Cjeloviti tekst 
Doslovno izvješće
Srijeda, 15. ožujka 2017. - Strasbourg Revidirano izdanje

15. Preispitivanje Uredbe o statutu i financiranju europskih političkih stranaka i europskih političkih zaklada (rasprava)
Videozapis govora

  La Présidente. – L’ordre appelle le débat sur la question orale à la Commission sur la révision du règlement relatif au statut et au financement des partis politiques européens et des fondations politiques européennes, de Danuta Maria Hübner, au nom de la commission des affaires constitutionnelles (O-000007/2017 – B8-0205/2017) (2017/2550(RSP)).


  Danuta Maria Hübner, author. – Madam President, for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament the revision of the regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations is indeed a matter of urgency. You probably know that a year ago the Presidents of three European political parties – the European People’s Party, the Party of European Socialists and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe – asked the Commission in a letter to present a legislative proposal amending this regulation. Since the beginning of this year, this regulation is now fully applicable.

The Presidents requested the Commission to examine and initiate a review of the regulation on three substantial provisions related to efficiency, credibility and legitimacy. Those are the reduction to 7.5% of the 15% co—financing obligation, the increase of the minimum representation in the European Parliament to three members to qualify for receiving public funding, and the prevention of cross—party membership. In the reply the President of the Commission, though giving preference to first gathering some experience on the implementation of the regulation, also stated that the Commission was open to discussing the issues raised by the three co-signatories representing the main existing European political parties. In the meantime, Parliament’s Secretary—General also presented the report to the Bureau of the Parliament. We proposed three amendments, but there are many more issues that require reflection, for example the possibility of limiting contributions in kind, allowing for the possibility to finance referendum campaigns or to provide for an assessment of the financial capacity of the parties before any application for funding, to mention just a few.

After intense discussions, my committee, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, decided to present this oral question in order to raise awareness of this important issue. Let me say that we see that the new regulation ensures greater transparency and accountability of European political parties. However, there are shortcomings that need to be addressed. Let us be clear about one thing: this oral question is not about asking for more money, but for the money to be spent efficiently, correctly and with respect for the values of the European Union.

This is not about banning parties with critical opinions on the Union. We believe in democracy, and in a democratic system every person is entitled to freedom of speech and opinion. However, those who do not respect European values as they are stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and engage in clear racist, undemocratic and discriminatory actions and behaviour, should not fund their actions with European funds.

We may understand the Commission’s reluctance to initiate a revision of a regulation whose implementation has just started. However, I would also like to remind the Commission that, on a number of occasions, it stated very clearly that incentives for speculative behaviour should under no circumstances be granted. In our view it is becoming more and more evident from cases brought to our attention by the press that abuses with, and also misuse of, European funds are happening far too often. The shortcomings that have been signalled in the oral question should be swiftly addressed, in our view, in order to guarantee that the highest standards of probity are respected. We should indeed reflect whether one—man parties really contribute to forming European political awareness and expressing the political will of citizens of the Union.

But, besides elections, referenda are also an important instrument to express the will of the population in a democratic, organised and well—informed way. The current regulation prohibits any funding linked to referendums. It makes it impossible for parties and foundations to take positions in public on issues of fundamental importance for the future of citizens. This is in clear contradiction with the European Parliament’s position expressed in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the European political parties’ participation in referendum campaigns when the referendums concerned are directly linked to issues relating to the European Union. We could reflect whether it would not be advisable to allow funding referendum campaigns on issues relating to the European Union where political parties can help form European political awareness. We would therefore like to hear from the Commission about its intentions, and we also urge it to react quickly to our request if this possible revision is to be, preferably, adopted before the next European elections in 2019.

This regulation falls under the codecision procedure, so I would also like to ask the Commission whether it could inform Parliament on any exchanges it has undertaken with the Council in order to evaluate the openness of the other co—legislator towards this possible revision. I regret that we cannot ask the Council this question directly.


  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, this is an important question. The Commission is a strong supporter of a vibrant, dynamic system of political parties active in a European-level public space. This is important in our European Union based on democracy, as we have just heard. It contributes to the democratic foundations of our work together, including some of the bases for the election of the Commission President and the appointment of the Commission. We therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss the question of European political parties and foundations today, in particular – as has just been noted – the regulation adopted by Parliament and the Council in November 2014 is now coming into effect.

The new regulation brings into play important innovations. These include a European-level legal personality for parties and foundations, and a more robust set of governance arrangements, including a new authority for European political parties and foundations, and enhanced safeguards to ensure respect for fundamental European values by all parties registered under the scheme. On this last point, it is now a condition for registration as a European party or foundation that the entity concerned respects, both in its programme and in its activities, the values on which the European Union is founded: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the right of people belonging to minorities. This clarity is most welcome.

Furthermore, at any time after registration, Parliament, the Council or the Commission may ask the new authority to verify whether a particular party or foundation continues to comply with these requirements. After consulting a new permanent committee of independent eminent persons, the authority can decide to deregister a party or foundation which is found not to comply, unless Parliament or the Council disagrees. This is an important standing safeguard.

So the new regulation is a welcome and substantive improvement to the rules governing political parties and a good defence instrument for our European values. Beyond this, the Commission has taken good note of the suggestions for further possible changes to the regulation, which are outlined in the oral question in front of us today (the initiative of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs). We take these suggestions very seriously. Even good rules can be further improved. The Commission is fully prepared to assist Parliament with well-reflected initiatives and proposals. Of course, in line with our better regulation principles, our normal practice – as you know – is to evaluate existing legislation before proposing changes, and to assess fully the potential impact of such changes. As President Tajani always says, quality is often as important as speed.

I am pleased that the regulation includes a very early review clause with first Parliament and then the Commission being obliged to report on its implementation in the coming months. The Commission’s report will be accompanied by proposals for any legislative changes that appear necessary. The Commission is more than willing to engage, in depth, with Parliament and the Council to monitor closely the early stages of implementing the new regulation and to reflect together on whether early proposals for change might be justified.

The Commission will be very open, if you agree, to setting up quickly an interinstitutional process – perhaps under the auspices of the new authority – to review developments, assess suggestions from stakeholders, and hopefully converge on a common approach. This would also help pave the way for the formal reviews that must in any case take place next year.

Turning to the specific suggestions, I would like to share some initial comments while stressing again that the Commission rules nothing out at this stage. First, on reducing the co-financing requirement. In 2012, the Commission, taking up a request from Parliament, proposed just such a change. Unfortunately, this met with strong opposition in the Council and was not included in the final text adopted by the co-legislators. As things stand, it is not clear that a new proposal on these lines would meet a different fate.

Second, on increasing the level of representation required in this House before applying for EU funding. We need to consider carefully the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, since the rules on party funding should not tilt the balance in favour of incumbents, compared with new political movements, provided of course these new movements also uphold European values.

Third, on cross-membership. The issue here is whether MEPs from a national party which is affiliated to a European party should be able to be members, on an individual basis, of different European parties. The new regulation already makes clear that in such circumstances, the individual membership does not count towards the representation threshold for funding of a European party. Could a similar restriction apply to the threshold for registration? We can think about it and examine the potential consequences. On the other hand, we are not aware of an objective basis for limiting choices of MEPs in this regard when their national party is not affiliated to a European one.

Fourth, is the question of whether European parties should be able to finance campaigns for national referendums on EU issues. The Commission would like to hear the views of Parliament and Member States on this important but sensitive matter. As concerns several more technical issues such as a financial capacity criterion, we are happy to take a closer look. Parliament could also see how far its own implementing rules could be adjusted to help within the framework of the existing regulation.

Finally, we see many arguments against allowing reserve-building by parties and foundations. This would seem to go against the budgetary principles of annuality and sound financial management, and would increase risks to the control of EU contributions by making it more difficult to identify and correct possible irregularities. It would make it more likely that, should there be irregular spending, it would have to be recovered after European elections rather than before, which could prove sensitive for reasons we can all imagine. So at this stage, we continue to think the existing n+2 rule strikes the right balance. As I said, the Commission is keen to engage on all these issues with Parliament and with the Council, so we look forward to hearing all of your views in today’s debate.


  György Schöpflin, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I would particularly like to thank the Commissioner for a very thorough exposition of the Commission’s position. I think we can all agree on two things: without political parties democracy as we currently understand it is inconceivable. The running of political parties requires ever greater outlays in order to ensure that voters are properly informed of their choices. So if politics is a costly pastime, say, at the Member State level, how much more expensive is it at the European level? And as far as this Parliament is affected it is this European level that matters.

What we are focusing on today is the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations. When it comes to funding, the European political parties are currently required to secure 15% of their financing from their own resources. In the light of experience, this 15% should be reduced and the appropriate regulation be amended accordingly.

Then the definition of a European political party should be looked at again. Currently such a party can claim support from Parliament on the basis of having one elected MEP. This seems too low a threshold and should well be increased.

Finally, there is the perplexing situation where the European Parliament ends up financing parties or foundations that proclaim values entirely at variance with those of the European Union and indeed European integration. In a democracy the voicing of such views, repellent or otherwise, can be acceptable but it really is hard to see why the European Parliament should be subsidising political forces that are trying to ensure that it is eliminated. So, turkeys voting for an early Christmas? Well, not exactly, but I can see a certain family resemblance.


  Claudia Țapardel, în numele grupului S&D. – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, partidele au un rol foarte important în contextul politic actual și sunt convinsă că toate instituțiile europene sunt conștiente de acest lucru. Regulamentul privind statutul și finanțarea partidelor și fundațiilor politice europene trebuie revizuit și mă bucur că cele mai mari grupuri din Parlamentul European au hotărât să solicite Comisiei corectarea unor aspecte problematice.

Pentru început, mă refer la cuantumul de 15% al obligației de finanțare a bugetului partidelor și fundațiilor europene, care trebuie diminuat. Menținerea acestei cerințe va duce la constrângeri bugetare pentru partidele și fundațiile europene într-un moment în care acestea ar trebui să fie active în contracararea euroscepticismului aflat în creștere. În general, partidele europene primesc această sumă fie de la partidele din statele naționale, prin cotizațiile propriilor membri, fie de la guvernele naționale. Trebuie avut însă în vedere că numărul membrilor de partid, în toată Europa, este în scădere, iar finanțările de la guvernele naționale au fost reduse în majoritatea statelor membre.

Un argument pentru care nu putem amâna revizuirea regulamentului este și apropierea scrutinului european din anul 2019, iar o campanie de mare amploare poate asigura creșterea interesului și a prezenței la vot a cetățenilor. Aceasta presupune și necesitatea de a finanța campania candidaților propuși pentru funcția de președinte al Comisiei Europene. De asemenea, trebuie luată în considerare și finanțarea altor campanii și referendumuri cu impact la nivel european.

În concluzie, deși au mare nevoie de finanțare, partidele europene nu dispun de fonduri suficiente. În plus, pentru a spori transparența și a evita abuzurile, un deputat din Parlamentul European ar trebui să fie membru al unui singur partid politic european.

Nu în ultimul rând, ar trebui modificată și cerința cu privire la reprezentarea în Parlamentul European a partidelor care primesc finanțare. Pentru a preveni fragmentarea scenei politice europene, numărul de reprezentanți în Parlament al unui partid european trebuie crescut la minimum trei. Este evident că resursele pe care trebuie să le împartă partidele și fundațiile în cadrul prezentului regulament sunt limitate, și de aici rezultă următoarea situație: cu cât avem mai multe partide și fundații, cu atât mai puține fonduri va primi fiecare.

Dragi colegi, trebuie să ne asigurăm că partidele și fundațiile vor putea să își finanțeze activitățile, respectând totodată toate normele de transparență în cheltuirea fondurilor publice. De aceea, solicităm revizuirea regulamentului existent atât în interesul partidelor europene, cât și al Uniunii Europene în ansamblul său.


  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Też cieszę się z tego, że będzie dokonany przegląd regulacji w zakresie finansowania partii politycznych i europejskich fundacji. Chciałbym, żeby ten przegląd był oparty na właściwych, rzetelnych kryteriach. Mówiąc najkrócej, mamy prawo, a nawet obowiązek walczyć z patologią, ale pod pretekstem walki z patologią nie wolno nam naruszać wolności politycznej partii politycznych i ich niezależności. Jeśli znane są fakty korupcji – powinny być wyjawione, jeśli znane są fakty istnienia fikcyjnych partii europejskich – powinny być wyjawione i powinniśmy zastanowić się, jak temu przeciwdziałać. Ale całość regulacji powinna sprzyjać wolności i pluralizmowi politycznemu i partie mające pozytywną misję, działające bez zarzutu, bez patologii powinny cieszyć się nieskrępowaną wolnością i wsparciem ze strony instytucji europejskich. Walka z patologią – tak, ale przy ochronie wolności.


  António Marinho e Pinto, em nome do Grupo ALDE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o financiamento público dos partidos políticos europeus reveste-se da máxima importância para o Estado de Direito, mas gera tensões conflituantes dentro do sistema democrático.

Por um lado, as subvenções públicas aos partidos diminuem a necessidade do seu financiamento privado, e, consequentemente, a propensão para a corrupção, ou seja para a prolação de decisões públicas em troca de pagamentos ou vantagens privadas. Mas, por outro lado, o financiamento público dos partidos gera uma enorme aptidão para transformar a luta política numa atividade profissional, que se torna atrativa pela suas remunerações e benefícios pessoais e não pelas suas finalidades intrínsecas de serviço público e de cidadania.

A profissionalização da atividade política tem como consequência mais nefasta a sobreposição ou prevalência dos interesses profissionais dos agentes políticos sobre os interesses coletivos dos cidadãos que representam. Além disso, essa profissionalização favorece a nebulosidade e a opacidade e não a transferência. A transparência não só na atribuição dos financiamentos, mas também na maneira como os partidos políticos gastam essas verbas.

A melhor resposta para prevenir esses perigos está mais na criação de mecanismos que garantam eficazmente essa transparência, bem como o escrutínio público efetivo dos gastos dos partidos, do que em ceder às pressões ou pulsões populistas para reduzir ou dificultar o acesso ao financiamento público por parte dos partidos democráticos europeus.

O dinheiro dos contribuintes europeus só será bem gasto se for usado apenas na consecução dos fins públicos que determinaram a cobrança de impostos aos cidadãos.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))


  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Mr Marinho, would you agree with me that the limiting of the freedom of speech and what people can say – no matter how appalling it may be, and I would go to the barricades personally to defend the rights of no matter whom, communists, fascists, anyone to say what they want to say – do you think that limiting the freedom of speech, and people in this Parliament making decisions about what is correct and what is not correct, and what is part of the European project and what is not part of the European project – do you not feel that this means the lights of liberty and freedom of speech are going out all over Europe, and this place cannot call itself the mother of European democracy?




  António Marinho e Pinto (ALDE), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Sou um indefetível defensor da liberdade de expressão e sou-o há mais de cinquenta anos, desde que me conheço como cidadão, primeiro contra a ditadura fascista em Portugal e depois contra outras tentativas de a limitar.

Neste princípio, Senhor Coburn, eu adoto a máxima de Montesquieu, ou melhor de Voltaire, segundo a qual, embora não concorde com nada do que o senhor diz, bater—me—ei com todas as minhas forças para que o senhor o possa dizer em liberdade. A liberdade de expressão é a irmã gémea da responsabilidade e os abusos que na luta política se possam cometer em matéria de liberdade de expressão devem ser combatidos politicamente e não administrativamente ou com recurso a tribunais.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Es ist schon ein ungewöhnlicher Vorgang, dass europäische politische Parteien eine Verordnung geändert haben wollen, die ihre Arbeit regeln soll, aber zum Zeitpunkt der Beanstandung noch gar nicht in Kraft getreten ist. Zwei Gründe sehe ich dafür: zum einen die Ignoranz der damaligen Berichterstatterin, die es in der letzten Wahlperiode sehr schwer machte, das Dossier substanziell mit dem Rat erfolgreich zu verhandeln. Zum anderen ändern sich die Rahmenbedingungen für das Agieren der europäischen politischen Parteien gerade deutlich, und damit kommen auch neue Zielsetzungen auf. Sich als Europäisches Parlament hier eine Position zu erarbeiten, wäre nur natürlich. Ein solches gemeinsames Meinungsbild gibt es aber noch nicht.

Unbeantwortet bleiben deshalb auch folgende Fragen: Wollen wir wirklich, dass europäische politische Parteien in offene politische Prozesse in Mitgliedstaaten eingreifen? Wollen wir wirklich, dass Parteien, denen umfangreiche Mittel zugestanden wurden, unter der Vorgabe, ihre Eigenmittel nicht aufbringen zu können, jetzt noch mehr beanspruchen? Welches politische Erfordernis hat sich neu ergeben, im Hinblick auf das Verbot des Gewinnzwecks letzteren nunmehr definieren zu lassen? Angesichts auseinanderstrebender Dynamiken in der EU halte ich es vielmehr für zentral, zu schauen, wo gerade die europäischen politischen Parteien mit den ihnen neu eingeräumten Rechten stehen.

Und ich habe Ihnen sehr aufmerksam zugehört, Herr Kommissar. Sie haben viele substantielle Fragen angesprochen. Welchen konstruktiven Beitrag zur Zukunft der EU leisten Sie? Das ist aber eine politische Fragestellung und entzieht sich der Regelungsverantwortung der Kommission. Wo also sind die Initiativen zum Ausbau des Initiativrechts und des Untersuchungsrechts des Europäischen Parlaments?


  Josep-Maria Terricabras, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, five points:

1. We are very reluctant to initiate a revision of a regulation which just entered into force two months ago and without a proper assessment. In fact the review clause is foreseen for the new regulation in 2018; there is no need for a revision now.

2. The main concern of some colleagues is to prevent the misuse of European funds, which has been detected as a practice of some extreme right wing parties; we completely agree with that. Mainly, we have to make it impossible for cross membership of MEPs belonging to the same party. We have to avoid being cheated by them. However, some of the proposals may put at risk the existence and funding of small pro-European parties; not to count members of the regional parliaments as elected members of a European party would also be negative as a representation contagion. We have to include them, since some measures would harm the political diversity and representation of citizens.

3. We agree with the reduction of the cofinancing obligation under 15%. Please Commissioner, try again.

4. The proposal to increase the number of MEPs in order to register and finance as an EU party could eliminate small groups in the Chamber.

5. We need to accomplish all with our democratic duties, all the parties.


  Jonathan Arnott, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, democracy is democracy is democracy. The true test of the strength of your commitment to democracy is what happens when people start expressing views that you do not like. We have heard some pretty awful examples, frankly, of the expression of freedom of speech right here. This House contains everything from communists to fascists – vile views from far-right to far-left. When we hear things like Korwin-Mikke’s views on women and equal rights, I do not want to defeat them through suppression and penalties. I want them to be defeated at the ballot box. When we hear communism or fascism expressed in this Chamber, or frankly anywhere else, I want it defeated in public democratic debate.

And so it is, I think with the European political parties. Weber wants to state-fund them, but only if he likes their views of the European Union. Well, state-funding views that you like and suppressing those that you do not that is not Voltaire. That is Orwell.

I think a lot of people who are pro-EU fear eurosceptic views and fear the popularity of eurosceptic views. But you cannot stop an idea whose time has come, and our time came on 23 June last year. I always try to take a broader perspective, to ask what it would be like if the boot was on the other foot. I just wonder, from the UK, I am a unionist, but could you imagine the uproar if the British government had treated the Scottish nationalists in this way? I do not agree with their secessionist mantra, but is the right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future, as they recently did in a referendum. If we in the UK treated the Scottish nationalists in the way that this place treats eurosceptics, then the people would be up in arms. It is a testament to how ineffective those European political parties are that nobody even notices. I would rather scrap them altogether, stop pouring taxpayers’ money at it. Which is it going to be: Orwellian groupthink or democracy?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))


  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich möchte mich bei der Präsidentin sehr herzlich bedanken. Wir haben ja eine direkte demokratische Entscheidung in Großbritannien gehabt: Das Volk hat mit einer kleinen Mehrheit entschieden, die Demokratie in Europa zu verlassen. Jetzt möchte ich Sie fragen: Warum sind Sie eigentlich noch hier in diesem Haus? Wieso halten Sie hier noch Reden, wo doch bei einer direkten Abstimmung entschieden wurde, dass Sie die Demokratie in Europa verlassen? Und hier wollen Sie uns über Demokratie belehren – da möchte ich fragen: Was ist da der Hintergrund?


  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card answer. – Well, you say a minority but, of course, a majority voted in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. If you want to know why we are still here, I think that is a question that should be put to Theresa May and to the British Government, which still has not got round to invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is not our fault that the Government is dragging its heels, and it is not our fault that the Government is taking so long, but every day that we are still here, we are still paying into the EU budget. We have recently talked in this House about guidelines for the 2018 EU budget. We are going to be paying for that through our taxes, and so of course we have a right to have our say.


  Gerolf Annemans, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Wij maken ons als ENF-Fractie bijzonder ongerust, niet over de technische bepalingen, waar we het mee eens kunnen zijn en die een verbetering zijn van het systeem. Wij zijn wel ongerust over die politieke bepaling die hier wordt opgenomen in zeer algemene termen. “Fundamental values”, dat is de term die geplakt wordt op iets waarvan wij vrezen dat het door mensen als Manfred Weber en consorten onmiddellijk zal toegepast worden op de manier waarop de ENF politiek kan functioneren. Aan die voorwaarden mogen geen andere voorwaarden gekoppeld worden dan technische vereisten, nooit politieke voorwaarden.

Wij zullen die bepaling niet kunnen goedkeuren tenzij wij garanties hebben dat wij EU-kritisch mogen blijven, dat wij ook kritisch mogen blijven ten aanzien van de inhoudelijke politiek van de Europese Unie, meer bepaald de immigratiepolitiek, en dat deze bepaling hier niet wordt ingezet om onze werking onmogelijk te maken. We hebben, op basis van onze verkiesbaarheid en ons verkozen zijn, evenveel recht op dat geld als om het even wie hier.


  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, within the last 24 hours, the most shocking action that I have ever seen in this Parliament has happened. This is quite blatantly an attempt to block other countries from following the route that the United Kingdom took with Brexit, and it is an attack on free speech and views expressed there. Now you can try to shut down what you believe to be the eurosceptic oxygen that this Parliament has, in terms of the ENF Group, the EFDD Group, and people like myself who stand as ‘non—inscrit’ and want to make the points that we continually do.

Bear in mind where the frustration and the irritation comes from within voters. There are two points: one is that this institution, and the Council and the Commission, have shown themselves to be completely incapable of considering a change of direction or of invoking any change. That frustration and irritation leads to a eurosceptic voice that seeks representation in this Parliament. This Parliament has no right to start redrawing a map in terms of funding and resourcing just because it wants to shut down euroscepticism across the European continent. Now whether we like it or not, Brexit has happened and it could well be that the Netherlands follow suit, or that France takes a position on withdrawal from the euro, for instance. To try to block individuals – citizens – who have got every right for representation in this Parliament, is just absolutely unacceptable.


  Rainer Wieland (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Um kurz auf die Vorrednerin einzugehen: Wir werden hoffentlich alle das, was die Vorrednerin unter euroskeptischem Sauerstoff versteht, nicht als nationalistischen Stickstoff erleben müssen, der auf uns zukommt. Wir werden bei der vorliegenden Debatte sicherlich noch lange Diskussionen führen, was die Voraussetzungen für eine Partei in immaterieller Hinsicht sein sollen.

Ich werbe dafür, dass wir die schweren handwerklichen Fehler, auf die Herr Scholz richtigerweise hingewiesen hat, beseitigen. Es geht darum, dass wir nicht mehr zulassen sollten, dass Abgeordnete, die für eine nationale Partei kandidiert haben und gewählt worden sind, die in keiner europäischen Struktur drin sind, munter eine Struktur nach der anderen gründen können. Das hat sich jetzt schon gezeigt, dass das gemacht wird, und dem müssen wir Einhalt gebieten.

Es sollte künftig nicht mehr möglich sein, dass zur Gründung einer Partei ein einzelner Abgeordneter der zweiten oder dritten nationalen Ebene genügt, die eben behauptet sie werde bei der nächsten Europawahl antreten. Das sind Fehlentwicklungen, die wir nicht dulden sollten. Wir sollten weiterhin klarstellen, dass von denjenigen die Gelder falsch verwenden – ich will gar nicht sagen, in betrügerischer Absicht –, das Geld auch zurückgefordert werden können muss, und dass wir nicht anschließend feststellen, dass die Partei gar nicht mehr da oder insolvent ist. Deshalb war es heute ein wichtiger Schritt, dass der Europäische Gerichtshof es für zulässig gehalten hat, dass dieses Haus im gegebenen Fall, im begründeten Fall auch Bankbürgschaften verlangt, um sicherzustellen, dass wir falsch verwendete Gelder auch zurückbekommen.

Und schließlich ein letzter Gedanke: Bei den Referenden glaube ich nicht, dass wir so tun sollten, als ob wir aseptische Wesen sind und wir mit dem Skalpell Parteiaktivitäten nach der politischen Ebene auseinanderfieseln können wie ein Filet. Das wird nicht gehen – wir sollten politische Parteien haben können.


  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señora presidenta. Yo me sumo a la petición de que hay que reformar el Reglamento, y lo voy a hacer claramente diciendo que ya tenemos comprobado que hay fundaciones y partidos políticos, que son de corte fascista, que se están aprovechando del dinero europeo. Y yo me opongo a eso.

Porque una cosa es que la democracia respete todas las voluntades políticas y el pluralismo, cosa que es evidente: la democracia es la defensa de las minorías. Pero, atención, atención, no todas las ideologías son respetables y no todos los objetivos políticos son legítimos, señorías.

Yo creo que tenemos que dejar muy claro que hay ideologías de odio, que hay ideologías de intolerancia, que hay ideologías que discriminan a las personas, que hay ideologías que defienden la violencia, y eso no se puede permitir en una democracia. Y mi argumento en favor de esa reforma es que no permitamos que se aprovechen del dinero europeo. Claramente, quiero dejarlo muy claro.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento))


  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you for allowing me that. With all due respect, you are obviously a socialist and left wing, and I do not agree with your views at all, but I would die to defend your right to say what you want to say. I mean that quite clearly. I would go to the barricades to defend freedom of speech. Now, who are you to say what is respectable and what is not respectable? When does that become ‘statethink’? When does that become an Orwellian nightmare? I have a great fear. We are leaving this place and we have the House of Commons, but I fear that this place is going to turn into something bad. Could you tell me why that is not the case?


  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Hay unos mecanismos en la ley para establecer qué es respetable o no, pero yo quiero dejarle muy claro que yo también me moriré por defender sus ideas, por defender que usted las pueda decir.

Lo que no puedo permitir es que el virus antidemocrático, que cuestiona los valores que el suelo cívico de la Unión Europea ha construido, sea cuestionado por las propias ideologías que combaten el odio o la discriminación.

Yo no puedo admitir que una persona, en nombre de un partido, diga que el que mató a cincuenta o a ochenta socialistas en una isla de Noruega estaba haciendo algo correcto. Yo no puedo permitir eso. Y esto es lo que está en juego en este momento.


  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Madam President, I have the honour of speaking here as the President of one of those European political parties, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (ACRE), which is the youngest, yet fastest growing, party. It is a serious party and a real party with the third largest group in the European Parliament. I am proud to say that, since our foundation in 2009, we have always been very cautious and careful in spending public money according to Parliament’s rules. Every year we have been audited without a single objection. Every year our books have been closed and approved by all relevant authorities: the external auditor, DG Finance and Parliament’s Bureau as well. We did not sign the letter of the three parties concerned, but we have absolutely no problem with all the provisions proposed.

I will maybe just make one final remark. We are a pro-European party but an anti—federalist party. For instance, we do not agree with what Mr Verhofstadt thinks about the European Union and we do not agree with what the CDU-CSU from Germany says about the future of the European Union, but I firmly believe that different opinions on the course of the future of the EU will not be misinterpreted and misused in a political fight. Please consider this seriously.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, you know why it has become necessary to review that? Because we have found that over the last one to two years there have been several parties – European parties and European foundations – that have found loopholes in our regulation. So it is necessary to do that. They have been doing things that are illegal and that are now under scrutiny.

Let me just answer some of the questions you had, Commissioner. One is that I think we have to prevent cross-party membership. It has been said already. There have been MEPs from one Member State party who have been supporting two different European parties, getting funding for both of them. This has to stop.

On another [matter you raised], I think, and I am not alone in this, that we have to publish the names of those elected members, of the European Parliament – that is [already] published – but also of national and regional ones who are members of the European political parties, because we are elected people and we are public. It is not about privacy. This is about knowing who makes up the European parties.

You asked about national referendums. No, I am against allowing national referendums to be held, because the Brexit campaign was a national campaign; you had one in Hungary; we had one against refugees; we have had several. We cannot allow that. European referendums, yes, but not national. And the last one, I think we have to stick to one MEP making up a European party, that is not... If we go further than that, this is not how to prevent abuse if we make it more than that. One is fine.


  Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Madam President, any functioning democracy needs the rule of law to exist. Without legal certainty there is no rule of law. What we are currently witnessing from the EU institutions is legal uncertainty. What is allowed to some is banned to others. All eurosceptic parties and foundations at European level, either from the left or the right, have fallen victim to reinterpretation of the existing regulation with retrospective effect. Spending that was allowed to the EU federalist organisations were forbidden to others. Some civil servants have admitted being put under political pressure, and members of the bureau in charge of these matters have leaked confidential documents to the press before the recipient has received them. Therefore, before reviewing the regulation on the funding of pan-European parties, you should ensure that the existing regulations are observed and applied with fair treatment, respecting political diversity and allowing freedom of expression. Those attempts to silence the opposition in the only democratic institution of the EU are very worrying indeed, and this can only reinforce the anti-EU sentiment that is growing amongst our constituencies.


  Georg Mayer (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin! Ein Kollege von der EPP hat gesagt, er sieht hier gewisse Ähnlichkeiten mit der Türkei. Ich kann Ihnen auch sagen, ich sehe im Ablauf dieser Diskussion gewisse Ähnlichkeiten mit der Türkei. Denn wo wollen Sie denn hin mit dieser Initiative? Und – das muss man deutlich sagen – es geht hier um Steuergelder. Es geht nicht um Gelder, die aus der EPP oder von den Sozialisten kommen, sondern es geht hier um Steuergelder aus den Mitgliedstaaten, und daher ist Transparenz auf jeden Fall notwendig.

Aber wo geht denn diese Reise hin? Frau Hübner ist da noch nicht so deutlich wie ihr eigener Fraktionsobmann, Herr Weber, der schon ganz deutlich sagt: keine EU-Mittel für die Finanzierung von EU-kritischen Parteien. Was heißt denn das? Das ist doch das eigentliche Ziel dieser Diskussion, das dahintersteckt: keine EU-Mittel mehr für EU-kritische Parteien. Das heißt nichts anderes, als dass Sie die Opposition hier mundtot machen wollen. Vor diesem Demokratieverständnis, das kann ich Ihnen sagen, graut mir.

Und wieder einmal soll eine neue Behörde geschaffen werden, wieder einmal mit Steuergeldern aus den Mitgliedstaaten. Ich sage Ihnen ganz deutlich: Die Millionen Wähler, die EU-kritische Parteien wählen, haben genauso ein Recht darauf wie die Millionen anderer Wähler, die dies nicht tun.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  György Schöpflin (PPE), blue-card question. – I think there may be a misunderstanding; I do not know if the honourable gentleman heard me correctly. I talked about turkeys, the birds, not Turkey, the country.


  Georg Mayer (ENF), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Dann war es ein Missverständnis.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já chci podpořit iniciativu svých kolegů z daného výboru. Také se domnívám, že by nařízení mělo být přezkoumáno a některé věci, na které kolegové tady upozorňují, by měly být odstraněny. Byla tady debata o definici evropské politické strany, která může být zneužívána. Byla tady debata o tom, jestli jeden poslanec může být členem více politických stran. To jsou praktické problémy, které se nyní ukazují, a i když nařízení platí poměrně krátkou dobu, tak bychom neměli vyčkávat a tyto problémy nechávat být, protože pravidla, která upravují financování politických stran, musí být transparentní, spravedlivá a jejich kvalita pak odráží kvalitu politického systému.

Mám však jednu určitou výhradu nebo jednu určitou obavu, která zde byla zmiňována, a to je otázka svobody projevu. V těch návrzích, které mají být zkoumány, je otázka zpřísnění kontroly toho, jak evropské politické strany dodržují základní hodnoty EU. Nepatřím k poslancům, kteří si myslí, že politické strany, které mají skeptický názor na EU, nemají dostávat peníze. Myslím si, že mají dostávat peníze z evropského rozpočtu v rámci debaty, která i zde na půdě Parlamentu permanentně probíhá u jednotlivých návrhů o míře integrace v rámci EU. Ale ty politické strany, které popírají hodnoty demokracie, hodnoty lidských práv, základní univerzální hodnoty, na kterých stojí evropská civilizace, ne pouze EU, tak tyto strany by, podle mého názoru, peníze z rozpočtu EU neměly dostávat.

Takže vidím v tom rozdíl: na jedné straně kritizovat EU a na straně druhé popírat základní hodnoty lidství, demokracie a lidských práv. V případě, že někdo peníze nedostává, stále si myslím, že by to odmítnutí peněz mělo být přezkoumáno nezávislou soudní mocí tak, aby nedocházelo k politickému zneužívání a k tomu, že političtí konkurenti někomu odebírají peníze.


  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – Fru talman! EU grundades för drygt 60 år sedan. Nazism och fascism och krig skulle kastas på historiens sophög, men så blev det inte. Kollega Schöpflin och en rad andra har beskrivit det absurda i dagens situation – att vi finansierar fascistisk verksamhet med EU-pengar. Ingen har föreslagit att åsikts- och yttrandefriheten ska inskränkas på minsta vis, men att ösa europeiska skattebetalares pengar över förintelseförnekare, fascister, nazister är helt enkelt oanständigt. De har finansierats under EU:s gamla regelverk. Den 1 januari i år trädde det nya regelverket i kraft, men det innebär att de kan fortsätta att få sina pengar via EU.

Jag vill fråga er, herr kommissionär: När tänker kommissionen ta dessa investeringar i fascism och nazism på allvar?


  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señora presidenta, yo era miembro de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales cuando en 2014 aprobamos este Reglamento que regulaba la financiación de los partidos políticos y las fundaciones europeas. Algunos de los problemas que entonces aparecieron los enterramos mal y, cuando algo se entierra mal, suele resucitar algo después. Y tenemos que enfrentarnos a estos problemas.

Hoy no tenemos garantía suficiente de que los partidos políticos europeos que reciben financiación respetan los valores fundamentales de la Unión. Hoy no tenemos seguridad sobre si, para obtener financiación, algún diputado europeo pertenece a más de un partido político. Hoy sabemos que, cuando se confrontan cuestiones europeas en un referéndum, es conveniente la financiación para abordar el debate sobre ese referéndum. Y hoy sabemos que debemos seguir firmes en la defensa de esos valores europeos, y que solo deben acceder a financiación aquellos partidos que los respetan.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento))


  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Zdaje sobie Pan sprawę z tego, że kiedy Pan mówi o naszych pieniądzach, o pieniądzach, które Pan komuś daje czy ewentualnie które daje ta Izba, to mówi Pan o pieniądzach naszych obywateli? To są ich pieniądze, to nie są Pana pieniądze. To są pieniądze wszystkich Europejczyków, którzy mają bardzo różne poglądy, i Pan powinien dbać o ich wolność, o to, żeby mogli te poglądy wykonywać zgodnie ze swoimi przekonaniami.


  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Si fuera mi dinero personal, su partido no podría tener ninguna actividad, porque sería francamente pobre. Yo sé que es el dinero de los ciudadanos europeos y, por eso, quiero que ese dinero no vaya a defender, a financiar partidos políticos con comportamientos que no son aceptables para los valores de la Unión.

Aquí hay una mixtificación, durante todo este debate. Nunca se persiguen ideas. Se persiguen comportamientos. Y esos comportamientos no tienen carácter ideológico. Tienen carácter racista, porque consideran a unos hombres superiores a otros, o porque consideran una religión más verdadera que otra, o porque consideran que hay seres humanos que tienen más derechos.


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ja mam wrażenie, że pan poseł Guerrero Salom w ogóle nie zna mojej partii, nie wie nic o jej poglądach, a wygłaszał na jej temat bardzo kategoryczne opinie. Bardzo bym prosił, żeby na tego rodzaju manifestacje uprzedzeń jednak reagować.


„Catch the eye” eljárás


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, vreau de la bun început să spun că susțin această inițiativă. Trebuie să reexaminăm Regulamentul privind statutul și finanțarea partidelor și fundațiilor politice și am constatat în dezbatere: colegii noștri din partea dreaptă ori nu au citit propunerea, ori nu doresc să o înțeleagă corect. Nimeni nu dorește prin această modificare să se închidă gura unor partide care au alte idei, sunt eurosceptici. Noi dorim, însă, ca din bugetul Uniunii Europene să fie finanțate doar partidele care susțin valorile europene și i-aș întreba pe colegii mei dacă dumnealor ar avea oameni pe vânzări, într-o companie, și ar pleda pentru concurență și nu pentru valorile companiei, i-ar mai ține, i-ar mai plăti, i-ar mai bugeta?

Partidele au dreptul să se auto-finanțeze. Sunt de acord, de asemenea, cu scăderea plafonului și, cel mai important, cred că este foarte indicat să nu avem partide europene cu un membru. Eu aș spune că și trei sunt puțini, dar examinați, domnule comisar, și luați măsuri.


  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Madam President, it took years to complete the new regulation on European political parties. All stakeholders had many opportunities to engage in the process, including the largest parties. Now, even before the new rules are fully implemented, the large parties have decided that they want to change these new rules their way, without the mutual engagement of any other stakeholders in the report on the letter that the former oral question refers to.

The new rules which have already been introduced measured new barriers for European parties, and that is good. This debate is an attempt to shut out smaller and new parties, which is against the spirit of the Treaty and the new regulation. Both large and small parties have abused funding, so higher barriers are no solution to that. The EU does not need less political involvement with the people, but more. This political involvement cannot be monopolised and covered by the large parties alone. It is necessary to first implement the new rules and then have the evaluation as already scheduled.


  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου ( GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα αναφερθώ καταρχήν σε κάτι που ελέχθη από μερικούς συναδέλφους: «υπερασπιζόμενοι το δικαίωμα να μιλάει και ο φασίστας και κομμουνιστής». Πώς είναι δυνατόν να φέρνεις στην ίδια γραμμή έναν άνθρωπο που υπερασπίζεται ρατσιστικές ιδέες μισαλλόδοξες... και πότε άκουσε κανείς εδώ, σ’ αυτή την αίθουσα, είτε από κομμουνιστή είτε από αριστερό οποιαδήποτε ρατσιστική κουβέντα ή μισαλλόδοξη; Και νομίζω ότι σε αυτό θα πρέπει να είμαστε πιο προσεκτικοί.

Εγώ υπερασπίζομαι την άποψη ότι πρέπει να υπάρχει διαφάνεια. Πρέπει να έχει δικαίωμα λόγου ο καθένας, να έχει δικαίωμα ο καθένας να πάρει κονδύλια. Βεβαίως πρέπει να ελέγχεται, εάν υπερασπίζεται απόψεις ρατσιστικές και μισαλλόδοξες, αλλά δεν θεωρώ ότι, αν κάποιος υπερασπίζεται την άποψη ότι μια άλλη Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να αντικαταστήσει την παρούσα, μία Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλύτερη, πιο ευημερούσα και λοιπά, θα πρέπει να τον αποκλείσουμε από τη χρηματοδότηση.


  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we really should not be behaving like ostriches, expecting the problem to go away when we stick our heads into the sand. As Commissioner King said, the vibrant system of political parties is, of course, a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. But I do not really think that political parties are a kind of endangered species – au contraire. They are the only man-made organisations which are entitled to an endless windfall of public funds. But it should not be like that, because, as many colleagues have pointed out, it leads to abuse. Instead we should put parties – almost semi-divine organisations – onto an equal footing with other types of human organisations. Think of all sorts of NGOs, for instance.

That is why I must quote Martin Luther here – ‘hier stehe ich’ – and demand the creation of a totally new system in which political parties could manage themselves only on the basis of membership fees, and that should be their only income. That kind of draconian remedy would end a vicious circle in which money – public and private – plays such an incredible and unbearable role in calling the shots in politics.


  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, effectivement cette question orale est l'occasion de mettre l'accent sur le rôle très important des partis politiques dans une société démocratique.

Sans les partis politiques, toutes les aventures individuelles sont possibles et on sait malheureusement où cela peut mener. Notre démocratie européenne n'échappe pas à cette règle. Elle se doit d'accompagner les partis politiques européens représentatifs, car les financements publics sont aussi garants de l'indépendance et de la liberté des organisations.

Les partis politiques sont là pour éclairer l'opinion et les médias, afin de porter les valeurs qui sont les leurs, sur les questions humaines, économiques, sociales, etc. Ils doivent avoir une activité réelle afin d'être reconnus comme légitimes.

Tous ici ont évoqué Voltaire et effectivement la liberté d'expression fait partie de nos valeurs, mais fait aussi partie des éléments constitutifs de l'état de droit, mais l'état de droit est aussi garant des respects des valeurs humaines et se doit de punir les actes de haine, de racisme et d'intolérance.


(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)


  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, this is an important subject, which obviously elicits some strongly-held views. I have listened carefully and I will report fully to First Vice-President Timmermans and colleagues.

I personally can understand that some people might have a philosophical objection to public funding of any sort for the political process. But it exists, albeit in different forms in most Member States, perhaps because the alternatives for funding the political system – relying on donations from individuals, from business or from interest groups – can also have disadvantages. So I do not think any of us should be surprised if a similar system exists at the European level. When it comes to funding from the EU budget, I would just observe that the existing legislation already includes safeguards regarding the respect by parties of fundamental values. As I said, when we talk about fundamental values, it is respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

At the same time, as I said at the outset, the Commission is a strong supporter of having vibrant and dynamic political parties at the European level and is very ready to engage with you and with the Council to monitor how the 2014 regulation is working in practice in its first months of operation. We stand ready to engage constructively in such an interinstitutional process that can look at the issues in depth and could help pave the way for the formal reviews – which, as a number of people have noted, are slated for 2018 – and for drawing any necessary conclusions together about possible future developments.


  Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (162. cikk)


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D), por escrito. – Es necesario mejorar algunas de las disposiciones del Reglamento sobre el estatuto y la financiación de los partidos políticos europeos y las fundaciones políticas europeas, aprobado en 2014, para garantizar una mayor transparencia y rendición de cuentas de los partidos políticos europeos y una utilización de los fondos europeos de manera más eficiente y correcta. Por ello, es necesaria una revisión del Reglamento sobre varias disposiciones sustanciales: la reducción al 7,5 % de la obligación de cofinanciación del 15 %, el aumento de la representación mínima en el Parlamento Europeo a tres miembros para poder recibir financiación pública y la posibilidad de financiación de campañas para referéndums. Los socialistas hemos instado a la Comisión a reformar el Reglamento para reforzar los controles existentes destinados a garantizar que los grupos políticos europeos respeten los valores fundamentales de la Unión. Queremos asegurarnos de que los partidos políticos europeos que reciben financiación respetan plenamente los valores europeos, tal como se estipula en el artículo 2 del Tratado de la Unión Europea. No pretendemos con estos cambios perseguir opiniones críticas sobre la Unión sino comportamientos e ideologías de odio e intolerancia que van en contra de los valores de la UE.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR), γραπτώς. – Τα πολιτικά κόμματα σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, καθώς και τα αντίστοιχα ιδρύματά τους, οφείλουν να συμβάλλουν στην ενημέρωση των πολιτών της Ένωσης προκειμένου να αντιληφθούν τις πολιτικές, οικονομικές, κοινωνικές και πολιτιστικές διαστάσεις της συνεργασίας των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών στο πλαίσιο της ΕΕ. Οφείλουν επίσης να συνδράμουν στην αύξηση της συμμετοχής των πολιτών στις ευρωεκλογές, καθώς επίσης και στην ανάπτυξη διαλόγου για τα μεγάλα ζητήματα που απασχολούν τις ευρωπαϊκές κοινωνίες με ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην απασχόληση, την κοινωνική Ευρώπη και τη δίκαιη κατανομή του παραγόμενου πλούτου. Επιπλέον, η χρηματοδότηση που λαμβάνουν τα πολιτικά κόμματα σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο και τα ιδρύματα τους πρέπει να είναι διαφανής και να μην αποτελεί αντικείμενο καταχρηστικής ή παράνομης αξιοποίησής της. Ο κανονισμός για τη χρηματοδότηση των πολιτικών κομμάτων σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο πρέπει να καθορίζεται από ένα συγκεκριμένο νομικό, χρηματοοικονομικό και κανονιστικό πλαίσιο, να αυξάνει την αποτελεσματικότητα της χρηματοδότησης, να υπηρετεί τη διαφάνεια και τη χρηστή διοίκηση. Τυχόν παράνομες χρηματοδοτήσεις και άλλες παράνομες ενισχύσεις των πολιτικών κομμάτων σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο πρέπει να επιφέρουν διακοπή της περαιτέρω χρηματοδότησής τους και αυστηρές ποινικές και άλλες κυρώσεις σε βάρος των αντίστοιχων υπευθύνων τους.


  Julia Pitera (PPE), na piśmie. – Przegląd rozporządzenia w sprawie statutu i finansowania europejskich partii i fundacji politycznych na wniosek trzech największych frakcji europejskich wydaje się być ze wszech miar zasadne. Chodzi przecież o zapewnienie zwiększenia przejrzystości i rozliczalności europejskich partii politycznych. Pieniądze te powinny być wydawane efektywnie i zgodnie z wartościami Unii, zgodnie z art. 2 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej. Ostatnio ujawnione przypadki nadużyć, a nawet oszustw zdarzają się zbyt często. I choć praktyki takie są stosowane przez nielicznych, podważają zaufanie wyborców do wszystkich polityków. Mam nadzieję, że planowany przegląd regulacji w zakresie finansowania partii politycznych i europejskich fundacji będzie dokonany szybko i zostanie przeprowadzony w oparciu o rzetelne kryteria, z wykorzystaniem wszystkich dotychczasowych doświadczeń.

Pravna obavijest - Politika zaštite privatnosti