Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Mercoledì 29 marzo 2023 - Bruxelles

10. Ordine dei lavori

  President. – We now come to the order of business. So I understand that there are some colleagues who want to make points of order, also with regard to changes of the agenda, so we’ll take them one by one.

  Vincenzo Sofo (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non posso non sottoporre all'attenzione vostra la gravità di quanto accaduto ieri in Francia, dove la Corte di Cassazione ha negato all'Italia, ancora una volta, l'estradizione di dieci terroristi, accusati di crimini efferati come omicidi, ma che da decenni vivono impuniti sotto la protezione di uno Stato membro di questa comunità.

Ora, vi chiedo come sia possibile tollerare all'interno dell'Unione europea, che del rispetto dello Stato di diritto fa un principio fondante, che possa esserci un paese che tutela il terrorismo, applicando ancora nel 2023 la dottrina Mitterrand e impedendo a un altro Stato membro di compiere nel proprio paese quella giustizia tanto attesa dal suo popolo.

Chiediamo dunque alle istituzioni europee di prendere una posizione forte a tutela di quelle famiglie delle vittime del terrorismo, che sono cittadini europei tanto quanto tutti gli altri e che dunque hanno il sacrosanto diritto di ottenere giustizia, perché lo Stato di diritto è un principio che deve valere per tutti e non può essere un'arma da utilizzare a piacimento solo per colpire politicamente dei governi non graditi.

  Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to use this opportunity to remind us that on 17 March, two weeks ago, the International Criminal Court issued the arrest warrant to President Putin for the war crime of the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Let us congratulate the ICC with this very important decision. Ukraine really deserves international justice against the inhuman and criminal behaviour of Putin’s regime.

From another side, Madam President, I would like to remind you that some time ago this House overwhelmingly supported the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of war aggression, which is the mother of all the war crimes, and asked EU institutions to lead the international process for establishment of such a tribunal. We are still awaiting for the implementation of our political will on the creation of special tribunal and, Madam President, we need your leadership for it to happen.

Madam President, there is one more related and urgent issue. In two days’ time, Russia for the month of April will take a rotating Presidency in the Security Council of the United Nations. The question is very clear: can the war criminal head the United Nations Security Council? Democracies should boycott Security Council procedures while Russia will be in the Presidency and I would like to suggest that you should issue a special statement on behalf of all of us to support such an international boycott initiative.

  Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order on the basis of Rules 7 and 8. Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to President Metsola’s failure to comply with the President’s obligations to assert my immunity and protect the independence of this Chamber.

Yesterday, I was illegally arrested in Barcelona, and I requested President Metsola to defend my immunities. I have received no answer to my request and, to my knowledge, she has taken no action whatsoever except, as she has recently informed, passing on the case bureaucratically to the JURI Committee.

I have to wonder about this lack of compliance of the defence of immunities in front of an illegal arrest of a Member of the European Parliament, which has not happened before in the history of this Parliament. Is this a policy of the Presidency or is this just an attitude that you reserve for us Catalans?

  President. – Thank you, dear Member. I presume you did not hear my announcements at the beginning of the session, so I ask you to look back at what I said exactly.

I see Ms Montserrat wants the floor, and then many other colleagues.

  Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, ustedes se piensan que esto es el Parlament de Catalunya, en el que hacen lo que les da la gana. Esto es el Parlamento Europeo y aquí la democracia se defiende frente a aquellos que la pisotean. Aquí, todos sabemos que ustedes son prófugos de la justicia, que han atropellado la ley y que deben responder ante la justicia española.

Ya está bien de tanto teatro secesionista, del numerito electoral de ayer en Barcelona, de venderse como víctimas y de manipular la verdad. Aquí lo único que ha cambiado es que Sánchez ha cedido ante ustedes por miedo a perder el poder, rebajando el Código Penal español.

Señores socialistas, la dignidad de un país no se vende nunca, ni por un puñado de votos. Ni inmunidad, ni impunidad. Defensa del Estado de Derecho y de la democracia, siempre.

  Jordi Cañas (Renew). – Señora presidenta, yo, como catalán, le pediría, por favor, que intente evitar que esta Cámara se convierta en un espacio de debate político que va en contra de los principios que acabamos de defender. Veníamos de estar celebrando un espacio de encuentro, de unión, de acuerdo. Este tipo de situaciones no ayuda para nada.

Usted ha dado una salida a una situación que... Mire, yo tengo una opinión —la he dado antes en los medios de comunicación— pero creo que este no es el espacio. El espacio —usted lo ha conducido adecuadamente adonde se tiene que producir— es en la comisión correspondiente. Me gustaría que esta Cámara no se utilizase para hacer un show político, que creo que en un momento como este, y después de estar hablando de lo que estábamos hablando, degrada absolutamente y creo que no conviene a su acción política.

  President. – Yes, that is exactly what I announced, in fact.

Ms Riba, last one on this point, please.

  Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, me gustaría invocar también el artículo 8 del Reglamento interno del Parlamento Europeo para referirme a la detención de la compañera Clara Ponsatí por el juez del Tribunal Supremo español, Pablo Llarena, cuando ella, después de cinco años de exilio, volvió a su hogar, Cataluña.

Es inaudito que un juez decrete una detención por un delito que ni tan solo implica privación de libertad, como es el delito de desobediencia, y posteriormente se la retenga durante horas, a pesar de tener todos sus derechos políticos intactos.

Por eso, exigimos a la Presidencia de esta Cámara que defienda la inmunidad de la eurodiputada Ponsatí y que exija a la justicia española que, de una vez por todas, acate la legalidad europea y abandone el Brexit judicial en el cual se ha instalado.

  President. – I ask you, dear colleague, also to listen to my announcements earlier.

Now we go to the agenda. With the agreement of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposals for changes to the final draft agenda.

On Thursday, firstly, the report by Mr Lagodinsky on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Anna Júlia Donáth is to be added to the votes. Then, due to the withdrawal of the candidacy of Martin Klus, the report by Mr Kuhs on the nomination of the Slovak nominee for a member of the Court of Auditors is withdrawn. If there are no objections, these changes are approved.

We now move to changes requested by political groups. For Wednesday, the Greens Group has requested that the Council and Commission statements on ‘The rights of children in rainbow families, especially the case of Italy’ be added as the last point in the afternoon. I give the floor to Ms Reintke to move this request.

  Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, ‘if you are a parent in one Member State, you are a parent in every Member State’ – these are the words of our Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yet in the last weeks, we witnessed yet another attack on rainbow families in Europe, this time in Italy.

The practice to recognise certificates of same-sex parents has been restricted by the Interior Ministry and actually one person who is affected by this is sitting in the tribune, Giuseppe Sala, the Mayor of Milan. It’s great that you are here. We stand with you defending the LGBTI community.

I want to be crystal clear: we are not surprised by these attacks but, still, we are outraged. And we will stand in solidarity with the community in Italy and everywhere in Europe. And this is why it is absolutely important that we have this debate right now, because for this Parliament, all EU citizens and all families are worth the same and deserve fundamental rights.

And if I may say, Madam President, we have, together with other groups, come up with a compromise for the title. The title would now read ‘The rights of children in rainbow families and same-sex parents, in particular in Italy’, to be discussed tonight with an extended session by one hour and to be voted by RCV.

  President. – Thank you, so that would mean that the alternative proposal of Brando Benifei is now not on? Or will I give you the floor, Mr Benifei? I don’t know what compromise between whose groups has been reached.

  Brando Benifei, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, the S&D also proposed a title along the same lines of the Greens who have just presented it. Our priority is that a debate on the ongoing situation actually takes place, so we are happy to converge on the Greens’ proposal for the title and to support this debate. And thanks also from our side to the Mayor of Milan here, Giuseppe Sala, and all the mayors that in Italy are working to support this fight for the rights of all children.

  Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, we are not against a debate about the rights of children in rainbow families, because these are important topics to discuss, but we cannot pretend that they are restricted to only one particular Member State. Pretending that they are restricted to only one particular Member State – even though it might be politically convenient for some people here – doesn’t do anything to support rainbow families across the EU.

We have to decide what kind of parliament we want to be. Are we a European, credible parliament where we discuss common European challenges? Or are we nothing but a theatre where national opposition parties can attack national governments because they are too weak to make an impact at home? Let’s leave national politics to national parliaments.

I listened very carefully some time ago when Stéphane Séjourné said in Strasbourg, ‘We will systematically vote against any change of the agenda that targets national issues’. And I also heard Iratxe García Pérez say we need to respect the European debates in the European Parliament.

Let us show today that those principles are there not only when they suit us. So we propose the following debate title: ‘The rights of children in rainbow families’.

  Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, senza voler entrare nel merito della questione, c'è un errore sostanziale nella richiesta dei gruppi delle sinistre rosse e verdi che vorrei fosse chiaro a tutti. Viene imputato all'attuale governo italiano qualcosa che non ha fatto e di cui, evidentemente, non può essere responsabile.

In Italia oggi non c'è una legge che autorizza la trascrizione dei minori avuti all'estero da parte di coppie omosessuali od omogenitoriali. Il prefetto di Milano, come tutti i prefetti d'Italia, non è un politico, ma è un pubblico ufficiale che applica le leggi vigenti. Lo so io e lo sanno le sinistre italiane, che, nei dieci anni in cui hanno governato l'Italia, avrebbero potuto fare tutte le leggi che volevano. Non le hanno fatte e oggi utilizzano, invece, il corretto comportamento di un pubblico ufficiale italiano per processare nel Parlamento europeo il governo della propria nazione, che è in carica da nemmeno cinque mesi. Questa secondo me è una vergogna, da qualunque parte la si guardi.

  President. – So I ask you now, Ms Reintke, whether you agree with the S&D proposal or the EPP proposal?

I see you can treat the Green and the S&D proposal as a joint one, so we vote on that. I put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament approved the joint request)

Therefore there will be a Council and Commission statement on ‘The rights of children in rainbow families and same—sex families, in particular in Italy’ as a last point this afternoon, extension until the end of the evening.

We move next to a request by The Left Group for Wednesday that the Commission statement on ‘Immediate measures to counter the impact of the interest—rate increase decided by the ECB on households and workers’ be added as the last point tonight. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended to 21:00. I give the floor to João Pimenta Lopes to move the request on behalf of The Left Group.

  João Pimenta Lopes, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, Caros Deputados, em meados deste mês, o Banco Central Europeu fixou as taxas de juro de referência em 3,5 %, após o sexto aumento consecutivo dessas taxas, e anunciou já novos aumentos.

Medidas que têm um impacto brutal, ainda que desigual, pesando sobre as dificuldades económicas dos trabalhadores, das famílias, das empresas, de Estados. Impactos dramáticos que pesam sobretudo, e muito, sobre as famílias, na habitação, em particular nos países, como é o caso do meu país, onde predomina a taxa de juro variável.

Ora, estas famílias estão sem saber se vão continuar a poder pagar as rendas das casas, tendo em conta os aumentos tão significativos. A Comissão e o Conselho não podem continuar a ignorar esta realidade. Os trabalhadores e as famílias exigem medidas concretas e urgentes.

Este Parlamento não pode ficar impávido a assistir ao desastre para onde se empurram milhares e milhares de famílias. Seria inconcebível atrasar este debate, aqui nesta casa, de um tema que afeta tanto a vida das pessoas. Faça-se o debate.

  President. – Does any colleague want to speak against this request? Otherwise I’ll put the proposal to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

For Thursday, tomorrow, The Left Group has requested that a Commission statement on ‘The right to protest and the proportionate use of force in France’ be added as the first point in the morning. The debate would be wound up with a resolution to be voted in April, and as a consequence, the sitting would start at 8:30. I give the floor to Manon Aubry to move the request.

  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, une manifestante au pouce arraché par un tir de LBD. Un cheminot éborgné par une grenade de désencerclement. Une manifestante violée lors d’une fouille policière. Deux militants écologistes dans le coma, entre la vie et la mort. Des centaines d’arrestations arbitraires de jeunes. Un étudiant victime d’insultes racistes à qui un policier dit: «Toi, je t’aurais bien pété les jambes». Un manifestant qui se fait délibérément rouler dessus par un policier. Des élèves autrichiens en sortie scolaire mis, au hasard, en garde à vue. Des élus en écharpe, dont plusieurs d’entre nous ici, gazés. Des journalistes empêchés de faire leur travail. Voilà, chers collègues, la réalité des violences policières contre le mouvement social en France.

Alors, après les alertes du Conseil de l’Europe, de l’ONU, d’Amnesty, de la presse internationale, on ne peut pas regarder sans rien faire ce spectacle terrible. Cette doctrine de maintien de l’ordre, ces pratiques sont inacceptables au sein de l’Union européenne et c’est pourquoi notre Parlement doit exprimer sa condamnation la plus ferme.

Madame la Présidente, si vous me le permettez, cette demande est conjointe au groupe socialiste, au groupe des Verts et au groupe de la Gauche, avec un débat demain matin et un vote au mois d’avril, avec ce titre exact: le droit fondamental de manifester et l’usage proportionné de la force par la police, et avec évidemment une résolution.

  François-Xavier Bellamy, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, oui, bien sûr, les Français traversent un moment éprouvant et, bien sûr, dans ces moments de tension en particulier, tout policier qui faute doit être sanctionné. Ça n’autorise pour autant ni les amalgames, ni les ingérences. Et notre Parlement n’a pas à se substituer à la justice qui peut être librement saisie par tout citoyen en France.

Mais nous ne refusons pas pour autant un débat. Cet après-midi, nous avons entendu quelque chose d’extraordinaire, chers collègues, nous avons entendu l’extrême gauche condamner la violence. Mais pourquoi n’avez-vous pas été jusqu’au bout, chère collègue, pourquoi n’avez-vous pas parlé de la pluie de pierres et de feu qui est tombée sur les policiers et les gendarmes samedi, dans une manifestation interdite par la justice à laquelle vous participiez?

La violence est incompatible avec la démocratie et jamais, jamais, jamais, nous ne devons la tolérer. Et c’est la seule chose que nous devrions avoir à dire tous ensemble. Tous ensemble, autour des policiers et des gendarmes qui sont là pour défendre la force publique qui nous préserve de la violence.

Depuis plusieurs semaines, ils sont plus de 800 à avoir été blessés gravement et j’espère que vous aurez honte de les avoir insultés ici. J’espère que vous aurez honte devant eux, devant leur famille, devant ce jeune gendarme qui aujourd’hui est sur un lit d’hôpital pour avoir été grièvement blessé il y a quelques jours. J’espère que nous saurons dire tous ensemble que nous sommes avec les forces de l’ordre pour défendre la liberté.

  Guy Verhofstadt, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, personnellement, je dois vous dire que je crois que cette affaire serait mieux discutée et débattue dans l’Assemblée nationale de la France. C’est une démocratie, la France. Il ne faut pas l’oublier. En plus, pour qu’il n’y ait pas de malentendu, Madame Aubry, s’il y a des ripostes policières exagérées, je vais être le premier à les dénoncer et aussi à les condamner. Mais cela reste naturellement des ripostes. Cela veut dire une réaction à d’autres violences qu’on a vues sur nos télés. C’est ça la réalité. Et des violences qui sont, et ça c’est encore plus grave, Madame Aubry, parfois encouragées par des partis politiques aujourd’hui en France.

Des gens qui disent: «N’écoutez pas les élections, ce n’est pas légitime. Ce qui est en fait le plus important, c’est la censure populaire, pas la majorité parlementaire. Eh bien, vous faites des gestes, Madame Aubry, mais j’ai quand même, une fois, regardé votre compte Twitter.

J’ai été interrompu deux ou trois fois, Madame la Présidente, il faut me laisser tout de même donner ces quelques exemples. Permanence de M. Ciotti vandalisée: pas de condamnation sur votre Twitter. Le bébé d’Aurore Bergé menacé: rien sur votre Twitter. La porte d’entrée de l’hôtel de ville de Bordeaux incendiée: pas de réaction de Mme Aubry sur Twitter. Et puis des centaines de policiers blessés: pas question d’en parler.

Je propose un autre titre pour le débat, si débat il y a: «Violence en politique, une menace grandissante pour le droit à manifester. La démocratie et ceux qui la défendent.»

  President. – So we will put the first request to the vote. A Commission statement on ‘The fundamental right to demonstrate and the proportionate use of force’, with a resolution to be voted in April.

(Parliament rejected the request)

It is rejected. And therefore, Mr Verhofstadt, do you still keep your proposal or do we have no debate?

OK. So you do not maintain your proposal. The agenda in this case remains unchanged.

We move to Thursday. The Greens/EFA Group has requested that a Commission statement on the rule of law in Greece be added in a joint debate with the Commission statement on ‘The 2022 rule of law report – the rule of law situation in the European Union’. The statement would be wound up with a resolution to be voted in April. I give the floor to Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield to move the request.

  Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, indeed, the Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group (DRFMG) went on a mission to Greece recently, and we made assessments of a number of issues concerning rule of law and fundamental rights. We therefore now need an open debate in this House.

It has been, in fact, a longstanding demand from a number of Members of this Parliament, coming from different groups already for a long time, because our concerns are serious. In fact, it’s been nearly one year that we’ve been waiting, because on 9 April 2021, Giorgos Karaivaz was assassinated – a sinister remembrance of the deaths of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Ján Kuciak, journalists all murdered in relation to corruption.

That is why we need on this debate, like on others today, a debate in this House. We make this request with a Commission statement, please, because the Council will not be there tomorrow. We will also need a resolution to be voted in April, and we propose to be in the joint debate tomorrow with the 2022 Rule of Law report – and we ask for RCV, of course.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I think the last half an hour gave us a clear idea and a proof that obviously the European Parliament, in these kind of agenda debates, is becoming more and more a platform for national debates. I think that’s obvious. We feel it all in this room and I want to wish all the best to all contributors to the debate for good headlines for tomorrow in Spain, in France, wherever you want to see these debates.

I think, as the European Parliament, we cannot continue like this. That is my feeling. We have to focus on European issues. And I want to underline, like Jeroen already did and last time Iratxe, who is today not with us, did the same, saying we have to focus on European issues when we spoke about Spain.

I quote now Stéphane, when he was last time saying on behalf of Renew, ‘But, dear colleagues, in view of the challenges facing in the coming months in front of us, let’s avoid these changes to the agenda. My group will systematically vote against requests to modify the agenda on purely national issues.’ That’s what Stéphane said last time.

I really ask us all now, having in mind that we only have one request for rule of law, and that is about Greece, and having in mind that in six weeks in Greece there will be elections, if it’s even worth only having a national debate about this and in having in April a resolution. Dear friends, it’s purely driven by national interests to have a campaign here. That’s why, let’s refuse and let’s vote against.

  President. – I put the request of the Green Group to a vote by roll call.

It is adopted, and therefore we have a Commission statement on the rule of law in Greece that is added as a joint debate with the Commission statement on ‘The 2022 rule of law report – the rule of law situation in the European Union’. The statement will be wound up with a resolution to be voted in April.

Now the EPP Group has requested that there be a Commission statement on the rule of law in Spain and a Commission statement on the rule of law in Malta.

(Laughter)

I think the first part of this session about respect we have ignored immediately after the end of the ceremony. I have a list of requests. I will read them out and I will ask the individual groups whether they will maintain them.

So first of all, to the EPP Group, are those requests on the table? Have they been made?

  Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, as we very much indicated, we believe this is a House to have European debates, but we have been inspired. So, if we are going to have a joint debate about rule of law with the Rule of Law report and rule of law in Greece, we believe there are some other issues that could be dealt with in this same debate.

The first one is the rule of law in Spain, because the behaviour of this Spanish Government is moving further and further away from respect of the rule of law. When they don’t like the Council on the Judiciary, they simply adopt a law to prevent it from functioning. When they need an independent attorney general, they appoint their dear, loyal party colleague, the former Minister of Justice. When they don’t like democracy, when they find it too complicated, they rule by decree.

Remember, the S&D stood here on other countries saying ruling by decree is ruling like a dictator. So either you are ruling like a dictator, or this is something we need to discuss in the European Parliament tomorrow. So our request is a debate on the rule of law in Spain, with a resolution to be adopted in April.

  President. – Who would like to speak against? Ms Gualmini.

Can I please ask you to respect your colleagues who have asked for the floor? Please, Ms Gualmini, go ahead.

  Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Actually, how do you dare to ask for a debate on the rule of law in Spain when you know the only problem with that is that you are blocking the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary after four years.

So really, this is really anti-democratic and outrageous, colleagues.

  Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, well, we can vote as you like. On Malta I think there is even more reason maybe to have a debate.

  President. – OK, wait, then we have to deal with it as the next request. Fine. So we’ll wait.

Is this on Spain? Are you speaking against the insertion of a statement on the rule of law in Spain? Go ahead.

  Stelios Kouloglou (The Left). – Mr Weber, why have you left the poor colleague, Mr Lenaers, to argue, exactly again, as you said two minutes ago?

One last thing, the rule of law in Greece is not a national issue. You know, two of our colleagues have been spied on here. All of us who were talking with them, including Mr Kyrtsos, who was in your party before you, and the Greek secret services were listening to you, Mr Weber. Are you going to talk about that?

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Thank you, this is not about the item on the agenda now. So we put to the vote the request of the EPP Group to include Spain in the Commission statement.

(Parliament approved the request)

And we now go to another request from the EPP Group, this time to include Malta. Do you want to take the floor again, Mr Lenaers?

  Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I do apologise for taking so much of your time but in Malta, an author, Mr Mark Camilleri, published documents showing WhatsApp messages between an MP from the ruling governing party and Yorgen Fenech, who is the alleged mastermind behind the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Now these messages exposed abuse of power, bribery and trading and influence, and this information was known to the police for already three years, and nothing has happened. The only thing that has happened is that the author has been criminalised for publishing the documents, even forcing him to leave the country.

It’s a disgrace, and it’s further proof of how the rule of law is being systematically undermined by this government in Malta. And, as such, it also warrants a debate with a resolution adopted in April.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Lenaers. I see Mr Agius Saliba would like to speak against.

  Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – L-ipokrisija tal-Grupp tal-Popolari tixgħel u tibbrilla f’dan il-każ. Għandna sitwazzjoni fejn l-EPP jiddefendu sitwazzjoni fejn Membru minn dan il-Parlament, kollega tagħna hawnhekk, Nikos Androulakis, il-mexxej tal-PASOK, jiġi spijjat, il-mobile tiegħu jiġi spijjat. Immaġinaw kieku ġrat f’Malta, kemm-il riżoluzzjoni nitolbu. Imbagħad niġu hawnhekk b’sejħa minn naħa tal-Grupp tal-Popolari illi dawn qegħdin jgħidu illi għandu jsir dibattitu fuq Malta għaliex evidenza mill-Qorti, li l-Qorti qalet li hija protetta u m’għandhiex toħroġ, kontra d-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti, ġiet ippubblikata.

Issa jiena mhux qed niddefendi dak illi kien hemm miktub imma illi evidenza toħroġ mill-Qorti u tiġi ppubblikata kontra, kontra d-direzzjoni tal-Qorti, naħseb dik hija xi ħaġa li allaħares qatt dan il-Parlament jiddefendiha.

Jekk verament irridu nitkellmu fuq separazzjoni bejn il-qrati, il-gvernijiet, l-eżekuttiv u s-saltna tad-dritt, ma nistgħux hawnhekk nippruvaw inqajmu diskussjoni kontra deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Maltija li hija totalment separata mill-organi tal-Gvern.

  President. – I put the request to the vote by roll call.

(Parliament approved the request)

Therefore there will be a Commission statement on the rule of law in Malta, and a resolution.

Thank you very much. One and a half hours later, the agenda has been adopted.

(The order of business was thus established)