Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Proċedura : 2013/2995(RSP)
Ċiklu ta' ħajja waqt sessjoni
Ċikli relatati mad-dokumenti :

Testi mressqa :


Dibattiti :

PV 15/01/2014 - 17
CRE 15/01/2014 - 17

Votazzjonijiet :

PV 16/01/2014 - 8.6

Testi adottati :


Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti
L-Erbgħa, 15 ta' Jannar 2014 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

17. Ċittadinanza tal-UE għall-bejgħ (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet

  President. − The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on EU citizenship for sale (2013/2995(RSP)).


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the year 2013 was designated as the European Year of Citizens and was aimed at raising awareness of the rights and responsibilities that come with EU citizenship. Towards the end of last year, the Council responded to the EU citizenship report 2013 drawn up by the Commission. It welcomed the progress achieved in implementing the first report and, more generally, underlined the importance of EU citizenship in strengthening EU identity. In general, it is important that we continue to raise awareness of EU citizenship and implement the rights which come with it.

This afternoon you have chosen to discuss one particular aspect of EU citizenship, which I know is a matter of concern to many in this Parliament. The preamble of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in establishing the citizenship of the Union states clearly that the Union places the individual at the heart of its activities. Active participation by EU citizens in the democratic life of the EU – as we will see in particular later this year in the European elections – is just one of the many benefits of citizenship which are already firmly rooted in the treaties and which are elaborated further in EU secondary law.

Given the importance of EU citizenship, any concerns which may exist concerning the acquisition of national citizenship in more Member States must be examined carefully. Our starting point must be the extent and limits of the EU legal framework.

The Treaty of Lisbon further strengthens the notion of EU citizenship and the rights that go with it. However, it is important to remind ourselves that EU citizenship is additional to, and does not replace, national citizenship. This means that every EU citizen has the citizenship of at least one of the 28 Member States.

It is a clear principle in international law that the Member States have the power to lay down the conditions for the acquisition or loss of nationality. This is obviously a principle recognised in EU law and has been confirmed in rulings of the European Court of Justice.

This means that there is no harmonisation of national legislation in this field. The conditions for acquiring and losing EU citizenship depend directly on the conditions for acquiring and losing the nationality of an individual Member State. It follows that the question of whether an individual possesses the nationality of a particular Member State can only be answered by referring to the national legislation of that Member State.

Although EU citizenship depends on Member State nationality, it also has an autonomous character stemming from the character of the European legal order. This means that the competence of Member States to enact laws concerning national citizenship has to be exercised in accordance with the Treaties. Any possible infringement of EU law in relation to Member State legislation regarding nationality would be a matter for the Commission rather than the Council. To date the Council is not aware of any such case of infringement and has certainly not discussed the issue. It is therefore not possible for me to say more about this specific point other than to underline the fact that the Member States must have sufficient trust in each other to recognise mutually different national provisions governing naturalisation.

I cannot contribute more to this debate, given that the Council has no position, for the reasons which I have just explained. I will nevertheless listen carefully to the points made this afternoon and I will report back to the Council.


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission is attentive to developments in those Member States which have set up investor schemes for granting citizenship. Recently our attention was drawn mainly to the Maltese investors’ scheme.

There is no doubt – and the Council has said this very clearly – that the conditions for obtaining and forfeiting national citizenship are regulated by the national law of each Member State. But there is also no doubt that granting the nationality of a Member State means also granting EU citizenship and the rights attached to this. These are rights which can be exercised and must be recognised all over the Union. This means that you grant citizenship in one country and 28 countries have to recognise the rights which go with it. In other words, awarding nationality and citizenship to a person gives this person rights vis-à-vis 27 Member States in addition to the one in which they have been granted.

In fact, since the Treaty of Maastricht, granting Member State citizenship also means granting EU citizenship, which means granting a series of additional EU rights: the right to move and reside freely within the EU territory; the right to work and to stand as a candidate in European and municipal elections in the Member States of residence; the right to consular protection; the right to benefit from the many achievements of the single market. As a consequence, naturalisation decisions taken by one Member State are not neutral with regard to other Member States or to the EU as a whole.

National citizenship is an entrance door to the EU. It is an entrance door to the EU Treaty and to the rights EU citizens enjoy. So a passport is not only a paper or an official document. It conveys rights and obligations both to citizens and to Member States of the Union. That is why Member States should use their prerogatives to award citizenship in the spirit of sincere cooperation with the other Member States, as stipulated by the EU Treaties. In compliance with the criterion used under public international law, Member States should only award citizenship to persons where there is a ‘genuine link’ or ‘genuine connection’ to the country in question.

So in general, let me raise the question: do we like the idea of selling the rights provided by the EU Treaties? My answer is: certainly not. Citizenship must not be up for sale.

We have been celebrating, as the President-in-Office has just said, the European Year of Citizens 2013 in order to mark the 20th anniversary of European citizenship. In this context it is legitimate to question whether EU citizenship rights should merely depend on the size of someone’s wallet or bank account.

I am not calling for the Commission to obtain extension of its legal power to determine what constitutes nationality or the rules granting it. The Commission nevertheless expects from the Member States that they act in full awareness of the consequences of their decisions.

Our debate today shows the growing importance of these questions in a European Union where national decisions are in many instances not neutral vis-à-vis other Member States and the EU as a whole. It is a fact that the principle of sincere cooperation, which is inscribed in the EU Treaties (Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union), should make the Member States take account of the impact of the decisions they take in the field of nationality on other Member States and on the Union as a whole. That is why the Commission follows any developments concerning citizenship in the Member States very closely.

Citizenship has been very much in the centre of our discussions in recent years: in the context of the European Year of Citizenship, in the run-up to the European Parliament elections, and more generally in all our work to reconnect our European citizens to the democratic life of the EU. That is why I sincerely say here and now that citizenship cannot be taken lightly. It is a fundamental element of our Union and one cannot put a price tag on it.



Elnökváltás: SURJÁN LÁSZLÓ úr


  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, Herr Ratsvertreter! Man muss stark applaudieren nach der Rede unserer Vizepräsidentin Viviane Reding, die klare Worte gefunden hat. Und man würde sich wünschen, dass der Rat ähnlich klare Worte findet, wenn es um diese Punkte geht.

Rechtlich ist klar: Staatsbürgerschaftsrecht ist nationales Recht, das stellt niemand in Frage. Aber mit dem Lissabon-Vertag und mit dem Vertrag von Maastricht haben wir die EU-Bürgerschaft, deswegen geht es uns alle an. Ich würde den Rat bitten, dass dieses Thema auch diskutiert wird. Wenn es heute noch keine Meinung gibt, sollte der Rat entsprechend auch über die Frage reden.

Wir reden heute nicht theoretisch darüber, wir reden sehr praktisch darüber, nämlich über den Fall Malta; um den geht es heute. In der Sache muss man sich noch mal hinsetzen und kurz nachdenken: Es ist eigentlich unvorstellbar, dass es tatsächlich Gesetzesvorschläge geben könnte, dass Staatsbürgerschaften erkauft werden können. Bei Staatsbürgerschaften geht es um Identität, es geht um Verwurzelung, es geht um Solidarität in einer Gesellschaft, und so etwas kann man sich nicht erkaufen.

Der Vorschlag der maltesischen Regierung ist falsch. Ich möchte vor allem zum Ausdruck bringen, dass viele andere Mitgliedstaaten, die heute auch in der Diskussion sind, ganz andere Regelungen haben. In Malta hatte der erste Vorschlag bedeutet, dass man die Staatsbürgerschaft bekommen kann, ohne jemals den Boden Maltas betreten zu haben.

Wir haben eine klare Forderung als Europäische Volkspartei, nämlich einen Stopp der Gesetzgebung. Wir wollen, dass die maltesische Regierung die ausgestreckte Hand der Opposition ergreift und mit der dortigen Opposition die nächsten Entwicklungen diskutiert. Und wir wollen, dass die Kommissionsvorschläge ernst genommen werden.

Zum Schluss möchte ich noch einen Appell an die maltesischen Bürger richten: Malta ist ein tolles Land. Sie haben sich in Malta über die Jahre und Jahrzehnte hohe Bürgerrechte erarbeitet. Sie haben eine große Geschichte. Ihre Staatsbürgerschaft in Malta ist wertvoll! Sie können stolz darauf sein, Malteser zu sein und Europäer zu sein. Deswegen bitte ich auch die Bürger in Malta: Sagen Sie Ihrer Regierung: Eine Staatsbürgerschaft Maltas ist nicht erkaufbar. Bitte hört auf mit dieser Gesetzgebung!


  Kinga Göncz, a S&D képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! Örülök Biztos asszony világos szavainak és örülök annak is, hogy erre a vitára ma sor kerül, mert lehetőséget ad arra, hogy együtt gondolkodjunk a nemzeti és európai állampolgárság kapcsolatáról, és kifejezzük elkötelezettségünket az európai értékek iránt. Európa-szerte szaporodnak ugyanis azok a jelenségek, amelyek megkérdőjelezik az alapértékeinket. Ezek részben a válság következményei, de ha nem figyelünk rájuk időben, alááshatják az egész európai építkezést. Az Unió egyik legfontosabb vívmánya az uniós állampolgárság, amely többek között szabad mozgást, szavazati jogot, választhatóságot, konzuli védelmet jelent.

Ennek értékét jelzi, hogy a 2,2 millió olvasóval rendelkező Financial Times hétfői hirdetésében egy cég felajánlja szolgálatait – feltehetően jó pénzért – több uniós ország állampolgárságának, illetve tartózkodási engedélyének megszerzéséhez. Egyre több ország lát pénzszerzési lehetőséget az európai állampolgárság vagy a letelepedési, tartózkodási engedélyek direkt vagy indirekt kiárusításában – és a vetélkedés egy lefelé tartó spirált hoz létre. Több helyen háttérbe szorulni látszik az az alapelv, hogy az ország és állampolgára közt közvetlen kapcsolat kell legyen. Vannak kormányok, amelyek az állampolgárság tömeges megadásától nem anyagi, hanem közvetlen politikai hasznot remélnek. A szerződések a letelepedési és állampolgársági kérdést a tagállamok hatáskörében hagyják.

De ezek is, mint sok más döntés, uniós szintű problémákat vethetnek fel, érintik az országok közötti bizalom kérdését, az Unió külső kapcsolatait, közvetlenül hatnak más országokra is a szabad letelepedés és különösen a schengeni szabad mozgás miatt. Az, hogy a leggazdagabbak kapnak privilegizált módon állampolgárságot, se nem igazságos, se nem méltányos, újfajta egyenlőtlenséget teremt. Európa ma hajlamos távol tartani azt, aki nem hoz azonnal hasznot. A mediterrán régióban magukra hagyja azokat a menekülteket, akik pénz híján, súlyos veszélyek árán próbálnak eljutni az Unió területére. Mi a tagállamok, az Unió válasza erre a diszkriminációra? Felhívom a Bizottságot, hogy az uniós értékek szellemében vizsgálja meg a tagállamok különböző programjait, amelyek letelepedési engedélyt, direkt vagy indirekt módon uniós állampolgárságot adnak, és fogalmazzon meg ajánlásokat a tagországok számára, amelyek később egy közös politika alapjaiként is szolgálhatnak.


  Jan Mulder, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – We hadden eerder deze middag in deze ruimte een debat over het vrije verkeer van personen. Dit is een uiterst belangrijk punt in de Europese Unie. Iemand die het burgerschap heeft van een van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie kan overal vrij bewegen en zich overal vestigen. Dat is iets wat wij moeten koesteren in de Europese Unie.

Het recht om het burgerschap te verlenen is een prerogatief van de lidstaten zelf. Dat zal niemand betwisten. Het hele punt is alleen dat Malta recentelijk - maar ook andere landen - een interpretatie van burgerschap heeft gegeven die te denken geeft.

Ik persoonlijk ben van mening dat het burgerschap niet te koop mag zijn. Het moet afhangen van wat de persoonlijke relaties zijn van de persoon met het betrokken land, wat de persoonlijke relaties van de betrokkene zijn met de burgers in dat land. Je kunt allemaal argumenten bedenken, maar er moet een persoonlijke binding zijn met dat land. Een burgerschap kopen zonder dat je ooit voet hebt gezet in het betrokken land, is in mijn ogen een duidelijk verkeerde zaak.

Malta is het meest recente voorbeeld. Er zijn ook voorbeelden van andere landen en ze kunnen allemaal verschillend geïnterpreteerd worden. Ik denk dat er een duidelijk verschil moet worden gemaakt tussen het burgerschap en een verblijfsvergunning in een bepaald land. Over dat alles bestaat veel verwarring, maar er is een toenemende tendens om bepaalde voorrechten te koop aan te bieden.

Het antwoord van de Commissie, of de inleiding van de commissaris was een sterk antwoord wat mij betreft. Maar ik denk dat het op papier moet worden gezet en dat er duidelijke richtlijnen moeten komen aan de lidstaten wat acceptabel is in de Europese Unie en wat niet. En het moet buiten kijf staan dat het kopen van het burgerschap niet aanvaardbaar kan zijn.


  Roberts Zīle, ECR grupas vārdā. – Skaidrs, ka Eiropas Savienība nepārdzīvo labākos ekonomiskos laikus, un skaidrs, ka dalībvalstis lieto visdažādākos instrumentus, lai uzlabotu savu finanšu un ekonomikas stāvokli. Līdz 2010. gadam Eiropas Savienībā neviena no dalībvalstīm nepārdeva termiņuzturēšanās atļaujas pret nekustamajiem īpašumiem, pret mājokļiem. Tagad tādas ir vesela virkne — vairāk kā sešas valstis — un tas slieksnis svārstās no EUR 70 000 Latvijā līdz EUR 500 000 Spānijā un Portugālē. Katrā ziņā mēs redzam, ka pieprasījums — šajā gadījumā trešo valstu pilsoņu no vairākām valstīm — ir, un šo iespēju ļoti labprāt izmanto. Piemēram, Latvijā viena gada laikā ir izsniegts desmit reizes vairāk šādu uzturēšanās atļauju nekā Apvienotajā Karalistē, kur šis slieksnis investīcijām ir ļoti augsts.

Protams, valsts pilsonības pārdošana pret ieguldījumiem beidzot ienesa šo debati šeit Eiropas Parlamenta ēkā. Es ļoti par to priecājos, un es ceru, ka mēs izdarīsim pareizus secinājumus, vēl jo vairāk, ņemot vērā Maltas gadījumu, kur operācijas ar klientiem kārto koncesionālas privātas kompānijas. Jā, juridiski dalībvalstīm ir šīs tiesības rīkoties ar savu pilsonības likumu. Tajā pašā laikā mums jāatceras, ka mēs Eiropas Savienībā šī pamatbrīvības, tajā skaitā personu brīvību, veidojam daudzus gadu desmitus.

Es gribētu uzsvērt to, vai mēs esam pārliecināti, ka visai šai naudai, kas ienāk Eiropas Savienībā šādā veidā, ir balta, pelēka, varbūt pat melna nokrāsa, un vai šiem cilvēkiem, kas nāk līdzi šai naudai, ir arī tādi paši gaiši nodomi. Un vai gadījumā mēs Eiropas Savienībā vairs nejūtamies tā, ka mums ir palikusi tikai iespēja pārdot biļetes dārgā muzejā? Un kas notiks ar pilsoni, kuram būs divas pilsonības — kurai valstij viņš būs lojāls? Vai Eiropas Savienības valstij, kur viņš pilsonību nopircis, vai savai otrai valstij? Paldies!


  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, de quoi discutons-nous aujourd'hui? Des pratiques de certains États membres qui monnaient leur nationalité et leur permis de séjour, le tout moyennant des sommes colossales de dizaines voire de centaines, de milliers d'euros.

Les justifications mises en avant par les États membres, à savoir favoriser les investissements, combler les déficits, sont insupportables, surtout lorsqu'elles émanent d'États qui ont l'habitude de nous donner des leçons de morale. On voit bien qui va se saisir de ces opportunités: ceux qui ne peuvent pas investir autrement. Ce n'est qu'un moyen pour contourner un certain nombre de règles, cela ne peut que favoriser le blanchiment d'argent sale.

Au moment où les grandes déclarations pleuvent, où les larmes de crocodiles abondent sur les centaines de morts en Méditerranée, et où l'Europe forteresse se ferme plus que jamais à des migrants qui se ruinent pour arriver sur nos côtes, ces pratiques ne peuvent que révulser celles et ceux qui sont attachés aux valeurs de liberté, d'égalité et de solidarité.

Décidément, la marchandisation n'a pas de limites pour certains et l'argent n'a pas d'odeur. Ce n'est pas la citoyenneté qui est en cause mais les valeurs universelles sur lesquelles l'Union européenne est censée être construite, valeurs qu'elle bafoue, malheureusement, chaque jour un peu plus.


  Morten Messerschmidt, for EFD-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Det at blive statsborger i et land, det er at blive en del af en familie; det er, at den oprindelige familie tager imod én med åbne arme; det er en tillidserklæring, hvor man får at vide, at man er god nok, man hører til! Det er ikke noget, man skal sjofle med. Det er ikke noget, man skal sætte til salg, som vi ser det på Malta – og andre steder.

Men jeg tror også på national suverænitet, og jeg vil derfor ikke fortælle malteserne, hvad de skal gøre. Men jeg vil sige, at dette eksempel viser, hvor farligt, hvor forkert og hvor uhåndterbart det var at indføre et unionsborgerskab, hvor man forsøger at løfte forskellene mellem de forskellige nationer og give alle samme rettigheder: rettigheder til sociale ydelser, opholdsrettigheder, stemmerettigheder, og hvad ved jeg. Det er reelt det, der er sat til salg – med Malta som mellemmand – men med EU-Kommissionen som sælger, som initiator, som idémager. Det er jer, der sidder med skammen. Jeg kan godt forstå, at Viviane Reding forlod salen, så hun ikke skal høre debatten.


  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Voorzitter, het begint een lachwekkende vertoning te worden dat het Europees Parlement weer eens vergadert over iets waar het werkelijk niets mee te maken heeft. Dit Parlement noemt het een probleem dat landen hun soevereine recht gebruiken om paspoorten uit te delen om welke reden dan ook.

Voorzitter, dit is geen omgekeerde wereld maar een omgekeerd universum. Het probleem zijn namelijk de open grenzen en het afschuwelijke Schengenverdrag. Zonder die regelgeving was dit debat overbodig geweest. Dit Parlement constateert een zogenaamd probleem dat ze niet mógen oplossen – gelukkig maar –, maar kijkt niet naar de oplossingen die het zelf kan aandragen.

De komende verkiezingen zullen dan ook gaan over de vraag of we een federale staat met een federale regering willen, die dat dus wel voor elkaar kan krijgen, of dat we accepteren dat de verdragsorganisatie, de Europese Unie, aan het instorten is. Ik heb dat laatste al lang geconstateerd. Veel Nederlanders zijn al helemaal klaar met de EU. De opmerkingen van mevrouw Reding geven al aan dat de eurofielen een paspoort als een EU-paspoort zien en niet als een belangrijk teken van nationaliteit. Die elitaire bemoeizucht zal niet ophouden. Mijn partij wil dat Nederland zich volgens artikel 50 terugtrekt uit de EU, en dit debat sterkt die zaak alleen maar meer.

(De spreker stemt ermee in te antwoorden op een "blauwe kaart"-vraag (artikel 149, lid 8, van het Reglement)


  Ana Gomes (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr van der Stoep – your name seems Dutch – how can you say that this is something that only concerns each country and national sovereignty, when countries like mine – Portugal – are issuing what they call golden visas, possibly to criminals from other parts of the world? Golden visas that are Schengen visas!


  Daniël van der Stoep (NI), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Het blijft een prerogatief van de lidstaat zelf om op welke wijze dan ook visa uit te delen, op welke wijze dan ook verblijfsvergunningen te verlenen en op welke wijze dan ook paspoorten uit te delen.

Waar ú natuurlijk mee zit, zijn die gouden visa van uw regering en die worden waarschijnlijk gegeven aan mensen die veel investeren. Maar laten we duidelijk zijn: als we het nu hadden gehad over visa en paspoorten voor mensen die als vluchteling hier komen, of als asielzoeker, had u waarschijnlijk heel anders gereageerd.


  Roberta Metsola (PPE), - Il-poplu Malti ħadem ħafna biex Malta tkun fl-Unjoni Ewropea. Aħna kburin b'dan. Kburin li aħna Maltin u li aħna Ewropej. Aħna poplu bieżel li naħdmu għad-drittijiet tagħna u nafu x'inhuma l-obbligi u d-dmirijiet tagħna.

Dan is-suġġett qajjem kontroversja. Il-maġġoranza tal-Maltin la qablu u lanqas riedu l-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza tagħna. Jien u oħrajn li tkellimna kontra din l-iskema ġejna msejħa tradituri. Aħna poplu wieħed, ta' kalibru, u din l-iskema mhix rappreżentattiva tagħna. Ma missna wasalna qatt s'hawn! Imma bħala rappreżentanta tal-poplu Malti ma nistax noqgħod b'ħalqi magħluq. Hu d-dmir tiegħi li nitkellem u l-ebda attakk politiku mhu se jwaqqafni.

Hawn qed nitkellmu dwar il-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza li qed isir kważi mingħajr irbit ta' xejn u bla ebda ħtieġa li l-persuna toqgħod fil-pajjiż iżda bil-benefiċċji kollha li ġġib magħha ċ-ċittadinanza. Dan il-Parlament huwa wkoll il-parlament tagħna, tal-Maltin. Aħna eletti mill-poplu biex nirrappreżentawh. Ejjew inkunu ċari: id-drittijiet tagħna lkoll mhumiex għall-bejgħ!

Il-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza tnaqqas mill-valur veru tagħha u tirfes u tkażbar id-drittijiet ta' kull wieħed u waħda minna. Kif qalet il-Viċi President Reding, li tkun ċittadin ta' pajjiż ifisser li għandu jkun hemm rabta sħiħa u profonda ma' dak il-pajjiż. Issa, persuna tista' ssir ċittadina Maltija u Ewropea mingħajr dik ir-rabta mal-Unjoni. Dan imur kontra l-valuri, il-fiduċja u s-solidarjetà li huma s-sisien tal-Unjoni u tal-futur tagħha. Aħna mhux qed innaqqsu mill-kunċett tas-sovranità; huwa għaliex aħna nemmnu fil-proġett Ewropew li rridu Ewropa mibnija fuq drittijiet b'saħħithom. Nagħlaq billi nagħmel appell ieħor għal kunsens: għadna fil-ħin biex din l-iskema titranġa.

(Il-kelliem jaċċetta li jwieġeb mistoqsija "karta blu" (Artikolu 149(8) tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura))


  Nuno Melo (PPE), Pergunta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – A Deputada Ana Gomes acabou de fazer uma confusão lamentável entre o chamado Golden Visa e o que acontece em Portugal que se chama e que é um programa de autorização de residência para atividade no investimento. Confunde politicamente, porque lhe interessa atacar o governo quer com uma coisa quer com outra, e o que eu pergunto, Senhora Deputada, é se não entende que o que se passa em Malta não tem nada que ver com o que se passa em Portugal, onde se tem que fazer transferências superiores a um milhão de euros, criar 10 postos de trabalho ou adquirir casas acima dos 500 mil euros, captando-se verdadeiramente investimento e como a senhora deputada é maltesa, é a pessoa ideal para fazer essa distinção.


  President. − That is not exactly a very concrete question but please try to answer.


  Roberta Metsola (PPE), tweġiba karta blu. – Grazzi ħafna, nirringrazzja lis-Sinjur Melo talli għamilli din il-mistoqsija. It-titolu ta' din ir-riżoluzzjoni huwa dwar il-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza: il-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza Maltija u l-iskema li qed jipproponi l-Gvern Soċjalista mhuwiex limitat jew mhuwiex link ġenwin mal-investiment. Huwa fuq dak li jien għamilt l-intervent tiegħi, huwa fuq dak li tiffoka r-riżoluzzjoni li ħa nivvutaw dwarha għada.


  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). - Fost l-oħrajn, din il-mozzjoni li għandna quddiemna titkellem dwar valuri Ewropej. Iva, nitkellmu dwar valuri ewlenin li jgħaqqduna bħala Ewropej, nitkellmu fuq is-solidarjetà reċiproka bejn l-Istati Membri, nitkellmu fuq ir-rispett lejn is-sovranità tal-Istati Membri kollha f'oqsma li huma ta' kompetenza nazzjonali. Jeħtieġ li nikkonċentraw fuq il-prinċipju veru taċ-ċittadinanza u biex dan isir irridu nevitaw kull preġudizzju fir-rigward ta' xi pajjiż Stat Membru wieħed.

Dan hu mument li jitlob minna lkoll maturità u serjetà u għalhekk ejja nkunu prudenti. Mhux ġust li l-konċentrazzjoni tkun fuq Stat Membru wieħed. Jekk isir hekk, il-logħba tiġi waħda perikoluża u ma tibqax ta' interess komuni Ewropew. Inkunu wkoll qed noħolqu preċedent fuq is-sovranità tal-Istati Membri.

Bħala Ewropej għandna nagħmlu għażla bejn ekonomija Ewropea li tinfetaħ għall-bqija tad-dinja jew ekonomija Ewropea li tingħalaq fiha nnifisha. Għandu jkollna l-kuraġġ u niftħu l-bibien għal min irid jinvesti fl-Ewropa; investiment li jkabbar l-ekonomiji u joħloq ix-xogħol. Huwa ta' sodisfazzjon li tara pajjiż bħal Malta, li jkollu suċċess ekonomiku, filwaqt li ma jgħakkisx b'aktar taxxi lil dawk l-anqas li jifilħu. F'Malta bħala pajjiż nemmnu f'solidarjetà sinċiera. Dan dejjem urejnieh bil-fatti fil-każ tal-emigrazzjoni irregolari. Dmirna dejjem nagħmluh. Ejja niftħu d-diskussjoni imma ma nibqgħux niftħu l-bibien għal opportunitajiet li jġibu magħhom benefiċċji, prosperità u tkabbir ekonomiku, u dan fil-kuntest tal-valuri Ewropej.


  Renate Weber (ALDE). - Dragi colegi, mă tot gândesc cum să le explic concetățenilor mei români că, în timp ce noi suntem ținuți în afara spațiului Schengen, deși îndeplinim criteriile de aderare, un cetățean din afara Uniunii, dacă are bani, poate cumpăra cetățenia malteză, adică cetățenia europeană și toate beneficiile care decurg din aceasta. Nu știu cum să le explic, pentru că așa ceva este inacceptabil.

Unii lideri politici europeni, în loc să se pronunțe împotriva comerțului maltez cu cetățenia europeană, au încercat să distragă atenția, referindu-se la acordarea cetățeniei române unor cetățeni din Republica Moldova. Probabil le e mai ușor să uite deciziile istorice tragice și să blameze restaurarea unui drept pierdut, deși alte țări au procedat la fel.

Nu România și Moldova sunt o problemă, ci comerțul cu cetățenia europeană, pentru că el afectează grav una din cele mai importante valori ale Uniunii.


  President. − It is also very difficult to explain why Romania is outside the Schengen Area, but that is another debate.


  Cristiana Muscardini (ECR). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la cittadinanza europea è strettamente connessa a quella nazionale – senza l'una non c'è l'altra – e rappresenta una conquista sulla via dell'integrazione. La cittadinanza europea non è un valore autonomo, perché non può essere acquisita senza la cittadinanza nazionale. Oggi assistiamo a troppe facili acquisizioni della cittadinanza nazionale, il che snatura la cittadinanza europea.

Mentre i migranti, che cercano di salvare la vita, si scontrano con le difficoltà che gli Stati membri frappongono per l'acquisizione dell'asilo, esistono concessioni di cittadinanza nazionale, che diventerebbe anche europea, dietro corrispettivi economicamente onerosi. Non è concepibile che la cittadinanza possa essere ridotta alla stregua di una merce, di una commodity, e posta in vendita come tale. Occorre, nel rispetto degli Stati nazionali, stabilire regole trasparenti, che ci mettano al riparo dal rischio di creare nuove opportunità per le organizzazioni criminali e terroristiche e che ci consentano di evitare la creazione di ulteriori sperequazioni tra persone più ricche e più povere.


  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - A cidadania europeia é um princípio fundamental sobretudo para os que acreditam na Europa dos cidadãos e não aceitam uma Europa limitada aos capitais e às mercadorias. A cidadania europeia desenvolveu-se de forma a constituir uma fonte de direitos reais e concretos contribuindo para um sentimento de pertença à União Europeia e para o reforço de uma identidade europeia.

Sabemos que não existe nenhuma forma autónoma de aquisição da cidadania da União que não seja através da obtenção da nacionalidade de um Estado-Membro e sabemos que cada Estado-Membro tem regras próprias para a atribuição da sua nacionalidade, mas isso não deve comportar a venda da cidadania europeia.

É nisso que consiste, porém, o esquema anunciado pelo Governo maltês de venda de nacionalidade e, ao contrário do que disse a Deputada Ana Gomes, muitos Estados-Membros têm legitimamente adotado medidas para atrair investimento estrangeiro, facilitando autorizações de residência que permitem residir nesse Estado-Membro e circular pelo máximo de três meses no território de outros Estados Schengen, sem poder fixar residência ou trabalhar noutro Estado-Membro e, claro está, sem acesso à cidadania europeia.

Porém, o esquema que o Governo maltês pretende introduzir nem sequer prevê a necessidade de residência de existência de uma ligação genuína com o país, sendo o critério financeiro o único critério para a obtenção da nacionalidade que implica um direito automático à cidadania europeia com todos os direitos e obrigações que lhe são inerentes, quer no interior, quer no exterior do território da União.

Concordo com a Vice-Presidente Radin quando afirmou que os direitos não devem ser objeto de comércio. Os direitos não se compram, reconhecem-se e exigem responsabilidade. O que está a acontecer em Malta terá um impacto negativo sobre a cidadania europeia.

Peço à Comissão que tome as iniciativas que se afiguram possíveis e necessárias, nomeadamente nos termos do artigo 4.º, n.º 3 do Tratado da União. A cidadania europeia é algo muito valioso para os cidadãos europeus e não pode estar à venda.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta formulada ao abrigo do procedimento "cartão azul" (artigo 149.º, n.º 8, do Regimento))


  Ana Gomes (S&D), Pergunta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Senhor Deputado Carlos Coelho, pode confirmar aos nossos colegas que em Portugal existe também, como aludiu, um esquema de naturalização, de aquisição da nacionalidade. Esse esquema depende de um certo número de anos de residência - 6 a 10 anos - e da autorização do Ministro da Administração Interna. É um esquema de concessão da nacionalidade indiretamente, portanto, o esquema a que aludiu, que está em vigor em Portugal desde o ano passado, é um esquema indireto de venda da nacionalidade também.


  Carlos Coelho (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – A Deputada Ana Gomes não tem razão e ela sabe que não tem razão. Todos os países têm sistemas de aquisição de nacionalidade e o sistema português é muito parecido com o de quase todos os países da União Europeia e não tem nenhuma cláusula de privilégio para aqueles que fazem investimentos, isto é, entre o investidor estrangeiro ou o emigrante estrangeiro não há regras diferentes, as regras são exatamente as mesmas para adquirir a nacionalidade, portanto a sua acusação é infundada e deve pedir desculpa.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Die Verleihung von Staatsbürgerschaften ist klarerweise eine Angelegenheit der Nationalstaaten, konstituiert sie doch die Mitgliedschaft in einer Nation. Im Regelfall wird man in so eine Gemeinschaft hineingeboren, immer häufiger erwirbt man solche Rechte auch durch Zuzug und einen darauffolgenden längeren, gefestigten Aufenthalt. Die meisten Staaten haben auch Möglichkeiten geschaffen, die Staatsbürgerschaft aufgrund besonderer Verdienste oder staatlicher Notwendigkeiten zu verleihen. Es ergibt also durchaus Sinn, dass es unterschiedliche nationalstaatliche Herangehensweisen gibt, unter welchen Bedingungen von den Mitgliedstaaten Staatsbürgerschaften verliehen werden.

Allerdings gilt es zu bedenken, dass mit einer nationalen Staatsbürgerschaft auch die Unionsbürgerschaft verliehen wird, also auch entsprechende unionsweite Rechte erworben werden. Insofern gibt es sehr wohl ein europäisches Interesse. Daher ist diese Debatte zu begrüßen und sollte nicht nur auf den Anlassfall bezogen werden, sondern generell geführt werden. Diese Diskussion muss auch kontroverse Fragen aufgreifen wie etwa die Tatsache, dass die Verleihung von Staatsbürgerschaften immer häufiger auch als ein politisches Mittel angesehen wird, Einfluss auf die Innenpolitik benachbarter Staaten zu gewinnen.

Vor allem aber die Kommerzialisierung der Verleihung ist zu hinterfragen. Es ist nicht akzeptabel, wenn in Inseraten Staatsbürgerschaften von Mitgliedstaaten zum Verkauf angeboten werden. Die Union darf solche Praktiken nicht dulden! So etwas verhöhnt alle, die unter Lebensgefahr versuchen, die Schengen-Grenzen zu überwinden. Und die Zuerkennung der Staatsbürgerschaft an die Zahlungsfähigkeit eines Antragstellers zu knüpfen, ist unter keinen Umständen zu akzeptieren!


  David Casa (PPE). - Għandna dibattitu quddiemna li huwa dibattitu la kontra l-poplu Malti, la hu dan dibattitu kontra l-Gvern Malti, huwa dibattitu li jitkellem fuq skema li qed tiġi introdotta f'pajjiżi. Malta, issa Membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea, għal numru ta' snin, dħalna f'Schengen, dħalna fiż-żona euro u kburin bl-obbligazzjonijiet li anke għandna lejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u bid-doveri li suppost sħubija ġġib magħha. U allura aħna ma rridux li intom issa minħabba din l-iskema ħażina tibdew tissuspettaw fina. Jiena rrid li meta jiġi Malti jew Għawdxi bil-passaport, intom tafdawh jidħol f'pajjiżkom u ma jkollkomx suspetti fuq dak li qed iġorr il-passaport Malti.

U għalhekk jien qed ngħid illum li għad għandna ċ-ċans biex il-Gvern Malti jisma' minn dal-kunsens. Jien ħadt pjaċir nisma' lill-kollega tiegħi mill-Partit Soċjalista, mill-Partit tal-Ħodor, mill-Partit Komunista, mill-Partit tal-Popolari. Għandek kunsens hawn – lill-Gvern Malti jiena ngħidlu – biex tisma' u tbiddel l-iskema u tagħmilha waħda ta' investiment. Għax jien naqbel ma' dak kollu li ntqal hawn illejla fosthom mill-kollega tiegħi min-naħa tal-Partit Soċjalista Göncz fejn qalet li ċ-ċittadinanza Ewropea mhijiex għall-bejgħ. Mela allura ejjew inpoġġu f'daqqa, ejjew insibu regoli komuni biex nassiguraw li la gvernijiet illum u lanqas għada ma jbigħu ċ-ċittadinanza Ewropea b'dan il-mod. Ejjew nagħmlu guidelines, ejjew naraw x'hemm bżonn isir biex flimkien naraw kif l-aħjar li niddefendu ċ-ċittadinanza Ewropea.

U jrid ikun hemm link veru, irid ikun hemm konnessjoni vera biex int tingħata passaport. Jekk intom tafdawni, u lill-pajjiż tiegħi, lil Malta u lil Għawdex, biċ-ċavetta tad-dar tagħkom, illum id-dar tagħna, jien ma nistax immur naqbad dik iċ-ċavetta u nxerridha ma' kulħadd, mingħajr il-permess tagħkom, mingħajr il-permess tal-Kunsill, mingħajr il-permess tal-Kummissjoni! Jiddispjaċini li pajjiżi ma kkomunika la mal-Kummissjoni, la mal-Istati Membri u lanqas ma' dan il-Parlament, però din hija skema u mhux kontra la l-gvern ta' pajjiżi u lanqas kontra l-poplu Malti.

(Il-kelliem jaċċetta li jwieġeb mistoqsija "karta blu" (Artikolu 149(8) tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura))


  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D), mistoqsija karta blu. – Jiddispjaċini li nagħmel mistoqsija lil kollega mill-istess pajjiż, imma ma nistax ma nsaqsihx – peress li għamel referenza għall-kunsens dwar din l-iskema – jikkonfermax, l-Onorevoli Membru kollega, illi l-Gvern Soċjalista Malti, immexxi mill-Prim Ministru Dr. Joseph Muscat, mhux biss għamel konsultazzjoni wiesgħa mal-gruppi soċjali kollha f'pajjiżna imma anki saħansitra mal-oppożizzjoni mmexxija mill-Kap tal-Oppożizzjoni li sieħbi, jew David Casa, jirrappreżenta l-istess partit? Daqshekk hu miftuħ il-Gvern Soċjalista Malti għad-diskussjoni dwar din l-iskema!


  President. − I did not recognise the question, but maybe you will be able to answer.


  David Casa (PPE), tweġiba karta blu. – Jiena, Sur President, illum għadni kemm smajt lill-Kummissarju Viviane Reding tagħti kummenti barra, ikkwotata anke fil-gazzetti, fejn qalet hi ma taf b'ebda konsultazzjoni mal-Kummissjoni u, safejn taf hi wkoll, ebda konsultazzjoni ma saret mal-Istati Membri. Nitlob lill-kollega tiegħi min-naħa tal-Partit Soċjalista jiċċekkja l-fatti tiegħu għaliex jekk għandu problema ma' dan, naħseb li għandu joħodha mal-Kummissarju Reding u mhux miegħi.


  President. − I would really urge those who raise the blue card to have a clear question so we can have a clear answer, otherwise we will just waste our time.


  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). - Nationaliteit te koop. Verblijfsvergunning te koop. Willen lidstaten echt naar een situatie waar een rijke Rus met zijn privéjet kan landen om even een EU-paspoort te shoppen en waar een bootvluchteling in zijn wankele bootje aankomt en rechtsomkeer mag maken. Hoe kunnen wij verantwoorden dat wij het vrije verkeer van personen ontzeggen aan mensen die als EU-burgers hier recht op hebben, terwijl via een ander loket paspoorten met een prijskaartje over de toonbank gaan.

Ik maak me echt grote zorgen. Natuurlijk, lidstaten gaan zelf over de toegang tot hun nationaliteit. Alleen heeft dit wel direct invloed op de rest van de lidstaten. Tegelijkertijd is dit namelijk ook een ticket tot andere lidstaten. Dat hebben we met elkaar afgesproken. Het verkrijgen van de nationaliteit moet afhangen van objectieve, heldere criteria, niet van de dikte van je portemonnee.

Wat gaat de Raad hieraan doen om betere afspraken te maken zodat lidstaten hier op een verantwoordelijke wijze mee om kunnen gaan? En hoe kan de Europese Commissie hierbij helpen?


  Wim van de Camp (PPE). - Voorzitter, het staatburgerschap – ik ben het helemaal met mevrouw Reding eens – mag niet te koop zijn. Het is eigenlijk een heel raar idee dat je paspoorten kan kopen. Wij als politici moeten de nationaliteit serieus nemen en moeten niet met dit soort acties weer eens de populisten in de kaart spelen. Paspoorten zijn niet te koop.

En we weten allemaal – dat zeg ik ook tegen mevrouw Gomes – dat er natuurlijk landen zijn die investeringsregelingen hebben waarbij je een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning krijgt. Dat doen heel veel landen in de Europese Unie. Maar er is een principieel verschil met een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning gekoppeld aan voorwaarden, of het botweg kopen van een paspoort zoals dat nu in Malta dreigt te gebeuren.

Voorzitter, het is heel raar gegaan in Malta. Eerst wisten we niks, was het geheim, geen openbare lijsten. Nu weten we meer voorwaarden van de sociaaldemocratische regering. Maar het feit dat je je niet hoeft te vestigen op Malta blijft natuurlijk een heel raar iets. Je koopt een paspoort in Valletta en je vestigt je in Berlijn of in Parijs. Dat heeft natuurlijk niks met nationaliteit te maken.

Dan, Voorzitter, samenwerking binnen de Europese Unie brengt verplichtingen met zich mee. In artikel 4 van het Verdrag staat dat de lidstaten professioneel en vertrouwensvol samenwerken, dus niet als "Einzelgänger" op dit soort gevoelige thema's te werk gaan.

Tot slot: ik ben het eens met mijn collega Jan Mulder van de Alde-Fractie; ik denk dat het raadzaam is als de Commissie uniforme, transparante voorwaarden binnen Europa voor een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning bij investeringen opstelt.


  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il tema della cittadinanza è un tema da sempre molto caldo. In molti paesi si discute, spesso legando questa discussione al tema dell'immigrazione, di come si acquisisce la cittadinanza: si diventa cittadini per nascita oppure per la permanenza o per la residenza sul suolo di uno Stato?

È l'antica vicenda dello ius soli o dello ius sanguinis, sulla quale l'opinione pubblica si divide abitualmente. Ius soli o ius sanguinis, quindi? Ma siccome non ci si finisce mai di stupire, oggi apprendiamo che esiste anche lo ius pecuniae, cioè la possibilità di diventare cittadini di uno Stato perché si hanno soldi per comprarsi ciò che normalmente si acquisisce per identità, passione, voglia di appartenere ad una comunità.

Oggi il governo socialista di Malta ci dice che, invece, la cittadinanza è una merce, è una tassa che si paga per avere un passaporto, come se fosse un francobollo. Per questo sono d'accordo con il Commissario Reding a dire no a questo metodo e chiediamo al governo maltese di fare un passo indietro, perché non c'è nessun diritto che possa essere commercializzato. Ci siamo sforzati tanto per costruire i nostri Stati nazionali, spesso a costo di grandi sacrifici, anche di carattere personale, e ci sono voluti decenni per costruire e far decollare il progetto europeo. Forse abbiamo perso solo tempo? Forse sarebbe bastato fare un'asta per concedere il diritto ad essere cittadini? Io credo invece che la storia che abbiamo alle spalle ci indichi la strada giusta. Non apriamo una porta attraverso cui penetrerebbero non solo una pletora di incognite ma soprattutto un mostro giuridico che rischia di mettere in crisi la nostra costruzione europea e i nostri stessi Stati nazionali.


  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). - Godājamais priekšsēdētāja kungs, kolēģi! Eiropā mēs visu laiku runājam par to, ka ir vajadzīgas jaunas darbavietas un ir vajadzīga izaugsme. Darbavietas un izaugsme. Bet jautājums ir, no kurienes nāks tās darbavietas. Protams, ir vajadzīgas investīcijas, jo bez investīcijām nekas nenotiek. Tad ir jautājums, kā tās investīcijas piesaistīt. Ir valstis Eiropā, un to nemaz nav tik maz, kas piedāvā potenciālajiem investoriem burkānu, proti, veikt investīciju Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstī, par kuru piešķir terminētas uzturēšanās atļauju. Es uzsveru vārdu „terminētas” (uz diviem vai pieciem gadiem). Veicot konkrētas investīcijas konkrētā apjomā, viņiem ir tiesības uzturēties Eiropas Savienībā. Paiet tas laiks, viņiem vairs to tiesību nav.

Manuprāt, šāda prakse nav tā lielākā problēma. Grūtības ir tādās valstīs kā Malta, kura, šķietami lai piesaistītu investīcijas, grib piešķirt pavalstniecību. Faktiski viņas tirgo pavalstniecību. Un, neskatoties uz to, vai tā summa šķiet liela vai maza, man liekas, ka šī ir ļoti problemātiska lieta, jo būtiski ir tas, ka šis nav terminēts pasākums. Tas ir pasākums, kad vienu reizi pārdod pavalstniecību, un viss.

Tātad, kolēģi, es aicinu atšķirt divus dažādus veidus, kā dažas Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstis cenšas piesaistīt investīcijas. Viens ir caur terminētām uzturēšanās atļaujām, kur es neredzu, ka ir lielas grūtības, bet otrs ir pavisam cits jautājums. Tas, ko Maltas valdība šajā gadījumā vēlas darīt, faktiski ir tirgot pavalstniecību. Šis, manuprāt, absolūti nav atbalstāms. Eiropā mums nav jātirgo pavalstniecība. Paldies jums par uzmanību!


  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, iako nije ovdje povjerenica Reding, ja bih joj se zahvalio na vrlo jasnoj poruci i vjerujem da bi i Vijeće trebalo takvu poruku poslati. Doista, državljanstvo Europske unije ne smije biti na prodaji. Naravno, bit će uvijek onih koji će tvrditi da novac može kupiti sve i da se moramo time pomiriti. Nažalost, potez vlade u Malti šalje takvu krivu poruku. Ali to je potez koji otvara niz pitanja.

Bit je treba li imovinsko stanje biti odlučujući faktor u izdavanju državljanstva? Može li se državljanstvo Europske unije staviti na prodaju stranim milijarderima samo da bi se punio državni proračun? I naravno gdje je tu solidarnost prema ostalim članicama Europske unije?

Iako je izdavanje državljanstva kompetencija država članica, ovo naravno da ima određene posljedice za sve ostale države članice, jer Malta ne prodaje samo njeno državljanstvo nego državljanstvo Europske unije. Ti novi Maltežani moći će ići slobodno, kretati se unutar granica Europske unije, čak s manje prepreka nego imaju građani Hrvatske koji još na primjer nisu u Schengenu.

Dakle, tu je pitanje i najveći je problem to što se u slučaju odluke socijalističke vlade u Malti ne vidi jasna poveznica s dobivanjem državljanstva i rezidencijom onoga koji će otvoriti nova radna mjesta kroz neke greenfield investicije. Ima nekih država koje imaju takve neke zlatne programe, ali oni su povezani s idejom novih investicija. To u Malti nije slučaj i zbog toga to je neprihvatljivo.


  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE). - Vreau să îmi exprim dezaprobarea față de legea malteză, ce oferă posibilitatea unor cetățeni non-EU să obțină cetățenia în schimbul unei sume de bani. Eu sunt cetățean al unui stat membru, care așteaptă de ani buni să fie admis în Schengen, iar acest lucru nu se întâmplă, deși toate criteriile de aderare au fost îndeplinite, după cum a constatat atât Comisia Europeană, cât și Parlamentul.

Deci, 30 de milioane de cetățeni europeni români și bulgari nu pot circula fără control la frontiere, dar orice rus, chinez sau papuaș, fie el gangster sau oligarh, va putea face acest lucru nestingherit, dacă are un cont bancar pe măsură. Acest lucru mi se pare de-a dreptul revoltător și injust.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, this debate reminds me of a song about my own beautiful place – Killarney – and it goes like this: An American landed on Ireland’s green isle, he looked at Killarney and said with a smile, ‘How can I buy this beautiful place? How can I buy Killarney?ʼ And he goes on to say that if he had all the money in the world, he could not buy Killarney. But now an American or someone like him can actually buy Malta – or at least Maltese citizenship – without having any connection with the country. This goes against all the principles of what we understand of citizenship and also the principles of equality.

This would not be of major concern to us if Malta were not part of the European Union, but Maltese citizenship equates to European Union citizenship. If you go through any airport in the European Union there will be two lines: one for ‘all passportsʼ and one for EU citizens, and there is no distinction made between the 28 Member States.

I think this goes against everything we stand for, and I commend particularly Commissioner Reding for her forthright and courageous comments. We have to exert as much pressure as we can on the Maltese to stop this ridiculous proposal. It is making a laughing stock of citizens and particularly, I think, it is saying that some people are born equal but others are more equal than others, and the rich will always dominate. It is a disgrace.


„Catch the eye” eljárás.


  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, el programa del Gobierno maltés para traer inversiones a cambio de ciudadanía es inaceptable.

En primer lugar, y desde el punto de vista de la seguridad europea, puede abrir la puerta al desarrollo de actividades criminales como el blanqueo de capitales.

En segundo lugar, en el ámbito comunitario supondría el acceso a la ciudadanía europea con los derechos y con todo lo que ello implica, quebrantando las reglas existentes y la confianza entre los Estados miembros.

Además, supondría reconocer que el derecho de ciudadanía es una mercancía susceptible de compra y de venta, y no un bien que sostiene la vitalidad de la Unión. Ningún Estado puede, en singular, invadir los códigos civiles de los otros 27 ni el Derecho comunitario de todos ellos.


  John Attard-Montalto (S&D). - Mr President, I am going to speak in English, as Madame Reding, the Commissioner, chose that language in which to address us. I followed her with very keen interest. Why? Because she made a legal argument. If you take away all the political rhetoric, you will realise that her main items of objection are legal. She accepted the fact that citizenship is subject to national jurisdiction, but she also said that according to the Maastricht Treaty – and she is right – there has to be a direct link. In other words, the objection is not whether money is paid or not. The objection is whether there is a direct link or not. Let us crystallise the problem and not try and make a scapegoat of the smallest country in the European Union.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospodine predsjedavajući, slažem se da svaka država članica ima suvereno pravo uvjete stjecanja svog državljanstva i da se institucije Europske unije tu nemaju pravo miješati. No članstvo u Schengenskom prostoru znači i veliku odgovornost i obveze, naročito za članice na vanjskim granicama Unije. Odluke pojedinih članica u području politike stjecanja državljanstva postaju tako potencijalan problem svih članica zone pa unilateralni potezi ne bi trebali biti poželjni. Stoga smatram da kao što svaka država članica ima suvereno pravo odlučiti kome ponuditi državljanstvo, ostale članice trebaju također imati suvereno pravo ograničiti pristup državljanima onih država članica koje prakticiraju prodaju državljanstva. S obzirom da nekolicina članica najavljuje ovakvu praksu, držim da bi bilo oportuno uvesti određene zaštitne mehanizme unutar schengenskog instrumenta koji će omogućiti uvođenje ograničenja prema državama koje trguju državljanstvima.


  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, if you are super rich, need an EU passport and want some good value for money, we have some bargains here for you. We have Malta – EUR 650 000 with no strings attached. But Malta, of course, is not alone. We have charitable Ireland – a EUR 500 000 investment in a public project in return for a guaranteed residency permit; Cyprus – EUR 3 million for an investment; Britain – applicants assessed on the basis of a GBP 1 million investment in the UK.

It is appalling; it is disgraceful; it is outrageous – but it is not altogether that surprising, because we live in a Europe that is dominated by the 1 %, at the cost of the 99 %. It is more outrageous because it is happening at precisely the same time that we have the disgraceful racist scaremongering by many parties of the establishment across Europe against Romanians and Bulgarians. It is disgraceful when you contrast it with the practice of keeping out non-Europeans, which has cost the lives of 20 000 people from beyond the southern borders. This is the tale of two Europes.


  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) - Predávanie maltského a európskeho občianstva záujemcom z tretích krajín, ktoré zaviedla maltská administratíva, je menej sofistikovanou formou podobných opatrení iných krajín, ktoré ponúkajú právo na pobyt za obchodné investície, nehnuteľnosti, či vládne dlhopisy.

Aj keď rozhodnutia vo veci štátneho občianstva patria do právomoci členských štátov, maltská úprava obchodovania s občianstvom obnáša isté aspekty, ktoré vzbudzujú vážne rozpaky. Malta sa stala prvou krajinou, ktorá jednoducho na európske občianstvo nalepila cenovku, vyhodila ho na trh a začala zarábať na právach, ktoré sa zaviazalo 28 členských štátov poskytovať európskym občanom.

Z pohľadu iných štátov takýto akt maltskej administratívy nie je neutrálny. Ďalšie členské štáty totiž budú musieť kupcovi maltského pasu tiež priznať a poskytnúť právo usadiť sa, voľne sa pohybovať, kandidovať v európskych voľbách a podobne. Preto, vážení kolegovia, som presvedčený, že rozbiehajúce sa kšeftovanie s európskym občianstvom je potrebné včas zastaviť.


  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Der lockere Umgang mit Einbürgerungen ist wohl schon länger ein großes Problem. Einige EU-Mitglieder entwickeln sich zum Einfallstor in die Union, ob mit spanischen Massenamnestien für Millionen Illegale oder um Wählerstimmen zu gewinnen und dabei die rumänischen Staatsfinanzen aufzubessern – ein Novum ist ja einzig und allein, dass es in Malta eben einen Festpreis für den Pass gibt. Die EU-Freizügigkeit verkommt damit immer mehr zu einem fragwürdigen Geschäftsmodell, und solange Zuwanderung in unsere Sozialsysteme möglich ist und Kriminelle mit Vermögen unbekannter Herkunft sich den EU-Pass kinderleicht kaufen können, wird sich daran wohl kaum etwas ändern.

Es ist schon interessant, dass Kommissarin Reding im Vorfeld der Plenardiskussion davon redet, dass nur jene Menschen einen Pass erhalten sollen, die echte Verbindungen zum Land haben. Ein solches Prinzip müsste auch im Asylbereich gelten, dann hätten wir ja wohl kaum Parallelgesellschaften, in denen Neubürger es als Zumutung empfinden, eine neue Sprache zu lernen.

Es ist also höchste Zeit, sämtliche Schleusen zu schließen und sowohl den Ausverkauf der Unionsbürgerschaft an Reiche als auch die Anreize für Armutsmigration zu beenden.


  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). - Mr President, the issue we are now debating is difficult to understand and define in correct terms. The practice whereby European citizenship is sold and bought for money entirely compromises the whole EU and is one more blow against the Union and more fuel for the Eurosceptics.

A Union of values is what we used to say. We should stop kidding ourselves in such a situation, where citizenship of the Union is offered to anybody from any non-democratic or anti-democratic country who has money for a bribe. What if, as some say, it is nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Member State? I do not think so. We should at least kindly ask Malta to denounce this step; to denounce such citizenship as a moral mistake of anti-European content and give the money received as a bribe back to such a client.


  Marlene Mizzi (S&D). - M'iniex se nidħol fil-mertu tal-każ għaliex ma naqbilx mal-fatt li deċiżjoni tal-Parlament Malti, elett demokratikament, qed tiġi għal skrutinju u vot ta' parlament ieħor fuq kwistjoni interna. Kif kien qal Dr Simon Busuttil innifsu f'dan il-Parlament stess, hu preċedent perikoluż, il-Parlament Ewropew jibda jindaħal f'affarijiet interni tal-Istati Membri. Indħil li, ma għandi l-ebda dubju, ħadd mill-kollegi deputati ma jaċċettaw li jsir ma' pajjiżhom.

L-għoti taċ-ċittadinanza sar u jsir minn Stati Membri oħrajn; hu dritt sagrosant ta' kull Stat Membru. Il-metodoloġija, ir-raġuni għall-għotja, mhix kompetenza ta' dan il-Parlament, u għaldaqstant insib li dan il-Parlament qed imur oltre l-kompetenza tiegħu. Nistaqsi: għaliex ma sarx dan id-dibattitu meta Stati Membri oħra daħlu skemi simili? Kollha jinvolvu l-flus. Għaliex ħadd ma staqsa fuq il-valuri Ewropej dakinhar? Għaliex issa ma' Malta: l-iżgħar pajjiż membru? Infakkru li Malta pajjiż żgħir iżda għandha l-istess drittijiet ta' kull Stat ieħor u mhux aċċettabbli li jsir indħil fuq is-sovranità tagħha wkoll.

Infakkar lil min instiga dan id-dibattitu li Malta ma għadhiex kolonja u min qed juża dan il-Parlament biex jumilja lil Malta, għal skop politiku partiġjan, imissu jistħi!


(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége.)


  Elnök. − Kedves kollégák! Sok ambíció van még a felszólalásokra. Szeretnék emlékeztetni arra a lehetőségre, hogy a mondanivalót írásban be lehet terjeszteni. Jogi értelemben volna még lehetőség a kék kártyára is, de ha korlátozzuk – márpedig korlátoznunk kell – jelen pillanatban a „catch the eye” fölszólalásokat, akkor értelemszerűen a kék kártyára sem tudunk sort keríteni.


  Nuno Melo (PPE). - Só para dizer que se o Regimento desta casa consagra direitos que depois, arbitrariamente, pela Mesa acabam por não ser exercidos, então de nada vale que eles estejam consagrados. Registo as várias vezes que não consegui a palavra neste debate.


  Elnök. − Önnek sok mindenre van lehetősége, csak az ülésvezetés bírálatára nem! - Egy. Kettő: a „catch the eye” nem jog, hanem lehetőség, a mindenkori levezető elnök joga, hogy öt embernek szót adjon. Én nyolcnak adtam szót. Semmifajta önkéntes megnyirbálásról nincs szó.


  Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D). - Għandi point of order għaliex fil-bidu ta' dan id-dibattitu, meta inti tkellimt u spjegajt dwar x'inhuwa dan id-dibattitu, għedt li dan huwa dibattitu dwar Malta. Fil-verità dan huwa dibattitu dwar iċ-ċittadinanza, u għalhekk irrid nippreċiża dak li għedt inti u għalhekk għamilt dan il-point of order; għaliex minkejja li jiena wkoll xtaqt li nitkellem f'dan id-dibattitu, ma ngħatajtx iċ-ċans.

Jiena xtaqt ngħid ukoll, biex nippreċiża dak li għedt inti għax dan huwa dibattitu dwar iċ-ċittadinanza, li m'hemm l-ebda problema - anzi aħna rridu dibattitu san dwar iċ-ċittadinanza fl-Unjoni Ewropea, filwaqt li nżommu f'moħħna li hemm is-sovranità nazzjonali - iżda ma nistgħux naqbdu pajjiż u niżolawh meta hemm pajjiżi oħra li għandhom skemi u inizjattivi simili, u għaldaqstant nistieden lil din il-Kamra, Sur President, biex, l-ewwel ħaġa, tirrikonoxxi li dan huwa dibattitu dwar iċ-ċittadinanza, u t-tieni ħaġa nappella lil din il-Kamra wkoll biex ikun hemm approach raġonevoli għal dak kollu li għandna quddiemna f'dan id-dibattitu.


  President. − You are completely right. The title of the debate refers to ‘citizenship’. I fully agree with you, but naturally you know better than me what is behind this – which is Malta. I fully agree that it is not nice to subject only one country to analysis, but we are here now.


  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, Mr Coelho suggested that I had knowingly misled this House.

This is not true, and I just wanted to say that any real estate agency should check what I said: namely that Portuguese nationality is obtained after five years of residence with a stay of 35 days in total, and that in six years, nationality can be granted.

If Commissioner Reding is so against it, please tell the Troika that this is the situation in Portugal and that they allowed this system to be implemented.


  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am also speaking on behalf of Viviane Reding, who had to leave unexpectedly early, when I thank you for your contributions to this debate. Your contributions highlight the growing importance of these questions in the European Union, in which national decisions are in many instances no longer neutral vis-à-vis other Member States and the European Union as a whole.

European Union citizenship implies a stakeholding with the union and depends on a person’s ties with Europe and its Member States. Talking about the Member States, you know that my area of responsibility is enlargement and neighbourhood. I have to confess that in the area of enlargement I have already faced the issue whereby a candidate country was about to adopt a similar arrangement. My line at that time was very clear – firstly, the issue of the responsibility of the Member States once you become one, and secondly, the need for awareness that such a decision has a clear European Union dimension and that this issue needs to be addressed in the spirit of the values of the European Union.

We have taken on board what was said here today and what has been expressed in European Parliament resolutions. We will continue to be attentive to this issue. Listening to this debate, on behalf of Viviane Reding I would like to confirm that the European Commission will offer its assistance in addressing this important issue within the Treaties in a debate in which we will address the differences between citizenship on one hand and the residence permit on the other, a debate which will in no way question the prerogative of Member States or dilute Member State sovereignty.


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank the Members for this interesting debate. I have taken good note of the concerns and strong feelings expressed on this issue and, as I said in my opening remarks, I will certainly ensure that the Council is fully informed of your concerns.

However, as I also said at the outset, the Council has not discussed the specific issue which is the subject of this debate and has certainly not developed a standpoint on it, for the reasons which I have already explained.

It is up to the Member States individually to lay down their own rules governing nationality. There is no harmonisation of national legislation in this area. However, the Member States must ensure that their domestic legislation fully respects EU law. If there is any suggestion that this is not the case, that is a matter for the Commission, which is the institution responsible for ensuring respect for EU legislation.


  Elnök. − Hat állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt(1) juttattak el hozzám, melyet az eljárási szabályzat 110. cikkének (2) bekezdésével összhangban nyújtottak be.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2014. január 16-án, csütörtökön 12 órakor kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)


  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), în scris. – Cetățenia nu este o marfă care poate fi cumpărată sau vândută, este relația pe care persoana o are cu statul și cu ceilalți cetățeni. Acordarea cetățeniei statului membru înseamnă însă și acordarea cetățeniei europene cu toate drepturile conexe, drepturi care sunt recunoscute și care pot fi exercitate în toate statele membre ale Uniunii.

Vânzarea cetățeniei este un proces nedemocratic, injust, care creează inegalități și inechități. Cetățenia trebuie acordată doar când există o legătură veritabilă a cetățeanului respectiv cu statul al cărui cetățean dorește să devină. Pentru a obține cetățenia unui stat, trebuie să existe o rădăcină și o identitate, în caz contrar suveranitatea acelui stat este diluată. Pe această cale doresc să îmi exprim îngrijorarea cu privire la legea malteză de vânzare a cetățeniei, proiectul legislativ al guvernului maltez fiind unul inacceptabil și nedemocratic!

Sunt de asemenea profund dezamăgită de exemplul dat recent de unul din liderii politici europeni. Delegația română a Partidului Popular European respinge cu toata convingerea aceste afirmații. România nu vinde cetățenia română nimănui. Majoritatea covârșitoare a cazurilor în care România a acordat cetățenie moldovenilor reprezintă cazuri de redobândire a cetățeniei de către persoanele care au pierdut-o din motive neimputabile lor!


  György Schöpflin (PPE), in writing. Can citizenship be treated solely as a commodity? The present government of Malta seems to think so – an attitude that can fairly be described as market fundamentalism gone mad. Indeed, why stop with citizenship? Why not start selling everything else that makes money? The answer is obvious, or should be: some things cannot be treated as objects for sale and citizenship is one of them. Why? Because citizenship is at the heart of the relationship between citizens and their state. Make it a commodity and the relationship will erode. Can we envisage citizens who have no relationship with the state of which they are citizens? Because this is what we are dealing with. And a final point – Maltese citizenship is, at the same time, European citizenship and all the Member States of Europe are stakeholders in Malta. The Maltese Government should confront this reality.


(1)Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

Avviż legali - Politika tal-privatezza