René REPASI

Policy topics René REPASI is active on

What René REPASI has said (74)

• 2026-07-15 “It feels good to be the largest group for once, but it also shows something about the notable absence of the EPP on this question, which I find deplorable as we have a very excellent, EPP commissioner here in front of us. So when commissioner, I'm very grateful that you are here in in our committee. We know each other from a different committee and also already there. I appreciate the cooperation and the respect that you have towards parliament, very much. And, therefore, also that parliament had the possibility to check on those draft delegated acts before the formal deadline, started to run was much appreciated. The S and D group, was getting in touch with you, before, the commission adopted its delegated act, and we positively noted that our major requests were taken on board, in particular that you resisted, a certain temptation within the commission from the outside of the commission to water down the double materiality and that you took over large parts of, FRAC. As you know, the SND was not part of the, sustainability omnibus that led to this delegated act, and we still are not. But, as you rightly mentioned, so there, we also speak here about voluntary standards. We have parts on the financial, on the financial markets that need information, which under the changed changes in the Omnibus are now not to be delivered at least by a mandatory way. That, therefore, the standards for the voluntary reporting are of utmost importance for businesses also those that are outside of the scope. So therefore, despite the fact that the S and D was not supportive on the Omnibus as such and we still, are critical about the final result, we see the added value of these delegated act to the overall system, in particular that the commission upheld Europe's uniqueness in nonfinancial reporting, which is from our perspective and remains an opportunity rather than a burden. I wanted to, address 1 more specific element into it, which is a bit linked to the debate that we have also in Econ Committee on the revision of the SFDR, which is on the reporting for asset managers. As here, we have a carve out for asset managers to report on client relationships, which if you then read it together indeed with the SFDR discussion that is not linked to this delegated act that here, there is no reporting at entity level, could create a loophole. And we're wondering how you intend, to address that matter or whether there are any other safeguards in the commission proposal on the delegated act that, address this stuff. Once again, thanks a lot, B, for being in the committee and for having this discussion.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2026-07-15 “(11:42:19 - 11:49:14): Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and thanks a lot for the for the, discussion that we had here, which basically outlines already the challenge that is ahead of, me as a rapporteur as, we, of course, intend to have a vote in the plenary by October 2 latest. Nevertheless, we are doing politics in order to overcome the impossible, and, let's therefore give it a try. And I do believe if you look at the policy direction, I do see sufficient common ground to actually come to this to this to this successful conclusion of finding a parliamentary position. Because it is clear, as it was also said by others, this company formed this EU Inc. Must be attractive. The whole point of a 28 regime is that it is more attractive than the 27 national other ones. The whole point of how Letta invented it was to say, let's not do harmonization. Let's do something that in the end is going to replace, if successful, all the other ones by being the most attractive 1. Hence, we have to answer, we have to ask ourselves, what makes a NEO Inc. Attractive? What sort of competition do we want to have? Do we honor a competition down to the lowest common denominator and the lowest working and protection standard? Or is it competition based on merit even if it may require higher protection standard in others in other jurisdictions? I personally am very clear in this in all my time as a, as a politician. I'm for competition based on merit. And if I'm for competition based on merit, I have to exclude those factors that are not merit based, but only lead to cheap products where the price is paid by workers, consumers, or the environment. And therefore, I also have to disagree that our standard cannot be that EU Inc. Is the most attractive 1 compared to all other EU foreign companies because this means EU Inc. Is only attractive is it have the least the least standards to comply with of all 27 member states. This cannot be our ambition, and this can also not be what, what the what the European, legislation should look for. No. It should legislate properly so that we have a push for the internal market, which means, yes, we need more liberalization. But this push towards more liberalization may not mean that the protection standards for the weaker party are remaining national and therefore are put into a downward spiral. We have a responsibility as lawmakers not to enable and to engage into harmful competition, but into competition based on merit. And therefore, a good rule is designed so that it distracts those that consider compliance with it and burden, whilst it opens the path for those who actually want to make use of the highway that is created. A company that is created in a member state that doesn't know employee participation and has 0 employees but employs 1,000 or 2,000 in another member state with employee participation. Does such company deserve the protection of not meeting the standards of their competitors in this particular country? And here, I do say no because then the competition is made on the on the is is is here made on the protection of the workers and employees in this in this particular country. So if we want to have the internal market, yes, we need to have a stable connecting factor. The only 1 we have is the country of registration. I take it. But if this is the case, we must understand we must understand that artificial constructions are simply possible. You can have even more letterbox companies, especially when it is that easy, like walking from here to the metro station in Malbec to create an EOINC on your phone and have to wait 2 working days in order to have it created. Then we do not create a level playing field with those who actually do competition based on merit. If we, however, have the guardrails and if we have the safeguards, then the good ones will not be hindered, but the bad ones have no incentive to go into that direction. Therefore, dear shadow from the EPP, I have difficulties to understand your fundamental opposition to any sort of employee participation because that is the consequence if you delete even article 12. If you come to a conclusion that everything should follow the registered seat because this only means that any sort participation of workers in management decisions is going to die out. And the success of any startup is not the brain not only the brain of its founders, but the talents and the skill of its workers. Any startup wants to be a good employer. They are not interested in undermining employee participation standards. On the contrary, they want to showcase that they are good employers. But what they don't need is to have EU inks that have the same name as they have, but only do working poor undermining labor conditions and undermining employee participation. Therefore, we must build something that basically, forecloses the access to EU Inc. For those who should not deserve the seal of quality. And that makes it that also we have to look when we are legislating, who do we want to protect next to the employees that I was just mentioning. Is it the founder of the incorporation or it is the investor? If we can do both, fine. If both are in conflict, I say it is the founder. We create here a company form for the innovative ideas for the founders to unlock the potential of the internal market. In the end, we are having something extremely ambitious ahead of us. We need to conclude by October if we want to keep up with the schedule to have trial logs finished by December. And there are many other legislative files who have to do this. There's interpretation capacity needed for many other files in order to get this properly done. People will do overwork and have already done so. Therefore, I'm grateful for the services of this committee, for the legal, service to have already done their additional work in order to get this draft report done and what is going to be ahead of us. This is going to be a strain on our capacities, and I therefore already want to say now thanks to all who want to engage in this ambition and to get it done, and that requires a spirit of compromise on the political level to come together and acknowledgement and respect for all the labor force that is going to be put in getting this whole thing done. Thank you very much, Mister Chairman.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-15 “(17:49:26 - 17:53:29): Thanks a lot, madam chairwoman, for, inviting me to AMPL Committee. It's always exciting for an MEP to be, for the 1st time, in another committee, the 1 that you're used to as we can see how different committees work differently. So thanks a lot for the opportunity and to present some thoughts. We had today, the EURE meeting with the consideration of draft report. There, the advantage is rapporteur has more minutes than 3, so I try to be even more condensed. But let me, in particular, start with the very fact that I'm grateful for Empel to do the work on the opinion and also under such time pressure. It's the rules of procedure that forces us to that sort of schedule. We also try to accommodate a little bit the situation so that, Empel has a bit more of time to conclude the negotiations with the promise that a report that has found majority will still be taken into very due consideration. And in that sense, I'm looking forward to receiving the results of the opinion. From Yuri's perspective, I think what I would like to add is 1 thing. Namely, what we want to create with the EU Inc is limited liability company form that has the privilege of being quickly established or digital once only within 2 working days, but most and foremost, having automatic access to the entire internal market, unlocking the potential of the internal market, in particular, for innovative companies that ideally become the next unicorn so they have to grow quickly and become scale ups. In order to have this, we need a so called stable connecting factor so that anywhere where you are in the internal market, we can clearly identify to which legal order such corporate form belongs because otherwise crossing the border means committing suicide from a corporate perspective. And therefore, is no alternative to a place of registration in order to have a stable connecting factor. Markus was already mentioning it in his contribution. But if we are doing so, we must be also aware that that means that the place of the economic activity and the place of the legal registration can be 2 different countries. And that normally member states, if they are looking at, vulnerable or weaker parties, be it consumers, be it creditors, be it even investors, be it workers and employees, they look at the place of the economic activity. And all those standards would be put into some sort of competition if the relationship to the registered seat is not regulated, and that's what we generally call forum shopping. And if EU Inc. Is supposed to become a seal of quality, it must make ensure that the competition that we want to trigger with EU Inc. Is a competition based on merit, The old way of how Europe looks at competition and not competition on the lowest standard and basically determining the price by the lowest standard that is achievable. Hence, in order to give, startups, scale ups the right highway to to come to a proper EU Inc, we need to preserve the stable connecting factor of the registered seat, but we need to address at the place where economic activity is taking place as standards are protected. Hence, we need to have a connection to the place of employment if we want to deal with the questions of determination. Given the multitude of co determination and employee participation regimes in Europe, it is only right to then look at 2nd instance at tailor made solutions with the negotiation procedure where we do have sufficient experience, and we should learn from this experience. I think that the suggestion made by Markus Mayer Admann is a good 1, but also the Jure wants to go into this direction. Jure is a committee full of lawyers that know a lot about law, but not per se a lot what is happening in employment. And that's the reason why we need your expert, advice on this matter, how the best would be dealt with in matters of labor law, be it individual or collective or employee participation. Hence, looking forward to the debate within this committee and even more on the final result of the opinion. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-15 “(17:24:27 - 17:30:05): Thank you very much, chairperson. It's really a pleasure to be able to participate in this meeting in this hearing before the committee. I would be really fast. Next, please. I focus my intervention on the role of preventive control. Why are preventive control important? Because they ensure the respect of the rule of law in view of protecting the weak parties in business relations. They ensure that information in business register is reliable. They enhance the mutual trust among the participants in the internal market. Clearly, they also increase the level of transparency and prevent abuses. This is for the benefit of all business transaction occurring in the European Union. This is contrary to the model we have, for example, in The United States. Next, please. While the current level of, preventive control is enshrined in directive 11 32 in this article, article 10, article 13 c, and article 13 g, These are minimum amortization, provisions that, are applicable to all, limited liability companies, in the European Union. They've been, finalized. They reviewed finally in 2025 with directive 25 of 2025. And, they provide a complete framework to ensure, that, when you create a company, when you carry out some business transaction, some controls are in place to the benefit of, essentially, all market participants. On the other hand, the UN proposal only, provides a single article to preventive control, article 14. Next, please. And the the rules that you find in this different set of provision are quite different. This is the current situation of the aki. You need to verify the legal capacity intended as the capacity to act of the person that create a company. You needed to verify the object and the name of the company vis a vis the national law. You have to carry out a check on the article of association of the company you are creating if you are modifying the bylaws, and you have to verify that all the substantive requirements for the incorporation of the legal entities have been complied with. Then there are other, requirements, like compliance with formal, requirements and needed to verify that the mandatory minimum content provided by the national law is in place, and then you have AML and tax related checks. Next, please. On top of this, the directives also provide other, controls. Is the current situation still. And in particular, you will need to verify the correct use of identity, identification, the correct use of identification means, in particular, according to the IDAS regulation, and verification of the correct appointment of director and if member states require so, the rules the correct use of, rules on directors disqualification. Next, please. On the other hand, we should say that the Uink only provides very few, controls. There is not a real control of the identity. There is just a check on formal requirements and no substantive requirements of the article of association. There is a check on the mandatory minimum content, but this is limited only to what is said in the annex of the regulation, which is clearly not as broad as what you have in the national law. You will need to check, if the name and the object comply not with the entire legal system in which the company will operate, but just with the regulation. And we let you will have just to check, if, the parties that will create this legal entity have legal capacity. It is not really clear how you will be able to do that nor, check on the fact that, the persons have a capacity to act. And so to, enter in a legal relationship verifying that are sound of mind, for example. Also, there is a necessity to check that contribution have been provided. Next, please. So to be really clear, and this is also my last slide, we should say that there are many controls that are missed, and this is important because in some previous meeting regarding the EU ink that took place in Brussels in the last days, It was said that the controls you have for the EU Inc. Are the same as you have currently in place for private and public limited liability companies. This is not true. This is the list of controls that are different, more lenient, and these, I would say, more lenient control will probably result in a vehicle that would be more prone to abuse and these to the detriment of the internal market. For this reason, I think it would be important to be sure that a level playing field is ensured between a directive that was approved 2025 and this new proposal for a regulation that in the end try to, achieve a goal that is similar to the 1 that was pursued in the directive of 2025 that of ensuring that companies can operate at the cross border level safely by providing the minimum set of information that is, necessary to engage in cross border transactions. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-15 “(17:49:26 - 17:53:29): Thanks a lot, madam chairwoman, for, inviting me to AMPL Committee. It's always exciting for an MEP to be, for the 1st time, in another committee, the 1 that you're used to as we can see how different committees work differently. So thanks a lot for the opportunity and to present some thoughts. We had today, the EURE meeting with the consideration of draft report. There, the advantage is rapporteur has more minutes than 3, so I try to be even more condensed. But let me, in particular, start with the very fact that I'm grateful for Empel to do the work on the opinion and also under such time pressure. It's the rules of procedure that forces us to that sort of schedule. We also try to accommodate a little bit the situation so that, Empel has a bit more of time to conclude the negotiations with the promise that a report that has found majority will still be taken into very due consideration. And in that sense, I'm looking forward to receiving the results of the opinion. From Yuri's perspective, I think what I would like to add is 1 thing. Namely, what we want to create with the EU Inc is limited liability company form that has the privilege of being quickly established or digital once only within 2 working days, but most and foremost, having automatic access to the entire internal market, unlocking the potential of the internal market, in particular, for innovative companies that ideally become the next unicorn so they have to grow quickly and become scale ups. In order to have this, we need a so called stable connecting factor so that anywhere where you are in the internal market, we can clearly identify to which legal order such corporate form belongs because otherwise crossing the border means committing suicide from a corporate perspective. And therefore, is no alternative to a place of registration in order to have a stable connecting factor. Markus was already mentioning it in his contribution. But if we are doing so, we must be also aware that that means that the place of the economic activity and the place of the legal registration can be 2 different countries. And that normally member states, if they are looking at, vulnerable or weaker parties, be it consumers, be it creditors, be it even investors, be it workers and employees, they look at the place of the economic activity. And all those standards would be put into some sort of competition if the relationship to the registered seat is not regulated, and that's what we generally call forum shopping. And if EU Inc. Is supposed to become a seal of quality, it must make ensure that the competition that we want to trigger with EU Inc. Is a competition based on merit, The old way of how Europe looks at competition and not competition on the lowest standard and basically determining the price by the lowest standard that is achievable. Hence, in order to give, startups, scale ups the right highway to to come to a proper EU Inc, we need to preserve the stable connecting factor of the registered seat, but we need to address at the place where economic activity is taking place as standards are protected. Hence, we need to have a connection to the place of employment if we want to deal with the questions of determination. Given the multitude of co determination and employee participation regimes in Europe, it is only right to then look at 2nd instance at tailor made solutions with the negotiation procedure where we do have sufficient experience, and we should learn from this experience. I think that the suggestion made by Markus Mayer Admann is a good 1, but also the Jure wants to go into this direction. Jure is a committee full of lawyers that know a lot about law, but not per se a lot what is happening in employment. And that's the reason why we need your expert, advice on this matter, how the best would be dealt with in matters of labor law, be it individual or collective or employee participation. Hence, looking forward to the debate within this committee and even more on the final result of the opinion. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-15 “(11:03:03 - 11:11:58): Thank you, mister chairman. Indeed, consideration of draft report in a rather tight schedule. We have started working roughly about a month ago. And, in order to quote the famous German poet, Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, he said, my dear friend, I had no time to write you a short letter, so it has become a long one. And in that sense, the draft report with its 150 pages shows the massive creative energy that my office, my team, myself, have put forward here. But it also shows that this is not the version that will be published in the official journal, and therefore, we are looking forward for amendments, be it from myself, be it also from other shadow rapporteurs or other interested parties. On what we have, nevertheless, on the table shows politically where, in my eyes, the European Parliament should go to. Namely, as a starting point, seeing that EU Inc. is an opportunity. It is first an opportunity to finally, in this mandate, since the European elections 2024, to establish and create new uniform EU rules rather than deconstructing already existing European rules with so called omnibuses. Second, it is an opportunity to create a seal of quality for startups, for employees of EU Inc, and for investors. It is not only that we give an EU Inc. the name Inc, which is US of US American origin, but we also give it the abbreviation EU. And therefore, EU should also be in a company form that has its name. Let's therefore also be clear that we have to create a highway, a highway for innovative startups and scale ups, a highway for innovators. And what they need is that all is done digitally in the creation of a company form in existence and when it's time to die. That there is a once only principle follow-up, submitted once and afterwards, it's for the other authorities to gather the information where it was already submitted. That a registration is finalized within 2 working days and that it costs us no more than €100. That is the highway that we need to establish. But when we're looking at a highway, a highway, except for my country of origin, needs speed limits, and it needs guardrails. Because otherwise, we have riots on the highways and we have rowdies disturbing those who only want to be quick and fast at home or at the place where they are traveling to. And those limits and those guardrails, they are missing, and they are now in the draft report as presented. We need to protect the EU way of doing things. And the EU way of doing things is that we invest into proper preventive controls so that we do not have to be sorry later. The American Western type of way should and then talk. Therefore, let's not underestimate our preventive controls. Let not open the doors to anti money launderers in order to later take them off the market. Harm is done already in the first second of existence of a man of a money launderer. Let's strengthen preventive control. Second, in order to have full free movement in the internal market, which is essential for an EU Inc, we need to have a stable connecting factor, which is only the place of the registration. Yet that invites, that that can lead to a situation where the legal place of a company is different than its economic activity. So the protection standards connected to the economic activity could be undermined. If this is a seal of quality, let's close those doors where they do not undermine our highway. And that is the protection of labor law. It's the protection of workers' standards and employee conditions. Let's protect collective agreements and the very effect of how they are negotiated. Let's also look at employee participation, which is a matter of corporate law because participation of employees in a company is corporate law, mostly known as co determination under the German system, but many member states know it. The Netherlands, Denmark, and other countries, no forms of employee participation. Here, it is crucial that it is the place of the employment that matters for the determination of the applicable law for co determination in order to ensure that high standards of employee participation are respected. And this is also a lesson learned from the past. Whilst I was a young student when it happened, previous attempts to have European pan European limited liability companies always failed because the question of employee participation was either not addressed or not properly addressed. Let's not risk this great opportunity because of that matter that can be properly solved by working by protecting employee participation. Let's also establish innovative ways of attracting talent such as employee stock options or stock ownership programs, but let's not open it as a tool to working poor. Let's make clear that Sops cannot be used in order to replace ordinary pay, but it's rather a bonus, and that is something that our amendments we're introducing. But let's also make use of new ways of how founders are founding companies. There is a broad variety of how founders want to organize their company, including ways in which they want to introduce elements of store ownership. Very innovative ones want to protect their innovation against killer acquisitions, but then lack fundamental freedom and free movement within the internal market. Therefore, we included a way of how an EU Inc. can be optionally and voluntarily transformed into a steward on EU Inc. This is only strengthening, expanding the freedom of founders and not limiting them. And let's also learn our lessons that we actually have to learn from Delaware. It is not that we have an Inc incorporated in Europe, but it is fast and high quality decision making that was not addressed by the commission. We therefore propose an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in a digital platform with decisions made public on EU Inc questions for business to business, decisions. I believe this is crucial in order to actually have an attractive way of how disputes with EU Inc are later settled. Let me conclude on substance with some words on insolvency. I'm also a member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. And here we have finance ministers, my own one, notably not only from the Social Democrats, but previous from the Christian Democratic Party as well. On Sunday, they say we need the completion of the Capital Market Union. And once you touch one essential stone of this, which is insolvency law, everybody knows why you cannot touch it. So if we want to give better access to venture capital, then, obviously, insolvency law is something to be addressed. Having something like insolvency law in the EU in proposal does make sense to me if it is indeed limited to those who are exposed to the highest risks, so startups with a limited amount of creditors. Therefore, let's not be uncreative and simply delete what we don't understand, but let's try to transform this insolvency chapter in something that can finally meet our Sunday speeches that we need a capital market union. A last word on legal base. The council is very much discussing the question of the legal base. As you know, parliament's own initiative report has suggested the maximum harmonization directive based on 50 and 114 1. And there's something to be said that there are elements on corporate law in this proposal that fall under this particular legal base. And in that sense, I have my doubts about the accuracy of this legal base, but we are entering new territories so that this legal base can also be argued. I'm following closely what the council is discussing on the matter, and parliament will be ready if the council wants to adjust the EU Inc proposal to an appropriate legal base, which in my eyes would be a combination of 50 and 114, and then having a directive. Yet this report is built on the assumption that EU Inc will be adopted as a regulation based on article 114 1 TFEU. I'm now looking forward to the exchange with shadow rapporteurs and other interested parties, and we'll come back to any remarks later in my reply. Thank you very much, mister chairman.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-15 “(17:24:27 - 17:30:05): Thank you very much, chairperson. It's really a pleasure to be able to participate in this meeting in this hearing before the committee. I would be really fast. Next, please. I focus my intervention on the role of preventive control. Why are preventive control important? Because they ensure the respect of the rule of law in view of protecting the weak parties in business relations. They ensure that information in business register is reliable. They enhance the mutual trust among the participants in the internal market. Clearly, they also increase the level of transparency and prevent abuses. This is for the benefit of all business transaction occurring in the European Union. This is contrary to the model we have, for example, in The United States. Next, please. While the current level of, preventive control is enshrined in directive 11 32 in this article, article 10, article 13 c, and article 13 g, These are minimum amortization, provisions that, are applicable to all, limited liability companies, in the European Union. They've been, finalized. They reviewed finally in 2025 with directive 25 of 2025. And, they provide a complete framework to ensure, that, when you create a company, when you carry out some business transaction, some controls are in place to the benefit of, essentially, all market participants. On the other hand, the UN proposal only, provides a single article to preventive control, article 14. Next, please. And the the rules that you find in this different set of provision are quite different. This is the current situation of the aki. You need to verify the legal capacity intended as the capacity to act of the person that create a company. You needed to verify the object and the name of the company vis a vis the national law. You have to carry out a check on the article of association of the company you are creating if you are modifying the bylaws, and you have to verify that all the substantive requirements for the incorporation of the legal entities have been complied with. Then there are other, requirements, like compliance with formal, requirements and needed to verify that the mandatory minimum content provided by the national law is in place, and then you have AML and tax related checks. Next, please. On top of this, the directives also provide other, controls. Is the current situation still. And in particular, you will need to verify the correct use of identity, identification, the correct use of identification means, in particular, according to the IDAS regulation, and verification of the correct appointment of director and if member states require so, the rules the correct use of, rules on directors disqualification. Next, please. On the other hand, we should say that the Uink only provides very few, controls. There is not a real control of the identity. There is just a check on formal requirements and no substantive requirements of the article of association. There is a check on the mandatory minimum content, but this is limited only to what is said in the annex of the regulation, which is clearly not as broad as what you have in the national law. You will need to check, if the name and the object comply not with the entire legal system in which the company will operate, but just with the regulation. And we let you will have just to check, if, the parties that will create this legal entity have legal capacity. It is not really clear how you will be able to do that nor, check on the fact that, the persons have a capacity to act. And so to, enter in a legal relationship verifying that are sound of mind, for example. Also, there is a necessity to check that contribution have been provided. Next, please. So to be really clear, and this is also my last slide, we should say that there are many controls that are missed, and this is important because in some previous meeting regarding the EU ink that took place in Brussels in the last days, It was said that the controls you have for the EU Inc. Are the same as you have currently in place for private and public limited liability companies. This is not true. This is the list of controls that are different, more lenient, and these, I would say, more lenient control will probably result in a vehicle that would be more prone to abuse and these to the detriment of the internal market. For this reason, I think it would be important to be sure that a level playing field is ensured between a directive that was approved 2025 and this new proposal for a regulation that in the end try to, achieve a goal that is similar to the 1 that was pursued in the directive of 2025 that of ensuring that companies can operate at the cross border level safely by providing the minimum set of information that is, necessary to engage in cross border transactions. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-09 “(11:27:15 - 11:28:22): Commissioner, colleagues, EU Inc. Is an important proposal for our single market, and I fully agree with what mister Niedermeyer said from the EPP. We need to dare to have more single market, and that means more liberalization, of course, but it also means European protective standards. We don't want to see competitive dumping by which national taxation rules and labor laws are put into a bonfire. The danger when you have unbridled competition is a significant 1. It's a race to the bottom, and that's the same for taxation systems as well. We shouldn't have discrimination when it comes to taxation under EU Inc. Because that provides a problem, but we also need good standards so that we don't have further tax competition in the EU. I welcome this text, though. EU Inc. Needs to provide a seal of quality rather than being coming an excuse for dumping. Thank you. Please.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-06-17 “(10:18:52 – 10:20:05): Commissioner, honorable members, we need political action. We have a trade deficit with China. If we have trade distortions, let's increase customs. If we need quotas, let's introduce them. If products infringe EU law, then let's ban them from our markets. We want European tax to be invested in European jobs. Let's come up with a made in Europe label. These instruments are available. Let's use them rather than talking, in fine words and using rhetoric without action. We recently traveled to China as part of an EP delegation. Let's tackle the challenges. We need innovation. If we really want to stand tall against China, then we need to bank everything on research and development. So we can't cut Horizon. Counsel, you're wrong there. It should be where we spend most our money on research and development.”
  "Buy European" provisions · Trade relations with China
• “Madam president, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 28th Regime is there to try and overcome the fragmentation of the single market. Let's get rid of the national implementation of directives of their own Bat and the creation of new barriers under the name of gold plating for others. People talk about the nightmare of Europe. The protective guarantees that member states can provide having to be sacrificed on the altar of European free trade. Our revision. Our idea of the 28th regime. The EU is clear. We know that if you want to dip your toes in the shark infested water here, you have to be able to have some sort of limits established. A private limited company has to be able to be founded within 48 hours in a digital form, and this is a form of company that has to be open to everybody. It has to be an idea that if we only allow innovative companies, you're going to have to come up with another simplification later on down the line. So you must provide freedom of establishment in the EU. That's the only way that an innovative idea can benefit from the innovative aspects of the single market. Now this has to be subject to the same rules in whichever EU member state it's in. We have to make sure that there is legal certainty there, and there must be minimum, um, a minimum capital requirement that is equal across the board regardless of what national rules say. Of course, we know that some small companies have problems keeping up with big companies, but they do have their dreams. And we have to make sure that capital and and employees are protected under this new form against killer acquisitions, but also to ensure that there are innovation and creation is protected.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Um. Moreover, we should protect what was successful in the previous programs. And here I would specifically look at the Maria Sklodowska-Curie action programs and make them strong, and that they work, because that is how young researchers from all over Europe can have access to a to a research career that will lead to innovation. And it must also be clear when we're looking at those that we must take into account what funding by this programme means for young researchers in terms of their social security, their labour security and the development paths. Finally, if we are looking at including defence and security matters into horizon programmes, I'm referring to the dual use. We must see how nowadays this is of course of relevance for our research. But we must be clear that any expansion towards dual use may not undermine the essence of research, which is open science, transparency and collaboration across boundaries, across borders. And that dual use adds to it but doesn't undermine it. I'm looking forward to the exchanges of today. And the cooperation that we're going to have in the coming months is going to be quite a battle. It's going to be quite a fight, but one that is worth for Europe's growth and innovation. Thank you.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “Thank you, chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here in committee. I can continue with the question that colleague Mantovani was asking on the 28th regime. Not very surprising. And let me be very concrete. Namely, do you intend to introduce the 28th regime on the basis of a regulation or directive in a political interview? It was, I read that you consider a regulation while the Commission working programme refers to legal basis for a directive, and if it's indeed a regulation, what do you intend to simplify with this proposal? Looking at the limitations that legal basis has made might bring in, or do you actually consider to get it done by unanimity, which actually will never lead to more simplification, but to a need for another omnibus to clean up the mess that unanimity creates? Second, in terms of simplification on employee participation in the 28th regime, do you consider the public interest that needs to be protected and therefore included, or as something that should be simplified? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to the four experts for their contributions to this. I think very important hearing in this process. Um, given the time constraints, let me jump directly to the questions. My first set of questions goes to Maria Leptin, representing also the IRC here, because if I may be so frank, given that we are here in a political context, I find it rather flabbergasting the attack that the European Commission is doing on the autonomy and independence of the IRC in the specific program proposal. The first Council reaction was also, in a sense to to contradict this approach. Therefore, I would be very much interested in your view on this particular proposal. Don't you need more time as a president in order to actually ensure the excellence that the ERC has? Does not the same apply to the ERC Scientific Council? Don't we need to at least have a renewable term for the president and the members of the Scientific Council? And what kind of further elements we need to strengthen the autonomy beyond repairing what the European Commission has done? In other words, given that we are here in the hearing, what is your wish list to us? In order to even improve the excellency guaranteed by the autonomy and independence of the ERC? Second point, we know that one of the biggest troubles is time to grant, and therefore I'm wondering to which extent it might be imaginable to create, be it a funding line, be it an instrument in which we already allocate a certain amount of funds to research institutions before the whole programming process starts, and by that giving, then the participating institutions the autonomy to define the programming, to define the cause and basically tailor make it to their excellency and not making themselves so beautiful to what civil servants have thought it might be, and where in two years money is granted.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you chair. I think this debate has shown where we currently stand in terms of where there are conflicts, where we need to find bridges and where we are all together looking forward and ahead into the future. Um, the debate therefore made also obvious that we do have a lot of common ground in this particular field to move on with. Also, I think a broad, uh, uh, a broad compromise amongst many groups that are present here on the on the matter of the, of the regulation and the directive. I just want to repeat what I said earlier. What matters is that we have a result that indeed has uniform application throughout the entire European Union, and that every market participant can expect from any creature that has the label that this legal act wants to introduce, that these expectations are met everywhere by the same, under the same conditions and at the same requirements. And there are two ways to get there. And for all those that have their doubts about directives, they should know that we do not have that many maximum harmonisation directives in EU law. But we all are one way or another, consumers, and we all know about the right of withdrawal of of of products that we bought as a consumer online. This right of withdrawal, including its time limits, was introduced by a directive by a regulation. Time limits were defined in the directive. The right itself was defined in the directive. And so there are many other examples in terms of consumer protection that were introduced by means of a directive. But every citizen now in all of Europe, which are the conditions and how they are to be exercised. So in that sense, a maximum harmonisation directive can achieve the objective of having the same rules, rights and obligations throughout the entire European Union. And I would like us to look into if, just as Pascal said, we can avoid unanimity, unanimity voting in the Council, as that would kill any innovation that we might contribute to this 28th regime. Thank you.”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• “Her president colleagues 7 billion USD. That is how much Mehta earns every year when it advertises these highly risky scams. 7 billion USD. And that is just to sacrifice these consumers. The services are losing their savings that they have saved up for their retirement because they fall for these scams. And it even happens to people who work for the financial services. So this is a huge problem, and we must address it in the payments directive that we concluded three weeks ago. We will get liability for these online platforms if people then fall for a scam linked to their bank logo. We need to build on that. Anyone who earns money from harmful adverts, who traps people, who put them into financial crisis, must pay for that damage. Commissioner. Take action. Thank you. Yes, please.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “We need to make sure that the profit of these companies should go back into the company. And we have to understand this better. More than 60% of the stock exchange companies are in private ownership in Denmark, in Spain. We have the model that owners of companies are workers. We have to make sure the founders of the companies who have innovative ideas and who organize themselves in an innovative way, should be granted the same access to free movement rules for classically organized companies. And finally, with the 28th regime to turn this into a successful model, we have to make sure that we don't allow charlatans on board. If you establish a found an SE to overcome standards, you're going to be damaging this new form. If it gets the the reputation of a circumvention model, it's not going to attract talent and it's not going to attract attract innovative, innovative ideas. That's why it has to be basically protected against this sort of abuse. We have to make sure that under community law, there is employee protection. That has to be part and parcel of that. We have to make sure that that employee protection needs to be covered clearly with legal certainty under the 28th regime. If we don't manage to do that, then this is condemned to failure as previous forms have experienced. Commissioner, the report you have before you enjoys the support of the Social Democrats, ECR, liberals and the Greens. When was that the last case? When did we see that? It's a total package. So please build your draft on this and you will garner a broad ranging majority in this chamber. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm taking indeed the floor on behalf of our shadow rapporteurs who could unfortunately not be here today. The SNP has been consistent throughout this discussion. Simplification is welcome. We want a more sustainable economy and that transition will be driven by business. So anything we can do to make it simpler, clearer and cheaper is to be welcomed provided that it does not undermine our sustainability goals. Slashing enforcement mechanisms, requirements and scope can hardly be described as simplification. The Commission pushed ahead with these proposals in full knowledge of our concerns. We wrote to president von der Leyen in both December and February. We continue to believe that business and citizens deserve better than rushed, ideologically driven changes which do not correspond to market realities nor the challenges that companies face. It is now our responsibility to deliver the common sense simplification where the Commission failed. This therefore requires a rethink. The time for political grandstanding is over. No more talk of chainsaws. We have agreed to work together to find a good faith compromise, and as a committee, we are tasked with examining the details of these laws with due care and attention. To simplify what we can without detracting from the overall aims of the original legislation, the Commission proposal fails to uphold the standards and ironically, fails to simplify.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Madam president. Commissioner, colleagues, Trump has launched a war in violation of international law, and the EU has turned its back. The Strait of Hormuz is closed and European citizens are paying the price. This is our own fault because we have a blade. Our development of electric vehicles and investment in renewable energies, and allowed oil companies to make record breaking profits. And now we have to deal with this. And it is our citizens who are paying the price on a daily basis. Now, the bill for the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which is whether it is correct or not, should be borne by the oil companies or those who have declared the war should pay the price. That is true justice. And this means that we need an EU windfall tax now. Thank you.”
  Taxation of windfall profits
• “Thank you chair and thanks a lot for the exchange in particular here in Luxembourg where we do not ignore the other institution that is located here, namely the European Court of Auditors. And speaking as a German, we will send one of our best colleagues to the European Court of Auditors very soon and looking forward to then having this exchange with him next year when we are here. Nevertheless, that on, on, on the matter that we are discussing here, let's say three points that I that I would like to raise. First of all, in particular, from our committee's perspective, the justice program is the one that is of most of utmost relevance for our committee. And here I'm wondering to which extent the European Court of Auditors will have a closer look into that particular program and whether a specific opinion will still be issued on it, and whether there is anything in that regard that from the reports that you basically can present us for our current workings on the justice program in more detail. Um, second, I was particularly intrigued about the, the your conclusions on, uh, RF, which I largely share, um, in particular on the question of results and performance and to basically, if there is no possibility to measure results to not go into there.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to the four experts for their contributions to this. I think very important hearing in this process. Um, given the time constraints, let me jump directly to the questions. My first set of questions goes to Maria Leptin, representing also the IRC here, because if I may be so frank, given that we are here in a political context, I find it rather flabbergasting the attack that the European Commission is doing on the autonomy and independence of the IRC in the specific program proposal. The first Council reaction was also, in a sense to to contradict this approach. Therefore, I would be very much interested in your view on this particular proposal. Don't you need more time as a president in order to actually ensure the excellence that the ERC has? Does not the same apply to the ERC Scientific Council? Don't we need to at least have a renewable term for the president and the members of the Scientific Council? And what kind of further elements we need to strengthen the autonomy beyond repairing what the European Commission has done? In other words, given that we are here in the hearing, what is your wish list to us? In order to even improve the excellency guaranteed by the autonomy and independence of the ERC? Second point, we know that one of the biggest troubles is time to grant, and therefore I'm wondering to which extent it might be imaginable to create, be it a funding line, be it an instrument in which we already allocate a certain amount of funds to research institutions before the whole programming process starts, and by that giving, then the participating institutions the autonomy to define the programming, to define the cause and basically tailor make it to their excellency and not making themselves so beautiful to what civil servants have thought it might be, and where in two years money is granted.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Dear Mr. Chair, now I get why you said that it was not the pleasure but the duty. As a preliminary note, whilst we all have good reasons when we are not present in committee given the relevance of the file, it is a bit surprising that if I see correctly it's colleague Tom Diepefehn and myself who are the only ones who are present. And if the rapporteur is actually not present, what's the point of the debate? So it might be then worth to consider other dates if it's really impossible to attend an exchange of views or a debate on amendments or later then on compromise amendments or wherever we are. Otherwise this is getting just a ticking the box exercise and that's not really the point of it. Nevertheless, what is the purpose of insolvency law? The purpose of insolvency law is that a company which gets into trouble and which then must be wound up, that what remains in the company is distributed fairly to all those that have given something to the company in advance. And yes, these are creditors, but from this very same perspective these are workers. They have given their labour, so what is actually the dearest to a human being, they have given their labour in advance to a company and they expect a certain return for having given their workforce to the company. Therefore saying that workers' protection is in conflict with legal certainty and that insolvency law's purpose is not to protect workers is a courageous statement, if I may say so. So in that sense obviously protection of workers is also part of this. And in order not to repeat myself from the first exchange of view that we had a month ago, there are two elements that must be taken into consideration and the S&D has tabled amendments accordingly. The first is the risk of the prepack and if you recall this was a sentiment shared by the Renew the Greens and the left, that the prepack procedure has an added value, but there is also a risk of undermining certain workers' rights, in particular if there is an abuse of this prepack procedure. And in the Netherlands where this procedure is already practiced, we have some experiences that can be used in order to draft this whole prepack proceedings in such a way that really it helps companies as workers that are in this company. So in that sense the S&D has tabled certain amendments. The other element is on the winding up of micro enterprises and their special treatment. Here the S&D has a different approach than the rapporteur as I have already explained during the first exchange of views, namely there is an added value of having micro enterprises included in the scope of this particular directive since it excludes or actually opens insolvency procedures to those micro enterprises where the remaining, what remains in the company is not sufficient to pay for the procedure. And in particular in such situations also those micro enterprises benefit from an orderly insolvency procedure that otherwise is not open to them, at least in some member states. France has shown how you can set up an insolvency procedure in that regard without getting into financial troubles. In that sense the S&D has tabled amendments, also in light of the expert testimony that was presented to this committee earlier, by specifying the criteria of companies that might benefit from certain modifications with regard to the regular insolvency procedure. Against this background I am also obviously looking forward to the negotiations with the rapporteur. I am confident that I will convince him that also the protection of workers is in line with legal certainty and the purpose of insolvency procedures and we will then see what is the final result of our negotiations here in committee. Thank you.”
  Sustainable corporate governance
• “President colleagues from one day to the next. Nicolas Gaia's life changed completely. No credit cards, no online payments, no online purchases or bookings. Why? Simply because he did his job as a judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He deals with the law, but the US did not like this. And so sanctions against a citizen of the EU, EU and we just let it happen. Now, I don't know if anything can be done with the blocking statute and, uh, dealing with the effects of third country laws in the EU and the Commission could propose a delegated, um, act. I don't know why this hasn't been done. The explanations you've given me, uh, do not convince me it was used in the 1990s. In 2012, under the presidency of Barack Obama, it seems we can do it when it's comfortable, but not when it's uncomfortable because Donald Trump is in the white House. This is an instrument that could protect our people on our continent, and it's not there for you to use just when it's comfortable. Also when it's uncomfortable. So please act now.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you, chair, and thanks to the four experts for their contributions to this. I think very important hearing in this process. Um, given the time constraints, let me jump directly to the questions. My first set of questions goes to Maria Leptin, representing also the IRC here, because if I may be so frank, given that we are here in a political context, I find it rather flabbergasting the attack that the European Commission is doing on the autonomy and independence of the IRC in the specific program proposal. The first Council reaction was also, in a sense to to contradict this approach. Therefore, I would be very much interested in your view on this particular proposal. Don't you need more time as a president in order to actually ensure the excellence that the ERC has? Does not the same apply to the ERC Scientific Council? Don't we need to at least have a renewable term for the president and the members of the Scientific Council? And what kind of further elements we need to strengthen the autonomy beyond repairing what the European Commission has done? In other words, given that we are here in the hearing, what is your wish list to us? In order to even improve the excellency guaranteed by the autonomy and independence of the ERC? Second point, we know that one of the biggest troubles is time to grant, and therefore I'm wondering to which extent it might be imaginable to create, be it a funding line, be it an instrument in which we already allocate a certain amount of funds to research institutions before the whole programming process starts, and by that giving, then the participating institutions the autonomy to define the programming, to define the cause and basically tailor make it to their excellency and not making themselves so beautiful to what civil servants have thought it might be, and where in two years money is granted.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the invitation for having the opportunity to say something. I realize that except for the rapporteur, this seems to be quite a German thing with a German shadow from the EPP, the S&D, the Greens speaking and our German rapporteur for the Etra position on it. That doesn't take away that I fully support the remarks made by the rapporteur, and that I'm very happy that we are aligned in that regard. That despite the fact that we have have already an increase of the horizon budget in the Commission proposal, Parliament is even more ambitious, reminding us that there is a certain percentage target for all of us looking into research and innovation. It is pretty clear that growth in Europe will not come from cutting rules, but from creating innovation. And research and innovation is therefore where we put all should put all our jetons on. Yet if we see how the whole thing is constructed, there might be the eternal fear materializing itself again. Namely, that horizon budget is used as the piggy bank for other policy areas or for crisis mitigation measures when money has to be found somewhere. Simply because researchers do not travel on tractors, and therefore it is now the moment and the task to totally shield the horizon budget against any sort of debt attempts, which is made by Christian Isla's draft report on the FP ten regulation, which we want to introduce with our report on the specific program and where I hear support from the Rapporteur in Budget Committee and full support for this last remark was said The very success of the horizon program is in particular linked in the first pillar on the quality and excellency of the European Research Council.”
  EU research funding
• “And from on behalf of the S&D Group, we would like to express our deep disappointment of the withdrawal of this, as the issues related to it, such as public security concerns, can be solved and the legal base issue is at best disputed amongst lawyers. At least those are the arguments presented by the council. Whether you have any specific justification why this proposal should be withdrawn, as it is actually nothing else as a nucleus of what the 28th regime is and is basically the same kind of creature as the 28th regime, which is now one of the star projects of the commission. And final question, you see the poster still hanging there? We just had a hearing on the immunity of International Criminal Court officials. The European Commission has a tool in their hand in order to protect sanctioned judges on the territory of the European Union, which is the blocking statute where the Commission has to adopt a delegated act in order to include this US sanctions. And whether you, as commissioner, who is also in charge for sanctions intend to initiate this process to activate the blocking statute within the Commission. Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you chair. And thanks a lot, Mr. Commissioner, to be indeed once again present for structured dialogue. It will come as a surprise what my questions will be relating to, given our joint efforts on the 28th regime. And I'm indeed very much looking forward to the 18th of March when the proposal is made. Having heard your introductory remarks and knowing the sensitivities amongst some stakeholders, in particular trade unions, I would like to give you the opportunity to specify what you meant that you are going to address employment with this particular proposal. It might help us at that moment of time to maybe have already an input given to the debate, as labour law should not be should not be touched by the proposal. And obviously employee board representation rights should be, but they are also corporate law related. So if you would would like to specify this, I would like to invite you to do so in particular, as you have referred to it in your introductory remarks. Second it refers to a file that is loosely related to the 28th regime, namely the European Cross Border Association proposal, which the Commission, to our biggest disappointment, has decided to withdraw. We are now in a state where the institutions can present their resistance to this.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “For our group, the credibility must remain a global standard for improving responsible business conduct fully aligned with international best practice. Our amendments seek to provide clarification and simplification within the existing framework so companies can focus on having impact rather than compliance. On reading the amendments, I noted that we are not the only group to share this perspective. The democratic forces of this committee have sought in good faith to put forward creative solutions for simplification, but have also broadly rejected the Commission's proposal. On the other hand, we have members tabling wrecking amendments to render both pieces of legislation useless, not least with astronomical company scopes and timelines far in the future. So whilst the issues may be complex and multifaceted, the political choice for this committee is rather binary. Working together in the centre to deliver for a better alternative or there is no alternative. I'm looking forward, on behalf of the S&D Group for the cooperation with the rapporteur. And so far we have seen promising steps in finding a compromise together. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Mr. president. Mr. president Commissioner dear colleagues. The regulations on budget are considered the king of regulations for the parliament. Here. We're talking about the future funding of the EU and it's basically exercising that royal right if you like. And therefore I have to warn you, Commission, do not try to interfere with this in negative terms. And that is what would happen if you were to have a big pot with global transfers to Member States and their capitals in exchange for your particular reforms? Because if you just do it with the governments, it means that parliaments are sidelined from this exercise. Parliaments are not involved in the scrutiny of this kind of use of resources, and that would be unacceptable, I'm afraid. So. My message to you is the following. Today, any kind of centralisation of the cohesion policy is something that we reject. The regions, the federal states must be involved in the distribution of means, distribution of resources, and use thereof. And furthermore, we need to make sure that we have an autonomous particular issue for this within our budget as a whole. And that's in fact also what's enshrined in the coalition agreement of the German federal government. And it's also the position of the SDP here in the European Parliament.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “What we will create there is what I am afraid to call Frankenstein's monster, because it will have a lot of difficult parts that won't interact completely. So if we have the unanimity to give some life to this creature, it will rather be a monster than it will help and most likely be used by those that are not in the scale up and in the start up business. So therefore let's go then for a qualified majority legal base. And if this only allows for directives, let's go for maximum harmonisation. That is just a minimum of difference between a directive and a regulation. But be clear. The ambitious is clear and substance and the ambitious is clear and in the form. Second, there is a discussion on safeguards, and here my clear warning to all of them that want to delete safeguards that are in the draft report, if we do not protect workers rights, if we do not protect the Codetermination, then we create a creature that in its first months of existence, will be abused by all those that just try to find the back doors in order to get rid of workers protection and Determination. This will create a rather dubious reputation of this new instrument, which will not help start ups and scale ups that later want to make use of this new legal creature that we have created in here.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Madam Vice President of the Commission to be here with us. Two short questions. The first one is a bit linking to Marcus Weber's question on merger regulation, since the Court of Justice has killed the commission's approach on tackling killer acquisitions, this question remains open. I'm afraid guidelines will not solve it. The Court of Justice was clear. How do you intend to address the now open matter of killer killer acquisitions? Don't we not really have to change merger regulation, at least in that instance. Second question here. The structured dialogue is also to exercise a control function. And top civil servants in the European Commission. And the selection is of utmost importance. Your predecessor made burned her fingers when appointing a chief economist here in Parliament. The Director general of DG comp has to be a new person, has to be found. I think the selection process is running. So I would like to ask you, what is the state of affairs? Where do we are in the process? Which are the criteria on which you want to select the next Director General of DG comp? Thank you.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Madam president. Madam president of the Commission. Colleagues. €300 billion. The trade deficit between the EU and China. Are Chinese goods really so much better than European ones? The problem is our companies don't have access to the Chinese market. There are unfair subsidies which make fair competition impossible. And there is a political leadership using economic power as a lever. China demands respect but denies reciprocity. And that is not fair. That is not a partnership. That's an imbalance. Partnership means mutuality, transparency and respect. Respect for our political culture means that elected representatives are not put under sanctions for what they say. I call for the lifting of China's sanctions against a former MEP Reinhard Bütikofer and our colleagues from the member state parliaments. That would be an important signal and a step towards real partnership.”
  EU-China relations
• “Madam president, Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues. Not a problem of innovation. That is precisely the point why we need this 28th regime in order to remain competitive. And that means we need to be ambitious in substance. It must be fast to create this new legal form. It must be all digital. It must be once only. There must be unhindered free movement within the entire EU internal market. And if I may add, colleague is right. There must be fast decision making in front of courts. And if we have this ambition in substance, then Damien is right to say we need to have this fast. And yes, if we want to make it even better, then we have it as a directly applicable regulation that does not require any implementation, and it does not allow for any sort of gold plating. And let's be clear that ambition is shared by Parliament. We want this regulation, but we want to have it adopted by qualified majority. Sometimes we want a lot as European Parliament. And if we look at the possible legal basis, then we have one for the regulation.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thanks a lot, chair. And, uh, thanks for this important hearing that we have. My question goes in the reference to a study well known by Daniel Kelemen and Tommaso Buffon, with the nice title. Where have the Guardians gone? And the role of the European Commission, that since the politicization of the Commission under under Juncker, we see a very selective approach of the Commission in whether they go after member States that implement and those that do not. So therefore, my questions to the experts is what are the means that we, as the supervisor of the European Commission, have in order to push the Guardian to do his job, namely being a guardian? Do you see a potential that we can make use of article 265 of the Tfeu? So the action for inaction in order to force the European Commission to actually monitor the application of EU law properly, and ultimately act and enforce European Union law vis a vis those states that are a bit reluctant in terms of compliance. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(17:21:35 – 17:24:15): Thank you Chair, and thanks a lot Mr. Commissioner to be indeed once again present for a structured dialogue. It will come hardly as a surprise what my questions will be relating to given our joint efforts on the 28th regime. I'm indeed very much looking forward to 18th of March when the proposal is made. Having heard your introductory remarks and knowing the sensitivities amongst some stakeholders, in particular trade unions, I would like to give you the opportunity to specify what you meant that you are going to address employment with this particular proposal. It might help us at that moment of time to maybe have already an input given to the debate, as labor law should not be touched by the proposal, and obviously board representation rights should be, but they are also corporate law related. So if you would like to specify this, I would like to invite you to do so, in particular as you have referred to it in your introductory remarks. Second, it refers to a file that is loosely related to the 28th regime, namely the European cross-border association's proposal, which the Commission, to our biggest disappointment, has decided to withdraw. We are now in a state where the institutions can present their resistance to this, and from on behalf of the S and D group, we would like to express our deep disappointment of the withdrawal of this, as the issues related to it, such as public security concerns, can be solved, and the legal base issue is at best disputed amongst lawyers, at least those through the arguments presented by the Council. Whether you have any specific justification why this proposal should be withdrawn, as it's actually nothing else as a nucleus of what the 28th regime is, and it's basically the same kind of creature as the 28th regime is now one of the star projects of the Commission. And final question, you see the post is still hanging there. We just had a hearing on the immunity of International Criminal Court officials. The European Commission has a tool in their hand in order to protect sanctioned judges on territory of the European Union, which is the blocking statute, where the Commission has to adopt a delegated act in order to include this US sanctions, and where the US Commissioner is also in charge for sanctions intend to initiate this process to activate the blacklist statute within the Commission. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Colleagues, I see a clear way ahead where we can use the strength of our continent, our and use make our single market fit for the challenges of this centuries. With more Europe, we break down barriers which face our companies, and together we have high standards of protection for employers and the environment, making making ourselves attractive for skilled workers from the whole world. We make our capital market interesting for investors with public investment investments, for public investments, for a clear, climate neutral economy for tomorrow, so that we have predictability and reliability from politics in our decisions. Instead of that, I see in Europe how Conservatives from the in the middle are drifting to the right. It's the it's the new approach not just to control our internal borders, but to close them completely. And European law is becoming optional. It is only respected if it suits political opportunity. The predictability of politics is being binned. The chairman of the CDU says in parliament there won't be a an occasional a majority with those people over there. In the AfD. I quote two months later, that's all obsolete. Two weeks ago, in the German Bundestag, it wasn't a small thing like a debate being put on the agenda. It's about law. And this law only succeeded with the votes of the far right. For the first time since the end of the Second World War. That went well because after this breaching this dam of this resolution, uh, one group refused to vote for it.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman. Now for minutes for introducing ideas on a 28 regime. That in itself is a challenge. But the challenge we must meet, given the time situation when we are looking at the 28th regime, in particular, from the perspective of an own initiative report, the third, the starting point will always be what actually do we need in order to address For 28 regime. And from my perspective, given that we are talking here also about a corporate form. What are the elements in the corporate form that are needed to be addressed? I do believe these are three points. First, a quick and easy creation of a separate legal entity with limited liability in particular. Startups need to have quite quickly a clarity about limiting the risks of innovative ideas. Second, since the competitiveness and innovation makes it that ideas change over time, also the competitive advantages within our EU internal market they change locally. So an absolute barrier free movement within the entire internal market, in order to quickly move from one country to another is absolute necessary. And third, there needs to be a predictability, predictability for investors that when they are looking at the creature, that they know that the legal creature, that they know what they are actually investing into. And if we want to address all those matters. This is basically what we have to see whether a whatever kind of proposal for the 28th regime can achieve this.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “It is fundamentally flawed, creates confusion and ruthlessly slashes laws which were agreed just months ago. Let me give you an example. Instead of asking companies to prioritise the worst first when it comes to their supply chains, this proposal says focus on your direct suppliers. This implies that European companies would have to police their SMEs suppliers in Germany, Poland or Portugal and ignore questions about forced labor in Xinjiang. If your priority is human rights, you will not find many problems in the direct supply chain. But not only that, this creates business burden with pointless form filling and box ticking, especially for SMEs. It is certainly deregulation, but it is also complication. This is what you get when you photocopy position papers from a minority of unrepresentative business voices, instead of drafting on the basis of evidence and open consultation. It follows, therefore, to us to do a better job, as indeed we will be consulting with those who are driving sustainable change in companies. We will be looking for a win win solution that lighten the load for business whilst preserving human rights and environmental standards. And we will harness the practical experience of leading companies to put forward a better alternative. Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “And there's a fundamental choice to be made at the outset. This can be done namely by two ways. It can be the ideal solution, which is the creation of a new, separate supranational entity that exists as a fully fledged 28 regime next to the already existing 27 national legal orders. Or it can be existing national corporate forms that have to embody essential elements, which we define at the European level, and where anybody from the outside world can expect that they are the same, irrespective of where we are. And this choice has consequences in terms of legal basis and as Legal Affairs committee. This is something we have to take into consideration if we go for a separate supranational entity. It means a regulation under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning, and that is unanimity. And we know what this means. The first time we adopted a supranational corporate form, the SE, it took us 30 years to get it done. The next attempt on the on the, on the SP failed precisely because of this unanimity requirement. And the Sup not even did not even get there. So if we go for this option, we can create a world as we like it, but we will never see this world to be born or to rise.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. And after this strong statement of the rapporteur, it's hard to to add on this, except for indeed thanking for the exchange of view that we had here and also the opinions given or presented by the opinion giving committees, which also relate to matters of relevance for the specific programme decision. Uh, where I do see the merit of the suggestions made, and I am looking forward to receiving indeed the final outcome of the negotiations from the opinion giving committees. I believe it is it is clear. And for that this exchange of views is is a proof that this committee and this Parliament with a very broad majority, um, it's already at that early stage of the negotiations, pretty clear and pretty united in a way of how they want to see how Fp10 and horizon is going to be designed, namely something which is not a complicated governance structure that is helping some sort of power shifts within the institutions, but something that serves innovation driven growth based on excellency, which is best assessed by peers and which wants to protect the autonomy of the peers within the structure that we already have and that wants to improve what we are having here on the table. Uh, I also very much welcome the discussions that I hear in the Budget Committee to even further increase the budget allocated to horizon. This is the right answer to the challenges of today, and this committee and Parliament's committees will bring out a strong message at the end of this process that makes clear that with horizon there is not nothing to muddle and there is nothing to include insecurities. But we want to have that. This successful program remains strong and even becomes stronger as our main tool to improve Europe's competitiveness. Thank you very much.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks a lot for having this first exchange of view on this very important debate. I can, uh, by large, concur with the remarks made by Christian, and I can also confirm that we have an excellent cooperation on the file, which is necessary because it's now a joint and common interest that we get a strong FP ten. And the implementation with the specific programme in horizon FP ten is as rapporteur has said what horizon is and what it defines. And now with the specific programs, we turn to how horizon works. It's why it's in theory that can be easily said, and the treaties have some different legal basis for this. The division between those two at times is difficult to make. At best it is difficult, at worst it's arbitrary. And that is unfortunately something that we can also see here in the both proposals. We should look at it by assessing what is political and requires therefore, the co-legislators input by means of ordinary legislative procedure and what can be left to the Council in its decision. And here I do believe there is some work to be done by shifting either one element or the other into the regulation, or by definitely treating both together as a de facto ordinary legislative procedure, so that it is clear for the Commission and Council that by shifting one or the other.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs
• “President, vice president, dear colleagues. As much as I appreciate this decision on Google, it does raise a lot of questions. Why is it just a fine which big tech can pay off easily, as opposed to more serious measures as we threaten 2023? Why is it so low? Is it true that the Commission leadership downsized it for fear of Trump's reprisals? When we adopted the Digital Markets Act, we were celebrating our ability to defend our citizens from big tech. But what has remained of that. Either we take serious step against big tax or we cower and yield to the bullies. It's important for us to act if we want to uphold our European values, and we need to act with rigour.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “And any innovation that is coming, which today we can hardly predict, is only safe for us as humans and as society if it is embedded in a strong social, social and humanity science research in SSH. So therefore we can also not forget that pillar and we are designing how horizon works. Secondly, it must be strictly focused on excellency. And excellency means that those who know what they are talking about have the autonomy to to do so and to decide about it. That means the autonomy of pairs peers in particular, as they are organized in our councils, the ERC and the ECC, and attempts of limiting their autonomy and attempts of intruding into into the Erc's and Erc's independence is what we have clearly to say no to. On the contrary, we have to consider how to strengthen actually those bodies within the limits that the treaty gives us. I do believe we should even consider new governance tools in where that we designed at top research institutes or clusters do cooperate when they are thinking about research projects instead of putting them into competition with each other. And all our top research institutes are just making themselves beautiful what they think is successful, but rather giving the autonomy to them to distribute research projects amongst them and their Excellency, something that the Netherlands has very successfully done by their sector plans.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Mr. chairman, thanks, madam Vice President, to be with us here. And I can echo what colleague was saying in her introductory remarks that I'm very grateful that we have at least one member of this European Commission that says we stand up for our digital rights and for the rules that we made. And that has realized in an Op-Ed in the Financial Times recently that if you are not a rule maker, it doesn't mean that you end up in a rule free Paradise, but it means that in a globalized world, you become a rule taker. And that is to the detriment of European competitiveness. Very grateful for this. And as colleague John Cotton said, having that statement is one thing. Enforcing the rules that we have is another. So I welcome the procedures introduced on cloud. I welcome the announcement on the AI one, which I also wasn't aware of. And I would like to, uh, to, to to reiterate on the Google EdTech case that I understood you correctly, that there is a clear political will to adopt structural remedies. If the reply is given by Google are not sufficient. Knowing that we have also parallel procedure in the United States on a different on a different note. Um, colleague Faber was also referring to major merger rules, and I know that there is a discussion ongoing under either legislative reform of the merger regulation or other ways to go there. And I'm very concerned about killer acquisitions, looking at Europe's innovation problems, and that whenever there is something growing up, it is killed in particular by US companies. So once again, we are in our transatlantic troubles. And how is the state of affairs in reforming our merger rules to protect our innovations against killer acquisitions? Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “So therefore, it's in the interest of startups and scale ups that we have strong safeguards for workers protection and for the good illumination in order to find the majority for such an instrument, but also be accepted by the markets. And in this direction we should have our discussions. Other amendments introduce new ideas, such as combining the 28 regimes with research, policy and research funding, and these ideas that we should definitely look into. At the end, I would like to remind us all that this is an initiative report of the Legal Affairs Committee, that there is an annex to the rules of procedure with regard to the competences of this Committee, and that we have to respect this this limitations with the other committees. There are important matters, in particular relating to taxes that must definitely be addressed in a proper 28 regime, but we'll be entering a grey zone with other committees that mainly deal with with tax matters. It will be for the creativity of myself and our shadow rapporteurs to find ways to address the matter without actually crossing the limits of the competence of Legal Affairs Committee. Thank you so much.”
  Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• “Thank you chair and thanks a lot for the exchange in particular here in Luxembourg where we do not ignore the other institution that is located here, namely the European Court of Auditors. And speaking as a German, we will send one of our best colleagues to the European Court of Auditors very soon and looking forward to then having this exchange with him next year when we are here. Nevertheless, that on, on, on the matter that we are discussing here, let's say three points that I that I would like to raise. First of all, in particular, from our committee's perspective, the justice program is the one that is of most of utmost relevance for our committee. And here I'm wondering to which extent the European Court of Auditors will have a closer look into that particular program and whether a specific opinion will still be issued on it, and whether there is anything in that regard that from the reports that you basically can present us for our current workings on the justice program in more detail. Um, second, I was particularly intrigued about the, the your conclusions on, uh, RF, which I largely share, um, in particular on the question of results and performance and to basically, if there is no possibility to measure results to not go into there.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “President, Commissioner, members of the House. Our weakening competitiveness is one reason that we have bent a knee. If we were not, if we don't want to act from a position of weakness, then we have to look at the root causes of our problems with competitiveness. And it's not just tinkering here and there or deleting the odd provision. We have to look at the ideas of our researchers to do that and make that market compatible. So we need venture capital. Venture capital that invests not just in their own country, but across borders. We know what we need. We need proposals. And we need the courage from governments to cut through old taboos at home. Let's make sure that we don't become a museum for American and Chinese tourists to visit. I don't want that to happen.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Christiane. And it's an enormous pleasure to say thank you, chairman. And thanks, Madam Commissioner, to be with us to discuss this very important topic. And I can basically continue where Christiane stopped. These are also the issues that I, that I would like to address, since the the relationship between ECF and the horizon program gives one the impression that the one the ECF is encroaching on the other. Whereas we were fighting for the autonomous horizon program, we see that by the back door. The autonomy is more on paper than in reality. At least there is a meaningful risk to it. So we have to address this risk. And I think this is of utmost importance. So to ensure that there are no structural overlaps that undermine the autonomy of the mandates of selection criteria and in particular of decision making procedures. Dgs as a former um, as a former ERC grant evaluator, I can tell you that the self-governance of researchers to assess the quality of research proposals. This is what ensured the quality of this program. But if we use it as a pot where other objectives from the ECF can then be be somewhat co-financed, we will destroy the triple A rating that horizon has amongst the worldwide research community. So that is of utmost importance. And to hear your vision and how we basically could strengthen the research vision in this in this would be very interesting to hear. I am, I guess that what is in this proposal is already some sort of compromise. So I would like to challenge you to tell us your vision. If you hadn't had to compromise with other colleagues in the college.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “President. Colleagues. The international rules based order is the DNA of the EU. You. Are. We are at the heart of our organisation and international rules based system. And if we downplay that, we're weakening ourselves. The Iranian regime was abhorrent and had committed many crimes against international law, but that does not give anyone else a carte blanche to break rules themselves. Now, when we have those who call out this international rule breaking, they seem to be in the crosshairs. According to Trump, rather than those actually committing those crimes. So we have not seen solidarity in Europe. An attack on one is an attack on all of us. Europe must behave differently and act differently. We need to focus on respect of international law in these dark times. Thank you.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “And that makes me wonder whether your remarks on the proposed, uh, NPS were not a bit too timid, as this looks like basically repeating the mistakes from RF and now bringing them into the into the budgetary cycle. So in that sense, I'm wondering, um, whether you could go a bit more into details on your assessment of the proposed, national reform plans and their added value from indeed proper spending perspective. Lastly, and a bit linked to this, we had just recently in the building across the street, an opinion of an Advocate General upon invitation of this institution, namely on the rule of law violations when spending our money and receiving money from the from the budget, namely the Hungarian case, you had a report on the rule of law where you wrote in the end, and I quote audit fieldwork ended before the Commission decided on 13 December 23rd that Hungary had partially achieved certain horizontal enabling conditions. This decision was taken into account but not audited. So whether that still holds as of today, or whether you have already further findings on this particular situation given, let's say, the Advocate General's opinion. That is rather in favour of Parliament's view on the matter that the Commission unlawfully had. Disbursed the funding in December 2023. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you chair. And thanks a lot, Mr. Commissioner, to be indeed once again present for structured dialogue. It will come as a surprise what my questions will be relating to, given our joint efforts on the 28th regime. And I'm indeed very much looking forward to the 18th of March when the proposal is made. Having heard your introductory remarks and knowing the sensitivities amongst some stakeholders, in particular trade unions, I would like to give you the opportunity to specify what you meant that you are going to address employment with this particular proposal. It might help us at that moment of time to maybe have already an input given to the debate, as labour law should not be should not be touched by the proposal. And obviously employee board representation rights should be, but they are also corporate law related. So if you would would like to specify this, I would like to invite you to do so in particular, as you have referred to it in your introductory remarks. Second it refers to a file that is loosely related to the 28th regime, namely the European Cross Border Association proposal, which the Commission, to our biggest disappointment, has decided to withdraw. We are now in a state where the institutions can present their resistance to this.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “I would like to invite shadow rapporteurs to think with me along the idea of employment stock options, uh, plans. I was not totally I have not completely thought this idea through. So therefore we have a rather generic placeholder in the current first draft and something I would like to think about for my own amendments, but I would like to invite colleagues to also think about how a proper Esop could look like finally on safeguards. The suggestion that is made is that we do not attempt, for example, especially treating the issues of determination rules at the level of the directive itself, but that we make clear that whenever Co determination is at stake, we want to respect the variety that we have in Member States, and by that create a rule that clearly determines which is the applicable national regime for issues of determination, in that we do not need to define the matter unilaterally, but leave it there. Where the issue of code determination is part of the economic and social fabric. I'm now looking forward to the amendments that will be tabled. There are still a lot to do, but it is a process that allows us for creative, forward looking and creating something that addresses the needs for start ups and scale ups. Thank you.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Sure. And the debate then after the votes or what is the idea? Okay, well, thanks a lot, chair. Um. Starting, uh, with my filibuster now, uh, so on the 28th regime, we have received 346 amendments, um, that were all in a very constructive spirit, which also gives me quite good hope for the conduct of the negotiations. Um, if I look at the amendments as they were submitted, um, yeah, they add a lot of new elements to this idea, which is in the very nature, of course, of the 28th regime being something rather new in this, in this context.”
  EU political integration
• “And what you, Mr. Rabon said, is, is, is a more than valid argument to have to make use of it to attract talent, which a startup cannot yet pay for because the income is still is simply not there yet. And that's the whole point of having such a stock option. The fiscal side, I think Pascal said everything that that needs to be said on the tax evasion. There's one remark that I nevertheless want to make, since the issue of the tax evasion, it used to be like 20 years ago, about where is your seat? And then we had all those letterbox companies in order to get the best tax regime. But nowadays the seat is not a problem since the taxable event is what you're looking at. The current discussion on tax evasion is more about licensing. So shifting profits from one place to another and issues of transfer pricing, which is not a question of the corporate form. And next to this, the question of individual labour law and collective labour law are explicitly out of scope and are not are not touched by by this particular by this particular proposal. Um, and let me conclude on the, on, on the point that I actually was also putting forward now regulation instead of directive and the risk of fragmentation. I believe this is this is core to address, because if we create something that is only adding another layer on fragmentation, a lot of the effect will be lost.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Surprise? Um. Thank you. Chair. I'm here to, um, read out the, uh, speaking notes of our shadow rapporteur, Laura Walters, as its rapporteur has said. Immediately. Indeed, before this meeting, the negotiations have kicked off on this particular file. And with over 800 amendments that are tabled in this committee. There is clearly a great deal of interest in this file. But as also outlined, they show quite, very divergent viewpoints that will make negotiations complex both technically and politically. The S&D has always been cohesive and united on this file, seeking to simplify without undermining the human rights and environmental standards only recently agreed in the CSS and the CSS triple D, we have submitted, together with 18 colleagues and attempt to show where a landing zone from our perspective could look like in terms of CSD, we would offer a less onerous auditing regime with a more competitive market for sustainability assurances. Um, they also take a pragmatic approach. Our amendments of differentiating between different sizes of companies, they reject, however, arbitrary costs to scope and content, which will ultimately leave gaps in sustainability data. Ultimately, CRD did not create the need for this data, but they respond to market demands by increasing availability and comparability. Likewise, the Commission's changes to the CSS triple D fundamentally limit the accountability of companies and risk reducing it from a proactive duty of care to a box ticking exercise.”
  Sustainable corporate governance
• “(15:13:50 – 15:15:44): Rene Repazy for the SME. Thanks, madam chairwoman. Welcome, madam vice president of the commission. Great to have you here in the structured dialogue. My questions refer also a big surprise to the merger guidelines. And last week, I was, as vice chair of the EU China delegation of the European Parliament on 1st, mission of the European Parliament to China in 8 years. And we had not only meetings in Beijing, but we also went to Wuhan, the place where COVID started, but not to try to find out where the virus was made, but to see how the industry is working there, where because there are many car manufacturing sites and others. And why I'm referring to this is, obviously, there is this we are in in enormous global competition with China, And there's a certain, I believe, misreading and misconception about what is making China strong. It is not that they have 1 large big company that is then dominating the rest of the world, but they have actually a survival of the fittest internally. They have many companies working on the same thing, and only the 1 who survives at the end of it is the 1 who is becoming the global champion. And in that sense, I do believe that merger guidelines should make sure that competition based on merit and the survival of the fittest within the internal market is ensured. Just size does not ensure global competitiveness. So how do the merger guidelines ensure that we not simply take into consideration size, but actually, make use of the internal market as the empower of our companies? So therefore, how is innovation used as a criterion? How does how do we actually evaluate the effects of mergers on innovation in the guidelines? And 2nd, on killer acquisitions, since after the court of justice's judgment in Illumina article 22 was ruled out as an option which deals with thresholds. How do the merger guidelines intend to address the matter without touching the thresholds because this is a secondary law and not made by guidelines? Thank you.”
  EU antitrust & merger enforcement: strict vs scale
• “Madam president, Commissioner. Vice president. Colleagues. We need more single market. We have 44% of internal tariffs because our single market. Faces 27 different legal systems. We complain about the madness of Trump's tariffs. We can deal with the single market in Europe ourselves. And some talk about EU Inc. But we could create more EU single market and the. We. Jacques Delors who was a Social Democrat. His teaching has be has been forgotten. Nobody falls in love with a single market. More single market means requires social standards and well-paid jobs. An EU is and shouldn't be social dumping, tax avoidance or. Winding down codecision and people are turning away from the single market. So let's let's do EU Inc. properly more single market with common European social standards.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Article in the decision or in the regulation. They cannot escape proper Co legislation and proper involvement of the European Parliament. Um, in more general terms on the research money itself. The rapporteur also already said it. When we look at Europe's competitiveness problem, we need to get growth from somewhere. And I am convinced as much as cutting red tape is necessary, it's not where growth is coming from. In Europe, growth comes from innovation. And when growth comes from innovation. Horizon is core. It has proven its success, but it can be more efficient by increasing the funds available for the programme, but also by how it is designed. Moreover, we of course, as politicians have to think of innovation as ecosystems and we have to make clear that research money leads to successful start up creations, but then also to successful scale ups that remain in Europe and don't cross the ocean once they are successful. If we look at the specific horizon programs, then we must be we must ensure that it remains holistic, that with all, um, looking at competitiveness, we should not find we should not forget that what will make us competitive in in ten years is actually going to be researched by one researcher at one of our research facilities doing fundamental research.”
  EU research funding
• “President. Colleagues. Well, it's quite likely that we're facing the most important European Council since we were set up. And that's because, well, we're talking about Russian assets, but it's not just a factual issue. It's more about whether Ukraine is given oxygen to breathe, or whether they've got to the end and are going to have to subject themselves to a Russian American dictatorship. What we're talking about here is whether, after the rhetorical solidarity we've been hearing from heads of state and government for years whether they're actually going to deliver now, not leaving Belgium standing in the rain is not only a question of internal solidarity in Europe, but rather whether Europe can stand together in the moment of need. We've heard these wonderful words of solidarity, but are we going to follow up with facts for Ukraine? And so I'm calling on council heads of state and government to come together to find a solution whereby Russian assets can be used for Ukraine, and that all member states equally share the risk. Then there is a chance for the Ukrainians to have peace negotiations on an equal footing. That's our responsibility.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “So now we come to a debate by the rapporteurs in the room. All right, let's make the exchange of people. Dear Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues, thanks a lot for having this first exchange of view on the 28th regime, an idea that was probably surprising many of us when Commission President von der Leyen was announcing it in her speech last July and was making continuously reference thereafter specifying it. And I do believe that until now there is still some unclarity what is actually to be understood by this 28th regime. When in the hearing in the ECON Committee Enrico Letta was asked about it, he gave the reply that he personally does not like the term regime as it has at least in French a certain connotation, he prefers to call it the ventitiem etat virtuel, and that gives a bit the idea that at least Enrico Letta had as a vision behind it. And so in that sense I do believe it does make sense in particular here that we are talking about an own initiative report that this parliament sets out its own vision what this 28th regime or however we want to call it later should look like. And by that we should not underestimate the unifying effect that certain civil law codifications, encompassing ones, can have for federal countries. Reference I can make is to the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States that was an idea, a private initiative by the American Law Institute developed by law professors and practitioners in the 1940s which was then later voluntarily taken over by U.S. states into their state of law and by that became the unifying commercial code for the United States. Or some countries, in particular France, can recall the effect of the Code Civil Napoleon when it was introduced for spreading the idea of a unified civil law. So therefore we should not underestimate an ambitious understanding of the 28th regime for the idea of having more European unity in the future. If we remember this like 20, 25 years ago, there was a movement, certainly in academia, on creating a European civil code and reference is made here to the FONBAR study group in the beginning of the 2000s or other initiatives that try to find here a common civil code. So therefore looking into this idea and coming back to it continuously is also in line with the overall objective that this parliament is pursuing, creating stronger and more integrated Europe than here by other means such as a 28th regime. If we are going a step further and looking at what does actually the European Commission want, then it speaks of a legal regime for innovative companies that can make reference to a single harmonised set of EU-wide rules including relevant aspects of corporate law, social fencing law, labour law, tax law. And on this basis, they want to present a proposal in the first quarter of 2026. At least, the latter is somehow in contradiction with the former. With all due respect to the expertise that we find in the European Commission, setting up a uniform commercial code encompassing corporate law, insolvency law, labour law and tax law within a couple of months, I do consider rather a squaring the circle exercise. We had just a debate about harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law that are, if you look at it, what is needed to come to a unified even 28th regime. It's just a little small part of it compared to what here wants to be achieved. So therefore, what should the European Parliament do in its report? I believe it should be bold but at the same time realistic. I believe Parliament should use its own initiative report to also design its vision that it wants to achieve. Maybe in the line with the latter proposals on the VIN-VTM etat virtuel. But at the same time, we should also be clear what can be done in the context of which legal basis. It is ultimately not only an own initiative but also an own initiative legislative report. So, if we have as a starting point what do innovative companies want as compared to what they currently find in member states, then we see they want to have more venture capital. This is definitely missing. They want to have space, also regulatory space, to experiment. They want to have mobility within the entire single market in order to develop their innovation at places where they find different circumstances and maybe they want to move quickly. They need to have scalability when there is success with the innovative idea. They want to have protection against killer acquisitions. This is a great idea. Big Tech comes from the United States, buys them away, and their idea is frozen at best. And they want to have long-termism. That if there is a commitment into their company form, that this is in the interest of the company and the idea and not short-termism with quick gains and then dropping the innovative company. If you are having this as objectives, you come then to the follow-up question. Do we do this in a realistic or unrealistic way? Let's be honest. Unrealistic is the use of Article 352 TFEU. We can do anything and everything with it. The German Constitutional Court has a slightly different idea, but ultimately we can do anything and everything with it. But the cost is unanimity within the Council. And this committee has long-standing experiences that 352 proposals, they fail in Council and nothing is gained if you go this way. The alternative is to explore Article 15 and Article 114 of the TFEU. But here also there is an experience with the SUP that ultimately unfortunately failed with reasons. And currently we have the European Cross-Border Association in negotiations that also tries to explore the latter path. If we go the latter path, it means that we should look at national corporate forms and upgrade them with certain elements that we then want to make use, that we then want to address with specific, in particular, directives and harmonization. What am I looking for? So the ideas that I'm looking into is that we actually make use of national corporate forms and include elements that founders can make use of if they deem them appropriate for the innovation that they want to drive. In that sense, I'm against the limitation of the scope of the 28th regime to innovative companies as defining innovation will bring us already into trouble, only create additional bureaucracy, and we will need a later omnibus to simplify the whole thing afterwards. So no need to enter into this. Third, I do believe we need elements of steward ownership and I want to look into asset locks in order to give this potential, this opportunity to innovative companies. There's a lot that can be done in terms of digitalization and if you go into the way of national corporate law, then labeling a certain company that has the benefit of mutual recognition within all member states when crossing borders should be looked into. We must be wary of dangers in there, in particular as a social democrat. There should be no opening to undermine any co-determination, but this should not be the perspective of the discussion. The spirit of the discussion to look at the potential of a 28th regime for corporate law and not at all the risks and dangers that are out there without ignoring them. In terms of process, because we are entering also innovation for this parliament, I intend to organize an open and transparent process. I therefore will inform the shadow rapporteurs in the coming weeks of a working document for the first draft report of the rapporteur, where input by the shadow rapporteurs can already be given for the first draft so that the first draft is already something that has some sort of a core for a compromise and therefore be used in public debate. Commission wants to come up by the end of quarter 26 with their proposal. For parliament to influence it, we need to be very open and transparent on our own discussions in order to influence what the commission does. And therefore, also the timeline is probably in this context the most ambitious that we can achieve with this exchange of views. A workshop by the beginning of June. On the 27th of June, the draft report is to be sent to translation. The consideration of draft report should take place on the 15th of July. Deadline of amendments would be the 2nd of September. Consideration of amendments on 13th of October. Voting committee ideally 10th or 11th of November with a vote in the plenary and debate on 15th to 18th December 2025. If we are quicker, of course, this can be preponed. But in that way, we can have most of public debate and influence at various stages of our discussions the commission proposal, which is, of course, the whole point of an own initiative legislative report. I'm now looking forward to the ideas of the colleagues and I'm looking forward at this exercise that we are finally not discussing slashing old law but creating new law for new opportunities. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Yes, we also on behalf of the S&D Group, would like to thank the rapporteur for the for. The for the excellent work done so far. We share the criticism the lack of a of a of a commission report, and we share the sentiment that the question of enforcement and implementation of existing EU law cannot be understated in its relevance. We consider it critical that the Commission seems to create the impression of a two class, three class, four class European Union, in which some member states are followed on and others are have more liberty in terms of implementing European Union law, and that is of utmost essence. In order to ensure the authority of the European Commission that such inequality is to be addressed. Also, on behalf of the S&D, we are looking forward to the finalisation of the report and we have full trust in the capability of the of the rapporteur to come to a successful conclusion. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “But that requires unanimity and we have one for qualified majority. That only allows us for a directive. And if we do have to choose between ambition and substance or ambition in form, then I would always choose for the ambition and substance, and let's go for the fully harmonised directive, which was criticised by a colleague on the right side. Fully harmonised rules and directives. We know as consumers, we all know about our right to withdraw from contracts that we do not want to have and within the period in which we can do so. That was not created by a regulation, but by a fully harmonising directive. So here all citizens know about their rights, and that is precisely what we want to create. So let's be ambitious in substance if we have to make a choice and do not be ambitious in form and go for an instrument that allows us to create this 28th regime as quick as possible in order to meet the dreams that Lucas was presenting here as one founding a company that wants to act cross-border. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “The second one is on the dual use part, because already now we prevent many smart brains to actually make use of horizon because of the administrative burden to go for it. And I'm very much afraid that in the current defense logic and therefore the hooray for the dual use, ultimately we only create much more administrative burden and lose even more smart brains to that that help us to innovate at our research facilities and later also with our companies. Um, so in that sense, I'm worried about what the council has just recently decided on the dual use. If we look at the restriction of the eligibility criteria, it runs very counter to the idea of research that it's about the smartest brains and not where these brains are coming from or where they are working. If we if basically many things are dual use, and once there's a risk of of of a dual use element into it, we are not allowed to cooperate with certain third countries anymore. This will be to the utmost detriment or detriment of what horizon actually means, namely, um, excellence. And the third point is more a plea. Much of innovation is hard to predict from a policymakers perspective. It is something that is created at our research institutions, in particular in basic research and to a surprise to many by social sciences. So in that sense, I would like to make the plea that we must emphasize the freedom and the role of basic research so that actually new innovation comes out where currently our brains are not even thinking of, and that the social sciences keep their position within this program. Thank you.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks Mr. Commissioner to be with us. Um I have a couple of of questions. First of all, as an initial remark on behalf of the S&D Group, we are ready to go quite far in terms of cutting down reporting obligations to the absolute necessary. This is an important exercise. First. Did I understand you correctly when you were referring to the first omnibus proposal, and you said in that it will be presented in the coming weeks with an S since, to my understanding, the publication was suggested for the coming week without an S, but just maybe I mis I misheard. Second second question is a lot is based on the 3,525%. So how do you measure the reduction reduction target of this 25% 35%? You were referring to reporting costs, but translating law into costs is rather difficult and at times arbitrary measures. So I'm wondering how you intend to do this, in particular with regard to laws that were just recently adopted and whose implementation period is still running so that we actually lack data? Uh, further question, I think you have mentioned one, a core element that is the trickle down effect to SMEs. This is absolutely necessary. So therefore I'm wondering what your ideas are there. Would you include a right to refuse for an SME of any such request made by larger or larger, larger companies? Will such a request, if done, trigger sanctions on the larger company requesting such such reporting or such excessive reporting? Will even an SME that became subject to such requests hold this large company liable in front of courts? How far do you intend to go in order to stop the trickle down effect? Finally, a friendly piece of advice if you intend to find a broad majority for your simplification proposals in this House, please do not play with fire. If you present a chainsaw proposal, you will end up with polarizing this House, since tough proposals will trigger tough reactions which hamper the exercise of finding common ground. Thank you. ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Thank you, Mr. Parsi. On behalf of ECR Group. Mr. Mario Mantovani.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And we have some discussions that are probably worth to already mention up front. The first of all is the issue of the legal base, which is less a political one, more a legal one. Uh, it becomes political once there is a choice between multiple legal bases. And I believe there is quite a broad consensus, right, compromise amongst the participating, uh, groups, that we want to be ambitious in terms of substance, as in terms of form of the legal act that is to be suggested. Uh, it is then for legal services to check which are the appropriate legal basis, but it might be that we need to discuss whether we want to have a qualified majority voting in the council or a regulation. If we can find a way, how we can adopt a 28th regime by means of an EU regulation that is directly applicable throughout the entire European Union. This would be a very. This would definitely be the solution to be preferred provided provided we can adopt it by qualified majority voting. Because we should remember that the last time we tried to have an adoption of a new corporate form with the SE, it took us 30 years under the unanimity rule, under the unanimity voting, and that was with less than 27 member states. Moreover, if we want to get all member states on board, it would require that each and every member state has a little bit of its own legal order to remain within the 28th regime.”
  EU political integration
• “And from on behalf of the S&D Group, we would like to express our deep disappointment of the withdrawal of this, as the issues related to it, such as public security concerns, can be solved and the legal base issue is at best disputed amongst lawyers. At least those are the arguments presented by the council. Whether you have any specific justification why this proposal should be withdrawn, as it is actually nothing else as a nucleus of what the 28th regime is and is basically the same kind of creature as the 28th regime, which is now one of the star projects of the commission. And final question, you see the poster still hanging there? We just had a hearing on the immunity of International Criminal Court officials. The European Commission has a tool in their hand in order to protect sanctioned judges on the territory of the European Union, which is the blocking statute where the Commission has to adopt a delegated act in order to include this US sanctions. And whether you, as commissioner, who is also in charge for sanctions intend to initiate this process to activate the blocking statute within the Commission. Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “And that makes me wonder whether your remarks on the proposed, uh, NPS were not a bit too timid, as this looks like basically repeating the mistakes from RF and now bringing them into the into the budgetary cycle. So in that sense, I'm wondering, um, whether you could go a bit more into details on your assessment of the proposed, national reform plans and their added value from indeed proper spending perspective. Lastly, and a bit linked to this, we had just recently in the building across the street, an opinion of an Advocate General upon invitation of this institution, namely on the rule of law violations when spending our money and receiving money from the from the budget, namely the Hungarian case, you had a report on the rule of law where you wrote in the end, and I quote audit fieldwork ended before the Commission decided on 13 December 23rd that Hungary had partially achieved certain horizontal enabling conditions. This decision was taken into account but not audited. So whether that still holds as of today, or whether you have already further findings on this particular situation given, let's say, the Advocate General's opinion. That is rather in favour of Parliament's view on the matter that the Commission unlawfully had. Disbursed the funding in December 2023. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr.. President, a Vice President of the Commission. Dear colleagues, if we take a look at the markets in Europe, they're older and cranky. Mr. Faber has said, quite rightly, that innovation doesn't really happen in Europe. If you take a look at digital markets, there's no dominance of American companies that buy up any hint of innovation. So. That they destroy markets and innovation. And this is the curse of the large companies, as was already indicated in the 1940s. We've seen that eyes are being closed to the abuses of competition. And I think, Commissioner, you have to put an end to this. We have to create the necessary instruments to put right the problems caused by over dominant companies, and so that we can do something about killer acquisitions. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “And nobody is helped with that kind of approach. So the the better approach is to learn from past mistakes and try to try a cop to get a corporate form that can be adopted with qualified majority voting. And from that moment on, we look in articles 5114. Since article 50 is the more specific legal base in our treaty, and this article requires adopting measures by means of directive. Yet adopting a directive is this the end of the world? It isn't the differences between a maximum harmonising directive, as the draft report suggests, and the regulation are minor because when it is maximum harmonisation, gold plating is not possible. You have to precisely implement what the directive provides for. So in that sense, the choice made by this draft report is that we make use of the existing 27 national corporate forms and give them the essential elements that they have to incorporate in order to precisely have the effects that I outlined in the beginning. And by that, I deserve to get the label, as I proposed ISU abbreviation for European start and scale up. Very uncreative, and I hope that shadow rapporteurs can can come up with better names for the label that we want to add to it. But at the very end, before the deadline, my creativity was up. Concretely, what the what the report wants to propose.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, chair, and especially thank you to all the experts for their presence here. And thanks. For your clear account of what has happened. And I believe we should all listen very carefully. Because it starts with the judges of the international court that rendered their judgments that are not in line. What the emperor in the white House thinks how things should be, and it will soon also be for members of this Parliament. We have seen this with our colleagues from other countries happening and therefore we should be we should pay a lot of attention to what is what was said here, and we should pay attention to what we can do. And honestly, our duty is not to hold nice speeches knowing about the limitations that we have, but to do what we can. And Mr. Sturdza explained very clearly what we can do. The blocking statute is probably one of the strongest instruments that we have in order to protect institutions on our territory and citizens living within the European Union. And as was rightly explained, we speak about a commission delegated act. It is within the European Commission's political discretion to activate these mechanisms. And I am wondering why the European Commission hasn't done so. I can understand that Mr. Stelzer cannot give a reply to it. He is not the Commissioner, and I deplore that the Commissioner is not present.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Yes, exactly, indeed. So on behalf of Timo Wilkin, quickly, some remarks for the discussion. Um, first of all, I would like to apologise his absence due to the fact that, uh, his highest authority, namely the Prime Minister of Niedersachsen, Olaf Liese, is in town. And, uh, that one got, unfortunately, a little bit of a priority over Axel Voss, but I'm. I hope he can he can survive this. Um, secondly, on his behalf. He would like to emphasize our readiness or the readiness to achieve a quick compromise based on our shared priorities, which are ensuring that creators are fairly remunerated when their works are used to train AI, and supporting a thriving AI economy in the European Union. Timo is convinced that this report will only have an impact if we all achieve a broad majority in this House. For that, we will all need to compromise. But any compromise needs willingness from all parties to move. He says that he shown flexibility in the negotiations whilst on central issues such as the collective licensing. He misses a similar flexibility from other parties involved. Um, so in that sense, um, he is very much supporting that, um, our own amendments is doing both, uh, helping creatives and AI companies and not entering into compromise negotiations would do a disservice to both. From his point of view. We cannot simply throw the current rules in the bin and argue that we need a new legislative framework, but we need to build on the rules that we already have. Everything else would create massive legal uncertainty for years, until a new legislative framework is ready, and thus hurt both creatives and European AI companies. Quick solutions and the new legislative framework are not mutually exclusive. We can work on effective licensing on the basis of current rules, for example through mediated collective licensing solutions on this basis. He sincerely hopes that we can find a viable line of compromise in the coming weeks as we negotiate this crucial issue. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(10:16:49 – 10:18:04): Madam president, commission vice president, colleagues, We need more single market. We have 44% of internal, tariffs because our single market, faces, 27 different legal systems. We complain about the madness of Trump's tariffs. We can deal with the single market in Europe ourselves. Some talk about EU ink, but we could create more, EU single market. And the with Jacques Delors, who was a social democratic, his, teaching has be has been forgotten. Nobody falls in love with a single market. More single market means requires social standards and well paid jobs, and EU is and shouldn't be social dumping tax avoidance or winding down co decision. And people are turning away from the single market. So let's let's do EU ink properly more single market with common European social standards.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “But I am convinced that if we go for the maximum harmonisation, the only thing that is the difference between a maximum harmonising directive and the regulation is whether a member state implements or not. Plus minus. But what is implemented is precisely the same because it is maximum harmonisation. And in that sense, the difference between the regulation and the maximum harmonisation directive is a minor one. But the gain is enormous, because once we switch to the directive, we can go for article 50. We can go for a qualified majority voting. We do not need to make compromises with the variety of how the economies and our Member States are organised, so that we create a supranational form, but for the sake of compromise, we have such many compromises in this supranational form that it will not fly. And we see that all the 28 regimes that were tried to in the in the past, like the pan European pension product or others, they never were flying because we made compromises that didn't create something that was accepted by the market. So therefore, let's go for a legal basis that allows us to design something that can be adopted by qualified majority voting, make it as stringent as possible, and that can be done and can be achieved by a maximum harmonising directive. I believe this is the more successful way forward in order to actually deliver and not simply paint the future as I want to, but it will actually never be realized. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Why do I say time to grant in such a situation? Participating research institutions know that they will receive the money and therefore do already pre investments in order to prepare for the money that is supposed to come here. Only the date is a question and not the whether is a question, whether that sort of having even more trust in the experts and the research institutions in the whole process. So having them already in the programming and giving them guarantees that they will receive funding might not be, in a sense, allow us to bridge the time to grant problem without undermining the quality of the evaluation process. Third point, and here would be also interested from the industry's perspective, European partnerships. If you look at it abstractly, they look like something very beautiful, something that can really work. Yet evaluation practice shows it's not that great. We have around 50 partnerships, the added value of which can be disputed. So where do we have to change things here that partnerships actually unfold their full potential? Last question in particular to Mr. Hightower, I think there's a blind spot in the specific program, which is the overall strategic priority setting process, which is totally absent and which is much needed if we want to have our funds to be focused. How could we envisage a proper strategic priority setting process that involves the experts, that involves the sectors in order to allow us to be indeed more targeted and focused. Thank you.”
  EU research funding
• “It wants to propose for the creation. Creation of this corporate form must be fully digital and once only, ideally within 48 hours. Second, this must be done by a uniform union level company Register for the creation and for the registration of any changes within the corporate form thereafter. Third, we encourage the elaboration of model stakeholder shareholder agreements and model articles of association so that they fill up gaps that the directive can lead, but created by an expert commission, and that this register publishes the use of those modal documents and any changes made to this, so that any investor has one place to look at in order to know what are we talking about? I suggest I create the creation of a specialized dispute resolution mechanism in order to transfer the most relevant. Of the effects that are so-called Delaware, Inc. effect, namely that we have. Dispute resolution that is quick, that is efficient, and that knows what we are talking about. And we do not have to wait years for B2B judgments to be done. Optionally, we want to include long termism, issues of steward ownership. This morning by the Danish minister, we heard how Danish companies that are looking at long term developments are able to actually drive innovation, um, in, in the Danish, Danish economy. And in that regard, we want to open this also for, for start ups and scale ups.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation