Mario FURORE

Policy topics Mario FURORE is active on

What Mario FURORE has said (12)

• 2026-03-24 “Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 22.5.2026 Written question The Commission considers that it is fully appropriate to make greater use of tachograph data, notably for the purpose of verifying drivers’ wage entitlements. As laid out in the relevant legislation [1] , tachograph data can already be used as supporting evidence of drivers’ activities in situations where the driver has been posted. In order to contribute to the enforcement of Directive (EU) 2020/1057 [2] , the Commission has set up the Road Transport Posting Declaration (RTPD) Module in the internal market Information System (IMI). This interoperable module allows enforcement authorities and operators to exchange information on posted drivers. In 2025, 1,581 checks were conducted via this IMI RTPD Module. The market may further develop tools to support, including by using tachograph data, the amounts to be paid to a posted driver in such cases, which also depends on the national legislations in the Member States. The European Labour Authority is currently working on a pilot project [3] for a ‘remuneration tool’ for the road transport sector. The Commission is continuously monitoring and improving the usage and features of the RTPD module. The Commission invests EUR 200,000 annually only on new developments in the tool, with the objective of increasing its usage and facilitate enforcement through the platform. [1] See in particular Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and indent (iii) of point (b) of Article 1(11) of Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 1). [2] Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 49). [3] See main conclusions and potential further actions of the report from the Commission to European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application and implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/957 (COM(2024) 320 final).”
  EU regulation of cross-border and posted workers · EU policy on employment subcontracting
• 2026-03-12 “Answer given by Mr Kubilius on behalf of the European Commission 22.5.2026 Written question The Commission notes that the Military Mobility Package [1] adopted in November 2025 stands as a comprehensive set of measures to ensure the swift, coordinated and secure movement of military personnel and equipment across the EU. The Package includes a regulation proposal [2] aiming to strengthen Europe's defence readiness by addressing barriers to military mobility across transport regulatory, infrastructure, and capability dimensions-critical areas that currently hinder military transport across borders. The Commission takes note of the issues raised concerning airport screening procedures for military personnel travelling via civil infrastructure. However, these issues do not fall within the scope of the current legal provisions under the regulation proposal, since these do not include measures relating to security screening practices at airports. Provisions on civil aviation security such as those in Regulation (EC) 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 [3] stand as common rules to protect civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference that jeopardise the security of civil aviation. Consequently, the Commission does not foresee, in the context of the measures laid down in the broader Military Mobility Package, the development of additional common guidance in this area. Any such considerations would fall outside the scope of the current envisaged measures and legislative proposal. [1] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/military-mobility_en. [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0847. [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/300/oj/eng.”
  Asylum & border control · EU competences on defence
• 2025-03-03 “E-000891/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission By judgment of 21 March 2019 in C-498/17 1 the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) declared that Italy has failed to comply with Article 14 of the Landfill Directive 2 in respect of 44 so called ‘existing landfills’. Given that by 2022 compliance had not been achieved, as only 32 out the 44 landfills for which Italy was condemned by the CJEU in C-498/17 had been closed in accordance with the requirements of the Directive, a Letter of Formal Notice (LFN) under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU was issued on 6 April 2022 3 . The landfill CO.BE.MA. in Apulia in Contrada Tufarelle is among the 12 remaining non-compliant landfills included in the LFN adopted under Article 260 of the Treaty. The Commission is closely monitoring compliance with the Court’s ruling. According to the latest information shared by the Italian authorities, the closure of the landfill CO.BE.MA. in Apulia in Contrada Tufarelle is expected by 15 May 2025. The Commission is not aware of other landfills in Contrada Tufarelle. In any case, it is for the Italian competent authorities to give correct application to the relevant EU rules. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission may decide to intervene if systemic issues with application of these provisions of EU law arise. 1 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=EN&num=C-498/17 2 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1–19, amended by Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 100–108. 3 INFR(2011)2215, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_22_1769”
  Water pollution
• 2025-02-06 “E-000559/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 1. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 1 supports Member States and regions in improving water management systems and infrastructures. Under the Regional Programme Apulia ERDF-ESF+ (European Social Fund+) 2014-2020 and 2021-2027, around EUR 530 million have been allocated to sustainable water management in the region, focusing on reducing water loss, upgrading networks, improving reservoirs and the treatment of wastewater. 2. In line with the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC 2 , responsibility for decisions regarding water management rests with Member States, which ensure that the objectives of the Directive are met. Additional water supply options could be considered by the Italian government and the regional authorities as part of an integrated strategy, to better balance water demand and supply, considering long-term climate scenarios. As outlined by the Commission's 2007 Communication 3 , policy making should be based on a water hierarchy, implementing where possible water-saving and efficiency measures, including effective water pricing policy and cost-effective alternatives. Adverse effects linked to additional water supply infrastructure must be considered in the environmental assessment. 3. While Italy's recovery and resilience plan (RRP) 4 allocates EUR 4.8 billion to enhance water supply management, the Council Implementing Decision (CID) Annex 5 does not allocate resources specifically to Apulia. Any allocation is therefore a decision of national and regional authorities only. Apulia’s projects relevant to RRP reporting align with CID Annex milestones and targets. Their implementation status is evaluated during assessment of milestones and targets, coinciding with current and future payment requests. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en 2 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. 3 COM(2007) 414 final. 4 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resiliencefacility/country-pages/italys-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en 5 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15114-2024-ADD-1-REV-1/en/pdf”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. President, when we talk about online piracy, we're not just talking about sport and major platforms. We're talking about European culture Because piracy is found in films and music, in theatre, in books, in information. And we have to look at who's involved here. We're involving. It's involving ordinary people, workers, our society. What we need is to invest in stability because creativity is so fragile. Imagine how much it costs, how difficult it is to create new works. And then you see that your work is in a cinema afterwards, a theater or a museum. Online piracy is absolutely the opposite of this. And this is why Europe must act. The Digital Services Act should make things a lot easier. What is illegal offline should be illegal online as well. We've seen over the past years that enforcement has not been effective. And it should be. We have to protect culture. We have to protect the creative work, and in that way we protect our democracy.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Today you just need one click to steal someone's identity using a deepfake. Artificial intelligence can create audio and video to spread it a million times and destroy a life. Social networks continue to spread pornographic content and hate young people at the at the front line as victims, because what goes online doesn't stay online. It enters into their lives and changes them. In Europe, we've got rules, but we don't enforce them. They remain a dead letter, and the platforms pretend to scrutinize themselves and regulate themselves. But that's at the expense of the weakest in our society. Let's not leave the digital platforms in the hands of the digital oligarchs. Rather, we should defend our citizens and our are right. Real life and the digital world are not separate worlds. We need to be careful about what we say and what we post. We need to ensure that social media remain a democratic space with no space for hate speech, deepfakes and sexualised images. The Parliament needs to send out a clear message. We need to prioritise democracy over the digital giants. **Irmhild BOẞDORF: Deepfakes are not a joke. They are brutal violence. They destroy reputation, dignity and often the entire life of the individual. The perpetrators must be brought to justice and victims must be protected. But what is the EU doing? It's simply taking this crime as a pretext to impose even more controls and constraints on public debate. The DSA is not a tool against criminality, it's simply an instrument of power. It pressurizes platforms, and it is simply creating far too much blocking censorship and politically arbitrary decisions. We don't need controls on chats. We don't want mass surveillance. The principle of commission of communication on the internet must be protected. There has to be a right to privacy. Genuine protection is something which can only be guaranteed by national governments. There should be national sanctions if necessary, and this must apply also to the internet. Thank you.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Eye to of course, would like to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to our meeting and congratulate her country on her work. But I do have a question similar to my colleague, how are the investigations going under the tribunal of crimes of aggression and is a cooperation with the US still possible? Against that backdrop.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you, Madam Commissioner. When a citizen tries to find information on the search engines, they find a reply to a from AI Google review, for instance, they. The content has been produced by others, however. So there is less resources for information. So journalists may lose their jobs and. It also leads to less pluralism. Our democracy could fail. The DMA is there to limit the power of large platforms. But four years after its approval, nothing has changed. The procedures have not really led to what we expected. And today we have seen an attack to publishing and journalism. Our democracy is going to shipwreck. The movement calls upon the commission to apply DMA also to those new dangerous instruments which are to be taken under control because the Commission, if it cannot deal with the artificial, with artificial intelligence, will. Intelligence will be too late and large platforms will simply take over. And we can't allow that. Thank you.”
  Search engines (liability)
• “Eye to of course, would like to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to our meeting and congratulate her country on her work. But I do have a question similar to my colleague, how are the investigations going under the tribunal of crimes of aggression and is a cooperation with the US still possible? Against that backdrop.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Presidente. Thank you. President. Colleagues, when we talk about cyber bullying today, what we're really talking about is power. Power that's being exercised by some tech giants over the lives of young people without ever really taking responsibility in the right way for that. There are platforms making money off the difficult times that young people are being put through being bullied. And these platforms are even incentivizing the creation of abusive content via AI. We cannot let this simply go on. We cannot allow a space where young people spend so much of their time to remain wild, wild West, the wild, wild West. We need to create safe environments for all. Now, the Digital Service Act is a first step forward in combating cyberbullying, but it's not enough. We need to make sure that there is real age verification. We need to put a stop to those who put profit above the safety of users, including our young people. Young people deserve to live in safe and regulated spaces where the same laws apply, whether it be virtual or in the real world. We have a duty to do this as a European institution. Thank you.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you chairman. Child sexual abuse is one of the most odious crimes, and we need to fight it with all of the instruments available to us. And child sexual abuse has to be a priority for the EU. But we also need to be honest. There aren't any easy solutions to complex problems. To protect children cannot mean that you have surveillance systems in place which have a general nature and scan private chats. Encryption protects not just offenders, but also journalists and millions of citizens. So I think the right way of going about it is is a different way. Having platforms shoulder their responsibility, have investigative instruments to go after those perpetrating these crimes, and more support for victims. Europe needs to show that it's possible to do both to protect children, but also to protect fundamental rights. Security and freedom need to go hand in glove, and they are not mutually exclusive. Thank you.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “Thank you. Chair. Honourable colleagues. I think that having a meeting on such an important subject as fighting environmental crime, which means protecting our land and citizens health as being something that's vital. So thank you, chair. In Italy, as we heard from our colleague, we have actually made significant progress in beefing up our fight against environmental crime. We've done that under governments, under President Conte. But also I am thinking particularly about the parliamentary committee of inquiry, which carries out in-depth investigations into illegal activities that harm the Italian flora and fauna. And we also have a law on eco crime, revolutionary law, which was ten years old a few weeks ago, which introduced it into our criminal code, environmental disasters, poisoning and well as rehabilitation of land. Just to mention a few. We've also got various associations on the ground who say that 7000 environmental crimes have been committed in Italy over the last few years, causing billions in damage. This is why I think it's so important that we have this discussion, because doing this at European level and having a directive whereby we have harmonisation of the different legal tools available nationally to fight environmental crime, I think will make it easier for us to fight it at European level. But let me repeat. I think that the legislation itself is not enough. We're going to need a lot of resources. Now, obviously red tape is one thing and doing away with that. But if, on the other hand, we have to actually act to ensure that environmental damage is stopped or reversed, we need to be able to act quickly and it needs to be backed up by resources. That takes money. So I think we need to ensure that we allocate even more fund. We need more assistance to the regions, to the member States in trying to ensure that we can, in fact, do away with environmental crime and the harm that it concludes. So I hope that actually Italy can be a guiding example here, encouraging other member States to follow our example in this field. Thank you.”
  Environmental crimes and justice