What Ilhan spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, honourable colleagues, on 16 April, JURI and IMCO, in association with PETI, held a joint public hearing on the European Citizens' Initiative 'Stop Destroying Videogames'. We had a constructive and forward-looking discussion with the EU on the expertise of the organisers of this initiative, who are dedicated in mobilising to shape the EU's legislative agenda. Video games are not just entertainment: they are art, innovation and a vital part of our cultural landscape. Our public hearing allowed us to explore how EU law can better balance the protection of intellectual property with the rights of consumers and creators, and how digital ownership can evolve to reflect the realities of a fast-changing industry. The 'Stop Destroying Videogames' initiative, backed by nearly 1.3 million citizens, highlights real problems: users lose access to games they have paid for, sometimes even without a warning. Thus, stronger protection for consumer rights is needed in this sector. The initiative calls for publishers who sell or license video games to ensure that video games actually are functional and playable for a longer period, with no remote shutdowns unless they first provide consumers with viable means to continue playing. But we must also recognise that publishers, especially small start-ups, depend on sustainable business models to keep creating. They often struggle with rising costs, fragmenting markets and piracy risks. So how do we fix this fairly? Several priorities emerged from our hearing with solutions that take all elements into account. First, fair access to players coupled with stronger transparency and information obligations for consumers. Second, protection for publishers. Third, clear rules for preservation and achieving solutions. Fourth, a level playing field. Colleagues, this is all about trust. Trust in the European creative industry driving jobs and culture, but also trust in consumer rights that actually work.

I wanted to thank all the colleagues across the political groups for the substantive and constructive debate, and particularly the shadow rapporteurs for their very deep engagement all the way through the process. Indeed, tonight's discussions demonstrate something important, while here may be different emphasis and different political sensitivities in this Parliament, there is nevertheless a broad understanding that our relationship with Uzbekistan matters strategically, politically and economically for the European Union. As you said, Madam Vice-President, this is not a blank cheque, this is an offer for deeper cooperation with Uzbekistan. And I very much appreciate your approach. Parliament will be constantly updated on implementation. Some colleagues focus more strongly on geopolitical considerations, others on human rights, democratic reforms and the role of civil society, and rightly so, because the centre of the European Parliament lies precisely in its ability to combine strategic vision with the principle of scrutiny. That is why the EPCA is important. The European Union is strongest when it acts with unity, consistency and strategic confidence. This agreement sends exactly such a message that Europe is ready to engage seriously in Central Asia, to build a long-term partnership and to remain a reliable global actor in an increasingly fragmented world. And I count on your support during tomorrow's vote, dear colleagues.

Mr President, Madam High Representative, dear colleagues, this House is not simply discussing an agreement – we are making a strategic statement about Europeans' role in a changing world. The enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement with Uzbekistan comes at a moment of profound geopolitical transformation, global fragmentation and accelerating geopolitical tensions. Russia's war against Ukraine and the war in Iran continue to challenge the international order. Competition over fuel, connectivity, energy, critical raw materials and influences intensifying across Eurasia. In this context, Central Asia is no longer a geopolitical periphery; it is becoming a strategic bridge between Europe and Asia. And Uzbekistan, with its pragmatic and demographic weight, a reform trajectory and a growing regional engagement, is emerging as a key partner for the European Union. This agreement reflects that reality. The EPCA is the most ambitious framework ever negotiated between the European Union and Uzbekistan. It modernises our relations far beyond the outdated agreement from 1999 and opens a new chapter of cooperation in trade, connectivity, energy, climate, digitalisation, security, education and people‑to‑people contacts. But this agreement is not only about economics. It is also about political direction. The European Union believes that long‑term stability and prosperity cannot exist without rule of law, accountable institutions, human rights and active civil society. That is why our report is balanced, ambitious and principled. We acknowledge the important reforms undertaken by Uzbekistan in recent years, including progress in economic modernisation, regional cooperation and labour rights. We recognise the country's increasingly constructive role in Central Asia and its contribution to regional dialogue and connectivity. At the same time, we are clear‑eyed about the challenges that remain. Further progress is needed on media freedom, judicial independence, political pluralism and the protection of fundamental rights. The implementation of international commitments, including under the GSP+ framework, must continue in a credible and measurable manner. Civil society and independent media must have the space to operate freely and safely. Because partnership with the European Union is strongest when it is built on trust, reforms and shared principles. Dear colleagues, disengagement also carries important geopolitical significance. The EPCA strengthens cooperation on regional security, cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, border management and sanctions enforcement. At a time when attempts to circumvent EU sanctions continue, cooperation with partners in Central Asia is essential. Respect for international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity must remain the foundation of our engagement. The agreement furthermore creates new opportunities under the global gateway strategy and the Trans‑Caspian transport corridor, helping to diversify trade routes, enhance connectivity and reduce strategic dependencies. It also opens important avenues for cooperation on critical raw materials and the green transition. Let us not underestimate the broader regional dimension. A strong partnership between the EU and Uzbekistan can contribute to greater regional integration, resilience and stability across Central Asia. It sends a message that the European Union is present, engaged and prepared to invest in a long‑term partnership based on mutual respect and shared interest.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I would like to start my speech by congratulating Mr Žalimas for the constructive and comprehensive report. As the report outlines, we believe that, first and foremost, legislation must always reflect our shared fundamental values – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – which are essential for strengthening 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 a prerequisite 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 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 law is fairly and effectively applied in every Member State.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, let me emphasise the main points on behalf of the JURI opinion on the discharge in respect of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The JURI Committee underlined the very high budgetary implementation rate, which was 98 %. JURI noted that the number of cases continue 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 and closing of old complex cases. There was a reduction of the average time for handling cases under the urgent procedure. JURI welcomes the entry into force of the new rules on the transfer of jurisdiction in certain preliminary ruling proceedings from the Court of Justice to the General Court in October 2024. JURI additionally welcomed the establishment of annual dialogue between the Court and the European Parliament, and stressed the crucial importance of dialogue and cooperation with national courts and the EU Judicial Network. Lastly, JURI noted with interest the launch of a pilot project providing all departments of the Court with access to artificial intelligence assistants.

Mr President, Commissioner, the report by my colleague Petras Auštrevičius highlights certain elements already known in enlargement policy, namely that it contributes to European well-being, opens up space for greater socialisation, for building a European model of inclusion for countries that are on the path to European integration. These are the positive moments that we all managed to see at the time of our countries' accession to the European Union. However, this report also opens up some new opportunities that need to be exploited: how do we make the accession process faster? And he puts a very important emphasis, Commissioner. It is good to talk about enlargement as one of the best policies of the European Union, but this enlargement will not happen in today's conditions unless we put a strong focus on reforms within the European Union. Look at what's happening today. We have a debate on the future of multiannual policy – is it agricultural, is it cohesion policy, are we talking about the multiannual financial framework? It's hard to get along on these issues. How will we deal with 30 countries, 33 countries, 35 countries in this methodology? It is absurd to talk about enlargement without talking about reforms within our own European Union.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, today I am presenting, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee, two oral questions – one for Albania and the other for Montenegro. Tomorrow the plenary will be voting on the respective motions for resolutions. Let me be brief. We have two main objectives here, dear colleagues. First, this is our opportunity to send a message of support for the accession of the two countries to the Judgments Convention – two countries that the Commission tells us have a clear perspective to join the European Union relatively soon if all conditions are in place. So the creation of the legal framework to recognise executive judgements issued by courts in civil and commercial matters that we are looking at here, through the accession of Albania and Montenegro to the Judgments Convention, would be an important sign from this House in that general context. It would also be crucial for the daily lives of EU citizens and companies, and for the citizens of Albania and Montenegro. Civil law cooperation is not always visible, but that does not make it less important. The second objective of the debate tonight: the democratic angle and the consistent call by the European Parliament for years now regarding the accession of third countries to the Hague instruments to which the EU is a party. We have had to resort to a peculiar non-procedure in the last couple of years for the Hague instruments, which have the so-called non-objection clause applicable to the accession of third countries. This is not the first time we look at the context of the Hague instruments and the Judgments Convention in particular. I call for the respect of our Treaty prerogatives. We had a similar situation already in 2023 when we signed the memorandum of understanding. After that we had a discussion on the same topic for Ukraine's accession and in 2025 for the United Kingdom's accession. There is clearly an issue here – an interinstitutional one. I call once again on our Commission to put in place a proper procedure that respects the prerogatives of Parliament on this particular matter. Parliament must have a possibility to express itself clearly on the accession of third countries to the Hague instruments, also in case of the application of the non-objection clause. This cannot continue to be done in the current manner and we have to resolve it. We cannot continue to have a situation in which, when the Commission raises no objection to a third country's accession and therefore does not submit a declaration of opposition, the Council and Parliament cannot give their consent in a legal way under the Treaties. Let's be very open and direct about it. Once again, it is our Parliament's position that the Commission must present a proposal for acceptance in such cases under EU law, even where it is not required by the international convention itself.

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.