Debate: Ongoing hearings under Article TEU regarding Poland and Hungary
Date: WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2022
Speaker: Věra Jourová
Language: EN

The discussion was about the rule of law, which might sound as something theoretical, something for the lawyers, something academic. But for the European Union, when there is a breach of rule of law or some level of uncertainty in one Member State, it creates uncertainty for the whole Europe. And believe me, I know what I speak about, because I work in this field, especially in the field of justice and human rights for already seven years. And I see this erosion of trust, which is creeping through European Union and its Member States. And I would quote Ms Kempa who spoke about Schuman’s Europe dying. I think that if one day Schuman’s Europe will die, it will be on the lack of trust between the members of the club. And I have to say, this is one of the serious threats we face as well, the lack of trust. Because everything which is in the Treaty is based on the strong prediction that the rule of law as a basic principle, as a governance system, works everywhere. That’s why we have to deal with this issue. A few words on Hungary. I was following very closely what Prime Minister Orbán was saying before the elections and after. And he repeated one sentence that it’s the highest interest of Hungarian nation and of Hungary to remain in the European Union, that it’s the highest national interest. And so I think that also Mr Orbán understands that if they want to stay in this European House, they have to respect the rules of the House. And one of the rules of this House, that of the European Union, to be precise, is that the winner after the elections does not take all. That the winner, the political winner does not take judiciary, does not take media, does not take the state administration. And these are the rules, because when we see the system where the winner takes all, we see autocracy. And this is what is not compatible with the European democratic system, what is foreseen in the Treaty. And this is not about ideology. This is about governance system which is at stake. And I always repeat the same thing when we discuss the Hungarian situation and Article 7: this is not ideological. This has to be a serious debate about the level of respect for the rule of law as the condition for a functioning democratic system. A few words about Poland. And here I would maybe more like to use my mother tongue, my language, which is Czech language, because Poland and Polish people are very close to my heart, and I admire very much what Poland and Polish people are now doing in this crisis. And I remember myself very often speaking also with the Polish representatives, with some of you. I was asking, what is the justice reform good for? Who is it good for? What is the cost benefit of it? I tried to understand. And in the meantime, by really trying to understand and coming to some reasonable solution to see the independent judiciary in Poland, I saw more and more that Poland is weakening itself by this. And when I was in Gdańsk last year, and it was in September, I remember myself saying, I fear of weak Poland. I would like to see strong Poland; also because maybe I have the instinct of the Czech person who lived 23 years under Russian occupation. The Russian troops were in Czechoslovakia from 1968 to 1991. This instinct is something which is not transferable, and that’s why I was always alarming: we need strong Poland, because in the case something will happen – and also I felt that something might happen, because I saw through this information that Russia is preparing for this invasion or for something, at least something damaging European interests – in such situation, we will need strong Poland. So I call on everybody to come back to the table and to discuss what might be the way to make Poland stronger. Because I believe that what makes the state stronger is a well—functioning democratic system, including independent judiciary. Sorry I have to be a little bit personal and emotional, because I really think that this is not a good combination, of the necessity of strong Poland and the ongoing issues we discussed today. Sorry, I am long, I am very sorry. A few words about the conditionality. I want to confirm what Mr Körner said, that the 4% is the statistics announced by OLAF regarding Hungary. The conditionality was not meant as a principle to be used against some concrete country. It was created for possible use in the future, when we see very serious breaches in the system of rule of law which might endanger the sound financial distribution of European money. And Ms Wiśniewska said here that it’s not legal. It is illegal; it was clearly said by the European Court of Justice in its ruling from 16 February, and we have been triggering now the procedure against Hungary, because we believe that we have a strong body of evidence that there is insufficient prosecution and investigation of fraud and corruption. And we’ve also received answers from Poland, which we are now analysing. And honestly, I still don’t understand why Hungary and Poland did not join the European Public Prosecutor’s Office several years ago, especially for Poland, where we always saw a very low level of fraud and corruption. And we always saw Poland as a country which is managing well the funds. And so I didn’t understand because the EPPO was created to increase the protection of EU money everywhere, not only in the countries which get massive cohesion funding, as is the case of Poland. But this is what it is, Poland and Hungary are not in the EPPO, and who understands the system, he maybe sees that if we had all countries under EPPO, there would be no conditionality mechanism. Sorry I was too long, but I had something to say, because I really welcome the opportunity of having this discussion, and hear the Members of the European Parliament and their views on the situation.