Pilns teksts 
Procedūra : 2017/0007(COD)
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls sēdē
Dokumenta lietošanas cikls : A8-0185/2017

Iesniegtie teksti :


Debates :

PV 03/07/2017 - 18
CRE 03/07/2017 - 18

Balsojumi :

PV 04/07/2017 - 6.9
Balsojumu skaidrojumi

Pieņemtie teksti :


Debašu stenogramma
Pirmdiena, 2017. gada 3. jūlijs - Strasbūra Pārskatītā redakcija

18. Makrofinansiālā palīdzība Moldovas Republikai (debates)
Visu runu video

  Președintele. – Primul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind raportul lui Sorin Moisă, în numele Comisiei pentru comerț internațional, referitor la propunerea de decizie a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind acordarea unei asistențe macrofinanciare Republicii Moldova (COM(2017)0014 – C8-0016/2017 – 2017/0007(COD)) (A8-0185/2017).


  Sorin Moisă, rapporteur. – Mr President, the Republic of Moldova is in the process of recovering its economic stability after several very harsh years. Due to various circumstances – some domestic and self—inflicted, such as the well-known bank fraud, which has also led to an interruption of external support, and some external, such as a sharp decrease in exports to Russia and Ukraine – Moldova faces an external balance of payments crisis and has asked for assistance from international donors, notably the IMF and the EU.

In November last year, the IMF approved the three—year programme in the amount of almost USD 180 million and this programme is now well on track. The IMF has also calculated the country’s residual external financial needs for 2016—2018 at approximately EUR 400 million. The EU has also resumed its budgetary support operations, following the interruption in the context of the bank fraud, through the European Neighbourhood Instrument.

In January 2017, the Commission proposed the instrument that we are discussing today, a macro—financial assistance package covering approximately 25% – so only a quarter – of the country’s financial needs as identified by the IMF. This is in order to address the short-term balance of payments and fiscal vulnerabilities of the Moldovan economy. The proposed assistance therefore amounts to EUR 100 million; EUR 60 million would be a loan and EUR 40 million would be a grant to be disbursed in three instalments in 2017 – ideally – and in 2018.

The Commission had proposed in its original draft text that strong conditionalities be attached to the assistance. These conditionalities have been thoroughly discussed in the two committees giving opinions in this House, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, and of course in the Committee on International Trade. The result has been even stronger conditionalities attached to the disbursement of each of the three instalments. The principle is: no reforms, no money. It is the first time that the EU has taken such a tough stance, as the practice of the EU until now has been to grant the first instalment immediately and only attach some conditions to the subsequent ones.

The ambitious programme of reforms will cover financial sector governance, public sector governance, the fight against corruption, the fight against money laundering, energy sector reforms, and improvement of the business and investment climate. Parliament’s amendments have put strong emphasis on the independence of the judiciary, freedom and pluralism of the media, the depoliticisation of public administration, and the need to fight corruption and money laundering and to support the implementation of the DCFTA. We have clarified that conditions are to be attached to the disbursement of each and every one of the three instalments, that benchmarks should be clear as required by the European Court of Auditors, and that the assistance shall be immediately suspended or terminated if the conditions are not met.

If done properly, it is my strong belief that these reforms have a high potential systemic impact. These are reforms that will discipline and constrain the exercise of power by the government and any other economic or political actor for generations to come. The other two institutions have accepted one hundred percent of our requests. The agreement reached during the trilogue also includes a joint statement by Parliament, the Council and the Commission recalling that the necessary precondition for the disbursement of the assistance is respect for effective democratic institutions.

I have come up with this proposal to adopt this joint statement in order to address the concerns of colleagues in this House regarding the recent initiative by the authorities to change the electoral system in the Republic of Moldova. The process is still ongoing and the Venice Commission has recently made public its opinion on this process.

It is key that the Moldovan authorities duly take into account this recommendation. The joint statement puts a strong emphasis on the fact that the consideration by the Moldovan authorities of the recommendations of the Venice Commission will be part of the regular monitoring of the respect for the aforementioned precondition. The regular monitoring of this precondition is in fact a mandate that we have created and are giving to the Commission. I would encourage the Commission today to reconfirm the strength of its commitment in the context of this instrument that we have created together. This is important and is the underpinning factor for the consensus we have achieved in the House.

To conclude, in its current form, the decision gives us the green light – if we vote positively tomorrow – for the aid to Moldova. However, it does not mean immediate disbursement. If the decision is positive, the first instalment of the disbursement will reach Moldova in December. The European Union is therefore equipped with the right set of instruments to react to any potential developments in the Republic of Moldova.

I will conclude by thanking the shadows Mr Winkler from the PPE, Mr Takkula from ALDE, Mr Zahradil from the ECR, Mr Scholz from GUE and Ms Hautala from the Greens, as well as Mr Auštrevičius and Mr Mureşan, the rapporteurs for the opinion from the two opinion committees, and also Mr Preda from the PPE Group, who has played a key role in building a consensus in this House.


  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first thank the rapporteur, Mr Sorin Moisă and the Committee on International Trade for their valuable work, and also the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee on Budgets for their support.

As you know, the European Commission submitted its proposal for a macro-financial assistance operation to Moldova in the context of difficult political and economic transition. Following the banking fraud scandal of 2014 the new Moldovan Government was appointed in February 2016, adopting a package of key reforms in areas like public governance and anti-corruption. In support of this new reformed path, the EU and Moldova agreed on the roadmap for priority reforms at the beginning of 2016 and with the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 16 February 2016.

Moldova, which is one of the poorest countries in the European neighbourhood needs macro-financial assistance to cover its external financing needs and underpin its slow recovery from the recession in 2015.

This macro-financial assistance complements the assistance of the International Monetary Fund, which resumed its assistance and approved a new, extended fund facility agreement on 7 November last year.

Therefore, it is crucial that the EU, together with other international donors, uses this window of opportunity for reforms in Moldova and supports the new Moldovan Government in its efforts to implement key reforms and bring back economic recovery.

However, the Commission shares the concerns of Parliament with regard to important areas like corruption, money laundering, independent judiciary, independent media, and the implementation of the EU-Moldova Association Agreement. Therefore, the Commission supports the five amendments to the recitals of its proposals to address these concerns.

Let me also reassure you that the Commission will entirely be guided by these new recitals when implementing this assistance and, in particular, when designing the conditionality of this operation of the memorandum of understanding between the EU and Moldova.

The Commission also shares the concerns of Parliament regarding the recent initiatives in Moldova to introduce a new electoral system. Therefore we support the joint statement of the three institutions, recalling that the precondition for granting macro-financial assistance is that the beneficiary country respects effective democratic mechanisms, including a multi-party parliamentary system and the rule of law, and guarantees respect for human rights.

The Commission and the European External Action Service will closely monitor the fulfilment of this pre-condition throughout the lifecycle of this operation and will pay utmost attention to how Moldova follows up on the recommendations of international partners, in particular the recommendations of the Venice Commission and of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe related to the proposed changes in the electoral system.

Before closing my remarks I would like to underline again that no disbursement of macro-financial assistance for Moldova will take place if the political preconditions as well as specific economic and financial conditions are not fulfilled.

I hope we can count on Parliament’s support for Moldova on its path to reform and I would like to underline that the Council, in a letter of 15 June this year, from COREPER, confirmed the approval of the Commission’s proposal as agreed in the trilogue, subject the approval of the European Parliament.


  Petras Auštrevičius, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. –Mr President, Moldova’s future depends on much more than yet another financial tranche. Plans to change the election system are received with such great caution in both Brussels and Strasbourg, and rightly so. Even more importantly, in Moldova the opposition parties and civil society at large are alarmed and protesting. Everyone is asking for a fair European debate and a consensus—based decision and we do not see this happening. Instead we read today about yet another political party leaving the consultations on election law.

I wish to draw the attention of this House to the joint statement of all EU institutions that the Commissioner has just mentioned, which is an integral part of the decision and which makes very clear reference to the Venice Commission recommendations. It is crucial to ensure that these recommendations are fully respected. We must also make sure that we are sending the right message to the Moldovan people, as there is a high risk of manipulation and political misinterpretation. Moldova does indeed have certain privileges, but it has very serious duties. I do hope that everyone in Moldova understands this and I wish for great cooperation with Moldova when it comes to all the issues in front of us.


  Siegfried Mureşan, raportor pentru aviz Comisia pentru bugete. – Domnule președinte, domnule vicepreședinte Dombrovskis, stimați colegi, obiectivul meu în calitate de raportor al Comisiei pentru bugete a fost să mă asigur că Republica Moldova îndeplinește condițiile necesare pentru a primi aceste fonduri europene și că noi creăm condițiile, premisele ca banii să ajungă acolo unde este cea mai mare nevoie de ei, și anume, la oameni.

La ce criterii mă refer?

În primul rând, la precondițiile legate de existența statului de drept și a unui sistem multipartinic, iar, în acest domeniu, domnule vicepreședinte Dombrovskis, vă solicit ca Comisia Europeană să întreprindă tot ce este necesar pe lângă autoritățile de la Chișinău, pentru a ne asigura că sistemul electoral respectă pe deplin recomandările Comisiei de la Veneția pentru ca acești bani să poată ajunge la cetățeni doar în aceste condiții și, doar dacă recomandările Comisiei de la Veneția sunt pe deplin implementate, banii pot ajunge la oameni.

În al doilea rând, mă refer la condițiile legate de combaterea corupției, combaterea spălării banilor, pe care le-a menționat raportorul și pe care le-am introdus în avizul Comisiei pentru bugete. Aici, domnule vicepreședinte, rolul Comisiei Europene este foarte clar: să monitorizați atent situația și fiecare tranșă să fie plătită doar dacă aceste condiționalități concrete sunt îndeplinite.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru” (articolul 149 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))


  Președintele. – Domnul Lucke a ridicat un cartonaș albastru – prea târziu pentru primul vorbitor, domnul Auštrevičius, și prea devreme pentru următorul vorbitor, domnul Mureșan. Deci, ca atare, nu puteți, pentru că trebuia să faceți acest lucru în timp ce vorbea domnul Auštrevičius.


   You did not do that while Mr Auštrevičius was delivering his speech. No, everybody saw that. And then you asked for a blue card to Mr Mureşan who had not started to speak, so is it to me? Okay, you have the floor.


  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe mich mit der blauen Karte zu Herrn Mureşan gemeldet, als Herr Mureşan zu sprechen begann, genauso, wie es üblich ist. Ich habe nicht Herrn Auštrevičius eine Frage stellen wollen, sondern ich möchte Herrn Mureşan eine Frage stellen. Ich habe mich während seines Wortbeitrags – nämlich ganz am Anfang seines Wortbeitrags – gemeldet. Ich bitte das so zu berücksichtigen, wie das immer der Fall ist.


  President. – It means that you knew in advance what Mr Mureşan would say, and therefore that would provoke your blue card. Is this the understanding? Let me tell you that you have a very good sense of premonition.


  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Mr President, it is not your obligation to judge what I knew or did not know. I want to pose a question please.


  President. – That is all right. You may ask your question.


  Bernd Lucke (ECR), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Mureşan, Sie haben sehr politisch gesprochen. Ich möchte Ihnen eine Frage stellen bezüglich der Fähigkeit Moldaus, die Schulden zurückzuzahlen. Gibt es eine Schuldentragfähigkeitsanalyse für Moldau? Wer hat diese Schuldentragfähigkeitsanalyse durchgeführt? Zu welchem Ergebnis ist diese Schuldentragfähigkeitsanalyse gekommen?


  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE), blue-card answer. – The position of the European Union has been constant throughout recent years and we have always said that if the International Monetary Fund comes to the conclusion that the Republic of Moldova’s debt is sustainable, the economy is strong enough and the conditions of an agreement with the IMF are met, then the European Union stands ready also to help the Republic of Moldova.

In November last year, the IMF came to a positive conclusion and decided to proceed to give credit to the Republic of Moldova. Given these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, economically, the Republic of Moldova is in a condition to receive this financing and to return it. However, all of the other political conditionalities mentioned by Commissioner Dombrovskis and I remain important to make sure that the money reaches its objective.


  Daniel Caspary, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Für uns in der Fraktion der Europäischen Volkspartei stehen die Menschen in Moldau im Zentrum. Wir alle wissen, dass die Situation in Moldau für viele, viele Menschen sehr grenzwertig ist und Moldau zu den ärmsten Ländern bei uns in Europa gehört. Nichtsdestotrotz ist es uns aber wichtig, dass bestimmte Bedingungen eingehalten werden. Deswegen bin ich der Kommission sehr, sehr dankbar, dass sie noch mal auf viele Bedingungen hingewiesen hat, die uns sehr am Herzen liegen, nämlich auf die Frage von Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie in Moldau, die Frage der Korruptionsbekämpfung, die Frage eines verantwortlichen Umgangs mit den Geldern, die wir hoffentlich morgen als Parlament zur Verfügung stellen können.

Aber es ist untragbar, was die Regierung im Moment bei der Frage des Wahlrechts zu beabsichtigen scheint. Deswegen ist es sehr gut, dass sich die Institutionen auf die Gemeinsame Erklärung geeinigt haben, in der wir ja alle noch mal explizit auf die Bedingungen der Venedig-Kommission hinweisen.

Aber ich wünsche mir ganz eindeutig, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, dass die Kommission wirklich noch mal deutlich macht, dass dieses Wahlrecht nicht so geändert werden kann, wie sich das die Regierung in Moldau vorzustellen scheint, sondern wir dürfen das Geld nur dann freigeben, wenn die Bedingungen der Venedig-Kommission wirklich eins zu eins umgesetzt werden. Und ich wäre sehr, sehr dankbar, wenn die Kommission das entweder gleich in Ihrem Schlussstatement, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, oder morgen vor der Abstimmung nochmal ganz klar macht. Sie werden das sehen: In bisher jedem Redebeitrag wurde dieses Thema angesprochen. Wir dürfen nicht zulassen, dass sich die demokratische Situation in Moldau verschlechtert und wir dann aber noch Gelder zahlen, um das zu belohnen.

In dem Sinne möchte ich auch ganz herzlich unserem Kollegen Iuliu Winkler danken, der dieses Dossier federführend für unsere Fraktion betreut hat. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn wir uns morgen, wenn wir das Geld zur Verfügung stellen, wirklich einig darüber wären, was unsere Bedingungen sind, und wenn die Kommission dann auch wirklich ohne Hintertür sicherstellt, dass diese Bedingungen erfüllt werden.

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


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question. – As you know, the basic issue here is whether to let the Republic of Moldova go into the Eurasian Economic Union, cooperating with Russia, or to bring it closer to the European Union. This is ultimately what it is about. Do you not think that, if we don’t grant this macro-financial assistance, the people of the Republic of Moldova are going to be very disappointed vis-à-vis the position of the European Union, and that we have to do whatever we can in order to bring them to the West not to the East?


  Daniel Caspary (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Sehr geehrter Kollege! Wenn ich mich da vielleicht unklar ausgedrückt habe oder die Übersetzung nicht ganz eindeutig war, dann danke ich ganz herzlich für die Frage. Wir sind uns doch alle einig, dass wir uns wünschen, dass sich Moldau in Richtung der Europäischen Union und in Richtung von Freiheit, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit entwickelt. Genau deshalb ist es uns ein Anliegen, weil wir uns eben ein rechtsstaatliches demokratisches Moldau in unserer Nähe wünschen, und deswegen legen wir sehr großen Wert darauf, dass wir die Hilfe leisten – das steht für uns in der Fraktion überhaupt nicht in Frage.

Aber wir wollen eben sichergestellt haben, dass sich die demokratische Situation in Moldau in den nächsten Monaten und Jahren weiter verbessert und nicht verschlechtert und genau da haben viele – wie z.B. die Venedig-Kommission oder viele politisch Tätige in Moldau – leider im Moment Sorgen.


  Knut Fleckenstein, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben schon seit vielen Jahren immer wieder Gelder – auch nach Moldau – überwiesen in der Hoffnung, dass es zu Reformen kommt, dass sich die Bedingungen für die Menschen dort verbessern. Das hat sich in der Vergangenheit oft nicht bewahrheitet. Es ist eine Katastrophe, was dort zum Teil stattgefunden hat, an der alle möglichen sogenannten demokratischen Parteien beteiligt waren – einer der Premierminister ist deshalb im Gefängnis, andere sind unter Anklage. Deshalb ist es völlig richtig, dass wir sagen: Diesen Weg wollen wir nicht weiter mitgehen.

Das Ergebnis ist nicht nur gewesen, dass wir uns immer kritischer gefühlt haben, das Ergebnis ist auch gewesen, dass die Menschen in Moldau sich mehr und mehr abgewendet haben, nicht nur von ihrer jeweiligen Regierung, sondern auch von denen, die sie unterstützen – nämlich uns. Deshalb ist es richtig: Das kann man nicht fortsetzen. Nun haben wir eine neue Regierung, die das eine oder andere wirklich nicht nur geredet, sondern auch abgeliefert hat. Der Internationale Währungsfonds hat das ja auch bestätigt und dementsprechend positiv gehandelt.

Wir erwarten, dass das auch weiter so geht, dass nicht nur geredet wird, sondern dass geliefert wird. Deshalb sage ich auch ganz deutlich – um keine Missverständnisse aufkommen zu lassen: Welches Wahlrecht sich Moldau gibt, ist nicht unsere Sache. Das kommt überhaupt nicht in Frage! Denn die stehen ja nicht unter unserer Patronage. Ob sie das englische oder das deutsche oder ein anderes Wahlrecht übernehmen, ist ihre Sache. Aber wie sie es einführen, mit wem sie diskutieren, ob sie Konsens suchen, ob sie die NGOs einbeziehen – das interessiert uns, um dann am Ende zu einem Ergebnis zu kommen.

Ich bin auf jeden Fall dafür, dass wir morgen unter den Bedingungen, die hier mehrfach genannt worden sind, ein klares Ja zu der Makrofinanzierung sagen.


  Hannu Takkula, ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, ensinnäkin haluan kiittää mietinnön esittelijää Sorin Moisăa hyvästä mietinnöstä. Kuten hän ja monet muut ovat tässä keskustelussa jo esille nostaneet, Moldova on tällä hetkellä monien sekä taloudellisten että poliittisten haasteiden edessä. On tärkeä muistaa, että makrotaloudellisen avustuksen tarkoituksena ei ole missään vaiheessa ollut puuttua avustuksen saajamaan poliittisiin päätöksiin vaan puhtaasti luoda taloudellista vakautta EU:n ympärille Moldovan kaltaisiin maihin.

Moldova on noussut hiljalleen vuoden 2014 pankkikriisistä, mutta on edelleen Euroopan köyhin maa. Taloudellisesti kestävän pohjan luominen edellyttää makrotaloudellista apua. Mitä tulee paljon keskustelua herättäneeseen vaalilain uudistamiseen, se on – kuten myös Venetsian komissio lausui – suvereenin valtion oma asia, eikä EU:lla ole valtaa puuttua sitä koskeviin päätöksiin.

Kuitenkin EU:n kaikkein taloudellisen ja poliittisen työn tulee perustua EU:n omille arvoille, joita ovat demokratia, ihmisoikeudet ja oikeusvaltioperiaate. Siksi minusta on kohtuullista asettaa nämä myös taloudellisen avun edellytyksiksi. Moldovalla on itsenäisenä valtiona oikeus tehdä omat poliittiset ratkaisunsa, mutta Euroopan unionin tulee pitää kiinni omista arvoistaan. Tästä syystä olen erittäin tyytyväinen sopimukseen, joka syntyi neuvotteluissa komission ja neuvoston kanssa, ja rahoitukselle asetettuihin ehtoihin.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Mit 100 Millionen Euro soll es der Regierung Moldaus ermöglicht werden, im Herbst noch Lehrer bezahlen zu können und die Schuldenraten beim IWF zu bedienen. Wir haben als Fraktion stets bekräftigt: Mit der Makrofinanzhilfe sind nicht neue Verschuldungsperspektiven vorzuzeichnen, sondern statt Krediten sollten auch weitgehend Zuschüsse gewährt werden.

Die EU-Kommission beurteilt in ihrem gerade vorgelegten Bericht zur Durchführung von Finanzhilfen die wirtschaftliche und politische Lage im Land im Jahr 2016 jedoch als zunehmend schwierig. Ich frage Sie deshalb, Herr Kommissar: Erfüllen die jüngsten Entwicklungen in Moldau in Ihrer Bewertung die Charakterzüge eines verlässlichen und rechtsstaatlich handelnden Partners? Die Bevölkerung des Landes leidet nach wie vor unter der Einflussnahme des Oligarchen Vlad Plahotniuc auf Regierung und Wirtschaft. Das ist Ihnen und uns bekannt.

Vor diesem Hintergrund habe ich mich für strikte Vorbedingungen an die Auszahlung jeder Tranche eingesetzt. Dazu gehören ausdrücklich die Achtung der Menschenrechte und der demokratischen Grundrechte und eine unabhängige, der Rechtsstaatlichkeit verpflichtete Justiz.

In der vergangenen Woche haben wir das Gegenteil erlebt – ganz konkret und präzise: Grigore Petrenco und sieben weitere junge Leute wurden am 28. Juni für die Organisation und Teilnahme an einer Demonstration zur sozialen Gerechtigkeit nach einem – von allen internationalen Beobachtern einhellig so eingestuften – dubiosen Gerichtsverfahren zu drei bis viereinhalb Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt. Die Parlamentarische Versammlung des Europarats, die deutsche und die US-Regierung bezeichnen die Männer als politische Gefangene. Sollen damit politische Weichenstellungen vor den nächsten Wahlen erfolgen? Wir haben gerade über das Wahlrecht gesprochen.

Herr Kommissar, ich erwarte auch von Ihnen ganz konkret eine Bewertung dieser Situation, bevor an die Regierung Geld überwiesen wird. Denn, ich zitiere: „Makrofinanzhilfen setzen die Achtung der Menschenrechte und effektiver demokratischer Mechanismen im Empfängerland voraus“ – so die Kommission.


  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, there has been an agreement between the Council, the Commission and Parliament since 2013 on a certain model macrofinancial assistance and now, with the case of Moldova, I think that more and more we start to see that this instrument has to be more linked with the conditionalities on reforms of the judiciary and other aspects of rule of law, of democracy, respect for human rights and, as has been said by many speakers already, the situation in Moldova has not improved as we would expect from an associated partner country of the European Union.

Therefore I believe that this macrofinancial assistance is different from the other agreements that have been struck between the institution since 2013. We start to see that an instrument that takes the form of budget support needs to be based on trust that the money is going to where it is needed and, as the previous speaker, Mr Scholz, said, that we are not generating debts for the future. We are indeed generating debts for the future if the Commission and the External Action Service are not very consistent with the conditioning of this macrofinancial assistance with, for instance, a very strong fight against corruption, and against money laundering.

I must remind the House about the rather recent understanding of the role of Moldovan banks, and even of Moldovan judges, in some of the biggest money-laundering scandals in our environment. The so-called Russian Laundromat revealed a lot of the reality of the banking system and the judiciary in Moldova and we cannot let that go easily. Also we still remember the embezzlement by which one billion euro was transferred from three Moldovan banks to shell companies in Hong Kong and other offshore havens.

At the same time as we are fighting against money laundering, against tax evasion, we should also expect that our associated partner countries do their utmost to eradicate these kind of things from their system.

So I also, on behalf of the Green/European Free Alliance Group, expect the Commission to implement and take seriously the joint declaration that the three institutions agreed when we concluded the negotiations, and I also want to hear how the Commission is going to follow the situation and implement this.


  Jonathan Arnott, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, we are here discussing the spending of EU funds, and money which rightfully belongs to the taxpayer, to be given to Moldova in what is known as macro-financial assistance. I see plenty of politics here, and plenty of expectations being placed on Moldova in return for the cash, but let us be honest here: Moldova ranks at a miserable 127th place in Transparency International’s measure of corruption, lower down than Pakistan and Communist Cuba.

The explanatory statement that comes with this report says that the free trade agreement between the European Union and Moldova has contributed to the process of economic recovery. Well, that is what free trade does! If only the European Union actually focused on breaking down barriers to trade rather than creating them, perhaps it would be less of a negative force throughout the world.

The Economic Freedom Index places Moldova worse than countries like Rwanda and Swaziland when it comes to being attractive to trade and investment. The solution, here again, is not to give Moldova more money: the solution is for Moldova to become more competitive. Is giving so much money to a country so notorious for official corruption and economic poor performance really a good use of taxpayers’ money? For all our fine words, this is in essence foreign aid being given by taxpayers, so, surely to goodness, it should meet a common-sense definition of what foreign aid is for.


  Edouard Ferrand, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, l’Union européenne est devenue la prison des peuples. Il semble que la Commission européenne veuille faire son business sur le dos des nations. C’est très dommageable, parce que l’Union européenne, finalement, n’est plus cette instance qui garantit la paix en Europe, mais devient au contraire un acteur conflictuel.

Aujourd’hui, nous voyons que l’Union européenne veut soumettre les nations, et cet accord macrofinancier va malheureusement dans la mauvaise direction. En octobre 2017, la Moldavie a obtenu le statut d’observateur auprès de l’Union économique eurasiatique. Cela a déclenché l’ire de l’Union européenne, qui considère qu’il s’agit d’une déclaration de guerre. Or, les nations ont le droit de décider avec qui elles veulent coopérer.

La nation moldave, malheureusement, a été très affaiblie culturellement, parce qu’elle est partagée entre l’Est et l’Ouest, mais surtout parce que cette nation de 3 millions et demi d’habitants – que j’ai eu l’occasion de visiter récemment – est une nation laissée pour compte.

Aujourd’hui, vous voulez jouer sur la sensibilité de cette nation pour l’attirer et faire la gloire de l’Union européenne mais, en fait, vous n’allez que provoquer une fois de plus des problèmes avec la Russie. La neutralité est à mon avis le meilleur statut qui soit pour la Moldavie. Elle ne doit prendre parti ni pour l’Union européenne ni pour la Russie. Je crois que la Russie a montré qu’elle était capable de tempérance par rapport à la volonté de l’Union européenne.

C’est pour cela qu’aujourd’hui, je vous exhorte à respecter les peuples, à respecter les nations. Ne déclenchez pas une nouvelle guerre!


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η μακροοικονομική χρηματοδοτική συνδρομή στη Μολδαβία, αν δεν συνδεθεί με την εφαρμογή ενός φιλόδοξου προγράμματος οικονομικών και διαρθρωτικών μεταρρυθμίσεων, είναι καταδικασμένη σε αποτυχία και, ως εκ τούτου, δεν μπορώ να συναινέσω με την παροχή οικονομικής υποστήριξης. Η Μολδαβία απέχει παρασάγγας από το μέσο ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο των χωρών που πληρούν κατ’ ελάχιστον τα κριτήρια της Κοπεγχάγης.

Χρειάζονται θαρραλέα βήματα και ρήξη με το κακό κομμουνιστικό παρελθόν, ώστε να βελτιωθούν τομείς όπως η διακυβέρνηση του οικονομικού και του δημόσιου τομέα, η καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς και της νομιμοποίησης προσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες, η αποτελεσματικότητα και η ανεξαρτησία της δικαιοσύνης και η διακυβέρνηση του ενεργειακού τομέα. Διατηρώ επίσης πολλές επιφυλάξεις ως προς την ωφελιμότητα και αποδοτικότητα της υποστήριξης της ταχείας υλοποίησης της σφαιρικής και σε βάθος ζώνης ελεύθερων συναλλαγών.


  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, Republica Moldova are nevoie de asistența macrofinanciară, iar când spun Republica Moldova, mă gândesc la cetățenii ei, și nu la politicieni. Din păcate, domnii Dodon, președinte, și Plahotniuc, coordonator, nu au înțeles acest lucru. În loc să susțină reformele de care cetățenii au nevoie, cei doi au decis că prioritatea absolută este azi o nouă lege electorală, una care să le asigure realegerea eternă în funcție. De altfel, deputatul Sârbu, raportor al Parlamentului pentru această lege, o combinație între un proiect al lui Dodon și un proiect ale Plahotniuc, a spus foarte clar: ne propunem să avem doar două partide. Comisia de la Veneția a explicat lipsa de oportunitate a acestei legi electorale și mă bucur să văd declarația Comisiei Europene, făcută de domnul comisar Dombrovskis, care a explicat condițiile sub care banii acestei asistențe macrofinanciare vor fi trimiși în Moldova.

Eu voi spune mai clar ceea ce le-am spus domnilor din Partidul Democrat care au fost invitați de colegii lor din grupul socialist din Parlamentul European la Bruxelles: retrageți acest proiect de lege electorală. El nu are nimic de a face cu urgențele societății moldovenești. Niciun cetățean european nu e dispus să plătească bani pentru experimente electorale sau pentru ambițiile de putere ale prietenului lui Putin, Dodon, și ale prietenului socialiștilor europeni, Plahotniuc. Retrageți acest proiect. Gândiți-vă la interesele cetățenilor, și nu la eternizarea voastră la putere.

Aceasta este, cred, condiția sub care trebuie să trimitem banii la Chișinău.


  Andi Cristea (S&D). – Mr President, if the Republic of Moldova is on the agenda of our plenary session today it is because that country is, and remains, at the top of the Union’s agenda. And, let me be absolutely clear on this, Moldova on its European path has the full support and commitment of four political Groups across this Parliament.

Macro-financial assistance is one of many tools at our disposal for accompanying and supporting the Republic of Moldova on its process of political association and economic integration with the European Union and, although some areas require additional efforts, overall there has been substantial progress since the start of the current Executive’s term of office.

This week, after very thorough, comprehensive and attentive negotiations with the Council and the Commission based on a clear mandate, the House will vote on this macro-financial assistance. This support will not only be a sign of recognition of the renewed commitment by the Executive, it will also constitute an additional lever of motivation and pressure for the implementation of the much-needed reform agenda, in line with the Association Agreement, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and all the views colleagues in the House have expressed today. But first and foremost, EU macro-financial assistance will acknowledge the European aspirations and ambitions of the Moldovan people, and will also convey a strong signal of support and encouragement at this important and difficult time.

I would like to underline the fact that the EU will be applying rigorous, clear and strict conditionality criteria, in line with Parliament’s position, and that this conditionality will be attached to the disbursement of each tranche, including the first one.

As I have emphasised before, this Parliament has been most effective and successful when it has acted with full consensus in its approach vis-à-vis the Republic of Moldova.

I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur, as well as and especially Mr Auštrevičius, Ms Harms and Ms Fotyga, for supporting Moldova at this crucial time.


  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έχουμε ενώπιόν μας τη συζήτηση για ένα σκληρό μνημόνιο που επιβάλλεται στη Μολδαβία. Είναι γνωστοί οι όροι που επιβάλλουν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο, όταν παρεμβαίνουν. Αυτά τα περί αιρεσιμότητας στην πράξη σημαίνουν πολιτικές παρεμβάσεις στη λειτουργία ενός κράτους. Πρακτικά, έχουμε δει στην Ελλάδα τι εστί μνημόνιο. Εδώ, για τη Μολδαβία, υποτίθεται ότι θα δοθούν 100 εκατομμύρια ευρώ· 60 ως δάνειο και 40 ως επιχορήγηση. Πόσα από τα χρήματα αυτά θα πάνε στην οικονομία του κράτους και πόσα θα πάνε υπέρ των ίδιων των πολιτών; Ή μήπως τελικά θα πληρωθούν ξανά οι δανειστές;

Υπάρχει τεράστια διγλωσσία. Ζητά το ψήφισμα -σωστά- ανεξάρτητο δικαστικό σώμα. Όμως κύριε Dombrovskis, στην Ελλάδα η τρόικα και το Εurogroup παρεμβαίνουν για την αθώωση τριών τεχνικών εμπειρογνωμόνων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που εμπλέκονται σε δίκη για το σκάνδαλο πώλησης και επανεκμίσθωσης 28 ακινήτων του Δημοσίου. Κύριε Dombrovskis, με ποιο δικαίωμα εσείς παρεμβαίνετε στην ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη; Υπάρχουν δικές σας δηλώσεις της 29ης Ιουνίου 2017 στις οποίες συνδέετε τη χορήγηση της τελευταίας δόσης του δανείου με την απαλλαγή των συγκεκριμένων εμπειρογνωμόνων. Είναι αυτό ανεξάρτητη Δικαιοσύνη;

Περιμένουμε μια απάντηση, κύριε Dombrovskis, για το θέμα αυτό. Με ποιο δικαίωμα παρεμβαίνετε στην ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη;

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)


  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, fără îndoială, Instrumentul european de vecinătate, care susține această asistență macrofinanciară pentru Republica Moldova, este pe deplin justificat, așa cum a declarat Comisia și, din această înțelegere, nu este vorba, practic, de un gest de extremă bunăvoință față de Moldova, ci este vorba, în mare parte, de un împrumut care este condiționat de îndeplinirea anumitor criterii. Criteriile pe care Comisia și Consiliul le-au propus sunt cele corecte, sunt în acord cu valorile europene pe care toți trebuie să le protejăm. Ceea ce, din punctul meu de vedere, nu este corect, este să introducem un nou criteriu, o nouă condiționalitate, care ține de legea electorală.

Stimați colegi, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să își respecte propriile valori și din aceste valori face parte faptul că niciodată nu își poate permite să intervină în elemente de suveranitate ale unui stat. Uniunea Europeană nu poate cere unui stat membru un anumit tip de lege electorală. Aceasta reprezintă voința suverană a statului respectiv și cred că a introduce un criteriu în plus din acest punct de vedere ar însemna să cădem într-un populism și politicianism ieftin, care nu fac în niciun fel onoare acestui Parlament.


  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Ne zgodi se pogosto, da bi Evropska komisija pri finančni pomoči, ki je deloma seveda vezana tudi na posojilo, pogojevala to pomoč s predhodnim izpolnjevanjem določenih pogojev. Mislim, da je v primeru Moldavije to prav. Zlasti zato, ker situacija v Moldaviji že nekaj let ni rožnata, je zelo dinamična, in tudi demonstracije, nemiri pred dvemi, tremi leti, so pokazali, da mora Moldavija stopiti na novo tako imenovano demokratično pot in se torej odločiti, kam želi usmeriti svojo prihodnost, prihodnost generacij, ki prihajajo.

Nekateri seveda postavljajo tukaj dilemo, ali naj se obrne in gre proti vzhodu ali zahodu in Evropski uniji, in s tem se je poskušalo v preteklosti tudi, če rečem v narekovajih, s finančnimi pomočmi prispevati k odločitvi, da se Moldavija bolj odpre k Evropski uniji, tudi s pridružitvenimi oziroma trgovinskimi sporazumi.

Vendar se je zgodilo nekaj, kar ni bilo dobro. Da so mnoga sredstva na nek način poniknila in torej niso dosegla svojega cilja, zaradi katerega so bila dana. In tudi zato mislim, da je res potrebno v tem delu, v tem paketu, budno spremljati, da torej je ta del boja proti korupciji, svobode govora, na nek način tudi podpore demokraciji, tisti, ki seveda bo s temi sredstvi tudi dosežen.

Zato sem prepričan, da bo Komisija tudi s svojimi instrumenti znala in nas obveščala o tem, kako napredujejo te najbolj kritične točke, zato da lahko rečemo o Moldaviji, da je na pravi poti tudi v smislu sprejemanja finančne pomoči.


  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar Dombrovskis! Es wurde von einigen Vorrednern schon gesagt, dass die Auszahlung der Makrofinanzhilfe an bestimmte Bedingungen zu knüpfen ist, und es sind dies die Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie –, an die Bekämpfung von Korruption und Geldwäsche und natürlich auch an die Umsetzung der Vorgaben der Venedig-Kommission in Bezug auf das Wahlrecht.

Ich würde aber gerne einen vierten Punkt dazu anführen: Die Auszahlung der Makrofinanzhilfe sowie auch die Wiederaufnahme der Auszahlung aus dem Europäischen Nachbarschaftsinstrument sind daran zu knüpfen, dass dieser Bankenbetrugsskandal, der heute schon mehrfach erwähnt wurde, auch gänzlich aufgeklärt ist. Es handelt sich hier nämlich nicht um irgendein Verbrechen, sondern es handelt sich um ein Verbrechen des Jahrhunderts – wie internationale Medien es bezeichnen. Es ist nämlich drei Banken gelungen, eine Milliarde Euro zu stehlen – das ist die Hälfte der Nationalbankreserven, und das sind 17 Prozent des Bruttoinlandsprodukts Rumäniens. Der Mehrheitsgesellschafter dieser drei Banken ist der Vorsitzende der Demokratischen Partei, der Partei, die jetzt den Ministerpräsidenten stellt.

Das macht keine gute Optik, und da wissen die rumänischen Kollegen mehr als alle anderen. Deshalb ist hier besondere Vorsicht zu wahren, und es sind besondere Maßnahmen bei der Auszahlung der Mittel zu setzen, dass hier alles mit rechten Dingen zugeht.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Moldova, dopo due anni difficili, è in fase di ripresa della sua stabilità politica ed economica. A partire dal 2014, un grave scandalo bancario e una sostanziale contrazione della produzione agricola hanno portato il paese alla recessione economica. Nel novembre scorso il Fondo monetario internazionale ha approvato un accordo triennale di servizio di credito ampliato per un importo di 179 milioni di dollari a favore della Moldova, con un bilancio di attuazione considerato soddisfacente.

L'Unione europea deve riprendere il suo programma di assistenza macrofinanziaria verso la Moldova, ma vanno anche ben verificate le condizioni di affidabilità del paese. L'assistenza va condizionata all'attuazione di un ambizioso programma di riforme economiche e strutturali: penso in particolare al rafforzamento della governance nel settore finanziario, alla lotta contro la corruzione e il riciclaggio di denaro e agli sforzi per aumentare l'indipendenza del sistema giudiziario, senza dimenticare l'importanza strategica di un miglioramento del settore energetico, in particolare garantendo l'indipendenza dell'autorità nazionale di regolamentazione.


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, depuis les émeutes de 2009, la Moldavie a vu se succéder des majorités pro-européennes. Les meneurs de cette politique – Vlad Filat, en prison pour corruption, Vlad Plahotniuc, principal oligarque et principal corrupteur du pays, dirigeant du parti au pouvoir – ont ensemble, avec leurs obligés, volé un milliard de dollars dans le système bancaire moldave. On a donné, pour ainsi dire, un permis de voler à cette mafia qui se proclame pour l’Union européenne. Et vous voulez encore ajouter 100 millions d’euros? C’en est un peu trop. Ne le pensez-vous pas?

Arrêtez aussi le jeu en Transnistrie, où on remet une frontière entre l’Ukraine et la Transnistrie. Pourquoi cherche-t-on à faire monter les tensions? Voulons-nous à nouveau la guerre?

Mes chers confrères, aimer la démocratie, aimer le choix, c’est permettre à la Moldavie d’être toujours en équilibre entre l’Est et l’Ouest et de rester elle-même.


  President. – I can only see that there are good oligarchs and bad oligarchs.


  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chcę się zdecydowanie opowiedzieć za wsparciem dla Mołdawii. Oczywiście nie możemy ukrywać prawdy – są przypadki korupcji, są rzeczy, które w Mołdawii powinny się zasadniczo zmienić – ale to nie powinno przemawiać (jak argumentuje poseł Schaffhauser) za wycofaniem się z polityki wschodniego sąsiedztwa, za wycofaniem się z polityki wsparcia dla europejskich i wolnościowych aspiracji społeczeństwa mołdawskiego, które chce dzielić wspólnie los wolnych narodów europejskich. Wycofanie się z tej gry oznacza zgodę na dominację Putina w tamtej części Europy. Zatem pilnujmy zasad, nie pozwalajmy na powtórkę z korupcji, lecz cierpliwie i systematycznie okazujmy wsparcie społeczeństwu mołdawskiemu, które chce razem z nami dzielić los wolnych narodów.


Procedura „catch the eye”


  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, voi vota pentru această asistență acordată Republicii Moldova. Doresc să subliniez că oamenii din Republica Moldova au suferit poate mai mult decât oamenii din orice altă țară în tranziție - începând cu deportările în Siberia și terminând cu această tranziție, care parcă nu se mai încheie în Moldova. Vreau să susțin întru totul poziția Comisiei Europene prezentată de către prim-vicepreședintele Dombrovskis: este corectă și dreaptă. Vom aproba acest acord de asistență, iar eliberarea banilor către Moldova se va face exact cum a precizat foarte clar prim-vicepreședintele, în măsura în care se îndeplinesc condiționalitățile stabilite.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, de la bun început spun că voi vota acest raport și am să și argumentez. Nu știu câți dintre dumneavoastră ați vizitat, și de câte ori, Republica Moldova. Din 1990 până acum, merg de trei-patru ori pe an. Sunt lucruri care au fost în progres, sunt lucruri foarte multe care trebuie schimbate, dar, pentru trei care au furat de la bancă, nu o să pedepsim cetățenii din Republica Moldova.

Republica Moldova are nevoie de acordarea asistenței macrofinanciare și Comisia a prezentat foarte bine condiționalitățile economice și politice. Raportorul, de asemenea, împreună cu raportorii din umbră au pregătit un raport votabil și care va aduce acest sprijin extraordinar de important pentru Republica Moldova. Nu putem să respingem acordarea sprijinului macrofinanciar, pentru că ar lipsi Uniunea Europeană de un instrument util pentru promovarea reformelor în Republica Moldova și ar descuraja cetățenii acestui stat. În contextul global, cred că este nevoie să crească încrederea cetățenilor în Uniunea Europeană; și a cetățenilor din Republica Moldova. Așadar, voi vota acest raport și îi felicit pe raportori.


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Úr! Ismerős a recept, amit ezúttal Moldova esetében látunk. Volt kommunista, illetve szocialista országokkal szemben rendszeresen csinálják. Az Európai Unió, illetőleg a Nemzetközi Valutaalap, az IMF, úgymond „quid pro quoja”. Ti adjatok, csináljatok demokráciát, csináljatok gazdasági reformokat, és mi adunk nektek pénzt. Mit kell ez alatt érteni? A gazdasági reform az ő nyelvükön azt jelenti, hogy mindent privatizálni kell, ami nemzeti vagyon. A földjeinket oda kell nekik bocsátani, a mezőgazdaságunkat hagyni kell mesterségesen tönkretenni, a piacainkat a gyakran rossz minőségű termékek előtt megnyitni. Ismerjük ezt a receptet! Magyarként nagyon büszke vagyok arra, hogy az IMF igáját sikerült a nyakunkból lerázni.

Az Európai Unió most hogy tanít minket demokráciára? Úgy, hogy azt mondják, hogy akaratunk ellenére fogadjunk be tömeges migrációt a hazánkba. Köszönjük szépen, ebből a demokráciából nem kérünk. Az Európai Unió egyenlő jogú tagjai vagyunk, tehát nem könyöradományt adnak nekünk. Isten óvja a moldovai embereket attól, amit Önök és az IMF rájuk akarnak kényszeríteni.


(Încheierea procedurii „catch the eye”)


  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me conclude by underlining the importance of this decision with a view to supporting key reforms in Moldova. As you know, any amendment beyond the five amendments to the report of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) would trigger a second reading and significantly delay the adoption process, as well as the disbursement of macro-financial assistance which is still foreseen this year, provided that conditions are met.

Therefore, we count on your political support for Moldova and hope that you will follow the INTA report and approve the Commission proposal as agreed in a trilogue of 6 of June of this year.


  Sorin Moisă, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like first of all to thank the Commission for the very clear stance on the joint statement adopted by the three institutions and the intention stated here publicly, beyond doubt, to properly enforce it. I hope that is to the satisfaction of most colleagues, and I was happy to see that both Mr Preda and Mr Stolojan seemed to be satisfied with the Commission’s very clear position.

I shall tackle very briefly some of the issues that were raised on this. The common thread of the discussion has been the alleged – probably real – excessive power of some business people or oligarchs in Moldova. I truly believe in the following reality: the package of conditionalities attached to this MFA has true transformative potential to limit any type of arbitrary exercise of power in the Republic of Moldova. We have focused so much on the electoral issue – which is important, that is why we have addressed it through the joint declaration – but I truly believe that the reforms will be there for a generation, maybe those attached to the package itself, and this is far more important than simply a discussion on electoral reform nowadays.

I also believe that there is a false dichotomy between corruption and competitiveness. In order for a country to be competitive, it cannot be corrupt. It does need to address corruption, so I believe we are doing the right thing with the DCFT, on the one hand, and with properly addressing and incentivising the fight against corruption Moldova, that is indeed the right thing to do.

I would also encourage the Moldovan authorities to truly reach out to the opposition and to civil society, and engage in this discussion if the discussion continues on the transformation of the electoral system, but I also encourage the other parties to accept the invitation for dialogue. A proper democracy requires loyal democrats on all sides. And there is a bit of a paradox here: if you try to impose consensus from the outside, then a party walking out of that consensus could have a sort of veto power which may be seen as unfair. All of that said, I believe we have, if not a consensus, then we are close to a significant majority here ourselves and I hope that this will be confirmed by a positive vote tomorrow. Thank you again to all of you who have contributed to building this consensus in the House.


  Președinte. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă.

Votul va avea loc marți, 4 iulie 2017.

Declarații scrise (articolul 162)


  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – The Commission has proposed providing macro-financial assistant (MFA) to Moldova of up to EUR 100 million. The implementation of the MFA would go hand-in hand with the budgetary support operations financed by the European Neighbourhood Instrument that have been frozen since early 2015.

Moldova has faced a difficult period over the last two years both economically and politically. While the PPE supported the Commission proposal to a large extent, it introduced a stronger conditionality for granting macro-financial assistance to contribute to a greater political and macroeconomic stability of the country. These conditions include the strengthening of economic and financial governance, including a thorough, result-oriented investigation into bank fraud, good energy governance, an accountable, transparent and merit-based civil service, the freedom, independence and pluralism of the media, sustainable development and poverty reduction and the political independence of the judiciary.

A pre-condition for granting the MFA and for the disbursement of each of the three instalments should be that Moldova respects effective democratic mechanisms – including a multi-party parliamentary system – and the rule of law, and guarantees respect for human rights.


  Claudia Țapardel (S&D), în scris. – Republica Moldova are nevoie urgentă de sprijin financiar, iar decizia Uniunii Europene de a oferi un ajutor de 100 de milioane de euro reprezintă un semnal puternic de solidaritate cu această țară și cu cetățenii ei. Între România și Moldova există o relație strânsă, unindu-ne limba și un trecut comun, iar țara noastră își dorește ca Moldova să facă parte din familia europeană. De aceea, România susține decizia privind acordarea asistenței macrofinanciare pentru Republica Moldova, considerând că evoluția pro-europeană a vecinilor de peste Prut poate fi îndeplinită doar prin măsuri concrete.

Dincolo de aspectele economice, această decizie trebuie înțeleasă ca o dovadă a angajamentului UE de a susține Republica Moldova în implementarea reformelor structurale. Totodată, în contextul obiectivelor geostrategice pe termen lung ale Uniunii, sprijinul pentru Moldova devine esențial pentru asigurarea unui climat politic stabil la granițele sale. Asistența macro-financiară nu este însă un cadou, aceasta fiind însoțită de condiții foarte stricte. Condiționalitățile de natură politică și economică prevăzute în decizie și în memorandumul de înțelegere oferă Uniunii un instrument solid de monitorizare a procesului de reformă în acest stat, iar Moldova va trebui să ducă la îndeplinire aceste condiționalități înainte de eliberarea fiecărei tranșe a asistenței.

Juridisks paziņojums - Privātuma politika