Speeches

Mr President, our Union has done more than any other international organisation in the last seven decades. The Union insists on and has indeed achieved peaceful coexistence between its Member States. The Union has significantly increased the quality of life of its citizens, helping in disasters, helping to resolve conflicts, supporting science, innovation, young people like no other international organisation in the world, reducing disparities between regions and supporting good projects by municipalities, small and medium-sized enterprises. There is undoubtedly something to improve and also something to change in our Union. The Union is facing astounding geopolitical challenges. The protection of nature literally disappears under our hands. We must reduce bureaucracy and distinguish between the essential and the non-essential. There really is a lot going on in the next European elections. Let me express my admiration for the founders of the Union, as well as for the statesmen and our predecessors who have achieved the state in which the Union is today. I think we have something to be proud of. And I confess my admiration for the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, let me begin by saying that this report by my colleague Novakov is, in my opinion, of very high quality. Cohesion policy should remain part of the backbone policies of the European Union. And let me make one more introductory remark. In my view, EU cohesion policy is at a turning point. It must cope with other, competitive EU instruments and, in my view, must be maintained and, on the contrary, strengthened. What can be done to strengthen our cohesion policy in the period ahead? Firstly, there must be a real increase in the overall cohesion policy budget and the share of the multiannual financial framework for cohesion policy compared to the programming period 2021 to 2027. Secondly, we must maintain shared management, there must be no redeployment of cohesion policy to the level of the Member States. Thirdly, we must undoubtedly continue to simplify the rules that regulate our cohesion policy as such. I think that a mechanism should also be put in place to examine the impact of individual EU legislation on rural areas and their development, as well as to provide aggregated data for the European Union and individual regions on the impacts and shifts that cohesion policy has on infrastructure, on civic amenities, and on support for innovative projects. We must also undoubtedly continue to promote the partnership principle in all programming, implementation and monitoring, as well as close cooperation between regional and local authorities. Finally, it is necessary to stress that the cohesion policy budget should be spent primarily on cohesion policy objectives and areas and not on new instruments and programmes that are not related to cohesion. Cohesion policy is one of the EU's flagships and should remain so.

Mr President, last March, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on environmental claims to ensure that consumers receive reliable, serious, comparable and verifiable environmental information on different products. According to a study carried out by the European Commission in 2020, more than half of environmental claims in the internal market are provided in a vague, misleading way or even unsubstantiated and false information, with 40% of these claims being neither substantiated nor backed by resources at all. The spread of these claims, with varying levels of transparency and credibility, has led to a loss of confidence among European consumers, which needs to be addressed in some way, and for these reasons I supported this proposal for a directive. I think it is important to refute individual claims, and I think that this proposal, although it brings a certain amount of bureaucracy, is going in the right direction.

Mr President, for me, this proposal falls within the broader concept of cybersecurity as such. We have done much in this field. I will recall the approval of the NIS 2 Directive last year. Also in the Czech Republic, but of course in a number of Member States, I think that we would not find almost any Member State of the European Union that has not faced massive cyber-attacks in recent years, we have faced attacks that hit our hospitals, energy companies, which are very important, critical infrastructure, of course, the authorities. So it is essential to strengthen our cyber resilience. The internet is undoubtedly on the rise. There is no doubt that artificial intelligence will also speak into it and there is a need to increase resilience. And I am glad that, in fact, the proposal that was approved today, I supported it, so it increases this resilience. I think that Europe has had to react in this way, and it is also important for consumers and vulnerable people.

Mr President, I supported this proposal, although I have some reservations about it, but at the same time I also think that it is better to have a proposal than to have no proposal at all. The reason is quite clear. We have buildings that add one-third to the growth of greenhouse gases. Buildings are responsible for one third of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions. 40% of our energy is used in buildings. These are really high numbers, so I supported this proposal for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think that this instrument provides Member States with a high degree of flexibility, respecting their different starting points, but at the same time, this proposal will also combat energy poverty, which I think is very beneficial. It is true that it will cost something, but I firmly believe that it will ultimately pay off for the Member States and for individual consumers and owners.

Mr President, a compulsory licence is a possibility where the government, under certain conditions, allows the use of a patent, in fact, without the consent of the right holder. A compulsory licence is undoubtedly a last resort, but it is known in intellectual property law and is not an instrument of expropriation. Forced licences can therefore complement the EU’s current efforts to increase its resilience in crises such as the aforementioned COVID-19 crisis. Forced licences have a dual role, as they can also incentivise legitimate holders of these rights to enter into voluntary agreements, which is, of course, our main concern. It is also important that these compulsory licences can enable the production of products needed to resolve crises in the absence of a certain voluntary agreement. Thus, compulsory licensing can fulfil this role and there is a need to create a genuinely effective compulsory licensing regime in the EU, which can also rely on the single market and complement existing EU instruments in this area.

Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow's adoption of this report will conclude several years of work on tackling the cross-border activities of non-profit organisations. I think that the work of my colleagues in the JURI Committee has resulted in high-quality material that will be a so-called thrown glove for the Member States. The proposal for a directive is a clear benefit, because it improves the functioning of the internal market by removing legal obstacles to the operation of non-profit organisations in different EU Member States, as the Commissioner and, of course, the rapporteur have already mentioned. This will also support the role that non-profit associations play in creating economic and social values in the EU and will also create a level playing field between them. I find it problematic that, at present, where non-profit associations actually operate in different Member States, they do not receive uniform recognition of their legal personality or capacity and often have to register for a second time or even establish a new legal person in order to be able to operate in another Member State. That's a real problem. It is estimated that around 310,000 non-profit associations are actually facing these obstacles at the moment. In particular, States will be obliged to introduce into their national legal systems an additional legal form of an ECBA specifically created for these purposes. Once established in one Member State, this special legal entity will automatically be recognised in other Member States and will be able to engage in all activities under the law of that Member State. For matters not covered by the proposed Directive, such as the tax regime, Member States will be required to treat all such special legal entities in a non-discriminatory manner, i.e. in the same way as comparable transnational non-profit associations. This also ensures respect for the traditions of the Member States in this area. I am convinced that this is a major step forward for the development of the EU non-profit sector and, therefore, for civil society. Thank you very much to the co-rapporteurs for their work and to the rapporteur as well.

Madam President, I will explain this point. I supported this proposal. I believe that the rule of law is a fundamental value of the European Union. It is a value on which we must be able to rely, both for the Member States and for individual citizens. And we have a number of examples from the past where this value of the rule of law has been violated, even by a Member State of the European Union. It is important that citizens have equal access to rights and that the protection of these rights is truly ensured at the level of the entire European Union. That is, we must insist on the protection of the rule of law as such. I am pleased that this value has been significantly emphasised in this report and, for all these reasons, I supported this draft report.

Madam President, I did not support this proposal. I understand the need to improve safety as well as to increase the protection of road users. Of course, protecting lives, health and property is undoubtedly an important value. However, I consider that this proposal has led to a very significant tightening of a number of controls. I even believe that older drivers are being bullied, and I believe that a number of necessary special examinations, which could have been replaced differently, are provided for in this proposal, which has passed. There may also be a significant increase in the cost of obtaining driving licences or extending licences for citizens. For all these reasons, I have decided not to support this proposal.

Madam President, I have respect for what Mr Julian Assange has done. I also understand that being in prison for 12 years is really despicable. I think this is already the high level of punishment that Mr Assange has had to face. I also understand the initiative of my colleagues. On the other hand, I want to express a certain degree of restraint here, because we are talking about British justice, we are talking about the rule of law, and I think that in this sense I would like to reject a little bit the high level of politicisation of this topic. I think Mr Assange has the legal guarantees that are given by the British order and also by the European Court of Human Rights, where he can also appeal. I see freedom of the press as an essential value. As I say, it is certainly not a black-and-white story, I also perceive here a positive symbol and a message made by Mr Assange. But the value of restraint on British justice leads me to be restrained personally.

Madam President, I welcome the establishment of a European digital identity. In my view, this initiative is going in the right direction. It undoubtedly contributes to the digitalisation of our economy and is a voluntary activity of our citizens. It is therefore important to make this tool available to them. However, they will still have sufficient control over their privacy and sufficient control of this data will also be ensured. For me, it is important that this digital signature is valid both in the public administration and in the private sphere, that it truly removes administrative burdens, contributes to the development of businesses, is an important element of access to services and indeed is a precursor to the establishment of an integrated digital market. So, in my view, this is a significant step forward, and it is important that – although there are some minor reservations – the proposal ensures that these data are sufficiently protected.

Madam President, it is a fact that two years ago, European consumers experienced a really huge price jump and also a price shock. We have promised them, and we continue to promise, that an effective Energy Union will be created. And time flies, and this Energy Union still doesn't work. What have we seen in recent years? Manipulating prices, lack of transparency and, in fact, undermining the energy self-sufficiency of the European Union. I believe that the proposal presented here goes in the right direction in order to prevent speculation, increase competitiveness and also controllability of prices. So, in this regard, it is good if we stop all these unfair practices. I would like to call on the European Commission to be very active in this matter, to leave the wolves alone, in the light of the previous point under discussion, and to really address its obligations in the field of energy and the supply of this commodity to consumers.

Madam President, we have been talking about the wolf repeatedly. I feel like we can't talk about a large population of the European wolf. Twenty thousand pieces, that's not really a large population. Let's be glad we got into these situations. Let us be honest, please, if it were not for the European elections, we would not be discussing this activity of the European Commission at all. I am really annoyed by this hypocrisy, because I think that at this moment we would need to rather strengthen the true biodiversity, strengthen the protection of the wolf as such, or at least keep it at the same level, and clearly increase the financial compensation that should be due for compensation for any damage that the wolf may cause. I am quite angry that, in this situation, the European Commission is actually responding to a call that is really related to the European elections, and I consider this to be hypocrisy.

Mr President, Madam President – I only have one minute – but first of all, I would like to congratulate you on winning the post of President of the European Investment Bank. On the institution’s annual report: First of all, I want to say what the European Investment Bank can be praised for. Firstly, it is providing long-term finance and expertise for promising projects and also helping to attract additional investment to achieve the goals we have agreed on within the European Union. Secondly, it is supporting the green and digital transitions, and I must therefore welcome the steps taken by the European Investment Bank, because it has already devoted half of its resources to climate action and environmental sustainability. I also positively appreciate the European Investment Bank’s response to COVID-19, including during the war in Ukraine. Where I see room for improvement: firstly, in the European Investment Bank’s more transparent approach towards the European Parliament; secondly, in the fight against tax fraud; and thirdly, in the European Investment Bank’s call for support for nuclear energy, because without it, a green European policy will not succeed.

Mr President, as one minute of my speech, I chose the topic of simplification, that is, simplification of cohesion policy instruments. In my view, this is indeed a crucial issue not only for cohesion policy and regional policy as a whole, but also for all EU policies, such as agricultural policy. This is important for the beneficiaries of our aid, be they farmers, be they municipalities, of course small and medium-sized enterprises. They all complain that we have a rather extensive system of administrative guidance, and that the topic of simplifying our support tools is indeed crucial for our future. I think that much has already been done to reduce this administrative burden. I will recall that there has indeed been a decrease in administrative burden in this planning period, for example in the cohesion policy, but I think that more can be done and that it is therefore also necessary to pressure the Member States not to add so-called imaginary oil to the fire. So let us really simplify the instruments that the European Union uses for its development.

Mr President, I welcome this draft report for a number of reasons. I think it is our duty to increase environmental protection, because every year we are witnessing a huge environmental disaster in different Member States with a cross-border impact. I will recall deforestation, fires, deliberate pollution of rivers that flow to many EU Member States. I think that the European Union must respond to this, and I think that this proposal is going in the right direction. Our constituents want it too. They want to increase accountability for those actions that pay off very significantly in business. And I am glad that we are responding with a system where we are presenting harmonised sanctions and where we are constructing a truly comprehensive set of environmental criminal liability. So I want to reiterate that the goal is to increase environmental protection, which I see as a fundamental value.

Mr President, I welcome this PRIMA initiative because cooperation on development, and in particular the principle of available water resources, is really crucial for our future. And I am also glad that we are working on developing our partnerships. Of course, the European Union must continue to participate in this initiative. Eleven EU Member States and eight non-EU countries are also represented. And those topics that do not only affect the Mediterranean area are really very important. Water, drought, security and related migration, agriculture, as well as the changing climate and adaptation to it, education and participation of young people are very important issues. So I welcome this initiative, as I said before. I wish you good luck and I believe that the money invested will undoubtedly return to the European Union in its future.

Mr President, I hope I can respond to the request for an explanation of vote. I supported this motion for a resolution despite some reservations. In my view, the rule of law is a key value for us, it brings together the EU Member States, and the Greek approach has seen some contradictions and a problematic approach to the value of the rule of law. Equality of treatment must be guaranteed to all citizens and, of course, the possibility of achieving a fair trial must also be guaranteed. These are all fundamental values of the EU. I am very sensitive at the moment when there is a certain erosion of these values. And after all, in the Greek case, there have been phenomena in the past that, I think, have threatened this value. For all these reasons, I have finally decided to support this motion for a resolution, despite some slight reservations about the description of some of the facts.

Mr President, I also supported this motion for a resolution because, first of all, I think it is necessary to insist on the validity of the international moratorium on the Arctic and the exploitation of this seabed. We must also fight to preserve and promote the development of biodiversity. We share practically the same values with Norway and its citizens. We share a very close partnership. We're actually neighbors to the Norwegians, but we don't share Norway's approach to Arctic bottom mining. I think we need to be very careful in this area. The whole ecosystem is fragile. For all these reasons, I supported this motion for a resolution and I want to call on Norway to consider this decision very carefully.

Mr President, a lot of falsehoods are spreading around new genomic techniques and there is little rational debate. I supported the proposal of my colleague Jessica Polfjärd because a clear legal framework is established for these techniques. It is a cross-breeding and modification of genetic material in cruciferous species. The proposal aims to ensure the resilience of crops. This is particularly important in relation to climate change and, of course, to ensuring food security. We need more resistant plants against pests, against high temperatures, against drought. These are the serious challenges we face. I think the report is also good news for scientists, and I think they appreciated its adoption today in the European Parliament. And, of course, for farmers. We also ensured the non-patentability of any techniques used, as well as reasonable transparency. These are all the reasons why I supported this report.

Mr President, the persecution of any minority is unacceptable, let alone the murder of 35 farmers and Christians. It is completely unacceptable what happened in Plateau State, and I must remind you that we are dealing with the situation in Nigeria on several occasions. The background to this attack is also important to mention – Christmas holidays, Islamic terrorism. I don't think it's possible to hide and stick your head in the sand. We must make it clear that Christians have been the victims of a barbaric attack by Islamic terrorists, and also loudly condemn these attacks, but also ask the Nigerian government to investigate, punish the perpetrators, get justice and, of course, comply with our joint partnership agreement with the Nigerian government. We have the right to demand justice.

Mr President, at least 360 prisoners have been executed since 7 October 2023 – the start of the war, which is clearly sponsored by the Iranian regime. The head of the snake, which is in Tehran, needs to create an external crisis because they cannot face the Iranian people’s uprising against the regime. Executions are their tactic to silence. Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Iranian opposition, has come here to the European Parliament many times and said we must condition any relations with the Iranian regime. After all these executions, is it not time? Every day we hear the name of many people who have been executed by the regime. While the regime keeps on killing, is the EU going to decide to take strong action? When will it designate IRGC as a terrorist entity?

Mr President, once again we strongly support Belarusian citizens, persecuted members of the opposition, journalists, their families and, in fact, the whole of Belarusian civil society. We strongly condemn the next wave of mass arrests in Belarus. We urge the illegitimate Lukashenka regime to stop the repression. The regime must unequivocally release all unjustified prisoners, more than 1,400 political prisoners. We ask the Council and the Commission to respond by imposing stricter sanctions on the Lukashenka regime as a result of recent actions, including sanctions against goods involving forced labour of political prisoners, stricter financial sanctions and sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations. The Belarusian people and the Belarusian people are not alone. We are with them, but we strongly condemn the Belarusian illegitimate Lukashenka regime.

Mr President, Commissioner, the UN Commission on the Status of Women is the main global intergovernmental body dedicated to the status and promotion of gender equality and women's empowerment in particular. The upcoming meetings will focus on accelerating the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, tackling poverty and strengthening gender-sensitive institutions and funding. I fully agree with the motion for a resolution on which we will vote tomorrow. It recalls the EU’s policy and action commitments to achieve gender equality and specifically to address women’s poverty. It identifies a lack of education, difficult access to the labour market and career breaks as its root causes. At the same time, we stress the importance of women's full participation in the economic life of society. We must call on the Council to reaffirm the EU's commitment to the UN objectives and, where appropriate, to other international goals, particularly with regard to gender equality, and to empower women through a well-chosen mix of measures. At the same time, the Council needs to address challenges we also face in the EU, such as gender-based violence or women’s and girls’ access to education, the labour market or health services. The EU must lead by example and show strong leadership and leadership in women’s rights.

Mr President, for more than 15 years, the Prüm framework has allowed EU law enforcement authorities to exchange information. The Prüm Decisions adopted in 2008 are intended to promote cross-border police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. And this Prüm framework successfully contributes to the fight against crime and terrorism in the EU. It is also an important part of cooperation in the area of information exchange, but there are still gaps and therefore room for improvement. In this sense, Prüm II extends the categories of enumerated data to facial images and police records and enhances interoperability with other EU information systems. This framework will ensure that all relevant data held by law enforcement authorities in one Member State can also be used by law enforcement authorities in other Member States. It will also ensure that Europol can provide more support to Member States. I consider it a great benefit to be able to search all these categories of data in order to find missing persons or identify human remains. Human control of data conformity is also essential for us, as for the European Parliament, and we have also pushed through this in the negotiations with the Member States. I consider the resulting agreement with the Council to be of high quality and I believe that we will confirm it in tomorrow's vote.