Europe was built on a promise of peace, democracy and solidarity. A promise to overcome division, protect fundamental rights and build a future of shared prosperity. Today, climate disasters, rising cost of living, a housing crisis and war threaten this promise.

Yet when Europe needs solidarity and action, the far right and conservative forces undermine its independence. They claim to defend sovereignty while serving fossil fuel lobbies and authoritarian regimes. They claim to protect people while putting profits before homes and public services. They claim to defend democracy while siding with tech oligarchs and scapegoating minorities. Conservatives increasingly enable the far right.

Europe’s values, democracy and sovereignty are not for sale. Ahead of crucial election years, it is our responsibility to stand up for Europe. Democratic victories in Hungary and Serbia show that the far right can be defeated. There is hope in Europe.

Time is up: the climate has changed. The 1.5°C target has been missed and it is foreseen that 2027
will set a new record. Europe and the Mediterranean are warming faster than the global average and face severe heat, wildfires, and water risks, including droughts, floods, extreme precipitation, and glacier melting.

Mitigation remains indispensable, but adaptation can no longer be postponed. Climate change amplifies inequalities: wealthier people and businesses can buy protection, insurance, cooling and relocation, while poorer people rely on public infrastructure and services for relief.

The crisis is visible. In summer 2026, Europe’s fifth heatwave affected around 300 million people. Paris, London and Brussels experienced unprecedented temperatures, associated with an estimated 35,000 deaths across the continent, totalling 200,000 over the past four years. Heat and drought pushed rivers to record lows and expanded wildfire risks beyond traditional southern hotspots. The agricultural sector is facing declines in yields, changes in growing areas and new pests. Floods, such as Storm DANA in Valencia, Spain, and landslides in Sicily, have caused severe losses and damage.

Climate change is a threat multiplier while adaptation itself can actually deepen inequalities through green gentrification and unequal access to protection. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA), older people, children, pregnant women, people with chronic conditions and outdoor workers are the most vulnerable, having fewer resources to adapt while facing greater exposure. Rural communities dependent on agriculture and tourism, people encountering housing and energy poverty, and densely-populated
neighbourhoods are more vulnerable to extreme weather.

While right-wing politicians continue to minimise such problems, the Greens must promote inclusive, cooperative adaptation that protects people now while, at the same time, addressing structural causes, both locally and internationally.

Adaptation must be inclusive: affected communities must shape planning; EU funding must include social-justice criteria; and public infrastructure must take priority over private protection solutions.

Adaptation must be coordinated: governments, communities and businesses should share information, align investments and address interconnected risks, ensuring local adaptation does not create risks elsewhere.

Adaptation must be based on functioning ecosystems: public investment should prioritise innovative nature-based solutions, whereas the private sector can complement these efforts.

We need practical measures able to make an immediate impact on daily life.

Heat: guarantee free drinking water and cooling spaces; introduce heat health plans; enforce temperature thresholds and compensation for outdoor workers when work is unsafe; adapt school and office schedules and invest in insulation, cool roofs and green spaces.

Wildfires: strengthen firefighters, civil protection and critical infrastructures; improve early warnings and preparedness; establish firebreaks; balance active land management through diversification, restoration and the rewilding of ecosystems; increase cross-border cooperation.

Agriculture and water: prioritise naturally climate-resilient crops, soil and water conservation and sustainable irrigation; ensure fair water allocation and prioritise essential needs and ecosystems.

Floods and landslides: invest in flood management and restore ecosystems that retain water and stabilise landscapes and urban spaces.

Adaptation has limits: when ecosystems collapse, people are forced to move. Migration can be an adaptation strategy when people have resources and choices, but when systems fail it becomes a necessity. Europe must prepare for internal displacement and increasing migration from neighbouring regions.

• Europa Verde - Verdi, IT: Valerio Zaratti (zaratti.valerio@gmail.com) & Michele Rattotti (michele.rattotti@gmail.com)

• Os Verdes, PT: Ana Sofia Cabeleira (anasofiagcpev@gmail.com)

• LIVRE, PT: Carlos Texeira (carlosmglteixeiralivre@gmail.com)

• AD+PD, Malta: Mark Zerafa (mark.zerafa@hotmail.co.uk)

• Partido Verde (Verdes Equo), ES: Irene Vivas (irene.vivas.lalinde@gmail.com)

Note: the 2025 financial documents have been emailed on 26 June as point of information at the Delegates Meeting, 29 June 2026.

The draft minutes of the 40th EGP Congress have been shared about six weeks after the Congress, mailed on 20 January 2026. Please note that we received a couple of corrections, which are included in the above version.

A strong EU budget is an investment in a sovereign Europe. A green, just and resilient Europe needs investment in climate protection, social justice and security.

We welcome the simplified architecture of the Multiannual Financial Framework(MFF) and the integration of new priorities such as competitiveness and innovation, security and defence. However, we criticise the renationalisation of EU funds through the creation of national envelopes for cohesion, social and agricultural policy.

Own resources can both stabilise and strengthen the Union’s budget, while reducing reliance on Member State contributions. The introduction of new own resources and fair taxation of big tech companies will make the EU budget more sustainable. This is necessary not only to cover the investments made under the 'NextGenerationEU', but also to enable investment in the future. In addition, common European borrowing should remain a tool to finance European public goods and innovative projects.

EU Member States fixating on fiscal austerity rather than acknowledging the need for extensive investments in key areas, such as the energy sector, security and defence as well as sustainable infrastructure, are risking the competitiveness and sovereignty of Europe. Horizontal cuts to the Commission’s proposal would be a strategic mistake. We call on EU Member States to ensure that the next MFF is able to support Europe's economic development and sustainability and therefore its' independence.

Strengthening local communities and European regions

National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) must invest in regions and rural areas, ensuring Europe’s visibility at the local level. Cohesion Policy and the European Social Fund+ (ESF+) require guaranteed allocations. NRPPs should enable a just green transition, invest in sustainable social infrastructure and implement the European Pillar of Social Rights by promoting equal opportunities, education and training, and tackling poverty and social exclusion.

At least 30% of NRPP resources should go to rural areas. Local authorities, civil society, implementing partners and citizens must be involved in programming and implementation. Shared management must be maintained, with regions acting as independent partners.

Rule of law, resilient democracies and global solidarity

Growing threats to democracy and open societies require strong rule-of-law safeguards in the next MFF to ensure transparent EU spending and prevent corruption and misuse. Independent courts, impartial investigations, independent journalism and equal application of the law are essential for accountability and protecting public funds. Where national governments fail to ensure fair and transparent distribution, the Commission should manage funds directly rather than penalise regional and local beneficiaries.

Citizens, journalists and civil society must have easy access to information on EU funding beneficiaries and project implementation. Transparency is key to preventing corruption and rebuilding democratic trust.

At least 20% of the Global Europe instrument should support resilient societies, strong civil society, independent media and sound governance, both inside and outside the EU.

These priorities can strengthen the EU’s resilience and independence, public trust and democratic accountability.

Negotiations on the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) are entering a critical phase. Member states must now decide how much resources to commit for the 2028–2034 EU budget. In the Council negotiations, two groups are facing off: the “Frugals” (including Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria), pushing for substantial budget cuts, and the “Friends of Cohesion” (15–16 southern and eastern such as Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania, and Portugal), seeking to preserve agricultural and cohesion funding. If both camps prevail in their demands, the EU budget risks significant cuts in relevant areas.

This motion calls on member states to invest in emerging priorities, which are currently most at risk of cuts like the European Compettiveness Fund or Global Europe. A sovereign and capable Europe needs investment in innovation, climate protection, research, competitiveness and defence. Additionally, we call for a shift away from reliance on national contributions towards new own resources and tax revenue streams, strengthening the EU’s financial autonomy and ensuring a more sustainable budget.

The motion also stresses the need to firmly embed rule-of-law mechanisms and transparency standards in the use of EU funds by member states.

Bündnis90/Die Grünen, sven.giegold@gruene.de

Зелено движение, georgi.stefanov@zelenodvizhenie.bg

Esquerra Verda, oriolmunozgual@gmail.com

Vihreät - De Gröna, kati.systa@gmail.com

The right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy. It is the means by which ordinary people speak truth to power, challenge injustice, and demand accountability. Yet worldwide, governments increasingly restrict freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, undermining people's ability to freely protest.

Over the past decade, more than two-thirds of the world’s population (5.6 billion people across 77 countries) have seen their freedom of expression curtailed, while only 4% (300 million across 15 countries) have seen it improved. This means that for every one person who has gained greater freedom of expression, nineteen have seen that freedom diminished.

The European Green Party believes that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are among the most fundamental rights in any democratic society. Freedom of expression allows people to communicate ideas and opinions, while freedom of assembly enables them to express those views collectively, publicly, and with greater political impact. Together, they form the foundation of the right to protest.

In defence of the right to protest across Europe, and reaffirming its 2020 Resolution on the Right to Protest, the Members of the European Green Party agree that:

1. Everyone should have the right to freedom of expression and assembly, regardless of nationality or immigration status.

2. These rights protect the freedom to organise and participate in protests, demonstrations, rallies, strikes, vigils, and pickets, without fear of government interference, censorship, or retaliation.

3. They include the freedom to engage in provocative, critical, offensive, or even disturbing speech, as well as peaceful acts of civil disobedience (sit-ins, occupations, media stunts, protest camps, and acts of non-cooperation) that may breach domestic law.

4. This means that forms of expression should not be criminalised solely because they are controversial, offensive, shocking, or unpopular.

5. Expression that is gratuitously offensive, promotes hatred or violence based on intolerance, or violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of others does not enjoy protection.

6. Restrictions on protests must always be justifiable under international human rights law, starting with the state’s obligation not to interfere with the right.

7. The ability to protest is a right, not a privilege.

8. Restrictions must never stifle peaceful assemblies and should be imposed only if proportionate, necessary, and the least restrictive means of protecting national security, public safety, public health, or others' rights and freedoms.

9. Dispersal powers or force should be limited to situations where they are strictly necessary, proportionate to a legitimate public order objective, and used only as a last resort when an assembly becomes violent or poses a severe and imminent risk.

10. The use of facial recognition surveillance technology in policing protests is incompatible with human rights and undermines privacy rights.

11. Academic institutions should foster open, respectful debate free from censorship, intimidation, discrimination, and undue interference with lawful expression, research, protest, and discussion.

12. A free and pluralistic media is essential to informed democratic participation.

13. Journalists should be able to cover demonstrations freely, without fear of intimidation, violence, or prosecution.

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These provisions guarantee the right to hold opinions without interference and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers and through any medium. Freedom of expression protects the communication and exchange of ideas, opinions, information, and beliefs. Its protection extends to speech communicated verbally, in writing, through artistic expression, symbolic acts, protest, and other forms of communication.

Freedom of expression does not exist in isolation. Alongside Article 19 are important protections for opinion, belief, privacy, political participation, and minority rights in Articles 18, 17, 25, and 27 of the ICCPR. Freedom of opinion and expression underpins the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly affirmed that pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness are fundamental characteristics of democracy and that restrictions on expression must therefore be interpreted narrowly. In Handyside v United Kingdom, the Court described freedom of expression as "one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man." The Court further clarified that the right protects not only ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also those that offend, shock, or disturb, recognising that pluralism and tolerance are indispensable characteristics of a democratic society. Therefore, freedom of expression protects robust public debate about religion, ideology, morality, and culture, including views that others may consider controversial, offensive, or deeply disagreeable.

This protection also extends to criticism of religions, religious institutions, and religious beliefs. While Article 9 ECHR protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the Court has recognised that those who choose to manifest religious beliefs in public life cannot reasonably expect immunity from criticism or opposing viewpoints. In Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria, the Court found that freedom of belief includes the freedom to question, reject, challenge, or criticise religious doctrines. Prohibiting criticism of religious beliefs would substantially undermine the ability to receive, impart, and debate both religious and non-religious ideas.

Importantly, not all offensive expression is protected. Speech that is gratuitously offensive, incites hatred and violence based on intolerance, or infringes on others' fundamental freedoms is not protected (see Art. 20, ICCPR; Otto-Preminger-Institute v Austria, at [49]; Wingrove v United Kingdom, at [52]; Gündüz v Turkey(2003) 41 E.H.R.R. 5, at [37]; Giniewski v France (2007) 45 E.H.R.R. 589, at [43]). TheRabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence contains a six-part threshold test for forms of speech that are prohibited under criminal law, considering: 1) the context of incitement to hatred, 2) the speaker, 3) intent, 4) content, 5) extent of the speech, and 6) likelihood of causing harm. The UN recommends applying this test when assessing whether a particular expression reaches the prohibited threshold under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR.

Freedom of Assembly

The right to peaceful assembly is recognised across international and regional human rights instruments. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that "the right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised." Similar protections are found in Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Additional protections relating to participation in assemblies appear in specialised human rights treaties, including Article 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 5(d)(ix) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and Article 8 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has described peaceful assembly as a cornerstone of democratic participation. In General Comment No. 37, it stated:

"The fundamental human right of peaceful assembly enables individuals to express themselves collectively and to participate in shaping their societies. The right of peaceful assembly is important in its own right, as it protects the ability of people to exercise individual autonomy in solidarity with others. Together with other related rights, it also constitutes the very foundation of a system of participatory governance based on democracy, human rights, the rule of law and pluralism."

The right belongs to everyone. It is not limited to citizens. Foreign nationals, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, stateless persons, and undocumented individuals are all entitled to enjoy the protection of the right to peaceful assembly without discrimination. The right protects the non-violent gathering of people for specific purposes, most commonly expressive, political, social, cultural, or religious ones. Although assemblies are collective in nature, the right remains an individual human right exercised in association with others. Its protection extends to demonstrations, marches, rallies, vigils, public meetings, strikes, and certain forms of civil disobedience, provided they remain peaceful.

Zeleno–levi front, Serbia (Natalija Simonvic, natalija.simovic@zelenolevifront.rs)
Groen, Belgium (Herlinde Vanhooydonck, herlindevanhooydonck@gmail.com)
GPEW, UK (Kate Youssouf, kate.youssouf@greenparty.org.uk)

Introduction

Europe needs its own digital capacity — the foundation of a digitally enabled society, a competitive economy and a functioning government. Digital capacity also means the power to shape artificial intelligence itself, rather than leaving it to Big Tech and authoritarian governments. However, the current data-centre expansion is pressuring Europe's energy, water and land, while a few US hyperscalers are dominating the cloud market and seizing the value it creates. The European Green Party calls for binding rules to keep Europe’s digital infrastructure within environmental and resource limits, alongside equal requirements across EU Member States and candidate countries. Transparency, data protection and democratic oversight must be core principles. Executed correctly, Europe’s digital infrastructure can become a competitive advantage.

Body

Data centres are among the largest new loads Europe will connect this decade. On their current path, they risk straining grids, depleting water resources and generating noise and waste, while their tax revenues and economic benefits often flow elsewhere. They create relatively few local jobs compared with their energy demand. Europe needs digital infrastructure, but not at the expense of communities and ecosystems or by exacerbating water stress or grid constraints.

Across Europe, procedural accelerations and insufficient safeguards are repeating a familiar pattern. Changes to urban-planning and construction legislation adopted in June 2026 in North Macedonia ‒ an EU candidate country ‒ have accelerated procedures for data-centre and related energy infrastructure projects, while key criteria and safeguards remain insufficiently defined. Plans for a national data centre and a proposed commercial project in Pehčevo have raised questions about transparency, investment criteria and public participation. Where communities are confronted with such projects without information or a say, emergency brakes follow, as moratoria in Scotland and the
Amsterdam region show.

The EU has begun building a framework for transparency and monitoring, but reporting and non-binding commitments are not enough. Missing are common minimum requirements, effective monitoring and fair allocation of the costs of infrastructure and environmental impacts.

Europe does not have to choose between digitalisation and climate: a green data-centre and AI strategy can set it apart from the United States, which is turning to gas turbines, and China, where coal still dominates. Its first building block is flexibility: data centres that shift non-urgent workloads to hours of surplus wind and solar and use their batteries to support the grid stop competing with households and industry for scarce grid capacity and can connect sooner – without making electricity more expensive for everyone else. Its second is sovereignty: data centres open to foreign authorities do not become European by sitting on European soil – they must be built, owned and run by Europeans, with strong data protection and cybersecurity.

• Amazon, Microsoft and Google jointly hold ~70% of the European cloud market; the European share halved from 29% (2017) to ~15% (2024). The US CLOUD Act and FISA Section 702 make data held by US-controlled providers presumptively reachable by US authorities regardless of storage location. https://www.acm.nl/system/files/documents/marktstudie-clouddiensten.pdfhttps://www.srgresearch.com/articles/european-cloud-providers-local-market-share-now-holds-steady-at-15https://cms.law/en/bel/legal-updates/white-paper-demystifying-the-debate-on-the-us-cloud-act-vs-european-uk-data-sovereignty-in-the-context-of-cloud-services

• Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) tripling target: the proposed act aims to triple EU data-centre capacity within five to seven years, including faster permits for projects in data-centre acceleration zones. https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/document-summary?id=1903654

• Cooling systems and back-up generators for data centres cause local nuisance, including significant noise pollution. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772985025000262

• Data centres produce large volumes of electronic waste, especially considering the rapid generational turnover of hardware needed for AI computing (e.g. graphic cards); e-waste is often exported to Eastern and Southeastern European countries. https://wiki.ban.org/images/1/16/AI_Waste_Wave_Part_1.pdfhttps://china-cee.eu/2025/11/28/north-macedonia-monthly-briefing-europes-wasteland-how-macedonia-became-one-of-the-dumping-grounds-of-the-continent/

• EED dashboard (European Commission) reports 18.5 TWh for the EU in 2024, against credible independent estimates of 60–100 TWh; data centres account for 4.6% of Dutch and 23% of Irish electricity consumption; Dublin grid operators have paused new data-centre connections until 2028. https://dashboard.tech.ec.europa.eu/qs_digit_dashboard_mt/public/sense/app/940a61c3-bcfe-47d6-a786-25d93aa63b85/sheet/ZLWpJa/state/analysis/bookmark/381456a5-1044-4047-92f5-671be7ad92c4https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/ireland-data-center-construction-markethttps://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2025/51/data-centres-consume-4-6-percent-of-the-netherlands-electricityhttps://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-dcmec/datacentresmeteredelectricityconsumption2025/

• EED reporting thresholds: the Directive requires reporting from data centres with at least 500 kW installed IT power; large data centres are 2–10 MW, very large exceed 10 MW (EED / Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1364). https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-targets-directive-and-rules/energy-efficiency-directive_en

• Flexibility (Duke University, 2025): 76 GW of new load, about 10% of US peak demand, could be integrated with an average annual curtailment rate of 0.25% — corresponding to around 85 hours of curtailment a year. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/rethinking-load-growth

• Fossil lock-in (IEA 2025): natural gas expands by 175 TWh to meet growing data-centre demand, notably in the US. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/executive-summary

• Global data-centre electricity consumption was 416 TWh in 2024; electricity-related emissions could grow 2.5 times by 2030 in a high-growth scenario; UNEP's 2025 Emissions Gap Report identifies data centres as the fastest-growing source of emissions globally. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/executive-summaryhttps://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2025

• IEA update (2026): global data-centre electricity demand is set to nearly double from 485 TWh in 2025 to 950 TWh by 2030; demand from AI-focused data centres rose by 50% in 2025 alone; orders for gas turbines to power data centres rose 70% in 2025. https://www.iea.org/reports/key-questions-on-energy-and-ai/executive-summary

• Moratoria or emergency brakes on data-centre projects have either been enacted or backed in Scotland (SNP), New York (statewide, 2026), and Amsterdam (municipal). https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/scotland-data-center-moratorium/https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/first-statewide-moratorium-new-hyperscale-data-centers-launched-governor-kathy-hochulhttps://nltimes.nl/2025/04/18/amsterdam-allowing-data-centers-municipality

• North Macedonia: as of June 2026 legislative changes accelerated data-centre project procedures, while transparency, investment-screening and participation criteria remain insufficiently defined (National Data Centre; Pehčevo project). https://ddklaw.com.mk/north-macedonia-strengthens-legal-framework-for-data-centre-development/?lang=enhttps://a1on.mk/macedonia/sovetot-na-opshtina-pehchevo-ja-otfrli-inicijativata-za-izgradba-na-data-centar/https://mactel.com.au/en/The-Pehcevo-Municipality-Council-voted-in-favor/

• US AI build-out: heavily debt-financed (AI capex projected at ~$5.5tn by 2030), with securitised data-centre debt and accelerated index-fund inclusion transmitting valuation risk to European savings and pensions. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2026/jan/tracking-ai-contribution-gdp-growth

Demokratska Obnova na Makedonija - DOM (MK)

Ljubica Shopova, email: bube_20mk@yahoo.com

Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (DE)

Philip Alexander Hiersemenzel, email: philip.hiersemenzel@bgs.gruene.de