Speeches

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.

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.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations to the rapporteur for this report. The report raises many concerns, but one stands out: that growing threat to judges' ability to address preliminary references. When this channel is obstructed, it is a direct challenge for the rule of law. This is an absolutely crucial instrument mechanism for the European Union law, because the preliminary ruling procedure is much more than a mere technical instrument, as it enables national judges to uphold European values. Poland offers a clear example. In recent years, when the Law and Justice party was ruling and devastating the rule of law in Poland, judges relied on preliminary ruling mechanisms to defend effectively the independence of judiciary. Without preliminary ruling references, we wouldn't be able to receive the most important judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the meaning and on the standard of the judicial independence. This legal instrument is of great importance to maintain European legal order, and must be protected, especially by the guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, this year's Parliament report on the Commission's rule of law report introduces a crucial new idea; the establishment of an annual rule of law cycle. The aim of this cycle is clear: to ensure that the existing rule of law toolbox becomes more effective. We have all witnessed the serious rule of law backsliding in Orbán's Hungary and in Kaczyński's Poland. Over the years, the Union has developed a comprehensive set of instruments to safeguard the rule of law. Yet it has often lacked a political will to use them. This report directly addresses that by focusing on the full and coordinated use of existing instruments. It calls for a predictable annual timeline, including a fixed date for a publication of the report. It strengthens the analytical framework. It also demands greater clarity and precision in the Commission's recommendations, including a distinction between general concerns and serious systemic breaches of the rule of law. Crucially, the cycle reinforces the link between rule of law findings and consequences, where serious and systemic risks are identified and recommendations should be connected to EU funding. The cycle further strengthens monitoring by requiring a more comprehensive assessment of progress over time, including the implementation of judgements of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! Everyone in the European Union has the same fundamental rights, rooted in our values of equality, human dignity, freedom, non-discrimination and democracy. Democracy is political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, fair and free elections. And the framework of all this is the rule of law. These rights are guaranteed and laid down in the EU Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, in many parts of our continent, these values and fundamental rights are under heavy fire today. Those who exercise power try to limit it, to take it away, by building a system of oppression. There are many examples and we all know them. If we do not defend fundamental rights from the very beginning, when they are violated, it becomes more and more difficult over time – this is a fundamental lesson. It is then that pathology and an autocratic system are born, in which human rights are trampled upon and human dignity is put to the most severe test. Today is also a symbolic day for this Parliament, because Andrzej Poczobut, Sakharov Prize laureate, Polish-Belarusian journalist, activist of the opposition to the Lukashenka regime, steadfast defender of freedom, democracy and fundamental rights, is free, free and safe in Poland. The history of his steadfastness and courage, as well as 15 years of persecution by the authoritarian authorities of Belarus acting on the Soviet model, shows us, citizens of a prosperous and peaceful Europe, how much determination, courage and sacrifice is sometimes required to defend fundamental rights and how much we have to pay for it near our borders.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to make this point of order on the basis of Rule 179. We are holding our first plenary session after the Hungarian elections. The electoral shift in Hungary is not just a change of government in one of the 27 EU capitals: it is a removal of the Russian Trojan horse and of roadblocks to European security. For years, Europe's unanimous voice was held hostage by Viktor Orbán, who traded our security for the Kremlin's benefit. For years, the Kremlin has counted on a divided Europe. That era ends, and now, symbolically, Viktor Orbán is planning to move out of Europe. Now is the historic window of opportunity to regain our European unity. As Russia remains the pre-eminent threat to our collective peace, we can finally move past the era of vetoes and extensions. We are now positioned to build and continue a true military resilience of democratic Member States. Let us regain unity to secure our borders and our future.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we are talking today about independence of the judiciary, independence of justice – the cornerstone of the European Union. And the International Criminal Court stands as one of the central pillars of the international legal order. Its mandate to prosecute genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression ensures that the gravest violations of international law do not go unpunished. For this system to function, judges, prosecutors and officials of the court must be able to act independently. Immunity for ICC officials is therefore not a personal privilege: it is a structural safeguard, protecting the integrity of international justice. This principle is particularly relevant today. The prosecutor of the Court is investigating allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on the territory of Ukraine since November 2013, including crimes linked to the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing aggression by Russia. Those who investigate such crimes must not face any pressure. Judicial independence can be undermined not only through political attacks, but also through financial leverage. European judges must be free from any pressure – also economic pressure. They must always be safe and fully independent. This is in our best interests, because only then can we speak about justice. We must strive to strengthen our economy, our European autonomy and sovereignty to avoid being subject to any external oppression. Europe therefore needs stronger economic security, greater payment sovereignty, and greater independence from foreign financial and payment infrastructure. Only a Europe that is economically resilient can ensure that international judges and prosecutors act freely, without any fear, and are guided solely by the law.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, the European Union has taken an important step by establishing significant financial support for defence through the Safe Programme ‑ Security Action for Europe. These resources are essential to reinforce our defence capabilities and strengthen Europe's security. However, funding alone is not enough. To ensure these resources genuinely enhance our security, we must guarantee that defence industries across the Member States can operate with within a regulatory environment that allows them to fully, efficiently and rapidly use these support. These means removing unnecessary barriers, simplifying procedures, and enabling faster investment and production in the defence sector. We must also ensure that the regulatory framework supports the development of a stronger and more integrated European defence ecosystem capable of responding to hybrid threats, strengthening critical infrastructure protection and improving military readiness. This must remain at the core of our efforts to build a regulatory environment that supports both Europe's economic strength and its security.

Dear colleague, I have one simple question for you. You have heard many times during this debate about this new law about confiscating land. Do you think that this amendment, which was introduced by the government, that allows punishment for criticism of this law – you can go to prison for six months, for example – do you think it is compliant with European standards or not? Is it violating European standards or not? Please stick to this question.

Madam President, Commissioner, since 2023, we have been observing the rule of law decay in Slovakia in various areas, as well as an incredible level of corruption. We have just heard what the Commissioner presented. But what we are witnessing right now has crossed the legal and moral threshold. I would like to draw your attention to the actions of the Slovak Government, which is currently enforcing post-war legislation, allowing ethnically-motivated land confiscation. Moreover, can you imagine – or not – that they have recently introduced an amendment to that law that makes the criticism of this measure a criminal offence, punishable by up to six months in prison. That is not all. Those affected by these laws cannot even seek justice, as they lack effective judicial protection against these measures, which has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bosits v Slovakia case. Such measures are definitely violating the Union's legal order and our values, and should not be accepted from the point of view of European standards. They stand against Article 17 and against Article 47 of the Charter – which protect the right to property, and provide the guarantees of an effective remedy and a fair trial – and they stand against Article 11 of the Charter, which protects freedom of expression. A state cannot retroactively enforce dormant confiscation regimes, fail to provide effective judicial protection and at the same time deter public criticism. That combination undermines legal certainty and strikes at the core values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty. This is precisely the moment when the European Union must look very closely and assess whether Union law is being breached – and act accordingly. So I urge the Commission to do so.

Madam President, Commissioner, we made a very clear promise to European citizens that the European Union would remain safe and that our migration policy would be rational, coherent and under control. Today, as this House takes important steps to strengthen our common asylum system and reinforce external borders, we must remain faithful to that commitment. For that reason, the Spanish Government's proposal is a step in the wrong direction. Introducing such far-reaching rules concerning regularisation without proper consultation at European level is irresponsible. Measures of this scale cannot be seen as purely national. They have direct implications for the Schengen Area, for secondary movements across the Union, and for the mutual trust between Member States on which free movement depends. Acting unilaterally in this sensitive field risks undermining the harmonised and joint response that the European Union is currently implementing in its migration policy. The EPP Group stands for security, safety and responsibility in Europe and, therefore, for a migration policy that is coherent, that is controlled and that is European.

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.

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.