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, the joint resolution proposed for tomorrow's voting is firmly grounded in customary international law, to which China itself is bound and which protects the identity and rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Yet China's new law on the promotion of so-called 'ethnic unity and progress' will further intensify 'assimilation' of Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians and other minorities. It is particularly alarming that this law claims extraterritorial reach, enabling persecution even beyond China's borders. We must be clear in our response: we urge China to repeal this law and uphold its obligations under international law. If that does not happen, we call on the Council to impose EU sanctions targeted on those responsible for drafting and implementing the new law. Our main message is that enforcement of this law has inevitably to lead to severe consequences for EU-China relations, because it follows from the Treaty on European Union that we must promote protection of human rights and respect of international law in our external relations.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me first sincerely thank all speakers for their constructive and thoughtful contributions to this debate. I think we all share the commitment to improve the implementation and enforcement of European Union law. I would also like to express my gratitude to Commissioner Dombrovskis for his continued cooperation with the JURI Committee and for his efforts in putting forward simplification solutions. We highly value this collaboration, and I look forward to continuing to work together in the future. I am also grateful to the members of the JURI Committee, as well as to the members of the JURI Network, whose sector‑specific expertise has added real depth and substance to this report. I also thank all the colleagues who tabled amendments. A significant number of these contributions have been considered and have helped to strengthen the final text. I would especially like to acknowledge the valuable input from the Committee on Petitions, which plays a crucial role, as citizens' petitions often serve as an early‑warning system, highlighting shortcomings in the implementation of EU law. At the heart of this report lies an idea that EU law is not an end in itself. It must ensure that it must serve our citizens and therefore it should be qualitative, clear and cohesive, and meet its fundamental condition for its correct and uniform transposition by the Member States, while preserving the core policy objectives and protections. At the same time, the purpose of simplification should be to reduce technical complexity, eliminate regulatory overlaps and harmonise definitions and procedures across related policy areas. If we succeed in this, we will not only improve compliance, but also strengthen trust in the European Union and its legal framework.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, European law is only as strong as its implementation. We can pass the best legislation in the world, but if it is not applied fully, fairly and effectively in every Member State, if its supremacy and reliance on common values is not ensured, then it simply does not deliver for our citizens or our businesses. That is the essence of this report. Europe must accelerate from lawmaking to law-delivering, because today we still see too many gaps. There are too many cases of delayed transposition, too many instances of incorrect application, too many situations where even rulings of the Court of Justice are not fully respected. This is not acceptable. Member States have a clear responsibility under the Treaties to implement EU law properly, but the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, must also act decisively when this does not happen. That is why we call on the Commission not to shy away from infringement proceedings, especially in cases of persistent breaches or non-compliance with court rulings. Enforcement is a guarantee that citizens' rights are protected equally everywhere in Europe, and that business can operate on a level playing field across the single market. And ultimately, it is a guarantee that the rule of law is upheld. This report is also about accountability and transparency. Regular, clear and country-by-country monitoring is essential, not only to track progress, but also to identify shortcomings and enforcement gaps. Because we must be honest, reporting only achievements is not enough. We need to see where the system fails and how to fix it. Parliament, through its petitions and scrutiny role, plays a vital part in this process. Citizens often tell us first where EU law is not working in practice. A key message of this report is also smart simplification. Yes, we want to reduce unnecessary administrative burden, but simplification must not mean deregulation. We must preserve our policy objectives, whether in environmental protection, consumer rights or fundamental freedoms. That is why we also call for better digital tools, more accessible complaint mechanisms, and stronger early warning systems. If we can detect problems earlier, we can solve them faster before they escalate into infringement cases. And then, at its core, this report is about the rule of law and about ensuring that our fundamental values are respected everywhere in the Union. This is why we strongly support the rule of law conditionality mechanism and call for its consistent application. This report also introduces an important innovation: sector‑specific recommendations. These were developed in close cooperation with members of the Network on Monitoring the Application of Union Law. Such a horizontal approach allowed us to identify concrete challenges and solutions across key policy areas, from environment to justice, the digital sphere and the functioning of the single market. Finally, let me underline that Europe's credibility depends on its ability to ensure that its own rules are respected. This report is a constructive encouragement for the Commission and Member States to take a more consistent approach to implementation and enforcement. Because the European Union is our home, and in a common home, rules must be respected equally by all.

Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues. In general, of course, I support this report and I can certainly praise the main part of the Commission's report on the rule of law, but at the same time I cannot overlook some shortcomings, at least with regard to the chapter that talks about my country, Lithuania. Say, how can you not notice that last year there was a fundamental change in Lithuania, when the Constitutional Court legalized same-sex partnerships and, of course, then, how can you not notice that the government, the current government of Lithuania, is doing everything to sabotage the execution of this decision? In the same way, how can attempts to politicise the Constitutional Court by appointing a MP from the ruling majority to the Constitutional Court as a judge be overlooked? It would certainly be desirable in the future to focus on the essence rather than notice only less significant technical details.

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, honourable Vice-President of the Commission, honourable colleagues. Opening this plenary session, President Roberta Metsola recalled that this year we are celebrating the 35th anniversary of the 1991 Soviet aggression against Lithuania, when thousands of people took to the streets to defend the national broadcaster and parliament of a free Lithuania. Then I could not even imagine that, more than three decades later, the same parliament would sit exactly the same way at night, but not in order to defend freedom, but on the contrary in order to occupy the national broadcaster by the most bleak methods, also following the great lie that you have just heard from the previous speaker. It goes without saying, therefore, that such attempts run counter to both constitutional and European standards on media freedom and legislation. However, as at that time, the Lithuanian people bravely resisted the night coup. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so consistently until the anti-Semitic ruling majority, who did not want to admit to the LRT, tries to implement schemes tested in Hungary, Slovakia or Georgia in Lithuania. I am pleased that all left-wing political groups in the European Parliament have decided to join our joint resolution. This is a strong signal, an example to follow, that attempts to seize free media are taken very seriously at the earliest stage, and not only when it has already happened. At the same time, it is a sign to the Lithuanian Social Democrats where they need to move. I call on everyone to support this joint resolution on the side of freedom, of law and, above all, of truth.

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.