Jonas SJÖSTEDT

Policy topics Jonas SJÖSTEDT is active on

What Jonas SJÖSTEDT has said (80)

• 2026-02-19 “E-000709/2026 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Reparation, Ombyggnad, Tillbyggnad (ROT) tax deduction allows Swedish homeowners to deduct 30 per cent of labour costs up to an annual limit of 50 000 Swedish Krona for repairs, conversions and extensions directly on the invoice of the contractor who carries out the relevant works and then claims the amount deducted from the Swedish Tax Agency. The setting of the eligibility criteria for the ROT deduction falls within the competence of the Swedish legislature, as long as it observes its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). The material and procedural conditions for the deduction may not discriminate on the grounds of nationality or, impose unjustified restrictions on the exercise of the freedoms granted under the TFEU and EEA Agreement. Hence, Swedish homeowners must not be discouraged or deterred from soliciting services of potential contractors established in other Member States and EEA European Free Trade Association States. Requirements that the latter should be registered, paying tax or have established their operations in Sweden may restrict the free provision of services under Article 56 of the TFEU and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement. In this regard it may in particular be recalled that any national measure, even if applicable without distinction to national providers of services and those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of providers of services established in another Member State, must be deemed to constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services 1 . 1 See for instance, judgment of 9 November 2006, Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium, C-433/04, EU:C:2006:702, point 28 and case law cited; and judgment of 8 June 2017, Van der Weegen and Others v Belgische Staat , C-580/15, EU:C:2017:429, point 29.”
  EU competences on taxation · EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-02-05 “E-000487/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not received any complaint or query in relation to the possible environmental impact of Asera Mining’s plans in Västanå referred to by the Honourable Members. It will be for the Swedish authorities, in examining the request for a permit, to ensure that environmental legislation is complied with. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with EU law, including verifying individual cases of potential breach of the relevant rules. In line with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 1 , Member States must ensure that all water bodies achieve good status and take any necessary measures to prevent deterioration. In line with Article 4(7) WFD, new projects, including mining operations, require a preliminary assessment of their impact on all potentially affected water bodies. In the case of risk of deterioration, authorisation can only be granted subject to the strict conditions 2 . As announced in the RESourceEU Action Plan 3 , the Commission will shortly adopt guidance on the implementation of relevant provisions of the WFD in the context of the permitting of new projects, with a particular focus on the mining sector. Moreover, as per Article 7(3) WFD, Member States must ensure the necessary protection of waters used for abstraction of drinking water to avoid deteriorating their quality. Under the recast of the Drinking Water Directive 4 , the quality of the water supplied to consumers has to comply with the minimum quality standards. Member States have to ensure that a risk assessment and risk management are carried out in catchment areas for abstraction points. 1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, as amended by Commission Directive 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014, OJ L 311, 31.10.2014, p. 32–35. 2 These include overriding public interest, lack of better environmental alternatives and that all practicable mitigation measures are taken. 3 COM(2025) 945 final RESourceEU Action Plan: Accelerating our critical raw materials strategy to adapt to a new reality. 4 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast), OJ L 435, 23.12.2020, p. 1–62.”
  EU policy on social & environmental impact of foreign investments · Sourcing of critical raw materials · Water pollution
• 2026-02-05 “Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written question As one of 35 equal members of the Board of Governors of the European Schools, the Commission attaches great importance to inclusive education. It supports this priority and endorsed the adoption of an Action Plan on Inclusive Education, created upon recommendation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It does not however manage the European Schools or intervene in individual cases. This Action Plan included the introduction of part-time schooling options, as a supportive short-term measure to enable a progressive integration into full-time education. In 2025 rules on part-time schooling were unanimously approved by the Joint Teaching Committee, in which parents, teachers, inspectors and pupils are all represented. The implementation of part-time schooling is based on an agreement among the school, family, and, where relevant, other professionals. This approach may be appropriate for pupils with temporary medical conditions, barriers related to a disability/other condition, or social-emotional needs. The Commission is not involved in such agreements which are handled by each school. The Commission relies on the Schools to offer an inclusive education and equal opportunities to the children of all EU staff. In 2024-2025, out of 29 173 pupils, 10 109 received support and 2 583 received intensive support, including pupils with diagnoses such as learning disorders, autism, vision impairment, mutism, degenerative illness, trisomy and deafness.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• 2025-11-18 “E-004593/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission committed to reach climate neutrality, as an organisation, by 2030 1 . Cutting emissions from professional travel is an important part of the Commission’s greening action plan. The new Guide to missions and authorised travel 2 promotes rail travel as a sustainable choice, particularly for journeys under 550 km or longer when rail is feasible and efficient. Overnight trains may be considered as a greener alternative to flights, where such alternative exists. Pursuant to Article 110(2) of the Staff Regulations, the implementing rules adopted by the Commission apply by analogy to the agencies, including the European Environment Agency (EEA). The Commission informed the agencies of the adoption of its Decision setting out the Guide to missions and authorised travel on 14 May 2025, with these rules becoming applicable at the latest as of 15 February 2026 3 unless a derogation is requested. The EEA has not yet sought such a derogation, meaning it will adhere to the same sustainable travel principles as the Commission. Consequently, the EEA would incorporate rail as an official travel option. According to the Guide to missions and authorised travel, it is the duty of the mission performer’s line manager and authorising officer to ensure that the proposed travel is in line with these principles, thereby promoting harmonised and sustainable business travel practices within the agency. 1 Communication on Greening the Commission. C(2022) 2230 final. 2 Commission Decision C(2025) 2495 final of 13 May 2025 the general provisions for implementing Articles 11, 12 and 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and on authorised travel. 3 In accordance with Article 110 (2) second subparagraph of the Staff Regulations.”
  EU support of rail transport
• 2025-11-14 “E-004557/2025 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission The EU has not provided any financial support to the Rapid Support Forces. EU-funded activities in Sudan are implemented by Member States’ development agencies, the United Nations, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and consultancy specialised firms, for the sole and direct benefit of vulnerable populations. The EU’s implementing partners maintain full control over the funds disbursed and projects are subject to regular audit and evaluation controls. The ‘EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative’ (i.e. ‘Khartoum Process’) is a regional migration dialogue that serves as a platform for political cooperation amongst the countries along the migration route between the Horn of Africa and Europe. Its objective is to facilitate collaboration and information exchange. It has never provided any financial support to security forces in Sudan. The European Union Emergency Trust Fund for stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced persons in Africa (EUTF for Africa) 1 – an implementing tool, different from the political cooperation platform (Khartoum Process) – mobilised funds for socio-economic support to displacement-affected communities (DACs), particularly investing in water and sanitation, access to justice, education and health for DACs, but also food security, culture, migrants and refugees protection. The EU continues providing assistance to those affected by the conflict and working towards a sustainable peace in Sudan, focusing on protection, livelihoods, basic services and school feeding in the displaced affected areas. Support is firmly aligned with the humanitariandevelopment-peace nexus approach, emphasising resilience-building in conflict-affected areas. 1 https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/homepage_en.”
  EU development aid (migration conditionality) · EU policy on Sahel and Sudan · Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid
• 2025-11-13 “P-004511/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. As a general rule, Directive 2012/34/EU 1 (‘the Directive’) provides that track access charges must be set at least at the level of the cost which is ‘directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’ 2 . Subject to specific conditions, a mark-up may also be added 3 . The level of direct costs is not set in the Directive, but needs to be calculated on a case-bycase basis in accordance with the rules set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 4 . Article 34 of the Directive permits track access charges to be temporarily set below the level of direct costs to offset ‘the demonstrably unpaid environmental, accident and infrastructure costs of competing transport modes’, but this is the only possible exception. 2. The Commission is not in a position to determine whether the level of track access charges applied in Sweden is too low, and further wishes to note that, according to Article 56 of the Directive, it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to ensure that the level of track access charges complies with applicable rules. Further, decisions of the regulatory body regarding track access charges may be appealed before national courts. 3. While the Commission takes the view that the Directive sets a broad policy goal of lowering track access charges, the fact that it explicitly prohibits infrastructure managers from setting mark-ups at a level which would undermine ‘the optimal competitiveness of rail market segments’ cannot be construed as an exception to the general rule that infrastructure users must pay at least the level of direct costs. 1 Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (recast) (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/34/oj). 2 In accordance with Article 31(3), first sub-paragraph of the Directive. 3 In accordance with Article 32(2) of the Directive. 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 12 June 2015 on the modalities for the calculation of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service (OJ L 148, 13.6.2015, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/909/oj).”
  EU support of rail transport
• 2025-10-21 “E-004141/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission supports the Member States’ implementation efforts through, for example, dialogue and guidance; providing EU financing through e.g. the Cohesion Policy 1 , the Common Agricultural Policy 2 , and the Recovery and Resilience Facility 3 ; and providing technical assistance (knowledge, best practices, training) 4 . The Commission has been clear that focusing on strengthening resilience does not come at the expense of the environment. Where necessary, the Commission takes enforcement action through infringement cases. The national courts of Member States play an important role in applying EU environmental law at national level. If a Member State breaches its EU law obligations, the Commission may open an infringement case under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If the Member State does not take the necessary measures following a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion, the Commission may refer the case to the Court of Justice of the EU. Where the Court finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations and the Member State concerned subsequently still does not comply with the judgment, the Commission may bring the case back before the Court pursuant to Article 260 TFEU and request financial sanctions (lump sum and/or periodic penalty payment). The level of such penalties is determined by the Court 5 . According to Article 260(3), where a Member State did not communicate transposition measures by the deadline set in a directive, the Commission’s infringement action pursuant to Article 258 TFEU may include a request for a lump sum or penalty payment, without needing to start a second action under Article 260(2) TFEU 6 . 1 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en. 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en. 3 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en. 4 2025 Environmental Implementation Review at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-andgovernance/environmental-implementation-review_en. 5 In its assessment, the Court considers the Commission’s request as well as, inter alia, the seriousness and duration of the infringement. 6 More information, including on financial sanctions, can be found at https://commission.europa.eu/law/application-eu-law/implementing-eu-law_en.”
  Water pollution · Sourcing of critical raw materials
• 2025-10-17 “E-004107/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President (HR/VP) share the concerns about the Russian shadow fleet. The Council, based on proposals from the HR/VP and the Commission, has adopted several restrictive measures to further constrain the shadow fleet and its enablers. From July 2024 to December 2025, the EU has imposed a port access ban and a ban on the provision of a broad range of services related to maritime transport on 597 vessels 1 . The EU has imposed full-fledged sanctions on several actors supporting the Russian shadow fleet 2 , including supportive or false flag registries that allow the continued operation of shadow fleet tankers. The EU is now fully engaged in discussions with like-minded partners, including the G7 - Nordic-Baltic 8 ++ Shadow Fleet Task Force 3 , to further facilitate preparation of additional measures. The EU also continues conducting outreach to flag states to ensure that ship registers do not allow shadow fleet tankers to sail under their flag. Member States are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of EU sanctions. The Commission stands ready to support national competent authorities. The HR/VP appointed a coordinator on shadow fleet within the European External Action Service. The verification of marine insurance remains with the Member States but has been addressed within the International Maritime Organisation, whose Member States have agreed guidelines for accepting insurance companies and certificates, financial security providers, protection and indemnity clubs. At EU level, such acceptance should in the future be shared within the Union Maritime Information and Exchange System 4 , in relation to the recent amendment to the Vessel Traffic Monitoring Directive 5 . 1 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/18/russia-s-war-of-aggression-againstukraine-council-sanctions-41-vessels-of-the-russian-shadow-fleet/. 2 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/02/24/16th-package-of-sanctions-on-russia-swar-of-aggression-against-ukraine-eu-lists-additional-48-individuals-and-35-entities/. 3 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/joint-statement-shadow-fleet-task-force_en. 4 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/eu-wide-digital-maritime-system-and-services/unionmaritime-information-and-exchange-system-safeseanet_en. 5 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/new-proposal-strengthen-eu-mandatory-ship-reportingsystems-2025-02-19_en.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• 2025-10-01 “E-003827/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The status of permanent or long-term resident can be regulated by national or EU law. In the latter case, Council Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (the ‘Long-Term Residents Directive’) 1 applies. The Directive regulates the conditions for granting and withdrawing the status of long-term resident and the rights pertaining thereto. The provisions of the Directive only apply to third-country nationals who hold a long-term residence permit under the terms of the Directive, and not to all thirdcountry nationals holding a permanent residence permit issued under national law. The Commission does not comment on draft proposals or political programme. However, the Commission will monitor the situation and follow up with the concerned Member State, if relevant. 1 OJ L 16, 23.01.2004, p. 44-53.”
  Legal migration
• 2025-10-01 “E-003828/2025 Reply On 29 September, the Council prolonged its restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua by another year, until 15 October 2026. The Honourable Member is invited to address the second question directly to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Council will continuously review its restrictive measures as part of a set of measures to address the situation in Nicaragua. As regards any other measures, the Honourable Member is again invited to address their question directly to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.”
  EU relations with left-wing Latin America
• 2025-09-24 “E-003696/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Baltic Sea would generally benefit from stricter rules on wastewater discharges from ships. The measures adopted by Finland 1 on discharges of sewage and grey waters as well as those from ships equipped with scrubbers are a step in that direction. Strengthening the current rules holds for all coastal Baltic States and in all EU seas where global rules apply 2 . According to the evaluation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 3 , all EU marine waters have not achieved by 2020 the objective of ‘good environmental status’ including for contaminants. Stricter and more coherent measures on ship discharges, would better address contaminants and enhance compliance with EU’s marine and water laws 4 in line with the EU’s Zero Pollution ambition 5 , the Ocean Pact 6 and the Water Resilience Strategy 7 . However, to maintain the maritime sector's competitiveness, it is crucial to ensure that national rules are harmonised and agreed upon within regional sea conventions and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). At Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) level, similar developments are taking place. In 2013 coastal states designated the Baltic Sea as an IMO special area for sewage from passenger ships with stricter treatment requirements applying in stages. HELCOM plans to extend such rules to more ship and discharge types 8 . The Commission remains committed to contribute to regional 9 and IMO actions to bolster marine protection from ship’s discharges or losses, for instance of plastic pellets 10 . 1 Prohibitions on treated sewage discharges from passenger ships already apply in the Baltic Sea. Finland extended this prohibition to cargo ships from 1 July 2025 and to greywaters from all ships from 2030 as well as banned, like Sweden and Denmark, discharges from scrubbers installed onboard ships sailing in territorial waters in stages from 2025. 2 For more information on action on waste waters at the global level of the International Maritime Organisation Commission’s reply to written question E-001184/25. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/659eea3a-8a00-410e-bc2f-f94baf210c9b_en. 4 Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1), the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19) and Good Environmental Status Decision (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, OJ L 125, 18.5.2017, p. 43–74). 5 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/zero-pollution-action-plan_en. 6 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/european-ocean-pact_en. 7 https://commission.europa.eu/topics/environment/water-resilience-strategy_en. 8 HELCOM is planning to enhance regional prohibition of discharges of sewage, grey waters and scrubber’s discharge waters in the future (https://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan, Action S14, S15 and S22). 9 In June 2025, OSPAR parties, including the Commission, agreed to prohibit EGCS discharges in internal waters and port areas of the North-East Atlantic by 2027 for open loop systems and by 2029 for closed loop systems. OSPAR further issued a recommendation for prohibition in territorial seas with the same timeline. 10 Regulation (EU) 2025/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 November 2025 on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution, OJ L, 2025/2365, 26.11.2025 includes provisions imposing obligations on actors involved in the transport of pellets by sea in freight containers in line with IMO guidelines.”
  EU ocean policy · Water pollution
• 2025-09-24 “E-003697/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The EU legal framework on public procurement 1 provides procuring entities with a balanced framework to purchase works, goods or services from commercial undertakings globally. It applies to authorities as well as to public companies, such as rail infrastructure managers that manage large and costly projects. EU public procurement rules guarantee fair competition between suppliers, while allowing to consider additional factors to reflect quality, technical aspects or long-term sustainability of project deliverables. Every award should be based on clear details and description of the expected deliverables. 1. The Commission considers that, in addition to the flexibility provided by the EU procurement rules, especially Directive 2014/25 2 , EU railway law on interoperability and safety harmonises 25 national rules into one set of requirements based on which the rail supply industry can produce standardised products, which would render cost of rail less expensive. 2. According to the above EU public procurement rules applying to the transport sector, public contracts are to be awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender, not to the lowest price. The Commission has no information on the number of court cases and their costs in Sweden. 3. The right to appeal procurement decisions is enshrined in Directive 2007/66/EC and Directive 92/13/EEC as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC 3 and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This right is transposed by Member States and interacts with national procedural rules and organisational provisions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/23/oj/eng, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/24/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/25/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2007/66/oj/eng.”
  EU support of rail transport · EU Competition policy
• 2025-09-24 “P-003695/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission does not concur with the assertion that EU rules on the setting of charges for the use of rail infrastructure (‘track access charges’) oblige Member States to increase them. 2. The EU rules governing the setting of track access charges are laid down in Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (recast) 1 . The Commission has recently adopted Interpretative guidelines concerning the setting up of charges for the use of railway infrastructure 2 with a view to clarify the relevant rules laid down in Directive 2012/34/EU (‘the Directive’). In these guidelines, the Commission emphasises that the Directive sets a policy goal of decreasing track access charges and insists that the objective of ensuring ‘optimum effective use’ of the railway network should prevail over other considerations, such as the full recovery of infrastructure costs, when defining the level of track access charges. In any case, track access charges should be set at a level that the market can bear and that does not undermine the competitiveness of rail transport vis à vis other modes. In view of these considerations, the Commission is of the view that the Directive does not force Member States to increase track access charges. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/34/oj/eng (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32). 2 Communication from the Commission: Interpretative guidelines concerning the setting up of charges for the use of railway infrastructure (OJ C, C/2025/2606, 7.5.2025).”
  EU support of rail transport
• 2025-06-30 “E-002645/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission It is the Commission’s understanding that discussions on the effective operationalisation of the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund are being finalised, therefore a full assessment is not yet possible. The Commission provisionally assesses that the provisions of the formal Agreements do not appear to constitute a direct breach of Ukraine’s current obligations towards the EU. Upon accession, Ukraine is generally required to fully apply the EU acquis, including the Water Framework Directive and Extractive Waste Directive and to take all necessary steps to eliminate any incompatibility of EU law with international agreements concluded with a third party. The temporary and partial suspension of the environmental impact assessment by Ukraine has been done in the context of the martial law. The Commission has on several occasions encouraged Ukraine to ensure that the application of martial law remains limited to what is strictly necessary. The Commission remains committed to supporting Ukraine in its efforts to resume the full implementation of the environmental legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. Several technical assistance projects are already in place to assist Ukraine in meeting its obligations under EU environmental acquis.”
  EU-Ukraine relations · EU-US relations
• 2025-06-11 “E-002337/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has reacted publicly to the developments concerning the detention of the six activists, who are currently under house arrest. The Commission expects the fundamental rights of all citizens to be upheld and that the conditions of detention are compatible with respect for fundamental rights including human dignity. The Commission also expects respect of the legal frameworks on criminal proceedings. The Commission remains firmly committed to monitoring the upholding of the rule of law, the respect of fundamental rights, and the independence of the judiciary in the context of accession negotiations with Serbia, in particular under chapter 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights). The Commission will continue to engage with the authorities and other stakeholders – including political actors and civil society – to encourage them to work together to advance the reforms needed for Serbia’s European future, particularly in strengthening the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights.”
  EU-Serbia relations · EU relations with Western Balkans
• 2025-04-24 “E-001654/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission On 5 July 2024, Sweden notified the ‘Draft Act amending the Alcohol Act (2010:1622)’ to the Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 1 under the reference 2024/388/SE 2 . The Commission issued a request for supplementary information on 2 August 2024 and Sweden answered to the Commission’s request on 16 August 2024. Portugal issued a detailed opinion. The Commission did not react on the ‘Draft Act amending the Alcohol Act (2010:1622)’. The final text of the measure at issue has not been notified to the Commission yet. According to the case-law, Article 37 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 3 may be applied in the context of alcohol monopolies by ensuring that monopolies are organised and operated in such a way as to exclude discrimination between nationals of Member States. Monopolies must pursue objectives of general interest, such as the protection of public health, without placing goods from other Member States at a disadvantage 4 . According to the information which has been provided to the Commission, the Swedish legislative proposal does not change the rules on which products are listed by Systembolaget and still requires all operators, together with all interested manufacturers, to meet the criteria applicable to each range. The on-site farm sales are intended to be of limited scope and are not meant to constitute ordinary retail sales or an alternative to Systembolaget's retail trade. The Commission exercises discretionary powers in deciding whether reacting under Directive (EU) 2015/1535, based on the potential impact of the measure on the internal market. The absence of a reaction from the Commission under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 to a draft technical regulation does not prejudice any decision that might be taken under other EU acts. 1 Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1. 2 https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/26051. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E037. 4 Case C-198/14, Visnapuu, 12 November 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:751, paragraph 95.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2025-04-11 “E-001506/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The EU remains concerned about the human rights situation in the Philippines. The European External Action Service and the Commission raise these concerns regularly, both bilaterally and when engaging in multilateral fora such as the United Nations Human Rights Council. Human rights issues are an integral part of the EU’s relations with the Philippines, as set out in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 1 and are discussed in detail during the annual meetings of the EU-Philippines Subcommittee on Good Governance, the Rule of Law and Human Rights and in the GSP+ monitoring under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences 2 (GSP). The Commission finances programmes that strengthen the rule of law by improving access to justice, supporting judicial reforms and enhancing accountability and human rights protection across the country. The Commission engages with, and welcomes input from, all civil society, including human rights organisations. The EU text proposals 3 include a chapter on trade and sustainable development (TSD), in line with the 2022 Commission TSD communication 4 , proposing more participation and support for civil society and a stronger focus on implementation and enforcement and cover human rights through the proposed provisions on labour standards and gender equality. The EU has proposed human rights as an essential element of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by linking to the relevant provisions of the PCA. In 2022, the Commission published a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) 5 , which includes a dedicated section with a human rights impact assessment, and all elements in the SIA are taken into consideration in the text proposals and during the ongoing FTA negotiation. 1 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents/treatiesagreements/agreement/?id=2011002&DocLanguage=en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/978/2023-11-28. 3 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/ad546f8a-b5ba-4a51-ba6088993dc42d18?p=1. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0409&qid=1656586727707. 5 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/7ce196ff-3fba-487e-a6ce1f72e04e40d0/details?download=true.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs) · EU-Philippines relations
• 2025-02-19 “E-000767/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not received any evidence related to the claims of illegal dumping, which could substantiate possible intervention. Nonetheless, the EU is working on addressing the issue of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through a comprehensive set of actions. Certain PFAS are already regulated under the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation 1 and the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 . The export of fire-fighting foams containing perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is banned according to the Stockholm Convention 3 and the export ban is implemented in EU legislation as per Article 15(2) and Annex V Part 1 of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 4 . A proposal to restrict PFAS in all firefighting foams has been published for discussion with Member States 5 and adoption is expected by the end of 2025 6 . The Commission is committed to providing long-term support to Ukraine in its efforts to align with EU environmental and health standards, including the management of chemicals. This includes assistance in approximating Ukraine's chemicals legislation to the EU's Regulation for the Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures 7 and to REACH, which introduce modern approaches to chemical safety and management. Ukraine has access to funding and assistance through the Ukraine Facility 8 and other mechanisms, which target post-war reconstruction needs 9 , including bilateral cooperation with EU Member States 10 . This support aims to help Ukraine react to the environmental and health incurred damage, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russian military aggression. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast), OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 45–77. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. 3 Article 3 and Annex A. 4 Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals (recast), OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60–106. 5 in November 2024. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/documents/102503/1/consult?lang=en 7 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008, p. 1–1355. 8 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-technical-assistance/ukraine-facility_en 9 Including hazardous waste management, capacity building, and other aspects of safe chemical management. 10 For example, a cooperation between the Swedish Chemicals Agency and Ukraine on EU chemicals legislation, on reduction of negative effects of chemicals on health and the environment and conditions for the free movement of goods.”
  EU-Ukraine relations
• 2025-01-08 “E-000046/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has underlined in the latest Country report on Türkiye 1 that dismissal of the local mayors and their replacement with government appointed trustees is a source of serious concern, as it undermines local democracy and denies voters their preferred representation. The report also concludes that government's pressure on mayors from opposition parties continued to weaken local democracy. The Commission has explicitly recommended that Türkiye should ensure the proper functioning of local democracy in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and with Türkiye's commitment to the European Charter of Local Self-Government 2 . Most recently in December 2024, the Council reiterated its serious concerns about the continued and deeply worrying situation in the areas of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights, highlighting as one of the particularly worrisome developments the dismissals and replacements of democratically elected municipal mayors. To this respect, the Council called on Türkiye to urgently reverse the negative trends in all these areas and credibly address the many serious shortcomings identified in the Commission's report 3 . On 24 January 2025, the High Representative/Vice-President met with representatives of civil society in Ankara. She also referred to human rights situation in Türkiye during her local press conference 4 . EU has been clear towards its Turkish interlocutors that while the Turkish government has a legitimate right to fight terrorism, it is also responsible for ensuring this is done in accordance with the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and Türkiye’s international commitments. 1 https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/turkiye-report-2024_en 2 Ibid. 3 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16983-2024-INIT/en/pdf 4 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/t%C3%BCrkiye-press-remarks-high-representativevice-president-kaja-kallasjoint-press-conference_en”
  EU-Turkey relations · EU relations with Kurdish people
• 2025-01-08 “E-000045/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU has a multifaceted relationship with Viet Nam and several bilateral agreements and partnerships, including a Partnership Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 1 , a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 2 , and a Just Energy Transition Partnership. Human rights, including labour and environmental rights, are addressed in all these arrangements. The shrinking space for civil society, the arrests of human rights defenders and the slow progress on labour rights are of concern to the EU. The EU consistently calls on Viet Nam to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms and to refrain from harassment and arrests. It did so at the EU-Viet Nam Human Rights Dialogue on 4 July 2024, the Joint Committee of the PCA on 22 October 2024, and the PCA Sub-Committee on Good Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights on 21 October 2024. With regard to International Labour Organization (ILO) standards, Viet Nam has ratified 9 of the 10 fundamental ILO Conventions. Labour rights were subject of the 2024 Universal Periodic Review of Viet Nam. The EU closely follows developments in Viet Nam like the amended 2019 Labour Code, and the recent revision of the 2012 Trade Union Law. Viet Nam has committed to work towards the ratification of ILO Convention 87 on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. This issue was discussed in the committees mentioned above and in the Trade and Sustainable Development Committee of the FTA, which held its last meeting on 21 November 2024. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22016A1203(02) 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2020:186:FULL”
  Trade relations with Vietnam
• “Thank you, chairman. Thank you. The Commission. And thank you all members that contributed to the debate. There are clearly some differences, but I think there's also a lot of common ground. And we have a common responsibility to suggest improvements and make the best out of this situation. Even though we realize that there are some major problems with the implementation of the RF. And I think it's absolutely possible to find some common ground that will suggest improvements when it comes to the difference between the design and implementation and the criticism of the Court of Auditors. I think it's important to see that it's not entirely two different things. One part of the criticism from the Court of Auditors is that the implementation is not as green as it pretends to be, money that should have been invested in investments that make a clear benefit for climate and environment doesn't fulfill that. And that, of course, is something crucial for us as an environment committee to make sure that the investments are that are aimed at doing good for the. For the green transition, actually do that and that there is no greenwashing. And I think I mean, clearly we have a problem. The Court of Auditors have pointed it out. It's important to to make things better.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, chairman. And most welcome to the committee again, Commissioner. First. Hi there. First, I would like to say a few words about the automotive package. I think it's crucial that we keep up the high level of ambition. We are lagging behind. That's the truth. And when you're lagging behind, the solution is not to go slower. Then you will lose the race in the end. And that's where the European automotive industry is. We have to award those who have done their homework. Those carmakers, carmakers that have a have been adapting to new reality and future that is electric. If we don't do that, the long term consequences for the car industry in in Europe might be detrimental. And that's why it's so important that we keep up the highest level of ambition and don't become vague about what goals we have. And by the way, one of those carmakers in Europe that make excellent EVs is In the Czech Republic, so don't be too pessimistic about the European car industry. Then I would like to shift to Cbam. And my question there is now a big push for for not implementing Cbam when it comes to fertilisers among member states and from the agricultural lobby, and we can see that the Commission is taking impression of this. And Peter also mentioned this in his questions.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The second one has to do with the relationship between the Parliament and the Council. Passed discharge for the Council for 2022. That was not granted and it hasn't been granted for many, many years. This is not a very satisfying situation, I think, because the reason why it's not granted It is actually the lack of willing to cooperate from the council side, not answering the questions, not giving proper information, etc. and I think the will of the Parliament really is that we should have a dialogue, we should solve this. We should go into a normal procedure that we have with any other agency or institution. When we are, when we have the chance to fulfill our obligations as a Parliament when it comes to the discharge. And I think you are in a position where you can take an initiative to dialogue. There is a possibility to to move ahead in this procedure, but it of course takes a bit of will from the council to do so. And I was just curious if you if you have any plans when it comes to this cooperation with the Parliament. I mean, if you can solve this, you can solve pretty much anything. Thank you so much.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “I think we can say without any doubt that this is not as green as it was meant to be. It is, to a large extent used to cover budget holes in severely indebted member states. Many of the projects would have been realised anyway. They are not new projects adding new benefits to the to to the policies. So it's starting to look like a bit of a wasted opportunity. The problem is that these facilities to be paid later on, and it's increasing the debt burden of the European Union. The cost of the debt is rising dramatically. This, of course, will take away the budget room, both in member states and partly also in the Union budget itself, for future green investments. That's why it's so important that we, when we have money allocated for green investment, use them in the best way possible. The Court of Auditors is very clear on the the weaknesses in this facility. And so is actually also the parliament in its budget control committee. That is the lack of traceability. We cannot in the end see how the money is used. But we can see that there is there are too many examples of misuse. There are far too many ongoing pieces of investigation with EPO. There are a number of cases where Olaf looked into the misuse of funds. And what troubles me in all this is that now, when we are in the middle of the implementation of this, the Commission has shown a certain unwillingness to Willingness to listen and to correct the meshes and the control mechanisms of the RF.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. I'll be very brief. I think this report, as well as indeed this very discussion, underlies, underlines the difficulties to evaluate the RF and the vagueness of the instrument that makes it extremely hard to follow the money and to measure the actual outcome and the results. And that's a systematic error that we that we face again and again when we try to evaluate the RF. And of course, um, anyway, I would very much like to thank the member for doing this work. I find it very valuable and very interesting. I wonder when it's about spending the funds of the RF in this case, and you've been studying some particular member states. Are they cooperative? Do they? For example, if you ask for a final recipient, how much money did they get? How did they spend it? Do you get all this information as requested, or do you have the same problem as we have that we simply do not know sometimes who actually gets this money and how much money and how much of it that is spent. That is my question. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the committee. Commissioner. With the ongoing war in the Middle East and the sharp rise in cost of fossil fuels, both the affordability of the alternative with a with renewables as well as the need is, is really rising quickly. But the question is, who will provide those alternatives? Back home in northern Sweden, we have a number of investors who have planned huge investments in green fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel, for example, would have been very much needed today when we might run into a deficit within a couple of months. But they all doubt that the green transition will happen as planned. They think there is a substantial political risk doing these investments. And what will you do to convince them that this is the time to actually start domestic production of green fuels. Secondly, in March, China's export of solar panels doubled compared to one year ago. It's a huge increase in not only in panels but also in battery technology. With global export, at the same time, the European producers are struggling. This would be the perfect time to take initiatives to support domestic solar and battery production. We have producers, but they have a competitivity problem with the state subsidies in China. What interesting ideas do you have in your back pocket?”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market · Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “What strikes me when I listen to the commission is the discrepancy between the urgency of the matter that the Commission acknowledges and the total lack of action. We need a ban, and we need a phase out plan. That's what we need. My question concerns the export of firefighting foam containing PFAS that is now being exported to Ukraine from EU countries. There's been many EU companies involved, including Swedish companies, and instead of paying for the destruction of this dangerous firefighting foam that contains PFAS, it's given as a gift to Ukraine, a gift that will spread PFAS in the Ukrainian environment. And instead of paying for real firefighting foam, that should not destroy the environment, they get rid of it. It's a cheap way out for these businesses, and it looks like they're doing something good, but in fact, they are giving the problems to Ukraine as if they didn't have enough problems. I would like to ask the commission. Are you aware of this export of firefighting foam that is being banned in the EU to Ukraine? Will you say something? Will you act? Will you at least have an opinion about that? The fact that EU companies is now freighting this PFAS containing firefighting foam to a country that is under attack and in war. Thank you.”
  PFAs
• “(16:57:50 – 16:59:27): Thank you chair when i listen to the right and the far right i get the impression that they care more about attacking ngos than about environment and i think there's also a fundamental misunderstanding here this report is not about the life program in general this is about the strategic part of it which is actually a minor part of the life program and i think you're mixing things up a bit here what money is used for what and eca has actually made a special report on ngos as well and they found nothing i mean the ngos haven't issued a single euro as much as as but if you read the report from eca they made recommendations to the commissions though about how to cooperate with ngos but that's a different story we were working on it in the in the body control committee we have made reports about it and there's nothing there there's no smoking gun this is a political campaign against ngos so instead of speaking about the actual topic for this you speak about something entirely else else and look on who's talking i mean sentenced in court for misuse of european parliament's funds again returning to court for misuse of of the group money and a number of other parties inside the the the patriots also now are under investigation for embezzling of the european parliament's very money you have you point fingers at ngos that have done nothing wrong you cannot prove the misuse of one single euro but you you yourself end up in court for misusing eu money i think you should discuss something else”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you so much, chairman. And thank you for this very, very interesting introductions. I think we should use all available tools to to fight climate change and the emission of of CO2 into the atmosphere. And I definitely think that carbon capture has a great importance and sometimes carbon storage as well. I'm from northern Sweden. We have a number of projects when it comes to carbon capture to make green fuels. I think now it's all about predictability and economy to scale. Scale this up. But I think we have to see that the, the, the main task that we have is to phase out fossil fossil fuels when possible. And that is actually possible in most industries. I don't say all industries because I'm fully aware that that is not the case, but we have to make the rules for a policy that goes for phasing out when that is possible. So I view the the storage as something that we might need, but is a temporary thing until we have technical solutions. And it should be limited to certain industries where there are no alternatives. We have, for example, the steel industry, which is a huge emitter of CO2. But we also have now quite advanced technology to do steel without using fossil fuels, with the, with the electricity and hydrogen and wind power, etc.. And how do you view the risks that this technique will be used by industries that actually have the possibilities not to use fossil fuels at all? And how should we prevent this taking into account that we still need it for some other industries? Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you chair, and thank you rapporteur. We do appreciate the general direction of the the draft that you have made, but we still think there's a substantial room for improvement. We therefore have tabled a number of amendments. Um, and some of the most important ones for us are that we want to increase the overall climate and environmental spending target. We point at 50% as the target that we think would be most accurate. And of that 50%, at least 10% should be dedicated to biodiversity. Then when it comes to the the dilution that is made through the defence and security spending, we do not want the defence and security spending to be excluded from the basis of the calculation. That, I think, is a serious weakening of the present proposal when it comes to the do no significant harm principle we think is important to safeguard and strengthen it. We want to delete the proportionality and exclusion clause relating to the principle. We also think that the guidance shall guarantee the explicit exclusion of direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies in the implementation of the do no significant harm principle. When it comes to the biodiversity expenditure, 10% is a good target, but we think this also has to be a system for tracking the actual expenditure. So we see that that is well covered. And then it's important to cover eventual loopholes when it comes to greenwashing. And that goes for example for the annexes where they should be very clear that expenditure like military mobility target support for farmers income or road transport or supporting airports. Airports never can be part of the green investments. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you so much, Nicholas. And I would like to thank the members of the Court of Auditors at the Commission for their introductions and their patient answers to questions. In her introduction, Commissioner Sica mentioned the long term support from the EU to the Palestinian Authority and to unwra that the support has been vital to keep up basic infrastructure in the occupied territories, such as education, support for food and healthcare, for example. But during the ongoing or the the the genocide of the Israelis militaries against the population of Gaza. A lot has been destroyed. We've seen a systematic destruction of hospitals, of schools, of infrastructures. The Israelis even bombed a Catholic church in Gaza. And of course, a lot of this is funded by the EU. And my question is, have you done any estimate about the value of destruction from the Israelis against projects funded by the European Union? If you haven't done such an estimate, will you do such an estimate of how much of EU taxpayers monies have been destroyed in this genocide committed by the Israeli military forces? Second question when it comes to the illegal and brutal invasion by Russia in Ukraine, we clearly hold the Russians responsible and we think they should pay for the reconstruction. Of course they should pay for the reconstruction. What is the policy of the Commission? Shouldn't the Israeli military forces that bombed civilian targets be held responsible? Also from an economical point of view, and pay for the reconstruction? Thank you.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “There is no basis from a budget control perspective or from an auditing perspective at all. They do what they are supposed to do. They are absolutely transparent with the money. The money were actually given to them to do the things that they are doing. So of course, you can be you can be for or against certain decisions taken by the commission. But from an auditing perspective, there's nothing there. It's an empty box. There's nothing. And if you should apply the same principles against private companies or farmers that get EU subsidies that are not were not allowed to have opinions about what the European Parliament is doing. The consequences would be would be enormous. Nobody wants that. But I think this is just empty. Of course, lobbyism is a serious problem, but we all know that some 80, 90% maybe of the lobbyists from private companies, from branch organizations, they have direct access to the commissions. They are revolving doors. There is an exchange of experts. That's the true problem. But this political campaign does not address that. There is a choice here from the right wing to continue push this political campaign. And we will have a severe division, of course, in the Parliament and in this committee voting against reports, voting against each other. Or you can kind of tone it down a bit and be more, I would say, objective about the issue, and I think that would be better for the committee as such. Thank you so much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. I will also speak in Swedish. I also have to say that this is absolutely regrettable, that you're back here again with this proposal. It's a clear watering down. It's slowing down the timetable of important legislation that has to protect biodiversity, the climate and the environment. When the EU Commission once again is coming back trying to water down legislation, that means we are punishing those companies who are doing right, who are preparing for this implementation, and you're benefiting those companies who don't take environmental issues seriously. This is also weakening the whole of the faith that people have in the EU as a reliable partner, just before the Cop 30 conference in Brazil. Deforestation is a huge issue there. This also means that criticism is going to be increased when it comes to trade agreements with countries like Mercosur and Indonesia. Where protection against deforestation is so incredibly important, to make sure that these trade agreements don't have negative effects on the environment. This gives the impression of a European Commission that really isn't taking these questions seriously. We heard mention of a balanced proposal. Balanced between what? I wonder? It's a watering down. It's a worsening. And the commission may come back again on that. It's ridiculous. I would say that European Commission is not keeping its promises. I was there on the most recent occasion when we agreed on this and we said, is this going to be implemented next year? And your clear message was, yes, next year we're implementing this. And now you're here back again. You just lost your credibility. I think it's a lack of respect as well for the co-legislators, for the Council and the Parliament. If the if the Commission can't work things out the way they want to, are you going to come back again and again and again with different forms of legislation? This is a proposal that should be rejected. And before you were elected as a commissioner, you had to respect the Green Deal and climate policies, and if those were your promises, they weren't worth a great deal.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you, president. Let's be clear about this. This was a major disappointment. Things didn't turn out well in Belgium. The biggest disappointment in Berlin was the fact that we were not in a position to lay out a plan enabling us to transition away from fossil fuels. That's the overriding priority. We must ensure that we can move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. But far too many states prevented that happening, and so we have to try to reverse that via negotiations. We are already trying to do that. Of course, if you take a look at international measures, the situation is quite depressing. In all likelihood, the temperature is likely to rise by 2.5%. That's an absolute disaster. An increase in the temperature of 2.5% brings with it devastating consequences, which we can't even imagine. So the United States has left the Paris Agreement. In the meantime, China has stepped up. You can say many things about China, but one thing we can also say is that China seems to stick to its promises, and they can achieve a great deal. They've also demonstrated the green transition can stimulate an economy. So China and Europe together can be a strong combination. But we have seen the way in which legislation is being rolled back in so many areas. We've seen this now with deforestation. And each time this happens, the influence and strength of the EU is undermined.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you so much, chair, and thank you, Mr. Schumacher, for coming here and having this discussion with us. I mean, you are one of the persons that have the most likely the best overview, how this is this work is proceeding and developing globally. And I wonder if you could say a few more words about what's your general impression of the implementation of the convention. Now when you see the reporting coming back from member states? And so how is it going? And my question there is in connection to what you said. We have a sense here in the European Union that it's actually going slower and that we will not meet most of the targets, and that the interest from the European Commission is not increasing. If you look on how they treat directives like the Green Claims Directive or when you see the new proposed budget. So we meet more resistance at this point. But maybe you can give us some more optimism and point to other countries that do better. And if you should highlight some good examples globally, be it countries or particular projects of a great importance, what would you what would you like to emphasize? My second question is also already partly covered, but but by Mr. Gerbrandy, and it's about the the subsidies and the promise to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. What we are seeing now as a result of the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz and in Iran is the opposite, that the states all around the globe goes back to subsidizing fossil fuel and try to increase production of coal and other fossil fuels sources to, to, to cover for the, for the, for the lack of import from the Middle East. And we have to get back on track here and, and phase out fossil subsidies. And what role do you think you can play with the, with the meeting coming up in in Geneva in this regard? Thank you.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you so much, chair. And I would like to thank the rapporteur. I think his points are a good starting point for the future discussion on the report. What we see is a coordinated campaign against non-governmental organizations, and it's part of the far right playbook. You can see it playing out in Hungary. You can see it playing out in Russia. You can see it playing out in Turkey. You can see it playing out in the US. They attack feminist organizations, trade unions, lgtb organizations, etc. and you see it's playing out also in the European Parliament. But in fact this has been very thoroughly looked at. I'm also a member of the Budget Control Committee. For example, the Court of Auditors just recently released a report on the funding of NGOs. And there are actually a room for improvement, especially when it comes to the routine of the commission. But there's no criticism against NGOs because they follow the regulation. And to fund and to defend NGOs is a vital part of our democracy. That's why it's so important. If we silence the voices of the NGOs defunding them, that means that we will only be corporate interests left and propaganda from different kinds. So it's vital, I think, that the EPP make up their mind about NGOs and start defending them. I, I think it's very good to speak clearly about Russia. I mean, be clear, Russian interference in elections in Romania, in Moldova, we most likely see it again in Moldova this fall.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you. I think this is a golden opportunity to come up with new incentives for investments in solar and battery technology and wind. I mean, nuclear power is just a faraway dream 20 years down the line. Oh, maybe if it ever happens. On the other point, I, I, I actually disagree. I will take my own country as an example. Sweden is one of the main exporters of fossil free electricity in Europe. Some years we are the largest exporter of fossil free electricity, in spite of the fact that we almost always export almost every hour of the year, we export clean energy to to Germany and to other countries in Europe, Poland, for example, we get. In return the prices of electricity made with fossil fuels. If the Germans burn gas to make electricity, we get higher electricity prices in Sweden and all that excess money that goes right into the pockets of already rich electric companies and is paid by consumers and small businesses. This is a market failure. This is a failed system to connect the electricity prices to the most expensive production of electricity, and then let it spill over to countries that don't even use that kind of source for producing electricity. So I think you really have to look into this. We are we have made us more dependent on fossil fuel prices than we need to be.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in Swedish. So. Claude. We've just heard or we heard clearly what the commissioner had to say. What our commission member had to say. But we need more. If we look at what's happening in the member states, the picture is quite varied. In my country of Sweden. We were able to meet our targets, but that was before. Now it looks like that's not the case anymore. Looking at the most recent emissions statistics, those have gone up. They've gone up by 7% from 2023 to 24. That is a huge rise in emissions. And that is a direct result of particular political decisions of increasing fossil fuels, for example. We know and we knew that Sweden wouldn't be able to meet the targets this way. Historically. Sweden has had good economic development, good growth, and at the same time been able to reduce emissions. But now our economic outlook isn't as good and our emissions have gone up. That is politically also not possible. So what is the message that you send to a country? Is my question to our representative from the Commission. What is the message to a country to encourage them to continue? Good policy. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you also for explaining the background to these suggestions from the Commission. My question concerns animal testing, and it is: How can you ensure that data sharing under the BPR is structured to effectively prevent duplicative animal testing while also safeguarding fair compensation for the data owners? Thank you.”
  Use of animal testing
• “Thank you chairman. I promise to be very brief. I only have one question. First, I would like to thank all the representatives from the agencies for this thorough information. My question is to Frontex. Only three years ago, the parliament, you could say, had a conflict with Frontex and we froze part of the budget and we put up several conditions to Frontex. They partly touched upon fundamental rights. How do you view these conditions today? Do you think you fulfill them all, and how do you view them in the light of the fact that you have to increase your. That's my daughter calling. I'm sorry that you have to expand your your organization so much. Sorry for the interruption.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Madam president, future jobs in the automotive industry are not going to be generated with yesterday's technologies. Now that the European Commission is worsening the environmental demands, it's helping those companies who haven't been doing their homework. Instead, it is high time to support the transition of the automotive industry in Europe. We have to give tax breaks to those who buy electric cars built in the European Union, a cheap electric car. China is providing all sorts of subsidies. We have to be able to support our industry as well. And when that support is paid, there needs to be conditions linked, good conditions, collective agreements and that this shouldn't go to paying shareholders dividends. We need to redefine the electric market because the electricity is going up to 2 or 3 times the price our competitive countries are paying. It is necessary and has to be done. We need to revise this. All of us who've worked in a car factory know this.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you so much, chairman. Not bad pronunciation, I have to say. Yeah. Thank you. I think the draft that we have seen from the chairman has a lot of merit. It underlines many of our main objectives. It's important in these times that the union stays on course with the Green Deal. And I think that's the main content also of this draft opinion. But even though we have very few objections to the proposed text or is of course, room for improvement, I think the analysis of the environmental effects of the RF is somewhat optimistic, and it lacks the criticism that we have had been clarifying and voicing in this committee before, that there has to be more transparency. There has to be traceability, and there has to be more control that these quite large amounts that are aimed at green investments actually do the good it's supposed to do. So there I think it's room for improvement, and also to mention the critique from the Court of Auditors in that field. I would also like to see a mentioning of phasing out of of subsidies that actually do harm the environment and lead to increased emissions from greenhouse gases. I think that should be a natural part of the opinion from our committee. Thank you chair.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. We don't support this objection. I think the true reason for the objection is to delay or even derail the process that makes it possible to enter into force for the deforestation regulation. I am also deeply disappointed by the suggestion from the Commission on the classification of different countries. But this would hinder, not help, I think, in that process to make improvements that I'm sure can be made in the future. I think we we are all familiar with Michael Jackson, famous musician. He was not only making a lot of songs, he was also famous as a dancer. He. He invented the moonwalk. It should look like you moved forward and you actually moved backwards. And this is what the right wing is trying to do now. They used progressive arguments, but in reality they want to tear this down. And I would advise you not to do that. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Now, when we talk about simplification, we need to be cautious. You need to carefully read the proposal because often simplification means a weakening of the legislation. But not this time. This time simplification just means simplification. That is why we support the simplification of cbam. It will be easier to implement, easier to manage, but still 99% of emissions are covered. But there will be opposition to the cbam to the carbon taxing. There is a conflict when you put climate above commercial interests, and it's important that the commission stand firm at the same time as we talk about, uh, these, uh, this emission trading system. We, uh, see that, uh, Ursula von der Leyen had met Trump in Scotland, uh, to come to an agreement where we are buying a lot of fossil fuels from the US, fossil fuels that might come from fracking, which is the absolute worst thing you can imagine. Uh, for the environment. Uh, I think we need a bit more coherence, uh, with the commission's, uh, policy to, uh, the environment. Perhaps you need to have a word with Ursula von der Leyen about these fossil fuels. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you so much, chairman. Uh, and most welcome to the Budget Control Committee to the Polish presidency. I have two questions. The first one concerns your remarks on the RF. I was somewhat surprised that you were so positive, taking into account the very harsh criticism we have seen from the Court of Auditors. I mean, it's not just that there is a misuse of funds. It's also that there is a total lack of traceability of how the money is spent. If you cannot actually see how the money is spent, only that it is spent, it's very hard to even judge the the error rate for such an instrument. And I think this is quite an important principle, both for the Court of Auditors as well as for this committee, that we are able to trace how the money is used. So please, if you could comment upon that. There is also a very severe criticism from the Court of Auditors concerning greenwashing, that many projects that are claimed to be climate friendly or being green investments in reality are not. But they are doesn't fulfill the requirements for being green investments. And how do you view that? And we also have some 233 cases last year in EPO concerning investigations into possible fraud when it comes to the the RF. And on top of that we have a lot of Olaf cases. And what is your do you think this is reasonable that we have this large amount of cases when it comes to the RF? Those were my questions concerning RF.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And then the bigger picture, what does how does lobbyism at European level look, I mean, it's the big corporations. It's 80%, 90%. They have all the staff, they have all the money. I think the, the Association for Chemical Companies have 160 people employed in Brussels. That's where the big lobbyist is. That's where the big resources are to have have contacts with the commission, with the Parliament, etc.. I would say that's where we have a true democratic problem also. And we know that, for example, from the Life program that has been thoroughly discussed here and in Parliament. Also, private companies get money from the life program. They also do lobbying. They also have EU funding. There were even media reports that members of the European Parliament were on the payroll for companies that get money from the Life program. Maybe that's something to look into for the Court of Auditors. I mean, if we should scrutinize this, we should we should scrutinize every entity that gets money from the from the EU budget in that sense. So I think that would be interesting to hear what the Court of Auditors thinks. Would that would be something you will look into more explicit. And of course, we should welcome this report. We can see the possibilities for, for for having improvements, but a little bit have the sense that the, the far right has been storming out of the saloon, shooting in all directions, aiming at NGOs, but there's really nothing there. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the Hungarian presidency as well. And I'd like to thank the Secretary of State as well. Just as the secretary of said said the measures for medicines, it's one of the most important proposals on the table right now in the council and it is important for citizens, for citizens to have access to medications irrespective of their financial situation. It is their health condition that ought to determine this accessibility and particularly as concerns the very expensive drugs for rare drugs. We don't always have access to these and we don't have access sometimes to the best medicines. And at the same time, we have pharmaceutical industry with huge profit in very, very few sectors. Are there such high profits reaped? Indeed The same enterprises that make so much money don't pay taxes. Many pharmaceutical companies use different tax havens for that particular purpose, so taxpayers indeed are those who foot the bill of their treatment. Major enterprises make money at the same time. These enterprises, however, don't make the logical contribution that they ought to make in the form of taxes. This creates great inequality. Indeed, high drug prices as well are what the problem is exacerbated by the long period of patent protection. Generic drugs don't reach the market, and we're speaking about very important drugs. There ought to be that effort to provide generics to provide for low prices of drugs, so that these taxpayers that pay ever so dearly for these can have access to these drugs. At the end. Furthermore, we ought to make sure that pharmaceutical companies pay their taxes overall. How does the presidency see this type of balance? What possibilities exist out there in order to have low drug prices so that low income individuals can have access to proper medications? Thank you.”
  Pharma IPRs
• “I think this is a very important topic indeed, and this draft, the resolution, I think there's room for improvement, but we think it's a good starting point indeed. We also think it's important that this work is indeed based on conservation, so we get the best possible result. And we had some questions about zoonotic diseases. This question, if we should expand that part, I think that could be a good idea. And we're also going to focus on the importance of better tools and better surveillance so that we can get more use of the systems that actually exist. And we also want to, we think it's a good idea to have the positive list concerning pets. That would be a good tool. We see significant problems with the trade with ivy, ivory, that these rules have to be binding. We really have to have better surveillance on that area. And I think it's important to move some of the threatened, endangered species into Appendix 1, especially concerning sharks. And I think we also have to look at indigenous people's rights in this area as well. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you so much, chair. And I too, would like to to congratulate and thank the rapporteur for a thorough Job. We do agree with the main lines of the report concerning transparency, governance and efficiency. I think there's many good things there. Having said that, we will also make a couple of amendments. Some of them will concern transparency. Some of them will concern the independence from commercial actors in some of the agencies, in particular Efsa and EMA. The problem with revolving doors between private corporations and agencies and exchange of staff and experts. We will also do some amendments on the. The importance of being a good employer. The misuse sometimes and overuse of temporary contracts, and the need to have a work life balance for those employed and the extensive amount of overtime in some of the agencies. We think it's right to put some extra emphasis on on Frontex. Partly it has to do with the the inability to use the fonts that are out there for Frontex, but also the the need for a lack of education when it comes to to fundamental rights and human rights for the staff of Frontex. I also listened to my Hungarian colleague that is concerned about the lobbying of the NGOs and agencies. Just wait till you hear about the lobbying of the big business that will make you upset. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in Swedish. So. Claude. We've just heard or we heard clearly what the commissioner had to say. What our commission member had to say. But we need more. If we look at what's happening in the member states, the picture is quite varied. In my country of Sweden. We were able to meet our targets, but that was before. Now it looks like that's not the case anymore. Looking at the most recent emissions statistics, those have gone up. They've gone up by 7% from 2023 to 24. That is a huge rise in emissions. And that is a direct result of particular political decisions of increasing fossil fuels, for example. We know and we knew that Sweden wouldn't be able to meet the targets this way. Historically. Sweden has had good economic development, good growth, and at the same time been able to reduce emissions. But now our economic outlook isn't as good and our emissions have gone up. That is politically also not possible. So what is the message that you send to a country? Is my question to our representative from the Commission. What is the message to a country to encourage them to continue? Good policy. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you chair. And thank you for the introductions made by the Court of Auditors and the two commissioners present. Um, I think the fundamental problem here is that no one knows. No one knows how this money is really spent. And that, of course, has to do with the fact that we don't know the true final beneficiaries of all this money. That's the fundamental problem. That is something that deeply worries members of this committee, and it deeply worries the Court of Auditors. But what worries me even more is that the commission don't seem to be very worried about this. They think that this is now in control. And that is, of course, built on the assumption that the national authorities do their job properly. If that was true, that all the national authorities did this auditing job and follow up job properly. The commission would have an argument, but listening to the Court of Auditors that not might not be the case. It seems like the level of ambition varies substantially between member states. Some authorities have reported a lot of cases to EPO, and they have rung the alarm about misuse of funds in the hundreds of cases. Some member states have hardly pointed to any mismanagement of this money at all. That could mean two things that everything is perfectly fine and there is nothing. There is no problem in these member States at all. All the funds are used in a proper way. Or it might be that they simply don't do their job. And my question to the commission is how can you know? How can you be sure that the member States authorities actually do their job? And isn't it a bit alarming that that it varies so much between the national authorities, how they evaluate how this money is used? And without knowing the final beneficiaries, I guess you don't have a way of controlling that. Am I wrong?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you so much, chair. And thank you for the introduction. I have two questions. The the good example pointed out here was the Spanish reforms that has performed the best. So I got a bit curious what kind of reforms were the ones that you evaluated have that had the most positive effect was the content of these reforms. And secondly, I think you point out the very general problem that is hard to to judge in all of the RF, what is really the added value and what that should have been done anyway? The I see one of the great risks with the IRF is that member states do what they originally planned, but finds another source of funding for this. And of course, the the whole idea with the IRF is the added value that we get more investments, we get more reforms, we get more things done. And maybe you could elaborate a little bit about how much was this member states doing what they would have done anyway and how much this an inspiration for doing more? Thank you so much.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Chairman. As you said, this is an opinion on an own initiative report from the econ and the budget committees concerning the big RRF, the huge fund that was created after the pandemic, sometimes also called the Covid fund or the Corona Fund. This is a huge economical tool consisting of grants and loans to the member states, financed by taking loans. And it's you can say it's in the middle of the implementation, somewhat delayed, but the implementation is ongoing in the member states with various results and various speed. It's obvious that this has run into some troubles in many of the member states. We are starting to be in a situation where we can evaluate the effectiveness of this tool. And it's a vital tool from a climate perspective, because a large part of a large part of this funding is aimed at climate investments and investment that should reduce emissions in the European Union. And now when we're here, we can see that the criticism against how these funds are used is severe, especially from the Court of Auditors that made special reports and came back again and again and again with criticism of the lack of traceability and the lack of control over how the money ah is ah is used. They also made a report on the greenwashing going on inside the RF, where money described as being. Used for green projects in practice are used for projects that have very limited benefits for the, for the, for the, for the climate or for the environment. This is of course very serious because this is a major tool for green investments, and investments are needed if we are to meet our climate targets. So these risks to be a missed opportunity for climate investment if this money is not used as intended by the creators of the RF.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you so much Peter and very much welcome back to the committee and back to this very room. We met a year ago. I appreciate that you explicitly mentioned the Baltic Sea in your intervention and that I know that you also have been visiting coastal communities at the Baltic Sea and in my home country Sweden to see what the problems they are challenging. And it's indeed a very difficult situation for the Baltic. Fishing stocks are down to a very low level when it comes to some very important species. We have huge environmental problems in the Baltic Sea. It's a special kind of sea that's only connected through narrow straits with the Atlantic but I would say that the very most worrying and urgent problem we have now is the Russian shadow fleet. We spoke about that about a year ago that now maybe up to fifty percent of the Russian crude export goes through the Baltic Sea and it goes with vessels that are often in a very, very bad state, old ships, often uninsured without valid insurance, unclear ownership and sometimes they even turn off the tracking devices they have. We have had since we had this discussion a year ago a number of incidents with for example a huge tanker drift north of Germany, almost collisions etcetera. And I know that you have done certain things especially in the package it is with sanctions against Russia but every time Russia managed to circumvent this and it becomes increasingly dangerous with this illicit traffic and it also finances the illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. So we have every reason to step up our effort to try to stop this trade from the shadow fleet. Only this summer we've been, we have known in the news that they do illegal ship to ship transfers outside Cyprus and Greece between the Russian ships. There's been explosions at least three times aboard Russian tankers this summer and we know that the number of European companies among them Greek ship owners are involved directly in the export of crude from Russia. And what are your plans to do more? How can we prevent European companies from selling all tankers to the Russian charter fleet? How can we prevent European companies from making profits and be involved in this partly illegal but always shady trade? Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you. Chair. Our reaction goes very much along the same lines as other colleagues. Of course, the outcome is very disappointing from this meeting, but it's even more worrying is the way the US is acting, this bullying, this reckless behaviour, this, uh, trying to divide and rule and put pressure on individuals and on countries. And I fear that that's something that we will see repeated in other international negotiations coming up that concerns environment and climate, but also in other fields. And I really do think that the reaction of the EU towards this kind of behaviour behaviour has to be stronger to turn the other cheek and work for a while, and it can be a nice principle, but we are in a situation where the US actually tears things apart in international negotiations and they go beyond what it should be acceptable. And I really would like to to see the Commission and other representatives of the EU to stand up more strongly towards the US and not have this policy of appeasement when it comes, be it in trade or negotiations or other fields. Having said that, I think and I totally agree, that it is important that we stick to the plans that we have to reduce emissions from the maritime sector in the EU.”
• “Thank you very much, State Secretary, for your introductory remarks. You talk about the importance of protecting water and fighting water pollution. And this is what I'd like to base my question on. Many of the countries supplying the Baltic, often the European Union, and there is a clear threat in the Baltic Sea. And here we are talking about. A problem based on crude oil. This comes from Russia and passes through this area, large vessels which are polluting these waters. These oil tankers coming from Russia, this is a form of sea transport which goes against the sanctions that have been imposed on Russian crude oil. So this is a key issue. And these sanctions were introduced after the war started in Ukraine. And to circumvent these sanctions, there are vessels that are pretty unsafe and very old, sometimes 40 years old, 20, 40 years old. And these vessels are constantly crossing the Baltic Sea. Many occasions problems happen at high seas. And this is not just going against the sanctions. It's also a threat to the environment here in the Baltic Sea. And also thinking about what's about all those areas around the Baltic Sea. What does the Hungarian presidency plan to do to tackle this? Do you plan to take action? This is essential that action is taken. We need to protect these waters and action needs to be taken because this is also about circumventing sanctions. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you so much. And thank you for the introduction. My question concerns the United States and the independence of academia and research and science. As the US have left the global climate cooperation, uh, that doesn't mean that they will not try to impact the negotiations. And looking on how they behave in other international fora, we risk to see a situation where they actually try to, to attack or try to, to prevent us from doing good results in various fields, even though they are not formally a part of the of the work any longer. And going back to what happens in the United States, we can see a slashing of federal funding when it comes to research connected to climate change and technologies that could be solutions to climate change. We can also see a direct denying of scientific evidence from the government and political attacks on those who want to have a climate policy in the US. And this, of course, is not only a question about, uh, being able to do the work we have to do, but it's also about academic freedom and respect for science. So my question to you is that do you feel in the IPCC any impact of this policy in the US with attacks to to the academic freedom and the climate research in your work, and how do you view this development? Thank you.”
• “Thank you so much. And welcome to our committee. My first questions concerns the dependency on industry data. We know that there are clear data requirements for regulated products. But in spite of that fact, Efsa staff is spending a lot of time to evaluate that data and try to cover data gaps. How do you view this challenge and what can you do about it? And Efsa has received some criticism for being too dependent on industry, while there is also a lot of academic research that could be used that is more independent. How do you see this? You could say contrast between being dependent on on data from the industry and using the independent research. Academia. I also have another question that concerns cultivated meat. That is one of the areas where Europe is really lagging behind compared to, for example, Singapore or the US. There are potentially quite a lot of advantages with cultivated meat when it comes to water consumption, climate impact and other fields. And now Europe is losing innovation to other parts of the world because we are not we are not giving these products a green light. So when will the green light come for the cultivated meat in Europe? Thank you.”
  EU policy on lab-grown meat
• “Thank you, Chair. I, from the Left, I appreciate you're trying to pronounce it. It was quite good actually. So thank you for this report from the ECA, and my two questions are to the Commission about what conclusions they draw from this report right now. The Nature Restoration Law requires member states to plan and implement measures to restore forests. The member states are currently in the phase of drawing up the plans, and the Commission has a chance to comment on them once they are submitted. How will the Commission ensure that members take use of the various funds in the ECA report to also contribute to the goal set up, and how can they learn also from the other conclusions in this report? Secondly, one point that is pointed out in this report is the need for restoration of ecosystem after wildfires. How will the Commission work with this issue towards the member states? Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much, president. I come from the northern part of Sweden. There are plans to invest an enormous amount of money in sustainable fuels. We have hydraulic power, sustainable energy, and, uh, the metal industry is also, uh, going into transition period to reduce CO2 emissions. However, investors often hesitate. We have to start off with construction. And when you start constructing all of this, you take a political risk. The EU has to back us. The right wing here in the European Parliament even want to, um, eliminate these green efforts. Investing in the future means that some jobs might be lost. And because jobs might be lost, that will that leads to resistance. But we need a transition that will offer jobs and reduce emissions. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “But as the Court of Auditors so clearly said, this is about the rules of the Commission and how the Commission handles handled these, this money. And of course we should discuss that. But anyone who says that, oh, we found a smoking gun of misuse of EU money breaking the rules and billions disappearing to. There's nothing there. There is no smoking gun. This is a question about how you do applications and how you do have transparency at the level of EU institutions. So I think it's extremely important to make that clear in this case. And we have to put this in a political context all over the world, especially in authoritarian states. Ngos are under attack. They are branded as in some authoritarian states, as foreign agents. They they take away the funding for NGOs, especially when they work on women's rights, when they work on LGBT rights. This is attacks on democracy that we see in many, many states. And it's part of the far right playbook. It's part of a playbook where you want to silence voices that speak about refugees, environment, workers rights, etc. and we see this also playing out in the European Parliament. And I really hope that the traditional right wing don't go there, don't go there to to to play in the hands of those who want to shut down these NGOs that are so vital for our democracy. And having said that, I'm open to any improvement of regulation, transparency, knowing where the taxpayer's money goes, etc..”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you very much. Getting rid of fossil fuels is absolutely essential. In order to achieve our climate objectives. We won't achieve the climate objectives within the transport sector if we don't get rid of the emissions from cars. And the ones who don't believe in climate change, climate change will continue. Whether or not you believe in it, it is a scientific fact and we have to do our bit. Now, when we start discussing whether or not we should have this transition, It's true that transition will affect the automobile sector, but they're very good at adapting. But if they don't know whether they have to adapt or not, it's going to take even longer and it's going to get even longer to get electric vehicles off the assembly lines. And that's a real threat to the automobile sector that we don't make the change we need to. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in Swedish and I will speak about the omnibus. Budget. This proposal is not a simplification. It's to lower the level of European legislation in a long line of areas, and this follows the efforts of the Commission to roll back the legislation that we already have. This is unique. We've always had very high levels of ambition in in Europe. Never before have had a commission that sees as its principal task to lower the level of the European legislation. These proposals will lead to an increased pollution. They will lower the level of insight. And this is not a way to reach our goals on the environment area. You want to get rid of the script database. Uh, you need you want to get rid of rules that, uh, we need to further develop. And this is also valid for the industrial emissions. Emissions and also the reporting obligations of the commission concerning, uh, pollution from chemical substances. This is not in line with the commission, uh, and their, um, their need to protect our citizens. We need to protect our citizens health. And that is more important than protecting our industries. I also have a question concerning the companies that had already done substantial changes. And, uh, in order to, uh, protect our environment and our citizens. These companies will now, uh, will not be favored. The the companies that have not followed the rules earlier, these are the companies that will be favored. Uh, and, uh, it seems like the commission is only listening to the economic arguments.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• “Thank you so much, chair. I'm not a shadow, but I'm happy to say a few words if you allow. And thank you for the thorough work done. Obviously, I think the RF is the elephant in the room. That's the really serious point. That's the most severe criticism against the commission. And it's always it's also an enormous amounts of money that that is in that that that organization. And we still lack fundamental tools to control where the money actually goes with traceability. And that, of course, is extremely serious. And it's not only about that. This method of of dispersing money doesn't work in practice. Uncontrollable. But it's also that the commission refuses to draw the right conclusions from how the RF is handled. They pretty much listen to the criticism, say nothing, and don't really change anything. And that is simply not acceptable. The the critique from the Court of Auditors have been very, very severe. And I think they are deeply worried about what's happening. But we cannot see things changing. It's also increasing the debt levels of the union in a very dramatic way. And the cost of the debt of the European Union is increasing rapidly. You can even question is if this is according to the treaty itself or not, if you read the treaty. So I think actually that the handling of the RF is the single reason that makes me doubt if we should grant discharge to the Commission. This is the serious point that way we have to to to to investigate this further. Of course. Then on the case of the NGOs, of course, we all know this is a political campaign against the NGOs and it's conducted by the the right wing and the even more right wing people.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you, chairman, and most welcome to our committee. Commissioner Rivera, my question goes along some of the same lines as. The dependence on fossil fuels is, of course, devastating for for the climate. But we can also see the huge economical risks we are taking now when the oil prices are skyrocketing due to this aggressive war of Israel and the US in. Against Iran. And we can see now how the conflict is spreading, and there is an imminent risk that it will escalate with mutual bombing of oil facilities, which would have a devastating impact not only on the local environment but also of the global oil prices. We can see that inflation is is picking picking up speed. We see increasing costs for transport. And this could really hurt our economies in many ways. One Particularly sensitive area is the electricity production, because the way the electricity market works in the European Union. If a country uses fossil fuels that decides the price of electricity for the for the consumers. And this leads to rapidly rising electricity prices in many countries. So my question is really twofold. First, can we expect if this situation continues. I mean it could also deteriorate and get worse and be prolonged. Can we expect new initiatives for the commission to speed up the transition to renewables and to push back our dependency on fossil fuels? Do you have anything in your back pocket? And secondly, we see the weakness of the electricity market, where the price on electricity produced with fossil fuels rise, the price all over the European Union. And how can we break this linkage between fossil fossil prices and the prices of electricity for consumers? Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “If we look on the legislation put forward and also on the omnibus, that kind of backtracks a bit or watered down already adopted legislation. On top of that, we could say that the use of flexible mechanism in climate targets can water down the true effect of the climate targets. We can see the discussion on the combustion engine coming back. I would say a doubt among investors if things really will happen, for example, when it comes to aviation fuels and maritime fuels. And that is problematic because even though large sums, of course, are invested through the RF and through the EU budget, we all know that if private investors don't step in, it will not happen. The bulk of the money has to come from private investors, and there might be a risk that the commission now sends a signal that says, we don't really know if this will happen or not, and the investors then will hesitate to invest. And then it will be counterproductive and actually prevent us from reaching our goals of diminishing the, the, the emissions. And I know that it might be a bit controversial, but haven't you seen the risk of this with the omnibuses and with the flexible mechanism, and especially with the deforestation coming back two times to water it down and to to push it forward, that you might. Kind of confirm this reluctancy to invest from private investors in these green investments that are really needed. Thank you so much.”
  Climate efforts
• “(16:25:52 – 16:32:02): Thank you so much, Chair. And first of all, I would like to thank Madame Elvinger as a member of the Court of Auditors for this very interesting report on the LIFE strategic projects. I'm a member in both the Environment Committee and in the Budget Control Committee and I find this report not only interesting but also very useful because it's concrete and shows a way forward when it comes to this work. First, I think it's important to keep in mind it's natural that a budget control report focuses on the weaknesses and of course that's the job of the Court of Auditors to do that. But I think also that one thing has to be clear that is also, I think, clearly said by Madame Elvinger that this works, these strategic projects a lot of good and they meet a lot of targets and it's an important tool to reach the environmental goals for the European Union in a number of different fields. But I totally agree that with some changes and a better follow-up this could be more efficient, better use of taxpayers' money, more knowledge about what we actually achieve with what we do. And as been pointed out here, it's about how we choose the projects and what projects that we actually choose so it's actually doing maximum benefit to reach the goals. It's about more clear rules about the additional financing so we have knowledge about how much extra financing there is, from whom, etcetera, and there has to be a methodology for that. It's about sharing best practices that a lot of information is out there but it's apparently not used by the other projects in a way that could be useful. And of course then we have the very complex issue of what happens after LIFE that we all are thinking about sometimes and the follow-up of these projects. But I think this is a core issue that is vital to improve these programs. And I am also very happy that the Commission so clearly states that they are willing to follow all the recommendations from the Court of Auditors. Now I would like to move on to some questions. First, the Court finds that the selection of LIFE strategic projects does not sufficiently take into account Member States' most pressing environmental and climate challenges and that the geographical balance may dilute the focus on impact. That's a very vital conclusion and I wonder maybe if you can give some examples of projects that you may that might be good projects but it would have been better to choose something else, something was more urgent, something would have been better spent money from taxpayers, some would have contributed better to achieving the environmental goals of the Union and of the Member States because I think this is a crucial point. The report also highlights major inconsistencies and lack of verification regarding their reporting of mobilized additional funding and of course this whole system should be built on catalytic effects, that this is a cooperation between various levels of authorities and this of course has to do with funding and you rightly point at the fact that we don't know, we have no, not enough reporting on the additional funding so it's hard to measure. But I would just like to add that the effects of this program and of environmental policy in general cannot be reduced to an economic issue. The sheer fact that we improve environment, be it air quality or be it things that make us more efficient in fighting climate change or be it biodiversity also have a value in itself and that's the real goal of this. So I think it's important, I mean Court of Auditors look at the money, that's fine, but the Commission and we have to focus also on impact of how do we meet the goals of the European Union's environmental legislation. So I would like to nuance that purpose a little bit. And then we have this big question of what happens after LIFE but in the Environment Committee we also discuss the future of LIFE and this I would say is one of the most controversial things that we discuss when we see the proposal of the MFF and if this works and if we now know how to improve it maybe we should not change it too much, maybe we should just take the conclusions, improve it because if it's not broken you don't have to mend it. And it's really, I see a risk with this big reform that they do with the new proposal from the MFF merging all the programs, having a totally new structure and also with the all the budget control aspects that we have of this because we have the lessons learned from the RF that we have to have traceability, we have to know where the money is going and if you redo everything you risk to be forced to invent the wheel once again and it might be better just to preserve some things that actually works and LIFE program with some minor changes and improvement might be one of those things. So I would like to ask both the Court of Auditors and the Commission what are the risks with redoing this whole structure that we might lose projects, structures, things that we've learned on the way and have to restart things again and might be actually less efficient doing so. That being said, both from a general perspective when it comes of how programs are formed but also from a budgetary control perspective because there are also big differences in the structure of the MFF compared to the present model when it comes to the ability of both the Parliament and the Court of Auditors to make sure that the money actually meets the needs that they were meant to meet. Those are my questions. Thank you so much, Kjell.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “But this is not a totally different thing from the actual design. Because the problem with the design is that we cannot follow the money all the way. We cannot trace all the money and see how they are used. And that I would say, I would say is a huge problem because it's even difficult to measure if it's correctly used and how much is used for green investment. And therefore, we also have to have a criticism of the design of the tool as it's as it is. And I think that is definitely a crucial point. And I think that the public acceptance for large investment programs is, is definitely connected to people seeing the Seeing the benefit and being able to follow the money and see what the good it actually does. So it doesn't end up in the wrong place, which unfortunately, both Eppo and Olaf has pointed out in a number of cases that there are some some serious allegations and also court cases about misuse of funds that were intended for proper investments. Having said that, we will take a thorough look at all the amendments and see what we can find the common ground and contribute in the best way possible to this own initiative report. Thank you. Chairman.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Four years of war. And now. Ukraine is responding ever more strongly against the aggressors. Russia is being hit by this. And we should give as much economic and military support as we can to Ukraine. We should strengthen our Sanctions, and we should ensure that Russian oil exports cease. That's how they're funding their war. That's the only way to achieve a just peace. We should avoid any kind of deal that would end up with a carve out, a carving up of Ukraine. We cannot talk about normalizing EU Russia relations whilst the slightest parcel of Ukrainian soil is still occupied. There should be military reparations paid by Russia. The International Criminal Court should also intervene to ensure that Lavrov and Putin are sent where they should be sent, which is prison. The Hague.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “(21:47:04 – 21:48:16): Thank you very much, president. We have to believe the Chinese propaganda. They say that Tibet has autonomy, but if you look at what's happening in practice, that's not the case. In Tibet, Tibetans cannot express themselves in Tibetan or use their, or, promote their culture. There are protests because they're being obliged to speak Mandarin. But there is even worse pressure in Xinjiang. More than 1,000,000 Uighurs have had to be subject of assimilation. Women have been sterilized. They're trying to stifle their culture. China has to meet its obligations.”
  EU-China relations
• “And it's important to combat it and to combat it openly. I think it's also important to to look very thoroughly on some of the of the platforms. We can see in the German election how especially the platform X clearly favoured AfD and the owner of the platform speaking up and speaking on electoral meetings of the AfD. It was it was not even hidden. It was extremely hard for parties like the Greens or the Social Democrats to to get any kind of benefit from the algorithms. That's an interference. That's lack of freedom of speech, that's limiting freedom of speech. To give somebody the the possibility to reach out and some, some by neglect that possibility to some. And that is really crucial that we have the tools that we need to combat that misuse of social platforms. Previously, it was mentioned here that social media is a marketplace. Well, it's a marketplace owned by the richest people in the world. And they, in the end, decides the algorithms. And you can see now that they are politically aligned with the government in the US and how they are used as political tools. This we have to be very aware of. And of course, there are facts and non-facts if somebody says the earth is flat and someone says it's a globe, there is a fact and there is a non-fact.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you. Madam president, Russia's war of aggression is going badly. Every month, tens of thousands of people are killed in the Kremlin. They know that the military mobilization is highly unpopular in Russian society. So what do they do? They pay considerable sums of money to encourage Russians from rural areas go to the front, and they're willing to pay even more to mercenaries from elsewhere in the world. Some of these people are deceived with false promises before being sent to the front in Ukraine. Some of them survive with or without injuries. But this has to stop. Countries from Central Africa reacted quickly, effectively prohibiting their citizens from participating in this mobilization. And many other countries should be working to prevent this transfer of troops.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “And I think it's a vital task for us as an environment committee to make sure and to guard that huge funds that were aimed at green investments are used in a proper way. These this is taxpayers money. They have the right to demand that they are used in the most efficient way. And that is, of course, to reduce climate emissions when that is promised. I would also like to add that this is an ongoing debate also in other committees, not only the committees where this initiative report comes from. I'm also a member of the Budget Control Committee. And this topic, I would say, is a major topic when it comes to the discharge procedure of the European Commission for the last year. This also have a lot of potential impact for the future, as there apparently is a discussion inside the Commission and among member states to introduce a model for the future financial framework that is similar to the model of the RF. And looking at all the flaws and all the weaknesses of the RF. I think that would be a major mistake if those flaws and and weaknesses are not corrected. We pay a lot of money, taxpayers money for green investments. The taxpayers have the right to expect that those are properly used. This is the serious background to the amendments I made in my draft opinion. I'm now very happy to listen to the to the shadows of the other groups, to hear what they are saying, to see what we can find common ground. And I look forward also to a process where we will try to find common compromise amendments. Thank you very much, chairman.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. President. The EU Commission and the right part of this chamber seemed to want the automobile industry to reverse into the future. That's not going to happen. A lot of mistakes have already been made by this industry. There's been focus on expensive models which normal man on the street can't afford, and investing in electric, which is the future. There's been completely insufficient investment there. This can't be sorted out by reversing into the future. No, we need to push the transition. We need to phase out the internal combustion engine by 2035. But instead, what we're seeing is the European Commission doubting about the future. Doubting about the climate transition. That's bad for the climate and that's bad for the European car industry.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, chairman, and thank you so much, Lina, and for your thorough work that you have made, as always. I have two questions. The first one is concerning healthy ecosystems and food security, which you mentioned. Uh, at the same time, you mentioned the importance of healthy ecosystems for food security. At the same time, the way we produce and consume food is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and degradation of our ecosystem. What would your main recommendations be in this field to reverse this development? Secondly, there is a, as you're well aware, a big ongoing debate about the EU goals in the transport sector in certain member states and certain political groups here from the right. They want to reverse the decision to phase out the combustion engines from 2035. And what would such a decision mean if we give up that goal for the ability to meet the climate goals in transport and the overall climate goal to reduction of 90% to 2040? That was to be made. Thank you.”
• “Thank you so much, chairman. I too think that there is a lot of merit to the proposal from the rapporteur, and many of the amendments go in the right direction. So I think there's a good chance of reaching a broad majority in the committee for a strong opinion. On the MFF. Some points that will be important for us and on which will we make amendments is the life programme. We think it is important that it has a good profile, that it not only continues, but it also continues to support the work of NGOs and the OWS is an important expression of the public will in the European Union and a counterweight to the corporate lobbying. There is a political campaign. Now, we heard just a recent speaker from the Patriots trying to claim that the NGOs misuse EU funds are being following this closely in the Budget Control Committee. It's been examined by the Commission, it's been examined by the Budget Control Committee. There have been a special report from the Court of Auditors, and there's not proof of one single euro, not one single euro misused by the NGOs. So this is purely a political campaign, and I hope we can refrain from even discussing this kind of Just false claims on the NGOs to try to silence them and try to to diminish their, their, their influence. On the other hand, many of the parties driving these political campaigns in the Patriots groups, they are themselves under direct investigation for embezzling EU funds from the European Parliament, millions of euros that have been misused by the very parties that are now pointing fingers at the NGOs.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “I think it's very, very important that we don't start to postpone or to water down Cbam because then we will see push after push in area after area not to do this. And I'm happy that with the negotiations with India for the new free trade agreement, there was a solution found that we don't go down this road that will lead to weakening this vital instrument, to protect the green transition that we are doing in Europe. And apart from protecting our own manufacturers and protecting those that have done their homework for climate, This also, in fact has a security dimension because even though we are implementing customs on on fertilizers from Russia, they are still a big source of import to Europe. This import is made by Russian dirty fossil fuels and it's financing the war of aggression in Ukraine. That's what the fertilizer import from Russia does. And if we don't implement cbam on the fertilizer import from Russia, we continue with open eyes. This this action financing of the war of aggression against Ukraine. So I think we have multiple good reasons to stick to what we have promised when it comes to cbam and fertilizers, but I would. I'm very curious to hear you elaborate a bit on this. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you so much. And welcome to our committee, Commissioner Hoekstra. Here I am I live in the north of Sweden. It's a region with a lot of heavy industry, and it's a lot. There are a lot of plans to decarbonize and to make alternative fuels in my home region. We have some of the largest mines in Europe and they are decarbonising. We have big investments for fossil free steel, and we have a number of planned investments for green fuels replacing fossil fuels, especially in aviation. And when it comes to shipping activities, we have a combination of relatively cheap electricity from renewables. We have a surplus and we have a lot of forestry and paper industry that makes an excellent combination for making green fuels that replace carbon fuels. But many of these investors, now, they are they are hesitating. They are a bit reluctant. And they talk about the political risk because they are not sure that you will actually do what you have said that you will do. Will the will the combustion engine really be replaced in 2035? Will these plans of replacing fossil fuels in maritime and aviation sector really be kept on track. If not, they will not invest. And that's where we are now. They talk about the political risk. And I have to say that the commission is actually partly responsible for that. Looking at how you handle, for example, the deforestation file, opening it up, taking a huge risk with tearing it down, the legislation and also, in fact, the process of simplification can be used as a an excuse to water down or to dilute or delay the legislation. So I think we are in a situation where many main investors are hesitating if they should invest in Europe. They might invest somewhere else. So I would like to ask you, how will you regain confidence that you will actually stick to the plans, keep your promises and decarbonise according to the timetables already set down? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you chair. I will speak in Swedish.\ First of all, I'd like to say thank you to Commissioner Russell for her presentation. As you said, Jessica, we are quite far from actually reaching these targets. There's a lot to do, and it's going to be all the more difficult at the same time. There are several tools. We have legislation, but also our budget, and it's become very important for us where we work, where we could add resources within the live programme, for instance, to work with biodiversity issues. But when we look at the proposal, the the MFF proposal, this criticism to this decreased level of ambition. Life, the life programme is removed, etc. and the. The level of ambition seems to decrease when we have discussed this. It seems clear that we need a specialized part of the budget for biodiversity issues, a dedicated part and a target of perhaps 10% for biodiversity issues. And we know how very difficult this situation is. So how do you look at this possibility of actually reaching a target with a specific dedicated percentage for biodiversity issues? That's my first question. Secondly, how can we track these, uh, these money Having targets is one thing, but knowing that the money reaches to the right destination is another thing. It is sometimes quite difficult to actually track where the money goes. So with this budgetary proposal, can you be sure that it's going to be possible to check how much money, how many resources have gone to the biological diversity issues? It is actually quite important that we're able to do this. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you so much, chair. I would like to echo the concerns and the questions put forward by my colleagues in the green group and in the social democratic group. I think it's very strange that this initiative comes now, and it needs to be to have an explanation from the Commission. The legislation on maximum residue limits clearly states that residues should not be present at levels presenting an unacceptable risk to humans and to animals. Moreover, also our General Food Law and the Law on Authorisation of Pesticides aim to ensure that our food and the pesticides that are used shall be safe for humans, animals and the environment. This is clearly not the case when we raise the maximum residue limits for acetamiprid in honey. This insecticide is one of the neonicotinoids aimed to kill insects and it's very good at it. It is not only very toxic to the target insects, but also to bees and other pollinators. That is very well documented in independent scientific research. Additionally, this toxin is also very harmful for human health. We should have banned this pesticide a long time ago. Instead, the commission is now facilitating its use by raising the residue limits. This goes contrary to the ambitious ambitions for a toxic free environment, and is contrary to our efforts to ensure food security. The left Group will support this objection, and I encourage all fellow members in the committee to do the same. Thank you. Chair.”
  Maximum residue levels