Emil RADEV

Policy topics Emil RADEV is active on

What Emil RADEV has said (18)

• 2026-07-15 “Dear madam, the EPA reporter for the regulation on AMLA, I am extremely satisfied to see that a little over a year after this legislation was adopted, the agency has already created its main management structure, has developed its strategic framework, and has started working on its future supervisory function. However, the creation of a new EU agency has never been a goal on its own. We did not create AMO just to add 1 more administrative structure. The goal was to strengthen the trust in the EU financial system after a series of serious financial scandals, which highlighted serious gaps in the supervision mechanisms on national level and the overall coordination. Therefore, the criteria for AMLA's success should not be the number of adopted internal rules or the meetings you have had. The real test for the efficiency of AMLA would be whether the agency can provide for the equal application of the rules in all member states to prevent regulatory shopping and to guarantee that criminal capitals would not exploit the weakest links in our systems. The report shows serious progress in the building of the institutional capacity of AMLA. This provides a solid basis, but the next stage would be significantly harder. In this regard, we need to pay more attention to the recruitment of highly qualified experts. Next year, you should be working at your almost full operational capacity. Are you going to have enough staff to deal with 1 of the agency most important tasks, the direct supervision of financial institutions? What measures are you going to undertake to deal with the shortage of qualified staff? There is 1 other area where we have very high expectations for the work of AMLA, the application of the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the EU and counteracting all attempts for their circumvention through the financial system. What are the specific actions undertaken by AMBLA to help member states detect and fight attempts for sanctions circumvention through the financial system? Thank you.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-06-23 “(11:46:26 – 11:51:05): Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the efforts of mister Benefei for more balanced and pragmatic approach. Our task is clear, less bureaucracy, more legal certainty, and better conditions for innovation and investments. The draft opinion contains a number of proposals that we would support. This relate to reducing administrative burdens, improving competitiveness of businesses. This objective deserves support, especially in the context of increasing global race and need to stand up for innovation and investment. Of course, we have some differences. We'll suggest amendments accordingly. 1st, we pay attention to, trade secrets. In the digital economy, data algorithms, business models are among the most valuable assets for businesses. The current amendments to the data act retain the burden on proof of proof on the data holder, which creates serious difficulties. Protection of trade secrets and cybersecurity should not be seen as an exceptional circumstance for refusing access to data, but is legitimate and justified ground for refusal. EBP will table amendments in this regard. The proposal to delete the platform to business regulation also raises questions. The regulation was adopted to ensure standards for transparency, predictability, and fairness between platforms and users. Afterwards, other pages of legislations have been adopted. B2B continues to play a role for small and medium sized enterprises, and they rely on these platforms for market access. We strongly support the rapporteur in this regard. We support the rapporteur's proposal for a definition of the term public emergency and the approach regarding the definition of access to data. Returning to the original text of the regulation, provide legal certainty and prevent interpretations. With regards to the intermediate services, we think that registration should maintain voluntary with with the notification of the competent authority. In this way, we will ensure the level of supervision without red tape. Furthermore, the organizations for altruistic sharing of data, these smaller organizations with limited resources. They have to be protected, from additional administrative obligations. For these enterprises, we should think about a voluntary regime and other requirements. We support the establishment of a single European reporting point. This will decrease red tape, will improve coordination, and will ensure harmonized procedures and templates in accordance with the Cybersecurity Act. These are the main points we concentrate on. We envisage also some other technical amendments. In conclusion, simplification of digital legislate legislation is a necessary step, but it has also to ensure legal certainty, cybersecurity, and trade secrets. Thank you once again to the rapporteur. I hope for a productive cooperation. Mister Thorndeep, Thank”
  Scope of EU cybersecurity obligations
• 2026-03-18 “Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 13.5.2026 Written question Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 establishes a system of controls on cash movements of a value of EUR 10,000 or more when entering or leaving the EU, enabling their traceability. It complements the EU legal framework for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Therefore, it does not apply to movements of cash within the EU, but to movement of cash with third countries even though they are part of the Schengen area. In Regulation (EU) 2018/1672, the threshold of EUR 10,000 applies per carrier, defined as a natural person, rather than per group or family. The regulation does not prevent Member States from introducing, under their national law, additional national controls on movements of cash within the EU, provided that such controls comply with the EU’s fundamental freedoms, in particular Articles 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Italian law seems to have introduced declaration requirements for movement of cash between Italy and other EU Member States which would be similar to the ones contained under Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 to cash movements entering or leaving the EU. The Treaty rules on free movement of capital do not preclude the export of banknotes from being made conditional on a prior declaration [1] . In that context, Member States may in principle also issue guidelines seeking to address the circumvention to such declaration requirements, as well as take other appropriate measures if circumvention is established. It is for the Member State, however, to demonstrate that any such national measures comply with the requirements set out in Article 65 TFEU, and in particular that they observe the principle of proportionality [2] . [1] Judgments of 23 February 1995, Bordessa and Others, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A54&locale=en, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A54&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A54&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point31, and of 14 December 1995, Sanz de Lera and Others, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A451&locale=en, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A451&lang=EN&format=pdf&target=CourtTab, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/redirect/?urn=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A1995%3A451&lang=EN&format=html&target=CourtTab&anchor=#point10. [2] Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2018. Lu Zheng v Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, C-190/17, EU:C:2018:357, paragraph 37.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-03-04 “P-000916/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The situation in the Middle East raises significant challenges, including in the area of migration. For the time being, there are no increased migratory flows to the EU. The Commission is monitoring developments, tracking migratory flows through the EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint Network 1 in cooperation with Member States, the European External Action Service, EU Agencies, as well as the International Organisation for Migration, UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2 and partner countries. As the situation on the ground may evolve rapidly, the EU must be prepared and act decisively to address challenges, mobilising its diplomatic, legal, operational and financial tools. The Commission is addressing the evolving emergency needs on the ground by supporting partner countries, including through cooperation with international organisations in both immediate and longer-term response efforts. National systems need to be fully prepared for the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum 3 and in terms of contingency planning both at the external borders and within the national asylum and migration systems. EU agencies stand ready to provide operational and technical support. Member States’ national programmes under Home Affairs Fund programmes can be used to respond to situations of increased migratory pressure and, if needed, emergency assistance or other forms of additional support can be mobilised. The Commission continues to monitor the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. While progress has been made, work needs to be intensified, and the remaining gaps need to be closed. The Commission supports Member States to ensure the establishment of a well-prepared migration management system, including measures to ensure preparedness, contingency planning and crisis response. 1 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/1366 of 23 September 2020 on an EU mechanism for preparedness and management of crises related to migration: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2020/1366/oj/eng. 2 Known as the UN Refugee Agency. 3 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and-asylum_en.”
  EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood · Asylum & border control
• 2025-03-17 “P-001118/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. Animal abuse is against EU 1 and national legislation. The EU is only competent for legislating the keeping and breeding of animals in economic activities and has legislation on the welfare of farmed animals. The Commission adopted in 2023 two legislative proposals on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability 2 , and on the protection of animals during transport and related operations 3 . The Digital Services Act 4 provides several safeguards against the proliferation of illegal content online, including obligations for online platforms to provide procedures for flagging illegal content, to act expeditiously to remove access to such flagged illegal content and to suspend their services to users who frequently provide illegal content. Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines are further obliged to regularly assess and mitigate risks related to the dissemination of illegal content. 2. The abovementioned proposals are currently under discussion by the co-legislators. The Commission conducts audits to verify Member States’ control systems and the correct application of existing EU legislation, while supporting Member States in ensuring its proper implementation across the Union. 3. Penalties for operators breaching EU legislation, including in cases of cross-border animal crime, are set by Member States 5 . The Commission supports enforcement through coordination tools such as the EU Agri-Food Fraud Network (FFN) 6 and the iRASFF, which enable rapid information exchange. The Commission has also organised joint enforcement actions targeting the illegal trade of dogs and cats, which have triggered further national investigations and judicial proceedings, including through Europol and Eurojust 7,8 . 1 Article 3 of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 08/08/1998, p. 23. 2 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability, COM/2023/769 final. 3 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, COM/2023/770 final. 4 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R2065). 5 Article 139 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1. 6 Article 2, point (11), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 of 30 September 2019 laying down rules for the functioning of the information management system for official controls and its system components (‘the IMSOC Regulation’), OJ L 261, 14.10.2019, p. 37. 7 https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/aab09275-116d-46e0-856e-27fab233f093_en, https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/225a0402-10b8-4b04-97c1-5ccaafe1a409_en 8 European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Illegal trade of cats & dogs, EU enforcement action, 2023, doi:10.2875/236344.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “The new requirements addressed to public authorities and to providers must not result in additional burdens, especially for smaller administrations. They must be an instrument to prevent future fragmentation rather than a new bureaucratic burden. So it is particularly important to have a proportionality clause and simplified procedures for SMEs and small public administrations. Let me emphasize that the proposal poses a risk of overreliance on future implementation acts. Such acts will be needed for the structure of the unique identifier identifier and for the technical specifications and standards for the directory, which is a prerequisite to limit the parliamentary oversight over key elements of the system. Overall, however, the Commission's proposal is a good one, strategically speaking. It recognises that we are facing a structural problem and that interoperability must be a legal requirement rather than a voluntary practice. It is our task, as the lawmakers, to guarantee that that framework be at the same time mandatory and really implementable, so that it would reduce rather than redistribute administrative requirements. At the end of the day, if we want the single market to be a space without barriers, we should deepen legal integration and further develop the digital infrastructure. Thank you.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “(17:38:47 – 17:40:28): Then we conclude this point and move on to item number 16. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you for reminding me. In this Libya opinion, the deadline for tabling amendments will be May 18 at 17. Not 17. 05/18/2017, deadline for tabling amendments. And now on item number 16 is a presentation delivered by the European Commission, a Blue Proposal for a Directive on Combating Firearms Related Offenses. This is the first proposal enacted under the Protect EU Strategy for Internal Security. This proposal seeks to harmonize the penalties associated with the trafficking of illicit firearms across the member states in order to better tackle disorganized crime, which acts as a common enabler for other criminal activities. Welcome, Mrs. Floriana Cipala, again to this committee. And I am pleased to give you the floor as Director for Internal Security at the home for a maximum of 5 minutes to present this file.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Commissioner McGrath. First of all, I would like to thank you for our excellent cooperation. The justice programme for 20 2834 will go along with a significant increase in the budget up until nearly €798 million. With the ambition to enhance the rule of law, the efficiency of judicial systems, access to justice and cross-border cooperation among member states. At the same time, it places digitalization at the very heart of those efforts because it is a key instrument to modernize judicial processes. As a shadow rapporteur, I have these questions. First, how will the Commission guarantee that the enhanced emphasis on digitalisation will result in genuine interoperability among national judicial systems, rather than in a fragmented national solutions funded at European level? And secondly, how will you guarantee that this increased budget will spill over into long term structural improvements rather than in funding separate short term projects? There are no fixed percentage shares for the different targets, so how will the Commission guarantee fair geographic access to funding, including for four member states with smaller administrative capacity. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(17:38:15 – 17:38:45): Thank you, mister Biot. And a new speaker from ECR on this file? Okay. Then renew. The shadow rapporteur there was missus Vasco Othello, who is not present. And I think the same for the Greens whose shadow rapporteur there is missus Riva. And the left, whose shadow rapporteur there is mister Barrena. So Mrs. Mertens, would you like to add any closing remark after these? No, thank you. Okay.”
  EU public communication strategy
• “(17:52:09 – 17:53:43): Commissioner McGrath, first of all I would like to thank you for our excellent cooperation. The Justice Program for 2028-2034 will go along with a significant increase in the budget up until nearly 798 million euros with the ambition to enhance the rule of law, the efficiency of judicial systems, access to justice, and cross-border cooperation among member states. At the same time, it places digitalization at the very heart of those efforts because it is a key instrument to modernize judicial processes. As a shadow rapporteur, I have these questions. First, how will the Commission guarantee that the enhanced emphasis on digitalization will result in genuine interoperability among national judicial systems rather than in fragmented national solutions funded at European level? And secondly, how will you guarantee that this increased budget will spill over into long-term structural improvements rather than in funding a separate short-term project? There are no fixed percentage shares for the different targets, so how will the Commission guarantee fair geographic access to funding including for member states with smaller administrative capacity? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(18:10:25 – 18:19:06): Thank you very much for your interest in this proposal. And indeed, I will start by saying that there is no intention with this proposal to touch upon the rules that concerns a legal acquisition, possession and trade of firearms in the European Union. But it's a very clear demarcation between this proposal for a directive and the key which exist and that concerns legal trade in the directive 20 21 5 55. So that is extremely clear, and I can reassure you that this is not changing the rules and therefore not affecting the rights of hunters or other citizens that have a possibility under specific authorization because this is the European Union, not The United States, to possess weapon. A We are very attached to this difference, and everything is done in the proposal to avoid any confusion or interference. Second, important addition of blueprints indeed because this is new and because while we fix definitions of criminal offenses, we don't have to, in an indiscriminate way, touch upon the right of creation and therefore also economic interest. And what we have done is to introduce these new offenses indeed offence indeed related to illicit possession, creation and dissemination of blueprints, but this it will still be possible to possess and share blueprints within the boundaries of an authorization. Member States can decide according to the rules that we have proposed and that you will examine if they use the existing dealer authorization or if they create a new authorization specifically for blueprints. So from our point of view, this provision is balanced, but, of course, happy to further discuss this with you and with the council in case you think that this is not balanced enough. Third, Ukraine, indeed. We are, as as you are well aware of the risk that that the situation, that, was created by the illegal intervention of Russia in Ukraine could create. But let's start from a very clear point. To date, there are there is no evidence of large scale trafficking of firearms from the bald field of Ukraine. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that we don't have to be prepared, aware and active and avoid problems that may arise in the future. And you have many of you have indeed recalled what was created by the situation in the Western Balkans. First, we are cooperating already very closely with Ukraine on this issue. Ukraine has established a new action plan exactly on the traceability and on the prevention of any diversion of weapons that have been and will be provided to the country to defend itself against the illegal aggression perpetrated by Russia. They have already created a national focal point, and they are already cooperating with Europol. This, therefore, needs to be continued, intensified, also to be prepared to a possible solution, which is far for the time being. But indeed, I want to be clear on the fact that this risk is very present also to our mind and also in the mind of Ukraine and of the member states, and that cooperation is already taking place. Fourth point I would like to make concerns the fact that this proposal is a proposal about criminalization and penalties and offenses. But that, of course, as you said, there must also be an intense cooperation at operational level. Let me recall that within the framework of the so called impact, the hub where member states, agencies, and third countries alike, like Western Balkans, in this case, cooperate, firearms is 1 of the priorities in the European Union. And this is, therefore, already offering a possibility for common investigations, the creation of joint investigation teams and cooperation among law enforcement in the member states, but also with third countries. But as was rightly also mentioned, Europol and Eurojust must be able to intervene on that. And it's clear that the incoming proposals that will come at the June on the revision of the mandate of the 2 agencies will allow all of you to see how will allow us to say how we propose for these 2 agencies to intensify their cooperation. I think in a previous occasion, in a hearing moment, I referred to this concept of a continuum between the action of a law enforcement, which is coordinated by Europol, and the coordination of efforts by the justice side that is and should be even more coordinated by Eurojust. So we see indeed the future proposal as a powerful trigger for increased cooperation at European level under the with the support of the 2 agencies, Europol and Eurojust. Then there was a series of comments that you made about the proportionality and the need to avoid additional burden. We consider that we paid attention to that also, as you see in the impact assessment, by measuring the impact of various options. And we have gone for options that will not dramatically or in an unproportionate way increase the burden for the member states. But let's be clear, for instance, on data collection. And you will see in the impact assessment because it was 1 of the problems that we had to face. To date, we don't have a clear picture of a number of trafficked arms in the European Union, and this is not sustainable. And it's not sustainable not because we need the wonderful reports. Reports are useful, but it's also not sustainable because without a proper intelligence picture, we cannot have an intelligence led policing. We cannot have operational activities that are driven by a good knowledge and a good understanding of the situation on the the grounds. I this is also the reason why we we don't intend to create new system for traceability, but we intend to create a better way for Europol and the member states to be aware of seized firearms and also improve the intelligence pictures. Last point, again, this proposal has been prepared with the usual attention to having clear definition, clear penalties, the minimum maximum system for fixing the penalties and for aggravating circumstances. Once again, we will be happy in discussing all this with Veraporte and with the shadows. But just to reassure you that we paid attention as we always do, it is absolutely right what was said. This is criminal law matters. Definition must be clear cut, and confusion must be, by definition, avoided. We hope that you will find our text sufficient precise on that point as well.”
  EU policy on criminal justice
• “Commissioner McGrath. First of all, I would like to thank you for our excellent cooperation. The justice programme for 20 2834 will go along with a significant increase in the budget up until nearly €798 million. With the ambition to enhance the rule of law, the efficiency of judicial systems, access to justice and cross-border cooperation among member states. At the same time, it places digitalization at the very heart of those efforts because it is a key instrument to modernize judicial processes. As a shadow rapporteur, I have these questions. First, how will the Commission guarantee that the enhanced emphasis on digitalisation will result in genuine interoperability among national judicial systems, rather than in a fragmented national solutions funded at European level? And secondly, how will you guarantee that this increased budget will spill over into long term structural improvements rather than in funding separate short term projects? There are no fixed percentage shares for the different targets, so how will the Commission guarantee fair geographic access to funding, including for four member states with smaller administrative capacity. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(17:52:09 – 17:53:43): Commissioner McGrath, first of all I would like to thank you for our excellent cooperation. The Justice Program for 2028-2034 will go along with a significant increase in the budget up until nearly 798 million euros with the ambition to enhance the rule of law, the efficiency of judicial systems, access to justice, and cross-border cooperation among member states. At the same time, it places digitalization at the very heart of those efforts because it is a key instrument to modernize judicial processes. As a shadow rapporteur, I have these questions. First, how will the Commission guarantee that the enhanced emphasis on digitalization will result in genuine interoperability among national judicial systems rather than in fragmented national solutions funded at European level? And secondly, how will you guarantee that this increased budget will spill over into long-term structural improvements rather than in funding a separate short-term project? There are no fixed percentage shares for the different targets, so how will the Commission guarantee fair geographic access to funding including for member states with smaller administrative capacity? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “The new requirements addressed to public authorities and to providers must not result in additional burdens, especially for smaller administrations. They must be an instrument to prevent future fragmentation rather than a new bureaucratic burden. So it is particularly important to have a proportionality clause and simplified procedures for SMEs and small public administrations. Let me emphasize that the proposal poses a risk of overreliance on future implementation acts. Such acts will be needed for the structure of the unique identifier identifier and for the technical specifications and standards for the directory, which is a prerequisite to limit the parliamentary oversight over key elements of the system. Overall, however, the Commission's proposal is a good one, strategically speaking. It recognises that we are facing a structural problem and that interoperability must be a legal requirement rather than a voluntary practice. It is our task, as the lawmakers, to guarantee that that framework be at the same time mandatory and really implementable, so that it would reduce rather than redistribute administrative requirements. At the end of the day, if we want the single market to be a space without barriers, we should deepen legal integration and further develop the digital infrastructure. Thank you.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “(17:35:07 – 17:39:26): You, chair. Colleagues, the rapporteur would like to welcome the commission's proposal to increase significantly the union support for migration and border management within the next multi annual financial framework. The instrument proposed, amounts to €15,400,000,000 so that the union has better funding in order to act on challenges related to security and migration. More funds, more money, however, is not a solution on its own. We need more clarity and better operational focus and better efficiency. That is why it is important to improve the commission's proposal in along 3 lines. 1st, we need better clarity on the actions and measures that can be supported under this funding instrument. The new budgetary architecture gives more flexibility to member states, But this flexibility should not lead to legal or financial in in in clarity and in security. That is why we need to be more specific. We need to follow the 3 goals of the regulation, but good functioning of the Schengen space, integrated border management, and common visa policy. That is the way, to make it more clear to member states about the certain categories of actions and measures that could receive funding under this instrument while at the same time avoiding too much prescript iveness. For example, if we would have too much prescriptiveness if we had a limited, a closed list of measures. And this would give enough flexibility to the member states in the context of changing challenges. 2nd, we would like union support on actions in common and or in relation to 3rd countries. Because in certain cases, it's important to operate in 3rd countries for returns, for border management, etcetera, and union support could lead to result oriented measures that do fall within the regulation and also coordinate well with the Global Europe Fund. And 3rd, flexibility should be based on proof on the level of the European Union. The instrument should be available for urgent needs and for very specific needs, but all the while, the measures should be very clearly justified in terms of the goals and needs of the European Union. That is why it is important to take into account the monitoring measures on the European Union level, the evaluations on the Schengen Area, the Frontex evaluations, and work of the various competent bodies of the European Union in such a way as to achieve the highest possible European added value and efficiency in the operational aspect. So our, we need a more precise and more operative and more transparent application of these measures. And the rapporteur looks forward to cooperating on these issues. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “(17:12:28 – 17:16:03): You, Mr. President. I would like to present the views of Mr. Furlas. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for presenting this important report. We have heard from experts throughout our shadow rapporteous meetings, and these discussions have clearly demonstrated how important it is for the EU to be well equipped in order to address the future migration and asylum challenges. The next MFF will determine whether the European Union has the necessary tools and resources to manage effectively migration and asylum challenges in the years ahead. The EPP group has a clear priority. We need a migration policy that is fair, effective, and based on responsibility and solidarity. The implementation of the pact on migration and asylum must be our common goal. The member states cannot be left alone to face migration pressures. Solidarity must go hand in hand with responsibility and with concrete results. This funding instrument should help strengthen all aspects of the pact, improve the integration of those who have the right to stay, and support legal migration where it responds to the needs of our economies and labor markets. At the same time, adequate funding for border management and internal security remains essential. Protecting the EU's external borders is a shared responsibility and a prerequisite for maintaining trust in our migration system, particularly for frontline member states like Cyprus, Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, and Italy. We must ensure that the member states and the relevant European agencies have the necessary resources, technologies and operational capacities to manage borders effectively, we must strengthen security and respond to emerging threats. Investments in secure and resilient borders contribute both to safeguarding the Schengen Area and to ensuring the orderly management of migration flows. We must also ensure that Europe is capable of effectively returning those who do not have the right to remain in the European Union. A credible migration policy requires efficient return and readmission procedures, stronger action against migrant smuggling networks and the prevention of irregular migration. Criminal networks continue to profit from human misery, putting lives at risk and undermining the integrity of our borders. We therefore need greater investment in the fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings, as well as stronger cross border cooperation between law enforcement authorities. We also believe that funding should be linked to clear objectives and measurable results. European taxpayers expect accountability. We need concrete targets whether in the implementation of the pack the effectiveness of return procedures and the fight against smuggling. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Thank you for the possibility to speak on this report. Let me remind you that Libe has a shared competence in relation to provisions having to do with personal data protection and combating money laundering. At the outset of its work, Leeb decided to focus entirely on the text pertaining to its competence. The only elements beyond that which form a part of our opinion, because the political groups in their majority insisted on they related to cash. The enhanced awareness campaigns throughout the union, including outside the eurozone, in order to avoid discrimination, and the introduction of additional clarity as to the limits of balances. This is only in view of protecting consumers. So we only focused on what pertains to the liver mandate. In my capacity as a reporter, I focused on the application of the personal data protection principle, its application by default. The issue of anonymization the obligations of payment providers, the provision of information to the ECB, the processing and the requirement that the European Commission should set out which data should be subject to processing, enhancing the measures against financing terrorism, including enhancement of amla consumer nicknames, the support for the introduction of the digital euro. The key element we focused on in Libe was the full inviolability of the transactions by analogy with cash payments, and this approach has been confirmed by the European Commission during our consultations. I do suggest that our colleagues from the Econ Committee take on board our opinion and integrate the amendments we have suggested. Of course, to the extent you have not already done so, thank you very much.”
  Digital euro
• “(16:31:16 – 16:34:48): thank you very much chairman colleagues the european commission's proposal to set out a framework for european business portfolios is an ambitious and strategically important step to ensure a genuinely functioning digital single market within the union when we speak about cross border interoperability in the public sector it must be clear that the problem no longer lies in the lack of digital services but rather in the lack of any legal and technical interoperability among those services nowadays most public services are already available online at the national level but beyond the border they simply fail and this is a serious impediment for citizens for businesses and for the functioning of the single market the commission's proposal correctly emphasizes the mandatory evaluations of interoperability whenever new digital public services are developed it also emphasizes the common standards and the reuse of existing solutions this is a step towards a genuine implementation of the once only principle and it is particularly important that the commission proposes a horizontal approach linking different sectors from tax registration to public procurement at the same time it must be more clear how the new obligations of interoperability will be combined with existing sectoral frameworks of reporting we need good coordination because we cannot afford parallel procedures or new layers of bureaucracy the new requirements addressed to public authorities and to providers must not result in additional burdens especially for smaller administrations they must be an instrument to prevent future fragmentation rather than a new bureaucratic burden so it is particularly important to have a proportionality clause and simplified procedures for smes and small public administrations let me emphasize that the proposal poses a risk of overreliance on future implementation acts such acts will be needed for the structure of the unique identifier and for the technical specifications and standards for the directory which is a prerequisite to limit the parliamentary oversight over key elements of the system overall however the commission's proposal is a good one strategically speaking it recognizes that we are facing a structural problem and that interoperability must be a legal requirement rather than a voluntary practice it is our task as the lawmakers to guarantee that that framework be at the same time mandatory and really implementable so that it would reduce rather than redistribute administrative requirements at the end of the day if we want the single market to be a space without barriers we should deepen legal integration and further develop the digital infrastructure thank you”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration