Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 December 2023
Date: 2023-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202500471EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














23.1.2025







            14 December 2023
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 DECEMBER 2023
            
         
(C/2025/471)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
4










2.

Composition of Parliament
4










3.

Outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference 2023 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (COP28) (debate)
4










4.

Ensuring proper functioning of EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes (debate)
18










5.

Non-objection mechanisms in international conventions to which the European Union is a party (debate)
25










6.

Resumption of the sitting
30










7.

Voting time
31










7.1.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for fipronil (B9-0488/2023) (vote)
31










7.2.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for tricyclazole (B9-0494/2023) (vote)
31










7.3.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and thirty sub-combinations (B9-0492/2023) (vote)
31










7.4.

Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 (B9-0490/2023) (vote)
31










7.5.

The unknown status of Mikalai Statkevich and the recent attacks on Belarusian politicians' and activists' family members (RC-B9-0509/2023, B9-0507/2023, B9-0509/2023, B9-0514/2023, B9-0515/2023, B9-0516/2023, B9-0520/2023) (vote)
31










7.6.

The Maasai Communities in Tanzania (RC-B9-0511/2023, B9-0511/2023, B9-0513/2023, B9-0517/2023, B9-0523/2023, B9-0524/2023, B9-0525/2023) (vote)
31










7.7.

The abduction of Tibetan children and forced assimilation practices through Chinese boarding schools in Tibet (RC-B9-0510/2023, B9-0508/2023, B9-0510/2023, B9-0512/2023, B9-0518/2023, B9-0521/2023, B9-0522/2023) (vote)
31










7.8.

Increasing innovation, industrial and technological competitiveness (A9-0383/2023 - Tsvetelina Penkova) (vote)
31










7.9.

Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (A9-0368/2023 - Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques) (vote)
32










7.10.

Young researchers (B9-0491/2023) (vote)
32










7.11.

Frontex, building on the fact-finding investigation of the LIBE Working Group for Frontex Scrutiny (B9-0499/2023) (vote)
32










7.12.

European Hydrogen Bank (A9-0379/2023 - Robert Hajšel) (vote)
32










7.13.

Attempt of coup d'Etat in Guatemala (RC-B9-0526/2023, B9-0526/2023, B9-0527/2023, B9-0528/2023, B9-0529/2023, B9-0530/2023, B9-0531/2023) (vote)
33










8.

Resumption of the sitting
33










9.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
33










10.

Improving the strategic approach to the enforcement of EU Law (debate)
33










11.

Explanations of vote
40










11.1.

Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (A9-0368/2023 - Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques)
40










11.2.

Young researchers (B9-0491/2023)
41










11.3.

Frontex, building on the fact-finding investigation of the LIBE Working Group for Frontex Scrutiny (B9-0499/2023)
41










11.4.

Attempt of coup d'Etat in Guatemala (RC-B9-0526/2023, B9-0526/2023, B9-0527/2023, B9-0528/2023, B9-0529/2023, B9-0530/2023, B9-0531/2023)
42










12.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
43










13.

Dates of forthcoming sittings
43










14.

Closure of the sitting
43










15.

Adjournment of the session
43




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 December 2023
                  


PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK


podpredseda

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Rokovanie sa začalo o 9.01 h.)

2.   Composition of Parliament

President. – Following the resignation of Helmut Geuking, and on the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Parliament takes note of the vacancy of his seat from 5 February 2024, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, and will inform the national authority concerned thereof.
3.   Outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference 2023 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (COP28) (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Prvým bodom rokovania a dnešného programu sú vyhlásenia Rady a Komisie, Výsledky konferencie OSN o zmene klímy v roku 2023 v Dubaji, Spojené arabské emiráty (COP28) (2023/3022(RSP)).
               

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señor presidente, señorías, señora comisaria, en esta COP hemos dado un paso histórico al afrontar juntos la triple crisis planetaria: el cambio climático, la contaminación y la pérdida de biodiversidad. Hemos visto que si actuamos conjuntamente podemos impulsar la mitigación, la financiación y la adaptación para mantener el objetivo de 1,5 oC a nuestro alcance. La finalización del primer inventario mundial de emisiones ha puesto de relieve las acciones necesarias que debemos emprender para alcanzar este objetivo.
               

                  En esta COP28, por primera vez se ha hecho un claro llamamiento para abandonar los combustibles fósiles en los sistemas energéticos con el fin de alcanzar el objetivo de cero emisiones netas en 2050. Se trata de un paso significativo para el multilateralismo. La decisión reconoce con firmeza la necesidad de alcanzar urgentemente el punto máximo de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y lograr una reducción mínima de emisiones del 43 % para 2030, seguida del 60 % para 2035. Esto refleja directamente nuestra ambición de limitar el calentamiento global, como he señalado, a 1,5 oC. Además, nos hemos comprometido a triplicar las energías renovables y duplicar la eficiencia energética de aquí a 2030. El texto final también hace un llamamiento para acelerar los esfuerzos hacia la eliminación progresiva de la energía del carbón.
               

                  Por lo que respecta a la financiación, en los primeros días de la COP se alcanzó un logro decisivo: la puesta en marcha del fondo de pérdidas y daños con promesas de contribuciones por valor de más de 700 millones de dólares. Además, se han asumido otros muchos nuevos compromisos financieros. La COP ha demostrado que debemos transformar el sistema financiero internacional si nos tomamos en serio la consecución de nuestros objetivos. La consecución del primer inventario mundial de emisiones pone de manifiesto la necesidad de seguir impulsando las inversiones privadas hacia la acción por el clima y de alejar la financiación de aquello que pone en riesgo nuestra prosperidad compartida.
               

                  En cuanto a la adaptación, se ha logrado un marco para el objetivo mundial de adaptación, que proporciona un impulso fundamental para acelerar la acción y aumentar la resiliencia. Otros compromisos notables que contaron con un importante apoyo fueron la interrupción y reversión de la deforestación para 2030 y el profundo reconocimiento de la necesidad de duplicar la financiación necesaria para la adaptación.
               

                  Europa ha demostrado su unidad y su capacidad para crear alianzas, lo que ha sido clave en los momentos más difíciles de la COP y en todo el proceso. La COP28 representa un importante paso adelante en la acción climática mundial, contribuyendo a mantener a nuestro alcance los objetivos de París.
               

                  Sin embargo, aún queda mucho trabajo por delante para garantizar un futuro seguro para la humanidad en este planeta. Y estamos profundamente convencidos de que, actuando con el Equipo Europa, trabajando con otros miembros afines de la comunidad internacional, podemos alcanzar objetivos aún más ambiciosos.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to debrief you on the outcomes of the COP28 that ended yesterday, as you all know, in Dubai.
This COP was fundamental for our climate ambition as it marked the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. And it was one of the last opportunities to keep the 1.5oC objective within reach. This is a historic agreement that keeps us on track with the goals of the Paris Agreement and a climate-neutral future in 2050.
Turning to the main outcomes, all parties agreed to first accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels this decade. Second, to take action to reduce global emissions by 43 % by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. And third, set the world on a pathway to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, in line with the best available science.
Moreover, other important agreements championed by the EU were translated into the global stocktake decision. All parties have committed to tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, as was proposed by the EU. This gives powerful momentum to the transition away from fossil fuels.
There is also an agreement to tackle methane and other non-CO2 emissions in this decade and to phase out, as soon as possible, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or the just transition.
Under the global stocktake, parties agreed on a pathway to get back on track, including through a process to align national targets and measures with the Paris Agreement. Parties should submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for 2035 by COP30, in 2 years' time, and these should be aligned with the best available science and the outcomes of the global stocktake. As you know, the Commission will present early next year an impact assessment and the communication on our 2040 target, which will be the basis for our new NDC.
But the global stocktake is also about creating the right conditions for the transition. We have agreed on the final steps towards setting the new collective quantified goal on climate finance at next year's COP. The agreement on the framework of the global goal on adaptation is also an important first step, and it is accompanied by decisions on adaptation finance, with recognition that adaptation finance will have to be significantly scaled up.
COP28 pushed forward the reform of the international financial architecture to make it fit for purpose for addressing the climate emergency. Specifically, the EU led the way in establishing a new fund responding to loss and damage, and the EU and its Member States have contributed more than EUR 400 million – over two thirds of the initial funding pledges.
The final COP28 negotiated outcomes yesterday come on top of multiple agreements secured in the past two weeks, including the World Climate Action Summit, attended by President von der Leyen. Whilst this outcome represents good news for the whole world, it is certainly not the end of the story. The work to implement what was agreed starts today. We, of course, stand ready in future negotiations to promote further ambition and to make sure we limit the worst impacts of climate change.

Maria Spyraki,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner Dalli, dear Minister, dear colleagues, the agreement in COP28 is a perfect example of European cooperation, coordination and leadership and it is also a powerful demonstration of the value of multilateralism in tackling our planet's biggest challenges. It is now time to communicate that the crucial part of this historic deal is truly made in Europe. The outcome of the global stocktake has the European footprint with regards to, first, tripling the renewable energy capacity, second, doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, and close monitoring to tackle methane emissions by the end of this decade. The European Parliament is a key partner in European climate action, and so it is in implementing all the commitments made at COP. I would like to recall that in our resolution adopted just before COP, we supported not only a tripling of renewable energy by 2030 and a doubling of energy efficiency, but also a tangible phase-out of fossil fuels as soon as possible, including by halting all new investments in fossil fuel extraction. And above all, we asked for rapid, deep and sustained mitigation efforts to achieve the reduction of 43 % by 2030. Now we have an agreement to deliver. It is the first time fossil fuel production has been directly referenced in a UN climate accord, representing a victory for the High Ambition Coalition of nations. Given that an alliance of petro-states had previously opposed any reference to fossil fuels.
Last but not least, this deal represents a significant breakthrough, translated into a clear signal to investors that there is no room, no room for additional investments in fossil fuel. This deal is a catalyst to drive increased investments in the net zero transition as fast as possible. It is now time to increase adaptation on the level of Member States. Accelerate designation for go-to areas in order to increase fast the deployment of renewable energy. It is time to act now. Team Europe, Mr Minister, is in action now.

Mohammed Chahim,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, van de zestienjarige Benjamin uit Brussel tot Vanessa Nakate uit Uganda. Wereldwijd lopen jongeren voorop in de strijd tegen klimaatverandering. Sterker nog, zonder hen had het klimaat nooit zo hoog op de agenda gestaan.
               

                  Afgelopen week op de klimaattop in Dubai, sprak ik veel met jonge activisten, onder wie de ambitieuze leden van de Jonge Klimaatbeweging in Nederland. Hun boodschap aan alle afgevaardigde politici kwam neer op het volgende: voor onze generatie is klimaatactie van levensbelang. Hun strijdvaardigheid inspireert mij elke dag. Want wanneer de opwarming van meer dan 1,5 graden onafwendbaar lijkt, mag dat niet tot pessimisme leiden. Zonder hoop geen vooruitgang en uiteindelijk geen verandering.
               

                  Jongeren zijn samen met ons deel van de oplossing. Ze houden ons een spiegel voor, maar we moeten ze er wel bij betrekken. Want ook op de klimaattop is de kloof tussen jongeren en de besluitvormers groot. En dat terwijl hun toekomst op het spel staat. Gelukkig staat de afbouw van fossiele brandstoffen nu eindelijk op papier. En ik ben ook blij met het extra geld voor het schade- en herstelfonds. Maar die jongeren herinneren ons eraan dat wij, en vooral zij, ons niet nog meer vertraging kunnen veroorloven.
               

                  Wat mij betreft lopen er op de volgende klimaattop in plaats van de 2 400 fossiele lobbyisten 2 400 jongeren rond uit de gebieden die het meest kwetsbaar zijn voor klimaatverandering. Want dan weet ik zeker dat zij een betere afweging maken tussen bestaande en toekomstige belangen. Dan weet ik zeker dat de toekomst sneller fossielvrij zal zijn.
               

                  Let me finally thank the two main negotiators on behalf of the European Union that really made sure that the COP was a success – from the Council, the Spanish Presidency, of course, Teresa Ribera, and Wopke Hoekstra. It made sure that this COP did not fail and at the end was a success. I thank them wholeheartedly, and let's make next year a much bigger success.
               

Morten Petersen,
for Renew-Gruppen. – Hr. Formand! Vi havde fra Europa-Parlamentets side bl.a. mulighed for at mødes med repræsentanter fra små østater på topmødet i Dubai, og de kunne berette om, i al sin gru, hvordan deres samfund simpelthen er ved at forsvinde. Hvordan stigende vandstande gør, at der er utrolige skader på deres samfund, og de er inde i nogle virkelig voldsomt svære overvejelser, fordi klimaforandringerne er så voldsomme, som de er. Så det var en svær COP. Der er dog al mulig grund til at glæde sig over nogle af de positive ting, der skete. Eksempelvis at vi nu skal bevæge os væk fra fossile brændsler, at vi skal tredoble omfanget af vedvarende energi, at vi skal fordoble energieffektiviteten. Så det er på mange måder positive ting, der lykkedes i slutfasen, ikke mindst i kraft af en stærk indsats fra EU's side. Men det understreger også vigtigheden af, at vi leverer. Det skylder vi de små skrøbelige østater. Det skylder vi vores børn. Det haster med at bekæmpe klimaforandringerne. Lad os sørge for, at dette topmøde blev starten på begyndelsen af udfasningen af det fossile.
               

Jutta Paulus,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, meine Damen und Herren! Vor zwei Tagen ist der Klimagipfel zu Ende gegangen. Und es gibt gute Nachrichten: Zum ersten Mal wird das Offensichtliche im Schlussabkommen erwähnt, dass wir nämlich raus müssen aus den Fossilen. Es ist irre, dass das 30 Jahre gedauert hat, das anzuerkennen. Es gibt verbindliche Finanzierungen zum Fonds für Schäden und Verluste, was ja den Klimagipfel in Scharm El-Scheich mehr oder minder gecrasht hat.
               

                  Und die OPEC gerät in Panik und verfasst einen Brandbrief an ihre Mitgliedstaaten. Das ist gut, dass die kalte Füße kriegen, denn es geht genau um deren Geschäftsmodell, das das globale Klima in Gefahr bringt. Und Team Europe hat zusammengehalten bis zum Schluss. Das war superwichtig, damit es hier zu einem guten Abschluss kommt.
               

                  Aber es gilt jetzt auch zu liefern: Wir müssen den Green Deal komplett umsetzen. Der Emissionshandel, die Effizienzrichtlinie, die Erneuerbare-Energien-Richtlinie – das alles muss implementiert werden. Und wir als Parlament sind auch gehalten, unsere Mitgliedstaaten daran zu erinnern und auch die Kommission daran zu erinnern, das einzufordern.
               

                  Und wir brauchen ein Zwischenziel für 2040, das sich an der Wissenschaft orientiert. Die Europäische Union darf nicht nur auf Klimagipfeln schöne Worte finden, sie muss auch zu Hause das umsetzen, was die Wissenschaft fordert. Und auch dafür werden wir als Parlament der Kommission auf die Finger schauen.
               

Teuvo Hakkarainen,
ECR-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Dubaissa saavutettu sopu vaikuttaa kiireessä tehdyltä pakkosovulta, johon tuskin öljyntuottajamaat oikeasti sitoutuvat. Miksi ne sahaisivat omaa oksaansa ja erityisesti ne maat, joiden elämä riippuu kokonaan öljystä? Fossiilisesta luopumisen aikataulukin näyttää olevan veteen piirretty viiva. Öljyä ja kaasua tullaan tarvitsemaan vielä kauan, koska tekninen kehitys ei yksinkertaisesti mahdollista muuta.
               

                  80 000 ihmistä tuppautui Dubaihin – siinä vasta ilmastoteko! Oikeasti täysin turha kokous, koska mitään ilmastohätätilaa ei ole olemassakaan. On vain luonnon loputon kiertokulku kylmine ja kuumine kausineen.
               

Gianna Gancia,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, oggi ci troviamo di fronte a un momento cruciale per il nostro pianeta e per il futuro delle nuove generazioni.
               

                  La COP28 ha segnato un traguardo fondamentale perché abbiamo trovato un accordo importante, in cui è stato definito un percorso serio e realistico: pragmatismo, gradualità, neutralità e accompagnamento sono le stelle polari di questo accordo.
               

                  Sono stati assunti anche impegni finanziari per raggiungere l'obiettivo e, in un percorso così ambizioso, anche le fonti fossili hanno un ruolo per evitare gravi contraccolpi sociali.
               

                  La grande novità è che è stato introdotto il tema del nucleare di quarta generazione; a oggi, secondo le ricerche che continueranno, è la fonte più pulita e pone il mondo intero di fronte a una grande possibilità per raggiungere i nostri obiettivi ambiziosi.
               

                  Con la COP28 di Dubai anche la Cina e gli Stati Uniti sono tornati a parlarsi. Ora lavoriamo tutti insieme con grande determinazione e uniamo le forze: il nostro impegno e la nostra azione di oggi sono la chiave per il futuro nostro e delle nuove generazioni.
               

Silvia Modig,
The Left-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, Dubain kokous oli samaan aikaan onnistuminen ja pettymys. Vihdoin saimme kirjauksen siitä, että fossiilisista on päästävä kokonaan eroon. Kirjaus on samaan aikaan historiallinen ja samaan aikaan täysin riittämätön. Tämä kuvaa ilmastotyön todellisuutta yleisemminkin. Koko ajan otamme merkittäviä askeleita kohti hiilineutraalia maailmaa, mutta ymmärrys siitä, kuinka kiire meillä on, ei ole vieläkään saavuttanut kaikkia päättäjiä. Kulunut vuosi on mittaushistorian lämpimin, ja silti tämänhetkisen päätösten valossa olemme edelleen menossa reilusti yli turvallisen lämpenemisen rajan.
               

                  Erityisen ilahduttavaa Dubain lopputulemassa on se, että loss and damage -rahastosta saatiin päätös. Rahasto on tarkoitettu auttamaan pahimmin ilmastotuhoista kärsiviä kehittyviä maita. Luvattu rahoitus on vielä kaukana tarvittavasta, mutta rahaston perustaminen on osa sitä, että historiallisesti päästöistä suurimmassa vastuussa olevat teollisuusmaat kantavat historiallisen vastuunsa. Ilahduttavaa on myös uusiutuvien energiamuotojen kapasiteetin kolminkertaistaminen ja energiatehokkuuden tuplaaminen vuoteen 2030 mennessä.
               

                  On kuitenkin niin, että jokainen sopimus on ainoastaan niin hyvä kuin sen toimeenpano. Meillä on edelleen kaksi kuilua: kuilu Pariisin sopimuksen tavoitteiden ja maiden tekemien ilmastositoumusten välillä ja kuilu maiden sitoumusten ja niiden tekemien todellisten toimien välillä. Nyt on ymmärrettävä, että juhlapuheiden aika on ohi. Nyt on tekojen aika.
               

Maxette Pirbakas (NI). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la COP 28 qui s'achève ressemble aux précédentes: un entre-soi d'ONG, de lobbyistes et d'acteurs étatiques qui se dépêcheront d'oublier leurs engagements non contraignants. L'objectif de maintenir le réchauffement climatique à 1,5 degré semble hors d'atteinte: c'est impossible dans la mesure où le monde consomme chaque année davantage d'énergies fossiles.
               

                  Cette course semble folle, elle ne sera freinée ni par les pays émergents, qui veulent leur société de consommation, ni par les pays industrialisés, dont la fameuse transition nécessitera encore plus de métaux et d'énergie. Tout aussi consternant, elle est désormais la porte ouverte aux pseudo-solutions technologiques; les docteurs Folamour du capitalisme mondialisé vont pouvoir faire leurs expériences grandeur nature et se goinfrer au passage. Leur philosophie ne change pas, elle reste celle du toujours plus.
               

                  Chers collègues, face à ce constat désespérant, nous avons une grande chance, c'est d'avoir un cap. L'écueil pour nous serait double: d'un côté, dire que tout est foutu et que nous allons en profiter jusqu'au bout; de l'autre, paniquer, nous fixer des objectifs irréalistes, incompatibles avec nos intérêts économiques. La réalité est que nos concitoyens veulent faire des efforts pour l'environnement, mais sans que leur niveau de vie soit trop affecté. Il nous revient de tenir ensemble ce point d'équilibre.
               

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident


Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, μια ακόμα διάσκεψη για την κλιματική αλλαγή έφτασε στο τέλος της. Αυτή τη φορά, 200 χώρες, αναπτυγμένες και αναπτυσσόμενες, ενεργειακά ανεξάρτητες και μη, μικρές και μεγάλες, συμφώνησαν πως μέχρι το 2050 πρέπει να σταματήσει η χρήση των ορυκτών καυσίμων ως μέσο ενέργειας, αλλά και ότι θα πρέπει να τρέξουμε ακόμη πιο γρήγορα και οι εκπομπές πέραν του διοξειδίου του άνθρακα και ειδικά του μεθανίου να μειωθούν σημαντικά έως το 2030.
                  

                     Σε αυτή τη συμφωνία συμμετείχαν και εκπρόσωποι παιδιών, ηλικιωμένων, αναπήρων, ιθαγενών, ομάδων που πλήττονται άμεσα από την κλιματική κρίση που είναι παρούσα. Σε αυτόν τον διάλογο είχα την τιμή να εκπροσωπήσω το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο εκ μέρους του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος και να ακούσω από παντού την ίδια αγωνία. Η μετάβαση πρέπει να είναι δίκαιη και λειτουργική για όλους.
                  

                     Έχουμε λοιπόν μια συμφωνία που θέτει τον πλανήτη σε πορεία για την επίτευξη καθαρών μηδενικών εκπομπών ρύπων έως το 2050. Από δω και πέρα, θα πρέπει να φροντίσουμε για την εφαρμογή της, με εφαρμοστικά μέσα όπως το φιλόδοξο εθνικό σχέδιο δράσης της Ελλάδας για την ενέργεια και το κλίμα. Κυρίως, όμως, θα πρέπει να συνεχίσουμε να παλεύουμε ώστε η Ευρωπαϊκή Πράσινη Συμφωνία να γίνει παγκόσμια, με γνώμονα, παράλληλα, να αποτρέψουμε τον αθέμιτο ανταγωνισμό έναντι των ευρωπαϊκών εταιρειών από τρίτες χώρες, οι οποίες δεν δεσμεύονται από αυτές τις υποχρεώσεις.
                  

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Herr talman! Årets COP28 tar det första viktiga steget för att fasa ut fossila bränslen, och det är en stor seger. Det är tack vare EU och en allians med likasinnade. Budskapet var tydligt – vi måste ta itu med elefanten i rummet. Ska vi stoppa klimatförändringarna måste vi stoppa de fossila bränslena.
                  

                     Återigen är det EU som bär ledartröjan i det globala klimatarbetet, och det understryker vikten av samling kring klimatpolitiken. Särskilt sedan Rysslands anfallskrig mot Ukraina är fossilberoendet också en säkerhetspolitisk fråga. Vi såg på COP hur vi utmanas av starka krafter. Det var i sig en utmaning att vara på plats i Dubai, en av världens största oljeproducenter, och jag är så stolt över hela EU-delegationens arbete i förhandlingarna och vill tacka kommissionen och våra kollegor för ett gott samarbete.
                  

                     Nu ska vi öka takten i omställningen och vi ska bort från fossila bränslen till 2030. De fattiga länderna, som är mest drabbade, kan inte vänta. Budskapet är tydligt – utsläppen måste ned nu, inte sedan. Och det gäller alla länder – inte minst min svenska högerkonservativa regering, som i strid med vetenskap, EU och avtalet från COP28 just nu ökar utsläppen till 2030, samtidigt som hushållen blir fattigare. Alla länder måste göra sitt. Nu är det upp till bevis.
                  

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, signály z klimatickej konferencie hovoria úplne jasnou rečou. Trikrát viac zelených obnoviteľných zdrojov energie, dvakrát viac energetickej efektívnosti do roku 2030. Štáty naprieč celým svetom sa na tom jednoznačne zhodli. Konečne počujeme aj o tom, ako sa potrebujeme zbaviť fosílnych palív. A to napriek naozaj veľkému odporu krajín OPEC-u, krajín, ktoré vyvážajú ropu a zemný plyn, ktoré zarábajú na ničení klímy. Trvalo to veľmi dlho, ale je to tam. Teraz nastal čas konať. Nastal čas využiť túto príležitosť pre Európu aj pre rozvojové krajiny dokázať rozvinúť zelené energie, priniesť nové pracovné miesta, a to nielen preto, aby sme pomohli klíme, ale aj preto, aby sme pomohli našej vlastnej bezpečnosti, aby sme sa zbavili závislosti od dovozu fosílnych palív, aby sme sa zbavili vysokých cien energií, ktoré spôsobila táto závislosť, aby sme dali príležitosť rozvoju malých a stredných podnikov inovatívnych firiem, aby sme vrátili energiu naspäť ľuďom. Tento COP bol výnimočný aj tým, že Európska únia dokázala veľmi silne držať spolu a že Európska únia bola vo väčšine, že sme stáli spolu s väčšinou ostatných krajín na strane budúcnosti života, na strane budúcnosti našej planéty. Väčšina krajín chce klímu chrániť. Teraz už len treba konať.
                  

Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Arvoisa puhemies, jos odotti, että Dubain ilmastokokous ratkaisee ilmastokriisin, pettyi syvästi. Jos odotti edes pieniä valopilkkuja siinä, että pystymme riittäviin ilmastotoimiin, niitäkin voi nähdä. Valopilkku on tietenkin se, että fossiililobbarien dominoimassa ja jopa isännöimässä kokouksessa saatiin ensi kertaa kirjaus siitä, että ihmiskunta siirtyy pois fossiilisista polttoaineista.
                  

                     Jos katsoo päätöslauselmaa, siellä on vahvoja tavoitteita siitä, mitä pitäisi tehdä, ja taudinkuva ilmastokriisin tilasta on todellinen. Tiedettäkin halutaan kuunnella. Mutta se mikä puuttuu, on sitoutuminen toimiin. Varsinaisia uusia sitoumuksia ei Dubaista tullut, ja tässä on Euroopan unionilla tärkeä tehtävä. Meidän on varmistettava, että kirjaus ‘eroon fossiilisista’ toteutuu. Meidän on itse osoitettava se. Meidän on varmistettava, että uusiutuvan energian kolminkertaistaminen toteutuu ja että energiatehokkuus tuplaantuu. Osoittamalla esimerkkiä voimme sitouttaa muita ja muuttaa myös markkinoita, jolloin kaikille tulee selväksi se viesti, että fossiilisiin ei enää investoida ja ne ajetaan alas kaikkialla maailmassa.
                  

Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Chociaż słyszymy tutaj głosy samozadowolenia z osiągnięć COP28, dla wszystkich jest już jasne, że świat poza Stanami Zjednoczonymi i Unią Europejską ma zupełnie inny pomysł na utrzymanie wzrostu gospodarczego.
                  

                     Drastyczne środki klimatyczne nie tylko utrzymają Unię w izolacji, ale także nałożą na jej obywateli trudne do zaakceptowania obciążenia i spowodują utratę miejsc pracy. I pytanie: czy nasi obywatele są gotowi kupować drogie samochody elektryczne, płacić kilkakrotnie wyższe rachunki za ogrzewanie i żywność? Nie sądzę.
                  

                     Nasza planeta wcale nie umiera. To umierają ludzie z ubóstwa. Również większość obywateli Unii nie chce umierać za planetę. Wnioski z COP 28 pokazują, że dyplomacja klimatyczna w istocie jest mirażem zachodnich liberalnych elit. Im szybciej to zrozumiemy, tym lepiej dla Europy. Ale żeby było jasne, energia odnawialna – tak, ale realistycznie i pragmatycznie. Dla ludzi, dla ich dobra i spokojnego, lepszego życia.
                  

Aurélia Beigneux (ID). – Monsieur le Président, nos concitoyens respectifs voient la COP 28 à Dubaï comme une gigantesque farce et je les comprends. Passons sur le fait qu'ils sont organisés dans une pétromonarchies au bilan carbone ridiculement élevée, ces dîners mondains de l'environnement ne peuvent pas être une réponse crédible face aux enjeux climatiques. Cette conférence, prétendument sur le climat, a surtout servi de lieu de négociations internationales pour régler la crise militaire au Moyen-Orient.
                  

                     Alors que l'écologie est une affaire de mesure, de limites, de frontières, l'Union européenne et les mondialistes en font un moyen de centralisation en faveur du global, du sans-frontières et des monopoles. Alors que l'écologie est une affaire de bon sens et de coopération, les technocrates déconnectés en font une croisade contre les travailleurs du quotidien.
                  

                     Encore une fois, les citoyens européens seront seuls pour porter le fardeau du combat climatique, alors que le bilan carbone de notre continent est insignifiant. Et encore une fois, ce seront les plus faibles qui devront assumer les efforts pour lutter contre les effets néfastes de votre politique. Alors pour le bien de la planète, arrêtons ces COP grotesques et coûteuses et changeons enfin de paradigme.
                  

João Pimenta Lopes (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, estivemos perante mais uma COP em que a expetativa de elevadas ambições ficou muito aquém dos compromissos e metas alcançados. Esta foi mais uma COP de contrastes entre os países mais desenvolvidos e os países em desenvolvimento e de contradições entre os interesses de algumas poderosas transnacionais e os interesses dos povos e dos respetivos Estados, tendo em vista o seu desenvolvimento soberano.
                  

                     A constituição de um fundo de perdas e danos, à semelhança de outros instrumentos que exigem mobilização de substantivos apoios aos países em desenvolvimento, arrancou com reduzida angariação de meios. Importa que o que falta definir não se traduza num instrumento de empréstimos que adicione mais dívida aos países.
                  

                     A solução para os problemas ambientais não pode ser encontrada sem se considerar, simultaneamente, as dimensões económicas e sociais, sob pena de se poderem mitigar os impactos das alterações climáticas à custa de ainda maiores desigualdades entre os povos e Estados.
                  

                     Tal exige uma rutura com as políticas que nos trouxeram aqui: recuperar o controlo público de setores estratégicos, como a energia; promover a produção e consumo locais; reduzir circuitos de produção, o consumo; defender o direito à soberania alimentar; garantir o controlo público da água; rejeitar a mercantilização da natureza; adotar uma abordagem normativa à redução das emissões; promover o transporte público coletivo; defender a paz.
                  

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Die COP 28 ist zu Ende – Zeit, dass wir sie auswerten. Ich denke, das sollten wir mit allen Kollegen, die teilgenommen haben, in Ruhe im Ausschuss tun, und eben auch mit Kommissar Hoekstra. Als Diplomatin sage ich: Die COP 28 ist ein Wert an sich. Regelmäßig mit der ganzen Welt über das Ziel Klimaneutralität und immer mehr ja auch über Energie und Technologie zu sprechen, ist gut. Ob man in Zeiten, in denen der ökologische Fußabdruck eine Rolle spielen soll, hierfür 250 deutsche Regierungsbeamte nach Dubai fliegen muss, steht auf einem anderen Blatt.
                  

                     Ursula von der Leyen hat den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien und die Steigerung der Energieeffizienz als wichtige Erfolge hervorgehoben. Das ist natürlich absolut vernünftig, aber jetzt auch nicht rocket science. Aber natürlich besser als eine künstliche Verbotsdiskussion, die es jetzt auch auf die internationale Ebene geschafft hat. Warum gehen wir nicht schon längst raffinierter vor und packen alle Entscheidungsträger an dem, was ihnen offensichtlich am wichtigsten ist – am Geldbeutel?
                  

                     Lassen Sie uns daran arbeiten, den Emissionshandel global einzuführen, denn dieser wird sicher dazu führen, dass CO2-Emissionen reduziert werden, und zwar auf die kostengünstigste Art und Weise. Ja, das ist ein dickes Brett, das wir bohren müssen. Aber es ist nicht unmöglich, denn einige wichtige Akteure wie China experimentieren schon damit. Dafür brauchen wir einen europäischen John Kerry, einen internationalen Klimakommissar, der permanent verhandelt.
                  

Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, la CP 28 va a permitir al mundo dar un paso en la buena dirección en lo que es el mayor reto para la humanidad en este siglo: el calentamiento global. Ha sido muestra de que el multilateralismo climático funciona, con un espacio de diálogo y normas para hacer frente a los objetivos comunes y a los retos comunes, y quiero decir que, en un mundo como el actual, dislocado, con tanta competencia entre grandes poderes, es algo a destacar.
                  

                     Las conclusiones de la Conferencia son las siguientes: hemos puesto en marcha y operativizado un fondo de pérdidas y daños que reclamaba el Sur Global y, además, la mitad de los recursos comprometidos provienen de la Unión Europea o de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea; vamos a triplicar las energías renovables y duplicar la eficiencia energética para el año 2030, un objetivo que ha sido liderado por Europa, y, finalmente, hemos enviado el mensaje correcto: transicionamos hacia un mundo sin energías fósiles, sin combustibles fósiles. Es un cambio que va a hacer frente a enormes y gigantescos intereses económicos. Pero enviamos el mensaje claro: que se necesita el capital y los reguladores para invertir en tecnología e innovación y generar también normas que nos permitan hacer esta sustitución.
                  

                     Hay que destacar que, todo esto, este gran diálogo, quien lo ha liderado ha sido Europa y la Unión Europea. Así que toca también felicitar a la Comisión Europea, al comisario Hoekstra y a la Presidencia del Consejo de la Unión Europea, la Presidencia española, y especialmente a Teresa Ribera, que ha sido capaz de arrancar grandes compromisos liderados por Europa para el cambio que el mundo necesita.
                  

Catherine Chabaud (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, je crois que nous pouvons vraiment remercier ceux qui ont trouvé l'expression ‘transition hors des énergies fossiles’, qui sauve cette COP, et je tiens à saluer la fermeté avec laquelle l'équipe de négociation européenne a travaillé pour trouver cet accord.
                  

                     Le texte envoie ainsi l'information aux pays du Sud que nous leur reconnaissons le droit à l'accès à l'énergie pour répondre à leurs besoins de développement dans une voie de transition vers des énergies décarbonées. C'est ce que nous allons porter dans un rapport que nous voterons au mois de janvier, mais il va falloir faire vivre cette expression dans nos partenariats.
                  

                     L'autre victoire de cet accord, c'est la place que l'océan prend, de plus en plus, dans les COP. C'est une véritable progression des solutions basées sur l'océan et le texte invite les parties à le préserver, mais aussi à s'appuyer sur toutes les solutions. Il ne s'agit pas uniquement de la décarbonation du transport maritime ou des énergies marines, mais également de la restauration des écosystèmes marins et côtiers. Je le dis une nouvelle fois, il nous faut un véritable pacte bleu à l'échelle européenne.
                  

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, sehr verehrte Damen und Herren! 2023 war das heißeste Jahr in der Geschichte der Menschheit – mit Fluten, mit Stürmen, mit Feuern überall, mit hohen Kosten für die Menschheit und für die Wirtschaft. Wir sind immer noch auf einem 2,9-Grad-Erderhitzungspfad, und Professor Schellnhuber hat uns gesagt, bei 3 Grad bedeutet es das Ende der menschlichen Zivilisation. Daran hat sich bei dieser Klimakonferenz nichts geändert. Es ist gut, dass wir endlich nach 28 Jahren sagen, dass wir raus aus Kohle, Öl und Gas müssen. Aber jetzt müssen den Worten auch Taten folgen.
                  

                     Ich habe heute Morgen bis um 5 Uhr früh hier den Strommarkt verhandelt, und es wurden neue fossile Subventionen für die dreckigsten Kohlekraftwerke beschlossen. Das darf nicht die Botschaft sein. Was jetzt passieren muss, ist, dass wir endlich einen neuen national festgelegten Beitrag haben – minus 95 Prozent bis 2040 mindestens. Es dürfen keine fossilen Lobbyisten mehr in der Delegation der Europäischen Union sein, und wir brauchen endlich das Ende der fossilen Subventionen, so wie es uns Klimakommissar Hoekstra versprochen hat. Somit könnten wir auf den 2-Grad-Pfad einbiegen. Aber dafür ist noch viel zu tun, und der Kommissar steht bei uns im Wort.
                  

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, la verdad es que, cuando hablan de victoria, no sé a qué se refieren. Victoria ¿contra quién? Porque las guerras se ganan contra alguien. ¿Contra quién? ¿Contra las clases medias y contra las clases populares europeas? Porque ¿quién es el que ha perdido aquí?
                  

                     Aquí están hablando de salvar los océanos. Estoy de acuerdo. Pero ¿cómo quieren controlar las emisiones en los océanos cuando, por otra parte, están promoviendo la adquisición de productos agrarios y ganaderos procedentes de otros continentes que hay que traer en grandes mercantes, en lugar de apoyar la agricultura y la ganadería en Europa?
                  

                     Termina la COP y las élites, efectivamente, regresan en sus aviones privados anunciando nuevos sacrificios que ellos no van a cumplir. Anuncian alborozados desde Dubái —una teocracia islámica basada en las energías fósiles— un acuerdo para acabar con las energías fósiles. Esto es de broma. ¿Ustedes se creen que el jeque paga la fiesta y encima se va a quedar sin negocio? No.
                  

                     Como la vivienda no les parece suficientemente cara, elaboran una nueva Directiva para encarecer la obra nueva. Como les pareció poco prohibir el acceso al centro de las ciudades, ahora prohíben el motor de combustión.
                  

                     Ya todos los europeos saben que la Agenda 2030 es una estafa piramidal. Consiste en coger el dinero de las clases medias y populares europeas para dárselo a los billonarios de cualquier país. Esto no lo queremos y el 9 de junio se demostrará.
                  

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Wie wären eigentlich die 70 000 Teilnehmer der Klimakonferenz ohne fossile Energiequellen nach Dubai gekommen? Wohl kaum mit dem Lastenfahrrad. Es ist also auch für die Klima-Berufsheulsusen gut, dass kein verbindlicher Ausstieg aus fossilen Energieträgern beschlossen wurde und Kernenergie als Lösung gesehen wird. Beide sind sowohl Primärenergiequellen als auch jederzeit bedarfsgerecht verfügbar, ganz im Gegensatz zu elektrischer Energie oder den sogenannten volatilen Erneuerbaren.
                  

                     Übrigens wird – abhängig vom atmosphärischen CO2-Gehalt – über die Hälfte der anthropogenen CO2-Emissionen von Pflanzen oder Ozeanen resorbiert. Selbst wenn man also die absurde Idee hat, CO2 sei der alleinige Klimatreiber, bedeutet Netto-Null eben nicht null menschliche Emissionen. Zu dieser Erkenntnis bedürfte es aber zumindest einer basalen naturwissenschaftlichen Intelligenz. Die kann ich leider bei der Majorität nicht erkennen.
                  

Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, il aura fallu attendre 28 COP pour que les États daignent enfin aborder le tabou des énergies fossiles, mais sans en demander une sortie claire et nette, alors qu'elles sont le principal coupable du dérèglement climatique. Il faudra transitionner sans éloigner, sans trajectoire ni calendrier contraignant.
                  

                     En réalité, c'est notre futur sur une terre habitable qui s'éloigne. La seule victoire à saluer est donc cette grande créativité lexicale, je dois le reconnaître, pour inventer des termes qui n'engagent à rien. Parce qu'aujourd'hui, l'humanité transitionne en réalité surtout vers son extinction. Et ce n'est pas une surprise, tant cette conférence des parties était en réalité une conférence des lobbys. 2500 lobbyistes grouillant dans les couloirs, quatre fois plus que pour la COP 27. Le patron de Total, un grand écolo, on le sait bien, dans les valises d'Emmanuel Macron. Et, bien sûr, le président de la COP lui-même, Sultan Al-Jaber, qui se trouve être le PDG d'un géant du pétrole.
                  

                     Je résume: on sait que le dérèglement climatique est déjà irréversible. On est sur une trajectoire cataclysmique à plus trois ou quatre degrés. L'année 2023 est déjà l'année la plus chaude jamais enregistrée. Mais on laisse les lobbies faire leur loi. Combien de temps allons-nous accepter cela? Tant qu'on négociera avec ceux qui ont pillé la planète, rien ne bougera. Tant qu'on refusera une rupture radicale et totale avec ce système économique qui détruit tout, rien ne changera.
                  

                     L'écologie sans remise en cause du capitalisme, chers collègues, c'est du jardinage, et nous n'avons plus le temps de jardiner. Nous avons une planète à sauver.
                  

Maria Angela Danzì (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo andati a Dubai consapevoli di quali disastri portano i cambiamenti climatici: alluvioni, ondate di calore e desertificazione dei nostri territori.
                  

                     Durante la COP28 abbiamo ascoltato il grido di dolore dei rappresentanti delle piccole isole, che rischiano di sparire inghiottiti dall'aumento del livello del mare. La loro battaglia è la nostra battaglia!
                  

                     L'accordo raggiunto durante la COP28 è il migliore? No, potevamo ottenere di più. C'è stato un compromesso sulla definizione del phasing-out, ma adesso è chiaro: tutti i paesi del mondo devono intraprendere azioni concrete per la transizione verde, che metta fine all'era delle fonti fossili.
                  

                     È positiva la decisione di triplicare il ricorso alle energie rinnovabili e raddoppiare l'efficienza energetica.
                  

                     L'UE deve essere protagonista; ringrazio il Commissario Hoekstra e la presidenza spagnola per aver tenuto alta l'asticella delle nostre ambizioni. Adesso tocca a noi tradurre questi impegni in leggi e provvedimenti, ma dobbiamo fare in fretta.
                  

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señor presidente, la coincidencia de los ataques viscerales por parte de los Verdes y de la extrema derecha a los resultados de la COP me indica que ha salido bien. No es la solución a todos los males que nos aquejan, evidentemente.
                  

                     Me siento orgulloso del papel que ha desempeñado la Unión Europea, como siempre, en estas reuniones. Podemos aspirar a más, sin duda.
                  

                     Pero, en vez de esta crítica destructiva, celebremos que se han reunido expertos, Gobiernos, el sector privado y han alcanzado acuerdos, algunos de ellos históricos, mal les pese a los que están buscando el voto inmediato en las próximas elecciones europeas. Se equivocan. No es el futuro de su voto, es el futuro de los europeos. Y eso es lo que nos une a los políticos moderados, de derechas y de izquierdas: la salvación, ante el cambio climático, de los ciudadanos europeos; ayudarles a afrontar estos retos.
                  

                     En consecuencia, enhorabuena a la Presidencia por los resultados obtenidos.
                  

Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Conselho, Caros Colegas, quanto é que custa a emergência climática? Custa cinco milhões de vidas por ano, e são estes números assustadores que nos movem.
                  

                     Aqui, congratulo o foco desta COP por finalmente ter tido um dia dedicado à saúde e aos seus efeitos nas alterações climáticas. O acordo final da COP reforça isso mesmo, ao salientar a necessidade de melhorar a resiliência dos sistemas de saúde e a redução do impacto da emergência climática na saúde, particularmente nas comunidades mais vulneráveis.
                  

                     Mas, o compromisso com a transição global energética longe dos combustíveis fósseis é um primeiro passo na direção certa, mas não é suficiente. Nós temos de ser mais claros. É urgente eliminar progressivamente os combustíveis fósseis, porque só assim conseguiremos atingir a meta de 1,5 graus Celsius. E já estamos muito atrasados, digamos.
                  

                     Na União Europeia, precisamos de liderar pelo exemplo, com objetivos e metas ambiciosas em todos os setores, mas também garantindo que não deixamos ninguém para trás, porque só assim iremos garantir um futuro saudável e sustentável para todos.
                  

Karin Karlsbro (Renew). – Herr talman! Sedan 1970, det året jag föddes, har temperaturen ökat snabbare än någonsin under de senaste 2 000 åren. Det beror på oss människor. Det beror på vår användning av fossila bränslen – kol, gas och olja – och det har gjort oss rikare och givit oss den tillväxt vi har i dag. Men COP28 var en stor framgång där man äntligen nått en överenskommelse om att fossila bränslen ska bort. Den fossila eran måste vara över. Vi måste också se till detaljerna och att det finns små öppningar om att fossila bränslen – läs gas – skulle kunna vara en övergångslösning. Nej, fossila bränslen är aldrig varken en lösning eller en övergångslösning.
                  

                     I dag ska vi vara stolta över EU:s insatser för COP28. EU har än en gång visat att man är världens starkaste, mäktigaste, viktigaste och ambitiösaste miljöorganisation.
                  

Benoît Biteau (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, comme d'autres l'ont dit avant moi, on ne peut pas nier les avancées de cette COP. Après un départ difficile, et même si on peut regretter des formulations peu claires, un acte politique est posé: les énergies fossiles sont la source de la crise climatique et le monde doit en sortir.
                  

                     Je voudrais également attirer votre attention sur un autre point crucial: pour la première fois de l'histoire des COP, 158 pays se sont entendus sur une déclaration sur l'agriculture et sur les systèmes alimentaires durables. L'agriculture et l'alimentation sont des domaines éminemment stratégiques dans la lutte contre le changement climatique. Ce pas important doit maintenant être traduit en actes et la mise en œuvre sera cruciale. Attention donc à ne pas poursuivre des mirages techno-solutionnistes basés sur les OGM, les pesticides et les engrais de synthèse, dont nous devons, comme pour les fossiles, absolument sortir.
                  

                     Les solutions, nous les avons déjà. Elles sont pratiquées quotidiennement par des millions de paysans à travers le monde. Ces solutions ont un nom, l'agroécologie. Elles reposent sur la coopération avec la nature. Encore une fois, l'UE doit montrer la voie. Alors maintenant, retroussons-nous les manches.
                  

Denis Nesci (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, permettetemi di ribadire un concetto che resta la nostra stella polare e che ha espresso chiaramente il Presidente Meloni alla conferenza di Dubai: il pianeta e l'Europa hanno bisogno di una transizione ecologica, e non ideologica.
                  

                     La nostra idea è che, se vogliamo essere credibili nei confronti dello squilibrio ambientale che riguarda le generazioni future e se vogliamo una sostenibilità ambientale che non comprometta la sfera economica e sociale, non possiamo rinunciare a un approccio di neutralità tecnologica che sia libero dal radicalismo e che punti a rafforzare i mercati.
                  

                     La COP28 deve essere un punto di svolta; per questo condividiamo politiche e azioni ragionevoli e concrete, come quelle di implementare le capacità di generazione di energie rinnovabili e incrementare il tasso globale di miglioramento dell'efficienza energetica.
                  

                     La transizione dal fossile sancita dalla recente risoluzione deve essere accompagnata, a nostro avviso, da un piano per l'energia e per il clima incentrato sui biocarburanti, il nucleare e l'idrogeno.
                  

                     Il modello che suggeriamo di seguire è quello del ‘piano Mattei’ del governo italiano, nel quale l'energia rappresenta proprio uno dei pilastri per lo sviluppo del continente.
                  

Gianantonio Da Re (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la 28a conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sui cambiamenti climatici si propone di mettere in atto una serie di azioni per raggiungere la neutralità climatica entro il 2050.
                  

                     L'attenzione verso il cambiamento climatico è certo condivisibile ma non deve diventare una folle corsa ecologista, che porterebbe l'intera economia europea al collasso.
                  

                     Oggi, infatti, le nostre aziende sono chiamate a fronteggiare una sfida ben più grande, data dal caro energia e dalla concorrenza sleale di Cina, India e Stati Uniti, che sul fronte ambientalista si dimostrano meno sensibili e attenti rispetto all'Europa.
                  

                     L'Unione europea deve attivarsi in modo rapido ed efficace per aiutare le nostre famiglie e salvare dal fallimento milioni di posti di lavoro delle nostre imprese.
                  

                     La transizione energetica deve essere attuata in modo graduale e intelligente, con adeguati aiuti economici alle nostre aziende; questo non può e non deve avvenire a discapito delle imprese europee.
                  

Edina Tóth (NI). – Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Biztos Asszony! Egy olyan témáról szeretnék beszélni, amely még nem hangzott el a mai vitában, ez pedig a család. A családoknak kiemelkedő szerepük van a klímavédelemért vívott harcban, hiszen minden lépés, amit teszünk, befolyásolja gyermekeink jövőjét. A fenntartható jövőhöz fenntartható demográfiára van szükség, ezért a család nem oka, hanem megoldása az éghajlati válságnak. Kinek óvjuk meg a Földet, ha nem a következő generációnak?
                  

                     Míg Magyarország elvégezte a házi feladatát, addig Frans Timmermans, korábbi zöld átállásért felelős biztos politikája, teljes mértékben megbukott. Magyarországé a világ egyik legambiciózusabb klímaprogramja. Jelentősen csökkentettük a szén-dioxid-kibocsátásunkat, miközben növeltük a gazdasági termelékenységet. Ilyen jó példák legyenek a szemünk előtt. A legjobb gyakorlatokat követve, az egész világnak össze kell fognia, hiszen csak együtt tudunk változást elérni a klímavédelem érdekében.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, COP28 will be looked at from many different perspectives. While personally disappointed not to be there, it sets a clear direction for a sustainable future. It's the first time in the history of the 28COP summits that fossil-fuel reduction has been mentioned in the final agreement. Yet, unfortunately, it falls short of explicitly mentioning the phasing out of oil, gas and coal.
The whole agreement looked like it could collapse, but thankfully some improvements were made to the disappointing draft text that was initially circulated. The agreement signifies a substantial step forward for countries committed to addressing the climate crisis. In particular, it includes calls for the tripling of renewable energy capacity globally by 2030. There are many other positive aspects of the outcome. The conference reached landmark agreements and loss and damage, and saw an agreement to draft a post-2025 finance target ahead of COP29. The agreement will influence real world decisions made by investors, financial institutions, governments and private companies.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the leadership role played by the EU and particularly Irish minister Eamon Ryan, who was one of the key negotiators on.

Stéphane Bijoux (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, le sens des responsabilités, la solidarité: à Dubaï, nous avons eu beaucoup de mal à imposer ces deux éléments fondamentaux pour gagner notre bataille pour le climat.
                  

                     Pourtant, absolument partout, absolument tout le monde sait aujourd'hui que le rouleau compresseur du dérèglement climatique nous impose de changer immédiatement nos modes de vie. Catastrophe après catastrophe, le signal d'alarme dévastateur exige beaucoup plus que des mots, beaucoup plus qu'une déclaration d'intention.
                  

                     La COP 28 fixe un nouveau cap et c'est bien. Mais pour des millions d'Européens dans les territoires d'outre-mer, comme pour nos voisins des petits États insulaires, nous sommes en première ligne et notre urgence est de renforcer la coopération internationale pour sauver l'océan, pour préserver la biodiversité et pour gagner la bataille de l'eau. Pour nous, pour nos enfants, pour aujourd'hui et pour demain, nous avons impérativement besoin de nouveaux financements pour construire des solutions. Nous n'avons pas de deuxième planète, nous n'aurons pas de deuxième chance.
                  

Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, colleagues, global warming is accelerating at speed. The ocean heatwave in the Atlantic this summer saw seawater temperatures five degrees hotter than usual. When I sailed into Antarctica in the 1980s, the great glaciers were already receding. We knew climate change was coming, and the dinosaurs in the oil companies knew too.
Meanwhile, over in Dubai, those same dinosaurs are keen to squeeze every last drop of oil out of this planet while they still can. They took the biggest titles at COP 28 and they let their buddies – in Shell, BP, Exxon and more – in the back door. The petrol-pushers are trying to convince us that they are environmentalists. Well, colleagues, one thing is crystal clear: the end of fossil fuel age has come, and it'll take the dinosaurs with it.

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Spoštovani predsednik. Iz Dubaja prihajajo novice o uspehu podnebnega multilateralizma v luči resnosti podnebnih in okoljskih izzivov, s katerimi se soočamo. Svetovni voditelji so se navkljub raznolikosti med državami le uspeli zediniti v zavezi k odmiku od fosilnih goriv in s tem podprli odločitev, ki temelji na znanstvenih dognanjih.
                  

                     Kar nekaj razlogov za optimizem, vendar jutri je nov dan. Politični odločevalci morajo dosežke te konference čim prej prenesti v državno zakonodajo. Podnebne in energetske zaveze svetovnih voditeljev morajo postati pravno zavezujoče, saj bomo le tako lahko učvrstili svojo pot k uresničevanju ciljev Pariškega sporazuma.
                  

                     Na tej poti spopadanja z globalno podnebno krizo pa bi si želel, da razvite države uresničijo svojo moralno in zgodovinsko dolžnost ter dejansko zagotovijo ustrezni obseg finančnih sredstev za podporo državam in regijam v razvoju ter ranljivim skupinam pri njihovem pravičnem in poštenem prilagajanju podnebnim spremembam.
                  

Valter Flego (Renew). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, dragi kolegice i kolege, u zadnje vrijeme prečesto čujem pitanje: ‘Borite li se vi za zaštitu okoliša ili se pak borite u Europskom parlamentu za ljude?’
                  

                     Mislim da je to vrlo loše i vrlo opasno i odgovor ne smije biti ni jedan ni drugi. Dakle, nema tu ili, nego mora biti i za zaštitu okoliša i za gospodarstvo, poljoprivrednike, mala i srednja poduzeća, za ljude, za građane. A da bi to uspjeli, onda je jasno da potporu u tome mora dati država i Europska unija kroz fondove, jer samo tako spriječit ćemo rasipanje naše industrije, spriječit ćemo razdvajanja u društvu i spriječit ćemo da, ne daj Bože, ne uspije Zeleni plan.
                  

                     Iz tog razloga, ako želimo napustiti fosilna goriva, a želimo, mislim da jače treba javni sektor participirati jer cijene divljaju i naravno da će se inače takva pitanja sve češće postavljati.
                  

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Mr President, may I take the opportunity to congratulate you, Commissioner, dear Helena, for being awarded the highest of awards yesterday in our country for the resilience which you have shown during your career to achieve equality, even when most did not believe in it or wanted to keep the status quo, which is all too comfortable for many. And that is the same resilience, and it is the same ambition that is needed in the global fight against climate change. During COP28 till the last minute, many were still doubtful, many were not believing that what could be achieved was actually achieved, when it comes to fossil fuels. It is the first step in the right direction. But now, as a European Union, we really need to make sure that we reach our targets. And during this COP28, the European Union, and usually I am quite critical of the Commission and the Council, but we have shown to be the strongest when it comes to the fight against climate change and to protect the environment. And this is the ambition, this is the resilience that we need from young people in the coming weeks and months and years, so that they continue pushing us in order to achieve what needs to be achieved for our climate.

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la COP28, sì, ha dato dei risultati, ma non siamo ancora realmente decisi a dire la verità, cioè che dobbiamo immediatamente finirla con le emissioni fossili perché ne va del futuro dell'intera umanità.
                  

                     Abbiamo conosciuto delle dittature in questo continente, la dittatura fascista e la dittatura nazista, e oggi non possiamo pensare di andare avanti con la dittatura del capitalismo delle fonti fossili.
                  

                     E dico anche ai capitalisti che l'ecologia è un business. Avere energia da fonti rinnovabili autentiche, che non inquinino e che non compromettano il futuro dei nostri figli e del nostro pianeta, è un business.
                  

                     Quindi, così come l'Europa si è opposta e si opporrà sempre al fascismo e al nazismo – ha fatto bene ieri Sánchez a ricordare quanto sia pericolosa la destra estrema – allo stesso modo dobbiamo dire basta alle fonti fossili in tempi molto più brevi. E speriamo che in Brasile nel 2030 questo avvenga con maggiore decisione.
                  

IN THE CHAIR: EVELYN REGNER


Vice-President


President. – I just would like to remind everybody not to wear any T-shirts with logos or anything else, according to our Rules of Procedure.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, le sommet climatique aura donc parlé des énergies fossiles. C'est positif. Mais avant de se poser, en tant qu'Européens, comme défenseurs du climat face au reste du monde, il faut quand même regarder encore un peu les faits: aujourd'hui, nous investissons beaucoup dans de nouveaux terminaux pour accueillir le gaz de schiste américain. Les États-Unis en multiplient évidemment la production pour l'exporter vers nous, et on sait que ce gaz de schiste est plus cher et plus polluant que le gaz conventionnel. Cette extraction libère du méthane, d'énormes quantités de méthane, qui est un peu pour le climat comme le charbon.
                  

                     Ces investissements enferment l'Europe dans une double dépendance: aux États-Unis, d'une part, aux énergies fossiles, d'autre part. Et entre-temps, le grand projet pour transformer la mer du Nord en la centrale électrique éolienne de l'Europe? Avec les investissements actuels, nous n'arriverons pas à la moitié de l'objectif pour 2030.
                  

                     Alors changeons de cap, ne laissons plus ça à la bonne volonté des multinationales mais reprenons cela en main, publiquement, pour une énergie verte et bon marché partout en Europe.
                  

Clare Daly (The Left). – Madam President, well, it's a wrap: COP 28 has finally concluded with a fanfare and a celebration, and the news reports of an historic moment of a COP agreement that, for the first time, mentions fossil fuels. Hooray. I mean, can we really celebrate this when, even with the newly submitted revised climate targets, we're still on our way to a world of over three degrees? It is an utterly terrifying prospect.
When you look at it, the COP is an exercise in international relations, and the EU's influence depends on sincere dialogue and the pursuit of good relations with all states. To be effective, we have to be more diplomatic and less polarising. And it might be surprising for people outside of here to know that the EU's relations with China in the field of climate change have been absolutely excellent cooperation, far better than the yo-yo approach of the US. Throughout the year, and at COP, the EU and China work together even when they have divergent positions. We need to become a bridge-builder, not just in the area of climate change, but also in the area of peace and anti-war because you can't protect the environment if you support war.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Madam President, yes, we do need a full transition away from fossil fuels. We also need to remember what that sounds like to people who cannot heat their homes this winter. To people who have never had a full tank in their car. What we need is an energy transition that's planned and fair. This doesn't mean compromising on ambition. We could do things even quicker, but without taking control of the transition, we will not have the social acceptance. We need a decarbonised energy system that actually benefits ordinary people. With wind turbines going up, people need to see their energy bills go down. Ireland, like the rest of Europe, saw a drastic increase in energy bills last year because of the whims of our liberalised energy market. And next October, VAT on electricity will go back up 13.5 %. We need to stop the price roller coaster and instead rapidly roll out energy infrastructure which local communities can see they're benefiting.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, thank you for this debate. And as stated by our President, von der Leyen, it is good news for the whole world that we now have a multilateral agreement to accelerate emission reductions towards net zero by 2050, with urgent action in this critical decade.
The global stocktake set the path we need to follow globally. It is the central outcome of COP28, as it can now be used by countries to develop stronger climate action.
The next two years will be critical. At COP29, governments must establish a new climate finance goal reflecting the scale and urgency of the climate challenge. And at COP30, they must come prepared with new, nationally determined contributions that are economy-wide, cover all greenhouse gases and are fully aligned with the 1.5oC temperature limit.
We are ready, with the support of the European Parliament, to continue showing EU leadership in tackling our planet's biggest challenges.

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señora presidenta, señorías, señora comisaria, quería concluir suscribiendo lo comentado por la Comisión y reiterando el compromiso, según he entendido, de este Parlamento, de la Comisión y, por supuesto, del Consejo de continuar el compromiso internacional a través de un multilateralismo sólido basado en normas, necesario para lograr resultados satisfactorios en la lucha contra el cambio climático.
                  

                     Quiero reiterar que se necesita mucha más ambición global si queremos mantener el objetivo del 1,5 % de nuestro alcance. Estoy seguro de que la Unión Europea —todas sus instituciones— trabajará duro con las demás partes para garantizar que esta brecha se cierre lo antes posible.
                  

President. – The debate is closed.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),
kirjallinen. –Aluksi huolestuttavalta näyttänyt ilmastokokous COP28 päättyi tyydyttävään tulokseen. Merkittävänä voidaan pitää kansainvälisen yhteisön osoittamaa ymmärrystä fossiilisten polttoaineiden luopumisen merkityksestä ilmastonmuutoksen torjunnassa. COP28 tulosta voidaan pitää ensimmäisenä askeleena kohti fossiilienergian aikakauden loppua.
                  

                     Pettymykseksi COP28-ilmastosopimuksessa sanamuodoille annettiin kuitenkin liian helposti periksi ja asian kiireellisyyttä ei korostettu tarpeeksi voimakkaasti. Tekstissä nimittäin päädyttiin käyttämään termiä ‘kehottaa’. Maita siis kehotetaan luopumaan fossiilisista polttoaineista sen sijaan, että maille asetettaisiin tarkat vaatimukset. Fossiilisista polttoaineista tulisi luopua huomattavasti nopeammin, sillä olemme jo nyt niin lähellä käännekohtaa, jolloin ilmastonmuutoksen aiheuttamat ilmiöt alkavat ruokkia toinen toisiaan kiihdyttäen ilmastonmuutosta entisestään.
                  

                     Fossiilisista polttoaineista tulisikin luopua kokonaan jo vuosien 2030-2035 välillä. Tätä varten tarvitsemme kunnianhimoisempia ja sitovampia kansainvälisiä sopimuksia.
                  
4.   Ensuring proper functioning of EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on Council and Commission statements on ensuring the proper functioning of EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes (2023/3034(RSP)).

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señora presidenta, señorías, señora comisaria, los corredores de solidaridad fueron creados como respuesta al bloqueo por parte de Rusia del corredor de transporte marítimo del mar Negro. Dicho bloqueo interrumpió el transporte marítimo de un gran volumen de mercancías y dificultó mucho a Ucrania la exportación de sus productos agrícolas.
               

                  Al mismo tiempo, se hizo necesario hallar una ruta alternativa para suministrar a Ucrania material para apoyar la lucha contra Rusia. Aunque Ucrania haya vuelto a enviar mercancías por el llamado corredor humanitario, sigue siendo peligroso y caro utilizar la vía del mar Negro. Por ello es claro que los corredores de solidaridad van a seguir existiendo mientras los ucranianos tengan que seguir combatiendo la invasión rusa.
               

                  El funcionamiento de los corredores de solidaridad es de la máxima importancia para apoyar el esfuerzo bélico de Ucrania, como he dicho, en respuesta a la agresión de Rusia. La Comisión ha creado un mecanismo para apoyar el funcionamiento de los corredores de solidaridad y una plataforma de coordinación para las exportaciones de grano. El Consejo sigue muy de cerca el funcionamiento de los corredores de solidaridad y, periódicamente en las reuniones del RPIC —el Dispositivo de Respuesta Política integrada a las Crisis—, hace balance y estudia las posibilidades de mejorar estos corredores.
               

                  El pasado año, el Consejo celebró también, con la aprobación del Parlamento, un Acuerdo temporal de transporte por carretera con Ucrania para apoyar el funcionamiento de los corredores de solidaridad, permitiendo a los conductores y a los camiones ucranianos acceder más fácilmente al mercado de transporte por carretera de la Unión Europea. Anteriormente se imponía a los camioneros ucranianos unas cuotas. Ahora se les ha concedido temporalmente acceso ilimitado para transportar mercancías por carretera hacia y desde Ucrania.
               

                  Entiendo que una de las razones por las que estamos debatiendo sobre el funcionamiento de los corredores de solidaridad es que, a causa de este Acuerdo, en algunos Estados miembros situados en primera línea, parece haber tensión entre los conductores locales y los ucranianos. Esta es una situación grave que no puede continuar y por eso acogemos con satisfacción el reciente acuerdo celebrado entre los Gobiernos polaco y ucraniano para atender las preocupaciones de los camioneros polacos. Esperamos que ello conduzca rápidamente a la normalización de la situación en la frontera entre Polonia y Ucrania.
               

                  En virtud del Acuerdo sobre transporte por carretera también existe un Comité Mixto en el que el Gobierno ucraniano y la Comisión pueden estudiar los problemas de la aplicación del Acuerdo, incluidas las medidas que toma cada Estado miembro.
               

                  Aguardo con interés las contribuciones de sus señorías sobre este debate.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, I'm glad and I want to thank you for having invited the Commission to update Parliament on the functioning of EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes.
The EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes action plan was launched in 2022, following Russia's blockade of Ukraine's Black Sea ports. This blockade had immediate consequences, in particular on food exports to the rest of the world. We needed to react quickly. We established reliable alternative routes to bring the grain out of Ukraine via the EU by land, inland waterways and through EU ports. These are the solidarity lanes.
They have delivered and continue to do so. Between May 2022 and November 2023, they allowed Ukraine to export nearly 112 million tonnes of goods, including over 48 million tonnes of grain, oilseeds and other related products, and to import around 40 million tonnes of goods it needs, from military to humanitarian aid through fuel and other indispensable products.
When it comes to grain exports from Ukraine, clearly part of these exports are destined for the EU market. We need to facilitate the transfer of this grain to import-dependent Member States, such as Spain and others, while avoiding a situation where the grain remains where it is not needed.
We are also monitoring other imports from Ukraine, in particular sugar, poultry and eggs, where we observe sharply increased imports. Ukraine, on its side has adopted an action plan, as agreed at the end of the preventive measures in September. This includes government licenses for exports of four products – wheat, corn, rapeseed and sunflower seeds – to neighbouring EU states. In this context, the commission is in regular contact with the Hungarian, Polish and Slovakian authorities, and we have called on these three countries to lift their unilateral bans.
Our priority now is to work constructively with all parties to ensure that the action plan is effectively implemented. But while EU-Ukraine trade constitutes a main source of revenue for Ukraine, it also substantially benefits EU companies. Since they were set up, the total value of trade via the solidarity lanes is estimated at around EUR 127 billion, with around EUR 44 billion for Ukrainian exports and over EUR 83 billion for Ukrainian imports. The recent resumption of trade through the Black Sea is a very positive development in terms of facilitating Ukrainian exports.
However, the Commission's commitment to strengthening the EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes and generally improving EU-Ukraine and EU-Moldova connectivity is stronger than ever. The war, as well as Ukraine's and Moldova's European path, means one thing for transport: the solidarity lanes are here to stay.
Beyond the emergency phase, our action in the framework of the solidarity lanes represents the groundwork for a fully connected, interoperable and sustainable trans-European network from Portugal to Ukraine, from Finland to Moldova. This is why the Commission, together with the Member States, the Ukrainian and the Moldovan authorities, continue with their efforts to strengthen the solidarity lanes and support Ukraine.
The Commission is focused on increasing capacity and reducing costs by eliminating unnecessary checks and streamlining processes where needed, upgrading infrastructure over the short, medium and long term, and enhancing the potential of these routes. Investment in infrastructure and equipment remains crucial. This is particularly important in our five Member States bordering Ukraine, where we still have work to do on infrastructure and procedures.
Against this backdrop, the Commission is prioritising new connectivity infrastructure between Ukraine and Moldova and their EU neighbours. In November 2022, the Commission, European Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and World Bank pledged to invest EUR 1 billion in this solidarity lanes. Additionally, EUR 890 million are available from different funding streams, including the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the EU's Cohesion Policy, to improve the connectivity to Ukraine on the Member States' territory.
Most of the medium- to long-term deliverables have been brought in through CEF as the EU's main instrument to implement the trans-European transport network and ensure seamless cross-border connectivity within the EU and with its neighbours.
Most recently, the Commission allocated to EUR 150 million for infrastructure projects at main TEN-T rail and road border crossing points between Ukraine, Moldova and the EU. Six projects are being implemented with Ukraine and three with Moldova, focusing on improving border-crossing capacity and expanding EU standard rail gauge into Ukraine in order to ease the interoperability between EU and UA networks. This is the first time that Ukraine and Moldova have received this kind of funding, and the projects are an excellent example of cross-border cooperation.
We are pleased to see strong cooperation and clear commitment of all frontline Member States. These efforts have a direct impact on Ukraine's ability to face adversity, and they pave the way for further integration of Ukraine and Moldova into the EU's internal market.

Andrius Kubilius,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, let me first of all say that any kind of blockade of border-crossing roads and of Solidarity Lanes to Ukraine is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable. Such a blockade, what we see now, is heavily detrimental to Ukraine's economy, to its capabilities to defend itself, to its possibilities to have an efficient delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid. A 60-km-long queue of 2 100 lorries is not what EU or Poland should provide to Ukraine as a symbol of our solidarity.
Ukraine is fighting the Russian invasion and is defending the whole of Europe, but at the same time is facing two blockades from two sides: from the Russian side a military blockade of its Black Sea ports; and from some EU Member States a blockade of the border-crossing roads. Such a situation is completely unacceptable. It denigrates and severely damages the reputation not only of Poland, but also of the European Union as a whole, and it serves only the interests of the Kremlin.
It is clear that Russia will be forced to pay the damages which Russia has inflicted on Ukraine's economy, including by the blockade of its seaports. That is why organisers of the recent border road blockades should also know that it will be legitimate that they will have to compensate Ukraine the losses caused by their blockade.
At a time of Russia's war against Ukraine, any additional damage to Ukraine's economy inflicted from the side of EU Member States is totally unacceptable, and no economic arguments can justify such infamous actions.
As Members of the European Parliament, we cannot remain silent bystanders when the most important European value of solidarity, of solidarity with Ukraine, is being damaged by our European business companies, and we shall not remain silent also in the future.

Juozas Olekas,
S&D frakcijos vardu. – Pirmininke, Komisijos nare, gerbiami kolegos. Nuo 2022 m. vidurio Europos Sąjungos ir Europos solidarumo koridoriai padėjo Ukrainos prekėms pasiekti pasaulio rinką ir Ukrainai apsirūpinti būtiniausiomis priemonėmis, reikalingomis šalies žmonėms bei kovai prieš Rusijos agresiją. Gerbiama komisare, deja, ši sistema nuo lapkričio mėnesio yra sutrikdyta. Beveik pilna Lenkijos vežėjų vykdoma blokada Ukrainos pasienyje, trikdžiai Slovakijos sienos kirtimo punktuose neleidžia būtinoms prekėms pasiekti kovojančių Ukrainos žmonių. Pasibaigia greitai gendančių prekių galiojimas. Tūkstančiai Ukrainos vežėjų ir savanorių savaitėmis be patogumų laukia kilometrinėse eilėse. Sienos blokavimas su Rusijos agresija kovojančiai šaliai yra smūgis žemiau juostos. Raginu Europos Komisiją ir Tarybą skubiai įvertinti situaciją ir pasiūlyti veiksmingus sprendimus. Ukrainos sienos blokada labiausiai naudinga Rusijos režimui. Tikiuosi, kad naujoji Lenkijos valdžia kartu su Komisija, Taryba sugebės sėkmingai išspręsti šią problemą kuo greičiau. Slava Ukraini!
               

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, madam Commissioner, Council representatives, dear colleagues, the front line in the east and south of Ukraine stretch over 1200 kilometres. Over the last two years, Ukraine's western borders have been closed for 38 days. How it is possible that truckers from neighbouring EU countries have declared economic war on Ukraine? This is a knife in Ukraine's back.
Transport policy of the European Union is a shared competence of the Union. Why did it take a month and a half for the Commission to react? Have the Commission representatives personally visited blocked border crossings? What could they have said to the Ukrainian truckers waiting in 30 kilometre queues and suffering the hardships of winter?
Selfies of European Commission representatives in front of long queues of lorries would be a right step towards long overdue solutions. Ukraine's extreme dependence on foreign aid and the strategic importance of military and humanitarian supplies raise questions about Russia's possible indirect involvement and influence. I call for immediate actions.

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, almost two years ago we kept the trade routes with Ukraine open to diminish global hunger. We called them solidarity lanes. And we also said that we would stand by Ukraine ‘with all it takes’. And we added ‘for as long as it takes’. But how long is this? Are we living up to the name of the roads that are blocked in Hungary, in Poland and Slovakia? Is kicking the country, which is bleeding for our security, what counts for European solidarity? Is allowing Orban and his wannabe from Slovakia to take Ukraine and the EU hostage, solidarity? Who, but the Poles, should know what solidarity means? It was their Solidarność that started the end of communism. We need the same solidarity now to end another evil empire. While we betray solidarity, betray Ukraine and betray ourselves, Russia wins. All it takes for Ukraine's victory is our unwavering support. Stop the blockade and practice what we preach.

Kosma Złotowski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Umowa z Ukrainą ma swoje uzasadnienie. Odblokowanie eksportu, w tym zboża, było korzystne dla obu stron, a ułatwienia dla dostaw uzbrojenia czy pomocy humanitarnej były ważnym elementem wsparcia wysiłku wojennego Ukrainy.
               

                  Wiemy jednak, że nie wszystkie elementy tej umowy funkcjonują prawidłowo. Przewoźnicy z Polski, ale także z Węgier, Słowacji i Rumunii, skarżą się na dyskryminację ze strony władz ukraińskich. Istnieje także uzasadnione podejrzenie, że przewoźnicy z Ukrainy wykonują niedozwolone operacje na rynku wewnętrznym, nie podlegając restrykcyjnym wymogom pakietu mobilności. To nieuczciwa konkurencja.
               

                  Oczekujemy, że Komisja Europejska wysłucha skarg przewoźników i dokona szczegółowej analizy wpływu tego porozumienia na europejski sektor transportu przed jego przedłużeniem o kolejny rok. Jeśli potrzebne są zmiany, takie jak ponowne wprowadzenie zezwoleń czy dodatkowe kontrole, to należy to zrobić. Jeśli sami nie będziemy szanować naszych firm, to tym bardziej nie będzie tego robić Ukraina.
               

Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, podľa mňa by sme sa mali trošku upokojiť a nevynášať súdy, keď nevieme, o čo naozaj ide. Nemôžeme sa naozaj obetovať úplne vo všetkom pre Ukrajinu. My by sme v prvom rade mali trošku myslieť aj na našich občanov. A viete, na východe s Ukrajinou sú to schengenské hranice a teraz naše krátkozraké bombastické rozhodnutia tieto hranice veľmi ohrozili a takisto ohrozili aj voľný pohyb vo vnútri Európskej únie. Preto máme dnes niektoré vnútorné schengenské hranice pouzatvárané. Ja vás ale pozývam, kolegovia, ktorí máte chuť, pretože tu veľmi radi rozprávate, čo sa na východe deje. Ja idem na konci týždňa na ukrajinské hranice, idem presne sa pozrieť na štrajk kamiónov na Slovensku a veľmi rada by som potom možno aj informovala Európsky parlament, ako toto všetko postupuje, pretože ja si myslím, že títo ľudia majú trošku aj pravdu. Tlak na dopravcov v rámci východnej strany Európskej únie je obrovský. Ale nielen na nich. Je to tlak na ľudí, ktorí žijú na východe EÚ. To sú maličké obce. Slovensko má s Ukrajinou 97 kilometrov hraníc. Máme jeden hraničný prechod. Poľsko má zavreté hraničné prechody a všetky tie kamióny, to sú naozaj obrovské množstvá, prechádzajú cez maličké dediny na východe Slovenska, kde tí ľudia žijú. To je nápor obrovský na cestnú infraštruktúru, na život týchto ľudí, na ich bezpečnosť. A toto je naozaj to, čo by sme si mali my uvedomiť, takže poďte so mnou kľudne na konci týždňa. Veľmi vás pozývam.
               

PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK


podpredseda


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, pane ministře, kolegyně a kolegové, obracím se na vás jednak jako zástupkyně občanů, ale také jako zástupkyně zemědělců, kteří se cítí ohroženi. Zároveň chci jasně říct, že stojíme za dosavadní podporou Ukrajiny a budeme Ukrajinu podporovat tak dlouho, jak to bude třeba. Koncept koridoru solidarity je postaven na myšlence vytvoření nových dopravních spojení, koridorů mezi ukrajinskými hranicemi a přístavy Evropské unie, odkud má ukrajinské obilí směřovat loděmi dál do Asie a Afriky. Realita je ale mnohdy taková, že ukrajinské obilí namísto toho končí ve skladech a snižuje výkupní cenu domácího obilí. Z toho ale rozhodně neprofitují ukrajinští zemědělci ani evropští zemědělci.
                  

                     Zatímco jarní protesty předcházely rozhodnutí Komise povolit uvalení embarga na dovoz ukrajinských plodin, čehož využilo pět států EU, pozdější podzimní protesty následovaly poté, co bylo v září embargo Komisí zrušeno. Tři státy – Polsko, Slovensko, Maďarsko – se sice rozhodly v embargu pokračovat jednostranně, ale problém s dovozem ukrajinského obilí přetrvává. Proto, paní komisařko, pane ministře, je třeba zvážit nová opatření. Zvážit, zda by to nemělo znamenat, abychom lépe registrovali, kontrolovali, kolik potravin, produktů přichází do EU, a zvážit také další lepší a účinnější pomoc pro vývoz a zajištění odbytiště mimo EU pro Ukrajinu.
                  

Helmut Geuking (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Die Solidaritätskorridore sind natürlich richtig, sie sind wichtig und für die Ukraine überlebensnotwendig. Überhaupt keine Frage, dass wir die benötigen, und das war eine richtige Investition, die wir dort getätigt haben, oder mehrere Investitionen, die wir tätigen.
                  

                     Allerdings müssen wir auch darauf aufpassen, dass wir nicht unsere heimischen Märkte überfordern. Wir müssen darauf aufpassen, dass nicht unsere Landwirte darunter leiden, weil der Preisdruck so groß wird, weil die Waren nicht dort ankommen, wo sie hingehören. Sie gehören nämlich dahin, wo die Not gelindert werden muss, nach Afrika zum Beispiel, um Hungersnöten entsprechend vorzubeugen. Stattdessen landen sie des schnellen Geldes wegen auf europäischen Märkten. Natürlich habe ich Verständnis für die Landwirte, die hier sagen, wir können dort finanziell einfach nicht mithalten, weil wir natürlich wesentlich teurer produzieren.
                  

                     Das heißt: Europa ist gefordert, hier Mechanismen zu schaffen, Kontrollmechanismen zu schaffen, dass wir diesen Missbrauch quasi ausschließen – auch Kontrollmechanismen zu schaffen, um die Ware genauer zu kontrollieren, was da überhaupt kommt. Viele der Waren sind auch belastet mit Quecksilber, mit Altmetall und, und, und. Also wir müssen hier einfach mehr Überprüfungskorridore schaffen und Kontrollen schaffen, damit das, was nach Europa kommt, auch entsprechend sicher ist für die Menschen und damit das, was für Afrika bestimmt ist, auch dort ankommt und unsere Landwirte schützt.
                  

Postup prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I agree with my colleagues Mr Kubilius and Ms Šojdrová and others that the Solidarity Lanes are very important. They are a means to help Ukraine, but they must function properly in the interests of farmers in Europe. And as Ms Šojdrová said, maybe we need to look at the efficiency of the lanes and come up with better ways of monitoring, etc., and I would hope that the Commission would do this immediately, because what is not at stake is any lessening of support for Ukraine.
And also I think, with Christmas coming into New Year and all the attention probably at the moment, unfortunately, on the Middle East, we may be taking our eye off the ball in relation to Russia and Ukraine. And I would call, particularly, on all countries who themselves suffered under the USSR, who had to fight for independence – like Hungary – to reassess their attitude to Ukraine and Russia and think of what it would be like if they were invaded again.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, este bine că analizăm, pentru că, dacă suntem sinceri, putem să spunem clar acum că nu au funcționat cum trebuie culoarele de solidaritate și așa este și titlul dezbaterii, trebuie să ne asigurăm că funcționează. Doamnă comisară, eu i-aș invita pe colegii care spun că au funcționat să vină în România să discute cu fermierii.
                  

                     M-am întâlnit cu mii de fermieri din România, din țara mea. Toți au reclamat exact ceea ce se și întâmplă. Aceste cereale și produse din Ucraina, de fapt, nu au traversat prin culoarele de solidaritate, ci au rămas în piață, așa cum și dumneavoastră ați spus, doamna comisară.
                  

                     Au rămas și au făcut o competiție incorectă, pentru că, să nu uităm, s-a adoptat și faptul ca cerealele din Ucraina să fie scutite de analizele fitosanitare. Așadar, vă invit, doamnă comisară, să facem o analiză corectă, pentru că distrugem fermierii români. Solidaritatea nu înseamnă să stricăm ceea ce avem în piața internă. Cred foarte mult că fermierii au pierdut în aceștia din cauza proastei organizări și este datoria noastră, a Comisiei, a Consiliului, a Parlamentului, să ajutăm fermierii din țările din Uniunea Europeană.
                  

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W tej debacie widzę bardzo krzywdzące opinie w stronę polską. Kompletnie nie zgadzam się z tym, co powiedział pan poseł Kubilius, obarczając Polskę winą za to, że polscy przewoźnicy blokują granicę. Tak nie jest. Polska była, jest i będzie solidarna z Ukrainą. I nikt więcej Ukrainie i ludziom z Ukrainy nie pomógł jak Polacy, Polska i Polacy.
                  

                     Natomiast Komisja Europejska niewiele zrobiła. Komisja Europejska tkwi w błędzie, nie widząc tego np. co dzieje się po drugiej stronie granicy. To nie jest tak, że ci, którzy protestują po stronie polskiej – mówię tu o przewoźników i o rolnikach – robią to jako fanaberię. To jest po prostu akt desperacji. To jest akt obrony ich własności. To jest akt obrony ich majątku. I to trzeba zrozumieć.
                  

                     Musimy być rzeczywiście solidarni w ramach Unii Europejskiej, ale bez krzywdy dla zwykłych ludzi, którzy prowadzą działalność gospodarczą i cierpią na tej wojnie. Więc proszę nie kłamać w sprawie postawy Polaków, bo my chcemy rozwiązać ten problem. Tylko niech Komisja weźmie się do roboty, bo ona jest tu głównym graczem.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, en este debate de evaluación de las medidas y de los corredores de solidaridad en favor de Ucrania tras la guerra de agresión de la Rusia de Putin, es pertinente y necesario que resalte la contribución de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, porque activamos —lo exigimos así— la Directiva de protección temporal, que significa libre circulación y establecimiento y acceso al empleo y a todos los servicios vinculados a la residencia en el territorio de la Unión Europea para millones —más de cuatro millones y medio— de ucranianos, que ya pertenecen a la Unión Europea, viven entre nosotros.
                  

                     Además, hemos reforzado la cooperación de Eurojust con la Fiscalía de la Corte Penal Internacional para evitar la impunidad de los crímenes de guerra.
                  

                     Y, recientemente, un último logro que merece resaltarse: ayer mismo pasó a tener carácter permanente la conversión en eurodelito de la violación de las medidas restrictivas de la Unión Europea impuestas, precisamente, para castigar los intereses económicos y financieros rusos en el territorio de la Unión Europea. Esa violación de medidas restrictivas es ya un delito europeo y eso se ha conseguido bajo Presidencia española.
                  

(Ukončenie postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, the EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes are not only crucial to support the EU's contribution to alleviating the global food insecurity risk: they directly contribute to Ukraine's victory. They also benefit the EU now, facilitating exports of all the goods Ukraine needs. There is no such turning back in terms of improving connectivity. The Trans-European Transport Network was extended to Ukraine and Moldova in 2019 as a logical step.
Smooth transport is more important than ever. For this, we need to make the border-crossing points between the EU and Ukraine and Moldova as efficient as possible. This requires investment in infrastructure, streamlined procedures and improved management of the border crossings. Moreover, Ukraine and Moldova need to progressively align their legislation as provided for in the respective association agreements with the EU, and as they advance on their European path.
The Commission is working closely to define main priorities and ensure seamless connectivity between the EU and Ukraine, as well as to reinforce the Solidarity Lanes. All our efforts should be focused on increasing the capacity at the border-crossing points, but also unify the EU and Ukrainian – as well as Moldovan – road and railway systems over time. This will help bring these countries closer to the EU internal market and support Ukraine's reconstruction.
The road transport agreement with Ukraine was put in place as part of the EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes action plan. It has been instrumental in enabling Ukraine's trade with the EU and beyond, and will remain essential in the future, given our ever closer relations. It is vital that relevant national and local authorities take the necessary measures to ensure goods can flow through the EU's external borders, and the proper application of the EU-Ukraine road transport agreement.
The Solidarity Lanes are laying the groundwork of future EU-Ukraine connectivity through land routes and inland waterways. This will be crucial for the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. The Commission's support to Ukraine is unwavering.

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señor presidente, señorías, señora comisaria, la comisaria Dalli nos acaba de exponer los esfuerzos de la Comisión por mantener los corredores de solidaridad en funcionamiento, así como todo el trabajo de sus servicios y de la Comisión para hallar soluciones a la perturbación de uno de los corredores de solidaridad, en particular el de Ucrania.
                  

                     También hemos oído que en esta Cámara existe un apoyo abrumador a mantener abiertos los corredores como parte de nuestra asistencia prolongada a Ucrania.
                  

                     En consecuencia, todas las instituciones tenemos que colaborar para hallar modos de garantizar el funcionamiento de estos corredores, que son esenciales para nuestra ayuda a Ucrania.
                  

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
                  


Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)



Andor Deli (NI),
írásban. – Az európai fuvarozónak számos nehézséggel kell megküzdeniük. Itt van a Mobilitási csomag életbe lépése, ami számos új szigorú szabályt, újabb adminisztratív és anyagi terhet hozott. Majd ehhez társult először a járványhelyzet, utána pedig az ukrán – orosz háború okozta energiaválság. Azonban máris itt van egy újabb kihívás, az ukrán fuvarozók engedélykötelességének egyezményes megszüntetése. Ez az eredetileg segítő szándékú elképzelés, mostanra komoly versenyhátrányt okozott az uniós fuvarozóknak, számos vállalkozás a tönk szélére sodródott, hiszen az ukrajnai fuvarozókat nem kötik az uniós szabályok és rendszerek, mindez pedig többszörösen hátrányos helyzetbe hozta az uniós, így a magyar fuvarozókat.
                  

                     Ezért felkérem az Európai Bizottságot, hogy késlekedés nélkül vizsgálja felül az ukrán – EU közúti fuvarozási egyezmény feltételeit, és javasoljon egy olyan mechanizmust, ami szavatolni fogja az uniós, így a magyar fuvarozók érdekeit is.
                  

Ádám Kósa (NI),
írásban. – Az ukrán fuvarozók jelentős könnyítést kaptak 2023. áprilisában az EU területén keresztül végzett áruszállításra, amely bár ideiglenesnek indult, valójában az Európai Unió és Ukrajna között előkészületben lévő közúti árufuvarozási megállapodás megkötéséig érvényben lesz. Az EU és Ukrajna közötti kétoldalú- és tranzit fuvarozások ügyét mielőbb szükséges lenne megnyugtatóan rendezni.
                  

                     Emlékezetes, hogy a mobilitási csomag és a kiküldött munkavállalókra vonatkozó EU-s szabályok szigorítása azért történt minden tiltakozásunk ellenére, mert a nyugat-európai fuvarozók féltették piacukat a 2004 után csatlakozó országoktól. Akkor folyamatosan azt hallottuk, hogy a Kelet-Európai tagországok ‘szociális dömpingjét’ meg kell fékezni. Most pedig tárt karokkal várják az olcsó üzemanyag miatt egyébként is sokkal olcsóbb ukrán teherfuvarozókat? Felháborító, hogy miközben az elmúlt 10 év során hozott szigorú döntéseivel a Kelet-Európai tagállamok fuvarozóit betarthatatlan szabályok elé állította az EU, addig az ukrán kamionosokra ebből semmi sem vonatkozik! Sem a mobilitási csomag, sem az előírt pihenőidő, sem a kötelező minimálbér!
                  

                     Az ukrán fuvarozókat az EU a rengeteg adminisztratív kötelezettség alól is mentesítette, amely a magyar és kelet-európai fuvarozókat terheli és ez azt jelenti, hogy sokkal olcsóbban tudnak árut szállítani, ami versenyhátrányba hozza a magyar vállalkozásokat is. Az EU területére belépve mindenkinek azonos szabályok szerint kell játszania. Legyen józan eszünk, védjük meg piacunkat és fuvarozóinkat.
                  
5.   Non-objection mechanisms in international conventions to which the European Union is a party (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je rozprava o:
               






—



                        otázke na ústne zodpovedanie Rade o Mechanizmoch nevznesenia námietok v medzinárodných dohovoroch, ktorých zmluvnou stranou je Európska únia, ktorú predkladá Adrián Vázquez Lázara v mene Výboru pre právne veci (O-000043/2023 - B9-0036/23) (2023/2867(RSP)) a
                     










—



                        otázke na ústne zodpovedanie Komisii o Mechanizmoch nevznesenia námietok v medzinárodných dohovoroch, ktorých zmluvnou stranou je Európska únia, ktorú predkladá Adrián Vázquez Lázara v mene Výboru pre právne veci (O-000042/2023 - B9-0035/23) (2023/2867(RSP)).
                     





Karen Melchior,
author. – Mr President, this is a question for oral answer to the Commission and the Council regarding the non-objection mechanisms in international conventions to which the European Union is a party.
The European Union is a party to conventions that provide for accession by third states through clauses setting up a ‘silence or non-objection’ procedure at international level. In its Opinion 1/13 of 14 October 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the act of accession and the declaration of acceptance of such an accession constitute an international agreement, and that concept is referred to in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. According to case-law, an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers under the Treaties, thus when at international level a silence procedure has been adopted to facilitate accession by third states, it should be of no consequence for the EU's internal decision-making process. It should therefore be considered that the EU needs to establish its position in regard to accessions by third states to the Hague Conventions that fall under EU exclusive competence, even for conventions containing a silence or non-objection procedure. The conclusion of an international agreement with this type of clause should not lead to the consequence that Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the institutional balance laid down therein are set aside. This is why we pose this question to the Commission and the Council.
In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218, for each accession of a third country to a Hague Convention falling under a non-objection mechanism such as the Judgments Convention, the Commission should submit to the Council a proposal for a decision, and the Council can take such a decision with the consent of this House. If the Council, with the consent of the Parliament, decides to object to establishing relations under the convention with a new contracting state, the Commission will have to notify the depositary to that effect.
So we ask what steps the Commission and the Council intend to take to fully apply the procedures set out in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in matters concerning the establishment of the EU's position regarding accessions by third states to the Hague Conference on Private International Law Conventions, in particular when that international convention contains a non-objection procedure.

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señor presidente, señorías, señora comisaria, primero quiero comentar una cuestión de orden: la Presidencia considera inadecuado que el señor Adrián Vázquez, que ha hecho esta pregunta, no esté presente hoy en este debate. No obstante, el Consejo responde a la pregunta presentada en este caso por la señora Melchior.
               

                  Las relaciones de la Unión Europea con terceros tienen una importancia estratégica. Esto es así en todos los sectores, también en el Derecho civil. Las relaciones internacionales en el ámbito del Derecho civil se desarrollan a través de instrumentos multilaterales internacionales. La Conferencia de La Haya de Derecho Internacional Privado es el principal foro en el que se negocian y celebran acuerdos multilaterales internacionales con muchos países terceros. Al establecer relaciones con países terceros, tenemos que seguir, por supuesto, los procedimientos estipulados en los Tratados.
               

                  Como ha indicado la señora Melchior en su pregunta, el artículo 218 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea establece los procedimientos para mantener negociaciones con terceros países y organizaciones internacionales. Toda decisión que el Consejo pueda adoptar en el marco establecido en el artículo 218 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea parte de una propuesta de la Comisión.
               

                  Este es el caso, por ejemplo, de la adhesión de terceros países al Convenio de La Haya, y lo hemos hecho en el caso del Convenio de La Haya de 1980 sobre la sustracción de menores, respecto del que la Comisión ha presentado propuestas de decisiones del Consejo, y el Consejo ha consultado al Parlamento tal como prevé el Tratado. Como ustedes saben, el Convenio de La Haya tiene un mecanismo de aceptación activa, y esto significa que la Unión Europea debe indicar expresamente que acepta la adhesión de un tercer país determinado para que entablemos relaciones convencionales con dicho Estado.
               

                  Su pregunta, no obstante, señora Melchior, que ahora abandona su escaño, se centra en los convenios de La Haya con un procedimiento de no formulación de objeciones, una suerte de procedimiento tácito. En el caso de estos convenios, basta con no responder en un plazo dado para aceptar la adhesión de un tercer país a un convenio y entablar relaciones convencionales con dicho país.
               

                  Contrariamente a la práctica de la Comisión en el marco de convenios con mecanismos de aceptación activa, en el caso de procedimientos tácitos, la Comisión no ha presentado hasta la fecha propuestas de decisiones del Consejo. El procedimiento tácito no excluye que la Unión deba adoptar una posición sobre si debe entablar relaciones convencionales con el tercer país en cuestión. Este procedimiento es simplemente una forma de recabar la posición de las partes. El artículo 218 se aplica en consonancia con la facultad de iniciativa de la Comisión.
               

                  Y aquí quiero responder finalmente a la pregunta en cuestión. Si la Comisión somete al Consejo una propuesta de decisión, el Consejo la examinará y seguirá el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 218. Se necesitaría la aprobación de este Parlamento para convenios que se refieren a ámbitos para los que se aplica el procedimiento legislativo ordinario.
               

                  Finalmente, señor presidente, si me permite unos segundos más, como este es el último debate en el que participo como Presidencia del Consejo, quisiera manifestar que ha sido un honor participar en los debates con el Parlamento Europeo, tanto en este Pleno, como ante la Conferencia de Presidentes, como ante las comisiones. Querría también manifestar mi profundo agradecimiento por la colaboración del Parlamento con la Presidencia española del Consejo a todos los niveles y, en particular, en el trabajo para la aprobación de diálogos tripartitos. Ayer y esta misma mañana se han producido nuevos acuerdos. Por eso, finalmente, muchísimas gracias a todas sus señorías.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, dear Members, this issue has been raised in the context of the accession of third states to several conventions developed in the context of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, an intergovernmental organisation that works for the progressive unification of EU law. Since 2007, the EU is a full member of this organisation along with all its Member States.
Accession to Hague Conventions is regulated in three different ways depending on the convention. In the first case, there is an open procedure, meaning all countries are free to accede to the convention without the need for the other contracting parties to accept them or the possibility to raise an objection. Treaty relationships between the acceding third state and the existing Contracting Parties are established automatically. For those types of conventions, such as the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, No EU decision needs to be or can be adopted, because the acceptance of all future acceding countries is already inherent in the convention.
In the second case, an explicit acceptance procedure is provided. If a party does not accept the accession, then the convention will not have an effect in the bilateral relationship between the party and the acceding state. This means Treaty relationships between the exceeding third state and an existing Contracting Party are only established if that Contracting Party adopts a decision on acceptance. For conventions with this type of mechanism, such as the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the acceptance decision by the EU is taken on the basis of Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Finally, the third and last category provides for the automatic establishment of Treaty relationships between the Contracting Parties and an exceeding third state in principle. But it leaves a possibility for the existing Contracting Parties to exceptionally prevent that from happening by lodging an objection to the accession within a specific period, which is usually. Between 6 to 12 months. This is the type of convention, such as the Judgments Convention, which I understand your oral question is focusing on. The current practice is that in relation to such Hague Conventions with a no objection procedure, the EU only adopts a formal position in case it wants to object to an accession, after a thorough assessment of the situation of the new acceding party. This assessment aims at verifying whether or not it is in a position to fulfil its obligations under the convention. This practice is based on the principle of favour towards new accessions by other Contracting Parties and only envisages an objection procedure as an exception, in line with the objectives of the convention.
The Commission therefore takes the view that, under the current practice, formal decisions under Article 218 are required only where the EU intends to object to the establishment of such Treaty relations. This approach is in line with the need to implement the EU obligation under international law in good faith.
The Commission is committed to informing the Parliament, as well as the Council, and to take their views into account in full compliance with the treaties and, notably, the duty of sincere cooperation. This is why, when deciding whether to propose an objection decision, we committed to consistently informing the Parliament of each intending intended accession of a third country to the Judgments Convention, taking due account of the views expressed. If, following discussions in the Council and in the Parliament, it appears that there is no reason to object to the accession of the third State, the Commission, under the current practice, does not adopt a formal position. We have delivered on this commitment with the written assessment on Ukraine, certification of the Judgments convention, and the outcome was a consensus in favour of no objection, also confirmed by the Parliament in a debate last June on the matter.
We will share the Commission's assessment also regarding future accessions to the Judgments Convention and to other Hague Conventions with no objection mechanisms in the future.

Stanislav Polčák,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, pane ministře, paní komisařko, na úvod dovolte vyslovit politování, že tady nejsou autoři uvedené otázky. Myslím, že to není příliš uctivé vůči Radě i vůči paní komisařce. Tato problematika je vysoce právní povahy, ale má také své praktické důsledky. Jde o problém našich unijních interinstitucionálních vztahů, a když to zjednoduším, jde o to, zda s ohledem na znění Smluv bude respektováno postavení Evropského parlamentu.
               

                  Myslím si, že se v praxi osvědčilo, když Evropská unie přistupuje jakožto subjekt mezinárodního práva k mezinárodním smlouvám. Drtivá většina mých kolegů nepochybně proces uzavírání mezinárodních smluv Evropskou unií hodnotí jako další pozitivní nástroj integračního procesu. Sice mezinárodní právo nezajímá, jakým procesem se EU rozhodne stát se stranou mezinárodních smluv, ale nás to zajímat nepochybně musí. Máme totiž kategorie mezinárodních smluv, o kterých hovořila i paní komisařka, které umožňují přistoupení třetích států pomocí klauzule tichého souhlasu, respektive nevyslovení námitky proti takovémuto postupu. Jedná se o ty již zmíněné Haagské úmluvy v oblasti mezinárodního práva soukromého.
               

                  My, poslanci Evropského parlamentu, musíme hájit práva této komory, působnost a příslušnost Evropského parlamentu k spolupůsobení i u takové speciální procedury. Vzhledem k tomu, že v EU ctíme principy právního státu, měly by Komise i Rada jít příkladem a ve vztahu k Evropskému parlamentu zachovávat princip rozdělení pravomocí mezi institucemi Evropské unie i v oblasti přijímání rozhodnutí právě ve vztahu k těmto mezinárodním smlouvám. Proto by mě tedy zajímalo, jak hodlají Komise a Rada zajistit, aby toto rozdělení pravomocí bylo dodržováno i v situacích rozhodování o přistoupení k těmto mezinárodním smlouvám, jichž je Evropská unie smluvní stranou.
               

Ibán García del Blanco,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, de acuerdo con el artículo 218 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea, para la adhesión de un tercer Estado a un convenio, en el ámbito de los llamados mecanismos de no formulación de objeciones, la Comisión Europea deberá presentar al Consejo una propuesta de decisión, que, a su vez, este adoptará con la aprobación del Parlamento.
               

                  Como miembro de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos, creo que las prerrogativas del Parlamento quedarían mejor protegidas si la Comisión lanzase obligatoriamente un procedimiento de aprobación del Parlamento con cada adhesión de un tercer Estado, dando así lugar a una no objeción expresa. Sin embargo, la Comisión considera que no es necesario que el Parlamento exprese tal aprobación expresa.
               

                  El Parlamento es competente para aprobar las decisiones sobre la adhesión de terceros países a convenios internacionales en los que la Unión es parte. De ahí que nuestro enfoque no sea una cuestión de capricho, sino de escrutinio democrático y de garantías de equilibrio interinstitucional. Y, en consecuencia, preguntaría: ¿qué medidas piensa adoptar el Consejo para aplicar plenamente el procedimiento establecido en este artículo 218 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea?
               

Patrick Breyer,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, allow me to make a remark on the political dimension of the legal discussion that we are having. Indeed, Commissioner, the accession of Ukraine did not raise any political debates or controversies this year. But we can imagine in the future that other countries can be very controversial because they lack respect for due process, for human rights, for the rule of law. And, you know, more than 90 countries are members of this Hague Convention on Private International law and could decide to join the Judgment Convention, and that includes some very controversial states, such as Russia, for instance, who are signatories.
So, if the EU did not object to establishing relations with these countries, we would open our legal order to the recognition and enforcement of judgments that do not guarantee the respect for our rights and values. Imagine, for instance, that a country systematically disregards women's procedural rights in court. That would be unacceptable for us to agree to. And that is why we request that the Commission formally initiates a procedure for us to take a position on whether to table an objection or not.

Ангел Джамбазки,
от името на групата ECR. – Г-н Председател, в залата има точно шест човека, което е скандално отношение към дебатите, защото сега дори не е следобед. Изкушавам се да Ви поискам да проверите кворума и да закрием това заседание, което би изправило косите на всички ви. И така може би е редно, защото такова отношение към дебатите е обидно.
               

                  Г-н Председателстващ, вземете отношение. Групите нека да си събират хората, които да идват в залата, дори да се правят, че им е интересно. Това е скандално отношение към данъкоплатците. Шест човека в четвъртък сутрин, не е след гласуване, не е бързане за самолети. Погледнете залата, хората горе са данъкоплатците и те гледат тази работа и това най-вероятно ги дразни.
               

                  Сега по темата за Договорите. Не е тайна, че европейските институции се опитват да си присвоят повече компетенции, отколкото имат и отколкото им се дават. И това не е редно. Съюзът трябва да бъде съюз на независимите, свободни, суверенни държави, които имат компетентности толкова, колкото са им дали Договорите. Затова, уважаема г-жо Комисар, това, което трябва да правите Вие в Комисията, е да сте много внимателни, когато прилагате член 218 от Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз. Така или иначе, г-н Председател, няма никой в залата, може да ме оставите да си поговоря още малко. Така или иначе трябва да забавляваме публиката, но все пак, г-жо Комисар, бъдете внимателни, когато… (председателят отнема думата на оратора)


Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le débat d'aujourd'hui est l'un des plus techniques auquel j'ai participé depuis près de dix ans, il ne passionne d'ailleurs pas les foules. Il porte sur l'article 218 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union. Cet article est relatif aux accords internationaux négociés et conclus par l'Union. Or, l'Union est partie à des accords qui prévoient l'adhésion d'États tiers au moyen de clauses établissant une procédure dite de silence ou de non-objection.
               

                  En toute logique juridique, la conclusion de tels accords contenant ce type de clause ne devrait pas avoir pour conséquence d'écarter l'application de l'article 218. Cela semble impliquer que pour chaque adhésion d'un pays tiers à un tel accord, la Commission devrait soumettre au Conseil une proposition de décision, le Conseil pouvant alors, avec l'approbation du Parlement européen, dans certains cas, décider d'opposer une objection à l'adhésion.
               

                  Je prends acte des explications que le Conseil et la Commission viennent d'apporter, qui retiennent une interprétation souple de l'article 218. J'observe toutefois que le résultat de celle-ci est de marginaliser le rôle du Parlement européen.
               

Postup prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, the title ‘Non-objection mechanisms in international conventions to which the European Union is a party’ would be very difficult to explain to ordinary citizens, and they would probably see it as Brussels speak. Nevertheless, these issues are necessary, and I would like to compliment the MEPs who have mastered this and the Commission and the Council. And, as has been said, if the Commission needs to take action, then there is a procedure there by which to do it. And I think that's only right.
I would also like to take this opportunity, as the Council said, this is the last of the Spanish Presidency's meetings. I was involved, particularly in the Energy, Performance and Buildings Directive, I thought Ambassador Raúl Fuentes did an excellent job, and while the EPP would have serious concerns about internal matters in Spain, that should not take from the good work that was done in completing many, many important files which will stand to the good of citizens in Europe in the future. So well done. And the final word there is party, it's time to party! Nollaig shona daoibh uilig, Happy Christmas to all!

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, en este debate sobre una cuestión aparentemente oscura como es la adhesión de la Unión Europea a convenios internacionales, yo traigo un asunto extraordinariamente importante y, sin embargo, todavía pendiente.
               

                  El Tratado de Lisboa confiere a la Unión Europea personalidad jurídica única —artículo 47 del Tratado de la Unión Europea— y le da al Parlamento Europeo la última palabra para que entren en vigor los convenios internacionales negociados, por mandato del Consejo, por la Comisión.
               

                  Y, sin embargo, hay un mandato incumplido: el de que la Unión Europea se adhiera al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos —artículo 6 del Tratado de la Unión Europea—. Existió un dictamen negativo del Tribunal de Justicia, nada menos que en 2013, hace la friolera ya de once años. Y, sin embargo, todavía no se ha concluido la negociación para superar las objeciones interpuestas en ese dictamen. Y sigue siendo imprescindible para completar el círculo de diálogo entre ordenamientos de protección de los derechos humanos con el estándar más alto del mundo —la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea en compatibilidad con el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos— y de diálogo entre tribunales —el Tribunal de Derechos Humanos de Estrasburgo y el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea—.
               

                  Hasta que esa cuestión pendiente no esté resuelta, este Parlamento Europeo no debería descansar.
               

(Ukončenie postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for these comments. As I made clear during my introductory remarks, the Commission is committed to keep the Parliament fully informed of each accession to the Hague Convention where a no-objection procedure is foreseen, and to take the Parliament's view duly into account in line with the duty of sincere cooperation.

President. – I would now like to hand over to the State Secretary Navarro Ríos. As this is the last time that the Spanish Presidency is speaking in the Chamber, I would like to use this opportunity to thank you very much for all the work you have done and to wish you and all the country a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Pascual Navarro Ríos,
presidente en ejercicio del Consejo. – Señor presidente, muchísimas gracias a sus señorías, en particular al señor Kelly, que también ha agradecido la labor de la Presidencia; también en nombre de todos mis colegas del Gobierno y de la Representación Permanente, que han participado durante todos estos meses en el trabajo intenso con todos ustedes, en particular en los diálogos tripartitos. Ha sido un trabajo muy intenso por las circunstancias de final de legislatura europea, por lo que vuelvo a insistir en mi agradecimiento a todos ustedes.
               

                  Respondo al señor López Aguilar que, por supuesto, ha sido una tarea de la Presidencia española. El Consejo sigue insistiendo en encontrar un acuerdo para la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y creo que sigue siendo un esfuerzo que vamos a continuar.
               

                  En respuesta a los comentarios de los diputados que han intervenido, vuelvo a insistir en que el Consejo respeta plenamente las competencias de este Parlamento, pero también respeta el derecho de iniciativa de la Comisión y, por consiguiente, en esta materia, en cualquier momento en que la Comisión considere que debe someter al Consejo una propuesta de Decisión sobre la base del artículo 218, relativa a la aceptación indirecta —tácita— de la adhesión de un tercer Estado del Convenio de La Haya en materia de competencia exclusiva de la Unión, la posición de la Unión se determinará conforme al procedimiento establecido en dicho artículo.
               

                  Nada más, señor presidente. Le agradezco sus amables palabras en nombre de mis colegas también y muchísimas gracias a todos ustedes de nuevo.
               

President. – Thank you very much. This is the end of the debate.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Przepisy traktatu lizbońskiego znacznie zmodyfikowały strukturę UE, wprowadzając nowe formuły relacji między instytucjami, co zamanifestowało się w postaci zupełnie nowych prerogatyw dla wszystkich zaangażowanych stron. W przypadku artykułu 218 TFUE oznaczało to wzmocnienie pozycji Parlamentu Europejskiego, ponieważ jego zgoda stała się niezbędna w przypadku umów dotyczących kwestii podlegających zwykłej lub specjalnej procedurze ustawodawczej. Artykuł 218 TFUE ustanawia spójną procedurę dotyczącą etapów zawierania umów międzynarodowych między UE a państwami trzecimi, gdyż wpływa na różne aspekty negocjacji i zawierania umów międzynarodowych. Ponadto przepis ten formułuje sposób głosowania Rady, która może podjąć decyzję większością kwalifikowaną lub jednomyślnie. Naturalnym zatem jest, że praktyczne konsekwencje wobec spraw dotyczących ustalenia stanowiska UE w odniesieniu do przystąpienia państw trzecich do konwencji Haskiej Konferencji Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego, szczególnie odnośnie do zawartej w niej procedury braku sprzeciwu, nadal wymagają pełnego zrozumienia. W mojej opinii zmiana traktatów w tym zakresie jest absolutnie niewskazana. Nie dostrzegam tutaj przestrzeni na dążenie do odmiennych praktyk niż ścisłe przestrzeganie procedury z art. 218 TFUE. Nie bez znaczenia jest też fakt, że Trybunał kilkakrotnie wskazywał, że tylko materialna podstawa prawna danego aktu określa procedury, jakie należy stosować przy jego wydawaniu. Na pewno takiej podstawy nie może stanowić odmienne zdanie niektórych zaangażowanych instytucji.
               

(The sitting was suspended at 11.17)


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

6.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)


Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Kelly hat um das Wort gebeten, und ich darf Sie um Ruhe bitten.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, I just want briefly to bring to the attention of colleagues the sad passing of James Temple-Smithson, Head of the European Parliament Office in Dublin, at the tender age of only 50 years.
James was a gentleman, number one, and also hugely respected by his colleagues, and particularly my Irish MEP colleagues. We valued his good work, his enthusiasm for the European project and particularly the respect he showed to all Irish MEPs and all those he dealt with.
I hope that expressing our condolences here today will go in some way to ease the burden of grief on his family.
Go raibh míle maith agat, a Uachtaráin. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis. Maith thú. (Bualadh bos)

7.   Voting time

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmung.
               

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll.)

7.1.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for fipronil (B9-0488/2023) (vote)
7.2.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for tricyclazole (B9-0494/2023) (vote)
7.3.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 and thirty sub-combinations (B9-0492/2023) (vote)
7.4.   Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3): Genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 (B9-0490/2023) (vote)
7.5.   The unknown status of Mikalai Statkevich and the recent attacks on Belarusian politicians' and activists' family members (RC-B9-0509/2023, B9-0507/2023, B9-0509/2023, B9-0514/2023, B9-0515/2023, B9-0516/2023, B9-0520/2023) (vote)
7.6.   The Maasai Communities in Tanzania (RC-B9-0511/2023, B9-0511/2023, B9-0513/2023, B9-0517/2023, B9-0523/2023, B9-0524/2023, B9-0525/2023) (vote)
7.7.   The abduction of Tibetan children and forced assimilation practices through Chinese boarding schools in Tibet (RC-B9-0510/2023, B9-0508/2023, B9-0510/2023, B9-0512/2023, B9-0518/2023, B9-0521/2023, B9-0522/2023) (vote)
7.8.   Increasing innovation, industrial and technological competitiveness (A9-0383/2023 - Tsvetelina Penkova) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Цветелина Пенкова (S&D). – Г-н Председател, този доклад е отговор на многократните призиви на стартъп индустрията в целия ЕС. С него поставяме началото на първото европейско законодателство за стартъп сектора. Само така ще гарантираме бъдеще на иновациите, бъдеще за младите ни предприемачи.
                  

                     Стартиращите предприятия са катализатор на иновации, икономически растеж и заетост в Съюза. Стартъп секторът представлява над 3% от брутния вътрешен продукт и се равнява на 2 трилиона евро. Секторът осигурява заетост на над 2 милиона души в Съюза. Числата и статистиките говорят красноречиво, но ясна дефиниция за стартъпите все още липсва. Това пречи на ефективността на съществуващите политики и спира потенциала за растеж. Законодателният доклад, който инициираме, гарантира, че европейската стартъп индустрия ще получи подкрепата, която ѝ е нужна. Подкрепа в области като дефиниране и обособяване на тези предприятия, достъп до финансиране и нови пазари, задържане на талантите в Европа, конкурентоспособност на глобалните пазари.
                  

                     Уважаеми колеги, днес от името на стартъп индустрията в целия ЕС ви призовавам за ясни и категорични действия. Подкрепата за тази индустрия е не просто икономическа политика, тя е ангажимент за бъдеще. Бъдеще, в което иновациите процъфтяват, работните места се увеличават, а Европа остава лидер на световния технологичен пазар. Нека работим заедно, за да създадем среда, която гарантира растеж и успех на нашите стартиращи предприятия. Нека им позволим да разгърнат пълния си потенциал.
                  

                     Благодаря на всички докладчици за добрата съвместна работа и за припознаването на важността на тази тема. Моля да подкрепите доклада, нека да дадем шанс на европейските стартъпи.
                  
7.9.   Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (A9-0368/2023 - Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques) (vote)
7.10.   Young researchers (B9-0491/2023) (vote)
7.11.   Frontex, building on the fact-finding investigation of the LIBE Working Group for Frontex Scrutiny (B9-0499/2023) (vote)

– Nach der Abstimmung über Erwägung E:


Lena Düpont (PPE). – Mr President, following the recent judgment just yesterday, I would like to move the following oral amendment on behalf of the EPP group, changing the last sentence of recital G as follows: ‘Whereas for legal actions in relation to alleged pushbacks have been brought against Frontex before the General Court of the EU, of which two were ruled inadmissible and two are pending.’
                  

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.)


– Nach der Abstimmung über den mündlichen Änderungsantrag:


Lena Düpont (PPE). – Mr President, following the recent judgment I would like to add a new sentence after recital G, recital ga (new): ‘Whereas on 13 December the General Court dismissed another action brought against the Agency as manifestly lacking any foundation in law’.

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird nicht übernommen.)

7.12.   European Hydrogen Bank (A9-0379/2023 - Robert Hajšel) (vote)

– Vor der Abstimmung:


Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, hydrogen will play an important role in the decarbonisation process. As rapporteur, I am very pleased that we are going to adopt Parliament's position on the importance of domestic production, design of auctions, the role of imports, sustainability and geographical balance. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation in the negotiation.
The main priority of the Hydrogen Bank is the development of renewable hydrogen in the medium and long term. Secondly, support for domestic production is an absolute priority in order to decrease our dependence on third countries. Third, the Hydrogen Bank should prioritise hard-to-abate industries and heavy transport.
Without adequate funding, faster permitting procedures and enough raw materials, transition will not be possible. The transitional role of low-carbon hydrogen is inevitable, especially for some Member States and specific sectors.
Last but not least, I support regional auctions and call for a fair allocation between Member States to avoid the deepening of existing inequalities. I hope the Commission will take into account the position of Parliament when designing the upcoming auctions. Considering industrial policies in China and in the US, the EU needs to step up the game and this is one of the opportunities to do so.

Der Präsident. – Liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Bevor wir zu der letzten Abstimmung kommen, habe ich eine besondere Mitteilung zu machen: Eine Beamtin dieses Hauses, Frau Aino Salminen, tritt ihren Ruhestand an. Dies ist ihre letzte Sitzung. Frau Salminen weiß auch nichts von dieser Erwähnung.
                  

(Beifall)


                     Frau Salminen ist mit den Protokollen des Plenums befasst gewesen und arbeitet seit fast 29 Jahren für das Parlament, und zwar überwiegend für die Plenarsitzungen, und wir alle wissen, wie schwierig es ist, die Protokolle anschließend zu erstellen. Ich möchte Frau Salminen herzlich für ihren Beitrag zur Tätigkeit des Plenums danken.
                  

                     Ich kann meinen Dank vielleicht gleich noch erweitern für alle, die in dieser Woche unsere Arbeit leichter gemacht haben. Wir stehen am Ende dieser Plenarsitzung. Solange noch alle da sind – bevor ich es heute Nachmittag tue –, will ich allen frohe Weihnachten wünschen. Eine erholsame Zeit, besinnliche Zeit zwischen den Jahren und einen guten Beginn im nächsten Jahr Ihnen allen.
                  

(Beifall)

7.13.   Attempt of coup d'Etat in Guatemala (RC-B9-0526/2023, B9-0526/2023, B9-0527/2023, B9-0528/2023, B9-0529/2023, B9-0530/2023, B9-0531/2023) (vote)

Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.
                  

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.39 Uhr unterbrochen.)

8.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

9.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar.
               

                  Ich sehe keine Einwände.
               

                  Das Protokoll ist damit genehmigt.
               
10.   Improving the strategic approach to the enforcement of EU Law (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die Verbesserung des strategischen Ansatzes für die Durchsetzung des EU-Rechts von Dolors Montserrat im Namen des Petitionsausschusses (O-000047/2023 – B9—0038/23) (2023/2886(RSP)).
               

Ana Miranda,
autora. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señorías, el 13 de octubre de 2022, la Comisión Europea adoptó una Comunicación, titulada ‘Hacer cumplir el Derecho de la Unión Europea para una Europa que ofrezca resultados’. Este documento y las Comunicaciones anteriores, en particular la Comunicación de 2017, titulada, ‘Derecho de la Unión. Mejores resultados gracias a una mejor aplicación’, definen el marco operativo estratégico de la Comisión para la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión.
               

                  En virtud de este enfoque estratégico para la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión, la Comisión decidió dar prioridad a las deficiencias sistémicas, excluyendo los casos individuales si considera que no plantean cuestiones de principios más amplios. Concretamente, la Comisión centró sus esfuerzos en lo que considera las infracciones más graves del Derecho de la Unión que perjudican al interés general. Pueden ser casos en los que los Estados miembros no notifiquen las medidas de transposición, no traspongan correctamente las Directivas o no cumplan una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea; también pueden ser casos en los que los Estados miembros hayan dañado gravemente los intereses financieros de la Unión Europea o invadido competencias exclusivas de la Unión. En todos los demás casos la Comisión tiende a remitir peticiones a nivel nacional, en particular, a los tribunales nacionales.
               

                  Como consecuencia de ello, cuando un peticionario en nuestra Comisión de Peticiones alega una infracción del Derecho de la Unión, la Comisión se niega a menudo, señora comisaria, a actuar, al menos en parte, porque la petición se refiere a un caso individual y no a una petición sistémica.
               

                  Como todos y todas sabemos —y esto ya fue confirmado por el Tribunal de Justicia—, la Comisión Europea tiene plena discreción para decidir si incoa o no un procedimiento de infracción. Sin embargo, el enfoque actual de la Comisión para tratar las presuntas infracciones del Derecho de la Unión y el procedimiento de infracción podrían ser percibidos como inadecuados por los ciudadanos de la UE. Esto puede dar lugar a un estancamiento en los procedimientos durante años en la fase precontenciosa, sin remisión al Tribunal de Justicia y sin acceso a documentos e información sobre las distintas acciones emprendidas en relación a los procedimientos de infracción. Y yo lo sé, además, porque incoé un procedimiento en relación con el accidente más grave de los últimos veinticinco años en la historia de Europa, el accidente de Angrois, en Santiago de Compostela, que lleva pendiente ya varios años.
               

                  Teniendo, por eso, en cuenta todo lo que acabo de comentar, quisiera preguntarle hoy a la Comisión, en nombre de la Comisión de Peticiones y como vicepresidenta primera de la misma, lo siguiente: ¿considera la Comisión que una acumulación de casos individuales podría demostrar el carácter sistémico de una infracción?; ¿podría la Comisión desarrollar herramientas, en particular las digitales, para ayudar a conectar y asociar quejas y peticiones con este fin? Y, en segundo lugar, ¿cómo podría la Comisión mejorar su enfoque estratégico —incluido el aumento de la transparencia en los procedimientos de infracción en curso— para garantizar un seguimiento adecuado de las posibles infracciones detectadas por los ciudadanos a través de denuncias y peticiones?; ¿podría la Comisión concebir un nuevo mecanismo, como una nueva plataforma colaborativa y más transparente, que permita a la Comisión y al Parlamento notificar a los Estados miembros las presuntas violaciones y plantear preocupaciones en un diálogo constructivo?
               

                  Y, por último, otra pregunta más: ¿qué medidas piensa adoptar la Comisión Europea para aumentar la eficacia de las medidas de garantía del cumplimiento de la normativa y qué medidas se pueden adoptar a nivel nacional y de la Unión para poner fin a las infracciones del Derecho de la Unión más rápidamente?
               

                  La cuestión de la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión y la forma en que la Comisión cumple con la función de ser guardiana de los Tratados son de suma importancia. Es necesario evaluar el enfoque estratégico para la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión, especialmente en un momento en que es importante mantener el vínculo con los ciudadanos y ciudadanas de la Unión Europea, hacer que se sientan escuchados y que confíen en nuestras instituciones. Esperamos, por tanto, Comisaria, sus respuestas.
               

                  Y aprovecho, presidente, ya que hoy he tenido tiempo de palabra y no me ha cortado, para quejarme por el día aquel en que me cortó por llevar una camiseta que no era una camiseta política. Yo uso muchas camisetas, se lo quería decir en un momento.
               

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I thank you for putting this important topic on the agenda today.
Your question centres on the Commission's strategic approach to enforcing EU law that the Commission announced in its 2016 communication ‘EU law: better results through better application’. This approach has been designed to increase the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement actions. Effective and smart enforcement is about preventing breaches from happening in the first place. This is why the Commission has continued to step up its efforts in this regard, for instance, by providing early support to Member States on how to ensure effective implementation of EU law and to identify potential problems at an early stage.
Where preventive measures are not sufficient and breaches of law persist, the Commission opens and pursues infringement procedures. In the years 2020 to 2022, the Commission launched over 2 300 infringement procedures, an increase compared to the previous three years. In 2022 alone, the Commission referred a total of 35 cases to the Court of Justice of the EU, and in 17 cases which were launched due to the late transposition of directives, the Commission decided to request the Court to impose financial sanctions against the Member State concerned.
Indeed, the Commission's enforcement policy has evolved over time to ensure that it remains as impactful as possible. Priority has been given to tackling breaches with the highest impact on the everyday lives of people and businesses. The primary purpose of the infringement procedure is to ensure that the Member States give effect to EU law in the general interest. This means that where there are sufficient indications of a general practice or systemic failure, the Commission will pursue the infringement. This includes cases based on individual complaints, but the infringement procedure is not designed to offer concrete solutions for individuals or to ensure individual redress.
An individual case of misapplication of EU law, where there are insufficient indications of a general practice or systemic failure of compliance with EU law, is best dealt with by redress mechanisms at national level, closer to the citizen. These include, for instance, national courts, regulatory bodies, or ombuds. They often allow for quicker and more tailor-made solutions.
The problem has a cross-border dimension. The Solvit network may offer quick remedies.
The Commission values the input received from complainants and petitioners on individual cases of misapplication of EU law. If not followed up with specific investigations, they feed into the Commission's more global monitoring activities. And indeed, when such complaints become repetitive, they may form the basis for inquiries and investigations into potentially more structural and systemic failures. I stress that the Commission invites complainants to refer a matter again to the Commission, should there be additional evidence that points to a systemic failure. Most importantly, if there is no alternative redress mechanism available, the Commission continues to investigate the individual complaint or petition.
It is ultimately the Court of Justice that is responsible for deciding on compliance of Member States' laws with EU law. The hurdle for the Commission is high. To prove a systemic or structural breach of EU law, the Commission must produce sufficient evidence to show that the Member State's authorities have developed a repeated, widespread and persistent practice which is contrary to EU law. This is why the Commission cannot rely on simple presumptions or anecdotal indications. It must provide concrete evidence that the Member State concerned has generally and persistently failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law. Therefore, an accumulation of individual cases is not on its own necessarily sufficient to prove a systemic nature of a breach.
As regards the use of IT tools and transparency, the Commission uses dedicated and collaborative IT tools to handle petitions and complaints concerning an alleged breach of EU law. They make it possible to link existing complaints and petitions concerning the same grievances. This ensures that all relevant information is available to the Commission to conduct the assessment.
Furthermore, to help the wider public engage in the shared responsibility on enforcement, the Commission has stepped up transparency of its enforcement actions in recent years. Good examples are an up-to-date public register on all infringement cases, and the annual report on monitoring the application of EU law. The Commission also publishes press releases on all main infringement decisions.
The Commission's 2022 communication ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’ sets out the main tools at the Commission's disposal to achieve compliance with EU law. More importantly, it set out the concrete benefits the Commission's actions bring to people and businesses. Numerous examples in the fields of environment, consumer protection and single market, among others, show that the Commission's strategic approach works, but there is no time to be complacent. The enforcement of EU law is an ongoing task and, at times, challenging.
To ensure that the way the Commission enforces EU law is also future-proof, over the last year, the Commission conducted a stocktaking exercise on its working methods for monitoring the application of EU law. This led, in July 2023, to targeted recommendations, which are currently being implemented by the Commission, where appropriate, together with the Member States. Further strengthening transparency on the Commission's enforcement actions is one of the recommended improvements, notably by publishing information in a more user-friendly and meaningful way.
In all these efforts, the Commission pursues one overall objective, namely, to achieve compliance as soon as possible and to ensure that citizens and businesses enjoy the benefits of EU law wherever they live in the EU.

Witold Pahl,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Drogie Koleżanki i Koledzy! Dziękuję członkom Komisji Petycji i jej przewodniczącej Pani Dolores Montserrat za podjęcie tego ważnego tematu. To właśnie z Komisji Petycji wychodzą te bardzo ważne sygnały, które wskazują na to, że prawo wspólnotowe nie jest we właściwy sposób transponowane do systemów prawnych państw członkowskich i odbywa się to ze szkodą dla obywateli.
               

                  Jak wiemy art. 17 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej stanowi, że Komisja Europejska ma obowiązek prawo unijne egzekwować poprzez monitorowanie stosowania prawa pierwotnego i prawa wtórnego, a także ma obowiązek dopilnować jego jednolitego stosowania w całej Unii Europejskiej.
               

                  Zgadzam się z zapowiedzią, z informacją przedstawioną przez panią komisarz Dalli co do zakresu skutecznego egzekwowania tego prawa. Zgadzamy się, że należy to egzekwowanie poprawić. To, co budzi mój szczególny niepokój, to nie tylko nieprawidłowe transponowanie przepisów dotyczących prawa do sprawiedliwego, ale przede wszystkim szybkiego prawa obywateli do rozpatrywania ich skarg na przepisy, które im szkodzą.
               

                  I mogę się zgodzić także z panią poseł Mirandą, która mówi o tym, że rozwiązaniem tego problemu może być wprowadzenie platformy cyfrowej. Petycja to przecież bardzo ważny instrument, który pozwala obywatelom bezpośrednio wpływać na proces sprawowania władzy, a wydłużanie czasu ich rozpatrywania prawo do szybkiego i sprawiedliwego rozpoznania sprawy w sposób oczywisty narusza. Jest to więc brak szacunku również dla obywateli, a przecież reprezentujemy obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego zdecydowanie podpisuję się pod apelem o wzmożenie wspólnych wysiłków w tej kwestii. Dziękuję przedstawicielom Komisji Europejskiej za ich zaangażowanie. Dziękuję za uwagę.
               

Łukasz Kohut,
w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Panie i Panowie Europosłowie! Przepisy prawa powinny odpowiadać potrzebom społecznym, a ich skuteczne egzekwowanie zwiększać poczucie bezpieczeństwa i ochrony interesów ważnych z punktu widzenia Europejczyków. Prawo powinno być też żywe, a to oznacza podążanie za zmianami zachodzącymi w nowoczesnym społeczeństwie, i odpowiadać na wyzwania teraźniejszości.
               

                  Jednym z nich jest plaga samotności. Na stronie ‘Nauka w Polsce’ pod hasłem ‘samotność’ znajdziemy obszerne artykuły, których tytuły brzmią: ‘W ubiegłym roku półtora tysiąca seniorów odebrało sobie życie’, ‘Samotność wpływa na fizjologię człowieka’, ‘Samotność regularnie odczuwa 65% osób z pokolenia Z’.
               

                  Samotność jest egalitarna. Nie ma wieku, płci, zawodu czy statusu ekonomicznego. Epidemia samotności to trafna i trudna diagnoza naszej ery. Instytucje, także europejskie, potrzebują czasu, by znajdować odpowiednie rozwiązania współczesnych problemów, ale mogą, a nawet powinny korzystać ze znakomitych oddolnych inicjatyw i rozwiązań, które już się sprawdziły.
               

                  Jedno z nich narodziło się na Śląsku. Katowicka Fundacja Wolne Miejsce utworzyła jeden z pierwszych sklepów socjalnych w Polsce i nieustannie wspiera osoby w kryzysie samotności.
               

(Przewodniczący przerwał mówcy)


President. – Colleague, I let you speak but I hardly see that you talk about the issue.

Łukasz Kohut,
w imieniu grupy S&D. – Ostatnio z ich inicjatywy powstało nawet ‘ministerstwo samotności’ – miejsce, gdzie spotykają się osoby samotne w różnym wieku i spędzają ze sobą czas. Takie miejsca i organizacje powinny być w całej Europie. Stwórzmy takie ministerstwa samotności i systemowo odpowiedzmy na tę ogólnoeuropejską epidemię. Systemowo także uregulujmy status sklepów socjalnych w całej Unii. To mogą być dobre miejsca do walki z samotnością. Walczmy ze skutkami, ale zacznijmy w końcu eliminować przyczyny.
               

                  I na sam koniec. Polska wróciła do pełnego członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej, już wkrótce do pełnego trójpodziału władzy i do przestrzegania prawa europejskiego.
               

Vlad Gheorghe,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, Comisia este gardianul tratatelor. Ce înseamnă asta? Înseamnă că Comisia trebuie să aibă grijă ca toate țările și toate instituțiile din Uniunea Europeană să aplice la fel, dar mai ales să aplice legislația europeană. Totuși, ce facem când chiar Comisia, care are rolul ăsta, nu aplică legislația europeană? Ce facem când chiar Comisia nu aplică o rezoluție a acestui Parlament European trecută cu o largă majoritate nu acum zece ani, nu acum cinci ani, ci anul ăsta în iulie? Ce facem când Comisia, deși spune că susține niște principii, niște principii foarte importante, egalitatea, nediscriminarea, nu ajută suficient țările care sunt lăsate în afară, care sunt discriminate?
               

                  Haideți să vedem cum se leagă aceste lucruri. Avem o rezoluție votată aici, în Parlamentul European, pentru ca România și Bulgaria să intre în zona Schengen. Această rezoluție nu vine doar de la noi, de aici. Această rezoluție a venit printr-o petiție, prin voința cetățenilor noștri, a trecut prin Comisia pentru petiții și a ajuns rezoluție în Parlamentul European. Cu toate acestea, Comisia Europeană nu aplică prevederile ei. Ce spune această rezoluție? Nu doar că ar trebui să intrăm noi, România și Bulgaria, în spațiul Schengen, ci și că avem un drept foarte important: dreptul la despăgubiri, pentru că cineva nu aplică la rândul său dreptul european așa cum ar trebui (în cazul nostru, Austria), pentru că cineva ne discriminează pe noi, pentru că cineva face un abuz de drept și avem acel drept de despăgubire împotriva Austriei.
               

                  Scrie asta în rezoluția noastră, votată aici în Parlamentul European, și mai scrie că Comisia Europeană are obligația de a calcula aceste despăgubiri și de a găsi modalități pentru ca țările afectate, România și Bulgaria, să le primească. Ce facem când Comisia Europeană una spune și alta face? Stimați colegi, dacă noi vom permite ca acest lucru să continue, înseamnă că ne pierdem chiar principiile europene. Înseamnă că dacă Comisia nu aplică ea regulile, nu prea văd cum poate să le ceară altora.
               

Ангел Джамбазки,
от името на групата ECR. – Г-н Председател, колегата Кохут малко нещо оплете дебатите, дано да е добре с неговите размисли за самоубийствата. Изобщо днес в края на деня всеки май говори каквото му хрумне. Нещо като в Хайд парк сме се превърнали, но това не е темата.
               

                  Темата е за това как да се подобри прилагането на правото на Европейския съюз. Тук веднага се обръщам към комисаря със забележка към нейните твърдения. Правото на Европейския съюз се основава на Договорите за функциониране на Европейския съюз и Комисията има възложени задачи по тези Договори. Никой не може да си присъединява повече права, отколкото са му дадени по Договорите, и никой не трябва да си мисли да има повече права. Има различни рангове и йерархии на законодателни актове, които вменяват права и задължения на Европейската комисия, на Европейския съд в Люксембург, както и на националните съдилища и техните няколко инстанции.
               

                  Така че много ви моля, не се опитвайте, не си въобразявайте да си присвоявате повече права, отколкото имате, и да превръщате европейските съдилища, Европейската комисия в своеобразен омбудсман. Да се занимавате с такива несвойствени за вас задачи, като защитаване на имагинерни права на групи от хора, които си въобразяват, че ги имат и правят всичко друго, за да ни ги натрапят по някакъв начин. За пример ви давам т. нар. туризъм на семействата на дъгата, които обикалят по различни държави и се опитват да провокират националните законодателства.
               

                  Имате си задължения по закон, уважаема г-жо комисар, надявам се да ми обърнете внимание. Може би проверявате нещо от това, което ви казвам? Да, чудесно. Имате задължения, които са Ви дадени въз основа на Договорите, и трябва да действате в рамките на Договорите.
               

Virginie Joron,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, pour une fois, je suis d'accord avec mes collègues. Quand une pétition arrive ici, quand des citoyens se plaignent, la Commission n'y donne pas suite parce que, soi-disant, ces plaintes concernent des cas particuliers ou des faits divers.
               

                  C'est aussi l'attitude de l'Agence européenne du médicament et de votre administration de Bruxelles qui comptabilisent 12 000 morts et des millions d'effets secondaires des vaccins contre la COVID-19, Pfizer et autres, sans en tirer les conséquences et qui cachent les informations au public au fond d'un tiroir. L'approche actuelle de la Commission de ne pas donner accès aux documents et aux SMS, d'ignorer les pétitions, d'ignorer les citoyens en renvoyant les pétitions dans les pays, aboutit au blocage des procédures pendant des années dans la phase précontentieuse, sans transmission aux tribunaux et sans accès aux documents essentiels.
               

                  Face à cette bureaucratie opaque de Bruxelles, la meilleure défense, c'est l'attaque, comme disait l'empereur Napoléon. Parlons du dernier rapport de la Cour des comptes européenne sur les marchés publics en Europe. Chaque année, ce sont quelque 2 000 milliards d'euros qui font l'objet de marchés publics. La Cour conclut que la durée des procédures administratives a doublé en dix ans. Ni Eurostat ni la Commission n'effectuent un suivi des prix des marchés publics. Le niveau de la concurrence a baissé au cours de la dernière décennie. Deux indicateurs clés sont utilisés par la Cour pour mesurer la non-concurrence entre les marchés publics: pas d'appel d'offres et soumissionnaire unique. Cela vous rappelle quelque chose? Moi, ça me rappelle les contrats d'achat des vaccins contre la COVID-19 avec ces prix et ces clauses secrètes.
               

                  Pour finir, je vais citer la Cour des comptes: ‘les marchés publics mettant en jeu de grosses sommes d'argent public, il existe un risque de fraude et de corruption’. Dans les marchés publics, la transparence est donc essentielle pour veiller à ce que les décideurs soient tous tenus responsables de leurs actions. La Médiatrice européenne nous a demandé, la semaine dernière, de lutter contre la corruption et elle a raison. Cela doit être une priorité pour nous tous, et le Qatargate ne doit surtout pas cacher le Pfizergate.
               

Tatjana Ždanoka (NI). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, as a Member who has dedicated many years to the Petitions Committee I am aware of a significant issue eroding the foundations of the European Union from within. When a petitioner alleges a breach of EU law, the Commission often declines to act. According to the recent study requested by the Petitions Committee, in 96 % of petitions, further action was declined because the violations could be better addressed by national authorities. By this way, is the primary responsibility lying on the Commission on guarding EU law is put on the shoulders of ordinary citizens, who often lack the time, money and legal expertise required to such texts.
As a result, we have a dwindling number of petitions, and this decline does not signal an improvement. Rather, it reflects a diminishing face to our liability to address their concerns. And I can see the example of this on petitions concerning national minorities in my country, Latvia.

Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Etwas verbessern zu wollen ist ja ehrenwert, aber ich habe den Eindruck, dass hier mal wieder die falschen Schwerpunkte gesetzt werden. Statt Subsidiarität – also weniger EU – gibt es wieder mal mehr EU. Oder man könnte auch sehr grob sagen: Die Kleinen hängt man, und die Großen lässt man laufen. Meine Kollegin Joron hat schon darauf hingewiesen: auf die Dinge, diese Rechtsverstöße, die man eigentlich untersuchen müsste. Warum tun Sie das nicht?
               

                  Meine Damen und Herren, wir brauchen nicht mehr Instrumente, die die Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten aushebeln. Wir brauchen mehr Abgeordnete wie unsere leider zu früh verstorbene Kollegin Michèle Rivasi, die die finanziellen Interessen der EU schützen wollen. Und wir brauchen mehr Mitgliedstaaten, die sich für ihr eigenes Volk einsetzen und es vor einer immer übergriffigeren EU bewahren wollen.
               

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I think there is an urgent need to improve the enforcement of EU law, particularly in cases which involve a large amount of European citizens.
Since I started in this mandate, I've been working with a group of Irish citizens who bought apartments in a complex in Bulgaria, in Sunset Resort in Pomorie, and have had an incredibly difficult time in getting their rights under European law vindicated. They've had illegal practices by the management company using its monopoly power to overcharge and disconnect them in terms of energy supplies, without any consumer protection – protection which is guaranteed to them in EU law that they would have a direct connection to the electricity and energy supply.
These people have gone everywhere to have their rights under EU law vindicated. They've contacted the Bulgarian authorities, the European authorities, initiated numerous legal proceedings in Bulgaria against annual general meetings and so on – there's even 20 cases now. There's an urgent need. They were before the PETI Committee this year. The Commission needs to take note and act to protect citizens.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, respectarea dreptului Uniunii Europene cred că nu trebuie s-o mai inventăm, este trecută clar în tratat. Important este să ne uităm la aplicare și este surprinzător, doamnă comisar, să spunem că atunci când sunt petiții individuale, nu le luăm în seamă, pentru că eu cred că nimeni nu trebuie – așa avem noi sloganul – nimeni nu trebuie să fie lăsat în urmă.
               

                  Fiecare cetățean este important și am să vă dau un singur exemplu: dacă sunt petiții individuale, de exemplu din mai multe state membre, dar pe același subiect, cum ar fi răpirea, că nu pot s-o numesc altfel, a copiilor de la școală pe anumite motive neverificate încă și ani de zile familiile se judecă pentru a-și recupera copiii, nu ar putea atunci Comisia Europeană, gardianul tratatelor, dreptul superior al copilului, să intervină?
               

                  Eu cred că se pierde încrederea în instituțiile europene atunci când la aceste petiții și, culmea, și la inițiativele cetățenești europene este același mod de acțiune din partea Comisiei și atunci nu o să mai aibă încredere cetățenii nici în Comisia pentru petiții a Parlamentului, nici în Comisia Europeană. De aceea, eu cred că fiecare caz este important și trebuie să îl tratați ca atare.
               

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the right of petition in the European Parliament is the oldest participatory mechanism in the EU. They are a method for citizens to engage directly in democracy on issues such as how the EU governs and enforces laws that affect their lives. As the majority of petitions concern EU law, and as the von der Leyen Commission is the enforcer of EU law, for the petition process to work for citizens, the Commission needs to support it.
Unfortunately, like many of the positive measures that this Parliament can take, petitions have been stifled and made obsolete by the Commission, who view them as irrelevant. It excludes the majority of individual petitions with the blanket reasoning that they do not raise issues of wider principle. The Commission also continuously passes the buck on petitions and enforcement, referring the questions back to Member States and national governments. This defeats the purpose of allowing EU citizens to petition the European Parliament. One of the goals of the Lisbon Treaty was to increase direct participation by EU citizens, with petitions being central to this goal. The Commission has utterly failed to honour its side of the bargain in this regard.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable members, I want to thank you for this important debate, as this is one of the busiest periods for the legislative machinery with an intense pace of trilogue negotiations. It is very pertinent to remind ourselves that law-making is only one side of the coin. We will only achieve the intended effects of our jointly agreed policies, if these policies are properly implemented. For people and businesses to enjoy the benefits of our common rules and to have their rights protected, EU law must be implemented and applied both fully and correctly everywhere in the EU. This is why the enforcement of EU law has always been and remains a priority for the Commission.
In recent years, the Commission initiated infringement procedures to protect fundamental values, for instance on equality, rule of law, democracy and citizenship. All these examples show the Commission's determination and steadfastness in enforcing EU law. The enforcement approach taken by the Commission works. We were able to close 1900 infringement cases in the last three years as Member States achieved compliance. Over 90 % of them were resolved before going to court, which means faster compliance than if litigation in court had been necessary, saving time and taxpayers money in the process.
They explained earlier, the Commission is implementing the findings of the stocktaking exercise, including on transparency. This will make it easier for the public to find existing infringement cases on specific topics, and to verify if there is any linked petition to ongoing investigations. The Commission also intends to link the public infringement register with the Parliament's petition web portal.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               
11.   Explanations of vote

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen Erklärungen zu den Abstimmungen.
               
11.1.   Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (A9-0368/2023 - Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, убедено гласувах против този доклад. Това е един от най-важните документи, които приема този Европейски съюз. В него, в този доклад, който абсолютно подменя своето значение – нарича се едва ли не за защита на правата на лицата, които са осиновяващи и осиновявани, всъщност е неприкрита пропаганда на т. нар. семейства на дъгата, еднополови и други подобни. Няма по-яко, по-ярко, по-видимо, по-флагрантно подменяне на наименования и прокарване на пропаганда.
                  

                     В този доклад, в този документ се споменава думата ‘майка’ три пъти, три пъти, докато думата или определението ‘лицето, родило детето’ се споменава повече от 16 пъти. Това говори само за себе си и много ясно показва пропагандния характер на документа. За пореден път показва, че Парламентът е използван за трибуна за пропаганда. Дъга, не знам какво, всякакви други такива неща, които нямат нищо общо със заглавието, което е написано горе.
                  

                     По този начин се провежда антисемейна пропаганда, която не може да бъде търпяна.
                  

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because I think it's a really important text that allows for the mutual recognition of judgements relating to parenthood. It simply states that if you are the parent in one Member State, then you're a parent in all Member States. It puts the rights of the child first, which is as it should be, and it doesn't change the substantive family law of Member States. This is absolutely critical. It's not acceptable that children could lose their parents, legally speaking, when they enter another Member State in the European Union.
I'm reminded today of Mandy Kelly, an Irish mother who today is before the Petitions Committee in the Irish Parliament because her Egyptian husband abducted her two children in April 2022. She is seeking all during that time to have her parental rights vindicated, to have the rights of those children upheld and the court rulings in Ireland upheld. We need a bilateral arrangement also with countries like Egypt outside of the European Union, but for now, parental rights within the EU must be protected.

Tatjana Ždanoka (NI). – Mr President, I didn't vote on the draft legislative resolution, although I was present in the vote. Why? I am convinced that the legislation concerning cross-border situations deemed to fill legal gaps and create legal certainty for EU residents must resolve, first of all, the notion of EU citizenship. How can we speak about a European certificate of parenthood if we are not able to issue the European Union passport to EU natives being not the citizens of any state? These people are about 250 000 in Latvia and Estonia.
One recent case I dealt with, one Latvian family – two parents and child – had to move urgently to Spain due to sickness of the child, the child being a citizen when there is non-citizen parents, and they are deprived of the right to work, to provide situation to live in Spain, since they don't have EU-level passports and are not eligible to work. It's a shame.
11.2.   Young researchers (B9-0491/2023)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, гласувах в подкрепа на тази резолюция за младите изследователи, защото действително научните работници във всички държави членки се нуждаят от някаква форма на подкрепа. Така например, в България и в останалите източноевропейски държави подкрепата за млади докторанти категорично не е достатъчна, за да могат те да имат такова качество на живот, което да им позволява да се развиват и да работят научно. Да не говорим колко е важно това за предприемачеството, за бизнесите, за това европейските държави да бъдат конкурентноспособни и да могат да дават отговор на конкуренцията от страна на държавите извън европейския континент такива, каквито са Съединените американски щати и Китай, например.
                  

                     Така че мисля, за разлика от много други резолюции, които се гласуват тук и са нещо просто страшно, тази е стъпка в правилната посока и трябва да бъде насърчавано подобно отношение към млади изследователи, млади докторанти, млади научни работници, които да произвеждат принадена стойност на продукти, правени в ЕС от държавите – членки на Европейския съюз.
                  

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, there is a postgraduate research crisis in Ireland. Many postgrad researchers can no longer afford basic necessities such as food, rent, heating, due to their lack of funding and working status. Now research and the title of this is Young Research. I mean, we have a secondary school curriculum in Ireland and there's absolutely no initiative around research. I mean, we need to teach young people to think clearly for themselves, and that requires given them the opportunity to research things for themselves. Only a couple of days ago, a young girl from my own area in Wexford contacted me, a 16 year old, and she was researching the US-China relationship and how important it was to the world. But she was looking into it, and she said that she was really shocked to find out that China hadn't gone to war with any country in 44 years, whereas the US had been at war most of that time. And she said that China had managed to take over 800 million people out of poverty, while the US has stagnated and promoted inequality. Very great initiative from the young girl.
11.3.   Frontex, building on the fact-finding investigation of the LIBE Working Group for Frontex Scrutiny (B9-0499/2023)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, гласувах убедено против тази резолюция, защото тя се стреми да скопи, да унищожи Frontex и да го превърне от служба, която трябва да подкрепя защитата на външните граници, в служба, която трябва да ходи да издирва нелегални имигранти, да ги спасява, да улеснява трафика на крайнолевите организации, на левите НПО, които се занимават с трафик на хора, които се стремят да подменят културно, цивилизационно и всякак населението на европейския континент.
                  

                     Задачата на Frontex, такава, каквато е създадена, е да подпомага държавите членки по външните граници да могат да ги отбраняват. И това именно е причината, поради която държави като Австрия и като Холандия се противопоставят и говорят за Шенген и искат някаква отбрана на външните граници. Това е работата на Frontex – да отбранява външните граници от нелегална миграция. Не е работата на Frontex да се занимава с това да насърчава нелегалната миграция, да насърчава трафика на хора и да се занимава с крайнолява пропаганда и налудни, популистки, леви болшевишки идеи, каквито за съжаление виждаме доста.
                  

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I abstained on this resolution because, while I appreciate that it certainly does have good points, it doesn't go far enough on Frontex. At this point, Frontex is less of a border agency, much more like a mafia gang, a mafia gang working hand in glove with all the Member States' mafiosos, policing Europe's external borders.
Frontex is ignoring Court of Justice rulings, still working with the Lithuanians, who are also ignoring those judgements, where complicity in violent attacks on migrants runs from top to bottom, where crimes are covered up, evidence is destroyed ,where its own fundamental rights officer is sidelined and stonewalled, where OLAF found serious misconduct, failure of leadership and essentially corruption, and where the management board proposes a new executive director and covers up for the fact that he's been investigated for misconduct. Every step of the way, it's shielded by the Commission. That is why it does what it does.
Europe's treatment of refugees is a crime against humanity. This lip service is fooling nobody.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, if ever there was a single entity that symbolises the current state of the European Union, it's Frontex, the European border and Coastguard Agency.
Frontex, currently the EU's number one funded agency, personifies the direction the European Union has taken since the von der Leyen Commission took over the reins in 2019. It's an agency with a mission statement that includes being respectful to people, holding high ethical standards and respecting fundamental rights. But in reality it has done the opposite: it has actively engaged in pushback measures in the Aegean Sea for years, resulting in horrendous atrocities.
The EU rightly acted quickly to provide protection and reception conditions to millions of Ukrainians fleeing the war in 2021. Contrast this decision with how the EU continues to utilise Frontex to prevent those fleeing from countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. What's the difference with these migrants? Is it their skin colour? We should welcome people fleeing persecution without distinction and end the racism that we're exposing.
11.4.   Attempt of coup d'Etat in Guatemala (RC-B9-0526/2023, B9-0526/2023, B9-0527/2023, B9-0528/2023, B9-0529/2023, B9-0530/2023, B9-0531/2023)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I would have really liked to have voted in favour of this text, because for the first time that I can remember, the European Parliament is rightfully condemning a right-wing coup attempt against a democratically elected leader in a Latin American country.
The Guatemalan people made their choice earlier this year. They decided on change, and instead of accepting that, entrenched interests in the Guatemalan state have fought the will of the people at every turn, using every means available to overturn a democratic election and cling to power. It's an absolute disgrace. It has to stop, and it is very right that we recognise that.
Unfortunately, however, in an otherwise good resolution, there is, yet again, a call for EU sanctions. And for me, there has to be a conversation about the increasingly reflexive calls for sanctions in this body. It's not possible to solve every problem in the world with coercion. We need to stop sanctioning at the drop of a hat. If it hadn't been for this, I would have supported the motion. I had to abstain, but I really hope for an orderly, democratic transition in Guatemala and for the rights of its wonderful people to be upheld.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr Preisdent, you know, the far-right forces in Guatemala are certainly making fools of themselves when they can't even get the European Parliament on board. Last year, the EU parliament supported the far right coup against President Pedro Castillo in Peru and his replacement by the unelected Dina Boluarte, whose regime killed at least 57 protesters in a series of massacres. The Parliament supported Jeanine Añez's far-right coup against the democratically-elected socialist president Morales in 2019, giving backing to two massacres, torture, political persecution, illegal detention and summary executions of those who took to the streets in rejection of the coup. The Parliament supported the repeated coup attempts against Venezuela and, for years, embarrassingly recognised the unelected, far-right US puppet Guaido as president of Venezuela. The list goes on.
The colonial habits die hard. The EU Parliament still views Latin America as a site of unfettered capitalist exploitation and expropriation, and any leftist who stands in the way must go.

Der Präsident. – Soweit die Stimmerklärungen zu diesem Thema.
                  
12.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament zu Beginn der nächsten Sitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
               

                  Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, werde ich die in der heutigen Sitzung angenommenen Entschließungen den in diesen Entschließungen genannten Personen und Gremien übermitteln.
               
13.   Dates of forthcoming sittings

Der Präsident. – Die nächste Tagung findet vom 15. bis zum 18. Januar 2024 statt.
               
14.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.50 Uhr geschlossen.)

15.   Adjournment of the session

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.
               


ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)