who are already the most developed.
Speaker 34
And it also will lead to further control by the European institutions. Thank you very much. And I have a good thought for mister Jungblut.
Joachim Balke
President. This interim report on the multi-annual financial framework from 2028 to 2034 is really the hammer. It's such an unexpected turn. We're looking at a more centralized, bigger budget. Obviously, frameworks will be more expensive.
2021 to 2027, the volume for this was about 1.074 billion euros. If you take that as a reference, now we're looking at around 2 trillion. We're looking at almost doubling that. It's an explosion of the financial framework.
What is being sold as a necessity is hardly justified. There should be more money, according to the principle. You know? Write a list. Christmas tree. And then you try to define this and justify it with future proofing.
And resilience? And there's one word that's not mentioned enough, and that is savings. So it's hardly surprising that the parliament takes the reference size for this as 1.27% of the gross national income of all member states, and is asking own resources.
This, in the end, is actually an increase. It's a quota for each state. The income of the EU is gonna grow more than the income of its citizens. That's socialism down to a tea.
The idea that the growth of the budget should be more than the growth of the income of its individual citizens runs counter to all ideas. We know that across Europe, citizens being forced to save.
Because of crises and wars, misadministration, debt indebtedness in states, that have come about because of policies that are irresponsible. So how should you be raising EU budgets when you're cutting income of citizens?
You can't communicate that. What you need is communication to reduce their expenditure. Need to make sure that you can also give up on certain things. Expecting others to do that.
I think we need to level criticism at what is in this budget as well. We're seeing that we're banning farmers from deciding on their own expenditure models. Fishers are being pitted against farmers. Employers against employees, and that is basically the EU trying to put a smoke screen in front of what they're actually doing.
National responsibility is not a risk. It's a fundamental principle of democracy. The member states know best where resources are needed most and where they need to take the decisions. The new MFF is firing a shot across the taxpayers' bows.
You're talking about increase in own resources and flexibility. In practice, what it means is an implicit increase of tax. To the detriment of citizens and companies, more bureaucracy. We're looking at own resources being increased by 60,000,000,000 per year, then this isn't a will to reform. When it comes down to it, this is an additional burden, a burden for citizens and companies.
The planned expansion of agencies in infrastructure is going in the wrong direction. Instead of winding them down, they're trying to inflate them. Instead of decentralizing, Brussels is trying to irrigate more powers to itself. We need the opposite of this. We need a slimline, transparent financial plan that will reduce the burden on citizens.
Less money for centralization, less money for EU administration, more responsibility for the sovereign states of Europe.
Danuše Nerudová
The chair, the commissioner, the colleagues, we often hear from a finance minister that opposing a stronger EU budget is about protecting taxpayers. But is it really? Take a check here.
Our finance minister rejects a higher EU budget and new resources in its name, in the name of fiscal discipline. Yet at home, she disguises real spending by using special exceptions to the budgetary rules, as if they were normal.
Her campaign promises are funded through accounting tricks, while debt continues to rise. So let's be honest. This is not about protecting taxpayers. This is about lying to them. I would rather contribute at the European level.
Through investments in competitiveness, innovation, and programs like Erasmus Plus. In short, in our future. I support a strong EU budget, and this is why I support a very good MFF report put forward by Sigfried Muresan and Carla Tavares.
Thank you.
Jean-Marc Germain
Colleagues. This date will go down in history in the building of the European Union.
Our parliament is about to do away with the ridiculous notion that the EU budget should be stuck at 1% GNP. The budget that we have set out, we are breaking the glass ceiling that has been placed before us.
And furthermore, mister, I would defy anyone to say that our priorities are not vital: Housing, when families are spending over 50% of income on their housing, Climate policy, digital, at a time when algorithms are taking control of our lives.
Space, when we're supposed to rely on Starlink for military intelligence in Ukraine, and defense, when Trump is turning his back on NATO. I've said it before, not taking in these areas would be a grave political and moral mistake.
We cannot build the Europe of tomorrow while we sacrifice its social soul. We need to make sure there is the right kind of funding for cohesion policy and the CAP. We propose that the increase in loans not be funded by the member states, but by new own resources, like taxing.
Cryptocurrency, online betting, or digital, and I'll just finish on this point. President, I just want to congratulate Carla and Sigve on this excellent compromise. It now falls to the heads of state and government to move forward.
Speaker 40
Europe and Europeans have their eyes on History has its eyes on you. You must live up to the challenge.
Kinga Gull.
Colleagues.
Kinga Gál
Over the next seven years budgets, there will be many problems with this budget. We, as patriots, are not against the EU, but we are in favor of an EU that better serves the interests of its citizens. Citizens and the electorate expect the European institutions and governments to preserve peace and security. But this is not guaranteed.
By the commission's proposal in its draft. Instead, billions of euros would go to further fund Ukraine, but agricultural subsidies and cohesion policy will be reduced by 20%. So this will backfire on ourselves.
These are ideologically based rule-of-law conditions. And this will further strengthen the power of the commission vis-à-vis the member states. That is what Funder Lyon has said.
But it is our role to determine the future of the member states. We are against this liberal proposal. We, the patriots, will continue to stand up for the sovereignty of the member states and for farmers and others. And we will continue to stand up for common sense.
Younous Omarjee
For us, the interests of the citizens are what matter most. Thank you very much, and I give the floor to Mr. Van Overtfelt.
Johan Van Overtveldt
President, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, MFF, let's not be blind to the essential challenge, and that's the structure of the European budget is outdated. We need to allow greater space for choices for the future. We need to make sure that we do that to deal with the challenges, meet them head-on.
Currently, the future MFF should be a turning point. It is an opportunity to finally future-proof the budget. And for me, that means more investments in areas where Europe is effective and is providing clear added value. Research innovation, cross-border infrastructure, and shifting resources to the core task of a union which has to become more politically mature, defense, migration, security. More investments in pan European projects, which will go beyond the wish list of member states.
Strengthen interconnectivity of our energy networks, for example, and Europe-wide cybersecurity. A strong budget is not just about having more money. It's about allocating the existing resources better. Thank you.
I'll continue in Danish.
Stine Bosse
We can no longer take it for granted that someone else will come and solve our problems. We can no longer be dependent on others. Nor should we refrain from doing it ourselves. We know how to do it.
There's something unique about Europe. We have some of the most brilliant minds and best societies, it is our responsibility as politicians to support them, give them the possibility to succeed together. That requires investment. Large investments in energy independence, competitiveness, health, and most of all, in security and defense. It's all interconnected and will only work if we encompass everything. The union has to be able to do much more on its own. And in this new budget, we can show that we're ready.
Fabienne Keller
Commissioner. The report we are voting on today sets a clear frame for the coming negotiations on the long-term budget.
Are setting the ground plan, the architecture, which is partly new, partly adjustments. We are preparing for the future. And we're doing so knowing that we always already are facing several challenges, if not crisis.
The war in Ukraine, ongoing war in the Middle East, challenges to energy security, and not least, climate and biodiversity crisis with growth day by day. And this is only what we know until now.
The budget is more than numbers. The budget is about priorities, and we have many. We have traditional priorities. We have additional, and not least, we have totally new ones we don't even know yet.
A main concern for my group is, of course, the climate and the biodiversity crisis, and I'm content to know that today we adapt a text which maintains this a priority both overall and in sectoral funds. This is also why I'm satisfied that we have earmarked funding for live action, not as much as I wanted. Not exactly how I want it, but we have it in important headings, not least in the competitiveness funds, which shows directly that this is the direction we want to go. Also, when it comes to competitive, I want to thank the co-rapporteur, not least as well, my colleague, Fabienne Keller, for the collaboration.
I think today, we can be proud pro-Europeans behind this report. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is Lee Anderson.
Li Andersson
Chair, a civil servant from a ministry in one member state, stated the problems with the MFF very clearly to me. He said, how are we going to defend social spending when it's all lumped together under the NRPPs? Are we going to ask the disabled, the poor children, and the elderly to take to the streets?
This is why EMPL has called for a separate standalone ESF plus, with dedicated funding. This is reflected in the interim report, which includes the same call. This must mean a separate fund under the ESF plus regulation with separate reinforced funding.
The question is, what happens now? Will this house disregard the social funding because the voices of people with disabilities, children, and the elderly are not as loud as those demanding the separation of agricultural and cohesion funds?
It is now up to every group in this parliament to show whether you are really committed to social Europe.
Thomas, gay. Thank you.
The next speaker is Thomas Geisel.
Thomas Geisel
President Klieve, colleague President.
Colleagues, when madam Fonderlein presented the draft MFF, many of you were outraged. Rightly so. Because these plans, in particular the concept of NRPPs, it boils down to this. The parliament is largely sidelined. From the distribution and control of the EU budget.
Negotiations with the commission have changed very little, as the court of auditors recently confirmed. And it's even more surprising that you want to give the commission more money than it originally asked for.
Europe doesn't create value by channeling more money. Through Brussels. We shouldn't just give Fond du Lion a bag full of money that she can co-govern the member states. What Europe needs are clear and simple rules for cohesion policy, for the CAP, and for the protection of our borders.
That's our job, MEPs. We are not contractors of the commission, much less they're useful idiots.
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
Thank you. The next speaker is Isabelle Bencomer. Thank you, President, Commissioner. From the very first day when the upcoming MFF began to be debated, the European People's Party was very clear on its position. And that's a position that we have firmly defended, and that is clearly reflected today in the final agreement.
We cannot accept the failed model of next generation repayment be included in the budget. Nor can we accept cutbacks on key programs or centralization of management, leaving regions out of the picture.
That is why we have committed to maintain the independence and funding of the CAP cohesion policy and our common fisheries policy. As set out in this text. We commit to bolstering spending on defense, on the security of our borders, the face of illegal immigration, and we will continue to give unconditional support to Ukraine as set out once again in this agreement. We commit too to supporting European businesses, strengthening competitiveness, research, innovation, and educational excellence, as is set out in this agreement via the competitiveness fund, Erasmus Plus, and Horizon Europe. And all of this will continue to do, focusing on budget responsibility, regulatory simplification, and getting rid of unnecessary red tape to support SMEs and end beneficiaries.
We have been consistent. We have defended what we said we would, and we have led the position in this house. Now we turn to the commission and the council, hoping that they too will step up.
Speaker 52
Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Marcos Ross and Per Commissioner.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Does it make sense to talk about a stronger Europe if we weaken the policies that keep it upright? There are few policies that better represent the link between the EU and the citizens than cohesion policy.
Let's not fall in the trap. Some just want us to be a number of member states added up together. But, no, here on this budget, we have to decide what side we're on. Cohesion leads to less inequality. It leads to affordable housing being built. It leads to opportunities.
In rural areas, and it helps with the just and fair green transition. So that's why we want earmarked funds for cohesion. Cohesion cannot be subordinated to other policy areas. We're not just talking about resources here.
We're talking about Europe's ability to help citizens in their day-to-day lives. If we weaken cohesion policy, it is bound to amount to weakening Europe. But if we strengthen it, we will strengthen the European project where it matters most, in each region and in each municipality.
Thank you. The next speaker, Julien Sanchez.
Julien Sanchez
Out of 95 amendments tabled to this interim report on the MFF 2028 to 2034, a large part of them, once again, comes from our Patriots from Europe Group. We been working on this and trying to raise awareness. We will have to vote against this text, nevertheless, because it's basing itself on things that the citizens don't want anymore.
More Debt, More Centralization, More Own Resources. I. E. Tax more constraints imposed from above. Multi Annual Financial Framework where Brussels is deciding more where citizens are paying more, and, basically, we're just building a less transparent machinery working against interests of citizens and common debt.
Many people want to see more longer-reaching financing, because if we don't do that, it's gonna be our children and children's children who have to pay. These policies are aimed at striking at those who don't agree politically in the capitals, and weakening our purchasing power. We can see that this budget for 2028, 2034 is going against the decisions that France will be taking in 2027 on the direction that country wants to. So we're refusing more centralization, new more debt, and this dangerous logic as well.
Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Boryshansky.
Tobiasz Bocheński
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union needs a reform. We need change. We are losing in global competition against China and the U. S. And what is your reply to the challenges? More of the same.
No reforms, no changes, and no vision for the future. Polish companies, European companies are suffering from red tape. What's your reply? More red tape. We are suffering from taxes and regulations stopping new technologies.
Your reply is more European taxes. In that way, you cannot enter a new decade of development. You're lacking vision, you're lacking understanding of Europeans. The Polish people are on tight budgets, and you want to transfer billions from one end to the other without ever checking if it's effective.
This proposal is an opportunity missed, and it's really pitiful that it's happening under the auspices of a Polish commissioner.
Thank you. The next speaker is Mitra Streit.
Speaker 56
Finland's President, commissioner, colleagues, Not everything that glitters is gold, and that applies to the MFF too. It's not just about spending more. We must use taxpayers' money better. One, look at what the Court of Auditors has said. We must save two, we must establish priorities, energy, investment, rural.
These are three priorities. For me. So cuts to the CAP can only happen, don't need to happen if we shift things around in a clever manner. Then we need to have overall security, not just energy security.
But if the 12 stars on the European flag are going to continue to glitter over our skies, then we must not just spend more. Must have more budgetary discipline.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is Rasmus Anderson.
Rasmus Andresen
Thank you very much. In the budget debate, we need to be honest. Many people in the European Union are not doing well. They're worried about their jobs. They have health problems.
Or maybe they have problems with paying their bills for heating or rent. And we need to make sure that we can provide answers, and that's why this MFF is so important. So we were shocked to see the plans of the commission where there's less social policy set out, where the social fund is being attacked, and where no responses are given for payable and affordable rents. So we've managed in the current proposed report to concentrate on some social answers and to provide for everyone in Europe. And that's made this report stronger, and we'll support it.
But we can't rest on our laurels. We need to look at where the money comes from, and we think that's something that the big tech companies should be paying more.
They are making a lot of money in Europe and paying too little tax, have an opportunity now to do something about this, and our clear demands to the council chancellor Mauts, don't come up with clever words.
Grazia.
Valentina Palmisano
Thank you, President. Ladies and gentlemen, small hospitals are closing. Bills can't be paid. Wars on frontiers. The multi annual financial framework, we have an opportunity to address this on one occasion only, but the response to the European parliament cannot be trying to put out a fire with a glass of water.
Only own resources on taxing extra profits and windfall profits of tech giants can do this. We don't want double bookkeeping and fancy gymnastics in the books to do this. We need to have diplomacy as well, because citizens want peace.
They don't want to see the defense budget multiplied by five. We need to look at restructuring what Giorgio Maloney and Fratelli Dittallo, the brothers of Italy, are saying about the stability pact that you signed on.
Let's talk about that. Let's talk about austerity. Let's talk about the arms that we have at our disposal. So we need to have a stronger Europe, and a Europe stronger, closer to its citizen.
Speaker 61
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as European money.
There is only money that the EU takes from member states, consumers, and businesses. The EU has taken on a massive debt through Next Generation EU using an accounting trick that violates the principle of a balanced budget. It'll still be paying it off after most of us are dead. The budget has ballooned. It'll continue to grow.
And to cover it, the EU wants to introduce its own taxes on emissions permits, carbon tariffs, tobacco tax on citizens, corporate tax on businesses, will pay fees on electronic waste and plastics.
The EU was supposed to be an international organization that promotes the prosperity of its member states. Instead, it is becoming a super state that imposes more taxes. Internally, through excessive regulation, externally through inept diplomacy.
In a crisis, we need the opposite. We need to streamline the union, abolish emission permits, document the energy sector, the automotive industry, farmers, and save on bureaucrats. The budget should be halved. It should focus exclusively on managing the internal market and economic diplomacy.
Thank you. The next speaker is Andrei Heliski.
Andrzej Halicki
Ladies and gentlemen, either the EU will be stronger, more effective, with less bureaucracy, acting faster, being able to spend money on the most important projects. Those are most expected by citizens, and those that contract threats or we will no longer be needed. Therefore, the new financial perspective must be a response to the expectation and threats of today. It must be a strong reinforcement for our defense of external borders and for those actions that are most needed and most expected. As priorities, this is the expectation of the citizens.
Security is job one. And Europe's security is still number one. Of course, we must have a strong Monday. That's why I call upon you all. All of those who wish well to Europe should become and vote in favor of this mandate, because we need a strong mandate that, together with the Commission, we can convince the governments that want to make savings on security.
You cannot save on security. You must not do it. So to the thrifty countries, it's also your security. We need to take care of your security as well today by building a more effective and bigger budget, and not a reduced budget. A reduced budget is for those who are not wishing well to Europe, those who are against a strong and effective Europe.
Let's vote in favor of adopting this budget, because that's what's in the interest of Europeans.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you. I cannot see Ericsson Giacomo in the chamber. It would appear that he is not here. I therefore give the floor to Thomas Butchak.
Commissioner.
Tomasz Buczek
The next MMF is not a budget. It's a fund for exploiting Europeans. The European Commission is estimating that it's going to be 60% to 80% bigger than the current perspective for the years 21 to 27, the budget was 1,200,000,000,000. Now for the years 28, 34, we're expecting €2,000,000,000,000, €200,000,000,000 added on top, you have a mid revision and inflation, and you have 700,000,000,000 on top.
Where is it coming from? Because of our debt. Debt from the COVID times, which we are about to pay back. If that were not enough, in the new financial perspective, we're going to spend €200,000,000,000, 10% to be transferred outside the EU to other countries.
This is madness, ladies and gentlemen. They have one objective, to bring more debt, to drive us into debt to such an extent that the federalization process becomes irreversible. And then instead of sovereignty of nations, we'll have sovereignty and supremacy of. We cannot agree to that.
Thank you.
Speaker 65
Thank you. You for taking my blue card question. You said that the budget is getting much bigger. But you used the absolute figures. If you use the relative figures, so relative adjusted with inflation, then the budget is actually not a huge amount bigger, at least according to the commission's proposal.
When you're using such big figures, maybe you should include inflation as well. That would be more reasonable. Show that the budget, at least in the commission's proposal, and you don't reduce it for debt, is not growing that much.
Tomasz Buczek
For the period 2021 to 2027, when it was first adopted, the budget was 1,047 billion. And when the financial perspective is coming to an end, it's €1,200,000,000,000. So I am including in my presentation the inflation as well.
But I think it's not me who's wrong, but you.
Dick Erixon
Thank you. You, president. When the Levine government was negotiating the current long-term budget, we saw an increase in the budget of 68%. And there were all sorts of taxes for the union that were brought in to cover this.
And the center parties supported the Social Democrats on this, the left and the right voted against. Once again, we're seeing a risk of nationalization, reduction. So forget all the pretty words about competitiveness. If we don't redefine the way we're going, we're gonna have more ineffective planned economies, which is gonna weaken growth and weaken competitiveness. It impoverishes the welfare for all Europeans.
Basically, it's the wrong path to take. Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is Anuk Van Bruck.
Forteset.
Anouk Van Brug
President, a European AI company that grows to become a world player. External border on solid foundations, a defense that keeps our continent so safe that we can all live within those borders safely.
That's what this budget should enable, and that is possible. But then we need to be honest because more money is not the answer. Making choices is. We need to invest. But if you just invest a bit across the board, you're not actually investing in anything. We need to have less of a budget, but we need to dare to take choices in things that make us stronger.
So safety, economy, innovation. And choosing is one thing, delivery is something else. It's just as important. That's where the shoe pinches because taxpayers need to know that they can spend taxpayers' money and it be spent properly.
Time and time again, the European Court of Orders is saying this is not the case. It's time to change things, to get a better overview of where European monies go, and have a stronger approach for misuse of money because every euro counts.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next speaker is.
Speaker 68
President, commissioner, what we have here is not a technical matter.
It's a political decision for our path forward. The Europe they're putting forward is not what we want. It cuts social funds. It cuts support to the countryside. They call it flexibility.
But we call it abandonment. Even more seriously, the EU will grow further away from its citizens. Local communities will not be involved in the design of how the funds are spent.
Those who know what is really needed will be excluded. And is that really the way forward? Sidelining citizens when we need them most. We won't accept this. That's why our parliamentary group recognizes the work of this parliament, which is reflected in today's report.
But let me warn you of something. This is the starting point, not the end point. We don't want the Europe of capitals, but the Europe of territories, peoples, and diversity. That is our Europe. For those reasons, we will continue to fight.
Thank you very much.
Stella Galan.
Merci président.
Estrella Galán
Thank you, President. We are at a decisive point in this term, deciding on the budget for the EU over the next seven years. We're going to be deciding which way forward we want for the EU in political and social terms. And that is very important since we're deciding on the future of the lives of millions of citizens.
Now the commission has put forward a war budget, one that leaves people behind. And we cannot exchange social cohesion for tanks and drones, which is what the commission wants, because if you want real security, you need a cohesive society.
You are aiming to slash social Europe, cover the needs of the most vulnerable. With millions of people who are unhoused, with families who are not making ends meet, with housing that is unaffordable for so many.
We must protect the European Social Fund Plus and make sure it has the right budget, so that it can address the real problems faced by European citizens. I have a request for you.
Listen to the people. To civil society, to NGOs because that fund has improved the lives of almost 9,000,000 people in Spain, and many more across Europe. Deciding on the kind of Europe that we want is in our hands.
Are we going to abandon the most vulnerable, or are we going to make sure no one is left behind? Thank you.
Speaker 71
You. I now have the pleasure of giving the floor to Monica Hommeyer. Commissar? President.
Monika Hohlmeier
Commissioner, president in office of the council, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, the commission's proposal sets out good when it comes to competitiveness and innovation. Research, but when it comes to develop defense, it's, I think, a little less than what most people had hoped. And when it comes to infrastructure, we can see some strengthening where it's necessary, but there are difficulties as well within this new proposal.
Especially if you want to talk about simplification. Simplification shouldn't just apply to the commission and their staff. It should apply to member states and final beneficiaries. We should avoid any proposals of complete centralization and renationalization, need to have more Europe in this report, and also bring in the regions to allow them to have decision-taking procedures and powers.
There are some countries that have many regions. Everything has to be conflated, and then at the end of the process, it needs to be divided up again. National programs over seven years have not proved to be successful, because over seven years, a lot can change.
Can you just say, well, we need flexibility? Flexibility is not just something that's offered to the Commission. It has to be provided to the regions as well. So they can act according to the principle of subsidiarity.
National plans then have no place in an economy such as ours. And for this reason, the parliament will have to bring about some changes, especially when it comes to the priorities of security, food supply, and the possibility for cohesion to make headway. And the question of including social policies as well.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Regards to your president, my president. More than 60% of Europeans think the EU needs to be better equipped to deal with challenges such as public health, housing, education, politics, culture, security, and defense. These are the areas where we are expected to act and provide answers. In this report, we don't shy away from the challenges we face.
No. We tackle them head-on. We're asking for a 10% increase for the MFF because we can't do more with less. Cohesion policy is the glue between regions and citizens, and the ESF is a way of ensuring that no one is left behind.
We pay attention to farming, particularly in the outermost regions. And we want more money for the Pose program, and we want more money for fisheries. This isn't a perfect budget.
Not at all, but what we're putting forward is better than the starting point. Let me pay tribute to the work done by the rapporteurs. This is the kind of Europe that we must be defending.
Collègues.
Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová
The MMF cannot only be about more money. It has to be about justice and efficiency of the EU. If we weaken our geographic position, we will weaken Europe. The cohesion policy cannot be to the detriment of the budget.
We cannot be bad for states that have not experienced withdrawing. We cannot have a two-speed Europe. That is not acceptable. The EU will only be as strong as its weakest link.
We cannot concentrate money in the European Commission. It will not improve our competitiveness, but only its power. We have to control our expenditure. The EU needs to prove that it can efficiently handle the money that it has. If we just increase the budget, that doesn't make sense.
We do not want new resources being ETS or new taxes. We refuse this because we need more competitiveness. If Europe is to do well, we need technological neutrality. That's why nuclear needs to be at the core.
Thank you.
Michele Picaro
Today, the European Parliament will be adopting its position on the multi-annual financial framework. 2,000,000,000,000 important choices, with political backup that can't be ignored. And we strongly demand that we get good results, that we have clear money set aside for cohesion numbers on the line that will substantiate demands of our farmers, help food supply now, countries, and send out strong signals to our regions.
Have a demographic challenge that we're facing. We need to refer to the Mediterranean pact as well, and we need to look at the energy mix. Look at critical raw materials, and European industry, we still have our own resources. That's an issue that needs addressing.
€60,000,000,000 per year, in addition, is gonna hit companies hard. Don't accept that ideological choices such as the Green Deal, as we've seen, will actually mortgage the future of this union. And for this reason, our position remains clear, pragmatic, and defends the genuine interests of citizens.
Speaker 65
Colleagues, what the right is saying is wrong. Every Europe that goes towards a stronger budget is well invested. At the end of the day, the net contributors also benefit from a strong single market. The truth is we will probably have to do more with the same money in Europe.
We won't have more money available. Let's look at it. Honestly. The member states are grappling with their own budgetary difficulties. And we've tried it with debt. With NextGen EU.
But that costs money, because interest rates are going up. So then what's left? New taxes. Someone else should pay, not Europeans. Now we've been laughing at Trump's love of tariffs.
Because he says that the Americans won't pay the tariffs, but they are paying at the end of the day. And the same applies to a digital tariff. At the end of the day, we'll be footing that digital bill.
Moritz Körner
We must have a focus. We must save. We must make cuts, and we must invest in security and defense.
Speaker 81
From Mularczyk, Arcadia 590. Koliga Murnachic, floor is yours. Please. Sorry. Just for headphones.
Okay. A few seconds.
Thank you.
Arkadiusz Mularczyk
A few months ago, I personally provided you with a report of the war losses incurred to Poland by Germany in World War II. As you well know, there was never a settlement for the results of World War II. Moreover, Polish victims, similarly to Greek victims, have no way of seeking damages from the German state.
Do you think the European Union should create a fund for victims of World War two? Because this hasn't been done yet, and Polish and Greek victims still have not had any redress from Germany for World War two.
Speaker 65
Mr Milacic. You didn't give me that. You showed up in my office. You broke into my office. You filmed me. And I had to then flag that to the president and report it to the president.
Now, many decades have passed. There has been a lot of European solidarity over the years. Many Polish taxpayers have benefited from the EU and our EU budget, and we are building something, shaping something together.
And this is kind of divisive politics. You're trying to drive a wedge. You're not interested in the future of Europe. You are not interested in the German-Polish friendship, which I am standing up for.
Prodigious.
David Cormand
Thank you. You, president, colleagues, today, the parliament is setting out its opinion on the upcoming MFF budget.
And the parliament's sending a very clear message indeed to the commission. We. Are not in favor of the structure that the parliament is attempting to impose on our institutions. The parliament is speaking out clearly on the amount since we want to see 27% of GNI, excluding NGEU repayment. And we really feel that is the minimum to try and push forward the policy that is necessary for this moment. Furthermore, the parliament is alarmed at the put forward by the commission, which would, in a technocratic manner, re-center the way our budget is managed.
And therefore, it would mean that the parliament was not able to exercise its scrutiny role. Frankly, no way. Hard stop there. And the commission really needs to hear that. We'll also be holding discussions with the council, and I very much hope that we'll be able to preserve key policy such as social, the CFP, the cap, the environment. You say that flexibility doesn't need to mean opacity, but the parliament will not give up on its scrutiny role when it comes to the budget.
Thank you.
For one minute, please.
Özlem Demirel
President. Undemocratic, unsocial, and militaristic, that is the draft budget from the commission. Hugely nontransparent tubs of money, little parliamentary scrutiny. Everything is subject to two priorities: militarism and competitiveness. €500,000,000,000 for the competitiveness fund.
That's Fond du Lac's mega fund. For education, research, industry, and armament, all shoved together. So we move money from social to armament. All of that is happening in this time when many people are worried about their futures.
This military logic runs through the whole budget. Environmental sustainability is losing importance, and human beings are lost in all of this. And we hear in the EU that we want everyone to have the same standards of living, but who's going to benefit? Big companies and those who build weapons.
If there's something good, that we can do is that she's, you know, not almost as bad as Trump these days.
One and a half minutes.
Herbert Dorfmann
Ladies and gentlemen, obviously, we're facing new challenges. In a challenging time for the EU. But that cannot mean that the financial demands that we're facing need to be passed on to the member states because we are responsible for what goes on here.
Regional policy, common agricultural policy, we cannot do this for the sake of politicians. We should make sure that the money goes to those who have something to say about this. In our proposal, we are looking at raising this from the 1.27% of GNI because we won't be able to cover obligations we have. We need to be that honest here, and the member states need to be that honest as well when they take their decisions on the budget. If we want to make sure that we have security of supply of food across Europe, then we'll need more money than we have at the moment.
Because we're not gonna be able to do the same things with less money. So I'd call on you to support the proposals. The commission's proposal of using the budgetary structure and making it simpler, I'm not sure about that because things look like they're becoming more complicated.
Either become more complicated or more superficial. Neither is what we're looking for. What is particularly problematic is the roles of the regions and the local authorities being undermined. They're being weakened considerably.
I've dreamed of a Europe of regions for a long time, and we're further away from that than ever. Today. What I am pleased about, and I'm grateful to the rapporteurs, is to look at the peripheral outermost regions and mountainous regions are mentioned specifically, and I think that's well worth mentioning. And I think that deserves our sustained support.
Marit Maij
Yeah. Don't call for thank you.
President, commissioner. Does it matter if the European Union spends more or less money? Yes. It does. It does make it more important that the right people are getting the right money. People who need it.
But people who end up banging their heads get the same walls. Energy bills are too high. No work experience. No affordable houses. No prospects.
But the commission has come suggesting we're gonna provide this big pot of money, and the member states are free to spend it how they will. No European policies, no clear guidelines, and much less money, moreover, for social policies.
We need European funds that actually make an impact. So the people who have spent years looking for work can find that work, can find somewhere to live. We don't want to sign blank checks for member states.
What we need is a strong and independent social fund at European level said that the European Union can invest in social security. A future for everybody, and especially for people in Europe who are in a vulnerable position.
Thank you.
Roman Haider
Thank you for the President, the commission proposal for the MFF is nothing more than an ice cold putch attempt to seize power over the budget. And if you refuse to obey, then you will have to submit.
And there will also be a major increase in own resources. That's to pay off the huge debts which were taken out in contravention of the treaty. And there are threats being made here by the commission, but there's something lacking here. There's no savings or cuts.
We have to cut everywhere in Europe except in the EU budget. That word doesn't even exist in the EU budget. We will continue to puff up the budget. We are just allowing the commission to get completely out of hand here.
Georgiana Theodorescu, please.
Georgiana Teodorescu
Thank you, chair. Conclusions after reviewing the report.
Although for 2028, 2024, 2034, the European Commission has announced the largest budget in the EU history. It is actually much smaller than the previous. A significant portion, €150,000,000,000, must be repaid. Although the European Parliament boasts of increasing this so-called historic budget, the additional difference is actually generated by the new taxes that will be paid by citizens, including Romanians.
Policies that are sixty years old, like the common agricultural policy or cohesion policy, will no longer have their own separate budget and will face drastic cuts, 30% less compared to the current financial year.
I come from a country where canceled without evidence, and I say that this new conditionality can easily become a blackmail tool. Therefore, if the cancellation of the Romanian elections was considered a violation of the rule of law, funds could be suspended immediately.
If the European Union wishes to continue as it began, then it has a duty to build a future dedicated to these values that provides priority to agriculture, cohesion, and industry.
Scherklegg.
Speaker 93
Colleagues, almost two years ago, Mario Draghi warned us if Europe didn't change tracks, it was going to die in slow agony. And so my question to you is, where is that €800,000,000,000 a year? Now I've been listening to you for 2 years.
The programs, the competitiveness fund, all of that is a way forward. But this is all variations on a theme. Let me say again, even more clearly this time, if we don't take action firmly, Europe will die.
You are, we are, the frogs in the water that's slowly heating up to boiling. We have noble ambitions, but we might bring them down because we don't take action. What we need today, colleagues, is a shock, a break with the past, for energy independence.
For a real EU tax policy that gives us the income we need to protect our standards. We know what needs to be done, and we have the means to do it. The only question is, will we be brave enough to do it? I certainly hope so.
Janusz Lewandowski
President, commissioner, MFF is a bold venture into the future as we are programming the union until 2034.
And this is vision with figures in our unpredictable world. And this is never business as usual. Always exceptional circumstances. Now we have war back on our canter continent. Therefore, we should have our first ever commissioner for defense with real budget.
Now this is all about off-budget. Equally important is to make it more transparent by ring-fencing cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, and social fund. Equally important, is to involve regions in design and implementation that makes Europe more visible and, therefore, more useful for the citizens.
When distributing competitiveness fund and Horizon, of course, on the basis of excellence, we should take care also about geographical balance. Flexibility, nobody's contesting, especially in dealing with the external world. But it cannot be excessive discretion of a commission.
We need own resources to repay new generation, not at the cost of existing programs. It should be placed above the ceiling. Good to have deal at the end of the year. People are not interested in inter-institutional disputes.
They want us to deliver. Thank you.
Thank you, President.
Irene Tinagli
The outcome of the interim report on the MFF marks an important step forward. I think we have built an ambitious yet responsible position, strengthening the EU budget to better address social challenges, the green transition, and Europe's competitiveness in a complex geopolitical context.
But let me focus on one specific thing, because I'm very pleased that for the very first time, housing enters the European budget. We know that we are dealing with a huge affordability crisis for housing in the European Union, heavy for workers and the younger generation.
We need to act. And we included in this interim report we have identified instruments and resources from cohesion funds to investment tools to crowd in further private investments to build a genuine European approach.
Of course, this is a first step, but I think it's very important. If we don't start addressing this crisis now and wait, if we don't start to do it seriously, we will undermine the basis of the future of this continent and of its competitive and cohesion. So I'm glad about that, but, of course, we will also need the help of the member states, their commitment to further resources and measures.
Thank you.
Speaker 81
As you have a blue card from Joao Oliveira on the left. You take it. Yeah, please.
João Oliveira
But he got, can you hear? Mister Nagli. You're head of the housing committee, and you spoke about that. In fact, it's really important that the report on housing looks at the problems of housing.
Madam, are you happy with the fact that housing will be under the NRPPs? But that will cause some limitations and restrictions. And then there's also a lack of serious funding. For housing under the next MFF.
Speaker 98
Aren't you worried about that? Isn't that going to stop the goals from actually being achieved? Okay.
Irene Tinagli
I have no problem in saying that I would have wanted more. Yes. We always want more when we enter this process. In the budget, I would have loved to have a full dedicated fund exclusively for that.
But I'm happy that still this priority has been recognized, it's been included, risk resources have been identified in the different programs. Of course, this calls the member states and their responsibility. I know that now it is inside the national funds, but this causes the responsibility of the member states.
We cannot build the European Union unilaterally. We need a cooperation between our institutions, European institutions, governments, and member states. I hope we can start from here. Be the better European Union.
Speaker 81
Thank you very much. For a clear answer. Please, any call? Giori, floor is yours.
Enikő Győri
Thank you. Thank you very much, honorable members. The patriots have been sidelined from this discussion on the MFF. Thus, it has been impossible to make improvements compared to the original commission proposal. Resources have been cut, and the commission has been completely empowered.
Only under coercion will the funds be dispersed if commission criteria are not complied with. Then a farmer, for instance, will have no access. To funds. In the future, when the budgetary measures are not complied with in Hungary. Hungary will be further punished with sanctions.
In addition, sovereignty, the sovereignty of the member states will be limited, and the parties will contribute to that. But what we would need, what would be needed, is a plan that protects cohesion and doesn't slash it.
Kersandersmith, please.
Speaker 100
President commissioner, this multi-annual financial framework gives rise to all sorts of feelings and an increase of 10%, new EU taxes for The Netherlands, the biggest net payer, makes it very difficult to swallow.
The corona recovery fund was 10% of the budget. It's not a good model to follow, and that's a warning we should heed. We shouldn't have European taxpayers' money going to companies who are not helping subsidiarity.
Let's not give money to left-wing liberal hobbies. Let's look at the vent defense and innovation funds. I'd like to express a vote of thanks to the co-rapporteur, as we are asking for earmarked budgets for agriculture, rural development, fisheries.
No renationalization, day a strong European policy for agriculture, a level playing field, and fishers and farmers have been suffering and drowning in red tape. Enough is enough. Get your hands off our horticulturists, our agriculturists, our fishers. Food security has to be helped here.
This must be the message that comes from the chamber.
Thank you, chair.
Ciaran Mullooly
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a defining moment for Europe and for the future direction of the European Union. The next seven-year budget is crucial to give stability to citizens, to farmers, to regions, and to businesses in the challenging times in which we live.
Our position must be clear. I'm going to be specific. The new multiannual financial framework must be set at a minimum, commissioner, of 1.27% of the GNI, the money generated by EU individuals and businesses. We must also exclude the next generation EU debt repayment from this equation, because anything less would leave the union underfunded and unable to meet the scale of the challenges before us.
For agriculture, parliament must be equally firm. The common agricultural policy must have a dedicated and robust budget of 433,000,000,000 at least in current prices. Cap cannot be treated as a leftover or absorbed into the national envelopes.
Food production is now a core part of European security. Food security is national security. So Europe must protect its farmers' capacity to produce food. Parliament has a democratic mandate. So if the final budget fails to protect cap, the crucial issues of leader and just transition funds, then this parliament must be ready to withhold its consent. Thank you, Congressman.
And say no, thank you.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, president, commissioner, colleagues. Firstly, I very much hope that this MFF might have done away with the idea of renationalization, but that's not what the member states wanted. So now the EBP is tabling amendments to specify what countries need.
Particularly when it comes to the productive sectors, we want 45,000,000,000 for agriculture. 10% for that rural objective should also go to the leader program. And there is the matter. Of investing in cooperatives and agri-food industries that are key to the future of rural areas.
Apiculture too is a major issue, and there are producers' associations that are working very hard to export their products. They need support too. Furthermore, the competitiveness fund, that is not something that should be restricted when it comes to agriculture and water.
There are certain issues in Andalusia that require support, and I think that it would be a mistake to restrict the program to purely agricultural matters. Then, when it comes to fisheries, we need to boost the budget as well. Giving an opportunity to coastal areas and fisher people all over Europe. And if we are to dilute our environmental funds, well, that will be a problem for the climate. We need to be very clear on the fact that we want to have quality food now and in the future, and we want to see thriving rural areas in Europe.
And that is a direction that all of our amendments and proposals ought to be going in. You.
Nicolás González Casares
Thank you, president. Europe is facing colossal challenges, and what's the commission's priority? Tackling the challenges of our time with a ridiculous budget, undermining the European social model with deep cuts to cohesion, fisheries, and the environment.
No. This is not the right way forward for Europe. When our world is burning, because of dictators and autocrats or those who aspire to that, Europe cannot rely on a budget that's been drawn up for a world that no longer exists.
And so in the face of this proposal from the commission, we need to see more cohesion. We need to boost investment in food sovereignty, including fisheries. We need the biggest social fund in history. That's what we need, as well as moving forward with the green transition.
Or isn't it clear yet to see how important the Green Deal is? Not to forget the LIFE program, which is a flagship for Europe. And then there is the matter of Europe's standing and presence in the world.
That's the response that the parliament needs to be giving. It's the response from my group, the Socialist, More Europe, not Less Europe.
This.
Teresh
Proposal on the MFF poses a grave problem for our future.
This has become an ideological and political tool through this so-called conditional of the rule of law. We're not saying that the rule of law is important. But we don't have clear, transparent, and objective criteria. That takes into account the tradition of each and every member state. This is why it makes it prone to abuse by the European Commission.
Article seven says that European funding can be blocked on the basis of reports on the rule of law, with these reports not following a clear methodology. The sources are debatable, obscure, and some bureaucrats draw them up with no real expertise.
And when we talk about the rule of law, we're talking about transparency. We cannot accept that in an utterly untransparent way, these European funding be handed out to member states according to OPEC criteria. The European funding needs to be used to help the development of European member states and citizens. They should not become weapons, ideological weapons in the hands of the commission.
Please.
Charles Goerens
President. This time is serious. We can't just have business as usual. When things are different now. Different from 2020.
The West is falling apart. There's dumping and American protectionism. Which is a cause for concern. The next seven-year budget provides a partial response. It certainly is only piecemeal.
The member states have become the center of gravity, but they must take a good look at themselves. They're going to be many unknown challenges along the path. So we must strive for an ever closer union, as is enshrined in the treaty.
Speaker 109
We, as MEPs, must continue to be a powerhouse as we were up until the beginning of the millennium.
Speaker 111
Ladies and gentlemen, before I start to put some things into proportion, in Germany, the biggest net payer in Europe, the average taxpayer pays €240 for Europe a year. €240. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend money properly. But we should put that in proportion.
I don't want to go into this shame and blame game, but in Poland, it's a net receiver country. And for the good reason, because the German taxpayer profits from Europe as the Europeans, as the Polish citizens do that. So we shouldn't mislead the Europeans about the cost of Europe. We have to spend that money effectively, and I think this report is contributing that, but we should put that in proportion because using a budget debate for anti-Europeanism is very problematic.
We lie to the people not for their benefit. We lie to the people to show them in a direction, since very problematic for the future generations. In terms of the proposal, just shortly.
I think the proposal is referring rightly to the need for investments in Europe. It's strengthening the investment part. It's painful. Because more of the same might not be the motto for that, and we have to prioritize.
Horizon ECU ECF investments in future investment in technology and infrastructure in defense, and we can explain that to the European citizens. They want that. But what I have to say is that we have to really get in, because what the commission with this 100% flexibility wants to have is a carte blanche. And that we can't grant.
Thank you very much.
Please.
Giuseppe Lupo
Thank you, President, Commissioner, colleagues. The 2020-2034 MFF will define how European resources are spent for the Europe that we want, the one that David Sassoli talked about. That is why the parliament is calling for an increase of at least 10% in funding our new priorities. That is not something that should happen at the expense of cohesion of fisheries of the cap.
We need to make sure that we have joint debt and own resources. And we need to make sure that there is the right kind of funding for cohesion, and that funding is ring-fenced. We need to pour funding into fisheries, generational renewal and for our blue economy.
The EU needs investment, as Mario Draghi said. Competitiveness and cohesion must go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Thank you.
Thank you, chairman.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you. Chair. Thank you, commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is at a crossroads. We have a war at our borders.
Instability in the Middle East, and there is a growing global competitiveness or global trade war with Donald Trump. This is not the time where we can hesitate. We need a strong Europe, and we need a strong budget.
That's why we demand a targeted increase in the MFF. And let's be frank, we cannot do more for less. That's an illusion. Each euro has to be checked. We cannot pay for projects that don't bring anything.
We cannot invest into houses building in Slovakia. We cannot finance projects that do not bring about anything. That's why we are clear, no flexibility without control. We cannot transfer money without the Parliament's approval. And we also need stable and predictable financing. And to conclude, we cannot afford national projects without added value.
No euros to the cycling path. No euros invested in things that do not make any sense. We have to fight geopolitical threats. We need to support infrastructure. We need to invest into security, and we need to say that Europe needs to be stronger.
Thank you.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you. You, president, commissioner, colleagues, we all understand that the budget put forward by the European Commission simply isn't enough. 1.27% of the GNI is merely a minimum. That's a minimum that we need to defend here in Parliament. And we need to make sure also that we exclude debt servicing from the budget.
That should be dealt with separately. And, of course, we understand that the European Union's commitments must be achieved. Solidarity must be guaranteed. Draggy, Letta, Linister, letter. All said what needed to be done. And they furthermore explained how we should invest.
The EU for health program should be an area where we invest in, but we need to invest furthermore in public health and research and much more. Thank you.
Lins, for one minute, please.
Norbert Lins
Commissioner, president, colleagues, as the rapporteur for the CAP, I want to thank the two reporters. You listened to what the agri committee said. A budget of €433,000,000,000 for agriculture under the next MFF is about giving farmers certainty so that they can plan. That is a strong bedrock for agriculture.
In the European Union. I'm glad that we've got this support across the groups. It's also important to me that we send a signal. About the structure and the architecture of the next MFF and the CAP, we must continue to have this successful two-pillar structure because rural development is a fundamental part of forward-looking, future-proofed rural areas in Europe. For that, we need to have a decent budget. It's not about pitting urban areas versus rural areas.
It's not the mayor versus the farmer. It's about cohesion in Europe.
Thank you, here, president.
Speaker 118
Thank you, President and Commissioner. If the European Union wants to take on more tasks, and the member states claim that they want that to happen, then it can only happen with a more ambitious budget, rather than the same or less money.
Find ourselves in a very difficult situation economically. Investments in areas that have growth potential are absolutely essential. One of those is the cultural and creative sector with 8,000,000 jobs, 200,000,000,000 turnover. The music market alone has grown by at least 10%.
Our flagship programs for culture, youth, and education, Agora EU, Creative Europe, and Erasmus Plus, achieve a great deal with quite limited budgets in terms of their effectiveness strengthening democracy, competitiveness.
Erasmus Plus is the successful program in the European Union. Many have tried to copy it, but have failed. If the European citizens will be able to take part in this program at least once in their lives, then we have to have an increase.
Draghi is suggesting times in the budget by 4. So for Erasmus Plus in Agoura EU, we're seeing advances there. Strengthening the feeling for Europe. Thank you.
Next speaker, Paulo Dono Cimento. Cabral.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
President commissioner, let there be no doubt about it. Those who vote against this report are voting against European farmers, European fishers, and against our rural areas. And against our outermost regions, such as the Azores and Madeira Islands.
We can't do more. With less. But when we talk about defense, we have to ask, what are we defending? Competitiveness. What brings growth? There's a clear answer. Putting food on our plates is defending Europe.
Promoting our policies means promoting competitiveness. We must have farming and fisheries. We must have the involvement of rural areas. Otherwise, everything we've talked about will be a dead letter. We need to involve the outermost regions and have a strong pose, eye.
We need to have a Europe with more security, with more involvement of farmers and fishers. We cannot ignore the geostrategic potential of the outermost regions as is laid down in 24349 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
Speaker 81
Start from Oliver, Joao Oliveira. We do not need translation, so to have the Indeed.
João Oliveira
Honorable. Member, cohesion, farming, and fisheries. That adds up to about 75% of the current MFF, but it will go down to just 45% of the next MFF. And so we won't even be at 50%. How can this add up? How can you defend farmers when there are these swinging cuts? And what about the rules? Under the next MFF, the new rules will mean that there will be a fight between farmers and those for others.
Speaker 121
Fighting for others. Okay. It's good that Pozzai hasn't been gotten rid of. But there are many issues still, nevertheless. So that was, thank you very much for your question.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
I have to say, I don't completely agree. We hope that by approving this, we will have more money available for farming and a 100,000,100 million euros extra for fishing. And then there'll be more money for rural areas too, by voting on this report.
So this is more money for farming, fisheries, and for our regions, including our outermost regions. I therefore think this report is a good document. It changes the path of the initial commission proposal.
Speaker 122
And I really wanted to thank the two rapporteurs for the work they've done on this.
Joe, for one minute, please.
Dankahev.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, President. We're not just talking about money here. I think it's become clear. We're talking about the future of Europe. Where do we want to invest? Where does our future lie? Where does the money need to get to? Very pleased about the report, as has been said, because it's not pitting urban areas against rural areas.
But we are showing that, actually, the European Social Fund still constitutes a major plank of Europe. That helps people and gives Europe a certain amount of soul in every town, city, and village in the countryside where people can see that ESF is making a difference. Hence, it's important. That it isn't just left to one side. We need to make sure that the money there is ring-fenced.
It's a word in English when you say it in German, really sounds like a protective wall. The social workers, the vulnerable people in these populations. They don't have tractors to go to Brussels.
Gabriele Bischoff
What exactly do you mean by ring-fencing? I said we don't have that word in German. But it really means that we set aside money that's intended only for social payment, for investments in people in the next. It's reserved for that with the social goals that we in Europe have attached to them.
So people can't say, oh, hang on. The farmers might need a bit more or others can have a look and see how much money we've got left at the end of the day.
No. This money is really set aside and reserved for social objectives that we have in Europe, and that is clear that we can send out to everybody who maybe is waiting for some sort of qualification, who don't have a job, who need some sort of support, to find their way back into society.
Thank you.
Speaker 81
Thank you very much. So, colleagues, you were so cooperative and we had a time to belong to speaker of KJI. Everybody will get the floor. It's one of the longest reaches of KJI.
But thank you very much, for so we will start with Mikhail Sherba.
Michał Szczerba
This. Becomes a key element of our security. The new budget after 2028 is a unique opportunity. We are stressing military mobility because we need it for our security. Money for military mobility will grow tenfold. We have €18,000,000,000 for military mobility under a new Connecting Europe facility.
But also we showed and selected mobility corridors. Three of them will be running through Poland. We also identified 500 neurologic infrastructure points: tunnels, bridges, railroads, and the new budget will allow us to modernize those facilities.
It's a key budget, which is a reply to the challenges of today, which ensures our interest. Thank you very much.
Cristina Maestre
Thank you. You, the president. The position of the European Parliament that we're voting on today is brave, committed, and clear. It's clear because we have clearly said that we wish to place agriculture in rural areas there as absolute red lines, and we need to make sure that we increase the funding going to that.
Much is made here of traditional sectors, and agriculture actually is not a traditional sector. We should see it as a strategic sector, and that's what we're defending here in this chamber.
We'll be voting on that shortly. But make no mistake. This is not just a matter of money. It's also a matter of avoiding the European Commission washing its hands of how these funds are managed.
And it's clear that the cap has been a success over the past 60 years, breaking away from that, leaving this in the hands of the member states. Well, that is a terrible mistake, and we need to make sure we don't go down that path.
Arkadiusz Mularczyk
Thank you. You. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we're talking about a very important budget, about billions of euros, new priorities. But where do we find justice for European citizens? Let me stress that there are still people living, especially in Poland, in Greece, in other countries, who have no legal recourse, who have never been made good. So the question is that we're treating European citizens in such a way.
And then, on the other hand, we are preparing refunds for Ukraine. We're spending money abroad for aid to Africa for supporting colonial issues. We open to the needs of people around the world, but we are turning away from the needs of Polish and Greek citizens.
Mister Seraphin, you're Polish. You know the problem. The prime of your government, Mr. Zosk, promised that a fund would be created for the victims of World War Two. Please do something for the EU not to turn its head away from this problem.
Thank you.
Next speaker, Lucas Zipper.
Lukas Sieper
You. Very much to the people of Europe. I think we all agree that people deserve justice, Mr. Milacic. I don't think it makes sense again trying to open up old wounds. The idea of the European Union is an idea of the future.
An investment in the future. In a common approach to make headway. That is what we're trying to achieve with this budget, and that's what we can achieve. I'm sure there are bits that you don't agree with where we can fiddle a bit and tweak, but a recognition of this budget is recognition for the future of Europe at a time where whatever's going on in the rest of the world, we understand that we need each other more than ever.
Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you. You, mister commissioner eight.
To share something with you. Discussion on this budget. At many moments, it sounded as if we were discussing national and not European budgets. Colleagues would often get confused whether we are talking about the national or European budget, and much surprised because your proposal is really nationalizing budgets to a great extent.
This parliament is now clearly saying no. We need to advance things. We need to have strong guarantees that we are talking about the European budget. This is what we will expect in the upcoming iteration. Two more things should be enhanced.
First, national plans, which created this fear that we are renationalizing the budgets, really need to be bottom up. Commission needs to have authority if cities, towns, regions are not at the table and not sharing the plans together there with the prime minister, then these national plans will not have approval.
And finally, last time when we spent some money on resilience, some countries were successful. But for example, my country didn't manage to control inflation with these funds. And these mechanisms should be improved in the future.
Plus graduellement.
Speaker 131
Colleagues. Throughout its existence, in the EU, the member states, the older member states have received higher CAP subsidies. Lithuania cannot compete with these countries. Farmers constantly talk about their subsidy gap. They want subsidies to be at the same level for each and every member state, but this falls on deaf ears within the Commission.
Today, we're talking about bureaucratic obstacles as well, of which there are many. And thus, we must say that the green deal is a major stumbling block for farmers. The whole of the agricultural sector is talking about this. We're talking about less bureaucracy, because bureaucracy is suffocating this union.
Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos
The. European Union, through its governments, and the NATO decisions are preparing a military budget, a war budget to fight the Euro-Asian group that's led by China, Russia, and also the USA.
This 1,300,000,000 that will go to military mobility dual infrastructure will be to the detriment of education, health, pension funds, and people's deposits. The competition between the various governments in the European Union, I would say between those who want to spend more or less, which in any case is paid to big consortiums, and also the competition between governments who want to either impose more taxes or cut more spending is a false dilemma.
This is a budget that tastes of blood. And bullets. And, whatever the two big parties say in Greece, I think the people should rise up and say, no budget for war.
Gabriel Mato
President. This is an important day for the Canary Islands and for all of the outermost regions, but particularly for our farmers. The European Parliament has sent a clear message. Pose is a cornerstone of the agri sector. And it must be firmly entrenched in the new MFF.
With its own decent budget. What we're going to approve today heads in that direction. We have said clearly that we are standing side by side with the Canary Islands in justice, cohesion, and solidarity.
What is at stake is more than just a budgetary matter. It's about the future of thousands of farmers who depend on this instrument for their survival. The parliament has done its work.
Thank you, Siegfried. Thank you, Carla. Now it's up to the commission and the council to show commitment to these regions. I trust that we will have a deal which is in line with the parliament's wishes, because the Canary Islands and all the outermost regions need this, but they deserve it too.
Financ.
Matthias Ecke
Thank you very much. Europe is not investing enough in its future. We can see that clearly. We're falling back in terms of comp competitiveness vis-à-vis other great powers around the world. So it's important that this budget establishes the future way of working, looking at innovation. But the member states of the EU are giving more and more tasks to the EU.
And the financial resources just haven't kept pace. And if some heads of state and government are saying, wow. There's no point giving the EU more money, that's not going to happen.
Then they've misunderstood this. You have to meet the promises. The next generation EU, the corona funds, was to make sure that new resources would pay back those loans. And this is the time to sort that out.
It's not only that the rural areas and farmers have to pay in blood. Because this needs to be repaid. It's high time we tax the big tech companies. Parliament has to make it clear.
We stand on the side of the citizens for the regions. For our Europe.
President.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Like. To mention that we have a proverb in Finnish that the collected water doesn't remain in the well. Oslo wants to pour more money into Brussels reservoirs. Now I think we're talking about smart people.
We don't need 7,000,000,000 to boost green growth. What we need is lower taxes. We can save on our expenditure. We have to see how these crises are developing and how we deal with the ramification. But it's a question of saving money.
Speaker 136
We don't need new laws for nature protection. What we have now is the result of decisions we've already taken.
Thank you, Chair, Commissioner.
Nina Carberry
Whether it has been ensuring food security, overseeing peace projects, or investing in regional EU financing has stretched far in Ireland. For the majority of Ireland's 53 years in the European community, we have been a net receiver. And while that contribution cannot be easily captured in a single figure, its impact is clear.
Support to our farmers, fishers, and regions, the infrastructure that connects our communities, and the research that improves lives. But we have been reminded in recent months that we faced multiple crises from energy shocks to tariffs on trade.
While I absolutely welcome the parliament's seeking a 10% spending boost, we need to renew focus on getting this money to the ground, to those who need it most.
Compensing must be simplified and overlapping rules avoided. At the halfway point of the EU's largest recovery fund, less than one-third of the money had been dispersed. A bigger budget will mean little if it doesn't reach the people. So let's make sure it does.
Speaker 139
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now the interim report makes it very clear where the weak points are, particularly in the commission's proposal.
No clear budget, no clear security, no simplification for recipients, and no clear perspectives for regions, for rural areas, and so forth. This is not in the interest of citizens. And one has to say very, very clearly that something has to be done very, very, very clearly for them on all aspects. And nobody takes the responsibility for all of this, and that's why I ask for the commission to say we need not less Europe, we need more Europe. And this means working conservatively in that particular direction.
Clear priorities for all and not conflictual messages. We need clear budgets, clear planning, clear participation of regions as well. This is what's important for farmers. Europe has to be closer to people and not further away from people, and we have to make that very clear.
Francisco José Millán Mon
Report that we're going to vote on today is very good for fisheries and agriculture since the huge brutal cut. We're talking about over €700,000,000,000 now for these sectors, a 20% increase, thanks to the rapporteur, particularly secret Muresan. We've seen a good defense of fisheries as a priority.
To the EPB. But there are challenges here with decarbonization, modernization, fleet renewal, generational renewal, a drop in fish consumption, rising costs, etcetera. So to face those challenges, we need to ensure there's adequate financing.
So we call for approving the report and to ensure that in the later inter institutional negotiations, this momentum is maintained. We hope Council will be up to the task, meet our expectations.
This will be positive for cohesion policy and for financing European defence, which is so important. Now that the ghost of war is back on the European continent.
Georgios Aftias
Commissioner. Very correctly, you emphasized that we have mapped the next steps that are to be taken as far as economic policy. And in a very, very fine way, very clearly, Mr. Morishan emphasized the issue of border security. And just as mister Murishan said, it's particularly important right now because you know that on a daily basis, Turkey is threatening Greece.
This is unacceptable. Each day that Turkey threatens Greece, there are to be cuts in the funds that go to Turkey. I'd like to thank colleague Tavares for emphasizing the social dimension as well of the budget.
And I'm particularly glad because supporting SMEs, households, farmers, regions, islands, and alpine areas, they are number one. We have to fund, we have to provide for health, for education as well.
Mister Morrison, I'd like to thank you because the 10 points that concern Greece as well are now within this particular text concerning the budget. So, thank you.
Speaker 81
Maria Grapini, normally, you have to be here a bit earlier. So you have a loss slot in Kéjai. Please, you are welcome. You are welcome. Please, you have the floor.
Thank you, chair.
Maria Grapini
Commissioner, of course, the new financial framework is extremely important for the future of Europe. And as a citizen and as a person who is the vice president of the IMCo Committee, I wish this budget were a lot clearer.
First of all, we should have a separate budget for agriculture, a dedicated budget for agriculture. We should have more funds targeted for the SMEs to make them more sustainable, more resilient.
And also extremely important, how do we allocate the budgets to fight the housing crisis? It's not a perfect budget. However, I would like to thank the colleagues who made corrections to the Commission's proposal. I hope we can make it better. And also, we should think how to save money because we should not only think how to spend money.
We still have some reserves. There's a lot of money to be recovered from fraud. We talked about taxing the digital, the crypto, we can have a good budget. Thank you.
Speaker 81
Closing KSI procedure, and now time for a commission to commissioner Seraphin for your reserves.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you. You, Mister President, honorable members. That was indeed a rich debate.
At the end, I would like to express hope that tomorrow when the vote is taking place, you will demonstrate unity and you will support the report of Zigfried, Mureshon, and Karla Tavares.
Even if, as you know, we do not see eye to eye on each and every topic, even if, as you know, we can expect that the approach of the council, in the context of the size of the budget, will be a different one. It's important that you will have your position on time, supported by the strong majority that will be an argument.
In the incoming negotiations. And the debate today also demonstrated that, while talking about the MFF, we also would need to talk about the nature of the European Union. And the way in which the European Union should react to what is going on around us.
I believe, and I'm absolutely convinced about it, that the Europeans want to see not only more unity, but that they are aware that either we will hang together or we will be hanged.
Separately. They want European, they want stronger European Union investing into common projects, and that is exactly why we have the European Union budget. In place. I want to also, I think I can count on you when it comes to increases in the EU budget, which overall did not really increase dramatically. We proposed as the European Commission to increase the level of spending from 1.13% of GNI to 1.26% of GNI. But there are areas where the increases are much bigger.
A week ago, I was on the border between Poland and Germany. And I saw internal border controls. In our MFF, we propose to increase by a factor of four the level of spending on the protection of the external border.
Some might say it's a lot. But I'm pretty sure that is still much cheaper than introducing internal controls within the single market. And I can say exactly the same about security and defense. I can say exactly the same about research and innovation. If we spend money together, actually can have more security, better protection of our borders, better innovation, and more research for the same money. So indeed, we live at times when every euro cent counts.
And the honest debate should be on at which level those euro cents should be spent and what is the best way to achieve value added for Europeans. Thank you very much.
Speaker 81
Thank you very much, commissioner. Now Zigfried Morrison has the floor. Rapporteur.
Siegfried Mureşan
Dear colleagues, many thanks for the unity which the European Parliament has shown throughout this process. Karl Atavage and myself as co-rapporteurs have worked in a very inclusive, transparent manner with all of the sectorial committees of the parliament, with all political groups who want a stronger budget for a stronger Europe.
I would, of course, like to first and foremost thank my co-rapporteur, Carla Tavares, for all the work that she has put into this report, the shadows of the groups, of the political groups that have worked with us.
We propose as a European Parliament a budget for more security, for more defense, for a stronger European Union, for more competitiveness, for innovation, for a digital agenda, a budget which does not forget about the vulnerable parts of our population because Europe has always had a social side as well.
We proposed a budget for energy security and food security. For border protection, for cybersecurity, and for defense. And we want decisions to be made as close as possible to the city. This is why we want a strong role for the European regions. In the decision and in the implementation of the budget, we want regions to have a binding role, to decide how money is spent because they are close to the citizens and they know the needs of the citizens best. We also want that the European power has a strong say, because this only ensures transparency, democratic control, and accountability.
And we want a strong rule of low conditionality. Let me be clear. Everyone who receives European funds has to respect European values. We want predictability. Farmers and we, farmers and regions researchers, beneficiaries of EU funds for large infrastructure projects should all know what resources are available for them in the next years.
Predictability is important if we tell a researcher we give you money this year, but we will see next year. Will for sure do his research in the United States, in Asia, or somewhere outside Europe. This is why we want clear funding for each category of beneficiaries.
And then we have Mister Baydella here. Tells us he wants to cut the budget of the European Union. And what Bardella and their peers are proposing, what he said earlier today, means that we would have less funding for French farmers and for farmers everywhere in Europe. There would be less funding for French fishers, for fishers everywhere in Europe. There would be less funding for French industry and for industry everywhere in Europe.
And the idea which anti-European extremists started telling is we will weaken Europe. We will reduce the budget. We will do it better at the national level is false. This is exactly what led to Brexit. This is exactly the lie which the Brexit campaign told to the people of The United Kingdom, and we see all the misery right now.
This is why we reject this as a European Parliament, and we will adopt a budget which is future-oriented, which is relevant. And in order to have enough resources not to make cuts to pay back the debt, and not to burden member states with additional contributions, we propose own resources for the budget of the Union.
And we have three new ideas commissioned of a digital levy, and only source based on online gaming and gambling, and an only source based on crypto transactions and commissioner. We call on you and your services to do technical work together with the council and with us in the next weeks to see what are the possible own resources.
You have made some proposals as commission last year, but we believe new ideas deserve to be brought to the table, and we are ready to discuss also with member states any other ideas that they might have on own resources or commission. Please let us do some technical work to have alternatives to be prepared.
Today, the European Parliament will adopt this position. We want a fast agreement with the Council and with the Commission. As of today, we are ready for talks. We will have a mandate, and the ball is now in the court of the council.
We're looking forward to a discussion to adopt a meaningful budget soon. Thank you very much.
Speaker 144
Thank you. Next speaker, operator, Carlo Tabarish as well. I hope you will be a bit shorter, so you're gonna you, president, dear commission, Karasy Karskulegas.
Carla Tavares
Colleagues. We're all here to talk about the next budget and the level of commitment and ambition, leaving no one behind. We want to ensure that traditional European policies can continue, but we also need to be forward-looking.
Competitiveness, security, defense, support, four, third countries, looking at what's happening through global Europe. But we also need to take account of events, ensure that our budget is more ambitious so that we have sustainable, predictable, resilient resources. And I think that is a significant priority here. We need to have fair new sources of financing, because otherwise, we're going to be postponing, undermining, failing to achieve what we're promising the people.
Europe has to be more participative, that we need to be a participatory democracy. We need to be meeting the challenges. And meeting people's expectations. We have to put ourselves in the right position to take the next step.
This report is not a landing zone. It's not the end of the story. It's the starting point. It's the starting pistol. As we go into negotiations.
And I think we're showing maturity and political responsibility with this. I would like to thank co-rapporteur Sigrid Muresan for the balance that we've been able to achieve. It wasn't always easy.
I'd like to thank the shadow rapporteurs too, particularly those who were fighting day in, day out for European values and principles. We are now in a good position to start our work in this house. We're showing responsibility, maturity, commitment to Europe, and commitment to the citizens.
Let's roll up our sleeves and get on with the job to defend democracy and defend the spirit. The European Union. Thank you very much.
Speaker 81
Colleagues, are closing the debate on this point in the agenda, and I would remind you that what will take place today.
Okay.
Roberta Metsola
Dear colleagues, The next item on the agenda is parliament statements, World Day for Safe and Health at Work. I would like to inform members that there will be only one round of political group speakers for this debate. Therefore, there is no catch the eye procedure, and no blue cards will be accepted.
We will start with the representative of the EPP group, Lisbeth Soman.
Thank you. You for.
Lisbeth Zorman
So. Health. At work. There's a lot that one can point out, of course. So it's a very important, so there has been a lot of pressure that's been exerted from different sides.
On April 15, a Behind.
Each person, there's a whole colleague, family, somebody else's life torn apart. Every single case has individuals linked to it. And there are so many people having accidents or suffering from illness which are directly related to their work.
That's unacceptable. We need to look at protection of safety and health at work, not as a luxury, as some kind of administrative requirement, or as a cost. We have to see it as something absolutely vital, because there's a lot of lack of safety. There's a growing lack of safety in many workplaces. We need to ensure that the necessary investment is going into that.
We need to ensure that we have the right safety and health requirements, which are demanding, where we have a threshold for dangerous substances. We need lower thresholds for such substances. We also need to ensure that the inspectorate is well-staffed and is effective.
And that has to go way beyond fine words. We need to ensure that there is actually production on the ground. It's not easy, but it's absolutely vital. This is a challenge for all of us. It's a challenge for our managers and employers, and it's also a challenge for workers.
We need to ensure that we go beyond symbolic words. Having a day for it is all very well, but it requires the action to back that up. It requires practical measures so that people aren't ill or dying just because they have gone to work.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you very much, Miss Soman. And now for the SND Group, Gaby Bishoff.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Colleagues, for many employees, today's World Day for Safety and Health at Work isn't something abstract. It's there every day.
It's about algorithms for delivery drivers, long shifts for care workers, or people up ladders repairing roofs. We have in 2023, we had 3,300 deaths at places at work.
We had 2.8 million people in Europe suffering accidents which aren't fatal, but impact their health. We have lots of people in Europe who live with stress, physical pressure and burdens. The world of work is changing quickly.
Safety and health for them isn't enough. So for us, we shouldn't have any fatal accidents at work in Europe. A zero death strategy should be our goal. At the same time, we must bring down accidents at work.
So the commission proposal, which should come soon, on the quality of work is important. Good work needs good protection. So I appeal to you. There was the BG song Have You Seen My Wife, Mr. Jones.
This was about fatal accidents in mines. These accidents don't just affect employees, but also their families. So that's why we need to act.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you, Miss Bischoff. And now I give the floor to the PFE group to Laurent Castillo.
Thank you. You.
Laurent Castillo
Madam President. Colleagues, on the World Day for Safety and Health at Work. One reality remains. On burnout. Europe is left hanging.
We don't have a harmonized definition. We don't have recognition of burnout as an occupational illness. This is not acceptable. Professional burnout costs €15,000 per employee per annum in France, but it destroys lives, too. We need to protect workers on a scientific basis, and that protects employers too. That then nips it in the bud, and avoids all these knock-on effects.
Recognizing it as an occupational illness will help with early detection, and it will help with tailored help and counseling for those affected. Europe needs to step in and do what is expected of it here without any constraints for the sake of those affected.
Chiara Gemma
Now for the ECR Group, Garageman. Thank you. Thank you very much, President. 2023, another 3,000 dead at work and numerous people injured as well. So we have a situation which is extremely dire.
One priority is their prevention. That means a culture of safety adhering to regulations and rules at work. In a world where we have digitalization, changes in algorithms, new forms of work, environmental conditions that change, there are new risks which are less visible, perhaps, but not less serious. We need to have a system in place that goes hand in hand with these particular changes to provide the protection necessary. We need balance.
Protecting workers doesn't mean demonizing the undertakings and enterprises, but having clear proportional laws in place to protect these individuals. Security, rights and growth at the same time have to be there. We need to maintain the dignity of individuals, have sustainability there for all, and achieving this particular balance will provide as well for a social Europe, which we all need.
Gregory Allain.
Grégory Allione
Madame la president, Madam president, to colleagues, on the occasion of World Day for safety and health at work, we've got an important vote on the budget on the same day.
We want to see competitiveness and a stronger Europe. But to achieve a stronger Europe, we need our work to be protected. And I would like to refer to the presence of volunteer firefighters and first-aid providers in our workplaces. That helps. Having people trained in first aid and risk management helps make a difference in the workplace and makes our economy more resilient, too. We're protecting such workers. Helping everyone work in a safe and healthy environment helps workers, but it helps make companies more resilient. It protects citizens more generally.
Our collective resilience. It helps make our economy more robust. And those who face the risk of natural disasters and climate change on a day to day basis are also better protected. So helping volunteer firefighters is also helping ensure the safety of both workers and companies.
Thank you very much.
Maria Ohisalo
Dear. President Metzola, dear colleagues, one life lost every minute.
Globally, ILO estimates that work-related psychosocial risks are linked to 840,000 deaths a year, making psychosocial risk at work now one of the leading causes of death, disease, and distress for workers worldwide. High workloads, extended hours, and limited autonomy present critical challenges in every workplace, and we spend an average 37 years of our lives at work.
Particularly in the changing world of work, where digital transformation, climate change, and fragmentation of work pose new challenges every day. It is high time that the EU wake up to this reality.
We must put forward legislation to protect workers from psychosocial risks. Too, like we've done on physical and health risks for a long time now. So let's make European workplaces the best workplaces in the world.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you very much. Miss Ohisalo. Now, on behalf of the left group, I invite Konstantinos Arvanites to take the floor.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
President, ladies and gentlemen, on this particular day, I think it's quite clear that we have to safeguard the value of human life at work. We also want to put together an here in the parliament, because it appears that the member states are not conforming to the regulations that exist. We have to deal with the various threats that exist, which have resulted in 112,000 work related deaths each year.
In Greece alone, we've had 100,000 to 120 deaths this year. We have to protect workers from accidents in all member states of the union. So what we want is a system that will register all accidents that take place at work, risk factors, health factors as well. We need a system of control and surveillance which simply doesn't exist in many member states. So we have to make it clear that the workplace can't become a battlefield with injured people and dead people.
Roberta Metsola
And indeed, if people are relegated to working at home, if the job still exists and has been snatched away by some fund, we have to question that as well.
Petar Volgin
Show that over 20% of Bulgarians live in poverty. The average salary in Bulgaria is the lowest in the EU.
So you see, in that situation, people cannot think about health at work. A lot of my fellow countrymen, both in Bulgaria and abroad, try just to find a job. Oftentimes, one job is not enough. In order to scrape a living, you need to have two or three jobs. You simply cannot care about safe working conditions, especially abroad.
Bulgarian workers need to accept working conditions far below legal standards, that are still better than the poverty and unemployment they have left behind. And this is true of the workers from many other countries.
This is why European leaders should fight poverty, and instead of rattling weapons that we don't have, instead of granting our resources to countries that don't deserve it, it's high time we cared for the citizens of the European Union.
Thank you.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you, Mr. Volgin. Now we will suspend for a couple of minutes. Where our guests will join, and I will have time for the colleagues to take their seats.
Speaker 156
Colleagues, can I ask you to take your seat? We. Have a very long voting session today. So the quicker we sit, the quicker we proceed. Okay. So before passing to the votes, dear colleagues, we will have the signing ceremony of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission.
Roberta Metsola
This agreement was voted in the European Parliament on 03/11/2026, so I will invite colleagues from both institutions to come to the center for the short signing ceremony. So, president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, Mara Septovich, commissioner responsible for inter-institutional relations.
And transparency, Sven Simon, parliament rapporteur and chair of the committee on constitutional affairs, and Bernd Lange, chair of the conference of committee chairs.
Collégi.
Colleagues.
Roberta Metsola
Before passing to the votes, I would like to welcome a delegation from the Assembly of Cambodia. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, SOSWADA, the fifth EU Cambodia inter parliamentary meeting, is hosted by the European Parliament. I'd like to welcome the delegation from Cambodia.
I. Have some announcements. Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield, Extension Conference of Chairs. Requested that the special committee on the European democracy shield could extend its mandate by six months. This is necessary in order to ensure that the special committee can carry out its mandate and its tasks.
We received a request from the Patriot for a roll-call vote. Would anybody like to speak? No. No. So we shall proceed by roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Six-month extension of the mandate. Now we can move on to the votes.
There have been some technical difficulties. The issue is still being resolved. There may be a problem with the screen display. Of voting. Lists, we can slow down the voting process should there be technical difficulties.
We'll start a vote on a request for an urgent procedure presented by the EPP group regarding the convention establishing an international claims commission for Ukraine. We'll vote on the decision. Request for an urgent procedure.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions approved. The vote will be on Thursday, the 30th. Of April. Adrian Vasquez Lacerra, report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Patrick Yaki. Vote on the proposal for a decision.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions. Carried. Check. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
It's. Approved. Pascali. Pierre's report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Daniel Obaytec. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved.
The. Vote is open.
Vote. Is closed.
Approved.
Roberta Metsola
David Coman's report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomas Bucek. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions approved. No.
It's clearly approved.
Roberta Metsola
Dominik. Turchinsky's report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of the iron Diana Jovanovici, Shoshowatza. Proposal for a decision to waive the immunity in points b, c, d, e, f, g, and h. Those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions approved. A vote on the proposal for a decision not to waive the immunity in point one. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Gregor Brown. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are approved.
Mario Furore report on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Albise. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved.
Mudichan. And Tovadish report on the interim report on the proposal for the multi-annual framework for 2028-2034. Amendment 50, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Para two. In two parts, raise hands first part.
Those in favor. Those against. Abstentions approved. Second part, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions? Approved.
Amendment three, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment four, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment five, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Para four, original text in three parts, all by roll call vote. The first part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Approved. Second part. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Approved third part. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Approved. Amendment six, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Paragraph six, original text.
And two in two parts, both by roll call vote. The vote is open on the first part.
That.
Vote. Is closed.
Approved.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 57. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment seven. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment eight, the original text.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Amendment eight, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment nine, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 58. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 85, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 10, roll call votes. The vote is open.
Vote. Is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Pair of 12, original text. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Amendment 59. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Reject it.
Amendment 60. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 61. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 86, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Rejected.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Approved. Amendment 51, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 16 original text. Those in favor. Those against, abstentions approved. Para 17 original text. Those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions are approved. Amendment 87, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 88, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 62.
Those in favor? Those against, abstentions? Reject it. Paragraph 22 in four parts. First part, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions are approved. Second part.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions approved. Third part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved.
Fourth part.
Roberta Metsola
Those in favor? Those against? Extensions approved. Amendment 11, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Para 25 original text, Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Amendment 12, roll call votes.
The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Para 26, original text in two parts. Both by roll-call vote. The first part, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Approved. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Approved.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 14, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 63. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 64. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 65. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 66. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 67, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 16. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Para 28 original text roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote. Is closed.
The vote is closed.
Approved.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 68. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 69, those in favor. Those against, abstentions rejected. Para 31, original text.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Barrow 36 original text roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Approved. Amendment 17, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendments 70, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 18, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 19, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 20, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 89, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 21, roll call vote. The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. Para 39 original text. In five parts.
All roll call votes. First part, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Approved. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Approved. Third part, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Approved. Fourth part. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Approved.
Fifth part. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Approved.
Amendment 71 roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 72, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 90, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment nineteen, two roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Reject it. Amendment 93, roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 22. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Reject it.
Amendment 23. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 24.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 25.
Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 26 roll call vote.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 27. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 28. Roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 29, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Reject it. Amendment 30, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 31, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 32 roll-call vote.
The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Approved. Para 54 original text roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Approved. Amendment 33, roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 73. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, rejected. Para 56 original text. Those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Amendment 94. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Para 62, original text. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions approved.
Amendment 74. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are rejected. Amendment 75. Roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 34, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 79 original text. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, approved. Amendment 52 roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 35. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 36. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Para 89 in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
Converters. Closed. Approved. Second part, the vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Around 90.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Approved. Amendment 76. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected? 77. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. 95, those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
37. Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. 38 roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected, paragraph. 105. Roll call vote.
The vote is closed. Adopted paragraph 106, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
Amendment 78, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected. Paragraph 107, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adapted. Amendment 79, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Paragraph 108, roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
Paragraph 109, original text, First part, the roll the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, open vote. The vote is closed.
Adopted, Amendment 80, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected. Paragraph 115, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Paragraph 116, original text, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 81. Those in favor. Those against. Abstentions rejected, Paragraph 117, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 120 rule original text rule call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted, Amendment 39, roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 40, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 41, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 42, roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 43, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 44 roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 45 roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 46. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 47. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Paragraph 122, original text, roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted paragraph 123, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 124, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 82.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Paragraph 125, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
Paragraph 126, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 40, eight's rule call vote, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 53, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 49, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected, Recital c, original text, those in favor, those against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 54, those in favor, those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 55, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 56, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Recital J, original text, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment one, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected, Recital p original text. Those in favor. Those against, abstentions adopted.
Amendment two, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 83.
Those in favor. Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 84, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. So the resolution as a whole roll call vote, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
So. Now we go on to the report of Niz Ushakov's guidelines for the 2024 budget. We'll begin with 58. A roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 38. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. 45 roll-call votes.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 46 roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 39, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 59, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment eight, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 60, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 55, roll-call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment nine, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 56. Those in favor, those against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 10, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 47, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 67, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 15, original text. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 57 roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Paragraph 17, original text.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Paragraph eight original text. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 48, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Paragraph 19, original text.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted, Amendment 11. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 12, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. So we have a compromise amendment that is 79. Now according to 71 and 88, if there are any particular objections to this particular vote. If not, then we move forward with the vote.
79, we're speaking about. There were no objections. Those in favor, those against, abstentions. Adopted.
The. Vote is closed.
Adapted.
Roberta Metsola
Excuse. Me. We move on to 13. And that would be a roll-call vote. The vote is open.
Oh. We're speaking about paragraph 24. Amendment 13. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 14, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 15, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 61, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 70, the vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
It's a roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment one, roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted Amendment 16, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 44, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. The vote is open. That's for 61. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 17, the roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 78. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. 72.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 18, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 19, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 20, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 73, those in favor, those against, abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment 21, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 22, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 40. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions rejected Amendment 62, those in favor, those against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 74, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The. Vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 23, roll call votes. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 41, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 42, those in favor. Those against, abstentions rejected. Amendment three, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 24, those in favor, those against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 25, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 26. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 43. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 27, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The. Vote is closed. Rejected, Amendment 75. Those in favor, those against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 49.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected? Amendment 50. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment four? Roll call vote, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment five, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 28, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 29, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 51, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected amendment 30. Those in favor.
Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 63, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 31. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions rejected.
Amendment 52, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 53, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Reject him. Amendment 54 roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 32, those in favor, those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 76 roll call vote, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 66-64, roll call vote. The vote is open. Floor is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 33, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 65 roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected it. Amendment 34, roll call vote again. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected amendment 35. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 77, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment six, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 66 roll-call vote.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Now we vote the resolution as a whole, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Now. We go on to the LENS report on generalized and recommendations for the second reading accounting of greenhouse gas emissions of transport services. The European Parliament has concluded the second reading, and it has been adopted.
Now we move on to the launch report, generalized scheme of tariff differences.
Bernd Lange
We'll give the floor, first of all, to our reporter for two minutes, please. Colleague Nange.
Madam chair, dear colleagues, we are here for the adoption of a compromise of a trial log which took time. Four years. And now we have a reasonable outcome. Which is a clear signal to our partners worldwide that we are a reliable partner, and we want to really give the poorest countries of the world access to our market.
Not without any conditions, we make clear that they have to respect human rights, that they have to respect sustainability, and some others. So I guess this is a package which is helping the poorest countries and is on the other side, really securing our interest.
And, yes, the Rolling Stones, they are right. They have a famous song, you can't always get what you want. That's right. It's a compromise. But we took on board the concerns specifically from the agriculture sector, so we introduced for the first time in this scheme of general preference a safeguard, which is a strong safeguard, which will protect our rice farmers from a big volume coming from poor countries like Myanmar, Cambodia.
So if we are now really reopening this result of the trial log, it will be a really worse situation because it's a really fragile compromise. We will have no clear condition for the partner. The global South will not have a predictable situation for us. And we will have no safeguard on rice at all. And, therefore, let's be really responsible and vote for the outcome of Toyota.
Thanks a lot.
Roberta Metsola
So let's move on to the vote. And we begin with 1:31. That amendment, roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Let's move on to the procedural motion, roll call vote. The vote is open. This is a proposal to vote on amendments to the draft legislative act. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Let's move on to 120. Those in favor, those against, abstentions? So. The draft Legislative Act 120, Part one.
Those. In favor, let me repeat. Those against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 141. Those in favor.
Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 142. Those in favor, those against, abstentions, rejected, Amendment 143, those in favor, those against, abstentions rejected? 120, the second part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted. Aben 144, those in favor, those against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 145, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. 146, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. 124, roll call vote. The vote is open. Roll call vote, once again.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 123 part roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Amendment 130, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 127, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 125 and 129, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Now we move on to 120. We are speaking about the fourth part here. The vote is open.
Excuse me. Those in favor. Excuse me, says the speaker. Those in favor, excuse me, says the chair. Those in favor, those against, abstentions adopted.
132, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions rejected, Amendment 133, those in favor, those against? Abstentions, rejected. 134, those in favor, those against, abstentions rejected. Now we move on to 120, the fifth part, those in favor.
Those against. Abstentions are adopted. 135. Those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected Amendment 120, sixth part.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 136, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 120, the seventh part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 137. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 120, the eighth part.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 138. Amendment 138, million euros. We're moving on to 139, the roll call vote. There, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 120, the ninth, ballpark. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions. Let's check that one. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
So. We move on to 120, Part 10, Part 11. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Let's move on now to the commission's proposal roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
The proposal of the commission has occurred.
The commission's proposal is adopted. We conclude the first reading. We now move on. To Ms. Vricio Nova's report. On the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability.
317. Roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Draft legislative amendment 3 18. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. That concludes parliament's first reading.
We move on to the Summary Report on the European Globalization Adjustment Fund. Workers affected by imminent job displacement. Provisional agreement amendment 46, role call vote. The vote is open.
Vote. Closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Parliament's first reading is concluded.
Maran report on amendments to biocidal products regulation as regards the extension of certain data protection periods. Single roll call vote. Vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Parliament's first reading is concluded.
The Simon report on amendments to parliament rules of procedure concerning appointments to union agencies and bodies, Rule 135. Changes to the rules of procedure can only be approved on the basis of a majority of members constituting the Parliament.
Vote. Is closed.
Adopt it.
Roberta Metsola
The proposed amendments to the rules of procedure will take effect. As of the first day of the next sitting.
Mister Ericsson's report on the control of the financial activities of the European Investment Bank Group annual report, 2024.
We'll vote on the amendments. Amendment 11. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 12. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment five. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Pareto seven original text in two parts. First part, those in favor. Those against.
Abstentions? Adopted. Second part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. 13, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions, reject.
Parrot eight, original text in two parts. First part, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, adopted. Second part. Those in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 14, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment 15, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Amendment 16, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 17. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 18, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 19. Those in favor.
Roberta Metsola
Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 20.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 21. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment six, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions, rejected.
Amendments 2 and 22. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Para 30, original text. Let's check 22. The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 30, original text in two parts, first part, those in favor. Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Second part, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions, check. Second part, the vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment seven. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 23, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Para 31, original text in two parts. First part, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Second part, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 24, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment nine.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment three, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment four, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are rejected.
Amendment eight, those in favor. Those against, abstentions rejected. Amendments one and ten. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected.
The resolution as a whole roll call vote open.
Vote. Closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
We move on to the in-shade Schrodingvilgos report on the importance of consent rate-based rape legislation in the EU. Amendment one, roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote. Closed. Rejected. Amendment two, roll call vote. The vote is open.
That. Is closed. Rejected. Para four original text in two parts. Roll call vote, first part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Adopt it. Amendment three, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Para 12 original text in three parts, all by call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Third part. The vote is open.
Vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment five, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopt it.
19 original texts in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Paragraph 20, original text in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
The vote is closed. Adopted.
Amendment six, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Roberta Metsola
Paragraph 21 in two parts, both by roll-call vote. First part, vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Para 25 original text, two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The boat is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted.
Power 28 original text in two parts, both by roll-call vote. First part, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Citation 16, original text, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Recital AC original text in two parts, both by roll-call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Recital a j, original text, both by roll call, vote first part. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted second part, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Recital a l, original text in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment for roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote is closed. Adopted. Recital AP original text in two parts, both by roll call vote, first part. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Adopt it. The resolution was a whole roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Sanchez. Report on the protection of the European Union's financial combating fraud, annual report 2024. We'll start with the amendments. Amendment 15, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopt it. Amendment 35. Those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment four in two parts, both by roll-call vote. The first part vote is open. First part. Vote is closed.
Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 52. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Reject.
Amendment 16, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopt it. Amendment 36, those in favor. Those against, abstentions adopted.
Amendment 53 in two parts. First part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Second part, those in favor? Those against? Check. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Reject it. Amendment 54, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 37, though, in favor? Those against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 38. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment 65. Those in favor, those against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 39, those in favor. Against? Abstentions are adopted.
Para 20, the original text in two parts. No. That falls amendment 40. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment five, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 17 roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment six, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment seven, roll call vote.
The vote is o. Well. That's gonna. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment eight in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted the second part. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopt it.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment nine in two parts, both by roll-call vote. First part, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopt it. Amendment 10 in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open. Vert is closed.
Adopted. Second part, the vote is open. Vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 55 in two parts, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted second part roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment, para 29, amendment 41. Those in favor? Those against? Amend, abstentions? Adopted.
11 roll-call vote. The vote is open. Vote closed. Rejected. 42.
Those in favor. Those against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 26, those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 12, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 13, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Roberta Metsola
Amendment 59 falls. Amendment 14, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Adopt it.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Amendment 43. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 44. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 64, roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Adopt it. Amendment 45. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment 56 in two parts. First part, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Second part, those in favor? Those against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 46. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment 57. Those in favor, those against? Abstentions rejected. Amend 18, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 47. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 58 in two parts. First part, those in favor. Those against, abstentions, adopted.
Second part. Those in favor. Those against? Abstentions rejected? Amendments 27 and 61, Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment 48. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are adopted.
Amendment 62. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment 66. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 63.
Those in favor, those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment 49. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment 21 in two parts by roll call vote, first part, the vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
Vote. Is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Amendment 22, roll call vote. The vote is open.
Vote. Is closed. Adopted. Amendment 28, roll call vote. Vote is open.
Vote is closed.
Roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Amendment 29. Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 24. Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Rejected. Amendment 50. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 51. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment two in two parts. Roll call vote. First part, the vote is open.
The. Vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open. Vote is closed.
Adopted amendment three, both by roll call vote. First part, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Second part, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 30. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment 31.
Those in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. 32. Those in favor, against, abstentions: 33 in favor. Against, abstentions adopted, 34 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Recital cue original text in two parts, Fours will vote on the resolution as a whole roll-call vote. The vote is open.
Roberta Metsola
We. Move on to the Zhovko report on the role of ocean diplomacy for the competitiveness of EU fisheries and aquaculture.
Paragraph. Five of the original text, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Paragraph. Nine original text.
Vote. Is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Para 17 original text. The vote is opened by a roll call vote.
Vote. Is closed.
The. Vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Amendment two, the vote is open. Roll call vote.
The. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment three, those in favor.
Those against, abstentions, rejected. The resolution as a whole, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Roberta Metsola
Adopted. Not long to go, colleagues. Monica Holmeier, report on control, transparency, and traceability of performance-based instruments. I'll give the floor to the rapporteur for 2 minutes. Miss Holmeyer, you have the floor.
Colleagues.
Monika Hohlmeier
I didn't want to, but I've found out that is the way it is. I'll be brief. With the resilience-based performance, through the COVID fund, we have a new instrument, which will be transferred for the MFF.
First of all, it's important that the European Parliament must have the right to say when going forward. There must be a possibility to trace where the money is spent. And how this whole thing is going. Means the European Parliament must have its say. There must be a traceability of the resources.
There must be milestones and goals in the program. There shouldn't be some sort of general questioning about cuts in agriculture. And citizens don't understand why cuts are being made. Because they can't follow these milestones and goals. European policy must be understandable and transparent and must be spent sensibly.
We must have a proper MFF, and learn from previous mistakes.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you very much, colleague.
So vote of the resolution as a whole, a roll call vote, and the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. I'd like to remind you that the discussion will begin immediately after the vote, so please remain here. We'll move on to the final vote now.
Enhancing connectivity, preserving cultural heritage, and driving local excellence, the ATAR report. And I'd like to give the floor to colleague ATAR for 2 minutes.
Friends.
Atar
We all agree that we need to go and have lunch, but tourism has been left to the end. It's not secondary. It's an important economic point for Europe. It employs so many people, and it keeps our regions awake.
Alive.
Atar
And if we don't pass this, it would be failure. We know what is the price for policy. Some cities have too many citizens. Others protest against the tourists.
And on the other side, we have fewer workers, and this report sends a clear message.
We need a new model for tourism. In Europe. For a model for all zones, zones in the periphery, it looks at the history of the regions, protection of the environment, and a model that protects the residents that regulates what today we have a jungle of short term rentals. Therefore, tourism is a sector that should serve our communities and not exploit them. This is not against tourism, but it is towards better tourism.
Speaker 170
Therefore, a vote for this is a vote for a stronger tourism and a European vote. Thank you.
Collège.
Roberta Metsola
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, colleagues. Now a single roll call vote, and the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopt it.
Good. Afternoon.
Martin Hojsík
And the next point of the agenda is a discussion on 13 reports. And the first one is the discharge 2024.
You General Budget, Daniel Freund, then discharge 2024 EU general budget European Parliament report by Tridico then discharged 2024 EU general budget, and Tridico up that is the EU General Budget Court of Justice of the European Union then report RICO discharge 24 EU General Budget Court of Auditors discharge 24 appraised by Tridico. EU general budget, European External Action Service, and the report by Tridico, this just 2024 EU General Budget European Economic and Social Committee.
And the next one is also by Tridico. This EU general budget committee of the regions. And report by member Tridico discharge 24 EU General Budget, European Ombudsman. And the next one is by the same E and P. EU General Budget, Data Protection Supervisor, then report by three d Code Discharge, 24 European Public Prosecutor's Office, report by Holmeier. Discharge 24 agencies and report by Molna, discharge 24 joint undertakings.
Daniel Freund
And the first one will be colleague, Friend, to take the floor.
Chair, colleagues, commissioner, president, the discharge is one of the most important scrutiny tools at the disposal of this parliament.
And, obviously, the discharge is the biggest scrutiny that we do. It's the first time that this is in the hands of a green reporter. So I wanna thank colleagues and the shadows for the trustful collaboration that we have had in this process.
The budget control committee recommends that we do grant discharge to the European Commission for the year 2024. But we also have criticisms. There are things that are not going the way that they should be going, and let me outline the four most important points where we have criticism. Let me start with the RF.
The COVID fund was historic, unprecedented. We wanted to give quite a bit of money to citizens after the economic crisis following COVID. And one of the conditions for parliament was that we see who is actually getting the money. And to this day, the large majority of member states, we have no idea where this money went. We got useless lists of ministries and paying agents, and we are now very clearly saying in this report that we want to see this until the end of the year when the RF expires. We want to see this. And otherwise, we will take measures. We will consider legal action if necessary.
But there is criticism by Apple. There's criticism by the European Court of Auditors. The parliament has consistently criticized this. We need to see an improvement on this. Point. The second point that I want to mention where we have criticism is with the former commissioner responsible for DGNIA.
We have in the hearings criticized the management mistakes. Senior roles have not been appointed for years, including the director responsible for Ukraine during the full scale invasion, including the director responsible for Israel and Palestine during the seven October attacks. This comes on top of many other shortcomings, spying allegations, and other things.
And he has actually not told us the full truth during the hearing that we had in January in court. So let me be very clear that the language that we have adopted now is clear. That taken together, the things that we have listed in the report mean that he is not fit for this role.
And if he were a sensible man with integrity, I think if this is now adopted with a large majority tomorrow, he would not stay in office. I think parliament has never criticized a sitting commissioner quite the way that we do in this case.
The next point I wanna mention is the situation in Slovakia. The budget control committee visited the country last year. The special prosecutor for anticorruption has been dismantled. The National Crime Agency has been dismantled. There have been legal changes undermining corruption convictions, and there was an attempt to dismantle the whistleblower protection legislation.
So parliament, in this report, recommends that a conditionality procedure be started against the Slovak government. EU funds are under threat in this country. And there needs to be strong pressure so that EU funds are adequately protected.
In Slovakia. Last point that I want to mention is the case of the former director general Hololai. To my knowledge, this is the first time ever that the commission has dismissed a senior civil servant. My understanding is that that is because there are allegations of improper conduct, possibly bribery.
Holloway negotiated the Open Skies agreement with Qatar. And given the unprecedented steps that the commission has taken, parliament says this agreement that we have with Qatar needs to be examined and possibly suspended.
Because if that was the reason that he was bribed, then I'm not sure we can keep this agreement in force. Now I wanna finish my speech on something that has nothing to do with the commission discharge, but I'm speaking now on behalf of my group, also on the EP discharge. Where we have an unprecedented situation.
We don't have audit reports available to us for all the political groups. To this day, the audit report for the PFE group is not available to us. We don't have a clean assessment of accounts, and I don't fully know how this is possible at the moment of discharge that for one of the groups we don't have an audit report. And I am actually wondering whether further money should be going to this group as long as this is not sorted out, as long as there is continued corruption and misuse. You guys have invented your own budget lines that do not exist and keep wasting taxpayer money.
And I think parliament needs to be serious about this, and stop funding people that don't properly deal with the EU budget. Thank you very much.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much. And the next, rapporteur is Gurbanyan Gerbrande.
Yeah.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Colleagues, commissioner, this discharge procedure is perhaps the most important parliamentary tool that we have, and you see it attracts huge crowds also in this plenary. It's where this house exercises genuine democratic power, and it makes the EU institutions accountable to the EU citizens.
I had the honor of reporting on the parliament's discharge, and it concerns a huge sum. In 2024, €2,830,000,000 of public money, and that alone should emphasize the importance. But what makes this discharge truly unique is that it's parliament controlling itself, and that is why we must be extra rigorous.
Extra demanding, not as a formality, but we owe it to the citizens, whose taxes we are spending. And therefore, my report is on some critical aspects. But I'll start with the good news.
Majority in this house will support this charge being granted. But we also have to mention the stain on this year's discharge, and the most serious finding of the report. Within our house, substantial fraud cases involving political groups have come to light.
I've named them in my report, not to point fingers for the sake of it, but because accountability requires me to be transparent. In my report. These cases are now being handled by Olaf, and we cannot draw conclusions today, but we expect to be informed by the bureau as soon as results are available, and we expect the relevant disciplinary consequences to follow. Including that those found guilty should make sure that funds are returned.
In connection to this and more broadly, as a matter of upholding the values on which this parliament stands, I've also filed a plenary amendment calling on the European political parties and foundations to assess whether one far right party in this parliament still needs the conditions to receive European funding. Because one of the core obligations of a recognized European party is a commitment to article 2 of the treaties, that obligation is not negotiable.
Neither for its leadership nor for its member organizations. Beyond fraud, we have a second problem, not of a criminal sort, but one that I have to mention. A lack of financial accountability.
The ombudsman has called it what it is, male administration, and rightly so. There are budgetary lines in this institution. Members receive up to €5,000 a month with zero accountability. No receipts, no proof, no verification whatsoever that the money is spent for its intended purpose.
Colleagues, it is simply unacceptable in any form of public administration, let alone here. And I call on this house. Let us fix this. It's not complicated. It's a minimal effort, and it's very the least we owe to transparency.
And finally, I want to address something else, and that's the problem of parliamentary discipline in our own house. And I have a problem that I do not have the hard data to prove the trend, but it's a problem, and I come to that.
Within this house, no. Wait one second. I see it, and we all see it. The committee rooms that should be full are not. And for too many of us, an Instagram video or a distant mission has become a higher priority than the legislative work happening in this building.
And I want to capture this in my full report to show, with data, how participation has evolved over time. But the data does not exist. We do not track it. We do not measure it. And that must change. And that's why I'm calling in this chart discharge for the data to be collected and made available, and I'm calling directly on the bureau and on the president to take responsibility for making that happen.
Thank you.
Speaker 176
Jacqueline, thank you. And, unfortunately, I don't see colleague Tridico and colleague Holmeier. I give the floor to colleague Monar.
Csaba Molnár
You. Very much, chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the European Court of Auditors for their thorough and comprehensive work that they have performed regarding the joint undertakings and other organizations.
Dear colleagues, this charge is not a technical obligation for the Parliament. It is one of the strongest tools of democratic accountability. Therefore, we must always stand up for transparency, the rule of law, and the responsible use of taxpayer money. These principles are non-negotiable.
According to the European Court of Auditors, the joint undertakings and the other organizations have mostly conducted their business regularly, and the risk of errors is low, which is a positive development compared to last year.
But we should not be silent about the flaws and problems either. We can see in the case of several joint undertakings that there are structural flaws about program execution, about human resources management, and also within the internal control systems. These system-level problems should be targeted with correction measures in the next years and should also be supervised in a stricter manner. We also made recommendations in this direction with my colleagues.
We can also not ignore the geopolitical situation, which is getting increasingly worrisome. Russia's aggression against Ukraine and also the War in the Middle East have a direct and obvious effect on the operation of joint undertakings, and supply chains might be broken up. There might be delays in the project which we have already seen. And the costs of the projects may also increase significantly.
Allow me to talk about one joint undertaking in more detail. This is the fusion for energy ITER joint undertaking. Russia is a strategic partner in this joint undertaking. Therefore, their participation is a security and strategic risk. It is very important to talk about this also in order to execute the sanctions against Russia.
We must completely step away from our dependence on Russia so that our strategic interests are not endangered by this. Joint undertakings must help diversify supply chains and to the creation of the strategic sovereignty of the European Union, because this is not a political slogan anymore. This is a very obvious everyday strategy. As regards, the political narratives built on this information are also posing a risk to the strategic projects that are included in these joint undertakings.
Dear colleagues, dear MEPs, I would like to suggest that you approve the report on the discharge. And as regards to problems contained in these reports, I would recommend that we monitor these problems. And if a change should be necessary, then we should act together.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Hag president.
Monika Hohlmeier
Commissioner. Colleagues, council presidency, on the discharge report on the agencies, there, we found a large majority. In particular, we looked at how well the agencies are operating and what problems there are.
In future, it's important to make sure that if you give tasks to agencies, you must give them the right personnel to do it. And if they don't have the people, they might cut their tasks. But more tasks and fewer people, it's a bit of a difficult formula.
Secondly, there are weaknesses in spending procedures. We should consider whether some agencies that don't have their legal services or their own in-house services, things could be done together to have the specialists who can carry out the procedures properly.
Also, we had a case where we couldn't deny a postponement. Because we have new ECJ judgments, and there was the request for CDFOP to be able to implement the ECJ judgment properly by autumn.
There was a dispute with huge costs, those for payment of damages. And those for spent on the legal proceedings perhaps it will be better to find solutions at an early stage rather to have things legal procedures dragging out for ten years? The agencies overall are an important area for the functioning of European policies. They play an important milestone there.
When it comes to security, it wouldn't work without Frontex or Europol. In European corporation, if you look at what is being done by other agencies, the asylum agencies, which are doing a lot when it comes to assistance and to support for member states, if we look at the cybersecurity measures being carried out, there was a problem in a cyber attack on Seypel. There were 99,000 people affected. There was sensitive data affected. So the cybersecurity measures need to be increased or further improved.
So I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors for the very good cooperation and for the very clear procedures for qualified opinions on spending of nominations on particular problems within the agencies. But overall, you have to say the agencies are something which has improved over the years.
There are still old problems when it comes to spending, and in personnel appointments, the commission perhaps to change some hiring procedures. Otherwise, it's difficult to get qualified personnel for many tasks.
So having said that, I'd like to thank the sponsors. Thank you to the commission for the good cooperation and the court of auditors for the very high quality report.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much, Madam Rapporteur. And now the last rapporteur, Mr. Tridico.
You have the floor.
Thank you.
President.
Pasquale Tridico
Colleagues, budgetary discharge is not just a technical procedure. It's a fundamental political act. We're elected on behalf of the citizens of Europe to exercise democratic oversight.
To ensure that the budget is spent in a legitimate way, in line with the aims which have been set. Without budgetary control, there is no responsibility. And accountability. And that means there is no democracy.
As rapporteur for the other institutions, I have taken this role extremely seriously.
I've tried to be rigorous.
Pasquale Tridico
Ensuring transparency, working conditions for employees, gender equality at all levels, because we cannot call upon member states to respect high standards if the EU institutions themselves do not put their own houses in order.
You have to start by setting an example. We've worked together. We've taken significant steps forward. We've looked at our lawmaking role in a very serious light. One key point across the board, rule of law is nonnegotiable.
There's a social contract underpinning the EU. That exists because the EU institutions have the mandate to respect, to represent, and to protect citizens. This means that impunity, ignoring irregularities, would mean undermining the fundamental pillars of this common project. And we have listened to external stakeholders too, and the free press. We should always listen too.
A free press. Freedom of the press is extremely important when you're carrying out this kind of task.
And I'd like to be extremely clear about what we mean by rights and freedoms.
In this house, we frequently hear references to freedom and rights. People say this is the heart of what it means to be European. Gender equality, independence of the judiciary, these are fundamental rights that people refer to. We need to defend them with great determination.
But there's another issue here that I think we cannot ignore.
Rights are meaningless unless you have the economic rights to go hand in hand with social rights. So freedom of the press is absolutely important, but it's absolutely vital. But look at who owns the major media groups. If they're just in the hands of a few powerful actors, then we do not have true.
Rights. It may have them in writing, but we need to ensure that there is an adequate legal defense, that people can stand up for their rights. Otherwise, those rights are meaningless, rights of women.
Again, if women are earning less than men, well, meaning does that right have? Individual rights and freedoms can only have a true meaning if people are actually in a material position to be able to enjoy them. Rights. And that's where we have to look at rights and freedoms, and economic rights, how these all go together. We need to look at social rights in a broader sense.
So if in this room you stand up for individual freedoms and rights, you must also recognise that inequality and poverty undermines those rights and freedoms. Redistribution of resources, dignity for all, is not about making concessions. These are sine qua non conditions for a true democracy.
And our budget can only be accountable to the citizens in this way, to make Europe fairer, have a social Europe that leaves no one behind.
Thank you for your attention.
Thank you.
And now for the council.
President.
Raona
Honorable members, rapporteurs, commissioner, president of the court of auditors, it is an honor to represent the council in this important debate and present our recommendation on the discharge to the commission for the implementation of the budget for the year 2024. The council shares the great importance attached by the European Parliament to the discharge exercise. It is key to accountability that EU funds are used in accordance with applicable rules, and that expenditure respects the principles of sound financial management. In this regard, on February 17, the council adopted its recommendation to grant discharge to the commission while acknowledging areas that require improvement, some of which are also identified by the European Parliament.
In particular, the council is concerned that for the sixth year running, the court of auditors' opinion on expenditure is unfavorable, and the overall error rate continues to be above the materiality threshold.
At the same time, an improvement from previous years is noted. I would like to highlight two elements of the council's recommendation. Firstly, the council welcomes the fact that in 2024, the error rate has decreased by 2 percentage points.
The council considers that it would be appropriate to grant discharge to the commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2024, recognizing the efforts of the management and control authorities both at the commission and member state level.
Clearly, efforts are necessary by all stakeholders to continue working together towards bringing the error rate further down. In this regard, the council aligns with the European Parliament in stressing that in order to achieve a decrease in the error rate and ensure the effective and correct management of EU funds, simpler, more transparent, and more predictable legislation in implementing measures should remain a top priority. At the same time, this should not mean lowering the standards needed for accountability.
Regarding transparency, the council regrets the difficulties encountered by the court in getting access to documents from some international organizations, which consequently impact the court's capability to carry out their audit.
My second point relates to the chapter dedicated to the resilience and recovery facility in the court's report, which was thoroughly examined by the council. The counsel took good note of the findings. Here as well, simplification and clarification of the regulations on the performance model, coupled with application of the principle of proportionality in the performance of controls, can foster improvements, and at the same time reduce administrative burden. The instrument comes to its end in the coming months, and the lessons learned will hopefully benefit future work.
Finally, I would like to point out that the council underlines the importance of the performance of the EU budget and its assessment, since it represents a measure of the value delivered by the European Union. Therefore, the council systematically calls for an increase of focus on results-based performance indicators that can be directly linked to the EU.
Sanctions with the aim of simplification and, again, reducing the administrative burden. Thank you very much.
Martin Hojsík
Our next speaker will be for the commission, the budget commission, Mister Seraphin. The floor is yours.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Mister president, honorable members, the discharge debate is indeed, as Rapporteur Freund said, the most important for the democratic oversight over the commission. And we do appreciate the work that was carried out in the last few months. It was not only the work of the budget commissioner. It was the work of all of the college and I really would like to thank the rapporteur, the budgetary control committee, the whole process, which brought us to the point where in front of us we have a draft report and we will have a vote.
What I would like to stress, it has been mentioned by the madam minister, but I think we should say so once again. The overall error rate in spending in 2024 decreased.
It is not we are not fully satisfied because we know that this error rate is still above the materiality threshold, but I think it has to be stressed. It has to be spelled out that there has been progress.
We will continue to work including with our partners in the member states because it is our common responsibility of the commission and of the member states to identify still areas for improvement, and to set up and implement corrective action plans.
Turning to some of the recommendations. Including included in the reports, primarily regarding transparency, rule of law, the following. When it comes to the transparency of EU funding, we are committed to ensure a high level of transparency. We already now publish funding data in the financial transparency and funding contenders portal. For the next MFF, with the new single gateway portal, we will provide centralized and transparent access to funding opportunities and performance information.
That would also refer to the question of the final beneficiaries. The single gateway will include data on the level of contractor and subcontractor, and an obligation to publish both on national and on EU level.
I know that you are not satisfied with that solution for the future. I know that you would like to see the solution today. A problem with which we are confronted is the legal basis.
We, as the commission, we do our best. Me, myself, when I was part of the debate in the college in the council on the discharge was appealing to the member states. To even if they do not feel they are obliged based on the legal act agreed by both co-legislators that they share data on the final beneficiaries because it is important for the assessment of the way in which the EU money are spent.
On the rule of law, I want to stress that it is not only the conditionality regulation. We have also other tools that we apply consistently, and we are determined to apply them also in the future in the next MFF. Which will actually even extend the scope of EU actions in this area, not only deterrent, but also measures that should support the improvement of the rule of law in the member states.
And thirdly, on the NRPP proposal, yes, we believe that we have taken into account less concerned from the existing instruments including the RF I. I'm sure that we discussed about it already, and we will still do so in the future.
But I would also like to make one last point. On the question of director general Hololay. Because I believe that and I was employed involved myself into the disciplinary procedure. I believe he paid a high price. He was removed from the service.
But it should also be stated very clearly, and I want to say so very clearly. He made mistakes. He did not act in line with the staff regulation, but there was no suspicion of criminal conduct. And we should not imply publicly in the European Parliament that there were any suspicions.
Before this case, to the disciplinary board, it was reviewed by Olaf. So that's what I want to say in defense of Mister Kololai, who, as I said, has paid a high price anyway.
Thank you.
Thank you. And now for the Court of Auditors.
President.
Tony Murphy
Honorable members, minister Rayona, commissioner Seraphim, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be here today as we near the end of the 2024 discharge procedure. And I would like to present some of our key findings from our latest annual report on the EU budget. And once again, I'm accompanied today by my esteemed colleague, Jan Gregor, who has overall responsibility for the coordination of the annual report at the court. My focus today will primarily be on our annual report, which is our core product, in our efforts to address the challenges faced by the union. As this refers to the past, I would also like to look forward by highlighting some of our main messages from our recent work on the next MFF, that shall contribute, we hope, to the current debate on the future of the EU budget.
So to start with the annual report, as in previous years, we issue a clean opinion on the reliability of the EU accounts. And also on the regularity of the revenue. In relation to the regularity of expenditure, we issued two separate opinions, one for the traditional EU budget spending, the MFF, and one for the RF payments from the commission to member states reflecting the different nature of these types of spending. So if I start with the traditional EU budget spending, as was already mentioned by both the minister and by the commissioner, the overall error rate is 3.6%. Which is a reduction compared to the previous years.
But as was already stated, it remains material. And given the pervasiveness of the errors identified, we maintain an adverse opinion for the 6th consecutive year. Cohesion continues to contribute most to our overall LL rate, but I must stress that in this area, the error rate for 2024 was 5.7%, down from 9.3% the year before, which have been affected by pandemic disruptions and absorption pressures.
So moving on to the regularity of the RF expenditure, our assessment here is on the basis that RF payments are not linked to the actual costs and are limited to the payment conditions set out in the RF regulation.
Which focus on the achievement of milestones and targets and not on the subsequent respect of EU and national rules. In addition to last year, as was the case last year, our findings were of such a nature that we have issued a qualified opinion.
In terms of the RF grant expenditure, to date, the commission has disbursed €240,000,000, just over 70% of the total funds available, with just four months remaining until the August 2026 deadline. This means significant expenditure still needs to be spent and claimed, with 46% of milestones and targets still to be assessed.
Now looking ahead, our annual report also highlights risks from borrowing for future MFFs. Mainly the increasing debt from the NGU obligations. By 2027, EU borrowing could exceed 900,000,000,000, nearly 10 times the pre NGU level. Interest could surpass 30,000,000,000 for the current MFF, more than double the initial forecasts. Debt repayments have been deferred to the future, posing serious challenges to safeguarding future EU budgets and ensuring sufficient resources for EU actions, which were referred to in the debate this morning.
In fact, the proposed 2,000,000,000,000 budget for 2028 to 2034 includes an allocation for debt repayment representing 89% of the total budget, which could ultimately cost up to 31,000,000,000 annually.
In this context, I would like to highlight that we have also recently issued 12 opinions on the 28 34 legislative proposals to inform the debate in parliament and council. Just yesterday, in fact, we have issued a communication paper which summarizes the main observations of these opinions. One of the key issues we highlight in this paper is that the large amount of proposed new borrowing could require member states to make additional payments to the EU budget in an already strained budgetary situation. We also warn that if the five new proposed revenue streams are not ultimately approved, there will be a significant budget shortfall requiring either increasing member states contributions or lowering the budget overall level of ambition.
Under revised assurance framework, we stressed that the commission is ultimately responsible, let's not forget, for the proper use of EU funds, may not be able to provide the parliament and the council with the required level of assurance.
In addition, the proposed performance framework makes it impossible to measure what results EU spending has achieved and what EU citizens are ultimately getting for their money. These are just a few of our main messages. My fellow members and I have appeared in numerous committees in the past few months to present their opinions, and let me reaffirm that the ECA is fully committed and continuing to work closely with the co-legislators to strengthen the management and oversight of EU funds in the current and the next multi-annual financial frameworks.
Our ongoing mission remains to reentrust, reinforce trust, improving accountability and transparency across all EU actions. Thank you for your attention.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you so much. The next speaker will be for Afeit, madam Insir. The floor is yours.
Evin Incir
Colleagues, as the rapporteur for both Liebe and Afed opinions on the 2024 discharge, one message is clear.
The European Union must remain strong both in protecting its citizens and upholding its values both internally and externally. On security, cross-border crime does not stop at national borders.
Agencies like Europol, SEPN, Eurojust, and EULisa, as well as FRA, play a crucial role. They must be equipped with the tools, resources, and cooperation frameworks needed to support member states effectively.
While ensuring full accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights. At the same time, Europe must remain a steadfast supporter of humanitarian aid. Continue taking leadership. For millions of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA is a lifeline. Supporting it is both a moral and political responsibility.
It is important that all our facts are based on facts and not political convictions. A strong in Europe means delivering security with integrity, respecting fundamental rights, and promoting solidarity. Conviction.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Pickner.
Thank you very much.
Colleague Garrison has the floor.
Thank you. You, Mr. President.
Charles Goerens
Let us recall that 2024 is the last year of a political era when it comes to official development, and this is the end of a long period of partnerships with our partners in the South, in full respect of the rules of multilateralism, and this before the return of MAGA.
Which wants to put an end to the standards and conventions that were respected. By most of the international community, up until then. When it comes to our scrutiny role, there's nothing to suggest we should conclude there are serious dysfunctions when it comes to the execution of the budget for the year 2024.
Charles Goerens
Improvements would be desirable when it comes to the error rate as well as with regard to faster access for the court of auditors to documents from certain essential organizations. Also think it would be appropriate to stress once again the importance of providing sufficient resources for the proper implementation of projects and programs as the court of auditors set out.
The commission can rely on the unconditional support of the European Parliament when it comes to making the essential resources available that are required for proper implementation of its policy on partnerships and humanitarian. Thank you.
Romana Tomc
Thank you for the floor. Dear colleagues, as the rapporteur of the employment committee, I have a clear message. Text your taxpayers' money needs to be spent in a transparent way, in an effective way, in order to improve their quality of life. But I would like to add two things to this. First of all, a good cooperation between the commission and the agencies.
Several years when I talk to agencies, I see they're not happy. Because the commission is contracting out certain tasks. But they do have specialized agencies at their disposal who have expert knowledge in certain fields.
And second of all, in the discharge for the commission, we think we need to simplify how funds are absorbed from ESF Plus. Our goal shouldn't be just to use funds. But to make sure that these funds actually improve the standards of living of the European citizens.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Maran has the floor.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Dear colleagues, the number on 2024 speaks clearly.
The EU continues to invest in climate and the environment.
We are very glad that the 30% climate spending target was met. It demonstrates the union's commitment to the path we have chosen.
On biodiversity. Instead, we have a mixed picture. We welcome the achievement of 7.5% of spending. Yet, higher targets for the following years are projected to fall below ambitions. The commission must ensure that all these objectives are met. We cannot afford to slow down.
But spending more isn't enough. We need to better monitor these resources, in particular their contribution to the green transition and climate objectives. Without clear measurement, there is no credibility. In short, we need an effective budget performance framework.
Colleagues, progress has been made, but we must continue to transform spending into concrete and credible results for all our citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 190
Thank you very much. As I don't see colleague Konechna, I will ask colleague Falca from Tran.
You have the floor.
Gheorghe Falcă
Mister chairman, dear colleagues, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Trump committee, I support the discharge, and I would like to convey a clear message.
Budgetary performance must go hand in hand with the efficiency and value added at the European level. I have seen a solid execution of the budget in transportation and strong investments, on the connecting Europe facility and progress regarding the cross border network military transport, and digitalization. These results confirm that transportation is both an economic and security infrastructure.
At the same time, we need to correct the vulnerabilities of the court of auditors because we need efficient and strong administration. We need to prepare a higher budget for transportation. We need to connect the new European member states. We are preparing the high-speed train railway network. Therefore, we need to strengthen administrative capacity.
Thank you.
President.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Honorable members, on behalf of the Reggie Committee, I would like to flag the following points. The error rate has declined. However, the court of auditors and the commission have both recognized that there are issues with cohesion payments. The cohesion programs may be slow to be rolled out in member states. Local and regional authorities therefore need to be bolstered so that money can be deployed efficiently.
Another point. Looking at the long-term goals of the cohesion policy, to secure them, individual programs should not be tweaked and amended too often. For example, when relocating funds following natural disasters.
Speaker 194
Another point. Olaf and the EPPO play a key role when it comes to transparency.
Giuseppe Lupo
Four, thank you. Thank you, President, Commissioner, colleagues.
Well, the committee on fisheries has decided that the rules of and use in our seats of being respected and through the control of support of the just member states, the agency does create equal conditions amongst fishermen and has led to trust in the system with transparency and legality. This particular agency is very important to fight illegal fisheries and regulated fisheries.
This is a practice. Which really damages those who respect the rules, and it also puts at risk the sustainability of the stock. So in order to protect this agency, we protect our fishermen, and we protect marine resources with legality and transparency.
Thank you.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Mister. President, commissioner, colleagues, the discharge process is a fundamental part of our democratic scrutiny on the use of European taxpayers' money. When it comes to budgetary discharge for the year 2024, the commission on culture and education notes a remarkable acceleration in the implementation of the Erasmus Plus and Creative Europe programs. We would underline the added value of these programs and their positive impact on young people, teachers, researchers, artists, and cultural organizations.
As part of safeguarding media freedoms as well. However, some corrections are required to ensure the full absorption of resources. We should aim for simplification and greater transparency, while guaranteeing proper support in fund management. We should be responsible and cautious when it comes to investing each euro of the European budget in a way that guarantees the financial interests of the European Union are protected, and, of course, those of the citizens as well.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Mister President, dear Commissioner, Madam Minister.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me emphasize main points on behalf of your opinion on this charge in respect to the court of justice of the European Union. The EURICOMMITI underwent a very highly budgetary implementation rate, which was 98%.
Yuri noted that the number of cases continued to increase. There was a slight increase in the average length of proceedings before the court of justice as well as the general court due to a high number of appeals in closing of old complex cases. There was a reduction of the average time for handling cases under the urgent procedure.
You will welcome the entry into force of the new rules on the transfer of jurisdiction in certain preliminary rulings proceedings from the Court of Justice to the General Court in October 2024.
Yuri additionally welcomed the establishment of an annual dialogue between the court and the European Parliament and stressed the crucial importance of a dialogue and cooperation with national courts in the EU. Judicial network. Lastly, Yuri noted with interest the launch of a pilot project providing all departments of the court with access to artificial intelligence assistance.
Thank you.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you very much, colleague Garcia Hermida Vanderwaal has the floor.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Today, I would like to focus on a horizontal responsibility which should guide every budgetary procedure in all of the institutions: gender budgeting. Gender equality is not optional. It is a core European value and a treaty obligation. Our budgets must reflect that.
Gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting should therefore be central to how parliament and the commission, but today, especially accounts for public funds, especially our own spending. Yes. This parliament has taken steps forward, but progress must be measurable and transparent. We need clear objectives, reliable monitoring, and consistent implementation across all areas of our work. And this is why parliament's action plan on gender mainstreaming should be made public.
If we expect others to deliver on quality, we must lead by example ourselves. Colleagues, I hope that next year, we will be able to assess the real impact of these efforts in this chamber, open to the scrutiny of our citizens.
Thank you.
Kateřina Konečná
Thank you. Colleague Konya Chna has the floor for public health. Good afternoon.
I apologize for being late.
Kateřina Konečná
Thank you for this opportunity to speak, anyway. I would like to thank all my colleagues from the envy committee for the debate. I believe it was very interesting. We see the same errors in the same way. But we should thank the agencies for their activities.
We need to find the answers to several questions. But so far, I haven't heard them. That is what happens with the ancient building or old building of IMA in London? We could use that money for different purposes. It is a long-term issue, and I believe that putting pressure on the commission is worth it because we could help find a solution.
Nobody expected that the rent payments could be so high. In London. And thanks a lot for the debate. I would also like to thank the agencies once again for their efforts.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. And now we have the speakers in the name of Di. Political groups. First, Mister Zekowski for the EPP.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you very much, chairman. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Discharge is not just a technical measure. It is actually approved that we take the protection of public money seriously, and that we know how to handle the money responsibly.
Every year, the agreement on discharge is difficult to reach, and it was the same this year.
But, I'm confident that we have done it in a very good manner, jointly with Daniel and others.
When it comes to the discharge of commission, we had challenging negotiations addressing hundreds of amendments, and we're trying to find a balance between control and political pressure.
The outcome is a sensitive compromise which covers the multi-annual financial framework, the recovery and resilience facility, including an emphasize on greater transparency of final beneficiaries. The original proposal contained many controversial and politicized elements.
Thanks.
Tomáš Zdechovský
To our committee and a constructive approach of members, we have been able to find a good balance and move it back to facts, accountability, and the realistic assessment of the EU budget for 2024.
And I want to thank my colleagues for this. Today, we have in front of us a very compromise, and I want to ask you to vote in favor of it. This is the only possible compromise that is going to make sure that we are going to have a clear report on the EU budget.
Thank you.
Eero Heinäluoma
Would like to start by thanking colleagues for good cooperation, and I would also like to thank the court auditors. The budget error rate is still far from the target, and the auditors have issued.
Adverse opinion about expenditure for the sixth year in a row. The big problem is that monitoring in the member states is not functional. There are errors both in budget expenditure and in RRF expenditure.
One special observation is that Russia's war of aggression hits the eastern border countries particularly hard. At the same time, some regions have lost EU subsidies. Because of changes into cohesion funds. This is why the commission should assess the real impact of these changes and find out whether the funds meant for the border regions have really stayed there.
Have they been directed somewhere else? It should also suggest the necessary changes.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. Now we have Mr. Knutec for the Patriots. The floor is yours.
Ondřej Knotek
Commissioner, allow me to thank, as shadow reporter for so-called other institutions, all participating in the discharge activities.
They are very important. When it comes to the other institutions, many of them are doing a very good job. Especially, I would like to highlight and positively assess the work of the European Court of Auditors and the European Ombudsman.
On the contrary, the European external election service performance has, let's say, room for improvement. When we talk about these charges, there is one that attracted my attention a lot, and this was the commission discharge. And the reasons, let's say, the excessive level of political manipulation and activism.
The reporter didn't hesitate to mention speculative elements not even related to the particular year of the discharge, 2024. And, also, it seems that the level of criticism of particular member states increases if in that member state there is a government that fights the EU migration deal, fights the green deal, or fights for more national. And Hungary is mentioned 24 times, Slovakia six times, Poland four times, the president, by the way, not the government, Czechia 10 times.
And this is not a way of serious work. And Patriots For Europe as pragmatic and constructive work will not participate on this. Thank you very much.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. Now we have Mr. Ericsson for the ECR. The floor is yours.
Dick Erixon
Thank you. President Now auditing does not sound, but it is a vital role played by the European Parliament. Unfortunately, the European Parliament does not make full use of this tool when vetting other institutions. A far too high an error rate is tolerated. There are too many shortcomings across European institutions. They cannot justify their accounts and their spending.
We should strengthen the court of auditors and listen more carefully to the court of auditors when it warns us against rising debt servicing costs. The discharge procedure should be strengthened so that we make full use of this tool as MEPs to protect taxpayers' money.
There is so much that we can do here, so many wishes we may express. We cannot do everything at the EU level, and what we do implement at the EU level, it should be done as efficiently as possible.
Speaker 202
We need to defend the interests of our. Ultimately, we're using their money, and we need to take that response. See response. Thank you.
Olivier Chastel
Thank you, President.
President of the Court of Auditors, commissioner, colleagues. Well, this charge of the European Commission is one of the most important, essential moments of democratic control. It allows us to evaluate whether European funds are being committed in the most efficient way and in conformity with the objectives fixed.
Well, we know that there are still certain challenges here, and progress has been made. No doubt. But I think it is too marginal, the level of error at political in certain policies is still very high. And we need to strengthen the national control systems, also the use of new instruments allows us to require us to look more carefully at traceability and performance.
I mean, discharge is not just a simple exercise. It is a way of improving. That is why we would like to strengthen the performance tools, simplify the rules for beneficiaries, and to guarantee the full protection of the interest of financial interests of the union, to grant discharge recognizes the efforts that have been made, but also calls upon us to look at requirements for the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
David Cormand
Thank you. You, mister president, colleagues. Well, this week, the European Parliament is voting on the discharge of the European Union institutions. What does that mean? It means we're doing the accounts of the EU.
And in the far right of this hemicycle, we hear about some scary things, €3,500,000. And there are some very suspicious expenses from the previous group of the rally in the European Parliament. And yet nothing has really changed.
We're seeing European flags being taken down in places like Caucasus in France. By the far right, some are just trying to find excuses to accuse Brussels of things. When far right gets into town, all they want is money. They love to criticize Brussels. But once they arrive in Brussels, they're just here to have a good time.
We're talking about millions of euros in dodgy contracts and inflated expenses, investigation is underway. That's great. But that's not enough. The European parliament cannot wait. We're doing the accounts of the European Union, so we're responsible for the money of taxpayers, and we must take action when people do not respect the rules.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you. Now we have Mister Justet on the left. The floor is yours. Taksimik Hetman.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you, President. A few remarks. From my side. Criticism, if you like. When it comes to how the commission spends money, firstly, debt servicing.
Has risen significantly, and then we have the RFF. Now I know that we have borrowed money to assist Ukraine, but that is just part of the huge debt burden. It appears that the commission believes that the EU will create new revenue streams. But what we're doing is borrowing money to be repaid by future generations, and that is not acceptable. Now on the RFF, we don't know how the money is spent.
These are huge contracts, huge amounts of money being paid out. That cannot be recovered. It is down to national authorities to check how the money is being spent. What we know is that they do not carry out that scrutiny in many cases.
We have scandals. For example, how money is spent in Greece. The Greek government is defending a situation where EU money is misspent. We need to take action where there is abuse of EU funds.
Vladimir Putin lost the elections in Hungary. We need to ensure that money is being spent better, that we don't have other countries becoming a new Hungary. Now I know that the council has said that it is important to be held accountable, but we also need better cooperation with the parliament in future.
We need to be able to properly scrutinize you. And then, what about the parliament itself? There's room for improvement here too. Look at the old pension scheme. The employment conditions, the rent and lease arrangements, but the huge scandal is there amongst the patriots at least 5,300,000 wasted.
That should be properly investigated, put through the courts. We need to check the patriots, how they're spending money, and ensure that any embezzled funds are repaid.
Arno Bausemer
Commissioner. Well, April.
We're in April and Metz is still there. That's not good for Germany. And the fact that Missus Van der Leyen is here, well, that's bad for Europe. You need to defend the budget here, which is bad. Bad.
Look at this budget, and look at the top. I mean, a lot of these young people sitting at the top here in the audience, they're gonna be paying back all the debt that we are creating, especially we're working against our own interests.
Billions for Ukraine. And this basically means that some infrastructure is going to be disturbed. And billions to spend on the environment, very doubtful indeed. And what about the millions that are going to be spent in Germany, for members of families, and the people who control relatives of families and governments and local governments. So this is really a bad thing.
Andreas Schwab
President, Liby Colleague, President, colleagues, in a democracy, you can say what you like, so I'll focus on the facts. So when we think about citizens and the resources that they are using, they are giving us to use politically, this is for decisions we made as a majority in the European Parliament, and that means we must be accountable. Therefore, it is in all of our interest, all groups here, to make sure that the people managing those funds are accountable.
In the reports from the commissioner, we have three key points. On the rule of law, we say monitoring alone is not enough. We need to see full suspension of EU resources where there are cases of corruption. Secondly, when it comes to the error rate, clearly, 3.6% is an improvement, but it's not just like that.
And we need to go further, 5.7% for the commission is still too high. And, we're relying on you, commissioner, because we're not going to let up on this. Transparency on RF resources needs to be managed better.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Dear. Mister Shah, dear Andreas, you know how much I appreciate working together with you, usually in the context of the conference of delegation presidents. I would like to ask you about something else.
And I agree with you that we need to be better, more accountable to our citizens about the funds and the way that we use them. And that's why I was wondering whether we could work together on finally implementing the EU ethics body as the final instrument in the system of checks and balances, where we, the platform groups, including the EPP, can ensure that we have one extra layer of safety in the good management of funds.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
You know that all our member states have very different systems. And there are some very democratic member states where there is no ethics body. So the question is not should MEPs should the institutions behave ethically correctly? The question is how we can achieve that? And there is no doubt that my group has some doubts about creating an authority which is state-driven to oversee the activities of directly elected MEPs, but it should not mean that ethical values are not the key of our action. It should not mean that we don't care about what ethical behavior is, but if an ethical body with functionaries and administration behind it should do that job, we still have a doubt. But we should continue that discussion.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 216
President, thank you. Responsibility for rigorously scrutinizing budgets and spending is very important for us. We saw progress made in the court of justice digitalization, data protection supervisor complying with fundamental rights, External action service, very important when it comes to supporting human rights around the world.
However, this is the ninth time we've seen the far right trying to squeeze xenophobic positions into the report. We've seen what's happened to the Partido Popular in Spain. They are using supposed patriotic tools in a shameful way. That is a real threat to European cohesion there, linking up with VOXX, and I see VOXX as something shameful in Spain. Don't allow that to spread to Europe.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Virginie Joron
Thank you, President, colleagues, and council. Well, six years that the court of auditors is not in favor of the expenses of the European Union. So basically, what happens in Brussels is not legal. Is not regular.
And, anyway, we're still gonna be validated by missus Funderlion's management. And basically, 300000000000 deficit. So the building of buildings in the commission and millions of money are going into the pockets of Greek politicians. And the contents of NGOs and the press that are being bought and corrupted. And, anyway, there's a very long list of misdemeanors.
And, is a complaint against the union. So I say yes to interdependent orders, yes to transparency, but for all political parties, there is an error rate which is going down. Of course, we need to continue this work.
But, basically, when auditors refuse the accounts, the Parliament should automatically refuse this discharge as well. Thank you.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Dear colleagues, we need to talk very clearly about the money of European citizens and tax, including Romanian taxpayers, who need to know that the money serves a concrete purpose in Brussels.
As representative of ECR, I will not vote in favor of how the commission has managed the budget for 2024. First of all, the report shows big mistakes when it comes to the EMERGENCY management. For example, the deadline of December 2026 will not be observed. And this is not just a technical mistake.
It is an oversight mistake from the commission and the member state. Secondly, in Romania, the rate of absorption for cohesion funds is 17% by mid 2025. Things are very clear. Our citizens are contributing to a European budget that does not have enough positive effects for them, and we expect more from Europe. Every euro cent spent has to have a positive effect on the lives of people, not just in reports, but in real life.
Colleague Boyer has the floor.
Speaker 220
Thank you, Mister President, Commissioner, Presidents of the Corps of Auditors. The discharge process is a key moment of democratic truth. It's a precious moment, and this year, once again, some groups are trying to misuse the process.
We've heard calls for better performance, better cost-benefit, but, really, once again, we're simply hearing them questioning the European project as a whole. We can't have management of European funds if we start questioning the legal framework. Now the use of these funds is based on an essential condition, solid rule of law all over Europe, and that applies to us here too as well at the European Parliament.
We must be exemplary when it comes to transparency rules. These need to be clear. The ethics standards need to be high. We need to have an independent ethics body, and there should be clear political accountability.
The discharge process is a rigorous process, which is based on facts and union values. There must be rule of law, and there's no rule of law. Thank you very much.
Your.
Joachim Balke
Mic, you're a president, double standards by the Greens, the German Greens leader. Questions, possible AFD government and calls for violence using weapons if need be unacceptable, same in Hungary, checking rule of law when you don't like the government, blocking resources if you don't have the reforms that you like? Is that what you and the Greens enjoy calling for some sort of armed uprising?
Now looking at discharge, the error rate 3.8% is well above the materiality threshold. So can we really talk about a success story? By no means. We're talking about discharge of the budget, and that's something we should talk about.
Martin Hojsík
More often, how the EU takes money away from Now colleague, Rapsd has the floor.
Speaker 221
Because I don't mind that I'm President, ladies and gentlemen. Well, we're talking about discharge 2024. I know that people are talking about other subjects, but this is a discharge, and this is the right of the house. Of this parliament.
I have 60 seconds, and I'd like to use the time to talk about the important things. I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors, which has worked very closely with the European Parliament and given the Parliament useful information. I'd like to thank the rapporteurs, the parliament's discharge rapporteur particularly, because we have to speak a common language, but we need to find common ground. That is why we need to have and continue this relation.
From my committee, we are going to reject all of these amendments, at least part of my group, because I think we need to be united, looking ahead. And here, Camunti, you talked about the presence in committees need to be better as a former chair.
Marit Maij
Thank you, President, Commissioner.
Structs nor require nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, to lobby members of the European Parliament. This is a quote at the brief on oral commissary, Seraphine von Firtin, April 2520.
Under scrutiny working group.
Are we support the discharge procedure? The ECA report is very important. The European Court of Auditors talks about NGO funding. It is legal. And is subject to strict auditing. So why do we have some sort of inquiry here? Is that not just a waste of resources, or is it serving another goal? Is it an attempt to delegitimize NGOs? Democracy means that all voices should be listened to. We also need to hear from organizations, rep minorities.
Thank you.
Martin Hojsík
I have just two requests for the floor for KHDI. And as first colleague, Teresh has the floor. Kolik Teresh has the floor.
Thank you.
Teresh
Their colleagues, I urge you to vote against the discharge of the European Economic and Social Committee so we can look into counting to the recent uncovered fraud, abuse, and of interest allegations involving the EESC secretary general Miss Isabella Legalo Flores. The European media has already been talking about this for the past two days.
We received recently a letter from a group of whistleblowers from this European institution that is alleging that the secretary general tendered many projects, many contracts to some of her friends.
And this letter is closing, stating EESC staff members urge you to conduct or adjust members of Cont. Committee to conduct a full investigation into this matter and to evaluate who Miss Legalo Flores Circle was aware of or involved in this collision scheme.
So I'm calling you to vote against so the report can go back to so we can look into these allegations. Thank you.
Thank you. Colin Tinkinen has the floor.
Mister.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Speaker, the more you observe this immigration frenzy, the crazier it gets. Look at the costs incurred by the state. Look at the insecurity that has swept through the states of Europe. Look at the worsening statistics for sexual crimes. It looks bad from every angle.
This also applies to the audit. European auditors had conducted spot checks on the Greek islands where the so-called reception centers for migrants arriving in the EU are located.
The maximum amount of eligible expenses for supporting that project was a hefty 276,000,000. So what did they find? In two years, these migrants had caused significant damage to the furniture and equipment in the accommodation facilities.
Fire extinguishers had been tossed haphazardly around the premises. And can you imagine that some of these international aid organizations even restricted the auditor's access to documents, isn't it? High time to put an end to this charade? Next.
Apache.
Tony Murphy
Thank you, chair. First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for this debate today based on the work of the European Court of Auditors. And also to acknowledge the appreciation and support for our work, and indeed, I think which is a testament to the dedication of our staff. A lot of people have reiterated the importance of the discharge process as a very important tool. In that context, I'd really like to thank the reporters for their engagement throughout the process with us at the court.
Ultimately, I hope that the discharge procedure leads to improved financial management going forward. Because ultimately, this is a common objective of us all here: the court, the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.
I think we have a common goal here, so I think we are all walking in the same direction, and let's hope that things can improve further. I also appreciate the support which was given to us in terms of our mandate, terms of getting access to all the documentation we require, which was alluded to by a number of members sometimes, especially with other international organizations.
We do have problems with access. In terms of going forward, I think, you know, I really hope that our opinions contribute to the ongoing discussion. We follow the debate closely this morning, so we know it's you know, this will be a very difficult debate, I think.
I think from our perspective, we see that the EU is actually at a crossroads at the moment. I mean, it has to decide on what its priorities are. To determine really what its priorities are and then how they're going to be funded. Because I think this is fundamental in terms of going forward that there is a proper budgetary management of where the funds are going to come from. Because I think, you know, we should always remember that, I mean, the EU budget, whether it's funded by borrowings or not, is basically provided by the EU taxpayers.
Some of them are sitting up here in the gallery. And I think it's them who must be reassured that their money is being spent for the betterment of all.
And here, I would agree and disagree with Mister Nixon, who earlier said that auditing is not attractive. I find it attractive sometimes, I have to say. But I would agree with him that it really is an essential element, I think, to ensure accountability, transparency, and democratic oversight.
So finally, I would like to thank Herodotus, because I know it's not always very easy being an oddity. I'd like to thank the commission, the parliament, the other institutions, the agencies, and the joint undertakings. And as I already alluded to, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs who have been involved in the discharge procedure. Thank you.
Speaker 225
Thank you. You. Can I now give the floor to the Commissioner, please? Many thanks, Madam President, honorable members.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
We are going to close soon the debate on the discharge. But what I would like to say is that from the perspective of the commission, after the vote in the European parliament, this is not the end of the process.
My perspective, this is actually the beginning of the process of implementation. Of the recommendations that are in the discharge report. I would like to assure you that we are looking forward to the vote that is going to take place in this house. We are already getting ready to share with you in June the reports on the follow-up to the discharge, where it will be for us already an opportunity to present a state of play on the weaknesses areas that you have identified in the discharge. And to address them also in a more detailed manner in the autumn.
So then we will refer to each and every recommendation, and you know it, and I would like also to reassure you that it is our ambition. To implement as many recommendations of the discharge process as we can. Even if it sometimes takes more than a year, it might take a few years. That is a recommendation.
Your recommendations are to seriously, and I believe that you can also recognize that factor. In the assessment of this process in the past. And finally, I also would like to thank the European Court of Auditors for their cooperation in this process and also for your recommendations that we will almost entirely recommend, and the council that is also from our perspective an important part. Of the discharge procedure.
Thank you.
Katarina Barley
Thank you so much, commissioner. For counsel, I'd like to give the floor to Miss Rona.
Raona
President, honorable members, Robert Tarris, commissioner, president of the court of auditors, allow me to conclude by thanking you for the very thorough work on the discharge to the commission as provided by the treaty ies. This is indeed a crucially important exercise which gives a true measure of the way the European funds are implemented and managed, and in doing so, strengthens democratic oversight. I take this opportunity to thank also the commission, the court of auditors, and all management and audit authorities at the national levels for their effort in this regard.
Our goal is shared in ensuring, especially in these uncertain times, that the EU budget provides real value for our citizens, for taxpayers, and that EU funds are allocated to where we need them the most. And as Commissioner Serafin mentioned, this vote is the beginning of implementation and of the continuous work on the recommendation.
Thank you very much once again for the important work.
Katarina Barley
Thank you so much. I'd like to give the floor to the reporters. First, Mr. Freund.
Daniel Freund
React to a couple of things that were said during the debate. Let me start, commissioner, with Slovakia. Of course, you have other tools than the conditionality. But I think we really ought to make sure that FITZO does not become another Orban.
As he himself says, he wants to be. We have tools. Let's not wait until it's too late as we have seen in other cases before. And I would really say we have seen it now in two member states.
Freezing EU funds works. We see that the rule of law can be restored afterwards. On the RF, you have said the problem is the legal basis. I think there is an issue with the guidelines that you have provided.
Based on the legal basis that the legislature made. I think there is a contradiction between the legal base in the RF regulation and the guidelines that you have provided to member state. I think this is something that needs to be addressed.
Thirdly, on the former director general, Holloway. Whether there is a criminal offense, I guess, EPO and the courts will determine. The procedures are ongoing. But what I think we ought to look at, the open skies agreement with Qatar is extremely imbalanced.
We basically change exchange access to 49 airports that Qatar currently uses in the EU, versus one airport for the European airlines. So please do have a proper look at this agreement that came about in bad circumstances and whether this is actually a good deal for Europeans.
I also want to say something to the council because we have, for well over a decade, refused discharge to the council. You said here, the importance that the council attaches to the discharge procedure but I think that needs to include that we as parliament can get proper exchanges with the council that we can look at the full budget of the European Union not at the exclusion of the part of the EU budget that is spent by the council, ought to examine the entirety of the EU budget, and for that, we need proper exchanges to be able to our to do our work.
And let me just say one word about the discharge debate that we have here today. I think we need to work on this and make this debate more functional and not have a cacophony of all institutions thrown together into one debate. I think that's something that we ought to improve next year's discharge debate.
Thank you very much.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Next, thank you so much. Our colleague, Herbandi, has the floor.
Start by thanking the court of auditors, the commission, and the council for this debate. But most of all, my colleagues here in this house, not many are left. But still, I want to thank them. And I'm honestly grateful for their very strong words on transparency, the need for transparency. The need to protect public money, and also the important need to be accountable. But most of these words were not focused on our own institution, the European Parliament.
Most of all, they were critical towards either the commission or the agencies, or other institutions. And I would call upon all my colleagues, let's apply the same values, the same principles that we apparently feel so strongly about, let them also apply to our own house.
The European Parliament. Let me focus on three things that we can vote on, because they are reflected in amendments tabled. First of all, the accountability of political groups and parties is extremely important. And not only in financial terms, but also that they comply with article two of the treaty, which is the basis of democracy and rule of law.
Something reflected in an amendment. And that we are as strict against fraud in our own institution as when it occurs somewhere else in the European institutions. Let's do that in the same sense.
And thirdly and finally, take also account of our own spending as MEPs, the general expenditure allowance €5,000 a month, and it's totally unaccountable. And this is also about transparency. This is also about guaranteeing the importance of spending of public money. This is also about accountability.
Thank you.
Pasquale Tridico
Thank you so much. I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Trudico. Thank you. Thank you, madam. Right.
Well, this is the end of a very hard and tough road. The rigor in fighting the area of control, we need to respect the rules. And as we all know, we are representatives of the institutions. We're not only there to respect the rules, the formal rules, but at the same time, we need to really be at the highest ethical and moral standards. And that is something we need to always remember. We need to be demanding of ourselves just as we are demanding of the institutions which we represent and represent the citizens. So lack of transparency and delays in correcting problems, irregularities weaken this European project.
A project which is so close to our hearts. So the point's very simple. We can't ask for member states to show strict rules if we don't apply these rules to ourselves, even if it bothers us. We can't defend the rule of law outside if even in the smallest things we don't apply it.
Here in our own back garden. So the credibility of the union is not measured by major principles, but also by small daily actions. So to build this better Europe, we need to practice transparency in the use of public resources.
And which is what we need to focus on in Europe. Cannot accept any kind of leeway. We need to have a zero tolerance rate. Because that is a way in which we can get a fairer Europe, a Europe taking, abiding by the law, and which is what the founding fathers have wanted from the start.
Thank you so much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you, colleague, Missus Holmaya, President, commissioner, council presidency. Just one remark. The European Court of Auditors Tony Murphy, its president, has on several occasions talked about smaller agencies, and how they can be quite small, have small teams, and they need support for procurement. So perhaps we could look at some sort of support service or legal service to be made available for public procurement agencies.
I've seen that in CDFOP when they have struggled within the agency, they don't necessarily have the legal expertise, and that can lead to serious mistakes that tie the hands of the agency, and that's a real shame. So we need to consider some sort of cross-cutting legal service available to all agencies. So all agents would be able to turn to this service rather than outsourcing, looking for external legal advice, and ending up in the courts that can be extremely expensive.
So can we harness synergies between the agencies? So when it comes to public procurement, staff issues, legal issues, complaints against agencies. In such cases, they'd be able to turn to this legal service.
And I'd appreciate the commission looking at this.
Speaker 228
And I'd like to give the floor to our colleague, Mona, as the last speaker.
Csaba Molnár
Thank you. You. Well, when we look at the institutions, all the work that's been done, it's certainly been a big piece of work. I'd like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for all their hard work, and I think the preparatory work we did over a number of months showed us that the parliament is able to use its role in terms of budgetary scrutiny when we all work together. Here at the parliament, there can be political differences of opinion.
But we should honor that and work in the interest of European citizens. When it comes to the actual discharge we've been discussing today, we must be clear that this is not political game-playing.
We are working together to assess the spending of the European Union. This is a shared responsibility. Related to transparency and accountability. Essential expectations. It's important we talk about this because we share these values, and these values are increasingly under pressure in Europe.
We're seeing disinformation campaigns, attacks on the institutions of the European Union, political attempts in that direction. And so we must stand up for our values, the values that we've talked about today: democracy, the rule of law, transparency, and accountability. So that's what we've been talking about today. That's what discharge is all about. It's about our values and our principles.
One of the most important tools we have indeed is this ditch discharge process so that we can act in the of the European Union and the European Parliament. Thank you.
Katarina Barley
Thank you so much. This joint debate is now closed, and the vote will take place tomorrow. Now the minutes of yesterday's session are available. Are there any objections to these minutes? No. No objections. In that case, this has been approved.
This brings us to the next item on the agenda. This is a commission statement. Presentation of the better regulation and enforcement communication. So this is when the commissioner arrives. Right on time.
You're welcome, sir.
Katarina Barley
So. If I could ask you all to take your seats, and once the room is quiet, I'd like to give the floor to Commissioner Dombrowski.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Madam. Chair, honorable members, At a time of profound global shifts, Europe must play to its strengths and maintain its competitive edge.
Today, the European Commission has adopted a communication: simpler, clearer, and better enforced EU rule book to enhance the European Union's regulatory framework. It aims to modernize how EU laws are designed, implemented, and enforced.
While ensuring that they are clear, agile, fit for purpose, and supported by solid evidence. Our path towards a simpler, clearer, and better enforced EU rule book centers on five main pillars of action.
Firstly, we are embracing simplicity by design. This means designing proposals that are more focused, subject to regulatory discipline, leaner, more accessible, and easy to implement and properly enforced. We want to ensure that new legislative proposals avoid regulatory complexity and fragmentation. We also want to deepen the single market. Hence, the strategy foresees a more systemic use of regulations and full harmonization.
We also want to make sure that transposition and implementation timelines are more realistic, and that we better factor in the think small first principle. Secondly, we are strengthening the EU's bad regulation system, which is already now an international benchmark.
Our next steps will enhance transparency, stakeholder engagement, and efficiency. A broader range of legislative initiatives will be accompanied by more proportionate and more focused impact assessments, including those deemed urgent. We will make our consultation system smarter and more thorough, with optimized timelines and coordination, including to account for holiday periods and to avoid overconsultation while seeking diverse views and inputs.
At the same time, better regulation principles should not only apply to the commission. We call on the parliament and council to assess key legislative amendments based on a simple methodology to gauge their main impacts.
Thirdly, we are launching a new bold action plan to bring order into the existing large stock of EU legislation. The action plan on regulatory deep cleaning will tackle fragmented rules, inconsistent and overlapping provisions, and reduce complexity across 12 key areas. Those 12 areas, ranging from the free movement of goods and services to housing, to permitting, for instance, will be examined with a priority in 2026 and '27. As the action plan will improve regulatory effectiveness and efficiency in these areas, and may result in legislative or other measures to increase the coherence and simplicity of EU legislation, and consolidate fragmented framework.
Take public procurement, which has dozens of EU rules setting substantial and procedural requirements. Our deep cleaning will streamline these rules, making implementation easier for administrations and contractors. Contractors. Other examples are eliminations of duplications and overlap in banking rules, ongoing digital fitness check, and the forthcoming housing simplification package.
These efforts will be supported by a high-level stakeholder group, the simplification platform, with representatives from various sectors, including civil society and small companies. Firstly, we are tackling the issue of regulatory gold play.
Plating. This is where member states add stricter or wider rules than required by EU law, thereby creating barriers, increasing costs, and fragmenting the single market. We'll support member states in their commitment to avoid gold plating by providing best practices and transposition guidance. This includes better detection of instances of gold plating, and follow-up through tools such as the European semester and the single market enforcement task force. In instances of unlawful gold plating, we will step up our enforcement too.
Lastly, we are committed to the faster and more robust enforcement of EU law. Even the best rules fail to achieve their intended impact when implementation is fragmented, delayed, or inconsistent in member states. Credible and efficient enforcement is a backstop needed to achieve timely compliance with the EU rules, should support measures prove unsuccessful.
This communication sets out our revamp of enforcement approach based on faster procedures, more automaticity, higher decisions of penalties, and a focus on reducing long-standing cases across all areas of EU law.
In addition, we have identified 11 focus areas for enforcement in relation to a single market. Resolving identified issues will remove barriers to the free movement of goods and services and the freedom of establishment of businesses.
Honorable members, in today's unpredictable and challenging world, Europe must play to its strengths and sharpen its competitive edge. This is the only way that we can safeguard our long-term prosperity and security. And our rules have a crucial role to play in creating the conditions for supporting the highly competitive, innovative, and sustainable social market economy.
Since taking office, this commission has delivered an unprecedented effort to simplify EU rules. And the changes outlined in today's communication are another important step towards making our rules deliver the best possible results in a more efficient manner.
Thank you.
Katarina Barley
Thank you so much, commissioner.
I'd like to give the floor to our colleague, Farbaughn, on behalf of the EPP.
Thank you, madam president.
Speaker 230
Commissioner, businesses around Europe, not least small and medium sized businesses, are under a lot of pressure these days. Have tariffs from the West. We have subsidies from the East. We have high energy prices in Europe. And we have high regulatory costs and burdens on businesses.
And this is, of course, important for the businesses. This is also important for all the workers in these companies, because without growth, you will not have good paying jobs in Europe. And that's why this has to change. This is also about long-term prosperity for all of us in Europe.
And businesses, well, 66% of businesses say that the regulatory burden affects their investments. It's an obstacle to their investments. And therefore, I very much welcome the commission's efforts. The direction is good. But the speed and the ambition are not satisfactory. We need to do more.
It was said that the ambition is unprecedented, and that is true. But that is also one of the problems, because this commission is taking it seriously. But for several commissions in the past.
We have built up this cost for the businesses. We have to stop doing that. It's also been true in the commission, but also in the council. So we have high cost for businesses in Europe that is not the situation in other parts of the world.
In the parliament now, we have a majority for the principle of one in, two out. Meaning that for each euro you're adding cost for businesses, you deduct two. And I call upon the commission to make sure that it will utilize this principle, because then we will increase competitiveness, we will increase good paying jobs, and long term prosperity for Europeans.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Tiemo Wölken
On behalf of S and D, colleague Mr. Volkan.
President, honorable members, better regulation sounds good. But is it better for citizens that we are here to defend, or is it better for companies, administrations, member states? I believe that for better regulation, we need transparency, proportionality, and we need it to be understandable.
In Germany, the CDU and CSU have produced a paper on cutting down bureaucracy, the ultimate goal is to reduce all existing legislation. The EPP believes that better regulation is endless legal uncertainty for companies. Better regulation, however, should mean that we are future-proof, reliable, and we can avoid duplication. We need to ensure that action is taken on the basis of empirical evidence. The commission, unfortunately, has not done this sufficiently in the recent past.
We should not be dealing with proposals without sufficient impact assessment, because that undermines trust. Faster does not necessarily mean better.
Katarina Barley
Sometimes we need to take the time to reflect. Thank you very much, our colleague Slotovski, on behalf of ECR.
Kosma Złotowski
The. Thank you so much. If we have a session without talking about better regulation, that would be a great shame. And for the tenth mandate of the European Parliament, we still need to get a debate on better legislating more transparent legislation. And, therefore, we need to really proceed to the adoption of this type of legislation.
It is a legislation. In ancient Greek times, we repeat the same slogans. We need better European regulation. There needs to be better legislating in Europe. But the question really is how often do we need to repeat this before we actually do this.
Thank you.
Morten Løkkegaard
Thank you. Our next speaker, on behalf of Renew, Mr. Lukkegaard.
Commissioner.
Colleagues.
Speaker 235
Here, we find ourselves again for one of the most important presentations to be made here in a long time, talking about better regulation. Sounds like something we've all tried before.
It's all the same: more guidelines, more expensive consultants to be hired from abroad, etcetera. But let's agree on one thing. Let's stop it once and for all. I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating it. It takes three phases to reduce the burden.
Are still in Phase number one, the omnibus work. Now we found ourselves in the second phase where we're trying to create better legislation, better regulation. We need to be able to do it better, but we need to have the courage to simplify. But we still face the third phase, which is unified implementation and enforcement across Europe. Because rules that are not enforced efficiently are just as bad as bad rules.
We see way too much gold plating, as the commissioner mentioned, across many member states. That's why we need national enforcement bodies and agencies to participate in the work from the very beginning, and we need more and better tools. We need clear mandates, we need resources, and we need to be able to hold member states accountable. And that is just as important as all the other initiatives being mentioned here today.
It's positive for me to hear that, that is something the commission is actively thinking about. We could hear it in the presentation that has just been put forward. The question is what it takes to convince the member states to actually feel the same way, and carry it out in practice.
Thank you.
Katarina Barley
That is our list of speakers on behalf of the political groups. We'll now hear from Mr. Simon, and I'll be stricter on timekeeping.
Sven Simon
President Madam, president, honorable members, Europe employs more people in keeping rules than elsewhere. 3.9% of rules just interested in whether the rules are keeping, and only 1.7% are jobs in research. Increasingly, there are all of these duties like sustainability, this, that, and the other, which have to be complied with.
Our laws have been developed over decades and decades. We, time and again, add more rules. We change them, but we don't have an effective mechanism allowing us to correct the system.
So I'm convinced it's not that the system was intended to be like this. It just isn't responsive enough. So laws need to be checked over. They need to be revised and potentially withdrawn.
We need to have priorities. We need to focus on things like networks being expanded. We need to look at flora and fauna. And when we are faced with these cases, the commission doesn't need a new law.
They need to look at what they can get rid of in terms of rules to solve our problems. Otherwise, Europe will collapse under the burden of its own rules. This isn't a technical detail. This has become an existential problem and threat to the European Union.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 238
What should better regulation mean? I think what it should mean is quality proposals from the European Commission that have been widely consulted on with trade unions, NGOs, businesses, experts, all of those that deserve to be heard.
What it should be is things delivered in time frames that make sense, not with an artificial sense of urgency to suit any political mood.
What better regulation should be too is the streamlining and not the slashing of rules, just because national leaders lack real leadership. But what we're getting instead this term is something that has been called maladministration.
By the European ombudsman, a European commission that's become highly politicized and that wants to simplify, sure, not a bad idea. But what I fear we are doing here is doubling down on a recipe that is not going to work. It won't deliver for citizens, and regulatory deep cleaning might sound nice, but it is not going to help us in the long-term.
Thank you.
Thank you, Schoen.
Thank you.
Mr. Cavedanya.
Stefano Cavedagna
Thank you. You, madam. This subject on better regulation, I think it's really a core issue for Europe, for the future of Europe, not because we just want fewer laws. We want better laws.
Over the last few years, the European Union has produced a very large number of laws of bureaucracy. Well, some of them have good objectives, but very often, these rules are complex.
Overlap, difficult to apply, especially for SMEs, which are the, well, very much the spine of our productive sector. We cannot call upon the commission to simplify. And then at the same time, in this house, we keep to amend a set of rules which make bureaucracy more burdensome.
So we need to really get rid of the green deal, and this has already been said by Giorgio Maloney. Excessive bureaucracy is one of the main enemies of our competitive edge.
Thank you.
Thank you.
SOREL
Ms. Sorel. Honorable members, the European Union tends to overregulate, which makes life difficult for a host of economic sectors, including French and German carmakers. And what about the galloping pace of enlargement? We need to stop spreading ourselves too thinly. We need greater transparency when it comes to responsibilities.
The European Parliament needs to do more than merely tweak commission proposals, add a few constraints. Parliament should not be seeking amendments through the last minute. We need a more serious approach to democracy. Better regulation also means saying no to the Commission.
Rejecting pointless and dangerous proposals. We need ironclad discipline. One rule in, too simplified or out. We need review clauses with quantifiable indicators and sunset clauses. We need impact assessments that reflect the reality in industry and indeed the geopolitical balances in a world of great powers, we should not penalize ourselves.
Jens Gieseke
Madam. President, honorable members, commissioner Dombrowski's good lawmaking is based on trust, and it's an issue related to competitiveness. CEO has a problem. We have too many rules. They're too complex.
This is stopping investment and innovation. Europe needs to be quicker, and we need to do things in a better way. Those two go together. We need less bureaucracy. In a way that we can feel it, that is measurable.
We need to justify the rules that we have. We need to reduce the burden. We need to properly implement rules. One in, two outs would be even better, especially for SMEs. Moreover, we need to have targeted impact assessments. We need them to come quickly.
Not every initiative needs full analysis. When we have crises, we need to act quickly, but based on data. Furthermore, today, we're overburdening the system. Got too many topics, too many things, so we need a clear package approach. We need specific questions, and then we make a decision.
We need to bring an end to gold-plating. Too often, member states take European laws and just take them way too far. So we need to stop that. That means proper implementation, one to one, not one to two. And finally, I would echo what Sven Zimmon said.
I think we need to change the way the commission is thinking. We don't need to promote people who have lots of proposals that they've worked on. We need the people who are making the best proposals to abolish the laws.
That's what I had. Thank you.
Mister Ripassi.
So I get the call, president.
Dario Tamburrano
Madam president, commissioner, colleagues, well, yes, to get rid of red tape. Slim and understandable rules in Europe. Anti-parliamentarism, however, no. Well, we need to remove bureaucracy, but some people seem to be going a bit too far.
I mean, we listened to this about as I and when we talked about asylum debates. And this could lead to prohibiting the commission of preparing a particular set of rules, anything to fight against the red tape from Brussels. So who's going to be deciding when we have too much democracy? I think there's only one who could choose this. It is those who have been directly elected and those representing us through us in the commission.
Speaker 243
Let us talk about bureaucracy, but let us stop EU bashing in order to continue dismantling bureaucracy. Thank you.
Begin Bartuszak.
Thank you, Miss Bartuszak.
Ewa Kopacz
Dear colleagues, making everyday life safer and simpler. For people and businesses.
That should be the main objective of the European Union.
Sadly, the past couple of years, we haven't always seen this.
But this will change.
Ewa Kopacz
So what does this proposal bring to the table? For consumers, it means clear, more readable labels on chemical products so you can quickly understand the risks even in an emergency.
It ensures that when you buy products online, the same safety information is visible as in a shop. And it strengthens rules on harmful substances in cosmetics. We must help businesses by cutting unnecessary red tape. Simple procedures, digital tools, and clearer rules mean less time spent on paperwork and more time on innovative growth. So this is a win-win. Stronger protection for people and the environment, and more practical modern systems that help European businesses stay competitive.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Miss Glavak.
Thank you.
Sunčana Glavak
The. Problem really lies in not so much the objectives and the targets, but very often, there's too much duplication and many rules, many costs, especially for those who have very little time or very little money.
So small and medium-sized industries, people who don't really have a large administration. So the purpose of this simplification is good. Better results. But those who live in the real world and what they really want is to be able to understand what is going to happen in the future.
Forecasts clear, forecasts especially in terms of fiscal rules. But this can't possibly lead to the dropping of standards. So we do hope that we will get feedback from the real world, our purpose, I think, is a purpose that we all have in common.
Katarina Barley
But let's just listen to those who have contact with people on the ground.
Mr Kelly.
Seán Kelly
Do you recall that? Commissioner Don Vasquez, August Ultron, Mario Draghi was right to place better regulation at the centre of the competitiveness debate. Europe cannot regulate its way to success. We need smarter and clearer rules, limited to what is needed and what genuinely solves problems. That starts with proper impact assessments. Every proposal should be tested for cost, benefit, administrative burden, and remodel practicality before it lands on the desks.
Of college slaters. We should also be clear that sometimes the best outcome of an impact assessment is to conclude that no new regulation is needed at all. The commission's right of initiative should not be a constant incentive to produce more laws, with no new laws as the better option.
We, in parliament, must also look at ourselves. Often, we see amendments end up in trial agreements that are unimplementable. That does no service to good lawmaking. If the Commission must assess its proposals, Parliament and Council should assess the impact of our amendments too.
Europe does not need more rules for the sake of it, but to regulate in a way that improves the lives of citizens. Thank.
Katarina Barley
You. Catch the eye now. We have one request, and I can accept that request. Mister Dungeland.
Swayhun. Netsin.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Madam president, what is better regulation in the context of the European Union? That is what we're discussing in the heavy cycle. Better regulation in the EU means two things to me. A, less regulation than now, and b, more responsibility to nation states. Than currently.
But we're going in the opposite direction. Power is stolen from member states to Brussels, and the EU regulatory machine is spreading like a virus to new areas. When are we ready to say enough already? Has it occurred to anyone that the EU isn't a panacea? It's actually a big problem as well. It stops businesses from growing. It causes problems for citizens. And it sucks in taxpayer money like a central vacuum unit.
Dear members of the EU elite, if you really want better regulation, do the following. Return the power to the member states.
Katarina Barley
Thank you. Now Commissioner Dombrovskis on behalf of the Commission.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Madam. Chair, honorable members, thank you for this engaging and substantial discussion. The communications the European Commission has adopted today seeks to modernize EU lawmaking, ensuring that laws are clearer, more effectively enforced based on solid evidence. And better aligned with the needs of citizens and businesses. So allow me to reiterate the five pillars upon which our communication is based, and also to come back to some of the points in debate.
So first, simplicity by design. The commission aims to embed simplicity by design into every proposal, ensuring clarity on who must act, how to comply, and the consequences of non-compliance. Some of you raised especially the point on the importance of reducing the burden for SMEs, which are probably facing most difficulties with following those very complex rules. And therefore, we outline communications that we'll also be applying the sync small first principle in our lawmaking. Secondly, strengthening our better regulation framework, the EU's better regulation system is already amongst the most advanced in the OECD.
Will be further improved to enhance transparency, stakeholder engagement, and efficiency. And as there, we are also following up on the European Ombudsman's recommendations. Thirdly, regulatory deep cleaning, with the action plan of regulatory deep cleaning, the commission will tackle inconsistencies, outdated, overlapping, or redundant provisions or overly complex rules that hinder competitiveness and innovation.
Fourth, and some of you were highlighting this on gold plating, the Commission will support member states in their commitment to avoid this gold plating through best practices and transposition guidance.
Will also help to identify key barriers and issues through the European semester and single market enforcement task force. And as I said, also, I would be ready to use enforcement infringements in case the gold plating is breaching the EU rule.
And finally, faster and more robust enforcement, the commissioner will accelerate enforcement across all policy areas. And intensify especially the enforcement of the single market's role. Taken together, the actions I presented today can deliver real results, but only if the commission's high level of commitment is matched by the parliament and the council.
Our regulatory system can be much better harnessed to support the achievement of our policy objectives, boost prosperity and competitiveness, and deliver faster and more effective responses to our pressing needs. To that end, it is important that college legislators also adhere to better regulation principles during the legislative process. And play close attention to keeping rules simple by design.
I acknowledge that it's not an easy task, and it is not easy either for the commission. But we must all make an effort to make the necessary changes. This communication is an opportunity to make this a reality, and the Commission stands ready to work closely with you. We look forward to continued engagement with this house as we continue our joint efforts on better regulation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Katarina Barley
Commission will change seats, and I will announce the next item on the agenda or a question to the commission on enforcement of the Digital Markets Act. We'll just give the commission a moment. Get everything organized.
Welcome.
Katarina Barley
Commissioner Ribeira. I'll now give the floor to Ms. Cavaccini as one of the authors.
Anna Cavazzini
Dear commissioner, the DMA is a milestone legislation to define what a European way of digitalization looks like. Diverse, innovative, open, and fair. It leads to advantages for businesses. With easier market access and fairer competition. And it leads to advantages for consumers, who profit from interoperability or from changing default settings.
The decoupling of Gmail from the Google account, the ability to choose a different default browser on mobile devices, or the upcoming possibility to share files between iOS and Android devices.
These are all successes, very concrete achievements of the DMA. And as we debate today, the effective enforcement of the Markets Act, we must be clear about one irrefutable, non-negotiable reality.
European and European consumers, lawmakers, citizens, Europe rights, and enforce its own laws. And let us not dress this up in diplomatic niceties. To Jim Jordan and his friends, the DMA is neither part of European censorship nor trade barrier, nor directed towards US big tech. Rules apply to all. And to the commission, you have to make sure that the dialogue with the United States on digital policies does not open the door to influence over European law that will undermine our sovereignty.
At a time when the Digital Markets Act must prove its teeth. Through decisive and timely action, we should not be inviting foreign actors whose philosophies diverge sharply from ours. The commission's responsibility is to ensure that enforcement is timely, robust, future-proof, particularly as AI and cloud infrastructures define market power. We cannot delay imposing the consequences of proven breaches of the DMA.
And with our resolution, this parliament calls on the commission to fiercely continue on this path, using all enforcement instruments at its hand for the benefit of businesses. Consumers and our European sovereignty.
And that means concretely, look into Google's persistent self-preferencing practices across its services, product listing ads, and its use of AI. Look into why there are still no easily accessible alternatives to Apple's App Store, look into the ongoing behavioral consent techniques of TikTok, the lacking interoperability of Microsoft's operating system, parity clauses of Booking, Meta Pay and content clause, and so many more consumer organizations continue to flag.
Simply put, enforce the DMA. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
We will now hear from another author, Mr. Schwab. Thank you, President. Honorable members. Vice president Ribeira. Two years after the entry into force of the DMA, we need to recall what Ms. Cavazzini has just outlined.
The principle here, this is not just a rulebook. We want to apply the Exanti principle and look at digital markets, ensure that we instill a new competitiveness culture here.
In 2014, the European Parliament adopted a resolution along these lines. Vice president, let me say, here to you that in 2014, we were already impatient. We have not been waiting since 2023, but rather for twelve years.
Now we've had two years of implementation of this DMA, and we're reaching a critical juncture. We're no longer dealing with a theoretical debate. We have a Digital Markets Act. And what we can see is that it is being tested in practice. A number of problems have been flagged.
There are, however, advantages for citizens. They are tangible. What we have seen is that some gatekeepers apply the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. They have creative legal interpretation or legal circumventing.
We want to achieve our ultimate goal, and that is not yet the case. Honorable members, the commission has the resources and tools, market investigation, non-compliance, so the commission could make requisite staff available to do this, and we'll call for that in the current budgetary process. We want to ensure that the commission has the human resources it needs. We need to ensure that noncompliance comes with a cost. We need fines to be truly prohibitive.
In our resolution, our draft resolution to be voted on tomorrow. We talk about the way Google behaves and Apple. We don't think that the fee structure is appropriate when it comes to Meta and TikTok. TikTok.
They can manipulate the design. We have a lot of work on our plate, a lot that the commission still needs to do, particularly when it comes to artificial intelligence. Addiction can be manipulated not just by the market itself, but by other tools.
So let me conclude. President, vice president, and honorable members, by saying the following. We are under political pressure to roll back our legislation, but let's stand firm. We need to protect our digital sovereignty. It is not up for discussion.
Katarina Barley
Thank you. Thank you. Now, on behalf of the commission, Executive Vice President Ribera.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Honorable chair, and honorable citizens of the European Union being present in the plenary today. It's a great pleasure for me. So I would like to first thank the INCO committee for placing this oral question in the agenda.
I'm pleased to be here today to reaffirm the European Commission's commitment to the promotion of fair and contestable digital markets.
Because you say this right.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
The digital markets act implies advantages for businesses but also for citizens.
In something that is changing the reality every day.
The economic reality, the way the society behaves, understands, and takes in the information, the publicity, and everything that works or that makes our work, our world work today.
Explains why digital markets act enforcement has been, and will be, a top priority for the commission.
Sometimes, we identify ourselves as being surrounded by noise or confusion. So let me say something very obvious. But it is important to state once again in a very clear way.
The digital market sector does not establish barriers to trade.
Does not prevent competitiveness. On the contrary, it is a very important regulation that we think it is important to enforce and develop, regardless of any company's country of origin, nor any consideration other than the protection of fair and contestable digital markets.
The European Union.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
One regulation that was broadly supported by this camera that has been worked out for years and that it's been effective, efficient, and fair.
I have just been to the United States and had a chance to underscore this very same message. As well as our openness to keep any constructive dialogue with them.
As it is the case, it has been the case, not only with the American administration, but with any other jurisdiction. We have a long track. It's been a tradition of change with partners globally.
To clarify any misunderstanding, to understand better the cases dealing with competition with antitrust, with digital markets. I think that, as a matter of principle, this is good.
But let's be clear. The commission's mandate to apply EU law fully is bold.
We take enforcement actions where needed, always based on the facts and the evidence, and with full respect for the rule of law.
Digital markets intend to be fair.
To function well.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
So to allow business to get equal opportunities to compete and innovate.
And users to have control over their own data, and more choices available. Earlier today, we have published the first review report on the Digital Market Act.
Allow me to outline some of the main conclusions.
In two years of application, the Digital Markets Act has begun delivering tangible, positive results, making digital markets fair and more contestable. For example, alternative browsers have grown significantly following the introduction of the choice screens. Mozilla's daily active users in Germany and France doubled. Opera saw an increase in visits of 60%, and Vivaldi of 40%.
Connected device manufacturers are getting to enhance interoperability with operating systems like Apple's iOS. For instance, manufacturers of earphones such as Bose are benefiting from the same seamless proximity pairing as AirPods on iPhones.
A significant share of end users, European citizens, are actively choosing not to let gatekeepers like Meta use their personal data across services for targeted advertising. These developments represent concrete improvements to opening up ecosystems, unlocking user choice, and setting the right conditions for innovative services to contest those gatekeepers.
However, the report also makes clear that the DMA has not yet achieved its full potential. Which is normal. It is still a relatively new instrument, and the opportunities it creates need time to translate into market outcomes.
It also concludes that it's too early for major legislative changes to the DMA.
We will reassess in the next review report in 2029.
But for now, the feedback from the majority of stakeholders is pretty consistent. The DMA needs to continue being robustly enforced so that both business users and end users are able to make use of the new opportunity sheet affords.
And it is my commitment to ensure this is the case. The digital landscape is constantly evolving. Review report highlights that the DMA was designed to be future-proof and adapt to emerging challenges.
For example, when it comes to AI and clothes. We are acting on both fronts. On AI, we have taken a number of recent actions under the DMA. Weeks ago, we shared with Google and launched the public consultation on proposed measures to ensure that AI chatbots can get access to Google search data on fair and non-discriminatory terms. And yesterday, we shared with Google and launched another public consultation on draft measures to ensure that competing AI services can access key features of Google Android devices.
Our goal is to make sure that third-party AI providers enjoy the same treatment on the Android phones which make up 75% of all smartphones. As Google's own AI services.
This DMA specification proceedings will directly address the risk of gatekeepers leveraging privileged access to key inputs in the emerging AI landscape. On cloud, the commission is investigating whether Amazon and Microsoft should also be designated as gatekeepers under the DMA for their cloud services.
Together, they account for over half of the global cloud market.
Some may argue that we are moving too slowly.
And I understand the argument.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
But even if in digital, time is essential, we want to take decisions in an efficient manner but based on the rule of law. To develop effective and legally sound in case that any offer responses is challenged in court. That's our DNA.
Rule of law and respect.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
To ensure the effective enforcement of the DMA, we naturally need significant resources.
We now have a multidisciplinary team of around 90 people, including lawyers, economists, and computer scientists.
Of course, we will never match the resources that gatekeepers can mobilize. And I will never say no to more resources. But let me be clear on this.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
It is a fantastic team that is deeply experienced and fully committed to their public service goals. We will continue to work to ensure that the DMA delivers on its full potential, to ensure a level playing field in Europe where innovation can thrive. And where the market serves citizens and business all across our continent.
Thanks a lot.
Katarina Barley
Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker for the EPP is Mr. Arias Echevarria.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Madam. President, madam vice president of the commission, mister Hubera, the European Union in the last parliamentary term gave us a decisive step forward in terms of the adoption of a number of digital acts to put some order into our market. The digital markets act is one of those steps forward, and it is not just a technical matter, but a political commitment based on a necessity.
Several years later, the issue here isn't legislating. It's about the proper implementation of the law. Gatekeepers have a specific responsibility, not just because of their size, but because of their ability to set conditions for access.
To our markets in many cases. And this can limit European businesses' ability to grow and be more competitive. This is a challenge for European users as well because they face certain challenges.
And therefore, the DMA must never be understood by these organizations as suggestions. The DMA is compulsory, so its proper implementation. Is essential. We cannot allow our credibility to be at risk.
Now we have started putting orders to our digital market, and we must not stop there. We must continue doing this, in the interest of our citizens and all those who want to consume products and services in the EU, so that there is equality. We must provide legal certainty, and today is not the day that we're going to stop doing that.
Our market, our rules, the commission has all the tools required to provide for proper implementation, and these tools must be used. Complying with our rules is not optional. The DMA must be complied with, and that is a condition.
Speaker 253
This is well reflected in the resolution, and so my group, the EPP, will support it. Thank you. Thank you very much for s and d, mister Benifi.
Brando Benifei
Today, the digital platforms that are not European obtain resources through people and get users locked into their system. This dependence needs to come to an end. The DMA exists to break this rule.
Two years have elapsed, but measures are too slow, and the commission has not enough people to deal with this. We need to be more ambitious on cloud and artificial intelligence. Services.
Companies that cover and control 90% of cloud businesses, and therefore, they have data that are being used to train artificial intelligence. So we need to make sure that there are rules for competitions, and we need to have true European businesses so that we are sovereign here.
Let us defend the interests of our companies, of our workers, and of our citizens. Missus Rivera, we know that your work is walking in this direction, in the right direction. Do not stop.
Anna Cavazzini
Instead of talking about what the commission has done over the last two years since the DMA was adopted. We need to look at the actual impact of the DMA. I think it has been far less effective than presented here.
Google still covers 90% of all search engine use. Nothing has changed since 2025. Google has AI-generated content in its search results. We've seen far fewer clicks to the various underlying websites, and there's been a complaint handed into the commission about a car el effect.
What about the fines? 5,000,000 levied? But a new fine structure has been introduced. This is no coincidence. Companies with Market Cloud have resources to circumvent the rules with no impact on the bottom line.
We wanted to ensure more competitiveness, greater freedom of choice. We're told that will come one day, but regulation alone, will that work? Will regulation alone ensure competitiveness? We need our own data centers and computing power. Otherwise, the EU will only have a limited impact.
Katarina Barley
Thank you very much. Mister Pete Perea is not currently here, I don't think. I can't see him. So I'll give the floor to Miss Nibirshu.
Thank you very much, commissioner.
Speaker 256
Perhaps this is an abstract piece of legislation, a digital market act for some people, but it has a very serious impact every day without people deriving the benefits of more choices, fair prices, and better control over the digital services that they use.
Every time you looked out to check your phone, you're no longer restricted to any single platform or forced to a single particular app store. This is Europe working for Europeans to provide fair digital markets.
However, over the past two years, big tech has consistently criticized European technology legislation, with political pressure coming from the Trump administration. Ladies and gentlemen, as we approach the review of the Digital Markets Act, we have a clear choice to face.
Do we stand with European consumers or will we let the gatekeepers get the upper hand again? Stronger enforcement of DMA means even more benefits for people, better services, and availability to choose. This is Europe protecting your rights, your freedom online, in the digital age.
Thank you.
Katarina Barley
Thank you very much. That was on behalf of the Renew Europe Group. And now for the Greens, Mr. Van Lanskhot.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Are we going to AI heaven, where we all live like Greek gods served by AI robots? Or AI hell, where we are ruled by techno feudal overlords?
Probably neither.
Reinier Van Lanschot
But we are witnessing the start of a civilizational shift. The rise of artificial intelligence will shape our economies, our societies, and our future.
The question is, will Europe build this future or merely endure it? We can either shape this technology with European values and clear ethical standards or accept US technologies designed without them. That is why the Digital Markets Act must deliver and open the door to competition in the AI and cloud sector. We have the potential, but European innovators need a fair chance to build European cloud services and European AI. Because if we do not shape this world, others will do it for us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Leila Chaibi
Thank you. You, madam president. Madam commissioner, as today, we debate the implementation of our digital legislation. Mister Sekovich has just got back from Washington. Let's recall that the goal of his stay in Washington was to have a dialogue with the Trump administration about digital legislation.
But where is he today? He's gone to negotiate with Trump, and he's not even here to report to us on it. Between the European Parliament and Mar-a-Lago, there should be a clear choice to make.
Mister Sekovich has chosen. He is not here. And I'm fed up with the European Commission, lying down to The United States. Time and again in the hemicycle, we see the same show. Once again, the commission is using the same strategy, delaying investigations, reducing sanctions to the very minimum when it comes to fine amounts.
Big tech is complaining. So Washington gives the order, and Brussels obeys. European Commission says this is diplomatic caution, but it's simply under regulation. If a law isn't implemented, then it's a dead law.
Digital sovereignty cannot be demanded. We need to build it, and we need to do that by implementing all of our laws without hesitating, without shaking. In light of all world leaders, including Mr. Trump.
Katarina Barley
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the representatives of the groups. I'll be a bit stricter with the time now. The next speaker is Mister Haultink.
Michiel Hoogeveen
Thank you very much. Well, in the EPP, we're very happy that Sevkovich is traveling also to the US to protect our economy from the very negative consequences of trade chaos. And, we're also very happy that commissioner Ribera is here today to speak about the DMA.
I would like to introduce a company to you, a Chinese company, and I will say now they will be the gatekeeper. But over a couple of years, not now, it is called Joy Buy in Europe.
Joy Buy sounds very nice, sounds like a startup. In fact, it is the European front of one of the biggest companies in China. And they are about to take over MediaMarkt and Saturn.
The ownership is economy, and they own basically the 1,000 shops in Europe in about 12 countries. And very soon, most of the countries have already agreed to it, will be in Chinese ownership.
Madam commissioner, this is a very serious issue, and I've already written to you in a letter, and for tomorrow's vote or Thursday's vote, we have an amendment that will call on you to use every single legislative instrument you have, whether it is the foreign subsidies regulation or also FDI screening. We need to make sure that, one, no subsidies were used for a company like JD to become so big as it has become, because in Europe, companies do not get that kind of treatment.
And secondly, the data that they will be buying because their colleagues will be owning about 100,000,000 client profiles of Europeans. That data and the future data of your fridge and your washing machine and your microwave will be part of that business transaction and will not be anymore in the ownership of Europe, and will not stay in Europe. And we need the commission to make sure that this will be the case in the future.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Next, Rit Nastik.
The next speaker is.
Pierre Jouvet
49. The number of meetings that the commission has declared since the start of the year. 49 opportunities to explain that Europe is not a digital colony for the US, Trump, Google, Apple, Meta, or OpenAI. AI. None of them lord it over us, and yet the commission has not clarified what happened in those meetings through the DSA and the DMA.
We've explained clear rules to protect our consumers from US big tech. They flout our rules. We see that every six months. Our Internet surfers are held captive. There are businesses struggling. So 49 meetings with the commission.
What did you achieve one year later? We've seen the first fines under the DMA, but it's all theoretical. Things have been kicked down the road. Commissioner, our collective request is to ensure that we enforce European law online so that we can protect European consumers and our sovereignty.
The time has come for action.
Thank you, Mr. Nesshi.
Madam.
Speaker 261
Commissioner. Well, the DMA is fundamental to reestablish the competitive situation on the European digital market. We see a concentration of power in a few hands, major platforms. They impose rules and they limit opportunities for our business. Especially SMEs, which make the basis of our economy.
We need to intervene this to make sure that this distortion disappears when too much rigid bureaucratic legislation could perhaps put a break to innovation and growth. We need to have proportional rules, transparency, and possibility of access. Without disproportionate costs for European businesses. We cannot just by limiting large systems, we completely hamper the European system. We need to be regulators, but also technological leaders.
Invest in innovation, support our businesses so that they can grow at a global level, to defend our digital sovereignty is a European strategic priority. Thank you.
Speaker 262
The next speaker is Madam president, mister Rivera, DMA, of course, is much more than just digital legislation. It's a guarantee of our European sovereignty. However, just a few days ago, the Handelsblatt in Germany reported that the European Commission had decided to cancel a fine on Google because they hadn't respected the DMA. This was the first fine on Google, and this was simply to satisfy a request from Donald Trump.
If this is true, this is unacceptable. I call out this policy to politicalization of the issue. And this has come at the worst possible time. The digital giants are still trying to continue as they are.
They're crushing the European competition. Ms. Von der Leyen spoke about this and said that she called upon the commission to carry out investigations and to conclude as appropriate. No one is above the law.
Ms. Ribera, I commit your, I acknowledge your commitment, made today. We've had the first review of the DMA coming. Now, this is so important. It's about saving our European businesses and protecting consumers' interest.
Thank you.
Mario Furore
Thank you, madam. Commissioner. When a citizen tries to find information on the search engines, they find a response reply to AI from AI. Google review, for instance, the content has been produced by others, however. So there are less resources for information.
So journalists may lose their jobs. And it also leads to less pluralism. Our democracy could fail the DMA. Is there to limit the power of large platforms? But four years after its approval, nothing has changed.
The procedures have not really led to what we expected, and today, we have seen an attack to publishing and journalism. Our democracy is going to shipwreck. The Tiguestele movement calls upon the commission to apply DMA also to those new dangerous instruments which are to be taken under control.
Because the commission, if you cannot deal with the dear artificial intelligence, will intelligence will be too late and large platforms will simply take over, and we can't allow that.
Thank you.
Anja Hazekamp
European sovereignty is in our hands. And that includes digital sovereignty, the DMA is working well. Meta and Google have faced fines running to millions. We now need to ensure proper enforcement of those decisions. I have read your information. I have heard about our cooperation with Trump.
Well, we're not afraid of the US administration. We will speak up in defense of our citizens. That is the point of the DMA. To fight back against the DMA.
Elisabeth Grossmann
Madam. President Moshe Ribera, the digital market act is one of the most important instruments we've created. To make sure we have fair, open digital markets in Europe. The decisive point here is proper implementation, though.
Colleagues have already referred to some questionable practices which are damaging to users. They distort competition, and they are generally very negative, particularly the concerns related to costs related to certain platforms.
So if businesses aren't able to shape their own prices freely, will that, of course, undermine competition. It stops innovation and also impacts consumers' freedom of choice. This clearly runs counter to the spirit of the DMA, so we expect that the commission will act rapidly to ensure we see full implementation of this instrument. And, if necessary, to adopt further measures.
This is about European sovereignty. Our rules apply to all businesses that are operating in the EU regardless of where they have their headquarters. Ms. Grossman, would you accept a blue card from Mr. Hish? Please.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Teresh
You were mentioning that through this Digital Markets Act, the European market was open. The digital market was open to more businesses. How many tech companies came into the European market? How many new tech companies were able to take off in the European market?
Do you have any studies to see how much it's costing the European companies to implement all the provisions from the DMA? Thank you.
Elisabeth Grossmann
That's. What this is about. We want to have fair competition conditions. So that new European countries are able to be created. And that's why we all need to make sure we use such new European countries, because that is how we can provide their European companies as fair competition.
Next.
Marlena Maląg
Ladies. And gentlemen, the law on digital market is to protect the free market. But we are instead of fighting the monopolies, what we're doing is we're fighting against the American administration.
And we are dealing with this act at the moment is a baseball bat for Donald Trump. And for the technological companies in the United States. It's all hypocritical. We talk about a free market, but we use the law as a form of pressure. We talk about innovation, but we build regulations such as the Green Pact.
All this is ridiculous. And in order to limit the Americans on the market, well, we have lost the technological race rather than racing, we're slowing down the others. And if we don't understand this, we will never regulate the future.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 271
We can see that the percentage of digital purchases is always growing. So the application and the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act, it is not a purely technical issue. It is a prerequisite for innovation, for European innovation. Unfortunately, we do not see that many European digital companies. We have legislation that defines a clear framework, and the rules are there to be enforced. So we need true enforcement of the legislation, as well as penalties with teeth and a clear framework with rail guards for AI.
So our rules need to be adapted to this constantly changing digital environment. And this is what the EU has to step up to. Thank you.
Ratsushendang, next up.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Mr. Volkan.
Executive representative.
Tiemo Wölken
And gentlemen, colleagues, commissioner, dear colleagues, the DMA is one of the best assets we have in our fight against big tech. But let's be honest with ourselves. Google, Apple, they're not gonna give anything away. They will use all of our weaknesses to implement their unfair trading practices, and in order to get us into a corner. And to further strengthen their monopolies.
We're talking about AI. That's important. But we are forced to use Google's AI machine without offering alternatives. But while we're all focusing on AI, the open source Android is being closed off to us. That means that there is no way to use alternatives in its stores, and that means that developers are forced into terrible contracts, and Apple did the same thing.
But the DMA was a way to have leverage to break up these monopolistic, and now we can end this kind of behavior in Google. And we are saying we will not accept this.
Katarina Barley
It's a clear message from us, colleagues. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Sokol.
Tomislav Sokol
In. The conditions of the European digital market, it is difficult to talk about our independence and sovereignty.
This is confirmed that among 10,000 platforms in the EU, only seven of the biggest ones realized 60% of the profit.
In key segments like social media, we have foreign platforms, which is unsustainable when talking about competitiveness. The digital market act must enable that European companies finally become seriously competitive with European, American companies.
Interoperability, access to data, prohibition of discrimination of European companies must be applied in practice and not only a dead letter.
At the same time, Europe must invest in the development of its own databases and create conditions for their growth. Without a strong digital sector in the EU, there is no strong data protection nor digital sovereignty.
This is why we have to fight foreign pressures, especially the ones from Washington, and start defending the interest of our citizens and not of Chinese and American big tech.
Thank you.
Speaker 274
President. The regulation on the digital markets is not just a standard. It's an instrument that we've chosen for the single European market to be more open, generally competitive, or competitive is good. It's no good having great rules on paper unless they're applied properly. They need to be applied efficiently.
And citizens expect more. They expect the freedom of choice. They free them more freedom. To innovate and also exploit the web. We can't rely on external people to the EU.
We have rules that should apply to everybody, no double standards. And the commission must act firmly, using all tools in its toolbox. We need to have regular updates, rigorous controls, and we know that sanctions can make a difference. We need to update things to make things better. We need to be a step ahead of the cloud and artificial intelligence.
We know that we can set the standard for the world. We need to display our force to push this right to the end. Thank you.
Speaker 277
Implementing. The digital market act is something which is going slowly, and it's faced with a number of problems.
It's difficult to use the rules. And it's also difficult to assess the impact. We need to take a logical approach as well as a pragmatic approach. The commission has mentioned the platforms, and of course, it's a question of transparency as well.
We have to look at the gatekeepers, particularly in the United States. But this is a major contribution, which Europe is making to our economy. We do need more European alternatives. It's very difficult for the companies on which this is having an impact. And the DMA, above all, has an impact on many.
And we haven't really come up with a proper analysis yet, and there are many pointers which have been given to us by the ECR. Don't think that we want overregulation, for instance. I think we should ensure that this is the case and not get into too much of a race in this digital area.
Victor Negrescu
Move now to the catch the eye procedures, and I will be giving the floor to Madam Clavak.
Thank you. You.
Sunčana Glavak
Dear commissioner, dear colleagues, for me, DMA actually goes beyond the fight for European technical sovereignty.
If Europe adopts rules, then it have to have the strength and capacity to enforce those rules. This is related to the protection of citizens online. Let's not forget about that. And the situation of European media protection of data. This is why I believe its implementation must bring real results, more choice for citizens, better conditions for SMEs, more transparency, and less dependency on closed systems.
We heard that the biggest players do not even come from the EU. Digital markets change very fast, especially with the development of cloud, AI, and data ecosystems. If implementation is late, the market closes even before the legislation comes into place. This is why DMA must establish balance so that a few big players cannot control the digital markets as they do now.
Thank you.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Vice president Rivera, we are focusing clearly on data transfer to the US. That's why we have a data transfer agreement and a safe harbor. And there have been no derogations for this under executive order by Trump or by Biden.
But yet, there is a great resistance in the US to accept our digital rules, our DMA, our DSA, and our AI act. That's why we're having this debate. This debate is all about enforcement. Enforcement isn't the same as implementation. Now it is up to the commission to act as the guardian of the treaties, and that's what we're hoping for.
That's what we're awaiting. There must be no lowering of our standards and criteria. In the face of anyone, whether they be the North American tech giants or anyone else, it's about applying the rules that we decide on and that we voted on here in this house, the DMA, the Digital Markets Act.
Mister Christian Tareche.
Teresh
Thank you. Thank you very much. The DMA seems to be creating more problems than it is resolving for the European economy. Digital sovereignty has been mentioned here. That means that you've got the technology, and also you've got the companies in the tech realm.
Then you can take advantage of that sort of sovereignty. The more you use it, then that's one thing. How many tech firms have been developed in Europe, and how many have not? Come to Europe.
I think the data is very clear. SMEs in Europe have suffered because of the DMA. We can see the losses in Europe per year because the DMA run to €414,000,000 per year. So the DMA is actually making it impossible for the users and online businesses. Everything is made more difficult, and then there's a question of the clicks.
And then what about the American companies? Who's actually slowing down Europe's business vis-à-vis US? Well, I can tell you who it is, it's you. These the microphone's cut off. Mister Joel Oliveira.
João Oliveira
President. Commissioner Ibera, the digital sector has a lot of economic clout, and it is completely cracked open and liberalized. There's no public intervention. Even when it comes to scientific and research matters. And the sector is dominated by multinational companies, most of them located in the U.
S. And most of them are just focused on earning profits, and their science and development is all about profit. At the expense of consumers, and they don't care about SMEs. These big companies don't even care about human lives in some cases. As we see with military apps.
And military equipment that's being developed with tragic consequences. So it's about more than regulating the digital markets. We need to look at social needs, and we need to ensure that digital actually helps people and meets their daily needs.
Thank you.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Digitalization. And artificial intelligence gave us opportunities for growth. But for the European Union, it is also an excellent occasion to regulate legislation on the single market, on digital legislation, on audiovisual. And the protection of data, etcetera. So you'd be exhausted if I were to come to the end of the list.
The European citizens, do they really need this extra wall that the commission is putting up? Parliament is under pressure from third countries. We've heard of that, but I do think we should be reviewing the legislation on digital markets. I think it's important that we look towards The United States, and people are pointing at The U.
S. At the moment. So perhaps since reviewing the regulations that we have here, could we not look at this and tackle it in a different way? And, really, what we're looking at here is a regulatory hell in Europe. Intervention on behalf of the commission executive vice president Ribeira.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thanks. Thanks a lot, I have really enjoyed this passion debate, and I understand your commitment and the importance that you recognize to this digital markets act. It is quite clear that your comments are key.
Important, fair, not always fair. I will comment on that. But appreciate the opportunity to engage with you and address your concerns about the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act. So please, do not rest rumors on pollution, on what we do.
Come back to the facts. And if there are doubts, I am always available to respond or clarify. Yes. This is about rights, freedoms, shaping wealth, jobs, services, identifying the reality or not being able to identify the reality. Being more efficient and respectful or accepting abuses.
On market power concentration. So, yes, it is true. Either we shape and build the rules to ensure they fit our values, or we accept whatever. And, yes, I like the way you show your pride in the regulation that you are defending today.
I also share that pride. But let me be very clear. I am also proud of our implementation and enforcement. Do not have doubts about that. And if you have any, please come to say or ask before you start to pave the way for doubts in the public opinion, in the public narrative. We have been working hard, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that the DMA is enforced effectively.
And that all business, regardless of size or origin, have a fair chance to succeed in European markets. We will act as we have been doing, without fear or favor. Responding to the mandate, responding to the expectations, we are fully aware.
Of the importance of this regulation. No subordination. On the contrary, pride when defending our style of life. Our understanding of values, we stand up and defend our model. I am a proud European, and I am a strong and committed fighter.
For the Europe project. For our decisions, for the reliability, the respect of the rule of law, and the defense of freedoms and rights. So, again, if you have doubts, ask.
But please do not help those fighting against us by giving them the chance to think that they are right, because they are not right. We are enforcing the law that you adopted.
Because we think it is a great regulation. Why do you trust the media that deploys rumors instead of asking me? Much better. To follow the facts. That's also something we need to be ready to defend.
Because that's very precisely one of the risks that we identify in the digital world. And it is mounting. We have adopted two noncompliance decisions to specifications decisions, seven openings to identify designation of gatekeepers, and there's a relevant number of ongoing cases.
In less than two years, in a very complicated new sector and being along with the implementation of the enforcement of our antitrust rules. And yes, there are many other challenging cases. That does not go necessarily through this regulation, but connect it to other relevant regulations, including the foreign subsidies regulation.
Approaches. Because our mandate is to defend a well-functioning market. To defend the possibility of those willing to challenge the traditional incumbents to count on the opportunity to do it. To defend the public interest. That means the respect for consumers and to prevent the abuse of dominance.
And I would have to say that in many of these aspects, we European citizens, we European business, small, medium, or big business, public services, counting on digital realities to be efficient, are not so far away from many concerns that eventually other citizens in the world, including American citizens, may be fearing.
Think about that’s not digital market act. But that could be all equivalent in terms of the Digital Service Act. Think about the trial being decided less than a month ago in the United States.
Stating that Meta and YouTube were liable for social media addiction. We take care of our children, of our values, of reality, of things that deserve to be trusted, and we hold institutional responsibilities.
Need to respond to that mission. So I'm more than happy to keep engaged in this conversation whenever you need to have an update. To discuss what is going on, where we see the risk, I have witnessed your passion, your conviction, and I am with you. I am with our European values. And will stick to the defense of them.
No subordination, on the contrary. Something that is human-centered in terms of creating wealth. And improving the quality of life. Of the citizens. Thanks a lot.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you. You, vice president. For these concluding remarks on this debate on the world of question enforcement of the Digital Markets Act. I also like to congratulate the authors. We have also received a proposal for a resolution on the basis of the oral question. Now the debate is closed.
The votes will take place on Thursday. We move to the next item on the agenda. The next item on the agenda is the report by Miss Strolenberg. Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2024 and 2025.
I will kindly invite the rapporteur to take the floor.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Love. Thy neighbor. I am because we are.
All human beings are free and born equal in dignity and rights. It comes from the Bible, Ubuntu, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Our shared humanity is an obvious truth.
When we call the shared humanity fundamental rights, we build a home for all Europeans to live in.
But now, there are some who want to destroy this home. They say this home is not for him. Because he came from a different country. Or this home is not for her because she's a woman. This home is not for them because they love the wrong way, not for them because they pray to the wrong god.
And eventually, this home is so picked apart and divided that even those who destroyed it will themselves have nowhere to live. Are we going to sit here and bargain over people's rights? Who gets to have more and who deserves less? Or can we live up to the best versions of ourselves and say, these fundamental rights are nonnegotiable. And now is the moment to do so.
Because around the world, the best of us no longer stand up for these rights. And the Trumpian worst of us are declaring that whole civilizations can be destroyed. That the only human right that is sacred is the one of the strong to oppress the weak. We in Europe must show that another way is possible.
Because, sadly, everywhere we look, we see that hate is rising again. We see it in rising racism. The antisemitism we had wished was long dead returns with attacks outside Jewish schools and synagogues in the Netherlands. Far too many Jewish people are afraid to wear a kippah or to wear a necklace with the Star of David around their necks. And this is unacceptable.
Alongside this old prejudice, a new one: Islamophobia. Also becoming mainstream. And I mentioned these two together because too often people seem to think that to fight one is to neglect the other. But if you think you have to choose, you are missing the point.
To combat racism means that everyone must feel safe and be safe. We also see a backlash against the emancipation of women. And this is nothing new. It is as old as witch trials, but it has taken on new and disturbing forms. It takes place on social media.
With misogyny transformed into entertainment, or in anonymous chat rooms where men share rape tips with one another. All supercharged by tech companies whose only fundamental right is profit. And while we in Europe often pride ourselves on record LGBTQ plus rights, this progress is not equally distributed and is often under threat. There's much to protect, and much still to be accomplished.
And an easy first step would be to listen to European citizens and finally ban conversion therapy. Civil society is under attack. People who speak up for the voices are being blamed and even criminalized.
Are we really at a point giving a cup of tea to someone who is thirsty is illegal? Or we're saving a person from drowning is a crime. People who do good should be praised and not punished.
So to the European Commission, as protector of the treaties, and to every member state that signed this, the charter of fundamental rights, you cannot pick and choose who to defend, whose right to defend.
Live up to your obligations. Eighty years ago, we turned our shared history, bloody and devastating, into the world's biggest peace projects. Accomplishment all of us, left, right, progressive, conservatives, can be proud of.
I would like to thank my shadow operators for working together with me on this, for showing that this is not about left or right. Because this is not a political debate. Because fundamental rights are none.
Negotiable.
Thank you.
Michael McGrath
You. Very much, chair. Dear rapporteur, Anna Strolenberg.
Honorable members, thank you all so much for the work that you have put into this own initiative report. It is really appreciated. Today, we debate the soul of our European project: fundamental rights. These are not abstract concepts, but the living foundation of our European Union. The guardrails of our freedoms, and the measure of our humanity.
Report on the state of fundamental rights in the EU, which will be voted on tomorrow, lays bare the systemic pressures that these rights currently face. From rising discrimination to digital threats, from corruption to attacks on civil society.
Upholding the fundamental rights of the EU is a joint responsibility. Of us all. European and at the national level. The commission, I can assure you, is fully committed to this task, uses all the tools to promote, protect, and enforce fundamental rights.
In this context, let me take the opportunity to welcome the landmark ruling from the Court of Justice from last week, found a Hungarian law, which stigmatizes and marginalizes LGBTIQ plus persons is in breach of the EU's founding values enshrined in article two of the treaty on European Union. This is the first time ever that the court has reached such a conclusion, which reflects the seriousness of violations of fundamental rights that occurred.
Protection of children's rights and the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of LGBTIQ+ people are not and should not be mutually exclusive. In the digital sphere, fundamental rights must be as non-negotiable as they are in the offline world.
You, therefore, rightly underlined in your report that complying with fundamental rights is a key prerequisite to ensure the sustainability and legitimacy of all digital policies. People are spending a significant part of their daily life now in the digital world, and it's important their fundamental rights are ensured in the digital world.
For this, the EU already has a comprehensive body of primary and secondary legislation relevant to digital technologies. Such as the Digital Services Act and the AI Act, which are not just regulatory frameworks. They are shields for democracy and have the protection of fundamental rights as their core objective. Beyond regulation, we are working with the digital industry to increase the protection of fundamental rights online, for example, under a code of conduct against online hate speech.
I also welcome your support for extending the list of EU crimes to include hate speech and hate crime. While freedom of expression is sacred, it cannot be used to incite violence or spread hatred.
The rise of online antisemitism, misogyny, and anti-LGBTIQ plus rhetoric is not just a threat to individuals. It is an attack on our democratic values. It is an urgent matter to address, and as our initial proposal for extending the list of EU crimes has not met the required unanimity in the council, the commission stands ready to explore other avenues to combat these offenses, in particular online.
Europe has, for sure, made historic strides on gender equality, and we cannot allow any regression whatsoever on this issue. The road map on women's rights and the recently adopted gender equality strategy is our response. A firm commitment to push back against regression, but equally a firm commitment and affirmation and promotion of values that bind us together.
The full implementation of the violence against women directive and the digital services act will be critical, including as regards instances of online violence that I just mentioned. Similarly, the EU anti-racism strategy sets out a comprehensive intersectional approach from combating discriminatory profiling in law enforcement, ensuring full transposition of the equality body's directives by 2026.
Meanwhile, the ROMA strategic framework is at its midpoint. And while there has been some progress, too many Roma still face systemic discrimination today. Our upcoming progress report will help member states target their efforts better, because no one in Europe should be left behind.
And let me therefore state that persons with disabilities must enjoy full equality. The strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities has delivered real change, but gaps do remain. In the coming weeks, we will adopt the communication to build on and enhance this strategy.
As underlined in your report, children's rights also demand urgent action. From cyberbullying to online exploitation, we must listen to children and protect them both offline and online. The EU's children's participation platform has already given thousands of children a voice in policy making, including on the digital fairness act that we're currently preparing. And children are essential participants in President von der Leyen's special panel on child safety online, which will deliver its report and recommendations before the summer.
And last but not least, corruption undermines democracy, equality, and the rule of law. The very pillars that uphold fundamental rights. The newly adopted anti corruption directive is a major step forward, strengthening investigations, prosecutions, and preventive measures. Let me thank the parliament for its ambitious approach in the negotiations.
Let legislation alone is not enough, and that's why we are now preparing an EU anticorruption strategy to be presented by the end of this year. It will ensure coherent implementation of strategic priorities, and real impact where it matters most.
Honorable members, to conclude, this report is a call to action. Fundamental rights are not abstract ideals. They are the daily reality that we must defend for every person in the EU. And let us use this debate to reaffirm our shared responsibility to uphold them without exception and without delay.
I look forward to your contributions. Thank you.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, commissioner. We started the round of speakers on behalf of the political groups, on behalf of the EPP, have Mr. Lucas Mandolo for two minutes.
Colleagues.
Lukas Mandl
Always want to thank you for the excellent negotiations we had. They were tough, I can tell you, but they led to result that's on the table today, and that's of utmost importance since the commissioner has just stated fundamental rights are not abstract, not an abstract ideal.
He said, and I couldn't agree more. I think many people would ask what's the whole point of fundamental rights. It might sound a bit abstract. I think fundamental rights and the values behind fundamental rights are like the seed that, on the long term, bear the fruits of our freedom. The fruits of our freedom.
And these fruits of freedom are opportunities, are equal rights for everybody, men and women, are chances for children, is our very civilization as we have it and as we, of course, have to develop it, but as we also can compare it to other parts of the world, and we can see the values behind fundamental rights would be nowhere in today's world as much respected as in today's Europe by the European Union. This is a big achievement of the generations before us. And we have the big responsibility to hand over to future generations also.
Civilization. Of that kind. Based on these values that are also enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The commissioner has also stated, among other things, the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe.
And this is something of utmost concern over the last years in each country. We know the figures in each country, we know it's online and it's offline. And, there is not one kind of antisemitism which would be less harmful than the other kind of antisemitism. There is left extremist antisemitism, right extremist antisemitism. There is Islamistic antisemitism.
Well, you know that they always distinguish Islam from Islamism, religion from harmful ideology, and terrorism. We have to do that all the time. Islam is a religion very much also earning the rights of freedom of religion.
And is anti-Zionism in our times. Israel is put out as the Jew among the states. And, actually, obviously, the time has stopped, chair. Can I continue to speak? Is it part of my yes?
Speaker 286
Yeah. I use my hammer. I use my hammer, but you are focused on your speech.
I'm gonna use it one more.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 286
Unfortunately, we have a technical issue, and it stopped us from that you want.
Speaker 286
I have here a clock. I have here a clock, and I gave you even more time to speak.
So, thank you for that.
Lukas Mandl
I was observing the clock in front of me. So, thank you very much. Thanks again for this important report. And good that Europeans have fundamental rights.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, Mr. Manila. I hope you are grateful that I allowed you to speak even more than was planned. So you for that. We move to next speaker, and we still have the issue with the time.
So I have here a timer. But, again, the next speaker has one minute. Senora Marco Tarkino, Perun Minuto, thank you to colleagues, commissioner.
Speaker 289
Fundamental rights are essential. They're at the basis of our European being. But words alone are fine, but never enough. Therefore, our parliament at regular intervals writes and votes on reports such as our colleague has just negotiated with all of us on the situation of fundamental rights in the Union, setting down old and new words, which repeat and state finally for the first time what is essential. So let's hope that we manage once again to do this together.
I hope that in this semicircle, we shall not sacrifice any of the words which, with a broad agreement, we have found and spelled out together, regret rejecting the amend of the right, which aim to attack the essential, the rights of minors, of women, of LGBTQ people and, in general, of the vulnerable.
Above all, when we're looking at immigrants, but also which vilify and even condemn the sense of duty of humanitarians, magistrates, lawyers, of journalists. Without this essential, we wouldn't have what is fundamentally in Europe, and which represents us all.
Speaker 290
Forzater President, the European Commission is carrying out a frontal attack on the freedom of expression. If you say that there are only two genders, you are canceled straightaway because of hate speech. If you criticize the green madness, you're spreading disinformation. If you want to send illegal immigrants back, you are responsible for committing pushbacks.
Our privacy has to be protected as well. Through chat control 2.0, wants to eavesdrop Seamus into the messages on WhatsApp. And then you have to have the luck of not being a Jew, gay, or a woman.
Because years of mass immigration have made Europe perilous for these people. Juris schools now resemble heavily protected fortresses. Jewish citizens hide their kippah under their hats because they're scared of being punched.
Women are intimidated on the street. Gays no longer dare to hold hands. We're importing people from cultures where people are brought up with anti-Semitism. Where women are second-class citizens, and where homosexuality is punishable by death. We're importing hate, and the results are disastrous.
But instead of addressing the real problem, this vacuous report is just looking at gender ideology, Islamophobia, the colonial past, as well as disinformation. And this is while there's a flagrant shortage of action that really counts, protecting our borders, and making sure our citizens are safe.
Why aren't we doing that? Why is the parliament showing solidarity with migrants but not with our own citizens? Thank you. Next speaker, Madam Kanko.
Assita Kanko
Thank you, Chair, dear Commissioner.
I would like to say first that all human beings indeed should have the same rights, not only in species, not only in history books, not only in declarations that we make, but in the reality that we shape.
And I would like to tell you that today, in the European Union, there are still many women and girls who are captive in a marriage that they cannot live without facing honor crimes or honor-related violence or even the attempt to kill them. And these girls are Muslim girls in Europe.
Why are they let down by the system? Because we did not have the courage to fight for them. This is something that actually doesn't show that we're credible about fundamental rights. We can't overlook certain forms of problems because we lack courage.
And second, let's remember that the principle of subsidiarity is not an option. It is the backbone of the EU. So our challenge today is not choosing between fundamental rights and sovereignty, but finding a balance where both can still exist without undermining each other. This is the way to protect everyone.
Thank you.
Lucia Yar
Madam Lucha Yar, on behalf of the Reni Group.
The chair, commissioner, colleagues, firstly, I would like to thank the repertoire and shadows for this comprehensive report.
Sadly, it is confirming that over the past years, rights in the European Union have been eroding, and we are calling for corrections.
What have we learned? That the rollback of fundamental rights is not accidental.
It happens when governments and many groups here as well restrict freedoms in order to consolidate power.
But while European marks the end of one autocrat, others are ready to take up the baton.
As we are now hearing in my own country, in Slovakia. But the baton of what? Of silencing the media, attacking minorities, women, undermining civil society, or even restricting voting rights for people living abroad. That is happening in Slovakia right now, as we are speaking.
As in the case of Orban, the European Union cannot and will not be silent when fundamental rights are decaying. When they are being attacked.
Even if you capture the media, even if you defend civil society, we can judiciary thrive on corruption, people will win. You will not prevail. Europeans want freedom, and they want their rights.
Alice Kuhnke
On behalf of the group of the Greens, Madam Kung Ye. Yeke.
Thank you. You, president. Audubon has been voted out of office, and this shows that authoritarian forces can be stopped, but the threat to democracy and freedom in Europe hasn't disappeared. On the contrary, minorities are being removed. The rule of law is being undermined.
The right to decide over our own bodies is being challenged, and civil society is under severe pressure. As war, abuse of power, and attacks on the free media, which are worsening the situation. And we have to continue this fight for a better, freer world against extremism, in favor of democracy, in favor of those who are fleeing war, and for the right to love freely.
The EU can be the light in a dark world. It's not too late. But there have to be more of us who do more and do it now. Thank you. Thank you.
Victor Negrescu
The next speaker on behalf of the left group, mister Barena Arta. One minute and a half.
Speaker 297
Thank you, sir. We are looking at a proposal for a resolution, which is from a very interesting speaker, the rapporteur. But what we're seeing is a tax from the EPP and the extreme right. We have references to the erosion of justice, to corruption, to a decline in socioeconomic standards, and to the security of the European Charter of Human Rights.
We've gone through a number of drafts of the proposal, and we note that we are not seeing solidarity expressed with Palestine as we would have hoped. And also, we're not seeing perhaps what we should in terms of Israel.
So I think that the criticisms that we have levied against Israel are, we are told, antisemitic, and this is absolutely utterly false. We are faced with a reality here, and we have to actually shoulder our responsibility, which we're not doing when we are looking at a violation of human rights.
As we're seeing also in Sub-Saharan Africa. So we as a group maintain our amendments for the plenary, and we do feel that it's very serious that the text which is proposed is actually not putting to the fore the responsibilities which we should be shouldering. So for that, we cannot support the proposal as it is.
Thank you.
Mister Ulrich.
Speaker 298
Well, thank you very much. The situation in the field of human rights in Europe is quite strange, I have to say. I cannot understand why, according to Progressive, also violent migrants have always more rights than their victims.
In your report, the violation of human rights of the original Europeans is not mentioned at all. There's not a single word about that. That's why I proposed 18 amendments, where we propose to fully delete any references to violations of human rights of illegal migrants by members of the border patrol, because France, the threat to the European Union, are not men and women who are protecting our borders. But migrants who are trying to cross the borders in a violent manner, in an illegal manner.
And also I'd like to propose all the references to violation of the LGBTIQ plus communities, because let's be objective. Nowhere ever in the history of the world had people in this community had so many rights as they have today in the European Union.
And to the opposite, with our colleagues from AFD, we'd like to support human rights in the field of freedom of speech, protection of privacy, and private ownership because this is how human rights should look like, not only of minorities, but of all decent people.
Victor Negrescu
We finish with the round of speakers on behalf of the political groups. We open the blue card procedure, and the next speaker is Mr. Vavrikievskiy. Minute and a half, sir.
Petras Auštrevičius
Commissioner, President, Lady Saint Germain, and everyone has the same fundamental rights in the year. They stem from our values such as equality, freedom, democracy, and nondiscrimination. Democracy translates into freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free press. Free elections. And this is all within the framework of the rule of law.
Those laws are guaranteed. They are described in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the treaties. But in many places in Europe, those fundamental rights are attacked. Those in power are trying to limit the rights, to take them away by building an oppression system. There are many examples.
We know them all. If we fail to defend fundamental rights at the very beginning when they are being abused, then it becomes increasingly so. That's the basic conclusion. This drives autocracy, where human rights are abused, and human dignity is being attacked.
This day is also symbolic for our parliament because Anjey Potchobut, who received the Sakharov Prize, a Polish Belarusian journalist, opposition activist, working against the Lukashenko regime, a fighter for democracy and fundamental rights, has come free. He is now in Poland, and the history of his personal struggle and 15 years of oppression from Belarusian authorities following the Russian example, the Soviet example, it shows to all of us in Europe how much determination and courage it takes to defend fundamental rights, and how high a price some people have pay very close to our borders.
Thank you.
Speaker 300
President, commissioner, colleagues, fundamental rights bind us together, and they form our political identity, no mere detail. I want to congratulate the rapporteur and her shadows for the excellent report. But there are concerns about shrinking civil space, growing hate speech, attacks on women, and on the LGBT plus community, and on migrants. As well as issues with the rule of law.
In my country, it is at fault too. I know that you recently went to Portugal, Mr. McGrath. Now those who attack fundamental rights are attacking democracy. But it took decades to build these democracies.
So, colleagues, fundamental rights are non-negotiable. Fraternity, equality, liberty are not negotiable. That's why we have a simple choice. We must staunchly defend human rights. That's why I call on all Democrats to not take a step backwards. We have taken a commitment, and this plenary must vote in favor of this report.
Thank you.
Speaker 301
In just a hundred years, the Christian pop population of the Middle East went down from 20% to a dramatic 3%. At the same time, the number of Muslims in Europe is growing exponentially because of the policies of the left.
Do Christians have no rights in your eyes, but you never say anything about the persecution of Christians. But, you know, it's Islam and just Islam who prosecutes. And we know that you go hand in hand with Islam. At the same time, when we have prosecuted Christians everywhere, even very close here to the European Parliament Building, you are building the biggest mosque to please them. You are just puppets in the hands of these people who are responsible for millions of slaughter.
You've never loved families. Your homeland, but you're just fishing for votes in young Muslims, and you just do what you can to be liked by them. Christianity is the cornerstone of Europe, and we will protect it. Whether you like it or not, for a free Christian Europe and not for a multicultural mush, which is what you are hoping for.
Victor Negrescu
You see, I allow you more seconds, but you are going a little bit too far. Next speaker, Mister Weimas.
Speaker 302
Europe and all these so-called fundamental rights are yours.
The right to live with your underage wife, child spouse, and to reunify with your child spouse and family, even if you cannot support yourself. The right to fake your age, be treated as a child, and get an own teddy bear, even if you look like a 35 year old. The right to stay even if you're a convicted criminal because your home country's prison isn't comfortable enough, because you built a private life, or because your son that you barely know prefers local chicken nuggets. The right to welfare, to jump the social housing queue, to pocket money every day, and to remain outside the labor market even if you refuse, cooperate, or integrate. The right to hate Europe and Europeans while blaming structural racism for all your problems, all while living on untaxed payer money.
The right to halal meals, Islamic prayer facilities, culturally sensitive housing, no forced assimilation, the right to wear the hijab or burqa, and to build an open mosque on European streets instead of adopting European culture.
The right not to learn our language while being fully serviced and interpreted in your own language at every stage, the right to use fake or destroy documents. Sorry, colleague.
Victor Negrescu
I ask everyone to respect their time. Yeah. If I next speaker, madam Fabian Keller.
Billy Kelleher
Dear colleagues, commissioner, madam rapporteur, it's here in Strasbourg that the European Convention on Human Rights was thought through and drafted. The ambition of Europe and its countries is clear. We have to avoid a repetition of monstrous human rights, which we've seen. And this is the ambition which was born in the European Union. And fifty years later, the European Charter of Human Rights is something which we have.
At our disposal. It's our guarantee. Today, fundamental rights are threatened in Europe. You've all said that in 2025, we saw major threats to the freedom of the press. Equality, the rights of women, the rights of LGBTQI plus, the rights of migrants, our Renew group commissioner requires the commission to put respect for fundamental rights at the very heart of its activities.
Victor Negrescu
Are at the exact same time for everyone. So I am careful with that. So the next speaker, Madam Langan Sippen.
Speaker 304
The life of disabled people is in danger. It is in daily danger.
It is in danger for disabled women when she faces forced sterilization. When she gets raped, and excuse me? When she gets raped, and she believes or is convinced that it's normal.
Human rights are violent. Human rights are not for all in the European Union. Yeah, we have the disability strategy, but where is the money going? As long as we support and finance institutions, we are against the UNCRBD.
We violate the rights of persons with disabilities. We have to change the system. We don't need an applause. We don't need pity. We need human rights. That is what the UN is saying.
They are criticizing the EU, crystal clear. And here, I want to see a clear commitment from the EU Commission. Thank you.
Next speaker, Madam Asalis.
Speaker 305
Thank you. Thank you very much, colleagues. Fundamental rights are still under attack in Europe. We can see the extreme right's attack on freedom and the working class is clear. But in times of war, democratic forces end up being too compromised, being dragged down. For us, we believe the opposite should be true.
Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Our red line. That's our barricade. See a compromise on rights, in favor of security, you're not actually producing that because you won't guarantee security for anyone. And you shouldn't confuse what is going on, because it's not a zero-sum game.
You'll destroy both. Some people say that rights are only for some. No. It's for everybody. Otherwise, they're called privileges.
Defending acquired rights is still an ongoing battle. It's our battle. We need to make sure that we allow the citizens to be citizens of the world. And the rights we have depend on us. The part the getting those rights together.
Speaker 306
The story of democracy is this history of us gaining those rights. Let's continue to write that story. There is a blue card for you.
Speaker 307
Now why struggle against the totalitarian regimes? It's to restrict the... Now we're talking about the nuclear threat. What is our response? We are neutralizing television this day. Our French press is free.
We've even got the communist press, haven't we? Freedom has triumphed, and totalitarianism has collapsed. Now, things are changing. And in this hemisphere, the control of social networks has become an obsession, one for disinformation, one for children.
One for NGOs. All pretexts seem to be good when it's a question of restricting the freedom of your opposition. Identity. This is something which has been pirated. Instead of protecting our private lives, you're putting them in danger.
We really need to look for the truth. What you're doing is the opposite of that. It's not by setting rules that we're going to combat totalitarian regimes.
Speaker 308
Fundamental. Rights are under pressure today. There's a real risk that they will become of secondary importance on the political agenda, but it's during the most troubled times in history that we need these lights to guide us.
The values of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, all of these are not abstract. They must be the cornerstone of our action. Let me point to what has changed in Hungary, which gives us hope.
Peter Maguire won the victory and said that he was going to focus urgently on reestablishing freedom of the press, and that is such an important commitment. We know that we need the freedom of the press in democracies. We hope that his promises become a concrete action.
Another important point from our side is about digital and AI. These two matters can bring a lot to humanity, but there are major risks within them. Algorithms and algorithmic management, manipulation of public opinion, all-powerful AI without ethical barriers. All of these things endanger democracy and critical reasoning of human beings and even our very freedom. It is our duty to ensure that transparency and equity are upheld. We must also ensure that human beings are always the starting point and the ending point of any discussion. We must have guardrails to defend democracy.
And fundamental rights. Thank you.
Enikő Győri
Thank you, President, dear colleagues, the commissioner. Fundamental rights are at stake in our union. Our democracy is under great pressure, and civil society is under attack. Women's rights are being rolled back.
LGBTIQ+ people and minorities are increasing. Being targeted. But thank god, recently, the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union turned 25. A moment of celebration and reaffirmation. But we as a parliament uninvited ourselves from the party because once again, the European Parliament Committee of Constitutional Affairs, the EPP voted together with the far right and killed the report on the implementation of the charter of the fundamental rights.
Leaving the European Parliament, the only institution turning its back on fundamental rights on this 25th anniversary. Dear colleagues, fundamental rights are the cornerstone of our union. The charter is not symbolic. It is a binding constitutional pillar of EU law. Defending these rights is not an ideological exercise. It is our duty.
And as socialists and democrats, we will continue defending the fundamental rights and the charter. Thank you very much.
Petra Steger
Which is the next speaker, Madam Steger? Thank you very much, thank you once again for my being able to make comments on this major report. Comments to the whole world.
We're talking about racism. We're talking about so-called refugees, but we're not talking at a single moment for fundamental rights. For all of us. This report is just demonstrating an amount of hubris and referring to something which is completely different from the reality.
They're talking about the protection of minorities and not looking at how the majority is becoming minorities in their own country. They're not looking at the way in which migrants in Europe are causing problems and eroding the European culture as a whole.
You're talking about tolerance, but only for those who are of your opinion, but not for the others. This has nothing to do with fundamental rights. This is a program which is targeting your own people. And this is something which leads to your kind of totalitarianism.
Victor Negrescu
There is a blue card for you. Would you like to answer your question? A blue card. From Madame Yar. Madam, Yar. I'm not allowed to meet Madame Yar.
Coming back.
You, Chair, for giving me the floor.
That's my first question to you.
Lucia Yar
And second question, did you read this report? Did you read this report? It is about the fundamental rights of all the European women, men, all the people that are living here. So please let us know if you had even spent five seconds of your precious time, instead of shouting to us, instead of threatening us, to maybe read and learn something.
Thank you.
Petra Steger
Thank you. Thank you very much for that amusing question. Really, I'm sorry if you were offended in one way or another by my speech, but of course you should be. Because you're closing your eyes to the real problems in the European Union.
Yes, I have read this report. I've read it all the way through, and I've looked at the topics that are in this. But please, take account of the fundamental rights of your own citizens, European citizens. Because this is what you should really be looking at before we open the gates to others.
Speaker 311
Mr. Insavigny, for one minute. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Without any polemics, what is a fundamental right? Because it seems that we've forgotten what this concept means. I think everybody here needs to recall what a fundamental right genuinely is.
Liu the fourteenth, pope, said it very clearly. It's not LGBT. It's not gender or abortion. It's freedom of expression, freedom of religion. It's the right to live in peace in your own land.
It's not to be subject to being sold and bought. But above all, it's a defense of life that is a fundamental right that cannot be replaced by any other. That's what the pope says.
So let us apply that to guarantee that right to everybody, and let's move away from the short circuit that we're applying until we have no more life to short circuit.
One moment.
Okay.
Helmut Brandstätter
President, commissioner, colleagues, Europe is the continent of fundamental rights and of human dignity enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights 25 years ago. I know that things aren't perfect, but we've established the basis, the bedrock for a continent where we can live well. Almost no one else lives as well, but there are dangers lurking.
People from outside who want to topple our democracies hate on the one side disinformation from Russia, and then the American platforms, too. Who thrive on this hate. We must defend ourselves against that.
And, yes, there is also potential manipulation of elections. And we know what happens if the media are cornered. Then our democracies are in danger. But we have the basis to live as well as one could possibly imagine.
Who were crying out for these values? We're shouting about these values. But let's talk about what we can do even better. Let's not talk about how bad Europe is. Let's be grateful that we have this Europe of fundamental human rights and of human dignity.
Thank you.
For one minute.
Lynn Boylan
Akaraja, as we debate this, civil liberties in Europe are clearly under attack.
Many member states are attacking the right to protest and the right to express solidarity with the Palestinian people. We have seen artists censored for expressing solidarity. Have seen ordinary citizens beaten off the streets for protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza. We have seen the weaponization of the charge of antisemitism to chill the criticism of Israel.
Member states like Germany and France have taken stronger actions against those protesting or engaging in civil disobedience than they have against the Israeli government, a government that has legalized racialized capital punishment that has further entrenched their apartheid regime and has committed genocide against the Palestinian people.
Citizens across Europe are watching in horror as EU governments' hard won rights and liberties in order to protect themselves and the Israeli government from criticism. And the question has to be asked, who is this for? Because it is not for the European citizens. But instead, it's to protect Israel and Netanyahu's accomplices here in Europe.
Next speaker, Madam Khan.
Speaker 314
Thank you very much. This report and fundamental rights is really a model for more control, more gender ideology, and more. And we are seeing more and more strong statements about what is allowed to be said.
But, when you look at fundamental rights, we've seen lockdown. We've seen millions of people flooding into the country. And where is there a sentence as to how member states should be dealing with this? Are we going to have to change our fundamental laws such as we have them in Germany? We have this left wing ideological report, is talking about protection of the systems.
Our citizens don't want censorship of this. They don't want a green fantasy, a gender policy like this. They don't want mass migration, fundamental rights. This is an absolute misuse of the term and the whole concept.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much. A report on fundamental rights in the EU should be positive, but unfortunately, the negotiations were made too difficult to come up with anything better. We have a compromise that's acceptable, and it does enjoy a broad majority to date. But our fundamental rights are being attacked, are being undermined, in the member states, but also here.
So for the vote tomorrow, there are some unacceptable amendments that have been tabled. There's an attempt to look at the European Court of Justice case law and redefine it in an unacceptable way.
There's an incitement to hatred against homosexuals, women, and others. Be interested how the so-called political center will react to these amendments after the elections in Hungary and a ruling from the Court of Justice on article two.
We can come up with a very strong vote for Europe and for fundamental rights. It would constitute a very important signal, especially as the vote on the report on the charter of fundamental rights has been blocked by certain forces in this house.
Speaker 317
Ladies. And gentlemen, what are the values of the EU? No. I'm serious. Gender, climate, agenda 2030, SDGs, but none of these is in our charter. This illustrates the ideological shift that the EU has undergone.
Values that have nothing to do with what they were. We're seeing the erosion of principles such as the right to life, gender equality, security, privacy, and freedom of expression when it doesn't square with current trends.
You're not attacking principles, but people. Organizations and people who are legitimately there, you are against so-called anti-gender movements. But we're just a favorite family.
And life.
Speaker 317
Life and family. You talk about persecution. What about Christians? They're omitted. That is the most persecuted religion in the world. And behind fan family values.
What about these values? We need to protect everyone. Including the most vulnerable.
Madam Della Pisa.
Victor Negrescu
There is a blue card. The question would you like to answer? Yeah. Mr. Oliveira, you have the floor.
Speaker 319
Everybody got your president? You. You have to figure out the language there.
No, she doesn't yet have interpretation.
João Oliveira
Madame. De la Pizzacarion, you're quite critical of this report. But I have some questions for you. You know, how can you talk about fundamental rights? When people who take part in anti-Israel protests are sent to prison. What about workers? Who want to strike? And who are clamped down on? Is that defense of fundamental rights? And what about Christian values? Is hate speech a Christian value? When you speak out against migrants and gypsies and other vulnerable groups, is that Christian? You've read the report as I have.
Speaker 317
This report attacks people. Who dares to speak out against gender ideology. We think that giving value and attaching importance to life and family is something that we need to pick to protect.
We're called anti-gender. You've got your interpretation. Someone's rights being attacked. I'm talking about this report. They are attacking me, but I'm just defending life and family.
And that's exactly what's written in the report, and that's what I have a complaint about. That was what my speech at the podium was about.
Vausic for one minute.
Speaker 320
Ladies and gentlemen, while talking about fundamental rights, one must see what is happening in Poland today. Mister Tusk's government is abusing its de facto control over the prosecution general to repress political opposition.
You just voted to deprive some members of the Polish delegation of their immunity. Please reconsider. The president of the parliament started a new procedure today. The Polish prosecutor German is applying for lifting the immunity of Mr. Von Schick.
The former head of the Polish anti-corruption office in 2007 to 2009, they were able to establish that assets gathered by former Polish president came from illegal sources. After twenty years, the new prosecutor German is trying to make stick allegations against mister, although they were against lifting DAS immunities. I hope you will make a land decision today, and you will vote according to your conscience, and you will not follow blindly the line of your political group.
Speaker 321
Well. We've got a new word, teenage expulsions. Sounds like a bureaucratic detail, but it's a human tragedy. The Swedish government has brought in the most restrictive migration laws in Europe, and it is affecting the most vulnerable.
Young people, people who are young, speak Swedish, go to attend Swedish schools, play in the local football team, dream about building a new life in the only country that they know as their home.
I've met these people. Kani, Manvel, Jumani, Aphrodite, these are young people who have dreams of their future. But when they turn 18, they get a horrible present. A decision to send them to a different country, often a country they don't remember well at all, if at all.
So, commissioner, looking at this package, you cannot turn a blind eye to the Swedish expulsions of teenagers. You talk about the principles of the rule of law. You have to stand up for the law when it's broken. That destroys families, that tears children from their parents. This has no place here.
Speaker 322
Now. In the EU, we do have, of course, people who have different sexual preferences.
We've also got the different beliefs. Not even come into the text. We are seeing situations where they are being sent out of their monasteries and cloisters, and they are not being able to have their rights stood up to. I think that we are looking at issues where there is no compensation. And we're not looking at the societies which are actually suffering as groups. I think it's very important to look also at the Hungarian minorities in neighboring states who are striving for their rights.
Speaker 323
Thank you, President. Thank you, Commissioner McGrath. Fundamental rights are a main plank of the European Union. We've heard from lots of people today. We've heard people decry these rights.
People from the European People's Party talking about strengthening rights. But in the meantime, undermining them together with the extreme right. The constitutional affairs committee, they were quite happy to push through a block on the report on the charter of fundamental rights, not to mention the 25th anniversary of the charter where we were meant to have a debate.
That leaves the parliament's the only institution without a voice. Now this is a political choice. We want to have these rights, yet the right is attacking them. We can see these soapbox speeches. And what happened to Schumann, Degasperi, the other founding fathers, and now you've gone to the AFD and VOXX.
Meloni, Auburn, and others. So not just a question of defending the court, the charter of fundamental rights, because without fundamental rights, the European Union would not exist.
Speaker 324
We're. Looking at something absurd. The report of the commission on your European fundamental rights is purely ideological. It's totally aside from reality. It's extreme.
We've got 8 points, which are devoted to immigration. And we've got so much anti-migration rhetoric, are told. But we're not really looking at proper border control. I think it's important that we score the discrimination referred to here against Muslims, against immigrants.
But what we're not seeing is anything that refers to Christian hatred, anti-Christian hate. It's important to look at what's happening in the world of Islam. Forced marriages, for example, we need to look at rights across the board, not defending certain rights and not others.
Marcin Sypniewski
Thank you very much. Poland managed to break free from communism. Our fathers and grandfathers fought for us to live in a free country. And today, the European Commission wants to bring the institutions that we know from the criminal system back. It's building a censorship apparatus to stop free speech.
You're talking about fighting disinformation, protecting children, and you have many other arguments. But really, at the end of the day, you want to build such a to do away with free speech.
But that's a basic right that has been there forever in Europe. The right to say what you think, the right to protest, without anything being a sacred cow, big. Israel being a European, being the green deal, being the gender ideology, everyone should have the right to speak their mind freely, and limiting this is censorship. It's against our European tradition.
You cannot colonize European states. You cannot create a list of rights as you see fit and then sanction those who don't follow your list. Thank you.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you. You. President, Commissioner McGrath, ladies and gentlemen, last March, the position of the European Parliament on the return regulation was adopted. But the report on the charter of fundamental rights say that fundamental rights are being targeted in the European Union already, and yet this new text is doubling down on these attacks, seeing returns outside the EU and extended detention.
These attacks on fundamental rights, whatever they are, seem to be supported by an established alliance of the right and extreme right. We socialists and Democrats are staunchly against this. The Europe that we want is not one of walls, of outright expulsions or violated rights.
We're about respecting rights. Europe cannot be the continent of human rights. And yet, at the same time, externalize its responsibility sometimes to third countries that don't respect human rights themselves.
We socialists and democrats have a different vision, one of Europe that protects, that integrates, that doesn't leave anybody behind because solidarity is not an option. It is the foundation of our common project.
Francisco Assis
Mister Assis. One minute.
President, commissioner, in the twentieth century, the EU experienced totalitarianism, Nazism, Sovietism, the Holocaust, the most disgraceful action against the Jewish people in all of history. But now we have a European project, which is based on fundamental values. It is our duty to defend this project. That's part of our political work here in this parliament.
If you look at the far right, they talk about Europe. They talk about the West. And they talk about fundamental rights. But what they're talking about doesn't square with the EU. And fundamental rights that were put in place when we founded the EU.
Because fundamental rights are universal. That's part of our European critical philosophy. Universalism is in the name. They apply to everyone, but the far right has its own ideas. The far right only applies fundamental rights to some, to a few.
And so when we talk about fundamental rights, we are talking about very different things than far right, and they should use a different vocabulary.
One minute.
Speaker 329
Thank you. Fundamental rights charter of the European Union is our most important text because it describes, one by one, the inalienable principles we believe in. They're fundamental rights, freedoms to which all member states have been committed. Have committed to for all citizens, with no exceptions.
And the report quite rightly says that in certain member states in the European Union, the rule of law is receding. And fundamental rights are not protected in the case of minorities and special groups.
In the part of Cyprus which is under Turkish occupation, the whole of this charter is every day abused openly. And thousands of citizens do not enjoy their rights. Think of this.
I am a European citizen, and I can go and move around and have a home whenever I like in the European Union. Apart from the place where I was born, which is my home.
It is not just me, but also hundreds of thousands of European Cypriot citizens. And this infringement of the charter in Cyprus by Turkey is unfair both to Cyprus and to Europe.
Victor Negrescu
The KSI procedure, I mean, we have a list of speakers registered. We'll try to give the floor to each of them. We start with Mr. Lopez Aguilar.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
President, commissioner McGrath, the Batimos, inform. We are debating the annual report on fundamental rights this afternoon. And we're dealing with concerns which the socialist group is always discussing. We're talking about equality, gender equality, sexual orientation, migration. This is an annual report on the state of the rule of law and the European Charter of Human Rights, which has been with us for 25 years and has been implemented for 16. So we are looking at the compliance with this from different countries of Europe.
You've seen how the report here has been replaced by an alternative report, which was drafted by the EPP together with the extreme right. And what we are seeing here is not a question of human rights and fundamental rights.
Teresh
Also, ask thank you very much.
This report on fundamental rights in the years 2024 and 2025 was written by a left-wing neo-Marxist MEP. There's no respect for European values, those which underpin the European project. In fact, there are 32 mentions of the LGBTQ community, as if that were the biggest issue for our citizens. Antisemitism is mentioned on 6 occasions.
And. Then we also have gender ideology being spread in schools.
Look. At the children. Will children know what gender they're supposed to be when they grow up? Children won't know whether they are a boy or a girl. You know, whether people have sexual preferences, they can do that at home, not in school. Leave children in peace.
Speaker 256
Chairperson Gurumagut, as human beings, we all want to be loved, cherished, respected, particularly protected. And that's what the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has done over the last 25 years.
It has protected all of us. It's the foundation for thousands of laws, policies, and initiatives.
It's been cited in thousands of legal cases. It's our protective shield, and the rights belong to everyone. Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and protection of persons from minorities. These are not abstract themes. These are about real people protecting women, supporting victims of crime, not ignoring those with a disability, monitoring borders in a firm but fair way, and tackling racism and hatred head-on.
But don't take any of these fundamental European human rights or rights for granted. They are under serious attack from right inside this house by the political groupings that you've heard speaking here this afternoon.
Özlem Demirel
They are spreading misinformation, disinformation, and hatred, and undermining. I have to respect the time for everyone, madam Demiral.
Duncan Scher, thank you very much, president. Around the world and across the EU, fundamental rights are under pressure. This is visible especially in Germany with those showing solidarity with Palestine. Critical voices are gagged. Protests are still banned.
This is the consequence of what's been happening before. The set of sanctions that the EU has at its disposal is being expanded, and journalists are now being hit by them. An example is the German Palestine journalist Josendoro. Sanctions within the EU against journalists without any court ruling are an attack on the freedom of the press and freedom of expression, regardless of what you think of the person concerned. That is endangering journalism. It is promoting self-censorship, and we have to put a stop to this.
This is how you undermine democracy piece by piece, and we have to make sure that the sanctions against Dura are stopped now.
Miss Jung Blues.
Joachim Balke
Well. We're seeing that the opposition is being targeted by the Secret Service. We're seeing that there is exclusion of many different people from different professions. We're seeing attacks on them. We're seeing the restriction of comfortable space for the people.
We're seeing a targeting of organizations and groups, and we're also seeing that the opposition is subject to inquiry. This is something which is happening in Germany. It's the worst democracy in terms of its operation in the European Union.
João Oliveira
President. Commissioner McGrath, this is a discussion of fundamental rights in the EU. Fundamental rights are not just political. They're economic, social, and cultural. That's mentioned in the report, and it's important to underline it.
But we need more in this report. If we're going to truly reflect what happened in the EU in 2024 and 2025. There's no condemnation of the oppression of citizens who are speaking out against Israel's genocidal policy against Palestine. These people have spoken out against Israel, but they have been imprisoned, sentenced, and accused of terrorism just because they're expressing themselves? And then what about the rights of workers? Workers want to strike, but they're not allowed to do that. And trade unions are being dismantled.
There are limits being put on trade union action, and there is also inhumane treatment of migrants. They are being instrumentalized just for economic. All of those things are fundamental rights violations too.
Nankashin.
Speaker 332
This whole report is completely valueless, worthless for our citizens. I'll tell you why. You're complaining about abuse of the human rights of illegal immigrants. People who are not citizens of the union who try to illegally gain access to our territory.
This is ridiculous.
Speaker 332
Secondly, you complain about the criminalization of what's going on. People are having to be stopped. We know that, people like Carolina Raiqueta was drawn, was taken to court, and people were happy about this.
When people are trying to protest and block things. About there are complaints about the suppression of opposition against the EU in Germany. My colleague Mary Kahn already mentioned this. The actions that were carried out illegally against citizens were not mentioned at all in this report.
Michael McGrath
Thank you. Thank you very much, chair. And can I thank all of the honorable members for their contributions to the debate here this evening? Think it's important to say that the charter of fundamental rights is our compass, but its promise is only fulfilled when it is known, applied, and enforced. And the charter of fundamental rights is not some woolly document that is aspirational. It is binding when EU law is implemented.
So it is a core binding legal obligation that must be respected, and for good reason. Because it lays out in very clear and accessible terms the rights that we all rely on every single day, and sets out the freedoms and the privileges of living in an open, free, and democratic society.
The commission's 2025 charter report shows progress, yet training gaps and uneven implementation continue to persist. Next month, we will launch an open online course on the charter. 53 training videos to boost awareness among public officials, judges, and civil society.
Because civil society is in fact the backbone of our democracies. It plays a crucial role in the democratic checks and balances of healthy democracies. It is through civil society organizations and human rights defenders.
The voices of citizens are heard, amplified, and translated into meaningful change. Yet today, we are confronted with an uncomfortable truth. The very backbone is undergoing strain. Human rights defenders, anti-racism activists, and LGBTIQ plus organizations we know today face smear campaigns, funding cuts, and even criminalization.
The EU's first ever strategy for civil society was adopted last November, and it is our pledge to reverse this trend. Through structured dialogue, sustainable funding, and new platforms for engagement, we will ensure that civil society can operate freely and safely.
I want to assure you of my personal commitment to ensuring that this strategy is fully implemented, and the coming months will see significant moves in that direction. In addition to raising awareness among stakeholders of the charter, I think we all have a job of work to do, to raise awareness among people living in the European Union of the existence of the charter and indeed of its content. So that they can ensure that those rights are their actual lived experience. And when that is not the case, that can be called out, and indeed challenged.
So can I once again thank the Rapporteur Anna Strolenberg, and all of the shadow rapporteurs and all of the members of the house who contributed to the preparation of this own initiative report? Thank you for your contributions to the debate, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of the vote on this report in this house.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, commissioner.
Anna Strolenberg
Now is the dawn of Missus Strollenberg as a reporter.
Thank you everyone for your input, and it's happy to realize that there's a broad majority in the center that I can work with. But a lot of people have shouted at me today, at us, and there were a lot of allegations made today.
I have never loved my homeland. I'm in the hands of Islam. I don't care about Christians. I don't care about children or women. I want to get away with free speech.
I give teddy bears to asylum seekers. Which is actually a nice idea. I have counted the times that ECR, PFE, and ESN talked about migration, and it was in every speech. Migration.
And I don't know if you're joining the wrong debate, because this is a debate about fundamental rights. And not about migration. But if this is really the way you want to address fundamental rights, then I tell you, you are missing the point. Because fundamental rights is not a big say, you can pick from a bit of this or that.
No. You either fight for all, or you don't fight at all. Now there has also been some reasonable critiques, and that is specifically about the protection of protests who stand up for the people in Gaza. And I understand, and I also wished that this was part of the results.
After the negotiations. To the commission, thank you for taking this seriously. It is great to hear you're committed to making hate speech and EU crime, although there's maybe not a majority in the council, and it's difficult.
Happy to hear you want to look into different ways. And I'm especially curious to hear how you want to fight the protection of women and children online. So, colleagues, tomorrow, we have the votes, and I hope that despite political differences, we can be united on fundamental rights. Make a clear statement saying that fundamental rights are non-negotiable.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Missus Reporter.
Anna Strolenberg
Now we are closing this debate, the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union, 2024, and 2025. The debate is closed, and the vote will be held tomorrow. Now I have unannounced to do the person to rule 2514 of the rules of procedure.
I would like to inform you that there was not a request to put to the vote the record agenda announced in the plenary on Monday, April 27. The corrigendum is therefore limited to have been approved and is published on the plenary web page.
With that, we are moving to the next item on the agenda, report by Mister Arvanites, the commission's 2025 rule of law report. Now Mister Alovenidis, as our reporter, has the floor for Farrell.
4. Minutes.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Determine. The commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank you all personally, all of you, all of the colleagues, MEPs, and everyone that helped us, have reported all of the shadow reporters and their offices, the colleagues and peers and their offices that tabled amendments.
The collaborators of the political groups, the secretariat of the Libbey committee, and, of course, my political group, people that worked with us from the committee, and I hope I haven't forgotten anyone.
Today's vote on this report, I think we want to have a consensus on this report. We present our whereas as well as our whole sources, and we engage with all of the rule of law problematic. First of all, let me start with the justice systems. We want to have independence and equal access.
We can see institutional reforms and the use of digital tools. We underline the need to protect judges and lawyers. That we want the effective application of judicial decisions, and to have more judicial cooperation.
Second, fighting corruption. We think that we need to have more measures in order to fight corruption, and truly independent organs. We also want to have a stronger EPPO, and we underline the need to protect the whistleblowers and have a new framework in order to prevent and fight corruption.
Thirdly, the protection of journalists, pluralism, and the media. If this report goes through, I would like to dedicate it to my former colleagues, journalists that have been murdered or disappeared, and to everyone that has fought against the system in order to bring the truth to light. So here we have the editorial independence of the media and the protection of journalists.
We are talking openly about the fact that we cannot have illegal wiretaps or political interference. We want to have the full of the EMFA and the anti slab directive. As well, we need to rein in the digital platforms.
Now, fourth, civil society. We need better participation of the civil society. They are the basis of pluralism. We are supporting the people that fight for human rights. We are in favor of transparency as well as academic freedom. Fifth, fundamental rights.
We need to safeguard the fundamental rights in the physical and digital world, with an emphasis on equality, nondiscrimination, as well as the protection of vulnerable groups and minorities. We need to apply the EU law, the international law, a key, and we need to have a judicial recourse.
Now, rule of law and EU budget. Number six, we are in favor of connecting EU funding with the application of the rule of law. So we need to have transparency and control of how this money is being spent, and we need to protect the final beneficiaries. That means European citizens. We need to be responsible towards the European citizens.
Seventh, the rule of law dimension of the single market, these two are connected, and I'm speeding up now. Number eight, rule of law in the EU enlargement. We need to have these principles in the enlargement process.
And, of course, the commission needs to write better rule of law reports. Our report cannot come after the commission report. We need to have our report first. And ideally, it could be a common report.
Finally, I would like to thank you once more. We need to have a yearly rule of law cycle with clear rules, with transparency. And I hope we will have a communication in order to come up with the consensus in this house. Thank you very much.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much, Mr. Reporter. Now is the time for the commission for the European Commission, Commissioner McGrath, you have the floor.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, Chair. And can I start by thanking the rapporteur, mister Avanites, and all of the shadow rapporteurs and honorable members who contributed to this report? The 2023 rule of law report adopted last July took stock of the rule of law situation in each individual member state and the EU as a whole. It presented a clear picture of significant national developments, both positive and negative, based on a transparent and objective methodology developed in dialogue with the member states.
The rule of law, now in its sixth edition, has become a cornerstone of our efforts. Over the years, this dialogue-oriented tool has contributed to tangible progress by supporting targeted reforms, increasing accountability, and ultimately building more resilient institutions in all the member states of the EU. In doing so, the rule of law report reinforces the foundations of our democracies.
Ensuring that justice systems remain independent, that checks and balances are upheld, and citizens' trust in public institutions is strengthened. As an important novelty, the 2025 report included a single market dimension. This highlights the importance of the rule of law as an enabler of competitiveness and a level playing field in the single market.
And will continue to feature prominently in the next edition of the rule of law report. And we are now working on the 2026 rule of law report. All country visits to the 27 member states and the four enlargement countries have taken place. With a gradual shift from online to physical country visits in the capitals. Before the visits, all member states had sent us their input.
We also received, in parallel, around 200 written contributions from stakeholders all over Europe. I had the pleasure to go to many member states, most recently to Italy, The Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain, and Latvia tomorrow.
To discuss the implementation of the recommendations of the last rule of law report with national parliament's authorities and stakeholders. The 2026 report will be adopted before the summer recess, in line with previous years.
The European Parliament's own initiative report on the 2025 Commission rule of law report is very much welcome in this context. The fact that your report is being adopted earlier this year will allow us to better take its content into account as part of our preparations.
We're very grateful for this and for your strong commitment to further strengthening the EU's instruments to promote and uphold the rule of law. This new timing of the parliament's report further strengthens our common rule of law cycle, and contributes to an even closer collaboration between our institutions. And it also reflects the objectives set out in the 2025 State of the Union address of president von der Leyen on an integrated cycle of the rule of law. The annual rule of law report is a central part of this cycle.
The European Parliament's draft report puts forward a large number of important issues and recommendations that the Commission will duly examine and consider. And I would like to highlight a few points today. The commission fully agrees with the importance to ensure a continuous dialogue with a variety of actors, including civil society. And this is why the commission pays specific attention to the engagement with civil society during its country visits. This is also why it has adopted the civil society strategy. We are open to specific suggestions from parliament in this regard.
On further extending the scope of the report, the commission's view is that the scope covered by the report is already very broad with its four pillars and now a single market dimension.
The report is part of a broader effort at the EU level to uphold all of our common values. There are other work strands addressing more specifically fundamental rights and democracy. For example, the recent adoption of the European Democracy Shield.
When it comes to certain specific topics under the existing pillars, which the European Parliament proposes to add to the rule of law report, like the cooperation with European Public Prosecutor's Office, high level corruption, access to information, the illegal use of spyware, in particular against journalists, media, and transparency or ownership transparency and freedom of assembly, I note that these are already part of the reporting.
The commission is ready to explore other ideas contained in the European Parliament's draft report. Also, as challenges related to the rule of law remain across the union, we are reflecting on further improving the tracking of the implementation of the recommendations that we make while maintaining the preventive and dialogue-based focus of the annual rule of law cycle. It is an important area of reflection. In this context, let me recall that the implementation of rule of law reforms can be complex, and it is therefore necessary to consider progress on the recommendations over a number of years.
In addition, regular inter-institutional meetings to share updates on the rule of law situation in member states, such as discussions in the Libbey Committee, the Democracy Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group, are a good step towards further integrating the different institutions in the rule of law cycle. In this context, the commission remains available to discuss proposals from the European Parliament to step up inter-institutional dialogue on the rule of law. The commission is also in principle open to reflect on the possibility of advancing the date of publication of the rule of law report in the future, keeping in mind the practical considerations that this would entail.
So thank you for the opportunity of setting out those initial broad opening remarks, and I very much look forward to your own contributions on the draft Parliament report. Thank you.
Thank you very much, commissioner.
Speaker 335
I now give the floor to Mister Vasquez La Lathera for the Affect Committee for one minute. President, the rule of law is not abstract. It's about the relationship of trust between citizens and institutions, it's not just about norms and standards, but it's about independence of those who interpret and apply rules.
In the EU, we see action that is worrying in many member states. Politicization of the judiciary, of the public prosecutor's office, pressure on judges, we see that there is pressure when public procurement contracts are given out. Political pressure, too. We cannot ignore any of that. It all undermines credibility.
And that's the very basis for our coexistence. We cannot have one set of rules for one and different rules for another. The rule of law report is very important. It's a very important instrument, but we need the commission to act.
If need be. The commission must act with determination. It doesn't matter what member state we're talking about, because either we apply the rule of law to everyone or it's completely pointless and has no value at all.
Anna Strolenberg
Now it's Mister Germain for one minute representing the committee on budgets.
Jean-Marc Germain
Ladies. And gentlemen, at this time, we're looking at the situation of the rule of law in Europe. Surely, we should celebrate the defeat of those who have been undermining the rule of law.
The Mr. Orban leaving the political scene is something that we should be pleased about. Peter Mojar, his successor, has promised to restore pluralism in the media and underscore the rule of law.
We hope that promises will be kept. So we can ask for the 18,000,000,000 to be unfrozen, thanks to the shortcomings of mister Orban. We saw Fidesz fall. We saw peace in Poland.
So we see that there's an attempt to protect the budget, try to make sure that fundamental rights are respected, and we can see that when these rights are abused, the ballot boxes have their way.
So let us look at the sanctions regime. This is a priority for the negotiations. We'll have on the coming MFF with the council. Democracy and human rights are the DNA of our union. Let's protect them.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. Now we are moving to the dimension in the number of the political groups, and the first, it will be Mr. Belarus. The name of the EPP group for two minutes.
Speaker 336
Thank you. Dear colleagues, commissioner, respecting the rule of law is not just a legal procedure. It is a pillar upon which we base the trust of citizens in the state and the regulated and well run life. Of Europe.
So we now have a balanced text to be voted on. And in the text, it says that defending the rule of law and the whole of the European Union still requires a lot of effort. But it also recognizes the important steps taken in certain countries.
And indicatively, I will talk about the reform of the judicial system on a national level, and the measures adopted by certain member states to decongest prisons and to improve detention.
Circumstances. So perhaps some points are very critical about Hungary. But I think recent developments will offer us some kind of new perspective on cooperating with the country, and will also offer a more European perspective to Hungary.
Think we should underline that this text does offer some new proposals. For example, the yearly cycle of the rule of law, which I think will underline the importance of our report and also enhance cooperation between institutions.
Finally, I think it's very important that in this text, we have the idea of the enlargement of Europe and it talks to these accession countries and says, make your judiciary independent, comply with the rule of law, and respect fundamental rights.
Speaker 337
Because it's not an act, or it's nothing but an act of political maturity and responsibility? Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Anna Strolenberg
Next speaker is Mister Lopez Aguilar for one minute on behalf of the S and T.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you, President, Commissioner. McGrath. With this annual report on the state of the rule of law in Europe 2025, we are consolidating an institution, which we invented a long time ago. It's very important because it is an examination of the 27 member states in terms of issues relating to the judicial system. This report also deals with discrimination against those who are vulnerable.
It deals with gender equality, sexual orientation, and women. And also the discourse relating to hate, which is put forward. I think that what we have to state is that the state of the rule of law is something which concerns all 27 countries. We need common rules and common laws to bind us together. And what we are seeing in this examination is that we have to ensure that we keep evaluating and checking compliance with the rule of law.
Fabrice Leggeri
The. 2025 rule of law report is not a new tool. It is much more. It organizes a system of surveillance, monitoring, and pressure system to exert pressure on the member states. These procedures exist.
You can take member states to the Court of Justice and withhold funding from them. But this is more. This becomes systematic, becomes permanent. Recent jurisprudence of the court of justice says that article two of the treaty has been violated, and we see that there is further control by the commission over many areas.
Now we have a scoreboard to rank the member states and to look at whether there have been court rulings applied. There's also the threat of sanctions and funds being suspended.
As if that weren't enough, Konstantinos Avanites' report goes even further. He's asking for strengthening of coercive instruments, and to link decisions to rulings made by the courts, and to link all of this based on decisions related to NGOs and journalists.
So this further extends a system. The rule of law is no longer a legal tool, but a political tool. Yes. We must accept judicial decisions. That's the basis of every democracy.
But this is not we should not have technocrats, unelected technocrats lording it over us. There is more and more silent centralization here. There is a system where criteria are defined elsewhere, but they are applied to everyone.
Under the threat of financial sanctions. So there is a question here. Who is going to decide? The people or the institutions? There is no democracy if it is conditional. We want a Europe where we cooperate with each other, where we protect the nations, not one that surveils and sanctions.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mister Baye for one minute and a half. Representing ECR.
Speaker 339
Well, first of all, I'd like to thank mister Avanites who has tried to find a consensus and a dialogue on this tech with all the political groups, including those who are the furthest from his own. It's very rare, but all the more appreciated.
Same ritual starts. The commission produces its report on the rule of law. And turns it into a political instrument. These are subject to interpretation. You get them moralizing.
You get the injunctions, but often essentials left out, I. E, impartiality, neutrality of the institutions. Because the reality of this, ladies and gentlemen, is the rule of law is not variable geometry. It cannot depend on the political color of a government, nor whether they are supine vis-à-vis Brussels or not.
Have conservatives who are defending this popular sovereignty and borders, and yet they get the commission down the neck soon as they do that in all the conformism of Brussels. Then you have all sorts of other dogmas, which is perfectly okay despite the fact that they undermine elections, including with unilateral abolishment of elections like what happened in Romania. If that happens, the commission turns its view elsewhere.
So the right shouldn't be there, not being used to protect the people. It's there as a stick to beat people with who aren't thinking correctly. So the commission is deciding on adjudicating points depending on whether they think right, and we can see that the result of this isn't really working.
The rule of law shouldn't be militant judges proffering their opinions, nor the commission. It is the rule of law. It is the sovereignty of the people and should be applied to everybody in the same way.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. Next speaker is Missus Vilmes for one minute representing Renu. Europe.
Thank you.
Speaker 340
Since the beginning of this mandate, with my group, Renew, I have been defending simplification and coordination of what we already have existing within the context of the rule of law.
This is an idea which was taken up by Mrs. Van der Leyen in her speech on the state of the nation. And this is encouraging. And commissioner, I note that you two are an ally in this issue.
There are a number of articles in this report relating to the procedure which was taken out against Hungary. We have seen very detailed responses to the request put forward. And I think that the establishment of this cycle is subject to a broad consensus within this democratic assembly.
Secondly, commissioner, we are counting on you for this to be properly implemented, and you will be supported by Renu. I know that you are not open to blackmail, and thank you for that.
I think it is time at last to do our utmost to ensure that the rule of law becomes a reality.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Missus Riva and Dine. For one minute. Representing RINs Group.
Speaker 68
President, commissioner, the rule of law is not a technical debate, nor an institutional ritual. It's the fine line between democracy and abuse of power. It's about protecting those who investigate corruption versus those who go out and who don't defend democratic ideas. This is also an issue of security, democratic security.
We look at this report, we know that if you remove counterweights, if you remove journalists, if you suffocate civil society, if it becomes normal to attack rule of law, then these are not one offs. This is a widespread attack on the rule of law.
And this issue can't just become a footnote in a report. What we're doing here is not defending one group or another. We are defending Europe, a Europe based on human rights.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
The next speaker is mister Giorgio for one minute and a half for presenting the left. Group.
Speaker 341
Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Mister Ivanitis for today's report concerning the rule of law in the EU. The rule of law in the EU is suffering, the independence of the judiciary is being undermined by unequal acts and political interference.
We see media being pressured and wiretapped, and we also see hate speech ramping up. Dear commissioner, we need clear measures through application, and people need to be held into account.
Israeli agents are running wild all over the EU. In Greece, with predator software, and with the famous black van in Cyprus. I think that was speedily put under the carpet.
This needs to be reopened. It has to do with the actual, the very essence of the rule of law. So we, from the left, are going to keep asking for transparency.
We had already warned you with the Pegasus affair, and you did nothing. So these black vans are still in place as a stigma on our democracy. Thank you very much.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. And our speaker is mister Ulrich for one minute representing ESM ESN Group.
Speaker 298
Probably the 100th time that we are talking about the rule of law in European values. Come on. You have no idea what true European values mean. You have no idea what it means to be a proud Slovak, Pole, or Czech, or a Hungarian for that matter, because you're only destroying Europe, because the true European value is, for example, protection of European borders and not opening them up to millions of illegal migrants.
The true European value lies in the fact of supporting and protecting traditional family and not always pushing forward the rainbow agenda or trying to change the agendas of even small children in kindergartens or I don't know where.
Truly, is Europe supporting the European industry and not destroying it by green deal or sanctions. And other bureaucratic nonsense, these pseudo values of yours have led Europe to its demise, to poverty and decadence, and this is what we mean to put a stop to and to rectify.
Speaker 342
Now we hear from individuals. And we start with Mister Sarte Alejos for a minute and a half.
Sarte ALEJOS
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner. Less than 30 years ago in Poland, a party allied to the EPP actually moved in to try and rectify the deterioration of the rule of law. And now we're seeing once again that this is feasible. We're seeing full restoration of democratic values.
The commission has at least the same ambition as we do in the European Parliament when we're tackling issues relating to the rule of law. Essential reforms are to be hoped for.
Because combating corruption is facing serious obstacles in the policies of national governments, who don't seem to be able to tackle these crimes. And don't seem to tackle it to the benefit of public institutions and companies. We're seeing the manipulation of political control in the public sector.
When we are looking at the transposition of European law into national law. In certain cases, the situation is appalling. The glorification of terrorism and political violence is something which is to be challenged by democratic parties. And, unfortunately, this is not always the case.
Terms of the reports of the commission, they need to be firm and definite. And in any case, we do welcome what you have been doing for us as commissioner.
Enikő Győri
Thank you very much, President. Dear commissioner colleagues, the rule of law is a fragile thing. It takes time to dismantle it, but then one day you realize it's gone. And ask the Hungarians, they know all about it. They watched judicial independence and media freedom go down the drain.
They were stripped of fundamental rights when trying to challenge the system. They saw government accountability and transparency vanish into thin air, while corruption reached unimaginable levels. All of this happened one amendment at a time, little by little, year after year.
Fueled by constant and shameless disinformation. But most importantly, Hungarians had to live with the economic consequences. Because when the rule of law and fundamental rights are gone, economic development also vanishes.
This month, Hungarians, despite threats and legal obstacles, finally managed to shake off the shackles of autocracy. And I wish them the very best in rebuilding the rule of law and democracy.
But let this also be a lesson to all aspiring Orbans in the European Union. A liberal democracy is a failed concept. And in case you had doubts about it, without a rule of law and fundamental rights, there is no prosperity, no security, and no future.
Speaker 345
The next speaker is Mister Boucher Day from Eight and a Half. Sentenced for corruption. That was our public prosecutor. Then there's also Pedro Sanchez's wife, Pedro Sanchez's brother, and then two secretary generals of the PSOE party.
So we have proof that they're linked to a train accident. What we have in Spain is the most corrupt government in Europe. But it's not mentioned in this report, is it? There is a so-called gentleman's agreement here, and I smell something rotten here in Brussels.
Because we have to talk about the amnesty that was granted in Spain. Just to get a few votes. And then we have the DSA, which censors people's freedom of speech online.
How can we talk about equality when we don't talk about racism against white people and racism against Christians. What about migration? Spain has regularized dozens of thousands of migrants. Which could endanger Spain and Europe alike.
And what about Brussels funding of NGOs? Which affects editorial freedom. The European Commission isn't subject to accountability in the way that the member states are, and as long as that continues, it will be ridiculous.
Anna Strolenberg
You have a blue card, Mr. Bushide. Will you take it? From mister Sipa? Mister has the floor. It's a blue card.
Sorry.
I have to say.
Speaker 345
Are you from the Spanish parliament, sir? No. In the Spanish parliament, I'd actually have some time to say something. Here, I've just got 90 seconds. But I guess you're saying, why am I talking about Spain? Well, because we're talking about rule of law, a commission rule of law report, but there's nothing that is being said about Spain.
In this report.
Speaker 345
Why? Because you have agreed behind closed doors to talk about nothing. You wanna talk about Hungary. You wanna talk about Poland. You wanna talk about other countries. But what about Pedro Sanchez? I am pointing out that, sadly, alas, my country, Spain, is the most corrupt at the moment, has the most corrupt government.
Mariusz Kamiński
Report. On rule of law in the EU is not objective in any way whatsoever. Once again, the commission follows its political motives and shows an untrue picture of the situation on the rule of law. The principle is simple.
If in a given state, the ruling party is of the right wing, then there is no rule of law, and human rights are under threat. But if your liberal leftist regime is in power, then you turn a blind eye to any abuse of human rights of citizens. This can be seen in Poland when the law and justice was in power, then the rule of law was destroyed every day according to the commission.
Now when you have the post-communist liberal regime of Tuscan power, the communist commission doesn't want to hear anything in the face of violations and attacks against a constitutional court, that supreme court liquidating anticorruption authorities, courts being manipulated, and judges are appointed manually.
Commissioner, this is hypocrisy. This is against values that should be at the basis of the European Union. Thank you.
Thank you.
Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová
Rule of law. What an elusive concept. Bad Brussels is always pushing us to something. They're always bothered with something. Many people find this type of misleading information very convenient. Do you know why? Because it distracts attention from what truly matters.
And I would like to open up this discussion, and I welcome it. And I would like to remind the ruling coalition in Slovakia, and their friends, that rule of law also means the fight against corruption.
The word corruption appears more than 70 times in this report. This is what our government tends to obstruct, that it actually exists in the highest places. This is why when Slovakia drops 14 places in the corruption perception index, instead of finding responsibility, they always look for some other external factor. This is when we find ourselves at the bottom of the list across all of Europe.
It is everyone else's fault. Just not those who have been in power for 15 years. I understand if you don't want to talk about the fight against corruption, but you can't just blame Brussels for everything.
If the fight for the rule of law is a problem, if you're not willing to raise your hand for it, then it's a serious and deep-seated problem, and it lies with you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Missus Strick. For one minute.
Tineke Strik
The Hungarian people have shown us that even after sixteen years of authoritarian capture, democracy can and does prevail. The citizens stop the autocratic nightmare.
Tineke Strik
But this also exposes a painful truth. Democracy won despite the EU, and not thanks to the EU.
Our parliament sounded the alarm bell for years, but commissioner member states stayed too silent, acted too cautiously, fought back too late. And now it's time for the EU to get it right.
To firmly support the new government in a genuine, full restoration of the rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights. And to apply critical lessons in all our member states, violations must be met with real consequences. The rule of law report should set the diagnosis but also the treatment plan.
Sharp and operational with an expanded scope, clear deadlines, and a follow-up with enforcement tools.
Hungary gave us hope, but it also gave us a clear warning report, better. Act faster, enforce harder. Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is mister Panagiot Tu. For one minute.
Fidias Panayiotou
Banks are taking the homes of thousands of citizens in the European Union. This has been happening in my country, Cyprus, where for more than 30 years, banks keep having abusive contract terms in loan agreements. And even though this goes completely against EU law, the Cypriot government does nothing to enforce it.
But there is a solution. Citizens should have the right to appeal to a court to stop a foreclosure if they believe there were abusive clauses in their loan agreement.
This is basically one of the proposals made by the Cypriot Parliament, but our president, Nikos Cristo Dulidis, refuses to sign it. This is completely unacceptable.
If we make regulations here to protect the EU citizens, but that are not being respected in the member states, then what are we doing here? Thank you so much.
I love you all.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mister Babrievic Kevitsch for one minute and a half.
Thank you, Chair and Commissioner.
Petras Auštrevičius
This year's parliament report on the commission's rule of law report introduces a crucial new idea, the establishment of an annual rule of law cycle. The aim of this cycle is clear, to ensure that the existing rule of law toolbox becomes more effective.
We have all witnessed serious rule of law backsliding in Orban's Hungary and Kaczynski's Poland. Over the years, the union has developed a comprehensive set of instruments to safeguard the rule of law. Yet it has often lacked a political will to use them. This report directly addresses that by focusing on the full and coordinated use of the existing instruments. It calls for a predictable annual timeline, including a fixed date for publication of the report.
It strengthened the analytical framework. It also demands greater clarity and precision in the commission's recommendations, including a distinction between general concerns and serious systemic breaches of the rule of law. Crucially, the cycle reinforces the link between rule of law findings and consequences where serious and systemic risk are identified, and recommendations should be connected to EU funding.
This cycle further strengthens monitoring by requiring a more comprehensive assessment of the progress over time, including the implementations of judgments of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mrs. Riddell. For one minute.
Chloé Ridel
Colleagues, in a world where we are seeing more and more autocracy, we have to protect the rule of law. Hungary example, journalists have been attacked. Also, Italy, the freedom of women is crucial too in Poland.
We are still seeing billionaires who are having an excessive influence on the place. And are still able to pass on a clear message. We have to all be clear and defend the rule of law.
Reactioner is that today, making this more and more difficult. We have talked about corruption, and we have done very well here to actually tackle this corruption. Of those who are withholding funds. From those who attack the rule of law. We need to do the same for those who attack the press, sanction judges.
And we need to combat the impunity of war criminals. The rule of law is what is at the very heart of our European identity.
Anna Strolenberg
The next speaker is Missus Latino Polo. For one minute and a half.
Speaker 301
Is. Not like, a ruling concept. It is a guarantee that any citizen, regardless of their position, is equal before the law. But it is obvious that we do not have the rule of law today either in Greece or the EU, because in order for the EU to flow to exist, we need to have independent institutions. We need justice, transparency, and meritocracy.
Of course, in the EU, we say that there is no rule of law if a business does not hire two trans persons or two LGBTs, or if a state does not allow millions of people to come into the country or does not subsidize Roma people.
I've got news for you. This is not a rule of law. These are just the ideologies of the left. And, of course, we have an EU that is blackmailing its member states as happened with Hungary. That they should either take in illegal immigrants or they will get the funding cut. And the same thing goes in order to have a true rule of law.
Mister Sidiani
Thank you, president. This report is basically a political manifesto of the European left. Rule of law is being used as an instrument to brandish governments who don't obey people who vote wrong, or those who defend their own identity.
But your game is well known to us. I think this goes more deep, in fact, more philosophical. It's not enough for you to check the rules of respect. You want to educate the people. You want to transform the rule of law into a rule of left-wing ethics.
A caricature of bureaucracy and moralism, something that is self-defined as superior, deciding what is good, and you're looking at citizens as rowdy students who need to be taught a lesson. And governments of the right are not pathological deviations who need to be brought back to the right path.
But the wind is changing. The rule of law also means respect for the will of the people. Stop treating the conservative electorate as a problem that needs correcting. We're the ones who are defending the rule of law.
You are only defending the right to govern. Even when you lose the elections.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. You have a blue card. I don't know if okay. The next speaker is Missus Keller. For one minute.
Billy Kelleher
President, commissioner, colleagues, The rule of law isn't a gadget. Respecting democratic principles is a common thread that binds all European countries together. It is the bedrock of Europe's democracies. But the rule of law is a fragile thing. And we see that reflected in the rule of law report.
Look at Poland. You break down the rule of law. It's difficult to build it back up again. But we've seen erosion. We've moved from just setting the scene, and we've moved to action. And that's becoming more concrete with this rule of law cycle. We cannot allow rule of law to be in the hands of autocrats, where people will turn their backs on rule of law.
We cannot allow the rule of law to be weakened, because it's what makes us so strong. On the international stage. Thank you very much for listening.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Preveli. For one minute.
S poštovani.
Mr. Preveli
Progress. Has been made so that the rule of law in Slovenia has a way to go. There's no progress in fighting corruption and in fighting for media freedom. So we must see the reality as it is.
Slovenia has a time behind it where there was pressure on the media. Where there were attempts to silence the meet media. And the rule of law was seen as standing in the way of power. So such practices are worrying.
In Slovenia yesterday, there was a resistance against occupants. We said no. Today, also, we will be as decisive. We'll fight for democracy. Slovenia must be a land of democracy and strong media. It's not an ideological question.
It's a question of democracy.
It's a bit high this year.
Lefteris Nikolaou-Alavanos
The report tries to present the EU as a protector of human rights, fundamental rights. Quite the opposite, however, it is a structure which violates the rights of men, women, refugees, through wars as well that the European Union supports.
In the report, many of the things that are said are simply annulled by the reality. There is no mention of particular countries and particular cases. In Greece, we've seen the issue of the listening in on individuals illegally. Is something that goes totally contrary to the very fundamental human rights guaranteed by the European Union. It is a clear indication of what the direction of the European Union is, as well. And we've seen this as well with the particular issues that have taken place on railroads and the privatization of railroads, which has undermined very fundamental human rights as well and labor rights, of course. And, of course, this all is bolstered by an entire structure.
Thank you.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner. Colleagues. Union citizens, we have freedoms like hardly anybody else in this world. That's because of the EU, and that should be defended. And defending that means the principle of the rule of law. It isn't something abstract. It isn't a remote image.
It means that every person has equal value. We can implement that in the EU. We are the most reliable partner for others in this world. We must see the positive developments in Poland. We have, we had, they were able to get over an anti rule of law regime as in Hungary.
In February 2022, in Poland, there was a rule of law mission that I was on. Things look pretty grim. In terms of the judiciary and the courts, also in Hungary.
And now there is a blossoming spring for Europe in Poland and Hungary, the Central Europe, and for the whole of Europe.
Laura Estrada
Maracci president. It was an Italian prison, overcrowded, over 200% occupation. Hell. Three floors of people, piled up, sleeping on top of each other, people all over the place. There's no minimum space.
For each prisoner, despite the rules, people die as prisoners. There have been 15 suicides so far this year in Italian prisons. There was one the day after our visit. And this is riding roughshod over the fundamental rights of prisoners.
And it's not only prisoners whose fundamental rights are in mind, it's the whole community that pays the price. Because if you have overcrowding, you can't achieve the same kind of rehabilitation that you wish to achieve.
Just think of what happens when people come out again. So it's not only in the interest of prisoners. It's in the interest of society as a whole to improve the state of prisons in Italy and in Europe as a whole, for the sake of everyone's security.
Anna Strolenberg
Rematch, the next speaker is Mister Laszlo for one minute and a half.
Laszlo Gelabert
The. Left Center Media have been lying, including you.
You said that there is no rule of law in Hungary. Is no democracy. The only party that can win elections in Hungary is Viktor Orban and Fidesz because such is the electoral system. And if someone else wins the elections, they will never get to power.
And, this is just a few of the lies that we've been hearing here. After the elections in April, the whole world now sees that Hungary is a democracy where voters have the right to choose their governments.
For 16 years, Hungary has had a sovereignist conservative government because this is what the citizens wanted. But this period has come to an end again due to the will of the people.
We will draw conclusions from the results, but so should you. Because it was not just libels that we have heard. You have also launched an Article 7 proceedings against Hungary, which should now come to an end.
Ursula von der Leyen blackmailed Hungary by withholding billions of euros of funds. These funds should now be released and transferred to Hungary. The European Commission should also withdraw the €200,000,000 fine, as well as the daily fine of €1,000,000. Hungary is a democracy, and you are liars.
President.
Missus Bisney Westcott
Ladies and gentlemen, the report on rule of law in the EU is showing clearly that this is a word that is used according to what the European Commission and the parliamentary majority expects.
When we had a conservative government in Poland, you were looking for any possibility to attack it, even though it was using the same solutions that other member states also used.
And what does Brussels do today when Tusk's government is fighting with the rule of law? It's silent because neither the commission nor the parliament are talking about the illegal takeover of public media in Poland or illegal and political, say, political use of prosecution and courts. However, the report calls to strengthen the conditionality mechanism and combine it with the payments of EU funds, which shows that rule of law in Brussels and according to Brussels is just a tool to fight the governments that you don't like.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Anna Strolenberg
We have a blue card. I don't know if you want to accept it. Coming from the EPP, our key request.
Okay. Perfect.
Anna Strolenberg
Now we are moving to the next speaker. It's Mrs. Garcia Armida. You have the floor for one minute.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Gracias, presidente. Thank you, commissioner. Dear colleagues, as you know, fairy tales have often inspired me when talking about Victor Orban. Here in this house. Orban, the evil queen, stealing from the Hungarian people.
Orban as the emperor without clothes, and now Orban sends to political never ever again land. By his own people. And I do feel bad giving Peter Machia the same treatment because I am really happy that he won a majority to clean up the mess.
Like Cinderella. And he also needs to move quickly. Before the clock strikes midnight. And that will be tough. This parliament does want European funds to flow back to Hungary.
To improve people's lives, their schools, their health care. And for that to happen, we count on the new governments to restore the rule of law and put an end to rampant corruption. So that taxpayers' money can be spent safely, with accountability. The rule of law is no fairy tale. It's the only guarantee that the government treats you fairly, and the Hungarian people deserve their happy ending.
Thank you.
Speaker 362
Would you like to accept it? Dear colleague, you just spoke about happy ending, and the time is ticking.
Well, the person who was lecturing Hungary and many other countries, in fact, of Europe on rule of law, from your political family, Didier Reinders, who is under investigation for corruption and money laundering.
I think the EU and your party need to do its own homework. First. By the way, how is this case spending? When are we going to finally get a judgment there? Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
See, colleague Laszlo, that is the beauty of rule of law systems. When there is a suspicion, people are prosecuted, taken to court, and an independent judge needs to make a decision.
I would like to know how many convictions for corruption there have been in Orban's circle in the last few years in Hungary. How fast and what the penalties were. And my information says there were not many.
So, yes, the clock is ticking for all of us, but we are here defending the institutions which we have, and I am very proud of that.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mister Orlando for one minute.
Leoluca Orlando
Your. You're following this particular issue and the work of the commission on the Pegasus issue and Paragon in Italy, the spying on journalists. All of these particular issues had to be taken up immediately. We need sanctions implemented as quickly as possible.
We have all of these different generic approaches to the issue. And these are issues that have to go directly to the court. It's unacceptable for this lack of respect on the part of the Italian government following the particular Libyan case of Almasi as well. And all the criminals that were involved in this entire issue, the Italian government has simply put this issue aside and ignored the various judgments of the International Criminal Court.
Speaker 364
So it is time for the commission to act immediately on a case-by-case basis with the imposition of sanctions. Thank you.
Check for one minute.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Commission reports are very clear. The rule of law is still an undone threat in the EU because we can see the truth on the basis of the example of my country.
It's very easy and fast to destroy the rule of law. It's much more to rebuild it, which we see as co government party. And we will see a similar situation in Hungary. After sixteen years of destruction, the new government will have a huge task to do, and the European parliament will closely monitor its progress.
We cannot ignore a situation where the commission has the same guidelines every year and nothing is happening. Because the rule of law without enforcement is empty. That's why we need clear dates, deadlines, indicators, and automatic relation between funds and rule of law.
The conditionality must be a norm, not just a possibility.
This is not an argument about our competencies or procedures. We are fighting about the fact that our citizens need to be able to trust the EU. And if the EU cannot protect the rule of law inside, it has no moral law to want from others.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Match, the next speaker is Missus Chikardin for one minute and a half.
Thank you.
Missus Chikardin
President. So here we are. We've lost the umpteenth opportunity to have a serious debate in this parliament. We've got a report on rule of law, but it's not a serious piece of work based on actual infringements of the rights of the citizens of Europe. Once again, it's a kind of political showcase to beat the governments that Brussels doesn't like with a stick.
And you criticize countries that don't treat the Roma community with kid gloves. I would actually reword that. And we were born and founded concepts of Western thought that we should stand up for. But no, we get a kind of inquisition on social media for anyone who shows freedom of expression. The world's gone mad.
There's nothing here about the safety of European citizens. There, we do see rights being infringed on a day-to-day basis. People's rights, particularly women's rights, being infringed. Women who don't dare go out on the streets.
Missus Chikardin
You'll see women who don't dare leave their home because the streets are not safe for them at night.
We've seen in Italy extremely slow justice assistance, and it's a supposedly independent body. But there's still this infringement of rights every day. So this is not a serious piece of work.
Speaker 368
It's yet another ideological nail in the coffin coming from the ideological left.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
You. Said that the rule of law does not protect citizens and that it aims to destroy freedom of expression. And online, particularly. And I was wondering if you consider that freedom of expression should be extended to, for example, the 62,000,000 visitors of online rape academies, or we might want to implement and enforce our European legislation against that sort of practice online, also part of the rule of law.
Thank you.
When.
Missus Chikardin
When it comes to rape and similar crimes, my party has been one of the most active. Only last month, we had a proposed law to be harder on rape in Italy.
We should have stiff sentences. We should ensure the sentence fits the crime. We're talking about violations of the rule of law here very often in EU member states. There is no stable, stiff level of sentencing, and that is the true infringement of the right.
Right.
To answer again.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you. You're from Lego. Right? Didn't your party kill a proposal in Italy to introduce only yes is yes legislation for rape? Yep.
You have the right to answer.
Missus Chikardin
You are badly informed, madam. The Lega in Italy with the former minister. Buongiorno.
Missus Chikardin
Introduced the pink code and raised sentences, increased sentences for rape. So you're badly informed. The law on consent in Italy is going forward. But it is based on legal certainty.
Legal certainty is what we have in rule law, not confusion, the kind of confusion you want to import, the kind of chaos that you had in Spain, which was very confusing for the citizens of Spain and the European Union.
Anna Strolenberg
No. No. No problem. It has been really visible. The first debate.
Mister Sepera is our next speaker.
Speaker 216
One, thank you very much. Thank you very much. And friend, of course, thank now rule of law, but it's not a concept which is gap abstract. It guarantees that democracy functions, that rights are respected, and that citizens' rights are respected as well.
And I feel that this particular report goes in the right direction. It recognizes something very essential that if civil society is to be free, if we're gonna have independence of justice, if those are not there, then we do not have rule of law.
One of the charter fundamental tenets of human rights, we see that all human beings are born equal, free with dignity and with rights. And I would like to raise my voice to defend this dignity and these rights against anything.
And we've seen a tendency from the right and from the far right with a new orientation, a new line that has more to do with the precepts and things like Palantir.
Well, quite clearly, what we have to do in this parliament is defend above all human beings and human rights. Thank you very much.
Petra Steger
This rule of law report actually is just a political instrument. That which is against patriotic governments who are against migration to citizens. You want to put them under financial pressure. To bring them into line.
For example, at Hungary, Jean Michel, former council president, was right when he talks about Ursula von der Leyen. Taking new powers. Other than that, they don't care about other problems.
There is corruption, hundreds of thousands of illegals being legalized. In Germany, where the opposition party is being put under pressure. And that the EU talks about corruption itself. And it's the worst swamp of corruption, Margarini, Fiservate, etcetera, etcetera? You talk about freedom of opinion and the press freedom. They're the biggest danger to this.
Democracy shields sanctions against journalists without any rule of law principles. The EU talked about freedom, but it's more and more becoming an authoritarian instrument. It's not about the rule of law.
For you. It's about woke agendas, power-broking. That's ideology. And NGOs are portrayed as being against the rule of law. The EU funds these NGOs, which are the basis of this report itself. The true rule of law is about the citizens giving power to the citizens.
Thank you.
Katarina Barley
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to speak about one aspect of rule of law, which is particularly close for me, and that is spy software. When implemented, a telephone can be used to take pictures, follow people, and really actually do everything, even write the news. This type of espionage we've seen in numerous countries, in countries of the EU as well. In some countries, there's control. In other countries, it's used as a weapon against journalists and the opposition.
We had the Pegasus Investigation Committee that was put together here in the parliament, and we saw that people here from this house, Christofrisa, Aguntur Leikis as well, were being followed. There was surveillance taking place, and it was being used for that particular person. We have to protect individuals from this particular scourge. We have to make sure that there's protection of fundamental rights as well as data in dealing with this particular issue.
But we need effective controls in order to make sure that technology doesn't go out of control with artificial, there's an increased threat. This is my message today. We need clear borders in order to have proper surveillance and control of this type of spyware, and this type of surveillance overall.
Thank you very much.
Anna Strolenberg
Now we are moving to catch the eye. We have seven catch the eyes, and we are gonna accept them all. The first one is coming from Mr. Maniades. For one minute.
Mr. MANIADES
Thank you. Thank you very much, president. Two months ago, a court in Athens, with its ruling, stated quite clearly that the government of the New Democracy party has a parastate mechanism in place conducting surveillance that is centered in the Presidential Palace and the prime minister's office as well.
Politicians, entrepreneurs, journalists were under surveillance. And not only from the National Intelligence Agency, but also an in using predator, an illegal surveillance system. The prosecutor's office opened up a new hearing, a new procedure in order to condemn this particular spying that was taking place, and the prime minister has been embroiled in this particular issue.
He's even been compared to Nixon as well. Yesterday, with a shameful decision and concerning the independence of justice, the individual designated by the government, the state prosecutor, archived this particular investigation without any action taken whatsoever. This is a threat to rule of law in Greece.
Anna Strolenberg
The European Commission cannot do anything under these particular circumstances, but it appears that they must take action and open their eyes, finally. Thank you.
Please. Come.
President.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
As long as there are areas in EU countries where the police can't go, there will be black holes in the rule of law. Sweden and the parallel immigrant communities there are a sad example of this. In addition to the so-called no-go areas, the news flow from Sweden centers on crime. Last year, a terrible court case was in the news.
A refugee from Eritrea had raped a 16-year-old Swedish girl who was going home after her work shift at McDonald's. In the view of the court, the rape hadn't lasted long enough for the man to be deported.
So soon, this man will be on the loose hunting his next victim. The streets of Europe are full of such hunters. This is the real threat to the rule of law.
Which the left wing is silent about. I don't propose to be silent.
Thank you very much.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, President.
Commissioner, colleagues, I support the report and I would like to trace the commission the main part of the commission's report on the rule of law. However, there are some shortcomings, especially as far as the chapter on Lithuania is concerned.
How cannot see that last year a fundamental change took place in Lithuania. The constitutional court has acknowledged the partnership of same-sex persons. You should also notice that the present government is doing everything to prevent this decision from entering into force.
There are also attempts to politicize the constitutional court by appointing or trying to appoint political allies as members of the court.
We should look into essence rather than looking into technical details, which are not so important.
Ana Miranda Paz
The next speaker is Miss Miranda Pass for one minute. Thank you, President. If we're talking about the rule of law, then we need to talk about freedom of the press. And as a representative of Galicia, I would like to comment on freedom of expression in the radio service.
This is by the EPP. Controlling and manipulating the public radio service of Galicia for over 400 weeks. In other words, over six years, we've had these occasional shutdowns and demonstrations against this abuse of power, lack of independence, inappropriate dismissals, and discrimination against the Galician language by the EAP.
There's a European regulation on the freedom of the media. And there is a specific mention of Galicia in the EU. Report for a new law which has been adopted, which puts public service broadcasting in danger. Just as in Hungary, we're seeing public powers abusing the media. In Galicia, just as in Hungary, we're not going to leave it there.
Commissioner, we will pursue this.
Maria Zacharia
I support this report on rule of law, and I'd like to take this opportunity as well to condemn that which was condemned by my colleague, Mr. Maniatis, concerning spyware and its use increase predator. In other words, undermining rule of law.
This is not a national issue. This is an issue, this is a European threat with concerns all of us here in the European parliament. Let's not forget that there was a member of the European Parliament from the S and D group who was targeted here.
There were ministers from the council. There were individuals from the National Spy Agency as well involved. They were conducting surveillance on European matters as well. On European matters, issues concerning the European Union.
Isn't that a threat against the European Union? I would like to call upon the commission and the data protection officer, Europol as well, to call for a European investigation to take place right now, so that this particular case is taken seriously because we're speaking about a spy case against the European Union, its institutions.
Thank you.
Teresh
The parliament's report on the rule of law is deeply ideologized. And it excessively extends this concept to encompass new social and economic rights, such as access to housing.
It also talks about recognition of marriage, and it deconstructs the constitutional identity of member states.
If in a country like The Netherlands, we will end up legalizing marriage between man and beast, will this become a norm in other EU member states if a man who pretends to be a woman or identifies as a woman will be recognized by law as a woman? This will allow a perverse man who pretends to be a woman to do time in women's prisons.
And bathe and shower in women's showers. Do you feel safe if we introduce such a provision in European law? Thank you.
Speaker 375
The next and last speaker, if you have a point of order, I think the speaker just mentioned that in The Netherlands, they would like to legalize the marriage between men and a beast.
And I think this is unacceptable language in this house, we should report that to the president and see how we can deal with such horrible discourse expressions here in the house.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. I completely agree. I completely agree. No. No. Sorry.
No. You don't have the floor. You don't have the floor. You don't have the floor. No.
You don't have the floor. You don't have the floor. We listen to you. We take note of this. Comment made by the question Marc Angel, about the possibility of the use of hate speech here in this house, especially when it's attacking the sexual orientation, something that is protected by the fundamental rights here in the European Union and obviously, in this house.
And now we are moving to the last speaker, that is mister Sipel. Thank you very much. Questor Margangel.
Thank you.
Mister president. From my heart.
Lukas Sieper
Mister Laszlo, Missus Steger, Mister Ulrich, and Miss Teres are right, and I cannot take the pressure anymore. So here's my confession.
While I spent my time in kindergartens turning the gender of young children, I am constantly preparing my speeches full of lies. In total disregard for the principle of sovereignty, and while chanting hateful songs about the traditions of European member states, I then proceed to prepare secret meetings with the commission.
Where in typical fashion of the cartel of the center parties, we discuss how to blackmail national governments into forcing their citizens to accept the green deal while sipping champagne financed by woke NGOs.
Grow up.
Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much. Now we are moving to the commission. Commissioner McGrath, you have the floor. Thank you very much.
Michael McGrath
Thank you very much, Chair, and can I thank all of the honorable members for making a contribution to this debate here this evening? And I think it's important to restate that the rule of law is a founding value of the European Union. Which all EU member states, institutions, and bodies are bound to promote and protect.
The European Parliament's own initiative report provides a very important contribution towards our joint work, towards the school. We will take due account of your suggestions in the ongoing work on the rule of law report this year.
As I said earlier, we are on good track with the preparations for the 2026 edition of the report, is set to be adopted in July. And following its adoption, I, of course, stand ready to discuss the report with you in whatever forum that you consider appropriate. Let me also briefly reflect on a few other points.
Regarding the anticorruption framework, the commission welcomes the Parliament's strong and consistent commitment to preventing and combating corruption in all its forms. The commission fully shares this objective. And we will continue building on our efforts, including via the rule of law report, also with an EU anti-corruption strategy which will be presented in quarter four of this year. Looking ahead, respect for the rule of law is a central element of the commission's proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework.
As you know, in its proposal, the commission has reflected that compliance by member states with the principles of the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a prerequisite for financial support. The commission also proposes a stronger link between the recommendations in the rule of law report and financial support for targeted reforms related to the rule of law. The conditionality regulation will continue to protect the entire budget from breaches of the rule of law principles.
And finally, let me underline the rule of law report is only one of the tools in the EU's rule of law toolbox, and only one element of the EU's broader efforts to promote and uphold our common values, including democracy and fundamental rights. That toolbox also includes the commission's role to start infringement proceedings against member states for breaches of EU law.
And I would recall here again the recent ruling of the Court of Justice on Hungary's anti-LGBTIQ law. The court upheld that the law in question not only violated internal market legislation, but several fundamental rights set out in the charter, but also article two of the treaty on European Union on the values in which the union and the member states are founded.
And let me reassure you that the commission remains fully committed to applying all the tools at our disposal to uphold our common values, including the rule of law. Thanks to all of the members again, for their contribution.
Thank you to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs and everyone who contributed to this report. Thank you.
Commissioner.
Pina Picierno
So now, we'll give the floor at this point to the rapporteur, Mr. Arvanites. Thank you very much. You have the floor, sir.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank you. I'd like to thank you very much for this ever-so valuable discussion and debate. Fundamental rights, there's no room for egoistic approaches or small-time politics. And we heard a number of words, I think, which go counter to rule number 10 of the European Parliament.
We can't allow these types of words to be said. We can't have this type of tolerance. We have rules on this issue since we're speaking about the rule of law right here.
Now we had a very constructive and fruitful cooperation on this particular report. Now our report was adopted by a broad range from EPP to the left, abstentions limited, and we only needed one meeting of the shadows for this particular report. There was good intent, goodwill in listening to others.
It is a very tough report actually because all of the problems with the European Union are presented, surveillance also the issues involving separation of executive from the judicial.
We criticized everything. We didn't water anything down. It was a very good report. It's a good lesson in democracy. And a good indication that we can work together, concertedly, on something like this. So I'd like to invite you all to vote in favor of this particular report.
Support it so that we deliver a message of cooperation, and so that we can strengthen this institution and this structure in these ever so difficult times. Thank you very much.
Pina Picierno
Thank you. You. The vote will take place tomorrow. Now we'll move forward to the next point, monitoring the application of European Union law in 2023, 2024, and 2025. It's a report of colleague Zali Maasen.
We'll begin with the rapporteur.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you. President, dear commissioner, dear colleagues, European law is only as strong as its implementation. We can pass the best legislation in the world, but if it is not applied fully, fairly, and effectively in every member state, if its supremacy and reliance on common values is not ensured, then it simply does not deliver for our citizens or our businesses. That is the essence of this report. Europe must accelerate from lawmaking to law delivering.
Because today, we still see too many gaps. There are too many cases of delayed transposition, too many instances of incorrect application, too many situations where even the rulings of the court of justice are not fully respected. This is not acceptable.
Member states have a clear responsibility under the treaties to implement EU law properly. But the commission as guardian of the treaties must also act decisively when this does not happen.
That is why we call on the commission not to shy away from infringement proceedings, especially in cases of persistent breaches or noncompliance with court rulings. Enforcement is a guarantee that citizens' rights are protected equally everywhere in Europe and that businesses can operate on a level playing field across the single market. And, ultimately, it is a guarantee that the rule of law is upheld.
This report is also about accountability and transparency. Regular, clear, and country-by-country monitoring is essential not only to track progress, but also to identify shortcomings and enforcement gaps. Because we must be honest, reporting only achievements is not enough. We need to see where the system fails and how to fix it.
Parliament, through its petitions and scrutiny role, plays a vital part in this process. Citizens often tell us first where EU law is not working in practice. A key message of this report is also smart simplification.
Yes. We want to reduce the unnecessary administrative burden. But simplification must not mean deregulation. We must preserve our policy objectives wherever in environmental protection, consumer rights, or fundamental freedoms. That is why we also call for better digital tools, more accessible complaint mechanisms, and stronger early warning systems.
If we can detect problems earlier, we can solve them faster, before they escalate into infringement cases. And then its score. This report is about the rule of law and about ensuring that our fundamental values are respected everywhere in the Union. This is why we strongly support the rule of law conditionality mechanism, and call for its consistent application.
This report also introduces an important innovation, sector-specific recommendations. These were developed in close cooperation with members of the network on the monitoring of the application of union law. Such a horizontal approach allowed us to identify concrete challenges and solutions across key policy areas, from environment to justice, the digital sphere, and the functioning of a single market.
Finally, let me underline that Europe's credibility depends on its ability to ensure that its own rules are respected. This report is a constructive encouragement for the commission and member states to take a more consistent approach to implementation and enforcement.
Because the European Union is our home.
And in a common home, rules must be respected equally by all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 380
And now, on behalf of the commission, commissioner Dombrovsky. You have the floor, please, sir.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Madam. Chair, honorable mister Porter, honorable members, the commission welcomes renewed attention this house is moving to the implementation and enforcement of EU law. I presented to you earlier this afternoon our communication for a simpler, clearer, and better enforced EU rule book, which is further stepping up our enforcement action. Because cooperation with member states is the commission's preferred approach to achieve effective implementation, resolute enforcement is necessary when cooperation fails. So the commission is listening carefully to your observations in a context of monitoring the application of the European Union law in '23.
2024, and '25. It is our objective to foster constructive exchanges with the European Parliament and the Council afterwards. The individual progress reports on implementation and enforcement by each commissioner means more opportunity for discussions with committees of this house and, with the council.
We have taken note of your call to more clearly identify persistent challenges and systemic implementation shortcomings, and we'll consider this for the next reporting cycle. In the last three years, we have been able to close over 2,000 infringement cases, as member states achieved compliance.
The commission also decided to refer 71 cases to the court of justice in 2025. In all cases where the treaty is so provided, the commission accompanied the referral decisions with a request for financial sanctions. That is to say in 20 cases.
But we are further stepping up. Today's communication introduces concrete measures for a faster and more robust enforcement of EU law across all policy areas. Notably, the commission will step up enforcement of a single market rule book through 11 single market-focused areas for enforcement, targeting serious implementation problems that disrupt free movement of goods, services, and business establishment. These focus areas were selected based on identified shortcomings, enforceability, and their expected benefits for businesses and the single market. We will use existing enforcement tools, including pre-infringement dialogues and infringement proceedings procedures, to resolve issues as soon as possible.
And where necessary, the commission will not hesitate to refer cases to the court of justice. To tackle persistent delays in transposing EU directives, we are speeding up infringement procedures through streamlined processes and fewer deadline extensions granted to member states in ongoing cases.
So AI-powered tools will assist us in accelerating transposition checks, while stricter financial penalties will systematically be proposed to the Court of Justice to deter noncompliance. Given the growing role of EU regulations, for a full single market carbonization, we are reinforcing the implementation and monitoring to promote a consistent application across all member states.
Finally, the communication also includes initiatives to tackle the issue of gold plating by the member states. We hope to count on your support in our common endeavor for better implemented and enforced EU rules.
Thank you.
Thank you, President.
Sandra Gómez López
This report deals with an issue which is fundamental for the credibility of the EU. It's not enough to approve legislation. We have to ensure that laws are applied effectively, transparently, and uniformly across the member states.
In PETI, we wanted to bring that practical perspective to bear. Based on citizens' direct experience, Petitions are not a secondary instrument of the EU institutions.
It's actually about democratic oversight. Petitions give us an early warning of gaps, noncompliance, or systemic problems. Areas where EU law is not being applied correctly, citizens of the EU are the first to spot problems, which is why we have to listen to them, and that's why the petitions committee is vital to this report.
The commission's annual report of 2024 takes us backwards in terms of transparency. And this is when faced with increasing challenges to rule of law, independence of the judiciary, and challenges to our standards.
There are certain amendments that have been left out that are not about artificially padding out.
So the document, but rather absolutely vital.
Protecting children online. You'd only have to attend the petitions committee once in a while. To realize how many families are concerned about child sexual abuse, lack of protection, and ongoing problems with the application of EU law designed to protect children and teenagers.
So these amendments are absolutely vital. And we would like them to be included in the report. We want to ensure we have a true oversight role, and that parliament can deal with the actual concerns that citizens express to us.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much. Our next speaker's colleague Mandel. Thank you very much, President.
Commissioner, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, The implementation of EU law is our issue today.
And we've discussed this on numerous occasions, the application of European law, to what extent it has been the difficulties as far as implementation and the difficulties as far as 100% application and implementation.
Looking at what Montesquieu said, that it wasn't necessary to write up the law. If it is necessary to write up a law, then there's no need for that law to exist or for it to be implemented.
But we've seen a different course, right now. We've seen certain things stopped, blocked. We've seen deregulation through simplification, in inverted commas, and we've seen with certain majorities here in the parliament undermining the trust of European citizens. And actually, there's already enough work for all of us.
We want to be able to work together, not against each other. We have enough to do anyway in order to make sure that the economy runs smoothly, that there's security, that there's safety for European citizens. We overcome the various challenges that exist on the horizon right now.
So regulation, it's quite clear that in many parts of the world, they look at Europe. Europe is seen as an example to follow. And when so quite clearly, when we have regulation that's implemented or adopted, that is good for people, these are positive examples for the rest of the world. And at the member state level, and at other levels as well, everything becomes even more complicated than one would expect because of the issues of application.
Gold plating is something that has been mentioned. It's not only a problem in Brussels, it's a problem overall as far as the implementation, application of EU law. Our next speaker is colleague Sergio Comeau.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, colleagues. Monitoring the application of union law isn't an administrative formality. It's the beating heart of a pro common project these times of geopolitical crisis and uncertainty, something is more and more clear.
The great strengths of the European Union are its legal framework. This framework is solid, stable. It protects citizens, and guarantees them that the law goes ahead of all that's arbitrary. That's shown by the primacy of law, has been consecrated since 1964 by the ECJ. This principle is not a legal abstraction. It's not a constraint.
It's a condition for our unity. And that it should be a compass if we have this primacy, it's because of the member states. It's their wish to exercise their sovereignty and to delegate part of that.
Our other strength, which is also essential, is our democracy. Which is unique in the world. It is based on a balance between our institutions. But this democracy today, it is contested. It is questioned.
It is attacked by the far right. Face of that, one of our responsibilities is to defend the role of the European Parliament with determination because of the weakening of the parliament. That means weakening the voice of European citizens.
That's why the report we're debating today, and where I'm the Shadow Raboteur, addresses a simple message to the commission. Do not abandon the demand, the democratic demand, and do not deregulate for the short term.
Let's be clear. Strengthening our competitive and our sovereignty will not be achieved by renouncing principles. We should affirm them. Let's resist external pressure, defend our standards, consolidate our legal framework. That is the way to go to construct Europe or tomorrow, rigor rather than finding the easy way out.
Thank you very much.
Madam.
colleague Nott
Chair, being a lawyer who even taught more than twenty years of international, international and European law, let me share the following thoughts.
The effectiveness of the European Union does not depend only on the quality of the legislation we adopt, but, above all, on its proper and timely implementation by member states. Felt enforcement, even the best law remains merely words on paper. At the same time, we must be mindful that EU law does not exist in a vacuum.
In Croatian, should respect national legal systems and traditions, striving for coherence with them, wherever possible, and avoiding unnecessary fundamental conflict. Better lawmaking at the European level means legislation that is not only ambitious, but also realistic and compatible.
We must therefore insist on consistency, transparency, and accountability. Infringement pro procedures must be applaud without hesitation where a law is violated. At the same time, we should support member states in preventing breaches through clearer guidance and better cooperation.
In conclusion, strengthening the monitoring mechanism is not about centralization. It's about credibility. Thank you very much.
Mario Mantovani
Thank you. Thank you very much, president, commissioner, colleagues. I would say that the report on monitoring application of European Union law is an intolerable paradox. Sanctions for not having carried out particular or adhered to regulations, which the commission itself doesn't adhere to. There are numerous such cases.
In Italy, for example, the directive on transport and the digital protocol as well. Was kind of undermined before it was even implemented. And the criteria in order to define a hybrid situation with these particular instances, something that hasn't even been decided upon yet at all.
So what about the particular delays on the part of the commission? So it's quite clear that we need to look at the issues from a very technical aspect in the commission. This is something that has to take place, first of all, at the commission level before there's any implementation.
It's unacceptable. To sanction countries for not having done something the commission itself does not do.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, madam president. The commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, and I would like to start my speech by congratulating mister Jalimas for the construct and comprehensive report. As a report, I'd want outlines. We believe that the first and foremost legislation must always reflect our shared fundamental values. Democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which are essential for centering mutual trust and enhancing our common action in every policy field. We are further convinced that clear internal market rules, their informed application, and effective enforcement are prerequisites for advancing a thriving European economy.
We fully support the efforts of simplifying EU legislation when it comes to competitiveness. Not by deregulation, but by preserving our policy goals. While reducing the complexity and overlap of the rules. Whilst we are adamant that in order for Europe to deliver results equally to every citizen everywhere in the EU, we need to address the shortcomings in implementation and ensure that EU is fairly and effectively applied in every member state.
Tineke Strik
An obligation and a promise. To citizens, to businesses, to everyone who relies on their rights being protected across the Union. So we need to know if the commission's enforcement approach towards enforcement effectively improves compliance.
Because when dialogue becomes synonymous with delay, when the pre-infringement procedure becomes a waiting room of an enforcement tool, people pay the price. The reluctance to use enforcement tools gives a dangerous signal that even clear and persistent breaches of EU law can be condoned. Yet the legal options are there.
Interim measures, infringement procedures, actions over non-implementation of judgments, systematic infringements, and even value-based infringement procedures, as the court recently confirmed in its landmark judgment on Hungary's anti-LGBTI law.
Commissioner, you are guardian of the treaties, and so I urge you don't just mediate, but also litigate.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Thank you. You. President. Thank you, rapporteurs, for your work on this report. I think it's great that we can have this debate every year.
I think that's a healthy thing to do. We didn't have it last year, so we get to it once today. The commission and parliament have roles, Commissioner's guardian of the treaties. We need to ensure that there is adoption, implementation, and member states' infringements not applying what they themselves have approved, adding up.
There are more and more cases. There's more and more of a backlog. Why? The Government of Spain has had to be threatened with being taken to the court of justice before it would apply the VAT-free rule for SMEs. There are hundreds of thousands of self-employed people in Spain who cannot enjoy the same benefits millions of self-employed people elsewhere in Europe can enjoy.
We've had over a year of this now, thousands of entrepreneurs abandoned by the government of Spain.
So could I call on the commission to act more rapidly and firmly? Such infringements cannot turn into an ongoing limbo of unjustified delay, because if you undermine the law of the EU, undermine the construction of Madam.
Kosma Złotowski
President, commissioner, the European law has stopped serving the citizens and the entrepreneurs, it has become a tool of political blackmail, and the reason for the crisis that our economy is facing.
The green deal, the Conditionality Mechanism, Migration Pack, the ban on the registration of combustion engine vehicles, or regulations of the digital market have become a burden that neither our companies nor our public institutions can cope with. Their implementation is costly, and their effectiveness is poor.
We need less regulation, but we also need to withdraw from the most harmful regulations, which make us a global laughing stock. We are losing our race against the U. S. And China and no new omnibus will change that.
This term of office gives us hope for change, but what we need is courage and the political will and the commission. Otherwise, soon, there will be nothing left to regulate. We will become a museum in which nothing is produced, and no innovation is created.
The biggest risk for the EU is the present commission. Thank you.
Petras Auštrevičius
Thank you, madam chairwoman. Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur for this report. The report raises many concerns, but one stands out. That growing threat to judges' ability to address preliminary references.
When this channel is obstructed, it is a direct challenge to the rule of law. This is an absolutely crucial instrument mechanism for the European Union law. Because the preliminary ruling procedure is much more than a mere technical instrument, as it enables national judges to uphold European values.
Poland offers a clear example. In recent years, when the law and justice party was ruling and devastating the rule of law in Poland, judges relied on the preliminary ruling mechanism to defend effectively the independence of judiciary. Without preliminary ruling references, we wouldn't be able to receive the most important judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the meaning and on the standard of the judicial independence. This legal instrument is of great importance to maintain the European legal order and must be protected, especially by the guardian of the treaties.
European Commission. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mister Sunday.
Speaker 394
Thank you. I'll speak Dutch. Madam president, commissioner, regulatory burden and inconsistent, overlapping regulations lead to legal uncertainty. That makes life particularly difficult for our businesses. This is frankly unacceptable.
Take for instance a massive delegated and implementing act being unleashed upon our businesses. Mr. Zalimas, I'd like to thank you for this report.
The treaty clearly states that delegated acts may only supplement or amend non-essential elements of legislation.
The reality of application on the ground is different. This deluge of delegated often arrives much later in the day than the law itself, leaving our businesses in a state of legal uncertainty for far too long a time.
I'm warning against this in relation to the Industrial Accelerator Act.
Delegated acts now often have far-reaching consequences and contain important policy choices which, moreover, are neither transparent nor democratically established.
Yes, commissioner. We want companies to comply with the European rules and still have confidence in Europe.
Pina Picierno
But in order to achieve that, rules must, at the very least, be formulated clearly in a timely manner and transparently. Thank you, mister Simon.
Speaker 396
Madam president, commissioner, colleagues, EU law is often seen as technical, even bureaucratic.
Speaker 396
It is the difference between clarity and confusion. The application of EU law is not a detail. It is the foundation. Of the single market. And yet, too often, the same rules do not lead to the same outcomes.
A market that looks unified on paper can feel fragmented in practice. What is clear in one member state becomes uncertain in another.
Speaker 396
The problem is that the same law does not always mean the same thing. Divergent application and biggest wording and national layers that turn a common rulebook into a patchwork. Consequences are real.
Business face unfair competition. Citizens face uncertainty. The same rules, the same standards, the same level of trust, that is the promise of the single market. If the challenge lies in application, we must rethink how we ensure consistency.
This is where artificial intelligence can help in the future. Used responsibly, it can identify inconsistencies, highlight overlaps, and support a more coherent and predictable legal framework. But technology is only a tool, of course.
Our objective must be clear that EU law means the same thing wherever it is applied. Because in the end, our union depends on trust, the trust that the same rules apply in the same way everywhere.
Thank you.
Sebastian Tynkkynen
Madam. President, the commission's legislative circus under ringmistress Oder Ostler von der Leyen makes the audience gasp. When the EU legislates for 450 million people, wouldn't you just assume that there's first an evaluation of what the effect of the proposed law will be? That you would see if there's any point to it or whether the costs will run out of control. This is called impact assessment. Which is standard practice.
For example, in Finnish ministries, when laws are made. But, oh no. The commission doesn't do that. They just press on. In 2023, almost half of normal legal preparation processes were published without any impact assessment.
And now we have the figures for the next year. When an incredible almost 84% were published without an impact assessment, Dear Europeans, your interests are being managed badly. Thank you.
Pina Picierno
Thank you. We'll now give Commissioner Dombrovskis the right to reply.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Madam. Chair, mister reporter, honorable members, even the best rules fail to achieve their intended impact when implementation is fragmented, delayed, or inconsistent across member states. Such shortcomings may not only weaken a single market integrity, and undermine European competitiveness, but also erode trust in the rule of law, a foundation of the EU's legitimacy. This comes at a significant cost to people and businesses.
As our report shows, the commission has taken far-reaching enforcement actions in the past years, showing resolve in enforcing EU law, as illustrated by the record number of cases referred to the court of justice.
So maybe, to come back to some of the points raised by honorable members in the debate. In terms of enforcement, we are not hesitating on enforcement and referring cases to the court of justice. Preinfringement dialogues had proved a successful tool and allow us to resolve a substantial majority of cases in a time frame which are shorter if we were to follow classical insurance procedures, but it's true if we see that the free infringement dialogue is not yielding results. We need them to move to the infringement procedures proper.
There was a case raised concerning a number of delegated and implementing acts which we are having. And in today's communication, indeed, we indicate that we will be stricter with proposing delegated and implementing actions.
I also urge the co-legislators to follow this approach, and also in a current stock of legislation, we have deprioritized some 30% of delegated and implemented acts. Consistency for a single market, that's an important element, which we can ensure through enforcement. But also through the choice of legislative instruments. That's why we proposed to more systematically use regulations and also call for full harmonization, like maximum harmonization directives, to reduce scope for divergent national interpretations.
Finally, on the question of impact assessment, the honorable member unfortunately left the plenary, but nevertheless, I come back to this point as well. This is also the point which is reflected in our today's communication on more using the impact assessments on a broader range of the proposals which commission is preparing, also streamlining, optimizing the procedures, how we do impact assessments, how we do public consultations. Also, setting out a more thorough pathway for use of urgency procedure and also foreseeing, so to say, accelerated impact assessments and public consultations, possibly in a form of a call for evidence also in those cases. So then, leaving truly exceptional cases where these analytical documents can be submitted alongside or following the proposal.
So with today's communication and many key actions we set out, we are matching the scale of Europe's challenges and building resilience for a future for the benefit of our people and businesses.
Thank you.
Dainius Žalimas
Then, dear commissioner, dear colleagues, let me first sincerely thank all speakers, so I thank them for their constructive and thoughtful contributions to this debate. We all, I think we all share the commitment to improve the implementation and enforcement of the European Union law. I would also like to express my gratitude to Commissioner Dombrowski for his continued cooperation with the EURI committee and for his efforts in putting forward simplification solutions. We highly value this collaboration and look forward to continuing to work together in the future. I'm also grateful to the members of the Yuri committee, as well as to the members of the Yuri network whose sector-specific expertise has added real depth and substance to this report.
I also thank all of the colleagues who tabled amendments. A significant number of these contributions have been considered and have helped to strengthen the final text.
I would especially like to acknowledge the valuable input from the committee of petitions, that plays a crucial role as citizens' petitions often serve as an early warning system, highlighting shortcomings in the implementation of EU law.
As regard of this report, lies an idea that EU law is not an end in itself. It must ensure that it serves our citizens and, therefore, it should be qualitative, clear, and cohesive.
At its fundamental condition for its correct and uniform transposition by the member states while preserving the core policy objectives and protections. And at the same time, simplification purpose of simplification should be to reduce technical complexity, eliminate regulatory overlaps, and harmonize definitions and procedures across related policy areas. If we succeed in this, we will not only improve compliance, but also strengthen trust in the European Union and its legal framework.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pina Picierno
The debate. Is concluded, and the vote will be tomorrow, we'll continue with our agenda, council and commission statements ensuring accountability and justice. In response to Russia's continued attacks against the civilian population in Ukraine.
Start by giving the floor to the council, right away, and we'll let commissioner Kubilius take his place. As I said, we'll hear from the deputy minister for European affairs, Miss Rauna, on behalf of the council.
Raona
Madam. President, honorable members, commissioner, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine over the past 4 years has led to immense suffering for the civilian population in Ukraine. Reports from international bodies, human rights organizations, and various governments indicate that Russia has systematically violated international humanitarian law during its ongoing aggression in Ukraine, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, including facilities producing energy and heat. In fact, last winter, cold weather was purposely weaponized in Ukraine.
Honorable members, our continued firm and unwavering support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity remains essential. For the Cyprus presidency, supporting Ukraine on all fronts and delivering on key files in this regard has been a key priority.
Cypress has a firsthand understanding of the devastating consequences of invasion occupation on civilians. The European Union aims for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine based firmly on international law, on the UN Charter, and the core principle that borders cannot be changed by force.
Any peace deal must also provide robust security guarantees to prevent future conflicts, full accountability for all international crimes and other violations of international law committed in connection with the war of aggression against Ukraine must also be ensured.
We welcome, in this regard, that over the past months, important progress has been made, notably in relation to the International Claims Commission and the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. We are confident that both initiatives will be ready ahead of the Kishinau ministerial of the Council of Europe, in May.
As co-legislators, we have paved the way to provide Ukraine with a support loan of 90,000,000,000 for this year and next year. The Cyprus presidency worked intensively and diligently to translate the political decision into a concrete deliverable. This was secured ahead of the informal European Council last week in Cyprus. The Ukraine support loan will ensure that Ukraine can meet its urgent budgetary and defense needs, and enable Ukraine to remain resilient in the face of ongoing and increased Russian attacks. It is now important to ensure the swift implementation of the law.
Also, last week, the council adopted the twentieth sanctions package. These sanctions aim to reduce Russia's energy revenues, constrain its banking system, curb shadow fleets, and include the element of anti circumvention.
And finally, let us not forget the Ukrainian children that Russia has unlawfully deported and forcibly transferred to Russia and the occupied territories.
Many of the estimated 20,000 children have been forced to change their identity and be placed for adoption.
International efforts have led to around 2,100 of them being returned to Ukraine.
We cannot cease our efforts in this regard. We look to the high-level meeting of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children in May that the EU cohosts together with Canada and Ukraine to advance concrete actions to secure the safe return of these children.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Pina Picierno
Thank you very much. We'll now hear from the commission in the form of Commissioner Kubilius.
Dear.
Speaker 400
Present, vulnerable members, for more than 4 years, Russia has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine.
With severe consequences for the Ukrainian population. Since the start of the full scale invasion by Russia, according to the United Nations, approximately 16,000 civilians have been killed including 784 children, and approximately 43,000 injured including 2,668 children.
Number of civilian casualties has been rising again in 2026. Russia is also continuing its attacks against Ukraine's residential areas and civilian infrastructure, including transport, I have a focus on energy as well as, lately, water infrastructure.
Valorable members, our commitment to ensuring full accountability for all international crimes and other violations of international law committed in connection with Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine remains absolute. The European Union supports activities that cover a whole accountability process. Over the past months, we have made important progress, notably in relation to the international Claims Commission and the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
I can say we have a new momentum. On the International Claims Commission, following the record number of signatures on the convention achieved in December 2025, certified Council of Europe member states plus the European Union, we want to see results. Therefore, it is key for us to advance as fast as possible with the ratification, to ensure a swift setup of the commission. The council has processed the notification and submitted it to the European Parliament for its consent.
We understand that parliament is committed to ensure a swift treatment of the file, which would allow us to be ready for completing ratification by the time of Kishno ministerial meeting of the Council of Europe in May. In that sense, member states are also proceeding with their crucial ratification so that the international claims commission can be set up and start its work as soon as possible. We also remain committed to the swift establishment of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
I welcome the progress made in the Council of Europe on agreeing on the text of the decision on the establishment of the enlarged partial agreement EPA, of the special tribunal. It will now be key to advance quickly.
The commission has adopted and submitted a proposal for the EU to join the EPA to the Council. We aim at finalizing the process ahead of the ministerial council in Kishnev. The European Union is ensuring the financing of advanced teams for both the claims commission and special tribunal. Work is now being rolled over.
We must be ambitious, and we work with a clear goal in mind. We want the first claims to be examined by the claims commission thrown possibly by 2027. And the special tribunal to be set up for its first phase of its work by early 2028.
Our work continues hand in hand with European Union member states to synchronize processes and ensure a Team Europe approach. We will also be joining you forth with you and the Council of Europe in outreach to international partners for joining the claims commission and special tribunal. Our support to the vital work the Ukrainian authorities are doing on the ground continues as well. This includes support through civilian mission to Ukraine, EUAM, to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, and partnerships in the atrocity crimes advisory group initiative that coordinates accountability support on the ground.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Speaker 401
Mister Gala, Madam president, colleagues, the criminal act character of the Russian regime can be shown in many ways. We see what has happened in the war against Ukraine, which goes against the rule of law.
I'll leave out the Russian treatment of their own troops. That shows the character of the regime. No wonder, because on the battlefield after many years, they are gaining minimal ground. So there's hate against the regime. So there's the actions not just against the competence, also against the civilian population. The crimes throughout the country, and then from the air.
On a massive scale to terrorize the population and to undermine their will to resist, the cultural identity of the Ukrainian people is being attacked. The Russians show their fascist character and their true character.
These crimes after on people and culture should be registered that they can be tried in future. The special tribunal for the crime of aggression is important because it has been shown by the register of damage in 2023.
And the claims commission now which is to be set up in Kizina on the fourteenth and fifteenth of May. Yet Suzy's instruments against the aggressor Slava, Ukrainian, you.
Mister Royton.
Speaker 402
Thank you, President, Commission counsel, dear colleagues. We are reminded daily that Russia's war of aggression is nothing less than a terror campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity. And we know there can be no real peace without justice.
Justice for those murdered in their sleep by Russians targeting their cities, for those tortured to death in Russian prison camps, for those buried in mass graves, for the children torn away from their parents, for Russia's crime of aggression.
And, of course, we, Europeans, are appalled that the naive US efforts to broker peace fail to address any form of truth, justice, or accountability. Even worse, want to reward the aggressor.
Our message in this regard must remain clear. Justice can be slow and unrelenting, and it does not require the aggressor's approval. There is one condition, justice must be empowered. And here, the EU must continue to carry its weight and stand up for principles and ensure broad support.
The EU must fiercely back the special tribunal against the ICC, and all other institutions involved in delivering justice. Because Ukraine is not only fighting for its survival, it's fighting for the principles that underpin our union and the international rules-based order.
But colleagues, it's easy and comfortable, maybe even to talk about accountability. We cannot forget about saving lives and defending Ukraine. Are we doing everything we can to help defend Ukraine and its people? We cannot do and must do more. Ramp up production together with Ukraine, deliver air defense and deep strike capabilities, and consider setting up an air protection zone over uncontested areas of Ukraine.
And counsel, you mentioned the support loan. Very glad that we have it, but I want to remind you about the clarifications that the commission gave in the February plenary on the swift and the swift adoption and use of the derogation regime laid down in article thirteen five of the support loan. It is very important because there can be no peace without justice, but also not without strength.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 404
Madam Lamy, minister, commissioner, colleagues, the war of Russia against Ukraine is not about territory. After four years, and the Russian army occupies 20% of Ukraine, it's clear that this war is to wipe out a country, wipe out its identity and sovereignty. The maximalist objectives lead to war crimes. Horror of Bucha has been followed by many other crimes. And there's a documentation of the Russification of Ukrainians. What is behind the decisions for these crimes should be judged. The crime of aggression is the task of this special tribunal, it is necessary.
It has shown the total legitimacy of Ukraine as a sovereign state. And which is a historical mission. It's our attachment to the respect of the nations on a country, continent, Europe, which have suffered through the centuries from the withdrawing of maps and borders.
That doesn't have any place in Europe, and we reject all the ideas of a special geopolitical space for Russia. We defend nation-states, and that's not up for discussion.
Let me just say one thing. Let to conclude. This work for justice is important, but there should be an active and intensive contribution from Europe to the peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
It's as if we thought that the peace would fall from the sky, negotiated by the U. S. And Russia. It's a question of our interests in Europe. We shouldn't punish the crime of aggression only, but there should be a durable peace which will result from the cessation of this conflict.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is calling Cole's.
Speaker 405
Dear colleagues, four years of full scale war has left Ukraine facing a reconstruction bill of nearly €500,000,000,000. This month marked Russia's most intense aerial campaign since the invasion began.
With 75 civilians killed in one month.
Every strike is a data point in a debt that Russia will pay, not as generosity or conscience, but as a legal obligation under international law. The matter of accountability is straightforward. Russia broke it, Russia pays to rebuild every single brick.
We must fully confiscate Russian sovereign assets to fund this reconstruction, rather than asking European taxpayers to subsidize the aftermath of Kremlin terror. Accountability also requires confronting the enablers within our own system.
Certain officials within this union work very hard to have Russian oligarchs and their relatives removed from the sanction list. It is now time for a full review which names were targeted for removal and whether they should be re-added to the list.
Europeans must understand that deferred justice in Ukraine guarantees future aggression on our own borders, and we cannot trade accountability for a fragile ceasefire. We must strip Moscow of its resources and ensure the architects of this war face a tribunal.
Thank you.
Speaker 407
Madam chair, madam minister, commissioner, dear colleagues, today marks the 1525th day since Russia began its full scale invasion of Ukraine.
Every day is a reminder of 10 thousands of life lost and families torn apart by the abduction of children.
It is also a reminder of the ruined cities and the irreplaceable historical and cultural treasures lost. After four years of war, our solidarity with the Ukrainian people only grows stronger.
I eagerly await the full establishment of a special tribunal where those responsible for war crimes will be brought to justice. This will happen. I have no doubt about it. I call on the EU and its member states to complete all preparations for the special tribunal's work as soon as possible, and to inaugurate the institution.
We must continue to increase pressure in every way on the aggressors, the Russian and Belarusian regimes. I also call on the EU to adopt a decision as soon as possible banning those responsible for war crimes from entering the EU for life.
Their journey must end in the hay. Thank you.
Villy Søvndal
In Hungary, two months ago, showed a new course for Hungary, but also for Ukraine and for Europe. And for the rest of the world. There is no support that can be released for Ukraine. And there can be a new package of sanctions.
It's an important turning point. There are still threats from Russia against the civilian population. There's still bombing homes and hospitals and energy infrastructure. It's important that those responsible are brought to justice and there's a lot that points to that.
We should act now. We should strengthen the corporation. We should keep up the pressure. And bring Ukraine closer to the EU with the other candidate countries. We're very clear to Putin that his indifference for human rights has huge consequences for him and his regime. It's important because we are in this geopolitical situation.
It's important that Europe stands on its own feet. That means more cooperation on defense, and cooperation we should make ourselves more self-sufficient, and Ukraine is an important part of that.
Thank you.
Dilavale, our next speaker.
Speaker 411
Thank you, madam president, commissioner. We're talking about responsibility and justice here today. How does this parliament dare talk about justice, 20 sanctions packages on Russia. But when the US sows death and destruction across the Middle East.
We don't hear anything. Look at the impact on oil prices. Look at what Israel has done in Gaza. Nothing. No sanctions.
Nothing. For four years now, you've been turning your back on any option of mediation. The EU has done nothing. The Ukrainians are just being sacrificed as a symbol of the EU's failure.
You're propping up a military machine, propping up Zelensky. That's failing. We need to look at the resources, the foreign policy choices that have led us to recession in Italy and around Europe. Fuel bills are going up, while people are talking about wars and sanctions.
Speaker 412
I do wish people would focus a little bit more on the citizens of Europe.
Speaker 414
Our patient The European Parliament with the fact that it has supported from the very beginning this has criticized this particular aggressive act from the very beginning, but at the same time, nothing has been condemned as far as the War Of The United States Against Iran And also, the other wars that took place in the region that in 2003 with hundreds of thousands of dead, no criticism whatsoever.
So as far as violations of human rights and international law, well, there's a lot left to be desired on the part of the European Parliament and its consistency. We need consistency. That's what we need. Legal standards, human rights standards, have to be maintained across the board. Double standards, unfortunately, undermine us. They will be used and they will be a central impediment as far as our being able to look forward as any sort of defender of human rights or international law anywhere in the world.
Pekka Toveri
Thank you. Our next speaker is colleague Doveri.
Dear colleagues, ensuring accountability and justice after over 4 years of Russia's relentless attacks against civilians in Ukraine is extremely important. It is important so that we can put a price to Russia's crimes.
That we can make Russia pay for the damage it has caused, that we can punish the criminals who have committed these crimes.
It is important not only for Ukrainians, but also for us.
Because if this doesn't happen, the crimes will continue.
We've seen Russian atrocities so many times. In Hungary, in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Syria, in Mali, name a few. And now he is in Ukraine.
Murder, rape, pillage.
You name it.
Pekka Toveri
In Ukraine, Russians hunt single civilians on their grocery trips in FPV drones and proudly post these murders on Internet. This won't stop until they have to pay for these crimes.
So now it's time to act, because next time, it may be one of our citizens they are hunting with drones. Slavokrini.
Speaker 418
Colleagues, I want to first underscore what my colleague, Reyten, already says well: accountability is a precondition for just and lasting peace.
And the best way to achieve full accountability for Russian war crimes is to help you, Ukrainians, win the war. We must not, even in exchange for switching from war to peace, offer war criminals an opportunity to save face or escape accountability. This would be wrong on so many levels. First, because it would not be fair to the victims and their loved ones.
They have a right to justice. Ukrainian people deserve justice. But secondly, it would also be detrimental to future peace and stability in Europe. Because giving up on our demand for accountability would be an open invitation to future aggressions in our continent. And finally, I do believe that only if Russian people are made to look in the mirror and own up to their own culpability for the crimes that have been committed by their leaders in their name can that nation have a brighter, more decent future. Thank you very much, colleague Veriga.
Speaker 419
Commissioner colleagues order for the aggressor to be responsible for actions, so Ukraine must win. Putin's plan to occupy Ukraine in 10 days has turned into a war that continues for more than four years, where Russia holds no advantage and has long been unable to achieve any significant victories.
Despite Russia's relentless attempts to break the Ukrainian people and politicians by constantly attacking and killing civilians, Ukrainian fighters are becoming more and more effective.
In this context, the European Union must therefore remain consistent in its unwavering support for Ukraine.
The adoption of the 90,000,000,000 support has been eagerly awaited and really necessary.
It is also very important to use legal mechanisms for the responsibility of those responsible, and we have to maintain the sanctions against Russia. We must remain consistent and seek to accelerate Ukraine's to the European Union and Slavocrane.
Dan Barna
There might be no departure. For over four years, the Kremlin has been treating the Geneva Convention as a mere suggestion, not as an international law. From Romania, these horrors are not only seen on TV.
44 pieces of drones have fallen in our country. The latest crash in a large city recently. Hundreds of people have been evacuated. Justice can no longer be a postwar luxury.
It has to become our immediate priority. We have to move over the rhetoric of condemnation and make sure that accountability is inevitable. In concrete terms, this means setting up the special tribunal for crimes of aggression to eliminate jurisdictional gaps and bring to justice the architects of these terrorists, and Russian assets must be seized and used to compensate the victims and to rebuild what Putin's missiles have been tearing apart. Impunity is the oxygen of dictators.
If we allow killing civilians, it becomes normalized in 2026. We do not only fail before Ukraine, but we make, we subminate the rule.
Speaker 422
Dear colleagues, there is no peace without justice. Every day, this war continues, and Ukrainian civilians pay.
With their homes, their children, their lives, their future.
And the men who order it sit in a Kremlin unattached. I personally face a criminal case in Belarus. For flying a free Belarusian flag here in Europe.
But those who ordered murders, torturing, rape, Europe has not prosecuted them. And that is not justice.
We have the evidence. The world has seen it. Yet accountability moves slower than Russian missiles. And that must change. We need full support for the International Criminal Court, a special tribunal for the crime of aggression and real compensation for Ukraine.
Because solidarity without accountability is just a speech. And this parliament has heard enough speeches. Slav Ukraine.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Our next speaker is calling.
Four years of war. And now Ukraine is responding ever more strongly against the aggressors. Russia is being hit by this, and we should give as much economic and military support as we can to Ukraine. We should strengthen our sanctions, and we should ensure that Russian oil exports cease. That's how they're funding their war.
The only way to achieve a just peace. We should avoid any kind of deal that would end up with a carve-out, a carving up of Ukraine. We cannot talk about normalizing EU-Russia relations whilst the slightest parcel of Ukrainian soil is still occupied.
There should be military reparations paid by Russia. The International Criminal Court should also intervene to ensure that Lavrov and Putin are sent where they should be sent, which is prison The Hague.
Speaker 423
Slavalkre, I'm sorry, but what are you reproaching to Russia? You are not able to condemn the mass murder of little girls in Iran. Committed by the US or the Israeli genocide in Gaza or the crimes in Lebanon? What are you, what do you want to say to Russians? I've just returned from Moscow.
I negotiated with Russian politicians. And they asked, where are sanctions against the US and Israel if you are so principle-based? They are laughing at you, madam Callas. I was in Moscow and in Stalingrad to commemorate the victors who fought against fascism, and so will our prime minister go to celebrate the victory against fascism. It's sick that the Baltic states do not allow the flight over of our prime minister to celebrate the victory of fascism.
Apparently, someone minds that we fought fascism. And, madam von der Leyen, you should really be crawling to Russia to ask for permission to say that you are sorry because your ancestors killed millions of Europeans.
Speaker 424
So we must. We are helping Ukraine in this war is the main task of all of us today.
I was very pleased with the words spoken by the president of Finland. Instead of thinking that Ukraine needs Europe, perhaps we should think that we need Ukraine more in Europe. The US president's policy towards Ukraine, towards the war in Europe, has unfortunately extended Putin's opportunities to kill civilians in Ukraine.
I fear that we are going down the wrong path if Russia is indeed invited to the G20 meeting. We here in Europe will become even more vulnerable, Ukrainians will continue to be killed if we fail to prevent the legitimization of Putin's policy.
We must agree as soon as possible that sanctions against Russia will remain in place until the last Russian soldier leaves the Ukrainian territory. Slav, Ukraine.
Thank you. You.
Marcos Ros Sempere
President. The time of impunity for Russia has to come to an end. They're selling fear, undermining democracy, trying to make Ukrainians feel defeatist, and this is an attack on human dignity. This is an attack on the very idea of Europe. We must move towards autonomous European security, committed to peace and multilateralism, and committed to the UN.
For that reason, we must defend and make use of international mechanisms for justice, the International Criminal Court, and a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, with reparation for the damage.
Caused. We need to ensure that as multilateral institutions come under flak, come under questioning by Putin, Trump, and Netanyahu, Europe should stand up and defend them. Defend those multilateral institutions and Ukraine, Slavul Crane.
Pina Picierno
Brand staff, thank you very much to our speakers' colleague, branch data.
Russia. Is a terrorist state.
Helmut Brandstätter
Russia bombs rained down on Ukrainian hospitals, schools, homes every day. Innocents' lives are stones, families shattered, and cities reduced to rubble. We have to need more sanctions. We need stronger sanctions, and we have to kick out those Russians who live in peace.
Here in Europe, but that is part of Putin's terror regime. And one more thing, I never hear from the right wing and the right-wing extremists. Nobody's here. They never even condemn what Putin is doing in Ukraine.
And Donald Trump, he doesn't do it either. The contrary, he wants to invite Putin to the G20. Mister Commissioner. Please, it's no way that anyone goes to a G20 meeting with Putin.
Please promise that to us. I think that's really important. And, to the Ukrainians, I want to say there's a huge majority here. In favor of you. We will not forget you.
We will fight for you. Thanks very much.
Speaker 427
Russia is not just destroying Ukrainian cities.
Russia is testing whether justice is alive.
And while the right wing is going to Moscow to negotiate, as we just heard, every abducted Ukrainian child, every deported Ukrainian prisoner, every tortured Ukrainian civilian is asking us, the EU, one simple question.
Do crimes still have consequences? Our answer must be very clear. Yes. They do.
As a lawyer, I know justice is not just a slogan. It is a system, and the system must be built, defended, funded, enforced, and that's why I pushed for a permanent tribunal against the crime of aggression here in this house. That's why we must be building a machinery of justice, the tribunal, the international claims commission, full support for the ICC, and a global coalition that goes beyond Europe.
But justice is not credible. If we still pay Russia to kill. Billions for gas, oil, and nuclear fuel. So, no impunity. Also means no dirty deals.
With Moscow.
Colleague. Pasquale de la Parte is our next speaker.
Speaker 428
Thank you very much, Madam President, Commissioner.
Russia is stepping up its attacks on civilians, hospitals, and schools. Homes, critical infrastructure in Ukraine.
Because Russia's losing the war. This is a sign of weakness. Not of strength.
That's why it's attacking civilians. In Europe, we need to stand up for our own convictions that Russia needs to be taken to the International Criminal Court and to the ad hoc special tribunal to bring war criminals to account, starting with Putin. We should have an international arrest warrant for him to answer for his crimes. Once and for all, we need to ensure that their financial assets in European banks can go into reparations and reconstruction of Ukraine, abducted children
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.