Marion WALSMANN

Policy topics Marion WALSMANN is active on

What Marion WALSMANN has said (25)

• 2026-06-29 “(15:37:12 - 15:38:33): Norbert. Thank you very much for your report and for all of the work that you have done over the past month on this file. The original proposal from the commission arrived a year ago, and many of us were very unhappy with it. And we thought that CAP would no longer be a standalone program and that there wouldn't be enough security for farmers to plan. But now we have a very good foundation for further discussions. I'm very happy about the clear message on the standalone nature of the cap and the 2 pillar structure. And also, I like the fact that you are focused on what works in practice for farmers at the same time. If I look at my region in East East Germany, I would like to stress capping and digressivity. It's important to take into consideration holdings in East Germany because often there are historical reasons for the structures of these holdings. Often, they're the only employer in certain regions, and therefore, it's important that binding cupping be avoided. If they are not deleted, then they should at least be optional. Once again, thank you very much for this very solid basis for future work, and I look forward to working on it together as well.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-29 “(15:37:12 - 15:38:33): Norbert. Thank you very much for your report and for all of the work that you have done over the past month on this file. The original proposal from the commission arrived a year ago, and many of us were very unhappy with it. And we thought that CAP would no longer be a standalone program and that there wouldn't be enough security for farmers to plan. But now we have a very good foundation for further discussions. I'm very happy about the clear message on the standalone nature of the cap and the 2 pillar structure. And also, I like the fact that you are focused on what works in practice for farmers at the same time. If I look at my region in East East Germany, I would like to stress capping and digressivity. It's important to take into consideration holdings in East Germany because often there are historical reasons for the structures of these holdings. Often, they're the only employer in certain regions, and therefore, it's important that binding cupping be avoided. If they are not deleted, then they should at least be optional. Once again, thank you very much for this very solid basis for future work, and I look forward to working on it together as well.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2026-06-24 “I'd like to speak German. I'm looking at the DSA guidelines from the commission. I'd like to ask a few more questions about that. The DSA guidelines recommend functions, um, that prevent excessive use of push functions and so on. Uh. That these should be activated deactivated by default. Um. What um, Instruments has a meter implemented as standard by default for young people and, uh, uh. Um, and I'd like some really specific information about that functions to maximize interaction by the user. For example, can you tell us something that has been permanently removed within the EU that you do not offer to EU users on a permanent basis, not just as an option?”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• 2026-02-11 “E-000611/2026 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets up a dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the courts of the Member States, in which the latter are closely involved in the uniform interpretation and correct application of EU law and the protection of individual rights. In its recent judgment of 24 March 2026 1 , the Court of Justice recalled that a national court or tribunal of last instance is subject to an obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, of which it may be relieved only in three situations: lack of relevance of the question of EU law raised, where the EU law at issue had already been interpreted by the Court of Justice or where that interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt of the national court. The Court of Justice further held that a national court or tribunal of last instance must give in all cases, specifically and concretely, the reasons why one of these exceptions applies when refusing to refer questions for a preliminary ruling. The Commission monitors structural deficits in the dialogue under Article 267 TFEU. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission may initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU for possible non-compliance with Article 267(3) TFEU when a Member State adopts legislation preventing proper judicial cooperation under that provision, or when evidence shows a systematic breach. 1 C-767/23 - Remling.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2025-11-11 “E-004470/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) preliminary ruling procedure is the keystone of the judicial system established by the Treaties. It sets up a dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the courts of the Member States, in which the latter are closely involved in the correct application and uniform interpretation of EU law and the protection of individual rights. Where there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decisions of a national court before which a question on EU law interpretation arises, that court is in principle obliged to refer to the CJEU under Article 267(3) TFEU unless the question is irrelevant, the provision has already been interpreted, or the correct interpretation is obvious 1 . Proceedings under Article 267 TFEU rely on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the CJEU. It is solely for the national court where the dispute arises, which must assume responsibility for the decision, to determine, in light of the case, both the need for and relevance of the questions it submits 2 . The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, may initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU for possible non-compliance with Article 267(3) TFEU when a Member State adopts legislation preventing proper judicial cooperation under that provision, or when evidence shows a systematic breach. The Commission monitors structural deficits in judicial cooperation under Article 267 TFEU, a prerequisite to consistent interpretation of EU law in the Member States. 1 Judgment of 6 October 2021, C-561/19 Consorzio. 2 ‘Ibid’.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2025-09-01 “E-003355/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently examining the formal complaint lodged by EuroCommerce regarding France’s EGalim III Law. This legislation presents complex legal issues, some of which are also under consideration by French national courts. Since early 2023, the Commission has maintained an ongoing dialogue with French authorities and relevant stakeholders, highlighting the legal intricacies of the case.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• 2025-04-30 “P-001726/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been actively raising with the Chinese authorities both at technical and political level its serious concerns on the impact of Chinese export control measures on the supply to the EU of rare earths and related products such as permanent magnets. EU industry is reporting that the supply issues are creating risks of production stoppage for certain EU sectors, which highlights the critical nature of these materials for our industry and the need for the EU to find alternative sources of supply including from other trading partners. The Commission has done extensive interviews with affected industry stakeholders in the EU. It has also reached out to existing producers in like-minded countries or through its Strategic Partnerships to inquire about possibly increasing capacity. The EU has adopted the Critical Raw Materials Act 1 to secure supply in the long term. As laid down in the regulation, the Commission has published a first list of strategic projects 2 , which will increase supply of strategic raw materials in the EU and decrease dependencies on third countries. Among the strategic projects, five address rare earth elements, one gallium, two germanium, two tungsten and ten graphite. Under the Act, the Commission also works with Member States on gathering information on national strategic stocks and developing benchmarks for safe level of EU’s stocks for all strategic raw materials. The Clean Industrial Deal 3 announced that by the fourth quarter 2026, the Commission will set up a dedicated EU Critical Raw Material Centre which could also perform additional task regarding securing EU supply of strategic raw materials. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02024R1252-20240503#tocId90. 2 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/raw-materials/areas-specific-interest/critical-rawmaterials/strategic-projects-under-crma/selected-projects_en. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0085.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Commissioner, thank you very much for this excellent exchange. Now I have a question on the stop destroying video games. European citizens initiative. Now as you'll be aware, this An issue initiative relates to the increasing practice of making video games unplayable, so by switching off servers or essential online functions, and that raises issues of consumer protection. I mean, the long term possibility to use content that you expect to be able to use. And so I have a couple of questions for the commission on that. Firstly. Is it envisaged to address this issue in a regulatory manner? I mean, is this something that you're going to address in the Digital Fairness Act, and if not, why not? Which an alternative legislative tools would you consider to be appropriate to protect Consumers here. And could DG competition look into this perhaps. So those are my questions on this issue.”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “Yes. Thank you very much for the work you've been doing. This digital package from the commission is going in the right direction. So we're going to see a reduction of burden for SMEs and Mid-caps as promised. And our. Companies need that clarity. Need some help actually in implementing this as well. For example how to deal with data or how to use digital identities. The data union strategy in the European business wallet are aspects that could make a big difference, but only if they are made interoperable in the Member States and without any additional national obstacles are put in their way in implementation. So what is being done to make sure of easier access for SMEs to sandboxes and real world tests? And what is the further steps that need to be taken from here? And how can we ensure that the Mid-caps will be guaranteed access without actually neglecting the SMEs? Thank you.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “Well, I'd like to ask my question in German, if I may. This relates to the fact that for years now, the Parliament has been looking to have a regulation on administration which is binding right across the EU. Now, when it with regard to your experience and your meetings, to what extent do you see the lack of an EU administrative code produces an unfair treatment for citizens and a lack of certainty. I mean, that's something that you mentioned in your report. And then a further follow up question. In many cases. There are various things that lead people to contact you. And it's not only about EU decisions, but a mix of EU procedures, decisions, national decisions, etc. it's a whole series of authorities that are involved. So what experience do you have when it comes to getting information from a member state authority? Different kinds of member state authority as well. Local authorities, for example, or whatever is that. Is there something that could help your work in that area? Thank you.”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• “(16:34:59 – 16:35:22): Thank you very much indeed for that presentation and the slides you showed us. I'm going to give the floor now to the commission, Thomas Dodd, team leader and senior expert on corporate sustainability and transparency in DG FISMA. The floor is yours for 5 minutes.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “And you know that this is true for SMEs. You know, you have to have flanking measures accompanying measures to help support them in this area. And then fourthly, interoperability and avoiding duplication and jaw structures. We need to make sure that in our member states we have systems in place. You know, if there are existing solutions, that's fine, but they're not necessarily interoperable. They don't tend to be interoperable across the board. And that's why we need to do a little bit more on that front to help us to help the businesses. I mean, there are existing solutions. They need to be integrated but successfully if you like. So, you know, we need to avoid parallel structures of course. Burdens for companies, you know they shouldn't be additional burdens. We need to make sure that we really achieve a plan that will lead us to the result that we're hoping for through this plan. And again, the timeline, it's ambitious digital sovereignty, a lot of expectations from businesses. We know that, you know, they want to make sure that implementation is as rapid as possible. They want to accelerate the pace. At the same time, it's also a question of sovereignty. And we need this in order to Strengthen our position as Europe, as providers. It really is a European preference matter and I therefore support this, and I look forward to further cooperation with the rapporteur and with the other shadows. Thank you very much.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “Dear Commissioner, thank you very much. And thank you for agreeing with the Parliament and me as rapporteur on the CEPs, appears because I think in these very difficult times, we do need an Sep legislation which would support and boost our competitiveness. We're talking about pure transparency, pure simplification. And I think this has been confirmed by the legislative impact assessment. Since 2017, we have the guidelines. And for the past ten years we have the objective and aim which has been confirmed by the SMEs. So this is why the SMEs are so horrified that the proposal has been withdrawn. The presidency of the Council has set up a lot of working parties, had a lot of meetings. The member states have said they're willing to continue with this work and we have our parliamentary majority and within our committee, we have always been very much in favour of continuing this. So there is this recognition of the fact that we need to proceed with this on the part of the co-legislators. So what more is needed for the Commission? So rather than postponing this for more months, you be like James Bond. Take the bull by the horns, be courageous and set the signs for trust. And I'm quite sure that the SMEs will be very grateful to you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues, Europe is at a turning point. Our productivity stagnating, global uncertainties increasing, and our competitiveness is increasingly coming under pressure to stand up to that. We don't just need big strategies. We need very specific tools as well, which will have a clear effect on the everyday life of our companies. And that's the opportunity provided by the 28th regime. It could be another piece in the puzzle towards finally using the internal market along the lines. It was thought up for a genuine market for startups and investment. It's a financial signal as well. Europe wants to attract investment, which can happen faster. Companies should have the possibility for the first day on of thinking not only nationally, but European as well. But let's not imagine things. Obviously, um, we could end up with a patchwork if we have 27 national legal systems with different procedures, uh, and languages and standards of proof. That's why we have to speak up clearly in favor of a regulation which will apply across the board indirectly, because we don't want to have 27 different paths followed. So, um, we need seriously then to move on to the next debate to have a genuine capital market, union and internal market. We also need a genuine legal system in Europe as well, which, when there are conflicts, can provide very clear decisions. Otherwise, we're going to have a bottleneck in the court. But to have more growth, we need Europe, which comes from one single mold, not 27 different copies. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “First of all, voluntary use by businesses of this facility. We're talking about use by businesses in Europe. It has to be on a voluntary basis. It can't be an obligation that we impose upon businesses. It's not the obligation to use this. And in particular, I would say that it's, you know, particularly not a question of having this use accepted by the public entities. So we're talking about, on the one hand, businesses, on the other hand, entities, public entities. And I think that the distinction made here is correct. It is right. But of course, we need to make sure that all of this pans out in practical terms, you have different administrative structures in our different member states, in particular at local level. And I think that this is something that we need to be mindful of. Also, when it comes to public entities there, we do have an obligation, and I welcome that, you know, obligation without exceptions. I think that that is necessary in that domain. We need to have broad and inclusive implementation of this. This is the only way of achieving success. And it gives you the right push, if you like. And it also gives you the right prospects for success for European business wallets. Then another point on costs and implementation by SMEs in particular, to what extent can they implement this. The European business wallets should not actually lead to any additional burdens, be they administrative or financial in nature and in particular.”
  Electronic identity
• “Dear Anna and colleagues, I'll also be quite brief. The political groups submitted some 190, uh, compromise amendments, just as the other, uh, commitments. We would also like to focus on the key competence of INT and only take into account those particular amendments. Um, we've had a meeting on a technical level where the operative part of the text, uh, was when actually went through. And it seems that the positions of the different groups are actually not so different from each other. At least it seems that we're going to be able to reach a quite good compromise that everyone will be satisfied with. In terms of the priorities, I think that there is also a great deal of overlap there about strengthening. The European preference for procurement, as well as greater consistency with other, uh, relevant legislative acts. And we also happen to take into account as well. The work that's going on in pharma or as well in other types of procurement that are being carried out. So there has been one or there is one shadow meeting, as well as three other tactical meetings which are planned, and the first of which were happening on the 21st of October. Now, thank you very much.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “So dear chair commissioner thank you very much for this really excellent work and you are in charge of an area of the commission which at the moment is of overriding importance and the omnibus well to keep that an overview of that and to bring it home and for it to have the real effect well that's everybody's watching. I have two things which are important to me so we have to maybe make some repairs to the simplification because the there was a lack of impact assessment during the previous legislative period so it wasn't quite didn't all go smoothly but with the remember with regard to the member states there is a coalition of the willing and part who would like to extend parts of the single market more quickly and have a differentiated integration for capital markets and services because the greatest loss of growth is being felt in these areas. So your opinion on that would interest me do you think that there are risks with that for the unity of the single market or since the Delores commission that has been a question that that's been focused on how do we move forward more quickly in order to close the gaps and to to bring us bring us forward and have more sovereignty with regard to the single market thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “I'll be speaking on behalf of Axel Voss, and I'll be reading out his comments because he wasn't able to join us here today, and he apologizes for that, dear colleagues. The 28th regime is long overdue. We've been talking about modifying the internal market for years now, and now we are finally seeing a real opportunity for true harmonization. The aim here is to help European SMEs by releasing them from unnecessary red tape and giving them a clear cross-border legal framework. Specifically, the 28th regime needs to include full digitalization of the company founding procedure that would work in all member states equally, inclusive digitization, digital identification, online procedures, and other harmonized European fund for companies that would be recognized by all member states without any additional requirements. Also a one-stop shop, a central point of contact for all company procedures from founding a company to taxation questions to labor law. Also uniform reporting requirements to avoid translation and doubling up burdens. Also to have a digital interface for authorities, registries, and companies to automate communication. If we want to make the EU competitive, we need to make it easier for companies to be founded quickly, to work across the EU, and to be able to scale up, to grow across borders without coming up against national barriers. We mustn't make the same mistake as we have in the past of taking one step forward and two steps back. Instead, we need to be courageous and consistent in our actions to work for a fully digital corporate world and a truly unified internal market. Only in this way can we make Europe attractive for founders, investors, and innovators. Those are the comments from Mr. Voss.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, President Campinos, for that presentation, and thank you for taking the time to come and talk to us here today as well. The European Patent Office does very important work, and we're very pleased to be able to have this exchange of views with you here today. My question, the administrative structure at the EPO is something that's been discussed for some time now because of their limited accountability vis-a-vis the EU's institutions, so it's been criticized for that. The Commission and the European Parliament have no co-decision, they have no supervisory function, and the Court cannot examine your decisions, so it's not part of the EU's institutions, and so logically it is not subject to the controls of the European Court of Justice. So as a result of this, the decisions of the internal boards of appeal at the European Patent Office are final, and this does give rise to concerns by its critics with respect to the accountability and responsibility of your institutions. So maybe I could just take this opportunity to ask you, what is your view on this? The critics always say that patent policy overlaps with innovation, strategy, green policy, and many other things where accountability is more of a question. So what is your view on this, and do you think anything will change?”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “Yes, dear colleagues, on the 3rd of December, we last took a look at the toy safety directive in committee. And in the meantime, there was the second trilogue, which took place on the 18th of March, a political trilogue, and then about half a dozen meetings at the technical level. The parliament and council positions weren't all that far apart. And during negotiations over the past few months, firstly under the Hungarian presidency and now the Polish presidency. We've been able to make quite swift progress as far as Imco is concerned. There are a couple of open pending points which will be dealt with at the next trilogue this coming Thursday, and these points relate to mental health of children. The precautionary principle. Delegated powers when it comes to the digital product passport. And then, of course, the transitional provisions when it comes to the chemical, the chemicals. Where we know that N.V. has exclusive competence, there are still 1 or 2 points relating to chemicals that need negotiating. We are quite optimistic that we will be able to agree on an overall compromise by the 10th of April, and here I would like to warmly thank the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation. I think over the next few weeks, all of us should be able to bring our work to a successful close over the next few weeks, which means that we'll be able to take a look at the toy safety legislation, which of course, will improve the safety for our children and the European Union as a manufacturing site.”
  Product passport
• “It brings us to agenda item 23, which is the Efrag work plan 2026. I welcome for this agenda item, miss Slomp, CEO of EFRAC, mister Jasperve, EFRAC administrative board president. I would please ask you all to leave the room quietly and to carry on your conversations outside. That is just pure politeness for the other for the next agenda item. Next up is miss Lapata, is the chair of the Efrag Sustainability Reporting Board, and miss Del Preta, who is the chair of the Efrag Sustainability Reporting Technical Expert group. Ladies and gentlemen, please please leave the room if you are no longer going to take part in agenda item 23, and please do so quietly so that we can hear the representatives of Efrag. So I would like to first give Christine Lopata and Benoit Jaspar the floor, and you have to share this amount of time together. You have 15 minutes in total between the two of you. We need to be a bit stricter because we've got the immunities after this. And that really gives us some scheduling issues. So, please, I would like you to please keep to that, please.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Madam president, colleagues, Commissioner, we are having this debate. We've been having it for years about the single market and competitiveness, about European the strength of European industry. But it hasn't been enough to celebrate the single market. We need the single market fit for the future. The key words have been mentioned digitalisation, harmonisation, cutting red tape, competitiveness. That's all right. Correct. Every week more SMEs are give up also in my region and valuable industrial jobs are lost. We don't. We can see the problems. We have vision papers and analyses and studies. There are plenty of those. We need to implement the letter and Draghi reports and courage from the member states in particular. We have a single market for goods, but 27 national walls. When it comes to energy, telecommunications and digital. Our new companies and they. Suffer because we have a fragmented capital market when it comes to negotiations on the Savings and Investment Union. We're treading water. That's a fatal signal for business when it comes to simplification of cross-border services and harmonisation of technical standards. We're advancing at a snail's pace that holds up innovative, innovative companies, in particular SMEs. Every day we have our. And we've eroded our competitiveness. Let's have reliability in the single market by lean and practical European rules as citizens and companies want to see it from us. Thank you. I'd like to point out to colleagues, because we are behind because of the technical problems. Please stick to the speaking time. Otherwise the votes will be delayed. And I think that is not in not what colleagues want.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yeah. Yes. Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Thank you very much for being here. I think that a central plank of an economy which is, um. Growth friendly is protection of intellectual property. And the convention dates back to 2004 and is currently being reviewed by the Commission. It is looking specifically at the application of the principle of proportionality and those who exploit patterns, and also looking at the various courts dealing with patent cases and looking at the licence without the assessment of any proportionality. Now, this is something which curbs competition and will also have an impact on AI, semiconductors and the like. And so I wanted to know exactly what the priorities of the Danish presidency are when it comes to IP, international intellectual property, and also looking at proportionality as well as guard rails against abuses and something else important to me. And I wanted to know about your perspective for the impact on IoT and automotive sectors, and the SMEs and us being able to try and deal with the rather opaque situation, the lack of transparency, therefore plead in their favour.”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• “Thank you. Colleagues, I'll speak German. We live in a time where we really need to look at greater competitiveness for Europe, and we need to deepen our single market. That's very much at the core of our activities. And we now have a proposal from the European Commission, and I think it's really a timely proposal. And from that point of view, the first thing I would like to do is say that on behalf of the EPP Group, I would like to support really support this proposal from the Commission concerning the European business wallets. I think it's important for us to have EU wide use of this facility going forward. Simplification of administrative procedures, promoting digitalization of businesses and interactions between businesses. I think that this proposal really has potential. It has potential in terms of adding value to everything that we do here within the European Union. And the focal point for us would be the advantages, therefore, advantages for businesses and in particular for small and medium sized enterprises. The European business wallet, I think, could make a real difference going forward. And, you know, if we look at the data from the economy, you'll find that it's broadly supported as well as an initiative. There is a desire for rapid implementation to whatever extent possible. At the same time, of course, I also take note of a number of other points where I think there's room for improvement, shall we say, in terms of this proposal. And allow me, therefore, briefly, chairman, to touch upon these.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:51:05 – 16:52:11): Thank you very much indeed to the representatives of AFAC. And, you know, it's excellent we've caught up, and thank you to the Commission for being here today. Thank you for your presentation also. Wishing you all a great deal of success for the future. Hope everything works out in terms of the working plan. You've taken a lot on and wishing you all the best with that. Thank you very much. With your help, we've also managed to catch up our time, and I propose the following. Let us now move to item 23 so that our colleagues and assistants can ensure confidentiality and in camera because we are talking about a request for the waiver of immunity. So we need to ensure confidentiality. The item is now open, and we will see you back here punctually at 05:00 for the continuation of this meeting.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions