Anne-Sophie FRIGOUT

Policy topics Anne-Sophie FRIGOUT is active on

What Anne-Sophie FRIGOUT has said (37)

• 2026-06-17 “(16:05:42 – 16:06:49): Mhmm. Colleagues, commissioner, the environmentalist, your, all electric policy is all renewable. It's not a transition. It is a declassification. You want to move away from fossil fuels, but you simply just replacing 1 form of energy dependency with another by adding industrial dependency. The example of electric vehicles really speaks for itself. You've, thrown away our own, automotive industry when we have, 80% of the, critical areas we need for batteries. Now also the question of the solar panels, come almost exclusively from China. Now this dependence on the ground is also seen in the wind turbines, which are destroying our landscape, also in the region that I represent. Now it's never too late to wake up, abandon your dreams, and assume the responsibility and the reality of hydro and nuclear sources for electricity. Europe will thank you. Thank you very much. And now, madam Levan. Thank”
  Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• 2026-03-11 “Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission 5.5.2026 Written question The main goal of the Merger Guidelines revision is to modernise EU merger policy. Mergers can have positive and negative effects for the competitiveness of the EU economy. Through this revision the Commission will provide a clear and modern assessment framework so that companies, of all sizes, have the necessary predictability when engaging in mergers. Importantly, the revised Guidelines will include positive guidance on which acquisitions involving start-ups are pro-competitive and do not warrant intervention. This ‘innovation shield’ will provide predictability and legal certainty for smaller companies when considering exit strategies. The revised Guidelines will also include clear and concrete guidance on those rare acquisitions of nascent or small innovative companies that can instead stifle innovation and merit intervention. It is critical to prevent killer acquisitions. Therefore, the Commission supports Member States’ efforts to review such mergers and will consider appropriate referrals under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation referred by competent Member States. The Commission will not adjust the merger control notification thresholds since the EU Merger Regulation is not subject to review. The revised Merger Guidelines will instead provide updated guidance on the Commission’s assessment criteria for all mergers, including non-horizontal ones. The fundamental objective of merger control will not change: preventing harmful mergers that lead to too much market power in the hands of too few companies — harming innovation and growth. However, there will be new guidance on pro-competitive scale and a new framework to assess dynamic efficiencies that may be pertinent to mergers in strategic technology sectors.”
  EU Competition policy
• 2026-03-06 “P-000943/2026 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The decline of the EU’s sugar market is largely due to high production domestically, while imports have dropped drastically. In 2025, the EU also reinstated import quotas for Ukrainian sugar under the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and suspended General Scheme of Preference Plus preferences for Pakistani ethanol. The agreement with Mercosur offers limited concessions on sugar, subject to strict safeguards, and is yet to be applied. As for the recently concluded EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA), negotiations were carried out in full transparency with text proposals and reports having been made publicly available. The Commission maintained regular exchanges with the Council and the European Parliament, as well as with interested stakeholders including the representatives of sugar industry. To mitigate possible market pressure, the Commission has ensured that the most sensitive agricultural products, including sugar, will only have a limited and controlled access to the EU market and will be subject to sustainability conditionalities. Under the EU-Australia FTA, the EU will open a tariff rate quota of 35 000 tonnes of raw sugar cane for refining to be imported duty-free. It is important to note that this represents less than 0.3% of EU sugar consumption. In addition, the EU can impose safeguard measures in case of a surge in EU agri-food imports from Australia if it causes or threatens to cause a serious injury to EU industry. As an additional layer of protection for farmers, a bilateral safeguard mechanism will be operationalised in a self-standing EU regulation that will ensure swift and effective protections, in the unlikely event of an unforeseen and harmful surge in imports or an undue decrease in prices for EU producers.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• 2026-01-27 “E-000346/2026 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission Countervailing measures were imposed in October 2024 on imports of battery electric vehicles from China following an investigation conducted in line with the EU’s anti-subsidy legislation. That investigation did not cover imports of hybrid vehicles. Trade defence measures are limited by the scope of the relevant investigation and cannot be imposed on or extended to imports of products which were not investigated. The Commission takes action to defend EU industry from unfairly traded imports where it receives a complaint from industry with evidence supporting allegations of injurious dumping/subsidisation. There is no ongoing investigation concerning imports of hybrid vehicles from China and the Commission cannot comment nor provide information as to potential complaints seeking the initiation of an investigation. The Complaints Office of Trade Defence Services can be contacted to discuss the procedure 1 . 1 trade-defence-complaints@ec.europa.eu.”
  Trade relations with China · Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• 2025-11-11 “E-004450/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. As regards checks related to marketing rules, the provisions on administrative assistance and cooperation laid down in Articles 102 to 108 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (the Official Controls Regulation) 1 apply insofar as possible fraudulent or deceptive practices are identified in respect of the marketing standards referred to in Articles 73 to 91 of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 2 . National authorities in France have not reported any issues relating to the origin mislabelling of fruits and vegetables within the EU Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN) 3 in 2025. 2. The responsibility for carrying out checks to verify that fruit and vegetables are in conformity with the relevant marketing standards, including origin labelling, lies with the Member States’ inspection bodies. In case of non-compliance because of defects or deterioration, Member States must notify forthwith the Member States likely to be concerned by the consignment that is not in conformity 4 . Where conformity checks identify possible fraudulent or deceptive practices in respect of the marketing standards, competent authorities should take appropriate action in accordance with the Official Controls Regulation and exchange fraud notifications in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 5 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products (Official Controls Regulation). OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, pp. 1–142: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, pp. 671–854: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj. 3 https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/acn_en. 4 Article 105(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. 5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 of 30 September 2019 laying down rules for the functioning of the information management system for official controls and its system components. OJ L 261, 14.10.2019, pp. 37–96: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/1715/oj.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• 2025-09-22 “E-003665/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to ensuring that the future EU requirements on tyre abrasion under the Euro 7 Regulation are harmonised, science-based and non-discriminatory. The technical work to achieve this is conducted within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Task Force on Tyre Abrasion (TF TA), co-chaired by the Commission, where all relevant stakeholders are represented. The issue of correlation between the two testing methods described in United Nations Regulation 117 1 has been studied by TF TA. The results of a comprehensive market assessment campaign conducted on close to 200 unique tyre references indicate a significant variability of results with the ‘drum-based method’. The Commission will continue to lead efforts at UNECE to finalise these test procedures, quantify uncertainty, and establish transparent and fair criteria for approval. Those criteria should include a clear definition of parameters to avoid distortions in the use of the method and thus on the results, and a robust correlation plan ensuring that should both methods be used, they provide consistent and aligned results. The Commission will only support the inclusion of methods that have proven to be technically sound to reflect environmental impact of abrasion and competitiveness of the European tyre industry. Until the equivalence of the testing methods can be demonstrated based on harmonised technical criteria, the Commission will prioritise the European realworld methodology in accordance with the Euro 7 Regulation 2 . 1 UN Regulation No 117, as amended by Revision 6, includes in its Annex 10 two alternative procedures for measuring tyre abrasion. These are the ‘drum-based method’ (Method A) and the ‘open-road method’ (Method B), both of which aim to determine the abrasion rate of C1-class tyres under controlled conditions. See https://unece.org/transport/documents/2025/02/standards/addendum-116-un-regulation-no-117-revision-6amendment-2. 2 See Table 5 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2024/1257. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1257/oj.”
  Road transport environmental policy · EU Competition policy
• 2025-07-15 “E-002896/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. As set out in the Vision for Agriculture and Food 1 , the EU aims to promote sustainable and fair agri-food systems, which includes ensuring that high animal welfare standards apply not only within the EU but also to imported products, in compliance with the EU’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. In the Vision, the Commission commits to ensuring that future legislative proposals in the area of animal welfare will apply equivalent standards to imported products that fall within its scope in ways that are compliant with WTO obligations. In line with the principles of better regulation, the upcoming proposal on on-farm animal welfare will be accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment, which will include a thorough assessment of the trade dimension. 2. EU legislation already requires that imported products meet certain animal welfare standards. Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing 2 applies to third country establishments exporting meat to the EU, and 100% documentary checks are made at border points. The competent authority of the exporting country must provide a signed attestation certifying that these standards are complied with. Furthermore, these requirements are monitored by the Commission through a risk-based programme of controls, with regular audits in third countries, that include checks on third countries’ regulatory framework and their follow up to Commission recommendations. The Commission cooperates closely with third country authorities to verify compliance and follows up with actions when needed. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0075. 2 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1099/oj.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2025-04-07 “E-001413/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the challenges the wine and spirits sector is currently facing. Common EU rules and the EU Excise Movement and Control System (EMCS) facilitates business-to-business transactions, which represent most intra-EU movements of excise goods. Nonetheless, as recognised in the Action Plan for a fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery strategy (COM(2020) 312 final 1 ) there is a need to also simplify and harmonise the rules currently applicable for the distance selling of alcoholic beverages (business-toconsumer). Economic operators incur costs of compliance related to national administrative procedures for the declaration and the payment of excise duty. Any initiative in this area must strike a balance between the simplification of current rules for distance selling and fraud prevention. The Commission has published a study conducted by a contractor on this issue 2 and supports discussions among interested Member States based on the Fiscalis programme. In the context of ongoing discussions with experts from a number of Member States, the development of a tool inspired from the Value-added tax (VAT) One-Stop-shop for the payment of excise duty is indeed being considered. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0312. 2 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/202006/study_assessing_articles_32_and_36_of_council_directive_2008118ec_concerning_the_general_arrangement s_for_excise_duty.pdf.”
  VAT harmonisation · EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2025-04-01 “E-001338/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware that cut flowers may contain residues of pesticides, whether these flowers are produced domestically or imported. The use of pesticides for the production of flowers in the EU falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 on the placing on the market of plant protection products 1 . Potential exposure of workers to pesticides is always assessed prior to their authorisation on the basis of worst-case scenarios to ensure a high level of protection of human health. As stated in the Vision on agriculture and food 2 , considering EU’s concerns about environmental protections and moral values in response to societal demands, the Commission will pursue, in line with international rules, a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products, including on pesticides. There is no EU legislation regulating the levels of residues of pesticides in cut flowers as Regulation (EC) 396/2005 setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides 3 applies only to food and feed intended for human or animal consumption. Since 2017, the Commission has held discussions with Member States on residues on cut flowers on several occasions in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed 4 . As the control of the levels of residues of pesticides in imported cut-flowers is not currently covered by any EU legislations, Member States have the possibility to introduce specific national provision to protect the workers in this sector as it is already the case in one Member State. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj. 2 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, COM/2025/75 final. 3 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj. 4 Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed in March 2017, May 2017, July 2017, October 2017, October 2020, March 2022 and May 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/standing_committees/sc_phytopharmaceuticals_en.”
  Pesticides & trade · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2025-03-19 “P-001167/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission Pursuant to Article 30 of the Regulation 978/2012 (the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation) 1 , where imports of products included in Annex I to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cause, or threaten to cause, serious disturbance to EU markets, the Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, is to adopt an implementing act in order to suspend the preferential arrangements in respect of the products concerned. On 15 May 2024, the Commission received a joint request from several Member States to adopt measures under Article 30 of the GSP Regulation with regard to ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin originating from Pakistan falling under Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes ex 2207 10 and ex 2207 20. On 15 October 2024, the Commission invited stakeholders to provide any views and information they consider relevant to the determination of a serious disturbance to EU markets caused by imports from Pakistan of products under tariff codes ex 2207 10 and ex 2207 20, as well as any other relevant input. The Commission is currently analysing the available data. Pursuant to Article 13 of the GSP Regulation, the Commission monitors on a continuous basis the effective implementation of the relevant international GSP conventions. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/978/2025-01-01”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2025-02-18 “E-000743/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The protection of minors online is a priority for the Commission. Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), 1 designated providers of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) 2 are required to conduct risk assessments, considering inter alia actual or foreseeable risks to the protection of minors as well as a person’s physical and mental well-being, and to put in place effective mitigation measures to address such risks. The risk assessment should take into account whether and how the design of their recommender systems may influence such risks. In addition, all online platforms accessible to minors are obliged to ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security for them. The Commission has taken swift action in relation to DSA enforcement and opened formal investigations against TikTok 3 and Meta 4 to assess whether they may have breached the DSA in areas linked to the protection of minors, recommender systems and data access for researchers. These investigations are currently ongoing. If the Commission establishes a breach of the DSA, a fine of up to 6% of global turnover of the provider may be imposed. Moreover, the Commission is developing guidelines on the protection of minors online under the DSA 5 and will launch an EU-wide inquiry into the broader impacts of social media on well-being 6 . The Commission is also currently finalising the Delegated Act for Data Access 7 which will put into practice the researcher data access mechanism for non-public data used to study systemic risks in the EU. As part of a broader and more integrated policy response, the Commission’s Communication on a comprehensive approach to mental health 8 supports the mental health of young people, including in the digital sphere 9 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32022R2065 2 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/list-designated-vlops-and-vloses 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_926 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2664 5 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-launches-call-evidence-guidelines-protection-minorsonline-under-digital-services-act 6 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf 7 https://algorithmic-transparency.ec.europa.eu/news/delegated-act-data-access-published-consultation-2024-1031_en 8 https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/comprehensive-approach-mental-health_en 9 https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6317c605-5f5d-4d4f-9c8ad5c93e869814_en?filename=ncd_tracking-framework-mh_en.pdf”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online · Recommender systems
• 2024-12-03 “E-002727/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Placing on the market of cosmetic products or products with ingredients tested on animals for the purpose of meeting the safety requirements of the Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR) 1 is prohibited. The ban under the CPR has been fully implemented since 2013. Cosmetics ingredients are also subjected to the Regulation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) 2 , which may require animal testing, only as a last resort, to address risks to the environment or to workers ensuing from manufacturing the substances. Such risks are not covered by the CPR. Judgments 3 on legal challenges of the decisions of the Board of Appeal confirmed that the request of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to test the two mentioned substances does not violate the animal testing ban under the CPR. The understanding of ECHA and the Commission on the relationship between the two regulations is also made public in a Communication 4 and an ECHA factsheet 5 . Phasing out animal testing is a priority of the Commission, as highlighted in the response to the European Citizens' Initiative ‘Save cruelty-free cosmetics - Commit to a Europe without animal testing' 6 . The roadmap towards phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessments, which the Commission is preparing, will lay out actions aiming to reach this goal. The Commission also remains strongly involved in the European partnership for alternative approaches to animal testing 7 . It will continue to stimulate investments in alternative methods. More than EUR 1 billion in research funding was provided in the EU in the last 20 years for this purpose. The Commission is also exploring opportunities to further reduce animal testing in the context of the forthcoming REACH revision. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 59–209. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), OJ L 396. 3 Judgments of 22.11.2023 in cases T-655/20 (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T655/20&language=en) and T-656/20 (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=T-656/20). 4 COM(2013) 135: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0135 5 ECHA-14-FS-04-EN: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/reach_cosmetics_factsheet_en.pdf/2fbcf6bf-cc78-4a2c-83fa43ca87cfb314 6 Communication C(2023)5041 - https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/202307/C_2023_5041_1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdf 7 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/european-partnership-alternative-approachesanimal-testing_en”
  GMOs · Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-12 “E-002506/2024 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the challenges posed by inflation, rising energy prices and the evolving competitive landscape, which have been exacerbated by external pressures such as the volatility of global energy markets. The energy crisis has shown the utmost importance of having an efficient and well-functioning internal energy market. In response, the Commission proposed a reform of the Electricity Market Design which entered into force in July 2024 and which is currently being implemented 1 . The measures put in place are precisely intended to ensure that energy bills of consumers, including industry, become less dependent on volatile prices of fossil fuels such as gas, fostering the use of long-term contracts and non-fossil flexibility solutions. The supply of clean and affordable energy is critical for European competitiveness, security, and green transition. The European regulatory environment supports the delivery of this goal and the Commission will continue this work in the new mandate, as it plans to issue an Action Plan for Affordable Energy as requested in the Mission letter of the Commissioner for Energy and Housing 2 . 1 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/electricity-market-design_en 2 https://commission.europa.eu/document/1c203799-0137-482e-bd18-4f6813535986_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-09-25 “E-001822/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of this request and assessed the proposal, most recently when submitted by France in the context of the dialogue with the Council on efforts to reduce administrative burden and achieve simplification of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support. The Commission is of the opinion that the current legal framework 1 already grants flexibility for Member States to calculate losses. For instance, calculation of compensation based on loss of farm income instead of loss in production yield is already possible. There are other rules, such as calculating losses for the risk management tool under rural development interventions based on the average annual production in the preceding three-year period, or a three-year average based on the preceding five-year period excluding the highest and lowest entry. Rules relating to the risk management tools may be assessed as part of preparation of the regulatory framework for the CAP post 2027, and in light of lessons learnt with current implementation, including their legal and budgetary implications. Member States may also include harvest insurance in their CAP Strategic Plans for the wine sectoral interventions. Under this type of intervention Member States may use calculation methods other than the one mentioned in your question for the losses. Only Portugal has activated this intervention envisaged in the CAP Strategic Plan Regulation. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013, OJ L 435/1, 6.12.2021.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. And so. What we've seen the price of fuel exploding and the start to form, as is shown, as closed as shown, is that we cannot continue with this energy dependency. Time is for action. We have available to us reliable low carbon fuel, which also supports agriculture and sovereignty. Biofuel that is the anti bioethanol is a cheap and available alternative. It at the same time doesn't stop us electrifying our fleets. However um Europe is saying that we can't incorporate more bioethanol into our cars. It's limited to 10%. However, if Brazil it's 30% minimum and the European Commission will only. Authorize a very small number of additional vehicles in. In the future, we need to move beyond this idea of linking everything up. This is just a nightmare for car drivers.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Mr. president, madam chair. Executive director. Colleagues. Since 2018, Europe has lost 25% of its chemical industry. The industry is in a huge crisis. This is a sector with high value. There are 1.2 million employees in Europe and 200,000in France. There are entire sectors such as agriculture, health and it helps these high end industries. In France, there are 47 sites which could close with huge job losses. The European market is being flooded by products from China. And from the US as well. These closures in France are in the valley of the Rhone and in Laodicea. Which is the highest prescribed medicine in France is now coming from America. According to the Draghi report, our energy costs are three times higher than our American competitors. So in order to not force Europe to abandon its industry. And because of the increased number of standards and and other norms, the cost of regulation in terms of chemistry has been increased by three over the last 15 years. So we need to remain competitive in the in the chemical industry with a mortgage. Before. While waiting for the final studies. So my question is, in order to not lose out on our autonomy. Are you going to have a full analysis for all bands suggested? The recent study on the circular economy regrets the recent developments.”
  Classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals
• “Executive director. Colleagues. Since 2018, Europe has lost 25% of its chemical industry. The industry is in a huge crisis. This is a sector with high value. There are 1.2 million employees in Europe and 200,000in France. There are entire sectors such as agriculture, health and it helps these high end industries. In France, there are 47 sites which could close with huge job losses. The European market is being flooded by products from China. And from the US as well. These closures in France are in the valley of the Rhone and in Laodicea. Which is the highest prescribed medicine in France is now coming from America. According to the Draghi report, our energy costs are three times higher than our American competitors. So in order to not force Europe to abandon its industry. And because of the increased number of standards and and other norms, the cost of regulation in terms of chemistry has been increased by three over the last 15 years. So we need to remain competitive in the in the chemical industry with a mortgage. Before. While waiting for the final studies. So my question is, in order to not lose out on our autonomy. Are you going to have a full analysis for all bands suggested? The recent study on the circular economy regrets the recent developments.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “The European car manufacturing industry is risking demise With those words, they seemed to discover the scale of the disaster. And yet our European car manufacturers have constantly been sounding the alarm bell. How much time has been lost? But thanks to the determined mobilisation of the group Patriots for Europe, the Commission has been forced to give way and the ban on internal combustion engines by 2035. We talk about recharging hybrid vehicles after 35. So plug in hybrids, there's steps in the right direction which will give a bit of respite to our car manufacturers. But the commission is maintaining its aim of a reduction in CO2 emissions by 90% calling for counterparts that seem beyond our reach, which seems a bit of a smokescreen. So how many jobs will have to go before you open your eyes? You said the sector risks demise. You're Suggesting the use of aspirin. But what we need is normative detox program colleagues. I think what's at stake is considerable. It's time to put together a majority based on common sense, to, say, the car manufacturing industry, together with patrons for Europe. We will leave no stone unturned as long as this industrial suicide is on the commission's program.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Chair, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Oceans Pact does not provide any serious answers to the issues of marine biome biodiversity. You say it's one ocean, one strategy. This essentially is a uniform approach. You are abstracting out the diversity of our marine infrastructures. Everybody knows that the reality of the Channel, the Atlantic and Mediterranean are completely different. This is the same as the very sinister Green Deal. Green Deal imposes unrealistic environmental goals which actually undermines the competitiveness of our nations. Setting a thirty percent limit figure for protected areas by twenty thirty, the Commission is essentially sending us to the wall. But where's the credibility in all of this? Where's the sustainability when we all know that foreign maritime powers China and Russia are essentially the number one illegal fishers in the world and they're going to continue to overexploit the oceans whereas we end up stocking our shelves with imported goods? The ocean is a strategic space. It's of vital importance for our fishes, for our armies as well. If we have a uniform of bans then that is going to really come down hard on fishes. Creating a Union for the Ocean, the European Union is going well above and beyond the competence that we have in the treaty and having a law for the ocean by twenty twenty seven with binding measures. Essentially Brussels is not happy with just coordinating; it wants to dictate maritime policies to member states. But France has the second biggest exclusive zone in the world. We don't want to give that up. The outermost regions will be more penalized than others by this without adapted financing being made available. Essentially you are taking us out on the boat and you've lost your compass. You don't know where you're going and you're taking those that live off the sea with you. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Commissioner, first of all, I'd like to thank you for being here and to congratulate you on your first steps in your new role. Animal welfare is a topic that's very important to me, and I'd like to highlight an issue that hasn't been highlighted enough, which is the killing of animals without prior anaesthetic. And often animals are killed without anaesthetic, which means that it's a very painful procedure. Initially this was for religious reasons. However, this has become a more widespread. Now there are more respectful methods, but because there's no traceability, the consumer is never aware of this issue. So here we're seeing a standardisation of this method in Europe, even though when we go to the butchers or hospitals or canteens, we don't know that this method is being used. Now consumers are asking for transparency about what's on the plate. And this is so this is no longer acceptable. Access to information should not only be essential for the various religious communities who are impacted, the consumers should be allowed to know how their animals that they're eating have been killed. Now, we would be looking for a balanced solution which is in line with the goals of our citizens. Thank you very much.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Colleagues, Europe is finally waking up after being naive to believe that it could keep a high value industry in its continent when it comes to metal supply. The result is that we outsourced production. We now have China, who is the biggest polluter in the world. A huge part of its territory is polluted because of mining. We can have a clear conscience driving in our electric cars. We have industrial disasters, energy, and in many other domains, but in China things are working perfectly. Europe has become completely powerless industrially speaking. However, in my country, in France, fifty percent of metal rare metal refinery took place there. But after lobbying activities, there's a general widespread suspicion when it comes to those who produce wealth. So we have less mining and industrialization here. However, some people don't really care about children working in cobalt mines. With lithium, for example, we can all be happy about our latest iPhones and electric vehicles, etcetera. We know what we need to do. We need to change European legislation which has paved with good intentions but which will do the opposite in the end.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• “Mr. chair. Ministers. Denmark has set the ambition of becoming independent of fossil fuels by 2015. And that's a very, um, admirable object. But we need to think about it being done to the detriment of social justice in the environment. Um, future that's decarbonized is not one that's not going to cost much. We need to think about what is going to be a real energy policy looking at wind turbines, will, that really shows us that there is a technology that's being condemned and it's just an aside in this long process. We think that it's only going to survive if you have subsidies. But after 30 years of development, this sector is far from being independent. The state continues to subsidize them, and it's subsidizing the costs and the risks as well. Now, since that is not constant energy, then Denmark is having to buy energy from its neighbors in the evenings, for example. And that is more polluting energy, for example. That's coming from Germany. And it means that there has been an agenda dictated to the commission, and the countries then are paying a high price for that. Our elites have never been as disconnected from the ground as they are now. They are building all of these things along our coasts, and it means that we are having higher needs, and that is going to have an impact on our debt, and we're going to have to triple capacity by 2050, and that's going to be imposed on France. And that means that the taxpayers are going to have to pay 300 billion more, and they're going to have to pay for something that's more and more polluting. So, ministers, do you think that your choices in terms of renewables are really going to guarantee energy security and energy that's affordable for everyone? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Colleagues, today we are examining the implementation of the VB ng in areas beyond national jurisdictions. No one here disputes the need to protect marine biodiversity. But transposing does not mean over implementation. We need to think about how we apply this treaty. There could even be new invasive species here. This is over bureaucracy, and this is something that we're seeing in all of these directives. This proposal increases the number of checks and so on. On marine resources are companies and fishers, and researchers are going to have to fight with lots of paperwork whilst their American and Chinese competitors don't have to do anything and have a much wider, more competitive scope. The commission Is interfering with member states sovereignty by stepping up these procedures when it comes to potential disputes. So France, which has the second largest marine area in the world, will have to ask for permission from Brussels to protect its own waters. That's really absurd. Even more absurd is that the countries with no access to the sea will have the same voice as France. It's also allowing a lot of different types of public to be involved, opening the door to lots of NGOs. Europe doesn't need another directive, it just needs one. Instead of dealing with bureaucracy and so on, it's not protecting biodiversity, it's actually drowning in its own.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Commissioner. You're responsible for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the EU, and a lot of countries have stable and Available energy. Nuclear energy as well as the low carbon industry. This is a good way of decarbonising the heavy energy. That's also what we call pink hydrogen. But nuclear hydrogen is not being financed by the EU. The rest of hydrogen is getting support. This is an anti-nuclear lobby in this country. And it's very serious blow to our energy independence. Just looking at renewable hydrogen is a one way street. We need to invest in nuclear energy. We can't wait for 2028. Can you make sure that nuclear hydrogen can be subsidised? And if so, are you going to have another look at the The calculation method in 2026 to 2028. Our industry needs to be able to plan ahead. Thank you.”
  Low-carbon hydrogen
• “My colleagues are to take the floor instead of another colleague who is not able to make it. I've been asked to ask two questions. The EU has been at the cutting edge when it comes to mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases. Gases. But this is making the European Union much less competitive. And for European companies and citizens, how does the presidency plan to tackle these challenges? Secondly, what is the most important measures to put in place to promote the circular economy within the European Union? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “My colleague Monti I am replacing my colleague. In Rome. They had a saying and we should refer to that with the European Commission. They have tried to put a excessive bureaucracy on this text. Recently, thanks to the omnibus on due diligence and reporting, we have saved our companies from this danger. And the mitigation measures for SMEs and Asmcs is vital in terms of technological innovation and the GDPR. The changes to the battery are very welcome, but once again, this will lead to failure because we are punishing companies, we are trying to protect the environment. This has led to outsourcing and loss of essential knowledge. Our European companies are seeing that innovation train go by and their competitors are smiling in glee. You have created a regulatory machine that is rolling over European companies. There is a level of bureaucracy that is almost absurd. There are more and more obligations and bans without thinking about what happens on the ground. Those who innovate think we, our group, the Patriots, want to say stop to this regulatory craziness.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, doctor. France, Europe. They have the best agriculture system in the world. But we have European overregulation. And we have free trade area agreements being signed without enough democratic oversight. In Europe, ideology has become more important than science. 89 substances have been replaced, but we have disappeared from the market without being replaced. At the same time, the EU decided to outsource food safety to Brazil, for example, where we can have sugar that's produced using 30 substances that are banned here and no tariffs paid. So substances that are banned in the EU come in through imported foods. Well, there's good sense for you. Now. The new regulation on food security and safety doesn't seem to provide the progress we wanted, because certain substances are judged on a case by case basis by the Commission as being hazardous, are still being used elsewhere. There's nothing on unfair competition. There's nothing on food safety. There's an inherent contradiction. Instead, either these substances are dangerous, in which case there should be a full ban from production to import, or they're not, in which case our farmers should use them. So what criteria is the commission going to use to classify substances as hazardous? What criteria are used to say that substances are considered to be hazardous here? And what are we going to do about MLS when it comes to food is food products. Are we going to see case by case derogations for strategic products? Thank you.”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Madame Commissioner. Last November, we voted the omnibus package, which is to reduce the European monster, as it were. This was a major political move. Now, for ages we have been inundated by forms, rules and regulations increasingly complex. Everybody said that this was for the future, and it had nothing to do with populism. And having insulted us now, the commission is saying that there is a lack of competitive edge, that there is too much admin when compared with the Chinese and the Americans. So the omnibus is just a first step in the right direction, generally speaking. Um, we see that, um, when some individuals get annoyed about a proposal, this is actually a good sign. And this is the case now. But these these provisions should never have been adopted. We are faced with a ferocious world competition. We need to support biofuels and biorefineries, which are the future. The EU should defend our industry and our and our economic weight. But you're availing of this opportunity to introduce new restrictions, very often without a proper impact study. So all of this gives us the impression that the Commission doesn't want to give up anything that the companies, the companies we meet know this. The Green Deal still remains untouchable, and so much so that the commission is refusing to include the regulation on the restoration of nature or the directive on wastewater. They haven't been included. Now, we wanted this omnibus to be a turning point. We wanted to do away with all sorts of useless legislation, but it's just bandaging the wound.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “President, colleagues, as we have heard, the EU is one of the main markets and transit areas for trade in these species. This is destroying entire ecosystems and also strengthening international crime. Signed in 73. 33. It aimed to make a flourishing trade illegal and that has then saved species. But what we can see in the EU is that illegally caught species are still being traded in the EU, and this is happening above all online. So trafficking is still a low risk activity, but one that's very profitable. And yes, we need to step up checks and sanctions and cooperation with other countries. But we need to do this very carefully. We shouldn't be introducing a punitive ideology where humans are just predators to be condemned. We need to work at local level. We need to give the customs officers the measures they can apply, and we need to protect the living world.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “Chair. Minister, it's a pleasure to see you here in this committee. You are ideology free in your presidency, and we think you can reshape environmental policy. Realism is vital, and yet we see it all too rarely in European politics. Proof of that are the major challenges we've imposed upon ourselves here. I'm talking about the Green Deal, which is a milestone dragging us down, and it will only make our competitors smile. But that's not all. In February, the commission said that it wanted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. Von der Leyen reiterated this in her July speech. So that would be a disaster for industry. And what about the issue of carbon sinks and fossil fuels? So what about these extremely binding targets? Are they actually realistic? And what will Hungary's view on these targets be in council? Let me also stress the important role of nuclear energy in our energy mix as we decarbonise on our continent. And we saw the OECD meeting, which brought together some 20 countries in favour of nuclear, which is a low carbon energy. We need to end our ideologies and we need to embrace technology such as this one. Minister, good luck for your presidency. You can count on our support and solidarity.”
  Energy (green transition) · Nuclear energy
• “Ladies and gentlemen, technocrats, what on earth have car drivers done to you that you are so horrible to them in. Even in Germany there are pulling the alarm bells. And obviously it's a good news that when Berlin speaks, then von der Leyen listens. There are thousands of jobs that have already been lost, of factories which have been closed down, and entire families are, uh, have nowhere to go. Taxing is what we keep talking about, but we need some common sense and that this commission has no common sense at all. You're attacking car drivers because you're obsessed with a green dream of a world with no factories and no cars. But that's actually a nightmare. We need to become a power that produces at once. Is von der Leyen has gone. We will become a power again. And the sooner that happens, the better.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Once again, we are looking at a text which, under the pretext of transparency, is pulling more power to Brussels, taking it from our nations and our enterprises, undermining competitiveness. We seek to evaluate chemicals more simply, more effectively. But it is simply a more complex situation, thought up by the bureaucrats divorced from reality in Brussels who've never set foot in a factory. Our systems entrust the and the commission. A disproportionate power to collect data without any real political oversight. Thousands of SMEs in chemists in the chemical and pharmaceutical sector will have to assume additional costs in the context of accelerated deindustrialization and runaway energy inflation costs. The non-inclusion of the social and economic impact is something that constitutes a real crisis, a real nonsense indeed for our sector, while at the same time our chemical sector moves into crisis. It's shrunk in the two by 2.4% in 2025, hasn't returned to pre-COVID levels. So while Chinese and American companies seek to benefit from these situations. So what's the EU doing putting further burdens on this sector already crushed by rules. What we have is something that falls far short of promises to reduce the regulatory burden, something that we're certainly seeing the impact of in France. And the Commission will be imposing obligations to deliver their research, which is a real risk because it means that their confidential information might be revealed to competitors. Again, a real economic disadvantage. So what we have here is a perfect illustration of the EU's failures. Rather than coordinating a way out of excessive bureaucracy and public spending, we find ourselves in this situation moving away from common sense and supporting our European enterprise and people. Thank you.”
  Chemicals regulation
• “Thank you. I'm replacing my colleague Anne Sophie Fragou and reading out her text. Dear colleagues, this regulation is destined to fail. Over the years, the commission has put in place targets for rolling out e-vehicles that are completely unlinked to the market. Today, things are clear. Demand is not in line with this. And rather than questioning this, the commission has adopted a new approach. Since citizens aren't buying enough e-vehicles, they're forcing companies to do so instead. Now in principle, we don't stand against decarbonization of corporate fleets, but we need to stay rooted. The targets that are laid out are too high for zero emission vehicles. They go far beyond what exists in member states today, including France. So we must lower these because we can simply set targets in European regulations to transform the reality on the ground. This lack of understanding is flagrant when we look at some cars. There's no offer, and there are significant limitations, especially for SMEs and logistics companies. They're simply not using their vehicles to meet the statistical targets laid out in Brussels. Rather, they're using them to work. The same is the case for the rental companies, especially for short term rentals where e-vehicles, they're simply not set up for that. For tourism, for business travel, our electric system simply isn't set up for this. So this will simply increase costs, and this will be passed on to companies and to drivers. Furthermore, if we're talking about this made in Europe approach, let's be serious. The potential aims for made in Europe vehicles would benefit the European industry, European workers, and the European value chain. They'd affect all companies tied to the EU via trade agreements, and that doesn't make sense. Let's adapt these aims to the reality. That's the solution to make us more competitive. Rather than forcing this transition down the throats of our companies, our businesses, and our citizens, Brussels needs to actually respond to the needs of our automobile industry.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Thank you. Dear colleagues, as we come up to MBP 84, European Union is actually making its maritime transport more fragile. We've already taken decisions that have consequences. Ets maritime, whereby carbon quotas have to be bought and that's expensive for operators. And that has got worse since full entry into force of the regime in January. And then you're suggesting 14.5% carbon tax in the future. Very, very ambitious targets when alternative fuels are still rare, costly and technologically uncertain. Result explosion of costs, hundreds of thousands of euro per trip, increasing pressure on the competitiveness of our fleet and ports. And yet the IMO is already thinking new international constraints, including an international emissions tax. In other words, first of all, you have overregulation and then we'll have extra regulation on top. So that's a double penalty. On maritime transport. The consequences can be seen. Between 2023, 25 European ports lost 11% of their market share. Obviously that benefits non ETS ports and means more circumvention. What a lot of hypocrisy. We're not revising or reducing your world emissions, just European ones. So considering the geo political context this is irresponsible. When is the revision going to review the situation and recognize that ETS leads to market distortions penalizing the competitiveness of European ports?”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Chair, ladies and gentlemen, European Commission, apologies but you really do have short memories. In two thousand and eighteen Manuel Barcon, who is of course much loved here, had the wonderful idea of imposing a new tax on the French population in a country that was already destroyed. Forty-eight percent of death—I was talking about the carbon tax—which caused six months of protests in France and caused great concern to those in power. You seem to have forgotten about that because you're going to impose in twenty twenty-seven the same thing but with an incomprehensible acronym, which of course is there to cover the sinister effects of ETS two. We see a new European regulation which has come directly from the Green Deal and will threaten the most vulnerable households. ETS two imposes a new tax on CO2 which will cause a mass increase in fuel prices at the petrol pump—that's twenty-three cents more per liter. So that's several hundred euros more per year, and there's eighty percent of the French population which uses the car every day to go to work and can't buy electric cars; they don't have the money. There's going to be an increase of one hundred and thirty-three euros per milliliter of domestic fuel. How can you persist in adding yet another tax which will cause a massive increase in energy bills for the most vulnerable populations? And you're going to wash your hands of all of this. You are in an ivory tower; you are a long way away from all of these concerns that are being raised at a national level with your retrograde ideology. After the most recent European elections, of course we should be talking about the Green Deal in the past tense. We need to have a majority and we need to build a Europe which actually serves people. Thank you.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, Brussels claims that it can make Europe fly higher. At the same time, however, our industry is simply collapsing in 2050 EU industry will have to ensure that a minimum of 70% of its fuels will be sustainable once again. The Commission is insisting that Europe can become a power through regulation. What we forget, however, is that the key to our future is industry policy. Sustainable fuels are three times more expensive than aviation fuel. Only by producing massive amounts of hydrogen and nuclear power can bring costs down. Let's abandon this green ideology. These are just concessions made to Germany, where we abandon our nuclear industry by introducing more intermittent renewable fuels. Moreover, what about the Cap, which is faced with this disastrous Mercosur agreement? And the commission is destroying the French sugar beet industry, which is unbelievable, since we need these crops to produce biofuels. At the same time, we need a serious, ambitious industrial policy, something which isn't tainted biology, something which is rather rare in Brussels.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “The European Union wanted to be an environmental example, but it's becoming an industrial graveyard. We haven't reduced, um, pollution. You've just moved it elsewhere. And with it, our jobs and our factories. Trees are a carbon footprint has not reduced because we've never imported more from the most polluting countries, and that doesn't provide any more affordable energy. The European Union refuses to recognize nuclear as a clean energy and imposes imposes disastrous, um, choices on energy, for example, 42% renewables by 2030. Um, this is a schizophrenic, and we were the first to say this. The EU does everything it can to silence those who speak out against Brussels Orthodoxy, and including Madame Le Pen, who is bravely facing up to the judicial ruling in France. Um, but please keep in mind that we will get there. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”
  Nuclear energy