President. – We now come to the order of business.

The final draft agenda as adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 16 October pursuant to Rule 163 has been distributed. With the agreement of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposals for changes to the final draft agenda.

For tomorrow, Tuesday, the Green Group has requested that a Commission statement on the outcome of the Italian court ruling related to the agreement between Italy and Albania on migration be added on Tuesday afternoon as the second item after Question Time. As a consequence, the sitting would be extended to 23:00.

I give the floor to Ms Reintke to move the request.

  Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, last Friday, an Italian court invalidated the detention of 16 asylum applicants sent to Albania by the Italian Government. Italy is a democracy, with an independent judiciary and courts that can freely rule on existing cases, also to stop illegal actions by the government. Still, members of the ruling far-right coalition, including members of the government, attacked this independent judiciary and the judges that ruled in this case.

Colleagues, we cannot stay silent on this: rule of law, including separation of powers, is a key fundament of the European Union. We have waited for far too long regarding Hungary to speak up. We cannot make the same mistake again. That is why my group requests a debate with the following title: 'Commission statement regarding the ruling of the Italian court related to the agreement between Italy and Albania on migration'.

  President. – I have two colleagues who have asked to speak against the request: first Nicola Procaccini, and then Tomas Tobé.

  Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Madam President, colleagues, first of all, there is a mistake in the title and in the meaning of the debate proposed by the Greens.

The Italian court ruling mentioned by the colleagues deals with something else. It does not call into question the Italy-Albania agreement. Any international agreement, of course, cannot be judged by a civil code. So next time, please colleagues, collect more accurate information or go back to school.

Regarding any other proposal debates, I understand that there is a desire to discuss how to deal with the legal and illegal migration. Fortunately, a debate is already planned for Wednesday morning where we can compare our points of view for almost two hours. We will do it. You bet.

  Tomas Tobé (PPE). – Madam President, I think it is clear and already stated that this request should not be supported. It's very clear. It's not about a protocol about Italy and Albania, as you say in what you're asking for. Also, it's not even a final decision in the court, and it's also a decision based on an EU directive that actually will be replaced once the new migration pact is fully adopted.

I think it's also about the general question, because we had a request in plenary before, from the Patriots, about another decision. We could, of course, make this Chamber nothing else than debating different court decisions. I think when it comes to migration policy, we should be serious, we should be balanced, and we should use our time to actually debate real things and not only try to make court decisions that you may like or not like to be in favour of them.

So that is why the EPP will reject this request.

  President. – I have also received an alternative proposal from the Renew Group, which is the Commission statement on the outcome of the Italian court ruling related to the agreement between Italy and Albania on migration and the implementation of the pact.

I give the floor to Ms Fabienne Keller to present the alternative.

  Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, nous savons que le nouveau pacte sur la migration et l’asile et la politique migratoire ont occupé l’essentiel du Conseil européen de la fin de la semaine dernière. C’est un sujet de préoccupation pour nos concitoyens.

Nous sommes fiers, tous ici dans cette Chambre, d’avoir adopté un pacte, d'avoir trouvé un équilibre pour traiter la question de la migration illégale, tout en respectant nos valeurs. Nous savons aussi, chers collègues, qu’il nous faudra encore deux années pour le mettre en œuvre. Nous ne pouvons dès lors pas accepter qu’un État membre utilise une voie détournée pour contourner ce que prévoit le pacte et les règles précises que nous avons définies ensemble.

C’est pourquoi nous proposons de rebondir sur la proposition des Verts et d’ajouter la dimension «mise en œuvre du pacte» dans son ensemble, c'est-à-dire vis-à-vis de ses devoirs, de l’application de ses règles, mais aussi des garanties des droits de l’homme et du respect des droits fondamentaux que nous y avons intégrés. C’est dans cet esprit que nous proposons ce débat amendé.

  President. – Ms Reintke, do you agree with the alternative proposal? So the Green Group does not. Therefore, I will put the original request by the Green Group to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

I now ask Ms Keller: do you want to keep your request? Yes, Ms Keller wants to keep the request, so the proposal from the Renew Group is now put to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

So the agenda remains unchanged.

The agenda is now adopted and the order of business is thus established.