Speeches

Today's debate on floods in Central and Eastern Europe was initiated by MEPs from the Polish delegation. This will result in the adoption by the EP of a resolution that is important, including a sensitive moment for Europe. In my view, there are two main lessons to be learned from this debate for Europe and its people. Firstly, the climate crisis and the changes already made to the ecosystem of our planet are a fact. This is not an illusion, nor is it the invention of ‘leftists and eco-terrorists’, as populist, far-right groups are trying to convince us. The consequences of climate change are obvious and we are seeing them right now. These are not only floods in Central and Eastern Europe, but also huge fires that devour the southern part of the continent. Whoever denies facts and scientific research is irresponsible and intentionally manipulates and misinforms the public. Secondly, the European Union is our common heritage, solidarity, cooperation and mutual support when needed. This was the idea of integration from the very beginning, this is also the foundation of its operation today. The EU is not just complaining and making demands on its institutions. The EU is not a separate entity from us. So if you want to achieve something, you need cooperation and invention. Those who demand something from the EU alone, without giving anything of their own, do not understand the idea of integration.

The European Union stands at a crossroads. Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness made it clear: if we want to sustain our economic model, we need an annual additional investment of EUR 800 billion. This is not just about growth; it is about Europe’s ability to finance its social model, sustain innovation, and remain globally competitive. Draghi warned us about the innovation gap, the incomplete single market, and our growing dependencies on foreign technologies. The Competitiveness Compass addresses these concerns, but it will only succeed if we follow through. We need bold policies that attract private capital, support strategic sectors like biotech, quantum, and semiconductors, and ensure energy security while advancing climate goals. The Commission’s pledge to cut red tape by 25 % is welcome, but simplification alone won’t bridge the investment gap. We need a fully functioning Investment and Savings Union, a real European industrial strategy, and stronger coordination with Member States. Colleagues, competitiveness is not an option; it is a necessity. If we want Europe to lead in the 21st century, we must act now. Let’s turn strategy into action.

Madam President, Madam President of the Council, Madam Commissioner, the government of the biggest autocrat in the European Union, Viktor Orbán, is requesting astronomical payment from the SAFE programme. How is this possible? The answer is very simple. Orbán and his Fidesz oligarch buddies saw an opportunity to make a fortune on military contracts financed by the SAFE programme and use this fortune for electoral purposes. Suddenly, a fast track for privatising state-owned defence companies emerged. Look at the 4iG example: in June '25, just a few days after the formal adoption of the SAFE programme, the private company 4iG acquired the majority of shares of formerly Hungarian national defence companies. And Gellért Jászai, the main shareholder of 4iG, is known – by coincidence, of course – for his very close ties to Orbán's circle. What an arrogant, primitive and impertinent way to extort money from the European Union just before the elections. Let's not forget that Orbán is the biggest violator of the EU fundaments. His government is subject to article seven procedure, the conditionality mechanism and dozens of judgments from the European courts. Ladies and gentlemen, Madam Commissioner, let us not make this mistake.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the European Union is undoubtedly under attack. European democracy is challenged by the architecture of online platforms. They play a crucial role in determining what citizens see, share and, ultimately, what they believe in. The platforms promote content that is polarising, misleading and emotionally charged, while fact-based journalism and constructive political discourse are structurally disadvantaged. And who benefits most from that? Of course: Russia, whose main goal is to destroy our European unity, values and democratic system. A destabilised, weak and manipulated Europe is Russia's strategy. The platforms have learned how to exploit algorithms to spread its propaganda, using coordinated networks, bots and targeted narratives to manipulate visibility and shape political debate. However, the European Union is not powerless against this threat. The European Democracy Shield must not only be a shield, but also a sword that allows us to protect ourselves from these acts of hybrid warfare. Now, the Commission needs to use the available tools to ensure that Europe's digital public space is resistant against Russian propaganda.

As you probably know, there are several ongoing criminal proceedings in Poland against this Member, against Grzegorz Braun and the Polish Public Prosecutor’s Office has made several requests for waiver of immunity in relation to the allegations made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. We have already voted in this House several times, waiving his immunity. On the way there are further conclusions, among others about a morally unimaginable thing, i.e. about the Auschwitz lie. Unfortunately, within Parliament, within the framework of the procedures at our disposal, we cannot, in principle, take other measures. Only the discipline of functioning here, in Parliament itself, is possible, but no acts are otherwise covered by such activities.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The European Union is undoubtedly in a state of hybrid warfare with Russia, and one of the tools of this hybrid warfare is, of course, the spreading of propaganda. These are no longer conjectures, but facts. Russia buys influence inside the Union and pays politicians, including MEPs, to shape public debate in line with its expectations, its interests. Less than a month ago, former British politician and MEP Nathan Gill was finally sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes in exchange for spreading lies, Kremlin positions. This case unequivocally, as in the lens shows the scale and reality of foreign interference in Europe, this political interference. Moreover, press reports indicate that this phenomenon may be much broader. Far-right politicians from countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and the Netherlands are suspected of supporting Russian propaganda in exchange for financial gain. In the face of the war in Ukraine and the very real threats from Russia to European countries, the European Union cannot tolerate the spread of Kremlin propaganda. We have to act. And now a message to those who are involved in this process. You are playing with the safety of our citizens, our citizens, and you will not get away with it. Justice will reach you and you will end up like Nathan Gill, behind bars.

Madam President, Commissioner, as rapporteur of the LIBE opinion, I would like to sincerely thank the committees on budgets and budgetary control for their constructive cooperation and for effectively integrating LIBE opinion into the final report. Our priority has been to reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law conditionality mechanism, and to underline that it has proven to be an effective instrument within the broader rule of law toolbox, particularly when it comes to the safeguarding of the Union's budget. I am pleased that this report highlights the need to enhance the overall effectiveness and coherence of the rule of law toolbox. I especially welcome the inclusion of our recommendation to establish a rule of law semester, conceived as a structured, preventive and annual framework that links monitoring, recommendations and financial consequences in a transparent and systemic manner. Finally, in line with our recommendation, this report strongly emphasises the need to protect final recipients and beneficiaries. Local authorities, civil society organisations, SMEs and citizens must not bear the consequences of violations at the central level.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for the presentation of your statement with this regard. As one of the shadow rapporteurs to this report on the Article 7 procedure regarding the situation of rule of law preservation in Hungary, I would like to say that this is the second report of this House, which launched the procedure from Article 7 of the treaty, against the Hungarian Government, and we have been able to prepare this report on the basis of the rulings of both courts – the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights – on the basis of the assessment of the European Commission with that regard, and especially on the basis of the visit on the ground in Budapest. We had the chance to visit Budapest together with the rapporteur, Tineke Strik, and other shadow rapporteurs, and, unfortunately, what we observed in Budapest, in Hungary, is that all of the standards of the rule of law and the preservation of human rights are unfortunately dropped down within that time since the last visit to Budapest of the delegation from the European Parliament. So we described all of the violations of the rule of law very precisely in this report, and we are presenting the full description to this House, which launched the procedure against the Hungarian Government, eight years ago in 2018.

Mr President, colleagues, the rule of law remains a cornerstone of our Union, and I hope we are all fully convinced of this. In recent years, this has been reaffirmed through the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as through efforts of the European Commission and the European Parliament. The Union has developed a number of instruments to follow and assess developments in this field. Among them, the rule of law report offers a valuable overview of the situation in each Member State, acknowledging That no country is entirely free from challenges. I am fully confident that Bulgaria, as a member of the European family and as a country deeply attached to our shared values, as shown, among others, through its consistent support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and through membership in Schengen, and soon in eurozone, will continue on its path of commitment to democracy, justice and the rule of law and the full implementation of all recommendations of the European Commission.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, dear colleagues, we are discussing today the issue of digital sovereignty. What does that mean, actually? It means two things. First, reducing dependence on non-EU technologies, such as iCloud data, AI and chips. Second, it means safeguarding the EU's right to apply its own digital rules freely. We, Europe, must build our own tech capacity through open standards, through interaction between separate systems, and investment in European solutions. When it comes to sovereign enforcement, please bear in mind that the DSA, DMA and AI Act are objective laws. They are not political. We don't want to hurt anyone with these laws. They protect consumers. They protect competition and citizens' rights, no matter where companies are coming from. We, the Union, must not give in to the political pressure. Consistent enforcement of our laws is the essence of true sovereignty.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, this debate is not only about the attempt of the Hungarian Government to ban Budapest Pride. It is a much broader issue because this is yet another example of the Orbán regime trampling the freedoms of its people. This time it's about the freedom of assembly. This regime led democracy to a total and complete collapse. Yesterday, the Commission published its sixth Rule of Law Report and look at this: no progress on making court case allocation transparent. No progress on reforming the judiciary in line with European standards. No progress on stopping the revolving door corruption and shady lobbying. No progress in tracking down and punishing high‑level corruption. No progress on protecting public media from government control. No progress on removing legal obstacles for civil society. No progress on restoring the right to speak, to organise and to dissent. So, let me say it very clearly: those 200 000 people who march in Budapest, they are just the beginning because the Hungarian society is awake again and ready to end this authoritarian order. So, to Mr Orbán and his representatives, I say this: you can ban pride, you can ban every assembly, you can buy the media, you can bend the cords, but you cannot stop the people. Your regime will fall. And if you want to hear more, please start the blue‑card procedure.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, this resolution is about the citizen of one of the Member States of the European Union, Sweden, who was caught and sentenced to death by the Iranian regime. And what we are witnessing in the case of Mr Jalali is not an isolated miscarriage of justice – it is a very symptom of a regime that weaponises law to punish truth and uses human beings as bargaining chips in a cynical game of geopolitical extortion. I rise today not only on behalf of the EPP, but in defence of the most basic principles we claim to uphold: the rule of law, human dignity and justice. Dr Jalali, an academic, a European resident, was sentenced to death on fabricated charges by the Iranian regime. For nearly a decade, he has endured confinement, psychological torture, brutal treatment, lack of legal aid, medical neglect, and just one week ago he suffered a heart attack. His life is hanging by a thread, and so is our credibility if we do not act. We in the EPP call for the immediate unconditional release of Dr Jalali and all other political prisoners. Punishing a human being with death is an atrocity in itself that does not fit within the framework of our fundamental values we share. This is not about ideology. This is about principle. Human rights are not negotiable. Academic freedom is not expendable. And silence in the face of tyranny is not neutrality – it is complicity.

Mr President, as far as I understand it, today we are discussing the rule-of-law crisis in Spain, and we are discussing what the government is doing, what the Prime Minister is doing. And here I have the article from El Mundo, which describes very precisely all of these issues, that I deliver to you. So this is my answer to your question!

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I am an external observer of this situation in Spain, from the country where the rule of law was devastated for years. I am truly saddened to have to admit that the state of the rule of law in Spain raises the most serious concerns. There comes a moment where the silence becomes complicity. Today in Spain, the rule of law is not only eroding, it is being dismantled from within, because it is about the Prime Minister. We see a Prime Minister, Sánchez, whose right-hand man has been caught on tape negotiating kickbacks, whose own wife and brother are under corruption charges. How does the Government respond? By launching smear campaigns against prosecutors, by declaring judges the real opposition, by tabling laws that retroactively protect those in power, and by politically motivated conversion of substitute judges into a permanent one. Tell me it is not true. Convince me. Prove me I'm wrong, because you haven't done it yet during this debate. Let us be clear. This is not governance. This is a systematic abuse of institutions for personal and political gain. The European Union cannot afford to be naive. When a government instrumentalises justice, when it compromises its own courts, and when it writes amnesty laws to blur accountability, it is no longer fit to lead a democratic nation. Spain deserves better. Europe demands better.

Dear colleague, I would like to ask you a question. Have you read this opinion of Advocate General from 5 June of this year, which was mentioned by the Commissioner in this case? I suppose you read it. Good. You read it. So your colleague has just recently said that you're calling from Law and Justice that we do not understand the Treaty. You know what the Attorney General has recently said? Hungary's measures deviate significantly from the model of constitutional democracy enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty. What would you say to that? They are not also entitled to interpret European Union law?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, how many times have we debated in this House about the violations of the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary? It is hard to count, even during this mandate. Of course, the representatives of Orbán's regime and their political friends will immediately start to explain to us that the European Union is determined to harass the sovereign country. But the truth is that we rely on law, on treaties, on charters, on conventions and on dozens of judgments of the European courts. And this is what the rule of law is all about. The truth is that what we are currently witnessing in Hungary is the 'Putinisation' of its political system. The recent law banning Pride marches is a direct assault on the freedoms of assembly and expression, protected under the EU Charter. Orbán is following the path set by Putin: first came the anti-LGBT propaganda law, now a ban on assemblies that promote or display homosexuality or gender change to minors, effectively prohibiting Pride marches. And we all know what will come next if we do not act: a total ban, prohibition of any expression of views that are inconsistent with the government line.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I am really happy, as one of the shadow rapporteurs, that we are finally presenting this report to Parliament. Thank you, Ana Mendes, for your cooperation, and all of the other colleagues that were working on this important report, because respect for the rule of law can never be taken for granted. It is not an empty, well-sounding phrase – it is the very foundation of our European Union. It is a frame without which the Union and any of its policies cannot exist. It is the backbone for our independence, for our freedom and democracy. That is why continuous and credible monitoring of the rule of law is essential to detect cracks in the system early and react swiftly and firmly when democracy is under threat. Five years ago, the European Commission launched its first annual rule of law review cycle, and since then, I believe that we, as the European Union, significantly strengthened the EU's capacity to respond to challenges and support necessary reform. Our report, Parliament's report, supports and complements the Commission's assessment. In this year's report, we focus on expanding our toolbox, notably by calling for the establishment of a permanent group of independent experts, a 'wise persons group'. Their role would be to monitor developments in Member States, issue regular assessment and sound early warning to the Commission when needed. For the first time, this report also addresses the vital link between the single market and the rule of law. It rightly highlights that corruption and judicial inefficiency erode investor confidence, hamper cross-border cooperation and threaten the integrity of the internal market. In case of systemic rule of law breaches, we should explore mechanisms to protect the internal market from the consequences of such violations – violations which undermine trust, mutual recognition and the EU legal order.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we are discussing today the most important topic of all, and I would like to thank Mr Lenaers and all of the others that worked on that file for the great job. Protecting children from sexual abuse, especially online, is our core duty, and I believe no one in this House has any doubts about that. With over 32 million reports in 2022, stronger EU-wide protection is urgently needed. The DSA sets a framework, but enforcement is still too weak. We need real accountability from platforms and better coordination across all of the 27 Member States. This legislation brings essential updates, clear definitions, longer limitation periods, and stronger victim support. This is the great advantage of these documents. Parliament must also address online anonymity and poor age controls by promoting effective age verification and identification to protect children. And finally, the huge topic of using artificial intelligence was raised by the rapporteur at the beginning of this debate. This is probably our biggest challenge in protecting children against sexual abuse.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, a week ago, a draft bill on so-called 'transparency of public life' targeting foreign-funded NGOs was published by the Hungarian Parliament. This is another scandal. This is another attack on European values. It is very similar to laws adopted by authoritarian states, including Russia, and it is intended to block any independent voices against Orbán's regime. Let us be clear: if this law comes into force, it would risk draconic penalties for Hungarian freedom fighters. This law follows the 'defence of sovereignty' law, which is already the subject of an infringement procedure by the European Commission, now proceeded in the Court of Justice. I fully agree with what Commissioner McGrath said: freedom of speech is the essence of democracy. That's why I urge the European Commission to act decisively regarding this law and to initiate the infringement procedure together with a motion for interim measures for effectiveness of these actions. The lack of an interim measure in this case will simply put the safety of the whole Union in the hands of Putin's Trojan horse in our community.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the United States is again turning to protectionism – an approach history has shown to hurt, not to help, citizens. Tariffs may look like a shield, but act like a sword, raising prices and limiting choices. Europe must not respond with isolation. Our strength is openness, competitiveness and fair trade partnerships. Instead of building walls, let's deepen ties with democratic allies, from Canada and Australia to Japan, and at the same time, maintain relations with the United States as much as economic profitability allows. Let's not allow others' short-term thinking to define our future. Free trade is not naive. It's in Europe's best interest.

I will respond to you very easily and clearly. I went through all of these lies and manipulation in Poland between 2015 and 2023. But I'm a lawyer. I stick to the facts and the court verdicts, and you should as well. So look at the verdicts of the Court of Justice, of the European Court of Human Rights. You lost all of the cases. All of the cases. That's my answer.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, spring has arrived on the Danube River. Not only in this calendar sense, but in a symbolic narrative. Freedom has blossomed in the hearts and minds of the people. Yes, the Hungarian Spring of the people has arrived. After 15 years, the people have finally had enough. They have had enough of the arrogant regime, the methods of rule taken from the autocratic, brutal autocracy and the sowing of hatred and fear, the drastic violation of the rule of law, the lying and the manipulative propaganda, the kleptocracy and the corruption, and finally the turning of Hungary away from the Western civilisation, from Western Europe, from its roots and the desires, and changing vectors toward a cruel totalitarian tyrant from the East. The people have had enough. Hungary has been in Europe for more than 1000 years, and the Hungarian people will not allow anyone to turn it away from Europe, from its values, from the democratic principles of the state, from the style and prosperity of life, and from the alliances of the Western world to which Hungary indisputably belongs. The Orbán regime feels it, sees it, experiences it – the mood on the street – and it's starting to get scared, because the time will come to bear responsibility for all that has happened over the 15 years. And all of these recent legislative action that breaks the rules of the democratic word are a sign of fear and panic.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the EU was built on the foundations of human dignity, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Today, as we examine this report, we see those very principles under attack globally and unfortunately, yes, also in our union. Human rights defenders are persecuted and convicted. Constitutional rules are brutally violated. Civil society is shrinking. Across the world, free elections, independent media and the rule of law are being eroded. And we cannot be neutral in the face of this. Our foreign policy must reflect our values. This means effective measures against human rights abusers and strong vocal support for those risking their lives for freedom and justice. And we must lead by example and speak out clearly, whether it's Istanbul, Managua, Tehran, Moscow or even a Member State that violates our fundamental rights, like Budapest. Silence is complicity. Democracy must be defended everywhere and every day. This is our duty.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to thank the European Commission for this important legislative proposal. President von der Leyen once said, 'if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country'. I want to thank also the Council and Minister Szłapka for the declaration to work on this fight during the Polish Presidency. The Polish Presidency understands the real issue at the heart of this proposal, and is not afraid to address it head on. As a lawyer, I must underline that this proposal is not about interfering in national rules on family law, or it is not about regulating surrogacy or imposing any new definitions on parenthood on Member States. This is about guaranteeing that each child in the European Union has a full package of rights, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It is about ensuring that the child does not lose legal parents, access to healthcare, nationality or inheritance rights simply because their family moves to another country of the European Union. One of the most practical and urgent issues addressed by this proposal is 'limping parenthood'. 'Limping parenthood' refers to the situation where a child's legal parenthood is recognised in one Member State, but not in another. This leads to, for example, loss of parental rights by one of both parents, restriction of the child's rights, including losses in access to citizenship, inheritance, social benefits or parental care, costly and lengthy legal proceedings, and the risk of family separation. The European Union is built on the principle of freedom of movement, non-discrimination and legal certainty. It is our duty to ensure that these principles apply equally to all families. This proposal is not about politics, it's about people and, in particular, children.