9:e valperioden Dragoş PÎSLARU

I am fully committed, together with my colleagues, to implement the goals of the Paris Agreement and ‘Fit for 55’ package, but to do that properly, we believe that Member States also need to apply transitional activities that support a just transition and a proper phase-out of greenhouse gas emission.
Moreover, in the context of the need for energy independence from Russia, we need immediate investment to balance the energy mix.
Romania should capitalise in the short and medium term the resources of the Black Sea from the shallow perimeters, with an estimated potential of 1 billion cubic metres per year, which represents approximately 10 % of Romania’s gas consumption and which will represent a massive breakthrough in terms of energy independence. We need investments and the support of the EIB, and the funds from ETS will be key to implement this development.
I believe the criteria put forward by the Commission in the delegated act explain sufficiently well that the inclusion of nuclear and gas activities will not alter our ambition to reach a neutral energy production and consumption in the long run.
Hence, I supported the Commission Delegated Act on taxonomy and so I voted accordingly.

I voted in favour of this resolution, as the free movement on the territory of the Member States is a key right for EU citizens, upholding the decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice.
When joining the EU, Romania has committed to guarantee a set of rights – among which the freedom of movement – for all the citizens of the EU Members States. In return, Romania and its citizens have benefited of the opportunity to move, work and study across different Member States.
The vote on this resolution was to defend these rights, especially the freedom of movement, already recognised by the Romanian state, but not applied in reality - as ruled by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment of 5 June 2018 in the case ‘Relu Adrian Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne.’
The legal basis is indisputable and it should not be politically interpreted. This was validated by the Romanian Constitutional Court by decision No 534/2018.
This was neither a vote against Romania, nor forcing Romania to impose same-sex marriage, but it is a vote that recognises the free movement rights acquired in another Member State, as it happens with the rights that Romanian citizens have in any other EU country.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are key part of human rights, and they are inseparable from the realisation of the fundamental right to health as well as the achievement of gender equality.
I appreciate this report. It comes at right time to guarantee and improve women’s rights. It provides a step further in terms of acknowledging the necessity of sexual and reproductive health education, especially seeing the debate in several Member States, including my own constituency, Romania.
Nevertheless, the report refers to a sensitive topic that has both health implications, but also touches on life creation principles. These principles are linked to my personal beliefs and consequently I would have preferred a more complex approach with a more balanced wording to reflect the pro-choice/pro-life equilibrium.