Sophie WILMÈS

Policy topics Sophie WILMÈS is active on

What Sophie WILMÈS has said (32)

• 2026-02-24 “E-000756/2026 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not comment or intervene in individual cases. Under EU law, the examination of applications for international protection is the responsibility of the Member States. If the applicant is an EU citizen, their application can be declared admissible by another Member State only in very exceptional circumstances listed under Protocol 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 1 . The level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in all Member States is such that all Member States are considered safe countries in relation to asylum matters. 1 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Protocols – Protocol (No 24) on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union Official Journal 115, 09.05.2008 pp. 0305 – 0306.”
  Rule of law in Hungary · Asylum & border control · EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-02-13 “E-000638/2026 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/782 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations 1 has introduced the right for passengers to use a common form for their reimbursement and compensation requests following a delay, cancellation or missed connection 2 . To this end, the Commission has adopted an implementing act establishing the common form 3 and published an accessible version of this form on its website in all official EU languages 4 . However, the Regulation does not provide a basis for a single EU portal to handle these requests. In this regard, the Commission considers that a direct request to railway undertakings and, where relevant, their agents is the most effective way for passengers to obtain compensation. The Commission would also like to remind the Honourable Members that the Regulation sets a one-month payment deadline for railway undertakings after the submission of the request for compensation 5 . Individual railway undertakings may offer shorter deadlines 6 . Conversely, the Regulation allows Member States to exempt certain types of services from the rules on compensation set therein 7 and a number of Member States have used this possibility 8 . The Regulation does not require railway undertakings, as part of their obligation to report on service quality standards, to publish data on delay compensation 9 . For these reasons, the Commission does not have a comprehensive overview of the average processing time of compensation requests or the reasons for refusing compensation payments. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/782/oj. 2 See Article 18(6)-(7) and Article 19(5)-(6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/782. 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/949 of 27 March 2024 establishing a common form for rail passengers’ reimbursement and compensation requests for delays, missed connections and cancellations of rail services in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/782 of the European Parliament and of the Council http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/949/oj. 4 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/reimbursement-and-compensation-requests-form_en. 5 Article 19(7) of Regulation (EU) 2021/782. 6 See Article 7(2) of the Regulation. 7 In particular urban, suburban and regional rail passenger services, as well as international rail passenger services of which a significant part, including at least one scheduled station stop, is operated outside the Union. Under certain conditions, long-distance domestic rail passenger services may be exempted as well. See Article 2(4) and (6) of the Regulation. 8 An overview of national exemptions to the Regulation can be consulted on the following website: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/passenger-rights/rail-passenger-rights_en. 9 See Article 29(2) and Annex III of the Regulation. The reports on service quality standards are published on the website of the EU Agency for Railways: https://www.era.europa.eu/library/railway-undertakings-servicequality-reports.”
  EU support of rail transport
• 2025-08-04 “E-003175/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission fully recognises the importance of local and regional actors for upholding the rule of law. The importance of the local and regional dimensions has also been highlighted by the Commission President in her mission letter to all Commissioners, which state that the Commission in this new term will increasingly engage with representatives from regional or local areas. As regards the involvement of regional and local authorities in the preparation of the Rule of Law Report, the assessment contained in the Report relies on a variety of sources, including input provided by stakeholders, through an open targeted consultation, in which local and regional authorities can also participate. The Commission is pro-actively reaching out to stakeholders to inform them about the consultation process, including to the Committee of the Regions for dissemination among its members. For some Member States, the Commission is also meeting with certain local and regional authorities in the context of the country visits in view of their relevant competences for matters covered in the scope of the Report. Furthermore, the Commission also engages with local and regional authorities in the followup to the Rule of Law Report, in particular in the context of the national rule of law dialogues. In January 2024, the 13th Direct Dialogue between EU Capital Cities and the Commission was dedicated to the rule of law. Local and regional authorities also help shape work on rule of law in the consultative committees. As a result, two new opinions on the rule of law were adopted in 2025 in the European Economic and Social Committee 1 , while the Committee of the Regions started a reflection on the local and regional perspective in the implementation of the rule of law 2 . 1 ‘Evaluation of the European Commission's annual reports on the rule of law in the European Union’ adopted on 22 January 2025, ‘The economic dimension of the Rule of Law’ adopted on 30 April 2025. 2 ‘The local and regional perspective in the implementation of the Rule of Law in the European Union’, opinion adopted on 1 April 2025.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Rule of law in Hungary
• 2025-06-25 “E-002563/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the report mandated by the French Ministry of Interior. As previously stated 1 , the Commission closely follows the evolving risks linked to organisations trying to unduly influence the European institutions. The European Democracy Shield will constitute a framework to safeguard, strengthen and promote democracy in the EU, also by reinforcing the EU’s collective capacity to tackle Foreign Information and Manipulation Interference (FIMI) and disinformation. It will build on the work done under the 2020 European Democracy Action Plan and the 2023 Defence of Democracy Package, which put forward important initiatives to strengthen European democracy, including by increasing transparency and democratic accountability to curb covert foreign influence. The Regulation on political advertising 2 , the proposed directive on interest representation on behalf of third countries or Regulation (EU) 2021/784 3 are relevant texts that contribute addressing the issue. As concluded in the implementation report 4 of Regulation 2021/784, the Regulation has had a positive impact in limiting the dissemination of terrorist content online. The evaluation report – foreseen for 2026 - will measure the effectiveness of the Regulation, including its long-term impact on specific areas, like fundamental rights. 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2025-002185-ASW_EN.html. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising. 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online, published on 14 February 2024. 4 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online, published on 14 February 2024. COM/2024/64 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2024%3A64%3AFIN.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-06-02 “E-002206/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of reports that companies (in Belgium, France, and Italy) have received letters from United States’ (US) embassies requesting clarification on their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes in light of US Executive Order No. 14173. The Commission is gathering further information to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the situation and to examine the scope, legal implications, and potential impact of these letters on European companies and the internal market. The Commission is committed to anti-discrimination and equality, which are essential to the internal market and the EU’s global partnerships. The Commission remains committed to diversity as a driver of innovation and competitiveness and will continue to monitor developments.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · EU-US relations · Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• 2025-05-14 “E-001922/2025 Answer given by Ms Šuica on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has currently one ongoing grant contract with Sabeel as one of the cobeneficiaries under the European Peacebuilding Initiative 1 . 1. As regards checks before granting funding, the new Financial Regulation 2 introduced an explicit ground for exclusion from EU funding in cases of incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons or a member of a group or similar activities that are contrary to the EU values where the conduct may negatively affect the performance of the contract. Contractors are also checked to ensure that no other reasons for exclusions exist (e.g. previous mishandling of funds). 2. The Commission takes accusations on EU-funded partners very seriously and has verified all the elements of allegations highlighted in the written question and by NGO Monitor in accordance with its internal procedure. The conclusion is that none of the mentioned elements constitute a contractual breach related to incitement to hatred and violence. In particular with regards to the declaration of the former director of Sabeel, the quoted declaration comes from his book ‘Justice and only Justice’ published in 1989. The Commission considers that the organisation Sabeel should therefore not be taken accountable for it. The former director of Sabeel later clarified his views, reaffirming the importance of preserving Israel as a Jewish state, as referred in the same article used by NGO Monitor to justify their allegations. 3. According to the standard general conditions applicable to the EU grant contracts, the Commission may suspend the implementation of contracts if the suspension is deemed necessary to verify whether the beneficiary breached its obligations or committed irregularities. The verification may result either in lifting the suspension, or in the early termination of the contract, or in the exclusion of the beneficiary from future EU fundings. 1 Faithful Futures: Religious Leaders for Accountability, Justice and Peace through the Two-State Solution. 2 Article 138(1)(c)(vi) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Jewish culture and antisemitism
• 2025-04-30 “E-001728/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission A listing of a group or entity under any EU regime of restrictive measures has certain legal and political requirements. As regards the possibility of a listing under Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (2001/931/CFSP) 1 , the main legal requirement is a decision by a national competent authority for the involvement of the group or entity in terrorist acts as defined by the same Common Position. If that legal requirement is met, a proposal to list a group or entity is adopted only if there is unanimous agreement by the Member States in the Council. Discussion on such proposals are confidential. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/compos/2001/931/oj/eng.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-04-02 “E-001347/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s annual Enlargement package reports 1 cover the state of preparedness and progress made, including on all rule of law aspects, which are fundamental to the accession process. The reports cover all candidate countries and the potential candidate. They provide guidance to the enlargement countries on reform priorities for the year ahead. The inclusion of some enlargement countries in the annual Rule of law report exercise alongside Member States strengthens the EU support for rule of law reforms, supports their accession process and helps maintain a sustainable pattern of high standards after accession. The two exercises are therefore complementary. The Commission maintains a broader dialogue with the enlargement countries on all elements related to the fundamentals of the accession process. Preparation of the Rule of law reports for the enlargement countries is done in a coordinated manner with the services of the Commissioner for Enlargement who are also responsible for preparing the annual Enlargement package. Close coordination between the different services, together with crossreferencing assessments made in the Enlargement package reports, ensures consistency in messaging to partners. The upcoming Rule of law report exercise for 2025 will cover the same set of countries as in 2024. The selection is based on their state of preparations as well as progress in the formal accession process. The methodology whereby recommendations for enlargement countries are included only in the Enlargement package will be maintained. 1 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/strategy-and-reports_en.”
  EU enlargement
• 2025-03-26 “E-001252/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The right to be forgotten is important, in particular for cancer survivors. Facilitating access to financial services for cancer survivors is one of the aims of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, launched on 3 February 2021 1 , on World Cancer Day. One of the actions that the Commission presented in this Cancer Plan is for relevant stakeholders - cancer and consumer organisations, the medical community and the financial sector - to engage in dialogue and develop a Code of Conduct that ensures cancer patients’ fair access to financial services. The Commission organised an event in May 2024 taking stock of the progress of this dialogue 2 . In the context of the discussions on a voluntary Code of Conduct, it is up to those stakeholders to continue the dialogue and find compromises. The Commission continues to encourage them to do so as a means to advance the ‘right to be forgotten’ across the EU. A ‘code’ agreed by all relevant stakeholders would likely win swift traction in all Member States, while leaving freedom to adapt to national specificities. Some stakeholders call for EU legislation on the right to be forgotten. The Consumer Credit Directive 3 implemented the right to be forgotten in EU consumer credit legislation for the first time. That directive must be transposed by 20 November 2025; the Member States will apply it from 20 November 2026. It will be important to draw lessons from this legislation before proposing further EU initiatives in other areas aside consumer credit agreements. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A44%3AFIN. 2 https://health.ec.europa.eu/events/cancer-survivorship-advancing-right-be-forgotten-2024-05-14_en. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302225&qid=1699861249729, OJ L, 2023/2225, 30.10.2023.”
  EU competences on health
• 2025-02-11 “E-000635/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission Hungary is subject to measures under the Conditionality Regulation 1 , which were adopted by the Council in December 2022 2 , to protect the EU budget from breaches of the principles of the rule of law. The setting up and effective functioning of an independent Integrity Authority (IA) is among the key remedial measures proposed by Hungary. In its reassessment of 13 December 2023 3 , the Commission concluded that the IA regulatory framework still did not fulfil certain commitments under the remedial measure, and therefore could not yet be considered fully effective and adequate under the Conditionality Regulation. In the absence of a notification of further remedies, the Commission’s assessment is unchanged. The Commission is aware of the criminal investigation by the Hungarian prosecution service concerning the IA President. At this stage, the Commission is not aware of elements, other than those identified in its reassessment referred to above, that would show that the ongoing investigation prevents the IA from continuing its activities. The Commission is closely monitoring the situation. The Commission monitors the situation in all Member States and stands ready to trigger the necessary procedure under the Conditionality Regulation, as well as any other instrument under EU law, when relevant conditions for this are met. The Commission will keep the Parliament duly informed. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2092 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022D2506&qid=1741715083457 3 https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/C_2023_8999_1_EN_ACT.pdf”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Rule of law in Hungary · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “the last few months, there has been a debate on protecting children online. We focused on mental health and sexual exploitation, but there is another threat. Recruitment by criminal networks using social networks, encrypted messaging, or games. Now the first line of defense is, education offering job prospects, and that is down to member state competence. But Europe can play its part, holding digital platforms to account. We cannot have a complete lack of responsibility as some would argue here. Now, of course, this is a complex issue. We need to do a lot, but there is something that we can do. It would be very easy to do. We could review and overhaul Europol's remit, and it set up a special unit to detect this practice online. We could not allow organized crime to steal our children. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “The statute of limitations for corruption cases has been shortened, and the broad discretionary powers to the Prosecutor General, especially through article 363, raise concern about accountability. We also are very concerned with the habitual use of fast track legislative procedure, which do, of course, by definition, limits parliamentary scrutiny on media freedom. We know that in July 2024, the government transferred ATVs into SVR, dismissing board members before the end of their mandates. Appointment appears politically motivated, potentially reducing pluralism and critical journalism. Civil society. There is a new NGO. Law imposed heavy administrative burdens and requires disclosure of donors of over €5,000, which is a clear threat to privacy and NGO independence. And as for individual liberties. A proposed constitutional amendment, planned for last later this year, seeks to limit adoption rights to heterosexual married couple and affirms the supremacy of Slovak law over international law on identity issue. Both measures raise serious concern about discrimination and compatibility with EU law. It's not there yet, so we'll have a clearer eye on it. So where does that leave us? The question which is always raised is, uh, in Slovakia, uh, is on the path to becoming the next Hungary. To be very honest, that remains to be seen, but some patterns we observe are strikingly similar. You know that the Rule of Law report has been launched, uh, not uh, later than while we were in, uh, Strasbourg. And the European Commission echoes many of the concerns that we have identified. Uh, so I do believe that these observations that we made, combined with the rule of law report, should encourage us to reflect carefully on the appropriate next steps at the European level. Thank you very much.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “I also want to be very clear in this introduction that I fully support all the actions of the programme, whether it is either the indirect or direct actions of the Joint Research Centre. However, I see that there is a difference in treatment between fusion and fission, as indirect actions allocate a significantly larger share to fusion than to fission. I heard some of an explanation. Uh. Uh. Which I would love to see, uh, develop because of course, there is a different, uh, maturity between the two technologies, but a lot of innovation also in its way in the efficient sector with small modular reactors, for example, having a huge potential to contribute to decarbonize electricity generation on a much shorter term. So therefore, it would be very interested to get the Commission's view on the budgetary difference between fusion and fission in the indirect actions, and on enlarging the scope of the fusion research specific objectives, taking to also account what we need in the short term period. Finally, in the perspective of competitiveness, how does the Commission see this programme support the development of SMEs in Europe and contribute to Europe being a leader in such innovative nuclear fission technology? Thank you very much for your answer on those questions.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Well, as a mother, I'm always very worried about what's going around on the social networks. And as a mother, I warn my children. I warn them because that's my duty to protect them. But having said that, I feel like I'm all on my own. When my kids are on the social networks, they're in a different world, a world that I don't always have access to. And that is why we're asking for systems that can protect our children when we are not there. Well, in everyday life, we need to have clear temporary rules that will protect them until they come of age. Rules that can protect them to protect them. Physical, cognitive and emotional development. And We have rules in other parts of life, so we need to do exactly the same for the internet and online space. So I will be voting in favor tomorrow. But I have a regret, which is that we did not set 15 years as a minimum age. But I think that we cannot continue to allow young people to be left to their own devices on the networks.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Dear colleagues. Today I would like to talk to you about peace, freedom, humanity and women's rights. I would like to talk to you about two associations and the women behind them. One is called Women Wage Peace and the other one is called women of the sun. One is Israeli, the other one is Palestinian. And these two associations know each other very well as they've been working hand in hand since 2022, but they are both very active for longer than that. Today, these two associations are world renowned through their two leading figures, Doctor Yael Admi and Reem Ashraf, who have both been featured by the BBC and time magazine woman of the year. And they are also candidates for the Nobel Prize 2024. I had the chance. I had the great chance to meet Yael and Reem. During our conversation, I realized that standing before me were above all mothers, two mothers who have been found common and a very noble goal. The primary motivation of Yale and Reem, the primary motivation of all those women in this association is to build a future of peace for their children, a future where everybody has equal rights, a future where everybody is safe. They do not come with a political solution. They do not impose a political agenda because the need for peace and freedom goes beyond differences and political lines. These two associations also fight to strengthen women's role in conflict resolution. And when it comes from women of the sun, to empower women, enabling them to take their rightful place in society in the political landscape of Palestine. And what I found extraordinary in their story is the strength and courage that has allowed them to put their cause above all else, despite the most painful events. On October 3rd, they were marching together in Jerusalem for peace. Four days later. Four days later, on October 7th, Viviane Silva, one of the founders of Women Wage Peace, was brutally assassinated like too many others in the attacks since then. Too many civilians, including children, have fallen during the war and especially in Gaza. And despite the tremendous grief, these women have not given up on their commitment for peace. Still working and in hand. And for that, I do believe that they are true inspiration, and I think we do need that. The Sakharov Prize was designed to support people or entities that make an outstanding contribution to protect freedom and human rights. There is no better way to protect freedom than by pleading for peace, because there is no liberty. When war is raging, when the easy choice is to stay silent, they choose to speak their truth. And I don't think I need to tell you how much good these women do for human rights through their work. To quote a famous saying, women's rights are human rights. Today we have the power to put the spotlight on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a strong and non-partisan message of peace and tolerance. It has been more than 20 years since the last Sakharov laureate linked to this conflict. Today, we have the power to make a difference by setting an example and honor women of dialogue building bridges every single day despite their daily struggle. Despite all this, by Supporting Women, Wage Peace and women of the sun for the Sakharov Prize. Thank you for your attention.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you, Mr. Wombourne. The debate is closed and the vote will be held tomorrow. The next item on the agenda is oral questions to the Council and the Commission, upcoming European Research Area Act. I will first give the floor to the author. Mrs. Lacasse, please come forward.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs
• “And I see there a risk of supporting the licensing process for non-European technologies from China, Korea, Russia or United States. And I don't think that would be the objective. So I would like to see if the Commission can reassure me on this and if the commission see, uh, such a risk. And finally, regarding the internal component, transferring of responsibility to host country would indeed make sense and would be more sustainable for the long term solution as a member, States often have more experience with dealing with nuclear waste. However, it will be a complex endeavor, and I do believe the commission should start working on financial and legal instruments capable of addressing the intrinsic uncertainties related to such waste, and therefore, it would be interesting to, uh, have the host countries on board. I suppose it is the case. Uh, can you confirm this? Has the commission started working on such instruments, or is it planning to do so? As far as the second programme is concerned, the Euratom Research and Training Programme. First, I would like to welcome the overall increase in the budget for both direct and indirect action. Of course, I support the request from the European Parliament to raise it for 10%.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you for your answer. You are planning a plan on the SMA if I may say and it's very welcome. Can you already tell us if in that plan you are foreseeing the creation for example of European pre licensing certification or if the Commission will be ready to adapt the Euroterm regulations to create a tailored regulatory environment for the SMR or if the Commission is planning to finance these advancements since we know that money is behind everything?”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, I will indeed give you a brief summary of my draft report on the proposed council regulation. First, I would like to underline the fact that I strongly support the objective of the Euratom program to strengthen the union's competitiveness and decarbonisation by advancing research and training in nuclear science and technology. In the current geopolitical context, I also want to stress the strategic role of nuclear energy for energy security, decarbonisation and industrial competitiveness. In my report, I thereby underline that despite decades of underinvested underinvestment, early plant closure and a loss of expertise, Europe remains a major player in nuclear technology and must remain one of us. Indeed, in the face of increasing international competition, it is essential to revive investment and innovation, to strengthen European competitiveness. And in this context, my my report recall the significant investment needs identified in the Nuclear Illustrative programme with capacity that could reach up to 144 gigawatt by 50, an investment estimated at 241 billion, to which the needs related to the development of SMEs must be added. So I therefore welcome the proposed increase in the programme's budget. But of course, it remains insufficient in my report. I therefore propose a strengthening of the funding in line with the Parliament's draft interim report. Uh, and to compensate the imbalance between funding allocated to fusion and fission research, I propose to allocate this budget to nuclear fission research because there is an imbalance. And this imbalance, no matter how I believe, should be corrected. Uh, furthermore, my report broadens the specific objectives of the Euratom program by expanding the scope to the field of fission beyond safety, because this is a technology that we know, and it's a technology that we need.”
  Nuclear energy
• “For the rapporteur. You are undermining my my title. It's very, very painful. But thank you, chair for bringing that back. All right. So first of all, I would like to thank you all for what I consider to be a very broad support to one exception, I have to if I have to be complete, I have to take notes of of what has been said in a nutshell, because I'm not going to repeat, but I took note on the will of a stronger focus on efficient, on efficient. I have also take note of the importance of agility, but also predictability as far as the budget is concerned. The whole question of strategic autonomy that you can already find, uh, in, in the report, the support for the increasing of, uh, the budget, um, there is a point which has been made also on, uh, recycling. Um, I really heard GRC comment on, uh, the SMA, but also on the other application, which has also been made by Mr. Van Dijck and others. Uh, then energy, which is, uh, which is, uh, medicine, but other applications as well. And when I'm thinking about medicine, I'm talking about fight against cancer, for which I think a lot of people will be very sensitive to European Economic and Social Committee.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you. We will hear now for from the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, Mrs. Galvez. Gracias.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much, Madam president. Minister, Commissioner. Europe is the biggest trade power in the world and the biggest market. But despite that, we are nervous. We are shaken by every statement coming from Washington when it comes to tariffs. Our first line of defense is dissuasion. Although this is not the ideal scenario, Europe is capable of resisting, retaliating and protecting its key sectors. But this is probably also a pretext for a negotiating on something else. Mr. Trump sees every relationship as a transactional one, and this is no exception. So, Commissioner, I think that we have to set some red lines, and the main one, I think, is that we should not trade in our fundamental values. You could see the interests of some American tech barons, and I think Europe's citizens will not accept giving in to them. We have to rise to what we are a big trade power that finds its strength in its values.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair Sophie Wilmes I'm here. Thank you. Thank you to the commission for the interesting presentation. I will speak for two files. The instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation and Decommissioning, and the research and training programme of the European Atomic Energy Community. So, first, the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation and decommissioning. If I understand well, the Commission decided to merge two distinct instruments having regard to nuclear safety into a single instrument. And while I do absolutely believe that it's always a good idea to strive for simplification, I am wondering what kind of synergies the Commission sees for this merger. Is the objective of the merger to gain more budgetary flexibility between the two instruments, and how does the Commission foresee the balance needs for both programmes? Will it stick through times to the number provided in the legislative financial statement? Beside, the instrument does not define the partner countries, which allows useful flexibility. However, it would be interesting if the Commission could share which countries it sees as a priority in the coming years, it's not a definitive list. I know there is no list. I know, but I still want to hear your point of view on this. Also, regarding eligibility for support in the external component in the preamble, there is an opening to support emerging fields related to nuclear safety and emergency preparedness and response with a reference to small modular reactors.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, all recent elections within the European Union point to an undeniable reality. Electoral disinformation and foreign interferences are no longer isolated phenomena. There are threats have become systemic. It is clear that beyond electoral process itself, what is being targeted is the very architecture of our democracies. Media pluralism, public trust in institutions and even the balance of power. Nothing to do with censorship, as you clearly explained it again. Uh, Commissioner McGrath, um, it all leads me to one very concrete question. Do you plan to integrate a specific focus on resilience to disinformation and digital interference into the annual Rule of Law report. Such an approach would allow for a country by country assessment of each member state's actual capacity to defend its electoral processes, but also its democracies processes in general against emerging threats. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Next item on the agenda is topical debate requested by a political group reviewing the ETS system to support European competitiveness. I would like to inform the members that for this debate there is no catch the eye procedure and no blue card will be accepted. I will first give the floor to the author, Mr. Procaccini.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you Chair, thank you Commissioner for being here today. You said it yourself energy policy is not just about energy, it's also about purchasing power, climate transition but it's also a question of strategic autonomy. And the predecessor just spoke about the American deal of seven fifty billion dollars. You said it yourself a big part of it is related to nuclear so we believe that the large scale commitment in favor of American technology risk undermining the scaling up of European nuclear industry itself and especially in innovative technologies such as small modular reactor. We did send you a letter about it for which we are still waiting for an answer and we do believe that it does contradict the technological sovereignty objective that we are looking for. So my question for you is how does the Commission justify this and how do you evaluate the risk of creating a structural dependency on US energy production technologies? We also do believe that the Commission should play a more active role in the field of nuclear energy and especially of SMR and my question is do you have a plan into it because the only way to achieve it is to take down the barrier of the development of such SMR. Do you have a plan? What is your plan? When do you think of applying it? Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “This program should also become a genuine driver for innovation in nuclear fission. By supporting the development of cutting edge European technologies, accelerating the transition to industrial deployment, structuring a competitive European value chain, and fostering the emergence of startups, particularly in the field of small and advanced modular reactors, as nuclear is so strategic for your union. I also explicitly regret that the European Parliament does not have the same competences as the Council under the Euratom Treaty, and that this programme is not adopted by means of the ordinary legislative procedure. And in this context, I plead for the Parliament to be consulted at all relevant stages during the implementation and evaluation of the programme. I further advocate for strong synergies with Horizon Europe and other EU programmes, notably through joint actions, coordinated call and co-financing mechanisms, in particular for innovative projects in the field of nuclear fission. Finally, I put emphasis on several cross-cutting priorities the development of advanced nuclear fuel to strengthen security of supply support for young researchers, the reinforcement of skill and expertise within the union, strategic autonomy, and the protection of nuclear infrastructure. Thank you again, dear colleague. I look forward for fruitful exchanging with you today and indeed, in the coming weeks and months. I am happy to answer any of your questions.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, president. It's our impression that it's been six years, but it was only six months ago that President Trump was back. And with him, his chaotic strategy. So, yes, in the face of uncertainty, we need agreement swiftly with the US, a fair, balanced agreement without sacrificing our key sectors such as pharma, which is still was threatened just a few hours ago, and without sacrificing our health standards, without giving way on our fundamental values. Whatever some of the tech giants think. So I trust in the fact that this Parliament has been quite clear on its red lines, hopefully clear enough to have been heard by the Commission, but I would add two points. Firstly, President Trump has got us used to dramatic U-turns depending on his whims over the last six months. So if there is to be an agreement, we expect from the Commission that it will remain on the alert and ready to react or even retaliate if necessary. Secondly, if we want to be stronger, more resilient ourselves, then we should also do our homework here because it's not the president's lessons which stand us in the way of building on the Dragon Report, for example, or deepening the internal market. So we are looking forward to the reforms swiftly, much more swiftly.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you also for having given us a very comprehensive report. In due time for us to be able to work with this. And I really I hear you well when you are talking about the involvement of Russia. Um, as far as other comments has been made about, um, taxpayer money, I do strongly believe that when you are enhancing your strategic autonomy and when you are enhancing your competitiveness, you are actually protecting taxpayer money, taxpayer money. This is the best way. It's the best response, uh, for taxpayer money. And it's also the best response for geopolitical, uh, problems that we have now. And I also understand the wish to also work on security, on drones, attack, etc. great, but it does not belong to this commission for the rest. I am for this to this committee. Sorry for the rest. I'm very glad to be able to work with you in the coming weeks and months. Again on a very strong, constructive way, which I look forward to. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, as far as the NGO law is concerned, it's a new law. So we'll see how it is applying and what consequences it does have. It does remain that as far as the list of donors are publicly, publicly available, you understand that it could be a concern for those NGOs, uh, on, uh, on this issue? Um, so first of all, I'd like to thank everybody. Uh, members of the mission, uh, whoever, they're political. Um, um, how would I say, uh, directions? Uh, they have, because it was, uh, I think it was a very good mission. I would also like to thank the teams that came with us from the Parliament, uh, uh, to help us in doing that. Um, I hear that, uh, there's been other experiences in other missions, I understand that, I hear that I, uh, I do not, uh, I acknowledge that, uh, if it said the only thing I can tell you is our own experience. And I think it's very important for the DFM to state what we see and to state what we hear and to state what we what we, um, what we experience. And our experience was that the exchange, uh, although we were diverging for point of view were respectful and they were willing to engage, which is very important. Um, as you concluded. Well, yes, the concerns are very important. They are, I have to say, major, uh, this is why I do also believe that, uh, the resolution that we have, um, voted uh, is, uh, not more not any more up to date and that we might try to, uh, to see if, uh, this can be updated. So thank you very much. And, um, the the story, uh, is to continue. Thank you.”
  EU-Cambodia relations
• “Uh, yes, indeed. We had the opportunity to do this mission together with other MEPs, which was, uh, I think a very important, uh, mission. Uh, it was the first official joint mission of the DFM, as you have mentioned, and we had the opportunity, as you know, to engage with different actors. Actually, we met with more than 20 stakeholders, representatives of government, members of Parliament, both from majority and opposition civil society organizations, media professionals, but also members of the judiciary. Uh, it was the opportunity for us to gather, of course, diverse, uh, perspective. I have to say that the tone of all engagement and all discussions that we have were were pretty, uh, constructive, even if at some points, uh, our view, uh, diverge and uh, this stood, uh, in contrast with, uh, the atmosphere, if I may say it like this, uh, which happened before, during the delegation mission. Um, as you know, our mission is we are not a tribunal. The mission is about listening, understanding and engaging in a transparent, respectful, fact based process. It's also about showing the population that European Union remains attentive and committed to safeguarding the fundamental rights. As you know, 80% of public investment in Slovakia comes from EU funds, which of course carries responsibility. So about our findings, we are very concerned. And I will start with the political climate. We are very concerned about the independence of the judiciary with judges being publicly discredited. Judicial decision openly challenged journalists face growing risk, including hostile narratives, threats and slaps. Public trust in media is declining, partly due to disinformation, and editorial pluralism is under threat. Civil society is too under pressure in the field of justice and anti-corruption, several reforms are particularly troubling. The abolition of the Special Prosecutor's Office and restructuring of the National Crime Agency has, as far as we are concerned, weakened expertise and capacity.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you very much. Well, of course, every speaker in this debate deserves a my thanks. And I'd like to thank you for the organization of this session on the rule of law, which is increasingly endangered, particularly in the member states that claim to defend it. So I have a question to our commissioner and to Mr. Pesch. Mr. Pesch, you say that the problem is not the toolbox, but rather the political will to use it, that we do not need more tools, but rather we need just a little bit of fine tuning. Political will, by definition, is volatile. It fluctuates. And that's precisely why we need to have the toolbox. And we need to think about how to adapt the toolbox, surely to ensure that they can be implemented. So what do you think? Should we be using more objective indicators rather than language can that can be a bit too vague. Sometimes we need diplomacy, but sometimes diplomacy gets in the way of effectiveness. And then what about setting strict deadlines when they're not met should be followed up with consequences automatically. Otherwise we end up with problems with freezing and unfreezing of funds.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law