Texte intégral 
Procédure : 2018/2541(RSP)
Cycle de vie en séance
Cycles relatifs aux documents :

Textes déposés :


Débats :

PV 28/02/2018 - 19
CRE 28/02/2018 - 19

Votes :

PV 01/03/2018 - 8.13
Explications de votes

Textes adoptés :


Mercredi 28 février 2018 - Bruxelles Edition révisée

19. Décision de la Commission de déclencher l'article 7, paragraphe 1, du traité sur l'Union européenne en ce qui concerne la situation en Pologne (débat)
Vidéo des interventions

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the Commission decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as regards the situation in Poland (2018/2541(RSP)).

I would like to inform you that there will be no catch-the-eye procedure and no blue cards will be accepted.


  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you to Parliament for putting this issue on the agenda. The Commission’s concerns, raised in our three previous recommendations of July and December 2016 and July 2017, have not been addressed and you know what steps we took on 20 December 2017. On 21 December, the Polish President signed two new laws on the Supreme Court and on the National Council for the Judiciary into law, raising additional grave concerns about the consequences for the independence of the Polish judiciary. In a nutshell, within a period of only 2 years, 13 laws were adopted in Poland. Their cumulative effect is to limit the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

The entire structure of the justice system is affected, in particular, the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court, the ordinary courts and the National Council for the Judiciary. The executive and legislative powers can now interfere with the composition, the powers, the administration and the functioning of judicial authorities in a way that, in our view, undermines judicial independence and the separation of powers, and if you undermine judicial independence and the separation of powers, there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law. These concerns are fully shared by a wide range of European and international organisations, including the European networks of the Presidents of the Constitutional Courts, the Supreme Courts and the highest administrative courts. A particularly informative read, including for the historical context, are the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission opinions of December 2017.

In light of these developments, the Commission adopted on 20 December last year a reasoned proposal for the Council in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty. Simultaneously, the Commission also adopted a fourth recommendation under its rule of law framework in which we invited the Polish authorities to solve the problems identified in that recommendation within three months. The Commission also decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union for breaches of EU law by the Law on Ordinary Courts. The recommendation sets out clearly a list of steps that the Polish authorities can take in order to remedy the current situation. In particular, the Commission believes that the Polish authorities should address five key concerns, and they could do it as follows: first, by publishing and implementing the three unpublished 2016 judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. Under the rule of law, no government should be able to decide which court rulings are published, especially if publishing is essential for these rulings to be valid.

Secondly, by restoring the independence and legitimacy of the Constitutional Tribunal, by ensuring that its judges, its President and its Vice-President are lawfully elected and appointed. The changes over the past two years have led to a complete re—composition of the Tribunal outside the normal constitutional process so that it is no longer able to provide effective constitutional review of laws.

They could also amend the law on the Supreme Court so as to not apply a lowered retirement age to the current Supreme Court judges or the current first president, thereby avoiding almost 40% of its current judges being forced into early retirement. That’s a third option that should be used. Also, the discretionary powers of the President of the Republic over those judges who wish to stay should be removed, as should the truly extraordinary – so—called extraordinary – appeal procedure that makes it possible to re—open and overturn judgments going back 20 years, not on grounds of new facts but on grounds of social justice. This is unheard of in any Member State of the European Union.

Fourthly, they should amend the law on the ordinary court so as to remove the new retirement regime for judges of ordinary courts, including the discretionary power of the Minister of Justice to prolong mandates of judges that wish to stay. Also, the arbitrary and unjustified decisions to dismiss court presidents should be remedied.

Fifthly, they should amend the law on the National Council for the Judiciary to ensure that the mandates of current judges—members of that council are not prematurely terminated and that judges—members are elected by other judges and not by politicians.

I am pleased to inform you that since January this year, since the new government has been in power, exchanges between the Commission and the Polish authorities have been taking place again. For the first time in two years, we really have a dialogue, and I think we should continue this at all levels. We met with the Prime Minister and with the Foreign Minister: Jean—Claude Juncker met with the Prime Minister and Věra Jourová met the Foreign Minister, so we are intensifying our contact.

I really hope that this dialogue will lead to concrete measures which address adequately these five key issues before the end of March because the dialogue, however pleasant and intensive, is only useful if it produces results. I’m really looking forward to Poland’s concrete reactions to our recommendation.

I cannot overstate the importance of the rule of law for the functioning of the European Union. Respect for the rule of law is not only a prerequisite for the protection of all the fundamental values listed in Article 2; it is also a prerequisite for upholding all rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and for establishing mutual trust of citizens, businesses and national authorities in the legal systems of all other Member States. The proper functioning of the rule of law is also essential, in particular, for the seamless operation of the internal market and an investment—friendly environment.

Let me also draw your attention to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling from yesterday in case C-46/16. The CJEU has clarified the scope of Article 2 and Article 19 in relation to the need to ensure at national level an independent and effective judiciary. We will examine this judgment very carefully as a basis of our dialogue with the Polish authorities.

I would like to underline that the Commission does not question the right of any Member State to reform its judicial system. It is up to Member States to define and reform their judicial system. However, whatever the model chosen or reform carried out, full judicial independence should be safeguarded in line with EU law and European standards. You cannot use the argument of needing to reform the judicial system to then introduce political oversight or political control by the executive or the legislative force of the judiciary, which should remain independent.

The discussion today and the whole process that we have been engaged in for two years is not against Poland, and I’m really quite saddened by the fact that, every time, this is presented as a one—man operation against Poland or the Polish nation. We have a very strong difference of opinion with this Polish Government, not with the Polish nation. The Commission is working for a union with Poland and for Poland within the Union. I’ve said this before in this Parliament: I cannot imagine a European Union without Poland. We need Poland and I think Poland also needs the European Union.


The independence of Poland’s judicial system and its respect of the rule of law are essential cornerstones for a strong Poland in the European Union, for an independent Poland, a sovereign Poland. There is no contradiction between being a fully fledged, active member of the European Union and being a sovereign nation. It’s about time for people who sell this nonsense to be called out.

To conclude, the Commission has always stressed that upholding the rule of law is a joint responsibility shared among all EU institutions. That is why I’m so glad your Parliament has taken the time to look at this so intensively again today. We are now in a new interinstitutional phase which reflects this joint responsibility. Yesterday the Commission got very vocal and very strong support from an overwhelming majority of Member States in the Council, and both parties – the Polish Government and the Commission – were urged to continue the dialogue and to come up with concrete solutions to the problem. We are game. The Commission wants that to happen and I trust that this Parliament will continue to show its strong determination to uphold the rule of law in all of our Member States, including Poland. That is in our collective interest.



  Roberta Metsola, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, let me start by saying how upsetting it is to me, to my group and to my colleagues that today we stand here again in the shadow of Article 7 discussing Poland, the land where solidarity was born in all its senses: solidarity – that force for freedom and independence – which inspired so many in Europe to do the same. But we cannot close our eyes to what is happening, not on our watch. We remain seriously concerned about what is going on in Poland, and I cannot but express our sincere regret regarding the lack of will on the side of the Polish Government to even engage in a real, constructive dialogue with the Commission, let alone contemplate the changes that are needed.

We are here for the sixth time on this issue and we are here not because we want to be or because we want to somehow punish Poland. We are here because someone must stand up for the people of Poland. We are here because the authorities in Poland have shown little sign of moving. Rather than work to improve the circumstances and start to rebuild the bridges they have burnt, the situation has deteriorated even further. We have seen countless heads and deputy heads of lower courts fired, often by means of a fax. We have seen the reform of the National Council for the Judiciary get underway in a manner that, even with so many Polish judges resisting, serves to undermine the independence of the judiciary. We have seen Poland regress.

Democracy and the rule of law in Poland are being seriously threatened today, and this cannot continue. Polish people are looking to us to act, and act we must. The Polish Government is even going as far as attempting to control historical narratives as a means toward somehow bolstering its own nationalistic aims.

Europe simply cannot afford to close its eyes to what is happening and so tomorrow’s vote will mean that we fully support the Commission’s decision to trigger Article 7 for Poland. It did not need to come to this, but unfortunately the Polish Government left us with little choice. Our intention is to do everything in our means for Poland to come back to the heart of Europe. The Commission has always made it clear, as we have just heard, that it is willing and ready to talk, but we need concrete results from Poland. We need to see respect for Poland’s constitution and the independence of its courts.

No one wants to push Poland away; we have been trying to do exactly the opposite. But being an EU Member State means respecting EU values, honouring your commitment to fundamental rights and understanding that an electoral majority does not give you a free hand to do as you please. It means respecting critical voices. If you are a member of the European Union, you cannot ignore what it stands for. That is why we will always stand up for the people of Poland, the land that gave Europe and the world the values of Saint John Paul II, the genius of Marie Skłodowska Curie, the music of Chopin, the courage of Lech Wałęsa and so much more. Polish heroes are European heroes, and we are one.

So I repeat (Applause), it is not only about Poland. We know that if the rule of law is allowed to collapse anywhere then it has failed everywhere. This is the very nature of our Union and we, as the European People’s Party, cannot allow it. We also know that there is a huge gap between the rights that we demand as EU citizens and the mechanisms that are available to ensure their protection. It is something that we must address. The situation that we see in Poland has again underlined the need for a concrete mechanism that would protect the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights across the European Union.

Our message to Poland is clear: do not turn your backs on Europe, do not drive a wedge where one does not exist. Let us all come back – as we have just heard – to the negotiating table, engage in active dialogue and act on the Commission’s recommendations so that the current situation can be remedied as soon as possible. I conclude with this message. We will not – we will never – turn our backs on the people of Poland.





  Josef Weidenholzer, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, more than two years ago our House started to debate the situation of the rule of law in Poland, seen as difficult and serious but still solvable. In the meantime, we have observed a dramatic deterioration. Whereas the position of the European institutions did not alter and our concerns remained, the Polish Government continued its activities. Dialogue did not happen for months, whilst Vice-President Timmermans was constantly urging cooperation. There is now a new situation. The language has softened, but the substance remains.

As we all know, the triggering of the Article 7 procedure by the Commission was not something done lightly. The activation of Article 7 is a last resort. We know this and we know that action has been taken only because the situation is serious. The Polish people deserve a free and fair judicial system. No citizen should ever feel that their judges could be under political influence. No Polish person must ever doubt that they can receive a fair and free trial.

There are also other issues we have to address. Three months ago we passed a resolution criticising attacks on civil society organisations and the threat to the sexual and reproductive rights of women, and we are also concerned at the repression of some groups as retired public servants. But today we are focusing on the matter of the judiciary to make it clear that triggering Article 7 in the case of Poland is not directed against the people of Poland. It is a last signal and it is against the government which systematically neglects European concerns, concerns which are not developed by so-called Brussels bureaucrats. There is a clear foundation in the Treaties and an obligation. A government that does not accept this is telling lies to its people. You may win elections but you put the future at risk. We stand fully behind the Commission in its triggering of Article 7.


  Ryszard Antoni Legutko, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Rezolucja jest niedorzeczna, podobnie jak całe to nękanie Polski przez ostatnie dwa lata. Problem jest taki, że tak naprawdę ogromna część z państwa w ogóle nie ma pojęcia, co się dzieje w Polsce, o co chodzi, na czym polegają te reformy i dlaczego są przeprowadzane. Pan przewodniczący Timmermans bardzo długo się sprawą Polski zajmuje, a jednak braki informacyjne są tutaj zasadnicze. Spróbuję zarysować szerszy kontekst, nie wdając się w polemiki, bo w polemiki się już wdawałem.

Proszę państwa! Gdy upadł komunizm, zaczęto budować w Polsce nowy system sprawiedliwości, uznano, że najlepiej będzie, jeśli kontrolę nad tym systemem sprawiedliwości przejmą korporacje prawnicze. I one dostały władzę, jakiej nie miały w żadnym innym kraju europejskim. Po prostu takiej władzy nie miały, jaką dostały w Polsce. To było o tyle dziwne, że niemała część prawników zachowywała się fatalnie w systemie komunistycznym i powinna była zostać odsunięta. Tak się nie stało. Środowisko oczyści się samo, jak powiedział jeden z ówczesnych, skądinąd bardzo szanowanych prawników, ale środowisko się nie oczyściło. Do tej pory w Sądzie Najwyższym mamy sędziów, którzy gnębili opozycję demokratyczną w czasach komunistycznych.

Ta decyzja o przyznaniu korporacjom prawniczym tak wielkiej władzy była ze strony ówczesnych prawodawców, nas wszystkich straszną naiwnością. Myśmy sobie wyobrażali, że te korporacje prawnicze to jest jakaś chodząca sprawiedliwość, to jest jej ucieleśnienie, to jest ta kobieta z zasłoniętymi oczami i trzymająca wagę, czysty rozum prawniczy. No, oczywiście to się okazało nieprawdą. Komunistów nie usunięto, pojawili się ich następcy i tak dalej, i tak dalej – cały ten system klientelizmu: kto się nie zgadzał, był marginalizowany, kto się naraził środowisku, był skończony. Takim oczywistym przykładem tego było to, że prezesi sądów mieli absolutną władzę wyznaczania składu sędziowskiego, co często – oczywiście nie zawsze, ale bardzo często, zbyt często –oznaczało, że zanim proces się rozpoczął, już wiadomo było, jak się skończy.

Mieliśmy największą liczbę sędziów i największą przewlekłość procesową. Polska była jednym z krajów z największą liczbą przegranych spraw przed Europejskimi Trybunałami. A wszystko to wynikało właśnie ze sposobów funkcjonowania sędziów. Trudno się dziwić, że te korporacje, poczuwszy władzę, popadły w pychę – każdy, jak ma taką nieograniczoną władzę, popada w pychę. Zaczęły się zachowywać jak podmioty partyjne, nie ukrywając swoich partyjnych sympatii czy antypatii, co się odzwierciedlało również w sposobach rozstrzygania spraw.

Zasada niezawisłości sędziowskiej, która brzmi: jestem posłuszny tylko prawu, została w praktyce zmieniona w zasadę: mogę robić, co chcę, a komu się nie podoba, przepraszam za wyrażenie, niech spada na drzewo. Znane są przecież przypadki sędziów na telefon, a najbardziej bulwersujący przypadek to prowokacja dziennikarska: dziennikarz zadzwonił do jednego z sędziów i podał się za współpracownika ówczesnego premiera Polski Donalda Tuska, przez co uzyskał od nowego sędziego różne obietnice. Albo inny przypadek: były prezes Trybunału Konstytucyjnego wydał orzeczenie w składzie, którego nie przewiduje żadne prawo, ani konstytucja, ani żadna ustawa, była czy obecna – po prostu było to zebranie towarzyskie przyjaciół prezesa – i później dziwił się, że rząd tego orzeczenia nie opublikował. To skandal – wołał – przecież mi wszystko wolno – prawo to ja.

No, proszę państwa, to są patologie, nie można tego tolerować. Szczytowym momentem tego mariażu korporacji prawniczych i partii politycznej był skok na Trybunał Konstytucyjny, który miał doprowadzić praktycznie do politycznego kontrolowania Trybunału przez wiele lat naprzód. Skok dokonany przez poprzedni rząd – zupełnie monstrualny z punktu widzenia rządów prawa i widzenia prawa – w tej Izbie ani w Komisji Europejskiej nie wywołał żadnej reakcji. Natomiast to, że uniemożliwiliśmy ten skok, wprawiło większość z państwa w moralne oburzenie graniczące z histerią. Ja już mówiłem wielokrotnie, że dlatego się państwo nie oburzali, że to byli koledzy, stronnicy polityczni. Zasada podwójnych standardów jest tak naprawdę jedyną zasadą, która jest tutaj konsekwentnie przestrzegana.

Proszę państwa! To, co się dzieje w Polsce, to reforma systemu sprawiedliwości, spóźniona przynajmniej o 25 lat, reforma systemu, który od początku działał źle, bo był źle pomyślany. Więc ten, kto mówi, że w Polsce były rządy prawa, a dopiero później, jak się władza zmieniła, to sytuacja się pogorszyła, ten mówi nieprawdę. Było fatalnie, a teraz jest próba zmiany tego stanu rzeczy i żadne z rozwiązań nie jest oryginalne, każde z nich w jakimś tam zakresie występuje w jakimś kraju europejskim. Dlatego nie dziwcie się, drodzy państwo, że gdy polscy obywatele słuchają debat o Polsce tutaj w tej Izbie, słyszą wypowiedzi moich szanownych kolegów z pierwszego rzędu, przedstawicieli Komisji, to wpadają w osłupienie. To, co mówicie państwo, nie ma się nijak do rzeczywistości, w której żyją Polacy. Mówicie o jakiejś Polsce, której nie ma, mówicie o jakimś rządzie, który nie istnieje. Jesteście natomiast państwo traktowani jako ci, którzy bronią starego ustroju, bronią ancien regime’u, którego już wszyscy mają dość. I proszę to przyjąć do wiadomości. Ten ancien regime już nie wróci, bo się skompromitował, więc nie warto go bronić, bo on jest nie do obrony.

(Oklaski z jego grupy)


  Sophia in ‘t Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, after all this, first of all, I would like to echo the wonderful statement made by Roberta Metsola, every word of it. The ALDE Group very much welcomes the decision by the European Commission to trigger Article 7.1 in the case of Poland. Since the last time we discussed this, unfortunately, further worrying developments have taken place, like the controversial Holocaust law and the new initiatives on a full ban on abortion, and it escapes me how these measures are solving the problems that you have mentioned, Mr Legutko.

We call on the Council to act swiftly as well because with every day that passes, democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are damaged further. So, no further delays. This is about the moral authority of the European Union in the world. People are watching us and asking themselves, ‘will the EU rise in defence of its own values?’ The Commission has set the deadline of 28 March, but in the meantime I would like to know what the consequences are for police and justice cooperation if the Polish judiciary cannot be considered to be independent – Member State authorities must work together on the basis of the presumption of compliance and not the pretence of compliance.

All Member States have to be treated equally, and yes, we’re criticising Poland, but applying double standards undermines the credibility of the European community of values. In this respect, dear colleague Weber, I would really like to ask you, why is it that you were highly critical of Poland but you’re still protecting Viktor Orban? Viktor Orban, the man of the dirty anti-Semitic, anti-Soros, anti-Brussels and anti-migrants campaigns. I think the EPP has to choose where it stands.

Finally, it is high time for us to get a neutral objective mechanism for upholding the values of the European Union. This House put forward a legislative initiative in 2016. We urge the Commission to present their announced proposal for such a mechanism as soon as possible and not wait until the end of the year.



  Barbara Spinelli, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, alcuni diranno che attivare l'articolo 7 è un gesto solo verbale visto che, alla fine, non ci sarà unanimità al Consiglio. Non è quello che penso. Pur conoscendo il rischio dell'impotenza, questo Parlamento deve esprimersi se constata in uno Stato membro violazioni gravi dell'articolo 2.

È stato un dissidente dell'Est, Václav Havel, a insegnare che esiste un potere degli impotenti ed è questo potere che vogliamo esercitare per mettere in guardia non solo il governo polacco, ma tutti i governi che imboccassero la strada che porta a smantellare la rule of law, compresi i governi che già la stanno smantellando, come l'Ungheria.

In democrazia, governi e parlamenti non sono gli unici a detenere il monopolio della legittimità: lo condividono con il potere giudiziario – ultimo garante dei diritti – indipendentemente dalle elezioni. In democrazia non esistono leggi che impongono una visione unica della storia nazionale.


  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, there were many times in history in which Poland was the forerunner for the rule of law in Europe. It was the first country in our continent with a modern constitution that established an independent judiciary. Poland also has a long and proud tradition of civil movements for freedom and democracy, from the resistance against the German occupation to the Solidarność movement.

Unfortunately, the Polish Government does not seem to remember the proud traditions of Poland and it certainly does not seem to care about the future of the country. It is taking Poland away from the path of democracy and civil rights. It sees opposition and debate not as a sign of a living society, but as a threat. But Poland is much more than the Polish Government, and we as the European Parliament, as the European Union, need to support the judges who fight against their dismissal. We need to fight for the people protesting against the destruction of the last primary forest in Europe and we need to support the women fighting for their rights over their own bodies. Supporting them means keeping up the dialogue, supporting cross-border initiatives and taking a strict and strong line with the Government when it comes to rights and rules, for when their own government does not want to live up to the most basic standards what do people do? They turn to Europe.

That is why we support the Commission’s proposal to trigger Article 7, and if the Council does not do its job on Poland asap then it should expect a full investigation into the Polish case by Parliament, as we promised last November. And let us remember that the people of Europe expect us to stand up for the standards and rights that define us as Europeans. This is a great responsibility that we bear in relation not just to Poland, but to all citizens of the European Union. They have the right to be governed well, to an independent judiciary, and to see their rights well guarded, and that is something which we need to maintain.


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I am always hearing about new values, I am always hearing about human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and yet in 2011, when journalists in Poland were being apprehended, held and sacked for being critical of the Government, what did the Commission do? Nothing. Why? Well, of course, because Mr Tusk, as the then Prime Minister, was pro the European Union.

But when you get Law and Justice in power, who are critical of the European Union, here you are, Mr Timmermans – just because they tried to clear out the Communist old guard and modernise their system – on the verge of invoking Article 7 and taking away their democratic rights within the Union.

And it is the same story in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán quite rightly refuses to accept your ludicrous migrant quota programme and he is now cast as the devil. Maybe the real reason is that he is taking on Soros, perhaps the most dangerous man in Western democracy today. ‘Keep going, Viktor Orbán’, is all that free democrats can say.

And you are happy to interfere, Mr Timmermans, in every single Member State where you think you see an infringement, apart from – I had nearly forgotten – in the case of Catalonia. Nine hundred and fifty people get beaten up by the police because they want to turn out on a Sunday morning and express an opinion – a totally clear violation, Mr Timmermans, of people’s human rights, an absolute abuse of any sense of a democratic process – yet you say, in that case, that it is none of our business. But, of course, they are a pro-EU Government, so the iron fist of the European Union is reserved purely for your critics.

You said today you hoped that the United Kingdom would change its mind and reverse Brexit. Well, looking at the way you are treating Poland, I would have thought the answer must be a very big ‘no’. This, for Poland, is the modern-day Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty. You rebelled against that system, Polish people, and I hope you go on and rebel against this one.

(Applause from certain quarters)


  Stanisław Żółtek, w imieniu grupy ENF. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie będę polskiego rządu chwalił ani ganił, bo tak naprawdę należy mu się jedno i drugie. Chciałbym dzisiaj poruszyć kwestię wolności, którą grupa urzędników chce zabrać Polsce, innym krajom i większości tu obecnych posłów. Ci urzędnicy uznali, że skoro mają tak wysokie pensje, to są upoważnieni do tego, by rządzić tymi, którzy ich mianowali. Jeśli Wy, wybrani przedstawiciele narodów, pozwolicie, by ci urzędnicy wygrali w wewnętrznych sprawach Polski, to za chwilę podporządkują oni sobie i Wasze kraje. Zamiast rządzić w imieniu narodów będziecie służącymi Komisji Europejskiej. Będziecie służyć grupie urzędników, których ego po mianowaniu ich na komisarzy urosło tak niebotycznie, że uznali siebie za władców narodów i krajów. Niektórzy szefowie grup Parlamentu są powiązani z tymi urzędnikami i zagłosują tak, jak się z nimi umówili, ale większość posłów nie jest powiązana. Nie dajcie kupić wolności swojej i swoich krajów, poddając się szantażowi reelekcji czy lojalności partyjnej.


  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pan Franciszek Timmermans ma absolutną rację, mówiąc o zagrożeniu prawa w Polsce, dlatego jutro rzucam Parlament Europejski i wracam do Polski walczyć z nadciągającą dyktaturą PiS-u. Ale Wy mi w tym przeszkadzacie. Nie znacie sytuacji w Polsce. Każdy Wasz nacisk na rząd PiS-u wzmaga jego popularność. Niedługo dzięki Panu, Panie Timmermans, PiS dojdzie do większości konstytucyjnej. Dzięki Panu.

To Wy chcieliście w Polsce demokracji. Gdyby w Niemczech panowało cesarstwo, to Adolf Hitler byłby w pałacu cesarskim tylko po raz do roku: na konkursie akwarelistów. To dzięki demokracji tacy ludzie jak Hitler, Obama, Trump dochodzą do władzy. To dzięki Panu, Panie Timmermans. Dlatego musimy z tym walczyć.

A poza tym sądzę, że Unia Europejska musi być zniszczona.


  Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Korwin-Mikke! Ich rufe Sie zur Ordnung. Der Vergleich, den Sie angestellt haben, war unparlamentarisch.


  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, we have made clear why we believe Article 7(1) was warranted. We are also in a dialogue with the Polish Government to try and resolve the issue. The Commission is very much committed to that. And the interesting thing is that, from the beginning of this process, I was warned: ‘Don’t do it, you’ll bring about Polexit’; ‘Don’t do it, the Polish people will no longer support the Union’. Well, as a matter of fact, support for the EU in Poland has gone up, not down. It has gone up.

So, do the Polish people understand that Mr Farage, who speaks out in support of their Government, is someone who wants to break up the European Union? Do the Polish people understand which country will be the biggest victim of a broken-up European Union, given its geographic position? Poland.

Do the Polish people understand that Mr Farage’s best friend is Vladimir Putin?


Do the Polish people know that?

(Heckling from Nigel Farage)

When someone says something you do not like, you just try to prevent them saying it, don’t you Mr Farage? You admire Vladimir Vladimirovich …

(More heckling from Nigel Farage)

I’m shaking in my boots, because I’m next to you, Mr Farage, but what I want to say is this: the European Union cannot survive without Poland in its midst, and Poland has a strategic interest in being a member of the European Union. Polish people will not be fooled by anyone. They know this. They know this and, at some point – to quote a young American – ‘there’s only so much BS people will take’.

Let me be very clear on this. I respect Mr Farage’s idea of leaving the European Union. I respect that, but I also want those whom he now addresses as friends to understand what his agenda is. I am quite sure it should not be Poland’s agenda. I would urge the Polish Government to see where their true friends are, and they are not among those who want to break up the European Union.



  Der Präsident. – Gemäß Artikel 123 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung wurden drei Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 1. März 2018, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)


  Beata Gosiewska (ECR), na piśmie. – Kolejny raz na tej sali debatujemy nad praworządnością w Polsce tylko dlatego, że kilku polskim posłom przez trzy lata nie udało się pogodzić z powyborcza porażką, a mówiąc wprost, nikt z państwa nie zadał sobie trudu, żeby zobaczyć, jak naprawdę wygląda sytuacja w Polsce. Dlaczego? Ponieważ wówczas musieliby państwo przyznać, że jest ona bardzo dobra: – że polskie rodziny mają wreszcie wystarczające środki na utrzymanie (podniesienie płacy minimalnej i program 500+), – że Polska osiąga coraz lepsze wyniki gospodarcze, – że dzięki ciężkiej pracy rządu mamy rekordowe wpływy do budżetu, – a wreszcie, że po wielu latach zaniedbań Polska stała się silnym, bezpiecznym i stabilnym gospodarczo krajem i w mojej ocenie to jest właśnie powód kolejnej debaty, że Polska śmiała wstać z kolan i podnieść głowę, że chce być równorzędnym aktorem europejskiej sceny politycznej. Każdy, kto zechciałby uznać prawdę o Polsce, musiałby podobnie jak komisarz Juncker dostrzec aktualnie toczący się intensywny dialog pomiędzy Polską a Komisją Europejską i podzielić jego opinie o zbliżeniu stanowisk między Polską a KE. Tylko nie macie państwo ani woli, ani odwagi, by to zrobić.


  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), písemně. – Dnes jsme se zabývali návrhem Komise aktivovat článek 7 Smlouvy o EU proti Polsku. Chtěl bych zdůraznit, že v historii EU tento článek ještě nikdy použit nebyl a mohlo by se jednat o nebezpečný precedent. Domnívám se, že situace v Polsku a probíhající reformy, např. v justičním systému, se nám nemusí líbit a zřejmě nejsou ani příliš demokratické. Ale vyhrožovat některému členskému státu, že ho zbavíme hlasovacích práv v Radě anebo že proti němu uplatníme ještě přísnější sankce kvůli jeho vnitrostátním reformám, je v dnešní době, kdy je EU v hluboké krizi a potřebujeme naopak být jednotní, nesprávné. I když se neztotožňuji se všemi změnami a reformními kroky, které v Polsku probíhají, nemohl jsem návrh podpořit.


  Marijana Petir (PPE), napisan. – Pitanje situacije u Poljskoj je već dugo pred europskim institucijama koje su s oprezom pratile sva zbivanja i događanja u Poljskoj. Razumijem zabrinutost kolega koji pozdravljaju i podržavaju Rezoluciju LIBE Odbora za aktivacijom članka 7., stavka 1. Ugovora o Europskoj uniji, međutim, napominjem potrebu za oprezom kako poljski narod ne bi ovaj potez europskih institucija shvatio kao grubo kršenje njihove suverenosti i autonomije.

Načelo supsidijarnosti, poštovanje granica nacionalne jurisdikcije i djelovanja unutar pravnih okvira su temeljne vrijednosti Europske unije preko kojih ne smijemo olako preći. Trenutno nerazumijevanje koje postoji između Poljske i Europske unije nije od koristi niti Europi niti poljskom narodu, stoga sam mišljenja da bi trebali ustrajati na traženju rješenja koje ne bi nužno u opasnost dovelo širenje snažnog anti-europskog osjećaja među poljskim narodom.

Stoga bih se založila da na EU razini dijalogu razmotrimo otvorena pitanja, poštujući pri tom pravo Poljske na samoodređenje, suverenost i autonomiju.


  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF), în scris. – Activarea articolului 7 din TUE este cea mai dură sancțiune împotriva unui stat-membru. Nu mă pot pronunța asupra situației din Polonia decât superficial. S-a decretat cumva starea de asediu? S-au abolit instituțiile statului democratic? Au fost interzise drepturi cetățenești? Nimic din toate acestea!

Să presupunem, însă, că, peste noapte, situația a devenit extrem de gravă. În acest caz, trebuie să ne aducem aminte că, pentru europeni, Polonia a fost premianta Estului. Polonia nu a intrat în UE ca România sau Bulgaria – cu semne de întrebare, cu monitorizări infinite, cu avertismente și controale. Nu, Polonia a intrat „curată” și cu fruntea sus. Dar, dacă s-a schimbat ceva în ordinea democratică din Polonia, atunci, în mod logic, aceste schimbări au avut loc de când ea este membră a Uniunii! Deci, la fel de logic, tocmai apartenența la Uniune a generat în Polonia presupusele abateri de la democrație.

Suntem în stare să acceptăm această concluzie? Dacă da, atunci nu Polonia, ci Uniunea are o mare problemă! Dacă nu, înseamnă că problema e alta. Și e foarte simplă: nu democrația este preocuparea Comisiei, ci influențarea politicii dintr-un stat membru! Iar ceea ce face Comisia se numește poliție politică!


  Henna Virkkunen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Haluan kiittää komissiota siitä aktiivisuudesta jolla se on Puolan kanssa pyrkinyt käymään dialogia viimeisten vuosien ajan, mutta valitettavasti keskustelu ei ole johtanut tuloksiin. Näin ollen komissio on tehnyt täysin oikean johtopäätöksen esittäessään 7 artiklan kohdan 1 mukaisten toimien käynnistämistä.

Liittyessään Euroopan unionin jäseneksi kaikki EU-maat ovat sitoutuneet puolustamaan eurooppalaisia perusarvoja: ihmisarvon ja ihmisoikeuksien kunnioittamista, vapautta, kansanvaltaa, tasa-arvoa ja oikeusvaltiota. Näistä arvoista on pidettävä kiinni.

Euroopan parlamentti totesi jo marraskuussa päätöslauselmassaan että on olemassa vaara, että Puola loukkaa EU:n arvoja oikeusvaltioperiaate mukaan lukien. Kyse on vallanjaon periaatteiden kunnioittamisesta, oikeuslaitoksen riippumattomuudesta ja perusoikeuksista. Komissio on tehnyt asiassa parhaansa, mutta nyt tarvitaan vahva tuki jäsenmailta. Puola on uhkaavasti luisumassa pois eurooppalaisista arvoista, eikä tällaista tilannetta voi sallia. Kyse on EU:n tärkeimmistä perusperiaatteista. Ministerineuvoston on nyt ryhdyttävä pikaisesti toimiin EU:n perussopimuksen 7 artiklan 1 kohdan määräysten mukaisesti.

Samalla on todettava, että EU:n sääntöjä on syytä uudistaa niin, että vastaaviin oikeusvaltioperiaatteiden loukkauksiin voidaan puuttua jatkossa aiempaa nopeammin ja tehokkaammin. Yhtenä keinona tulisi käyttää myös EU-tukien jäädyttämistä vakavasti sääntöjä rikkovilta jäsenmailta.

Dernière mise à jour: 13 avril 2018Avis juridique - Politique de confidentialité