Debate: Breaches of EU law and of the rights of LGBTIQ citizens in Hungary as a result of the adopted legal changes in the Hungarian Parliament - The outcome of  June hearings under Article of the TEU regarding Poland and Hungary
Date: WEDNESDAY, 7 JULY 2021
Speaker: Věra Jourová
Language: EN

That’s why I want to add a few words from the side of the Commission. I said very clearly at the beginning that we fully recognise the need to protect children, and we also have this strengthened protection in our strategy, which we recently adopted. We fully recognise the right of parents to educate their children. This is essential, but we also need to safeguard fundamental rights by not pitting one right against another.  I want to stress one more thing. This was not a discussion targeted against the Hungarian and Polish people. I need to say it. I really feel the need to say this, as a person who comes from Central Europe. This has been a debate which was critical – mainly critical. There were of course voices supporting the governments in Poland and Hungary, but most of the voices I heard were critical of the political course of the current leading political powers in both countries. This is the course of turning against part of the society. This is the course of turning against their own citizens, labelling them, stigmatising them and portraying them as public enemies, as paedophiles even, which is not expressed clearly in the law, but it is raising this image and raising these reactions from the public.  This is confusing me, because it is exactly Putin’s playbook. We see this in today’s Russia: the stigmatisation of LGBTI people. The experts speak about the sexualisation of the enemy, and Putin does not risk anything. He is just gaining political popularity, because he is targeting the people who are not able to defend themselves. This is the method we are following in European Member States, or in one Member State at this moment. This is very worrying, this is confusing, and I think this is something we have to work against.  I described at the beginning all the tools which are available for the Commission to act against such a law. I also want to react to several Members of the Parliament who spoke about some historical parallels. I am always careful about using these comparisons with the war, but you mentioned the concentration camps several times. The last one was Mr Biedroń here. I’d like you to believe me that I am thinking a lot about these issues, about the situation in Europe and the very dangerous trends which we see, namely, the labelling of people and making them second-class citizens.  Whenever I am in doubt about how to continue, whether we are not too critical, whether we should not leave the Member States to go their way under the flag of sovereignty, I listen again and again to the speech that Marian Turski gave in Auschwitz last year in January. It was the authentic voice of somebody who survived the Holocaust. He didn’t speak about the past; he spoke about the present. He repeated several times, ‘Do not be indifferent when the minorities are attacked in Europe, because this is the start of something which we saw in the past’. It’s our obligation to listen to the voice of Marian Turski and others who are warning us: do not be indifferent and do something. Do not be passive. But it’s not only for the Commission – and many of you were addressing me, ‘Do something, act’ – but it’s for the Council, for the Member States, it’s for the civil society to be vocal, and, at the end of the day, of course, it’s for the voters in the countries who see that their governments are doing something wrong. So I think the Commission is doing the right thing to introduce measures to protect the elections, which belong to the democratic architecture, but this is another story. I will come back. Many of you were asking how we shall use the instruments to stop funding to the countries that do not respect the Union’s values. I said in this place some time ago that I am convinced that those who does not understand our values might at least understand the money. It was criticised by many, but I still believe it’s true, so I fully understand your questions.  First, on what Guy Verhofstadt asked me, I just checked now with the President’s Cabinet and with the colleagues responsible for the recovery fund’s adoption and assessment, and there is no such news that we would stop it. The process is ongoing. We are, of course, looking into the audit and control systems in the Member States, and I want to recall that the decision on the approval of the individual plans of the Member States is to be taken by the Council by qualified majority. It’s not for the Commission. The Commission might of course stop it when we see issues there. I cannot confirm at this moment that has happened, so the German press was not right.  Still staying with the financial instruments, we were of course fighting for the budget conditionality for three years, and many times in this place I thanked the Parliament for its support. When I came up with this idea in 2017, it was like another scandalous idea. How come we would stop the funding? In the meantime, it gained a lot of support because we simply see that, if we distribute more money with less trust, we will pay a horrible price for such a systemic error. So that’s why I can confirm here that the Commission is ready to launch the procedure under the Conditionality Regulation in due time. We are working on that. There is of course the Court of Justice decision pending, but we are working intensively. You can read the guidelines where we make it clear how the proportionality principle should be applied, and so on.  Here again, my comment on the citizens. We should not turn against any citizens from any Member State to punish them for who they voted for. We have to apply the principle of proportionality and be fair, because the principles of fairness and proportionality are in the regulation itself. In the guidelines we are reacting to that; we are making it more specific, describing the procedures, and so on. But again, I confirm on behalf of the Commission that we are ready to use the conditionality in full. On Article 7, I can confirm what I said at the beginning. We will continue as long as it is needed. It is of course for the Council, but for the Commission, on my side, I do not find this procedure totally useless. I have said many times that it’s not an atomic bomb. This nickname is sometimes used for it, but it’s neither atomic nor a bomb. This is the process where we discuss with the respective Member States the issues at stake. The hearing we had last time was useful, and I was thankful to the Portuguese Presidency for having organised this hearing. We can of course continue on the way towards the recommendation, which requires four fifths of the votes. I already discussed this with both upcoming Presidencies, the Slovenian and French Presidencies, and said that I would recommend doing that. It’s for the Council. As for the possible sanction, well, we need unanimity. We will of course follow the exact wording of the Treaty, and there unanimity is needed for the final decision. Just to be clear on that.  I don’t want to get stuck on arithmetic, but I would like to recall to all of us that the final number of the Member States supporting the declaration against the Hungarian law was, I think, 18. So we should also be aware of the political realities of today. But again, I was discussing with both upcoming Presidencies that we should move. A last comment. I know I am speaking horribly long – Mr President, give me two minutes. I cannot skip it. I want to send all my support and hopes for Peter de Vries, who was injured. The protection of journalists and the protection of the media belong to the story of protecting the rule of law in the EU. Journalists are not safe in Europe. I am so unhappy to say that. The question is: how many murdered or injured journalists do we need to increase the protection of journalists in the EU?  I have to recall the fact that ensuring the safety of citizens belongs to the competences of the Member States, and the Commission will issue recommendations on how to increase the protection of our journalists, because murdered or injured journalists invoke the question of whether we are becoming the Wild West again. This is absolutely intolerable, and the Member States have to do their job to protect them. When a journalist announces that he is under online threats, it means something, and the police have to react. There must be action taken from the law enforcement side in the Member States. Of course, I don’t know the situation of Peter de Vries, whether he was under these threats. I have to go into the case or to read more about that today.  We also want to protect journalists against abusive litigation. I hear the stories of many journalists who tell me, ‘We are preparing a case, we are investigating, we have enough evidence against the people in power – be it rich, powerful politicians, I don’t know, whoever – and we expect harsh action against us’. That’s why I think it also belongs to our debate on the rule of law, that journalists should not be silenced by means of judiciary powers.  So we have a lot of work in the EU. This work will never be finished. We need to work together and find ways to give the message to our citizens that we will be protecting their rights and we will be protecting the EU values. Thank you very much.