Sergey LAGODINSKY

Policy topics Sergey LAGODINSKY is active on

What Sergey LAGODINSKY has said (42)

• 2026-06-16 “Dear Vice President, it's serious and I think many don't understand it. It is serious. What we've seen just a couple of days ago is the first time that the kill switch was used. If needed, the United States can switch off 90% of the world from its frontier models, and frontier models are no more business models. They are war models and defense models. And this must be clear to everyone. So what should we do? Number one strategy, strategy, strategy gigafactories what's happening with them? Do we have special gigafactories for defense purposes? How will we deal with the models that will be there at the end? Number two compute, compute and equity. Equity. I applaud the commission's efforts. I know about the 800 billion which are planned, but where will we get them? Most of this is private money. And this should be made sure that this money will materialize. And number three, standards, standards, standards. We don't want the backlash, as we see in the United States with computer centers. Yes, we need computer centers. Yes, we need more compute, but it should be sustainable. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence for military purposes
• 2026-06-16 “Dear colleagues, dear vice president, it's serious, and I think many don't understand it. It is serious. What we've seen just a couple of days ago is the 1st time that the kill switch was used. If needed, United States can switch off 90% of the world from its frontier models. And frontier models are no more business models. They are war models and defense models, and this must be clear to everyone. So what should we do? Number 1, strategy, strategy, strategy. Gigafactories. What's happening with them? Do we have special Gigafactories for defense purposes? How will we deal with the models that will, be there at the end? Number 2, compute, compute, and equity equity. I applaud the commission's efforts. I know about the 800,000,000,000 which are planned, but where will we get them? Most of this is private money, and this should be made sure that this money will materialize. And number 3, standards, standards, standards. We don't want the backlash as we see in The United States with computer centers. Yes. We need computer centers. Yes. We need more compute, but it should be sustainable. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence for military purposes
• “Thanks so much. Um, I have two questions. One on space and one on on on scale. Um, a question on Euro qci. Um, there is a space arm there, which is an Iris two program. Uh, what is the timeline? We know it's still in the testing phase. Testing mode. When do we expect reliable communication encryption systems? And second question, in order to be within the time frame. Uh, to Matthias Aström, um, about scale, Americans, uh, also trump us with scale. Sorry for using the word Trump. Um, but, uh, realism is do we have comparable scale? So what is your present storage capacity? And, uh, what would be a feasible time frame for you to absorb and host such data that would be comparable with American Competitors, so can Europe, realistically by collaborative and decentralized consortiums at all compete with American Amazons and others? Thank you so much.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Thank you very much and thanks for your really diligent work in this direction. Still, I have two questions that are a little bit more specific. In your written answer, you mentioned that you're working on alternative measures because the standards are delayed. What are the alternative measures that you're already working? I understand this is a long process, but precisely because of that, it would be useful for us to know whether this process already started and where it is heading. And number two is you are talking to Member States regarding the designation of national competent authorities. I understand this, but at some point you need more pressure than just talking. And again, I understand your situation, but we need to push. Otherwise the enforcement will, um, unwillingly, without your intent, will be pushed back. And even without. Stop the clock, which you don't want. But there will be kind of a stop the clock in reality, because nobody is implementing. So the two questions are what specific alternative measures you're planning, how are you planning them and whether you're planning, uh, procedures, uh, in terms of infringement procedures against member states who did not fulfill AI act?”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Well thank you so much. And I'm sorry I was at a different meeting. Um, first of all, I concur with, uh, Eleanor. Indeed, it would be useful for us to have in writing, um, the confirmation of our role for the case of modification of an agreement. Um, this is something that I think also informs a lot of the questions that we have regarding the agreement, because it's very difficult to predict how this agreement is going to work, um, and therefore how it should be modified and whether we would be asked, uh, in any future modification process. I have two points that are related to this is, for example, how will the Commission safeguard European technological sovereignty? Um, because we have some questions regarding asymmetry, for example, regarding data protection, uh, provisions, uh, Switzerland versus the rest of the EU. Um, whether you see risks there. And, um, also there is a clause in, uh, article five, protocol one, uh, regarding strategic assets, interest, autonomy or security. And the question specifically, what criteria determine whether the Swiss participation poses a security concern and how do you mitigate that? But this, of course, are, uh, questions regarding details. The overarching question remains, of course. Uh, the question that was already posed whether our role for modification in the future can be certified in writing. Thank you very much.”
  EU-Switzerland relations
• “Colleagues, while we debate an AI strategy for EU trade at trilogue is under way on the EU US trade deal. And while this report calls for our sovereignty to be upheld, the deal risks coercing us. The Trump administration has already threatened to raise new tariffs should the Commission push ahead with tax sovereignty package, and the commission withdrew for the third time. This we cannot accept, and this we will not accept. We need the three conditions number one, a sunrise clause, a sunset clause and also an anti-corruption instrument. Should the US threaten tariffs or interfere like it did this morning. Why does this happen? Because we do not agree on rules of EU engagement globally. First, we need a vision. Vision is not fair. Vision is not submission and not subordination. The sovereignty package cannot be withdrawn just because the US threatens it. Alliances. We need alliances among geopolitical, grown ups, sustainable, democratic. What we have in this House, a global democratic tech alliance. And we need trust. The trust that has been damaged with this white House and the big tech that should be restored. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much. Greetings from our shadow. And I'm speaking on behalf of the green as the vice chair of the green Group. Let me start with a very clear statement. As Greens, we were always critical of the Turnberry deal. We were critical because of its asymmetry. We were critical because of its risks to our regulatory autonomy, and we were critical and remain critical because of its risks and constraints to the environmental and climate transition that it poses. These are clear risks, and they did not disappear. Yet we should be watching at the same time. We understand what it is about and why the implementation of this deal is important. It is a necessary step, even though it's not the perfect step. We do not want a spiral of trade escalation between European Union and the United States. It is not in the interest of our small and medium sized enterprises. It is not in the interest of our industry. Avoiding unnecessary tensions is just as important. But let us be very clear. The atmosphere that the current US administration and myself just visited Washington a couple of weeks ago is a coercive environment, an environment that is not sustainable for our bilateral relationship. And the context that Trump is creating is not a genuine partnership.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thanks so much and congratulations to your appointment. Wishing you a successful five more years. Um, three questions number one. Uh, we know that there is a decision to use to be able to use Galileo. Public Regulatory Services for defense was validated for this use. And the question is, um, what is the exact plan in order to use positioning data for security and defense data. How do you plan to enable a Europe to use peers to its fullest? Number two, uh, Gulf Satcom uh can be used for secure communication. We are having less and less time to secure communication via space. Potential use. Earth Observation System Copernicus is projected to be used for security and defense. What role do you see for your agency in this security related context of security communication? And number three, and Mr. Eller already mentioned it. Without a dynamic private sector, of course, in this particular point, we will not have a cost effective data and services. We have a Cassini program. Um, How do you plan to develop it further and to make sure that it is also secured in the next MFF? How can we help you on that? And what are your priorities in this area? Thank you very much and looking forward to your answers.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Colleagues. Funny, isn't it? In Europe, even a press conference about Google can be hijacked. Well, but the commissioner showed our democracy will not be the €3 billion. Fine is not about the money. It's a pocket change for Google. It's about the message. Europe will not bow to digital giants. We write our own rules in this house and we enforce them in yours. Fair Competition needs courage, not excuses. Digital sovereignty means we decide, not Silicon Valley. And let me repeat it again and again because it matters. We are not for sale. Our values are not for sale. Our democracy is not for sale. Dma is not for sale. Ai act is not for sale. Dsa is not for sale, nor is GDPR. And this is something that I hope also your colleagues, like Commissioner Virkkunen will know when they bring the omnibus into this House. So when President Trump calls this an attack against American institutions? No, it is about Europe standing for at all. President von der Leyen said our digital rules are not for sale. I hope all the commissioners agree with her.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “So, um, it's not just a reality. It's not just that you have a different perspective on reality, but I sometimes feel that you are very remote, far removed from reality. Apparently, there are no other states, um, all suffering from the superpowers. I mean, what about the Baltic states? What about Poland? You know, what about those countries? They need support. They need our assistance. And to stand there and say that this really is just a project for the great powers alone is a denial of reality. Because you are saying that we should broker deals with Russia to the detriment of the small states. Actually, we should be doing things the other way round.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “So it's not that this proposal does not address those issues. And yet there is this push against it by some of the members. And that's why I question the, authenticity and the honesty of some of those arguments. So once again, it is on a national legislation. It is not a supranational. Thank you for this music and and the fun fires. We're not over. It's not over yet, but and we put it into the hands of the national legislators. These are national legal forms. This is not a supranational additional legislative regimes. Uh, also because this would have been regulation in this particular case. And we do not want to impose this on, on nations. Yeah. This is a Europe of nations for sorry for civil society if you want to see it this way. So from that perspective, there is a lot of safeguards that, uh, show that this is an additional options. This does not destroy, uh, national association laws. This does not destroy anything. This is an option that comes on top. It doesn't complicate anything that already is there. This is an option that gives an additional opportunity. So I just wanted to make this clear to those who might be skeptical and could think, oh my God, there is another, uh, thing that would destroy our national legislation. No, this is an additional layer. This is an additional option. But yes, it will make. And what you said is precisely, precisely right.”
  EU political integration
• “Yes, colleague. Hahn. Ai is just a tool, but hell, it's a powerful one. And what is happening now? What we are experiencing is precisely what we have been warning about. What we are experiencing is precisely why we fought for a powerful AI act for DSA, for DMA. We have the instruments We need leadership, we need vision and we need enforcement. And it is not about reviewing and revising. It's about action. Last week, Mr. Vice President, I asked you, what do we do with such generative AI? It's not about marking fakes or marking deepfakes. It's about how to treat generative AI under AI act. In such cases, whether we designate them a core platform service under DMA. What is the status of generative AI under DSA? These are questions. These are uncomfortable questions, but hell are uncomfortable questions are being put by those who are sanctioned and they are courageous enough. So let's be as courageous as they are to ask those questions and to answer them.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you so much. Thank you, chair, and thank you to the team of this committee, because this was an effort, uh, and this is an effort which is collaborative. And, by the way, also across the party lines, uh, as far as I understand, it is something that is still supported by this committee, but also by the political groups. Very briefly, on where we stand and what it is about, it is about more than just some file that is now in question, put in question by the council. It is about, uh, defence and europeanisation of civil society in the European Union. But if we also go beyond that and look at the legal arguments that we are exchanging and that are presented both by the legal services of the Council and by our own legal services, it is also about how we understand what the EU is currently all about. So it goes beyond technicalities. It goes about the soul of the European Union and the Commission. Uh, nice to see you. Uh, dear colleagues. Uh, and when I mean its collaborative effort, it is also an effort that was jointly done by the Commission and by the Parliament so far. Now the Council is in question. Why are we talking about this? We're talking about this because Akbar is about simplification. It reduces administrative burden for both NGOs but also for other authorities. It is about how to save costs.”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “(17:35:15 – 17:37:36): Thank you so much, madam, vice president. Nice to see you, again here. We as a group have always been calling on sovereignty debate and sovereignty strategy, we, of course, welcome the general direction. So thanks for this work. But, of course, we wouldn't be greens if we wouldn't see some substantial deficits. And I would like to highlight a couple of them, and maybe you could react. Number 1, on the CHIPS Act. This is absolutely right that we are placing emphasis now on demand and creating demand. This is the absolutely correct way to do it. However, our understanding is that this demand that we're creating will rest on the gigafactories, majorly. The problem is that for gigafactories, you need AI chips of capacity of NVIDIA. We don't have those, and we will probably not have them. Some providers say up to 10 years from now. It's a long process of developing European NVIDIA act. So what happens there? Are we building gigafactories now or in 10 years? I know the first phase will be this year, but the next phase, the big ones, will already be next year or in 2 years. It's not clear to me how this, comes together. Number 2, on cloud and development AI development and act. You will not be surprised to be very unhappy that the energy benchmarking has disappeared. In the leak, it was there. Now it is not there anymore. What is happening? When do you plan to publish mandatory energy efficiency standards? And look at the discussion in The United States. The discussion there is totally derailing, and there is a backlash precisely because they don't have this. The other, issue is a 4 level assistance. And, generally, there is a trend of renationalization of this strategy. The 4 level assistance will be made by member states, not by our central European view. This is number 1. Gigafactories will be built by member states. There are a lot of, providers who would have loved to build the Gigafactors between 2 countries. They cannot do it with your proposal. And the final 1, you mentioned European equity capacity. How will this work, to attract 800,000,000,000? Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “And yes, it is about law. And I'm very grateful for the legal services of this Parliament for having provided a very strong and very clear expertise on this matter, because, quite frankly, what I read as a lawyer myself and what I see is being used by the council as legal arguments is from my perspective. And sorry to be political on this, on this stage is misguided, is manipulative and to be honest, is anti-European. What we have now, black and white, produced by the legal department and legal services of this Parliament. It brings back the European spirit to the European law as opposed to what was produced by the legal services of the European Council. It is about bringing the very clear legal, legal identification of the right legal base. I don't want to bore colleagues with technicalities, but basically what the legal service of the council is saying, that the legal basis that the Commission chose, and that the Parliament supported 114 and 50 of the Tfeu is a wrong one. But this is not true. It is not the wrong one, because it is not about a supranational legal form, as the legal services of the Council is assuming. It's not about that. It's about a creation of a multiple, the 27 national legal forms that enjoy mutual recognition and therefore need approximation. Legal approximation a classical Ethical point for article 114.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “Um, thanks so much, Commissioner. Great to see you and welcome you here. Uh, very briefly on two different, um, issues. On one, um, on human resources. And we know this is always a question, uh, that we are discussing here among the issue of funds, but we have an issue with international collaboration, which is under horizon. 2020 was quite active. Now. It's not as active as before. At the same time, we have reports from the United States about how the scientists and researchers there are under pressure. So the question is, should we seize the moment as a European Union and try to use our horizon programs, but also programs beyond that to give them kind of a safe harbor here? Also representatives of minorities who don't feel comfortable, but also researchers who cannot research on many of the issues. So what specific measures can the Commission take to strengthen global partnerships under F10, but also beyond that to make Europe attractive for those researchers? And the second point you spoke about fragmentation. Another fragmentation is the many agencies we have. We have the European Innovation Council, European Research Council, European Institute of Innovation and Technology. There was a talk about creating a European AI Research Council. How do you bring them together and have more synergies? And by the way, where do we stand with the AI Research Council in terms of coordination and funding issues? Thank you so much.”
  EU-level coordination of research agendas
• “18% of all children, 1 in 6 children, are victims of cyber bullying. And this is not normal. It cannot. It may not become the new generational normalcy. We cannot accept this. How do we fix it? Well, not with quick fixes, but with structural solutions. What's the difference? Age verification or social media bans are quick fixes. They are not going into the real solution. And the real solution is the business model. How do we tackle that? By DSA. Dsa implementation is what we need. We need to switch off recommender systems by default. We need to crack down on dark patterns. We need to mandate platforms to share their data with researchers. And what we need is a ban on nullifiers. Something that this House has proposed, and something that the EPP, together with some representatives of the Commission and with German government, have hijacked yesterday during the negotiations for AI act omnibus. And this is the unacceptable truth. And this truth has to be changed. We need a ban of nullifiers to combat Csam.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “This is a matter of our self-esteem as legislators, regardless of where we come from. And this is something that we will have to learn. The questions that I have are threefold. Number one, what is your take on the relationship between the Rubio camp and the JD Vance camp on foreign policy? Who is in the lead? Who is making the decisions? Who is making the calls? I was in Washington last week. I was a bit confused on on that number two, how can we contribute to energizing the Congress people? Not not so much the Democrats. It's very clear about them. But what about our Republican friends who tell us they are on the same line with us, but it does not translate into concrete and specific policies and the opposition and pressure on the administration. And number three, how can we provide and strengthen our support and solidarity towards people who are afraid to speak out their mind? This is something that I sensed in Washington when I was there last week. People are afraid. People are losing their jobs. People are looking at Europe as the last place where the liberal democracy and freedom can be secured. We need to give them a sign and maybe also an asylum. So what are your proposals on how European Union can make a visible sign of solidarity with those groups? Thank you very much.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “We do discuss and we discuss just recently in Chisinau in the Euro nest. Azerbaijan has an important role to play in these topics, and this Parliament has an important role to play in these topics. Laws, budgets, ratifications and political decisions. They do not appear from the air. They pass through this Parliament. This Parliament does play a role in deciding about future budgets or association agreements. So my message is firm but constructive. We will not abandon our values. We will continue to speak about human rights, about international law, peace, accountability and the rights of all communities affected by conflict and after the conflict. But we also say clearly the doors remain open. Uranus parliamentary Assembly was created not for easy conversations, but for necessary ones. And you, dear friends, still remain our members for one more year. There is a notice period of one year before you can leave Uranus. So if Azerbaijan disagrees with the European Parliament, the answer should be engagement. If there are concerns about bias, the answer should be debate. If there are competing narratives about the past and the future of the region, the answer should be dialogue between parliamentarians, not withdrawal from this dialogue. The South Caucasus region does not need more empty chairs. It needs shared responsibility and open discussions. I therefore hope that militaries will reconsider this decision. Azerbaijan belongs in the regional conversation. Uranus remains ready to engage seriously, Respectfully and honestly, because the future of our shared neighborhood will not be built by walking away from the tables. It will be built by staying at the table and continuing our conversation.”
  EU-Azerbaijan relations
• “Dear colleagues, thank you. Something extraordinary is happening. It's not the applause. The new US National Security Strategy states it plainly. Certainty is over. Alliances are no more given. I am a transatlanticism, but transatlanticism doesn't mean blindness when rhetoric. Across the Atlantic turns against the European Union. We must act. Invest in our own capacities and to build our new decision making bodies. The times when Orban or Mr. Deutsch determines how fast we decide is over. The times when Mr. Fico decides how much we act is over. The times when Putin determines how fast we act is over. We need new solutions. Making a decision. Making easier. Not sometime, but now. I propose introducing a European Security Council that would decide fast about our existential questions. And now, very briefly, to Ukraine. There is only one security guarantee for Ukraine, which is effective. And it's not the blooming article five. It's article 42 of our treaty. That is why EU membership now. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Russia slows down information platforms, Turkey shuts down internet. We just saw this. United States empowers populists and enriches oligarchs. Well, with this joint motion for a resolution, we are showing what this Parliament stands for. If it is about internet governance, it is about multilateralism. It's about freedom. It's about accessibility. Let us be clear we believe in multilateralism. That is why the UN General Assembly is the place to discuss and to renew the mandate. We want the global tech to be based on free space, not on oligarchs. Let us be clear the European Parliament is committed to participation in future IGF meetings because it is about our values, it is about human rights, and it is not about surveillance and censorship and oligarchy. Let us be clear extending the IGF mandate means more than renewing an institution. It is about a global public resource and colleague, Bochenski said. We look like a laughing stock during those meetings. I was a part of those meetings representing this House. We were the ones who stood for values, for freedom and for the governance in internet. Internet is not an instrument for disinformation. It's not an instrument for alternative realities. It's a place that empowers people. That is what we stand for. And that's why this mandate should be renewed permanently. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: I now give the floor to Mr. Mark Jongen.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “For extreme extremist colleagues. But let's be honest, what you truly fear is anything that threatens the privileges of your billionaire friends or empowers democratic institutions, as long as it's not Kremlin murderers who you support. And madam, like I would like to tell you, what is dystopian? Dystopian? Are your fakes that you were telling that the EU is going to strip citizens of their savings within six months if the savings are not spent? This is fake and this is what we are against. The digital Europe is not a Silicon Valley fantasy. It's a public alternative to strengthen our monetary sovereignty. The digital markets are needed because to compete with US tech giants and Chinese communists. We need more Europe, not less. And on digital identity. Yes, we Greens rejected the council deal. Why? Because we need more safeguards in order to prevent the wallet of becoming a Trojan horse. But we've improved it. And rights will be preserved. Surrendering digitalization to American billionaires and Chinese Communist cannot be the solution. Nor to your Putin friends.”
  Digital euro
• “Madam Executive Vice President. Dear colleagues, thank you. I want to speak in a spirit of cooperation. Last Wednesday, many of us waited for the digital package with mixed expectations. So did I. I have worked on some of the laws we're talking about, and I know how much effort this house invested in them. That is why I am concerned. I am concerned that the package reopens recently adopted legislation without impact assessment, without evidence, and without the clarity the companies need. And make no mistake, our group supports European businesses and European innovation. We believe in targeted adjustments that reduce burden, provide certainty and strengthen enforcement. This is why we proposed a digital enforcement agency, a one stop shop and standard reporting tools. But some elements of your proposal raise questions on GDPR. The new approach to redefining personal data leaves too much discretion to data holders. That creates uncertainty, not clarity, on the AI act. The stop the clock mechanism for high risk systems is understandable, but ending it at any moment makes planning impossible. That makes uncertainty, not clarity. At the same time, public debate suggests that Europe is following a deregulation agenda made elsewhere. This creates uncertainty and not clarity. So I say to all the groups, including EPP, let's work together to support our companies without reopening settled compromises. Let's protect our innovation and our democratic choice, both with democratic majorities. Don't make mistakes you made with omnibus one.”
  GDPR
• “And the Commission has done a great job in calculating. Sometimes numbers actually do matter. We could reduce the burden, the financial burden by 770 million per year if we go ahead with this, and within the 15 year time framework, it is about 8.5 billion that would be saved in the European Union through those proposals. Those numbers are also in the documents. You can read about this. It is, however, also about a democracy shield. The democracy shield that we're talking about, a democracy shield, which has a name now on a committee here in this Parliament. It does, uh, ground on legal safeguards for NGOs and civil society. And here you have the one and probably one of the few very concrete, very specific, very legal offers in that regard. How do we support NGOs? Not by just saying that we love them, but by creating legal framework and legal ground in this call, in this case, a legal form that goes beyond borders. It is about other similar files. It is about the 28th legal regime that we are talking about, uh, where the differences are there. However, uh, we know that the 28th regime as a project has strong similarities with what we're talking about here. So if we start questioning this one, who will maybe start questioning the 28th regime, I hope very much this will not happen, but we need to work together on that.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you. Thanks so much. Uh, and, uh, And thank you, Andreas, once again for very good negotiations yesterday. Uh, my question, um, is to Madam Executive Vice President here is your AI nerd. Um, and the questions that I have are about implementation of AI act. And I hope you forgive me that we are very careful about that. For us, it is about our legislative sovereignty, uh, which is being attacked. And now the Space Act is being attacked from Washington, from our American friends and partners. And that's why it's important that we actually implement what this Parliament has decided. I have two questions, if I may. Number one, uh, regarding standards for high risk AI systems, you know that the commission has requested standardization. Um, and it is usually done by JTC 21. For those who don't know, this is an expert, uh, norm giving uh, unit from, uh, Cenelec, uh, under article 40 of AI act, you must request the European standardisation organisations to provide evidence of their best efforts to fulfil the delivery of standards. And the question is, did you request such efforts? Because we have an impression and we have information that this process is being intendedly stalled in this body. And if not, if the delay is expected, do you, as a commission, um, begin to prepare for implementing acts, establishing common specifications? It is something that article 41 prescribes. And the second question is also about implementation. Uh, we have in um AI act, um, the requirement that the member states designate national competent authorities. This was supposed to take place until August 2nd of this year. The majority of member states haven't done this. Um, the question is, can the Commission guarantee the launch of infringement procedures by the end of 2025 for non-compliant member states? And if possible, I would then have a follow up to follow up questions. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for all the work and the proposal. Uh, we are looking forward to joining the rapporteur and the shadows on on this very important file. We do have our, uh, questions and our issues. Uh, one of the fundamental questions is, for example, why is it necessary to prolong as up if we are having very fundamental and very clear discussions in the same direction and clear structures in the same direction with Adib? Um, question of um, why is it necessary, and how do we make sure that our investment into civil R&D and civil research remains preserved and is not, uh, attracted and diverted away from the necessary civil research? These are all questions that are not, um, somehow out of this world. These are real questions that we will be confronted. Once this file has been completed. And that's why we need to take this seriously. We take seriously, very seriously the necessity of more investment into defence and also into dual dual use. This is something that is out of question. It is absolutely necessary. But how do we create structures that will make it sure that other priorities that do not vanish? Despite Russian aggression, and despite the necessity for us to be to beef up our defense. How do we preserve them as well? And this is the challenge that will be faced and that we will be facing. And I'm looking forward to cooperation in this direction. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “Dear colleagues, the 28th legal regime is not a technical exercise. We all know it. It is a political choice about Europe's economic future. And without fixing our internal market, without fixing the fragmentation that we have, there is no scale up of Europe, no digital sovereignty and no global competitiveness. And anyone who says that regulation and competitiveness contradict each other, look at this proposal. This is exactly the other way around. Through this regulation, we improve our competitiveness and we give chances to scale up and to start ups. Let me be clear also about the inclusion of of article 50 on the freedom of establishment, which requires the co-legislators to act by means of directives. This is the choice of rapporteur, and only this way we achieve the rapporteur's purposes. And everyone who knows me knows I would go for a European harmonisation full scale. But in order to strike the balance that was proposed by the rapporteurs and in order to save time, I would propose that we go a path that would allow us to conclude as fast as possible, and therefore I support the proposal of the rapporteur in this case. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes, thank you very much. And thanks to our guest speakers and also to the rapporteur, of course, um, for organizing this. I think what becomes clear is that we need to have a very wise, strategic parallel development. On the one hand, try to stick to NATO. There is there is a necessity to be there and to do it with our American friends regarding strategic enablers and many other things, that we cannot go alone. And NATO does work still on the technical level, and yet we'll have to emancipate ourselves and do it wisely. We have to do our homework. We will be talking about 5% target very soon, I think during the next NATO meeting. We have to be prepared also the member states to be able to either face it or have good arguments for 3.5% or other targets. But we also have to leave the business of intervening into each other's business outside and draw the red lines. And there I would like to urge the colleagues, also the colleague who spoke before us, let us have our own self-esteem as legislators do not use Trump to start our domestic debates and bring them on international level. We can debate about the issues of overregulation. We can debate about the issues of green standards. But these are our internal domestic European debates. These are not issues for dictating from the white House. And this has to be made very clear by both the Commission but also by us.”
  EU-US relations
• “Thank you. No problem. Thank you so much. And thank you for this very enlightening report. As a former rapporteur on private assets and confiscation issues that we dealt with, um, I know how difficult it is also with private assets, but there we have a human rights issue, uh, rather than the state responsibility issue. Um, yet I think that the promising, uh, efforts also by this commission are opening enough innovative space for us to deal with the issue, because the main point, of course, for our Parliament politically is to ensure that Russia pays for the crimes that it has committed and is committing against Ukraine. Two questions that I have. Number one is, um, it is clear that we are not a second party. The affected party of this particular aggression. But there are other illegitimate acts that are mounting against us, including hybrid attacks, uh, drones, etc.. Uh, how would you define the threshold from where on we are? No, not a third party anymore, but an immediately affected party that can take action themselves. Uh, this is number one. And number two is is there a possibility also without becoming an immediately affected party, um, to that that we have here something like an instantaneous, uh, customary law emerging, uh, where the opinion juries, as you mentioned, is already there of many states who are convinced that a third party can, uh, make a claim here. And the as you can imagine, as you know the exercise of it, the practice is shortened as an instant. Uh, customary law in this particular case. And with that, we have a rule already, uh, that can be applied immediately. Thank you very much. Thanks.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “It is about domestic authorities who in each particular case, not automatically but still can decide whether, for example, they recognise Egba on their territory. Classical 114 Tfeu article two of the um proposal is talking about non-profit purpose, but it's explicitly including economic activities of those, uh egbas and of those associations. One of the main legal arguments that the that the legal service of the council is using, it is saying, and this is not new, this is a very old fashioned and also outlived, uh, perception of some minority legal services and minority legal legal voices. They are saying that the freedom of establishment cannot be enjoyed by nonprofits. This is not true. We have legal opinion and the legal opinion can be provided to all of you. Also by by this Parliament, where we have in multiple rulings of European Court of Justice, a very clear understanding of recursion commission against Hungary. These are just three of cases where the European Court of Justice said very clear and very explicitly, that article 114 and article 50 can be applied even if it's a non-profit, free churches, if it's non-profit, still engaging in economic activities. So it is about engaging in economic activities. Any association is doing it, buying a pen, even, um, or collecting fees. It is about economic activities and it is not about generating profit or not generating profit. So if you see the summary over there, you see the number of conclusions that were done by this legal service of this Parliament.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Economically active non-profits are subjected to um article 114 and article 50. Uh, dear friends, coming back a little bit out of this technicalities, and I hope I didn't bore those who are not lawyers here in this room, and maybe not as they're called EU bureaucrats. We were all called. Now, um, it is about what we understand EU freedoms are about. Do EU freedoms or all apply also to associations, also to NGOs, also to the civil society? Or are we just a market of profit maximizers and full stop. And I have nothing against profit maximizers. But this is, of course, about economic actors and not just those who need profit. From that perspective, let's give it a push again. I know that there is a difficult situation for the commission here. I know that the council is actually the one driving this resistance. Um, many governments, like the German government, have this in their coalition agreements that they should support Ecba and not hinder it. And I appeal to those governments not to give up. And I appeal to all of us not to give up. It is not about us. It is about civil society, but it is also about how we understand the freedoms of the European Union. Thank you very much. Looking forward to this discussion.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “We live in a world where the market is not just for companies. A market in this very complex world is also for NGOs, is also for civil society. And there are many dimensions that are not addressed. This is an opportunity to address them. So I would, uh, plead, uh, for those who are present, who may be member states, who are listening, uh, to to this to this meeting. Let's make it another effort. We are open. I think the commission is open. Us as co legislators are open to adjust this proposal. That's what trilogue is for and to move forward here. And I especially would like to appeal to the government of my own country of Germany, where the Ministry of Justice, uh, is uh, I know very open to this proposal, but is sitting on it because of legal reasons, as far as I understand, that have been, uh, all dismantled through the legal opinion of the Parliament. If they want this legal opinion, we can forward it to them as well as to many other member States. I am looking forward to work together with you on this. And by saying I'm looking forward to work means we will get this thing out of this stalemate and we will start it and make it into a living, uh, instrument, I promised this to civil society that I will do everything in my in my capacities to at least try to do this. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “Dear colleagues, this report comes at a crucial moment. Algorithmic management and automated decisions are no longer the future of work. They are our present and we have to react. Digitalisation moves fast with laws must keep up. Rights must not allow. Must not follow digitalization. Digitalization must follow rights. Europe has already acted the AI act GDPR, the platform workers directive. But we need to do more. These are strong foundations. The commission is now considering new rules on algorithmic management through the upcoming Quality Jobs Act, and the report that we are discussing here now is meant to guide this process. Improving workers conditions and protecting workers digital rights. As rapporteur, I want to stress one key point we need legal clarity. Any new rules must be coherent, targeted and legally sound. Our goal is simple, but the path there is complicated. The digital world of work must be fair and predictable, and this is another contribution to that. Thank you very much.”
  Platform workers
• “Russia is not just destroying Ukrainian cities. Russia is testing whether justice is alive. And while the right wing is going to Moscow to negotiate, as we just heard, every abducted Ukrainian child, every deported Ukrainian prisoner, every tortured Ukrainian civilian is asking us, the EU, one simple question do crimes still have consequences? Our answer must be very clear. Yes they do. As a lawyer, I know justice is not just a slogan. It is a system. And the system must be built, defended, funded, enforced. And that's why I pushed for a permanent tribunal against the crime of aggression here in this House. That is why we must be building a machinery of justice. The tribunal, the International Claims Commission, full support for the ICC and a global coalition that goes beyond Europe. But justice is not credible. If we still pay Russia to kill billions for gas, oil and nuclear fuel. So no impunity also means no dirty deals with Moscow.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “On your new function. And thank you for everything you've been doing in your old functions. You were one of the leading figures who are steering the course of your country. Uh, a couple of points that you mentioned. Number one, I was very happy to see a very smart and strategic way of dealing with frozen Russian assets. I think this is precisely the way to go. Uh, this is something that I've also mentioned a couple of months in the Strasbourg week. This is something where the European role can be played. And this is the card as the trump as Mr. Trump would say, that we have in our hands. So we should prepare for confiscation, but we shouldn't fulfill and go through with it yet. I think this is a very good thing that you now support this path. Uh, number two, uh, this committee was instrumental on the institution of Tribunal for Crime of Aggression. Um, and the question is, uh, where, uh, do you and I know that your predecessor, justice Minister, was also very active on the tribunal crime of aggression against Russia. Where do we stand there and where the European Union could be more supportive, especially after us pulling out of the evidence collection and evidence preservation? Is it still the case? Do we still have a chance to re-engage with our American friends France on the evidence provision not only for crimes of aggression, but also for different crimes.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Welcome. And first of all, thank you for all the great work, especially on safeguarding the rule of law and democracy. You know, for our group, it's one of the main concerns. And we're also hoping for strong enforcement of European Media Freedom Act. Um, I have a couple of questions on the intersection between rule of law and democracy on the one hand, and, uh, digital issues on the other. On the other hand, number one on our justice system and how well equipped we are, whether we are, um, AI liability directive. You know, this committee is not very happy about the withdrawal. We have increasingly complaints and situations where young people engage in conversation with bots, the chat bots like ChatGPT and others, and then commit suicide. Uh, in fact, ChatGPT said 560,000 weekly users engage in interactions of this, of this sort. What can we do now that the liability directive is not there? Product liability does not work because there is no, uh, it depends on proving defective software. It's not possible to do so. How do you want to envision this? Is digital fairness Act something to tackle, uh, those issues like design features of chatbots. And the second question on GDPR, uh, we know that in the omnibus is planned to redefine personal data. The question is, um, how do you, uh, see this? This is, of course, something that is very disconcerting for us. This is not how we understood the ruling of the European Court of Justice in this case. How will you make sure that personal data is not infringed on?”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “And this is why caving in every time they increase. Pressure is not the preferred option, and that is why the safeguards that we have been insisting here in this Parliament, both the sunset clause, but also the automatic suspension automatic suspension that we insisted on were important. And on this I would like and we would like to criticise the Commission, because the blackmail and the conduct of the commission during the trilogue negotiations were hugely unusual. And this is something that we should not accept. We are here representing the interests of our constituencies, of the voters and not the interests of the United States. And that's why it's important to highlight this once again. So our expectation, if there is no automatism, then the commission must follow suit and it must suspend The agreement. If, especially in the issue of derivatives and aluminium, the behaviour of the other side will not be in accordance with the letter of this agreement. Yes, Europe must avoid escalation. Yes, but we cannot accept and will not accept coercion. The combination is right, but we must remain watchful and we will be watching the Commission. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “As a co-president of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, I want to address the recent decision of Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan. And let me be clear from the very outset, I deeply regret this decision. I believe it is a mistake not only in relation to the European Parliament, but also in relation to Azerbaijan's own strategic interests. Parliamentary dialogue is not a luxury. Parliamentary dialogue is not a ceremonial exercise. It is not an add on. It is one of the few formats where difficult issues can be discussed openly between people, between members of Parliament. And yes, this European Parliament has adopted resolutions that were critical of Azerbaijan. These resolutions addressed human rights, international law, the post-conflict situation in Karabakh and after Karabakh. I really understand you, dear Azerbaijani colleagues, that such criticism can be uncomfortable, but I absolutely believe that discomfort is not a reason to leave the table and the conversation. The European Parliament is a democracy. It is a pluralistic institution. Its positions are adopted by a majority of this Parliament, and no single delegation or delegation chair. Not a single political party or group can determine what democracies decide. Trust me, I'm often on the receiving end of this. Uncomfortable positions that I don't like made by this very Parliament. And just to remind you, European Euronest Parliamentary Assembly is not only about this European Parliament, it is about the parliaments of other Eastern Partnership countries Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia. That's why by leaving Euronest, Azerbaijan is missing an opportunity. An opportunity to become part of a regional conversations. The conversations that are really, really relevant. Black sea strategy. Regional connectivity. Global. Gateway. Energy. Interconnections, digital infrastructures, all this.”
  EU-Azerbaijan relations
• “Thank you so much. Thank you, colleagues, and, uh, thank you, guests and commission, um, as well. Just very briefly, maybe to address some of, um, of, uh, questions and we can do it in a dedicated session for shadows. I'm happy to, uh, to do this formally or informally. Um. What we have here. And this is important to understand, I think also to the, um, let's say the right side of this or the more conservative side of this, of this hemisphere. Um, this is a proposal that honors national, um, uh, prerogative, especially in the area of associations. These proposals, uh, proposal goes out of its way to place as many competencies as possible to national legislators. It starts with the issue of, uh, the, um, decisions that national, um, executives and authorities uh, have to make, for example, uh, for national security. Uh, there are concerns that were voiced by some of the members of the council, uh, that we have here some issues with anti-terrorism legislation. I don't know why an Egba would be a vehicle for terrorism. This is from a perspective. I mean, I think I can say it openly of all French, some of the French colleagues, why this should be Egba and not, say, a limited or just some other national, uh, maybe not formal entity. Granted, there are those concerns on a, on a multiple places in this legislation. There are, uh, rulings and there are rules that allow national authorities to prevent such egbas for matters of national security, for matters of law enforcement, for matters of anti-money laundering and many other issues.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you, Commissioner. And I just want to. In the name of my group, uh, here, um, to continue with that and say very clearly that we as a group will not support opening of C, D and C as triple D. I think it's also a matter of some self-confidence of this institution, because I remember very well when I was sitting and as a vice chair and chairing this the meeting when we adopted this, this legislation and everyone or some of this legislation and everyone was chairing and supporting where the commission was also part of the, uh, compromises. And now we suddenly are going to be saying that this went all in the wrong direction. And I think this is not, uh, fair, but this is also not, um, in accordance with the virtues of the European Union. It is a well balanced and compensatory and necessary uh, legislation, um, with a long term approach to the issues that it addresses. Um, and now going back and forth would undermine the public confidence in European legislation. And we are convinced that, yes, we are favourable as our colleagues as well, towards the idea of simplification of reporting application obligations, if we're talking about that. Uh, but these simplifications must be in line with interinstitutional agreements of better law making and not start kind of a radical deregulation agenda that the colleagues already mentioned. Uh, the specific three questions that I have, um, is, number one, um, how will you assess, uh, how you what do you simplify for legislation with these two pieces of legislation that are totally new, and where the representative of a number of important businesses said that they are in defense with this legislation. So what will be, uh, the the mark in the landmarks you will be using to understand how to, to to simplify, uh, how do you justify the lack of proper impact assessment? Uh, and, uh, how would the commission justify the complete lack of transparent involvement of public stakeholder in consultations? These are the specific questions that we would like to hear. Thank you very much for coming to us and being courageous to start this process. ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lagodinsky, for the left group, Please.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you so much, chair. And I'm representing the shadow of this committee. Anna Cavazzini being a shadow in afet on the United States. Um, on behalf of the green group. Uh, first of all, our starting point is that we would like to see this, uh, deal to be rejected altogether. This is the starting point because we don't want to reward Trump's bullying with a blank check. Now, if, um, this is not an option, uh, which we hope it is, uh, the rejection of this deal is reflected in the amendment. So the strict conditions to ensure that Trump must also respect the deal are important. And then the question is, what can we do before we lower tariffs and what can we do after we lower tariffs if the situation deteriorates? First of all, uh, requiring the Trump administration to abolish the 50% tariffs that continue to burden the export of products containing steel before the reduction of tariffs would be the right way to go. Now, after the reduction would have taken place, we would like to insist on automatic suspension. Uh, option. If Trump administration imposes new tariffs and thereby tries to blackmail us. And in addition, we would like to also have, uh, this under, uh, this this be the case under the conditions that the situation of democracy, rule of law and human rights in the United States continues to deteriorate under the current circumstances. We cannot exclude that these conditions, if these conditions are met, we would like to see a reinstatement of countermeasures or activation of anti-corruption instruments. The safeguard measures must be stricter. They should also apply if prices fall significantly in order to protect the farmers in the EU. And finally, if the EU nevertheless decides to lower the tariffs, we would like to apply for a limit time limit of no more than 18 months. Uh, with the current US administration, 18 months is a lot of time. You never know what's going to happen. So an 18 month limit would be a time limit would be another, uh, another call on our behalf. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Number two, pooling of US funding for NGOs also working on rule of law and justice area. Is there some movement there? Are you in talks? How can we support. I'm talking with Martha Kos, who is trying to mobilize money on that. But is it enough? Do you think there will be more need also for structural support for civil society in this justice area? Number three mineral deal. I just returned from Washington, so I'm still thinking about the United States mineral deal. I know that you've been doing everything possible to secure that mineral deal does not get on the way towards EU integration. What exactly was possible to avoid and where do you think are still the risks? Where should we be watching carefully? And the final question. Um, basically the question is, uh, a road to towards normalization after the war ends. Hopefully the victory of Ukrainian people. But after the war ends, are you preparing already a road to normalization of the legal system and political system in the country? This would be something that would be interesting for us. Thank you very much and looking forward to continuing cooperation.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)