Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Giovedì 21 gennaio 2016 - Strasburgo

12.1. Cittadini dell'UE detenuti in India, in particolare italiani, estoni e britannici

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad siedmioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie obywateli UE – w szczególności włoskich, estońskich i brytyjsckich – przetrzymywanych w Indiach (2016/2522(RSP)).

  Indrek Tarand, autor.– Täna käsitletava resolutsiooni osas esitas Roheliste fraktsioon juba aasta tagasi ettepanekud, kuid siis ei pidanud muud rühmad tarvilikuks toetada. Parem hilja kui mitte iial. Ning loodetavasti annab meie otsus tuge nii Euroopa välisteenistusele kui ka liikmesriikide valitsustele, et see intsident ükskord ometi lõpetataks. Rohelised olid ainsad, kes algusest peale ei hakanud Seaman Guard Ohio juhtumit seostama Itaalia mereväelaste juhtumiga, olles veendumusel, et lõppkokkuvõttes ei aita erinevate juhtumite seostamine kedagi, pigem tekitab lisaprobleeme.

Mul on hea meel, et Eesti saadikud EPP ja ALDE rühmades said sellest tõsiasjast viimaks aru. Ning ma tänan eriliselt kolleege Itaaliast – Lara Comit, Massimo Castaldot ja Antonio Panzerit, kes mõistsid Roheliste seisukohti ja võtsid neid arvesse. Kinnitan, et omakorda võivad nemad loota minu toetusele, kui Itaalia mereväelaste probleem parlamendi ette kerkib. Ja tänan ka India delegatsiooni juhti Geoffrey van Ordenit, kes oma ametiga seonduvalt igati aktiivselt probleemile lahendust on otsinud, ning Nirj Devat abi eest info hankimisel Indiast.

Eeltoodud põhjustel ei ühinenud Rohelised kompromissresolutsiooniga, vaid palusid hääletusele jätta ka enda teksti, mis on vaba asjatutest kiidusõnadest India kohtusüsteemi erilisuse suhtes (selliseid fraase paraku ühisresolutsioonis leidub). Meie siin parlamendis ei ole diplomaatilises teenistuses, kus teatud juhtudel viisakusfraasid ja meelitaminegi on asjakohased, meie resolutsioonid peavad sedastama tõsiasju, muidu pole neil soovitud mõju.

Mis puutub ühisresolutsiooni punkti kaks, siis see on lihtsalt naljakas. India on 1,2 miljardi elanikuga riik, Eestis on elanikke 1,2 miljonit. Ja meie 14 laevakaitsjat ei saa kuidagi põhjustada ohtu nii suurele riigile. Vangide vahetuse terminites tähendaks see, et Eesti peaks arreteerima 14 000 India kodanikku.

Sestap ma kutsuks kolleege üles olema poolt esimesena hääletusele mineva teksti suhtes, see on vana ja läbi kaalutud tekst, millel võib olla positiivne mõju olukorra lahendamiseks. Ning ma kutsuksin ka üles mõtlema sellele, et Ühendkuningriigi ja Eesti laevakaitsjad on ennekõike inimesed, kelle vabaks saamine ja koju jõudmine on palju olulisem kui üks või teine tekst.

  Mario Borghezio, Autore.– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio anche il mio gruppo, che ha voluto sostenere oggi in Aula una risoluzione volta a sostenere una grande questione nazionale del mio paese, l'Italia. La libertà per i due fucilieri di Marina, dei quali uno ancora detenuto, prigioniero in India ed entrambi ancora sub judice, in attesa dei risultati anche di un procedimento arbitrale, dai risultati non vicinissimi, che comunque vedono la soluzione alla loro vicenda ancora molto lontana, si pensa addirittura oltre il 2018.

Il presidente del Consiglio del nostro paese dice che l'Italia è un grande paese, giustissimo! E anche rendo onore a questa dichiarazione. Ma un grande paese difende i suoi soldati, specialmente se sono prigionieri all'estero e non mi pare si possa dire oggettivamente che sia stato fatto di più, se non una difesa debole e in qualche caso farraginosa e pasticciata.

In tutta questa delicata vicenda però c'è un potere che se è possibile appare ancora più debole e disastrato, il potere europeo. Anche nel caso dei due marò c'è da chiedersi "ma dove quest'Europa?". Dovrebbe difenderci dall'Isis e sembra non essere in grado di difendere due soldati, tra l'altro impegnati nella lotta, che tutti ci coinvolge, al crimine della pirateria internazionale. E direi che dovrebbe difendere anche un altro punto molto importante, quello del loro onore militare, perché queste accuse ledono il loro onore militare. Viene il dubbio che proprio questo possa essere una motivazione dello scarso impegno, forse perché l'onore militare dei suoi cittadini non interessa molto l'Unione europea. Viene da considerare anche questo aspetto.

Su una vicenda così annosa che solo ora, faticosamente, ha preso la via che forse poteva essere la via maestra dell'arbitrato internazionale. La voce dell'Europa, cara alto commissario Mogherini, appare flebile, in ogni caso ben poco efficace, visti i risultati, quando invece potrebbe stare, dovrebbe stare molto a cuore il destino di chi, come i nostri marò, difende un principio fondamentale di liberta sui mari. Beh, io credo che la Commissione debba rivalutare il complesso delle relazioni UE-India, a cominciare dalla sospensione di qualsiasi trattativa in corso con l'India, anzitutto l'accordo di libero scambio. Viva la Marina militare italiana, i suoi valori e l'onore dei suoi fucilieri di Marina!

  Isabella Adinolfi, Autore.– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, prima di tutto mi scuso perché l'autore non è presente e non è potuto essere qua per impegni improrogabili.

Ancora una volta il Parlamento europeo è chiamato a esprimersi su una violazione dei diritti umani. È il caso dell'arresto e della condanna di 35 cittadini britannici ed estoni. È il caso, come diceva il mio collega prima, anche dei due marò italiani. Ritengo a questo proposito giusto, oltre che doveroso, che gli Stati membri mostrino oggi quella stessa coesione mostrata in passato. Un'azione coordinata da parte dell'intera comunità internazionale, infatti, avrebbe potuto già da tempo incentivare e agevolare una rapida e soddisfacente soluzione della vicenda. A questo proposito esorto l'alto rappresentante Federica Mogherini ad attivarsi al più presto.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, author.– Mr President, the most effective response to piracy has proved to be the use of on-board security teams. These teams tend to live on what we might call mother ships, which are in effect floating armouries from which teams of guards are sent to join ships which require protection. The motor vessel Seaman Guard Ohio was just such a floating armoury and on 11 October 2013 it was apparently in Indian territorial waters when it was intercepted by the Indian Coastguard and escorted to the port of Tuticorin. Subsequently all 35 members of the crew, including 14 Estonians and six Britons, were charged, and they are the subject of this resolution. After some legal arguments and to our great consternation they were eventually brought to trial and given the maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Throughout this period of over two years they have been held in custody in India.

I have to say we respect India’s sovereignty over its territory and waters and the fact that it has a fine legal tradition. We know also that India has suffered from atrocious terrorist attacks, some mounted from the sea. We therefore understand very well Indian sensitivities. However, in this case the personnel concerned were no threat to India and carried out no acts of violence against Indian interests. On the contrary, they were engaged in counter-terrorism. These men, British and Estonian and others, have had to endure a difficult imprisonment and now have an uncertain future. Their families are in distress. We ask the Indian authorities with all respect to allow these men to return home, pending completion of the judicial processes and for a rapid and benign conclusion to this matter.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Nirj Deva (ECR), blue-card question.– Mr Van Orden, do you accept that it is quite absurd for the Indian authorities, in sentencing these people, to treat everyone the same?

On a ship the captain directs the course of action. He told the crew to get diesel from India, and the crew had to obey. If the crew had disobeyed they would have been shot for mutiny. If they obey, they are imprisoned by the Indian authorities, who do not seem to understand the distinction between a group of people obeying orders and not. Would Mr Van Orden agree with this?

  Geoffrey Van Orden, Author, blue-card answer.– You make a very fine point: I think we have seen some rather indiscriminate arrests going on, and it appears that the men concerned were not actually doing anything themselves that was offensive. They were caught up in circumstances outside of their control, as you rightly point out. For all these reasons, we ask for a rapid conclusion to this matter.

  Tunne Kelam, author.– Mr President, first of all, I would to like to thank my colleague, Mr Van Orden for his constructive and balanced attitude to preparing the text of this resolution. It was not easy, it was complicated, but we have reached this stage. I would also like to express my sympathy to two Italian seamen who are in a similar situation. Most of our Italian colleagues have insisted that their case should be separated from today’s discussion, but our sympathy and solidarity go to our Italian colleagues as well.

This is about the fate and future of 20 EU citizens – 14 Estonians and 6 British – who were engaged in anti-piracy operations and whose ship was detained, as my colleague Mr Van Orden mentioned, as long ago as October 2013. What is interesting is that they were not accused of robbery, armed attacks or illegal trade. Twenty EU citizens have been accused of entering Indian waters, having arms on board – which is natural for men engaged in anti-piracy operations – and buying gasoline from an unofficial source. That is all. I think it would be fair to assume that clearing up such accusations could have taken a few months. Instead, our co-citizens have waited nearly two and a half years, having been cleared from accusations by one Indian court and due to be sentenced this month by another court to five years’ imprisonment.

We are not here today to question India’s sovereignty or legal system, but this is a gesture of goodwill, in an atmosphere of mutual friendship and sympathy, to relieve the desperate situation of 20 men who have spent nearly two and a half years away from their families.

I do not think standing up for the fundamental rights of EU citizens is anything extraordinary. It is a sacred right and the duty of Members of Parliament to voice the tragedies and concerns of our fellow citizens. Supporting and protecting our citizens should never become dependent on diplomatic schedules or timetables.

  Urmas Paet, author.– Mr President, 14 Estonian and six British citizens, EU citizens, have been caught in an unfortunate situation in India for more than two years now. After being cleared of all charges in 2014, an appeal was lodged against that decision. Last week, in a sudden turn of events, the men were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment, effective immediately. A shock to everybody.

The point of this resolution is to draw the attention of India, as well as the EU, to this matter, so that a positive solution to this case can be found. We understand India’s concerns and sensitivities. But we ask India to understand our point of view. The men were engaged in anti-piracy duties, and on-board protection teams are currently the only effective measure against piracy. They were simply doing their job and are now facing imprisonment, being deprived of their freedom and kept far from their families. We are simply asking India to help us get our men home.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri, Autore.– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto non vorrei che rigidità burocratiche della Presidenza in qualche modo producessero delle spiacevoli ambiguità e letture sbagliate . Stiamo parlando di una risoluzione che nel titolo parla di italiani, ma in realtà la risoluzione non parla assolutamente di italiani, perché la parte relativa ai marò è stata stralciata. Quindi, vorrei che a conclusione di questo dibattito ciò che approviamo cambi anche il titolo, perché capisco che magari le comunicazioni non siano state efficaci, ma noi oggi stiamo parlando semplicemente delle guardie di sicurezza della nave di pattugliamento della Seaman Guard Ohio, tra cui 20 cittadini europei: 14 estoni e 6 britannici. Quindi vorrei che fosse chiaro questo aspetto.

Questa risoluzione non vuole essere un atto contro l'India, paese che rispettiamo e che ha antiche tradizioni democratiche, ma vogliamo richiamare l'esigenza dopo aver verificato la lunghezza e la contraddittorietà delle decisioni giudiziarie, che innanzitutto i cittadini che sono detenuti siano trattati nel pieno rispetto dei diritti umani e perché nell'ambito del processo di cooperazione tra Unione europea e India, si possano trovare le soluzioni positive a questa vicenda.

  Stanislav Polčák, za skupinu PPE.– Pane předsedající, já jsem přesvědčen vzhledem ke všem informacím, které zde již padly, že ti dotčení občané a námořníci nepředstavovali pro Indii žádné nebezpečí a že během těch měsíců a vlastně let se mohla tato otázka dávno vyjasnit. A proto považuju postup Indie za naprosto nepřijatelný. A do jisté míry stojí v kontrastu s tím, jakým způsobem postupuje Evropská unie. Musím připomenout, že v období mezi lety 2010 až 2013 vyčlenila Evropská unie na rozvojovou pomoc Indii se zaměřením na zdravotnictví, vzdělávání a implementaci cílů společného akčního plánu 470 milionů EUR. S ohledem na dosavadní přístup Indie si myslím, že toto naše jednání bychom měli také přehodnotit. Já jsem skálopevně přesvědčen, že bychom neměli podporovat, ani materiálně, režimy, které s evropskými občany nakládají takto hanebně.

  Marju Lauristin, fraktsiooni S&D nimel.– Aitäh, härra eesistuja, komisjonär, kolleegid. Mul on tõepoolest hea meel, et kõik grupid on täna üksmeelselt otsustanud olla solidaarsed nende meremeestega, kelle saatus teeb palju muret praegu kõigile Eesti inimestele, samuti nagu mitte ainult Eesti kodanike saatus, vaid ka Itaalia ja Ühendkuningriigi kodanike saatus. Me räägime palju solidaarsusest, räägime solidaarsusest Euroopa Liidu liikmete vahel, räägime solidaarsusest suurtes asjades, kuid solidaarsus on usutav ainult siis, kui ta kehtib ka kõige konkreetsema – iga üksiku inimese – tasandil!

See otsus, mida me täna teeme, see on tegelikult väga paljus ka sümboolse väärtusega. See näitab, et iga Euroopa Liidu kodanik saab uskuda Euroopa Liitu kui solidaarsusse kaitsesse, saab uskuda ka sellesse, et iga Euroopa Liidu kodanik on võrdne ja võrdselt väärt Euroopa Liidu kaitset.

  Nirj Deva, on behalf of the ECR Group.– Mr President, may I gently point out that I do not think we are in a quorum while the debate is taking place. However, I have already said in this discussion, in answer to Mr Van Orden’s speech, that what has happened in India is a bit of a travesty of justice.

What is even more important is to help the Indians to modernise their legal system. For two years the people who have been arrested have been on bail, without any financial assistance, some of them very ill and in poor shape. It has taken the Indian authorities two years to bring this matter to trial. The Indian legal system is groaning under the weight of numbers of cases, some of which have been ongoing for 20 years. You cannot have a democratic country with a justice system that does not function properly. If there is anything we can do to help India it is to modernise India’s legal structures.

  Yana Toom, fraktsiooni ALDE nimel.– Raskused – see, millega Eesti ja teiste riikide meremehed on pidanud silmitsi seisma – näitavad selgelt, et arengumaal võib sellisesse keerulisse olukorda sattuda iga eurooplane. Meile meeldib nimetada Indiat suurimaks demokraatiariigiks maailmas, aga me ei tohi unustada, et ainuüksi demokraatlike protseduuride olemasolu iseenesest ei garanteeri veel, et jälgitakse inimõigusi, ega taga paraku ka õiglast kohtumõistmist.

Ma ei taha anda hinnangut India kohtule nende kohalike seaduste kohaldamise õigsuse kohta, vaid juhin tähelepanu, et rahvusvahelise õiguse kohaselt on menetlus olnud liiga pikk. Samal ajal olid Eesti ja teiste riikide meremeeste elutingimused väga rasked. Mitte omades õigust töötada, elasid meremehed samal ajal praktiliselt võlgu ja selline olukord pani nende perede rahalise hakkamasaamise väga tugeva löögi alla.

See olukord näitas muu hulgas ka seda, et Euroopa riikide konsulaarteenuste võimalused on väga piiratud, vaatamata vajadusele aidata eurooplasi, kes sattuvad sarnaste aeglaselt jahvatava kohtusüsteemi veskikivide vahele väljaspool Eestit. Nii et me peame ilmselt sellest signaalist ka aru saama ja tegema kõik, et meie konsulaarabi oleks laiema haardega. Aitäh!

  Jonathan Arnott, on behalf of the EFDD Group.– Mr President, I have the greatest possible respect for the Indian people and the Indian Government. I fully respect the sovereignty of India, and I recognise the difficult and unusual situation which gave rise to the current cases.

We must not undermine the good relations between the UK and India, and in that spirit of cooperation I feel that it is appropriate for us to make certain requests. I recognise the Indian Government has legitimate concerns over illegally held weapons and I understand their reasonably held worries since the events in Mumbai in 2008, but as far as I can see the British citizens involved – including Nick Dunn from my constituency in Ashington – also had a reasonable belief: they believed that they were acting in accordance with the law. They believed that they were fighting against piracy, working for an American company. They did not believe they were doing anything contrary to the law or to the best interests of India, nor did they even necessarily know that the weapons were illegally held. In such a case, I really wonder whether their continued imprisonment really serves any public interest. I therefore call upon the Indian government to review this case and to free those British, Italian and Estonian citizens who have been caught up in a situation not of their making.

Pytania z sali

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è passato un anno da quando abbiamo approvato a larghissima maggioranza una risoluzione sul caso dei marò italiani Latorre e Girone, arrestati in India nel 2012 e per i quali non si intravede la fine di questo lungo incubo. In vista dell'udienza dell'Aia davanti al tribunale arbitrale, si è deciso di non includere il caso nella risoluzione. Io avrei preferito che ne avessimo parlato, non vorrei infatti che questa decisione possa essere interpretata come un atto di debolezza dell'Europa.

Nella risoluzione che abbiamo votato qualche mese fa abbiamo ribadito, in modo netto, che la loro detenzione senza accusa rappresenta "una grave violazione dei diritti umani". Per i marò italiani, così come per tutti i cittadini europei detenuti in India, l'Unione europea è chiamata a onorare il suo impegno per la tutela piena e concreta dei diritti fondamentali. Chiedo maggiore determinazione per la soluzione della controversia. L'India deve sapere che qualunque decisione voglia prendere, questa decisione avrà un impatto sulle relazioni con l'Unione europea.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, znam da se jako trudite i želite svakome pristupiti na njihovom jeziku. Molim vas, kada se obraćate zastupnicima iz Hrvatske, nemojte upotrebljavati riječ zamjenik, jer to znači deputy. To nije pravilan izraz i treba reći zastupnik. Molim Vas da nas oslovljavate riječju zastupnik.

Želim naglasiti apsurd ove situacije u kojoj su ljudi zaista htjeli štititi sebe i druge u antipiratskim, praktički antiterorističkim poslovima, a na kraju su sami nastradali. Nastradali su na najgori mogući način tako da danas čame u tamnici, možda će tamo ostati i 5 godina, ako mi ne uspijemo u našim diplomatskim akcijama.

Druga stvar koju sam htio naglasiti je da zbog moguće kontraproduktivnosti iz naslova izbacimo pitanje talijanskih marinaca, jer ih se uopće ne spominje u rezoluciji, dakle nema ih u tekstu rezolucije. Mislim da nije dobro da uopće budu navedeni, zato što se na drugi način želi njima pomoći.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Bár az úgynevezett EU-szkeptikus vagy EU-realista képviselők közé tartozom, büntetőjogászként annak mégis nagyon örülök, hogy akkor, ha egy európai ország állampolgára fogságba kerül, és büntetőeljárás alá kerül valamilyen harmadik országban, esetleg messzi-távoli tájon, távoli országban, akkor az Európai Unió is védelmet ad számára – nem csak a saját, hagyományos konzuli védelmét élvezheti. Erre felhívom akkor magyar polgártársaimnak vagy honfitársaimnak is a figyelmét. Ugyanakkor Deva úrral vitatkoznom kell abban, hogy mi tudnánk példát mutatni Indiának abban, hogy az előzetes letartóztatást minden európai uniós országban rendeltetésszerűen alkalmaznák.

Most pl. nekem van olyan magyar honfitársam, Beke István személyében, aki egy társával együtt harmadik hónapja úgy van előzetes letartóztatásban – nyilvánvalóan politikai okokból – Romániában, hogy semmiféle bizonyítékot a hatóságok ez alatt az idő alatt nem produkáltak vele szemben. Illetőleg a hozzátartozóival nem tarthatja a kapcsolatot, mert egyfajta előzetes büntetésként alkalmazzák az előzetes letartóztatást. Tehát EU-n belül is van mit fejlődnünk!

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).

  Nirj Deva (ECR), blue-card question.– Will you accept that, in modern times, to keep people incarcerated for two years without bring them to trial is not acceptable? That is all I am saying: that it took two years for the Indian authorities to bring these people to trial and to sentence them, and I made the point that some of them should not have been sentenced because they were carrying out orders and if they had not carried out those orders they would have been shot for mutiny. Would it not be correct to say that, under habeas corpus and other matters, they should have been brought to trial sooner?

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Kékkártyás válasz.– Teljes mértékben egyetértek Deva képviselőtársammal. Tűrhetetlen az, hogy két évig tartanak embereket előzetes letartóztatásban. Ennyi idő alatt már bőven vádat kellene emelni. Nagyon fontos alapelv a „habeas corpus”. Én csupán azt mondtam, és sajnálattal mondtam, hogy az Európai Unión belül is vannak országok és vannak jogesetek, amikor azt tapasztaljuk, hogy két évig vagy annál is tovább vannak előzetes letartóztatásban európai polgárok – amit felháborítónak tartok és úgy érzem, hogy tenni kell valamit ez ellen. És úgy érzem, és úgy gondolom, hogy egyetértünk ebben.

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question.– Ms Morvai, you said that you are a criminal lawyer, and you talked about a Hungarian who is in prison in Romania. Do you know what charges this citizen faces? At the same time, there is an agreement between Hungary and Romania, as European Union states, to cooperate on these kinds of issues. It is not the same thing as European Union citizens being detained in India.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Kékkártyás válasz.– Tisztában vagyok vele, hogy a vád terrorcselekmény előkészülete. És ez még felháborítóbbá teszi azt, hogy ezek az emberek harmadik hónapja vannak előzetes letartóztatásban ilyen súlyos vádak alapján úgy, hogy a román hatóságok semmiféle bizonyítékot ez alatt az idő alatt nem produkáltak – egyes pont. Kettes pont: bármilyen súlyos vád is van valaki ellen, Európában joga lenne a hozzátartozóival a kapcsolatot tartani. Tekintettel arra, hogy az előzetes letartóztatás nem tekinthető előzetes, előre hozott büntetésnek.

(Koniec pytań z sali)

  Neven Mimica, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.– Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion leading up to the European Parliament’s resolution today. We share the concerns raised by many of you. Two years of uncertainty have contributed to the agony of all involved. We have followed closely the situation of the Estonian and UK security guards, liaising with the Estonian and UK authorities, as it pertains to the protection of EU citizens.

This case has been raised by the EU with Indian interlocutors several times over the last few months. This case has a negative bearing on the global fight against piracy at a time when we, the international community, should foster cooperation and focus on countering new threats.

We have recently learned that a Tamil Nadu court has sentenced the guards to five years in prison and a fine, reversing the lower court’s acquittal. We understand that they are now considering an appeal to the court’s decision; this came as unexpected news. Allow me to fully subscribe to what the Estonian Foreign Minister, Ms Marina Kaljurand, has said: ‘From a human standpoint, I was undoubtedly hoping for a positive outcome, but regardless of the verdict we will continue to act in the name of returning the men home’.

A solution must be found at the earliest. We will continue to liaise with Estonian and UK authorities in the coming weeks, during the next phases of the judicial process. As regards the case of the two Italian marines, while fully respecting the content and scope of the European Parliament resolution to be voted on today, I wish to reiterate that a solution must be found at the earliest. The European Union has been regularly raising this issue for the past four years at all levels with Indian interlocutors, always with the same message, advocating a rapid and consensual solution in respect with international law. Respect of international law means not only full compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but also with the UN conventions on human rights. The decision to initiate an international arbitration in the framework of UNCLOS is consistent with international law and a step in the right direction.

You can rest assured that we will continue to monitor the situation of all EU citizens under detention in India and coordinate further actions with the Member States.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się po debacie.