Elisabeth DIERINGER

Policy topics Elisabeth DIERINGER is active on

What Elisabeth DIERINGER has said (26)

• 2026-07-07 “(13:53:57 - 13:54:48): and gentlemen, this house has presenting different facts. This proposal has been split. This time, the Mexican parliament and senate will vote to it in the national parliament in Austria. This is not a trade policy. This is trying to deviate, go round and circumvent democracy. We're doing this all under the, auspices of free trade, the green deal. This is going to apparently serve the interests of our farmers and SMEs. We cannot give this our consent. We need to represent domestic companies that need reliable rules. This is something”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2026-07-07 “Ladies and gentlemen, this house is Presenting different facts. This proposal has been split this time. The Mexican Parliament and Senate will vote to it in the National Parliament in Austria. Would. This is not a trade policy. This is trying to deviate, to go round and circumvent democracy. We're doing this all under the auspices of free trade. The Green Deal. This is going to apparently serve the interests of our farmers and SMEs. We cannot give this our consent. We need to represent domestic companies that need a reliable rules. This is something this is a situation that the Commission has built itself, has made itself.”
  EU competences on trade policy
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you. Two questions. The first, on financing. In this package, we're talking about 120 billion for semiconductors and 20 million for a gigafactories and data centers. But none of these have actually been guaranteed. So we're talking about competitiveness fund. We haven't agreed agreed on that. And we're going to have to use funds from defense and green transition. We wanted to have a 20% share of the global economy by 2030. The Court of Auditors said that this was unrealistic. The commission said that only 5% are self administered as 5% of the funds. And by 2030, our market share is supposed to increase from 10 to 12%, which is well below the 20%. So I was wondering what's changed about this target. And if we can't deliver on that, where will we have to make cuts? And then on procurement rules and the sovereignty assessment. European businesses that go to the US do so because growth is easier there. And the Savings and Investment union has little impact here. At the same time, people use American services because they're affordable and have been around for a long time. Now, my question is. Shouldn't this be seen as more of a financial problem rather than one tied in with procurement? And in practice, doesn't sovereignty simply mean that we're imposing a more expensive services on our citizens?”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-17 “We take issues affecting young people seriously, and these are issues linked to social media. That's why it's very important to look at this proposal very closely. The commission has made age verification a key pillar of its strategy and wants to have a digital, check for this age verification, that means that not just children will have to identify themselves, but adults too. All adults will have to do it because the Internet site you're using doesn't know how old you are. But older people and old people are can are turning more and more away from classical media, and that means that the traditional parties are losing out. But, when people, go on these social media, they're more exposed to different political opinions. There's chair cuts off the speaker.”
  Age restrictions on children's access to social media
• 2026-02-02 “P-000408/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The PoliRural was a Horizon 2020 funded project implemented between June 2019 and September 2022. It involved 38 beneficiary participants and aimed to support rural policy development. The Club of Ossiach (CoO) participated as beneficiary in accordance with the Horizon 2020 rules. During the grant preparation process, CoO fulfilled all applicable requirements and was subject to the same checks as other consortium members, including the verification of its legal existence and the submission of statutory documents. CoO contributed to several activities, including actions related to envisioning attractive rural areas, capacity building, communication and dissemination, etc. It participated in meetings and complied with reporting obligations. No performance-related issues were identified during project implementation. CoO received a total EU contribution of EUR 121 329,57. Records confirm that CoO’s activities during the project were related to rural development. Subsequent changes in the use of its internet domain in August 2024 are no relevant for the project. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducts investigations where there are sufficient indications of fraud, corruption or other illegal activities affecting the EU’s financial interests. Decisions on opening investigations and on cooperation with national authorities fall within OLAF’s competence. The project was implemented under a Horizon 2020 grant agreement, which defines the rights and obligations of beneficiaries. At present, the Commission has no evidence that the CoO breached the grant agreement or misused EU funds. Consequently, no recovery procedure has been initiated.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · EU research funding
• 2026-01-12 “Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission 13.5.2026 Written question The Commission supports policies for families and carers, such as the Work-Life Balance Directive establishing paid parental leave [1] , and the implementation of the Barcelona targets for 2030 [2] , which encourage Member States to increase participation in accessible, affordable and high-quality early childhood education and care. These actions also take into consideration demographic developments, including ageing populations [3] , as highlighted in the Demography Toolbox [4] . However, decisions involving taxation, such as tax breaks for families with multiple children, fall firmly within the competence of the Member States. Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [5] stipulates that the family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection. In addition, the ‘Declaration of principles for a gender-equal society’ annexed to the Roadmap for Women's Rights [6] recognises in principle 4 the importance of promoting working conditions that facilitate the reconciliation of private, family and working life. [1] Article 8(3) of the directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1158/oj. [2] Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on early childhood education and care: the Barcelona targets for 2030 2022/C 484/01 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2022_484_R_0001. [3] Highlighted by Recitals 6 and 27 of the Work-Life Balance Directive. [4] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions ‘Demographic change in Europe: a toolbox for action’, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0577. [5] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/. [6] Annex to the Roadmap on Women’s Rights — Declaration of principles for a gender-equal society https://commission.europa.eu/document/7d965089-e332-473a-88a9-e246f214e3bf_en.”
  EU competences on demographic policy · EU strategy on population growth · Support for families
• 2025-07-07 “P-002754/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Club of Ossiach received funding from Horizon 2020, the previous EU Framework programme for research and innovation 1 as participant in the Polirural project 2 . Projects are selected for possible funding based upon an evaluation by independent experts following selection and award criteria in the relevant work programmes. The Commission refers to its replies to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 11/2025 3 where it mentioned that carrying out an economic activity is compatible with the nature of an non-governmental organisation (NGO), for as long as any profits it generates from its activities are not distributed to its members. Thus, engaging in commercial transactions or the salary level of employees of an entity do not prevent a 'non-profit' status of an entity. However, the Commission agreed to explore whether pursuing its members’ commercial interests should factor into the NGO status of an entity 4 , as this aspect was not part of the NGO definition agreed by the co-legislators in the Financial Regulation (FR) recast 5 . The need to indicate in the grant applicant’s information whether the entity is an NGO only came into effect with the FR recast in September 2024. When it comes to EU funding, NGOs are no different from other applicants. They are subject to fulfilling the necessary eligibility requirements, and the fulfilment of the NGO status does not entail any preferential treatment, nor is it an eligibility criterion, aside from a few, very specific cases. Therefore, having or not the status of an NGO is in principle not relevant for receiving EU funding. The Commission closely monitors the implementation of projects. In case of misconduct such as serious breach of obligations, the Commission may suspend or terminate the grant agreement, in line with the contractual provisions 6 and the FR 7 . 1 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-2020_en. 2 https://polirural.eu/about/. 3 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications?ref=SR-2025-11. 4 Replies of the European Commission to the European Court of Auditors’ special report. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. 6 See for example the Justice programme Model Grant Agreement: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/just/agr-contr/general-mga_just_en.pdf. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. I will talk in German. Honoured colleagues, let me um, say which principles I think are relevant for this file. For one thing, AI should not be replacing people's human beings judgments. Not in law, not in administration. It is a tool and therefore it cannot take any responsibility. Responsibility must stay with people. If the commission wants to extend capacity in field, we will support that. But we do not. We. We have to make sure that there shouldn't be any new bureaucracy created. What we against is the tendency for this topic to become a new reason for more transfers being made. And we also consider this with the online platforms. And with respect to responsibility within the value chain, we think this has to be taken into account. So it shouldn't be applied across the board. And this these are the principles on which we should orientate ourselves. Thank you, thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “So thank you very much indeed for giving me the floor. Obviously. We've heard from what's been said beforehand that, uh, everyone is always trying to do something about this craziness with regulations that we have now. And I'm going to look at that now because obviously we don't want to build up further red tape for our food producers at home. We don't want to have new structures created for monitoring. We don't want additionally complicated systems. What we should be doing, and this is what I'm involved with, is really listening to people who are affected and not trying to impose further burdens or additional translation costs as well, because obviously there's always a huge financial cost involved. And these people actually need our support rather than trying to stifle them. We have to give them freedom and support and respect their own self-determination as such, and have the focus firmly on them. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much indeed. Our car industry is a line. Volkswagen has had to do away with up to 50,000 jobs. Lots of jobs have been lost throughout Europe. And for within 1 year, we've seen, revenues, collapsing. The reason is obvious, less competitiveness because of too much regulation, climate policy regulations. If we want to be serious, then we can stand up for our promises, and do what we said to our constituents. When it comes to the details, we do need to simplify things for citizens. We need technological neutrality, and we need to leave the past behind. We are ready to work with everybody who wants to cooperate. Thank you.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2 · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “The single market is one of the few areas where the EU has actually proved a practical use for our citizens. Now, this is frustrating. As the Commission has said, the Court of Auditors has said there was too little strategic approach taken to the internal market services make up around 60% of our economic production. 20% of this is crossed border and is carried out in neighbouring member states for a functional single market. Well, we don't have that yet. For over 20 years, we've known what is necessary, but this is not coming to practice. Our businesses need a new single market strategy because what we're faced with now is not fit for purpose for our citizens. An industrial accelerator act that is being promoted by the Cyprus presidency and should cost over €6 billion. The commission is talking about breaking down red tape, and that's a joke where the commission is serious about this, they have to start solving problems for the time being. The commission's solutions are just designed to create new problems for European business. For example, an Austrian company would take months to comply with new European rules and for the most productive areas, this was simply going to cause more problems. What we really need is true subsidiarity concentrated on what actually works. Less is more in this case.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “And of course, we have to keep in mind that the beating heart of Europe are its SMEs. And so the risk is that we will create additional difficulties for these SMEs. If we're going to have some kind of digital, uh, branding without any trial phase, I think that this will confuse both consumers and operators. The general ban on advertising for fast fashion. This also raises questions, particularly in terms of proportionality and competition. Vat harmonisation, including on reconditioned products. But this is going to have a well, it's in direct conflict with member state competency with member states competency when it comes to taxation. Then the introduction of the idea of the person responsible at EU level. This might also discourage legitimate imports. I believe that our objective should be a strong Europe, not a centralising Europe. If Europe is strong, this means it will also respect the principle of subsidiarity towards member states and also economic diversity that is set out in its treaties. Finally, digital and green transitions do have to help to consolidate our strategic autonomy, not lead to further dependency in other areas. So just to conclude, I would say that we are open to cooperation to try to improve this report. It is only if we can genuinely bring environmental ambitions in line with sustainability, and making sure that people are at the heart of this not ideology, that we'll be able to create a prosperous, resilient, strong Europe. Thank you.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the planned new rules for the Package Travel Directive at first glance seem to provide improvements for consumers and consumer protections. But. It's not all perfect. I mean, the lessons from the Thomas Cook bankruptcy have been learned, but there are is going to be new bureaucracy and new demands in terms of providing information. And that's going to disproportionately affect SMEs in the travel sector. There is going to be uncertainty as a result of this. I'd say instead of clarity, offers may well become more expensive and there may be fewer offers in terms of package travel available. I think we need businesses to have the rights to freely shape package trips. We don't need more red tape from Brussels. Our tourist sector should be trusted rather than having new burdens constantly placed on it.”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “Could be could have the opposite effect of promoting the circular economy. There would be different characteristics and capacities in in the economy. The circular economy lives on flexibility and adaptability. Which is in contradiction with the documentation requirements that are outlined here. We should not be creating new obstacles to them, so we'd welcome it if we could continue to discuss how we can meet these laudable goals without a disproportionate amount of red tape, which would end up being counterproductive for our environmental goals. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, first of all, I would just like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he's done so far. And I just want to assure him of our full willingness to cooperate with him. Although in what I'm about to say, I will be flagging up a few points that we don't fully agree with, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of constructive cooperation. In order to ensure that we end up with the most effective report possible, which will affect which will protect both consumers and business. As well as talking about a genuine digital transition, I would also add sustainable. We need to take account of both things. If you make one prevail over the other, you might, uh, damage. It might be harmful to businesses and therefore by extension also consumers. Some of the problems I was going to flag up have been already referred to by colleagues who preceded me. For example, the digital product passport. This could be an advantage, but if every type of good is considered without any distinction, including second hand goods, for example, it's going to lead to excessive administrative burden, particularly for SMEs.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Thank you. Yes. I'm happy to speak on his behalf, and I can thank the rapporteur. First of all, and say thank you for your proposals and everything you've said about the digital and sustainable transition. I, uh, welcome your efforts, but there are a few points I'd like to make which lead to questions in our group. The proposal for a mandatory product basis for all products placed on the EU market, including second hand goods. Well, we have, uh, concerns about that. The horizontal, uh, product basis is a good intention, but what about the practical implementation? This has been mentioned today, particularly for small businesses, particularly businesses that are in repairs. The repair economy is mainly local small businesses, independent technicians and local initiatives. These market players play an important role in promoting the circular economy. But if the The burden is disproportionate. They will not be able to provide this service. The mandatory requirements would probably be an overwhelming, uh, burden for these small businesses. The requirements, uh, on updating the digital, uh, requirements, particularly for products, uh, particularly where they did not create the original design or do not have access to protected information, is going to be a massive challenge. It could lead to an absolute nightmare. Uh, as as they try to meet all the requirements, they could go out of business. The proposal does not address how, uh, repair, uh, units would have access to the different, uh, updates Dates and information without saying that the manufacturer, the original manufacturer, has to provide that information. The repair places will not be able to meet these requirements, and they will not be able to check the origin of the data, and compulsory use of these requirements are applying to all categories of products, including second hand products.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “Honourable members, nobody can dispute the fact that cyber bullying is a real threat. This new action plan targeting bullying demonstrates where the Commission focuses its attention. It talks about protecting young people, but it mentions migrants, LGBTQ and other minorities. Why restrict your efforts to these groups? Why not protect all children? We know. What about French school child being bullied because they wear a veil? What about a Spanish pupil being bullied? Because they're not. You cannot pick and choose which children you protect. We don't need that type of help. What we need is to face facts. Call a spade a spade. And we need proper policies to reflect that. And we need child protection for all children. Thank you.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “(15:04:28 – 15:05:41): Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. One of these 10 sins of the single market are territorial deliveries. So it affects smaller member states, particularly, but also when you have islands. Last week, we learned that there was a mission to Martinique, and we learned that additionally, as a problem with transport costs, they also had a number of extra marginal costs which they were affected by. This affects a great number of Europeans who end up having to pay higher prices and therefore lose their confidence in the single market. So member states, and it makes it particularly difficult because there's an issue with the policies of large companies in the procurement. So when can European consumers who are affected by this hope for an improvement and reduction in prices?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “The trilogue had a good outcome. We have simpler definitions. And better conditions in places a significant improvements compared to the original Commission proposal. I would thank the rapporteur and the shadows, especially my colleagues. The new rules on vouchers and insolvency are important because the consumers need to know what is happening with their money. And I think this agreement deals with the essential points. However, the 14 day compensation deadline hasn't been dealt with. We saw in Covid how millions of reservations were cancelled in just a few days, and it's very difficult then to deal with all of these reimbursements. That was one of the reasons that there was a huge amount of insolvencies at this time. So we have a clause, but it hasn't been completely dealt with and we'll have to come back to it sooner or later.”
  EU consumer protection rules: stricter requirements and tougher enforcement vs business flexibility and reduced burden
• “(14:46:09 – 14:47:42): Thank you. I will speak in German. Well, Vice President, a year ago, you said yourself when you presented the single market strategy, you said that you wanted to address the terrible 10 obstructions. Since the end of 2027, you said you could imagine having a single market without any barriers. But let's look at what the real results are. The latest report on the single market shows that out of 29 indicators, only 6 have improved, 15 stagnating, and 7 have got worse. So you can see that we've reached a plateau. The trade in the member states is not increasing anymore, and investment is dropping because of all the ideologically based rules which are being brought in. We can also see this with the result of the infringement procedures, which are being initiated. Four years in which a company does not know which rules they should be working in accordance with. This is a problem for goods. It's a problem for services. So what should I say to an Austrian worker who at the end of the year needs, but doesn't know which rules will be implemented by the end of this year?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Good afternoon to all of you. So the Democracy Shield, which was launched in November, includes a European Center for Democratic Resilience with power under DSA to block platforms that pose serious risk to society. So my questions are that could you give us a definition of what serious risks to society are and who decides what they are? The Commission, the member states, the European Digital Media Observatory, who will be the responsible, and the procedural safeguards, for example, appeal rights or the timeline for also the judicial review of this one. And so, um, also maybe examples of what would trigger a block, what is an illegal content, disinformation, political speech or what the commission doesn't like at all. And the second question is also a little bit in the direction of my colleagues. So let's talk about the fact checkers. Who checks the fact checkers. This is also a very important question. And will there be annual reports which then are showing the percentage of fact check targets, government versus opposition or versus media versus civil society. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Yes. Protection of children and young people in our daily life should be at the heart of our debates and our considerations. And all of this without impinging on our freedom. The focus should obviously remain with the parents, and it's the parents who should be responsible for looking after children and supervising children. And this is what makes me think very carefully about this, and to have this proposal for a centralised control. And I'm wondering about the good intentions behind this proposal, and I'm doubting them. If we have a centralised EU tool which should decide as to whether citizens can access to information or not, um leaves a bit of an unpleasant taste because, well, we've already addressed the various regulatory consequences, and we have always stressed that it is the parents that should, um, continue to be in control of this. But we haven't been, uh, we've been ignored.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Instead of talking about what the Commission has done over the last two years since the DMA was adopted, we need to look at the actual impact of the DMA. I think it has been far less effective than presented here. Google still covers 90% of all search engine use. Nothing has changed since 2025. Google has generated content in its search results. We've seen far fewer clicks to the various underlying websites, and there's been a complaint handed in to the commission about a cartel effect. What about the Finds 5 million. But a new fine structure has been introduced. This is no coincidence. Companies with market clout have resources to circumvent the rules with no impact on the bottom line. We wanted to ensure more competitiveness, greater freedom of choice. We're told that that will come one day. But regulation alone, will that work? Will regulation alone ensure competitiveness? We need our own data centers and computing power. Otherwise the EU will only have limited impact.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “(11:44:38 – 11:46:30): The single market is 1 of the few areas where the EU has actually proved a practical use for our citizens. Now this is frustrating, as the commission has said. The court of auditors has said there was too little strategic approach taken to the internal market. Services make up around 60 of our economic production. 20% of this is crossed border and is a category neighboring member states. For a functional single market, well, we don't have that yet. For over 20 years, we've known what is necessary, but this is not, coming to practice. Our businesses need a new single market strategy because what we're faced with now is not fit for purpose for our citizens. An industrial accelerator act that, is being promoted by, the Cyprus presidency and should cost over €6,000,000,000. The commission is talking about breaking down, red tape, and that's a joke. Where if the commission is serious about this, they have to, start solving problems. For the time being, the commission solutions are just designed to create new problems for European business. For example, an Austrian company would take 8 months to, comply with, new European rules. And for the, most productive areas, this was simply gonna cause more problems. What we really need is true concentrated on what actually works. Less is more in this case. We have a blue card, missus Hiba. I'm we're terribly behind time. So, I hope you'll understand. You can, come in with questions later on. Dana Donaldson is our next speaker. To”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the consumer agenda sees a sea change in European consumer policy. Consumption is no longer seen as an individual choice or something to, rather something to be shaped by politics. We are seeing everything regulated by the Commission. We can see this clearly in the digital field, the Digital Fairness Act, which will create vague categories of undesired influence, unfair influence in the digital field, manipulative design and so on. This will create legal uncertainty and put pressure on companies. What will the consequences be? This will hit innovation and research hard. It will also stifle freedom of communication in the digital sphere. We are supposed to strengthen European competitiveness, but the current measures run counter to that. We hear about sustainability requirements Control mechanisms that will raise the costs of doing business in Europe, particularly for SMEs. We have a host of other examples. We will see greater and greater centralisation. Europe called for simplification, but in fact we will see more red tape and political goals. Trump individual freedom.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Ladies and gentlemen, once again we're seeing how the European Union speaks. Talks big on the internal market, but doesn't really act. I mean, we're seeing promises about less of a burden for our businesses and reducing red tape. But the reality is different. Constantly. We're constantly seeing new rules, new limitations and less freedom for our businesses. The internal market should be a driver of economic growth, but our SMEs instead have to suffer. Massive limitations and restrictions because of the rules that are imposed on them. What's happening is that large businesses are benefiting where whereas our SMEs need to fight with increased regulation, all these rules come from Brussels. And really the internal market should finally be made to serve the people and small businesses. It shouldn't be ideologies coming from an EU elite that decide what we do. We need more competitiveness and that's how we're going to get more competitive. Excuse me. And that's how we'll strengthen the internal market.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Rapporteur, colleagues. It's a great honor for me to be able to talk about the protection of minors and young people on the internet as a rapporteur shadow rapporteur for the first time. We all know that the internet is a place where you've got opportunity, but certainly as far as young people are concerned, there are considerable risks, and it is the job of all of us therefore to create clear rules. I'd like to thank Christa Charle de Molde Moser and her office for all the energy that they and their group have invested into this report. But as a representative of the third biggest group, I would have to say in the compromise amendments there was almost no consideration taken of our point of view. Many European citizens agree with us that this has developed in a direction which has got less to do with proper protection of children than a curtailment of freedom of expression. And a key thing here is age verification. We've said time and time again that it must never be entered into an instrument where the states can surveil the activity of people on the internet. If we want to have age protection, we need to have data protection-friendly solutions, and it must be possible for the users to be able to verify it. This is essential. This is the job of the Commission therefore to ensure that they bring this into line with data protection measures wherever necessary, and anything that goes beyond that is really the same as centralization. It's important that parents should be strengthened in their roles, and there should be tools made available which are transparent and effective, but the responsibility of parents should not be put into second rank. That needs to remain the primary place rather than through the state. And that's what this report is trying to achieve. And we think we will see overregulation coming in through the backdoor through this report, and we will not accept intervention to the algorithms which affect the freedom. So we want general ability, but we prefer the parents control things, but no general ban on loot boxes without there being restriction on freedom of expression. And if this house really takes freedom and responsibility seriously, then our proposals should also be a stronger part of this. Well, thank you.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online · Age restrictions on children's access to social media