Jana NAGYOVÁ

Policy topics Jana NAGYOVÁ is active on

What Jana NAGYOVÁ has said (52)

• 2025-06-18 “E-002460/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission According to the Renewable Energy Directive 1 , the rules for the production of renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) are to be reviewed by July 2028. The Commission has launched a study to assess the effectiveness of the hydrogen framework and identify possible barriers to the upscaling of renewable hydrogen. The study will be instrumental to provide the necessary evidence base for a decision. The continued use of RFNBOs that contain carbon from non-sustainable fuel is not compatible with a trajectory towards climate neutrality by 2050 as it would entail the continued use of non-sustainable fuels and their related emissions. Accordingly, under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1185 2 captured emissions from the combustion of nonsustainable fuels for the production of electricity can only be considered avoided up to 2035 and emissions from other uses of non-sustainable fuels can only be considered avoided up to 2040. These dates will be subject to review in light of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC 3 of the EU-wide climate target for 2040. Emissions from industrial processes or from the combustion of non-sustainable fuels should be prevented, even if they could be captured and used to produce RFNBOs. Emissions are not fully avoided if non-sustainable carbon is captured and used for the production of aviation fuels as the carbon is emitted when the fuel is combusted. These emissions are subject to carbon pricing to incentivise abating the emissions from non-sustainable fuels in the first place. Therefore, where such emissions are not taken into account upstream through an effective carbon pricing, those emissions must be accounted for and should not be considered as being avoided. 1 Directive (EU) 2018/2001. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1185/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/87/oj/eng.”
  Biofuels (RED II) · Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• 2025-02-18 “P-000725/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the challenges contracting authorities may face in assessing third-country suppliers’ access to public procurement in the EU. The Commission has made available an online tool to help contracting authorities find out about the international commitments applying to any intended or planned procurement: the ‘Procurement for Buyers’ tool 1 , publicly accessible via the Access2Market Database 2 , which provides up-to-date information on EU international commitments in the domain of public procurement. Users only need to indicate the contracting entity and the subject matter and estimated value of the intended procurement and will in return receive a (positive) list of countries whose companies are entitled to participate in the bidding process on an equal footing with EU companies, and a (negative) list of countries whose companies are barred from participating. 1 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/procurementbuyers/#/procumementlocation 2 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home”
  "Buy European" provisions
• 2024-11-29 “P-002741/2024 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission In November 2024, the Commission put online the Information Technology application to use the Union Database as provided by article 31a of the Renewable Energy Directive 1 . The database was developed and is being implemented in line with requirements of the Renewable Energy Directive and relevant implementing and delegated acts, notably on sustainability certification and traceability. Several economic operators have already started using the database. With the support of Member States, the Commission is deploying efforts to ensure the systemic use of the Database by all relevant economic operators. To this effect and following up on the letter addressed to the Commission by a group of Member States, the Commission has organised a series of meetings with representatives of Member States to discuss the key issues related to the database. This work will continue in 2025. Key stakeholders like certification schemes may be invited to participate in some of the meetings in 2025 where relevant. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018L2001”
  Energy (green transition)
• “08:21 – 11:11:24): I'd like to react to some of the colleagues or to most of the colleagues because at first sight it might look that we are on different points of view on different sides, but when you look into details, we all, from my perspective, want the same thing. We want a strong and independent Europe. We are just diverse in the way how to get to the point. Now, I've tried to—okay, I'll continue in English. So coming back to the ETS point, I do believe strongly that the original intention of ETS, how it was designed, was right. When looking at the revenues coming from the sale of emission allowances on the primary market—and this is the difference—in 2024, they reached almost forty billion euro. That's fine. These are money which were received by the member states: Modernization Fund, Innovation Fund, great, looks perfect so far, so good. But—and here is the point—according to ESMA report from October 25, which is EU Carbon Markets 2025, volume of the allowances which were traded on the secondary markets in 2024 reached six hundred forty-four billion euros. So it means almost twenty-five times more than on the primary markets. And the profits from this transaction do not end up in the public budgets; they end up in the pockets of financial institutions and speculations. The ESMA report confirms that investment firms and banks were dominated by almost sixty-three percent of total business cases. These institutions definitely do not invest only in the climate; they invest where they have bigger profit. To make it clear, eighty percent of all allowances from the auctions abide by entities without direct obligation, including financial companies, and sixty-three percent of the profit goes outside EU. This is something one doesn't have to be Einstein to understand that something is wrong in all this system. So what to do with this? This is one question. And the second, a small remark—sorry for the time—but because in general we say the devil is in details, and we know that even the money from the Modernization Fund, which are originally targeted to environmental measures, cannot go to the beneficiaries which need it the most because of restriction of the state aid rules, regulatory burdens, and very often administrative burdens as well. So what to do with this? Any idea? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “32:22 – 09:34:50): At the beginning i'd like to thank the rapporteur for a very clear statement ets two what do we say it's a good idea but it has been adopted in name of ideology and has not been clearly thought through why the way it is set up it will make even bigger divide between the rich and the poor business will project the burden into their prices and everything will be paid for by the end consumer and those with lower income in rural areas will be worse off and that is a substantial part of our population now those that have sent us here to defend their interests no social fund can substantially help here it will only create more red tape i do not understand the logic where on one hand we take money from people and on the other hand we think we are better off at deciding how best to use their money and we come up with subsidies the rule is very often that whatever is subsidized is more expensive because suppliers know people will get subsidies to pay for it in my opinion the best solution would be no ets two that would be an ideal scenario however realistic we understand that so i believe it is desirable to intensively start working on ets not becoming ets-one i e for allowances not to become a financial instrument and not to be subject of speculations no one can want that we can see the impacts in ets one and because this is not viable as we see today and our work is very limited by three paragraphs that has been opened up by the commission for us i need to call upon you so that within this review we'll have more frequent market interventions that is four times a year so that we increase the amount of allowances in the reserve and so that we reduce the price at which we can intervene and also we need to move the deadline for member states so that they can decide to replace the ets2 system by the national carbon tax by the end of twenty twenty seven yes we all agree that the situation in the area of environment is serious and somebody has to lead but in this global and very unstable world we cannot be a role model by destroying our competitiveness and by making even a greater divide between people thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. Chairs. Uh. Thank you. Commission. Thank you. Uh, Echa, uh, first of all, I'd like to say that I really highly appreciate, uh, commission effort to propose one single performance regulation because obviously, it's a good idea at first sight. But at the same time, it needs to be. It needs to be added that due to implementation in 27 different countries, with different systems, with a different mindset, different condition, it's really challenge, you know, to have one, uh, one for all. Anyway, it means that we have to listen now carefully and be really very, very careful what we will approve at the end. And very well listen to Echa because they contribution used to be invaluable in many cases. So we have to be careful that the problems which which might arise from the implementation of this regulation will not be outweighed the advantages and benefits. So, um, I do have some questions, but the questions are more forwarded to Echa in order to use their presence here. So the first of all, uh, maybe I will already mention something which was already already mentioned here, but maybe from slightly, uh, different perspective. And some of the things were tried to be answered, but, uh, I didn't hear an answer for my question, so maybe it will be the same. So, uh, first, that Echa highlights vague intervention fields, which you already mentioned, and the missing result indicators in 25% of cases, which is really a lot.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much. Commission for for robust report. I'd like to have some comments and and some questions. First is because seeing how the national plans. Plans are sometimes developed and the objectives fulfilled or not fulfilled. I just would like to point out that many times we see that they are made from, let's say, behind the table and the and the and the targets are artificially imposed on the different different regions and businesses down there which, which sometimes which means that at the end of the day, it's very difficult or almost impossible to reach them. So, so it's important that the Commission is fully aware of this while while accepting or not accepting these plans. Second point is concerning transport, because obviously transport is very difficult to to these days. And in the current situation and also in coming, coming, coming days, it's difficult to decarbonize. So my I would like to stress that without allowing sufficient amount of biofuels of all generation, all generation, not only so-called second generation or advanced biofuels, this cannot happen. And I also would like to, to stress that as far as I know, from the from the inside of the sector very often those biofuels which are advanced, considered as advanced and double counted are subject to, to fraud just because of its double counting nature.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Okay. Thank you. Thank you chair. And I would like to thank very much to all all presenters. I found it fascinating as a as a representative of landlocked country like Czech Republic is or let's say also Slovakia, because originally I come from Slovakia and but I'd like to maybe I have more wider questions. I am not sure whether it will be only for those, uh, who presented today. Maybe it's more for the even for the commission. But first of all, I'd like to say that, uh, seems as a good solution for the hard to abate industry, but the only this one. But, uh, it seems to me as a that. Anyway, we speaking that we have sufficient storages. Uh, but it's still somehow we still somehow, uh, change the equilibrium in the world. So it's like in long term, let's say 100, 200 years, what this storage will do for the Earth. So but this is this is just in general question. Second question is what I would prefer is more CCU rather rather than CCS. And for example, the CO2 storage captured CO2 will be very useful for e-fuels for the production of e-fuels. But thanks to uh, delegated acts by the commission, it uh cc co2 captured in EU cannot be produced for e-fuels, you know, because it's further up exhausted in the air or. But the same technology or the same fuel, which is when it's brought let's say from UK, it's okay. So this is a slightly controversial and I think we should think about this, especially here as legislators. And I'd like to ask the representative now of Bulgarian Project, which I found very interesting, that whether the project will be possible without the innovation fund support. And I have the same question as the previous speaker. What is the level of CEO of of the emission allowances in order to allow. So they had to have like sort of double double support. One is innovation fund or some, some subsidies plus for the operation the price of emission allowances. So how it looks like. Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you. Chairs. Uh. Thank you. Commission. Thank you. Uh, Echa, uh, first of all, I'd like to say that I really highly appreciate, uh, commission effort to propose one single performance regulation because obviously, it's a good idea at first sight. But at the same time, it needs to be. It needs to be added that due to implementation in 27 different countries, with different systems, with a different mindset, different condition, it's really challenge, you know, to have one, uh, one for all. Anyway, it means that we have to listen now carefully and be really very, very careful what we will approve at the end. And very well listen to Echa because they contribution used to be invaluable in many cases. So we have to be careful that the problems which which might arise from the implementation of this regulation will not be outweighed the advantages and benefits. So, um, I do have some questions, but the questions are more forwarded to Echa in order to use their presence here. So the first of all, uh, maybe I will already mention something which was already already mentioned here, but maybe from slightly, uh, different perspective. And some of the things were tried to be answered, but, uh, I didn't hear an answer for my question, so maybe it will be the same. So, uh, first, that Echa highlights vague intervention fields, which you already mentioned, and the missing result indicators in 25% of cases, which is really a lot.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Commissioner. Colleagues, the railways are supposed to be the safest mode of transport. But era data speaks different. A combination of human error and missing safety systems kill in Tempe. The state failed. The ertms system just wasn't there. It's not a technical fault. It's a political crime, a political negligence, crime. What to do? First of all, the countries have to speed up the introduction of a single safety mechanism. Safety must not stop at a border. Of course it's expensive, but Europe's getting richer. So please let no one tell us there is no money for this. Those are just excuses. I'd like to thank the Commissioner for his very intense activity in this regard. Secondly, independence. The investigators must just not be government's puppets. We have to guarantee an independent investigation to uncover the truth, not just for the political excuses. We need to demand the truth. We as the European Parliament. Third, the harsh sanctions. This is up to the Commission. We need to punish those responsible for ignoring safety regulations and standards. And fourth, online monitoring of our railway tracks. Let us show that we've learned our lesson from these tragedies. We are the voice of the people. Who else but not us, should raise our voices in their defense to make sure they can get home safely? Thank you.”
  EU support of rail transport
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you very much for the very interesting presentation. And I would like to follow up, uh, the question which was which was already given by my colleague, and it relates to the map which was shown. And my question is because it's a really big difference. It's a huge difference for the countries participating in the program from, let's say, Czech Republic, westwards and Czech and eastwards and south, all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Um, and the question is whether it's because of there is not sufficient capacity in these countries or they don't have sufficient information, or it's just because of administrative burden and barriers, uh, which these countries might consider for as a difficult to participate, because on the other hand, we know that in these countries the defence industry is growing. It's becoming very strong. So thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Ministers. And for for for everything you said, because obviously it was, uh, very up to date, but, uh, the the issues are extremely contradicting as, uh, all already other other my colleagues mentioned. So it's, it's really hard to add something uh, wise and clever on the top of, uh, the other colleagues said. But I still would like to mention, uh, one, one point or at least two one relates to the, uh, climate law because you mentioned that ensuring access to clean and affordable energy is a stated priority. But we all know that currently we have three times higher energy prices, which means it's a bloody disadvantage for energy intensive industries which are leaving Europe, as we heard and when we see it in the newspapers. Also, while talking to the to the, um companies, at the same time, the scale of the investment required for 90% of emission reduction is unprecedented. And we would like to see how the Danish presidency plans to deal with this contradiction realistically in short and medium term. This is my first question. And and obviously all those issues which related which I mentioned briefly mentioned by, by by the colleagues, like, related to administrative burdens because we all know that the, the the time since planning till the realization of the electric grids can take 15 to 20 years, and in 20 years we are far behind 2040 and without electric grid, there is no 90% of the target all over the Europe.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Ah, okay. Anyway, I'll try it. Thank you. Uh, first of all, uh, impact assessment was missing. Completely missing for all, uh, fit for 55 package. You were sitting here. Uh, ignore the fact that European Commission is obliged to make impact assessment in impact of social, economic and everything all together. Where is it? It even doesn't come with this one. It didn't come with previous one. Second thing, we celebrated Drudge Report this coming this year. One year of Drudge Report. Great. What drug is said? Drug is said. Decarbonize means the industrialized the way how how how we are going to. So you speak about responsibility but where we where you were last five years you know where did you get the Europe you are losing losing our our markets. We're losing our businesses. And this is responsibility. People voted for us in order to discuss, not to laugh to one each other. Uh, 90% at goal in combination with enabling condition according to all relevant facts up to now is simply impossible. It costs so much and it's timely impossible within complete framework. You know, listen not only to to numbers. You want to listen, but listen to facts. So why you don't want to start to discuss about about the target, which is real. We already do have targets. We have targets for 2030. We have targets for 2050. Nobody wants a black Europe. We all want green Europe, but with reasonable time frame and reasonable enabling conditions. And the last, last but not least, when you are out of arguments, you are speaking about Russia. You speak about Russia to us. We lived under Russian Empire, not you. We know very well what does it mean? So please don't use this argument. Never, ever. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Dear colleagues, recent geopolitical developments have accelerated a significant shift in fuel global economy. Sustainable. I mean, sustainable and I repeat, sustainable EU made biofuels, including crop based biofuels, must become part of Europe's strategic response, especially in the short term, because they are a contribution to energy independence, resilience, climate protection, support for European farmers and local economies. The EU had a very good start in biofuels in 2003. Unfortunately, it missed momentum. Why ask the commission? Currently, we have too many pieces of legislation that often contradict each other as far as they are prepared in silos. This creates uncertainty and paradoxically supports fraud and import instead of investments. Investment that European companies increasingly choose to make outside the EU. Why? That is why the EU must simplify and harmonise framework for renewable fuels and start to speak to industry again And in the areas of maritime and aviation, we must align the reality of the supply and global framework. Otherwise, we become island. A comprehensive omnibus that brings coherence and predictability across entire sectors can be fast and effective. Solution. Revision purely of red three or whatever. Red we is not will not solve the problem. Thank you very much.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “So this is something which we should take into account also while working, working in the future. Third is a question regarding energy efficiency or let's say, further increase in energy efficiency, where the Commission see the biggest gaps and really the biggest possibility still to go. Go ahead. And at the same time, there is a related question concerning emissions and decoupling from the decrease of air emissions and decoupling from the economy. Economic growth. Because the question is, or I would like to stress that it was it was relatively easy in the first, first years because the most biggest polluters went significantly down, or they close or they they change from coal, let's say, to, to natural gas or biomass or whatever. But now we are getting to the situation where it's getting harder and harder to decrease emissions, and especially like in these hard to abate industry, and when we will be pushing further, significantly more what we're doing. They are very often pushing them outside the EU. So this is something we should be aware as well. Sorry, I passed my limit.”
  Energy efficiency
• “(15:22:59 – 15:25:33): Thank you Chair. Thank you very much to all experts and the other speakers. I just would like to add some additional questions. History of Europe is full of subsidies. Now if something doesn't work we need, we add extra subsidies but it seems that problem is not always only insufficient resources. I have two questions. First relates to the competitiveness because Draghi's report makes it clear that Europe has a massive gap in scale-up capital. We excel in research but we lose our champions when they need to commercialize. Looking at the proposed structure of the ECF, do you see sufficient derisking mechanisms such as guarantees that will actually attract institutional investors like pension funds etc.? And the second question, since the ECF is intended to serve as an instrument to enhance competitiveness of Europe as a whole and given that many, many member states from Central and Eastern Europe but not only have achieved only very limited success in the fourteen programs that currently constitute the ECF, this situation, while this situation should not be interpreted as a lack of capable entrepreneurs or researchers, rather it largely reflects administrative barriers including complex and costly application procedures, language barriers, insufficient advisory support and excessive discreditation in the interpretation of criteria by implementing agencies of the Commission. In this context, I do believe that some points will help not only to Central and Eastern European countries are lagging behind to increase access rate but to all Europe and the points were this is proposal and my question will be what do you think about this? First, to introduce simplified and more accessible call for applicants. Second, to ensure guaranteed advisory support for first-time applicants. Third, to provide targeted technical assistance to member states aimed at capacity building. And the fourth, last is to strengthen geographical balance with consortia including where appropriate introduction of time-limited national envelopes. Thank you.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Thank you, madam, and thank you all colleagues, for your contribution. And I have to say, I don't want to repeat what already, especially colleagues from the EPP and ECR only mentions because we fully, fully agree. I just would like to add maybe once more stress the issue of technological neutrality, which was uh, which from our perspective or my perspective is something which needs to be added, uh, in, in more parts of the automotive package and to be more highlighted, because we all know that battery booster is a good plan, but for more ideal world than we have today, we are still extremely dependent on the raw materials. It will a long time ago since we will be independent. So in the meantime, we have to have some parallel, parallel uh, solution for our car industry. And that's why I do believe strongly that we should support also the the other technologies based on the technological neutrality. Any engine with the any fuel which ends up with zero emission and they should have the same status as the electric vehicles have and will have in the world. Anything which will bring us the Europe to resilience and independence. Because if we are independent in one piece of vertical production line, we are independent. We are still dependent until sorry if we are independent. You know what I mean? Once we are dependent in one piece of the of the vertical, we are dependent in all vertical. That's my point. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much. It's really a pleasure to listen about the space, especially coming from almost Prague with EU Spa. By the way, just one nice story. My colleague was looking at the EU Spa and she thought, oh, there is a spa from EU on the bank of the Vltava River in the middle of Prague. I said, no, no, this is something different. But okay, we are back to ESA. The question, I do have three questions. And the first one concerning the law. With only 12, I would like to see your opinion about this. With only 12 EU states having national space laws, how we can avoid two-tier Europe where smaller states lacks influence? Should the EU prioritize adopting a space act even if it delays actions for years? So this is the first question. Then another question relating to the investments and further development. The question is that from your point of view, how can EU incentivize private investment in space infrastructure while ensuring that strategic assets remain under EU control or European control? Should we adopt a European so-called space expert model or does the risk ceding sovereignty to corporate interests? And the third one is concerning civil and military balance because EU space program and space policy was historically being civilian. IRIS, IRIS and SSA programs now serve for defense needs as well. How do we prevent the defense of space or using defense in a space or militarization of space from undermining public trust in programs like Copernicus? Thank you.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Yes. Thank you, thank you. Chair. Thank you very much. Both co-rapporteurs for for my point of view. Excellent job. And I'd like to more or less add on something which already was, was was mentioned here. But in this case I think I speak on behalf of, of complete patriots of all patriots because while going through the MMF files, especially like all these national regional plans, CEF competitiveness funds, etc. etc., I found out I was very unpleasantly surprised because I do follow this funding issue since 2000. So it's many years and this is a really first time when, uh, extremely lot power is given to the Commission and the the proposals, the regulation on different, different funds are relatively empty from, from what was in, in, in a, in a past. And I think we all agree on this or at least that's what I have heard from from my colleagues. So I think we should as a, as a, as a parliament altogether very much pushed on the Commission to be as specific as possible in the, in the, in the, uh, eligibility and all this stuff which are missing in these funds in order to keep this power within, within the, The co-legislators means Parliament and the. And the Commission and the and the Council. So this is my major point. And the second point is just to to maybe a little bit more keep the regional balance, which is, which is not not included. Thanks.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much. I would like to draw upon my previous question because I didn't really get an answer. We are discussing it here. We are experts in discussing, but our companies are leaving in the meantime and nobody really wants to speak out the inconvenient truth that is that part of the emissions that were reduced were reduced because productions were closed down. And another thing, the direction that we are working towards is green. We all want everything to be green, but at the same time it will be much more costly. And even today we complain about high energy prices and they will get higher and higher because of investments that must be made, investments into infrastructure. And it is also because of the legislation that we create here in this House. And to top on top of all that, there is a new ETS two coming, an update of ETS one by the Commission. All of this means that things will get more expensive. So please do you have any short term suggestion what to do about this? One year later it might be too late. It is your presidency that can show the courage to do something about this. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “The third question is that the new delegated act was supposed to help also to decarbonise the the or to to find decarbonisation to be applied for the production of grey hydrogen, which are coming from the reforming of of the natural gas. But in reality, uh, this uh, possibilities which are mentioned here are absolutely unrealistic for, uh, large industrial producers of grey hydrogen, especially in landlocked countries like this, for example, ours. And therefore is more like, uh, asking you whether you would consider to extend the period to, uh, to, to this to review this act, because obviously, these two you gave us two months, which is which is fair enough. But on the other hand, it came during the during the summer time, which, uh, unfortunately make it impossible to to go really detailed through this for all of us. And I, I believe or I think we all believe that it's no time to to to discuss and waste time. You know, we are really under pressure in all Europe. So thank you very much.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Coming here and talking to us. I will speak Czech now. The goal and we will all agree upon that, is independence and competitiveness. While technological neutrality should apply both, uh, for uh engines and for fuels, and unlike most colleagues who, uh, or many colleagues who think here that we, the politicians are the well can know best. Uh, I don't think so. I think we should leave that up to the companies. I've listened to your, uh. Uh, introducing the car package in Strasbourg, and you've mentioned, uh, the fuels, introducing the fuels as offsetting a certain percentage on the other side. But now you are mentioning only sustainable fuels, only e-fuels and fuels under annex nine, by removing the, uh, market for classical biofuels, we, uh, threaten, uh, the European farmers and, uh, we, uh, make their lives difficult of limiting, uh, sustainable fuels in annex nine. Will, uh, it will, widen the space for fraud. And that's going on already now. And I know that the commission knows what what happens in reality. However, crop based biofuels today are proven to save 79% CO2 emissions, unlike as opposed to regular fossil fuels, whereas hydrogen needs to reach only 70% to be regarded as RF and Bo. Can you still do something about this? Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Distinguished colleagues. Frankly, I do not understand how we could have arrived at the situation where nobody is happy with what is presented to us. And the European Court of Auditors is not happy either. Yet the show must go on. No problems. Now I'm talking. From the committee's point of view, the cohesion policy aims to put regions closer to one another to interconnect them. And that is why we need to be extremely cautious when changing the architecture. The NP system, as proposed, is a system which is a performance based model that has been criticized by ECA and by many of us. That's why we need to be extremely cautious. European Court of Auditors pointed out that R had a significant problem of insufficient focus on real implications of investments without, rather than measure concrete results, only formal milestones are being assessed. But that's not what we wanted. That's a risk that we should never allow to happen. And the second is the conditionality of Your financing resources must not be instruments of policies. The conditions must be objective, transparent and predictable, and the cohesion policy must remain to be a policy of investments rather than a policy of uncertainty. That is why we appeal on the Commission to have an allocation for cohesion policy. Maintain the role of the regions, and also facilitate between the performance based and cost based models to make sure that the system serves the regions, not administrations.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear Mr. Commissioner, thank you. Thank you for being here. Um, recently in Sao Paulo, when commenting on the Green Deal, you said on clean industrial deal. Sorry, you said what we are doing here in Europe is to move forward with our climate agenda in a way that reconciled climate, industrial growth and competitiveness. For too long we have been one dimensional in how we approach the climate question. We are now in a different world. Wise words. But what we can see here in Europe these days is far from sufficient adaptation to this different world. Likewise, recently published draft state aid framework for the Clean Industrial Deal, which is supposed to be a tool to help industry in Europe. I went through this very carefully. Unfortunately, it is still heavily focused on renewables, lacks sufficient focus on the technology neutrality and net zero technologies, including nuclear and low carbon hydrogen, which is also in our interest, and sets thresholds and deadlines that are often unrealistic for energy intensive industry sectors to feed. In addition, there are also serious concerns about excessive regulatory burdens and insufficient state state aid intensity, and unclear or restrictive criteria for project eligibility, which risks slowing down investment and undermining the clean industrial deal objectives. My question is how far is commission serious about its adjusting to the different worlds and need to increase competitiveness, resilience and independence in EU? In other words, we hear nice words but we do not see the actions. Thank you.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “Dear Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, once upon a time, Europe used to be a center of progress, a place that people turned to hoping for a better future. Those times are long gone with our belief that we are the best with our arrogance and bureaucracy. We let many of our best brains run away to third countries. The problems are obvious. A brain drain, a research and development expenses down by one third and only only a quarter of registered patients patents compared to the US and China, and placing on the market of our inventions is even worse. No wonder, because for Europe it is most important to finalise a project which has remained unfinalized since the Rome treaties. And that is our four freedoms. The fragmentation of our market cost us €200 billion every year. We look for new sources, but here we have them on a silver plate. We need to hope for the best though, and therefore I hope that the latest Commission steps that eschews Europe for science and horizon as a standalone program will bring fruit. I only hope that even smaller member states will have access to it, if not the last one out. Please turn off the lights.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “So this is part of the fit for 55. But this came at far too late a stage. We need some sort of economic design that will work for the 21st century, but the infrastructure is actually dated from the 70s of the last century. We need faster investment and investment security. It's included in the package, and I'd be grateful For if we could get approval for this tomorrow, but we'd still have to wait for years for important components such as transformers. And Europe has basically fallen asleep at the wheel. What does the Commission want? They're trying to take over the role of the national. Bodies responsible work on the package and try our best for Europeans. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “In the equity chair I will speak Czech. The ETS is a very good idea but the world has changed in the last years and the ETS2 in its current shape has no place in today's world because even those who approved it and it was approved under the Czech presidency initiated a proposal to cap the prices because originally forty five euros per ton was was the was the plant price but now it's eighty euros and there are predictions saying it would be two hundred euros. This is really energy poverty this is no more fun it's not funny anymore and everyone knows these days that it will hit the poorest people the hardest those are people living in rural areas driving old vehicles they can't afford this. The climate fund yes but we can't tackle all challenges with the funds because every new fund brings more bureaucracy and the risk of misuse that is wrong of course let's make a system where people don't need subsidies that's the right way to go. Emission reduction was mentioned by the commission by fifty percent through ETS1 yes but let's ask the question which part of this reduction was caused by stopping production and by carbon leakage. Two days ago we heard that for every one hundred tons not produced by Europe one hundred and five one hundred and twenty five tons of CO2 emissions are produced elsewhere so our system leads just to exporting emissions. And by the way the Great Britain follows closely the ETS1 but they decided not to implement the ETS2 because of negative social impacts so there are eighteen member states saying let's do something that actually should mean let's do something it means that the situation is different to what it was three or four years ago when this was approved thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thank you very much, madam, for your very interesting presentation. And I'd like to focus with my questions on the, on the model, because both European Parliament as well as European Court of Auditors are highly critical to performance based mechanism. In spite of this, European Commission within the MFF came with the even further use of this model. Also for the areas where traditionally was used share management and cost control like for example, the structural funds etc. I saw working both personally. So um, I do have my my mind already set up, but obviously as as you already correctly mentioned, within the new legislative proposal, the many items of the already existing Existing functioning. Um, what what functions under shared management? It seems to be, uh, applied within performance based. Now will should should should should be applied in the future. So, uh, in such case, it seems to me because performance base was supposed to be fast, flexible. And this was the advantage. But after incorporation of all these mechanisms which already exist, like for example, in shared measurement, like structural funds, it already becomes much more robust and heavier. At the end of the day, it seems to me that the major objectives of, uh, introducing performance based. Now it just increase of power of the commission above the member states. So at least this is this is, uh, my impression and impression of many of my colleagues, you know. So I would like to ask you, as a, uh, independent body, you know. What would you prefer? You know, like shared management or performance based. And, uh, and also, what would you recommend in terms of concrete strategies to improve milestone definition, if it must, then how to improve milestone definition, data collection and real time monitoring to ensure effective and accountable implementation. And the last, last, last short I make it short. What would be the best instrument or legal base from your perspective are the financial regulation or under MMF to allow the effective and transparent management of the funds? Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Colleagues. Commissioner, the new MFF is being prepared at a time never seen before in the history of European integration. What was true yesterday is not true today. So this framework must be more than just a budget. It should be a tool to bring Europe together again. However, this cannot be achieved now by greater centralization of the budget and the funds, or by giving more requirements on beneficiaries of funds, or by giving more power to unelected Commission officials. On the contrary, subsidiarity should be the basic principle we should rely on, and in procedural terms, shared management should be given priority because it has both a national and a European dimension, so we shouldn't change it because it works well. As for priorities, I agree with those. So, uh, at the end I want to say that those are not the best moment to introduce a new proper resources because we have.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak Czech. Um, thank you very much. Vice president, for being here. It is a very interesting discussion indeed. And I have a question, because we have been hearing about the necessity to reduce the electricity prices. We know it very well. If we want to have a competitive industry, it is a must. However, at the same time, we are saying that given the development of renewable sources, it is necessary very quickly to invest in the development of grids. And the fact that there is lack of investment in grids is something that we have known for many years. The operators, the distributors and transmission network operators have been talking about that for years. Now my question what shall we do about it? Because the electricity prices is composed of two components. There is the energy component and the regulatory component. The energy component is cheap now, but the problem is the regulatory component. And that will continue to increase if we do not invest in grids. So what shall we do about it?”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, I'm going to speak Czech. Um. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Because the way I see this draft motion for a resolution is something that our industry really needs right now. At first sight. Renewables may not be highlighted that much, but I don't see it as a huge problem because we are talking about a clean industrial deal, which means that it must be clean and any mentions or references to technology, technologically neutral technologies and so on. That's something that we were really missing in previous rhetorics. So I'm very happy that someone called a spade a spade and pointed out to the problems that we urgently need to resolve, because I'm afraid that unless we have an industry, we will not have a green industry, and if we don't have a green industry, we will have no social policy for our workers. Therefore, I look forward to work, continue continuing this work, and I look forward to further discussions here. And I believe that together we will find a way for the European industry which will be rational, Competitive and obviously clean as well.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Um. Distinguished colleagues, distinguished Commissioner, the approval of our annual budget is always a roller coaster of emotions. And that's no wonder everyone has their own priorities. I would like to thank both the rapporteurs and the chair of the committee to get everyone on the same boat during the reconciliation procedure to not to look from a corridor. That's a point of view that's not appropriate for European institutions. It was great to feel like a human being. Budget is always the art of the possible. We are on a train whose track had been predefined by the Multiannual Financial Framework. The only objections I have concern the life and IT support, where there has been no difference made between compulsory publicity and green ideology that led to a situation which is relevant for most directly managed funds. The problem is in a situation when a parliament who approves the budget does not have a possibility to come to the text of individual calls. However, these are of key importance when distributing subsidies. That's where it's held by the European Commission. And that's one of the devils which are in the details. That's one thing that needs to be changed with the new Multiannual Financial framework. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Chairman. Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner. I'd like to thank the Commission for this work because as a first draft, it's not that bad. And I'd like to see the final version once we've included the comments of those to which it applies. And that is industry. In addition, the compass should have been here 15 years ago, at times when there was becoming a big gap between Europe and America, and so far that gap hasn't been overcome. Not to be just critical, I'd like to say that the pillars on which the compass is based include things in horizontal topics that we have to agree with. On the other hand, if we insist on 90% decarbonization goal until 2040, that really reduces its value. Because if we are to be the new star and that is competitiveness, I believe we have a problem here. There are things that go one against each other, and I'm not even talking about the fact that it's being steered by someone who has already led us to problems. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “08:21 – 11:11:24): I'd like to react to some of the colleagues or to most of the colleagues because at first sight it might look that we are on different points of view on different sides, but when you look into details, we all, from my perspective, want the same thing. We want a strong and independent Europe. We are just diverse in the way how to get to the point. Now, I've tried to—okay, I'll continue in English. So coming back to the ETS point, I do believe strongly that the original intention of ETS, how it was designed, was right. When looking at the revenues coming from the sale of emission allowances on the primary market—and this is the difference—in 2024, they reached almost forty billion euro. That's fine. These are money which were received by the member states: Modernization Fund, Innovation Fund, great, looks perfect so far, so good. But—and here is the point—according to ESMA report from October 25, which is EU Carbon Markets 2025, volume of the allowances which were traded on the secondary markets in 2024 reached six hundred forty-four billion euros. So it means almost twenty-five times more than on the primary markets. And the profits from this transaction do not end up in the public budgets; they end up in the pockets of financial institutions and speculations. The ESMA report confirms that investment firms and banks were dominated by almost sixty-three percent of total business cases. These institutions definitely do not invest only in the climate; they invest where they have bigger profit. To make it clear, eighty percent of all allowances from the auctions abide by entities without direct obligation, including financial companies, and sixty-three percent of the profit goes outside EU. This is something one doesn't have to be Einstein to understand that something is wrong in all this system. So what to do with this? This is one question. And the second, a small remark—sorry for the time—but because in general we say the devil is in details, and we know that even the money from the Modernization Fund, which are originally targeted to environmental measures, cannot go to the beneficiaries which need it the most because of restriction of the state aid rules, regulatory burdens, and very often administrative burdens as well. So what to do with this? Any idea? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much Chair, thank you very much colleagues for interesting questions. So I'd like to comment, I'd like to put one one more on the top and we just a little bit similar than than a colleague Ushakov just just said. So the giving given the significant purpose cuts to cohesion and common agriculture policy which are currently under shared management whether there are or you see any specific evidence that the new centralized investment priorities will deliver measurable returns in competitiveness jobs growth and we'll be targeted where are really needed and not where the applicants have the best lobby. Because history of the centrally managed funds like let's say Horizon innovation funds etcetera etcetera clearly shows and and by the way recently also the Europeans defense fund was presented the result was presented yesterday clearly shows that central and eastern European countries and the regions which are lagging behind are not far from successful in comparison to the to the other to to the more western countries. You know in this centrally managed funds so and if this might happen because the competition competitiveness part has much larger budget regional and agriculture goes down and if on the competitiveness headlines we'll be more successful countries which are already richer and regions which are richer it may even for the future increase the the gap so this is the question. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Dear Commissioner colleagues, the European automotive industry is not in crisis because it can't innovate. It's in crisis because Europe, in its ideological zeal, has set targets for it that are not based in reality or in physics. The numbers are telling. The automotive package that you are presenting today is certainly better than nothing, but it still doesn't look like a well thought industrial strategy for today's world. It looks more like an attempt to extinguish a fire that has gotten out of control for the Czech Republic. The automotive industry is not just any sector, it is the basic pillar of our economics, accounting for about 9% of our GDP and giving up to 500,000 jobs. Therefore, we keep emphasizing that we want to preserve combustion engines using carbon neutral fuels. We need a clear and long term technological neutrality and legal certainty for producers as well as consumers. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “And the question is, would Echa recommend to address this by adding impact indicators or clear rules in the regulation itself? And question to the commission is then do I understand it correctly from your previous answer, that we are supposed to create the part of the regulation, uh, in the in the legislative process? The second, uh, I will skip the second, I will go directly to the third, which is do not significant harm because xiaflex the risk, like our stated EU coefficients, no data on public spending, spending for efficiency plus late nsh guidance by 2027 would recommend to amend these exact rules. Clear coefficient spending data requirements and nsh details directly in the Basic act to limit commission discretion or. And I think it is also relates to what other other colleagues said. Because if nsh is a very important part of of of the funding for the, for the next, uh, next, uh, financial financial period and the we need to know how it will looks like, how the criteria will precisely look like looks like before we will approve the legislation. So we cannot approve, just cross-check or agree with Bianco, check for the commission, and then they will come up with the guidance later on. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Honorable Commissioner, dear colleagues, I will speak Czech. May I start by saying that in principle we are for a rationally set up ban on Russian gas and petrol imports, but in line with solidarity principles and with regard to the interests of landlocked countries, the proposal of the European Council and Commission from this Monday respects those principles. However, the resolution of Parliament banning or calling for a ban on imports from the 1st of January 2026 is going against the interests of the industries that are trying to stay competitive. How does it make sense to ban imports of. Gas as a raw material and imports the value added products made using this? We are supposed to help Ukraine and stop Russia, but we will not help the Ukraine when we let a part of our industry fall and turn. Its, uh, the hard times even harder.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you, thank you chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grassi, for, um, uh, really interesting work. I will speak, I will speak Czech. Uh, competitiveness, uh, should be, uh, competitive. Compass should be, uh, the main road to your future. It is excellent, with many interesting steps inside. But I'm afraid that, uh, competitiveness in the global, uh, scene is something different than just resilience and efficiency. And I would like to ask the commission what the commission wants to do in future. What does the Commission want to do to reduce regulation and how to secure that? The people who were the authors of the current policies that brought us to this situation will lead us out of the dire straits. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Professor for coming, coming to us and delivering the very interesting information. Um, and congratulations that the horizon is kept as a standalone and not including any in competition fund as originally originally intended. Um, I'd like to ask, as far as, uh, your budget, uh, seems to increase de facto double as on the basis of of of the numbers would like to ask what is the share between the basic and applied research within within the what is expected allocation from your point of view? Then the second question is what would you think? What should be the proper level of funding within EU in order to keep Europe competitive? Or let's better say, to catch up with the rest of the world, uh, in order to become competitive again. Then, uh, I would like to ask because obviously we are observing extremely fast evolution of quantum computers as well as AI and its game changer. It seems to be game changer complete. And I would like to ask, what does it mean for you as a ER and for your next orientation and also for the, for the in the from the financial perspective? And last but not least, the question is how do you. Observe or make sure that this support of the excellence program does not, uh, even increase the differences between different member states and between different regions, because obviously research tends to, uh, work in the centers, centers of excellence, and they are not equally equally located all over Europe. And obviously, as more funds are delivered to research, the more bigger, bigger differences can happen within the Europe. Okay. Thank you very much.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you, chair. I have a couple of couple of questions, but first of all, I'd like to say I'm relatively depressed after what I what I have heard and what, what I followed from the situation in, in the IMO because I had a chance to be there last year. I will follow this year and I have to admit that already last year. It was very sad. As far as IMO decides by consensus and unfortunately it's clear that the consensus is far away and I am that the US are even stronger. And unfortunately, as far as I understand, they are not alone on the on this side or the on the negative side. So my question is how the Commission sees the real chance to achieve consensus, any consensus, because otherwise European ships and ship ship industry will be significantly disadvantaged due to fuel maritime and its application here, but not application in in other countries. And what how the how the Commission proceeds or the how the member States of of EU proceeds in order to get others on board. Then I would like to ask you, because it seems to me that the US is behaving extremely pragmatic and they are simply chasing money, chasing profit. And it means that one of the issues maybe for them is biofuels, like first generation biofuels and huge investments they did in the past in this sector and obviously on the fuel of maritime generation, first generation biofuels are not allowed. So my question is whether the Commission and Member states are willing to somehow discuss that sustainable biofuels might be allowed unless they they prove certain percentage of savings. It might help to, to, to get yours on the board. But you know better than I am. And the third question is whether or whether whether we can have access then to the, the updated materials information for IMO before coming there. So because last year it was huge pack and it was very difficult to get through all of them at the very last minute. Thank you very much.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “32:22 – 09:34:50): At the beginning i'd like to thank the rapporteur for a very clear statement ets two what do we say it's a good idea but it has been adopted in name of ideology and has not been clearly thought through why the way it is set up it will make even bigger divide between the rich and the poor business will project the burden into their prices and everything will be paid for by the end consumer and those with lower income in rural areas will be worse off and that is a substantial part of our population now those that have sent us here to defend their interests no social fund can substantially help here it will only create more red tape i do not understand the logic where on one hand we take money from people and on the other hand we think we are better off at deciding how best to use their money and we come up with subsidies the rule is very often that whatever is subsidized is more expensive because suppliers know people will get subsidies to pay for it in my opinion the best solution would be no ets two that would be an ideal scenario however realistic we understand that so i believe it is desirable to intensively start working on ets not becoming ets-one i e for allowances not to become a financial instrument and not to be subject of speculations no one can want that we can see the impacts in ets one and because this is not viable as we see today and our work is very limited by three paragraphs that has been opened up by the commission for us i need to call upon you so that within this review we'll have more frequent market interventions that is four times a year so that we increase the amount of allowances in the reserve and so that we reduce the price at which we can intervene and also we need to move the deadline for member states so that they can decide to replace the ets2 system by the national carbon tax by the end of twenty twenty seven yes we all agree that the situation in the area of environment is serious and somebody has to lead but in this global and very unstable world we cannot be a role model by destroying our competitiveness and by making even a greater divide between people thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “(16:22:57 – 16:24:49): Thank you, chair. Thank thanks, to all colleagues and, speaking maybe a little bit from the position as being shadow reporter in ITRE, but now I'll speak from, from I'll move more from perspective of Envy. I'd like to, first of all, thanks very much to commission. We're coming with this report, the proposal which really covers, very urgent needs of today. And I'd like to stress 3 points, which I, had as a key from from this point. And it's 1 of the is technology neutrality. Although my colleagues said it's it's not relevant, but I do believe it's it's highly relevant because every every member states should choose according to possibilities, geographical locations, weather. And at the same time, it should choose had a possibility to choose energy mix and whether electrons or molecules. And then based on this preference for the most efficient energy grades, which must remain on the member states level. Second issue, which relates very close to this, is planning because we believe or I believe that planning should be based on reality and technical expertise and regional knowledge. So it means more as it is now and not stronger role to European Commission or ACER unless it's clearly justified because in some cases, obviously, coordination is necessary. And last but not least is financing. Concerning financing, I believe that PCI project should remain highest should receive highest national importance as far which we fully agree with which which is which is in the in the proposal as far as they are getting on the list on the basis of national preference. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to thank you very much. All colleagues who works on this initiative. Because on Vickers. On behalf of our group, I would like to stress the extreme importance of the of all this work as well as of the energy intensive industry, because we perceive that our main goal, as we're sitting here in committee should be to keep the industry in the EU, and this will make Europe help, help Europe become independent. Otherwise we are exporting emissions and importing goods, which is which is not good for anybody in this room, neither in the Europe. And we have four key, four key issues around which uh, we, uh, think, uh, the work should go on. First is clean, clean energy and competitive prices of the energy, as colleague already mentioned, which means they address high cost of electrification and maintain technology neutrality, including nuclear energy, which we found is important, as well as a part of the of the clean energy mix. Then prioritize US security of supply and energy independence. And we need to consider full life cycle impacts of renewable energy sources, which we believe is not the case yet. The second point is ensure financing. It means ensure both state aid which will be well targeted, agile, uh, and available for companies facing difficulties. Uh, which very often is the case for the for the heavy industry. And at the same time be able to utilize guarantees effectively and attract private capital by providing a long term investment perspective. Third point is to lower regulatory burdens, simplify and streamline regulation. That's it. And the fourth uh, point, which is important for us, is to ensure a level playing field, which means, uh, to reevaluate uh, ETS uh, and possible phasing out timeline and to review and adjust cbam. That's it. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues. The energy intensive industry has become an endangered species due to the witch hunt on emissions. It now needs the highest level of protection. We know it very well in the Czech Republic. The motion for resolution presented by the European Parliament is a step in the right direction. Even though I miss more emphasis on the technological neutrality, the role of nuclear energy overregulation Station or a complete overhaul of the ETS and Cbam. Europe was able to, um, reduce CO2 emissions very quickly, but it completely forgot that the energy intensive industries are something else and that they are not able to replace fossil fuels fully. We want this industry to survive. It has to survive. If we want Europe to be self-sufficient and able to defend itself. Tanks and heavy armored vehicles cannot run on electricity and we do not want to import them from China. It is high time to turn around and stop the nonsense that had been approved. Decarbonization, as it is today, equals deindustrialization. Very often I hear that it cannot be stopped, that the train has started and we must continue, and that there is no turning, turning back. But this is exactly the communist demagogy I grew up in in the 17th. If we created a monster, we must now tame it very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Okay. Thank you very much again. And thanks a lot to speakers because this time I got much more answers or many more answers to my internal questions than that I really expected. And I would like to say that especially Mr.. Horner. Mr.. Mr.. Sorry for for not good pronunciation for speaking. Uh, almost from my heart because obviously not having all the facts uh, I was not able to to discuss it in such details and if everything was presented here is true, which I guess it is, uh, it should lead us to somehow reconsider again the the real application of CCS in EU because what we heard, or maybe because we heard that it's extremely financially demanding, it's extremely legislatively demanding. Not not each country is ready for this. And at the end of the day, the technical, technical, uh, issues also related to storage, transport, uh, with a big question mark. And the efficiency is also. So, uh, I do I understand properly that, uh, your recommendation based on real world, uh, examples or situation is to use it really only as a top up in case where it's absolutely no other choice. This is a first question. And the second question is more, uh, legislatively oriented because we still have issues concerning the legislation, which is forthcoming. And I have a question related to pipelines, because we often heard here that, uh, the transport can be addressed, uh, simply by repurposing of current lines. But what we listen from our operators is that it's not possible due to technical issues, and it means it has to be completely new pipelines, whether it's correct or not. And obviously the other issue which I see is interoperability between different systems of different different countries in in EU, where the question for the Commission and us obviously whether it will be ensured that it will be the technical technical standards will be identical all over the Europe. Thank you.”
  Carbon capture storage and utilisation
• “Thank you very much dear dear Mister Commissioner. I will try to speak English this time although I'm coming from the landlocked country but I still feel like inhabitant of this Earth and so the ocean is extremely important. But oceans do not end up in European waters so it means they are beyond the European jurisdictions. And I would like to know what European Commission is doing or what we as a Europe are doing in order to ensure level playing field all over the oceans because once we impose strict rules on our part, European part, so what what's going on in the next? The second question is it relates to the projects because currently part of decarbonization are also CCS projects, carbon capture and storage, and as well as wind turbines both offshore and I'm sure that as far as there is interference into original ecosystem it has to have certain impact. And I'd like to know whether there are some studies or estimates what kind of precise impacts it has and it will have. And the last question is in April this year International Maritime Organization voted for the plan to charge ships for carbon emissions. Official vote is expected in October next month but US in meantime withdrew and there are other countries tend to follow. And I would like to know what European Commission or Europe intends to do in case the vote will not pass because it means against that the European ships will be disadvantaged and we can expect further carbon leakage. Thank you very much.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “32:22 – 09:34:50): At the beginning i'd like to thank the rapporteur for a very clear statement ets two what do we say it's a good idea but it has been adopted in name of ideology and has not been clearly thought through why the way it is set up it will make even bigger divide between the rich and the poor business will project the burden into their prices and everything will be paid for by the end consumer and those with lower income in rural areas will be worse off and that is a substantial part of our population now those that have sent us here to defend their interests no social fund can substantially help here it will only create more red tape i do not understand the logic where on one hand we take money from people and on the other hand we think we are better off at deciding how best to use their money and we come up with subsidies the rule is very often that whatever is subsidized is more expensive because suppliers know people will get subsidies to pay for it in my opinion the best solution would be no ets two that would be an ideal scenario however realistic we understand that so i believe it is desirable to intensively start working on ets not becoming ets-one i e for allowances not to become a financial instrument and not to be subject of speculations no one can want that we can see the impacts in ets one and because this is not viable as we see today and our work is very limited by three paragraphs that has been opened up by the commission for us i need to call upon you so that within this review we'll have more frequent market interventions that is four times a year so that we increase the amount of allowances in the reserve and so that we reduce the price at which we can intervene and also we need to move the deadline for member states so that they can decide to replace the ets2 system by the national carbon tax by the end of twenty twenty seven yes we all agree that the situation in the area of environment is serious and somebody has to lead but in this global and very unstable world we cannot be a role model by destroying our competitiveness and by making even a greater divide between people thank you”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “08:21 – 11:11:24): I'd like to react to some of the colleagues or to most of the colleagues because at first sight it might look that we are on different points of view on different sides, but when you look into details, we all, from my perspective, want the same thing. We want a strong and independent Europe. We are just diverse in the way how to get to the point. Now, I've tried to—okay, I'll continue in English. So coming back to the ETS point, I do believe strongly that the original intention of ETS, how it was designed, was right. When looking at the revenues coming from the sale of emission allowances on the primary market—and this is the difference—in 2024, they reached almost forty billion euro. That's fine. These are money which were received by the member states: Modernization Fund, Innovation Fund, great, looks perfect so far, so good. But—and here is the point—according to ESMA report from October 25, which is EU Carbon Markets 2025, volume of the allowances which were traded on the secondary markets in 2024 reached six hundred forty-four billion euros. So it means almost twenty-five times more than on the primary markets. And the profits from this transaction do not end up in the public budgets; they end up in the pockets of financial institutions and speculations. The ESMA report confirms that investment firms and banks were dominated by almost sixty-three percent of total business cases. These institutions definitely do not invest only in the climate; they invest where they have bigger profit. To make it clear, eighty percent of all allowances from the auctions abide by entities without direct obligation, including financial companies, and sixty-three percent of the profit goes outside EU. This is something one doesn't have to be Einstein to understand that something is wrong in all this system. So what to do with this? This is one question. And the second, a small remark—sorry for the time—but because in general we say the devil is in details, and we know that even the money from the Modernization Fund, which are originally targeted to environmental measures, cannot go to the beneficiaries which need it the most because of restriction of the state aid rules, regulatory burdens, and very often administrative burdens as well. So what to do with this? Any idea? Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you chair. As a shadow rapporteur Andre is not here. I will pass on speech on behalf on his behalf. So Echa expanded gradually its mandate from chemicals as a core task to other fields such as waste management, water legislation, industrial emission, biocides or props. Therefore, the proposal for adopted framework is not surprised. As always, before dealing with new proposals from the Commission, it is necessary to assess if such proposal is really justified. If the principle of subsidiarity is respected, and if the proposal can bring a real added value to the citizens of the European Union in case these conditions are fulfilled, and I think they are, then it is necessary to design new mandate for ECA as an efficient, coherent and smart new institution. In this context, the Commission brings up suggestions to strengthen the agency's technical capabilities to use more efficiently digital tools and to ensure more stability in the management of ECA. Existing tasks performed by ECA on the basis of ad hoc agreements are supposed to be incorporated into its permanent mandate. In addition, Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety is supposed to be transferred from the Commission to ECA while maintaining its focus on cosmetic substances. While I consider most of the proposals positive, I would like to point out that the responsibilities must be clearly defined. This also applies to working groups and committees. Furthermore, it is essential that also the adopted mandate focuses on its core technical and regulatory tasks. This point certainly will be also an item during the upcoming negotiations. All in all, I believe that adopting a mandate to current requirements is helpful, and I look forward to the upcoming discussions in Parliament with the with the rapporteur and other shadows, and with the Council and the Commission.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Dear madam. Um, first of all, I'd like to say that I agree with everything what was already said and would like to have the same same questions as my colleagues. And on the top of this, I'd like to address you on behalf of the Czech Republic with a serious concern regarding this, this act. First question is this act because, uh, which was supposed to or is supposed to be further tool for decarbonization and unfortunately, unfairly harms our country. First first point is technological neutrality. Why does this delegated act intentionally and without reason, delay recognition of nuclear energy as a full fledged source for the production of low carbon? This is this is very important for us and how this is consistent with the principle of technological neutrality. Okay. We know that the time is needed, but why? It's not all done in one. Because obviously the investors needs clear, clear, clear vision and not by bits and pieces. Second is obviously impact on member states and the one size fits all principle. Well, the question is whether you are fully aware that the proposed methodology, with the limit of 3.38kg of CO2 per one kilogram of hydrogen, is practically unattainable for regions with different conditions as like for example, ours.”
  Nuclear energy · Low-carbon hydrogen
• “Thank you very much. I will try to explain myself in English, although this this time it will be probably better in Czech anyway. Uh, first of all, I'd like to follow, uh, to to the previous speakers because I fully agree with what they said, especially from the point of view of the country. Like Czech Republic, due to our geographical conditions, we get to the situation where on the first, first moment we were very optimistic about going to hydrogen, because obviously it would help us to get rid of fossil fossil imports. But on the other hand, the policy which would replace import of fossil for the for the import of whatever from the from the even more and maybe even more unstable countries, it's not a solution. So I think Europe has to be self-sufficient. Okay. This is first step. The second point is that the the um, delegated act for renewable hydrogen as it was set up before. This one doesn't help a lot. By the way, for the future, uh, completely disallowed for in the Czech Republic to produce proper renewable hydrogen. And it's due to the the rule of additionality, due to the the geographical and time correlation. It's simply impossible. And even if we tried so then we get to the price about €1,515 per kilogram, which is three times more than the other countries where geographical conditions allow this. And this is something where idea was good. But once the commission comes with a detailed, uh, rules how to how to do the renewable hydrogen, we got stuck into complete trouble. So we hoped that this new act will, uh, bring us more on the on on the boat, let's say. And we will be able to to produce further or move further. But as details as, as we can, we can go through it's it's not the case. So can you please try to, uh, be aware that one size does not fit all? And even if we would like to, we can't. Thank you.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen