Anders VISTISEN

Policy topics Anders VISTISEN is active on

What Anders VISTISEN has said (17)

• 2026-02-23 “Answer given by President von der Leyen on behalf of the European Commission 10.6.2026 Written question Members of the College are subject to strict obligations arising directly under the Treaties as well as to the ethical obligations emanating from the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission [1] . The Commission is aware of the allegations against Peter Mandelson, who was Member of the Commission between November 2004 and October 2008. It takes these allegations very seriously and has referred the matter for appropriate follow-up to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), within the latter’s independent investigative function. OLAF has confirmed it has opened a case but is not in a position to share details on individual cases or probes beyond the information and data already made public. This is in order to protect the confidentiality of investigations and of possible ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to ensure respect for personal data and procedural rights. OLAF fully respects the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence of the persons/entities concerned. The investigation of other criminal offences remains the competence of national authorities. [1] Commission Decision of 31 January 2018 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, C(2018) 700 final.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-09-04 “E-003426/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) is accountable to the European Parliament and the Council and is subject to the transparency obligations laid down in the EIOPA Regulation 1 . Pursuant to Article 3, EIOPA is obliged to publish an annual report on its activities, and the EIOPA chairperson is obliged to participate in public hearings before the European Parliament on EIOPA’s performance, to report to the European Parliament in writing on EIOPA’s activities, including any relevant information requested by the European Parliament on an ad hoc basis, and to reply orally or in writing to any question addressed to it by the European Parliament or by the Council. Only when professional secrecy and confidentiality obligations 2 are to be warranted, the European Parliament can request – and EIOPA is obliged to- hold confidential discussions with the Chair, Vice-Chairs and Coordinators of the competent committee of the European Parliament. Article 3 of the EIOPA Regulation also refers to the European Parliament’s right to set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry as foreseen in Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 1(6) of the EIOPA Regulation sets out that EIOPA will act independently and objectively and in the interests of the EU. Given EIOPA’s status as an autonomous agency, it is for the European Parliament and the Council to exercise the above-mentioned prerogatives. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the EIOPA Regulation is applied in full. The EIOPA Regulation sets accountability and transparency requirements, and the European Parliament and the Council have the prerogative to demand information and clarifications at any time. 1 Namely Articles 3, 43a and 72 of EIOPA Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010. 2 Pursuant Article 70 of EIOPA Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Article 339 TFEU.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• 2025-09-01 “E-003348/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission does not cover costs for beauty treatments, hairstyling, massage or physical personal training. 2. The answer to the question of the Honourable Member is No. 3. The answer to the question of the Honourable Member is No.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• 2025-07-10 “E-002813/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Working Time Directive 1 lays down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time. Article 2 point 1 of this Directive defines ‘working time’ as ‘any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties’. The Directive accordingly applies to employees only. Article 4 of this Directive obliges Member States to take measures necessary to ensure every worker is entitled to a rest break where the working day is longer than six hours. However, according to Article 20 (1) of this Directive, Article 4 does not apply to mobile workers. Article 2 point 7 of this Directive defines ‘mobile worker’ as ‘any worker employed as a member of travelling or flying personnel by an undertaking which operates transport services for passengers or goods by road, air or inland waterway’. Consequently, under Directive 2003/88/EC, Member States are not required to provide for a rest break as set out in its Article 4 in respect of mobile workers, such as employed taxi and Private Hire Vehicles with driver (PHV) drivers. Instead, Article 20 (1) of this Directive obliges Member States to take necessary measures to ensure mobile workers are entitled to ‘adequate rest’ as defined in its Article 2 point 9, i.e. rest sufficiently long and continuous to ensure that, as a result of fatigue or other irregular working patterns, workers do not cause injury to themselves, fellow workers or to others and do not damage their health, either in short term or in the longer term. For self-employed taxi and PHV drivers, there are no rules at EU level regarding mandatory breaks, as they are a matter within the competence of Member States. 2. The Commission does not currently intend to propose a revision of the Directive. 1 Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/88/oj.”
  EU rules on hazardous working conditions · EU regulation of cross-border and posted workers
• 2025-07-07 “E-002757/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission On 16 July 2025, the Commission presented its proposal 1 for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2028 to 2034. Animal welfare is explicitly prioritised under Article 4(1)(f) as one of six environmental and climate priority areas - on par with climate adaptation, soil health, biodiversity, and organic farming. Member States, in consultation with stakeholders, must take these priorities into account when designing policy measures. The proposal provides support for investments and practices which go beyond statutory welfare requirements, encouraging higher standards and innovations in livestock management. The Commission may also issue recommendations to Member States covering animal welfare as well as broader sustainability and welfare-friendly practices, such as livestock extensification. In addition, the CAP framework strengthens knowledge sharing and innovation, ensuring farmers have access to research and techniques that improve welfare outcomes. Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 2 states that, in formulating policies and legislation in a number of policy areas, the Union and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage. As such, bullfighting remains under the competence of the Member States concerned. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025PC0560&qid=1753798247771 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016E%2FTXT-20250315.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2025-06-25 “E-002558/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU’s framework for foreign direct investments (FDI) screening was adopted in 2019 with the Regulation 1 entering its full application in October 2020. Its objective is to identify, assess and, where necessary, mitigate potential risks that a FDI might cause to the security or public order of the EU, while maintaining the EU’s attractiveness as an investment destination. The cooperation between Member States and the Commission covers any FDI notwithstanding the country it originates in. Each transaction is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a range of risk indicators such as the nature of the investor, the target sector, and the likelihood that the investment may affect security or public order. The Commission may issue an opinion under the Regulation if it considers that a given FDI is likely to impact the public order or security of more than one Member State or to affect programmes of EU interest. However, ultimately it is for the authorities of the Member State where the investment takes place to decide whether to authorise, prohibit or condition a certain investment. To support effective implementation of the Regulation, the Commission closely cooperates and is in regular contact with Member States, including by issuing extensive guidance and fostering the exchange of best practices. The Commission is not aware of any major shortcomings in the implementation of the Regulation by Member States. Nevertheless, in January 2024, the Commission tabled a legislative proposal 2 to revise the Regulation with a view of further strengthening the existing framework. The Commission looks forward to a swift conclusion of the trilogues that are currently ongoing. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (OJ L 791, 21.3.2019, p. 1); https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/452/2021-1223/eng#:~:text=This%20Regulation%20establishes%20a%20framework%20for%20the%20screening,investmen ts%20likely%20to%20affect%20security%20or%20public%20order. 2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the screening of foreign investments in the Union and repealing Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council; https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/aac710a0-4eb3-493e-a12a-e988b442a72a/library/f5091d46-475f45d0-9813-7d2a7537bc1f/details?download=true.”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• 2025-02-06 “E-000558/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 , intercalibration pertains to ecological status. Denmark, Sweden and Germany use chlorophyll-a to assess phytoplankton biomass, a mandatory status parameter. The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has produced specific guidance 2 on how to submit for approval a new or updated assessment method for items for which the intercalibration exercise has already been completed. The assessment method submitted to the intercalibration procedure does not need to already be in use in the current River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) 3 . Nutrient conditions are a parameter for ecological status 4 . Scientific literature has demonstrated a consistently strong link between chlorophyll-a and nutrient levels in water, suggesting the possibility of the intercalibration of chlorophyll-a based on nitrogen concentrations only, but its approval requires the scrutiny and approval by the relevant Commission experts. To be able to demonstrate good ecological status as required under the WFD, a Member State needs to define the reference conditions of the underlying quality elements, set up a monitoring programme, and use the resulting data to carry out the appropriate assessments. The ecological status and chemical status assessment are independent. The CIS provides guidance documents for applying the WFD. As regards chemical status, the Commission analysis of Denmark’s third RBMPs 5 notes with concern that only a tiny fraction of surface waters, namely 1.7 %, is in good chemical status, whereas 5.6 % is in poor status and for 92.7% the chemical status is classified as unknown. For almost all coastal waters, the status is known: 93% of them are in poor chemical status 6 . 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43c0f50e-5df6-4c1a-bdba-4a3b7d249799 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive_en#state-of-play-of-3rd-rbmpadoption-in-eu-27 4 While not the case for surface water bodies, nitrates are a parameter for the chemical status of groundwater. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A2025%3A34%3AFIN&qid=1738746144581 6 Only two coastal waters (1.8%) are reported with chemical status ‘unknown’.”
  EU policy on water management · Water pollution
• 2024-12-02 “E-002722/2024 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The value added tax (VAT) Directive 1 provides for the taxation of supplies of services made by taxable persons for consideration. However, as part of the derogations granted to Member States until the adoption of the definitive arrangements, Article 371 of the VAT Directive authorised Denmark, amongst other Member States, to continue to exempt the supply of services by authors, artists and performers but only those listed in Annex X, Part B, point (2), namely excluding assignments of patents, trademarks and other similar rights, and the granting of licences in respect of such rights, if the services in question were exempted in the respective Member States on 1 January 1978 and in accordance with the conditions applying on that date and have been applied continuously ever since. Nevertheless, this is an option granted to Denmark which can decide to tax those services. Once it opts to tax, there is no possibility to revert to the previous exemption and Denmark will be obliged to continue to apply VAT on the services concerned. It should be noted however that in some particular cases 2 , the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that certain supplies of services by authors are not taxable transactions from a VAT point of view so there is no possibility for Member States to impose VAT on those amounts. 1 Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1. 2 Cases C-37/16, SAWP, ECLI:EU:C:2017:22, and C-51/18, Commission vs Republic of Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1035.”
  EU competences on taxation · VAT harmonisation
• 2024-11-30 “E-002706/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission 1. EU State aid rules only prevent Member States from granting tax exemptions for non-profit bingo games when such exemptions qualify as State aid which is not compatible with the internal market. State aid measures must usually be notified to and approved by the Commission before their entry into force. Both the qualification of a measure as State aid (a selective advantage that favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods which is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States) and the assessment of its compatibility with the internal market are assessed on a case-by-case basis (unless the general block exemption under Commission Regulation No. 651/2014 1 applies). In general terms, as the Commission clarified in its answer to previous question P-000185/2024 2 on a related subject ‘non-profit entities may be captured by State aid rules as long as they offer goods and services on a market’. If they do, it would further need to be examined whether in the specific case the non-profit entities are in the same situation as other taxpayers in light of the objective of the relevant tax system. 2. The Commission does not have an overview of the rules applicable to non-profit lotteries in all Member States. As the Commission can only assess compliance with EU State aid law on a case-by-case basis, it is therefore impossible to express a general opinion on the subject. 3. The Commission is not aware of any past cases where the EU has approved tax exemptions for non-profit bingo games, specifically. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:0802_4 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2024-000185_EN.html”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on taxation
• “Let me be clear. This legislation is not only about fighting abuse, it's about harmonising criminal law and creating a brand new EU agency. And we know exactly how this ends. Where the EU has been given more power, it turns into a disaster. Look at anything from the Common Agricultural Policy to fisheries. All the economic disaster called the eurozone. More centralisation doesn't solve problems, it creates them. This is not only about helping children. This is a federalist power grab, an excuse to expand Brussels bureaucracy at the expense of national democratic control. But let me be clear. If it was up to me. Sexual offences against children would lead to medical castration. That's a real deterrent. That's real justice. But oftentimes in Brussels, this is considered barbaric. And criminal must be understood. And the victim is expected to quietly move on. We do not need another other EU centre. We need local action, national laws and strong borders because child protection against child abuse begins at home, not in Brussels.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Of powers to the European Union. Creates infringement against the national member states. And Denmark has an opt out on this area. And I'm very happy to have that. Exactly. Because the Danish police is at the forefront of fighting against child abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and it is quite funny that Denmark, being the only EU member state, except Ireland who has this opt out, has been asked by Europol to head several cases against child abuse. So if member states were so bad at this, why are you asking for our help instead of solving it in your centralised powerhouses? That is my question. I can see that member states work, national control works and national police work, and I believe in them.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “If von der Leyen became our dream minister, that would be you, Mrs. Mette. Somebody who says one thing to her electorate and does something completely different. Still, the Danish government voted in favour of EU lending for €750 billion. You're saying that we need a smaller budget, but now you're working for the largest budget ever, and a huge extra bill for the Danish taxpayers And on top of that, we're. Putting even more expenses on top of that dumping of wages and eastern criminality that is neither responsible or national. That is federal thinking. And that is dangerous. But it's not only politically you have disappointed also democratically. While these days we are talking about Ursula von der Leyen Pfizer scandal, you try to avoid responsibility because when you ordered the culling of the minks in Denmark, you tried to avoid responsibility by deleting SMSes. It's impressive that you do not get caught. And the same for Ursula von der Leyen. So yes, Medha, you are European by heart, especially if that is uncritical backing to a federal monster that EU has become. With your help. And the Danish leadership is not leadership, but, uh. Calling over to the EU. So it is a sad day.”
  EU political integration
• “13,000 new rules. Standards is what we have imposed on European business in the last few years. There are three directors I would like to focus on. One on working time. It has cost millions of crowns per year for businesses. And the GDPR has cost companies 8 billion. So we shouldn't be surprised that European business is suffering. But the solution isn't to increase legislation but to reduce them. So I think that the that the Commission's approach is the right one. We have to streamline these rules. But if we take the omnibus, I would say that it would be very good for European businesses because at the moment, Danish companies are suffering because they need to get so much information from their suppliers. So I think this is something positive. The EU has to continue down this track in order to change the way we see competitiveness.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Ursula von der Leyen wants to be remembered for her green Deal, the migration pact and the Rearm Europe project. And yes, we will remember them, but not as a success. Her Green Deal has made European energy more expensive, especially after her own government shut down functioning nuclear power plants. The result? Europe are less competitive and Europeans can't pay their electricity bills. Her migration pact was sold as a solution. Yet just weeks after its adoption, even her own colleagues in the EPP turned against it. It was weak, inefficient and without real impact. Just as expected, her Rearm Europe plan is nothing more than a power grab. Another attempt to centralize power here in Brussels. But let us not forget that von der Leyen was the defense minister who ran the German military into the ground, and now she wants to rearm Europe. It's a joke. 100 days were all we needed to confirm that her leadership truly means expensive failures. Power abuse and a Europe that pays the price.”
  Von der Leyen
• “It's regrettable that Stine Bosse doesn't know that Russian Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine when they entered the Crimea. The Social Democrats, the EPP and others said that Russia wasn't a threat in the Foreign Affairs Committee. I'm happy that we have the same conclusion that it's silly to scrap conscription and all the things that we've been fighting for all these years. When his party was trying to cut Danish defence.”
  Defence spending
• “Isn't it marvelous? Marvelous to see the same politicians who have built Europe's economical future on politics. From communist parties, from extreme green parties, now blame the right for the lack of competitiveness in the European Union. But please look within. You have explicitly in election after election day after day in this House, removed us from influence, removed our input from, be taken into account. And that is the reason Europe is at a standstill. German economy is in ruins. France economy is in ruins and we are seeing the lack of prosperity everywhere in Europe. Higher energy prices than in the US. You, my dear colleagues, have adopted implemented 1300 new laws since 2009, four times more than the US have. Maybe that is the reason you are not able to compete. Maybe you are ideological blindness. You stupidity in economy is the reason that you are not allowed to compete with the US. Not the right that you never let in. But when we are coming into power, we will fix it. So take it Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “The so-called chat control proposal is nothing less than an EU attempt to read every private message, monitor every conversation and decide what speech is acceptable. They claim it's about protecting citizens, but in reality it's about controlling citizens. Once governments gain the power to scan your emails, your private chats, freedom of expression is gone. Our democratic debate is finished. These essential freedom rights are now under attack from the EU, a union who apparently have an ambition to build its own digital surveillance state, censoring dissent and all doing it under the banner of safety. I say no bureaucrats in Brussels should ever have the right to spy on private communication for free. Danish or European citizens? We must defend privacy, not destroy it. We must defend liberty, not sacrifice it to a technocrats. Control must be stopped before Ursula von der Leyen and Mr. Frederiksen turns every smartphone in our pockets into government spyware.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse