Debates – Monday, 7 July 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

(The sitting opened at 17:02)

  President. – The minutes and the texts adopted of the sitting of 19 June 2025 are available.

Are there any comments? That does not seem to be the case.

The minutes are therefore approved.

  President. – The EPP, ECR and Renew Europe groups have notified me of decisions relating to changes to appointments within committees and delegations.

These decisions will be set out in the minutes of today’s sitting and take effect on the date of this announcement.

  President. – Several committees have decided to enter interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 72(1).

The reports which constitute the mandate for the negotiations are available on the plenary webpage and the titles will be published in the minutes of the sitting.

Pursuant to Rule 72(2), Members or political groups reaching at least the medium threshold may request in writing by tomorrow, Tuesday, 8 June, at midnight, that the decisions be put to the vote. If no request for a vote in Parliament is made within the deadline, the committees may start the negotiations.

  President. – I was informed that no objections have been raised within the Conference of Committee Chairs to the recommendation by the INTA Committee not to oppose a delegated act, pursuant to Rule 114(6) of our Rules.

The recommendation is available on the plenary webpage.

If no objections are raised by a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold within 24 hours, the recommendation shall be deemed to have been approved.

  President. – The LIBE and JURI Committees have transmitted a corrigendum to a text adopted by the Parliament. Pursuant to Rule 251(4), this corrigendum will be deemed approved unless, no later than 24 hours after its announcement, a request is made by a political group or Members reaching at least the low threshold that it be put to the vote.

The corrigendum is available on the plenary webpage. Its title will be published in the minutes of this sitting.

  President. – I would like to inform you that, since the adjournment of Parliament’s session on 19 June 2025, I have signed, together with the President of the Council, two acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Rule 81 of Parliament’s Rules.

The titles of the acts will be published in the minutes of this sitting.

  President. – We now come to the order of business. The final draft agenda, as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 2 July 2025 pursuant to Rule 163 has been distributed.

As a point of information, we will have the Srebrenica commemoration, after which immediately the debate on the motion of censure of the Commission as first items on the agenda. Due to these two points, I will only be taking the points of order that have come in after the debate on the motion of censure.

In this regard, a point has been raised by Ms Anderson on the matter of the debate on the motion of censure. To that I would like to stress that Rule 131 provides for a debate on motions of censure, which includes the one round of political group speakers. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of that rule and as decided by the Conference of Presidents, the debate will take place in the form of one round of political group speakers.

⁂

We will now move to the order of the agenda. I would like to inform you that I have received from the Greens Group the following request for urgent procedure, pursuant to Rule 170(5): European Climate Law.

The vote on this request will be taken tomorrow. If adopted, the vote will be added to the draft agenda of a future part-session.

For Wednesday, The Left Group has requested that Parliament’s statements on ‘Alleged misuse of EU funds by Members of the far-right and measures to ensure institutional integrity’ be added as fifth point in the afternoon. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended to 23:00.

I give the floor to Mr Schirdewan to move the request.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben in den letzten Tagen aus den Medien erfahren, dass ein interner Prüfbericht des Europäischen Parlaments deutlich macht, dass die frühere rechtsradikale ID-Fraktion hier im Europäischen Parlament mutmaßlich 4,3 Millionen Euro zweckentfremdet hat, und zwar für ihnen nahestehende Unternehmen ausgegeben hat, für überteuerte Werbung oder für die Förderung von fragwürdigen, ihnen nahestehenden Organisationen. Das zeigt den wahren Charakter derjenigen, die sich dort drüben immer als Saubermänner gerieren. Unter diesem Image steckt nämlich illegale Parteienfinanzierung und Korruption. Ich denke, dass das Parlament diese Gelegenheit ergreifen sollte, sich mit dieser Zweckentfremdung öffentlicher Gelder kritisch auseinanderzusetzen.

  President. – Is there anyone who would like to speak against? I see that is not the case. Then we put the request of The Left Group to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament approved the request)

The agenda is therefore amended.

  President. – The next item is a statement by myself on the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide (2025/2760(RSP)).

I would like to inform Members that there will only be one round of political group speakers for this debate. There is no catch-the-eye and no blue cards will be accepted. After my statement, I will give the floor to each political group speaker.

Dear colleagues, this week marks 30 years since the Srebrenica genocide, where thousands of Bosnian Muslims were murdered or disappeared, and tens of thousands more were forcibly expelled from the enclave. Tragically, many victims remain unidentified.

With us today are two survivors of the massacre: Almasa Salihović and Almir Salihović. Almasa was displaced from her community and only later discovered that her older brother, Abdulah, was executed. And Almir trudged for six days through the forest to escape the killing. Almasa and Almir, I would like to thank you for being here. You remind us that behind every name and number, there is a person. There is a family.

(Sustained applause)

This House honours you and all survivors, just as we continue to keep the memories of the victims alive. In the words of the Srebrenica Prayer, recited every year: ‘May mothers’ tears become prayers that Srebrenica never happens again.’

  Ondřej Kolář, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, this week we commemorate the horrors that happened 30 years ago in Srebrenica and those who have lost their lives – only because they believed in something else than their murderers.

We have spent these 30 years convincing ourselves that nothing like that should happen again, only to watch new atrocities happening around the world. The innocent lives that were lost in Srebrenica should remind us every day that hatred and lack of pardon only make ground for new conflicts, for new grief and for new sorrow. They should remind us that it is not enough to condemn these things once they happen, but that we should find all the courage that we once had to prevent them from happening.

Not only the innocent victims deserve that, but also the generations that will come after us. They should see that there is no space for intolerance, hatred and savagery. They should see that we have the strength to strike upon those who are committed to destroying human lives, rather than working for a secure and safe future for everyone.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has suffered a lot in the past. Now, it is up to us to help the country and its people to live in peace and prosperity. It is our duty to help them secure their European future.

  Matjaž Nemec, v imenu skupine S&D. – Spoštovana gospa predsednica, spoštovani visoki zbor. Ob trideseti obletnici genocida v Srebrenici se spominjamo več kot osem tisočih bošnjaških civilistov, ki so jih srbske čete iz Bosne in Hercegovine hladnokrvno ubile pred očmi sveta.

Začelo se je z retoriko, nevarno podobni tej, ki jo nacionalisti tudi danes uporabljajo proti manjšinam. A Srebrenica je bila le vrhunec genocidne kampanje, ki so jo takratne srbske oblasti v Bosni in Hercegovini vodile proti Bošnjakom. Pred tem so številni pokoli nedolžnih civilistov pri mednarodni skupnosti vzbudili le prazne pozive k premirju.

Šele genocid v Srebrenici, ki je v Bosni in Hercegovini že dolgo potekal, je na koncu prebudil mednarodno skupnost. Takrat smo odločno posredovali in po treh letih le ustavili poboje nedolžnih ljudi. Rekli smo: nikoli več. In danes se Evropa ponovno spreneveda.

Ime katerega palestinskega kraja bo moralo biti s krvjo zapisano v zgodovino našega človeštva, da bi spet prešli od besed k dejanjem? S pripenjanjem novih simbolov na suknjiče, kot je ta, si ne bomo oprali naše vesti, spoštovani.

Obveznost preprečevanja genocida ne sme biti le mrtva črka na papirju – ukrepati moramo zdaj. K temu nas zavezujejo tudi žrtve genocida v Srebrenici. Srečno, Evropska unija.

  Hermann Tertsch, en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señora presidente, hace treinta años se produjo en Srebrenica la mayor matanza habida en Europa desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Fuerzas serbias, en una guerra, reunieron a todos los adultos, niños y adolescentes de otra creencia, de creencia musulmana, en la comunidad bosnia, en el pueblo de Srebrenica. Apartaron a las mujeres, abrieron unas fosas y empezaron a matar, como solo se recordaba de las unidades especiales alemanas cuando estuvieron en Polonia y en el Este.

La población de Srebrenica estaba protegida oficialmente por las Naciones Unidas. El resultado lo conocemos: la guerra terminó mucho más tarde gracias a una intervención de los Estados Unidos, recordémoslo, no de Europa: Europa falló estrepitosamente entonces.

Después hubo un tribunal, que aquella vez funcionó, y hubo una serie de condenados, que por primera vez pagaron. Pero, sepamos que, ahora que se utiliza de esa forma tan vil y tan absolutamente inapropiada el término de «genocidio», los genocidios sí son posibles en Europa: lo son y lo han sido siempre. Y, desde luego, es Europa la que tiene ese mensaje: que tiene que combatir siempre, no con buenismo, sino con firmeza.

  Helmut Brandstätter, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I’ve been to Srebrenica; I know how much pain is there, if you look in the eyes of the relatives of the countless victims. It was predominantly men who were killed, but also women and children. They endured unimaginable horrors. The pain remains a stark reminder of those terrible days of July 1995.

Some of the Bosnian perpetrators – including the leader Ratko Mladić – are still behind bars for their crimes. And I ask the Serbian people: please understand what happens. Open your eyes, acknowledge the past and engage with the victims of this genocide. Accepting the truth is the first step towards healing.

We Europeans strive for unity, embracing our diversity and history to forge a peaceful future together. And I can tell you, as an Austrian, we in Austria also had a difficult time accepting the role of Austrians in the Holocaust, but it was so important to acknowledge this painful truth. It was essential for understanding our past, but also our common future here in Europe.

The events in Srebrenica have been ruled a genocide by international courts. We honour the victims. I bow my head and solemnly declare: Never again! Yet even today, we witness similar atrocities. When we look to Ukraine, and what some Russians are doing there, they remind us that the shadows of genocide still loom.

We have an exhibition on the other side of the bridge, in the Churchill Building. Thank you, Madam President, for opening it tomorrow. And thank you to the people from the Srebrenica Memorial Centre for working there. I really ask you to go there, look at it and let’s repeat: Never again!

  Tineke Strik, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Council, Commissioner, I’d like to thank our President for this commemoration and special thanks, of course, to Almasa and Almir for their presence and their wonderful work.

On Friday, we commemorate how 30 years ago in Srebrenica, 8 000 Bosnian men and boys were brutally killed by the Bosnian Serb army in what was the most recent genocide on European soil. The years before, we witnessed acts of ethnic cleansing and desperate calls for help, but even the safe haven finally created by the UN soldiers failed to protect them against slaughter, torture, rape and expulsion.

We bear a heavy responsibility to learn from this failure and we must therefore prevent the ongoing genocide in Gaza, but also we must ensure not to let down the Bosnian people again. The ongoing ethno‑nationalistic rhetoric, threats and genocide denial keep their fears and traumas alive.

They need our support in the recognition of genocide, accountability for war criminals and reconciliation. These are the basic conditions for a democratic and stable Bosnia and Herzegovina, where everyone enjoys safety and equal rights regardless of their background.

Helping them in achieving this is an essential step towards EU membership and would be the most meaningful way to honour the memory of the victims.

  Sebastian Everding, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir sind heute hier, um an die schlimmste Gräueltat in Europa seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zu erinnern. Vor 30 Jahren wurden mehr als 8 000 Menschen systematisch hingerichtet, darunter viele Minderjährige, manche erst zwölf Jahre alt, und das nur, weil sie Bosniaken waren. Doch es geht hier nicht um Zahlen. Selbst ein einziges Leben, was unter solchen Umständen verloren geht, wäre ein Leben zu viel. Zudem kommt noch hinzu, dass viele dieser Menschen niemals ihre letzte Ruhe gefunden haben. Auch heute werden immer wieder neue Massengräber entdeckt. Doch auch die gewaltsam Vertriebenen werden den Juli 1995 niemals vergessen. Die Verantwortlichen wurden offiziell des Völkermords für schuldig befunden. Die UNO erkannte ihre schweren Verfehlungen an, und auch die Niederlande entschuldigten sich. Aber die dort eingesetzten jungen, unerfahrenen Soldaten waren größtenteils selber Opfer. Sie leiden heute immer noch unter posttraumatischen Belastungsstörungen. Es ist äußerst schwierig, in dieser Region, die in der Vergangenheit so schwer verwundet wurde, um Versöhnung zu bitten. Doch Versöhnung ist die einzige Möglichkeit. Nur durch Anerkennung, Erinnerung und die Lehren aus dieser schrecklichen Erfahrung können wir gemeinsam vorankommen. Wir müssen aus Srebrenicas Fall lernen, dass humanitäre Krisen – wie auch aktuell in Gaza – nicht ignoriert werden dürfen. Deswegen, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ne zaboravimo Srebrenicu!

  Alexander Sell, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! 8 000 bosnische Muslime von bosnischen Serben ermordet unter den Augen der Blauhelme von den Vereinten Nationen – das ist jetzt 30 Jahre her. Srebrenica steht für das schlimmste Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Viel wurde seitdem vom Scheitern der internationalen Gemeinschaft gesprochen, vom Versagen der holländischen Friedenstruppe – das ist aber falsch. Amerikaner, Briten und Franzosen hatten sich im Vorfeld darauf geeinigt, keine Luftangriffe gegen die bosnischen Serben zu fliegen – das geht aus den Protokollen des Nationalen Sicherheitsrats der Clinton-Regierung hervor. Holländer und bosnische Muslime waren den serbischen Truppen hilflos ausgeliefert.

Srebrenica sollte uns deshalb allen eine Lehre sein: Wir können uns das Gerede vom Völkerrecht sparen, wenn wir nicht über die Machtmittel verfügen, um dieses Recht auch durchzusetzen. Es gibt keine internationale Ordnung ohne eine Ordnungsmacht, die diese Ordnung auch garantieren kann. 400 vor Christus schrieb Thukydides: Die Starken tun, was sie wollen, und die Schwachen leiden, was sie müssen. So war das vor 2 500 Jahren, und so ist es auch heute.

Wir Europäer müssen unsere Interessen gemeinsam verteidigen, damit so etwas nie wieder passiert. Wir müssen uns von unrealistischen Tagträumen verabschieden. Das geht aber nicht mit dieser Kommission.

  President. – That concludes the debate.

  Gheorghe Piperea, autor. – Doamnă Președintă, stimați colegi, moțiunea de cenzură este un instrument constituțional menit a consolida democrația. Nu este o problemă, e șansa unei soluții.

Moțiunea de azi vorbește despre fapte grave și despre principii cruciale încălcate. Lipsa de transparență și încălcarea autorității justiției sunt probate de decizia Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene în speța Pfizer Gate, decizie pe care Comisia Europeană a ales să nu o execute. Despre ineficiența cheltuirii banilor publici din mecanismul de redresare și reziliență vorbesc rapoarte recente ale Curții Europene de Conturi.

Ocolirea dezbaterii și a deciziei în Parlamentul European este motivul pentru care Parlamentul a luat decizia de a da în judecată Comisia la CJUE, fapt unic în istorie. În decursul ultimilor șase ani, Comisia a preluat abuziv atribuții de la statele membre, a încălcat separația puterilor și a ocolit Parlamentul European în deciziile majore. Concentrarea nedemocratică a deciziei în mâinile președintei Comisiei Europene este contrară principiului echilibrului și distribuției puterii. Procesul decizional a devenit opac și discreționar și azi ridică temeri de abuz și corupție.

Costul obsesiei birocrației Uniunii Europene, cum ar fi schimbarea climatică, a fost uriaș. Economic, au crescut falimentele oamenilor simpli și ale antreprenorilor și au apărut riscuri de faliment suveran al statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene. Fragmentarea pieței unice și dublul standard au adâncit falia între regiunile Uniunii Europene. Exemplu: puținii bani din PNRR pe care România a reușit să-i atragă se duc pe importuri, iar nu în dezvoltarea sustenabilă a României. Migrația scăpată de sub control a amorsat bombe sociale. Povara preluării migranților trece la statele mai puțin dezvoltate. Ceea ce se întâmplă acum la granița Germaniei cu Polonia este un scandal, dar devine în curând obișnuință. În timp ce sărăcia și regresul educațional au devenit periculoase, unii dintre decidenți și partenerii lor comerciali și-au pierdut integritatea, dacă au avut-o vreodată.

Industria fricii, oameni buni, este una dintre cele mai profitabile afaceri ale lumii. De aceea, frica s-a răspândit mai repede decât Covidul. În timp ce majoritatea era în suferință, eram în suferință, alții își sporeau averile. Nu crizele distrug lumea, ci lăcomia celor care le monetizează. Moțiunea de azi, oameni buni, invită poporul european la reflecție. Eu provin dintr-o țară cu o experiență de 45 de ani de totalitarism. Vă asigur că niciun cetățean, niciunul, al statelor aflate cândva în sfera de influență a U.R.S.S. nu vrea să retrăiască acele vremuri. Refuzăm modelul sovietic și, deopotrivă, modelul chinezesc sau rusesc de azi.

În ciuda oricăror piedici, vocea poporului s-a făcut auzită. Ne aflăm azi în casa celor 450 de milioane de cetățeni UE. Ei au cerut să deschidem ferestrele și să o aerisim. Ei vor răspunsuri astăzi, așa cum a zis Churchill, acesta este sfârșitul unui început.

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, every month we meet here in this plenary to debate the issues that matter the most to Europeans: the daily struggles of workers and families worried about the cost of living; the support we can give to small business owners trying to take their company to the next level; or the need to provide real security as conflict and war rages across the world. And we will do so again in this plenary session.

Today we can all make our own judgements about the merits of the motion in front of us, and each of us can come to our own conclusions about its real intentions. But what we have just heard from Mr Piperea was clear for all to see. It is taken right from the oldest playbook of extremists: polarising society; eroding trust in democracy with false claims about election meddling; attempting to rewrite the history of how successfully Europe overcame the global pandemic together, from vaccines to NextGenerationEU; spinning debunked conspiracies about text messages.

And there is a choice here. We can follow Mr Piperea down his world of conspiracies and alleged sinister plots by what he calls ‘Brussels’, or we can clearly call this out for what it is: another crude attempt to drive a wedge between our institutions, between the pro-European, pro-democratic forces of this House. We can never let this happen. We will never let this happen.

But I also want to thank Mr Piperea, because I believe it is vital that we have this debate here this evening. Because facts matter; truth matters. But also because I recognise that there are Members who may not have signed this motion, but who do have legitimate concerns about some of the issues it raises. That is fair enough. It is part of our democracy, and I will always be ready to debate any issue that this House wants – with facts and with arguments. This is also why I’m here today with my entire College, to front up to these questions.

So, honourable Members, let me go straight into it. A lot of this seems to go back to the pandemic, so allow me to start by taking you back to the very beginning. None of us will ever forget the tragic images of military trucks rolling through Bergamo at night, piled up with dead bodies. Or when lockdowns were imposed, borders were closed, and crucial health and protective equipment was fought over. I remember all of those times when it could feel like there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

But I’ve also not forgotten what we achieved together: how a vaccine was developed in record time thanks to European science; how we ramped up industrial production after a slow start; how every Member State was given the same access to life-saving vaccines; how every citizen – whether from a country big or small, east or west, north or south – was given the same chance. This is the Europe of solidarity that I love, and this is the Europe that the extremist hate!

(Applause)

We all remember how we protected workers through SURE, or got our economies moving again thanks to the green lanes and the digital certificate. And, of course, we all remember the historic day we launched NextGeneration EU to inject EUR 800 billion into our economies to invest in everything from health and education, clean tech to digital tech, SMEs to established industries.

No one thought we could ever pull it off or that it would ever be agreed – but we did it together. And this, honourable Members, is the true story of the pandemic – not what the authors of this motion are trying to make of it. We should all be proud of it. And we can never let extremists rewrite history!

(Heckling from the right)

  Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – I bring you back to these moments because you cannot find them anywhere in the motion in front of us. And yet they are the essential backdrop to what we are discussing here today. Because they show the unique and unprecedented nature of the situation we were in; how Europe came together after Member States gave us a mandate to act; how it was this Parliament that immediately ensured the continuation of plenary debates to keep our European democracy active.

Thanks to this, we had many debates in this House in the most difficult of moments. These were so important, because it meant that at every step of the way we discussed openly and transparently with this House, with Member States, with European citizens. It was all out there in the public domain.

So yes, it is no secret that I was in contact with top representatives of the companies producing the vaccines that would get us out of the crisis. Of course I was! Just as I sought advice from the best epidemiologists and virologists in the world, or was in touch with the United Nations organisations or with NGOs. But the implication that these contracts were somehow inappropriate or against the European interest is – by any measure – simply wrong.

So let me set the facts straight once again – and for you, it’s important to listen to that! Contract negotiations were conducted by the Commission and Member States together. Every single contract negotiated was examined in detail in the capitals before being signed by each of the 27 Member States. There were no secrets, no hidden clauses, no obligation to buy for Member States. Indeed, just listen: all 27 Member States decided to buy their vaccines of their own will. So any claims that any Member State did not know about the contracts, about the prices or the amounts is dishonest. In fact, let’s call it by its name: it is simply a lie!

Honourable Members, the wider point I want to make today is that this Commission will always be ready to work with you and to be transparent with you. And this is why, for example, I came to the Conference of Presidents to justify and explain the exceptional use of Article 122 for SAFE, our emergency defence spending proposal. This is exactly what I promised in my guidelines.

The point is: I am committed to working with this House every step of the way. And I want to say that I hear your concerns loud and clear. I will always be ready to be open about our work and find common solutions with the pro-European, pro-democratic forces in this House, and I will always respect the prerogative of this House, because this spirit of compromise is what democracy is about.

But we should be under no illusion about the threats our democracy faces. We have entered into an age – and you hear it there – of struggle between democracy and illiberalism. We see the alarming threats from extremist parties who want to polarise our societies with disinformation. There is no proof that they have any answers, but there’s ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fuelled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers to Putin apologists. And you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean.

But the real question here is: what do we do about it? I believe it is up to us to come together, find balanced compromises and deliver for people. Because the rise of illiberal and populist politics does not happen in a vacuum. So the answer can never be to complain about how people voted; it must always be to show that we understand and that we will address their legitimate concerns.

And this is what this Commission and this Parliament have been laser focused on doing since the very first day the College took office. Thanks to this team behind me, this College that you elected, we are delivering an ambitious programme that this House voted on. Whether making historic steps towards defence and security or boosting our competitiveness through the Clean Industrial Deal. Whether sticking to our climate targets or attracting the best researchers in the world to choose Europe. Whether supporting Ukraine and preparing the ground for a future enlargement. Or protecting our farmers and our fishers, as well as the land and the sea they rely on. Whether addressing climate change, the housing crisis, focusing on skills and education – today and in our long-term budget.

I will always protect the rule of law and the core values of our Union. And that’s what really matters to the people of Europe. That’s what they want us to discuss here in this House. So let’s not play the games of the extremists. Let’s stand up for Europe and let’s deliver for Europeans together.

I want to finish by addressing all pro-European, pro-democracy forces in this House. I know that we do not always agree on every detail of every proposal this College has made. And I cannot promise that we will always agree on everything in the future. But what I can promise is that we will always be ready to work for compromise and work for unity.

When the Commission sits down with the United States to negotiate on trade and tariffs, Europe must show strength. When we stand up for Ukraine’s future, Europe must show strength. Or when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. And this strength only comes through our unity. So let us come together. Let us keep delivering for Europe. Long live Europe!

(Applause)

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President of the European Parliament, Madam President of the Commission, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, with this motion of censure, we are wasting time. Putin will like what his friends are doing here. Let’s be brief: from an EPP point of view, we will unanimously vote against this motion of censure on Thursday.

Corona: Ursula von der Leyen has said enough. We respect and we applaud the leadership the Commission showed in the last mandate to rescue lives. But what does this motion of censure mean for tomorrow? What is really at risk on Thursday?

In a few days, Donald Trump’s tariff pause will end. Millions of jobs are at risk. Where are the MAGA friends in this House? What are Orbán, Salvini and Alice Weidel doing to save the job of Europeans? I tell you, Maroš Šefčovič and Ursula von der Leyen are defending the jobs of Europeans. That’s why the motion of censure is putting the citizens’ interests at risk.

A second example: the future of millions of farmers, mayors and researchers are depending on European funds – also in Romania, I have to say. We need immediately an MFF proposal. The motion of censure goes against the interests of farmers, mayors and researchers.

And a third example: Putin is testing us every day. We need a European pillar of defence now. We need it urgently. And Putin’s ambitions go much beyond Ukraine; he hates our European way of life. And I know the German AfD and the Romanian AUR are the puppets of Putin. But why is PiS now joining this pro-Russian alliance? I am wondering myself why this is happening. This motion of censure is against the security of Europeans, so we will vote against it.

We have now the first year of this mandate. Let’s use also today’s discussion for more general remarks that we have to clarify from an EPP point of view.

First, we as EPP stand for European democracy. We say, in the lead candidate concept, if von der Leyen is today Commission President, it was not negotiated behind closed doors, but because the EPP won the elections and she was our lead candidate. Teresa Ribera, Stéphane Séjourné and also Ursula von der Leyen represent the balanced Commission based on an election of 200 million voters last year.

Secondly, we know where we can build up the future. In around 90 % of all roll-call votes in the last 12 months, we voted together in the platform. That’s the truth and that is what we stick to.

The third point I want to make: we as the oldest group in this House, we respect its political culture. And the European Parliament is not Westminster. May I remind you: in the last term there was a debate about the Nature Restoration Law, about the combustion engine. And yes, the left policies were voted in favour without a platform agreement here in this House.

And yes, this happens also today – the famous Venezuela resolution. We found a compromise on nearly everything. But finally, the question whether we call Maduro a dictator was a splitting point. We were voting in favour of calling him a dictator. Socialists didn’t do so.

And, dear friends, also for the green claims directive’s content: a pre-approval of all ads from big companies is for us a bureaucratic monster. Others can vote for it. The EPP will not vote for it. And I tell you, that is not misusing democracy, that is exactly democracy. It shows different identities in our House.

And again, to be precise, 90 % in the platform, and I tell you, in 3 % of all roll-call votes in the last 12 months, yes, there was a majority between EPP, ECR and PfE, but in the rest of the 7 % of the roll-call votes here in this House, there was a majority between the left majority and PfE against the EPP. Those are the facts, and that’s why I consider really to stop the debate we had in the last weeks about our credibility and our will to work together.

Finally, dear friends, the EPP has a clear red line: pro-Europe, pro-Ukraine, pro-rule of law. Others follow now our definition. Tusk against Kaczyński, Peter Magyar against Orbán. In Czechia, Fiala, befriended with the EPP, against Babiš. We are often the only chance to stop the authoritarian wave in Europe, and that is why we do not need any lesson in fighting against right-wing populism in Europe as the EPP.

But – and that’s my final point – as a precondition for winning against the authoritarians, we have to listen to people. Emmanuel Macron was critical towards the 2040 target, and the incoming Danish socialist Presidency asks for further tougher measures against illegal migration. And that’s why I tell you: the EPP will take the people’s concerns in the centre of politics in the next four years.

I thank Commissioners Teresa Ribera, Stéphane Séjourné and Ursula von der Leyen for their great work. They can count on the continued support of the European People’s Party.

  Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora Von der Leyen, siento decirle que, cada vez que el señor Weber hace declaraciones sobre esta moción de censura, la pone a usted en más problemas, pero, en cualquier caso, como presidenta del Grupo socialdemócrata quiero dejar claro, desde el primer momento, que esta moción liderada por la extrema derecha no contará con el voto a favor de mi Grupo, no porque defendamos todo el rumbo de la Comisión, sino porque no vamos a regalar ni un solo voto a quienes como Orbán, Le Pen o Abascal quieren destruir la Unión Europea.

Esta moción no es un acto de fiscalización, es un acto reaccionario al corazón del proyecto europeo. Y, frente a ese asalto, no caben dudas, estaremos donde siempre hemos estado: defendiendo Europa, sus valores, su dignidad, la libertad, la justicia.

Señor Weber, cuando menos me resulta paradójico que haya estado usted un año dedicando sus esfuerzos a convencernos a los grupos europeos de que el Grupo ECR es un grupo proeuropeo y hoy un diputado del Grupo ECR haya tomado la palabra para defender la moción de censura contra la Comisión Europea.

¿Cómo se puede construir Europa con quienes niegan el cambio climático, con quienes atacan la Agenda 2030, con quienes desprecian la ciencia, con quienes relegan a las mujeres al silencio o hacen apología del nazismo, con quienes desmantelan los servicios públicos o se alían con Putin y Netanyahu para destruir el Derecho internacional y aniquilar Ucrania y Gaza?

La extrema derecha no quiere una Europa mejor, quiere que no haya Europa. Y en la socialdemocracia, en cambio, hemos conseguido construir la Unión Europea, piedra a piedra, y, frente a su odio, su negacionismo y su autoritarismo, vamos a seguir defendiendo Europa: la Europa que protege, que cuida y que libera.

Señor Weber, permítame que sea muy clara: esta moción es también el resultado directo del fracaso de su estrategia en el Parlamento Europeo. Nos piden responsabilidad a los grupos proeuropeos, mientras negocian las políticas con la extrema derecha. Lo siento, así no es posible. Tenemos que seguir trabajando.

¿No fue usted quien votó con la extrema derecha para bloquear el Órgano de ética? ¿No fue usted quien se unió a los radicales para desmantelar el Pacto Verde Europeo, para lanzar una caza de brujas contra las ONG medioambientales, para eliminar el derecho a la Garantía Infantil? ¿No es su Grupo quien utiliza la Comisión de Peticiones para atacar a los Gobiernos que no son de su Grupo político, como España o Eslovenia? Realmente debe reflexionar sobre esta cuestión.

Y usted, señora Von der Leyen, no mire hacia otro lado. ¿Por qué anunció su intención de retirar la Directiva sobre Afirmaciones Ecológicas un día después de que el Partido Popular Europeo y los grupos de extrema derecha se lo exigieran por carta? ¿A quién le debe su apoyo? ¿Dónde quedó el compromiso que le dio la mayoría proeuropea?

Señorías del Partido Popular, hoy les exijo una respuesta clara: ¿con quiénes quieren gobernar? ¿Con quienes quieren destruir Europa o con quienes luchamos cada día para construirla? Respeten el acuerdo de legislatura. Respeten la palabra dada. Y, si vuelven a traicionarla, tengan claro que la socialdemocracia liderará una resistencia. No cederemos ni un centímetro. Porque frente al odio, frente a la mentira y frente a la destrucción, nuestra respuesta será más Europa, no menos. Más democracia, no menos. Más justicia, no menos.

  Fabrice Leggeri, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente von der Leyen, mes chers collègues, l’Europe mérite mieux que le silence, mieux que l’opacité, mieux que l’autoritarisme bureaucratique. Depuis six ans maintenant, vous dirigez cette Commission avec une verticalité jupitérienne, coupée des réalités, coupée des peuples, coupée même trop souvent des valeurs qui ont fondé notre continent.

Le «Pfizergate» n’est pas une erreur administrative: c’est un abus de pouvoir. Trente-cinq milliards d’euros d’argent public négociés par SMS, sans appel d’offres, sans mandat, sans transparence. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne l’a confirmé: vous avez agi seule, en dehors de tout cadre démocratique. Cette faute n’est pas seulement la vôtre. Elle symbolise une dérive plus grave encore, celle d’une Europe gouvernée dans l’ombre des peuples.

Sous votre autorité, la Commission est devenue le bras armé d’intérêts privés, d’ONG militantes, d’idéologies décroissantes, parfois même étrangères aux fondements de notre civilisation. Ce que vous appelez «transition», des milliers d’Européens le vivent comme une punition; ce que vous appelez «pacte vert», nos agriculteurs, nos artisans, nos industriels le subissent comme un étranglement; et ce que vous appelez «valeurs européennes» ressemble trop souvent à une censure des peuples qui osent penser autrement. Alors est-ce cela, l’Europe que vous défendez, Madame? Une Europe où les décisions se prennent sans débat, une Europe qui signerait, dans le dos des citoyens, des accords commerciaux comme celui du Mercosur, qui exposera davantage encore nos filières à une concurrence déloyale, une Europe qui affaiblit les nations tout en se rêvant en empire?

Alors, non, Madame von der Leyen, cette Europe n’est pas la nôtre. La nôtre, c’est celle des libertés, celle du respect des identités, des souverainetés, des choix démocratiques, celle qui protège, qui construit, qui écoute; pas celle qui impose. Aujourd’hui, en conscience, nous voterons cette motion de censure. Ce vote n’est pas simplement un geste d’opposition, c’est un acte de responsabilité, car il ne s’agit plus seulement de vous désavouer, il s’agit de dire qu’un autre chemin est possible. Un chemin où l’Europe redevient un projet et une promesse, non un système, une superposition de normes et de menaces. Les peuples d’Europe n’ont pas besoin d’une Commission toute puissante, ils ont besoin d’une Europe à leur image, et, si ce mandat doit s’achever sur un signal fort, alors qu’il soit celui-ci: le retour du politique, le retour du peuple, le retour du réel.

  Nicola Procaccini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, evidentemente oggi non potrò parlare a nome di tutto il gruppo, ma potrò farlo a nome dei due terzi dei colleghi dell’ECR che non hanno sottoscritto la mozione. Non perché non condividessero alcuni dei motivi di censura presenti nel testo, ma perché, come me, ritengono questa mozione un errore, un regalo ai nostri avversari politici, che arriva proprio nel momento di loro maggiore frustrazione, quando, grazie a delle maggioranze di centrodestra che non si erano mai viste prima, stiamo riuscendo a riportare un po’ di buon senso qui dentro.

Ci sarà libertà di voto nell’ECR, ma questa mozione è destinata a fallire, si sa, senza neppure avvicinarsi alla soglia dei voti necessaria per essere approvata. Forse la voterà il gruppo della Sinistra, forse si aggiungeranno un po’ di comunisti francesi o tedeschi, o i “nientisti” del Movimento 5 Stelle. Fine. Purtroppo, sarà utile ai Socialisti e ai Verdi, che ne approfitteranno per invocare il ritorno a quella “maggioranza Ursula” schiava della loro agenda, che ha già causato gravi danni alle famiglie e alle imprese economiche europee.

Io voterò contro questa mozione, come conservatore europeo e come italiano, perché non voglio tornare indietro, all’immigrazione selvaggia e all’ambientalismo come surrogato del comunismo, perché diversi commissari vengono oggi da governi europei sostenuti e partecipati dai partiti conservatori con onore e dedizione, perché voglio difendere il lavoro del precedente presidente dell’ECR, attuale vicepresidente della Commissione europea, l’italiano Raffaele Fitto.

Lasciatemi dire una cosa, io rispetto le scelte di tutti, ma c’è una domanda che mi esce dal cuore: come mai diversi firmatari di oggi non presentarono mai una mozione di censura contro la scorsa Commissione von der Leyen, quella che ha sostenuto le ONG immigrazioniste, che ha prodotto il Green Deal e il cosiddetto Pfizergate, che aveva come vicepresidente il socialista Timmermans al posto del conservatore Fitto?

Ovviamente conosco la risposta e non provo nessun risentimento. Dopo che qualcuno avrà ottenuto il suo quarto d’ora di celebrità dovremo ricominciare a batterci insieme, fianco a fianco, per cercare la verità sugli scandali politici che hanno influenzato il Parlamento europeo, per difendere la libertà di parola, per proteggere i nostri popoli e per molte altre buone ragioni.

Purtroppo a qualcuno piace perdere, sia in patria che qui. A me no. Non vogliamo smettere di vincere, costruendo maggioranze sui contenuti e non sui pregiudizi.

Questo è il nostro tempo e non lo sprecheremo.

  Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente von der Leyen, nous venons d’écouter Nicola Procaccini. On voit bien que M. Procaccini est embarrassé, parce que la moitié de son groupe veut vous faire tomber. Puis il y a les Patriotes. Alors là, pas d’ambiguïté, car eux, de leur côté, veulent faire tomber l’Europe. Mais dans quel monde vivent-ils? Un monde sans les horreurs qui ont cours en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient? Un monde sans Trump ni Poutine? Un monde où l’Europe n’aurait pas déjà prouvé son utilité? Bien sûr que l’on a besoin d’Europe, et l’on n’a jamais autant eu besoin d’Europe!

Aujourd’hui, Madame la Présidente, vous assistez à l’impasse qui est la vôtre et celle de votre famille politique, vous qui avez laissé le PPE réaliser des alliances de circonstance avec l’extrême droite. Alors, je vous le demande clairement: qui sont vos alliés, dans ce Parlement? Vos vrais alliés? Parce qu’il faut choisir: il y a un an, nous vous avons élue à la tête de la Commission européenne. Aujourd’hui, aucun de nos députés n’a signé cette motion de censure. Aucun! J’espère que cela a bien été relevé.

En même temps, je dois dire que ce débat arrive à un moment opportun, parce que le Parlement a des choses à vous dire, notamment sur la transparence et la gouvernance. Désolée de le dire comme ça, mais, quand même, c’est l’hôpital qui se fout de la charité! Avant de donner des leçons, il serait de bon ton que l’extrême droite, mais surtout le PPE, votre propre famille politique, Madame la Présidente, arrête de bloquer la mise en place de l’organe éthique. Au delà de la transparence, ce sont les équilibres institutionnels qui sont maintenant mis à mal par cette coopération avec les ennemis de l’Europe. Leur donner réponse sur les allégations écologiques, Madame la Présidente, sans respecter nos règles, a été une erreur majeure, un symptôme de tout ce qui dysfonctionne depuis un an et qui doit cesser.

Il y a une chose que je veux vous dire également, Madame la Présidente: que fait l’Europe? On en est où, du rapport Draghi? On en est où, de l’union des marchés de capitaux? On en est où, de la protection des mineurs sur les réseaux sociaux? On en est où, des sanctions vis-à-vis des plateformes qui relaient fausses informations et ingérence? Le constat, aujourd’hui, Madame la Présidente, est clair: la Commission est trop centralisée et sclérosée, et le Parlement européen est totalement instable.

Avec Renew Europe, nous avons défendu la majorité qui vous a fait élire, Madame la Présidente, sur un programme pro-européen, ce même programme qui, aujourd’hui, patine à cause d’une rupture dans la méthode. Il patine parce que l’idéologie l’emporte sur les accords politiques. Il patine parce que les équilibres du Parlement sont mal calculés et anticipés par la Commission.

Alors, Madame la Présidente, je me dois désormais de vous le dire: rien n’est acquis. Ramenez de l’ordre dans votre famille politique! Nous attendons que vous repreniez la main pour qu’enfin le programme politique que nous portons, sur le fond et avec vous, voie bien le jour.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, this motion should be about transparency, fighting corruption, etc. Corruption by the far right – most corruption cases are within your ranks and I find it quite condemning that Mr Leggeri is talking about all kinds of scandals without mentioning all the scandals under your leadership in Frontex.

Or on transparency: you’ve been blocking any initiative that we took to get transparency in this House and when there was a real issue of transparency, we as Greens are taking the European Commission to court on the contracts of the vaccines. Where were you when we were fighting in court? This just shows you one thing: this is one big political show of the far right to undermine democracy, to undermine our Europe, to undermine European democracy. That’s what they’re doing.

And that does bring me to the EPP, Mr Weber. You didn’t want lectures, but sorry, when you are talking about how there are new majorities, which majority are you talking about? There is no right‑wing majority without the far right, so if you talk about new majorities, you are talking about a majority with them.

And I can just quote the President of the Commission talking about extremists eroding democracy, that they are only doing conspiracy theories – you are feeding that beast and at a certain moment the beast will eat you.

This means it’s time for a cordon sanitaire and a cordon sanitaire means not supporting their amendments, which the EPP is still doing. It also means not pushing their agenda on fighting NGOs, on getting migration files with the help of the far right, to kill the Green Deal for us like the Greens claim – that’s what you’re doing together with the far right.

That, of course, also brings me to the ECR. Lovely speech. The first signatory is from your group. Your co-president is one of the co-signers of this. Where does ECR stand? Mr Weber, you said we are having one criteria that’s pro‑Ukraine, pro-democracy, pro‑Europe. I think after today it’s clear that ECR doesn’t fit that criteria.

So no, there is no left‑wing majority in this House, but there is also no right‑wing majority in this House. There is a majority of the centre parties and the pro-European democratic parties. Let’s work on that. We have work to do together. It’s now time to deliver on a green economy, it’s time to deliver on social justice, it’s time to deliver on peace and we cannot do that with the far right.

  Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Die wieder einmal durch einen Korruptionsskandal auffällig gewordene Rechte zeigt mit dem Finger auf die Kommission und schreit „Haltet den korrupten Dieb!“. Das ist der Zustand europäischer Institutionen im Jahr 2025. Und Sie, Frau von der Leyen, haben dieses unwürdige Schauspiel mit Ihrer maximalen Intransparenz erst möglich gemacht. Europa braucht den Mut für einen Politikwechsel, der soziale Gerechtigkeit herstellen, den Frieden erringen und Klima und Umwelt schützen will. Sie haben diesen Mut nicht, meine Damen und Herren von der Kommission, und deshalb braucht Europa eine neue politische Idee und, ja, auch eine neue politische Führung.

Im Trumpschen Handelskrieg bleiben Sie auf Kosten unserer Industrie und Arbeitsplätze passiv. Machen Sie doch einfach mal eine Ansage, etwa für die Einführung einer europäischen Digitalsteuer. Aber nein, Sie haben ja Angst, sich mit den europäischen und US‑amerikanischen und chinesischen Big‑Tech‑Unternehmen anzulegen. Der Green Deal, von Ihnen als Europas Man‑on‑the‑Moon‑Moment bezeichnet, wird Stück für Stück von Ihrer eigenen Parteienfamilie in Zusammenarbeit mit der extremen Rechten rückabgewickelt. Statt weiter von Klimaschutz zu reden, sollten Sie Ihre Umweltprogramme zukünftig „Willkommen in der Klimakatastrophe“ nennen. Ihre Migrationspolitik verletzt Menschenrechte. Sie sind nicht in der Lage, Rechtsstaatlichkeit durchzusetzen, und lassen sich von Leuten wie Orbán und Meloni auf der Nase herumtanzen. Europäische Außenpolitik schweigt zu den Völkerrechtsbrüchen und Kriegsverbrechen im Nahen Osten und Gaza und spielt für den Ukrainekrieg keine Rolle, weil Ihre einzige Idee von Diplomatie darin besteht, die Profite der Rüstungsunternehmen mit Hunderten von Milliarden öffentlicher Gelder in die Höhe zu treiben und damit den Großteil der Gesellschaft in eine neue Kürzungspolitik zu zwingen.

Das ist Ihre verheerende politische Bilanz! Frau von der Leyen, Ihre Politik führt dazu, dass diese korrupte Rechte hier alle Tage wieder ihr Affentheater aufführt und die Demokratie lächerlich macht. Deshalb werden wir alles dafür tun, dass diesen Leuten die politische Grundlage entzogen wird. Deshalb werden Sie, Frau von der Leyen, wird Ihre Kommission weiterhin in uns für Ihre falsche Politik ihre härtesten politischen Gegner finden.

  René Aust, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Wo auch immer Frau Ursula von der Leyen Verantwortung übertragen bekommt, richtet sie Schaden an. Als Familienministerin in Deutschland wollte sie bereits vor 20 Jahren die ersten Netzsperren einführen – das brachte ihr den Spitznamen Zensursula ein. Und schon damals schossen die Kosten für dubiose Beraterverträge in die Höhe. Als Arbeitsministerin das gleiche Bild: Millionen für externe Berater, Millionen für Selbstinszenierung, aber kein Nutzen für Bürger. Als Verteidigungsministerin: wieder Beraterfilz. Schon damals verschwundene Handydaten – dafür gab es dann Panzer, die geeignet waren auch für Schwangere.

Heute beklagt unser Land und unser Kontinent zu Recht, dass Deutschland seinen Beitrag zur Verteidigung unseres Kontinents nicht leisten könnte – Frau von der Leyen trägt dafür eine erhebliche Verantwortung. Und seit sechs Jahren führt sie ihr zerstörerisches Wirken auf der EU-Ebene fort. Der Green Deal führte zu Deindustrialisierungstendenzen in weiten Teilen von Europa: Menschen verloren ihren Arbeitsplatz, ihr Einkommen, ihre Existenz. Sechs Jahre lang blieben die EU-Außengrenzen offen: Millionen von Sozialmigranten konnten unkontrolliert einreisen – noch immer. Und über alledem liegt der Schatten der Pfizer-Affäre, die rechtswidrige Löschung und Weigerung der Herausgabe von SMS, der Verdacht von Verschwendung und Misswirtschaft beim COVID-Wiederaufbaufonds und NGO-Filz.

Aber der Wind hat sich gedreht im Vergleich zum letzten Mal bei der Legislaturperiode: Die Mehrheiten sind anders. Die Völker blicken auch anders auf Brüssel. Deswegen machen wir am Donnerstag den Weg frei für eine neue Kommission, die unsere Grenzen schützt, die unsere Meinungsfreiheit schützt und die unseren Wohlstand schützt. Darum schicken wir Sie am Donnerstag in den unverdienten politischen Ruhestand.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)

(The sitting resumed at 18:14)

  Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order on a possible breach of Article 7, Annex 1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation apparently was welcomed in the European Parliament on 2 July and met with several MEPs, including the chair for the Delegation for relations with Israel, yet, to date, GHF is not listed in the transparency register, so such meetings are in disregard of our internal transparency procedures.

Moreover, we know that GHF has been condemned by all relevant actors for violating the core principles of humanity, impartiality and independence. According to Amnesty International, 500 people were killed and nearly 4 000 injured in four weeks at GHF distribution hubs. I think it should be a political and moral duty of this Parliament not to give legitimacy to an actor who is clearly not in line with EU values and even with our transparency rules. Thank you very much for clarification and appropriate actions.

  Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik (ESN). – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! 5 maja uznała Pani za dopuszczalny wniosek o uchylenie parapodatku ETS2, który złożyłam razem z moimi kolegami Tomaszem Buczkiem i Marcinem Sypniewskim na podstawie artykułu 47 ustęp 2 Regulaminu Parlamentu Europejskiego, i skierowała Pani ten wniosek do Komisji ENVI, za co Pani dziękuję.

Zgodnie z tym przepisem komisja miała obowiązek umożliwić nam prezentację wniosku, zanim podejmie jakąkolwiek decyzję. Niestety lewicowa większość za zamkniętymi drzwiami spotkania koordynatorów z premedytacją zignorowała ten krok, odbierając nam prawo do głosu i łamiąc Regulamin Parlamentu Europejskiego. To jest akt politycznej cenzury.

Boicie się debaty o ETS i ETS2, bo wiecie, że to unijny pakiet masowego zubożenia Europejczyków. Drogi prąd, zimne mieszkania i wykluczenie transportowe. Mówicie wiele o równości, ale odmawiacie jej tym, którzy głosowali na prawicowych polityków. Wasz kordon sanitarny to pogarda wobec dziesiątek milionów Europejczyków, którzy wybrali nas na swoich reprezentantów. Jako poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego, wybrany przez ponad 100 tysięcy wyborców, żądam natychmiastowego przywrócenia praworządności w tej Izbie, w Izbie, która tak jak…

(Przewodnicząca odebrała mówczyni głos)

  Fabio De Masi (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich beziehe mich auf Artikel 131 der Geschäftsordnung. Den fraktionslosen Abgeordneten wurde heute in dieser wichtigen Debatte über Frau von der Leyen kein Rederecht erteilt. Ich möchte nur darauf hinweisen, dass wir im Unterschied zu Frau von der Leyen von den Bürgern Europas gewählt wurden. Frau von der Leyen hat sich nie einer direkten Wahl gestellt. Ich möchte hier auch noch einmal darauf hinweisen, dass es eine ganz große Koalition war, die von den Grünen bis zu Frau Meloni reichte, die Frau von der Leyen ins Amt gehoben hat. Man sagt also, mit rechten Stimmen darf man Frau von der Leyen wählen. Aber wenn dann von der rechten Seite des Hauses ein Misstrauensantrag kommt, dann wird plötzlich die Nase gerümpft.

Über diese Politik schütteln die Menschen vor dem Bildschirm den Kopf. Frau von der Leyen spricht von Rechtsstaatlichkeit, und sie wurde wiederholt von europäischen Gerichten für den Bruch des europäischen Rechts verurteilt. Sie hat heute kein Wort dazu gesagt, ob sie dem Parlament hier ihre Textnachrichten zur Verfügung stellen wird. Und auf dieselbe Art und Weise organisiert sie die Hochrüstung Europas, die unserer Wirtschaft das Genick brechen wird, und setzt sich über das Parlament hinweg. Ein Parlament, das sich das bieten lässt, das hier nur schalen Applaus leistet und sich nicht die Frage stellt, warum es diese Frau ins Amt gehievt hat, das macht sich überflüssig, meine …

(Die Präsidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Danuše Nerudová (PPE). – Madam President, ‘I am falling, I am falling, I have lost this fight. I leave with honour. I love this country. I love its people. Build a better future for them. I leave without hatred.’ These were the final words of Milada Horáková, a politician, a patriot and a fearless defender of democracy. She was executed 75 years ago after a fake trial orchestrated by the communist regime in Czechoslovakia.

Today we remember her not as a victim, but as a symbol – a symbol of courage, integrity and resistance against tyranny. Milada Horáková sacrificed herself for the values that define Europe today. In Horáková’s time, it was Stalin in the Kremlin. Today, it’s Putin, but the goal remains unchanged: to crush independence and to break the spirit of free nations. We must never forget her sacrifice, today more than ever, and we must never stop defending what she stood for.

IN THE CHAIR: JAVI LÓPEZ
Vice-President

  Francisco Assis, Relator. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Maria Luís Albuquerque (tenho um gosto especial por ser minha compatriota), caras e caros colegas, hoje discutimos neste plenário o relatório elaborado ao longo de vários meses sobre as atividades financeiras do Banco Europeu de Investimento no ano de 2024.

Destaco o espírito construtivo e aberto com que todos os relatores‑sombra participaram nas negociações. O diálogo foi sempre franco e honesto. Creio que, no final, temos um relatório equilibrado, coerente e alinhado com os principais objetivos definidos no início deste processo.

Sendo este um relatório sobre os méritos e as insuficiências da atividade passada do Banco, deve ser também um exercício prospetivo que aponte os novos desafios com que a União Europeia se confronta e encontre novas áreas de atuação onde o Banco possa desempenhar um papel ainda mais relevante.

É verdade que o BEI tem estado totalmente alinhado com as prioridades políticas da União Europeia. Contudo, é também absolutamente evidente que, perante a dimensão colossal dos desafios que temos por diante, não podemos enfrentá‑los com apenas mais um apelo ao BEI para que faça o que é responsabilidade dos poderes públicos: aumentar drasticamente a capacidade de investimento público e privado na Europa.

Queria agora abordar especificamente alguns dos temas mais relevantes que constam deste relatório.

Em primeiro lugar, o papel do BEI no investimento e na promoção da competitividade.

O défice de investimento identificado no relatório Draghi atinge os 800 mil milhões de euros anuais. Todos os economistas sabem, e têm‑no dito, que o investimento reprodutivo é a condição necessária para o crescimento económico futuro.

E embora reconheçamos o importante papel que o BEI tem desempenhado no financiamento das prioridades europeias, é também evidente que as necessidades são muito superiores à capacidade adicional do Banco.

A União Europeia deve, por isso, assumir como uma das principais prioridades a criação de instrumentos próprios de investimento.

Consideramos também essencial para a promoção do investimento e da competitividade europeia que se continue a avançar na União dos Mercados de Capitais e se complete a União Bancária.

Neste relatório, apelamos ainda aos Estados‑Membros para que ponderem seriamente a necessidade de um aumento de capital do Banco Europeu de Investimento.

Por fim, é crucial preservar o triplo A do Banco, um ativo fundamental e que resulta em grande parte da sua forte sintonia com as prioridades estratégicas da União Europeia, desde logo a agenda europeia de transição para uma economia verde.

E queria agora precisamente falar sobre o papel central do Banco Europeu de Investimento enquanto banco do clima na União Europeia e sublinhar o seu alinhamento com o quadro de financiamento sustentável da UE, nomeadamente através da integração, sempre que aplicável, dos critérios da taxonomia, do apoio à transição energética mediante o financiamento de tecnologias sustentáveis e limpas, e da sua contribuição ativa para os esforços de descarbonização da economia europeia.

Mais de 50 % do investimento do BEI é atualmente dedicado a estas áreas, o que naturalmente saudamos. Este nível de ambição deve ser mantido no futuro, não só porque é necessário continuar a transformar a atividade humana e a compatibilizá-la com os limites do planeta, mas também porque é nesta área que a Europa pode ancorar a sua competitividade económica.

Reconhecemos o papel pioneiro do BEI no mercado de obrigações verdes e a dimensão do seu trabalho neste domínio. O BEI é, neste momento, o maior emitente do mundo de obrigações verdes, liderança que importa naturalmente manter.

O Banco deve ainda continuar especialmente empenhado no combate à pobreza energética, na necessidade de reforçar a preparação para fenómenos climáticos extremos e no apoio às populações mais afetadas pela transição ecológica, o que implica investir também na requalificação profissional dos trabalhadores, preocupação que se aplica igualmente à transição digital que estamos a levar a cabo.

No que toca ao setor da segurança e defesa e ao financiamento do mesmo, o relatório destaca a duplicação do investimento de 23 para 24 e que se prevê que volte a duplicar em 25, atingindo os 2 mil milhões de euros.

Julgo ser amplamente consensual nesta casa que os impactos das alterações geopolíticas em curso reclamam da Europa outra capacidade de liderança nas suas vertentes diplomática e militar. A Europa deve investir mais na sua defesa, como deve valorizar seriamente a sua ação externa, de que a Estratégia Global Gateway é um exemplo fundamental.

Defendemos, porém, que o investimento apoiado pelo BEI deve continuar a cumprir o critério de dupla utilização – civil e militar.

Isto por várias razões: desde logo, os critérios de elegibilidade do BEI e as dotações financeiras nesta área têm sido atualizados de forma contínua, inclusive nos últimos meses; porque a Comissão introduziu novos instrumentos e fontes de financiamento para a defesa no âmbito de iniciativas como o ReArm e o SAFE; e, por fim, porque o financiamento de compra de armas e munições poderá ter um impacto negativo na reputação e na adaptação do crédito do Banco.

A este respeito, gostaríamos ainda que o BEI esclarecesse se a decisão de não estabelecer um teto máximo para o financiamento na área da defesa tem algum impacto nas outras prioridades políticas. É fundamental que fique claro nesta câmara que o investimento adicional em defesa não será feito à custa das outras áreas de intervenção.

E, sobre essas outras áreas de intervenção, gostaria de referir que consideramos fundamental que o BEI continue a financiar o investimento em infraestruturas sociais. Quero aqui destacar a contribuição do BEI para o aumento da oferta de habitação acessível e energeticamente eficiente e de saudar o plano de investimentos de 10 milhões de euros previstos para os próximos dois anos.

Porém, os dados que nos foram fornecidos pelo próprio Banco apontam para necessidades muito superiores. Estamos a falar de 1,5 milhões de casas novas e 5 milhões de casas renovadas por ano, o que significará um volume de investimento anual entre os 300 e os 400 mil milhões de euros.

Fica mais uma vez evidente que o Banco apenas pode desempenhar um papel complementar e que é preciso promover o investimento público e privado na UE.

Saudamos ainda o foco do BEI nas políticas de coesão, que são fundamentais para corrigir assimetrias regionais e promover a inclusão social, e congratulamo‑nos com o trabalho do Banco no estímulo ao emprego jovem, no acesso à formação profissional e no incentivo à inovação.

Por fim, queria salientar a relevância do diálogo e da cooperação entre este Parlamento e o Banco. A importância crescente do Banco reclama uma maior responsabilização democrática.

O S&D não quer, contudo, beliscar a autonomia do BEI. Respeitamo‑la e protegemo‑la.

Mas entendemos fundamental que seja estabelecido um acordo interinstitucional entre o Parlamento e o Banco Europeu de Investimento, algo que esta casa vem reclamando e que, mais uma vez, consta deste relatório.

  Maria Luís Albuquerque, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear rapporteur Francisco Assis, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the report and the opportunity to present the Commission’s views today. We welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations, especially those related to supporting the competitiveness agenda and advancing the savings and investments union.

The EIB Group has been our closest and most reliable partner throughout the years. This support is needed more than ever today, given the current geopolitical turmoil.

Allow me to focus on three points in particular: firstly, with regard to the EIB’s activities. We appreciate the recent increase in the EIB group’s financing ceiling to an unprecedented EUR 100 billion in 2025, and the launch of new programmes to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, technological leadership and security. Additionality and impact should drive the EIB’s intervention in these areas.

I welcome the EIB’s TechEU programme, which the Commission supports via InvestEU. This ambitious programme aims to increase venture capital investment and facilitate easier exits of venture funds, thereby providing much needed support to innovation and areas of importance for our economic security. I encourage the EIB Group to work closely with the Commission to ensure synergies between the TechEU programme and the Commission Startup and Scaleup Strategy, so that higher risk projects and innovative companies in strategic sectors are supported. There, the role of the EIF is critical and should be further enhanced.

Defence is now among our main priorities. In this regard, we welcome the decision by the EIB earlier this year to adapt its exclusion policy to go beyond dual use and allow the financing of projects dedicated to military use. We also welcome the inclusion of defence and security as a public policy goal. I encourage the EIB to continue working on strengthening the project pipeline in 2025.

I cannot comment today on the upcoming MFF proposal, but I can assure you all that the EIB Group will remain a key partner in implementing EU programmes and delivering EU policies on the ground. I also encourage the EIB to use their own balance sheet to invest into more high-risk, high-reward projects for increased EU added value.

Secondly, let me recall that competitiveness is closely linked to simplification and the effective disbursement of funds into the real economy. In this context, the Commission has set out its ambitious simplification agenda and is committed to fully implementing it. The omnibus proposals already presented by the Commission include important provisions that aim not only to simplify, but also to make the best use of existing investment programmes in as cost effective a manner as possible.

One such example is the omnibus on InvestEU. The measures included in that proposal will simplify the lives of beneficiaries and implementing partners, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of InvestEU. I am glad to see that the European Parliament welcomed this proposal. We hope that the negotiations will proceed swiftly to adopt the necessary changes and unlock the needed resources.

Thirdly, I would like to mention the strategic role of EIB Global, which is expected to strengthen the EU’s strategic interests around the world in terms of economic security, trade and local industrial resilience. The EIB’s efforts to develop its strategic procurement has great potential to achieve alignment between our investments and our interests and values.

Continuing to provide critical support to Ukraine will remain a top priority, and the EIB is an important ally and partner in this regard. Here, recent EIB operations to provide a pan-European guarantee for EU companies trading with Ukraine is a positive step. Again, I welcome the European Parliament report that brings important insights and recommendations. Thank you.

  Joachim Streit, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des BUDG-Ausschusses. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich danke dem Berichterstatter für seinen Bericht. Die Europäische Investitionsbank ist ein zentrales Instrument zur Umsetzung europäischer Ziele. Ihr AAA‑Rating ist die Grundlage für günstige und langfristige Finanzierung und muss unbedingt erhalten bleiben. Ich unterstütze den strategischen Fahrplan mit den Schwerpunkten Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Innovation und Sicherheit, aber neue Aufgaben müssen wirtschaftlich tragfähig, risikobewusst und mit ausreichend Kapitalpuffern angegangen werden. Die Qualität der Investitionen ist entscheidend. Insbesondere das Risikokapital braucht klare Kriterien und überprüfbare Wirkung. Und Northvolt zeigt, welche Risiken industriepolitisch motivierte Investitionen bergen.

Ich bin dafür, dass in Deutschland ein Untersuchungsausschuss eingerichtet wird, um die Rolle der Bundesregierung und von Bundeswirtschaftsminister Habeck zu untersuchen. Wirtschaftliche Tragfähigkeit und echte Wettbewerbsfähigkeit müssen im Mittelpunkt stehen. Und als ehemaliger Landrat sage ich, der Zugang zu Mitteln der Europäischen Investitionsbank, gerade für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen und strukturschwache Regionen, muss vereinfacht, aber effizient und rechenschaftspflichtig gestaltet werden.

  Kinga Kollár, a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Elcsépeltnek tűnhet azt mondani, hogy Európa történelmi kihívásokkal néz szembe, de a helyzet valóban így van. Oroszország agressziója megmutatta, hogy elrettentésre alkalmas védelmi kapacitásokkal kell rendelkeznünk. A vámháború pedig gazdasági függőségeinkre és gyengeségeinkre mutatott rá. Mindkét fenyegetés ellen a választ részben fokozott befektetéseken keresztül adhatjuk meg. Az Európai Beruházási Bank mint az Unió bankja ebben kiemelt szerepet kell, hogy vállaljon. Hiszen a bank a magántőke mozgósítására és a piaci logika alkalmazására leginkább alkalmas szereplő. Magántőke nélkül pedig nem tudunk válaszokat adni ezekre a kihívásokra. De továbbra sem szabad hátrébb sorolni az EU tagállamai felzárkóztatását célzó befektetéseket sem.

Az EU szegényebb államai sokkal kevésbé tudnak infrastruktúrába, egészségügybe vagy oktatásba fektetni, pedig felzárkózásukhoz pont az ilyen fejlesztések szükségesek. Sajnos azt kell, hogy mondjam, hogy a hosszú távú befektetések elhanyagolása Magyarországon tudatosan is történt az elmúlt 15 évben. Lázár János, a magyar építési és közlekedési miniszter nemcsak hogy leállíttatott egy csomó fejlesztést, de közben még szemrebbenés nélkül azt hazudja, hogy az ellenzék szabotálja a beruházási banktól lehívható hiteleket. Én pont az ellenkezőjét kérem ezúton is a banktól. Fektessen be sokkal intenzívebben Magyarországon! Sőt, azt is szeretném kérni mind a banktól, mind a Bizottságtól, hogy találjanak módot arra, hogy a blokkolt uniós források is eljussanak a bankon keresztül magyarországi projektekre.

A Beruházási Bank erős kontroll mellett finanszírozhat közbeszerzéseket, így gátat tud szabni a korrupciónak. A bank továbbá közvetlenül is tud forrásokat juttatni kistérségekhez, városokhoz, így megújulhatnának iskolák, szociális intézmények, és komolyabb bérlakásprogramok is beindulhatnának. És ha már a bérlakásprogramot említem, szeretném üdvözölni, hogy az előttünk lévő jelentésben különösen nagy hangsúlyt kapott az EIB szerepe a lakhatási válság megoldásában. Nem kérdés hát, az európai polgárok joggal számítanak az EIB sikeres munkájára.

  Carla Tavares, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Maria Luís Albuquerque, num contexto de elevada incerteza, crescentes desafios e pressão nos orçamentos nacionais, o Banco Europeu de Investimento assume um papel cada vez mais determinante no futuro estratégico da União e, em particular, no próximo orçamento para 2020-2027.

Para cumprir este importante papel, o Parlamento deu recentemente luz verde aos seus novos estatutos e à estratégia futura, permitindo continuar a assegurar e reforçar a sua credibilidade junto dos investidores e dos europeus, assumindo‑se como um banco das prioridades europeias e preservando o seu rating triplo A.

Mas é preciso fazer mais.

Na habitação, precisamos de reforçar a ambição com uma nova estratégia para a classe média e para os jovens. No plano externo, é preciso continuar a apoiar a Ucrânia e expandir os projetos do Global Gateway. Na dupla transição, o BEI terá de manter‑se como o banco do clima e investir mais no digital. Na competitividade, pedimos um renovar de foco nas startups e nas PME que promova o seu crescimento interno e evite a fuga para fora da União Europeia. Para concluir, reconhecemos e apoiamos a necessidade de investir mais em defesa.

Mas o BEI não pode ficar refém de uma estratégia de política única. Os desafios futuros da Europa só serão ultrapassados com um Banco Europeu de Investimento forte e orientado para o futuro.

  Enikő Győri, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Sokszor elmondtuk már, Brüsszel ideológiaalapú gazdaságpolitikájának eredményeként lassú a növekedés, alacsony a termelékenység, kevés az innováció és magasak az energiaárak Európában. Az IMF szerint az amerikai gazdaság háromszor gyorsabban nő idén, mint a mienk. A Draghi–jelentés óta az sem titok, hogy súlyosan forráshiányosak vagyunk. Egy negatív történetben az Európai Beruházási Bank pozitív szereplő, mert a Bizottsággal ellentétben viszonylag racionális alapon hozza a beruházási döntéseit, és a kkv-kra fókuszál. A budapesti nyilatkozat fokozott szerepvállalást sürget a részéről, amit támogatok, ahogy azt is, hogy egyszerűsítsük az EIB-hitelhez jutás feltételeit, s jelentősen növeljük az EIB hitelgarancia-keretét.

A banknak meg kell őriznie a kiváló hitelminősítését, mert csak így tud olcsón hitelhez jutni és tovább hitelezni. Ehhez pedig elengedhetetlen, hogy működését a jövőben is a gazdasági észszerűség vezérelje. Vegye ki a részét a bank a védelmi ipari beruházásokból és az atomenergia-fejlesztésekből is, és segítse a tagállamok hosszú távú fejlesztési elképzeléseinek a megvalósulását. A bank tevékenységére tehát igent mondok, de erre a parlamenti jelentésre nemet. Óva inteném Önöket – mondanám az EIB képviselőjének, ha itt volna – attól, hogy engedjenek baloldali képviselőtársaim ideológiai nyomásgyakorlásának. Ebben a jelentésben ugyanis erre tesznek kísérletet. Feltételekhez kötnék egyes beruházások finanszírozását, így emberi jogi, magatartási kódex lenne a feltétele a forráshoz jutásnak, valamint harmadik országokat oktatnának ki jogállamiságból, demokráciából és genderideológiából.

Jól ismerjük már ezeket. Köszönjük szépen, nem kérünk belőle. Ez nem gazdasági észszerűség, ez ideológia. És én még nem hallottam olyan sikeres bankot, amely ezekre alapozva tudta volna tevékenységét jól megoldani. Az engedélyezéshez piaci igényekre és egyenlő elbánás elvén kell, hogy alapuljon, semmiképpen sem politikai feltételeken. A magyar ellenzéknek ezek szerint megvilágosodása van. Remélem, tettek is követni fogják.

  Giovanni Crosetto, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nelle sue linee strategiche presentate lo scorso anno, la Banca europea per gli investimenti si focalizzava su otto priorità politiche. La prima di queste priorità stabilisce che il finanziamento della transizione verde e il supporto all’azione climatica sono la priorità strategica numero uno dei nostri tempi per garantire crescita sostenibile, competitività, autonomia strategica e sicurezza, dando quindi alla BEI un chiaro ed evidente obiettivo politico e ideologico.

Ma la cosa più grave è che questa relazione del Parlamento europeo propone addirittura di andare a consolidare quel ruolo della BEI come banca europea per il clima, ed è inaccettabile, in quanto questa importante istituzione nasce per finanziare gli investimenti a sostegno di tutti gli obiettivi politici dell’Unione, non solo quelli dei socialisti e dei verdi.

  Ľudovít Ódor, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the EIB Group is a very important financial institution in achieving European policy goals and since we have new challenges, I think we also need a reprioritisation of the work of the EIB. I will mention basically four areas where I think that we need to prioritise things and all those four areas are connected to innovation and competitiveness.

The first one is about risk capital, venture capital and equity financing. We have a lot of debt financing in Europe, but we have a problem to attract equity financing and to help start-ups and SMEs.

The second one is still, of course, the climate goals. We should focus much more on competitive green technologies where Europe has a clear advantage also globally.

The third one is defence and security where I think that, given the current circumstances, the EIB cannot stay outside this business and I think mainly focusing on dual‑use technologies can make a difference to European financing.

And my fourth point is that actually we mentioned a lot of areas where EIB should invest, but I warn a bit that we should not overburden the EIB and we should stay clearly focused on the areas most relevant for the current policy challenges of the European Union.

  Marc Botenga, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, pendant des siècles, on a cherché à transformer du plomb en or, parce qu’évidemment cela rendrait beaucoup de gens très riches. Mais aujourd’hui, vous, même, si on vous donne de l’or, vous êtes capables de le transformer en plomb. Pis encore: en vous donnant un bon vin, vous êtes capables d’en faire de l’acide.

Nous avons aujourd’hui – et vous le cachez aux gens – la plus grande institution financière multilatérale du monde, ici, en Europe. Alors je me dis: «Chouette, très bien! Avec ça, on va pouvoir finalement mettre nos infrastructures en ordre de marche, en commençant par les chemins de fer, par exemple. Qu’on n’aie plus tous ces retards, qu’on aie un peu des chemins de fer de qualité, ponctuels, et puis des écoles! Des hôpitaux! On peut investir pour que nos enfants ne soient plus dans des classes plus petites, dans des bâtiments vétustes, et qu’il n’y ait plus non plus de listes d’attente dans les hôpitaux! On peut mettre de l’argent là-dedans! On peut isoler des maisons massivement, pour que nos factures baissent!» Avec l’argent de cette grande banque d’investissement, on pourrait faire plein de choses. Mais quelle est votre priorité, chers collègues? Donner cet argent à la guerre. Ouvrir, finalement, cette banque d’investissement à des fonds militaires, pour qu’elle puisse soutenir une base militaire en Lituanie, une base militaire allemande en Lituanie – Félicitations, c’est vraiment ça, la priorité de l’Europe! –, ou utiliser cet argent pour des multinationales d’armement – Leonardo et autres –, dont certaines sont aujourd’hui impliquées dans le génocide qui se déroule en Palestine.

Chers collègues, vraiment, est-il plus important aujourd’hui de soutenir un génocide en Palestine ou bien de garantir à nos enfants, en Europe, les meilleures classes et les meilleures écoles possible, avec les meilleures infrastructures possible? C’est cela la question.

Aujourd’hui, nous faisons le mauvais choix. La Banque européenne d’investissement ne doit plus financer ces dépenses militaires, mais elle doit se focaliser sur le climat, sur le social, sur un développement social et économique égalitaire pour nous, en Europe.

  Siegbert Frank Droese, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Kollegen, mein lieber Sohn Maximilian! Der Jahresbericht 2024 der EIB zeigt wieder einmal, wie sehr sich die EU von den Bedürfnissen ihrer Bürger entfernt hat. Während unsere Wirtschaft unter der Inflation, den Energiekosten, steigenden Steuern und immer mehr Bürokratie leidet, verteilt die EIB vor allem Milliarden für immer neue Klimaprojekte.

2024: 50 Milliarden – knapp 60 % des gesamten Investments – in den Klimabetrug, der in erster Linie Arbeitsplätze kostet und unsere Industrie dauerhaft schwächt. Gleichzeitig werden mit der Global‑Gateway‑Strategie Milliarden in Infrastrukturprojekten in Afrika und Asien verbrannt, während bei uns in Europa Brücken einstürzen, sich junge Europäer kein Wohneigentum mehr leisten können – es ist eine Schande.

Wir als AfD‑/ESN‑Gruppe sagen ganz klar: Die EIB muss ihren Kurs massiv korrigieren, sich wieder auf Investitionen in die europäische Realwirtschaft fokussieren. Schluss mit dem grünen Klimabetrug, Schluss mit der Umverteilung deutscher Steuerzahlergelder in den Rest der Welt. Nicht ideologische Luftschlösser, sondern eine wettbewerbsfähige Wirtschaft sichert den Wohlstand der Europäer. Die EIB sollte sich ein Beispiel an den USA nehmen – Donald Trump hat heute erst erneut den Klimabetrug für beendet erklärt.

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Die Europäische Investitionsbank ist seit Jahrzehnten ein verlässlicher Partner bei der Umsetzung der politischen Ziele der Europäischen Union. Ihre Rolle ist dabei in den letzten Jahren kontinuierlich gewachsen. Heute ist die EIB nicht mehr nur eine klassische Förderbank für Infrastrukturprojekte, sondern ein strategischer Akteur, der eine immer breitere Palette europäischer Prioritäten finanziert – den Übergang zu einer klimaneutralen Wirtschaft, die Digitalisierung, Investitionen in bezahlbaren Wohnraum und nicht zuletzt auch die Stärkung unserer Sicherheits‑ und Verteidigungsindustrie.

Größere Verantwortung muss aber auch mit größerer Rechenschaftspflicht einhergehen. Das aktuelle Governance-Modell der Europäischen Investitionsbank ist seit ihrer Gründung im Wesentlichen unverändert geblieben, obwohl sich Umfang, Komplexität und politischer Charakter der Projekte stark verändert haben. Deswegen ist es an der Zeit, dass wir uns diese Situation jetzt auch einmal genau anschauen. Die Kontrolle von Risiken, die Aufsicht über strategische Entscheidungen und die demokratische Legitimation durch dieses Parlament müssen gestärkt werden. Deswegen fordern wir mehr Transparenz, bessere Einbindung, einen strukturierten Dialog mit der Investitionsbank. Ein interinstitutionelles Abkommen zwischen der EIB und dem Europäischen Parlament wäre dringend notwendig.

Und noch etwas gehört zur Wahrheit: Wenn wir als europäische Politik die EIB immer mehr in die Verantwortung nehmen, dann müssen wir sie auch entsprechend ausstatten. Ich hoffe, dass die Mitgliedstaaten sich auch dazu durchringen können.

  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señor vicepresidente del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, yo creo que el informe —y quiero felicitar a Francisco Assis por su buen trabajo en él— refleja el esfuerzo que está haciendo el Banco fundamentalmente en estos últimos años, desde que Nadia Calviño es presidenta, en modernizar y acelerar su ritmo de inversión, pero quería circunscribir mi intervención a dos apuntes donde creo que el banco tiene que hacer algo más.

Por una parte, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones debe apoyar a las regiones en transición energética, y el Mecanismo para una Transición Justa ofrece vías para que el BEI actúe en esos territorios a través del pilar 2 y del pilar 3, ofreciendo financiación al sector público y al privado. Creo que hay que mejorar mucho ahí.

Mi segundo comentario —y es una petición amplia del Grupo S&D— es sobre el esfuerzo que tiene que hacer el Banco en vivienda social: yo sé que el Banco está trabajando en eso, pero el esfuerzo tiene que ser aún muy muy sustancial, porque el problema recorre toda Europa.

  Marlena Maląg (ECR). – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny to instytucja niezbędna, skuteczna i dotąd apolityczna. Jego rola we wsparciu inwestycji, szczególnie w młodszych państwach Unii Europejskiej, jest nieoceniona. Stanowi on filar polityki spójności i siłę napędową integracji.

EBI znajduje się jednak pod stałą presją polityczną. Oczekuje się od niego nie tylko zgodności ze strategicznymi celami Unii, ale i bieżącą agendą Komisji czy priorytetami większości parlamentarnej. Pamiętajmy, że rating potrójnego A nie jest dany raz na zawsze. Opiera się na zaufaniu, które łatwo stracić.

Jak mawiał Ronald Reagan, nie należy naprawiać tego, co nie jest zepsute. Nie psujmy renomy jednej z ostatnich unijnych instytucji cieszących się zaufaniem rynku. To zielona polityka Komisji Europejskiej pod obecnym przywództwem jest przyczyną presji, która zagraża wiarygodności EBI. Komisja potrzebuje nowego przywództwa, niezależnego i szanującego suwerenność państw członkowskich oraz unijnych instytucji.

  Sarah Knafo (ESN). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, est-il raisonnable de prêter de l’argent quand on est soi-même surendetté? À l’évidence, non. Pourtant, malgré 687 milliards d’euros de dettes, l’Union européenne se croit si riche qu’il lui est agréable d’être prodigue en distribuant notre argent aux quatre coins du monde. Mais à qui la BEI et ses 4 000 employés prêtent-ils donc notre argent? Pour le savoir, regardons son rapport d’activité. Il s’intitule «Les priorités pour la prospérité». L’allitération est douce à l’oreille, mais les chiffres, malheureusement, sont amers pour le contribuable.

Sur 88 milliards d’euros engagés l’an dernier, plus de 10 % ont été investis en dehors de notre continent. Ainsi, nous pouvons nous enorgueillir de financer des projets aux teintes pittoresques et aux allures de carte postale. Nous avons pu soutenir un fabricant de matelas en Mauritanie, ou encore offrir 2 milliards d’euros à l’Afrique subsaharienne – tout cela pour construire «un avenir fait de diversité». Autre priorité: le climat, qui accapare 57 % des fonds. Petit problème: sur 84 pages, le nucléaire, seule énergie entièrement pilotable et décarbonée, n’est mentionné qu’une seule fois, et ce pour féliciter l’Allemagne d’y avoir renoncé.

Nos entreprises veulent la baisse des impôts et des normes. Elles veulent des commandes. Elles n’ont pas besoin que nous jouions aux banquiers.

  Fabio De Masi (NI). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Die Europäische Investitionsbank könnte eine wichtige Rolle beim Umbau der Industrie und bei der Ertüchtigung der öffentlichen Investitionen spielen. Wenn man z. B. das Kapital der Europäischen Investitionsbank erhöht, wird dies nicht auf die europäischen Schuldenbremsen angerechnet. Stattdessen hören wir jetzt einen neuen Sound hier im Europäischen Parlament: Es soll mehr dafür gesorgt werden, dass in Rüstung investiert wird.

Wir haben aber bereits in den europäischen NATO-Staaten ein Vielfaches der Rüstungsausgaben z. B. Russlands. Wir haben eine Diskussion über 5 % des Bruttoinlandsprodukts, das jetzt in Rüstung investiert werden soll, und das untergräbt das europäische Industriemodell. Das wäre in Deutschland, in meinem Heimatland, jeder zweite Euro aus dem Bundeshaushalt. Gleichzeitig haben wir negative Nettoinvestitionen gehabt in den vergangenen Jahren. Der öffentliche Kapitalstock, der über Generationen aufgebaut wurde, der wurde immer weiter auf Verschleiß gefahren. Brücken stürzen ein, Bahnen fahren nicht mehr pünktlich, und es fehlt an Wohnungsbau.

Gleichzeitig wollen wir immer mehr Waffen in die Welt setzen, die dann eben in völkerrechtswidrigen Kriegen, in den großen Verbrechen, die sich in Gaza ereignen, geliefert werden, z. B. von meinem Land Deutschland – was sich damit der Beihilfe an diesen Verbrechen schuldig macht. Deswegen sagen wir: Das muss von dem Kopf auf die Füße gestellt werden. Öffentliche Investitionen: ja, zivile, aber nicht mehr Militär und Rüstung.

  Angéline Furet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, on nous présente aujourd’hui le rapport annuel 2024 sur la Banque européenne d’investissement: 76 milliards d’euros financés en Europe, dont seulement 13 % pour la France. On pourrait se dire: «C’est bien, c’est déjà ça.» Mais soyons clairs, la France est un pays contributeur net de cette banque, c’est-à-dire que l’on donne beaucoup plus que ce que l’on reçoit. Et cet argent, la Banque européenne l’investit dans quoi, exactement? Dans la fameuse transition écologique, dont vous nous rebattez les oreilles tous les jours. Allez donc expliquer ça à nos artisans, à nos entreprises, à nos PME, qui ferment en cascade, tous les jours! Allez expliquer ça aussi à nos territoires ruraux, qui n’ont plus de services publics! Leur urgence à eux, ce n’est pas de faire plaisir aux urbains écolo à trottinette, mais d’avoir un travail, un avenir et une dignité.

Je le dis clairement: la Banque européenne doit investir pour l’économie réelle, pour nos emplois, pour nos territoires. La France ne doit pas être simplement la vache à lait de l’Union européenne. C’est une question de respect, c’est une question de justice.

  Marco Squarta (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa relazione tenta di riconvertire la Banca europea per gli investimenti in uno strumento di spesa politica, allontanandola dalla sua missione originaria: finanziare progetti solidi, produttivi e con logica di mercato.

Nel 2024 risulta che la BEI abbia destinato oltre il 50 % dei propri investimenti – 50,7 miliardi di euro – a progetti climatici: il sintomo evidente di un approccio ideologico, figlio del Green Deal, che rischia di rendere la BEI più uno strumento propagandistico che uno strumento strategico.

I risultati? Spesso deludenti: progetti green inefficienti, fondi concessi all’agricoltura industriale poco sostenibile, iniziative bloccate o rinviate, come nel caso delle infrastrutture energetiche in Africa.

Anche sul piano internazionale manca una visione strategica, non si fa riferimento ad alcuna azione coordinata con le politiche nazionali, come il piano Mattei promosso dal governo italiano.

Serve una BEI seria, autonoma e che investa bene, non una banca ideologica, ma una banca utile all’Europa reale.

  Malika Sorel (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, samedi dernier, aux Rencontres économiques d’Aix-en-Provence, Mario Draghi a affirmé que nous subissions les conséquences du manque d’investissement dans les infrastructures, l’éducation, la recherche-développement. Parmi les axes qu’il avait fixés pour relancer la compétitivité – réduire d’urgence le fossé qui nous sépare des États-Unis et de la Chine dans les technologies avancées, notamment –, la prise de conscience a-t-elle eu lieu? Au vu des projets financés par la BEI, la réponse est non: 46 % des financements vont au climat et à l’environnement, près de 20 % à l’énergie propre. Or, en matière de pollution, nous sommes très loin derrière la Chine et les États-Unis. Ainsi, à la fin, nous serons peut-être les plus vertueux, mais nous aurons été dévorés par les rapaces de la mondialisation.

Chers collègues, au moment où la colère grandit chez nos peuples, accablés par une pauvreté galopante, 10 % des investissements de la BEI vont à des pays situés hors de l’Union européenne. Cela est incompréhensible. Aussi appelé-je à un sursaut collectif!

  Μιχάλης Χατζηπαντέλα (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η επιτυχία της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων αποτελεί θεμέλιο λίθο για την οικονομική ανάπτυξη και τη συνοχή της Ευρώπης. Η ΕΤΕπ έχει διαδραματίσει καθοριστικό ρόλο στη χρηματοδότηση στρατηγικών έργων, ενισχύοντας την καινοτομία, τις υποδομές και τη βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη.

Θέλω να υπογραμμίσω με ιδιαίτερη ικανοποίηση τη δυνατότητα χρηματοδότησης της Κύπρου για αντιμετώπιση της στεγαστικής κρίσης. Έπειτα από επιβεβαίωση από την ηγεσία της Τράπεζας, έχω τη χαρά να ανακοινώσω ότι η χώρα μας μπορεί να αξιοποιήσει χρηματοδοτήσεις άνω των 100 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ για τη στήριξη των φοιτητών και των χαμηλόμισθων νοικοκυριών. Αυτή η εξέλιξη ανοίγει νέους ορίζοντες για τους νέους μας αλλά και για τις ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες, προσφέροντας πρόσβαση σε αξιοπρεπή και προσιτή στέγαση. Η πρόσβαση σε προσιτή στέγη είναι στρατηγικό εργαλείο που μπορεί να προσφέρει λύση και στο δημογραφικό πρόβλημα, δίνοντας κίνητρο σε νέα ζευγάρια να δημιουργήσουν οικογένεια και να χτίσουν τη ζωή τους με αξιοπρέπεια στη χώρα μας.

Την ίδια ώρα, επιθυμώ να τονίσω τη σημασία της ενίσχυσης της συνεργασίας με τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Μέσα από τις καινοτόμες συνέργειες μπορούμε να διασφαλίσουμε πιο αποτελεσματικές και αποδοτικές επενδύσεις, οι οποίες θα ευθυγραμμίζονται με τις προτεραιότητες της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης και θα στηρίζουν τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις που αποτελούν τη ραχοκοκαλιά της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας.

  Sandra Gómez López (S&D). – Señor presidente, desde el Grupo S&D apoyamos firmemente el informe del BEI de 2024, porque refleja una Europa que invierte con responsabilidad, con ambición climática y compromiso social. Que sea conocido hoy como el «banco climático» de la Unión Europea o después de escuchar las intervenciones de la extrema derecha significa que va por el buen camino. Y es que la llegada de Nadia Calviño ha marcado un punto de inflexión. Bajo su liderazgo, el BEI está dejando atrás esa lógica que era puramente financiera para convertirse en un verdadero motor de cohesión y justicia social.

Y queremos hablar de la vivienda, ya que ha invertido más de 8 700 millones en vivienda asequible, rehabilitación energética y regeneración urbana. En plena crisis habitacional, el BEI sí está dando respuestas, pero queremos más: más ambición, más recursos y más colaboración con los gobiernos locales, porque el acceso a la vivienda no puede seguir siendo un privilegio, es un derecho y el BEI debe ayudarnos a hacerlo posible.

  Claire Fita (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Vice-Président, chers collègues, je souhaite pour ma part vous apporter un témoignage qui illustre l’indispensable accompagnement de la Banque européenne d’investissement dans nos territoires et pour nos territoires.

Tout d’abord, un premier exemple: sachez que la BEI est le premier partenaire financier de la région Occitanie, en France, en matière de dette, avec un encours supérieur à 900 millions d’euros, soit 25 % du total de l’encours régional. Et ce, pour financer des infrastructures de transport, mais aussi la construction ou la réhabilitation de lycées.

Un autre exemple, là aussi très concret, et qui me tient à cœur: dans mon département, le Tarn, la BEI a octroyé un prêt décisif de 40 millions d’euros pour un projet exemplaire et innovant en matière de traitement des déchets ménagers, un projet porté par un service public départemental, Trifyl. Soyons clairs: sans la BEI, ce projet n’aurait jamais pu voir le jour. C’est bien cela, l’Europe utile que nos concitoyens attendent.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Marco Falcone (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per noi Popolari la Banca europea per gli investimenti non può essere solo una macchina tecnica, deve essere un motore politico dello sviluppo europeo.

Per questo abbiamo lavorato a questa relazione, che salutiamo con grande favore, dando impulso a tante proposte concrete, nate dal confronto con i territori.

Abbiamo voluto concentrarci sull’accesso al credito, rafforzando misure come i prestiti agli intermediari finanziari locali e il sostegno alla microfinanza, fondamentali per supportare piccole e medie imprese e famiglie. Abbiamo poi ottenuto il riconoscimento del valore degli investimenti nelle aree insulari e periferiche, spesso penalizzate in termini infrastrutturali e di sviluppo. Infine, apprezziamo lo spunto sul contrasto alla disoccupazione giovanile e alla fuga dei cervelli, priorità per costruire un futuro senza svuotare i territori.

Solo così potrà davvero essere la banca dello sviluppo europeo.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, kehitysyhteistyön rahoittaminen, EU:n ilmastopankkina toimiminen ja vaikka mitä toissijaisia kohteita.

Tätäkö eurooppalaiset haluavat eurooppalaiselta investointipankiltaan silloin, kun keskittymisen pitäisi olla näissä asioissa: puolustus, puolustus ja puolustus.

Olemmeko todellakin edelleen niin jumissa yli viiden vuoden takaisissa viherfantasioissa, ettemme näe, mitä ympärillämme tapahtuu?

Puolustusteollisuutemme odottaa kipeästi satsauksia, mutta me sen kuin seisomme päät pensaissa odottaen, että milloinkohan se vihreyteen heitetty raha kumoaa ilmastonmuutoksen.

Herää Eurooppa!

Suurin uhka meitä vastaan ei tule tällä hetkellä ylhäältä vaan idästä.

Ja ennen kuin tämä uhka on padottu, en halua lukea enää ensimmäistäkään tämän kaltaista mietintöä, jossa painopisteet ovat päin mäntyä. Kiitos!

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Maria Luís Albuquerque, este relatório sobre as atividades financeiras do Banco Europeu de Investimento está alinhado com os objetivos políticos da União Europeia e, por isso, dá suporte a opções erradas que desconsideram as necessidades dos povos e não aponta o caminho que devia ser seguido para corresponder a essas necessidades.

O financiamento do BEI à indústria militar ronda já os mil milhões de euros, mas o relatório tece loas ao reforço do papel do BEI em investimentos militares, incluindo com a cortina de fumo que é a cláusula de dupla utilização, cuja revisão permite já investimentos em bens predominantemente com fins militares.

Em sentido contrário, não há, por exemplo, uma exigência de que o BEI, aliado aos bancos de fomento nacionais, seja um banco para promover mais investimento público nas áreas que promovem a coesão económica, social e territorial, apoiando os setores produtivos dos Estados‑Membros ou dando, por exemplo, resposta aos problemas como o da habitação. É preciso financiamento para garantir a construção a custos controlados de habitação, o investimento público no alargamento da oferta pública de habitação para garantirmos uma resposta à crise da habitação. Mas sobre isso não há uma intenção de apontar o caminho que o BEI deve seguir e o contributo que deve dar para esses objetivos.

  Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από την έκθεση αποδεικνύεται ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων δεν υπηρετεί τις πραγματικές ανάγκες των πολιτών, αλλά τα συμφέροντα των μεγάλων επιχειρήσεων και των ισχυρών οικονομιών. Οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, οι αγρότες, οι αυτοαπασχολούμενοι βρίσκουν τις πόρτες της μονίμως κλειστές.

Η Τράπεζα μιλά για στήριξη στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, αλλά τα κεφάλαια περνούν από εμπορικές τράπεζες που επιλέγουν τους μεγαλοπελάτες τους χωρίς διαφάνεια και τελικά καταλήγουν στους ίδιους λίγους. Οι διαδικασίες της είναι κομμένες και ραμμένες για τους μεγάλους παίκτες και για κρατικές δομές κρατών, κυρίως ανεπτυγμένων, με ισχυρό τραπεζικό σύστημα, δηλαδή τεχνικά κριτήρια, τεκμηρίωση, συμβατότητα με ESG πρότυπα. Όλα αυτά δεν μπορούν να ακουμπήσουν τους μικρομεσαίους.

Και τώρα, με πρόσχημα την ασφάλεια, η ΕΤΕπ ανοίγει τον δρόμο στη χρηματοδότηση της πολεμικής βιομηχανίας αντί για κοινωνικές υποδομές και μάλιστα με επιπλέον χρήματα που θα ζητήσει από τους πολίτες. Αυτή είναι μια τράπεζα των λόμπι και της ανισότητας. Απαιτούμε αλλαγή στρατηγικής, δικαιοσύνη και ισοκατανομή με βάση τις πραγματικές ανάγκες των πολιτών.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Robert de Groot, Vice-President of the European Investment Bank. – Mr President, honourable Members, my apologies for being a little late due to traffic, but it allowed me in a mobile way to listen to those who spoke before me, the Commissioner and I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Assis, for his thoughtful and constructive report. Your engagement is highly valued.

A year ago in June, the EIB Group’s Board of Governors approved a strategic roadmap to focus resources on eight core investment priorities put forward to them by President Calviño and I am glad to see that the report welcomes the achievements made possible by this decision. Without dwelling in detail on each area of investment, let me focus on a few highlights referred to in this report.

Security and defence is perhaps the area where we have seen a true change in the EIB Group stance at the request of European leaders. We have revamped our policies, expanded the scope, pace and volume of our operations to fill financing gaps in investments that are essential to safeguard peace and security in Europe without jeopardising the Group’s other priorities or our financing capacity. The result? We doubled our financing in 2024 to EUR 1 billion and we are going to more than triple this again to around 3.5 % of our total investments in 2025.

We have a solid pipeline of 80 projects across 16 Member States to work on and the changes are allowing us to finance projects into pure defence, such as a flagship military base in Lithuania, for which we recently approved over EUR 500 000 000 of financing. Some weeks ago, we also secured agreements with Deutsche Bank and Banque Populaire Caisse d’Épargne in the context of our pan‑European lending envelope for intermediated financing available to SMEs and, in particular, SMEs in the defence industry supply chain. This primarily benefits small and medium‑sized enterprises in that area. We are optimistic about the outlook.

In that sense, when it comes to the remarks brought up on weapons and ammunition and the financing of weapons and ammunition, I want to say: we are an investment bank. We are not a credit institution. I am convinced there are better equipped institutions and more appropriate ways when it comes to the enabled financing of weapons and ammunition, and the SAFE Regulation certainly is one of them.

On energy security, the EIB’s commitment to European security extends well beyond the realm of pure defence. Security also means having control over the sources of water and power for our economies. To ensure Europe’s strategic autonomy, we are already financing about 40 % of ongoing projects to reinforce our grids, our interconnectors, including transmission network upgrades in several Member States, from Greece to Poland and from Belgium to Slovenia. For example, two weeks ago, we signed EUR 1.6 billion in financing the underwater electricity interconnector between Spain and France that will strengthen Europe’s grid.

Making the green transition a European success will need investment in infrastructure but also clean tech leadership. This year marks another leap forward. The TechEU programme has been adopted and launched. Europe lacks the scale‑up financing to turn ideas into global champions, into unicorns, and TechEU is our contribution to European competitiveness and, as Mr Gotink already said, we want to support deep tech, AI, semiconductors and digital infrastructure. The first wave of the new TechEU platform, mobilising EUR 250 billion in investment by 2027, is focused on clean tech, which will lead to cheaper energy prices, to grid components manufacturers and to power purchase agreements by energy intensive industry. And beyond clean tech, TechEU has one key objective: supporting Europe’s innovators so that they can scale up here in the EU and stay.

The EIB Group is Europe’s biggest venture capital financer in that sense and we are joining forces with the private sector, also with very small companies, for example, in advancing 3D scanning technologies in Luxembourg, advanced lighting solutions with venture debt in Austria, green hydrogen in Germany and cancer vaccine research in Denmark. So with TechEU, we aim to be bigger, faster and simpler than previous programmes, with larger tickets reducing delivery time and cutting down red tape for small and medium‑sized enterprises.

Housing was mentioned by many of you, and affordable and sustainable housing is a top priority for us, as it is for the rapporteur, as he mentioned, and so many of you. We have launched a dedicated platform in partnership with the Commission and a plan that foresees well over EUR 4 billion in new investments in this area when it comes to innovation, renovation and new builds. We aim to double our financing again, trying to deliver 1.5 million new and renovated homes across Europe by 2030. The projects we are financing will provide student accommodation, for example, but also affordable apartments for public sector workers in Prague, with many more examples in Austria, Croatia, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

Also outside Europe we are active. Firstly and foremost in Ukraine to support the people of Ukraine; secondly, in those countries who are candidate members of the EU; thirdly, in our southern neighbourhood; and fourthly elsewhere across the globe. These are extremely important projects for every citizen of Europe. There are investments in energy, for example, in critical raw materials.

Now, if you allow me to look ahead. We have a demanding geopolitical and economic landscape, the Commissioner alluded to that, and we also know we must do better and do faster. Simplification is key. We are working hard to reduce administrative complexity, streamline procedures and provide more tailored support to local authorities and SMEs. The swift adoption of the investment simplification Omnibus, as well as the Omnibus to simplify the External Action Guarantee is very important as it will help mobilise an estimated EUR 75 billion in public and private investment both inside and outside the EU, at no cost for the European taxpayers and without waiting for the next MFF.

Before I come back to the next MFF, one remark on the robustness of the EIB, which some of you have alluded to. We do comply with the highest standards of external prudential oversight, while considering the necessary adaptation derived from being a public institution. We operate under a robust and multi-layered accountability set up by the 27 finance ministers, which exceeds the standards of many other banks. Given our size and considering our specific business model, together with the Governors, we have set up several institutions looking into the way we function. We have independent external experts in our audit committee. We have a review and evaluation process performing the task of a supervisory authority – which in commercial banks report to the management but in our system report to the Board of Governors – so I can assure you we are having the highest standards of oversight.

Finally, some words about the next MFF. The EIB is not a financial institution as such. We are a strategic partner and we are ready to mobilise both public and private investment at scale, amplify the budget instruments and deliver impact where it’s needed most, also in cohesion areas and for farmers. We stand ready to set up a reinforced investment partnership with the Commission – an idea from your resolution on the post‑2027 MFF that we very much value. In our view, the next MFF should be efficient, building on what works already, especially InvestEU, increase our impact and additionality, and ensure predictability as investors across Europe need to take decisions.

In conclusion, the EIB is evolving. Just two weeks ago, our Board approved a financial ceiling of EUR 100 billion for 2025 and new programmes to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, our resilience and our technological leadership, which means our autonomy.

  Francisco Assis, Relator. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Senhor Vice‑Presidente, queria começar por lhe agradecer toda a colaboração que o Banco nos prestou para a elaboração deste relatório.

O debate correu conforme se previa. Aqueles que são a favor das grandes prioridades políticas da União Europeia são naturalmente a favor daquelas que são as prioridades de investimento do Banco. Aqueles que são contra as grandes prioridades políticas da União Europeia são contra o programa de investimentos do Banco.

Há pouco, o senhor deputado João Oliveira foi muito claro sobre isso, dizendo exatamente isso. Ora, o que seria estranho era que o Banco Europeu de Investimento adotasse prioridades contrárias ou sequer distintas daquelas que são as prioridades, as políticas, claramente assumidas a nível da Comissão, do Parlamento, e que foram sufragadas democraticamente pelos povos europeus.

A União Europeia, já o disse há pouco, precisa de criar novos instrumentos de investimento. Tem‑no feito. Há um avanço no sentido de concretizar esses novos instrumentos de investimento, nomeadamente o esforço que está a ser levado a cabo para a promoção de uma União de Mercados de Capitais e para que se complete a União Bancária. Isso é absolutamente fundamental.

O Banco não tem, evidentemente, capacidade para acorrer a todas as necessidades de investimento europeu. Apesar de tudo isso, tem dado um contributo muito importante e esse contributo tem sido em áreas que nos parecem a nós relevantíssimas.

E termino, justamente citando aquilo que consta do Roteiro Estratégico do Grupo BEI para 2024‑2027, que são as seguintes áreas: o banco do clima, o que suscitou uma oposição feroz da extrema‑direita, mas isso é compreensível — até porque tem uma perspetiva negacionista em relação às alterações climáticas —; a digitalização e a implantação das novas tecnologias, o que nos permitirá recuperar o atraso em relação a outras economias mais avançadas do que a nossa; a indústria da segurança e da defesa, uma opção política que resulta das transformações geopolíticas ocorridas nos últimos anos; uma política de coesão moderna, que corresponde também a uma opção maioritária; a agricultura e a bioeconomia; a infraestrutura social da Europa — e aqui quero salientar justamente a dimensão da habitação —, e os investimentos de elevado impacto fora da UE, e ainda a União dos Mercados de Capitais.

Creio que estas, sendo opções do Banco, são claramente opções maioritárias nesta casa. De qualquer forma, queria, enquanto relator, agradecer a todas e a todos pelo contributo que deram para este interessante debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow.

  Salvatore De Meo, relatore. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l’esplosione del commercio online ha rivoluzionato il nostro modo di acquistare e di vendere, ha abbattuto barriere e ha creato nuove opportunità, ma ha anche esposto il mercato unico a criticità per cittadini e imprese europee.

Mai come oggi è stato così facile, con un semplice clic, acquistare un prodotto dall’altra parte del mondo e riceverlo comodamente a casa in pochi giorni. I numeri parlano chiaro: solo nel 2024 sono entrati nell’Unione oltre 4,6 miliardi di articoli, con un valore dichiarato inferiore alla soglia di esenzione dai dazi di 150 euro. Parliamo di circa 12 milioni di articoli al giorno. È una mole impressionante di merci, che troppo spesso sfugge ai controlli, mettendo a rischio la sicurezza dei consumatori e minando la competitività delle imprese europee, che operano invece nel rispetto di regole ben precise.

L’e‑commerce è un mercato che dobbiamo governare e affrontare con responsabilità, perché dietro ogni pacco che attraversa una frontiera senza adeguati controlli si nascondono zone d’ombra che riguardano la sicurezza, la legalità e l’equità.

Per i consumatori, i pericoli sono reali: prodotti non sicuri, diffuse pratiche manipolative e assenza di garanzie di affidabilità. Non è accettabile che i cittadini europei siano esposti a rischi per la loro salute o a truffe quando acquistano online. La libertà di scelta deve andare di pari passo con la tutela della sicurezza, della salute e dei diritti. È necessaria una forte azione informativa e di educazione per rendere i cittadini consumatori consapevoli e responsabili.

Per le imprese, invece, soprattutto quelle piccole e medie, la competizione diventa ogni giorno più dura e spesso sleale: è inaccettabile che chi rispetta rigorose normative fiscali, ambientali e sociali debba competere con operatori extraeuropei che non rispettano gli stessi standard produttivi e riescono anche a eludere i controlli. Non possiamo permettere che l’esposizione a mercati senza regole comprometta il futuro del nostro tessuto imprenditoriale.

Guardando alle autorità doganali, la sfida è immensa: ogni giorno si trovano a gestire milioni di pacchi e sono spesso costrette a fare di più, ma con risorse limitate. È evidente che questo modello non è più sostenibile.

Servono degli strumenti tecnologici all’avanguardia, una maggiore consapevolezza europea e una visione strategica condivisa. L’attuale quadro regolatorio europeo è valido, ma dobbiamo applicarlo con rigore, rafforzandolo se necessario, e dobbiamo potenziare le autorità di controllo con mezzi adeguati.

Le piattaforme online, inoltre, hanno bisogno – ovviamente, soprattutto quelle che hanno sede al di fuori dell’Unione europea – di garantire tracciabilità e trasparenza. Per questo è fondamentale rafforzare la figura della persona responsabile per la sicurezza dei prodotti e introdurre strumenti come il passaporto digitale, che permetta di verificare origine e conformità prima dell’immissione sul mercato.

Auspichiamo un’accelerazione della riforma del codice doganale dell’Unione e condividiamo l’introduzione della figura dell’importatore presunto, così come condividiamo l’eliminazione dell’attuale soglia di esenzione dai dazi al di sotto dei 150 euro, che purtroppo è diventata un canale privilegiato per aggirare i controlli. Al tempo stesso è necessaria la creazione di un’autorità doganale europea, che si doti di un centro digitale per il monitoraggio dei flussi per contrastare le pratiche fraudolente. E siamo anche favorevoli alla proposta di introdurre una tassa di gestione a carico dei venditori per coprire i costi di attività di controllo.

A fronte delle citate criticità, occorre armonizzare le sanzioni a livello europeo, affinché chi viola le regole non trovi scappatoie a livello nazionale.

Infine, nell’interesse dei nostri concittadini, dobbiamo combattere con fermezza il marketing ingannevole e le tecniche manipolative che spingono i nostri consumatori verso comportamenti compulsivi e poco consapevoli, compromettendone la libertà di scelta e mettendo a rischio la loro salute e il benessere economico.

Caro Commissario, cari colleghi, questa relazione è un passo deciso verso un mercato digitale più giusto, più sicuro e più trasparente: non si tratta di fermare l’innovazione, ma di guidarla con regole chiare e sostenibili, perché difendere il mercato unico significa difendere un modello europeo fondato sulla legalità, la responsabilità e la tutela delle persone, significa contribuire a rafforzare l’autonomia strategica dell’Unione, oggi condizione essenziale per un’Europa forte e credibile su uno scenario sempre più globale.

  Michael McGrath, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, good evening, honourable Members, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in this evening’s debate on the report on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports presented by MEP Salvatore De Meo. Following the positive vote in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection after the views of the Committee on International Trade, I would like to thank you, especially the members of the two committees, the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs for your dedication and your commitment to this important topic.

Addressing the challenges posed by e-commerce platforms is a top priority for the Commission, and I want to assure you, it is a very important part of my portfolio as Commissioner. Around 12 million low-value parcels, mainly from China, arrive in the EU every single day, and that is double the number from the previous year. Let me repeat: 12 million every single day. This presents very serious challenges to our customs authorities, to market surveillance and also to our consumer authorities.

A top concern is that many non-EU e-commerce platforms do not comply with our consumer and product safety laws, either by engaging in practices forbidden by our laws, or by selling products that do not meet our product safety rules and standards. This puts the health, the well-being and the economic situation of European citizens at risk, and it puts European businesses at a disadvantage by exposing them to competition that is simply unfair.

These are two challenges that we need to address by working together. In February, the Commission presented a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce in the form of a Commission communication. Allow me to highlight just a few points we consider to be particularly relevant, many of which have been raised in the report that we are debating here this evening.

Firstly, a safe marketplace environment is a key priority for the Commission. The Digital Services Act gives responsibility to online marketplaces to ensure a safe environment for our consumers. These platforms may not be liable, but they are indeed responsible and need to be diligent. The DSA does not act, of course, in isolation. It is complemented by sector-specific rules, such as the rules protecting consumers’ collective interests against unfair commercial practices or the General Product Safety Regulation, the GPSR, when it comes to product safety.

Equally, regulatory authorities cannot work in isolation either; a holistic and coordinated approach is needed. We fully share the views that enforcing our current framework is imperative. Under the DSA, the Commission is actively monitoring several very large online platforms such as Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, Shein and Zalando, which cover altogether a wide spectrum of e-commerce. Under the CPC Regulation, investigations were also launched on Temu and Shein for illegal practices affecting millions of EU consumers, such as pressure selling, manipulative design features or fake discounts.

Secondly, we must act to prevent unsafe and non-compliant products from entering our market. This is a question of ensuring a level playing field for business and of consumer trust in our single market. In this regard, the enforcement of the GPSR is a key priority. For example, the Consumer Safety Network carried out its first ever EU-level product safety sweep, a coordinated screening exercise of product offers made available by online marketplaces to check and enhance the compliance of the sector. The Commission will shortly present the results of this exercise.

We also welcome and appreciate your call for greater resources for relevant authorities involved in this important work. It is essential that these authorities have adequate resources to face the growing challenges posed by e-commerce. We should also further explore the potential for new technologies and for digital solutions. Relying on digital test results and certificates of conformity could ensure more efficient detection and prevention of non-compliant imported products, rather than ex-post verifications that are more costly and resource intensive.

We also take note of the particular interest in the assessment and evaluation of the Market Surveillance Regulation, which is also high on this Commission’s agenda. I would like to highlight that preparations for this are already underway and it will consider the current framework and whether it is fit for purpose.

Third, the report refers on a number of occasions to the role of customs. In that respect, we thank the Parliament for the continuous support on the customs reform. The Commission shares the sense of urgency that the Parliament has expressed in this report. Indeed, the Council adopted its negotiating mandate on 27 June and so the interinstitutional negotiations will start tomorrow with a first trilogue. I will therefore leave my colleague, Commissioner Šefčovič, to continue with you in relation to the discussions on this file.

Finally, with regard to the enforcement of consumers’ rights, I take note in particular of the report’s call on the Commission to table an ambitious reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation. The CPC Network of consumer authorities, coordinated by the Commission, has effectively carried out recent enforcement actions, such as the ones I mentioned earlier against Temu and also Shein.

Further efforts may be needed to enhance consumer protection and shield compliant EU traders from unfair competition. As announced in our e-commerce communication back in February, the Commission is therefore reflecting on a review of the current system. I have received numerous appeals, be it from consumer organisations, national authorities or businesses, and indeed from Members of this House, to explore the possibility of further centralising direct investigation and sanctioning powers for certain systematic and large-scale infringements directly at EU level. We will look at all the options to ensure that our harmonised rules are effectively enforced, and contribute to a more level playing field for all the players in our single market.

To conclude, I am happy to see so many synergies between the points outlined in your report and the strategy set out in the Commission’s e-commerce communication. The evidence before us compels us to move forward now decisively and with purpose to address these challenges head on to protect both our consumers but also our European businesses. I look forward to your contribution to the debate, thank you very much.

  Brando Benifei, relatore per parere della commissione INTA. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 70 % degli europei acquista online e l’aumento delle importazioni da fuori Europa pone nuove sfide per la sicurezza dei nostri cittadini e dei nostri consumatori.

Dobbiamo agire adesso.

Nel 2024 sono arrivati nell’Unione 4,6 miliardi di pacchi di basso valore, spesso sfruttando l’esenzione dei dazi sotto i 150 euro. Questa falla alimenta frodi, sottovalutazioni e concorrenza sleale, danneggiando le nostre aziende: solo nel settore dell’abbigliamento, i prodotti falsi ci costano 12 miliardi l’anno.

Ho lavorato a questo dossier per rafforzare le regole e colmare queste lacune. Abbiamo lavorato bene, insieme al relatore e agli altri parlamentari.

Sosteniamo un’imposta equa sulle importazioni via e‑commerce, per finanziare i controlli senza pesare sui consumatori. Ora serve accelerare la riforma doganale e investire in strumenti di controllo digitali e moderni.

Dobbiamo proteggere i consumatori e le imprese europee: regole forti e applicate in modo uniforme sono la chiave per la sicurezza di tutte e tutti.

PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK
Podpredseda

  Andreas Schwab, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal möchte ich meinem Kollegen Salvatore De Meo zu diesem exzellenten Bericht gratulieren. Ich glaube, dass alle wichtigen Fragen im Zusammenhang mit dem Onlinehandel im europäischen Binnenmarkt hier wirklich sehr tiefgründig erörtert werden. Das ist wichtig, weil die Zahlen genannt worden sind: 4,6 Milliarden Kleinstsendungen unterhalb der Zollfreigrenze von 150 Euro sind im vergangenen Jahr aus der ganzen Welt in die Europäische Union eingeführt worden. Erschreckenderweise stammen 91 % dieser Sendungen aus einem einzigen Drittstaat – das entspricht 12 Millionen Paketen pro Tag. Dass diese Lieferungen auch noch postalisch privilegiert sind und damit anderen Kosten unterfallen als europäische Produkte, macht die Sache schwierig.

Deswegen möchte ich jetzt in der kurzen Redezeit, die mir ohnehin verbleibt, nicht zu sehr darüber lamentieren, was wir an Problemen haben. Der Herr Kommissar hat es bereits geschildert, der Bericht legt es aktenkundig. Es geht darum, was wir tun können, um den europäischen Binnenmarkt, die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher, aber auch die hier tätigen Unternehmen adäquat zu schützen und einen neuen Rahmen zu schaffen. Deswegen schlagen wir vor, im Zusammenhang mit dem neuen europäischen Zollkodex eine sogenannte handling fee – eine Bearbeitungsgebühr – zu schaffen, die gerade für solche Kleinstpakete, die natürlich bei der Kontrolle durch die Zollbehörden und durch die Marktaufsichtsbehörden einer besonderen Schwierigkeit unterliegen, erhebliche Veränderungen bringt. Ich hoffe, dass es uns gelingt, eine handling fee von insgesamt 4 Euro pro Paket einzuführen und damit einen Sicherungseffekt zu erzielen. Bessere Kontrollen für mehr Sicherheit!

  Laura Ballarín Cereza, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, ¿quién no ha comprado un billete de avión con prisas y sin saber cuántos extras incluía porque solo quedaba un asiento a ese precio o ha hecho cola durante horas para comprar una entrada de Bad Bunny al triple del precio anunciado? ¿O quién no ha visto el meme de lo que compras en AliExpress y lo que finalmente te llega? Timos, patrones oscuros, diseños adictivos, hoy en día, el comercio electrónico —que supone dos de cada cinco transacciones comerciales en la Unión Europea— carece de transparencia y de garantías.

En el marco de las actuales guerras comerciales con Estados Unidos y con China, Europa debe actuar para afianzar la seguridad del producto y las normas para los consumidores —que son muy altas en nuestro territorio— también para el comercio electrónico. En esta dirección va el informe que esta Cámara aprueba con un amplio consenso, pero debemos ir más allá.

Pedimos a la Comisión Europea una ley de equidad digital ambiciosa y fuerte, que refuerce el mercado único digital y proteja a los consumidores de patrones oscuros o de diseños adictivos, en sus compras en línea y también en las plataformas sociales.

En segundo lugar, necesitamos fortalecer el mercado electrónico made in Europe para reforzar a las pymes frente a la competencia desleal que viene de fuera de nuestras fronteras. Por eso, damos la bienvenida a la propuesta de la Comisión de incluir una tasa de 2 € a los productos de pequeño valor, porque comprar en línea no puede ser comprar sin garantías, sin seguridad, sin información o sin derecho a devoluciones. Los derechos de los consumidores offline tienen que ser los mismos online.

  Virginie Joron, au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire – aussi à la transparence – 4,6 milliards de produits valant moins de 150 euros ont été importés en Europe en 2024. Mais 4,6 milliards, c’est aussi le nombre de doses qu’Ursula a commandé durant la COVID-19. Ursula, convoquée aujourd’hui, le 7 juillet, grâce à 77 députés qui veulent de la transparence et la vérité sur ces contrats géants, sur ces SMS cachés – cette motion était attendue par nos concitoyens. Ursula, qui devrait demander pardon plutôt que de traiter les signataires de cette motion de complotistes. Alors, évidemment, difficile de surveiller tout ce trafic et d’assurer la sécurité des consommateurs. Donc, nous soutiendrons ce rapport sur le commerce électronique, pour plus de sécurité, pour plus de contrôle et pour les consommateurs européens, bien sûr.

Mais, chers collègues, je ne vous ai pas entendu dénoncer les fourberies de Pfizer, qui a empoché encore 163 millions d’euros de la Commission entre 2023 et 2024. L’entreprise chinoise Shein est ciblée, dont acte. Ce que vous ne dites pas, c’est que votre ami Castaner, ancien ministre macroniste de l’Intérieur, travaille pour Shein. Vous savez, celui qui éborgnait chaque samedi les gilets jaunes, les «gueux» qui dérangent. Il est passé de la mondaine à la mode. Bizarrement, cette information n’apparaît pas dans le registre de transparence de la Commission. Personne à Bruxelles n’a envie de parler de pantouflage, ni du «Pfizergate». Dans ce rapport, on évite de noter que l’ancien commissaire allemand au numérique et à la lutte anti-fraude, Günther Oettinger, du parti d’Ursula, fait du lobbying pour Shein, justement, sur ce sujet et sur le règlement sur les services numériques.

Pour paraphraser une citation qui a provoqué la démission de la Commission Santer il y a vingt ans, il devient difficile de trouver quiconque ayant ne serait-ce qu’un semblant de sens de la responsabilité.

  Gheorghe Piperea, în numele grupului ECR. – Domnule președinte, raportul privind siguranța în comerțul electronic și importurile din afaceri extracomunitare, pe care l-am negociat în IMCO, în calitate de raportor din umbră din partea ECR, propune măsuri concrete pentru a combate concurența neloială și riscurile asociate cu produsele nesigure.

Din 4,6 miliarde de colete de valoare mică ce au intrat în Uniunea Europeană anul trecut, 91% proveneau din afaceri extracomunitare, iar 85% din aceste produse, care proveneau din Asia, nu respectau standardele de siguranță europene. Avem nevoie de un teren de joc cinstit atât pentru producătorii europeni, cât și pentru cei din afara granițelor Uniunii Europene, prin consolidarea controalelor vamale, responsabilizarea platformelor online și introducerea sancțiunilor severe pentru produsele nesigure. Prin acest dosar obligăm vânzătorii să furnizeze informații clare despre originea produselor și standardele de siguranță respectate, controale vamale mai eficiente și măsuri pentru a preveni evaziunea fiscală.

Se propune ca platformele de comerț electronic să fie considerate importatori prezumați, având obligația de a asigura conformitatea produselor vândute, inclusiv prin colectarea taxelor vamale și a TVA-ului. Vă încurajez să susțineți acest raport în forma în care a fost negociat, pentru că sunt măsuri menite să protejeze consumatorii europeni și să stabilească condiții de concurență echitabile pentru producătorii noștri.

  Anna Stürgkh, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, first I want to thank colleague De Meo for the very good cooperation on this very important report. Now, speaking as a citizen, as a customer, when I go into a shop, I expect at least three things: I expect the products that I buy to be safe; I expect them to be what I chose; and I expect that if something is wrong, I can go and complain.

So why should this be different when I shop online? But far too often we see that when we buy online, the products that we choose are not what they promise to be once they arrive at our doors, especially when they come from third countries and especially when they come from China. Far too often they even turn out to be dangerous. When we look at toys that include harmful chemicals, when we talk about exploding chargers or cosmetics that lack any sort of labelling. And if you want to complain about that, then there is no one to turn to.

This cannot hold. When someone wants to sell in the EU, they need to adhere to European law. And we have to make sure that these laws that we create are airtight and cannot be circumvented, as they are right now. We have already got great instruments, as we have heard with the DMA and the DSA. We need to implement them. Yes, there are also still some holes that we need to fill, but I’m sure and I’m certain that this House, together with the Commission, will do so in the next few months.

  Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, nous sommes 70 % d’Européennes et d’Européens à acheter régulièrement en ligne. En deux clics, vous achetez ce jouet venu tout droit de Chine, livré à domicile, et qui sera non conforme aux règles européennes de santé, de sécurité et de prix dans 80 % des cas. Idem pour cette veste trouvée en ligne sur Shein, sur Temu, ou pour du maquillage bourré de produits chimiques trouvé sur Amazon.

L’an dernier, ce sont 4,5 milliards de petits paquets de moins de 150 euros qui ont été commandés, soit 12 millions de petits paquets par jour qui entrent en Europe. Ces achats posent problème du point de vue de la santé et de la sécurité pour les consommateurs, de même qu’ils ont un poids environnemental insoutenable et qu’ils entraînent une concurrence déloyale pour les commerces, les entreprises européennes et les travailleurs.

Le rapport du Parlement européen – et merci, Monsieur le rapporteur, pour le travail constructif que nous avons fait ensemble – est complet. Il demande clairement à la Commission européenne de mettre fin à ce fléau. D’abord, il faut que les règles européennes, y compris en ligne, soient respectées. Il faut que les contrôles et les moyens des douanes soient renforcés et que les droits de douane pour les paquets de moins de 150 euros soit rétablis. Il faut mettre le holà aux pratiques de vente en ligne manipulatrices, qui nous font acheter toujours plus. Les entreprises non européennes doivent avoir une personne qui soit légalement et financièrement responsable en Europe. Les consommateurs doivent être mieux informés, sensibilisés, protégés, mais aussi indemnisés, par l’intermédiaire, par exemple, d’un plus grand nombre d’obligations pour les plateformes, comme elles existent aussi, dans la vraie vie, pour les entreprises.

Enfin, l’Union européenne doit encourager et soutenir une économie circulaire, un commerce et des entrepreneurs locaux, pour refaire de nos centres-villes des lieux de vie, pourvoyeurs d’emplois locaux et d’un autre modèle qui soit durable, notamment pour des vêtements éthiques – à travers la seconde main et une filière textile européenne qui offre une véritable solution de remplacement à la mode éphémère et ultra-éphémère.

  Leila Chaibi, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, des jouets bourrés de substances cancérigènes, des casques de moto qui ne protègent pas, des vêtements issus du travail forcé: Temu, Shein et AliExpress inondent l’Europe de produits dangereux, contrefaits, qui ne respectent ni les normes sociales ni les normes environnementales. L’Europe doit légiférer pour que cessent ces pratiques, supprimer l’exemption de droits de douane pour les petits colis, rendre responsables les plateformes en ligne des produits qu’elles importent et les sanctionner si nécessaire. C’est une première étape.

Mais en votant ce texte, qui va dans le bon sens, nous n’aurons, chers collègues, parcouru que la moitié du chemin. Car lutter efficacement contre la vente en ligne de produits dangereux ou contre la mode éphémère, cela suppose de lutter également contre les pratiques d’entreprises qui sont bien présentes en Europe, et pas uniquement contre les plateformes chinoises. Amazon en est le parfait exemple: conditions de travail inacceptables dans ses entrepôts, recours à tout va pour ne pas avoir à mettre en œuvre le règlement sur les services numériques, refus de répondre aux multiples convocations de notre Parlement… Amazon n’a rien à envier aux plateformes chinoises.

Enfin, certains, à droite de cet hémicycle, déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes. Quand ils appellent à enterrer la directive sur le devoir de vigilance ou le pacte vert européen, ils facilitent en réalité la vente de produits dangereux, polluants et issus du travail forcé. Cette hypocrisie doit cesser.

  Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, 4 600 millones de paquetes entraron en nuestro mercado a través de plataformas de comercio electrónico en 2024, el 91 % provenientes de China: esto pone en riesgo a nuestros ciudadanos y en clara desventaja competitiva a nuestras empresas.

Los gigantes chinos del comercio electrónico cuentan con una oferta masiva de productos a precios irrisorios, entregados a los consumidores directamente en sus domicilios. ¿Cómo lo hacen? Con productos subvencionados en sus países de origen y aprovechando la exención de 150 euros mediante una suerte de ingeniería logística para eludir controles y tasas aduaneras.

La respuesta debe ser contundente: la reforma aduanera, junto con el acuerdo del Consejo para eliminar la exención de 150 euros, apunta en esa dirección. Las empresas europeas cumplen y deben competir en igualdad de condiciones, y los consumidores deben tener protegida su seguridad, su salud y sus datos: no podemos permitir que otros eludan las normas o se aprovechen de sus vacíos.

El mensaje es claro: todo producto que entre en nuestro mercado, independientemente de su origen, debe cumplir con nuestra legislación. Pero todavía quedan preguntas sin contestar: ¿cómo es posible que se publiciten constantemente en redes sociales y otras aplicaciones, o a través de influencers, productos potencialmente peligrosos o ilícitos sin problema?, ¿qué tiene que pasar para que nos demos cuenta de que lo barato puede salir muy caro: un accidente mortal de un niño al recibir un juguete no seguro, peligroso, que no cumple con nuestra legislación?

No hay respuestas fáciles a problemas complejos, pero debemos seguir trabajando para abordar sin dilación esta situación.

  Maria Guzenina (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, I thank all the colleagues with whom we worked together on this file. I call it the ‘stop the Chinese crap tsunami’ file, because it is a crap tsunami that we are under.

EU consumers waste EUR 19.3 billion per year buying low-quality, dangerous products that can lead to injuries and severe health problems. EUR 19.3 billion that are detrimental to European businesses.

But this file has united us – this House. In this House, we agree that concrete action needs to be taken urgently. Every seller from outside the EU should have an accountable person here in Europe. We agree on stronger enforcement of the rules we already have, with better tracking of where products come from, more testing to make sure that they are safe.

We agree to push for fairness: a proper EU customs authority by 2026, a stop to massive shipments that slip through without checks, and stricter controls on foreign warehouses operating on European soil.

We are making it clear: European small and local businesses deserve a fair chance to compete. They play by the rules. It’s time others do too.

It’s about protecting what Europe stands for: quality, fairness and responsibility, and protecting our businesses.

The vote on the file is on Wednesday. This file is a solid message from this House to the Commission and the Council to act with the urgency that the situation demands.

  Francesco Torselli (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ogni giorno, grazie allo shopping online, entrano in Europa 12 milioni di pacchi contenenti merce di valore inferiore a 150 euro.

Nove volte su dieci, questi pacchi arrivano dalla Cina.

Queste spedizioni non sono sottoposte a dazi e sono controllate a campione, controlli che evidenziano come, comunque, l’80 % della merce controllata non soddisfi i regolamenti sulla qualità europea. E i due settori principali sono giocattoli e abbigliamento.

Le nostre aziende sono sempre state disponibili a fare sacrifici per migliorare i propri prodotti e per garantire una qualità migliore ai consumatori, ma l’Europa da che parte sta? Come può anche solo pensare di imporre, da una parte, il tracciamento sulle materie prime, i nuovi sistemi di etichettatura e il passaporto elettronico, senza prima provare a porre un rimedio, un freno a un mercato che conta 5 miliardi di spedizioni all’anno e che è responsabile del 50 % delle merci contraffatte che oggi circolano in Europa?

  Svenja Hahn (Renew). – Herr Präsident! Unter der Flut an chinesischen Billigprodukten leiden wir als europäische Verbraucher, unsere Umwelt und unsere Unternehmen, die sich an Recht und Gesetz halten. Wenn Untersuchungen zeigen, dass weit über die Hälfte der Spielzeuge aus Drittländern wie China gefährlich ist, dann haben Eltern ganz zu Recht Angst davor, dass Spielzeuge auseinanderfallen, an denen ihre Babys sich vielleicht sogar verschlucken oder ersticken können. Kleine europäische Designer leiden, weil ihre Designs kopiert werden und zu Billigpreisen verschleudert werden. Menschen, die gerne online shoppen gehen, leiden, wenn die neuen Klamotten aus fragwürdiger Produktion mit giftigen Chemikalien belastet sind.

Mit diesem Initiativbericht schickt das Europäische Parlament ein ganz klares Signal: Illegale und unsichere Produkte haben in unserem Binnenmarkt nichts zu suchen. Dabei brauchen wir gar keine neuen Gesetze. Die Kommission und Mitgliedsländer müssen rigoros geltendes Recht durchsetzen, wie den Digital Services Act oder die Gesetze zur Produktsicherheit. Wir müssen Marktüberwachung stärken, Zoll digitalisieren, die 150‑Euro‑Freigrenze abschaffen und dafür sorgen, dass illegale Produkte gar nicht erst in unseren Markt kommen. Wir müssen die chinesischen Plattformen in die Verantwortung nehmen, auch Steuern und Abgaben einzusammeln.

Machen wir Online‑Shopping wieder sicher, dass es auch Spaß macht und nicht der Ausbeutung von Menschen oder Umwelt dient und der Wettbewerb fair ist.

  Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, 12 millions de paquets exonérés de droits de douane arrivent chez nous chaque jour. Shein et Temu, c’est toujours moins cher, toujours plus vite, mais à quel prix? Pour nous rendre accros, ils ont transformé l’achat en ligne en véritable jeu. Ils viennent enfin d’être condamnés, en France, à une amende de 40 millions d’euros, car plus de la moitié de leurs promotions sont de fausses baisses de prix. Ils mentent aux consommateurs et se moquent des autorités. Ils ont mis en place de nombreuses tromperies sur leurs sites internet, et je vous invite à aller sur leurs applications pour le constater. Non-conformité des produits, non-conformité de l’information relative à leur composition ou sur l’utilisation des données personnelles, vente de produits cosmétiques toxiques à usage professionnel, contrefaçons… la liste est longue! Et que dire des conclusions des enquêtes menées par des ONG et par la presse sur les droits humains! Car ce sont bien les travailleurs qui payent le plus lourd tribut, que ce soit en Asie ou ici, en Europe. Nos magasins ferment, les centres-villes se désertifient, les plans sociaux se multiplient.

Alors, merci pour ce rapport, auquel nous avons contribué. Le message est clair: appliquons nos règles, nos lois, et sanctionnons avant qu’il ne soit trop tard!

  Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! 19 mld euro rocznie. Tyle Europejczycy wydają na produkty, które mogą nas truć, kaleczyć, niszczą nasze gospodarki. W ubiegłym roku do Unii Europejskiej trafiło aż 4,6 miliarda tzw. przesyłek niskiej wartości poniżej 150 euro, z czego 91% pochodziło z Chin.

W Polsce mamy świetną, znaną platformę Allegro, 25 lat budowania bezpieczeństwa, wspierania lokalnych przedsiębiorców, chronienia konsumentów. Niestety w zeszłym miesiącu na polskim rynku liderem zostało Temu, wyprzedzając Allegro o półtora miliona aktywnych użytkowników w bardzo krótkim czasie. Platformy po prostu rosną szybciej, niż nadąża prawo. Postępowania ich nie ruszają, bo wiedzą jedno: mogą łamać zasady, zanim ktokolwiek zdąży je ukarać. Szybki zysk, zero odpowiedzialności.

Jeśli chcemy bronić konsumentów i uczciwego biznesu, potrzebujemy działania już teraz. Po pierwsze, powinniśmy znieść próg 150 euro dla towarów o niskiej wartości. Po drugie, na poziomie europejskim muszą powstać wyspecjalizowane zespoły do spraw egzekwowania przepisów dotyczących e-commerce. I po trzecie, musimy zreformować rozporządzenie CPC, czyli to dotyczące współpracy w zakresie ochrony konsumentów, bo ogólnoeuropejskie naruszenia mogą być skutecznie ścigane tylko na poziomie europejskim. Europa musi działać jako jedność w ochronie konsumentów. Inaczej będzie nieskuteczna.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, siguranța produselor și conformitatea lor cu regulamentele comerțului electronic (vorbim de produsele importate din țări terțe) trebuie să crească.

Pe mine m-a înspăimântat cifra. În 2024, s-a dublat importul față de 2023. Milioane de pachete până la 150 de euro au ajuns la cetățeni. Nu știm dacă sunt sigure sau nu produsele, dar în orice caz, fac o mare concurență neloială întreprinderilor mici și mijlocii.

De aceea, eu mă bucur că avem acest raport în dezbatere. Mă bucur că o să avem și un nou Cod vamal (eu sunt raportoare), sper că din 2026, prin autoritatea europeană înființată și prin autoritățile naționale, pentru că aici trebuie să lucrăm împreună. Statele membre au o responsabilitate foarte mare să aibă și lucrători bine pregătiți și corecți, și regulamente, și posibilități de verificare.

Să nu uităm că din 1 decembrie 2025, va intra în vigoare și Regulamentul privind protecția indicațiilor geografice pentru produse de artizanat și industriale. Dar dacă nu vom avea posibilitatea să apărăm aceste indicații geografice, vom avea tot felul de produse (99% sunt din China) care contrafac de fapt produsele industriale, dar și artizanale din Uniunea Europeană. Așadar, responsabilitatea este foarte mare și sper, domnule comisar, să ducem la bun sfârșit acest lucru.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, izvješće kolege De Mea jasno ističe da je u 2024. u EU stiglo 4,6 milijardi paketa vrijednosti ispod 150 eura, gotovo dvostruko više nego 2023., a potrošači su izgubili 19,3 milijarde eura kupujući nesigurne proizvode. Teret nelojalne konkurencije najviše pogađa naše male i srednje poduzetnike, koji poštuju pravila i ključan su kotačić u našem gospodarstvu. Zato pozdravljam ključne mjere izvješća: ukidanje praga od 150 eura, uspostavu carinskog podatkovnog čvorišta te pravilo „deemed importer” koje napokon čini online platforme odgovornima za robu koju prodaju europskim građanima. Time vraćamo jednakost uvjeta i čuvamo prihode državnih proračuna.

Nužna nam je digitalna putovnica proizvoda kako bi carinici i inspektori mogli zaustaviti robu još na granici. Načelo razmjernosti mora biti misao vodilja kako birokracija ne bi kaznila upravo one koje želimo zaštititi, a što smo vidjeli puno puta do sada, nažalost, u praksi. Uvođenje jedinstvene naknade od dva eura po paketu za financiranje zajedničkog nadzora mora teretiti globalne platforme, a ne krajnjeg kupca, te služiti kao zaštita naših malih i srednjih poduzetnika, koji danas plaćaju do 40 % veće troškove usklađenosti od nelojalne strane konkurencije, primjerice iz Kine.

Konačno, provedba je ključ. Poduprimo nadzorne mjere, uložimo u ljudstvo i tehnologiju u nacionalnim carinama, uz očuvanje primata država članica nad kontrolom granica. Kolegice i kolege, jedinstveno tržište ne smije postati divlji zapad e-trgovine. Oslobodimo naše male poduzetnike od nelojalne konkurencije i omogućimo potrošačima da kliknu s povjerenjem. Sigurnost nije luksuz, već temelj povjerenja u Europu kojoj služimo.

Vystúpenia na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky

  Dariusz Joński (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Dziękuję za tę dyskusję. Oczywiście mamy w tej chwili ogromny zalew produktów z Chin, z Indii, z Azji. One przychodzą i małymi, i tymi dużymi paczkami. Wielu dzisiaj tutaj przemawiających mówiło o tych małych paczkach, ale chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na te duże.

Otóż zwracam uwagę na firmy ceramiczne w całej Unii Europejskiej – firmy włoskie, hiszpańskie, polskie – które w tej chwili mają ogromne problemy, dlatego że jesteśmy w tej chwili zalewani przez indyjskie kafle, ceramikę, które na co dzień używamy, między innymi budując kuchnie, nasze łazienki. W tej chwili te cła są zbyt niskie. 7–9% to nic, więc po prostu jesteśmy zalewani. Nikt nie sprawdza, nikt nie testuje tych produktów, czy one są szkodliwe, czy nie są szkodliwe, i nikt nie dba o to, żeby te firmy europejskie dalej mogły funkcjonować.

I z tego miejsca chciałbym się zwrócić naprawdę do Komisji Europejskiej o to, żeby walczyć o europejski przemysł, o te firmy ceramiczne, bo tylko w Polsce pracuje w tej branży prawie 60 tysięcy osób.

  Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, dear people of Europe, I am happy to see that there is so much unity in this House when it comes to the necessity of e-commerce consumer protection.

What troubles me a little bit is the idea that we can just apply the laws that we have and that this will solve the situation, because we are talking, in fact, about the internet. I know that for some of us this is maybe hard to grasp still, but the internet is developing very, very, very fast.

One colleague from Renew said we can just enact the DSA. The DSA was drafted in 2020. It was accepted by this Parliament in 2022, then the Council said yes also in 2022, and since 2024, it’s actually in action. In internet terms, that’s a pretty, pretty, pretty long time ago. Even while I’m speaking right now, there is development in the internet that our legislation is not up to.

So if we take one thing from this situation, it is that we have to update constantly.

  Γεώργιος Αυτιάς (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, σύμφωνα με την επίσημη έρευνα της OLAF, εκατομμύρια προϊόντα έρχονται στην Ευρώπη επικίνδυνα και μάλιστα με δασμούς οι οποίοι δεν φτάνουν στα κράτη μέλη.

Σύμφωνα με τους εμπορικούς συλλόγους όλης της Ευρώπης αλλά και την Ελληνική Συνομοσπονδία Εμπορίου, θα χαθούν εκατομμύρια θέσεις εργασίας. Προσέξτε! Επίσης, θα κλείσουν χιλιάδες επιχειρήσεις και θα χαθούν δισεκατομμύρια έσοδα σε μια στιγμή που η Ευρώπη και τα κράτη χρειάζονται έσοδα.

Πρέπει να δράσουμε τώρα. Να δράσουμε αυστηρά, κύριε Επίτροπε. Να το κάνουμε τώρα, γιατί αύριο θα είναι αργά. Ξέρετε τι λένε στη χώρα μου, κύριε Επίτροπε; Η γόρδιοι δεσμοί δεν λύνονται, κόβονται. Κάντε το τώρα, γιατί αύριο θα είναι πολύ αργά για όλους μας.

  Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Domnule președinte, în sfârșit, sunt și eu de acord cu dumneavoastră. Însă, ca avocat, vă spun că măsurile acestea nu or să ducă la un mare succes al Uniunii Europene, pentru că este vorba de sărăcirea populației și atunci forțăm populația, prin toate măsurile care sunt luate de cel puțin cinci ani de zile în Uniunea Europeană, să se ducă către lucruri foarte ieftine și fără valoare.

Mai mult, în România, pentru că vorbea aici un coleg de fabrici și uzine, dumneavoastră și Fondul Monetar Internațional ați închis toate fabricile și uzinele. Mai mult, avem o problemă și în cadrul Uniunii Europene, cu designerii care comandă ieftin produsele în China și apoi le vând scump în Europa.

Mai mult, avem designeri francezi, cum sunt Louis Vuitton și Dior, care au copiat ia românească și n-au răspuns, în timp ce din China vin nenumărate ii românești, care sunt fake-uri. La fel e și cu ceramica de Horezu și de Corund, că și noi avem probleme, nu numai Spania. Și nimeni nu ia nicio atitudine, ceea ce înseamnă că vom pierde pe toate laturile.

(Koniec vystúpení na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)

  Michael McGrath, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, can I thank all of the honourable Members for their contributions to this debate this evening? I am struck by the note of unity that has characterised this debate. That is a note that we must listen to, because you have generally spoken with one voice on this issue.

The rise of e-commerce has transformed the way that European society shops, bringing numerous benefits to our economy, businesses and consumers alike. But we cannot ignore the risks that come with it. Non-compliance with our rules protecting consumers or governing specific products can have very serious implications on consumers’ rights and safety – for example, the presence of harmful substances in toys or cosmetics – and many of you have highlighted those examples this evening.

It is very concerning that, as we speak, there are people who are unwittingly bringing dangerous products into their own homes, perhaps toys for their children, that can have very serious consequences. That is something that we all have to take with the utmost seriousness and act accordingly.

Non-compliance also undermines the competitiveness of the majority of our traders, our manufacturers and all economic operators in the EU that respect consumer rights and who comply with our product rules, and many of you have made that point in the course of the debate this evening.

You have also cited the extraordinary statistic of 4.6 billion low-value e-commerce parcels being imported into the EU in 2024. And you have highlighted the remarkable rate of growth – that that was almost twice the number recorded in 2023 and more than triple the number in 2022. So you get a real sense of the acceleration of the importation of these products.

SMEs are the first to be affected by the current state of e-commerce imports. Around half of the fake products seized at EU borders that infringe their intellectual property rights were bought online.

When SMEs are victims of counterfeiting and privacy, they have a 34 % lower chance of survival. At present, this amounts to losses of around EUR 12 billion annually for the clothing industry – that’s over 5 % of turnover; EUR 3 billion for the cosmetics industry – that’s almost 5 % of their sales; and EUR 1 billion for the toy industry – almost 9 % of sales.

These figures clearly underscore the imperative for a coordinated EU-level strategy on this crucial subject. The own-initiative report discussed here this evening marks, in my view, a significant milestone in addressing it. Because we do stand here this evening united in sending out one message: that if you are selling to European consumers, irrespective of where you are based or how you are selling products to European consumers, you must comply with EU consumer-protection and EU product-safety rules.

Because overall we can be proud of the protections that we have put in place in the European Union for our consumers, but we must ensure that they are fully implemented, and we must go further in a number of respects. That is why it is welcome that the first trilogue, for example, will happen tomorrow in relation to the proposed customs reform.

It is also welcome that the Consumer Safety Network has carried out its first ever EU-level product safety sweep: a coordinated screening exercise of product offers made available by online marketplaces to check and enhance the compliance of the sector. We will make available the outcome of that screening to you as quickly as possible.

I will later this year visit China to engage directly with the Chinese authorities to ensure that we see greater efforts to address this issue at source as well.

I have signalled that we are examining – and I personally, as Commissioner, strongly support – the option of further centralising direct investigation and sanctioning powers for certain breaches that are systemic in nature and that are above a certain threshold. It’s much more efficient that they would be dealt with, in my view, at centralised Commission level, rather than through the coordination of 27 different national authorities.

Can I also confirm that it is important that we ensure that consumers are treated fairly in the digital sphere? That is why we are working on a proposal for a digital fairness act, which I will bring forward next year. We will shortly commence the public consultation in relation to that proposal, which I believe can be both pro-consumer, but also pro-business, and certainly pro-compliant businesses, who we all want to support in this House this evening.

So, thank you for your contributions. It was a very worthwhile and a very productive debate, on the back of an excellent own-initiative report, for which I thank all of you that made a contribution to it.

I want to underline my own personal commitment as Commissioner to working closely with all of you on what is a shared agenda to protect European consumers, but also to ensure there’s a level playing field for compliant European businesses to compete on.

  Salvatore De Meo, relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio innanzitutto ringraziare il Commissario McGrath per la sua presenza e per aver riconosciuto l’urgenza di affrontare le sfide poste dal commercio elettronico e dalle importazioni dai paesi terzi.

Prendo atto, dalla discussione, della totale convergenza di tutti i colleghi nel riconoscere che il numero di pacchi che ogni anno arriva nell’Unione mette sotto pressione le dogane, la vigilanza del mercato e la tutela dei consumatori, e crea un vantaggio sleale per chi non rispetta le nostre regole.

Accogliamo con favore, come sottolineato dal Commissario, l’intensificazione delle indagini della rete per la sicurezza dei consumatori e il monitoraggio costante delle grandi piattaforme ai sensi del regolamento sui servizi digitali e del regolamento CPC. Questi sono strumenti indispensabili per rimuovere prodotti pericolosi, ma anche per contrastare pratiche manipolative come gli sconti ingannevoli, la vendita sotto pressione o l’assenza di informazioni chiare per i nostri consumatori.

Questa relazione, pienamente in linea con il pacchetto europeo per un commercio elettronico sicuro e sostenibile, rappresenta un primo passo verso un quadro normativo più moderno, coerente ed efficiente: promuove l’applicazione uniforme delle norme, sollecita maggiori risorse per le autorità competenti e rivendica condizioni di parità per le nostre imprese, soprattutto per le piccole e medie imprese, oggi tra le più colpite da fenomeni di contraffazione, di dumping digitale e di concorrenza sleale.

Invito quindi tutti i colleghi a sostenere con convinzione questo testo ed esorto la Commissione a portarne avanti le raccomandazioni con determinazione, dalla riforma del codice doganale – oggi più che mai necessaria – alla revisione del regolamento CPC, per rafforzare controlli e sanzioni anche a livello europeo.

Perché solo unendo le forze – Parlamento, Commissione, Stati membri e autorità nazionali – potremo costruire un mercato digitale europeo innovativo, ma anche sicuro, trasparente, affidabile e, soprattutto, rispettoso delle regole.

Voglio rivolgere un ringraziamento sincero, infine, a tutte le colleghe e i colleghi, di tutti i gruppi politici, che hanno voluto contribuire con competenze, serietà e spirito a un lavoro costruttivo che porteremo in votazione in questi giorni e che rappresenterà un passo decisivo verso un mercato digitale ancora più forte.

  Predsedajúci . – Táto rozprava sa skončila. Hlasovanie sa uskutoční v stredu 9. júla 2025.

  Hadja Lahbib, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, independent living is not a luxury; it is a right and the foundation of dignity, freedom and full participation in society. So, we must create the right conditions for independent living for persons with disabilities, so they can choose where and with whom they want to live, and so they can take part in community life with the same choices as everyone else.

Independent living opens the door to the labour market. And participation in employment is certainly the best way to ensure economic autonomy and social inclusion, to secure one’s own income and to become financially independent. We know that autonomy builds confidence to live, to work – and employers benefit too. When people are empowered, they are better prepared for the world of work. The inclusion of people with disabilities in the labour market boosts competitiveness. It strengthens our economy by tapping into everyone’s potential. This is why we need strong, well-funded, community-based services that respect freedom of choice and give people control of their daily lives without any form of segregation.

Now imagine, dear honourable Members, after an accident or an illness, that you were suddenly dependent on care, and the only option was to live in an institution away from your home, your community and your autonomy. What would that say about our society? Deinstitutionalisation is not about moving people from one building to another. It is about building lives of meaning and opportunity at home, in the community and in society.

Of course, that transition takes time and effort; models must be deconstructed, professionals retrained, systems reformed. But we are moving in the right direction and we must accelerate. This is the vision at the heart of our strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities, fully aligned with the European Pillar of Social Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Over the years, the EU has given strong policy guidance and financial support to Member States to help drive the transformation forward.

Honourable Members, allow me to focus on three key areas. First, on funding: the Commission has adopted a notice for guidance on independent living, a practical tool that shows how EU funds should be used to support it. It highlights promising types of interventions. As some Member States are implementing deinstitutionalisation strategies, we are here to support them and to encourage the sharing of good practices.

Cohesion policy funds support integrated approaches, combining services, infrastructure and workforce development in a single investment. And we have seen from past experience that these integrated approaches are key to fighting poverty and social exclusion. Thanks to the funds-enabling condition on respecting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we have seen real progress by Member States in putting into action the Convention.

Second, the European care strategy and the Council recommendation on long-term care placed strong emphasis on a person-centred approach. The Commission is helping Member States do this through large-scale partnerships among stakeholders, employers and businesses associations such as the skills partnership for long-term care. The aim is to train care sector workers with soft skills, digital skills and specialised knowledge to support a person living independently, including performing daily living activities such as managing money or light housework.

The Commission is also launching an EU-level social dialogue in the care sector. This will help tackle workforce shortages and support the shift to more person-centred care.

And third, the strategy on the rights of the child highlights a basic but powerful principle: every child has the right to grow up in a family environment. It calls on Member States to invest in quality alternative care, like foster care, because we know that children who are placed in large-scale institutions, particularly from a young age or for a long time, can face emotional neglect, abuse, and sometimes even exploitation. And children with disabilities are up to 30 times more likely to live in residential care facilities than children without disabilities.

The European Child Guarantee also puts a strong focus on inclusion from the very start by promoting equal access to quality, inclusive early childhood education and care. This is a crucial step to help children thrive later in life and children with disabilities are one of the key target groups under the recommendation.

Honourable Members, we are now reflecting on the flagship actions to take forward in the second phase of the strategy for persons with disabilities. Promoting independent living remains a top priority for me personally and for the Commission as a whole.

  Ελεονώρα Μελέτη, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, κανείς μας δεν ονειρεύεται τα γηρατειά του μέσα σε μια μονάδα φροντίδας ηλικιωμένων. Κανείς δεν εύχεται να περάσει τα τελευταία χρόνια της ζωής του πίσω από τις κλειστές πόρτες ενός ιδρύματος. Όλοι μας θέλουμε να γεράσουμε εκεί όπου ανθνίσαμε, εκεί που δημιουργήσαμε, αγαπήσαμε και αγαπηθήκαμε. Στο σπίτι μας, στη γειτονιά μας, ανάμεσα σε ανθρώπους που μας γνωρίζουν με το μικρό μας όνομα. Η αποϊδρυματοποίηση δεν είναι μια τυπική πολιτική μεταρρύθμιση. Είναι μια βαθιά ανθρώπινη ανάγκη. Είναι μια υπόσχεση πως στα πιο ευάλωτα χρόνια της ζωής του κανείς δεν θα είναι αόρατος. Ότι θα φροντίσουμε ώστε οι ηλικιωμένοι να μην αναγκάζονται να αποχωριστούν όσα τους δίνουν νόημα, τις αναμνήσεις, τα αγαπημένα πρόσωπα, τα οικεία περιβάλλοντα.

Ως εισηγήτρια στον αντίστοιχο φάκελο με στόχο την αντιμετώπιση του χάσματος στον τομέα της φροντίδας, στόχος μου είναι να οικοδομήσουμε εναλλακτικές λύσεις με επίκεντρο τον άνθρωπο, να επενδύσουμε σε ποιοτικές υπηρεσίες φροντίδας που φτάνουν μέχρι την πόρτα του σπιτιού του, να στηρίξουμε τις οικογένειες που σηκώνουν το βάρος της φροντίδας, να ενδυναμώσουμε τους επαγγελματίες φροντιστές που δίνουν καθημερινά ψυχή και χρόνο για να στέκονται στο πλευρό των ηλικιωμένων, αλλά και τους άτυπους φροντιστές, στην πλειοψηφία τους γυναίκες, που καλούνται να επωμιστούν έναν δύσκολο ρόλο, θυσιάζοντας συχνά την προσωπική ζωή, την εργασία, ακόμα και την υγεία τους, ψυχική και σωματική.

Χρειαζόμαστε ένα ολοκληρωμένο ευρωπαϊκό σχέδιο δράσης που θα συντονίζει τα κράτη μέλη, θα αξιοποιεί καλές πρακτικές, όπως για παράδειγμα το πρόγραμμα Βοήθεια στο Σπίτι που έχουμε στη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, και θα κατευθύνει ευρωπαϊκούς πόρους σε λύσεις που ενισχύουν την κοινωνική επανένταξη. Γιατί μια κοινωνία που σέβεται τους ηλικιωμένους της, που στηρίζει τις οικογένειες και δίνει φωνή σε όλους όσοι έχουν ανάγκη, είναι μια κοινωνία που τιμά το παρελθόν της και κτίζει το μέλλον της με αλληλεγγύη και αξιοπρέπεια. Από το ίδρυμα, λοιπόν, πρέπει να περάσουμε στη συμπερίληψη, από τη μοναξιά στην κοινότητα και από την απομάκρυνση στη διατήρηση και ενδυνάμωση των ανθρωπίνων σχέσεων.

  Estelle Ceulemans, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, qu’elles soient mineures ou adultes, les personnes en situation de handicap, les personnes dépendantes, les personnes avec des problèmes de santé mentale, partout en Europe, sont soit livrées à leur sort – et alors, souvent, à charge de leur entourage, et particulièrement des femmes de leur entourage, qui subissent tout autant la dépendance, la précarité et l’isolement de ces personnes –, soit contraintes de vivre dans des institutions, dans des conditions parfois inhumaines, sans respect de leurs droits les plus fondamentaux.

Il existe pourtant des manières de pallier cet abandon autant que l’enfermement: des structures qui s’avèrent moins coûteuses pour la société, mais qui surtout respectent l’autonomie et les droits de ces personnes. Des structures à taille humaine, adaptées à leurs besoins. Il est donc urgent de prendre des mesures qui soutiennent et investissent dans de telles structures, qu’elles soient publiques ou d’économie sociale, pour que les personnes fragiles et dépendantes ne soient plus cachées ni traitées comme des charges, pour qu’elles ne soient plus victimes d’une exploitation juteuse opérée par des entreprises sans scrupules, et pour que leur entourage n’ait plus à payer le prix de leur situation.

Il faut pour cela changer de paradigme et cesser de considérer le handicap, la dépendance ou la santé mentale comme autant de problèmes à gérer à moindre coût, et loin des regards. Il faut au contraire investir dans le bien-être de tous et de toutes et donc mettre un terme aux politiques d’austérité, qui sont une atteinte grave à la santé, à la dignité et à la justice sociale.

  Mélanie Disdier, au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, donnez une aide administrative aux personnes en situation de handicap et vous pouvez leur permettre de vivre. Donnez-leur de l’autonomie, et nous pourrons leur rendre leur liberté.

Chez les Patriotes, nous défendons la liberté face à des administrations omniprésentes. Il est de bon ton que personne ne soit laissé de côté. Cela vaut aussi pour les personnes en situation de handicap, largement dépendantes de l’action des États pour pallier leurs difficultés supplémentaires. La liberté, c’est d’abord l’absence de dépendance vis-à-vis des tiers, que ce soient des particuliers ou encore des institutions publiques. Il faut garantir la possibilité, pour ceux qui le veulent, pour ceux qui le peuvent, de vivre par eux-mêmes et pour eux-mêmes. Cela inclut le fait de pouvoir travailler dans des conditions justes, qui leur garantiront une meilleure autonomie et une plus grande dignité, plutôt que de dépendre passivement de l’assistance constante d’un État nounou, qui se montre par ailleurs souvent défaillant. Cette liberté doit être égale pour tous, quel que soit le lieu de vie, qu’il soit urbain ou rural. Aucune personne, aucun territoire ne doit être oublié, car, trop souvent, dans cette politique comme dans d’autres, nos campagnes sont laissées pour compte.

L’histoire montre que, même en situation de handicap, une personne à qui on laisse la possibilité peut faire progresser l’humanité tout entière. Stephen Hawking, prestigieux physicien, en est probablement la plus grande incarnation. Tâchons de garantir que d’autres grands noms puissent émerger dans son sillage.

  Chiara Gemma, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, garantire alle persone con disabilità il diritto di vivere nella comunità con la stessa libertà di scelta degli altri è un impegno che l’Europa deve assumere con chiarezza.

La transizione dai modelli istituzionali a quelli di assistenza personalizzata richiede investimenti, coordinamento integrato e soprattutto un chiaro riconoscimento del ruolo dei caregiver familiari.

Milioni di europei, spesso donne, garantiscono assistenza quotidiana in ambito domestico, rinunciando al lavoro e sopportando un carico emotivo spesso invisibile. In Italia sono oltre 7 milioni, una componente essenziale della rete di cura che merita maggiore attenzione e valorizzazione.

Per questo, serve un piano di azione che definisca il ruolo dei caregiver, integrandoli nei sistemi di welfare nazionali, rafforzi i fondi per i servizi comunitari, istituisca una piattaforma per condividere buone pratiche e poi promuova soluzioni abitative inclusive.

Ricordiamoci che non dobbiamo includere nessuno: queste persone fanno già parte della nostra società. Dobbiamo solo garantire loro libertà di scelta, dignità e vicinanza alle loro famiglie, non soluzioni imposte dall’alto.

  Христо Петров, от името на групата Renew. – Дойде лятото и всеки от нас с телефон в ръка проверява цени на самолетни билети, гледа хубави плажове и търси нови интересни места. И се питам колко от нас в тази зала си задават въпроса дали децата, настанени в домове, правят същото?

Когато водите вашите деца на почивка, вие им давате родителска обич, но и нещо друго важно. Вие им давате достъп до култура, до изкуство, до социални контакти, до нови преживявания, до спорт. Децата в домовете са лишени от тази възможност, а точно тя е, което ги издига над стремежа единствено към физическо оцеляване и ги прави пълноценни личности. Ние имаме дълг към тези деца като общество, независимо дали сме политици или не. Аз вярвам, че всеки от нас трябва да се опита да им помогне, защото те с нищо не са заслужили да бъдат в това положение. Дори обаче да превърнем в дворци техните домове, те пак ще си бъдат домове.

Ето затова на този дебат за деинституционализацията аз заявявам моята позиция ‑ на сегашните деца в домовете трябва да помогнем, подобрявайки живота им, а на утрешните да осигурим възможност да живеят не в домове, а в семейства с родители, които ги обичат и се грижат за тях всеки ден. А не с милосърдието да им подаряват вафли на Коледа, козунаци на Великден и дрехите, които са прекалено малки на собствените ни деца.

  Katrin Langensiepen, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich habe mir vor einiger Zeit gesagt: Menschenrechte sind nicht der heiße Scheiß in diesem Haus oder auch in der Europäischen Union. Wenn ich mir die Reden hier angucke und anhöre, ist das alles sehr gut gemeint, aber dann kickt doch im nächsten Moment der Ableismus wieder eiskalt zu. Das ist Wording von Helfen, Gutes tun, die Armen, irgendwie müssen wir sie ja … Auch ich höre dann immer, wenn ich Kritik an diesen Einrichtungen und Werkstätten äußere: Ja, wo kommen die Menschen dann hin? Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben es richtig gesagt, es ist nicht Sinn der Sache, dass man sie von einer Butze in die nächste schafft. Wir sind kurz vor den Sommerferien, dann wohin mit Oma oder wohin mit dem Hund? So ein bisschen höre ich gerade so eine Diskussionstonalität raus. Was machen wir denn mit dem Kind? Was machen wir denn nach der Schule mit dem Kind? Wohin denn? Da wird vom Ende gedacht. Da werden diese Kinder aufs Alter und auf den Tod vorbereitet, aber nicht aufs Leben.

Die Frage muss man sich immer stellen: Möchte ich unter diesen Bedingungen leben und arbeiten? Wenn die Antwort nein ist, warum dann behinderte Menschen? Warum dann Jugendliche? Als ich 16 war, da haben alle in meiner Klasse eine Berufsberatung bekommen. Da konnte jeder äußern, was er mal werden will. Für mich ging die Berufsberatung gleich in die Einrichtungsberatung und ich brauchte auch gar keinen Schulabschluss, weil, das war ja nicht nötig. Die haben ja das Geld bekommen und deswegen rufe ich auf: Wir behandeln ja jetzt den langjährigen Haushalt. Wo fließen diese Gelder rein, wo landen EU‑Mittel? Wenn wir immer noch mit EU‑Mitteln diese Einrichtungen finanzieren, möchte ich nichts mehr in diesem Haus hören von: Wir sind schon so weit und wir haben Guidelines. Am Ende des Tages spielt es eine Rolle, was machen wir mit der Kohle und finanzieren wir die Inklusion oder doch Exklusion?

  Catarina Martins, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a falta de respostas de cuidado digno, respeitador da autonomia nas várias fases da vida, assusta na Europa e há razões objetivas para isso.

Há abandono das pessoas, abandono das famílias, abandono das mulheres, das famílias que transportam um fardo que não é seu e, muitas vezes, a alternativa a este abandono é a institucionalização das pessoas, ou seja, condenamos quem precisa de cuidados a viver fechado numa instituição.

A luta que as pessoas com deficiência têm travado pelo direito à vida independente é uma luta por todas as pessoas, por direitos, por todas as pessoas em todas as fases da sua vida. E vir aqui repetir boas intenções não é a resposta.

Se a Comissão quer combater a institucionalização, eu tenho uma sugestão chocante: parem de a financiar, parem de a financiar. Assegurem que todo o financiamento comunitário para a deficiência vai para programas de vida independente e serviços nacionais de cuidados e não para armazéns de pessoas.

O direito à vida independente, ao tratamento digno, não é uma exigência absurda. Residências adaptadas, apoiadas, assistência pessoal, apoios na comunidade, acessibilidades, cuidados dignos, urbanismo inclusivo estão ao alcance da União Europeia.

Haja vontade política.

  Irmhild Boßdorf, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Fast 200 000 Menschen mit Behinderung leben allein in Deutschland in Heimen, mehr als 200 000 Kinder nicht bei ihren Eltern, über 800 000 Pflegebedürftige in Einrichtungen. Die Tendenz ist in allen Bereichen steigend.

Schon jetzt kostet diese außerhäusliche Betreuung weit über 70 Mrd. EUR jährlich in Deutschland. Zu Recht will die Europäische Kommission daher Abhilfe schaffen. Von einer Betreuung in der Institution soll die Inklusion gefördert werden. Gemeint ist ein Zurück zur Familie. Klingt gut, doch so leicht ist es leider nicht. Deutschland hat seit Jahrzehnten alles daran gesetzt, funktionierende Familienstrukturen zu zerstören. Jede zweite Ehe wird geschieden, Kinder kaum noch geboren. Finanzielle oder gar ideelle Unterstützung für Familien? Fehlanzeige.

Wir brauchen endlich eine Politik für Familien, die diesen Namen auch verdient – eine Politik, bei der nicht selbsternannte Minderheitengruppen, sondern die wirklich Hilfsbedürftigen in den Mittelpunkt gerückt werden. Wir müssen Familien unterstützen, damit in diesen Inklusion wieder gelebt werden kann, damit wir uns endlich wieder selber um unsere Kinder und Großeltern kümmern können.

  Jagna Marczułajtis-Walczak (PPE). – Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Deinstytucjonalizacja to nie teoria, to konkret. Zamiast umieszczenia ludzi w instytucji – organizacja mieszkania ze wsparciem. Zamiast domu dziecka – rodzina zastępcza. Socjalizacja zamiast izolacji. To odważne decyzje, by tworzyć mieszkania wspomagane, gdzie osoby z niepełnosprawnościami mogą cieszyć się niezależnością wyboru, o której mogą zjeść kolację, czy z kim się spotkać. To też bezpośrednie wsparcie dla ich rodzin, które będą pewne, że ich członek rodziny żyje na własnych warunkach, z odpowiednim wsparciem, i nie będą się martwić, co się stanie z ich dzieckiem po ich śmierci, po śmierci rodziców.

Wzywam wszystkie kraje Unii Europejskiej: implementujcie art. 19 Konwencji o prawach osób z niepełnosprawnościami. Budujmy razem systemowe usługi, usługi społeczne oparte na szacunku, dostępności i wolności wyboru. Bo każdy z nas zasługuje na życie wśród ludzi, a nie za zamkniętymi drzwiami. Bo każdy z nas może być z dnia na dzień osobą z niepełnosprawnością wymagającą wsparcia w przyszłości.

  Alicia Homs Ginel (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, nadie quiere que lo invisibilicen, nadie quiere que lo encierren ni que lo segreguen. Sin embargo, esto es lo que siguen sufriendo en Europa millones de personas con discapacidad y también personas mayores. Todas ellas tienen derecho a vivir donde quieran, con quien quieran y como quieran, porque la vida independiente no es un lujo, sino que es un derecho, también cuando envejecemos.

La desinstitucionalización es garantizar oportunidades, garantizar apoyos personalizados, accesibles y cercanos. Es garantizar, también, vivienda digna, asequible y adaptada, porque sin vivienda accesible no hay vida independiente, y sin vida independiente no hay libertad ni derecho a elegir.

No lo olvidemos, este también es un tema de género y de justicia social: las mujeres con discapacidad, las personas migrantes y quienes viven en la pobreza sufren una discriminación aún mayor. Si no miramos con un enfoque interseccional, seguiremos dejando a demasiadas personas atrás.

Esta agenda de derechos no avanzará sin un Fondo Social Europeo Plus fuerte con recursos reales suficientes y verdaderamente centrados en las personas. Porque la desinstitucionalización no se logra con discursos, se consigue con recursos que financien servicios que integren y cuiden a quienes más lo necesitan. Por tanto, no vayamos a renunciar a ellos.

  Susanna Ceccardi (PfE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, poco meno di due mesi fa, sotto una pioggia battente, l’Associazione Vita Indipendente protestava davanti alla Regione Toscana, protestava contro le nuove linee guida della Regione per adattarsi ai criteri dell’Unione europea.

Oggi siamo chiamati a discutere l’ennesimo piano di azione dell’Unione europea, ma la verità è che le regioni italiane faticano ad applicare direttive pensate altrove, spesso calate dall’alto, che rischiano di irrigidire, invece che liberare.

Nel frattempo, in Italia, il ministro per le Disabilità Alessandra Locatelli ha avviato un percorso concreto, presentando il piano operativo triennale per le persone con disabilità e portando avanti il decreto Disabilità, con la sperimentazione del progetto di vita indipendente personalizzato, una vera e propria integrazione tra sanità, sociale e diritti.

È una riforma che parte dal basso, dai territori, e che rimette davvero la persona al centro, non la burocrazia. Ecco, allora, il punto: non abbiamo bisogno di nuovi modelli imposti da Bruxelles, ma di risorse certe, flessibilità amministrativa e semplificazione delle procedure.

Il diritto a vivere nella comunità non si garantisce con linee guida standardizzate, ma con politiche pensate con le persone.

(L’oratrice accetta di rispondere a diverse domande “cartellino blu”)

  Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew), blue-card question. – Let’s talk about the regions: in Emilia-Romagna and in Lombardy, where your own party is very popular, I believe, thanks to anti-immigration rhetoric, 85 % of caregivers for children, for the elderly and for people with disabilities are migrants. Italy, your own country, will need in the next few years 1.3 million caregivers also for people with disabilities and many of them, two-thirds, will be migrants. Do you agree with me that we should be doing much more to welcome these people and not discriminate against them, as we hear your party do in this House? Thank you.

  Susanna Ceccardi (PfE), risposta a una domanda “cartellino blu”. – Vedete, in Italia c’è una parte della sinistra che propina sempre il federalismo europeo, che in realtà non è il federalismo che intende la Lega, perché è il nuovo centralismo.

Io credo veramente nel federalismo, credo veramente nelle comunità, credo veramente nei territori, credo davvero nell’autodeterminazione dei popoli, dei popoli d’Europa. Ed è qui che i Patrioti, in quest’Aula, difendono l’autodeterminazione dei popoli.

E guardate che nell’autodeterminazione, e quindi nella vicinanza delle istituzioni ai territori, c’è anche una vicinanza proprio alle persone più fragili, alle persone più deboli. Oggi siamo qui a parlare di disabilità: stiamo vicini davvero, con le istituzioni, ai più fragili, ascoltando i territori e non imponendo dall’alto.

  Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Pirmininke, Komisijos nare. Deinstitucionalizacija yra puiki idėja, kurią tikrai palaikau ir pritariu. Būtų tobula, jei bet kuriame savo amžiaus tarpsnyje būtume tarp savo artimųjų ir galėtume jaustis orūs ir reikalingi. Tačiau tokiam norui kils vis daugiau ir daugiau iššūkių. Kaip pavyzdys – plintanti bevaikystės kultūra, kuriai palaikyti randami keisčiausi paaiškinimai, pradedant nuo to, kad vaikai didina klimato kaitą, baigiant tokiais, kurie yra labiau susiję su augančiu individualizmu ir socialine izoliacija. Tokioje aplinkoje net ir labai motyvuojant gali tapti labai sudėtinga rasti globėjus be tėvų likusiems vaikams, vis sunkiau bus rasti norinčių prižiūrėti asmenis su negalia ar pasirūpinti sulaukusiais garbingo amžiaus. Ir, norint leisti žmogui gyventi jam artimoje ir priimtinoje aplinkoje, reikia ne vieno specialisto, nes socialinis visuomenės audinys yra gerokai suaižėjęs. Todėl svarbu, kad kalbant apie atskirų sričių problemas nebūtų pamirštas spręsti ir tokias, kurios apims visas sritis. Ir viena tokių problemų yra demografijos krizė.

IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
Vice-President

  Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, across the EU, children, persons with disabilities and persons with mental health problems are still in large‑scale institutions, isolated from family, community and their rights. Because in institutions, it is often not possible to respect the simple right to decide how to spend your day, where to live or even how to decorate your room. This is not what human dignity looks like.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the EU has ratified, affirms the right to live independently and be included in society. Yet, EU funds are still being used to renovate or build new institutions. Instead of dismantling harmful systems, we are making it stronger.

Let me be clear: deinstitutionalisation is not about closing doors. It is about opening up more respectful possibilities and supporting personal assistance, inclusive education and family‑based care. We need an EU plan that supports rights and gives hope. Let’s be brave enough to build communities, not institutions.

  Caterina Chinnici (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il diritto a una vita indipendente per le persone con disabilità, la possibilità di scegliere dove e con chi vivere, al fine di garantire loro la piena partecipazione alla società, in base ai principi di eguaglianza e non discriminazione, deve essere una priorità per l’Unione europea, rappresenta infatti una delle azioni chiave della strategia europea per i diritti delle persone con disabilità 2021‑2031.

Tuttavia, nonostante i progressi finora compiuti, in Europa sono ancora molte – anzi, direi troppe – le persone con disabilità che vivono in istituti: persone anziane, giovani con disabilità fisiche e mentali e, purtroppo, anche bambini. Occorre, indubbiamente, fare di più.

Bene quindi uno specifico piano di azione per la deistituzionalizzazione a livello dell’Unione europea, per rafforzare il processo di transizione dall’assistenza istituzionale alla vita indipendente e all’inclusione nella comunità.

E occorre sostenere gli sforzi degli Stati membri, affinché adottino misure concrete per eliminare gradualmente le strutture e i servizi istituzionali esistenti, prevedendo parallelamente lo sviluppo di reti di assistenza di qualità basate sulla famiglia e servizi di sostegno domiciliari di comunità.

Con una particolare attenzione, signora Commissaria, ai più fragili, i bambini, prevedendo uno specifico sostegno fin dalla prima infanzia per garantire loro uno sviluppo il più sereno e inclusivo possibile.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Tisztelt Biztos Asszony! Nemrég az Európai Parlamentben, Brüsszelben vendégül láttam egy mozgássérült, látássérült, enyhén értelmi fogyatékos és autista személyekből álló látogatócsoportot. Ez a találkozás megerősített, hogy ezek az emberek nem passzív ellátottak, joguk van az önrendelkezéshez és a közösségi részvételhez. Egy valódi gondozási társadalomnak ezt kell szolgálnia, nem az intézmények automatikus fenntartását. Sajnos a valóság mást mutat. Az Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága nemrég tízezer eurós kártérítésre kötelezte a magyar államot az intézményi körülmények miatt. Az Orbán–kormány visszaél az uniós forrásokkal a fogyatékossággal élők kárára is. Ugyanakkor vannak esetek, amikor az érintett nem képes saját életéről dönteni, ezért van szükség emberközpontú, kis létszámú, méltó intézményekre.

Külön el kell ismerni az otthongondozók jogait, és a Tisza Párt a személyre szabott, helyben elérhető szolgáltatásokért dolgozik, magam a Regionális Fejlesztési Bizottság alelnökeként… 

(Az elnök megvonja a szót a felszólalótól)

  João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Lahbib, desinstitucionalização sem emprego digno e sem proteção social significa pobreza e desinstitucionalização sem serviços públicos que garantam os direitos económicos, sociais e culturais significa abandono e exclusão social.

É preciso, de facto, garantir às pessoas com deficiência as condições para uma vida independente. Sejam adultos, sejam crianças, é preciso garantir as condições para que essa vida seja verdadeiramente independente.

Mas isso exige, em primeiro lugar, uma política de emprego com direitos e de proteção social que garanta a todos o acesso ao emprego com salários justos, com condições dignas de trabalho e de vida ou condições de proteção social, como aquelas que tantas vezes faltam às crianças com deficiência.

Mas isso exige também uma efetiva concretização dos direitos económicos, sociais e culturais por via dos serviços públicos, para garantir a habitação, os transportes, a cultura, a saúde, o direito à educação. Sem isso, não é possível garantir às pessoas com deficiência uma verdadeira vida independente.

  Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Doamnă președintă, în România, o persoană cu dizabilități are o indemnizație între 45 și 100 de euro pe lună. Actualul președinte al României, Nicușor Dan, susținut și pus președinte de către Comisia Europeană și de către domnul Macron, în calitate de primar al Bucureștiului, până a ajuns președinte, a înjumătățit această indemnizație a persoanelor cu dizabilități. Nu avea de unde să ia bani, decât de la persoanele cu handicap.

Actualmente, guvernul Bolojan, pus tot de Comisia Europeană și de Macron, a luat câteva măsuri. Și ce a făcut? A înjumătățit și a anulat multe indemnizații pentru persoanele cu handicap. Cam asta este protecția persoanelor cu handicap în România.

Mai mult decât atât, spuneați de dezinstituționalizare. Avem de vreo doi ani făcută dezinstituționalizarea unor copii cu dizabilități și vreau să spun că de doi ani de zile, sunt ținuți în apartamente, în garsoniere, de unde nu au fost scoși afară niciodată, de doi ani de zile. În România, nu avem asistență socială…

(Președinta a retras cuvântul vorbitoarei)

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Hadja Lahbib, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you, and thank you, honourable Members, for this vivid debate and for sharing your insights.

Thank you for having underlined the critical role played by mothers, by caregivers, and also to underline this critical period of time – holidays – that can be also considered as a very problematic period of time and not only about sea and sun.

But I would like to say also that I see a very strong EU policy framework for independent living already in place. It is supported by flagship actions of the disability strategy, the work under the European care strategy and the strategy for the rights of the child, along with strong EU funding by Member States and regions to support the institutionalisation efforts. We must stay on this path and make full use of EU funding opportunities. Of course, some Member States are leading the way; others must be encouraged and supported to follow.

Persons with disabilities, like all citizens, must be supported to make their own choices to grow and to thrive in their private lives and integration, and at work as well. Because the truth is a person with a disability is not the other. It could be you. It could be your child. It could be a member of your family, a parent, tomorrow. So choosing solidarity means strengthening social cohesion, building an inclusive and human-centred Union, where every person, regardless of ability, can live with dignity, make their own choices and fully participate in society.

That is the Europe we are working for and that is the promise we must keep. The Commission will continue to stand up for the rights of persons with disabilities, the rights of older people in need of care, and the rights of children to grow up in a family environment.

  President. – The debate is closed.

  Dubravka Šuica, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, good evening, dear Members of the European Parliament. It is with dismay that we find ourselves here again debating the imprisonment of Boualem Sansal. On 1 July, the Court of Appeal of Algiers has confirmed his five-year prison sentence, handed down at first instance on 27 March.

We had hoped that during the appeal hearing, the judicial authorities would finally consider that the facts which motivated the arrest of Boualem Sansal are protected by the right to freedom of expression. These hopes have been disappointed.

Moreover, two days earlier, on 29 June, the sports journalist Christophe Gleizes has been sentenced at first instance to seven years. He has been charged with ‘apology for terrorism’, despite what appears to be an empty case file.

These convictions are based on articles in the Algerian Penal Code that are vague and subject to various interpretations. This appears in contradiction with the Algerian Constitution, which explicitly protects freedom of expression. I hope that the Algerian legislature will look into this possible contradiction in order to address it.

In the meantime, Boualem Sansal and Christophe Gleizes should not remain in prison. Boualem Sansal, who is advanced in age and in poor health conditions, is in prison since November last year. Christophe Gleizes, before being convicted, has been 13 months under judicial supervision, during which he was held in Algeria with a ban on leaving the country. It is therefore extremely important that a solution allowing their release is found quickly.

Dear honourable Members, Algeria is a close neighbour and important partner of the European Union. Algeria is a partner for the upcoming New Pact for the Mediterranean. Article 2 of the European Union-Algeria Association Agreement stipulates that respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.

On this basis, the European Union has repeatedly raised the case of Boualem Sansal with the Algerian authorities. The High Representative / Vice-President was personally involved and intervened directly. I have also done so in my contacts with the Algerian authorities.

I assure you that the European Union will continue its efforts to secure the release of Boualem Sansal and, now, of Christophe Gleizes.

  Christophe Gomart, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, le 16 novembre 2024, Boualem Sansal, écrivain français de 80 ans, a été arrêté à Alger. Son tort? Avoir exercé sa liberté de pensée et de parole. Il a été condamné à cinq ans de prison ferme pour atteinte à l’unité nationale, à l’issue d’un procès politique qui s’est tenu à huis clos.

Boualem Sansal étant gravement malade, sa vie est en danger. Le 1ᵉʳ juillet, la cour d’appel a confirmé sa peine, et, à l’occasion de la fête nationale algérienne, le 5 juillet, 6 800 détenus ont été graciés. Lui non. Le président Tebboune a personnellement choisi de ne pas lui accorder sa grâce. C’est un acte politique, une rupture claire, assumée, avec la France, avec l’Europe. Ce refus est un affront, un affront à la liberté d’expression, à la culture démocratique, un affront à la France, un affront à l’Europe.

Notre Parlement a largement adopté une résolution, le 23 janvier 2025, et pourtant, que fait la Commission? Que fait la commissaire Kaja Kallas? Nous lui avons envoyé une lettre le 3 juin 2025. Dans la réponse que nous avons reçue d’elle la semaine dernière, pas une seule mesure concrète. Des mots, des mots, mais aucun acte: «Nous partageons tous le même objectif, qui est la libération de Boualem Sansal, et je considère qu’un dialogue constructif avec les autorités algériennes est le moyen le plus approprié et efficace pour l’atteindre.» La même passivité que dans l’affaire du journaliste Christophe Gleizes, condamné le 29 juin par le tribunal de Tizi Ouzou à sept ans de prison ferme avec mandat de dépôt. Son emprisonnement pour apologie du terrorisme illustre lui aussi la justice arbitraire qui règne en Algérie et l’impuissance tant de la France que de l’Europe à obtenir sa libération comme celle de Boualem Sansal.

Boualem Sansal incarne le courage, la dignité et la fidélité aux idéaux de liberté. Il est la voix de tous ceux que l’on veut faire taire. Alors, non! Nous ne pouvons plus continuer à nous coucher ou à faire semblant devant des régimes autoritaires dont le seul objectif est de nous humilier. L’heure n’est plus à la diplomatie molle, aux compromis bureaucratiques ou à la repentance permanente. Retrouvons notre puissance et notre grandeur et faisons-nous respecter. Il est temps de faire correspondre nos actes à nos principes et de cesser de subir.

  Chloé Ridel, au nom du groupe S&D. – Chers collègues, après Boualem Sansal, cet écrivain franco-algérien âgé de 80 ans qui se trouve dans un état de santé alarmant, qui a été condamné à cinq ans de prison par l’Algérie du seul fait de sa plume et de ses idées critiques, et dont nous avons déjà demandé la libération ici même, c’est avec stupeur que nous avons appris, la semaine dernière, l’arrestation puis la détention du Français Christophe Gleizes en Algérie.

Christophe est un journaliste sportif, passionné par son métier, amoureux du football et de l’Afrique. Il a été arrêté par la police algérienne en mai 2024, alors qu’il enquêtait sur un club de football emblématique, la Jeunesse sportive de Kabylie, et sur la mort obscure d’un footballeur camerounais dans ce même club. Il faisait simplement son travail de journaliste. Il a été placé sous contrôle judiciaire pendant un an, puis condamné la semaine dernière à sept ans de prison. C’est la peine la plus lourde pour un journaliste français en Algérie depuis plus de dix ans. Son enquête n’avait rien à voir avec l’apologie du terrorisme dont il est accusé par le gouvernement algérien.

Nous condamnons avec la plus grande fermeté l’arbitraire de ces condamnations sans preuve et demandons la libération immédiate de Boualem Sansal et de Christophe Gleizes. Ces deux cas montre l’autoritarisme du gouvernement algérien, qui rejoint les nombreux régimes qui silencient et intimident sans distinction leurs opposants, ceux-là mêmes qui exercent leur liberté de pensée. Aux côtés de nos compatriotes Boualem Sansal et Christophe Gleizes, je pense aux 300 prisonniers politiques algériens du Hirak. Nous ne nous tairons pas tant qu’ils ne seront pas libérés!

  Fabrice Leggeri, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, lundi dernier, un journaliste français, Christophe Gleizes, a été condamné à sept ans de prison en Algérie. Mardi, c’était Boualem Sansal, écrivain franco-algérien âgé de 80 ans et atteint d’un cancer, qui a écopé de cinq ans de détention. Son crime? Avoir pensé librement. Pendant ce temps, la France se tait. L’Union européenne, elle, continue de financer ce régime – 172 millions d’euros entre 2021 et 2024.

Deux Français emprisonnés et pas une seule sanction. Pas une suspension de coopération. Ce n’est plus de la naïveté, c’est de la soumission. Boualem Sansal écrivait dans son ouvrage 2084: «Le mensonge est sacré, la vérité est impie, la liberté est un blasphème, la soumission est une vertu.» Cette phrase ne décrit pas seulement un régime autoritaire, elle décrit l’attitude de nos dirigeants face à lui.

Car, enfin, de quoi parle-t-on? D’un régime qui bâillonne ses intellectuels, emprisonne des journalistes, brutalise son peuple, refuse la liberté religieuse et expulse des migrants vers nos côtes tout en nous insultant. Et nous, nous payons. Nous subventionnons cette répression. Où est l’honneur de la France? Où est la souveraineté de l’Europe? Pourquoi continuer à verser des millions à ceux qui enferment nos concitoyens et piétinent nos valeurs fondamentales?

Il est temps que la France relève la tête. Il est temps que l’Europe cesse de payer ceux qui persécutent nos compatriotes et humilient notre drapeau.

  Marion Maréchal, au nom du groupe ECR. – Madame la Présidente, Boualem Sansal, Christophe Gleizes: ces deux noms sont devenus le symbole de notre abdication. Il ne suffisait pas à la France de s’excuser d’avoir bâti des routes, des écoles, des hôpitaux en Algérie. Il fallait en plus baisser la tête devant le mépris d’un régime autoritaire qui n’a rien su faire de son indépendance. Pendant des semaines, Paris s’est réfugié dans le déni. Attendre la fin du procès, attendre la fin du ramadan, attendre l’appel, puis une hypothétique grâce présidentielle… Cette diplomatie à genoux a lamentablement échoué et elle nous fait honte.

Il n’y a pas seulement deux prisonniers dans cette affaire: il y en a quatre, parce que la France et la Commission sont elles aussi mentalement captives de l’Algérie, victimes consentantes de sa rente mémorielle, tétanisées par son chantage à l’immigration. Alors, que valent toutes ses agitations devant Trump, devant l’Iran, devant Poutine, si la Commission n’est même pas capable de suspendre l’accord UE-Algérie pour protéger deux ressortissants?

Il est temps que la France arrête de subir! Dénonçons l’accord migratoire de 1968, fermons des consulats, bloquons les transferts financiers vers l’Algérie, suspendons les 250 000 visas généreusement distribués chaque année! Il n’est jamais trop tard pour relever la tête.

  Bernard Guetta, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, puisque ce texte, ils le liront, je m’adresse à eux, eux qui dirigent l’Algérie: emprisonner un homme âgé et malade, dont le seul tort est d’avoir écrit des choses qui vous déplaisent, c’est d’abord immoral, et, pour tout dire, honteux! Vous devez libérer Boualem Sansal dans l’heure, et cela d’autant plus qu’à le maintenir en détention vous semblez dire que votre pouvoir et l’Algérie entière seraient à la merci d’un écrit historique sur le tracé des frontières du Maroc et de l’Algérie par la puissance coloniale. Prétendre que ces écrits pourraient menacer l’intégrité territoriale algérienne, c’est à la fois vous ridiculiser et abaisser votre pays, qui peut résister à beaucoup plus que ces quelques pages d’écriture.

Et puis, Messieurs, cette détention nuit à l’image internationale de l’Algérie bien plus que vous ne le voyez. Il n’y a pas que les si nombreux lecteurs de Boualem Sansal qui s’indignent: il y a tous les pays d’Europe, qui se demandent sans comprendre quels comptes vous réglez là, où vous voulez conduire l’Algérie et quels alliés vous lui cherchez. Il y a notre histoire commune, plus que bimillénaire, celle de la Mare Nostrum, qui ne peut pas admettre que vous fassiez tout, toujours tout, absolument tout pour empêcher qu’un Maghreb uni puisse œuvrer avec l’Europe unie à la commune prospérité de nos peuples.

Il est humain, Messieurs, de se tromper, mais diabolique de persévérer.

  Rima Hassan, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, je le dis aux descendants de colons ici, qui se reconnaîtront: l’Algérie n’est plus une colonie. Le rapport à l’Algérie, comme le rapport au continent africain, doit changer de ton et de posture. Malgré cent trente-deux ans de colonisation et la «décennie noire», l’Algérie tient debout, grâce aux forces vives de son peuple, dont les revendications de justice et de liberté ont bouillonné tout au long du Hirak. C’est dans cette transition post-coloniale que se trouve l’Algérie, comme tant d’autres pays qui ont été déstabilisés, pillés, abîmés dans leur chair par le colonialisme, dont les crimes restent tus, quand ils ne sont pas niés.

L’Europe et la France doivent renouer avec le multilatéralisme pour dessiner un chemin de fraternité entre les peuples que l’histoire a liés. Les cas de Boualem Sansal, de Christophe Gleizes, mais plus encore des militants algériens, dont personne ne se préoccupe ici, doivent nous inciter à agir, non pas sur fond d’humiliation et d’ingérence, mais dans une volonté réelle et désintéressée de faire respecter la dignité humaine.

La fracture diplomatique alimentée par le gouvernement français continuera de causer des dommages collatéraux de ce type. L’Algérie, elle, s’honorerait à prendre de la hauteur face aux bassesses de la France en graciant les prisonniers d’opinion et en embrassant les revendications de son propre peuple.

Puisse l’Algérie rester fidèle à son histoire (quelques mots inaudibles) des révolutionnaires et des libertés!

  Dubravka Šuica, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate. In these difficult times when democratic principles and human rights are increasingly challenged, it is important to show that the European Union continues to uphold and promote these fundamental values. This debate also shows that the European Union has not forgotten the writer Boualem Sansal, and is now expressing solidarity to the journalist Christophe Gleizes. I hope this can be of some relief to them in the difficult situation in which they find themselves.

Mr Leggeri and Madam Maréchal, if they are still here, were talking about suspension – European Union financial assistance to Algeria does not entail direct transfer of funds to Algerian public authorities. The European Union finances projects of common interest implemented in the country by international organisations, European public bodies and development agencies, private companies and civil society organisations, just to clarify this situation.

To conclude, I would like to assure you that human rights will continue to be a fundamental part of our dialogue with the Algerian authorities. We will remain fully engaged on the case of Boualem Sansal and now of Christophe Gleizes. Thank you so much for this debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, el Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo —consistente en ocho Reglamentos intervinculados entre sí— es uno de los logros de la pasada legislatura, con todas sus dificultades y limitaciones, pero, desde luego, muchos lo votamos por su pilar de solidaridad y, consiguientemente, con el compromiso de que, en el tiempo establecido para su plena eficacia —dos años, por lo que al ser aprobado en 2024 debe entrar en pleno vigor el próximo año 2026—, los Estados miembros eleven sus planes de implementación y su solidarity pledge, es decir, sus ofertas de solidaridad, que deben estar gestionadas por un coordinador de solidaridad europeo para los realojamientos designado por la Comisión Europea.

Ya tenemos noticia de que un alto funcionario va a ser designado coordinador de solidaridad, pero lo importante no es la persona, sino el compromiso con el objetivo irrenunciable de que las regiones exteriores de frontera, acuciadas por la llegada masiva de personas rescatadas en la mar, sepan que no están solas ni abandonadas a su suerte y que pueden, efectivamente, contar con un mecanismo europeo.

Se trata de avanzar hacia delante, en ningún caso hacia atrás, como estamos oyendo en algunos mensajes amenazadores por parte de numerosos Estados miembros y sus Gobiernos en los últimos tiempos.

  Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, em 1945, ao contemplar o poder devastador da bomba atómica, Oppenheimer, líder do Projeto Manhattan, citou as escrituras védicas hindus: «Agora tornei‑me a Morte, o destruidor de mundos.»

A proliferação nuclear é a mais grave ameaça à segurança internacional. Ela é o veneno lento da nossa era: silenciosa, estratégica, implacável. Cada instalação clandestina, cada centrífuga escondida no deserto, é um passo mais perto da destruição de mundos.

Quando, no Irão, a tirania dos Aiatolas avançava clandestinamente nesse caminho, ameaçando não apenas os seus vizinhos, mas a paz mundial, foi preciso dizer «Não». E temos de agradecer a Donald Trump tê‑lo feito.

Ao ordenar a destruição cirúrgica de três instalações nucleares iranianas, Trump não destruiu mundos. Trump preservou mundos. Fez o que muitos antes dele temeram fazer: agiu. Com coragem e precisão.

Não escalou a guerra: conteve‑a. Não aumentou o risco de escalada: travou‑o. E, ao fazê‑lo, salvou mais do que uma região: salvou um mundo de possibilidades.

  Beatrice Timgren (ECR). – (Början av anförandet utan mikrofon) … Jag träffade min man när jag var 17 år gammal. Vi gifte oss när jag var 23, av egen fri vilja, två vuxna människor. Men för många flickor i Europa ser verkligheten helt annorlunda ut. Just nu, under sommaren, gifts minderåriga flickor bort mot sin vilja, kanske med en äldre man de aldrig träffat. De är barn men behandlas som ägodelar.

I Sverige delades det till och med ut en broschyr med titeln “Till dig som är gift med ett barn”. Den drogs tillbaka efter massiv kritik, men att den ens togs fram visar ju på att det här problemet inte tas på allvar.

Tvångsäktenskap, det är våld, det är ett brott och det ska aldrig, aldrig accepteras. Och när det kommer till barn, ja, de ska gå i skolan, inte giftas bort.

  Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospa predsednica. Po svetu divjajo vojne, genocid, liberalna ureditev svetovnega reda razpada, pravice izginjajo, enakost je mit. Prosto po Draghiju: brez sprememb Unijo čaka počasna agonija.

In s čim se ukvarjajo kolegi na desni? V Evropski parlament z zlorabo postopkov prinašajo zgodovinsko netočno resolucijo, ki bi povojno obdobje v Sloveniji, obdobje izpred osemdesetih let spisala na novo, in to z rokami neonacistov in neofašistov. Politični cinizem najnižjega ranga.

To, da resolucijo potrjujejo recimo tisti, ki na avstrijskem Štajerskem s himno preizprašujejo slovensko ozemlje, in recimo tisti, ki so konec tedna na koncertu na Hrvaškem kričali, da so “spremni”. Slovenski “domoljubi” torej tako zelo ljubijo svoj dom, da bi ga prodali, in še zamenjali bi zgodovinska dejstva. Oni so “spremni”: začeli so z revizijo zgodovine, nadaljevali bodo z uničenjem vsega dobrega v Uniji. Temu oni pravijo dosežek. Jaz temu pravim sramota.

Kar naj bodo “spremni”. Toda preteklosti ne morejo spreminjati po potrebi. Ne v mojem imenu ne v imenu Republike Slovenije in nikoli v imenu Unije.

  Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, es insoportable, es insoportable seguir viendo cada día escenas de exterminio en Gaza y que la señora Von der Leyen siga hablando de guerra y se ponga del lado de Israel. Dejar morir a un niño de hambre, un bombardeo a una cafetería en un cumpleaños infantil o a una ambulancia: eso no es un acto de guerra, es un crimen de genocidio. Disparar contra alguien que está en una cola para tener algo de pan: eso no es un accidente, forma parte de un protocolo; lo han reconocido los propios soldados israelíes.

La señora Von der Leyen no lo ve porque es cómplice, porque lo confronta con sus prejuicios coloniales de blanca, porque lo confronta con su insensibilidad frente a un horror que nos recuerda escenas que sucedieron en su país durante la Alemania nazi. Como entonces, hay un país que sigue ciegamente a un líder, Netanyahu, otra vez por la supremacía racial, para construir un Estado étnicamente puro. Pero ahora no podemos decir que no lo sabíamos: lo vemos en directo. Ni tan siquiera podemos decir que no participamos, porque llevamos las armas y el dinero para que eso suceda y, por eso, tenemos las manos manchadas de sangre, como Netanyahu.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, sectorul agricol european se confruntă astăzi cu provocări fără precedent. Seceta severă pârjolește părți întinse ale Europei, inundațiile devastatoare distrug culturi și infrastructuri critice, iar presiunea inflației și efectele nefavorabile ale unor acorduri comerciale internaționale apasă greu pe umerii fermierilor.

Comisia Europeană trebuie să înțeleagă un lucru esențial: fără o finanțare adecvată și consistentă a Politicii Agricole Comune, nu putem vorbi despre securitate alimentară ori stabilitate rurală.

În acest context, transmit un semnal clar: bugetul Politicii Agricole Comune trebuie să rămână distinct și independent de alte capitole bugetare. Nu poate fi contopit cu alte politici, nici măcar cu politica de coeziune, care, la rândul ei, trebuie să rămână distinctă. Fermierii au nevoie de predictibilitate, dacă vrem pentru ei stabilitate.

Nu putem construi viitorul agriculturii europene cu bugete fragmentate și compromisuri. Avem nevoie de o viziune pe termen lung, în care agricultura și dezvoltarea regională să fie pilonii centrali. Kissinger spunea: cine produce alimente…

(Președinta a retras cuvântul vorbitorului)

  Julien Leonardelli (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, dans nos montagnes, les éleveurs n’en peuvent plus. Ours, loups, vautours: les prédateurs se multiplient, et l’Union européenne détourne le regard. Elle finance la prédation et laisse mourir le pastoralisme.

Cet après-midi, dans les Pyrénées, deux veaux ont été dévorés vivants par des vautours sous les yeux de leur éleveur, et pendant ce temps les ours prolifèrent (83 adultes, 16 oursons cette année), et les loups colonisent le sud-ouest de la France. Résultat: des centaines de bêtes massacrées, des éleveurs traumatisés, des enfants qu’on ne laisse plus sortir seuls. Certains osent parler de stabilisation des attaques. La vérité, c’est que la fièvre catarrhale a tué des milliers de bêtes. Il y avait moins d’animaux attaqués: voilà l’explication.

Nous demandons à la Commission de réviser les statuts de protection de ces prédateurs, d’autoriser des effarouchements encadrés, de financer des indemnisations rapides, y compris un soutien psychologique, et de reconnaître le pastoralisme comme un patrimoine européen vivant.

Le Rassemblement national et le groupe Patriotes pour l’Europe se battront toujours pour nos paysans, nos montagnes et notre identité rurale. Ce sont eux les vrais écologistes!

  Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, «Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre». C’est François Mitterrand qui a dit cela au Parlement européen.

Jetzt muss ich auf Deutsch fortsetzen, denn es geht auch um Österreich. Es gibt diesen kriegerischen Nationalismus, den wir von Putin erleben, der die Menschen in der Ukraine ermorden lässt. Es gibt den aggressiven Nationalismus eines rumänischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten, der sagt: Uns gehört ein Stück Ukraine. Es gibt den aggressiven, ein bisschen spielerischen Nationalismus von Orbán, der mit einem Schal geht, mit Großungarn, auch einem Anspruch, da gehört uns mehr. Diese Dummheit begeht auch eine österreichische Landesregierung, die steirische, unter den sogenannten Patrioten der FPÖ. Die haben das Dachstein‑Lied und sagen, ein Teil Sloweniens gehört zu Österreich. Das ist ein altes Lied, hat mit dem Heute nichts zu tun, aber dieser Landeshauptmann will das in die Landesverfassung oder zumindest ein eigenes Gesetz. Das ist zerstörerisch, das ist kaputt. Jeder hat Recht auf eine Heimat. Unsere Heimat heißt Europa. Leben wir gemeinsam in unserer Heimat, lassen wir uns das nicht zerstören. Leben wir miteinander, nicht gegeneinander.

  Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Senhora Presidente, a democracia é o poder do povo, dos povos, de povos também como o meu, a Galiza.

Há nove anos, apresentei uma queixa à Comissão para pedir a abertura do processo de infração contra o Estado espanhol por não cumprir os requisitos de segurança ferroviária, para fazer justiça às vítimas de um dos maiores acidentes ferroviários da Europa, o acidente de Angrois, em Santiago de Compostela. Doze anos depois do grave acidente, para essas vítimas, a minha lembrança e respeito.

Fizemo‑lo também com a autoestrada A‑P9. Fizemo‑lo também com a fábrica de celulose Ence, em Pontevedra, relativamente ao procedimento da Ley de Costas. E sempre foi a mesma resposta da Comissão: negado o acesso aos documentos. O que é essa falta de transparência, essa falta de poder aceder aos documentos oficiais, como se está a passar agora com a mina de lítio de Doade, um dos 47 projetos estratégicos sobre matérias‑primas críticas?

O meu partido, o Bloque, está ao lado do povo, do povo galego, também exigindo…

(a Presidente retira a palavra à oradora)

  Estrella Galán (The Left). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, un mes más llegamos al pleno de este Parlamento con la certeza de que la mayoría de las decisiones que vamos a tomar aquí suponen un retroceso de derechos. Se está permitiendo que países de la Unión Europea apliquen una agenda de odio con total impunidad: habilitan zonas libres de LGTBI, atacan a las mujeres y nuestro libre derecho al aborto, niegan el cambio climático que está costando miles de vidas, restringen los derechos de las trabajadoras y los trabajadores y envían a personas migrantes a «Guantánamos» en terceros países que dicen seguros y que, por supuesto, no lo son, porque allí se violan los derechos humanos.

Los ciudadanos nos eligieron precisamente para mejorar la vida de las personas, pero en este Parlamento lo inaceptable se ha normalizado y vamos en el sentido contrario. Estamos asistiendo a lo que Hannah Arendt definió como la banalidad del mal. Porque cuando a Europa le tiemblan las piernas para decir no a la ultraderecha, a la gente…

(la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

  Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas! Was ich an meinem Job besonders liebe, sind die vielen ersten Male. Letzte Woche war ich zum ersten Mal auf dem splash!‑Festival und gleichzeitig der erste Abgeordnete Backstage auf Deutschlands größtem Hip‑Hop‑Festival. Nur für einen Moment, liebes Haus: Denken Sie zurück an Ihr letztes Festival, an dieses Konzert, das Sie nie vergessen werden.

Diese Orte sind kein Luxus. Sie sind das Herz unserer Kultur. Sie verbinden Menschen, schaffen Identität und geben Hoffnung. Und trotzdem: Wer heute europäische Kulturförderung will, der braucht erst mal einen Master in Bürokratie. Ich weiß das: Ich habe als Jurist Unternehmen bei Fördermittelanträgen beraten, und ich kann Ihnen sagen, diese Anträge sind eine einzige Katastrophe.

Vielleicht braucht es mehr Abgeordnete Backstage auf Festivals wie dem splash! – aber besonders braucht es Förderprogramme, die da ankommen, wo die Menschen leben, wo die Kultur lebt. Denn Kultur, das ist das, was uns hier in Europa alle eint.

  Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, ruralna područja čine većinu teritorija Europske unije i jedan su od najvažnijih izvora resursa, od poljoprivrede, kulturnih sadržaja do turizma. No, i dalje smo suočeni s manjkom ulaganja u infrastrukturu. Tu se osobito ističu javni prijevoz, stanovanje, zdravstvena skrb, kao i digitalna infrastruktura, posebice brzi internet. U 2025. godini, kada većina Europe svakodnevno koristi umjetnu inteligenciju, neki naši sugrađani u ruralnim zajednicama nemaju pristup internetu. Zato mi je drago vidjeti sve snažnije pozive da se ruralna područja digitaliziraju, ali takvi zahtjevi moraju biti popraćeni s konkretnim financijskim sredstvima.

Na digitalizaciji i uvođenju brzog interneta radio sam više godina, i to kao gradonačelnik manjeg grada, te smo među prvima zajedno s Krapinsko-zagorskom županijom, koja je za ovu godinu imenovana i Europskom poduzetničkom regijom, počeli s takvim projektima. I drago mi je što zahvaljujući tim aktivnostima pristup brzom internetu uskoro postaje stvarnost za veliki broj građana. Dobro je kada nacionalne inicijative uhvate korak s lokalnim razinama i podrže naše projekte, ma koliko kasno to bilo.

  Mélanie Disdier (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, l’Union européenne bafoue sans vergogne nos viticulteurs français. Alors que nos vignerons, étouffés par une crise implacable – ventes qui s’effondrent, climat imprévisible, charges insoutenables –, Bruxelles, dans un sursaut de générosité aussi insensé que scandaleux, déverse 15 millions d’euros pour gonfler la production de vins sud-africains. Pour une prétendue croissance inclusive aux critères douteux, nos terroirs, notre patrimoine séculaire et nos familles de vignerons s’éteignent sous votre mépris.

Quelle est cette logique aberrante? Quand nos viticulteurs supplient pour des aides, pour sauver leur vignoble, on leur rétorque: «Pas de fonds.» Mais, pour les concurrents, l’argent coule à flots, comme par enchantement. Ce cirque est une injure pour nos héros ruraux, à ceux qui portent haut les couleurs de la France. Jusqu’à quand supporterons-nous cette trahison?

Nous, le Rassemblement national et les Patriotes pour l’Europe, exigeons des fonds massifs pour nos viticulteurs et réclamons la suspension de cette honteuse subvention.

  Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, România este astăzi amenințată de Comisia Europeană cu tăieri drastice ale fondurilor europene vitale pe motiv de deficit bugetar excesiv. Acest deficit excesiv, însă, nu este o surpriză. El s-a acumulat în ani buni, în condițiile în care guvernele române de după 2022 au fost sprijinite tacit de Comisia Europeană.

În anii electorali 2024-2025, Comisia a ales să tacă complice față de politicile economice iresponsabile ale guvernelor din România, bazate pe creșteri masive ale cheltuielilor și împrumuturi nesustenabile. Acum, după alegeri, însă, în urma condițiilor impuse de Comisia Europeană, cetățenii europeni se se confruntă cu amenințări dure, austeritate brutală, reduceri de salarii, concedieri masive și creșteri de taxe și impozite, măsuri care vor sufoca economia și vor lovi direct în cetățeni și firme.

Solicit Comisiei Europene să susțină o politică europeană care promovează reducerea taxelor și impozitelor în România, dereglementare și o gestionare responsabilă a banului public.

  Kathleen Funchion (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, it seems Irish insurance holders are stuck in some kind of a rip-off cycle, particularly when it comes to car insurance.

In Ireland, we are now paying nearly twice the EU average and it’s at the highest it has been in five years. People and families, particularly in rural Ireland, who need cars to get to work, to get to school and basically live their lives, are facing unexplained rises in these costs. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, it certainly adds salt to the wound.

Unsurprisingly, the Dublin Government seem to have no intention of doing anything – as usual – regarding this. So, I am calling on this Parliament and the EU to take urgent action without delay on behalf of people in Ireland who are being ripped off in the insurance sector, particularly regarding car insurance, as is important that there is fairness for all EU citizens.

  Matthias Ecke (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Holt Maja zurück! Das fordern über 100 000 Menschen in einer Petition. Sie verlangen ein faires Verfahren für Maja T., eine nicht binäre Person, die in Ungarn inhaftiert ist. Maja T. wird seit zehn Monaten in Untersuchungshaft gehalten, unter Isolation und unwürdigen Bedingungen. Aus Protest befindet sie sich im Hungerstreik und die Situation ist wirklich ernst und wird immer schlechter. Maja T. wurde aus Deutschland überstellt, obwohl Ungarn kein faires Verfahren garantiert, schon gar nicht für queere Menschen, gegen die die ungarische Regierung fortgesetzt hetzt. Diese Überstellung war rechtswidrig, und das hat auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht festgestellt. Die deutsche Bundesregierung und die ungarische Regierung müssen diesen Fehler korrigieren. Aber auch die EU‑Kommission muss handeln. Die kann nicht einfach sagen, sie ist unzuständig. Sie ist Hüterin der Verträge und wenn irgendwo systematisch Rechtsstaatsmaßstäbe verletzt werden, muss sie einschreiten.

Maja T. muss zurück nach Deutschland. Sie wird sich dort einem rechtsstaatlichen Verfahren stellen, und dieses Verfahren wird auch die durchaus schwerwiegenden Vorwürfe klären, die gegen sie erhoben werden. Es geht hier nicht um Straflosigkeit, es geht um Gerechtigkeit, aber davon sind wir im Moment weit entfernt.

  President. – That concludes the item.

  President. – The next sitting is tomorrow, Tuesday, 8 July 2025, at 09:00. The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament’s website.

  President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to the Parliament for its approval tomorrow at the beginning of the afternoon.

(The sitting closed at 22.08)