Speeches

Madam President, colleagues, again, it’ll be short. Just to explain the subject matter of the issue, you know that Russia has decided to illegally annex some territories in Ukraine and recognise independence for other territories in Georgia, started to issue travel documents, namely so—called Russian passports, to the residents of those illegally occupied territories. The Commission has decided to come up with a proposal to put an end to that illegal practice, with a common approach by all of the Member States. That is why the Commission is coming up with that decision – precisely to have a common approach not to accept those travel documents or passports illegally issued by Russia. And I simply suggest, in order to stand up to the kind of strong political signal that we have endorsed all the way against Russian aggression, that we also endorse the urgent procedure concerning the Commission’s decision.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, corruptio optimi lousy: This Latin adage tells us that the corruption of the best is the worst of all, just as the diversion of power of those entrusted with the task of ensuring compliance with the law is a damage to the whole system of which they are part. This is the case with Frontex, unfortunately. We are not surprised, because we have been on top for quite a few years in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. You know that very well. Frontex is, at the moment, the giant agency of the constellation of the European Union. It has 750, almost 800, million euros in its budget and a deployment that aspires to 10 000 uniformed and armed agents in the service, precisely, of compliance with European law, which includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. That is why, in addition to the diversions of power, which deal with harassment at work or abuses of power within the Agency, the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament is particularly concerned about those actions in which there have been violations of fundamental rights, hot returns and cooperation with illegal operations at the border and with illegal returns at the border, as have been reported, unfortunately, over and over again. That is why lessons must be drawn and, of course, we subscribe to the need for the Management Board and the Director to report to the Agency's Consultative Forum and Fundamental Rights Officer to ensure that fundamental rights are an essential part of the daily diet and agenda of the Agency and all its staff. But, on top of that, we have at the moment nothing less than a perspective of renewal of the Agency's leadership because - let us be clear - the political pressure from this European Parliament - and you know it well, Commissioner - has been decisive in the resignation of its former director. The message is therefore clear. The next direction has to be fundamentally committed to fundamental rights. It must have political experience of inter-institutional relations and transparent accountability to the European Parliament. But, above all, it must have a belligerent commitment, contrasted in its service sheet, with respect for fundamental rights, which have been binding since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Mr President, the press room at the seat of the European Parliament plenary in Strasbourg is named after Daphne Caruana Galizia, a heroic investigative journalist who was vilely murdered for conducting inquiries into a serious corruption issue. There has been a judicial investigation, there have been convictions in the Member State of the European Union, no less, in which this crime was perpetrated. But we cannot ignore the fact that, as has been recalled, six other investigative journalists - men and women - have been roguely murdered in Member States of the European Union, including Greece and the Netherlands. All of them deserve the same concern and all of them remind us of our duty to implement this strategy of protection of freedom of expression against all forms of intimidation or silence imposed through threat, whether directly criminal or through political pressure, which attempts to silence the investigations that feed the free formation of public opinion in a freely constituted society.

Madam President, it is a fact that the European Union has been built through its crises, uniting in its diversity, and nothing expresses it better than insularity, the island regions in which no less than 20 million Europeans live. These are 60 island regions, among which the outermost regions stand out, which are the only ones that are enshrined by name in the Treaty of Lisbon. In some of them, the main protagonist is tourism. This is the case of the Canary Islands, the region from which I come, where tourism accounts for 33% of its GDP and more than 36% of employment. The Canary Islands are reinventing themselves, after the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, to be relaunched with a European Convention of Tourist Islands that will take place in December, pointing to the Spanish Presidency of the second half of 2023, with the idea of incorporating blue economy, green economy, but, above all, innovation and digitalization to mark the message of overcoming and public-private cooperation. It deserves the full support of the European institutions and this Parliament.

Madam President, Commissioner Dalli, if there is one point of interest for the group I represent, the Socialist Group, in this debate on freedom of religion or belief worldwide and the action of the European Union, it is precisely the one that reminds us that freedom of religion, belief and thought is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union not only for European citizens but for all those to whom European law applies, and that there is no better corollary of freedom of religion than the freedom not to believe, not to profess any belief and, of course, not to be obliged to confess to it, as well as religious pluralism. In order to serve that objective, the European Parliament and the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs have supported an Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights which precisely promotes interreligious dialogue and cooperation with religious communities, with the ultimate aim, precisely, of ensuring the separation of public powers with respect for any interference in religious fact and freedom of religion. We therefore support a European fund, a European Instrument for Human Rights, to promote interreligious dialogue and cooperation with religious communities and freedom of religion, which is a corollary of religious pluralism in the European Union.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, I would like to welcome the step forward in the process always wanted by a majority of this European Parliament to democratise and parliamentarise European political life and the European process. How do you take that step? Adopting this crucial regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations. And I particularly highlight, first, the European dimension; secondly, attention to the values and principles that bind European political parties if they want to receive funding in accordance with Union law, so that European values cannot be undermined by receiving European funding, and this is a principle that learns from the lessons harshly taught by the history of Europe and in the Member States, and thirdly, that ensures gender equality, gender balance. Therefore, we only hope that this first reading will serve for the legislation to be in force in the next elections to this European Parliament in 2024: a step forward in the democratisation of the European process.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, this very morning, on the State of the Union debate, President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed and reaffirmed the Union's commitment to its values, to the rule of law and its demands, and to the fight against corruption, in which the launch of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to investigate corruption offences, misappropriation offences, fraud offences, especially in the handling of European money and against the financial interests of the Union, has been a major step forward. And all this is in line with the debate we have just had on the state of fundamental rights in the European Union, which reminds us that we must distinguish those States in which we have detected a clear risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 and those States in which, however, there may be indications that give rise to concern, but which do not manifest a general collapse of the credibility of the rule of law to account for matters that deserve judicial protection. And I think this is the case. The EPPO is investigating a corruption case in Bulgaria, which has also been discussed in this European Parliament. And I think that the European Public Prosecutor's Office deserves its trial time to be able to account for that subject of investigation that has affected nothing less than, yes, who has been Prime Minister of Bulgaria and we have heard in this same House for several years. But it should be noted that Bulgaria still shows signs of being able to account, in accordance with its own institutions, for its system of remedies, with presumption of innocence, judicial protection and, where appropriate, judicial correction, for any abuse of power or arbitrariness that may be perpetrated against any citizen, whether Prime Minister or not, so that we can be confident that the ongoing investigation, if it has committed any arbitrariness, any abuse, may be corrected in accordance with Bulgaria's judicial system.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, to conclude this debate I can only thank you for the intensity and, of course, the extent of this exchange of views that we have just attended. And all I can add is that there is, as I have heard, no contradiction between the universality of fundamental rights and the emphasis we have placed on the protection of equality and the prohibition of discrimination against certain categories of people. Because this is a very lively problem, unfortunately, in the European Union, and it is growing. Therefore, the European Union in its Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, protects, yes, Europeans, but not only Europeans: protects all persons in the application of EU law, which means that, in addition to protecting Europeans who may be discriminated against on the basis of their membership of an ethnic or cultural minority, or on the basis of their disability or sexual orientation, it also protects foreigners in the European Union. I say this very deliberately because we are witnessing a growth in that extreme right-wing populist or nationalist exclusionary option which is, by definition, anti-European in that it seeks to discriminate negatively against entire categories of people, including foreigners or immigrants, and, therefore, in the face of that emergence of extreme right-wing options, with a discourse which claims that immigrants are a threat to the security or identity of the European Union, a courageous Commission is needed, Commissioner Reynders. A Commission that, in the next pact on migration, asylum and refuge, will be able to affirm that balance that we have to strike, not only between solidarity and shared responsibility, but also with the respect that all people on the territory of the European Union deserve in the application of EU law, whether European or not; therefore also to foreigners and migrants.

Mr President, Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, the European Parliament has more reasons than ever to take seriously the state of fundamental rights in the European Union, not only because it is thirteen years since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrined as common values and expression of the common constitutional traditions of the Union those of Article 2, the violation of which leads to the activation of Article 7 that we have just discussed, but also because we have come from a series of critical episodes, including the overcoming of the pandemic, with an agglomeration of emergency measures imposed, by necessity, by the Member States, which has given rise to a period of reflection from which this report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union 2020-2021, which covers nothing less than the experience of the last two years, and which I have the honour to present to you as Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I would like to express my gratitude, my appreciation and my respect to all those who have been involved in the preparation, debate, amendment and adoption of this report, including those who, in their right, have put forward a minority position. But, in any case, this report clearly expresses the will and majority sentiment of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and deals with the whole spectrum of issues that it should. To begin with, highlighting the progress that has been made in a period of great difficulty with the entry into force of no less than the European Public Prosecutor's Office to combat corruption, which is a source of serious damage to the rule of law, as we have just seen in the debate on Hungary. It also addresses the state of equality and non-discrimination of groups discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic or cultural identity, sexual orientation or gender identity. We also call for an interinstitutional agreement to ensure that the values of Article 2 also highlighted in this report are binding. We pay particular attention, no doubt, to the increase in racism, discrimination, hate speech, and therefore welcome the legislative initiative taken by the Commission to include hate crimes, which lead to hate crimes, among the so-called Eurocrimes. And, of course, the report deals with the discrimination suffered by groups long identified as scapegoats: Romaphobia – which affects the Roma community – or anti-Semitism. And the concern of people who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, the LGTBIQ collectives, is permanent. Of course, gender-based violence has a place in this report and we also welcome the Commission's initiative to finally also incorporate gender-based violence and the fight against gender-based violence into European criminal law. We note that it is alarming that the European Union has not signed the Istanbul Convention. It has legal personality to do so and, if it is claiming it from those Member States that are still dragging their feet, of course, the European Union itself would do well to conclude the accession procedure, in which the last word, of course, would fall to this European Parliament. And I end up making a reference to press freedom and the protection of journalists. We know that freedom of expression is under threat. Information pluralism is also so, and that is why we have taken up the SLAPP initiative, to reinforce the emphasis on information pluralism and media freedom and, of course, on the protection of the right to the confidentiality of personal data, as highlighted in the debates on Pegasus or Predator. I conclude with three ideas that condensed very quickly. First, nowhere is freedom and fundamental rights forever secured. Neither in Europe. They are a fragile and perishable good, and we must watch over them. Secondly, however, the European Union remains an oasis of rights and freedoms and opportunities for prosperity and social cohesion. Thirdly, it is therefore a very difficult balance that we have to strike when pointing out serious violations – which we have pointed out – of fundamental rights and the rule of law in the European Union with regard to those specific situations that deserve attention and that indicate concern but not a systemic risk to the rule of law. We are obliged to preserve that balance, as well as to develop institutions and processes, and to finance public services that realise fundamental rights in the European Union.

I mean, you’re talking to President von der Leyen, not to me. But I'm only glad and I can only thank you for bringing up the migration issue because it’s also an issue. Or is it not that Hungary has proved to be the champion of unsolidarity when it comes to not abiding by the binding measures that have been taken according to EU law precisely to deal with migration issues at European level? Is it not true that Hungary even appealed to the European Court of Justice, seeking for relief for its non-solidarity claim against the mandates that had been taken by the Council in which Viktor Orbán was sitting? And finally, the European Court of Justice made it right and stated it clear that if Hungary is a full member of the European Union, it has to abide by European Union law even when it deals with migration issues and, of course, pay tribute to the solidarity principle, which is the mandate of the Treaty of the Union for good.

In accordance with the Spanish Constitution, emergency measures can be adopted in extraordinary situations, unprecedented both in Spanish democratic history and in the European Union as a whole, and those measures were adopted with the broad majority support of the two Chambers of the Cortes Generales in Spain. Of course, these measures have been examined throughout Europe because they were adopted as provisional, thus fulfilling the mandates of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and as necessary. The Constitutional Court in Spain issues a ruling and the Government abides by it, as it cannot be otherwise: that is a difference from those cases we have seen in Hungary and Poland of blatant and contemptuous non-compliance with the judgments of the Court of Justice regardless of what the courts say.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, this morning in the debate on the State of the Union I applauded the passage in the speech in which President von der Leyen has ratified her commitment to the rule of law, the values of the Union and the fight against corruption, but it was not the first time, that is why she has ratified it, as it is not the first time that we in this Parliament have discussed the situation in Hungary, just as we have also discussed it in relation to Poland. And yet, can we allow this to become routine? Under no circumstances. For more than ten years now, the European Parliament has been accumulating powerful reasons for dealing with Hungary and Poland, because they are a superlative example of the confusion of the European idea of democracy with winning elections and having an absolute majority in Parliament; We heard it today in this debate. Democracy in Europe is not only about having a majority in Parliament, but about respecting minorities and political pluralism, and in Hungary we have seen over the years a whole series of signs of that syndrome that we have called 'orbanization', which has then also manifested itself in Poland, which affects the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, academic freedom, respect for minorities, with that infamous law that prohibits the contents of sex education in schools on the pretext that they can divert the gender or sexual orientation of students. So, for all these powerful reasons, the European Parliament, at the time, approved by a two-thirds majority in 2018, four years ago, to launch Article 7 in relation to Poland, as, of course, it also launched and activated Article 7 in relation to Hungary, as it did subsequently in relation to Poland. Now, as we have said many times, it is up to the Council to decide: such a succession of specialised hearings on the situation of Hungary in the Council must finally have a tangible outcome, binding recommendations. And, of course, last point that I want to underline, when an assault is committed on the independence of the judiciary in a context in which there is corruption found in the management of European public funds, there is a common thread: The aim is to control the judiciary precisely in order to prevent accounts from being given of how European money is used. (The speaker agreed to respond to two interventions under the "blue card" procedure)

Madam President, Vice-President Borrell, this debate has shown that for decades Taiwan has been on the European Union's external agenda in a delicate and fragile balance with the doctrine we call 'One China policy'. That is the status quo that has so often been alluded to in so many interventions and that has been unilaterally broken by cyber-attacks and military maneuvers and occupation of the airspace of the China Sea, deployed by nothing less than a first-generation nuclear power such as China – and, indeed, so is Russia, the subject of the previous debate in the aggression against Ukraine. Therefore, everything you have heard, Vice-President Borrell, in this debate contributes to the European Union exercising its best diplomatic capacity to preserve international legality and contribute to military de-escalation, which is what it is all about. So, on the one hand, the European Union asserts itself in its autonomy without any follow-up replication of the policy of the United States, but, at the same time, it is able to contribute effectively to the affirmation of a scenario of peace threatened at the moment by the military movements of the People's Republic of China, which is looking for an object of friction with Taiwan, which maintains a diplomatic relationship with the European Union.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner for Justice Reynders, the European Union prides itself on having the highest standard of protection in the world for the privacy and confidentiality of personal communications. And we face, when necessary, even our differences with strategic partners like the United States, because we are proud of that standard of protection. Moreover, all Member States are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which clearly states that the fundamental rights of privacy and personal communications can only be interfered with for reasons of necessity, proportionality and in a manner regulated by law. And is it possible to believe that our colleague Androulakis or investigative journalist Kukakis in Greece represented any threat to state security that would justify spying on his personal communications? Impossible. Here is a committee of inquiry that has the obligation to draw the conclusions of our work with a legal regime that protects Europeans, that establishes judicial remedies against absolutely intolerable abuses and that, where appropriate, prohibits espionage as intolerable as the one we are revealing through the sequences of data, at this point irrefutable, that we have been discussing in this Parliament.

Madam President, the political point here is enlarging the scope of Article 83 as the legal basis for adopting legislation on criminal matters. The procedural point we had on Tuesday was the urgent procedure for the vote we’re having today, which is the consent for the Commission to take initiative.

Mr President, the European Parliament is distinguished by being the only directly elective institution in the European architecture, the only one legitimised by the vote. But it is the only parliament in the world that is supranational and legislator. Therefore, when we talk about 'better regulation', we have to know that there is no deficit of democratic legitimacy or legislative power in this European Parliament. What is lacking is communication, because of the abstruse and obscure language that European legislation often describes. Vice-President Šefčovič, better regulation is also about requiring Member States to comply with the current legislation in force, focusing more on regulations directly binding on Member States that generate rights to citizenship, so that the Commission fulfils its duty as guardian of the Treaties and European legislation – requiring that, in the case of non-compliant States, it initiate infringement procedures, impose financial penalties on them or, where appropriate, take them to the Court of Justice – and ensuring that judgments of the Court of Justice guarantee the primacy of European law. That, too, is better lawmaking.

Mr President, I would like to draw the Council's attention to the need to give political impetus to the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which does not appear in the conclusions, because there is no second to lose. There are five regulations from 2022 and four pending from the previous legislature. It is imperative that everyone moves forward in a balanced way, as the roadmap endorsed by this European Parliament points out, so that there is no border control without binding, credible and effective solidarity. In addition, I would like you to say clearly that the external borders of the European Union are of a united Europe, of a union. Therefore, there cannot be a perspective of the north that prevails over that of the south, or a perspective of the west that prevails over that of the east. A balance must therefore be struck which will finally give a European response to the demographic dimension of the migratory phenomenon, to the humanitarian dimension and, above all, to the normative dimension, so that there will finally be European legislation which is binding on the Member States and complied with by all the Member States.

Madam President, thank you, it won’t be 3 minutes. Just to explain what it’s about. The Council has addressed the President of the European Parliament in order to request from this European Parliament to vote on the urgent procedure of a consent procedure regarding criminal law to punish violations of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union. That is including the violation of restrictive measures in the list of EU crimes on the legal basis of Article 83 of the duty of functioning of the European Union. So that it will be possible to set common criminal rules and minimum sanctions and penalties in order to investigate, prosecute and punish those violations of the restrictive measures in all of the Member States alike. So, we are voting first and I kindly request that you vote positively, showing again commitment to the fight against impunity, against all atrocities committed, particularly in the context of the war against Ukraine. Vote favourably on this urgent procedure so that we can on Thursday vote on the consent procedure so that the directive will be brought by the Commission to the attention and deliberation of this Parliament.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, an event at the European Union's external border which has resulted in a death toll yet to be determined and which is overwhelming is regrettable and unacceptable. But it has not happened in Melilla, it has happened on the other side of the border between Spain and Morocco, that is, of the border between the entire European Union and the entire African continent. And this European Parliament, in its resolution, certainly has to demand an independent, thorough investigation, to clarify what has happened, to determine the responsibilities and to take the necessary measures so that this does not happen again. But just as it is not enough to express pain and dismay, it is also not enough to focus or stop your eyes on Morocco, which is under significant migratory pressure from people from sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the thousands who were involved in that event on the external border were Sudanese and Chadians, also victims of the illicit trafficking and mafias that exploit human beings in their desperation, and they too, therefore, subjected to that inhuman slavery that is the one that explains the situation in which we find ourselves. It is therefore imperative that this European Parliament demand shared responsibility, as well as solidarity, as mandated by European law for the whole of the European Union and not only for the states bordering the African continent or the Mediterranean. That it also demand that the business model of the mafias that traffic in human beings be deactivated and that it finally demand legal and safe routes from all those people who, in their desperation, will otherwise risk their lives in the attempt or lose them. As it has been, unfortunately, the case.

Madam President, Commissioner for Equality, today is 4 July. Today 246 years ago the Declaration of Independence of the United States and that is why it is your national holiday. It is the foundational mythical act of a democracy that today manifests itself wounded, fractured and exposed to serious setbacks. And yes, it is sad that these setbacks are imposed by a Supreme Court of archaic composition, decorated like never before to the ultraconservative right, as a result of the appointments imposed by President Bush. And there is nothing this European Parliament can do about the damage this causes to the United States. But this European Parliament can, and must, stress that free equality, the free development of personality, sexual and reproductive rights and, therefore, the right to the voluntary termination of pregnancy, are fundamental rights in the European Union, which must be observed by the European Union and all its Member States. And, in this field, we cannot take a single step back. Therefore, the European Parliament has to focus on demanding that those states that do not yet recognise the voluntary termination of pregnancy do so, because it is an outgrowth of a fundamental right protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Madam President, I thank you all, just a minute of your time to show appreciation for the work that has been carried out by the negotiating team in order not only to respond to the Commission’s initiative to extend the current instrument before it comes to its deadline – soon enough, 1 July – but also to improve it in at least two ways. First, by stating the principle that the Commission is to assess whether or not it’s needed before the end of the year, according to the latest scientific developments and knowledge. And second, to commit the Commission to overview the domestic uses so that we prevent that there are further restrictions for travelling and that all the measures which are adopted are according to the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Mr President, this debate on the veto imposed against an agreement on minimum corporate taxation in all the Member States, which has a very long mandate from this European Parliament, shows, first of all, that this is a directive and, therefore, the governments of the Member States have the opportunity to assert their tax specificities in the Council, where there are, for example, island territories. But imposing the veto on the basis of retaliation against the measures adopted and voted on by this European Parliament in relation to the rule of law is simply unacceptable. It thus becomes clear that the reform of the Treaties, as a result of the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe, is inevitable in order to put an end to unanimity and thus establish a decision-making process that also allows for enlargement. We are talking about incorporating new Member States. Can an enlargement be sustained on the basis of unanimity that makes a principle of tax justice as elementary as that of large multinationals paying where they make the profits impossible? The answer is simply no.

Madam President, let no one be deceived: this is not a debate on a US Supreme Court ruling that has not yet occurred, no; this item has been brought to the agenda of the European Parliament by parliamentary groups, and men and women, members of this European Parliament, firmly committed to the sexual and reproductive rights of women and to the idea that they are an expression of fundamental rights protected by the Charter – which links with the same legal value as the Treaties to their Member States – rights such as personal freedom and the equal dignity of all persons, such as privacy and as the free development of personality. Therefore, if there is such a judgment that would overturn the historic 1973 Roe v Wade judgment, we will regret it, but we have no jurisdiction over it; Now, against any step backwards, against any regression or regression that occurs as a result of the push of reactionary movements that try to shake the foundations of the equal dignity of all people and the sexual and reproductive freedom and rights of women in Europe, you have to know that this European Parliament will do everything in its power to denounce it, to combat it and, where appropriate, to correct it with European legislation.

Mr President, the European Parliament is the only institution directly elected and legitimised by the vote of the European architecture. It is a true Parliament, but it is more: It is the only multinational parliament with legislative powers around the world. It is a legislative Parliament, and it is a true Parliament because it invests the Commission in the person of its President with its vote, controls that institution and can also overthrow it with its vote. That is why it is inexorable that the European Parliament – the institution that has grown the most in the course of the history of the European Union – should complete its process of maturation and growth with this direct legislative initiative. It is not true that he does not have it at all; it has it indirectly. It can order, mandate the Commission to take legislative initiatives. But there are three ways to improve the current situation. The first: every time the European Parliament adopts an own-initiative report, the Commission must respond and take the initiative ordered by the European Parliament. The second: an institutional arrangement – “interinstitutional”, we call it – that strengthens Parliament’s position and opinion in special legislative procedures. But the third is the inevitable: is the reform – under Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union – that completes this final maturation process of the European Parliament with direct legislative initiative.

Both of them – Hungary and Poland – are Member States of the European Union. They are bound exactly by the same rules and by the same law as the rest of us and the rest of the Member States of the European Union. This European Parliament represents 10 million Hungarian citizens in their European citizenship. This European Parliament represents 40 million Polish citizens in their Polish citizenship. So it is our wish that the Polish Government not only says that it is willing to comply, that it has the intention to comply, that maybe it would consider to comply. We want both Hungary and Poland to comply. And as long as they don’t comply, we have a case here. That is why we put in place Article 2. That is why we put in place the procedure of Article 7. That is why we are expecting finally Poland to abide by the rulings of European Court of Justice and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Insofar as it is not the case, and particularly it does not comply with this very Chamber being dismantled, we have a case. That is the principle. So we only hope that Poland and Hungary will finally make it and understand that they are bound by the same rules and by the same law as the rest of the Member States and by the rest of us.