Klara DOSTALOVA

Policy topics Klara DOSTALOVA is active on

What Klara DOSTALOVA has said (27)

• “Madam president, colleagues, I'll be very brief. Today. We have new strategies, new goals, new initiatives, but still the same problems expensive energy, loss of competitiveness and exhausted citizens who are starting to lose faith that anyone in Brussels still hears their voice. The commissioner speaks of a Europe's independence moment. But how can we talk about independence when we import our energy, food and raw materials? National parliaments are doing little more than implementing regulations and directives from Brussels. Instead of drafting plans for new green digital and gender revolutions, we should be talking about industries that are leaving, about the farmers who are giving up, and young people who no longer believe that they have a future in Europe. The year 2026 could be a true moment of European awakening, and I do hope that the Commission will stop governing Europe from offices and will start listening to it from the streets, factories and farms from what was once a living community. A system has emerged which feeds itself with more and more plans. However, Europe should remain a community, not a system. It should be a home for ideas and innovations, not a factory for directives. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Commissioner colleagues. All of the EU is facing a crisis of housing. Commissioner has talked correctly about the, uh about alleviating the administrative burden. So let me mainly comment, uh, the demands, the supply side, i.e. housing construction, let us face the fact the law is so rigid that it blocks any construction outside of cities. It limits spatial planning, introducing strict, strict targets regardless of national conditions. The Ambient Air Quality Directive makes housing more expensive because of because of overreaching requirements on temporary emissions and noise during the construction phase, the the outcome, higher prices and slower construction. The Water Framework Directive with this principle one out, all out paralyses projects because of a deterioration in a single water perimeter, regardless of the overall impact. This is not about protecting the environment. This is a this is a bureau trap, the sole monitoring law as yet another layer of pyramids reporting and inspections, delaying building approvals by months, sometimes years. And then the heart of the problem the energy performance of buildings directive epbd overly detailed, centralised and costly and undermines subsidiarity and raises construction and renovation costs both in our cities and rural areas. Colleagues, this is a regulatory avalanche of the EU's own making. If we truly want to tackle the housing crisis, we must face the truth. Without reducing red tape, homes will not be built. The EU needs a housing Simplification package, less ideology, less paperwork and more homes. Thank you.”
  Air quality policy · EU housing policy
• “Dear Commissioner, European public procurement look like an old labyrinth. It's complicated, full of dead ends and bureaucratic dungeons where it's easy to get lost for local authorities, for companies and for citizens. Instead of being a bridge between public funds and quality services, they have often become a barrier. This draft offers a way out. It doesn't promise everything to everyone like the socialists and the Greens wanted, but it's a balanced compromise. On the one hand, it provides value for money and fair competition. On the other hand, it opens up space for quality, sustainability and long term vision, but without overburdening local authorities and companies with another unfeasible burden of obligatory criteria. However, I must say that certain parts are too ambitious and we run the risk of getting lost in bureaucracy again instead of making people's lives easier. Therefore, it's up to the commission to not resist the temptation to add one more layer of regulation. It's like running a farm. If you want to harvest, you must first prepare the soil, but not over fertilize it. The same way we have to protect competitiveness, develop small and medium enterprises, and make sure that every single euro of the taxpayers money be used with reason will be used reasonably. Thank you very much. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Now, on behalf of Renew Europe Mrs. Marie-Pierre Vedrenne.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the commissioner for coming here today. I really appreciate that. And I have a couple of comments I want to make. 15 experts Drafted a 50 page analysis for the European Commission on the housing crisis. And I assume Mr. Commissioner and the rest of the Commission work with this analysis and openly, it has been said what municipalities have been saying for a long time that that is that state aid rules slow down the construction. And when I speak about this appreciatively, I have to say there are some downsides or negative aspects. I want to make comments to that effect. 75 recommendations from that analysis for platforms, hubs, coordination structures or European Europe wide norms. This will be another layer of red tape and is not going to generate new flat, new apartments. The document speaks about the problem regarding the state aid, but there are no recommendations how to reform it. How do you define affordable housing? What are the nonprofit models? Simple administration for smaller municipalities, and a guarantee that the new rules will not be the end of government budget. This is also going against to ownership of apartments, which is basic block of stability. Young families not only need access to rents, but also possibilities how to obtain apartments or buy apartments. There is also no distinction between large landlords and small landlords, and the regulation has to distinguish a number five. There is the climate. Climate part is very ambitious, but it does not reflect the availability to families of funds to do that. There are many other things that are missing. Faster permitting, procedures and so forth. Specific questions. How do you want to change the rules for state aid so that governments could could fund available or affordable housing? And when can we expect that legislation?”
  EU housing policy
• “(10:13:35 – 10:14:27): Thank you very much, and thank you for your participation in this panel. I have a few questions. The first one, how do you define affordable housing in practice? The second one, from your perspective, to what extent do current EU state rules limit the ability of member states to invest massively in housing? Third, in many member states, obtaining a building permit takes more than five years. From your experience, how significant a role does this administrative hurdle play? And the last one, the demand for housing investment to be better reflected in EU fiscal rules is being raised repeatedly. In your opinion, should this investment be exempted from deficit calculation as a form of strategic infrastructure? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “(11:09:45 – 11:12:59): Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, as shadow reporter for Patriot of Europe in Reggi, I welcome the fact that the draft report addresses several key shortcomings of the Commission original proposal. We particularly appreciate the preservation of shared management, the strengthening of the partnership principle and multilevel governance, as well as the return to the n plus 3 rule in the area of automatic decommitments. The Commission's original proposal, effectively moved towards an n plus 1 model, would have created significant implementation risk, especially for infrastructure and cohesion projects with longer investment cycles. We also support the stronger emphasis on the territorial dimension of cohesion policy and the explicit recognition that the cohesion must remain a policy for all regions with particular attention given to less developed border, rural and structural disadvantaged regions. At the same time, we support reinforcing the resources under heading 1 provided that these resources are specifically targeted towards the transformation and development of coal and structural affected regions that are gradually losing financing from the just transition fund. At the same time, however, we must highlight a number of persisting concerns. First, the proposal still significantly expands the number of strategies, reference documents, horizontal conditions, and reporting requirements, with which NREPPs must comply. Such an overly broad framework risks creating exceptional administrative burden and weakening the flexibility of member states in defining their own investment priorities. Second, we have serious reservations regarding the further linking of cohesion policy to the European semester. The European semester was originally created as a tool for coordinating economic and fiscal policies, not as a mechanism for assessing compliance with the rule of law principles. We are witnessing a gradual expansion of conditionality beyond the original purpose of cohesion policy. Third, the proposal still contains a number of uncertainties regarding implementation, particularly concerning the functioning of the commitment mechanism, the impact on individual and RPP chapters, technical assistance, the system of milestones and targets. Legal certainty will be absolutely essential both for member states and beneficiaries. We are also concerned about the excessive use of delegated acts and the further centralization of decision-making powers at the level of the Commission. Cohesion policy must remain based on subsidiarity, proportionality, and trust towards member states and regions. Patriots for Europe will continue to advocate for a cohesion policy that is simpler, more flexible, less centralized, and more focused on the real needs of regions and citizens. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Ladies and gentlemen, let's appreciate the irony of today's discussion. We are seriously debating a motion that claims that the cooperation between conservative and patriotic parties is a threat to European competitiveness. Mr. Repaci was asking for cooperation at the centre. But where have you been when the cordon sanitaire was decided upon? The topic of this debate shows how far political censorship in Europe has gone. We are told that democracy is in danger when conservative and patriotic forces join forces. But who decided that? Who determines that some democratically elected parties have fewer rights than others? Democracy is no longer a competition of ideas. Europe is lacking innovation. But we will focus on the so-called far right. In the streets are running away from Europe. But the biggest concern is the cooperation of conservative parties. Energy prices are skyrocketing, but the real threat is that patriots want a voice in politics. And do you know what's most telling? Your ideology, ideological strategy doesn't work. People see this democracy for what it is, and you are starting to reject it, and you lack clear arguments. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you very much. And I will continue in Czech. Dear colleagues, today I'm presenting a proposal that may seem technical. However, in practice, the modernization of vehicle registration documents will have a significant impact on our citizens everyday life in the entire EU. This proposal sets clear rules for how, for the content and format of registration document, both in the digital format or and in the paper based format. Data about the owner, emissions, etc. and there are also advanced features involved, which will strengthen protection against falsification and will make life simpler for in terms of movement, free movement of persons and vehicles in the EU. The Commission's goal is ambitious, which is to to speed up the procedures. But we would like to bring more balance between the ambitions and the actual implementation, and we want to strengthen key safeguards such as data protection, legal certainty and member states powers. So here we propose to expand the protection period from 5 to 7 years, the implementation period from 5 to 7 years, in order to take into account all the challenges that will be there for Member States, while putting in place new infrastructure, especially for member States that have differing systems, legacy systems and administrative administrative systems. Mobile certificates should be voluntary, so member states would be able to issue mobile certificates, but paper based ones will be provided by default to everybody at digital certificates would only be issued with an explicit approval. Consent of the owner. Member states would still be able to use their existing solutions as an alternative to EU identity wallets, which would respect the investments already made by member states and the principle of interoperability.”
  Driving licences
• “Thank you very much. First, I have to say that I fully support the idea, not proposal, by the Industrial Acceleration Act, but I am afraid it's too late. The main condition is to admit that the EU is overregulated and therefore uncompetitive. We have repeatedly spoken about simplifying and accelerating industrial investment. How concretely will you support member states so that they can issue a single comprehensive decision based on a single application?”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Many thanks for the floor. I would like to appreciate this evaluation of public procurement because at the level of the Imco committee, we are currently working on an opinion on public procurement, and we really wish to learn from your evaluation. And I would just like to clarify a few points. When negotiating about the current directive, some member States wanted the negotiated procedures to be the standard procedures. And back then the European Commission rejected that proposal. So now my question is, has the European Commission's position changed in the meantime? And with a higher degree of negotiation in public procurement, be considered as possible. Now my second comment from this text, I can see that regulation in public procurement is done indirectly. There is fragmentation, a lack of coordination, and this then makes the system hard to navigate. And in practice it leads to complications. So this then means to me that we need to reduce this fragmentation and create a unified framework, and also have a balanced level of regulation. My third comment would be in this report, the Commission says there are complications that have a lot to do with the professionalization of contractors. What are the solutions? What kind of steps are you planning to make in this respect? And I follow up on my colleague here who is the target group when it comes to these measures, because it would be good to consider whether perhaps we should be focusing more on smaller contractors, contracting bodies who have smaller capacity so they find it more difficult to comply with all the requests. I think there is a lack of specific recommendations here. So in the future, what does the Commission envision, envision, and what kind of changes can we expect in legislation? Because really unification at the EU level is key. The current directives are quite detailed, which may then lead to problems because that obviously may lead to overregulation. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(09:33:19 – 09:35:36): Thank you, chair colleagues. We'd like to say a few words about our amendments on expenditure tracking and performance. Our priority is to make sure that European funds are efficient, transparent, and easy to manage. We have been criticized for a long time that the system is too complicated. It's not easy to read. It's too far away from reality, from communities and towns and cities and final beneficiaries. And I have to say that some of the parts of this draft go against those principles because they bring in more requirements. That's why we'd like to talk more about subsidiarity. If we ask member states to do detailed monitoring and reporting, then requirements need to be in line with the size of projects and capacity. Of course, let's support automated data transfer where possible, yes. But let's say at the same time that digitalization may not bring in more requirements, more duties and competitiveness compass. Said that, that burden needs to be dropped by 25% or by 30% for SMEs. And if we are serious about that, then we need to see that in our rules and in our performance framework. That's why we'd like to say that it has to be easier for smaller projects, for local authorities, and for SMEs. For them, it has to be easier. Bureaucracy has to be reduced, and possibilities have to be better. At the same time, environmental system monitoring has to be much easier. It can't be just ideology or an instrument to make things more complicated, something that would be a burden. And there, I agree with the reporter who says that we have to be helping the communities and citizens more than anything else. We can't bring in more tables and controls. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “We would also like to Strengthen democratic control over delegated act. There should be impact assessments made before delegated acts, and the maximum delegation period should be two years. Any extension should only be possible upon explicit consent by the Parliament and the Council. New delegated acts would then only be possible to be adopted through the regular procedure. Ladies and gentlemen, these amendments, in my opinion, have created a realistic, balanced, responsible framework that supports innovation but also respect technical capacities of Member States. They protect the basic rights, fundamental rights of citizens. They also strengthen the confidence of citizens, and they are based on comments made by stakeholders experts, and they respect a procedure that is based on facts, and they ensure that legislation is there for the people, not the vice versa. The final solution should bring a balance between effective functioning of the internal market and the protection of rights of individuals. So the internal market would gain assistance without barriers, and excessive red tape for citizens, rights would be protected, and they would be able to choose whether they wish to have a digital solution or a traditional one. I very much look forward to my colleagues interventions now, and I believe that thanks to open dialogue, we will be able to, uh, come up with a balanced proposal that will be that will benefit both administrators of registers and users in the EU. Many thanks in advance for your comments and I look forward to further cooperation. Thank you.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• “I would like to thank Mr. Commissioner that you've accepted our invitation to our committee. I would be interested in the following the evaluation report on consumer environment. It was published in on on the 18th of March. So this report monitored the environment within two years. And it is clear that the consumers have a problem with very high living standards. More than one third of EU citizens are worried that there will not be able to pay their bills to cover their needs, and 44% noticed that the products are smaller, that the quality is lower, but the prices remain the same. Then environmental issues. This awareness also has decreased by 13% since 2022, so the prices are very high. The energy prices across the EU are high. So when we compare December 24th with January in 21, the prices spiked by 44%, so only 10% of households were able to maintain the heating in their homes. So it is a huge increase compared to 2021. The food and alcohol prices also increased by 31% compared to December 2024. So how will you help our consumers with respect to the energy prices? Have you considered speculative pricing capping the prices? Would you believe that we should reevaluate some Green Deal objectives, uh, namely ETS two for households? Perhaps we should reevaluate all this.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “(17:33:58 – 17:36:40): Thank you for the floor. I will continue, check. Madam president, colleagues, we welcome that the commission is proposing to narrow down the scope of the regulation and to focus the information obligations more clearly on financial products. This approach is a good step towards simplifying the rules, reducing the burden, and enhancing legal certainty for financial market participants. However, we believe that the proposal can be further improved. We are therefore proposing to introduce a targeted exemption for products intended exclusively for professional investors and for registered alternative investment fund managers. Professional investors have sufficient knowledge, experience, and access to information and should not be subject to the same requirements that are designed primarily for the retail market. Further, we are proposing to simplify the disclosure of principal adverse impacts and to focus only on the most relevant indicators. Where the proposal already includes mechanisms to prevent investments in harmful activities, the related disclosure obligations should be limited to the minimum necessary and set up in a way that is practically feasible and cost effective. Our amendments will also include strengthening the protection of trade secrets and clarifying the role of supervisory bodies. They should monitor compliance with the rules and disclosure obligations, not actually verify or certify ESG data. We've also put forward proposals to ensure that the transitional category truly supports the financing of the transformation of the European economy. We believe that investments should be assessed on the basis of real results, sustainability indicators, and credible transformation strategies and not on the basis of overly mechanical and blanket exclusion criteria. Similarly, we do not support the automatic exclusion of a part of the investment universe based solely on ESG ratings. That could lead to a reduction in investment options and a reduction in the competitiveness of the European financial market. I believe that our amendments will contribute to creating a simpler, clearer, and more competitive SFDR framework that will better meet the needs of investors and financial institutions. Thank you for your attention.”
  EU approach to sustainability criteria in private investments · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Another very important area is data protection. We would like the framework to be stricter maximum retention period being five years, and only competent authorities would be able to access them. Sharing with private parties or any commercial use should be strictly prohibited. Transborder access to registered should only be able based on justified requests. Access on request, not automatic sharing by default. We also believe that operational flexibility of member States should be strengthened, so we are considering introducing a temporary deregistration suspension of vehicles for a period of three years, after which reregistration would be possible without another technical inspection in cases where there is no suspicion of fraud. However, where there is a suspicion of fraud, member states would be able to require a new technical inspection or additional conditions to be met when it comes to odometer fraud. We would suggest that data is only retained about the last valid technical inspection, so we would still be protecting consumers from fraud, but then we would also be removing, uh, extensive, uh, red tape, uh, for member states. When it comes to chips on smartcards, those would only complement the QR code, which would ensure there is technical redundancy and also flexibility in verification. The deregistration, i.e. registration cancellation, should be clearly based in EU legislation on national legislation, and the owner should be informed in advance. That would strengthen legal certainty and citizens rights.”
  Driving licences
• “Dear colleagues, let me remind you of a very important conclusion of the European Council. The leaders have not agreed to use frozen Russian assets at the European Council. Through the words of the Belgian Prime Minister, there were demands for strong guarantees in case of Russian countermeasures. Therefore, the Council called on the Commission to propose possibilities of of financing. Ukraine. Apart from using the frozen assets are common loans of the EU. Those, according to Financial Times estimates, mean an approximate interest of €5.6 billion per year. Um France, which is strongly in debt, would be able to pay 1 billion. Italy would be €675 million. The question, therefore is can the member states afford this fiscally if apart from that, they need to pay for the Green Deal nonsense as well? And I'm not even mentioning that for the future we need to consider costs of Ukraine, which will be, according to estimates by the world Bank in the hundreds of billions. And apart from that, the people, the citizens of the member states talk about can I pay my bills? Can I feed my family? Can I pay my energy? Fortunately, we have the winner of the Czech elections in the council soon. Mr. Andrej Babis, who listens to the people and not to the elites of Brussels. Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “(16:11:20 – 16:16:21): Thank you, madam chair, dear colleagues. We are here today to consider the European Commission's proposal to suspend a specific obligation under 2 significant pieces of EU legislation, the batteries regulation and the packaging and packaging waste regulation. Specifically, the proposal seeks to suspend until 2035 the requirement for producers established outside the European Union to appoint an authorized representative for the purpose of extended producer responsibility. On the surface, this may appear to be a straightforward administrative simplification. And indeed, we acknowledge that reducing unnecessary burden on economic operators is a legitimate and important goal. However, when we look more carefully at what this proposal actually does and, crucially, what it does not do, then a differing picture emerges. Let us be clear about what is at stake. The authorized representative is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the essential link between a non EU producer and the national extended producer responsibility system. It is the point of contact that gives member states' competent authorities the ability to identify who is responsible to collect producer fees, to verify compliance, and to take enforcement action when obligations are not met. Remove that link and you remove a fundamental tool of control. You create enforcement gaps across the single market, gaps that would be felt most acutely in high volume products categories like batteries and packaging, which sit at the very heart of our circular economy ambitions. The commission's proposal does not acknowledge the risk, which is why it asked member states to ensure traceability and enforcement through alternative means. But this raises an obvious question. What alternative means? The proposal offers no answers. It delegates the problem back to member states without providing the tool, the guidance, or the legal certainty needed to address it. This is not simplification. This is a transfer of an unresolved problem. Beyond the substance, there is a deeper concern about timing and legislative coherence. The Commission has already announced that comprehensive EPA reform will be delivered in 2026 as part of the forthcoming Circular Economy Act. If systemic reform is coming, why adopt a narrow temporary suspension now? The answer in our view is that there is no compelling justification for doing so. The introduction of a suspensory measure in advance of the broader package risks introducing legal uncertainty. We are also concerned about the signal this approach sends. Each time sector specific measures are adopted in isolation. For batteries today, packaging tomorrow, perhaps textiles or electronics next, the regulatory landscape becomes more fragmented, more difficult to navigate, and ultimately less effective. Businesses operating across sectors do not benefit from a patchwork of partly suspended obligations. National competent authorities do not benefit from an enforcement framework riddled with extension, and our circular economy targets are not served by a regulatory environment that is increasingly hard to understand and apply. For this reason, rejection of this proposal is the appropriate course of action not because simplification is wrong, it is right and necessary, but because this proposal does not deliver it. A temporary suspension of 1 obligation without addressing the structural architecture of the EPR framework is of very limited legislative value. The case for rejection is not a case against simplification. It is a case for doing simplification properly in a manner that preserves enforcement, protects the single market, and delivers the legal certainty to businesses, member states. The comprehensive reform is coming. Let us be patient. Let us be rigorous, and let us get it right. Thank you.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation
• “(15:05:49 – 15:07:49): Thank you. I will speak Czech. Commissioner, I wanted to ask the following question, a question that concerns easier access to information in digital form. In the single market, we often speak about everything being digitalized. We speak about packaging, waste, and any other issues. I feel more and more strongly that this is a discrimination of a large portion of society because those who do not have devices to scan a QR code or do not have the knowledge, these people are left out of the system. I'm asking why. If the objective of the Commission is to make marking on products clearer and more accessible, then it has to be accessible to everyone. Therefore, I want to ask, when you speak about this on and on and include it in more regulation and directives, do you have any information as a Commission whether this pressure towards digitalization as opposed to written printed information affects certain groups of population? What we see is that, in particular, older people, people who do not have access to the Internet or do not have access to these technologies, these are a group which becomes overlooked and discriminated. I would like for the Commission to work with both the digital form and also with the form of the right to be informed. It concerns other aspects as well, and this is a dangerous trend. I would like to ask you to think about it more within your Commission work.”
  EU policy on accessibility of digital infrastructure
• “Thank you very much commissioner, madam president. The Commission has presented a list of the ten major obstacles in the single market but who created them? In many cases it is the Commission itself. It has these regulations that suffocate businesses. It fragments energy, transport and then it's proudly announcing it's going to get rid of them. Yes, digitalizing is good, helping SMEs is good but the problem isn't the lack of strategies, it's too much regulation. The Commission is making new rules faster than it's repealing them and it creates a lot of confusion for businesses and national authorities. If you really want the single market to work, we need to revise different objectives such as the Green Deal, affordable energy. We need to support industry. The principle of mutual recognition must be safeguarded. Food needs to be affordable and food of the same quality across the EU. I call on the Commission to simplify the existing rules, to listen to the member states, to businesses and to focus on their real needs. The single market can't function without proper enforcement of the rules. We should not cling to outdated ideologies and dogmas. This will not help the European economy.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Member states must report the number of vehicles deregistered according to the directive, providing better data for analysing fraud patterns and police effectiveness. These compromise amendments strike the right balance between innovation and inclusion by embracing digitalisation, while protecting vulnerable citizens who may face barriers and using digital tools. The compromise amendments ensure security and privacy by fighting fraud, including odometer tampering, while safeguarding personal data from commercial exploitation. The amendments promote efficiency and rise by streamlining cross-border Reregistration process while ensuring transparency and advanced communication of decisions to vehicle owners. This compromise text delivers a fully interoperable and secure digital framework that will facilitate a cross-border vehicle registration and strengthen consumer protection, while safeguarding data protection and ensuring accurate and timely recording of data in interoperable electronic system. By supporting this compromise text, we can create a modern, inclusive vehicle registration system that serves all European citizens. Combat fraud effectively protects personal data rigorously and ensure no one is left behind in the digital transition. I kindly ask for your support and cooperation in adopting this compromise amendments, which will benefit all EU citizens, consumers and Member States by creating and harmonizing union vehicle registration framework that truly serves the public interest. Thank you very much for your consideration and collaboration.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you very much, dear chair. Dear colleagues, we have received 88 amendments from which I took on board majority. And here are the key improvements. What I would like to be reflected in the text. Firstly, the proposal to establish a new definition of the registration allowing temporary suspension of vehicle registration for up to three years with simplified registration procedures that don't require new technical inspection. Secondly, the directive mandates a five year transition before a mobile registration certificates become the default option to. Physical certificates must remain available by request, and vehicle owners must provide contents consent before receiving mobile certificates. To support flexibility, owners can grant and revoke temporary access to mobile certificates for other drivers at any time, ensuring the system works for real world usage patterns. Concerning the timeline of the registration and transition period, I am open to the suggestion from my colleagues, from the from other political groups to find the best solution for consumers and registration run by national authorities. Secondly, for for consumer protection, the compromise amendments ensure that citizens without adequate digital access or scale are not placed at a disadvantage during the transition to digital certificates. Recognising the importance of accessibility and digital inclusion for all members of society, for citizens gained the right to request correction and inaccurate mobile certificate data through a simple electronic procedure with correction processed without an undue delay. The proposal strengthened fraud prevention by requiring member states to record odometer readings from the last valid periodic technical inspection to combat odometer tampering, and by allowing member states to refuse reregistration when fraud is suspected and require a new technical inspection before proceeding.”
  Driving licences
• “Commissioner. Colleagues, the European car used to be a symbol of power, prosperity and resourcefulness. We treasured it. It was our pride, our livelihood. Millions of people worked in factories, supplying Applying firms and repair shops. Entire regions left of the automotive. And today, because of the European Commission, we are witnessing a gradual destruction of the industry. The Commission decided it knows best what's good for us. So one day it proudly announced the ban on combustion engines from 2035, without any planned debate or the rule of reason. They didn't care what it would do to the jobs car prices. They didn't care whether we can, whether we have the infrastructure they expected us to follow, but we want them. Workers and trade unions did so as well. And what the commission do, they laughed in our faces. They called us backward looking, ignorant enemies of progress. So we faced arrogance and contempt. And now this plan is collapsing like a house of cards. Electric car sales are falling because ordinary people simply can't afford them. Car production in Europe is declining, and China is building factories in Europe, bringing in their own workers. And our people are out of job. And the commission responds by proposing new strategies, working groups, roundtables and press conferences. That is their cue for every crisis. But no strategy can pay for the bills. Please do not allow for the industry to be damaged.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Uh, just very quickly, two things. Firstly, short term rentals here. I agree with my colleagues that this is specific in terms of individual member states. For instance, in Prague, we have a huge problem with that. In other cities, not so much. But the. But the France court said that there must be an authorization for short term rentals. So clearly, if there is a national measure, it may help us. However, I don't know what to take from your answers. I know that you are working on a directive, and does it mean that based on the court decision, you are going to protect national measures, or are you going to go in the way of European regulation? What is also important for us is that platform data can be used by supervisory bodies at national level. Uh, and my last question we have been talking about affordable housing. Affordable housing can be built by the public sector. However in many cities and towns We have a debt brake in place. So. Do you think that housing may not be included in the debt brake by cities, given the crisis in housing that we live in right now?”
  EU regulation of short-term rentals
• “Colleagues in Europe, housing has become one of the most pressing problems of young. Of our people. Young people cannot afford housing. Working people often have difficulties paying than their rents, and the whole generation feels that their own housing is only a dream. It is therefore correct that we discuss it in the European Parliament, but we need to show a mirror to the European Commission. The European Commission has been adopting regulations that make housing and new building very difficult. There are very complicated administrative rules and parts of Green Deal also affect new houses. When it is expensive to build, it is expensive to find housing and that's a problem we have overlooked. If we need to help people, we have to remove obstacles that we have made ourselves. We have to make easier permitting processes and build faster. We can help coordinate, support investments and share experiences, but the policies of housing have to be in the hands of the member states. The European Commission can help when they admit their mistakes and when they remove the obstacles.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you. Madam president, Commissioner, the Brussels bureaucracy has decided to play a single Card to put everything on electric cars. It's ignoring the reality of the markets, the economic situation in member states, and the fate of thousands of car industry workers. The commission wants to support battery production, but where are we going to get the raw materials? We depend on China. The commission is talking about supporting preserving jobs. And yet hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs instead of supporting traditional, the traditional car industry. We're hearing vague promises about reskilling, as if someone on an assembly line could become an AI coder just like that. And then we hear about a just transformation. But how can you have a fair transformation when you're doing away with traditional technology? Ignoring hydrogen and hybrids and punishing those who can't afford an electric car. We need a real plan combining innovation, competitiveness. This action plan is not a solution. It's going to lead to decline.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much for giving me the floor. The European Commission promises to reduce bureaucracy by 25%. It should bring businesses business relief worth €6 billion and mobilise investments of €50 billion. Sounds great, but why are entrepreneurs so unhappy? Because instead of giving our businesses the freedom they need, Brussels is busy coming up with even more rules and Brussels forgot to inform the banks about simplification regarding ESG, etc. while the commission hosts press conferences, our businesses are collapsing. What about the industry? German steel production is now on the brink of collapse, and Czech businesses Czech car manufacturers employing thousands of people, are facing endless waves of new regulation. And there's a lot of red tape that stifles production and innovation. Europe does not need cosmetic changes and bureaucracy. Europe needs real steps. Fewer regulations, more support for entrepreneurs, less interference and a return to common sense in politics. Today, the European Commission declares entrepreneurs, we will save you. But they forgot to mention that the European Commission scrapped concrete boots to their feet regarding ESG. This is clearly visible. Why do we not vote on the postponement of reporting even today or at this session? Because our businesses need simplification.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues in Europe, housing has become one of the most pressing problems of young. Of our people. Young people cannot afford housing. Working people often have difficulties paying than their rents, and the whole generation feels that their own housing is only a dream. It is therefore correct that we discuss it in the European Parliament, but we need to show a mirror to the European Commission. The European Commission has been adopting regulations that make housing and new building very difficult. There are very complicated administrative rules and parts of Green Deal also affect new houses. When it is expensive to build, it is expensive to find housing and that's a problem we have overlooked. If we need to help people, we have to remove obstacles that we have made ourselves. We have to make easier permitting processes and build faster. We can help coordinate, support investments and share experiences, but the policies of housing have to be in the hands of the member states. The European Commission can help when they admit their mistakes and when they remove the obstacles.”
  EU housing policy