Speeches

Dear Colleagues, We need to put this weekend’s fake presidential 'elections' in Belarus in a wider context. Belarus is increasingly aligning itself with authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, becoming part of an emerging global Axis of Aggression. The ongoing repression of Belarusian citizens, coupled with full support for Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, imply that the Belarusian regime must be held accountable in the same manner as Russia. However, the EU restrictive measures against Belarus apply only to almost 300 individuals and 40 entities. We seem also not to be serious on the regime’s accountability for crimes against humanity and aggression. There is only one investigation of the crimes against humanity invoked in Lithuania on the basis of universal jurisdiction, with no concrete results to show, and a single referral to the ICC by Lithuania, and no real discussions on the establishment of a special tribunal. I do not see any reason for our inaction that, in fact, is detrimental to our solidarity with the Belarusian people. Thank you.

Mr President, dear colleagues, such cases as Elene Khoshtaria demonstrate to us that the Georgian regime is continuing repressions against civil society. For this reason, there can be no normalisation of relations between the European Union, its Member States and the current Georgian regime until all the political prisoners are released and free and fair elections are held. At the same time, Georgia has become a hub for circumventing sanctions against Russia, from the re-export of goods needed for the war to disguising the origins of the oil products. Therefore, the EU must strictly sanction both the companies operating in Georgia that support Russia's war machine and the regime officials who continue to terrorise civil society. Today, Lithuania commemorates the restoration of its independence. Our experience tells us that attempts to capture state institutions must be resisted at the earliest possible stage and decisively. Otherwise, once the state is captured, reclaiming it becomes far more difficult.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot allow anyone to undermine the credibility of international law on European soil. The ICC is a cornerstone of a global system of accountability, acting as a court of last resort when other avenues to justice are blocked. We shouldn't forget about the human aspect of this issue. Those targeted by US sanctions often discover the chilling consequences only gradually in their lives – when a payment is declined or access to online services is suddenly refused, effectively turning them into digital pariahs simply for doing their job. I therefore join those who urge the European Commission to swiftly use the blocking statute by adding the US executive order authorising ICC‑related sanctions to its scope and, together with Member States, develop additional measures to counter their effects. Such measures should include EU‑wide minimum penalties and ensure consistent enforcement, strong oversight at EU level, and compensation mechanisms for businesses.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, this report on better law-making is, at its core, about ensuring good law. Law that is clear, law that is predictable, law that can be implemented. This means that good law does not end with adoption: it must also be properly implemented across the Union, and where questions arise in its interpretation, national courts must remain fully free to refer those questions to the Court of Justice. In practice, however, the implementation of EU law across Member States remains uneven. This undermines trust in the European Union. Member States must therefore avoid late, incomplete and inaccurate EU law transposition. At the same time, sincere cooperation must remain our guiding principle. Better law-making also means respecting the institutional balance: if the Commission intends to withdraw legislative proposals, it must properly justify such decisions and consult the co-legislators. Let us ensure that good law works in practice. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent work.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, gender stereotypes remain one of the most serious obstacles to women's access to justice. We cannot deny that too often assumptions about women replace facts, and equality before the law exists only on paper. This is clear from the cases of gender-based violence. Around 45 % of women who experienced violence did not turn to anyone. Even when cases are reported, convictions remain the exception rather than the rule. Stereotypes affect whether women are believed and whether cases proceed at all. Many violations never reach judicial review. Violations remain legally invisible and impunity persists. This is a systemic failure. Courts cannot develop gender-sensitive practices if they never hear these cases. International law is very clear: states must protect victims and guarantee effective remedies. Therefore, justice systems must not be guided by stereotypes. Access to justice cannot depend on gender. Therefore, we all should support all the measures in implementing this priority.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I think we all support both the substance of the Hague Judgments Convention and the accession of Albania and Montenegro. However, once again we are confronted with the Commission's approach to Parliament's prerogatives. I must say openly: I do not understand why the Commission continues to act irrationally in this way. Despite repeated calls from the Parliament, it still treats third-country accession to the convention as a purely technical matter, as if Parliament's role ended with the EU's own accession in 2022. I have to underline that the expansion of the territorial scope of the convention, with the accession of new countries, is both a political and a legal issue, which requires the consent of the Parliament. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is clear: when the Union establishes its position regarding the accession of third countries to international agreements, the Parliament must be involved and must give its consent. It is a typical function of a democratic parliament. We have already adopted similar resolutions concerning Ukraine and the UK, welcoming their accession while underlining that the proper procedure was not followed. Today, we take the same responsible approach: we support the accession of Albania and Montenegro, but at the same time, the Commission cannot undermine the respect of the representative democracy, including the principles of institutional balance and accountability to the EU citizens.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, under international humanitarian law, attacks against civilian objects and infrastructure indispensable to the survival of civilian population are strictly prohibited. The deliberate destruction of Ukraine's energy system in winter imposes conditions of life that may even fall within the definition set out in the Genocide Convention as an act calculated to bring about the destruction of a national group. These attacks are enabled by the ultra‑nationalist imperialist ideology of the so‑called 'Ruscism', which rejects international law, sovereignty of its neighbours and the very existence of Ukrainians as a nation. Accountability, therefore, must become unavoidable. We must support the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We must also reiterate our full support for the ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court, which gives the jurisdiction over these horrific attacks.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, together with Hungary, Georgia has become an electoral autocracy. It has already established an oligarchic, one-party dictatorship. This is reflected in new and new legislation restricting peaceful protest and freedom of association, and contrary to the European standards of democracy as developed by the Venice Commission. And also in recent educational reforms that undermine democratic values and distance the country from Europe. Particularly alarming are reports by the BBC that, if confirmed, a banned World War One chemical agent known as camite was used against protesters. Such use would be in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, one of the greatest achievements of humanity, which allows only narrowly defined riot control agents with rapidly irreversible effects. An independent international investigation is therefore essential to establish the facts and ensure accountability, including, where appropriate, through universal jurisdiction.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Belarusian hybrid attacks against Lithuania breach the UN Charter, including the duty of non-interference by means of coercion. Under international law, Belarus bears full responsibility regardless of attempts to deny attribution. This responsibility has been affirmed by public statements of the US presidential envoy, referring to assurances from Lukashenka to halt balloon launches into Lithuanian airspace. The EU must remain united: an attack on one Member State is an attack on the Union as a whole. We must not follow Trumpian diplomacy that sacrifices long-term objectives for short-term reversible concessions. Any review of EU sanctions with Belarus must remain conditional. Only sustained and irreversible change, including respect for human rights and an end to support for Russia's war against aggression against Ukraine, can justify reconsideration. I therefore welcome the decision of EU foreign affairs ministers to introduce new criteria on hybrid attacks, providing a basis for further measures.

Madam President, dear colleagues, authoritarian regimes today use influence as a strategic weapon. Their goal is clear: to divide Europeans, weaken our institutions and undermine confidence in democracy itself. We cannot allow this. That is why we must support the ambition to strengthen transparency and accountability in interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries. Europe needs clear, harmonised rules that expose manipulation while protecting our democracies. We cannot be compromised by existing, essentially different rules – or the absence of them – in Member States. Let me stress this point: this directive is the opposite of the so-called foreign agents law. It focuses on activities, not on funding. It imposes no criminal sanctions, no discriminatory labels and no prohibitions on legitimate advocacy. It targets activities carried out on behalf of foreign governments, with independent supervision and full respect for fundamental rights. Democracy must be able to defend itself.

Madam President, in recent months, we have experienced a new wave of hybrid provocations from Belarus and Russia, including air balloon incursions to Lithuania. First, it is important to underline that with these actions against Lithuania by Belarus, I would like to underline that there is no doubt regarding attributability or at least a breach of a duty to prevent. Despite the recent diplomatic efforts of the US to secure political prisoner releases and open channels of dialogue, Lukashenka's behaviour makes it clear: the regime has no interest in building constructive relations with the West. Second, Lithuania was forced to partially close its border with Belarus in response to these provocations, only to see Belarus retaliate by blocking Lithuanian trucks and refusing to release them even after Lithuania reopened the border. This is an open blackmail and escalation. Third, we must also update our own tools. The Union needs to introduce a new criterion in the Belarus sanctions regime that clearly defines hybrid activities as grounds for sanctions.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we must be clear: any agreement that rewards aggression would not bring peace. It would send us several centuries backwards, legitimising violence as a tool in international relations. International law is explicit: when a serious breach of a fundamental norm of jus cogens – and Russia's war of aggression is precisely that – no state may recognise as lawful the situation created by that breach, nor render aid or assistance to the aggressor. Instead, states must cooperate to bring this breach to an end. This means no recognition of illegal annexation, no territorial concessions, nor any other proposals that would allow anyone to make a business deal out of this aggression. A just peace can only rest on firm foundations: full territorial integrity of Ukraine, full reparations to Ukraine, full criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. These are not negotiating positions. They are international legal obligations incumbent on Russia.

Madam President, dear colleagues, fully supporting the new resolution on the situation in Belarus, I want to highlight an uncomfortable truth. Since 2020, in numerous resolutions, this Parliament has called for justice and accountability. Yet what have we achieved? The EU Member States have not made any progress in prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Belarus, although we know their names. So far, only Lithuania has invoked universal jurisdiction. Only Lithuania has referred the situation in Belarus to the International Criminal Court. And only Lithuania has applied to the International Court of Justice regarding the instrumentalisation of migrants by the Lukashenka regime. Yet even in Lithuania, no suspects have been named and no arrest warrants issued. Needless to say, this approach is contrary to the concept of international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity. We should insist on concrete steps in improving the situation. Impunity makes the dictator laugh at us.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Ukraine needs predictability and stable, multiyear support that America no longer guarantees and that Europe has yet to deliver at full scale. The Commission's proposal to use frozen Russian assets for reparation loans is a welcome first step. Russian state money must be used for Ukraine's self-defence, not for the aggressor's future. It also has a sound international legal basis. Reparation loans are legitimate third-party countermeasures to Russia's ongoing war of aggression, which is the gravest breach of the UN Charter. They meet the requirements of proportionality and temporariness under international law. They also are of an exceptional nature, as applied only in respect of the aggressor and only for the aggression. Europe has the duty to assist the victim by all possible means. There is no other choice to secure our common European future.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I fully support the report on Georgia as it is in full compliance with EU values and EU law. Georgian institutions have been captured by the authoritarian criminal oligarch regime. The Georgian Dream follows the Kremlin's manual of repression. They act as bandits and speak as bandits. Recently, the last formally remaining opposition for Georgia party representatives was stripped of its mandates in the parliament for a peaceful boycott. That is a means of political fight in any democracy. However, what is really against democracy is the existence of a current single‑party parliament. The EU response must be stronger. First, we must find a way to sanction on the EU level the Georgian Dream regime and to support the Georgian people. We must strictly follow non‑recognition policy of the Georgian Dream authorities. There is still one key difference of Tbilisi from Moscow and Minsk. That is the continued presence of the active civil society in the streets demanding new parliamentary elections and striving for European future. We cannot abandon the Georgian people.

Madam President, fear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the recent release of 14 political prisoners gives us little hope. More than 1 000, including EU citizens, still remain behind bars in Belarus. They are still subjected to systemic torture and inhuman treatment. No doubt, our line to demand the release of all political prisoners and to ensure accountability for the crimes against humanity must remain intact. In addition, first, we must call for a formal EU report on deaths of political prisoners. According to the available information, at least seven political prisoners – Shtermer, Shlettgauer, Kulinich, Lednik, Khrasko, Klimovich, Pushkin and Ashurak – died in recent years due to inhuman conditions. Secondly, we must urge the EU to sanction all the accomplices of Lukashenko regime, including 110 pseudo-deputies of the so-called House of Representatives, 68 members of the so-called Council of the Republic, more than a thousand of so-called judges, prosecutors and investigators. All of them are puppets of the regime, complicit in imposing the repressive legislation and destroying lives.

Madam President, dear colleagues, as the President of the Commission emphasised yesterday, when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. This strength only comes through our unity, and unity must be based on our common values. Therefore, we must have in mind several important aspects. Firstly, China's position in Russia's war against Ukraine – China's support to the aggressor cannot be tolerated. Secondly, inadmissibility of political, economic and diplomatic pressure on individual EU Member States, for example on Lithuania. Thirdly, inadmissibility of the use of, or threat of, force against the liberal democracy in Taiwan, which is freely established and developed on the same principles as ours. Fourthly, stopping the destruction of the unique identity of the Tibetan people, as well as interference into their religious freedom. Fifthly, ceasing the grave breaches of human rights against Uyghurs in Hong Kong and elsewhere in China.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot defend the rule of law externally, failing to follow it in our own decision-making. The third country's accession to the Judgements Convention is a test of our compliance with the EU Constitution, the founding Treaties. The EU acceded to the Judgements Convention with Parliament's consent. Indeed, the consent to be bound by international agreements is a typical function of a democratic parliament. This consent has to be required also when the convention's scope – including scope of application – is changed, for example by the accession of third countries. However, as in the case of Ukraine's accession, we are again confronted with the Commission's refusal to recognise this inherent function of the Parliament as provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this way, the Commission undermines the principle of representative democracy, including institutional balance and accountability to EU citizens. The Commission, as a guardian of the Treaties, must fully respect them without improvisation beyond its mandate. Therefore, with today's oral question and resolution, we not only support the accession of the UK, but we also are defending our parliamentary prerogatives and the rule of law.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot defend the rule of law externally, failing to follow it in our own decision-making. The third country's accession to the Judgements Convention is a test of our compliance with the EU Constitution, the founding Treaties. The EU acceded to the Judgements Convention with Parliament's consent. Indeed, the consent to be bound by international agreements is a typical function of a democratic parliament. This consent has to be required also when the convention's scope – including scope of application – is changed, for example by the accession of third countries. However, as in the case of Ukraine's accession, we are again confronted with the Commission's refusal to recognise this inherent function of the Parliament as provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this way, the Commission undermines the principle of representative democracy, including institutional balance and accountability to EU citizens. The Commission, as a guardian of the Treaties, must fully respect them without improvisation beyond its mandate. Therefore, with today's oral question and resolution, we not only support the accession of the UK, but we also are defending our parliamentary prerogatives and the rule of law.

Mr President, dear colleagues in Georgia, we are witnessing the attacks on the rule of law, independent media, NGOs, freedoms of assembly and association. The Georgian nightmare is rapidly transforming the country into autocracy. A single-party system, apparently, is not compatible with pluralistic democracy. Several times, our Parliament has already demanded the immediate release of all political prisoners and called for new, free and fair parliamentary elections. This is the only way to restore democracy. Our Parliament has also declared the legitimacy of the current parliament and president in Georgia. However, not many Member States follow the Parliament's line, nor the Commission, which supports, by the way, the accreditation of ambassadors to the illegitimate President of Georgia. Only a few Member States have imposed sanctions. Therefore, the EU seems to be treating Georgia as a lost country. But this is a big mistake. The Georgian civil society continues to fight. They have not lost themselves, nor their European aspirations. We cannot abandon them if we really seek to support democracy.

Thank you very much, dear colleague, for the question. As a lawyer, I can assure you that sovereignty doesn't mean the free discretion which international commitments are to be fulfilled or which are not. It is inseparable from the proper fulfilment of all international obligations, including those stemming from the EU membership in a goodwill. And if no, if somebody wouldn't like those obligations, there is always the way to withdraw.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, regrettably, Hungary acts as a Russian Trojan horse within the European Union, eroding our fundamental values from inside and weakening our common security. The Orbán regime echoes Moscow's disinformation and anti-LGBTQ policy. According to the classification adopted recently by the Venice Commission, Orbán's regime can be described as an electoral autocracy with unfair elections, regular abuse of state resources, erosion of civil liberties and subverted institutions. The more space this regime is given, the more aggressively it restricts fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of assembly. The regime does not hesitate to abuse laws, even rewrite the constitution with incredible speed in order to consolidate its power. Will we tolerate these actions until the damage is irreversible? The time for hesitation is over. Apart from all the infringement procedures, ultimately Hungary's voting rights must be suspended at the Council.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union is more than a market. It is founded on the rule of law, inseparable from pluralistic democracy and fundamental rights. These values are not optional. They do not have different meaning. They define who we are. Now, across the European Union, we are witnessing a dangerous trend. The abusive rule by law, replacing the rule of law. We see it when courts are politicised, when civil society is silenced, media freedom is attacked, the rulings of the Court of Justice are ignored. Hungary stands as a stark example. It has experienced a decade of democratic backsliding. How did we respond? We talk too much. We don't do enough. This must be changed. We need to act at the first signs of democracy erosion. The Parliament has already demonstrated its leadership. However, the Commission and the Council must stop turning away. In my own country, Lithuania, we can notice signs of concern. The attempts to control the national public broadcaster, to legitimise corruption, and not to comply with the ruling of the constitutional court defending family rights of same-sex couples. And the Commission seems to step back, insisting that family rights belong to national rather than EU domain. Altogether ...

Madam President, dear colleagues, we have heard many right words about the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, including immeasurable human losses and sufferings. Regrettably, we have also heard extreme right and left representatives aligning themselves with the aggressor and spreading Russian lies. There is no doubt that the aggression is the gravest international crime, no doubt that Russia is committing numerous crimes against humanity and war crimes, no doubt that we have to support Ukraine. However, first and foremost, we must believe in the victory of Ukraine, in the victory of international law and justice. All the delays and shortcomings in supporting Ukraine can be explained by a lack of belief and consequently, a lack of determination. If Israel, which is almost ten times smaller than Iran, can dismantle the latter's aggressive potential, why couldn't Ukraine, with our support, do the same? Our belief in Ukraine and trust in ourselves is the most important in compelling the aggressor to peace, and it is indeed the issue of our survival. This is also a burden that history has placed on us.