Sandro GOZI

Policy topics Sandro GOZI is active on

What Sandro GOZI has said (75)

• 2026-06-16 “Digital sovereignty is not a technical debate. It's a question of power. The decision by the Trump administration to restrict access to advanced AI models must be a wake up call for Europe. Artificial intelligence is no longer just innovation. It is a strategic asset, a matter of security, competitiveness and geopolitical influence. So let us stop opposing regulation and innovation. Europe's real weakness is not its new rules. It is the old fragmentation of our markets, the lack of a true capital markets union and the unfinished single market. If we want sovereignty, we must invest, scale and act together in AI, cloud infrastructure, digital payments, cybersecurity, defense and digital Europe. Time is running out. Europe must move from dependence to sovereignty and from sovereignty to power. Thank you very much.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-16 “Digital sovereignty is not a technical debate. It's a question of power. The decision by the Trump administration to restrict access to advanced AI models must be a a wake up call for Europe. Definition intelligence is no longer just innovation. It is a strategic asset, a method of security, competitiveness, and geopolitical influence. So let us stop opposing regulation and innovation. Europe real weakness is not its new rules. It is the old fragmentation of our markets, the lack of a true capital markets union, and the unfinished single market. If we want sovereignty, we must invest, scale, and act together in AI, cloud infrastructure, digital payments, cybersecurity, defense, and to Digital Europe. Time is running out. Europe must move from dependence to sovereignty and from sovereignty to power.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-15 “(18:12:35 – 18:13:46): Thank you, president. What if we genuinely want Europe's economic independence? We have to stop being hypocritical. That's our hypocrisy has weakened our continent for too long. We our competitiveness reduces every year, and, nevertheless, €300,000,000 leave our continent every year to boost The United States. Let's build a genuine capital market in Europe. As mister Draghi recalled, we need to invest around 800,000,000,000 every year. But, we with our budget cuts, we're reducing the amounts dedicated to security defense research, etcetera. We also are not allowed to have a genuine investment common investment fund and own resources. We need to ensure that those who want to make Europe an appropriate power win through because they're set set against people who want to cut the budget and cause problems. Our independence doesn't depend on Washington or anything else. It depends on us.”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed)
• 2026-02-02 “Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission 16.6.2026 Written question Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) [1] does not provide for a general right or an obligation to refuse disclosure of personal data on the grounds of personal data protection as such. Member States have a primary responsibility to monitor the application of the relevant legal provisions and to take the necessary steps for enforcement. Any natural or legal person acting as a controller or processor of personal data, including public authorities, are subject to the GDPR. The supervision and enforcement of the GDPR falls within the competence of the national supervisory authorities and courts, without prejudice to the competences of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties. [1] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1-88.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Privacy & digital economy
• 2026-01-26 “P-293/26 Answer given by Ms Ribera on behalf of the European Commission Since the submission of the complaint in April 2025, the Commission has been carefully examining allegations contained in it, following up with the Hungarian authorities and the complainant. The timing of the Commission’s assessment depends on various elements, such as the type of the allegations and the completeness of the information submitted to the Commission. The Commission assesses State aid complaints based on objective criteria, as enshrined in the EU Treaties, State aid-related legislation as well as the case-law of the EU courts. The Commission will inform the Hungarian authorities and the complainant of the developments of the case in due course, in compliance with the applicable procedural and substantive rules. In relation to state advertising rules more generally, the Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report 1 reiterated a recommendation addressed to Hungary calling on it to ‘adopt measures to ensure fair and transparent distribution of advertising expenditure by the state and stateowned companies’. Furthermore, on 11 December 2025 the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Hungary for failure to comply with several provisions under the European Media Freedom Act 2 , including provisions relating to the allocation of public funds for state advertising and supply or service contracts. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rulelaw/rule-law/annual-rule-law-cycle/2025-rule-law-report_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1083/oj/eng ; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/1808/oj/eng.”
  Rule of law in Hungary · EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• 2026-01-14 “Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission 7.4.2026 Written question The adoption of EU restrictive measures against individuals is decided unanimously by Member States in the Council of the European Union, acting on a proposal from the High Representative. These deliberations are confidential. The positions of individual Member States are not disclosed. The implementation and enforcement of EU sanctions fall primarily under the responsibility of Member States. The Commission’s role is to monitor compliance and ensure the uniform application across the EU. The Commission actively engages with Member States to clarify implementation practices and address any inconsistencies. It offers Member States technical and legal assistance to strengthen national frameworks and prevent circumvention. Cyprus complies with Regulation (EU) 2019/452 [1] (‘EU FDI Screening Regulation’), which currently does not oblige Member States to have a mechanism to screen foreign direct investments (FDI). The Commission welcomes that Cyprus adopted, on 14 November 2025, Law 194/2025 that establishes a framework for the control of foreign direct investments. The EU FDI Screening Regulation is being revised. Under the political agreement reached in December 2025, Member States will be required to have a screening mechanism, and the revised Regulation will also cover investments made in the EU by foreign investors through an EU subsidiary. [1] OJ L 79I, 21.3.2019, pp. 1-14.”
  EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Transparency requirements for interest groups
• 2026-01-14 “E-000142/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission On 26 January 2026, the Commission launched a new formal investigation against X under the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 , which will assess whether the provider of X properly assessed and mitigated risks associated with the deployment in the EU of Grok’s functionalities into X. This includes risks related to the dissemination of illegal content, such as manipulated sexually explicit images and content that may amount to child sexual abuse material. The Commission has been looking into the deployment of Grok functionalities in the X service already before the recent events. On 19 September 2025, the Commission sent X a request for information related to Grok, including the ‘Ask @Grok’ feature. This included questions on risks and risk mitigations linked to the various integrations of Grok in the X service. X submitted its first replies at the end of 2025. On 19 December 2025, the Commission also extended the retention order sent to X in January 2025 to preserve all internal documents and data relating to changes to its recommender systems, including the deployment of Grok in X’s recommender systems, until the end of 2026. The Commission will now carry out its investigation related to the deployment in the EU of Grok functionalities into the X service as a matter of priority, including by assessing the changes implemented by the provider of X in response to the recent incidents. Should the Commission conclude that the provider of X breaches the DSA, it can decide to adopt a fine of up to 6% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the provider and to order the provider to take measures to address the breach. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, pp. 1–102.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• 2026-01-14 “E-000141/2026 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is grateful for the Honourable Member’s clarification following the Commission’s reply to another written question (E-003715/2025) 1 on the same subject. Under the Union Customs Code 2 , customs authorities may retain goods to carry out controls and audits necessary to ensure compliance with EU law. The responsibility for ensuring the legality, proportionality, and correct application of audits and retention measures lies with the competent Finnish authorities. They must ensure compliance with Regulation (EU) 2022/345 3 , which restricts certain transactions between Russian and EU entities. The assessment of potential breaches to this regulation, as well as the implications for value added tax, remains a matter of national competence. The Commission may, in case of systemic misapplication of EU law, engage with national authorities or initiate infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Based on the information available, the present case does not seem to involve prejudice to the EU budget. The case appears to concern an individual customs case and disputes between private parties, which fall within the responsibility of the competent Finnish authorities. Economic operators may seek remedies before national courts or use EU-level mechanisms such as the SOLVIT network 4 . 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02013R0952-20221212. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/345/oj/eng. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm; https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/what-is-solvit/index_en.htm; list of national Solvit centres: https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/contact/index_en.htm.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2025-11-20 “E-004650/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of recent changes to the United States H-1B visa and of the introduction of the Chinese K visa in October 2025. As these measures have been introduced recently, it is too early to assess their concrete impact on international talent flows. The Commission recognises that international students, researchers, highly qualified and skilled workers and innovative entrepreneurs make a key contribution to the Union’s economy and competitiveness by addressing skills shortages and supporting innovation and growth. The EU already has a framework in place to attract international students, researchers and highly qualified workers, notably through the Students and Researchers Directive 1 and the EU Blue Card Directive 2 . In order to complement this framework and reinforce the EU’s attractiveness to international students, researchers, highly qualified and skilled workers, startup founders and innovative entrepreneurs, the Commission adopted an EU Visa Strategy 3 and a Commission Recommendation on Attracting Talent for Innovation 4 . Taking stock of the implementation of the Recommendation, the Commission will assess in 2026 whether targeted legislative adjustments are needed, including the feasibility of targeted amendments to existing EU rules on students and researchers and highly qualified and skilled workers, to adapt them to the innovation and research ecosystems, as well as a targeted EU legal framework for start-up and scale-up founders and innovative entrepreneurs. 1 Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing (recast), OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, pp. 21–57. 2 Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2021 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC, OJ L 382, 28.10.2021, pp. 1–38. 3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on EU visa policy strategy, COM(2026) 43 final. 4 Commission Recommendation of 29.1.2026 on attracting talent for innovation, C(2026) 462 final.”
  Legal migration
• 2025-09-24 “E-003715/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Union Customs Code provides that customs authorities may retain goods when necessary to carry out checks to ensure compliance with EU law. Such checks must be carried out within a reasonable period and, where appropriate, lead to a formal decision subject to appeal. Storage and handling fees are regulated at national level, but they must comply with EU customs provisions 1 . The present reply is based on the assumption that the case concerns the application of customs legislation. The primary responsibility for the implementation of EU restrictive measures rests with the competent authorities of Member States. The Commission provides on its website the contact details of all such authorities 2 , and has set up, at EU level, dedicated contact points to answer questions on these measures from economic operators 3 . The Commission does not intervene in individual customs cases. It is the responsibility of the Finnish customs authorities and the national courts to ensure legality and provide judicial remedies, including with regard to storage fees. 2. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is competent to investigate fraud and other irregularities affecting the financial interests of the EU. The case described does not seem to involve prejudice to the EU’s budget. In this context, the appropriate remedies would lie with national judicial or administrative procedures. Operators may use available EU-level mechanisms, such as the SOLVIT network 4 . They may also lodge a complaint with the Commission. The Commission monitors the uniform application of EU legislation across Member States. Should indications arise of systemic misapplication, the Commission may engage with the national authorities concerned and initiate an infringement procedure. 1 In particular, article 52 of the Union Customs Code provides that customs formalities and controls are, in principle, free of charge, and that fees may only be imposed when they correspond to a specific service actually rendered by the customs authorities. 2 A PDF list of national competent authorities for implementation of EU sanctions (Member States’ designated authorities) is available: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/803d74d5-84a0-4bf4-a73530f1fe5ae6dd_en?filename=national-competent-authorities-sanctions-implementation_en.pdf. 3 EU Sanctions Helpdesk: This dedicated platform supports EU small and medium-sized enterprises and other operators with questions on sanctions compliance (including due-diligence, product/country risk checks): https://eu-sanctions-compliance-helpdesk.europa.eu/index_en. 4 Official website: https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/index_en.htm. ‘What is SOLVIT?’ overview: https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/what-is-solvit/index_en.htm. Contact page listing national SOLVIT centres: https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/contact/index_en.htm.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2025-09-24 “E-003713/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The EU has a strategic interest in a stable and secure environment in the Mediterranean and expects that all countries respect the jurisdiction, sovereignty and sovereign rights of Member States, in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the provisions of which reflect customary international law. In this regard, coastal States have sovereignty over their territorial sea, including for adopting laws and regulations related to innocent passage and taking necessary steps to prevent passage which is not innocent. Such incidents undermine the regional cooperation, which the EU consistently promotes within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, such as the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, aiming to achieve a level playing field. While the primary responsibility for the control of fishing activities in Member States’ waters fall on their authorities, the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) coordinates Member States’ fisheries inspection activities in the Mediterranean through a dedicated Joint Deployment Plan, to which the EFCA patrol vessels participate. The Commission also provides technical support to interested Member States through satellite monitoring and other support activities. The involvement of Frontex in such activities would go beyond the Agency’s mandate which is linked to the support to Member States in managing their external borders and return.”
  EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood
• 2025-09-12 “E-003529/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The decision on the Google adtech case was adopted after the investigation was completed, the decision was ready after drafting and legal checks, and the internal procedure was completed. The adoption of an antitrust decision is completely unrelated to other policy considerations, including those relating to trade matters. It is the sovereign right of the EU and its Member States to regulate economic activities on its territory in a manner consistent with their democratic values. As is true for other key pieces of the EU’s laws regulating digital matters, the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) 2 were adopted by the Council and the European Parliament through the EU's legislative process. They aim at creating a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and in which fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, is respected and at ensuring the fairness and contestability of digital markets. The Commission has always and will continue to enforce the DSA and DMA, as well as other EU laws regulating digital markets, with full commitment, observing maximum transparency and ensuring due process. The Commission is open to dialogue and willing to explain the EU digital rulebook to all interested parties, as it has done on numerous occasions. 1 OJ L 277 (2022), pp. 1-102 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng. 2 OJ L 265 (2022), pp. 1-66 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj/eng.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• 2025-08-13 “E-3235/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of and analysing the concerning alleged presence of a coordinated inauthentic behaviour network distributing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on X, as reported by Alliance4Europe. Protecting, empowering and respecting the rights of children is a key priority for the Commission. Under Article 28 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 , providers of online platforms accessible to minors must ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors. In addition, under Article 16, platforms must have user friendly mechanisms to flag illegal content and under Article 18, their providers shall inform law enforcement authorities if they become aware of information that gives rise to a suspicion that a criminal offense involving the threat to a person is taking place or likely to take place – which include CSAM. The recently published guidelines on the protection of minors 2 assist providers of online platforms in the application of Article 28 of the DSA by setting out a non-exhaustive list of measures deemed proportionate and appropriate to protect children from online risks, such as grooming. In addition, providers of designated very large online platforms and very large online search engines including X, are required to conduct risk assessments and put in place effective mitigation measures for any actual or foreseeable negative effects related to the spread of illegal content as well as negative effects on users’, including minors, physical and mental wellbeing. The Commission has an ongoing investigation on X’s procedures to counter the dissemination of illegal content in the EU 3 . The findings of the Commission’s investigations remain confidential until publicly communicated. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065. 2 Commission publishes guidelines on the protection of minors https://digitalstrategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-protection-minors. 3 Supervision of the designated very large online platforms and search engines under DSA https://digitalstrategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses.”
• 2025-08-05 “P-003179/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission According to Protocol 10 of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union 1 , the application of the acquis shall be suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control. The arrests referred to have therefore not taken place on territory to which EU law currently applies. In this respect, the Commission lacks competence to deal with this matter. The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member over the detention of the five Greek-Cypriots and is actively engaging with multiple actors on the ground. It is in continuous contact with the United Nations, namely the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), which has been providing humanitarian assistance to the detainees, and remains attentive to their situation and well-being, while advocating for their swift and safe release. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12003T/PRO/10.”
  EU-Turkey relations · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-07-09 “P-002793/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen behalf of the European Commission The Commission takes risks in the EU related to Generative Artificial intelligence (AI) very seriously. The EU is firmly committed to fighting all forms of antisemitism and other forms of hatred online and offline. Grok is integrated into X, a service designated as a very large online platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 . The provider of X has an obligation to diligently assess and adopt measures to mitigate the risks identified. Requests for information concerning risks of Generative AI were sent to selected providers of VLOPs and very large online search engines, including X, in March 2024. On 17 January 2025, the Commission took technical investigatory measures related 2 . The Commission is closely monitoring Grok and its application in the EU, including through X’s upcoming risk assessment report due in August 2025. Risk assessments must be conducted annually and prior to deploying functionalities that may have a critical impact on systemic risks. On the specific incident, the Commission is in direct contact with the provider of X via the enforcement channels established in the DSA and will make full use of its enforcement powers depending on the evidence available. The set of EU rules covering AI-related risks, including the DSA and the AI Act 3 , are the most comprehensive available in the world. The AI Act obliges providers of general-purpose AI models with systemic risk to assess and mitigate risks, including the facilitation of disinformation to ensure these risks are acceptable. It also imposes transparency obligations on providers and deployers of certain AI systems, requiring them to disclose that their outputs are artificially generated or manipulated, which can help detect and prevent the spread of harmful content. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market f for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). 2 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-addresses-additional-investigatory-measures-xongoing-proceedings-under-digital-services. 3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act).”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content · Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• 2025-06-12 “E-002375/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The 2025 Rule of Law report 1 referred to the use of Paragon’s spyware in Italy, noting the concerns raised by stakeholders, as well as the actions taken by Italian authorities. These actions include an inquiry carried out by the Parliamentary Committee for the Security of the Republic. In its report, approved unanimously and published in June 2025, the Committee stated that it had not identified any use of the spyware by Italian intelligence services to target Italian journalists. Nevertheless, it reserved the right to carry out further investigations as appropriate. In parallel, the Italian Government instructed the National Cybersecurity Agency to investigate the case while underlining that it had no knowledge of the matter. The Commission considers that any attempt to illegally access data of citizens, including journalists and political opponents, if confirmed, is unacceptable, and will continue to monitor and address any developments in this context using the relevant legal framework. Notably, as of 8 August 2025, Article 4(3)(c) of the European Media Freedom Act 2 (EMFA), focusing on the protection of journalistic sources and confidential information, is applicable. This and other safeguards, such as the right to effective judicial protection foreseen in Article 4(8), will ensure free and independent media across the EU and protect them against interference. Moreover, the ePrivacy Directive 3 prohibits the interception of communications and the storage of and access to information in the terminal equipment without the prior consent of the user concerned and any restrictions based on public objectives are subject to strict conditions and safeguards. The Law Enforcement Directive 4 is also applicable when competent authorities process personal data for law enforcement purposes. Finally, once applicable, the Cyber Resilience Act’s cybersecurity requirements for market access in the EU of hardware and software will make it more challenging for threat actors to, inter alia, deploy spyware. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9ccf6a60-8e2f-4193-868b30a24c9e37e0_en?filename=16_1_63949_coun_chap_italy_en.pdf. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1083: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1083. 3 Directive 2002/58/EC: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2002/58/oj/eng. 4 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.05.2016.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Surveillance equipment & spyware
• 2025-06-11 “E-002353/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recognises the importance of fisheries for the economies of the outermost regions, including La Réunion 1 . State aid is one potential tool to help renew and modernise the fleets in the outermost regions, a tool which is not available to other fleets in the Union, on condition that there is balance between the fishing capacity of the fleet and the available fishing opportunities 2 . In recognition of the unique circumstances of small vessels in the outermost regions, in 2024, the Commission adopted specific guidelines to assess the balance for the fleet segments in the outermost regions composed of vessels under 12 meters 3 . These guidelines introduce a number of temporary flexibilities in how these segments can demonstrate balance while still ensuring the sustainability of fishing activities. These temporary flexibilities apply in 2024 and 2025. As announced in the Ocean Pact, the Commission is currently undertaking a review of these temporary guidelines on the basis of the best available science, in the summer of 2025, to deliver a longer-term solution. These actions ensure that the maximum flexibility is provided to the relevant Member State authorities to draw on available data and demonstrate balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities to ensure sustainable fishing for the fleets concerned. 1 In line with Article 349 TFEU. 2 See Guidelines for State aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector (OJ 23.3.2023, C 107/1) and Article 22(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. 3 (COM(2024) 223 final).”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• 2025-04-22 “E-001592/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission supports circular and sustainable consumption and production of biological resources for materials and services. To create a market for biobased material, the Commission is assessing the possibility to anticipate the review of biobased feedstock in plastic packaging as required in Article 8(1) of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) 1 . Concerning certain composting standards that would apply for some applications or in some instances, and according to Article 9(6) of the PPWR, the Commission shall request the European standardisation organisations to prepare or update harmonised standards laying down the detailed technical specifications of the requirements on compostable packaging by 12 February 2026. In this context, the Commission will also request harmonised standards of home compostability 2 . Such standards should be based on the latest scientific and technological developments 3 , including verification ensuring that the compostable packaging is effectively biologically decomposed 4 . The Commission intends to present a new EU Bioeconomy Strategy in 2025 to drive forward the market-scale development of biobased materials and technologies for their manufacturing. As identified by the recent Competitiveness Compass 5 , the new EU Bioeconomy Strategy is a crucial deliverable under the ‘innovation pillar’ to unleash the potential for EU industries, including bioplastics. In particular, the Clean Industrial Deal 6 has highlighted the need to harness the substitution potential of biobased materials as a key pathway to a fossil-free economy. 1 Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. The PPWR mandates the Commission within three years after its entry into force date to review the state of technological development and environmental performance of biobased plastic packaging. The outcome of this review might possibly lead to a new legislative proposal, laying down sustainability requirements and targets for inclusion of biobased feedstock in plastic packaging. 2 Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the PPWR. 3 Parameters such as retention times, temperatures and stirring, which reflect the actual conditions in home composts and in bio-waste treatment facilities, including anaerobic digestion processes. 4 Biological decomposition subject to the specified parameters results ultimately in conversion into carbon dioxide or, in absence of oxygen, methane, and mineral salts, biomass and water. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_339. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en.”
  EU policy towards plastics · Circular economy
• 2025-04-04 “P-001396/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU firmly supports the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the principles set out in the Rome Statute. The EU is strongly committed to international criminal justice and the fight against impunity and will continue to cooperate with the ICC. The Council Decision on which Member States’ engagement with the ICC is based was adopted in 2011 (Council Decision 2011/168/CFSP 1 on the International Criminal Court). Support for the ICC forms part of the objectives of the EU’s external action. The Commission is in the process of analysing Hungary’s announced withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the ICC in the light of the EU’s acquis. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/168/oj/eng”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• 2025-02-10 “P-000589/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the recent reports on the use of Paragon. Its position on the use of spyware is clear: any attempts to illegally access citizens data, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable, if confirmed. The Commission closely followed the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of the Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware (PEGA). Based on the PEGA report and recommendations, as well as its own factgathering exercise, the Commission will decide on the most appropriate way forward. The data protection and privacy acquis offers comprehensive protection to the confidentiality of communications and users’ personal data. EU data protection law is applicable to the processing of personal data by private entities, even where such processing is required for national security purposes. Under the ePrivacy Directive 1 , the interception or surveillance of communications is prohibited without the consent of the user. While restrictions are permitted for important public objectives, they are subject to conditions and safeguards. The Law Enforcement Directive 2 is also applicable when competent authorities process personal data for law enforcement purposes. Supervisory authorities also have effective powers to examine any allegations of misuse, and data processed can also be subject to judicial review. On 8 August 2025, Article 4(3)(c) of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) 3 will become applicable. This and other safeguards in EMFA should ensure free and independent media across the EU and protect them against interference. The Commission will use all the tools at its disposal to ensure effective compliance with this provision. 1 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37. 2 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA OJ L 119, 4. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1083”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware
• 2024-11-07 “P-002459/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission The Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 lays down obligations for designated providers of very large online platforms and search engines (VLOPSEs), such as X, to identify and mitigate certain systemic risks, including those related to negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes in the EU. The Commission is responsible for supervising and enforcing these specific obligations in the EU. Under the DSA, the Commission published guidelines 2 on recommended measures to VLOPSEs to mitigate systemic risks online that may impair the integrity of elections in the EU. This may include access to official information on the electoral process, media literacy initiatives, fact-checking labels, and demonetisation of content or disinformation. The Commission guidelines include a recommendation that risk mitigation measures should function at least one to six months before an electoral period and continue for at least one month after. On 18 December 2023, the Commission opened an investigation into X’s compliance with the DSA 3 . This investigation covers inter alia the risks regarding negative effects on civic discourse and electoral processes, in relation to the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat information manipulation on X. During its investigations, the Commission assesses evidence from multiple sources, including following public discourse. The Commission is thus aware of the Wall Street Journal publication referred to in the question. Freedom of expression and information is a pillar of the EU’s democratic system and is protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 4 , which is binding on the EU institutions and on Member States when they implement EU law. The geographical scope of application of the DSA is the EU. 1 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024XC03014&qid=1714466886277 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6709 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Recommender systems
• “Thank you. Chair. We welcome the agreement. We think that many strong requests of the Parliament are very well reflected from our perspective. As you said on article 2 to 5, our track record in the end is probably better than national parliament. But the Commission should, however, act more promptly and more substantial, substantially, substantially on, on the on our proposal. I think that we also have to stress that on the international agreement, which is not a point touched in the framework, we should take the commitment to give our consent in a reasonable time frame, because that also is a matter of influence and credibility of our of our institution and Institution where we have a real power, we have to exercise in a credible and serious and constructive manner in my view. Also, we insist on strict limits and full justification of article 122, which we have also mentioned. And I believe that one of the potentially most interesting evolution is the possibility of making the Question Time a real question time with a group of commissioners in the House, probably the president and other commissioner. Of course, that goes hand in hand with our presence in the House as you in the plenary, as you say. But I think that this new framework agreement, if fully exploited, can allow us to have a real collegial question time, which would be a major improvement in the political dialogue between us and the Commission.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you, madam, and thank you to the rapporteur. Clearly, we share the goal of updating what was decided on two centuries ago. 2008. Yes. That's like two centuries ago in terms of the way our economy evolves. So, yes, obviously we need to adapt the new legal framework. It needs to be brought in line with the new reality and the goals of sustainability and also digitalisation. And we also think we should take account of the new market realities. So obviously we need to strengthen market surveillance. The rapporteur says that in his draft. And we also need to face up to the challenges that we get with e-commerce by the very nature of products, which are more and more digitally connected and take account of the new requirements of the circular economy in our nation. Uh, we, uh, have this, uh, which needs to be, uh, put side by side with the goals of simplification and innovation. We also need to make an effort to make sure that the new legislative framework is future proof. Uh, we. Don't want it to become obsolete very quickly. So that's perhaps the main effort that we need to make together with the rapporteur. And that obviously includes economic obligations for different operators in terms of modernisation and the need to ensure product safety. We also need a more harmonised approach. For us, the digital product passports is a fundamental instrument and across the board this is something that can help us to ensure traceability and facilitate the work of the surveillance authorities, and also provide information to consumers. It will come as no surprise to the rapporteur that we are very interested in the right to repair and that that be included in the new legislative framework. I am counting on the rapporteur to make proposals to that effect that can be shared by the majority in the group. It's something that should. Be increased. And final point, we need to look at the reform of standards, the way in which we create standards and how that fits in with the new legislative framework. The two need to go hand in hand. Thank you.”
  Circular economy · Product passport · EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “So, I mean, there are questions that it is important to, to ask force to the Commission, what is the level of implementation? How are the member States complying with this or what? And also what are the difficulties they are meeting? Because we have received several questions from Member States and also from member of the European Parliament saying that the guidelines drafted by the Commission, together with the administration of the 27 member states, are too complicated. That makes the I mean, the implementation of the rules difficult. On one side, I think that this is linked to the fact that we have done something meaningful. I mean, it is a systemic reform. So a systemic reform for systemic reform. It takes time to adapt both to public authorities and to private operators. But it seems also that the guidelines are complicated on some aspects. And we need certainly if needed, if it is. So we need to simplify because because we want this regulation, this legislation to work. And we want also to accompany the administration in the enforcement, implementation and enforcement activity. Second, Meta and Google have decided not to do political advertising anymore. They say that it's too complicated, uh, how the commission how that the commission assessed this.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “So, I mean, this is certainly a very good um, we would prefer, however, another aspect of the scope to stick to the original commission text, which we feel defined better. The objective of inter representation I referring to the part of the Commission proposal on influencing policy legislation. The decision making processes within the EU, because we think that this definition definition is slightly broader compared to what is proposed by rapporteur, is helpful to avoid potential loopholes. It is. It is clear that at the same time, we have to introduce sufficient safeguards throughout the text, and not only concerning the scope to ensure transparency and democratic accountability while preventing, as I said in my introduction, this climate or risk of mistrust or stigmatization, stigmatization. We share the rapporteur approach on another level of harmonisation compared to the initial proposal. Um, I mean, if I can resume, the rapporteur, uh, proposes to establish a minimum harmonisation for certain provisions while allowing the member states to go beyond the minimum requirements in specific areas. We think that is certainly something very helpful. Um, we want to ensure proportionality and transparency obligations so as to avoid placing unnecessary administrative Burdens on stakeholders, but also on authorities. This is a point also also raised by our colleague officer. We think that the rapporteur is doing a good job on this issue, and we would like to facilitate the interconnection of existing national transparency registers. And I think that we can use. I would like the rapporteur to consider the possibility to use the single digital gateway to reach this, this goal. So, I mean, I think that we have started well, and we are certainly ready to further cooperate on this matter. Thank you. Chair.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “On the sea markings. We believe that this is undoubtedly a useful instrument to have that conformity mark indicated, along with information on the product's safety. To us, this seems to be an interesting proposal. Also, this idea of having simplification or better coordination, perhaps of the information that is provided via this CE mark and the information that we will find on the new digital product passport, which will gradually be rolled out horizontally on the on fast fashion. Now we would like to see an assessment of the risks arising from this method of production. We're open to new legislation in this field on influencers as well. Marketing and advertising in general for fast fashion. However, we would like to see clearer information. We would like to see a feasibility based approach to a complete ban on advertising for these products by companies or brands that are directly linked to fast fashion. Personally speaking, I think the idea of having a lower level of VAT applied to products that have been repaired or are reused. Used. That's a very important proposal that we're currently looking at, and I fully support the approach taken. I am sure that we can find a compromise here, and I believe that the majority of the political groups on this committee will get behind them. Thank you very much.”
  Product passport
• “Framework, which is required as you as we know. The chair a specific attention to Northern Ireland that you have already mentioned. I would say that also there is a commitment from the UK side to a dynamic alignment on several points which have been raised already. In our opinion, there are only three missing points on which we will have to work in the future and on which we have to insist, in my view, in the opinion of the Parliament. The issue of digital digital dialogue and I dialogue, I think that we think that a Dialogue on artificial intelligence, on the model of what it exists with the US of India should be launched also with UK. There isn't any mention of this at the summit statement. I think that this is something which we have to insist, as we have to insist also to enhance dialogue on consumer protection. And last but certainly not least, which concern not only this committee. We had asked at our level at president of the Parliament level to be involved formally in the summit as a Parliament. Unfortunately, the president of the European Council, Antonio Costa, refused. I'm sure that it's just a mistake for this summit, and I count on this Parliament to insist, to ensure a presence of the Parliament at the next summit, because we are launching a new partnership. And it makes perfectly sense that the representatives of the European Parliament are sitting there, together with the representatives of the executive from the two sides. Thank you. Chair.”
  EU-UK relations
• “Thank you colleagues, we must face reality. Washington now sees a strong European Union as a problem to solve, not an ally to support. President Trump has decided that Brussels is a bigger problem than Beijing, and the Kremlin endorsed all this in Ukraine and elsewhere. Washington doesn't like EU self-confident enough to defend its own interests. Starting from the digital legislation, we can pretend that this doesn't happen, as many have done this morning in this hemicycle. We can think that Trump hasn't read the document, but we cannot change the reality. The national security strategy is a marker of where power is shifting in Washington. We must therefore prepare for a world where Europe can stand on its own, where Europe is free to choose. Well, I say to the Commission and to the Danish presidency, a Europe which is free to choose is a Europe which reforms itself, because with this governance, with this treaty will never make it. 14 leaders out of 27 are enough to launch the process. Please push the Commission and Council to launch the process.”
  EU competences on defence
• “(16:22:27 – 16:25:02): Thank you. Thank you, chair. We, as a general position, we support the objective of this battery and packaging legislation and also the concept of the extended producer responsibility. So we welcome the discussion because I think that the discussion and the work in the next days and weeks must help us to better understand the outstanding issues and to better understand the real practical difficulties which are invoked for the suspension concerning businesses and national administration. Because, I mean, the idea of the proposal to authorize appointing an authorized representative aims to facilitate compliance and enforcement in the single market, and we want to improve, under any aspect compliance and enforcement in the single market. So, I mean, apparently, the reason behind this proposal of suspension is that the necessary systems are not fully in place and that immediate implementation application of the existing rules could risk creating additional costs. This should be better explained, honestly, before we can take a clear position and a clear decision. In any case, any temporary suspension, in our view, should be fully aligned with the objective with the informed enforcement provisions of the circular economy act, because our objective remain to have a fully operative extended producer responsibility system, which is consistent in the union and which ensure level playing field for all producers in the single market. So, I mean, what I would like to emphasize and to insist on today that any suspension, if it is really necessary, which is not clear, must be strictly limited in time, clearly justified, and accompanied by a road map for full implementation. And I've also I would also I like to add that we would need a very strong monitoring to ensure that this flexibility that we would introduce does not lead to fragmentation on loopholes in the enforcement between the different member states. Thank you, chair.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation
• “And we have we have we haven't seen this. Our colleagues have rightly said, what shall we do? What could we do to make the American understand the essay? Well, dear colleague, dear chair, we were together with Jim Jordan, and it was clear that the letter are written by the big Tech, and they are sent by the Congress and the US administration. It is useless to talk to them. Let's talk to the Big Tech because they're the origin of our problem, is there? The Washington is only transferring the letter written in the Silicon Valley, going through Washington and arriving on our table to our colleagues here. I would like to say that freedom of speech is not freedom of reach of with any violent, hateful, offensive, illegal, dangerous content. I mean, freedom of speech is not to be viral with any content. What what what is what is illegal offline. They are calling it is illegal online. And you voted and you are here. When we introduced this principle, Europe is not the Wild West. Europe is what the United States of America used to be before Trump. And I hope it will be. There will be again after Trump. Thank you very much.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you, thank you, chair. And thanks to, uh, to the expert, to the speakers. I got three questions based on the intervention and on the report of the European Commission. The fourth, it is clear that there are persistent difficulties in addressing infringement, especially from traders established outside the European Union. So I would like to understand whether the rule that we have, especially the general safety Product Regulation, are enough. They are sufficient. Or if you have to change something also, from the point of view, for example, enhanced obligations on legal representatives, joint enforcement action between market surveillance and customer authorities, harmonised actions or something else that the first question, the second you refer all to the diverging enforcement capacities and resources at national level. What are the most important problems? I mean, it's an issue of digital skills, of legal skills, of legal staff, of cross-border coordination tools. What are the concrete problems? And last but not least, the Commission has highlighted difficulties in detecting emerging infringements, especially when it comes to new trade practices such as influenza, AI driven practices, dark partners. So, I mean, how can we strengthen the CPC tools such as sweeps and alerts? How can we modernize them in the light of the need to address these new practices? Thank you.”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “Thank you, thank you. Chair. Three other points. Uh, the first we saw as renew with the interest that the Cyprus presidency wants to move in parallel with the deepening of the single market and the strengthening and enhancing of the partnership with the United Kingdom. You clearly stated this in your program as presidency. I would like to understand better what you mean. And which action would you like to take? Uh, when it comes to a single market and relation between EU and UK, the second point still on foreign interference we have adopted and now it's being implemented, the regulation on political advertising, uh, online and offline. Uh, what is uh, in in the view of the presidency, the state of play of implementation of this regulation. You did you hear of specific obstacles in the implementation and the compliance with this regulation or not? Third point, what do you intend to start? Again, the negotiation on the Green Claims Directive in the council, which is still blocked following an unacceptable behaviour by the European Commission? Thank you very much.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Thank you, thank you chair. I think also from this second panel, it emerges clearly that we lack of sufficient deterrent tools at European level. So I would like to understand from the experts whether they think that introducing minimum EU level sanctions could be the way forward, and in this case, how they would suggest to coordinate this with the national, the required national autonomy and competence in, in in imposing sanctions. I would like also to to better understand how they think that it would it would work this possibility of introducing temporary limit and restrictions which have been would have been very useful, for example, in France, in the case of Shaheen, if they can also add something about that, then on product safety and third country e-commerce. Um, I mean, uh, these are two issues on which we feel, and I am even more convinced, after having listened to you, that we need a stronger enforcement under both the CPC regulation and the digital regulation. What are what do you think we could do? How could we revise the CPC regulation to ensure a better interoperability? Interoperability between the different existing frameworks, especially, uh. And especially when we need to tackle, uh, systemic infringements by the big platform. A very, very large online platform. The third point that I understand that some national authorities lack, uh, tools, lack staff, lack skills, some other know apparently some other. Yes, I heard the Czech representative. What do you think we could do at European level, from the European level to encourage, uh, to have the tools and the skills required to be effective in the implementation of the existing and future regulation. Thank you.”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• “Yeah. I would like to come back to two answers of the Commissioner. Thank you. You you you you asked the commissioner that you think that the DMA is already should already be applied to a power search tool, to artificial intelligence, and to cloud services for qualitative reasons, and I agree. I wonder whether you have in your services sufficient technical expertise and resources to apply DMA to AI while being agreeing with you. The second you answer to our colleague about the relation with us, according to our information, the US is still lobbying very heavily against our digital legislation. Can you confirm this, or do you see any improvement in the relation on this issue between the EU and US? Thank you very much.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “(10:42:02 – 10:44:19): Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the representative of TEMU and the commission. There is a mystery here, and I would like to have the representative of TEMU explain how to unlock this mystery. Because you managed in 3 years to become one of the most successful platforms in the world. And after 2 years that the DSA is entering into force, you announced today measures which are being discussed with the commission for the future. I mean, let’s try to understand: have you been unlucky? Are the rules too complicated, or are you putting lip service to the obligation? I tend to choose the third option, and I would like to understand from you why it took you 2 years to come up with major proposals. It is clear that your mitigating measures so far are ineffective. There are unsafe and illegal products on your platform. There are toxic toys. There are products with illegal chemical levels. What actions have you taken so far? You are in an illegal position under Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA. You are putting in danger the health of minors. You are putting in danger public health. You are not taking measures which can have negative consequences on persons' physical and mental well-being. This has happened since February 2024. So, what answer are you giving to this parliament on these very serious events? That’s the question for TEMU. To the commission, I learned that the commission is working on a European product act. I mean, I knew it, but that in this European product act, the commission would like to fill the gaps beyond enforceable accountability. What are the other gaps that you are going to tackle in the next proposal? Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Sorry. I have to look a little bit at the time because we are running late. For the Greens, David Comeau. Merci, madam president, your colleague.”
  Liability for online marketplaces
• “Thank you very much. Too many obstacles and not enough money, Commissioner. That basically is the problem with the single market. Too many obstacles And the real problem is protectionism and barriers in energy, telecoms and capital amongst the 27. So it's time you made use of your powers, because you've shown a willingness to dismantle barriers when it comes to inflation. And then you've got the problem of money. Our capital markets are fragmented, risk capital remains underdeveloped, and too many European start ups have to go to California if they wish to scale up. And our response therefore must be a capital markets union. Eurobonds and new resources. Time for excuses and delays is over.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, thank you. Chair. I heard the customer first. I'll move on to Frank. Now, first of all, uh, we saw when we're looking at Sheen, we found that the consumers were being, um, frauded. We've seen also that there have been problems. Uh, we've seen that they were looking at weapons as well. And guns. Now, apart from we're not just disappointed as Pablo was. I have, uh, we never had any expectation. Now I have two questions. First of all, you mentioned sanctions. As far as we're concerned, that's not enough. Dsa commits you to take preventative measures in order to avoid that product. Legal product the legal products are sold on your platform in order to to guarantee the real protection of our consumers. What preventive measures do you take before these goods come to the online market? And the second question is that following the DSA, you have the obligation of risk mitigation and assessing your business model. I think that these ultra fast production cycles also contribute to illegal products or dangerous products arriving to the market. So what real measures do you take to reduce, to mitigate, to stop or to eliminate these risks? What have you applied to your platform? Thank you.”
  Liability for online marketplaces
• “Thank you, thank you chair. I think also from this second panel, it emerges clearly that we lack of sufficient deterrent tools at European level. So I would like to understand from the experts whether they think that introducing minimum EU level sanctions could be the way forward, and in this case, how they would suggest to coordinate this with the national, the required national autonomy and competence in, in in imposing sanctions. I would like also to to better understand how they think that it would it would work this possibility of introducing temporary limit and restrictions which have been would have been very useful, for example, in France, in the case of Shaheen, if they can also add something about that, then on product safety and third country e-commerce. Um, I mean, uh, these are two issues on which we feel, and I am even more convinced, after having listened to you, that we need a stronger enforcement under both the CPC regulation and the digital regulation. What are what do you think we could do? How could we revise the CPC regulation to ensure a better interoperability? Interoperability between the different existing frameworks, especially, uh. And especially when we need to tackle, uh, systemic infringements by the big platform. A very, very large online platform. The third point that I understand that some national authorities lack, uh, tools, lack staff, lack skills, some other know apparently some other. Yes, I heard the Czech representative. What do you think we could do at European level, from the European level to encourage, uh, to have the tools and the skills required to be effective in the implementation of the existing and future regulation. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “President. Colleagues, too many barriers. Now we're talking about internal tariff barriers for manufactured goods 110% for services. But what's the reason behind all of this? The reason is the fact that 27 different legislation still exist in strategic sectors. And it's the duty of council, obviously, to get rid of those. Of course, we want to reduce red tape, but most of it stems from national protectionism and the so-called national global gold plating. Then for the commission commissioner, there are certain rules they need to be implemented. We shouldn't hesitate with sanctions and infringement procedures. And finally, for us colleagues, let's shake off this pointless debate between regulation and deregulation. We have to deregulate at national level and regulate in a more straightforward, effective fashion at European level. We're talking about the 28th regime now. It's a step in the right direction, but the aim has to be clear. One rule for one market, not 27 different rules plus one European one. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much madam president I want to speak to two challenges in particular first of all a challenge of courage in the face of the hypocrisy of some countries which erect new barriers. The commission has to show courage between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty three the number of infringement proceedings has plummeted by sixty percent so I say to the commission you should not shy away from confrontation. Second challenge consistency coherence because we have to place our faith in his report spending a hundred million per year in competitiveness and build a genuine single market in services and investment. And that consistency also applies to governments they should stop blocking any moves towards greater harmonization and piling on the regulations when it comes to national transposition and then criticizing Europe pointing the finger Brussels when of course it is the fault of national capital. So let's not choose decline let's go for the single market and turn Europe into a powerhouse of prosperity thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “I am pleased to see Erasmus+ mentioned in the conclusion, but I think that there is a lot of work to be done on on youth. The parliamentary dimension. I think that we have been totally neglected by the summit I had we had written with my colleague to Antonio Costa that it is not for you, but we want to seize the opportunity that I hope that from the president of the European Council, we will have more opening in the future for the parliamentary dimension and participation. Uh, the artificial intelligence and digital issues. I think that this is a point on which we have to expand our partnership. It makes sense. We have it with the US. We have it with India. I think that we should work on this also with the UK for the future, for the next summit. I think these are points on which we could work and also better integrated regional and territorial dimension. Before the Brexit, of course, we had a very good cooperation between regions from France, Belgium, other countries and the local authorities in UK. Let's see how we can somehow reintroduce the strong demand of the Committee of the regions, this dimension. So all in all, a very good outcome. I regret only to have to end up with a sour note. There has been an accident at the beginning, at the beginning of this meeting. I won't speak about this, but I will address you a letter concerning the attitude of a member of the Secretariat of the committee. Thank you very much.”
  EU engagement with youth
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. And I would like to to thank the rapporteur for a very good job so far. And I, I agree with her. We are not talking about a silver bullet because there is no silver bullet on this issue. We are talking about another piece of legislation and another important step to for this mosaic, which is the fight for more transparency and the need to better protect our decision making processes. And this is why our group thinks that this proposal needs certainly to be revised. And we have already started to do, but goes towards the right direction through it and what we have to do, and we will try to do, at least on our side with our amendments, is to find, I mean, to to find a right balance and through a delicate exercise between different, different needs. Certainly we want to avoid any, any risks to be perceived as introducing a foreign agent law legislation. And we want to avoid any potential risks of stigmatizing civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, and so on and so forth. Um, going to the specific point, we appreciate very much the initiative of the rapporteur to replace talking about the IPA to replace the term third country entity with third country sponsor. It makes sense. It helps legal clarity. It better aligns this proposal well with the single market. Legal basis. And also it aligns this proposal with the already adopted, uh, regulation on uh, political, uh, political, uh, advertising, uh, transparency and targeting of political advertising. I think that this is exactly what we have to do, by the way, in this term to align, I mean, any new legislation to ensure that there isn't any overlapping and that we continue on the right path.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you. President. Uh, colleagues. Uh, rapporteur. Stefan. Thank you for your excellent work. It's not the first time, so please continue along these lines. And I think, like you, I'm convinced that we must adapt our single market to the new ecological and digital challenges to transform them and make them more competitive and better for consumers. That's why we need to review our legislative framework. We must encourage VAT and implement what we already adopted in the previous term, thinking about combating programmed obsolescence. But we must also adapt our instruments like, uh, the product passport or, and the single market protect our consumers and step up market surveillance. In this transformation, we must also be attentive to certain phenomena, such as fast fashion models, which have an environmental impact, as well as a trade and social impact, which are not negligible. So I think we must envisage proportionate measures to respond to that. And finally, it's crucial to ensure greater coherence, coherence and consistency in our legislation from design to to right to repair consumption to avoid redundancy. Um, we are not doing what has been done in the past, and we need to ensure this is now implemented as effectively as possible in order to have a real single market and defend our European model internationally. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. Chair. Certainly to a brighter future compared to what we have lived since the 2016. I have presented already our position to the Foreign Affairs Committee, insisting on some key priorities from the internal market perspective. Uh, the need to ensure a frictionless market access. The need to facilitate the cross-border provision of services. The need to guarantee fair access to public procurement. The will to support full implementation of the Windsor framework, and the need to advance a structured cooperation on digital regulation and consumer protection. In the meantime, we got a good news because the Eu-uk summit has just finished and they are already published three documents in a joint statement. And I am pleased to inform this committee that some of the points that are, in our opinion, have already been addressed, or there is commitment to address them. Taken today in London at the UK summit on the point on frictionless market access, we were insisting on the need for a comprehensive sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to smooth trade, reduce administrative burdens, particularly, of course, in the agri food sector. And it is one of the commitments which has been taken today at the UK summit. And I think that it is certainly a very positive development on cross border services and professional mobility. We insist on the need to reach swiftly a mutual recognition agreement on professional qualifications, and it is also a commitment which has been taken in the summit, of course, not in agreement, but a commitment to work on this, which is, from our perspective, absolutely important. In the meantime, we got also an agreement between the two authority for competition. The European Commission and the competition authorities in the UK and the. We insist on the wings of framework implementation and also in the summit in the document the summit, there is a convincing commitment on the two sides to ensure a proper and effective implementation of the.”
  EU-UK data transfer
• “And all these must be inserted in the current geopolitical, geopolitical context. I would like to add, uh, some remarks that in the light of the presentation of the rapporteur and of your your proposal chair, I think that I'm very pleased that the rapporteur insisted that and emphasized that also from the AI perspective, we need to revise our institutional instruments. So we need to revise. The European electoral law was clearly proposed by the rapporteur, and we also have to take into account AI in the next three to reform. So I guess that the rapporteur also insisted on the need to update our treaty with targeted changes to take into account the evolution, and certainly AI is one of these evolutions. So if the rapporteur wants to insist on the need to reform the electoral law and to reform the treaty, also because of the AI challenges, you will find certainly our support and I think it makes sense to adopt a new calendar because it is very important that we can take part, listen to the UN conference in Geneva and also to make the full use of our mission to the UN on this aspect and on the United Nations Resolution on Artificial intelligence. Thank you very much.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Thank you, chair, and thanks to the Commission representative, I would have a general remarks and to a specific question. The general remark that the representative of the Commission invited us to remain calm and united. I want to reassure you we are calm and united, but we would like to see the European Commission exercise fully its prerogative in this field. We are talking about exclusive competence, and we are talking about a field where the European Commission can easily identify the general interest and the well functioning of the single market. If the European Commission continues to try to search at political level the minimum common denominator between capitals, I don't think we will go too far. So be brave, be brave and use your power. Your power in this case is not like when you were able to decide some something on taxation. And we have to seek the unanimity of all the member States. So I mean, I think that this approach is essential in this moment, if we want to use our power, to use our power and to protect really our interest towards the towards the US. That is general comment. The specific question is, have you got some figures on what and how much our companies have already paid to us since April? Because, I mean, 10% is there.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs
• “Thank you. President. Um, and the fence. Decarbonization, fighting social inequalities, protection of our borders. Um, these are the pillars of our Union for defense and, um, just ecological transition. And we need to to rethink our policies and adapt our resources. Um, so this allows us, allows us to redirect our priorities. But we need to do this while respecting our values, allowing Viktor Orban to use European funds to manage a state with no rule of law is a red line providing a cohesion whilst allowing a totalitarian drift. So these must remain non-negotiable and the Commission must be very rigorous and completely transparent in that respect. We will use all means available to us in order to ensure that the rule of law is fully respected, because we are not just a simple distributor of funds in the European Union, we are a union of values and fundamental values. So thank you and fundamental rights. Thank you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank you. Thank you, chair, and thank you, Commissioner. First of all, let me congratulate you. I will do it even later for the excellent outcome of the EU, UK summit. You did an excellent work and we are very pleased to see reflected most of our priorities as European Parliament and as EU, UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. On the items of this committee, I would have two questions on e-commerce. Yesterday we had a very good presentation on the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard 2025 from the European Commission, where it was clear that the consumer are victims more and more victim of unfair commercial practices, online e-commerce, and they are losing trust. So I would like to know what the commission intends to do to strengthen the trust of EU citizens in e-commerce. And the second, what about the differences in the enforcement capacities of the member states that may create loopholes out that the Commission intend to address this, this potential obstacle. Thank you very much.”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• “Thank you chair. And thanks to the rapporteur. I think that certainly is a very good working basis. I would like our amendment, and our position would like to emphasize five five aspects. The aspect of the extension of the opportunity, of the protection of the reform of the global Governance extension. We would like to focus on the dimension of EU digital sovereignty, strategic autonomy and insist on the need to develop European capabilities and infrastructure. We want to also underline the opportunity, so we would like to encourage the institutions to make a wider use of AI opportunities and tools. We would like to encourage the institution to better to protect themselves, because AI is also used for biased disinformation, foreign interference and other harmful activities. So we have to insist on the transparency, accountability, cybersecurity, and protection against risks. We need to link also the institutional approach to AI, to other ongoing discussion in the union, such as institutional and electoral reforms. We think that the AI dimension should be included in this aspect, and also we think that we should consider at least the possibility of having a new global governance and notably, pushing for an international treaty on governing a high risk AI systems. So, I mean, I'm sure that in the light of what rapporteur told us today, we can find a useful compromises on all these points. Thank you chair.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Institutional reaction. And we have we have we haven't seen this. Our colleagues have rightly said, what shall we do? What could we do to make the American understand the essay? Well, dear colleague, dear chair, we were together with Jim Jordan, and it was clear that the letter written by the big Tech and they are sent by the Congress and the US administration. It is useless to talk to them. Let's talk to the Big Tech because they're the origin of our problem. Is there a Washington is only transferring the letter written in the Silicon Valley, going through Washington and arriving on our table to our colleagues here. I would like to say that freedom of speech is not freedom of reach of with any violent, hateful, offensive, illegal, dangerous content. I mean, freedom of speech is not to be viral with any content. What what what is what is illegal offline. They are calling it is illegal online. And you voted and you are here. When we introduced this principle, Europe is not the Wild West. Europe is what the United States of America used to be before Trump. And I hope it will be. There will be again after Trump. Thank you very much.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you. Thank you, chair, and good luck to the Cyprus presidency. I was very pleased to hear that. Uh, to hear from you that you appreciate, consider fully the report on the institutional consequences of enlargement. Because I know I know it pretty well. I know pretty well that report. Uh, but then I would like to go back to the content of the report, because that report wants to make the union more efficient, more powerful, and more democratic. How? First, using the password clause, uh, with targeted treaty changes, fully exploiting enhanced cooperation and strategic cooperation. Because what? The parliament? Because now it is the official position of the Parliament, once it is a Europe of free political will, when those who wants to advance must, can, must be allowed to advance without obliging the others to follow, but without accepting that the other bloc um so and a more democratic be asking to resume the talks on the European electoral law. So we understand that your answer on each of these points are not fully satisfactory. Um, so I would like to know what will you do, at least to encourage the council to use in a more strategic way the enhanced cooperation and the strategic cooperation clause, starting from defence, but not only. Second, I would like to know what you mean by concern of the Council of European Electoral Law. We do not know the concerns of the Council of Electoral Law because the Council has never started a real negotiation with the Parliament, as we have been asking, and the Parliament has asked twice recently, in a report of EPP rapporteur Jiménez Larraz, and in the report of which I had the honour to be the author.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Two specific questions related to both the Code of Practices and the implementation of the act on the implementation of the act on the composition of the advisory board, which is ongoing. What are the criteria that the Commission is using to ensure a pluralism among the experts which are selected are selected because it is clear that we must ensure a relevant diversity among the experts, which will be part of this advisory body on the training of the language models related to the Code of practice, uh, which, uh, commitment? Uh, those who have voluntarily, um, accepting the code of practice are taking to ensure a diversification of the input of the sources to train the models. That is essential. With going the element language. The speaking point of the model. And how do we ensure that the speaking point of the model to train are diversified? Is there any reasoning about this within the code of contrast or contact?”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you chair, and thanks to our experts, I would like to come back to an institutional aspect which has been raised several times today. And I thank the expert for this, the the potential of the permanent structured cooperation. There are some critics who say that the PESCO can be used only for operational projects, specific industrial projects that we've done military mobility, medical command, euro drone, etc. there are others, and I am among those who think that there is a potential institutional potential of PESCO, which can be used to keep within the framework of the treaty, the coalition of the willing, and therefore allow a group of willing countries to start to build up a defence union, a defence cooperation, a defence, a European defence system within the treaty using PESCO and strategic way. And this could be open also to non-member states such as UK and Norway. I would like to ask to our experts and I would say especially to Dominique de Visa and Mrs. Mozer, what do they think about this?”
  EU competences on defence
• “We ask to engage in serious talk about the European electoral law, of course, 2018 and 2022. I would like to know whether the Cyprus, the Cyprus presidency, would like to come up with compromise proposals, at least within the General Affairs Council. There was, for example, a compromise proposal presented by France, which has never been really discussed in the General Affairs Council and which was the first step because it did not take on all the requests of the European Parliament, but was seeking to find a consensus between the concern you mentioned of the Council and between the priority of the European Parliament. Are you ready to do something similar? Are you ready to put on the table a compromise proposal to start serious talks about the European electoral law? Yes or no? Um, then on the body, uh, you mentioned the fact that, of course, you have been waiting probably too long for the position of the European Parliament. What will you do if the stalemate persists in the European Parliament, which is a formal initiative? Is the Council ready to take if the stalemate within the Parliament, uh, continues? And last, very last point, uh, mobile voters as I am one of these uh, the council has always been very shy in ensuring a proper information of the mobile voters and the simple registration of the of the mobile voters. Do you intend to tackle these two issues, which are the real obstacles to the use of our rights as European citizens? Thank you sir.”
  EU political integration
• “And I agree also that this concern a few number of actors. But for the interest of our citizens, for the interest of our institution and for the interest of our daily work with where we are better advised to clarify the relationship with the representative of this interest. I think that what has happened in the recent years should encourage us to go towards that direction. So this is why we think that this proposal is necessary, and this is also why we don't think that we can improvise a general lobbying legislation. We don't think that this is a serious approach, and we think that we have to focus on the real issue, which is outstanding, and it is the issue of interest representation. The reason why we think that the scope is why we agree with the rapporteur on, on on the scope and the need to clarify the scope of the proposal. And I think that this is very helpful from the legal point of view, to have replaced the word third country entity with the word third country sponsor, which is the language that we have already used in the transparency and targeting of political advertising regulation and which is which help us a lot to avoid the risk, which are, I mean, raised also in today's discussion of stigmatisation to the NGOs, because it is clear that they do not fall within the definition of actors and third country sponsor as it is now tabled in this proposal.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Dear colleagues, you've all given very good examples, colleagues, about what has been happening online. But I've got another example. Go to grok. Take a photo of a well-known person such as Anne Frank. New. Defy the image. Add a swastika to the image. Pretty disgusting, isn't it? But you can do it. You can do it on grok. It's been done. Sexual deepfakes are not a technological accident. They are not freedom of expression. This is a systematic circumvention of DSA moderation rules. It's not about being shocked or feeling outraged. It's about protecting citizens, especially women and children. It's about detection, blocking rapid intervention. To take down content, we need to ensure there is victim protection, that these rules are in the DSA. We just need to apply them rapidly and in full.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “This is a total totally missing point. Also in the summit, I think that we should insist, in view of the next of the next phase. Uh, it is, a this was a demand from SNP colleague. I think that we are going towards exactly the direction we are designing a dynamic framework and already in this summit, in this deal, there is a dynamic approach, dynamic alignment on certain issues from the UK, UK side towards the EU rules. But I think that certainly the basis that we are designing today with the summit is open to a further further development, a dynamic spillover on other on other point, if there is a common, a common interest, and also certainly we will we will continue to insist on a proper implementation on framework implementation. And I also thank you very much to support the proposal, to insist also, together with the artificial intelligence on consumer protection as a new area of bilateral cooperation. So we will work on this basis. Thank you very much.”
  EU-UK data transfer
• “Thank you, Madam and Commissioner. Let me comment on what you've said thus far. I think. And if we. Need to reassure the public procurement market in Europe about what's happening in the United States, I think we certainly do need to evaluate our relationship with the US. If the tension doesn't reduce, first of all, I would like to know a little bit more about your sectoral approach rather than focusing on the whole of the single market. Do you think that with a sectoral approach, we can focus both on the European preference but also on sustainability, so we can link public procurement to our green transition goals and to our aim of having a fair and equitable transition. And then another comment. I'm delighted that member States are now saying that the main problem with the single market is the tariffs that we impose on one another. If we have the rules of the single market, unfortunately, however, the member states are the first to refuse to agree those rules. So I wonder whether you have a new strategy for infringement proceedings, something that would be more effective and when it would be faster moving, because it's designed to remove obstacles often created by the member States in relation to services. So I wondered, what is your strategy there?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you chair, and thanks to all colleagues and experts. A few a few considerations in very short. Don't. Don't worry, sir. A few considerations. The first that I insist. Colleagues, we have done an important and systemic change, and we have worked a lot about this. When the changes systemic are real. So it is clear that things that member states are going to change because we wanted them to change, because we wanted them to be more transparent and more protective, more protective of our sensitive personal data. But having said this, and I address myself to the Commission as the resistance are manifold. And as you see, the unacceptable argument also invoked today by meta, let's make it very simple in this phase. Let's listen to cases like the one raised by our colleague Erickson on the absurdity that in Sweden, the Swedish speaking MEP can do something, and in Finland the Swedish MEP cannot do something. So let's be very flexible in the implementation. Let's assist the member states. Let's avoid too many discrepancies and divergences in the interpretation, because the reaction could be very strong and negative towards something of the objective of which are fully shared in this House, as also, I mean largely sharing this house. So I mean, that is very important. For example, the proposal on obtain, make make make the obtain simple make understandable with one obtain to say yes to both provided that it is clear. These are things that are very important, especially in this phase, because I am sure that when this first phase of implementation will be over and all the actors will have got practice, the things will proceed smoothly. This is the most critical part. And on this we need really the commission to play a helpful, constructive and positive role with the with the national administration and authorities, which are going to be implemented.”
  GDPR
• “We often we often say that we don't have the means for our ambition. I would say that in this case, we do not have the ambition to use our means, because when it comes to trade and digital matters, we can be powerful and we can be effective, but we really have to want it. Since the last July in Scotland, the appeasement approach pursued by the Commission, with the support we know of several EU governments as blatantly failed because, as the old saying goes, if you behave like a sheep, the wolf will eat you. So let's be bold. Trump wants to subdue us. Let's respond by using all our trade powers, as many colleagues have said. But I want to say, Dear president of the Council, dear Antonio, let us respond also by reforming the EU governance in this Parliament in October, we have adopted a very bold document to make the Union more powerful, more effective and more democratic. It is high time that the Council started to tackle the institutional issues. Thank you very much.”
  EU political integration
• “Commissioner, Europe and India share a vital interest and face similar challenges. We both pushed to rethink and relaunch multilateralism, starting with the reform of the UN. We have both a strong interest in contributing to global stability. We should also push India to rethink its relationship with Russia and to be very careful with its recent openings towards China. We are both convinced that strategic autonomy is a key element of our sovereignty, and we both need to renew and differentiate our trade relationship. This is why we must intensify our efforts to reach a trade agreement before the end of the year, and we must strengthen our cooperation in the Indian Ocean. Also, fully exploiting the potential of our European outermost regions like La Réunion. Last, but certainly not least, we must deepen our dialogue on artificial intelligence and digital issues. I am convinced that after the success of the AI Summit in Paris, the new AI Summit in Delhi can be a turning point for our bilateral relationship and for our common global digital action. Thank you very much.”
  EU-India relations
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Uh, I want to thank the rapporteur because she's doing a very useful and good job. Several aspects of the commission proposal have been clarified and have been improved. And I think also that with the ongoing collaboration and with the right decision of the rapporteur to postpone the vote in September, we can usefully, uh, further work and also, uh, to try to find workable compromises. Reflecting broad majorities. I agree with the rapporteur on the emphasis of the fact that this proposal doesn't come out of the blue. This proposal is one of the follow up that the Commission and we are doing to the job. The activities that we carry out in the previous term, and we are carrying out those in this term, in the previous term on foreign interferences. The necessity to come up with legislation on the third country interest representation was clearly indicated in the work of the two committee, two special committee on foreign interference, what we call in and in in two. And also, I think that we are not very original here. And there are other big democracies which are doing the same. Recently, the United Kingdom has adopted the Foreign Influence Registration scheme, which is exactly a similar text. And this is why we were there with the Democracy Shield Committee a few weeks ago to discuss with our British friend about this solution, which is exactly for the problem that we are trying to tackle with this proposal, how we ensure better transparency and full transparency of the representation of foreign interest in our democracies.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Because the Commission can always withdraw the proposal with a motivation, duly motivation, and only if the nature of the legislative proposal risk to be fundamentally changed. This is I mean, there is also a jurisprudence which is very clear. The commission a few hours later, a statement which had created this uncertainty and explained that the reason why it was threatening to withdraw the proposal concerned the exemption of micro enterprises, which allow me to say that it is a rather odd way of preparing a negotiation, because on the agenda of the last trialogue, there was the issue of exemption of micro enterprises, which was a clear point in my mandate that the EU, as the European Parliament gave me as a mandate. It was a clear position since the beginning of the commission, and it was on the position of several delegations in the Council that, in the light of the declaration of the Commission, started to have doubt on this file. So I consider that this situation is unprecedented, institutionally debatable. Questionable. And now we await to for a clarification, both from the Council and I, hopefully from the Commission in an official way. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Works now. Yes. Thank you. Chair. And yet it moves. This must be the title of tomorrow's summit. After months of hesitations and vetoes, we need to move faster and better. No time to waste any more. The message from today's debate is clear. Simplify the single market. Diversify our trade partners. Protect our strategic sectors. We have forgotten to finance innovation also with Eurobonds and strengthen the international role of the euro. And finally, finally, even the president of the Commission is saying that governance and enhanced cooperation are part of the solution. She has read the treaty. The president of the commission has read the treaty. Yes. Let us use all the flexibility enshrined in the treaty to overcome vetoes. At the same time, dear Commission, dear Council, let us also prepare the indispensable institutional reforms to really become more efficient and more powerful, as this Parliament has proposed last October. Thank you very much, Mr. President.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Thank you, chair, and thanks, Commissioner. To question linked to your experience in the implementation of DMA. First of all, we consider that the enforcement is still slow and it is slowness risk to undermine the deterrent effect of DMA. So, I mean, what do you intend to do to accelerate the ongoing investigations and to ensure that the remedies are imposed quickly enough to have these deterrent effect? And the second still also, in your experience, do you think that the DMA covers few but very important, very large actors? Do you think that in the future there would be the need to cover other players and other practices? Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Commissioner, you say the deal is a deal. Yes, but it takes two to tango. We can be a reliable partner, but the trust is not there. If the other partners does not practice what we preach and Trump does not, we can make effort to clarify the legal framework, but the framework falls if the other partner is in a legal limbo and Trump is in a legal limbo, we can under certain conditions, accept a bad trade deal as the temporary deal is in exchange of stability and predictability. But Trump has been erratic and unpredictable with us on trade, on geopolitics, like on our digital legislation. We must always protect our sovereign choice as Europeans and Trump push the big tech and has declared a war against our digital legislation. For all these reasons, and while commending the big effort made by Mr. Lang and the shadow rapporteur, I think we should not move ahead with the temporary deal. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, this is what we said and what we wrote. We need to be consistent. We have a commitment to put Mario Draghi's strategy in place. Three pillars. Simplification for investment. Governance through treaty revision. We voted in the von der Leyen Commission, restating those three priorities renewed the socialists and the EPP signed that we should defend it together. There's no way around that. We shouldn't have double standards. We shouldn't have variable geometry majorities or convergence with the far right. This opportunism, the EPP colleagues, is poisoning our EU. Dear colleagues, if you continue with this strategy, you'll end up with no majority for Europe. If you go down the path of the extreme, whether it be right or left, is to open up the risk of blocking the entire EU process. We are seeing a global world order with neo imperialism and questioning of our very existence as a union, so we should be ever stronger. All those who have You have responsibilities, you should stick with this dynamic because it's the only way to renew Europe.”
  EU political integration
• “If you give some figures that would help us a lot to better calculate the threat and the effect of 30%. The second it was I mean, it was a good that you said that you are preparing also the second pillar that you mentioned, the use of the anti coercion regulation. What are you considering in particular which kind of measures? I mean targeted tariffs, custom duties, import or export restrictions, quota restricting American participation in public procurement. If you can dwell more on the specific measures that you are considering if things does not turn well. And the third is is important what you said about the implementation of our legislation, notably digital legislation? Uh, I've been we have been in Washington. I am in contact regularly with American representative. I'm not reassured at all about this. So, I mean, uh, on the Digital Marketing Digital Service Act. I act. You must be aware that we will certainly welcome. We certainly welcome your statement about the will of the Commission to fully implement. But we will watch it very carefully, especially in the code of conduct in all the implementing act, in all the what the Commission is doing, because we don't want that in that phase, our rules are weakened because of American pressure. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Merci, Madame president. Thank you. President. We're seeing unprecedented attacks on our democracy. The commission president's announcements about media resilience this morning and pluralism funds are step in the right direction. We have to use all the means at our disposal and introduce new ones. Democracy in Europe is not to sale for sale to Putin or his useful idiots in Europe. It shouldn't be sacrificed to trade deal with Donald Trump either. We need to protect our electoral processes and fight against disinformation. The DSA Digital Service Act and the Political Advertising Act should be applied without making any concessions. Commissioner, there is a gap. Interference on democratic processes in Europe are intensifying. So we need a sound agreement on the transparency of lobbying on behalf of third countries like China. We don't have time. This is urgent. We must act now.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “We managed to keep the provision on legal standing in the text to which the Council was was very opposed. I would see the opportunity also to present here to underline that the legal standing is against the verifiers, not against the films. And this is something which has been in that clarified also a technical a technical level on the penalties. We agreed not to have explicit mention of specific penalties as originally suggested by the Commission, and to continue to work on technical level on a recital clarifying the legal link and the legal interplay between this new text and the and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. We had also a we have also a and this were the point on which we have an agreement provide that we reach an agreement on the overall text, of course. But I mean, this is pretty stable. We had also another opening discussion on other important issues such as the scope, the exclusion of micro-enterprises, the simplified procedure, the climate related claims and other substances. And I, I stressed that I mean for this committee scope, exclusion of microenterprises and simplify procedures are of particular importance. We should be able to find an agreement on this. Uh, hopefully, uh, the trialogue for the 10th of June will be the last one.”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• “Thank you president Commissioner Stefan. The world is undergoing a profound transition and transformation. We need to adapt and we need to adapt our public markets. We need to use the instruments, such as public procurement instruments to make them simpler, more strategic and more effective. The single market is essential to promoting European industry, and we should have Europe preference in place, at least to some extent. We need to adapt to the to the ecological and digital transition, and we need to reflect sustainability and SME preference in our policy. We need to give them more opportunities, not least cross border in public procurement. Therefore, we want these sorts of proposals from the Commission. We want proposals which reflect Mario Draghi's proposals and we expect no less. Our market must become more coherent. It must be reflect our priorities better, it must decarbonise, and it must ensure that our public markets become a strong pillar for economic development. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Thank you. Mr. David Cormann has the floor.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. As you recall, the the third and potentially final, the trilogue also was supposed to be held on Monday 23rd of June. Uh, but uh, a few hours before the start of the meeting, uh, the Polish presidency decided not to show up at the, at the trilogue. And the explanation which were given to the two co-rapporteurs by the Polish press that the declaration uh, made by the European Commission on Friday on the intention, without any specific motivation, of the commission to withdraw the proposal. It created a situation of uncertainty, with also negative effects on the position of some delegations within the Council and in this new and unprecedented context. From the institutional point of view, the Polish Presidency decided not to come to the meeting. We were there. Uh, and uh, uh, today, uh, the at corporate level, the council should discuss and should clarify from their side that the, uh, uh, the position, the situation, the state of play within the council, uh, later the commission and explain that, uh, threat to withdraw the proposal, which is, in my view, by the way, in breach of several legal aspects, both of the treaty of the Legislative Procedure of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the different institutions.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Everyone, in their own way, China, the United States, are trying to block our digital system and to put the mental health of our children at risk. Now, uh, pact of the devil has been entered into with the Trump's administration to impose a digital far west upon us. And we can see that in the wars against our digital legislation, the acts and services, etc., where and and rules on online services, and that is the European response to the analytical scandals. But meta can no longer use the online approach to to grab our own personal data, and is giving up on this using unacceptable excuses. Apple is sending out texts against the DMA, trying to preserve its dominant position to the detriment of European consumers. We have to say no to Washington, no to Beijing, no to Silicon Valley, and yes to the European model. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “So I think that from this perspective, we are doing also a good job of alignment, of legal alignment on another important regulation. And I remember also the discussion, the doubts that were raised when we were discussing about the transparency and targeting of political advertising. Now we are implementing, I hope it work. It is certainly and colleagues know because they travel around the world as I do, that it is look also that regulation as a model for the definition, the definition of interest representation activities. I, I yeah, I would like to insist especially on one of my proposal, I mean amendment 209, I don't think it is fully reflected. On one hand, I agree we agree with the clause list of listed activities because it help us from the legal certainty perspective, but I would prefer to retain the commission text which define the objective of inter representation as influencing, influencing policy, legislation or decision making process. We agree with the approach of minimal harmonisation and also we can support the rapporteur on the sanctions. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you. Chair. I think that we have to use strategically this report to reach two goals. Reduce our economic dependency and strengthen the Europe's strategic autonomy. This is why I think that there are room for improvements. Especially, I would like to see the introduction of mandatory strategic criteria in areas such as the strategic sustainability, innovation and the resilience criteria in public procurement. I think also, we shouldn't shy away in the current geopolitical context from the introduction of European preference in our public procurement rules and also to reinforce the criteria of local content, as it has already been mentioned. I think that the revision of the directive should also allow public buyers to refuse offers from third countries, where these offer are not covered by in international agreement. Certainly simplification is very important. And last but not least, an improved access to procurement, including cross-border. Thank you very much.”
  "Buy European" provisions