Debate contributions by Ilhan KYUCHYUK

Madam President, High Representative, Members, we often ask ourselves these days: Why is the world falling apart? The world we know is falling apart not because there are no rules, but because there is no will to protect them. International law, the backbone of the post-war order, is now subject to systematic erosion, and the report on human rights and democracy describes it very clearly. He calls it impunity, he values it in an absolutely adequate and realistic way. In Gaza, the civilian population is paying the price of failed international protection and the selective application of humanitarian law. In Ukraine, we see a brutal violation of sovereignty and an attempt to destroy a nation by force. In Venezuela, democracy is suffocated from within, while millions are forced to flee their homes. In Iran, repression of its own citizens is becoming a state policy, and international norms are empty words. These are not separate crises, this is the same crisis, a crisis of the modern world order.

I thank my colleague for the question. One of the reasons, of course, why European companies are not successful on European soil is that we are not doing well enough with bureaucracy. This type of proposals makes it possible for the bureaucracy to be smaller and for these European companies not to leave our territory, but to develop right here, because the necessary actions need to be made. And yes, I support this proposal because it gives many advantages to European business.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, a unified 28th Regime aiming to remove national barriers and divergent procedures is an important instrument to strengthen Europe's competitiveness, technological sovereignty and internal market cohesion. The 28th Regime offers a modern, simple, digital, EU‑wide company forum for overcoming the costly and complex patchwork of 27 different corporate regimes across the Union. This European framework will lower barriers to cross‑border activity, reduce red tape and create a business friendly legal environment allowing innovative companies, start‑ups, SMEs and scale‑ups to grow. To this end, the European Parliament's recommendation in Mr Repasi's report offers practical measures for a modern, integrated EU economy that could facilitate investment, attract talent and foster innovation while respecting Member States' social and labour legislation. Mr Commissioner, I echo your statement: it is time to act.

Madam President, this debate is not against Bulgaria, but is a signal of solidarity towards Bulgarian society. The European Parliament, as we all know, is not a court and does not aim to stigmatise Bulgarian citizens today. Now let's get to the point. The rule of law is not an abstraction, but the feeling of every person that he lives in a just state. When a journalist, a mayor or just a citizen like all of us can be detained without clear grounds, this is no longer a political dispute, but a question of democratic legitimacy. In my mind comes a very vivid example and this is the mayor of the municipality of Mineralni Bani, who was detained and the whole state apparatus, all political and media bats stood on him. And this has been going on for almost a year now. And if you ask yourself why it was necessary to destroy it as an authority, to destroy it as a morality and ultimately to have a mayor who was elected with 90% of the votes of his municipality replaced. Of course, legally, with the idea of someone else coming to serve the corporate interest. Because obviously the one who is chosen by the people will not do it. In conclusion, honourable Members, the law weakens when it is not in the hands of the judges, but when it is dictated from the outside. We in Bulgaria seem to have media, but the truth is getting harder to reach people. And we all know that this is the step towards dictatorship. And if we are still wondering whether this is a European issue, yes, it is – both Bulgarian and European.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Minister, thank you very much, Mr Halicki and Mr Nemec, for bringing together all the diverse positions of the European Parliament. Allow me to present my committee's priority. The 2026 statement of estimates of the Court of Justice of the European Union requests the creation of 10 new permanent posts to meet Cybersecurity Regulation obligations. The Commission unfortunately rejected this demand, and ten posts have not been included in the 2026 draft budget, with a EUR 570 000 cut. This jeopardises the Court's ability to fulfil its cybersecurity obligations and to defend itself against cyberattacks. In light of current institutional trends, we must safeguard the cybersecurity of our judicial branch. I shall therefore remain at the general rapporteurs' disposal during the forthcoming negotiations to contribute to the attainment of this essential objective.

Mr President, Mrs Koss, in a world where there is a definite lack of ideas for the future, this report comes at the right time, because Mr Gozi's report answers the very complex question of how to do both: and to enlarge the European Union, something we need, and at the same time to make the necessary reforms so that the European Union meets the expectations of its own citizens not in the 20th century, but in the 21st century. There are very important debates ahead on the future of the common agricultural policy and the multiannual financial framework. It is not possible, within the framework of this political toolbox available to us, to expand and, at the same time, to be adequate to these policies, which must unquestionably be reformed. So I welcome the ideas of a more effective Union, a Union that works faster, a Union that is stronger, and a Union that is accountable to its own citizens. It is time for serious reforms, but it is also time for enlargement. The European Union must show political growth that it is ready to live up to these expectations.

Mr President, today we cannot afford to talk about Gaza the same empty words with which the world has been trying to lighten its conscience for decades. As we discuss, people die, and the humanitarian catastrophe grows before our eyes. In recent days, thousands have taken to the streets of European cities, from Barcelona and Rome to Sofia, to say that human life cannot be a bargaining chip for political inaction. These are the voices of conscience that we here in the European Parliament have a duty to hear. Many governments have already taken a clear stance, demanding an end to fighting, free access to humanitarian aid and the resumption of real, credible efforts for sustainable peace. This includes, of course, the release of hostages. These actions are exemplary, but at the moment they are only a series of isolated initiatives. The European Union must remain firmly committed to achieving a lasting and just peace based on the two-state solution. We will continue to work together with regional partners to achieve a sustainable peace that will enable everyone to live in prosperity and freedom-loving spirit.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Schiller, on the very adequate positions that can definitely serve as a good basis for the European Parliament. Of course, Albania shows an unwavering commitment to integrating into the European Union. We see the clear positions of both the government and the opposition in Tirana. This unwavering commitment is also very strongly backed by civil society, not only as an active part in elections, but also as a part that works on a daily basis to uphold European values. Last but not least, from the point of view of the positives that Albania is on its way to the EU, are the tough reforms that the government in Tirana manages to make. Of course, these reforms are ambitious enough to show the country's unwavering path in 2027 to close all negotiating chapters. And here, too, the question is rather to the European Commission and to the European Council, Commissioner. If Albania fulfils all these criteria, conditions and manages to close all negotiation chapters by 2027, will there be political will on the part of the EU to finally have enlargement towards the Western Balkans?

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, on 27 June 2024, the United Kingdom signed and ratified the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, known as the Judgments Convention, which has also been signed by Uruguay, Israel, Costa Rica, Russia, the United States and Ukraine. The Judgments Convention entered into force on 1 September 2023, one year after the first two parties deposited their instruments of ratification. In accordance with Article 29(2) of the Judgments Convention, the EU can notify the depositary, before 27 June 2025, that the ratification by the UK does not have the effect of establishing treaty relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. If no such notification is issued – that is, if the EU tacitly accepts the UK's accession – the Judgments Convention will begin to apply between the two parties on 1 July 2025. Parliament understands that the Commission's assessment of the UK's accession is positive and that the Commission would be in favour of tacitly accepting it. However, the significance of private international law rules for EU citizens in this particular area also has a political and legal impact, not only on the area of judicial cooperation but also beyond, bearing in mind the relevance of relations between the UK and the European Union in a volatile international context. With respect for each EU institution's prerogatives and Parliament's consistent position, a statement would allow the Commission to tacitly accept the UK's accession to the Judgments Convention on the EU's behalf, under the relevant provisions of that Convention. Given the deadline laid down in the Judgments Convention, the need for the EU institutions to act without delay to ascertain the EU's acceptance of the UK's accession to the Convention, and Parliament's intention to make an appropriate statement in this regard, could the Commission confirm its assessment of the UK's accession to the Convention? Secondly, Madam Zaharieva, having regard to the commitments made here in November 2024 by Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič with regard to third countries' accession to conventions and respect for Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, what concrete steps does the Commission intend to take in future to ensure that Parliament's prerogatives relating to third countries' accession to the Judgments Convention are always fully and formally respected under the Treaties, and what timetable does it envisage for taking these steps?

Commissioner, since the beginning of the debate, I have been trying to understand what this debate is not about: it is not for or against enlargement policy, it is not for Ukraine, it is not for Turkey, it is not for the readiness of the Member States to be part of the European Union. It's about something else: on the institutional and political readiness of the European Union to admit new Member States. Let us ask ourselves this question together, and here I am not looking at the extreme left or the extreme right, the political centre, which must bring about the necessary reforms for the future of the European Union. In this institutional arrangement, can we afford 35 countries within the European Union? The answer is no. Just look at the current debate on the Multiannual Financial Framework. We want the old priorities, we want new priorities, and on top of that, we need to make a decision in a Union of 35 in a foreseeable future. How is that possible? Look at the European Union's sanctions policy. How many times have we failed in our idea of having a one-way message to us in the European Union and to those who want to join us? And tell me this is democratic? Orbán is constantly blackmailing us for something. We don't take it. There must be reform...

Madam President, blood is spilling again in Gaza. Less than 24 hours ago, 51 people were killed after Israeli forces opened fire near a humanitarian aid site. They searched for bread and found death. Today, the world is watching war eat up everything human. We watch children die and homes collapse. This is not just a military conflict, it is a deliberate destruction, stamped with the complicity of silence. And now I'm asking: Where is the international community? Where are all these world leaders? How many more bodies need to be removed in order to be enough? Silence is now a crime, and sympathy is inaction and hypocrisy. I call for an immediate ceasefire, for an international investigation, for sanctions, for real humanitarian aid, for the salvation of what makes us human - conscience. Don't kill humanity!

Madam President, first of all, of course, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Mendes. Of course, I agree with the position of Commissioner McGrath, who says that this report must do everything possible to prevent fundamental principles being violated in the European Union, and it was created as such. But from the Committee on Legal Affairs, we have a few recommendations. Our first recommendation is that the report should be much more focused. Enough with the reviews, which are only on paper. Where is the implementation? We need to see real implementation of these recommendations given by the European Parliament. Second, we have been watching fundamental electoral rights being violated for a long time and this is becoming a systematic handicap of the European Union. I understand the idea of the European Union concentrating on countries outside its borders and monitoring how elections are conducted, but what do we do with our own choices inside the Union? How does this contribute to the consolidation of European democracy? Last but not least, of course, we must also extend the accountability of public authorities. In a number of countries, we have seen state institutions and regulators make use of powers that have already expired. These are systemic problems of European democracy, and we must engage with this issue as soon as possible. He can't wait.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, as the new Europe shadow rapporteur on Kosovo's progress report, I welcome this comprehensive assessment of Kosovo's achievements and ongoing challenges and I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur for his very hard work. Kosovo has demonstrated a clear commitment to European integration with strong public support for EU accession. The implementation of visa liberalisation and its steadfast alignment with EU foreign and security policy are encouraging steps forward. However, significant reforms remain crucial. While progress in justice, security and economic resilience is evident, challenges persist in judicial independence, media freedom, and the fight against corruption. Strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring the full implementation of rule of law reforms are imperative for Kosovo's European path. Finally, the EU must recognise Kosovo's commitment and provide tangible incentives, including clearer accession prospects. Kosovo's European future must not remain in a grey zone. It is in our collective interest to support its journey towards full EU membership.

Madam President, dear colleagues, on 19 March this year, the Commission put forward the SAFE regulation proposal and based it on Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, JURI considered the use of Article 122 of TFEU as the basis of the SAFE regulation proposal under Rule 138(2) of the Rules of Procedure. On 23 April, the committee unanimously decided that Article 122 was not the appropriate legal basis for the proposed regulation. JURI came to this conclusion after having considered the aim of the SAFE proposal and in the absence of proper justification by the Commission of the choice of the legal basis. JURI also observed that Article 122 contains two paragraphs, and each of those confers on the Council a distinct competence to adopt legal acts subject to specific conditions. However, the SAFE proposal is based on Article 122, and it entirely hangs on both paragraphs. The Commission fails to explain why both paragraphs should be relied upon as the legal basis. There is also no justification why other possible legal bases under the TFEU were discarded, in particular in the context of Article 122(1), which can only apply 'without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the treaties'. At the same time, although JURI discussed and analysed alternative legal bases which appear appropriate, such as Article 173(3) of the TFEU, it decided at this stage not to pronounce itself conclusively. It is enough to say at this point that JURI does consider that another legal basis under the treaties could be used, and therefore that the Union's competence to act under a legal basis other than in Article 122 TFEU does exist.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear representatives of the Council – they are not present yet. 'If you are a parent in one country, you are parent in every country', said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her 2020 State of the Union speech. This gave a political impulse for the European Commission to prepare rules on the cross-border recognition of parenthood. Two years after, on 7 December 2022, the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood, and on the creation of a European certificate of parenthood, was announced under the equality package. The proposal sets rules of jurisdiction and applicable law for establishing parenthood and provides for an automatic recognition of decisions in parenthood matters. It also provides for a unified form of European certificate of parenthood that is optional and should not replace national documents, but should ease the confirmation of parenthood if needed in another Member States. The future regulation is to apply only for the establishment of parenthood in a cross-border situation and the recognition of instruments issued in another Member State. The Commission's ultimate goal was to safeguard the rights of all children, also those derived from national rules, arguing that, by resolving the parenthood of the child as a preliminary question, the regulation will facilitate the application of excusing Union instruments on parental responsibility, maintenance and succession as regards the child. Parliament expressed support for the main objective of the proposed regulation to address the issue of the non-recognition of parenthood status by assuring that if a child-parent relation has been established in one Member State, all other Member States should recognise it without additional proceedings. In its deliberations, the European Parliament focused thoroughly on safeguarding the rights of the child, as they should be guaranteed in all European Union Member States, regardless of a child's family arrangements or how the child was born into this world. Taking into account that the Council has been working on the proposal for more than two years, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, allow me to present the following questions for an oral answer to the Council. First, dear Council, what progress has been made by the Council so far in terms of the adoption of the parenthood regulation by all Member States? On which parts of the proposal have discussions already been concluded, if any? Second, what solutions have been discussed to accommodate certain Member States' concerns related to the most contentious matters, such as the establishment and recognition of the parenthood of children born via surrogacy and children of same-sex parents? Third, is the Council considering, in the event of not being able to obtain unanimity, triggering the enhanced cooperation mechanism under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 326 and 334 of TFEU? And, additionally, the following questions refer to the Commission. How has the Commission facilitated the discussion on the proposal in the Council? Is the Commission prepared – or is it planning – in the event that unanimity among the Member States cannot be reached to pursue the objectives of the proposed regulation using alternative legislative instruments or mechanisms provided already in the Treaties?

Mr President, today we are taking into account the 100 days since the beginning of the mandate of this European Commission and we cannot but note with satisfaction the many legislative proposals that have been made by the European Commission itself. Of course, we expect results, not just legislative proposals. The message of European citizens is clear, we cannot continue in the same way with our economy, it must be strengthened. Measures are needed, rules are needed to simplify business. We cannot continue in the same way that the European intellect creates a product here on our territory, but leaves so quickly that we cannot see its results. And therefore, the rules for simplifying doing business need to be very adequate and the measures very timely. Of course, security will continue to be on the European Parliament's agenda, because we are living in a new environment of uncertainty. The European architecture requires to be built with our own strength and therefore we do not have time and I call for all actions to be very fast-tracked in this direction.

Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Minister, fellow Members, I think that today we are witnessing a very solid position on the part of the European Commission, something that we have been missing for the last few years. Serbia must choose its own path. It can't be both in one place and in the other. And the road, if it wants to be European, has to comply with several things: the common foreign policy is a security policy. We have our rules and anyone who wants to join the European Union must abide by them. Second, common values. The fight against corruption and organised crime must continue not just with declarations when a political leader is cornered, but with concrete actions. Freedom of the media, the right of citizens to freely express their will must not be suppressed. Last but not least, regional cooperation. Yes, Serbia has its place in the European Union, but not this, but the other Serbia, the reformed Serbia, which looks with hope to the future and takes into account the rights and freedoms of each of its citizens.

Madam President, it is of course important that we discuss the future of the Western Balkans, especially in the context of the Council, at the forum that is taking place - the EU-Western Balkans Summit. But don't let this forum become another filming. Let this forum also not be another single transferrable speech when it is spoken and nothing is said. I hope that the beginning of this mandate of the European Commission and the European Council will be fundamental to the enlargement of the Union itself. What do I mean? Let us ensure that the countries of the Western Balkans are prepared with their democracies long before they enter the European Union itself, meet these high standards of respect for human rights, and also have a real preparation for their economies. The development plan has provided a good basis, but we must ensure that this plan leads to investment and that the funds allocated to the countries of the Western Balkans are used for their intended purpose.

Mr President, these days mark 40 years of the so-called revival process, a cynical name for the attempt at total assimilation of the Bulgarian Turks in Bulgaria. Of course, these 40 years also have their backstory – what happened in the 1960s and 1970s with the story of our Pomaks brothers and sisters. What does a revival process mean? It's hard to explain in 30 seconds, but let me try. You are born Johann and a few years later you are renamed Ilian. It's different, isn't it? You speak your mother tongue and at some point you realize that you have to pay a fine. That's what my parents paid for. And when you disobey, there's a fight. And when you disobey again, more fights and jails and concentration camps. And so an identity is erased. These are some of the dark pages of Bulgarian history. And if you ask me right here, at the point of reconciliation between Germany and France, Alsace, whether the Bulgarian state has done enough, it has done almost nothing. Bulgarian justice was concerned with everything, but not with providing answers to the difficult questions that still remain.

Madam President, Atamana, Galata, Sharana, Diapers, Three Hicks - these are not the names of cartoon characters, nor are they superstars from the Hollywood industry, but voice buyers who are ready to do the largest vote-buying action in my country, Bulgaria. Of course, the action is followed by other things, and there are its prehistory as dismissals of people, as punishment for those who define themselves as naughty. And if you ask yourself why this is aimed at, there is only one goal - to recharge the power of Delyan Peevski once again so that he can manage the institutions in the country so that he can benefit uncontrollably from the democratic mechanisms of the country. This is not the rule of law I dreamed of. This is not the rule of law for which many have given their lives to be part of this democratic space. We need protection, but first we need to join forces to build this democratic immunity in Bulgaria. We will do it with the strong voice of the Bulgarian citizens on October 27th. But my request to the European institutions is to make sure that this phenomenon gets its political repercussions.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I am, of course, taking the floor in the presence of the European Commission to ask a fundamental question - how are the rules being respected in the EU? When there is a regulation or directive, does it apply to all countries and is subject to equal treatment, or can each country choose which to apply and which not to apply? My main question relates to the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and I ask whether treatment is possible. This issue gained popularity in Bulgaria as the so-called "French unemployment" and despite the referral to the Bulgarian national authorities, mainly from the region of Blagoevgrad, 8 000 signatures were deposited at the registry of the Bulgarian institutions. And notice - silence. I asked the Commissioner for Social Policy of the European Union a question and he replied to me again in the same blanket way: ‘Every country can regulate its own legislation when it comes to the field of social policy’. This is a double standard, there cannot be one standard for Western European countries and another standard for Eastern European countries. I see that my fellow citizens, especially from Blagoevgrad, are harmed and we will seek our rights to the end. I speak for them, I speak for me.