Dainius ŽALIMAS

Policy topics Dainius ŽALIMAS is active on

What Dainius ŽALIMAS has said (41)

• 2026-06-17 “Thank you very much. Mr. president, Commissioner. Dear colleagues. More information needs to be protected. And that's why we need to look at this from a national security point of view. Clearly, Russia and other countries are interested in data which is held in in national authorities data about citizens or data about certain officers. This information can be stolen via hybrid attacks. Now, you know, what we saw in Lithuania is not a one off. It's not just a national case either. Our response to this will show us how we can react. We need to look at how we address this and how we take a more holistic approach and how this is then responded to in other member states. The Lithuanian authorities have been aware of these attacks, at least from April, April, but people were only informed of these attacks in May. In our legal system, we have provisions which set out that citizens must be informed as soon as possible when their data has been compromised or leaked in some way. And this is obviously represents a danger for these people. And that's the reason behind that. We need to look, if all of this data actually has been protected in the correct manner. We must see a change. We are at a crossroads. We need to improve our communication and think and rethink this. And we need to look at this from a European point of view.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-06-17 “Thank you very much, mister president, commissioner, dear colleagues. More information needs to be protected, and that's why we need to look at this from a national security point of view. Clearly, Russia and other countries are interested in data which is held in in national, authorities, data about citizens or data about certain officers. This information, can be stolen via hybrid attacks. You know, what we saw in Lithuania is not, a 1 off. It's not just a national case, either. Our response to this will show us how we can, react. We need to look at how we address this and how we take a a more holistic approach and how this is then responded to in other member states. The Lithuanian authorities have been aware of these attacks at least from April April, but people were only informed of these attacks in May. In our legal system, we have provisions. We set out that, citizens must be informed as soon as possible when the data has been, compromised or leaked in in some way. This is obviously represents a danger for these people, and and and that's the reason behind that. We need to look if all of this data actually has been protected in in the correct manner. We must see a change. We are at a crossroads. We need to improve our communication and and think and rethink this. So we need to look at this from a European point of view.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• 2025-04-16 “E-001550/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU and China held the 39th session of their Human Rights Dialogue in Chongqing, China on 16 June 2024. The European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights was informed (in camera) about the discussions held during the Dialogue on 4 December 2024. The Dialogue was preceded by a side visit to Tibet that was organised by the Chinese authorities. During the side visit and in the Dialogue itself, visiting diplomats of the European External Action Service had access to experts on Tibetan issues and specifically inquired about the whereabouts and wellbeing of the 11th Panchen Lama. The official reply received was that he ‘currently conducts a normal life and does not wish to be contacted’. It was also stressed by the Chinese side that the identification of the 11th Panchen Lama was done without the approval of China’s central government and that as such, it was considered illegal. The 30th anniversary of the Panchen Lama’s enforced disappearance will be certainly raised during the next 40th iteration of the Human Rights Dialogue, as will the ongoing suppression of religious freedoms in Tibet. The EU will continue to speak out against human rights violations occurring across China, including in Tibet in multilateral fora (e.g. the Human Rights Council) and will continue to convey its concerns to the Chinese leadership including at the highest political level during EU-China summits. The EU will also continue to reiterate the rights of individuals or religious communities to conduct their basic affairs and freely choose their religious leaders without government interference – whether in Tibet, or elsewhere in the world.”
  EU-China relations · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-02-05 “E-000508/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The EU has been one of the largest supporters of civil society in Georgia since its independence and remains firmly committed to supporting civil society and independent media in the country. Since last summer, the EU has withheld over EUR 120 million worth of bilateral assistance to the Georgian authorities. These funds are currently being redistributed within the Eastern Partnership region based on strategic priorities. For Georgia, the Commission tripled its support to civil society organisations (CSOs) and independent media in 2024, i.e. from EUR 5 million originally planned to EUR 15 million. This additional funding will come from 2024 allocation as well as reallocation of existing funds and complements the ongoing support for civil society of around EUR 50 million. The Commission is in the process of implementing this support. The implementation of financial assistance for civil society and independent media is closely coordinated with Member States and like-minded partners on the ground. The Commission will continue to closely monitor and take into account the impact of the latest legislative initiatives on CSOs and independent media. Further support will be made available from 2025-2027 programming funds.”
  EU-Georgia relations · Funding for EU Neighbourhood
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like also to express my gratitude to Sergei for very professional and exhaustive report as well. Also, I would like to express gratitude to our guests. Speakers. I think you all convinced us why a certain degree of harmonization is necessary. Uh, why really, uh, some instrument like, uh, uh, European Cross-border Association Directive Is essential in order to strengthen what is also called an area of freedom by way in the in the treaty establishing the European Union. And of course, I am at risk here a little bit to repeat the question of previous, uh, speakers. Uh, because I, I think, uh, the withdrawal of the European Cross-border Association directive, really it, uh, it is sending us and, uh, at all at all to, to the civil society. Quite a confusing message, uh, especially in countries where democratic participation is already fragile. So, uh, can you explore a little bit on, on, on the reasons but my question, uh, when uh, probably would go further in this situation, what our legal and political tools could support cross-border civic cooperation along, uh, when this directive, uh, let's say, disappears, uh, for a moment because I think the ehm, uh, namely to strengthen, uh, European associations and, and in general, uh, civil, uh, participation, it's, it remains uh, so, uh, what, uh, our legal and political tools. Can you see?”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “Yes, thank you very much. I really have the honour to read her remarks. Thank you. First of all, for organising this exchange of of views. I am very happy to see this proposal from the commission to set up a European business wallet that builds up on the digital identity wallet system. In this Parliament, we talk a lot about simplification and competitiveness. And for me, this is the best of example of how we can deliver a simpler business environment for our companies. It is by making use of new technologies and finding smart ways to improve all the necessary administrative processes. But it is not enough to just set up the system. We need to make sure that it will be adopted by companies if we want this solution to actually make things better. So my priority when looking at this proposal is to ensure that it has a certain level of functionality so that it can actually be of value for companies. And we must keep in mind at all times that the final product should be easy to use for companies. I know that changing our way of doing things is always hard, and we will never convince our companies to switch to their business wallets if it will be too complicated to understand.”
  Electronic identity
• “Foreign regimes today use influence as a strategic weapon. Their goal is clear to divide Europeans, weaken our institutions and undermine confidence in democracy itself. We cannot allow this. That is why we must support the ambition to strengthen transparency and accountability in interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries. Europe needs clear, harmonised rules that expose manipulation while protecting our democracies. We cannot be compromised by existing essentially different rules or absence of them in Member states. And let me stress this point. This directive is the opposite of the so-called foreign agents law. It focuses on activities, not on funding. It imposes no criminal sanctions, no discriminatory labels, and no prohibitions on legitimate advocacy. It targets activities carried out on behalf of foreign governments with independent supervision and full respect for fundamental rights. Democracy must be able to defend itself. Thank you.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “(21:44:19 – 21:45:33): Dear colleagues, the joint resolution proposed for tomorrow's voting is firmly grounded in customary international law to which China itself is bound and which protects the identity and rights of ethnic and religious minorities. Yet China's new law on the promotion of the so called ethnic unity and progress will further intensify assimilation of Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and other minorities. It is particularly alarming that this law claims extraterritorial reach enabling persecution even beyond China's borders. We must be clear in our response. We urge China to repeal this law and uphold its obligations under international law. If it does not happen, we call on the council to impose EU sanctions targeted on those responsible for drafting and implementing the new law. Our main message is that enforcement of this law, yes, inevitably to lead to severe consequences for you China relations because it follows from the treaty on the European Union that we most promote the protection of human rights and with respect to international law in our external relations. Thank you. Katarina Vieira.”
  EU-China relations
• “Thank you. Thank you very much for your interesting and exhaustive presentation. However, I have several questions which may be not directly related to your presentation, but still very relevant to the work of our committee. So first of all, uh, one of your recent reports, a special report on the enforcement of EU law. And of course, it is highly valuable for our deliberations. Many of your key findings, including concerns about the length of infringement procedures, the functioning of Pre-litigation phase and the transparency of case prioritisation criteria also reflected in the UK report on monitoring of the application of EU law. We are soon going to vote on it. So since we share similar concerns, what do you see as the main priority now to make enforcement work better in practice? Should we the focus be on making procedures faster, increasing transparency or using formal proceedings and sanctions more decisively? And what concrete follow up has the Commission undertaken in response to your special report on the enforcement of EU law? And the next question is about also your special report on the transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs. You note that despite of certain progress, there is still not fully consolidated and reliable overview of how EU funds are allocated to NGOs and that reporting system remain fragmented across programmes. At the same time, the European Parliament has underlined the crucial role of civil society organisations in defending democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. So, in your view, how can we. Improve transparency and accountability of NGO funding without introducing additional reporting and compliance requirements that may disproportionately affect especially smaller and local non-governmental organisations? And do you see the current concentration of funding among a limited number of NGOs as a potential risk for pluralism, suggesting that future reforms should also focus on broadening access to EU funding? Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you very much, dear colleague, for your valuable insights and remarks, as well as urging us to fight against gender apartheid. And now I give the floor to our guests, starting from miss and my colleague, ambassador for equality, European External Action Service. Uh, you have five minutes, please.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “However, carrying out such an in-depth analysis across 27 member states poses clear methodological, legal, and resource related challenges. In light of this, I would like to ask how could substantial substantive monitoring be conducted effectively and consistently across Member States? What tools could be needed to assess the real legal and practical effects of transposition beyond only formal compliance? Who should be responsible for carrying out this analysis? Uh. Uh, then my last question, uh, to Professors Maguire and, uh, Sultan. So sorry from pronunciation. You made a compelling point in describing the commission's 2023 annual report as reading more like an activity report or a success story, rather than a substantive assessment of how EU law is actually applied on the ground. And in light of this, I would like to ask you, how can future commission reports be restructured to offer a more balanced, substantive picture of the state of EU law application, including areas of concern that are currently probably omitted? Given that the existing monitoring tools may not be well suited, what new instruments or mechanism would you consider necessary to ensure proper monitoring of implementation of EU law? Once again, I would like to thank you all, including the professor who participated remotely for your very interesting and exhaustive reports, and thank you for your answers in advance.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “However, as the report rightly highlights, the Commission does not report on whether it meets these benchmarks in the reports, nor does it explain the reasons why they are not respected. In your view, how often could such reporting be done? In what format, and could it be more visible? For example, by improving with the data published on the Europa website? The first question on unclear prioritisation criteria. The report finds that the Commission's criteria for deciding which infringement cases to prioritise, like cases involving serious damage to the EU financial interests and systemic failure to enforce EU law are vaguely defined, leaving room for inconsistent interpretation which can lead to an equal treatment between member states. What can the Commission do to make this criteria clearer and more consistent? So monitoring the EU enforcement is fair and transparent. So thank you for the answers.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Dear colleague, Mr. chair, thank you for your words and for the work of the on this issue, notably the raising the profile of the concept of gender apartheid, which is indeed a crime against humanity. The Femm Committee fully supports and works closely with Druha on Afghanistan, Iran and other countries and regions where human rights unfortunately usually, especially women's rights, are curtailed. Femm has held several hearings on Afghanistan, and it features prominently in our opinions to withdraw our annual report on human rights and democracy in the world since the Taliban takeover. Women's rights in Afghanistan have gone from bad to worse. The situation in Iran is also poor and systematic. The interpretation and enforcement of Sharia law, leading to the erasure of women and girls from public life, affecting all areas of women's life, from education to work, from health to justice is a blight upon all of us. I welcome, therefore, all our invited guests and look forward to hearing their expertise. And I'm giving the floor back to you, dear colleague.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Thank you very much for your interesting and exhaustive presentation. However, I have several questions which may be not directly related to your presentation, but still very relevant to the work of our committee. So first of all, uh, one of your recent reports, a special report on the enforcement of EU law. And of course, it is highly valuable for our deliberations. Many of your key findings, including concerns about the length of infringement procedures, the functioning of Pre-litigation phase and the transparency of case prioritisation criteria also reflected in the UK report on monitoring of the application of EU law. We are soon going to vote on it. So since we share similar concerns, what do you see as the main priority now to make enforcement work better in practice? Should we the focus be on making procedures faster, increasing transparency or using formal proceedings and sanctions more decisively? And what concrete follow up has the Commission undertaken in response to your special report on the enforcement of EU law? And the next question is about also your special report on the transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs. You note that despite of certain progress, there is still not fully consolidated and reliable overview of how EU funds are allocated to NGOs and that reporting system remain fragmented across programmes. At the same time, the European Parliament has underlined the crucial role of civil society organisations in defending democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. So, in your view, how can we. Improve transparency and accountability of NGO funding without introducing additional reporting and compliance requirements that may disproportionately affect especially smaller and local non-governmental organisations? And do you see the current concentration of funding among a limited number of NGOs as a potential risk for pluralism, suggesting that future reforms should also focus on broadening access to EU funding? Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Sometimes this happens too slowly or not fully. We need better checks, more targeted action from the commission and stronger help for member states to meet their responsibilities. Another concern is the slow and unclear infringement procedures. Some cases, even serious ones, stay open for many years. I plan to look at how we can speed up the EU pilot phase, make the process more transparent and help build public trust. We should also rethink how we simplify the EU law as many times has been already stressed. Simplification does not mean deregulation. It should mean making our laws clearer, easier to apply and more user friendly, especially for small businesses, local authorities, NGOs and ordinary citizens. Lastly, I will look at how we can use new tools like implementation dialogues and the Europa Enforcement Portal to support better results. These tools are useful, but only if they are open, practical and lead to real changes. In this context, I would like to mention the network on monitoring the Application of Union Law set up by the EU Committee. The network brings together MEPs from 12 specialised committees to discuss how the Union law is implemented across different policy areas. Our first meeting in June was a good step towards stronger dialogue and cooperation. Dear colleagues, this report is still at an early stage. I really welcome your ideas and experience so we can prepare clear and useful recommendations this autumn. Thank you and I look forward to working with all of you. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you chair. Um, indeed. Uh, first of all, I would like to thank all all the speakers, professor, for a very. Exhaustive and detailed, uh, report. Uh, made also on the basis of well standing case law of international court of justice, uh, and I fully agree with, uh, the conclusions that actually even the third parties, uh, in respect of, uh, the Rome statute or state, which are not, uh, state parties, uh, they should respect all the immunities, uh, due to Simply put, a norm of customary international law. But the problem here is much wider that the Trump administration is openly challenging international law, and trying to replace it with a might makes right approach. And actually, even to replace the United Nations with this crazy creation, which is called Board of Peace. Uh, and I fully also, I would like to thank, uh, the judge of the International Criminal Court for the presentation of his situation. Uh, unfortunately, sympathy here alone is not enough. Uh, the situation is really deplorable. And therefore, I have several questions, including also to, uh, Mr. Michael Stelzer regarding the blocking statute and other measures. Uh, if I am right, the EU has previously tried to shield European actors from US exterritorial sanctions. However, the experience during the sanctions showed serious weaknesses. Enforcement was minimal. Many companies withdrew and preferred not to risk US penalties. The deep financial integration with the US market made European protection measures largely ineffective. Given these lessons, how could we strengthen our existing protection framework so that we indeed genuinely can defend UN and ICC officials? Specifically, would it be feasible to introduce clear, not penalties by member states, but EU wide minimum penalties to ensure that member states enforce the rules? Should we push also for stronger central oversight. Oversight at EU level to prevent uneven and symbolic enforcement. And should EU compensation or insurance mechanisms be created to support entities that suffer financial losses? Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr., for coming here. Uh, also, I would I appreciate your openness. You demonstrated always, uh, to, uh, the dialogue on European issues and as well as the devotion both to your country and to the European values. Uh, partly my, uh, my general question, uh, would they have, uh, the question already asked here? I mean, uh, what, uh, can we, as the Legal Affairs Committee can do in assisting you in your reforms? And two more specific question you mentioned the importance on sustainability, on sustainable institutions. And I know that still, uh, Ukraine faces the problem with the functioning of the Constitutional Court, which actually doesn't function a few years. And no constitutional, uh, control is present, and, uh, appointment of new judges is delayed or even even stuck. So, uh, how, uh, what do you think? Uh, how how soon we can see solutions on this track? And also the second question, also quite of general nature. Have you already thought, uh, what kind of, uh, constitutional amendments, uh, will be necessary for Ukraine to adopt in the path of European integration? Thank you.”
  EU enlargement
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear Commissioner, I would like also to thank you for our close cooperation and effective dialogue with this committee. And I have the first question on the rule of law At its plenary session last December, the Venice Commission adopted the updated Rule of Law Checklist, which represents the most comprehensive and authoritative articulation of European constitutional standards on the rule of law. The revised text reflects emerging challenges, including those linked to the technological developments and ongoing rule of law regression, and introduces two important new chapters on checks and balances and constitutional review. Given this relevance and methodological depth, would you agree that it is necessary to systematically use the updated checklist as a primary benchmark when assessing Member States compliance with the treaties, in particular within the framework of the annual rule of law cycle. And how do you see the Commission structured cooperation with the Venice Commission evolving in this regard? And my second question is related withdrawal of a number of pending legislative proposals as a part of an effort Commission's effort to streamline its work program, removing initiatives considered obsolete or blocked, some of which were actively discussed within this committee. How would you assess this practice from the perspective of principles of sincere cooperation and institutional balance under the treaties? Would you agree that a more structured and transparent engagement with the Parliament should precede any decision to withdraw proposals that fall within our committee's legislative competence? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “I will also look to see whether there are any opportunities to further strengthen the once only principle, because having to submit the same document to a different department has no place in this day and age. Another important issue is making sure that we have interoperability or compatibility with existing systems and solutions. In those countries that have already taken first steps in providing digital identity solutions for their companies. I welcome the Commission's attention to this in the proposal because we have to avoid penalising frontrunners, otherwise we reach this disincentivising innovation. And lastly, I want to also emphasize the role this can play in facilitating cross border activity for companies. Bringing down internal trade barriers and friction is the easiest way to improve business conditions in Europe. Together with digital first strategy, we can deliver real benefits to our economies. I look forward to working together on delivering a positive opinion on the Commission's proposal. Thank you.”
  Electronic identity
• “Madam president, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot allow anyone to undermine the credibility of international law on European soil. The ICC is a cornerstone of a global system of accountability, acting as a court of last resort when other avenues to justice are blocked. We shouldn't forget about the human aspect of this issue, both targeted by US sanctions often discovered the chilling consequences only gradually in their lives. When a payment is declined or access to online services suddenly refused, effectively turning them into digital barriers, uh, simply for doing their office, their job. I therefore, I join those who urge the European Commission to swiftly use the US blocking statute by adding the EU's US executive order authorizing ICC related sanctions to its scope and, together with member states, develop additional measures to counter their effects. Such measures should include EU wide minimum penalties, ensure consistent enforcement, stronger oversight at EU level and compensation mechanisms for businesses. Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “(16:28:27 – 16:31:00): yes thank you very much i i really get the honor to read her remarks thank you first of all for organizing this exchange of of use i am very happy to see this proposal from the commission to set up a european business wallet that builds up on the digital identity wallet system in this parliament we talk a lot about simplification and competitiveness and for me this is the best of example of how we can deliver a simpler business environment for our companies it is by making use of new technologies and finding smart ways to improve all the necessary administrative processes but it is not enough to just set up the system we need to make sure that it will be adopted by companies if we want this solution to actually make things better so my priority when looking at this proposal is to ensure that it gets a certain level of functionality so that it can actually be of value for companies and we must keep in mind at all times that the final product should be easy to use for companies i know that changing our way of doing things is always hard and we will never convince our companies to switch to their business wallets if it will be too complicated to understand i will also look to see whether there are any opportunities to further strengthen the once only principle because having to submit the same document to a different department has no place in this day and age another important issue is making sure that we have interoperability or compatibility with existing systems and solution in those countries that have already taken first steps in providing digital identity solutions for their companies i welcome the commission's attention to this in the proposal because we have to avoid penalizing front runners otherwise we reach this this incentivizing innovation and lastly i want to also emphasize the role this can play in facilitating cross border activity for companies bringing down internal trade barriers and friction is the easiest way to improve business conditions in europe together with digital first strategy we can deliver real benefits to our economies i look forward to working together on delivering a positive opinion on the commission's proposal thank you”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Cristoforo and the European Court of Auditors for this important, well prepared and timely report. It provides a clear view of how the European Commission monitors the enforcement of EU law. The auditor helps us to see whether the Commission acts in a timely and effective way, whether it follows up properly on issues and how it reports its actions. All of this is essential to ensure that EU law is respected across the European Union. This report will also be helpful for us. The report on monitoring the application of the EU law. The findings and recommendations offer valuable insights into both the strengths and the gaps in the current system. They feel they will support our efforts in the European Parliament to make sure that the European Union law is applied fairly, consistently, and without delay in all member states. On that note, I would like to raise several questions based on the report's findings. First, on the coordination across the GS. Uh, after reading the report, if I understood correctly, it seems that the different directorates general in the commission handle infringement case cases in a rather separate way, each following their own internal procedures. Could you clarify whether during your audit, you observed any coordinated, system wide approach to monitoring the enforcement of EU law across the Commission? Or does this work still largely depends on how individual DG operate? And if that is the case, what steps could be taken to improve consistency and coordination in how the Commission monitors and ensures the enforcement of EU law? The second question on transparency regarding internal benchmarks, I fully agree that the Commission should follow the rules and timelines it set for itself, for itself, including indicative deadlines and internal benchmarks for its procedures.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. Dear colleagues, as the president of the Commission emphasised yesterday, when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. And this strength only comes through our unity. Unity must be based on our common values. Therefore, we must have in mind several important aspects. First, China's position in Russia's war against Ukraine. China's support to the aggressor cannot be tolerated. Secondly, inadmissibility of political, economic and diplomatic pressure on individual EU member states, for example on Lithuania. Thirdly, In inadmissibility of the use of, or threat of force against the liberal democracy in Taiwan, which is freely established and developed on the same principles as ours, for stopping the destruction of a unique and identity of the Tibetan people, as well as interference into their religious freedom. Fifth, seizing the grave breaches of human rights against Uyghurs in Hong Kong and elsewhere in China. Thank you.”
  EU-China relations
• “Uh thank you. Chair. Uh, dear colleagues, as rapporteur for upcoming report on how you now law is being implemented, I want to share some, uh, first ideas and, uh, invite you to make your suggestions. As you know, this report is intended as a response to the commission's own report, uh, report on the implementation of EU law for 2023 and 2024 by 2024. Commission's report had been expected in October. As we have been informed. Regrettably, if I understand correctly, it seems that the Commission has decided not to publish it after all. Uh, on the grounds that, It's, uh, uh, the, uh, it gets to review the work of the previous college. Uh, this raises concern about transparency and continuity, institutional continuity in monitoring the application of EU law, even though we do not have the full picture yet. Now we can identify some key points, uh, to focus on. Uh, first, we must deal with the implementation gap between what we decided to EU level and what actually happens in member states. This is not just a technical matter. It affects how people trust the EU and whether our laws work in practice. One key issue is the rule of law. Without strong institutions, independent courts and respect for basic rights, including equality and non-discrimination, EU law cannot be applied properly. I will highlight the importance of the rule of law conditionality mechanism and ask the Commission to use it fairly and clearly without political bias. We also see problems with how some laws are put put into national law, especially in areas like environment and digital policy.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear Commissioner, I would like also to thank you for our close cooperation and effective dialogue with this committee. And I have the first question on the rule of law At its plenary session last December, the Venice Commission adopted the updated Rule of Law Checklist, which represents the most comprehensive and authoritative articulation of European constitutional standards on the rule of law. The revised text reflects emerging challenges, including those linked to the technological developments and ongoing rule of law regression, and introduces two important new chapters on checks and balances and constitutional review. Given this relevance and methodological depth, would you agree that it is necessary to systematically use the updated checklist as a primary benchmark when assessing Member States compliance with the treaties, in particular within the framework of the annual rule of law cycle. And how do you see the Commission structured cooperation with the Venice Commission evolving in this regard? And my second question is related withdrawal of a number of pending legislative proposals as a part of an effort Commission's effort to streamline its work program, removing initiatives considered obsolete or blocked, some of which were actively discussed within this committee. How would you assess this practice from the perspective of principles of sincere cooperation and institutional balance under the treaties? Would you agree that a more structured and transparent engagement with the Parliament should precede any decision to withdraw proposals that fall within our committee's legislative competence? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the report, which also highlights the problems common also to national jurisdictions. That is, transparency and publicity and involvement of the public into the legislative process. Uh, this is a necessary precondition to make it really, uh, Democratic. And, uh, the report also highlights problems in the legislative process in the EU, especially at its early stages. The Parliament has already made some progress in this area. In your view, uh, what more could the Parliament do to make the trilogue process even more clearer and to build public trust in this area? How can current legal tools be used? Better to make sure that citizens are well informed about how EU legislative acts are negotiated. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. So, dear Commissioner, in particular, I would like to express my gratitude for your annual progress report. I think your initiatives, especially regarding the targeted omnibus package, adjustments to due diligence rules, GDPR, record keeping and the launch of Implementation dialogues show a genuine attempt to ease burdens for businesses and people without undermining the core objectives. In this context, I would be grateful to invite your reflections on several issues. So first, regarding the simplification matters and the first omnibus package. Recent developments in plenary showed that the Parliament supported significant cuts to environmental and sustainability requirements. In your view, can the core objectives of the omnibus package that is genuine simplification without slipping into deregulation, still be preserved through interinstitutional negotiations? And my next question is regarding the implementation dialogues. How would you assess the functioning of the new implementation dialogues, particularly with regard to ensuring a clear, transparent and inclusive process for identification and involvement of stakeholders, and how you intend to strengthen the participation of regional and local authorities whose involvement is crucial to improve improve the quality, legitimacy and effectiveness of all the implementation efforts. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:28:27 – 16:31:00): yes thank you very much i i really get the honor to read her remarks thank you first of all for organizing this exchange of of use i am very happy to see this proposal from the commission to set up a european business wallet that builds up on the digital identity wallet system in this parliament we talk a lot about simplification and competitiveness and for me this is the best of example of how we can deliver a simpler business environment for our companies it is by making use of new technologies and finding smart ways to improve all the necessary administrative processes but it is not enough to just set up the system we need to make sure that it will be adopted by companies if we want this solution to actually make things better so my priority when looking at this proposal is to ensure that it gets a certain level of functionality so that it can actually be of value for companies and we must keep in mind at all times that the final product should be easy to use for companies i know that changing our way of doing things is always hard and we will never convince our companies to switch to their business wallets if it will be too complicated to understand i will also look to see whether there are any opportunities to further strengthen the once only principle because having to submit the same document to a different department has no place in this day and age another important issue is making sure that we have interoperability or compatibility with existing systems and solution in those countries that have already taken first steps in providing digital identity solutions for their companies i welcome the commission's attention to this in the proposal because we have to avoid penalizing front runners otherwise we reach this this incentivizing innovation and lastly i want to also emphasize the role this can play in facilitating cross border activity for companies bringing down internal trade barriers and friction is the easiest way to improve business conditions in europe together with digital first strategy we can deliver real benefits to our economies i look forward to working together on delivering a positive opinion on the commission's proposal thank you”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. And first of all, I would like to thank all the esteemed professors for being here and presenting their insightful views on the monitoring, the application of European Union law. And I really appreciate your focus on how the monitoring of the application of EU law could be strengthened and made more effective. Uh, due to time limits. I would like to ask three questions to some of you. Uh, first of all, the question to, uh, professor, uh, Sarah Drake, I was especially interested in the remarks on adopting a more citizen centered approach to monitoring the European Union law application of the European Union law. How should we understood, understand the idea of putting the citizen at the centre in the context of EU law enforcement. What practical steps would be necessary to move from a top down model to a citizen focused approach? And what role could monitoring reports play in supporting or even driving this shift? I would be very grateful if you could elaborate on this issue. A second question is to Professor Helen. In your presentation, you recommended that the monitoring of transposition should not be limited to a formal article by article incorporation of EU legal action to national law, which of course I fully agree and support because substance always means more than only the latter.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Thank you very much, dear chair. Dear Commissioner, my question is more general about the implementation. The European Commission has reaffirmed its commitment to accelerate implementation of EU law through swift and resolute enforcement action, including the prioritisation of certain breaches. So in this context, I would like to ask you, how does the Commission determine which infringements are to be addressed as a matter of priority and what specific criteria guide the decision making process, and how does the Commission ensure transparency in how this prioritisation is taking place? Thank you. ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Thank you, Angelika Niebler and happy birthday once again. ** Angelika NIEBLER: Thanks a lot. Thanks. In German two firstly would like. I simply murdered a courageous suggestion, I mean I mean what many have been doing in medium-sized companies again over the last week, and we have to put an end to all this bureaucracy with this want of bureaucracy gram. When I can only months they are courageous and they put a good suggestion in front of me also we spoke to by a colleague. Like the law will be concrete proposal so they have the mentioned legal protection and then a proposal for everyone Or the word me on which the legally runs and time question they have planned that that that the Or that that in craft of the individual constitutional state Dan will be postponed by two years that was also a good solution to say postpone now and then I think we also had more time in Parliament intensively with the individual proposal than I am a big friend to say out and then let's see. We want you to achieve your goals. But we don't want to do this in such a way that we have a similar bureaucracy, but rather get rid of paper grams. But look sensibly if you can then also reach the soul so fridge there is the suggestion of a postponement for the legislative act that the first omnibus have struck. Thank you. ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Thank you. Next is Jurgen Warborn, and then I have two follow up questions of Mr. Karzai and Mr. Saadi and Mr. Lagodinsky. Okay, please.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you. Chair. And first of all, I would like to thank both ministers for coming and presenting here a very exhaustive list of their priorities and also touching the issues which are not directly within the competence of our committee. I have several questions. I must acknowledge that. I think all of them are directed to the Minister of Justice. So first of all. First of all, as far as understood, civil law and protection of vulnerable adults are among among the priorities of the Danish presidency. And I would like only to clarify whether the EU regulation on the protection of vulnerable adults will be among the priorities of the presidency and how. You will support a constructive and rights based approach to this initiative. Second. It's very pleasant to hear about the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression. So my question is, how do you see the role of the Council under your leadership in helping to ensure that this tribunal becomes a reality and a credible and functional instrument for achieving justice? And the last question, which may be not the most pleasant one. It's about migration and security. I can recall that in May, I think Denmark was among nine countries addressing the Council of Europe at indirectly at least, criticizing the European Court of Human Rights for its position in the in immigration cases. So although of course this latter was met quite controversially in the academic community, first of all, but my question, uh, would you do something at the level of a council I know, to maybe to improve the legislation because, uh, it's not for the politician to politicians to improve the case law of any court which is directly based on the existing legislation. Thank you.”
  Support for International Criminal Court
• “Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramakers, for the overview of the Commission assistance to the Protection of Women's Rights outside the European Union, as well as assistance given to human rights defenders. And now it's the time for remarks, questions and answers, first of all, from coordinators representing political groups and from coordinators, I see, uh, Francisco. Asks if if I. If I am not mistaken. No, sorry. Uh, sorry. So for any member of. For any member of the European Parliament, uh, I saw also Carolina morales. If she's present. If you have a question, please. So. Okay.”
  EU competences on human rights
• “I will also look to see whether there are any opportunities to further strengthen the once only principle, because having to submit the same document to a different department has no place in this day and age. Another important issue is making sure that we have interoperability or compatibility with existing systems and solutions. In those countries that have already taken first steps in providing digital identity solutions for their companies. I welcome the Commission's attention to this in the proposal because we have to avoid penalising frontrunners, otherwise we reach this disincentivising innovation. And lastly, I want to also emphasize the role this can play in facilitating cross border activity for companies. Bringing down internal trade barriers and friction is the easiest way to improve business conditions in Europe. Together with digital first strategy, we can deliver real benefits to our economies. I look forward to working together on delivering a positive opinion on the Commission's proposal. Thank you.”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you very much. Thank you, dear Minister, for coming and for the presentation of your presidency priorities in the legal field. And actually, I would highlight two of them. That is, first of all, accountability for war crimes or the special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. So my question is that given the fact that the tribunal is to be established according to public information, by the agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe and will be based on Ukraine's jurisdiction, is it true that the highest political leadership of Russia, president, prime minister and foreign minister will be exempted from the jurisdiction of the tribunal? And how it is? Is it compatible, in your view, with the consistent position of the European Parliament, for example, that all the leadership of Russia must be held accountable for the aggression? And my second question, um, regards the fight against corruption. Finalisation of the anti-corruption directive, of course, is mostly welcomed. Uh, result. And given the political sensitivity of anti-corruption reforms, how will your presidency seek to build consensus among diverse legal systems and political contexts? How will it ensure that the director of results in a robust EU framework that effectively targets corruption in both the public and private sectors? Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “(17:27:11 – 17:28:59): Thank you Chair, dear Commissioner. I would like also to thank you for close cooperation and effective dialogue with this committee. And I have the first question on the rule of law. At its plenary session last December, the Venice Commission adopted the updated rule of law checklist, which represents the most comprehensive and authoritative articulation of European constitutional standards on the rule of law. The revised text reflects emerging challenges, including those linked to technological developments and ongoing rule of law regression, and introduces two important new chapters on checks and balances and constitutional review. Given this relevance and methodological depth, would you agree that it is necessary to systematically use the updated checklist as a primary benchmark when assessing member states' compliance with the treaties, in particular within the framework of the annual rule of law cycle? And how do you see the Commission's structured cooperation with the Venice Commission evolving in this regard? And my second question is related with the withdrawal of a number of pending legislative proposals as a part of an effort, Commission's effort to streamline its work program, removing initiatives considered obsolete or blocked, some of which were actively discussed within this committee. How would you assess this practice from the perspective of principles of sincere cooperation and institutional balance under the treaties? Would you agree that a more structured and transparent engagement with the Parliament should precede any decision to withdraw proposals that fall within our committee's legislative competence? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you chair and their commissioner thank you for being with us as the standing rapporteur on monitoring the application of EU law. First of all I would like to express gratitude for your annual progress report and I think your work on the second omnibus package simplifying invest EU rules also working with member states to streamline recovery and resilience facility procedures shows a clear commitment to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. Implementation dialogues you held on the RF and European statistics likewise reflect a welcome effort to gather practical feedback from national authorities and stakeholders. Against this background I would be grateful for your reflection on the following points which are central to our mandate on legislative quality implementation and enforcement. So the first regarding the simplification agenda while burden reduction is a welcome objective I always underline that simplification of EU law must not be conflated with deregulation. Streamlining legal texts and procedures must improve clarity legal certainty administrative efficiency while preserving essential policy objectives and protections. Therefore what measure are you going to take to ensure that simplification does not slip into deregulation in your portfolio and in which areas do you see the biggest risks. Second regarding the implementation dialogues especially on the recovery and resilience facility how do you assess their functioning particularly about ensuring a clear transparent and inclusive process for identification and involvement of all stakeholders. Do you intend to strengthen the participation of regional and local authorities whose involvement is crucial to improve the quality legitimacy and effectiveness of implementation efforts. And the last one regarding impeachment procedures the commissions the commission usually treats referral to the court of justice as a last resort and prefers dialogue and cooperation. Given that in area of economic and financial affairs there are ten ongoing infringement cases how do you assess whether the current reliance on dialogue and compliance promotion is sufficient to ensure timely and uniform compliance with European Union law thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Yes, thank you very much. I really have the honour to read her remarks. Thank you. First of all, for organising this exchange of of views. I am very happy to see this proposal from the commission to set up a European business wallet that builds up on the digital identity wallet system. In this Parliament, we talk a lot about simplification and competitiveness. And for me, this is the best of example of how we can deliver a simpler business environment for our companies. It is by making use of new technologies and finding smart ways to improve all the necessary administrative processes. But it is not enough to just set up the system. We need to make sure that it will be adopted by companies if we want this solution to actually make things better. So my priority when looking at this proposal is to ensure that it has a certain level of functionality so that it can actually be of value for companies. And we must keep in mind at all times that the final product should be easy to use for companies. I know that changing our way of doing things is always hard, and we will never convince our companies to switch to their business wallets if it will be too complicated to understand.”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you. Thank you. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr., for coming here. Uh, also, I would I appreciate your openness. You demonstrated always, uh, to, uh, the dialogue on European issues and as well as the devotion both to your country and to the European values. Uh, partly my, uh, my general question, uh, would they have, uh, the question already asked here? I mean, uh, what, uh, can we, as the Legal Affairs Committee can do in assisting you in your reforms? And two more specific question you mentioned the importance on sustainability, on sustainable institutions. And I know that still, uh, Ukraine faces the problem with the functioning of the Constitutional Court, which actually doesn't function a few years. And no constitutional, uh, control is present, and, uh, appointment of new judges is delayed or even even stuck. So, uh, how, uh, what do you think? Uh, how how soon we can see solutions on this track? And also the second question, also quite of general nature. Have you already thought, uh, what kind of, uh, constitutional amendments, uh, will be necessary for Ukraine to adopt in the path of European integration? Thank you.”
  EU enlargement
• “Dear colleagues, can we come back to our agenda? I substitute Madam Chair for half an hour or so. And now we have on our agenda the item which is, uh, gender inequalities in health, specifically as regards gender specific conditions. And without any delay, I will give the floor to the rapporteur, Billy Kelleher, for his presentation, please.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Dear colleagues, dear guests. Uh, we have to turn to the second panel on the EU strategy to promote and to protect human rights of women worldwide. The EU must play its role in ensuring that With Afghanistan's rulers can be held accountable, including through, as we recently called in our resolution of 19th September 2020 for an ICC investigation and the establishment of a UN independent investigative mechanism. So I am happy to welcome this panel. Guests miss and my colleague, Ambassador of Equality, European External Action Service, Miss Smriti Singh, Regional Director for South Asia, Amnesty International and Mr. uh Raymakers, Deputy head of unit for Gender Equality, Human Rights and Democratic Governance, European Commission, DG India. But first we turn to the chair of draw of a draw. Mr. Munir sanctuary for his remarks. So, please, dear colleague, the floor is yours.”
  EU competences on human rights
• “(17:27:11 – 17:28:59): Thank you Chair, dear Commissioner. I would like also to thank you for close cooperation and effective dialogue with this committee. And I have the first question on the rule of law. At its plenary session last December, the Venice Commission adopted the updated rule of law checklist, which represents the most comprehensive and authoritative articulation of European constitutional standards on the rule of law. The revised text reflects emerging challenges, including those linked to technological developments and ongoing rule of law regression, and introduces two important new chapters on checks and balances and constitutional review. Given this relevance and methodological depth, would you agree that it is necessary to systematically use the updated checklist as a primary benchmark when assessing member states' compliance with the treaties, in particular within the framework of the annual rule of law cycle? And how do you see the Commission's structured cooperation with the Venice Commission evolving in this regard? And my second question is related with the withdrawal of a number of pending legislative proposals as a part of an effort, Commission's effort to streamline its work program, removing initiatives considered obsolete or blocked, some of which were actively discussed within this committee. How would you assess this practice from the perspective of principles of sincere cooperation and institutional balance under the treaties? Would you agree that a more structured and transparent engagement with the Parliament should precede any decision to withdraw proposals that fall within our committee's legislative competence? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law