What Juan Fernando spoke about.

Mr President, why have we been debating for two years the need to protect non-governmental organisations, journalists, press editors, human rights or environmental activists against manifestly unfounded or abusive processes? Because throughout Europe, freedom of expression and communication is receding. And this European Parliament, with the report by our colleague Tiemo Wölken, is doing the right thing by obliging the Member States to adopt legislation that would allow manifestly unfounded claims aimed at intimidating or suppressing freedom of expression and communication to be rejected immediately, by refusing to allow them to proceed, or quickly in a procedure, with all the guarantees. It's the right bet at the right time. And it is also essential that we avoid the search for forums of convenience (forum shopping), that is, when filing abusive or manifestly unfounded lawsuits, the most repressive jurisdiction is also chosen at the service of those illiberal governments that are regressing in freedom of expression.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, yet again it is my honour to submit on behalf of the Committee for Justice and Home Affairs this oral question to the Council and the Commission as to the extension of the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor regarding the criminal offence of the violation of EU restrictive measures. You know how it’s like: ever since Putin’s regime – Russian President Vladimir Putin – launched his war of aggression against neighbouring Ukraine, we from the European Parliament, the European Union, have done everything in our hands in order to show not only solidarity but also active support to Ukraine and Ukrainians. As to the military dimension, which is beyond our jurisdiction, there is little to say, but as to the humanitarian dimension, of course, we’ve supported all the way the final activation of Temporary Protection Directive, we’ve supported the solidarity effort, we’ve called for action, for the European Commission to coordinate that solidarity in order to prevent human trafficking on the borders of the neighbouring countries. We have supported, under the legal and criminal dimension of the conflict, every effort to put in place joint investigating teams to cooperate with the public prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Finally, we agreed to set in motion an urgent procedure as to a new piece of legislation initiated by yourself, Commissioner Reynders, to put in place the extension, within the ambit of Article 83 of the Treaty of Functioning of European Union, defining the so—called ‘EU crimes’, the crimes which are listed as relevant EU crimes, the violation of EU restrictive measures, that is to add that violation to the list of EU crimes. The first step allowed the Commission to draw on the directive’s proposal to harmonise across the European Union the definition – that is the purpose – and the common penalties, definition and penalties regarding this new EU crime. We are currently working on this proposal in the European Parliament, and we are going to adopt swiftly, that’s for sure, a mandate in order to allow as soon as possible that the prosecution and conviction of the violation of restrictive measures is finally set forth throughout the EU. Nevertheless, we are also aware that investigation and prosecution of such crimes will mostly remain the responsibility of Member States and their national laws. Very few violators of EU restrictive measures are actually held accountable. The reason is that many Member States do not show sufficient priority to list those crimes. That inconsistent enforcement of restrictive measures undermines its effectiveness. It is really regretful, actually, a shame that the European Public Prosecutor cannot prosecute such crimes so far. Indeed, they are related to the protection of financial interests of the EU. That is the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor. By now, under the so—called PIF, the Protection of Financial Interests of the European Union Directive, of which I was rapporteur and for which the European Public Prosecutor is competent, the European Public Prosecutor has already proven its efficacy in investigating and prosecuting crimes falling under its mandate. It’s there. It’s in action. It’s been there for almost two years now. This new so—called Union Agency for Law Enforcement. A great success! We are proud of its delivery. So it is time for the European Union to act in this regard. That is why this European Parliament is resolved to act, but the institutional set—up so far has limited that role of the European Public Prosecutor in this field of action. We therefore ask the Commission and the Council the following questions. First, do you agree that extending the competence of the European Public Prosecutor to include the crime of violation of Union restrictive measures would help ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted in a homogeneous and more efficient way across the European Union? Second, do the Council and the Commission support the initiative of several Member States, numbering nine by now, to this effect? Third, what actions will the Commission and the Council take to this end? I am looking forward to your responses and reactions – Council, the Swedish Presidency, the Commission and Commissioner Reynders.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, you are spending many hours in this plenary session of the European Parliament. More hours were spent by those of us who were members of the Commission of Inquiry into the Pandora Papers, which gave some concluding lessons, some of which I will stress. The first is the need for transparency and, therefore, to avoid conflicts of interest and that, under the heading of financial accounting companies, real pockets of capital evasion are hidden. The second is the need to put an end to predatory practices of competitive taxation between the Member States of the European Union, particularly in the area of wealth and corporate taxation. This also includes ending investor residency programmes and investor citizenship programmes, as we have so often called for in this European Parliament. And the third is the need to combat tax havens. The only way for the European Union to be relevant in this fight is for it to do so in a united, consistent, persistent way over time and in all the organizations of the governance of globalization, in order to put an end to that simply unacceptable practice that was so manifested during our investigation of the Pandora Papers.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, for a long year the Committee of Inquiry to examine the use of the Pegasus Surveillance Spy and Other Equivalent Programmes has worked hard and drawn conclusions. What is the meaning of the conclusions? That the Commission take the initiative and put European law into force so that some facts investigated cannot happen again. First, it is necessary to condemn any use of spyware to intimidate or blackmail the opposition, human rights activists, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and journalists and, of course, the free press. Secondly, we must prohibit the export of spyware to repressive regimes and call for a de facto moratorium on the export of such programs or the revocation of licenses while establishing some common standards that ensure, first of all, effective judicial recourse and judicial control of any use of spyware that violates fundamental rights for any cause other than the investigation of very serious crimes. Of course, a European standard of national security so that it cannot be invoked to suppress fundamental rights without the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for any intrusive measure regarding fundamental rights.

Madam President, Commissioner for Justice Reynders, in the exercise of your right, an ultra-conservative group of this European Parliament co-chaired by Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, brings to this debate its proposal to criminalise surrogacy and the recognition of parenthood. We have heard the Commissioner for Justice say that the European Union has no competence in this regard, that it is the competence of the Member States. I come from a Member State that prohibits surrogacy. It is a solution that I defend because it reifies the body of the woman and, therefore, I consider null and void any contract that intends to commercialize that transaction, in addition to abusing and exploiting vulnerable people. It is usually an unbearable situation of economic inequality. But Giorgia Meloni's proposal in Italy is also accompanied by an indication of the families of people of the same sex, making it as if that were the only causal situation of surrogacy. Not only is this false, but it is also contrary to European law. It is true that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits marketing with body parts, in the same way as it prohibits cloning, but it also prohibits discrimination on any grounds of gender or sexual orientation, in addition to prohibiting, therefore, any discrimination against minors, whose best interests must prevail regardless of their origin. Because discrimination based on origin, even if the origin of parenthood is illegal, is also contrary to European law. Therefore, we have to say that it will not have the support of the majority of this European Parliament to take forward a proposal for which it has no competence and which is not explained by what it says, but rather by what it hides.

Mr President, Council, Commission, we are in 2023 and it will soon be 14 years since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, which ordered us to put in place not only a common migration and asylum policy, but common legislation. And this Parliament has worked very hard to deliver on that promise with five regulations binding on Member States on the basis, at last, of the principles of shared responsibility and binding solidarity. The last Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Luxembourg was a step in the right direction – a principle of binding solidarity – under the Swedish Presidency and under the leadership of Spain, which takes over the Presidency on 1 July. Despite the insidious, incessant, unjust and, of course, unpatriotic attacks of the Spanish People's Party, which misses neither an opportunity nor a turn to speak ill of its country, the Spanish Presidency can produce results. And not producing it in this legislature would be a great failure. But in order to be successful, the system needs to be European in its values, in its legislation and in the scale of its responses.

Madam President, in a legislature illuminated by the Conference on the Future of Europe, in which there has not been a single plenary session in which we have not discussed the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the Member States, and in a plenary session in which we have debated the regulation on the European citizens' initiative, it makes perfect sense for us to ask the Council and the Commission to start negotiations to adopt once and for all that European electoral law promoted by the European Parliament. In this law there are messages as clear as the need for transnational lists, of the recovery of the head of the list of each political family to preside over the Commission - the principle of Spitzenkandidat— and the establishment of homogeneous electoral bases for gender equality on the lists, the inclusion of disability and the establishment of maternity, paternity and sick leave regulated in European law, which do not depend on the discretion of the Presidency of the European Parliament, as well as the creation of a homogeneous threshold for access to the seats of the European Parliament. By doing all this we will be strengthening citizenship, citizens' participation in the European elections and our own representation. In short, we will be strengthening the quality of democracy in Europe.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President Vestager, we are passing nothing less than a European artificial intelligence law, one of the great objectives of the legislature. Artificial intelligence that will haunt us for the rest of our lives and the effort of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in its report has aimed to make it compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, not only from an ethical point of view, but from a legal and regulatory point of view. To this end, it has established prohibited uses such as predictive, police and judicial intelligence or indiscriminate biometric recognition. ex ante to the commission of any crime, and, of course, discriminatory uses incompatible with equality and the principle of non-discrimination that are enshrined in the Charter. This will put the European Union at the forefront of unstoppable technological development, to which the norm will surely always come a little late with respect to the dizzying future and potential developments, but which is sending a message to the world: the European Union is determined to control the artificial intelligence agenda.

Madam President, Vice-President Vestager, no less than five years ago, in 2018, the European Commission adopted a novel initiative that was welcomed by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The aim was to put in place nothing less than a directly enforceable court order to obtain electronic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of transnational crime, particularly cybercrime, child pornography and the falsification of payment methods, which are crimes that have skyrocketed during the pandemic, especially cybercrime. Five years later, this procedure has finally come to an end when it is debated today in this plenary session of the European Parliament. I welcome it because it is a step forward so that judicial authorities can directly order servers and providers on the network to remove and obtain electronic evidence relevant to criminal investigations. And, in addition, do it in peremptory time: 10 days and, in cases of emergency, up to 8 hours. If they fail to do so, they will have to pay a fine that can amount to up to 2% of their turnover. In addition, they must designate an authority or person in charge of maintaining contact with European judicial authorities on European territory. It's a step forward. We finally have a pan-European e-evidence procedure in place.

Madam President, this debate in plenary on the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative – what we know in the law of the Member States as a ‘popular legislative initiative’ – is connected to the concern expressed by the Conference on the Future of Europe about the quality of democracy in the European Union, understood as a union of states and citizens in which there is room for reform of the electoral system. This reform is also debated in this House, precisely to create a transnational list and a pan-European constituency in the European elections or to recover the principle of Spitzenkandidat, which implies that the person who aspires to chair the Commission must have competed for it at the polls. But with regard to the Regulation on the European Citizens' Initiative, what is clear is that, so far, its performance has been clearly improved and that there have been many occasions when signatures have been collected – in seven EU Member States one million signatures were collected – with an anti-European purpose, that is, manifestly reactionary, contrary to European values. Therefore, if we want to mark the message, we have to go in the right direction: strengthening citizenship and the proper use of the citizens' initiative in the European Union.

Madam President, this report, which responds to the Commission’s 2022 initiative, changes the tone from previous strategies for the outermost regions and is correct because, while recognising the specificities and uniqueness of the legal basis (Article 349), it draws attention to problems that have been highlighted in recent times – such as vulnerability to the volcano and the migratory phenomenon, and the difficulties in incorporating renewable energy – and to the strengths related to the ability of the outermost regions to incorporate the blue economy, biodiversity, innovation and the importance of training and research so that, finally, the outermost regions can generate employment that brings added value to the Union as a whole. I therefore hope that this Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions of the European Union, which the Canary Islands now presides over and in which its President, Ángel Víctor Torres, spoke correctly, marks a change in tone, future, hope and optimism that the outermost regions can bring to the European Union as a whole.

Madam President, during your term of office, this committee, which has studied foreign interference in democratic processes, has produced a very relevant conclusions document. I am particularly interested in your third and fifth conclusions because they are the ones that connect technology platforms – and the need to subject them to a European regulatory framework – with defence against foreign interference. Because big tech companies do not aim to produce free public opinion through pluralistic debate, but exclusively exploit algorithms that radicalize and confront their users. That is why artificial intelligence is a twist in a technological revolution that threatens to manufacture and disseminate false images and voices with the appearance of veracity. The European Union must be at the forefront in defending its idea of democracy, not only for itself, but for democracy in the world. This is what the Conclusions document points to.

Mr President Wieland, Council, Commissioner Reynders, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Koen Lenaerts, has stated that the European Union is seeing its foundations, that is, its values, threatened, which puts its very existence at risk. The drift of Poland has been the subject of resolutions in this European Parliament since 2018. And here we are faced with an unacceptable twist with a law that seeks to criminally harass, through a commission of inquiry, the adversaries of the current majority of the Government and the ruling party. Quite simply unacceptable. I have only three considerations to make in this regard. First, that the fact that President Duda has announced that he will refer that law to the Constitutional Court, unfortunately, is no guarantee, because that Constitutional Court has been declared non-compliant with European law of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights and non-compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47, by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2021. Furthermore, in the second place, that Constitutional Court ruled in absentia against the principle of the primacy of European law. Thirdly, it is a sad irony that, under the pretext of preventing Russian influence, Poland is trying to bring into force – the Polish government is trying to bring into force – nothing less than a putinesque law, a law that putinizes the legislative procedure in Poland. Commissioner Reynders, therefore, must be used thoroughly to prevent this law from coming into force.

Mr President, the rule of law in Poland. This European Parliament adopted its first resolution no less than in 2016; it required the activation of the extraordinary penalty procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union in the event of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. Since then, I have lost count of the number of resolutions adopted by this European Parliament. Six monographic hearings at the General Affairs Council. Twenty-five milestones still blatantly missed by the Government of Hungary. Therefore, there are only three ways: in the immediate future, maintain the pressure, which means maintaining the blocking of access to the Recovery and Resilience Facility. At the media level, consideration should be given to restricting the agenda of the Hungarian Presidency in order to prevent it from addressing issues of the rule of law and, instead of fulfilling its responsibility, attempting to dissolve it. But in the medium term, it is the Commission's responsibility to disseminate an idea of what is at stake. What is at stake is not an intergovernmental or inter-institutional relationship between Parliament and the government, but the Hungarian citizens, who must take responsibility for demanding from their rulers compliance with the rule of law.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, we are here to discuss the decision of the European Commission to launch the process to adopt an adequacy decision as to the EU-US data privacy framework. For the third time, we have the record in mind, because the European Court of Justice in relevant rulings 2015 and 2020 invalidated two previous instruments: Safe Harbour and Privacy Shield. What’s different now? The Biden Administration. President Biden has adopted, actually, an executive order – which is a presidential decree – introducing significant steps to come closer to the European standards, which would have been completely unthinkable under the Trump administration. And we certainly recognise those improvements as to safeguards and guarantees. But as to the majority of the LIBE Committee, which adopted a resolution on the matter, we are not there yet because there is a missing point as to the judicial independence, transparency and access to justice and legal remedies which are to meet the standards of the European Data Protection Regulation according to its interpretation by the European Court of Justice. So we’re calling on the Commission not to miss any point this third time and to properly address continuing negotiations. This concerns us to judicial redress and access to justice of the European citizens so that this time we adopt a mechanism that genuinely provides adequate safeguards and protection for the data of EU citizens and businesses.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, this European Parliament has shown its determination to combat criminally all forms of cybercrime that grew geometrically in connection with the pandemic, but the cyberbullying that we are dealing with today existed before the pandemic, as tragically demonstrated by the death of the young Irish woman Coco, whose mother Jackie we pay tribute to here today. Because there are many and many girls exposed to that persecution from which they cannot escape. And we are challenged by this threat not only to those of us who are fathers and mothers of minor children but to all groups in this House and, consequently, to this European Parliament, not only to give content to the strategy against cyberbullying on the net with measures of prevention, digital education, self-defense, emotional mentoring in the face of depression, isolation and the temptation of suicide, but also with criminal law, because we must ensure that cyberbullying does not go unpunished. Following the example of Irish criminal law, it is imperative that a European criminal directive be capable of ordering all Member States to transpose such criminal law into their national law.

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, we are discussing updating the European anti-corruption strategy. All right. It is a commitment of the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in this legislature and it also brings about the impetus we gave her in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to fight corruption, as Commissioner Malmström rightly recalls. And, therefore, the attempt to which the People's Party, and particularly the Spanish People's Party, has accustomed us, to try to mix the fulfilment of this European objective with the situation in any Member State of the Union, is completely out of place. It is right to define with common criteria bribery, trading in influence, misappropriation, abuse of functions, obstruction of justice and illicit enrichment, and to impose minimum penalties on them, as the Spanish Criminal Code does. And we also believe that this serves to establish a clear criterion that the fight against corruption is a basic principle of the European idea of the rule of law, democracy and the promotion of fundamental rights. Because it is a criterion that is required of all Member States in their access to the Union: be able to ensure, with judicial independence and with prosecutors, the investigation of crimes, thus overcoming the differences between limitation periods and the enormous heterogeneities of resources available for the investigation of crimes that are currently observed in the Member States, let alone among the candidate States for the Union.

Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, why have we been discussing migration and asylum so intensely for so many years? For three very powerful reasons. The first is because the Treaty of Lisbon lays down a common European policy and legislation on immigration and asylum and makes this Parliament a legislator, so that the past in which the Member States had exclusive competence in this area has long been past. The second is because a clear majority of this European Parliament, with a lot of resistance, has been supporting a comprehensive approach that takes account of the external dimension, with development cooperation and humanitarian aid, but also of the border dimension, attacking smuggling and combating human traffickers, while at the same time accounting for the internal dimension, with respectful and dignified treatment and in accordance with European law of people arriving in the European Union, with a distribution that is governed by the principles of shared responsibility and solidarity. Binding solidarity where necessary. And the third reason is that we have precisely one opportunity to do so with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. And this goes hand in hand with the always partial, fragmented and in the wrong direction responses that claim that the solution would be the outsourcing of asylum claims or the conditionality of European funds to returns that are unworthy and not voluntary. Returns are part of the system, but they have to be dignified and voluntary returns and respectful of international humanitarian law, European legality, European values. Because it is the only way to build a European and effective response.

Madam President, Commissioner Dalli, why are we debating in the European Parliament the final ratification of a Council of Europe convention adopted no less than in 2011, today, 9 May 2023, Europe Day, signing a commitment against all forms of violence against women? Well, first of all, because this Parliament has the power to do so. It has the final say so that any international convention negotiated on behalf of the European Union can enter into force. Secondly, because it is the final stage of a long work, overcoming many difficulties, after a judgment in which the Court of Justice tells the European Parliament that the European Union can ratify it, despite the fact that it has not been ratified by all the Member States, which is in itself regrettable. A work that we have shared from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which I have the honour to chair, with the chairs of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, successively Evelyn Regner and Robert Biedroń. But I add that this work will not be complete if we do not clearly say that women's rights are human rights. Secondly, that the European Union should financially support the implementation of this Convention and financially support all organisations that protect women, and particularly victims of gender-based violence. And that, of course, the work will not be complete until we ratify a criminal directive that makes any form of violence against women a European crime.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I thank you because I am requesting from you just a short minute of your attention. I'm sorry to do it, but I have to, because in the exercise their rights, two political groups have challenged the vote that was adopted in the Committee of Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the files of which the new migration and asylum pact consists of five regulations, including the regulation on which I am rapporteur, the Crisis Regulation. We had a clear, solid, sound mandate for entering the interinstitutional negotiations in each and every one of the files, including this, the Crisis Regulation. We have worked real hard throughout the years and I thank, of course, the shadows and all of the other rapporteurs, because we have worked hand-in-hand to secure the so-called ‘package’ approach, which was essential. Now it is time for it to enter into institutional negotiations so that solidarity may have a chance. Solidarity when it comes to emergency crisis situations, that’s precisely the point of this regulation. That is why I just kindly request that you support the mandate for negotiations by voting in favour of this regulation.

Mr President, this Ugandan law, adopted in March 2023, which condemns the death penalty for homosexuality, shakes the conscience of the European Parliament, as this debate with the Commission and the Council shows. This is unacceptable in a country that receives massive aid from the European Union, and diplomacy must ensure that this law cannot be applied in any case. But this morning we heard a passionate plea from the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel, in defence of non-discrimination and respect for the sexual and gender identity of all people. Mr Bettel reminded us that there is also work to be done in the European Union. This Parliament protested against a Hungarian law of June 2021 prohibiting, nothing more and nothing less, the dissemination of homosexual content in the media and in schools, as if homosexuality were an evil or contagious, which is completely unacceptable. The European Parliament, with 15 Member States, has decided to join the Commission's application to the Court of Justice of the European Union to declare this law illegal under European law for contravening European law. This is also contradicted by the latest law adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, which allows reporting homosexual families with dependent children; This is completely unacceptable and contrary to European law. That law must therefore also be challenged by the Commission with the support of this European Parliament.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, the Duma of the Russian Federation has decided to criminalise any form of cooperation with the International Criminal Court, which Putin does not recognise. It is not just another step in its frontal gallop against international legality, but a clear sign that the European Union also has a reason here to support the International Criminal Court, which has decided on an arrest warrant against Putin as responsible for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as against the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child linked to the Putin administration. And the reason is that, in addition to war crimes, there is the forced deportation of at least 1,400 children, artificially declared as orphans, of the more than 6,000 who have been transferred to Russia as a result of the war and removed from their families. The European Union is fully supporting the efforts of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to restore international legality. Also in this area, in the area of relentless persecution against all war crimes that have been perpetrated, particularly against the most vulnerable people, displaced children.

Mr President, Commissioner, exploiting electorally the overwhelmed sense of loneliness or lack of solidarity in the face of an emergency situation in the Mediterranean is within the reach of any populism, of any nationalism decorated to the extreme right. But it's a woefully wrong response and one that leads to frustration and failure. That's Meloni's decree. The problem is real, but the answer cannot be a national solution to a pan-European challenge. The answer is finally to build shared responsibility and effective, credible and binding solidarity in emergencies and crisis situations, as mandated by the pact that has just received its negotiating mandate approved by the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs. It is therefore astonishing and sad that this pact has been challenged in this Parliament by the ECR Group, of which Meloni is Vice-President. An absolutely untenable contradiction, because what this pact wants is precisely to create a regime in which solidarity is mandatory and translates into rehousing programs after rescue and rescue operations, which finally gives a European-wide response to a problem that is, by definition, European: shared responsibility and binding solidarity.

Madam President, Vice-President Schinas, Commissioner Breton, in the face of Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine, the European Union has responded unitedly on the humanitarian level, in defending international legality by avoiding impunity for war crimes, and also in defending cybersecurity, that is, in defending our security and our critical infrastructure. And that is why we welcome this Commission initiative, this so-called cyber package consisting of a Cyber Solidarity Act, an EU Cybersecurity Act and the establishment of the European Union Cyber Skills Academy, which is not, as the name might suggest, a purely school initiative, but is funded by the Digital Europe programme and is aimed exactly at ensuring the necessary training, certification and communication for workers specialised in the cyber defence sector. Okay, but I would also like to stress the importance of all this being done in accordance with respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, by European data protection legislation, which prides itself on being the strictest in the world. If we are concerned that this is the case in the Digital Agenda, let us also do so in the European Cybersecurity Agenda.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, third European Parliament resolution on the third rule of law report. I have the honour of being the author of this resolution as Chair of the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs, and the report contains some of the requests of this European Parliament, country-specific recommendations, information pluralism and compliance with judgments of supranational courts. But we asked for more. To extend the full scope to the values of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union: The rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy, and the policies of equality and non-discrimination, which are so important to the Venice Commission. And an interinstitutional agreement – between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – to monitor the rule of law framework. But, sadly, this general debate is lost once again as a result of the obsessive obstinateness of the Spanish People's Party against the reputation of its own country. Spain does not have a rule of law problem, Madam Vice-President. Spain has a problem with its opposition, of democratic conformity of the opposition of the Popular Party every time the left wins the elections, which has never known how to lose or recognize the electoral victories or the legitimacy of its government action. And he brings again, irresponsibly, his attacks against his own country, with the uncritical complicity of the European People's Party. On the General Council of the Judiciary, it is clear. Everybody knows. If it has not been renewed for five years, it is because the Popular Party has kidnapped it, which is the only one that refuses to provide the necessary votes for the formation of 3/5, in breach of the Constitution and the Spanish Organic Law. But, let everyone know too: Spain is a deeply pro-European country and committed to European values and law. The Spanish Presidency begins on 1 July. And many of us have lost all hope of expecting anything from the People's Party except disinformation, sticks in the wheels and obstacles. But we will work tirelessly, however hard they may be, to make the Spanish Presidency the success that Spain and the European Union deserve... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).