JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

MEP Benedek Jávor’s written comment to the COP22 debate of the European Parliament

At COP22, parties reaffirmed their collective commitment to implement the Paris Agreement – despite the outcome of the US elections.

Unfortunately, the EU has also failed to put forward any new measures to help close the emission gap and to hold global warming to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1,5°CThus, COP24 in 2018 will be the next moment for countries to increase their ambition and scale up emission reduction pledges and the EU’s leadership is crucial. We must start walking the talk and prioritise energy transition by ramping up our own policies and inadequate climate and energy targets.

To this end, now we need an ambitious energy winter package for 2030 which promotes energy savings and efficiency measures, high renewables penetration as well as proper governance of the Energy Union. However, it seems that ECrather wants to subsidise new fossil fuel capacities and undermine market access for renewables.

The credibility of the EU and our common future is at stake.  We need to take commitments made in Paris seriously:  substantially reducing GHG emissions in the short term and bringing emissions to zero in the longer term –it is our only chance.

Paks II: Questionable decision; further legislative debates to be expected

According to MEP Benedek Jávor, today’s decision by the European Commission on closing the infringement procedure on the lack of tendering in the case of the construction of Paks II did not come as a surprise but is bad news for Hungarian tax-payers and it projects further legislative debates.
During summer Mr. Jávor was already talking about a soon-concluding agreement between the European Commission and the Hungarian government. At the same time, based on a letter sent by the EC in August to Mr. Jávor as a complainant, he believes that the decision is based on false information and flawed legal interpretation and it will result in more legal debates. This means that the debate on Paks II is far from being closed, all the more so because the procedure on illegal state aid in the project is still ongoing.
“For a more thorough analysis on the closing of the infringement procedure, we need to see its details. I am looking forward to the decision’s detailed reasoning, which the European Commission will send to me as the complainant, and which should be made public”, said the representative MEP for Dialogue for Hungary. At the same time, he believes that if the Commission’s reasoning was that evading the rules of procurement was possible because apart from the Russians nobody was able to comply with the Hungarian technical and security requirements, then the EC’s decision will probably mean even more challenges for the Paks project, the Hungarian government and the European Commission itself as well. Because, if the reasoning of the decision is based on the above, then the Hungarian regulation may be contravening to the principles of the internal market that are considered the basis of the EU. And this could also have severe consequences.
According to Benedek Jávor, Paks II is severely harmful for Hungary not only financially, but in terms of energy policy and external affairs as well, and so he will keep doing everything it takes in order to defend the country from such threats. In response to János Lázár’s comments, Mr. Jávor thanked the minister’s advice and said he would take it into consideration, however he expressed bad news for Mr. Lázár, as he would keep working with the same determination and effort. He knows that this would cause problems for the minister – as it did hitherto – but he expressed a genuine hope that the minister would cope with the difficulties.

Orbán bites the European hand that feeds his oligarchs – it’s time to bite back!

This week, the European Court of Auditors will report on how the EU spends taxpayer money. For once, the worst offending member states will be named and shamed, with Hungary set to top the list. This should just be the starting point, insist Bart Staes and Benedek Javor.

Bart Staes and Benedek Javor are both Green MEPs and members of the budgetary control committee in the European Parliament.

The ECA’s report will be presented during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. This year, as with the previous 21, the report states that the ECA could not declare that EU spending of almost €150 billion in 2015 was entirely free from mismanagement, negligence or fraud by member states.

What is different this year, however, is the decision by the ECA to name those countries that are the worst at ensuring EU funds are properly spent – and Hungary, under the rule of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, comes out on ‘top’.

The figures are staggering: the same Viktor Orbán who runs roughshod over basic European democratic values, the rule of law and protection of minorities, will be the proud recipient of €25 billion between 2014 and 2020 – more than any other EU country on a per capita basis apart from Lithuania – and yet a large percentage of the Hungarian projects funded by the European Union are by research of Transparency International Hungary described as ‘corrupt’.

EU funding for the regions of Europe (so-called cohesion funding) accounts for around one-third of the EU budget and is meant to help create a level social and economic playing field across the EU, reducing disparities between and within member states.

Yet despite being one of the major beneficiaries of EU funding, Hungary shows little sign of improvement – indeed regional and social inequalities in Hungary have grown significantly over the last few years. To mention just one example: Hungary’s spending on education is the lowest in the whole of the OECD, both as a percentage of total public spending and of GDP.

So where does the money go then? While some of it is undoubtedly spent on positive and useful projects for which is was intended, much of it is not. There are many cases of EU money being used to finance projects that ostensibly follow fair and transparent public procurement procedures but which in fact are often a cover for Orbán to give money to his oligarch cronies.

They include Lőrinc Mészáros, Orbán’s childhood school friends and mayor of the his home village; István Tiborcz, Orbán’s son-in-law; István Garancsi, a friend of Orbán’s and president of the football club of the town where Orbán was born; and Lajos Simicska, Orbán’s former college roommate, and former treasurer of the ruling party, who was the regime’s top oligarch until he fell out with the prime minister early last year.

In 2013 alone, the share of the combined value of tenders won by the many companies owned by these four people accounted for 11% of all public procurement contracts agreed that year. Between 2011 and 2014 the share of EU financing in the contracts won by these four men never fell below 80%; the average share of EU funds in Hungarian procurements is usually between 50 and 60%.

Simicska’s case is particularly interesting in shedding light on how this public procurement process really works. His companies won contracts worth hundreds of billions of forints before his friendship with Orbán came to a sorry end; since the rift with Orbán, his companies have won virtually nothing. In other words, if you’re close to Orbán, you have a much greater chance of winning the contract.

Ironically, it is this falling out with Orbán that means that there are still some critical voices in Hungary. Simicska rebelled against Orbán’s plans to introduce a special media tax (because it would have hurt his media interests) and now uses his once-loyal media empire to criticise the government.

Other critical voices are more easily stifled: the recent closure of leading opposition daily newspaper Népszabadság by new owners sympathetic to Orbán is just the latest example in an increasingly long list of independent voices summarily silenced.

Most Hungarians now get their news spoon-fed to them by the regime’s propaganda industry – all financed to a large extent by European taxpayers’ money meant to be used to help remove inequalities between EU member states.

Yet despite this being widely documented, the EU institutions continue to turn a blind eye. While Orbán’s crony capitalism is perhaps the most extreme example, the abuse of EU funding goes well beyond Hungary’s borders and risks irredeemably tainting the entire EU project if it is not tackled.

The naming and shaming by the ECA is just a start – real action is now needed to put an end to these abuses. Let’s hope other EU leaders and political leaders have the political courage to do just that. It’s time all relevant EU institutions start biting back at Orbán, on behalf of good governance for Hungarian citizens.

This article first appeared at the Euractiv news website: https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/opinion/orban-bites-the-european-hand-that-feeds-his-oligarchs-its-time-to-bite-back/


Recommendations for better implentation of the Birds and Habitats Directives

To date, the final outcome of the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives is not publicly available. However, the evaluation study to support the Fitness Check as well as the report on the open public consultation (which generated an unprecedented level of interest) already indicate some key findings:

The Birds and Habitats Directives are by far the most important component of the EU’s nature conservation policy framework. The Directives – if fully implemented – are effective in protecting the nature, fit for purpose, provide a balanced framework for taking into account the diverse interests of stakeholders while respecting nature conservation objectives. The benefits of implementing the Directives far exceed the costs.

The State of the Nature report clearly shows that Europe’s nature would be in a much worse state without the positive impact of the Nature Directives and that targeted and appropriately financed efforts genuinely produce positive result.

The Directives are making a major contribution to halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the current efforts will not lead the achievement of EU biodiversity goals. Additional, substantial and continuous efforts are needed, as also called for in recent resolutions of European Parliament.

The infringement cases indicate that many Member States have not fully and effectively implemented the Nature Directives.  The evaluation study clearly states that progress in implementation has been slower than anticipated in the development of site conservation measures, including management plans.

Factors that have constrained progress include the impacts of certain incentives and subsidies in other policy sectors, the degree of political support for the Directives, inadequate enforcement, inadequate stakeholder involvement, knowledge limitations, limited expertise and capacity of nature authorities and other actors involved in the implementation as well as inadequate financing.

The Directives must not be revised as it would create legal uncertainty and put any further progress in the state of species and habitats at risk. However, the implementation deficits need to be corrected.

With regard to the above, I am asking you personally and the Commission as a whole to focus on the following aspects to ensure full implementation of the Nature Directives:

  • effective enforcement, full compliance
  • policy integration
  • biodiversity mainstreaming in the budget and targeted financing

 

  • The evidence submitted to the Fitness Check of the Nature Directives makes it clear that EU enforcement action has been instrumental in improving the implementation of the Nature Directives. However, more action is needed to ensure full compliance.

The relevant national or regional authorities in various Member States of the EU are insufficiently equipped and resourced, resulting in huge inspection deficiencies – and continuously growing pressure on the biodiversity and the environment as a whole.  The recently launched Environmental Implementation Review with country specific reports may provide a new tool for screening and detection of non-compliance– yet this will not result in the much-needed improvement of environmental inspections. Thus, the Commission should without any further delay propose a legally binding framework on environmental inspections, which would introduce minimum standards for environmental inspections in the Member States. Besides, more oversight capacities should be granted to the Commission, together with the use of a variety enforcement tools, including its own inspectors to investigate infringement cases.

Another crucial aspect in this regard is the improvement of access to justice.  Member States often refuse access to justice to the public on the grounds that it is not explicitly stipulated in a particular legislation.  Moreover, the EU itself is in breach of the Aarhus Convention as also flagged by a UN Committee as well as a number of NGOs: the current interpretation of the European Court of Justice is restrictive, blocking access of citizens and NGOs to the courts in cases where better implementation and enforcement is at stake.  We need legally binding provisions ensuring access to justice at national level. To this end the Commission should without any delay propose an all-embracing Access to Justice Directive.

  • Improved implementation of the existing environmental and nature conservation policies and of the Nature Directives in particular is key to addressing the continuing biodiversity degradation. However, this alone will not lead to achieving the EU2020 headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and its ecosystems.

The directives work in conjunction with other EU environmental legislation, mutually affecting each other.

Inter alia, agricultural, energy and climate policies as well as all land use change and infrastructure developments have a huge impact on biodiversity. These policies must be adjusted – all environmentally harmful subsidies must be seized and the policies must be fitted with robust nature conservation and environmental safeguards to ensure that the developments do not undermine ecosystems and their services but rather help improve the status of species and habitats of European importance and the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

Besides, there is much room for improvement regarding the Environmental Liability Directive. The recent evaluation of ELD shows that the transposition has not resulted in a common understanding and a level playing field but in a patchwork of liability systems. Member States keep misinterpreting key concepts such as environmental damage and thresholds. We need to counter any misinterpretation and improve the application of the liability legislation.

The nature conservation measures themselves can be designed in a way that these deliver benefits for various sectors and stakeholders. In this respect, large scale ecosystem restoration as well as a green infrastructure projects are key. In order to counteract and further fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity, the Commission should present its Trans-European Network of Green Infrastructure (TEN-G) Initiative as soon as possible, by 2017 at the latest, as also requested by the European Parliament.

Member States and their authorities need technical assistance and capacity building in all the areas mentioned under points 1) and 2).

 

  • The Commission should make sure that funding gaps for nature conservation arer closed and biodiversity is mainstreamed in the EU budget beyond 2020. Therefore the next Multiannual Financing Framework should contain biodiversity and nature conservation earmarks in each individual EU funding instrument, with particular attention to those of the common agricultural policy and the cohesion policy. Besides, we need dedicated funding stream to sufficiently cover biodiversity investment needs – this could imply the expansion of the LIFE programme (and the natural capital financing facility).

 

To conclude, I call on the Commission to come up with an Action Plan on the better implementation of the Nature Directives as soon as possible, by 2017 at the latest, containing all the elements listed above.

 

(Image source: birdlife.org)

Glyphosate – Green MEPs granted limited access to controversial studies

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today written to a group of Greens/EFA MEPs, confirming that they will be granted limited access to the controversial studies used in their assessment of the safety of herbicide glyphosate. The decision comes after the MEPs (Heidi Hautala, Benedek Javor, Michele Rivasi and Bart Staes) made a request to EFSA for the documents to be made public.

The studies form the basis of EFSA’s assessment that glyphosate is “probably not carcinogenic”, a position that directly contradicts the assessment of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). At present, the studies are only accessible to certain MEPs, and only through a secure “reading room” set up by industry. The documents which will be supplied to the MEPs will be redacted and it will take another two months for any of the information to be sent to them.

Commenting on the news, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“We will always welcome any effort to move forward on transparency, and this is clearly a positive development. However, until we have access to the documents and are able to submit them to independent expert analysis, it will be too soon to assess just how progressive this offer is.”

Green legal affairs and transparency spokesperson Heidi Hautala added:

“We will now finally have the opportunity to submit this data to independent scientific scrutiny, but what we really want is for the studies to be made fully public. Science rests upon the ability of data and conclusions to be challenged. The on-going controversy around glyphosate, and the continued struggle and delays in getting access to crucial evidence, show just how badly in need of reform the current assessment system is.”

The decision comes in the wake of continual pressure from Greens/EFA MEPs, including a recent action outside the secure reading room set up by industry – see video: http://www.greens-efa.eu/secret-science-is-not-science-16025.html

In solidarity with Népszabadság

GreensEFAabreviation-en

Questions about media freedom and pluralism in Hungary

By Greens/EFA MEPs Judith Sargentini and Benedek Jávor

The biggest Hungarian opposition daily newspaper Népszabadság was summarily shut down over the weekend of 8-9 October 2016. Journalists were told that their offices were being moved to another building and that they should put their things into boxes ready for the move. They were shown where their workstations would be in the new building, and the management had even announced plans for a small party on Sunday evening, for which it had already ordered the pizzas. Then, on Saturday, an unsigned letter from the management was delivered to each of them by courier letting them know that they have been suspended from work, and that they should not bother showing up because they would not be let into the building. Access to their workplace’s computer system, including to their mailboxes, was cancelled, and they were told not to talk about it to anyone. Employee representatives were not contacted by the management before or after the decision to close the paper, which is against the law. The online edition of the newspaper, nol.hu, was also shut down, along with its entire online archive. The publisher says the decision was made on economic grounds, but this is clearly a lie. After years of economic hardship, in 2015 Népszabadság started making a modest profit.

The far more likely cause of the closure is the fact that last week Népszabadság dug up a number of inconvenient facts about two high-ranking officials belonging to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s inner circle – the head of the National Bank and former minister for economy, György Matolcsy, and Orbán’s propaganda minister, Antal Rogán. Although the paper’s publisher, Mediaworks Inc., is owned by the Austrian businessman Heinrich Pecina, foreign ownership is no guarantee of political independence in Hungary, as was amply illustrated by an earlier case involving the major online news outlet Origo.hu, then owned by the Hungarian subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom. In 2014, Origo.hu published a series of articles critical of the government that ended in the site taking János Lázár, the minister in charge of the Prime Minister’s Office, to court in order to gain access to a number of hotel bills he had accrued. The result of this was that the editor-in-chief of Origo.hu was abruptly forced to resign and the news outlet was eventually sold to a media company linked to oligarchs in the ruling party’s business network. Investigative journalism portal Atlatszo.hu and several other newspapers had in fact recently reported that a similar fate might be awaiting Mediaworks, too.

The Greens/EFA Group has consistently voiced its concerns about the developments in Hungary affecting press and media freedom and pluralism ever since a highly controversial media law was adopted in December 2010. It’s clear from the closure of Népszabadság that the emerging autocracy in Hungary is prepared to go far beyond regulatory measures to curb press freedom. Freedom of expression and press freedom may exist in the legal sense, and there are indeed news outlets and other media which are openly critical of the government, but the regime’s strategy is clearly to limit their reach as much as possible and cut off those that might have a major impact. Public service broadcasting, both radio and television, which in theory is supposed to set the standards of independent journalism, has been completely taken over by the government, and has become an instrument of shameless propaganda. The government and state-owned companies are also highly significant advertisers, diverting enormous amounts of public funds to pro-government media. One oligarch within the current regime, also acting as a government commissioner, recently bought the second biggest commercial TV station using public loans which he plans to pay back using public money spent on advertising; he immediately turned it into yet another channel of government propaganda. The aim is clear: to limit the press as much as possible in its role in defending and questioning democracy.

We stand in solidarity with the editors and staff of Népszabadság, and we will make sure that attacks on media freedom like this do not go unnoticed. We urge the political institutions and community of the EU to subject the Hungarian government’s compliance with the fundamental values of the European Union to further scrutiny.

(Photo source: MTI – Zoltán Balogh)

Hungary migration referendum – results fail to meet threshold

Commenting on the result of the Hungarian referendum on EU migration quotas, which failed to reach the legal threshold of 50% turnout, Greens/EFA MEP Tamás Meszerics stated:

 “Despite an extremely aggressive propaganda campaign, a majority of the Hungarian electorate did not cast a valid vote. Even in the face of a hate-mongering campaign, the majority resisted, offering some of hope in what is an otherwise deeply regrettable result.”

  Greens/EFA MEP Benedek Jávor added:

 “The real threat to the European Union is not migrants but the irresponsible approach of Member States. It is extremely worrying that some Member States are actively seeking to undermine EU solidarity for internal political games, and the way the Hungarian government has approached today’s referendum is a prime example of this. We won’t solve the current crisis through nasty campaigning or adopting inhumane policies, but by taking a shared and compassionate approach to our responsibilities towards migrants.”

The Future of Europe – Conference Live Stream

(The conference will take place on Monday, 19th of September)

Below you can find the live streaming of our conference titled “The Future of Europe – The Europe of the Future”.

The event is broadcast in two languages at once. In order to choose your preferred language the easiest way is to use headphones. Once you plug your headphones into your device you will hear the recording in two languages, one on each side. Either take out or switch off the side that is not the preferred language.

In case you do not have headphones, you will have to set the ‘Balance’ function on either the loudspeakers by turning the “balance” button left or right, or in the settings of your computer. If you are using Windows 7, 8 or 10, you can change the balance settings by clicking on Start -> Control Panel, where you will find the ‘Hardware and Sound’ settings. In the dialogue box that appears, click on the ‘Sound’ tab. Under the ‘Properties’ option you will find ‘Speakers properties’ where the ‘Levels’ tab will offer you the ‘Balance’ settings. Here you can adjust the volume of individual speakers by moving the sliders of left or right.

If you are using Mac OS you can set the balance by clicking System Preferences -> Sound -> Output and shift the slider of the ‘Balance’ section left or right.

You will hear the broadcast in English on the left side.

Greens’ letter to Commissioner Moscovici calling for the prohibition of patent boxes

Dear Commissioner Moscovici,

On behalf of the Greens / EFA group, we would like to draw your attention on patent boxes, an important mechanism identified by the Commission itself as a risk to facilitate aggressive tax planning in Europe.

Patent or innovation boxes are a type of preferential tax regime, specific to the European Union and multiplying among Member States. Currently, 12 countries grant or are preparing to grant patent boxes or equivalent schemes(1), which could facilitate tax avoidance rather than genuinely encouraging the promotion of R&D in these countries. As you know, the allocation of intellectual property rights is key for tax matters but unfortunately is not always linked to where real economic activity takes place.

In 2014 the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Group found all existing patent boxes harmful and agreed that, in order to address this problem, these preferential regimes should be based on the OECD “modified nexus approach”. This means that there must be a direct link between the tax benefits and the underlying research and development activities.

In its June 2015 Action Plan on Corporate Taxation, the Commission committed to carefully monitor how Member States implement the modified nexus approach and whether their patent box regimes are in line with the new approach. The Commission also took the commitment that if, within 12 months, Member States are not applying this new approach consistently, it will prepare binding legislative measures on this issue(2).

As the deadline of June 2016 is now ending, we would like to ask you, as Commissioner for taxation, to provide us with the outcome of your monitoring. It has been brought to our attention that several countries are delayed in the implementation of the modified nexus approach. Furthermore, despite a general commitment in 2014 to do so, France now claims that it will not rollback its patent box scheme as mentioned in the latest ECOFIN conclusions(3).

As recently reconfirmed by the report of the TAX2 Special Committee(4), investigating the Luxleaks scandal, we urge you to come forward with a binding legislative proposal on patent and innovation boxes. As Greens, we believe that patent boxes should be gradually phased out and prohibited in the next five years. Your services, as well as the OECD or the IMF, seem to confirm that patent boxes are not the right tool to foster R&D in Europe(5). We call on you to propose this new legislative proposal under Article 116 of the Treaty as Member States have been consulted since 2013 on the matter but such consultation did not result in an agreement fully eliminating the distortion of competition created by patent box schemes.

1 The following countries are: Belgium, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. 2http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/fairer_corporate_taxation/com_ 2015_302_en.pdf

3 Report of the Code of Conduct Group to ECOFIN, 13 June 2016, 9912/16 FISC 97 ECOFIN 558
4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160621IPR33011/MEPs-call-for-tax-haven-black-list-patent- box-rules-CCCTB-and-more
5 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/28-taxud-study_on_rnd_tax_incentives_-_2014.pdf

Brussels, 30 June 2016

The fight against corporate tax avoidance has increased considerably in the EU over the past years and we congratulate the Commission for the leadership it has taken on this matter. Taking a bold move on patent boxes would send a strong signal to Member States that the Commission remains committed to close harmful tax regimes in Europe to ensure a fairer corporate tax system.

Yours sincerely,

Max Andersson, Sweden Margrete Auken, Denmark Pascal Durand, France
Bas Eickhout, the Netherlands, Sven Giegold, Germany

Heidi Hautala, Finland
Maria Heubuch, Germany Yannick Jadot, France
Benedek Javor, Hungary
Eva Joly, France
Philippe Lamberts, Belgium Ernest Maragall, Spain
Michel Reimon, Austria
Michèle Rivasi, France
Molly Scott Cato, United Kingdom Bart Staes, Belgium
Joseph-Maria Terricabras, Spain Ernest Urtasun, Spain

Press release: Luxembourg Leaks trial – Regrettable verdict a wake-up call on whistleblower protection

A Luxembourg court today ruled that ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet were guilty of stealing documents, revealing business secrets and violating trade secrets (1). Criticising the verdict, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor MEP, who was in Luxembourg for the verdict today, said:

“This deeply regrettable verdict should be a clear wake-up call on the need to finally recognise and protect the crucial role performed by whistleblowers in democratic systems by shedding light on vital information in the public interest. The vital information revealed by the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers threw the spotlight on the tax avoidance practices of multinational corporations, leading to investigations in the EU Parliament and elsewhere, as well as legislative proposals to close the loopholes that made this tax avoidance possible. There can be absolutely no doubt that Antoine Deltour, Raphaël Halet and Edouard Perrin were serving the public interest. To punish them for their actions is the opposite of what a rational legal system in a democracy should be doing. We will support them ni their appeal.

“This trial has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. The only way to ultimately resolve this is by providing clear legal protection for whistleblowers. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation to this end on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. Only last month, our group outlined a prototype for how such an EU law should look (2) and we are now again urging the Commission to act on this and bring forward a proposal.”

(1) The Luxembourg court delivered a guilty verdict to Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet. Antoine Deltour was sentenced to 12 months in prison with a €1500 fine and Raphaël Halet was sentenced to 9 months with a €1000 fine. In addition to the fine, they have clearly faced an arduous 2-year ordeal and the loss of their jobs. Journalist Edouard Perrin, who was also on trial, was acquitted.

(2) The Greens/EFA proposals for an EU whistleblower directive can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

 

Below is a video from the Greens’ Twitter account, in which Mr. Jávor explains the situation: