Denis NESCI

What Denis NESCI has said (15)

• 2025-06-26 “P-002598/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Waste Shipment Regulation 1 will not prohibit transboundary shipments of waste for landfilling, but it will implement stricter conditions under which such shipments can take place, compared to the current rules. These new stricter conditions state in particular that a shipment of waste destined for landfilling is only allowed if it can be demonstrated that the waste in question: cannot be recovered in a technically feasible and economically viable manner; cannot be disposed of in a technically feasible and economically viable manner in the country where it was generated; or must be disposed of due to legal obligations under EU or international law. As such, the implementation of the new Regulation should not prevent clean-ups or the shipment of the waste resulting from such activity, where the above-mentioned conditions are fulfilled. The overall objective of the Regulation is to protect the environment and human health and to contribute to climate neutrality and to achieving a circular economy and zero pollution by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts which can result from shipments of waste and from the treatment of the waste at its destination. The Commission monitors the implementation of the Regulation and can provide guidance where needed to ensure a harmonised implementation in the interest of achieving this objective. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L, 2024/1157, 30.4.2024.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• 2025-03-06 “E-000963/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission considers that airlines should be encouraged to ensure accessible and efficient communication channels with passengers, especially when they face challenges, such as flight delays, cancellations, or baggage issues requiring a swift resolution. 2. In its Interpretative Guidelines 1 on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger rights 2 , the Commission included guidance for air carriers regarding complaint handling 3 ; while this Regulation requires air carriers to provide to passengers affected by flight disruptions individual information on related rights, it does not prescribe the communication tools, which are under the discretion of the airlines. The responsibility of enforcement of air passenger rights lies with the national enforcement bodies (NEBs) that oversee air carriers’ compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Regulation. To improve the existing rules the Commission included in its proposal of 2023 4 , amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, specific provisions to strengthen enforcement mechanisms including obligations of the air carriers regarding complaint handling and information to passengers. The Commission proposed that information shall be provided also by electronic means, where technically possible, ensuring that the passenger can preserve any written correspondence on a durable medium. In addition, airlines are required to enable the necessary means for swift and effective communication with the passenger. These proposals are being considered by the Council and the European Parliament 5 . 3. The Commission is aware that access to airlines’ customer service may be problematic including for NEBs; yet this matter is rarely the subject-matter of complaints by passengers. 1 See revised Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/commission-publishes-new-guidelines-more-clarity-airpassenger-rights-2024-07-22_en 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/261/oj/eng 3 See section 8.1. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0753 see esp. Art. 14a for air passenger rights (p.20), similar rules have been proposed also for bus, ship and rail, see p. 27, 31 and 33. 5 You can follow the legislative procedure here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2023_437 and here: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2023/0437(COD)”
  EU policy on aviation safety
• 2025-02-20 “E-000794/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Effective supervision is essential for protecting EU consumers and fostering trust in the single market. Under the Solvency II Directive 1 , the authority of the Member State where an insurer has established its head office has primary responsibility for its supervision and the competence to take necessary measures if its financial condition is not sufficiently sound. The Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive (IRRD) 2 and the Solvency II Amending Directive 3 reinforce the regulatory framework, aiming to better protect policyholders and enhance coordination among national authorities. The IRRD introduces harmonized recovery and resolution measures to protect policyholders, beneficiaries and claimants, and ensure effective crisis management 4 . It also mandates the Commission to issue by January 2027 a report on the potential for minimum common standards for Insurance Guarantee Schemes and, if appropriate, a legislative proposal. The Solvency II review introduces stronger cooperation and wider information exchange between the home and host Member State supervisors in case of significant cross-border activities 5 . It also enhances the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority’s powers to intervene in complex cross-border cases 6 . Effective and harmonised supervision is also a key objective of the Savings and Investments Union 7 . In this context, the Commission calls on the European Supervisory Authorities and National Competent Authorities to make full use of existing supervisory convergence tools. Furthermore, it announced its intention to propose measures to strengthen these tools and 1 Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance, OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1–155. 2 Directive (EU) 2025/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of insurance and reinsurance undertakings and amending Directives 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2014/59/EU and (EU) 2017/1132 and Regulations (EU) No 1094/2010, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 806/2014 and (EU) 2017/1129, OJ L, 2025/1, 8.1.2025. 3 Directive (EU) 2025/2 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 amending Directive 2009/138/EC as regards proportionality, quality of supervision, reporting, long-term guarantee measures, macro-prudential tools, sustainability risks and group and cross-border supervision, and amending Directives 2002/87/EC and 2013/34/EU, OJ L, 2025/2, 8.1.2025. 4 In particular, it equips national supervisory authorities and national resolution authority with harmonised mandates and tools to intervene when insurers face financial distress. 5 In particular, the home supervisory authority must promptly inform the host authority if it detects deteriorating financial conditions in an insurance undertaking under its jurisdiction. Under certain conditions, the host authority may also request a joint on-site inspection with the home authority and, if the latter accepts the request, EIOPA is invited to participate. See new Articles 152aa, 152ab, 152b of the Solvency II Directive. 6 Including by means of binding mediation and, under specific conditions, the disclosure of the names of concerned undertakings 7 https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/commission-unveils-savings-and-investments-union-strategy-enhancefinancial-opportunities-eu_en”
  Financial regulation · European Banking Union
• 2024-08-13 “P-001509/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission The European Union’s Geographical Indication (GI) system protects names of products that are linked to their specific geographical origin. Once a name is registered it enjoys the status of an intellectual property right. There is a guarantee of authenticity ensuring that only products coming from a specified region and respecting criteria spelled out in the relevant product specification can be marketed under that name, thereby protecting both producers and consumers against imitation and counterfeiting and helping operators and companies to valorise their intangible assets. The GI system covers an array of products including food, wines, spirit drinks and other agricultural products. In order for one of such products to be registered as a GI, certain criteria need to be met and a formal two-tier registration process needs to be completed, with a first round of analysis at national level and a subsequent second phase at Union level. On the basis of the information provided in the question of the Honourable Member the Commission is not in the position to make any assumptions on the possible eligibility of the Reggio Calabria’s bergamot as a Protected Geographical Indication (PGI). The Commission has not received such request and as indicated above a national procedure would have to be completed first in any case. The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member about the existence of a registered Protected Designation of Origin with the name ‘Bergamotto di Reggio Calabria – Olio essenziale’ which is a related product.”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• “(17:37:23 – 17:40:04): in categories needs to be clear and shouldn't make it more difficult for economic operators. We're in favor of financial transparency, but we're worried about how rigid the thresholds are. The 70% of investment could exclude products that are completely valid and could give less choice to European savers. We have a clear priority. We want a realistic, gradual, and technology-neutral transition. We cannot accept a regulatory framework that makes it difficult for certain sectors such as energy, manufacturing, SMEs. Without giving them options that work, the risk could be that those companies that need funds to innovate and decarbonize the most will not be able to access capital. We think the principle of proportionality is very important. So disclosure and due diligence have to be calibrated depending on the size and complexity of the business. We can't have the same burden on a big institution or rather we cannot put the same burden on a big institution as on a small one now. The natural gas, nuclear power need to be taken into account in this green transition. State securities, we cannot accept that we will penalize the whole issue of sovereign securities because you would be discriminating between public issuers and others, and this would be arbitrary. State securities are the backbone of European savings and a pillar of financial stability. Any if you do not include them in this list, this could have an impact on public debt. And now on the issue of financing costs for our countries, we feel this is a red line for us. And then a substantive political issue, sustainable finance has to help the real economy, not the opposite. We're not going to give the green light to a system on sustainability where sustainability makes it more costly and complicated for family-owned businesses and SMEs to access credit. We have to make sure that there is transparency for investors, but there shouldn't be any ideological ties that compromise the efficiency and the capacity to generate economic growth. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you very much. President. Commissioner for. The implementation report on the MFF. The curve of spending seems to slow down, and it seems to open up the possibility of a hole in funding. We need to support projects without adding to national budgets. We need better audits and digital platforms to reflect every euro spent in real time. I would also remind you that a lot of the loans have been unused, while the debt already taken out will have an impact on the EU budget until these resources really enter into force. Then new debt is not justifiable. Italy has proven that acceleration is possible. The Meloni government has streamlined the processes, has targeted spending to projects that can be carried out immediately, offering a rigorous management model. The European Court of Auditors has already pointed out that this has little impact on the green transition. We need specific details about the end beneficiaries and a constant parliamentary oversight. Lastly, the regions need to be involved. Only they can turn European funding into specific and tangible results. We need a pragmatic approach that's transparent and gives a shared responsibility to transform Form these investments into results for all Europeans. Let's make sure that the choices of today become specific opportunities for tomorrow's generations. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(17:36:51 – 17:37:23): you very much. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he's done. The overhaul of the SFDR is vital for the EU and especially for the competitiveness of our economic system. We believe that sustainability is a goal that we can share, but we mustn't take an approach that is tinted with ideology. The new system that puts all of”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thanks, colleagues. Chair. Today we're discussing a directive that aims to strengthen transparency in interest organisations of third countries. But there are many doubts and many have been put forth by the colleague that just spoke before me. These are noble objectives, but we shouldn't have confused disproportionate tools that could actually be worse for democracy. The objective itself is ambiguous. On the one hand, we would like to simplify interest representation Station. On the other hand, we are perhaps opening the door to interference from lobbying. With the sapping of democracy, limiting the limitations of the of the proposal are clear. Just a third countries without looking at the real needs for protection. We could perhaps have a mechanism that would be extremely expensive and bureaucratic, with few benefits. That would be the risk and it would be easy to get around. Now, there has been a request for an initial additional data, which would mean heightened bureaucracy, and the replies have to be swift. And then article 15 establishes two different authorities with extra costs and potential overlap. One point of responsibility would be a better approach and much clearer, but indeed. Standards for representation for all member states, and not having those standards would be a mistake. That would mean that member states, when it looks like the implementation of the scope of the directive, they cannot come up with obligations for transparency beyond those established by the directive. Now we recognise the interest in having the cross-border approach, but it could be a place for collecting sensitive data. We must make sure that there are clear, clear requirements of access to data to protect privacy, which is a pillar of our democracy. We agreed to smart transparency with a proportionate burden and specific provisions, with high protection of privacy and privacy of data. That will be the only way that we can have an impact on The interest groups whilst protecting our citizens. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Well, the DMA is fundamental to re-establish a competitive situation on the European digital market. We see a concentration of power in few hands. Major platforms. They impose rules and they limit opportunities for our businesses, especially SMEs, which make up the which are the basis of our economy. We need to intervene this to make sure that this distortion disappears when too much rigid bureaucratic legislation could perhaps put a brake to innovation and growth. We need to have proportional rules, transparency and possibility of access without disproportionate costs for European businesses. We cannot just by limiting large systems, we completely hamper the European system. We need to be regulators, but also technological leaders invest innovation and innovation, support our businesses so that they can grow at global level to defend our digital sovereignty is a European strategic priority. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Thank you very much indeed. I'd like to congratulate you two on my turn and on your election, and I wish you all the very best. I'd like to nominate Francesco Quintal as the third vice chair. Mr. Antola is the ideal candidate to take on such an important role given his political experience. He has actually been the mayor of his Puglia community for a number of occasions, and he's represented Barletta and Italy, and he has made a great contribution as a regional councillor and has therefore gained a lot of administrative experience, which is relevant to this sector. So I think he can contribute a great deal of added value to this committee. And we would therefore like to ask you to support his nomination and elect him third Vice chair. Thank you. **Dragoș Benea @Co-Chair: Mrs. Christina Guarda for the Greens.”
  Recruitment policies in the EU
• “This approach will increase the tax burden on citizens and businesses, and will impact on the illicit market and on the productive and agricultural sectors of the EU. As Mr. Doctor Mosconi has said, and there's a moderate approach to electronic products produced outside the EU, which might produce an competitive edge for countries outside the EU with low production costs. In your opinion, would that approach be compatible with the principles of proportionality and the requirement to protect industry and agriculture in Europe? What consequences would this approach have specifically on the agri industrial sector? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports
• “Thank you. Madam president. Commissioner. Colleagues. Tourism is not only an economic sector, it's about culture, tradition, the wealth of our territory. We're fully aware of this in Italy because millions of people choose our cities of art and our coastlines. There are families, small companies, living on a day to day basis and keeping this alive. In the pandemic, people went bust. We saw how fragile the sector was. Passengers didn't get refunds. So we do need a thoroughgoing revision of the directive. We need clearer rules, more protection and refunds, especially in the case of insolvency. We also need to support companies, especially smaller ones do away with unsustainable red tape. We cannot have systems in place that hit the weakest. So yes, we need to protect consumers, but we need to ensure those who are earning a decent living can do so, and companies can continue growing and competing very much.”
  EU strategy for tourism development
• “Thank you. President, Commissioner, colleagues, the single market is the biggest economic achievement of the EU but it's not finished. The 2025 report on competitiveness stated this: too much bureaucracy that gets in the way of those who are trying to work rather than supporting those. The single market should be a driver for growth, not for more, not for everyone becoming the same but we need to ensure that we attract investment. SMEs pay the highest price for all of this. We have to liberate EU businesses from pointless burdens. We shouldn't forget the least developed regions. A single market that leaves behind whole territories is not a completed single market. We need to focus on local excellence, excellence and that will mean building a stronger, fairer Europe. Then finally digitalization, this has to be a tool to create equality not create greater inequality. We have to however ensure that we protect data and European technical sovereignty. We will fight for a single market that will finally be completed, one that is built with pragmatism, courage and rigor. This is what our citizens need.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(11:16:01 – 11:19:18): Thank you very much, chair. First of all, I would like to thank the 2 the 3 co reporters for the work that they have done. Of course, they haven't had an easy task coordinating 3 parliamentary committees. As is well known, the commission proposal represents 1 of the most ambitious and controversial reforms of the next MFF. From the outset, there have been strong criticisms, and that's why we welcome the draft because it really does display some of the issues that we think are key. First of all, there's a request to strengthen the budget. We cannot continue to ask traditional policies to do more if we don't give them more money. The cohesion policy remains the key instrument for European investment and should be appropriately financed. We support that there is a need for flexibility, especially given the geopolitical context and the new priorities of the member states, but we also need to ensure that money is made available to all of the various categories of regions. We shouldn't just look at the least developed regions. We need to look at Europe as a whole, and we need to continue to support regions that are in transition and the more developed regions who are dealing with different but equally complex challenges linked to competitiveness, to industrial transition, to demographic change. We believe it is of fundamental importance that we bring in financial safeguard clauses to protect all of the different categories of region. Without a dedicated quota, this could mean that there is a significant drop off in the money earmarked for that region. We welcome the principle of partnership and multilevel governance. This is essential. Regions, cities, and local authorities need to be at the forefront when it comes to programming investment. Without real involvement of the LRAs, there is a real risk that we will lose the territorial dimension, which represents the added value of the cohesion policy. The issue of the commitments we support, what we have in the report because we think that we need to show a discipline that's closer to n plus 3, which is more coherent with the way structural investments are made and the demands of an actually viable program. In terms of development, we need to make sure that we have a strong cohesion policy, which is recognizable and has the relevant financial safeguards. We need to avoid safeguard I mean, to avoid money being reduced. We need to stick to the original objectives. We need to look at the territorial and social improvement. We need to move in this direction. We need to strengthen the territorial dimension, and we need to protect all of the categories of regions and look at the measure of capacity and provide financial guarantees for a strong cohesion policy. We will be working with a spirit of cooperation in mind. We're working with all of the political groups and the various co reporters and shadow reporters to make sure that we have a good tech switch, meets the needs of regions. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you chairman. I shall speak Italian. I wanted to ask Mrs. Pelosi Pulses about the commission proposal, which proposes significant rises in taxation for all tobacco category products, especially for heated tobacco and cigarettes.”
  Heated tobacco products