合法博彩网站

听听Die Pr盲sidentin. 鈥� Als n盲chster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache 眉ber.

鈥� die Anfrage zur m眉ndlichen Beantwortung an den Rat 眉ber die Annahme des Vorschlags f眉r eine Verordnung zur Elternschaft von Ilhan Kyuchyuk im Namen des Rechtsausschusses (O-000004/2025 鈥� B10-0003/25) () und.

鈥� die Anfrage zur m眉ndlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission 眉ber die Annahme des Vorschlags f眉r eine Verordnung zur Elternschaft von Ilhan Kyuchyuk im Namen des Rechtsausschusses (O-000005/2025 鈥� B10-0004/25) ().

听听Ilhan Kyuchyuk, author. 鈥� Madam听President, dear Commissioner, dear representatives of the Council 鈥� they are not present yet. 'If you are a parent in one country, you are parent in every country', said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her 2020 State of the Union speech. This gave a political impulse for the European Commission to prepare rules on the cross-border recognition of parenthood.

Two years after, on 7 December 2022, the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood, and on the creation of a European certificate of parenthood, was announced under the equality package. The proposal sets rules of jurisdiction and applicable law for establishing parenthood and provides for an automatic recognition of decisions in parenthood matters. It also provides for a unified form of European certificate of parenthood that is optional and should not replace national documents, but should ease the confirmation of parenthood if needed in another Member States.

The future regulation is to apply only for the establishment of parenthood in a cross-border situation and the recognition of instruments issued in another Member State. The Commission's ultimate goal was to safeguard the rights of all children, also those derived from national rules, arguing that, by resolving the parenthood of the child as a preliminary question, the regulation will facilitate the application of excusing Union instruments on parental responsibility, maintenance and succession as regards the child.

合法博彩网站 expressed support for the main objective of the proposed regulation to address the issue of the non-recognition of parenthood status by assuring that if a child-parent relation has been established in one Member State, all other Member States should recognise it without additional proceedings.

In its deliberations, the European 合法博彩网站 focused thoroughly on safeguarding the rights of the child, as they should be guaranteed in all European Union Member States, regardless of a child's family arrangements or how the child was born into this world.

Taking into account that the Council has been working on the proposal for more than two years, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, allow me to present the following questions for an oral answer to the Council.

First, dear Council, what progress has been made by the Council so far in terms of the adoption of the parenthood regulation by all Member States? On which parts of the proposal have discussions already been concluded, if any?

Second, what solutions have been discussed to accommodate certain Member States' concerns related to the most contentious matters, such as the establishment and recognition of the parenthood of children born via surrogacy and children of same-sex parents?

Third, is the Council considering, in the event of not being able to obtain unanimity, triggering the enhanced cooperation mechanism under Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 326 and 334 of TFEU?

And, additionally, the following questions refer to the Commission. How has the Commission facilitated the discussion on the proposal in the Council? Is the Commission prepared 鈥� or is it planning 鈥� in the event that unanimity among the Member States cannot be reached to pursue the objectives of the proposed regulation using alternative legislative instruments or mechanisms provided already in the Treaties?

听听Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Madam President, honourable Members, let me start by thanking the European 合法博彩网站 for its positive opinion on the Commission proposal on the recognition of parenthood between Member States. And let me also thank the European 合法博彩网站 for its continued interest in the ongoing legislative discussions on the proposal in the Council, as shown by this oral question on the matter.

Member States are already required by Union law on free movement to recognise parenthood established in another Member State for the purposes of children's rights under the European Union law, and this includes their right to travel or to take up residence in another Member State, their right to obtain a travel documentation or their right to be treated equally in a host Member State on all matters within the scope of the Treaty.

The Court of Justice confirmed in 2021, in its judgment in the V.M.A. case, that this recognition obligation also applies to children with same-sex parents, even if the Member State where recognition is sought does not allow parenthood by same-sex couples.

Indeed, the recognition in a Member State of parenthood established in another Member State is essential for the right to free movement. But families may still face difficulties in having the parenthood of their children recognised in another Member State for all purposes, that is, beyond the existence of children's rights under free movement law, notably for the purposes of children's rights under national law, such as their right to inherit from either parent in another Member State, to receive financial support from either parent in another Member State, or to be represented by either parent in another Member State on matters such as schooling and health.

It is with this in mind that the Commission adopted the proposal under discussion and considered that, in line with international law, the Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the proposal should require Member States to recognise parenthood established in another Member State for all children, irrespective of how the child was conceived or born and irrespective of the child's type of family.听The proposal does not affect substantive family law, which is a competence of the Member States, and the proposal is an essential element to build a Union of equality and implements the EU strategy on the rights of the child.

Moving now to the two questions you have asked. In the oral question first, the Commission has followed and supported thoroughly the ongoing discussions in the Council, which, however, need time, and mostly for two main reasons.

First, the proposal is a measure of family law with cross-border implications. The Member States have different approaches towards certain matters of family law. They therefore want to ensure that the proposal does not affect their competences to adopt rules on substantive family law, such as their rules on the definition of family adoptions or their rules on surrogacy. In addition, as the proposal needs to be adopted by unanimity, every Member State needs to be on board for every sensitive matter under discussion.

Second, the proposal is technically quite complex. The proposal aims to facilitate the recognition of parenthood by harmonising the Member States' rules of private international law, that is, the rules on international jurisdiction, applicable law on the recognition of judgements and authentic instruments, and by creating a European certificate of parenthood such as you have mentioned it. Currently, beyond existing rights under free movement law, each Member State addresses the recognition of parenthood according to different principles and procedures. Therefore, the Member States want to ensure that they find the provisions of the proposal acceptable from their policy viewpoint and that their authorities will find the provisions clear.

In view of the various policy and legal facets of the proposals, since the adoption of the proposal, the Commission has at all times lent its assistance to the Member States, both in the Council and in bilateral discussions to clarify points, address their questions and listen to their concerns, to try to find common ground with other Member States.

Likewise, the Commission has always been available to discuss with all the Council presidencies technical and policy solutions within the scope of the proposal, to help the discussions progress.听The Commission also considers that all Member States have approached discussion in the Council on the proposal in a constructive manner, and that progress is gradually being made.

Concerning your second question here. If unanimity cannot be reached in the Council, the Commission recalls in this matter that, as the proposal goes beyond recognition of parenthood for the purposes of rights under EU law, it has to be adopted pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, under the Union's competence to adopt measures on family law with cross-border implications.

As the European 合法博彩网站 noted in its oral question, this means that, after having consulted the European 合法博彩网站, the proposed regulation must be adopted by unanimity in the Council. Given that important provisions must still be discussed in detail, it is not possible at this stage to predict how negotiations will unfold. However, Member States will eventually need to take a stand on whether they can support the proposal resulting from the negotiations in the Council. And if unanimity cannot be reached in the Council, the Commission remains ready to consider possible avenues at that precise moment.

听听Die Pr盲sidentin. 鈥� Bevor wir jetzt mit der Debatte starten, m枚chte ich mitteilen, dass ich das Catch the Eye jetzt schlie脽e, denn eigentlich haben wir die Regel, dass diejenigen, die sich unter Catch the Eye zu Wort melden wollen, w盲hrend der Debatte pr盲sent sein sollen, und die Debatte hat schon vor 眉ber zehn Minuten mit den Statements des Berichterstatters und der Kommission begonnen. Dadurch, dass wir durch die lange Abstimmung heute Mittag recht weit hinter dem eigentlichen Zeitplan hinterherh盲ngen, bitte ich um Verst盲ndnis, dass ich in diesem Fall die Regeln sehr strikt auslege.

听听Micha艂 Wawrykiewicz, on behalf of the PPE Group. 鈥� Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I would like to thank the European Commission for this important legislative proposal. President von der Leyen once said, 'if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country'. I want to thank also the Council and Minister Sz艂apka for the declaration to work on this fight during the Polish Presidency. The Polish Presidency understands the real issue at the heart of this proposal, and is not afraid to address it head on.

As a lawyer, I must underline that this proposal is not about interfering in national rules on family law, or it is not about regulating surrogacy or imposing any new definitions on parenthood on Member States. This is about guaranteeing that each child in the European Union has a full package of rights, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It is about ensuring that the child does not lose legal parents, access to healthcare, nationality or inheritance rights simply because their family moves to another country of the European Union.

One of the most practical and urgent issues addressed by this proposal is 'limping parenthood'. 'Limping parenthood' refers to the situation where a child's legal parenthood is recognised in one Member State, but not in another. This leads to, for example, loss of parental rights by one of both parents, restriction of the child's rights, including losses in access to citizenship, inheritance, social benefits or parental care, costly and lengthy legal proceedings, and the risk of family separation.

The European Union is built on the principle of freedom of movement, non-discrimination and legal certainty. It is our duty to ensure that these principles apply equally to all families. This proposal is not about politics, it's about people and, in particular, children.

听听Alessandro Zan, a nome del gruppo S&D. 鈥� Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un genitore in uno Stato membro 猫 un genitore in tutti gli Stati membri. Ursula von der Leyen lo aveva promesso nel 2020 e cinque anni dopo non 猫 ancora cos矛. Pensate che in Europa possono circolare le merci e i capitali ma non possono circolare i diritti. E, soprattutto, questo a scapito dei figli di queste famiglie, dei pi霉 piccoli.

Un esempio drammatico ne 猫 l'Italia, dove il governo di Giorgia Meloni ha messo in atto una crociata contro le famiglie omogenitoriali, trascinando in tribunale 鈥� per effetto di una circolare del ministro dell'Interno 鈥� decine di famiglie con due madri, in tribunale, come se fossero dei criminali a difendere il proprio diritto di essere genitori dei propri figli. E nel silenzio pi霉 completo, mi dispiace dirlo, della Commissione europea.

La democrazia, lo Stato di diritto, la stessa Unione europea si rafforzano e si difendono anche cos矛. Allora pensiamoci: finch茅 questo regolamento resta bloccato, a rimetterci saranno sempre, e prima di tutto, i bambini.

La destra si preoccupa tanto delle famiglie e a questi bambini cosa direbbero? Come spiegherebbero ad un bambino che, una volta passata la frontiera, con un altro Stato membro, come l'Italia, rischiano di perdere uno dei due genitori, o addirittura tutti e due, come se fossero perseguitati penalmente?

Allora la presidente Van der Leyen continua a dirci che la libert脿 e la democrazia sono sotto attacco. 脠 vero, ma non lo sono solo quando dobbiamo svegliare le coscienze sulla necessit脿 di una difesa comune ma anche quando non riusciamo a garantire che una famiglia resti una famiglia a prescindere da dove si trova e da come 猫 composta.

Allora mi rivolgo al Consiglio e alla Presidenza di turno, perch茅 sblocchi subito il regolamento sulla genitorialit脿 e mi rivolgo ovviamente a Ursula von der Leyen ...

(La Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)

听听Ern艖 Schaller-Baross, a PfE k茅pvisel艖csoport nev茅ben. 鈥� Eln枚k Asszony! A csal谩djogi k茅rd茅sek m茅lyen gy枚kereznek a tag谩llamok jogrendszereiben 茅s t谩rsadalmi hagyom谩nyaiban, ez茅rt elengedhetetlen, hogy az ezzel kapcsolatos uni贸s szab谩lyoz谩s tiszteletben tartsa a szubszidiarit谩s elv茅t. 脰n枚k ezzel a javaslattal p谩ros l谩bbal k铆v谩nj谩k eltiporni a tag谩llamok demokratikus d枚nt茅s茅t, a k枚z枚s szerz艖d茅seinket 茅s haz谩m Alapt枚rv茅ny茅t.

Nincs lehet艖s茅g arra, hogy a baloldali 茅s liber谩lis k茅pvisel艖t谩rsaim 茅s NGO-k 谩ltal szorgalmazott sz眉l艖i jog谩ll谩s 茅s a lesz谩rmaz谩s k茅rd茅s茅t k枚z枚ss茅gi szinten szab谩lyozzuk. Fontos, hogy tiszteletben tartsuk a tag谩llamok kultur谩lis 茅s jogi hagyom谩nyait. Fontos, hogy az Eur贸pai Uni贸 ne l茅pje t煤l ism茅t hat谩sk枚r茅t, 茅s a tag谩llamok pedig szabadon d枚nthessenek csal谩djogi 茅s lesz谩rmaz谩si k茅rd茅sekben. Nem Ursula von der Leyen d枚nti el, hogy egy tag谩llamban ki sz眉l艖. Szerencs茅re.

听听Jadwiga Wi艣niewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. 鈥� Pani Przewodnicz膮ca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Pa艅stwo! Zgodnie z artyku艂em 18 polskiej konstytucji ma艂偶e艅stwo jest zwi膮zkiem kobiety i m臋偶czyzny, co oznacza, 偶e ma艂偶e艅stwa jednop艂ciowe, ani rodzicielstwo os贸b tej samej p艂ci, nie s膮 uznawane, a surogacja w wi臋kszo艣ci pa艅stw cz艂onkowskich jest nielegalna. Tymczasem Komisja Europejska, niczym komunistyczna egzekutywa narzuca t臋czow膮 ideologi臋. Zn贸w szuka drogi, by forsowa膰 kolejne przywileje dla par jednop艂ciowych, tym razem cynicznie wykorzystuj膮c dobro dzieci. Ale nie dajmy si臋 zwie艣膰. Wzajemne uznawanie rodzicielstwa to nie obrona praw dzieci, to forsowanie t臋czowej ideologii. Zgodnie z polskim prawem matk膮 jest kobieta, kt贸ra je urodzi艂a, a ojcem m臋偶czyzna. Z kolei surogacja to nic innego jak budowanie systemu, w kt贸rym dziecko staje si臋 przedmiotem transakcji. Czy naprawd臋 chcemy Europy, gdzie dziecko traktuje si臋 jak produkt do zam贸wienia? Bruksela nie b臋dzie nam dyktowa膰, czym jest rodzina. Czas stanowczo powiedzie膰: do艣膰 t臋czowej ideologii... (Przewodnicz膮ca odebra艂a m贸wczyni g艂os)

听听Moritz K枚rner, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. 鈥� Frau Pr盲sidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich wei脽 gar nicht, wo ich anfangen soll, ehrlich gesagt, bei dem, was ich hier gerade geh枚rt habe. Also, member state competence, dann irgendwie Sexual-LGBT-Propaganda, dann wird gesagt, wir wollen irgendwie die Privilegien von Regenbogenfamilien auf irgendetwas aufzwingen. Und dann haben Sie noch die Dreistigkeit, von Kindern und Kinderrechten zu sprechen. Das Allerschlimmste, was Sie einem Kind antun k枚nnen, ist, dass es den Schutz durch seine Eltern nicht mehr hat, wenn es dann in einem anderen Land in der Europ盲ischen Union ist; das ist doch das Allerschlimmste, was passieren kann.

Sie wollen Kindern das Wichtigste wegnehmen, was sie haben, n盲mlich die Eltern. Sie wollen Kindern das Wichtigste wegnehmen, was sie haben, n盲mlich die Liebe und den Schutz. Darum geht es Ihnen! Ihnen geht es in Wahrheit, wenn Sie 眉ber Familie sprechen, wenn Sie 眉ber Werte sprechen, nicht darum. Es geht Ihnen um Ihre konservative Ideologie. In Ihrem Bild darf nicht sein, was nicht sein darf, auch wenn Regenbogenfamilien f眉r Kinder 鈥�

Deswegen werden wir dagegen k盲mpfen, und die Kommission muss jetzt endlich 鈥�

(Die Pr盲sidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

听听Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. 鈥� Madam听President, dear colleagues, I hope we all agree family life shouldn't be a privilege, let alone something that we deprive a child of, and the same goes for the rights of free movement. Unfortunately, right now, this does not reflect the situation of many rainbow families. When a child in Europe has two mothers or two fathers and moves to another country, from one minute to the other, they can legally lose their parent 鈥� one parent that, for example, can't take medical decisions in case of dire need. This is simply unacceptable!

Meanwhile in 2020, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen already said, 'If you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country'. And I want to emphasise, the Commission President did not say if you are a parent in one country, I will definitely keep my fingers crossed and hope that one day you are a parent in every country.

Since 2022, we've had a legislative proposal on the table that could make sure that many children in the EU don't lose their parents when they move to another Member State. 合法博彩网站 has been very clear about its support. The European Court of Justice has ruled that parents shouldn't lose their rights when they cross a border within the EU. The Commission President was pretty clear. The courts are clear. We, 合法博彩网站, have been clear. We even called for a change in legislative instruments to make sure that governments who discriminate against rainbow families can't simply block this legislative proposal.

I think it is high time that the European Commission shows some commitment to the Union of Equality that you're always talking about, especially after the incomprehensible withdrawal of the Equality Directive. Commission, do the work, and please make sure that the parenthood regulation is adopted.

听听Mario Furore, a nome del gruppo The Left. 鈥� Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, chi 猫 padre o madre in uno Stato membro deve essere padre o madre in qualsiasi altro Paese dell'Unione. Questo principio, che dovrebbe essere la normalit脿 in Europa, non viene, invece, rispettato in moltissimi Paesi, a dimostrazione che l'Europa dei diritti deve ancora nascere.

Da oltre due anni il certificato europeo di genitorialit脿 langue in un cassetto del Consiglio e non viene approvato. Questo grave ostruzionismo lede l'interesse superiore del minore, che dovrebbe essere la stella polare di qualsiasi regolamento europeo.

Due milioni di bambini oggi non possono viaggiare liberamente nella nostra Unione perch茅 non 猫 riconosciuta la loro identit脿, nonch茅 il rapporto di filiazione con i loro genitori.

Non c'猫 pi霉 tempo da perdere: se vi sono Paesi che per motivi ideologici oppongono il loro veto, ci auguriamo che i restanti procedano attivando il meccanismo di cooperazione rafforzata, prendendo una decisione di civilt脿 e di rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE.

E l'Italia, ci auguriamo, possa far parte di questo gruppo di Paesi che guarda al futuro e non guarda invece al Medioevo.

听听Irmhild Bo脽dorf, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. 鈥� Frau Pr盲sidentin! Baby Sara kann nichts daf眉r: Wer sie geboren hat, ist nicht bekannt; wer ihre biologischen Eltern sind, nur teilweise. Fest steht nur, dass zwei Frauen, die in einem westlichen EU-Land einander geheiratet haben, die Homo-Ehe auf diesem Weg auch in Osteuropa durchsetzen wollen. Bulgarien, Herkunftsland einer der beiden Frauen, erlaubt n盲mlich eine solche gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe bislang nicht. Ob die Mutter von Baby Sara Bulgarin ist, ist unbekannt. Dennoch bekam Sara nach einem Urteil des Europ盲ischen Gerichtshofs dort die Staatsb眉rgerschaft. Ursula von der Leyen freut das. Sie behauptet: Wer in einem Land Elternpaar ist, muss dies in jedem anderen Land auch sein, nur dann kann die LGBTQ-Agenda durchgesetzt werden. Zitat: Ursula von der Leyen.

Bei der heutigen Debatte geht es mitnichten um eine grenz眉bergreifende St盲rkung der Elternschaft, sondern nur um das ideologiegetriebene Gender-Mainstreaming: Jeder kann sich 眉berall und jederzeit zu Eltern erkl盲ren. Lassen wir diese 脺bergriffigkeit der EU nicht zu, st盲rken wir unsere Familien, sch眉tzen wir unsere Kinder!

听听Maria Walsh (PPE). 鈥� Madam President, these debates always make me incredibly disappointed in our democratic policies and belief systems. We represent millions of Europeans 鈥� LGBTI and other, all 鈥� and it saddens me that in this House, that is built on bringing people together, that we forget that in many, many of our speeches.

Let me bring it back to why we're discussing this very important parenthood regulation. An estimated 2 million children currently face difficulties in having their parents recognised in another Member State 鈥� 2 million children. Not children of gay people or straight people. Just children across our EU right now have difficulties in their parents being recognised by the 27 Member States. This much needed and timely EU parenthood regulation provides that clarity and consistency in helping families navigate the legal systems that have now, up to this point, been fragmented. This is not just a legal case. It's a human issue. No matter where you live in Europe, your rights as a parent must be respected.

I want to pay particular attention to the regulation, which will ease burdens on folks like me who may decide one day to have children. As an LGBTI individual and ally, I should, too, face the same rights as everyone in this House and, most importantly, everybody we represent in this House. We cannot afford to let prejudice stand in the way of progress. Europe must treat all families equally, and we must have a Commission and a Council that fight to do that.

听听Evin Incir (S&D). 鈥� Madam听President, the question of whether we should adopt the parenthood regulation to ensure the families can stay together, no matter where they choose to live in our Union, shouldn't even be up for debate. This should have been approved a long time ago 鈥� yesterday, a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, two years ago.

Let's clarify this: we have the freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and people in the EU. Article 21 of the EU Treaty states, 'Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of all the Member States'. Similarly, Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights affirms, 'Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States'. So what is the far right doing here today? The only correct answer is that you are doing an exercise in homophobia and an attempt to deprive children of their parents.

Commissioner, the worst part, I must say, is that, at a time when we need to strengthen protection against far-right hate, the Commission has chosen to withdraw the proposal for the EU anti-discrimination directive 鈥� I must say that that is very disappointing. But now let us ensure we can adopt a piece of legislation that would let families be families, regardless of where they move in our Union.

听听Margarita de la Pisa Carri贸n (PfE). 鈥� Se帽ora presidente, se帽or comisario, se帽or铆as, todo ni帽o tiene un padre y una madre. Tiene derecho a conocerlos y a ser cuidado por ellos en la medida de lo posible. Este Reglamento pone en riesgo este principio natural, entrometi茅ndose en el derecho de familia, sobre el que la Uni贸n Europea no tiene competencias.

Con el pretexto de simplificar el papeleo de situaciones complejas de por s铆, se plantea que cada cual pueda elegir una legislaci贸n a conveniencia, forzando a los pa铆ses a aceptar disposiciones ajenas a su propio Derecho, lo que crear铆a no solo un caos regulatorio, sino que dejar铆a resquicios que pueden amparar pr谩cticas ilegales con graves agresiones a la dignidad de las personas, como la gestaci贸n subrogada, adopciones ilegales... Aqu铆 se ha hablado incluso de la multiparentalidad. Saben el resultado de abrir estos cauces: cada vez m谩s ni帽os en situaciones nada deseables y la peligrosa normalizaci贸n de la ruptura de los lazos naturales.

Los derechos del ni帽o se defienden fortaleciendo la familia, no desconfigur谩ndola.

听听Paolo Inselvini (ECR). 鈥� Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, chi 猫 davvero genitore non 猫 mai discriminato quando circola in Europa. Chi pretende di esserlo, invece, sofisticando la realt脿 o comprando bambini, incontra ostacoli oggettivi e giusti.

Con questo nuovo regolamento l'UE ingerisce pesantemente nel diritto di famiglia degli Stati membri con il pretesto della libert脿 di circolazione. Quanti minori non vedono riconosciuti i loro genitori in un altro Stato dell'Unione europea? Da come ne parlate sembra che ogni famiglia debba temere di muoversi: ma non 猫 cos矛.

Gli adulti invece, in stati civili come il mio, non vedono riconosciuti alcuni loro desideri: chi viene o torna in Italia e si 猫 macchiato del reato di utero in affitto trover脿 problemi e ostacoli. 脠 vero ed 猫 giusto. Lo facciamo per proteggere i bambini da un mercato che li riduce a oggetti di contratto. Non accetteremo nessun regolamento che serva per aggirare le nostre leggi nazionali e per legittimare la barbara pratica dell'utero in affitto.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu")

IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
Vice-President

听听Raquel Garc铆a Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew), blue-card question. 鈥� Mr听Inselvini, here we are again with the blue-card, I hope that this time you will answer my question instead of answering something else.

You always talk about the interests of children 鈥� and I agree with you, we are all here trying to protect the interests of children.

Now, would you be able to explain to me how the interests of a child who has always known two mothers, of whom one of the mothers now may be terminally ill and might die, will be taken care of, the interests of that child, if the other mother 鈥� who is not his biological mother 鈥� is not recognised as a mother? Because that is what is happening in Italy at the moment.

听听Paolo Inselvini (ECR), risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". 鈥� Grazie alla collega per il classico cartellino blu. La ringrazio per la domanda e la ringrazio per il fatto che mi fa sottolineare ancora una volta come noi ci basiamo su dati di realt脿.

Purtroppo, per quello che 猫 la vostra ideologia, il 100% - ve lo svelo - dei bambini in Europa 猫 nato da un padre e una madre; lo 0% da due madri o da due padri.

Oppure ci sono persone invece che comprano i bambini e in quel caso il diritto del bambino 猫 quello a conoscere un padre, suo padre, e sua madre. Questo 猫 tutelare i diritti dei bambini, non raccontare loro ideologie LGBT e arcobaleno come le vostre.

听听Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). 鈥� Monsieur le Pr茅sident, 芦si vous 锚tes parent dans un pays, vous 锚tes parent dans tous les pays禄. Ce sont effectivement les mots de Mme听von听der听Leyen, pr茅sidente de la Commission europ茅enne, dans son discours sur l鈥櫭﹖at de l鈥橴nion de听2020. Le Parlement europ茅en est aussi de cet avis; il est pour la reconnaissance mutuelle de la parentalit茅. Or, depuis d茅cembre听2023, c鈥檈st le Conseil que l鈥檕n attend. Pourquoi les 脡tats membres jouent-ils de cette mani猫re avec l鈥檃venir de 2听millions听d鈥檈nfants?

Ceux qui s鈥檡 opposent encore sont homophobes. La preuve: les propos tenus dans cette assembl茅e, aujourd鈥檋ui. Les droits des familles de la communaut茅 LGBTQIA+ sont de plus en plus menac茅s. Aujourd鈥檋ui plus que jamais, la protection par la loi des enfants des familles LGBTQIA+ doit 锚tre une priorit茅. Nous demandons donc 脿 la Commission europ茅enne et au Conseil d鈥檃vancer rapidement et de prendre acte qu鈥檜n enfant est un enfant, qu鈥檜ne famille est une famille, et que toutes et tous ont des droits.听Love is love!

听听螆位蔚谓伪 螝慰蠀谓蟿慰蠀蟻维 (The Left). 鈥� 螝蠉蟻喂蔚 螤蟻蠈蔚未蟻蔚, 蟿慰 未喂蔚胃谓苇蟼 未委魏伪喂慰 慰蟻委味蔚喂 蠈蟿喂 蠈位伪 蟿伪 蟺伪喂未喂维 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 苇蠂慰蠀谓 蟿伪 委未喂伪 未喂魏伪喂蠋渭伪蟿伪 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 未喂伪魏蟻委蟽蔚喂蟼. 危蟿畏谓 蟺蟻维尉畏 蠈渭蠅蟼, 蠈蟿伪谓 渭喂伪 慰喂魏慰纬苇谓蔚喂伪 渭蔚蟿伪魏喂谓蔚委蟿伪喂 伪蟺蠈 苇谓伪 蔚蠀蟻蠅蟺伪蠆魏蠈 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 渭苇位慰蟼 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 维位位慰, 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 伪谓蟿喂渭蔚蟿蠅蟺委蟽蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪蟺伪蟻维未蔚魏蟿畏 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 渭畏 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟻喂蟽畏蟼 蟿畏蟼 纬慰谓喂魏萎蟼 蟽蠂苇蟽畏蟼 蟺慰蠀 苇蠂蔚喂 胃蔚渭蔚位喂蠅胃蔚委 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 维位位慰 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 渭苇位慰蟼. 螒蠀蟿萎 畏 谓慰渭喂魏萎 伪谓伪蟽蠁维位蔚喂伪 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 蟽慰尾伪蟻维 蔚渭蟺蠈未喂伪 蟽蟿畏谓 魏伪胃畏渭蔚蟻喂谓蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蠂喂位喂维未蠅谓 慰喂魏慰纬蔚谓蔚喂蠋谓, 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠈蟽尾伪蟽畏 蟽蟿畏谓 蠀纬蔚喂慰谓慰渭喂魏萎 蟺蔚蟻委胃伪位蠄畏 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 蔚魏蟺伪委未蔚蠀蟽畏, 渭苇蠂蟻喂 味畏蟿萎渭伪蟿伪 未喂伪渭慰谓萎蟼 魏伪喂 魏位畏蟻慰谓慰渭喂魏蠋谓 未喂魏伪喂蠅渭维蟿蠅谓.

螣 魏伪谓慰谓喂蟽渭蠈蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏 纬慰谓喂魏萎 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 伪蟺伪蟻伪委蟿畏蟿慰 尾萎渭伪 纬喂伪 谓伪 未喂伪蟽蠁伪位委蟽慰蠀渭蔚 蠈蟿喂, 伪谓 蔚委蟽伪喂 纬慰谓苇伪蟼 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 蔚蠀蟻蠅蟺伪蠆魏蠈 魏蟻维蟿慰蟼 渭苇位慰蟼, 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 伪谓伪纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚蟽伪喂 蠅蟼 纬慰谓苇伪蟼 蟽蔚 蠈位蔚蟼 蟿喂蟼 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼 蟿畏蟼 螆谓蠅蟽畏蟼, 魏伪喂 蠈蟿喂 魏维胃蔚 蟺伪喂未委 蟽蟿畏谓 螘蠀蟻蠅蟺伪蠆魏萎 螆谓蠅蟽畏 苇蠂蔚喂 伪谓伪纬谓蠅蟻喂蟽渭苇谓伪 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蟿伪蟿蔚蠀渭苇谓伪 蟿伪 未喂魏伪喂蠋渭伪蟿维 蟿慰蠀, 伪谓蔚尉伪蟻蟿萎蟿蠅蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟿蠈蟺慰蠀 未喂伪渭慰谓萎蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 蟿蠉蟺慰蠀 蟿畏蟼 慰喂魏慰纬苇谓蔚喂维蟼 蟿慰蠀. 韦慰 危蠀渭尾慰蠉位喂慰 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 蠀喂慰胃蔚蟿萎蟽蔚喂 维渭蔚蟽伪 蟿慰谓 魏伪谓慰谓喂蟽渭蠈, 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟿蔚蟻渭伪蟿喂蟽蟿蔚委 伪蠀蟿萎 畏 伪蟺伪蟻维未蔚魏蟿畏 未喂维魏蟻喂蟽畏 蟽蔚 尾维蟻慰蟼 蔚魏伪蟿慰渭渭蠀蟻委蠅谓 蟺伪喂未喂蠋谓 蟽蟿畏谓 螘蠀蟻蠋蟺畏. 螘蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿蠋 蟺慰位蠉.

听听Ivan David (ESN). 鈥� Pane p艡edsedaj铆c铆, n谩vrh na艡铆zen铆 o rodi膷ovstv铆, kter媒 vy啪aduje, aby v拧echny 膷lensk茅 st谩ty uzn谩valy rodi膷ovstv铆 za stejn媒ch podm铆nek, nerespektuje rozd铆ly v n谩rodn铆ch tradic铆ch a v暖li jednotliv媒ch komunit. Konstatuje, 啪e pr谩va d臎t铆 vypl媒vaj铆c铆 z rodi膷ovstv铆 maj铆 b媒t chr谩n臎na bez ohledu na pr谩vn铆 vztah mezi rodi膷i a zp暖sob, jak媒m bylo d铆t臎 po膷ato. Pr谩va d臎t铆 dnes nikdo nezpochyb艌uje. Mimoman啪elsk茅 d臎ti nejsou vystaveny opovr啪en铆 jako p艡ed sto lety. Ale v tomto na艡铆zen铆 jde ve skute膷nosti o pr谩va rodi膷暖 bez ohledu na to, jak dos谩hli rodi膷ovstv铆. Ne ka啪d媒 je zp暖sobil媒 艡谩dn茅 p茅膷e o d臎ti, ale nelze postupovat tak, jak 膷in铆 Barnevernet v Norsku, kter媒 odeb铆r谩 rodi膷暖m v铆ce ne啪 1 000 d臎t铆 ro膷n臎. Hroz铆 legalizace obchodu s d臎tmi, kter媒 u啪 funguje. D臎ti nesm臎j铆 b媒t p艡edm臎tem obchodu. P艡edlo啪en茅 na艡铆zen铆 by umo啪nilo d臎ti koupen茅 v jedn茅 zemi legalizovat v cel茅 EU.

(艠e膷n铆k souhlasil s t铆m, 啪e 啪e odpov铆 na ot谩zku polo啪enou zvednut铆m modr茅 karty)

听听Bruno Gon莽alves (S&D), blue-card question. 鈥� Mr听David, thank you very much for your intervention. Every time we hear someone from your political family, you are speaking about families, you are speaking about defending them, and you are truly right about that.

But just today, in the plenary, you voted against the European care strategy to defend all types of large families in your vote in the plenary.

So, my question is very simple: are these only words or are you really working to defend the working-class people and working-class families?

听听Ivan David (ESN), odpov臎膹 na ot谩zku polo啪enou zvednut铆m modr茅 karty. 鈥� S dovolen铆m, j谩 jsem p艡esv臎d膷en o tom, 啪e to, co jsem tady 艡ekl, m谩 re谩ln媒 z谩klad, nebo钮 jsem se sezn谩mil se skute膷nost铆, 啪e skute膷n臎 existuje zp暖sob, kter媒 umo啪艌uje prost艡ednictv铆m n谩hradn铆ho mate艡stv铆 z铆sk谩vat d臎ti. Existuj铆 takov茅 nab铆dky a tento syst茅m se skute膷n臎 uplat艌uje.

听听Miriam Lexmann (PPE). 鈥� V谩啪en媒 p谩n predsedaj煤ci, nariadenie o uzn谩van铆 rodi膷ovstva bolo od za膷iatku, 啪ia木, ve木mi kontroverzn茅. Upozor艌ovali sme na to v Eur贸pskom parlamente a zablokovali ho niektor茅 膷lensk茅 拧t谩ty v Rade pr谩ve z tohto d么vodu. Dlhodobo sa p媒tam: Chceme n谩js钮 skuto膷n茅 rie拧enie na probl茅my, alebo tu ide o to, kto si presad铆 svoju ideologick煤 prevahu?

脕no, to, 啪e v niektor媒ch 拧t谩toch, v niektor媒ch pr铆padoch prich谩dza k probl茅mom, napr铆klad s cestovn媒m pasom alebo povinn媒m pobytom alebo dovolen铆m pobytu a povolen铆m pobytu, je fakt. Hrub茅 zasahovanie do dohodnut媒ch kompetenci铆 膷lensk媒ch 拧t谩tov v拧ak rozhodne nie je rie拧en铆m. Rodinn茅 pr谩vo v啪dy patrilo a mus铆 aj na膹alej patri钮 do r煤k jednotliv媒ch 膷lensk媒ch 拧t谩tov. Naviac, doteraz sme nedostali 啪iadnu odpove膹 na na拧e obavy, 啪e nariadenie otvor铆 dvere pre obchod s de钮mi v r谩mci praxe takzvan茅ho n谩hradn茅ho materstva.

H木adajme preto praktick茅 postupy, na ktor媒ch sa vieme zhodn煤钮. Nerie拧me probl茅my pretl谩膷an铆m ideol贸gie a zasahovan铆m do v媒lu膷nej kompetencie 膷lensk媒ch 拧t谩tov. Lebo neust谩le pretl谩膷anie textu, ktor媒 je od za膷iatku kontroverzn媒, nebude vies钮 k dohode, ale bude vies钮 k polariz谩cii. A to je to posledn茅, 膷o dnes, v dne拧nej zlo啪itej situ谩cii, Eur贸pska 煤nia potrebuje. 脷nia sa m谩 s煤stredi钮 na to, 膷o dostala do kompetencie a nerie拧i钮 probl茅my, ktor茅 sme nechali vo v媒lu膷nej kompetencii 膷lensk媒ch 拧t谩tov.

(Re膷n铆膷ka s煤hlasila s t媒m, 啪e odpovie na dve ot谩zky polo啪en茅 zdvihnut铆m modrej karty)

(Re膷n铆膷ka s煤hlasila, 啪e odpovie na viacer茅 ot谩zky polo啪en茅 zdvihnut铆m modrej karty)

听听Evin Incir (S&D), blue-card question. 鈥� I just wanted to ask our colleague a question. First and foremost, we are not talking about surrogacy, because on the issue of surrogacy I can subscribe to that 鈥� I also see it as a human trafficking use of women's body. We're not talking about surrogacy.

What we're talking about is children who already have two parents and they are of the same sex. This could be in different ways: adoption is one way and there are other different ways, but they do exist today.

What are we going to do with them? Are we going to deprive children who already exist today, who have parents who are of the same sex? Deprive their parents because they move from one country to the other? Because right now, freedom of movement doesn't apply to all our citizens.

听听Miriam Lexmann (PPE), blue-card answer. 鈥� First of all, regarding surrogacy, even this 合法博彩网站 has recognised it partially as human trafficking, an inhuman and criminal act. Secondly, many Member States ban surrogacy.

And my answer to your question is that I called on the Member States to look into the solutions of the individual children and problems of access to their passports or free movement or their ability to stay in a country.

But we cannot breach and interfere in the competences of the Member States. The solutions are there, but this proposal by the Commission, which we have seen, brings the solution by breaching the competences of the Member States, and we cannot agree with that.

听听Kim Van Sparrentak (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. 鈥� You are the umpteenth person talking about ideology today, and saying that you're worried about ideology going over biology. And I just want to ask you: what do you mean by this?

Because in the animal kingdom we have swans, ducks, geese, dolphins, bisons, giraffes, lions, bats, elephants, whales, monkeys, sheep, hyaena, lizards, dragonflies 鈥� and this is a non-exhaustive list 鈥� that are also homosexuals, like me. Can you please tell me what is ideological about this and not biological?

听听Miriam Lexmann (PPE), blue-card answer. 鈥� Sorry, I think we are in the European 合法博彩网站 and not in a biology class. I am talking about ideology interfering in the competences of the Member States 鈥� an ideology which believes that it is above the law. The international treaties, the EU treaties, set very clearly what is the competence of the Member States and what is not.

And the only thing I am asking is that we look for solutions for the problems of the children 鈥� which I believe we definitely should 鈥� but such solutions must be in line with European law. I hope that you believe in the rule of law. I do believe in it and that's why I believe in such solutions.

听听Gilles Pennelle (PfE). 鈥� Monsieur le Pr茅sident, le certificat europ茅en de parentalit茅, inscrit au programme officiel de la Commission europ茅enne pour听2025, confirme sa volont茅 d鈥檌mposer ce r猫glement, telle une dictature, malgr茅 l鈥檕pposition formul茅e par plusieurs 脡tats membres (Italie, Su猫de, Slovaquie, Croatie, Bulgarie, Roumanie) au sein du Conseil en juin听2024. Pourquoi la Commission et le Parlement europ茅en pers茅v猫rent-ils sur ce sujet controvers茅, alors que le droit de la famille est une comp茅tence nationale?

En effet, cette proposition impliquerait d鈥檕bliger des 脡tats 脿 reconna卯tre des filiations issues de m猫res porteuses, alors que leur loi nationale l鈥檌nterdit. Les 脡tats membres seraient donc contraints de valider indirectement des pratiques contraires 脿 leur l茅gislation nationale et 脿 leurs choix politiques et 茅thiques. Ce forcing consisterait 脿 faire reconna卯tre de fait la GPA et 脿 faciliter sa pratique, pourtant interdite dans plusieurs 脡tats europ茅ens, comme la France. La l茅galisation de la marchandisation du corps de la femme est, en fin de compte, la v茅ritable intention de ce r猫glement scandaleux. Tous ceux qui pr茅tendent d茅fendre les droits des femmes et des enfants devraient se mobiliser contre cela.

Catch-the-eye procedure

听听Juan Fernando L贸pez Aguilar (S&D). 鈥� Se帽or presidente, se帽or comisario Hansen, los supuestos argumentos jur铆dicos que invocan el derecho soberano de los Estados miembros sobre sus legislaciones de familia y la necesidad de unanimidad para modificar esa competencia en realidad esconden prejuicios 鈥攅so s铆, ideol贸gicos鈥� que son incompatibles con la obligaci贸n de los Estados miembros de respetar la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Uni贸n Europea, que consagra la libre circulaci贸n sin discriminaci贸n y, particularmente, protege el inter茅s superior del menor.

Este es exactamente el objetivo del Reglamento sobre filiaci贸n europeo, que es imprescindible sacar adelante para asegurar que ning煤n menor es discriminado en ning煤n Estado miembro por su origen; porque no es aceptable que se haga al menor culpable de la supuesta familia de la que procede y que no gusta en determinados Estados miembros. A ninguno se le exige ni aceptar el matrimonio homosexual ni aceptar la filiaci贸n subrogada. Lo que se les exige es respetar la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Uni贸n Europea que, con el mismo valor jur铆dico que los Tratados, es vinculante para todos los Estados miembros.

听听Lukas Sieper (NI). 鈥� Mr听President,听dear people of Europe, I would like to touch on two main arguments that were brought before this House.

The first one is that all of this is an infringement within the competences of the Member States. I just ask those people: 'why do you think our beautiful flags are at that end of the room?' Because this whole thing here, this whole Union, is about giving competences to the Union instead of letting the Member States regulate that. Yes, we have to have discussions about this, but it will happen more and more and more, whether you like it or not. You can cry about sovereign nations all day. Those sovereign nations 鈥� all of them 鈥� decided to form this Union.

The second point is ideology. That just makes me smile, because while one part of the aisle just really wants to talk about the rights of people and self-determination and children's rights, the other ones are actually imposing religion 鈥� the religious idea that only a man and a woman can have a family and only a man and a woman can raise a child. If that's the baseline of your politics, please go back to 300 years ago.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

听听Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Mr听President, honourable Members, as mentioned earlier, with this proposal, the Commission aims to ensure the continuity of parenthood status between Member States so that all children can fully enjoy their rights in all Member States for all purposes.

By requiring the recognition of parenthood, Union law does not interfere with the Member States substantive family law, which is a competence of the Member States.听However, with the proposal, Union law would require the Member States' mutual recognition of parenthood beyond the existing rights under free movement law, to strengthen all children's rights in cross-border situations without leaving any child behind.

And, as Ms听Bricmont rightly said, it is now up to the Member States to come to a conclusion and a mutual recognition. And that is where the ball lies now currently.

合法博彩网站 and the Member States, and the current and upcoming Council presidencies, can continue to count on the full support of the Commission in the effort to reach a well-balanced solution in this essential piece of legislation for our citizens.

And please let me conclude by saying we should, in all our efforts, put the best interest of the children into the centre of the discussion, irrespective of who their biological or non-biological parents are.

听听President. 鈥� The debate is closed.