Raquel GARCÍA HERMIDA-VAN DER WALLE

Policy topics Raquel GARCÍA HERMIDA-VAN DER WALLE is active on

What Raquel GARCÍA HERMIDA-VAN DER WALLE has said (80)

• 2026-07-13 “(16:43:16 - 16:44:17): Gracias, presidente. Thank you. Looking back on the votes from last week, I think that it's very clear that aside from the protection of the end-to-end encryption, which was also an amendment from renew and very dear to a large majority of this parliament, I think that we can also conclude that four amendments which didn't make it through the threshold of the absolute majority, there was also a clear majority. In my view, even though I'm not directly involved in the negotiations, I think that this is something which should be really, really clear to the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs to take on board for the next round of negotiations. I would also like to support colleague Sipo in having the utmost urgency for the reinstatement of the meetings and the rescheduling of the meetings because we cannot wait and our citizens do not want to wait on a framework which protects our children and also protects our privacy, which is not the case with the extension of the interim derogation. Thank you.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• 2026-07-13 “(17:34:59 - 17:36:12): Thank you, chair. Thank you, director, for your very clear presentation and also for your very clear answers to the questions. I have a reflection and a question in it. We all, of course, have already codified what terrorist content online is. But it seems to me, according to your report, but also reading documents by Eurojust, for example, that there's a very big gray zone. There is hate speech, and there are other forms of content which form the feeding ground for terrorism down the line. I was wondering if Europol has any thoughts on how we could better codify that at European Union level because I see as a very concerning development also in this house that whenever we try to do that, whenever we try to act against what you mentioned yourself, the algorithmic amplification, then we are accused by some groups in this house of being against freedom of speech. I think that we have to be very clear that there is no freedom of speech in saying something online or spreading something online which is the feeding of terrorism down the line. Thank you.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-07-13 “(16:29:57 - 16:30:47): Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you to Mrs. Vilmes, Sophie, for your work as Chair of this group. I have a comment, maybe a question. I don't know if the group has reflected on it. You had a lot of exchanges on Greece. I have been looking with and following with some concern the developments on the matter of immunities when it comes to high level corruption in the country. This has been also widely reported. I think that's also the work of EPO has to remain independent and be allowed to go on unhindered. We are seeing some worrying developments there when it comes to Greece. I was wondering if this has been also a subject of your discussions and if there's anything that you would care to share with us on that point. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-07-08 “(15:11:16 - 115:11:55): Next year, the so called regulation will enter into force for automated data exchange of d n I DNA profiles, fingerprints, and number plates of vehicles of criminals. Your country, Denmark, cannot participate in this system and will not be able to exchange data of criminals with other countries. How do you think Denmark can stay a safe country without these key instruments if it keeps the opt out on justice and home affairs? Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-07-08 “(15:12:51 - 15:13:26): Thank you so much for your answer, and I really appreciate your service as a police officer also having worked, in a in a border region. But the whole point here is automated data. When a criminal is crossing from, say, Germany into Denmark, if you cannot have access to automated data exchange, then it's impossible for you to know what purse what that person has done and why it might pose a risk to your country. So wouldn't you want to solve that by being part of plumb regulation and other parts of the justice system of the unit the European Union? Sorry.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-07-08 “(14:54:07 - 14:55:25): Thank you, chair, commission, colleagues. Everyday, our, police, forces fight against international, drug, dealers, And we find drugs as hidden in the most unlikely, places, and we see a lot of intimidation going on. And the fight against this, problem meets, mid obliges us, to be firmer and more intelligent in our approach. We need to think less nationally, more European. We also need more resources and more possibilities for Europol with more operational people on the ground, and we need more investment in innovations such as artificial intelligence and drones. 2, we need an ambitious European anticorruption strategy. Without corruption, there is no trade in drugs. 3, we need to dare to invest in prevention in our neighborhoods too so that we can stop vulnerable childrens children from being, recruited. This isn't a Netflix movie. We really need to act in more than a cosmetic way.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-07-08 “(14:56:18 - 14:57:03): Obrigada, Colega, Oliveira. It's get hijacked all the time in this house by those who wants to put every single fault on a single country or a single group of people. To me, it's really important to understand that drug trafficking is from all times. Colleague, Terje, will remember that in Spain, the country that I come from originally, we had huge problems with, drug gangs in Galicia, and they were all homegrown. They were not coming from outside the European Union. They were Spanish homegrown. In The Netherlands, we see criminals that are international but also homegrown. And in other countries, we see the same. So it's really important that we take this as the problem that it is and not try to make it into a different problem which citizens are not particularly interested in. Yeah.”
  EU policy on criminal justice
• 2026-06-24 “Thank you chair. Thank you. Commissioner Virkkunen Executive Vice President, I would say for your intervention today. Very happy to hear that you also have consideration for the situation with regards to energy use by data centers, and to look at a bit more coordinated approach. My question, however, is not about that. I would like to support all of the questions posed by colleague Briquemont on the issue of spyware, and I'm also very happy to hear you say that media freedom is a cornerstone of our democracies. And it is. We agree, and that's why the pay gap report included recommendations to ensure that spyware cannot be used in the way that it's being used still by governments that are, in principle, functioning democracies within the European Union in a way that should not be allowed. So I found your answer, I'm sorry to say, a bit too conservative and disappointing. So I would like to repeat the questions about the implementation of the recommendations of the pay gap report and what we can expect from the Commission. Thank you.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware
• 2026-06-24 “Thank you, chair, and thank you to all of our speakers this afternoon for your interventions. I'm sorry that I had to step out for for a moment, but I wanted to ask particularly, uh, Doctor Atrey And uh yeah, Doctor Trey basically. And also from the European Network Against Racism on your perspectives on the backsliding of standards that we are seeing in these institutions. And I'm referring very specifically to the backsliding of standards here in the European Parliament. Um, not only what we all witnessed last week, which was bad enough, but also in plenary debates, in committee meetings and all sorts of outings in this House, which makes me think about the point that you made about the institutional component of anti-racism. And I would really appreciate your reflection on how we can combat this from this house. And if you have any good suggestions for us as as MEPs, thank you so much for your contribution.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2026-06-24 “(12:23:38 – 12:23:53): and thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for being here again. I will keep it very short. We know that there are issues with the differences in how criminal organizations are treated, across the union in different member states because of clarities in the definitions. What is your experience and how should”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-17 “(09:58:44 – 09:59:21): Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleague Niebler. It must be that I'm sitting in an EPP chair today, but I was really inspired by your colleague, Weber's, words this morning because he said Europeans are asking us to provide security, yes, also against China, and enlargement contributes to that security and '29 by '29. So my question to you is, do you think we can achieve that security in that position without reforming and getting rid of the right to veto in the European Union, and will you join us in that fight? Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-03-12 “Answer given by Mrs Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission 3.6.2026 Written question As established by the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is for the national courts in the national procedure that gave rise to the preliminary ruling to apply the interpretation of the Court of Justice. In the context of preliminary rulings, there is no formal correspondence comparable to Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union between the Commission and the Member States whose national court raised the question. As noted in the LGBTIQ+ [1] Strategy 2026-2030 [2] , EU free movement law, particularly Directive 2004/38/EC [3] together with fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights [4] , upholds the right of all EU citizens and their family members, including same-sex spouses and partners and their children, to move and reside freely within the EU. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is committed to ensuring the proper application of EU law, including EU free movement rules and relevant judgments of the Court of Justice. In addition, the Commission not only monitors the individual Member State’s compliance with the judgment but also ensures that all other Member States equally apply the standard set by the Court of Justice [5] . To that end, the Commission published, in December 2023, guidance on the right of free movement of EU citizens and their families [6] , which provides for the necessary clarifications on specific issues that have been identified when applying EU free movement law, including with regards to rainbow families, and building amongst others on the Coman and Others [7] and Stolichna obshtina, rayon "Pancharevo" [8] judgments of the Court of Justice. [1] Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, non-binary, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) people. [2] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/lesbian-gay-bi-trans-and-intersex-equality/lgbtiq-equality-strategy-2026-2030_en. [3] Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj/eng. [5] 2022 Commission Communication on ‘Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers’, page 7. [6] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/guidance-right-free-movement-eu-citizens-and-their-families_en [7] Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others , C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385. [8] Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2021, Stolichna obshtina, rayon " Pancharevo ", C-490/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008.”
  EU competences on human rights · LGBTIQ+
• 2026-02-19 “E-000716/2026 Reply The conclusion of a bilateral “Enhanced Border Security Partnership” (EBSP) with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was announced by the US as a new requirement for all countries participating in or aspiring to join the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) in February 2022. The US requires operational EBSPs to be in place by 31 December 2026. The background to this is the fact that visa reciprocity with the US is in the EU’s interest, and that each country is in a position to set the criteria enabling individuals to enjoy visa-free access to its territory. On 16 December 2025, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on a framework agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the exchange of information for security screenings and identity verifications relating to border procedures and applications for visa, together with negotiating directives. The Decision and negotiating directives demonstrate the European wish to continue to move towards full visa reciprocity with the US. At the same time, they reflect the Union’s interests and the principle of reciprocity: the Framework Agreement would also enable EU Member States to receive information from the US for the security screening and verification of the identity of persons travelling to the EU’s territory. In line with the Decision, negotiations are conducted in consultation with the competent Council preparatory body and subject to any guidance which the Council may subsequently issue to the Commission. All relevant considerations are taken into account in that context. This will also be the case when examining any Commission proposals at the next stages in the process provided for by Article 218 TFEU.”
  Privacy & law enforcement · Asylum & border control
• 2026-02-19 “P-000713/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The decision to enter negotiations with the US was taken by the Member States on 16 December 2025 when the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a framework agreement between the EU and the US on the reciprocal exchange of information for security screenings and identity verifications relating to border procedures and visa applications 1 , and appointed the Commission as the EU negotiator. Key priorities for the Commission during these negotiations are to ensure a fair, reciprocal and proportionate information exchange which would bring security benefits to the EU and ensure respect of EU’s standards on the protection of personal data. The visa waiver reciprocity is a principle under the EU's common visa policy and an objective which the EU pursues in a proactive manner in its relations with third countries – including the US. As long as the Commission continues to see sustained progress through its engagement with the US, it considers that full visa reciprocity for all EU nationals can be best achieved through continued diplomatic cooperation with the US, and in close coordination with the Member States concerned. 1 Council Decision (EU) 2025/2640: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2025/2640/oj/eng.”
  Asylum & border control · Privacy & law enforcement
• 2026-01-20 “E-000213/2026 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission Member States can introduce border controls at their internal borders under certain conditions as set out in EU legislation. The Commission is working closely with all the Member States that currently have internal border controls in place, as well as with the Member States affected by the controls. The criteria applied by the Commission when assessing notifications of temporary reintroduction or prolongations of border controls at internal borders are those provided for by the Schengen Borders Code 1 as amended 2 , which applies uniformly in the Member States concerned. The Commission services are in the process of assessing the notifications of all reintroductions and their prolongations which have been notified to the Commission. In the framework of this assessment, the Commission services take into account the reports submitted by those Member States pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Schengen Borders Code. According to the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code, the conclusion of these assessments should take the form of Commission opinions. The Commission will act in line with its obligations under the Schengen Borders Code. These opinions will be issued to the Member States concerned. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1. 2 Regulation (EU) 2024/1717 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. OJ L 2024/1717, 20.6.2024.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-11-19 “E-004605/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the severe accidents and increasing criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles in some Member States, especially involving certain types of fireworks that are intended to be used by authorised persons only. The Commission has recently completed its evaluation 1 of Directive 2013/29/EU on pyrotechnic articles 2 and a study on the criminal misuses of pyrotechnic articles 3 . Based on the findings from the evaluation and the study, the Commission is currently considering potential follow-up measures. The Commission is in close contact with Member States authorities to understand their concerns and learn more about existing national initiatives. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2025)268&lang=en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013L0029, OJ L 178, 28.6.2013, p. 27. 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8c60b929-ba34-11f0-b37f-01aa75ed71a1.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · EU policy on criminal justice
• 2025-11-11 “P-004474/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission EU law on asylum and return requires an individual assessment when examining an application for international protection and deciding on the issuance and enforcement of a return decision. These decisions need to comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the respect of the principle of non-refoulement as well as relevant EU and national jurisprudence. It is the responsibility of the Member States’ competent authorities to carry out an individual assessment in all cases, taking into account all facts and circumstances, including relevant jurisprudence. In joined Cases C-608/22 and C-609/22 1 , the Court of Justice of the EU held that, when carrying out an individual assessment of the application for international protection of a woman of Afghan nationality, the competent national authorities are not required to take into consideration other factors particular to the individual’s personal circumstances. EU law on asylum and return establishes that the third-country nationals concerned can appeal decisions related to asylum and return and that the enforcement of return decisions must be suspended when there is a risk to breach the principle of non-refoulement. The Commission is not empowered to intervene in individual cases of application of EU law or implementation of Court’s judgments. The Commission may only act in case of a general practice of incorrect application of EU law in the Member State concerned or a problem of compliance of national legislation with EU law. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62022CJ0608.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-10-17 “E-004101/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission Media freedom is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and a fundamental right in the EU, and therefore a crucial element and prerequisite of Serbia's EU accession process. As a candidate country, Serbia is expected to create an enabling environment for media freedom that safeguards independent journalism and ensure that freedom of expression can be exercised without hindrance. Moreover, Serbia is expected to align its legislation with the EU acquis, including the European Media Freedom Act 1 , which provides unprecedented safeguards for media and journalists against political interference, ensuring editorial independence which is a key requirement under the Regulation. In both the 2025 Rule of Law report 2 and in the 2025 Enlargement Package 3 the Commission has outlined its concerns about the worsening situation facing journalists, media professionals and outlets in Serbia and the chilling effect the recurrent statements by high-level officials are having on freedom of expression and the work of journalists. The Commission has been consistent in calling for the attacks on journalists in the context of the protests to stop, including reported cases of police involvement and verbal attacks from high-level officials. The Commission will continue to monitor these issues in the context of the EU accession process and the annual Rule of Law report. Through the Instrument for pre-accession assistance, the Commission has provided more than EUR 9 million to support independent and professional media outlets as well as media associations supporting the rights and safety of journalists and an enabling environment in Serbia. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1083. 2 SWD(2025) 931 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025SC0931. 3 SWD(2025) 755 final, https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6e68ce26-b95b-48e1-921ac60c12da8f00_en?filename=serbia-report-2025.pdf.”
  EU-Serbia relations · EU relations with Western Balkans
• 2025-10-03 “P-003882/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is in contact with the authorities of Member States concerned as well as with other public and private actors and has received letters and complaints from citizens about difficulties due to the reintroduction of internal border control. The Commission is aware of the negative impact of reintroduced control on cross-border travel and regions 1 . The revised Schengen Borders Code 2 obliges Member States to consider the impact of reintroduced control on cross-border travel and regions. Article 26(1)(b)(ii) obliges Member States to carry out the assessment of the likely impact of a reintroduction on the functioning of cross-border regions, with a reassessment required for prolongations under Article 26(2). Article 26(3) obliges Member States to ensure that a reintroduction is accompanied by mitigating measure. Member States must notify to the Commission the areas of their territory considered to be cross-border regions 3 . The Commission started to include visits to the internal borders where control has been reintroduced in the framework of the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism 4 . The Commission has not yet visited the Dutch-German border but remains in close contact with both authorities. Between April and July 2025, the Commission held a consultation process with Member States that had prolonged internal border control and those directly affected, paying specific attention to the control’s impact and mitigating measures. The Commission is now assessing the arguments put forward by the Member States and will fully comply with its obligations under the revised Schengen Borders Code. 1 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU Border Regions: Living labs of European integration, COM/2021/393 final. 2 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1–52, as recently amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1717. 3 List of cross-border regions referred to in Article 42b of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code); OJ C, C/2025/4643, 18.8.2025. 4 Council Regulation (EU) 2022/922 of 9 June 2022 on the establishment and operation of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013; OJ L 160, 15.6.2022, p. 1–27.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-09-16 “E-003558/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission As highlighted by the EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA) presented by Europol 1 , powerful criminal networks infiltrate EU economies and societies across borders, exploiting differences in national laws and procedures. To combat criminal infiltration, the Commission recognises the clear added value of the administrative approach, whereby local authorities use the administrative tools at their disposal to prevent and disrupt crime. In line with the ProtectEU Strategy 2 , the Commission therefore continues to support the wider application of the administrative approach in the EU. As criminal networks operate across borders, EU responses must increasingly do so as well. As part of the preparation of the new rules against organised crime announced by ProtectEU for 2026, the Commission will explore possibilities for measures to combat criminal infiltration, examining a variety of options. Already, recent EU legal instruments provide for penalties against legal persons, including criminal or non-criminal fines and other penalties or measures, such as the exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid, from access to public funding, and from tender procedures, grants, concessions and licences 3 . In addition, the Commission supports the EU Network on the Administrative Approach to facilitate the exchange of best practices and promote the development of the administrative approach. In line with the Council Conclusions on the administrative approach to prevent and fight serious and organised crime 4 , Member States are encouraged to stimulate, support and facilitate, as far as possible, activities concerning cross-border multi-agency cooperation with administrative and law enforcement authorities. 1 https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU-SOCTA-2025.pdf. 2 COM/2025/148 final. 3 For example, cf. Article 7(2) of Directive 2024/1203/EU on the protection of the environment through criminal law, OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj. 4 https://administrativeapproach.eu/sites/default/files/page/files/eu-jha-council-9-10-june-conclusionsadministrative-approach-org-crime.pdf.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2025-08-25 “E-003286/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission Since the Spanish Royal Decree 933/2021 entered into application in December 2024, the Commission is in an active dialogue with Spanish authorities, which is a standard procedure when compliance of national laws with EU law is at stake. In meetings with Spanish authorities, it became apparent that the exact scope of the obligations imposed on accommodation service providers, online platforms and rent-a-car companies is not completely defined by the Royal Decree, and will be further specified in a Ministerial Order, which is currently a draft. In this respect the Commission recalls that Spanish authorities published the first draft of the Ministerial Order on 26 October 2024 1 . Following public consultations and discussions with the Commission, the Spanish authorities are now revising the draft. The Commission keeps the dialogue with Spanish authorities open, including on the practical functioning of the Royal Decree 933/2021. The Commission is closely monitoring the revisions of the Ministerial Order and its adoption process, before deciding on next steps. 1 https://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/pdf/servicios-al-ciudadano/participacion-ciudadana/Participacionpublica-en-proyectos-normativos/Audiencia-e-informacionpublica/20_2024_Proyecto_Orden_desarollo_RD_933_21_Registro_Documental_Hospedaje.pdf.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• 2025-08-14 “E-003241/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is currently evaluating the implementation of the Regulation establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) 1 , as provided for in Article 119(1) thereof. The evaluation aims to assess whether the EPPO Regulation is achieving its intended purpose in an effective manner; it will also consider the coherence, relevance, EU added value as well as the efficiency of the EPPO and its working practices 2 . To the extent possible and without prejudice to the Better Regulation’s requirements, the Commission will endeavour to adopt the evaluation report before 1 June 2026. Following a study commissioned in 2022 3 , the Commission engaged in bilateral exchanges with Member States on the implementation of the EPPO Regulation. In this context, the Commission services requested clarifications from the Greek authorities on the matter raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission is carefully assessing the Greek authorities’ reply in order to decide on the appropriate follow-up. At this stage, the Commission cannot comment on any possible future proposal to amend the Regulation, as the evaluation is ongoing and will need to be followed up by an impact assessment. In its 2025 Rule of Law Report country chapter for Greece 4 , the Commission reported that efforts are under way to ensure that the judiciary is more involved in overseeing the immunity regime for members of the Government. 1 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, pp. 1–71. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14308-European-Public-ProsecutorsOffice-EPPO-evaluation_en. 3 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/events/details/study-presentation-compatibility-ofnati/20240118EOT08142. 4 SWD(2025) 908 final https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/f2eb4e57-317a-4be4-8baab667c9f801d9_en?filename=12_1_63944_coun_chap_greece_en.pdf.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2025-08-12 “P-003224/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. On 28 July 2025, the Commission adopted a new confirmatory decision C(2025) 5429, implementing the judgment rendered by the General Court in case T-36/23 on 14 May 2025 to which the Honourable Members referred. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to this decision publicly available on the Electronic Access to Commission Documents Portal 1 . This decision explains why the text messages in question did not fulfil the registration criteria set out in the Commission rules for communication to be registered and kept. These rules were established long before the submission of the respective request of access to document. 2. It is not possible to ascertain this, as the records management system of the Commission does not identify whether the form or typology of a registered document was an instant text message. 3. The Commission rules on records management and archives (Decision (EU) 2021/2121 2 ) aim at putting in place a complete and effective document management system. In this connection, these rules provide registration criteria which are the necessary tool for the Commission to first identify, then archive and finally retrieve in a fully reliable manner the documents that are held by the Commission, because they have an importance for its functioning and the implementation of its policies, thus ensuring that the overall system remains manageable and under control. The cited judgment of the General Court in case T36/23 did not put into question the Commission’s registration policy for documents including text messages. Therefore, the Commission considers that its rules on records management and archives are fully in line with the requirements of the Regulation on public access to documents. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-request/search/document-details/16708. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2021/2121/oj/eng.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-05-21 “E-002017/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission National authorities, like the Dutch Personal Data Authority, hold the primary responsibility for compliance with EU law, including the General Data Protection Regulation 1 and the Law Enforcement Directive 2 . The Commission is responsible for ensuring the application of EU law and can take action only in case of systemic implementation issues, not individual cases. The Commission takes note of the concerns referred to about the accuracy and legality of data in Dutch police databases and the potential impact on European police cooperation. As part of the broader ProtectEU Internal Security strategy 3 , which aims to enhance security and ensure the effective implementation of EU law enforcement cooperation, the Commission will continue to support efforts that strengthen data protection, interoperability, and mutual trust between Member States. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. 2 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89–131. 3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on ProtectEU: a European Internal Security Strategy, COM/2025/148 final.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2025-05-08 “P-001856/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission In its notification of 25 April 2025 on the prolongation of border control at internal borders the Dutch government has informed the Commission that it is minimising the impact of internal border controls on cross-border traffic as much as possible by conducting them in the form of risk-based spot checks. The Commission remains in close contact with the Dutch authorities to ensure that this remains the case. The Commission has not received signals to the contrary. As regards the assessment of the controls’ necessity and proportionality, the Commission will fulfil its obligations under the revised Schengen Borders Code 1 and assess the arguments put forward by the Netherlands in this regard. In line with the revised Schengen Borders Code, the Commission will now initiate a consultation process with the Member States given the recent notification of a prolongation of the Dutch internal border controls. Importantly, a reintroduction of internal border control does not affect the right to free movement of EU citizens as they continue to have the right to enter and exit another Member State freely upon presenting a valid identity card/passport and as long as they do not pose a threat to public policy, internal security or public health, as set out in Directive 2004/38/EC 2 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1–52, as recently amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1717. 2 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77–123.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-03-20 “E-001190/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The work of civil society organisations (CSOs), including those defending the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or queer (LGBTIQ) rights, provide an important contribution to partner countries’ reform efforts, including in view of their accession to the EU. Respect for human rights is an essential value upon which the EU is founded (Article 2 of the Treaty on EU). Also, judiciary and fundamental rights are at the heart of the EU accession negotiations 1 . The Commission thus expects candidate countries to uphold these values, adopt and implement legislative reforms to that end. This notably includes ensuring that institutions promoting and protecting human rights and non-discrimination, such as equality bodies, are given the means to operate effectively. The Commission supports civil society and media freedom in the Western Balkans and Türkiye through the Instrument for Pre-accession, which for 2021-2027 earmarked circa EUR 470 million through dedicated programmes, namely the Civil Society Facility 2 and the Media Programme. CSOs in the region can also benefit from funding under the Thematic Programme on Human Rights and Democracy 3 under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe. These programmes provide essential support and contribute to countering the rhetoric in the region against human rights, democratic values, rule of law and free independent media. The Commission is actively monitoring the impact of the United States (U.S.) Agency for International Development’s withdrawal and broader international U.S. support, to identify critical needs in the region. The global scale of the challenge requires a collective response beyond the Commission. The Commission will continue to support the LGBTIQ community and human rights defenders, while reinforcing its political dialogue with enlargement partners. The Commission will renew its efforts to advance LGBTIQ equality, through the adoption of a new LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2026-2030. 1 Revised enlargement methodology. 2 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/policy-highlights/civil-society_en. 3 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/peace-and-governance/human-rights_en.”
  EU competences on human rights · LGBTIQ+
• 2025-03-12 “E-001080/2025 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission acknowledges the challenges faced by EU external border regions, including by outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, Mayotte and French Guiana. The Commission supports these regions with several EU funds, such as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), and encourages the relevant Member States to ensure that this funding addresses the challenges in those regions without unnecessary administrative burden. The co-legislators did not introduce subnational allocations within the Regulation (EU) 2021/1147 1 (AMIF) nor in the Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 2 (the Common Provision Regulation) laying down common provisions on EU funds, including AMIF. The Commission is not planning to propose a revision of the criteria for the allocation of funding at this stage of the programming period. Member States are duly informed and, when relevant, involved in the migration dialogues with third countries, notably in the framework of relevant Council meetings. It is the responsibility of Member States to involve external border or outermost regions in the preparatory works for such dialogues. 1 OJ L 251, 15.7.2021, p. 1-47. 2 OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159–706.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2025-03-05 “E-000922/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission The Commission will continue to use all the means at its disposal to ensure the correct application of EU free movement law, including addressing specific difficulties preventing LGBTIQ people and their families from enjoying their rights. In each specific case, the Commission makes use of the tools considered most effective for ensuring the protection of rights. The Commission has been raising awareness about the Coman judgment 1 (C-673/16) since its delivery by the Court, and has been monitoring its implementation in all Member States, in particular through discussions in dedicated fora. The Commission is in contact with Romania regarding its application of EU free movement law. While the impact of the provisions of national law under discussion may be greater for rainbow families, they have a broader scope and must be addressed in their entirety. The Commission understands that a draft legislation relevant to these discussions is currently under discussion in the Romanian Parliament, and will continue to closely monitor the developments. The Commission is also closely monitoring the implementation of the Mirin judgment 2 (C4/23), delivered on 4 October 2024. The Commission contacted Romanian authorities in February 2025 inquiring about the measures to be taken in that regard. A reply is still pending. 1 C-673/16, Coman, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385. 2 C-4/23, Mirin, ECLI:EU:C:2024:845.”
  LGBTIQ+ · Jurisdiction conflicts between EU and national courts
• 2025-02-10 “E-000591/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission In the 2024 Rule of Law Report’s country chapter for the Netherlands 1 , the Commission referred to the ongoing discussion in the Netherlands on the procedure for appointing members of the Council for the Judiciary and court management boards. The Commission continues to follow the developments in this respect in the context of the preparation of the 2025 Rule of Law Report. As recalled in the 2024 Rule of Law Report, procedures for the appointment and dismissal of judges and the powers and composition of Councils for the Judiciary are important in safeguarding judicial independence, based on the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Also, European standards have been developed by the Council of Europe on how the Councils for the Judiciary should be designed to best safeguard their independence, including as regards their composition. The preparation for the 2025 Rule of Law Report is ongoing, based on a well-established methodology 2 and on a continued dialogue with the national authorities and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/3a411497-b5f1-4b49-8d6a1a01220453c8_en?filename=44_1_58073_coun_chap_netherlands_en.pdf 2 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e80a08e9-a5cd-4100-833df87548004226_en?filename=2024%20Rule%20of%20Law%20Report%20-%20methodology.pdf”
  Rule of law and democracy in the EU (political compass) · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• 2025-02-05 “E-000520/2025 E-000540/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s adequacy decision on the European Union-United States Data Privacy Framework 1 is based on Executive Order 14086 (EO 14086) adopted by the President of the United States 2 . This Order introduced safeguards to ensure that the collection and use of personal data of Europeans by United States intelligence agencies is limited to what is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of defined national security objectives. Moreover, the Order established a Data Protection Review Court, with binding investigatory and remedial powers, to which European Union citizens have access. EO 14086 continues to be in place and to provide key safeguards to data transferred from the European Union 3 . The Commission is closely following the developments concerning the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, to which the Honorable Members refer in their questions. The Board has been established by a law adopted by Congress providing that it is composed of five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate 4 . It also requires bi-partisan membership as no more than three members can be of the same political party. The Commission will continue to monitor relevant developments and assess their potential impact. As for any adequacy decision, the Commission has the power to propose its suspension, amendment or repeal if it concludes that the required level of protection is no longer ensured. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/fa09cbad-dd7d-4684-ae60-be03fcb0fddf_en 2 Executive Order 14086 on ‘Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities’. 3 Its requirements and safeguards have also been recently assessed in the Commission’s report of 9 October 2024 to the European Parliament and the Council on the first periodic review of the functioning of the adequacy decision on the European Union-United States Data Privacy Framework COM(2024) 451 final: https://commission.europa.eu/document/25695177-8073-4ce3-bf81-eb816dc6b468_en 4 https://www.pclob.gov/OversightProjects”
  Privacy & law enforcement · EU-US data transfers
• 2025-01-10 “P-000078/2025 Answer given by Mr Kubilius on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not have any official information of an agreement and cannot comment, as a matter of principle, on a purported agreement between a Member State and a commercial satellite network operator. The EU strives for leadership in strategic technology and to boost its tech sovereignty. It is at the discretion of Member States to determine how to manage their national secure communication and the degree of reliance on non-EU solutions. As far as exchanges of EU classified information between the Commission and its Member States are concerned, these must comply with the security requirements set in the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 1 . The Commission cannot speculate on the characteristics of a hypothetical procurement for which specific elements are conjectural. Any procurement falling within the scope of the EU Financial Regulation 2 is subject to the relevant provisions of the EU procurement rules stated therein, depending on and in accordance with the specific elements of the procurement in question. The objective of the EU’s secure connectivity programme infrastructure for resilience, interconnectivity and security by satellite (IRIS²) established in Regulation (EU) 588/2023 3 is to provide secure connectivity services to the EU and its Member States, as well as broadband connectivity for governmental authorities, private companies and European citizens, while ensuring high-speed internet. The IRIS² infrastructure is expected to be operational by 2030. In the meantime, in line with the Space programme regulation 4 , the Commission is currently deploying a pooling and sharing scheme of governmental satellite communications. 1 Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information. 2 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general EU budget. 3 OJ L 79, 17.3.2023, p. 1-20. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/696/oj/eng”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure · EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2024-12-18 “E-003029/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission shares the concern about the increasing and often severe accidents with pyrotechnic articles, many of which involve illegal and criminal use of fireworks. The Commission is currently evaluating the Pyrotechnics Directive 1 to identify any shortcomings. Following this evaluation, a decision might be taken to revise the Directive after assessing the respective impacts of possible ways of amending the Directive. 2. The Commission is closely following the implementation of the recently introduced PyroPass in Benelux as a possible means to improve legal trade of pyrotechnic articles. The EUwide introduction of such system may be considered for the revision of the EU rules. 3. The evaluation of the Pyrotechnics Directive is still ongoing. The conclusions are expected to be published in second quarter 2025. As regards potential legislative follow-up measures, please see the reply to the first question. In addition, the Commission has launched a study to assess the feasibility of the potential options to tackle the growing security problems posed by the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles which aims to provide a more detailed picture of the security issues linked to pyrotechnic articles. To note that the criminal misuse of pyrotechnic articles is also at the attention of Europol. 1 Directive 2013/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/29/oj”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards · EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2024-12-16 “E-002954/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission 1. Evaluating the current EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) Regulation 1 before proposing further amendments aligns with the better regulation agenda. Evaluations aim to help learn about the functioning of EU interventions and assess their performance against initial expectations. An evaluation takes a critical look at whether EU legislation is fit for purpose and delivers its intended objectives at minimum cost. That approach would enable the co-legislators to take better-informed decisions regarding the strengthening of Europol’s mandate. 2. The Commission acknowledges the importance of timely evaluations of the legislation in force. The new proposal to strengthen the mandate of Europol will build on the evaluation of the current Europol Regulation as well as an impact assessment and a consultation with stakeholders, the European Parliament and Member States, that will include a public consultation. The Commission will therefore consider anticipating the evaluation report to the European Parliament pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Europol Regulation, as amended in 2022 2 , and adopt it before 29 June 2027. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53114. 2 Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role in research and innovation, OJ L 169, 27.6.2022, p. 142.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2024-12-13 “E-002939/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission supports the principle of integrated policy making, also referred to in Article 3 of the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) 1 . As stressed in its Communication on a Common Implementation Plan for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the Commission encourages Member States to engage and make use of local and regional authorities and other stakeholders, through regular exchanges and consultation 2 . The template for the National Implementation Plans, annexed to the Common Implementation Plan, includes a section on governance and interinstitutional cooperation also for this purpose. For details relating to the different elements of the Pact of relevance to regional authorities, the Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its forthcoming reply to the Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum 3 . The Commission is in regular contact with various stakeholders in relation to the implementation of the Pact. This also includes representatives of regional authorities where relevant or requested. The Commission monitors the Common Implementation Plan and the National Implementation Plans, based on its responsibilities under the AMMR and will regularly report to the European Parliament and Council on the state of play. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1351/oj/eng 2 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/common-implementation-plan-pact-migration-and-asylum_en 3 https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions/cdr-2717-2024”
  Asylum & border control
• 2024-12-03 “P-002733/2024 Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission Promoting the rich cultural diversity of Europe is a key work strand of the EU. The Commission is fully aware of the importance that citizens give to this subject. The 2024 Eurobarometer on ‘Europeans and their languages’ showed that 85% of the citizens considered that regional and minority languages should be protected. As regards the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Commission has no role in the implementation of that Charter. It is for the Council of Europe to monitor compliance and provide guidance in view of ensuring that the members fulfil their obligations under the Charter. The Commission’s Communication in reply to the Minority SafePack initiative 1 considered that no further legal acts were necessary, since the full implementation of legislation and policies already in place were sufficient to support the initiative’s goals. Also, the Commission has no competence on the regime governing the use of regional or minority languages in Member States. The Commission is committed to promoting linguistic diversity and is funding projects with this aim through the Erasmus+ and Creative Europe programmes. Some examples can be found in the 2024 publication ‘Linguistic diversity in the European Union’ 2 . The Commission is also continuing its cooperation on this subject with the Council of Europe’s European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML). The Horizon Europe programme also provides research opportunities in relation to cultural and linguistic diversity, in particular under Cluster 2 ‘Culture, creative and inclusive society’. Several relevant projects are ongoing. 1 https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2017/000004/minority-safepack-one-million-signaturesdiversity-europe_en 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d325c589-011a-11ef-a251-01aa75ed71a1/language-en”
  EU and national cultural identities · Engagement of Romani communities in Europe
• 2024-12-03 “E-002732/2024 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission In line with the EU strategy for Syria (2017) 1 the EU has maintained a principled and pragmatic approach, refraining from normalising relations with the Assad regime. As part of its continued implementation of the EU strategy for Syria, and with a view to continue to best use the range of EU tools, the European External Action Service and the Commission took note of the proposals by Member States, both in writing and in the context of relevant Council working groups, but also widely consulted implementation partners, the United Nations (UN) family, civil society and other stakeholders. In the current context, it is essential for the EU to support an inclusive Syrian-owned, Syrianled transition and to continue to monitor the situation on the ground as well as, in coordination with UN agencies, to continue to evaluate the conditions for safe, dignified, voluntary returns to Syria following the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance, knowing that the situation remains very volatile. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-strategy-for-syria.html?fromSummary=28”
  Asylum & border control · EU relations with the Southern Neighbourhood
• 2024-11-18 “E-002561/2024 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The European Anti-Fraud Office’s (OLAF) final reports are subject to the rules of confidentiality, professional secrecy and protection of personal data under Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 883/2013. The Regulation does not grant to a person concerned the right of access to OLAF’s case file including the final report. OLAF may only grant such access to the relevant parts of a final report where the Director-General has recommended a judicial follow-up to its investigation under specific conditions laid down in Article 10(3b) of that Regulation. The Commission has at its disposal a number of tools to protect the financial interests of the EU and its budget, namely, interruptions and suspensions of payments; as well as financial corrections in the event that a Member State has not fulfilled its obligations to investigate and correct irregularities. The contradictory procedure is on-going in the current case and is confidential until it is completed. Where OLAF transmits information to EU or national authorities for further action and those authorities decide to proceed against the persons concerned, it is for those authorities to give access to the final report under their own procedural rules.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Environmental crimes and justice · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2024-11-15 “P-002554/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s Common Implementation Plan (CIP) specifies that ‘as provided for in the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation and the Asylum Procedure Regulation, each Member State shall, with the support of the Commission and relevant EU bodies, offices and agencies, establish a National Implementation Plan setting the actions and the timeline for their implementation by 12 December 2024 based on the present Common Implementation Plan’. To ensure Member States meet this deadline, the CIP mentions that ‘The Commission invites Member States to share their draft plans by October 2024 to ensure a dialogue on the needs and resources available for timely finalisation by 12 December 2024’. The Netherlands submitted a draft National Implementation Plan on 31 October 2024 and a final version on 6 December 2024. The Commission remains in close contact with the Dutch authorities as regards its decision to reintroduce border control at its internal borders. The Dutch authorities have assured the Commission that internal border control will take place based on risk assessment and in the form of spot-checks, limiting the impact on cross-border traffic and the functioning of crossborder regions as much as possible. The Commission has emphasized that this type of checks may in any case take place in the form of police controls under Article 23 of the Schengen Borders Code 1 insofar as they do not have an effect equivalent to border control. In any event, border checks at the internal border do not call into question the right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the EU, including the right of Dutch citizens to travel to other Member States, under the conditions set out in the Free Movement Directive 2 . 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1–52. 2 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2024-10-31 “E-002378/2024 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission While Türkiye remains fully responsible for the situation and management of removal centres, in line with international and European standards, the Commission and the EU Delegation to Türkiye regularly carry out monitoring missions in the reception centres receiving EU financial assistance. The focus of the monitoring missions, which must be announced in advance, is on the delivery of EU-funded supplies and the efficiency of assistance provided. The findings of these missions, as well as the allegations from the press about the situation in the reception centres, were shared with the Turkish authorities in order for them to carry out investigations and take corrective measures where needed. The Council of Europe Special Rapporteur on Migration and Asylum 1 reported that EU financial assistance has contributed to improve the physical and material conditions in the reception centres. Respect for international and human rights law, including the principle of non-refoulement, are embedded in EU policies. The Commission remains firmly committed to these principles in the framework of policy dialogue with Türkiye and is monitoring very closely the human rights situation in the country, including the situation of refugees and migrants. 1 https://rm.coe.int/report-of-the-fact-finding-mission-to-turkey/1680a4b673”
  EU-Turkey relations · Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid · Asylum & border control
• 2024-10-17 “P-002140/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is in regular contact with the Dutch authorities on aspects related to migration management, on the implementation of the Pact for Migration and Asylum 1 and returns. The information announced in the media has not been part of a discussion between the Netherlands and the Commission. In general, it is possible for the EU and the Member States to cooperate with countries outside the EU in managing migration. It is important that this is done in full respect of EU and international law. Currently, the Return Directive 2 enumerates exhaustively the conditions under which a third-country national with no legal right to stay in the EU can be returned. The Commission is currently working on a proposal to revise the legislative framework on returns with the objective of increasing the effectiveness of EU return procedures. In parallel, the Commission and the Member States continue to pursue efforts to improve cooperation on readmission with third countries. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to ensure that EU law is applied correctly across all Member States and has the prerogative of taking action against any breaches to maintain the integrity of the EU legal framework. 1 https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-andasylum_en#:~:text=The%20Pact%20on%20Migration%20and%20Asylum%20is%20a%2cresults%20while%20 remaining%20grounded%20in%20our%20European%20values 2 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98–107.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2024-10-14 “E-002064/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner On behalf of the European Commission In implementing its migration programmes, the Commission relies on the cooperation with several partners, including Member States’ agencies, international organisations and nongovernmental organisations. One of them is the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), an entity that was assessed ex-ante (pillar-assessed) in line with EU law 1 , and which has a track record of expertise. The pillar assessment contributes to ensure that entities entrusted with the implementation of EU funds under indirect management respect the principles of sound financial management, transparency, non-discrimination and visibility of EU’s actions. The activities implemented by ICMPD and funded by the EU budget are regularly monitored based on contractual clauses, which entitle the Commission to suspend or terminate any contract if there is evidence that obligations have been breached. The monitoring takes place through multiple channels, such as reporting, verification missions, results-oriented monitoring exercises, and external evaluations. ICMPD provides comprehensive and frequent monitoring and analysis of the operating environment, including the evolution of the human rights situation. The Commission is working to enhance transparency by increasing the availability of information on the websites of the relevant Directorates-General. The Commission systematically publishes reports of strategic evaluations and has now also started publishing reports of evaluations at intervention level 2 . Evaluation reports of projects managed by the ICMPD could also be published in the future, under the established procedure for this type of publication. 1 Article 154 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1046/oj), and Article 157 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj). 2 https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/monitoring-and-evaluation/project-and-programmeevaluation-reports_en”
  Asylum & border control · Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• 2024-07-16 “P-001361/2024 Answer given by Ms Ivanova on behalf of the European Commission Member States are responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems as well as their cultural and linguistic diversity 1 . Quality and inclusive education is a priority of the European Education Area (EEA) 2 . The EEA strategic framework working groups 3 have enabled mutual learning on practices addressing different forms of discrimination including racism and territorial inequalities. Since the Minority SafePack Initiative 4 , a wide range of other EU measures have contributed to the goals of the initiative. Erasmus+ 5 has been funding numerous projects on the protection and promotion of regional and minority languages. In 2024, the Commission published a brochure with examples of inspiring projects 6 . The Erasmus+ online language support 7 for participants and beneficiaries includes resources in Basque, Catalan and Galician. Creative Europe 8 and Horizon Europe 9 also support linguistic diversity 10 . The Commission cooperates with the European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe on such matters. A colloquium on strengthening support for regional and minority languages was organised in 2023 11 . A repository of best practices is currently under preparation. 1 Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 2 Council Resolution of 26 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030) (2021/C66/01): https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32021G0226(01) 3 https://education.ec.europa.eu/about-eea/working-groups 4 http://minority-safepack.eu/ 5 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/ 6 ‘Linguistic diversity in the European Union. Examples of projects supporting regional and minority languages: compilation of projects co-funded by the Erasmus+ programme and Creative Europe’: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d325c589-011a-11ef-a251-01aa75ed71a1/languageen/format-PDF/source-316533029 7 https://academy.europa.eu/local/euacademy/pages/course/community-overview.php?title=learn-languagebasics-with-online-language-support 8 https://culture.ec.europa.eu/creative-europe 9 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe_en 10 Project on safeguarding endangered languages in Europe is ongoing: ‘RISE UP – Revitalising languages and safeguarding cultural diversity’, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101095048 11 https://www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/ECML-ECCooperation/Colloquium2023/tabid/5664/Default.aspx”
  Role of education (social change vs. tradition) · EU and national cultural identities
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Dear President Costa, in the words of California Governor Gavin Newsom, it's time to buck up and have a backbone. And growing a backbone will take more than words, even though I do appreciate Commission President von der Leyen saying yesterday in Davos, nostalgia will not bring back the old order. And that is why I would like to remind you and all of us in this House that the United States is currently threatening Europe of getting rid of the visa free travel to the US if we don't give them free access to our biometric police databases. And why on earth is the Commission going along with this? And why did the member States approve a mandate to negotiate with the US on this in December, when we could all see the direction that things were taking? The Commission must put all negotiations on this matter on hold. We will not be blackmailed. Thank you.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• “My colleague will go into that, but especially in Afghanistan, we have had obviously a very clear example very recently with the treatment or mistreatment, I would say, of the of the victims of the earthquakes. And I think that's something that should encourage us to act very quickly. I will also conclude my remarks with a call to our member States of the European Union to respect the verdict of the European Court of Justice on the issue of Afghan women who ask for protection in the European Union, and that on the basis of their gender, they should be allowed and granted that protection. We know that the verdict is being seen as problematic in a number of member states, and I think that we, as European Parliament, should always, always remain at the side of the courts. And they have been very clear on this point. So again, thank you so much for being here today with us, for informing us. And please know that we are on your side. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you to the rapporteur, Mrs. Hohlmeier, for for your work on this discharges. Uh, we, um, approved the discharge for the agency for Women's Rights and Gender Equality. Um, um, and, uh, the voting session last week with a big majority. I just wanted to say that there has been a lot of consensus about the good work of the agency. Again, in 2024. Um, I would like to remark that Iger has been having troubles with both inflation and long standing underfunding, which has put increasing pressure on the budget and has reduced the operational capacity, which has caused the agency to be chronically understaffed and under financial strain. And this is being made worse because we are increasing the number of tasks and obligations that we are demanding from, from this, from this agency. Um, often linked to the implementation and monitoring of newly adopted EU directives. Uh, we noticed that there is, uh, a call for increased funding and staff for agar in line with the this technical rising technical requests and higher operational costs. And we are very clear in our call for the Commission to propose the necessary resources for the agency to be to to be able to fulfil its task. I just want to be very, very specific because we have a very good, um, idea of what's needed. We're asking for a 17% increase in its current establishment plan to account for the need for at least five additional temporary agents post and four additional contract agent posts, as well as dedicated posts for cyber security, data protection, and implementation of new legislative obligations. And I would also like to note on behalf of the Committee that I guess continues 95% budget execution of its work program and achievement of targets in the period 2024 2026. Despite understaffing and the well noted by the rapporteur high carry overs. So again, we would like to, um, to to ask for a lot of attention for this fundamental agency in ensuring that gender equality is taken on board on all areas of EU work. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chair. Madam Prime Minister, I fully agree with you. The European Union should have security and competitiveness as priorities. But there will not be real security as long as foreign governments can corrupt our public officials. And there will not be competitiveness in a corrupt system. And that is why we need a strong anti-corruption directive and it is a disgrace that member States are blocking this at this moment. They are playing political games in a dirty tit for tat. If you support my opposition to an anti-corruption directive, I will support your opposition to better green legislation. We cannot allow this to happen. Citizens are watching, and I hope. I really hope that under your leadership, the Danish presidency will manage to convince member states of the need for a new anti-corruption directive. I wish you all the luck. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you to all of our speakers and guests for your presentations. I would like to ask a question to the Commission specifically about the use of cohesion funds, regional funds to aid or support Roma communities. Roma communities are very much under-represented in decision making in the countries where they are present. And we know that in the regions where they are very, very well represented in the citizenship that they, um, they are not getting a fair share of a regional funding or it's not being used in a very effective way. That's what we have also heard from the Roma organizations themselves. So I was wondering if you could give any information as to how you plan to address this in the next cohesion policy cycle. Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you very much indeed, chair. I'll be speaking Dutch. We have interpreters, so here we go in Dutch. I think it's important to say thank you to those who put forward this initiative. Uh, an excellent, um, initiative. It really is impressive how minority regions in regional minorities really do bring themselves together for these 50 million Europeans. We're talking about a huge amount of people in the EU that belong to these regional minorities and national minorities or linguistic minorities. So it's important to show that this is an important initiative and hope that the commission will take this seriously. The Minorities Safe Act, uh, hopefully they will push things forward. It's important to remember this because we know that in the EU there is a dissatisfaction about How EU funds are being distributed, especially in regions where you have linguistic minorities. These are often forgotten by the regional national authorities. And there is important what we heard from colleagues today from Mr. Marcus MP. We really have to say that cohesion funds these monies should be shouldn't be put into national envelopes. I think that would lead to further discrimination of regions where you have these regional, regional minorities, linguistic minorities. So hopefully in this will be right at the top of our agendas in the different committees. But thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Gracias.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Back to Dutch. Thank you for this time. And thank you for allowing me and others. Other colleagues to take the floor more than once. Doesn't happen very often in the European Parliament. So very many thanks. Back to the question of linguistic minorities. This is not just about cultural diversity, but also about rule of law. There are member states that have committed themselves to protecting linguistic minorities, but they're not doing that And that's not just a national problem. It's also a European problem. We have member states that have not stuck to their own legislation. It's important to highlight this in the framework of what we have in the Netherlands with Frisian, where I'm from, Friesland, where the Dutch state hasn't complied with the requirements they've committed to when it comes to protecting the rights of individual friesians. Especially when it comes to court cases. If people have to go to the courts and I think the commission knows about this problem, but is doing far too little, hopefully we can count on other colleagues to talk to our member state to remind them of their obligations to stick to legislation, a national and European level. Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(17:22:45 – 17:23:55): you. I just wanted to remind, mister Lopez Aguilar that I am a Dutch MEP and there were Spanish MEPs in the delegation. So, what was said here doesn't seem to be, appropriate. Thank you. And now, thank you for reacting to that statement from mister Lopez Aguilar. Article 56, 4 doesn't apply to this type of report. And when it comes to the mission itself, well, the socialist group did the SND group did participate. And just like what the culture said, when it comes to the conclusions of the report, they are well reflected.”
  Rule of law in Spain
• “Thank you Mister Boland for joining us today and congratulations on your election. I have to apologize, I came in a bit late when you were starting with your presentation but I would like to echo what the two colleagues have said already from the EPP and from S and D. I think for Renew it's very clear that the proposals of the Commission also in the new form we have, well, kind of received yesterday, do not meet the needs and the desires as expressed by this Parliament in the last few weeks. I heard you say that we need a revised code of conduct with possible sanctions in case of repeated noncompliance. That's something that we can definitely embrace. We have asked for it as well in our proposals. One other thing that we have asked is, and this is very relevant especially for civil society organizations, is to maintain the possibility for direct access. In the revised or the reaction from the Commission, they have some mention of direct access but put in like a sort of conversation with the Commission which does not meet at all the level of expectations that we have. Could you maybe go a bit more in-depth on the issue of direct access and why this is so important for civil society at this moment? Thank you so much. **Dragoş Benea (Romania, S&D) @Chair: Mister Vladimir Prebilis from Greece. **Vladimir Prebilič (Slovenia, Greens/EFA): Thank you very much for your presentation in front of you here. Sorry, okay. Thank you very much for your presentations. It was really nice to hear. We all have the impression that we are on the same side when we talk about the cohesion policy. Of course, there is a lot that we share in common but of course there is always, but we have three buts here that are really disturbing. One, as was already mentioned before by my colleague Marcos, is we really do not know how much money are we talking about. And on top of that, not only that amount of money is not clear, also the, let's say, expectations for what this money should be spent for are growing. So it's not only that we are talking about shrinking the amount of money but new tasks are being basically allocated. When we talk about cohesion, we have now defense, we have also now housing issues. So, you know, how can you do more with less? I know this is more a question for Wizard of Oz but nevertheless, you know, it's really difficult to handle that one. The second one is, as you also mentioned and stressed, is how to give the regions and municipalities, let's say, any kind of regional local authorities a safeguard when distribution of money under the NRPP is going to take place. You know, how to protect their voice. Now, we got from the Commission some, let's say, readiness if something can be done but I think, you know, since there is also a trust problem, we would need a really, let's say, rock-solid agreement to where the implications of regional and municipal authorities can get when we talk about the distribution of cohesion money. So this partnership principle, of course, is nice but we would need really to be clear where they are safeguarded. And the final thing is, you couldn't point it more loudly and this is, there is a so-called already existing geography of discontent. There is a big diversion when we talk about regions, when we talk about development and I think deepening these differences could be a death blow to the European Union as the project. Because if people are not being really treated equally and you said yourself nobody should be left behind, then the meaning of the European project could be questioned, already is questioned, but then could also disappear. So any way that, you know, that can help us to protect this development would be much appreciated. Thank you for your presentations again. **Dragoş Benea (Romania, S&D) @Chair: Thank you Mister Pravic. Miss Valentina Parisano from the Left.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much, chairman, for the invitation to be present here today in my capacity as the chair of the Afghanistan delegation of this Parliament. Thank you to our visitors, the speakers, the panelists for your very compelling presentations on the situation and why we as European Parliament should be taking action. Um, I think that it's very important to remark that taking action is not only speaking up, uh, about the situation, but also using parliamentary instruments to ensure that gender apartheid is recognized in international law as soon as possible. Um, I will be very happy to take along some of the recommendations and the and the calls that we have heard today in all of the work of the delegation of, of for the relations with Afghanistan, including upcoming proceedings on um, plenary debate and possibly a resolution in October. And I want to thank you also for presenting so vividly the effect of gender apartheid, not as a legal term, but as a lived experience as we have known in the past, to be in countries like South Africa, that we see the effects of gender apartheid in the daily lives of women and girls in Afghanistan, also in Iran.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for for presenting this also for the newcomers in this House. Thank you, Mrs. Sippel. We can we always appreciate the context information. My question is again about the quality of databases. Look, I am I really want member states to cooperate and share information. So my. It's not a problem of principle. I just see that there are still a lot of issues when we are talking about databases which are deficient and where incorrect information is stored. And in your previous answer to my questions, you said you would try to include some guarantees for the Enhanced Border Protection Partnership. But this is a different framework. And I asked questions last year to the commission. And the commission got back to me and said, well, this is a matter for member states. We take note of your concerns, but there's not much more that we can do. I think that's a very concerning state of affairs. I would like the Commission to, to take proactive action on this one because it affects us. It affects the the well, as it was said here for a different subject yesterday, the well of the quality of the information that we share as Europeans and that our enforcement agencies share. So on the matter of quality, there is a problem. But on the matter of fundamental rights, there is a problem because people can get into trouble because they are unfairly in a database with biometric data. Thank you.”
  EU digital travel & border-data systems
• “Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for for presenting this also for the newcomers in this House. Thank you, Mrs. Sippel. We can we always appreciate the context information. My question is again about the quality of databases. Look, I am I really want member states to cooperate and share information. So my. It's not a problem of principle. I just see that there are still a lot of issues when we are talking about databases which are deficient and where incorrect information is stored. And in your previous answer to my questions, you said you would try to include some guarantees for the Enhanced Border Protection Partnership. But this is a different framework. And I asked questions last year to the commission. And the commission got back to me and said, well, this is a matter for member states. We take note of your concerns, but there's not much more that we can do. I think that's a very concerning state of affairs. I would like the Commission to, to take proactive action on this one because it affects us. It affects the the well, as it was said here for a different subject yesterday, the well of the quality of the information that we share as Europeans and that our enforcement agencies share. So on the matter of quality, there is a problem. But on the matter of fundamental rights, there is a problem because people can get into trouble because they are unfairly in a database with biometric data. Thank you.”
  Privacy & law enforcement
• “Thank you colleagues, thank you to the ECA for presenting this very clear and quite negative report about the proposal of the Commission. A lot has been said already. I won't repeat that, but I will. I will say one thing, which is the partnership principle. And I want to to highlight this because since the first proposal or draft proposal was leaked almost two years ago, and in every single step of the way we have asked as renew Commissioner Fitto personally in person, one on one, in meetings at the Committee of the regions. In this Parliament. The partnership principle is not properly embedded in the proposal and there are no guarantees in time after time. Commissioner Fitto has told us you are not seeing it right. It is embedded and there are guarantees. And now we have the ECA telling us it's not properly embedded and there are no guarantees. So please, going back to what colleague Negrescu just said, the commission needs to come up with something else and something better. And Commissioner Fitto needs to start listening to this Parliament for a partnership principle is concerned. Thank you very much.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you so much, chair. And thank you to all the colleagues for expressing your support, both from from the team of, uh, of, uh, shadow rapporteurs and also outside. Um, I do agree that it is extremely important to make very clear what the public expects from us. It's something that I also expressed to the council, to the ambassador in the second trilogue. We will keep repeating this. Um, I think that, uh, that political message is going to be really important in the success of the, of the negotiations. So I think that that's a crucial element. Um, on the issue of, uh, the applicability of the directive to EU institutions, we know that this is a point where we need to find a solution and whether this would be in this directive and in which form, or we will have to keep working to address this matter in a different way, is something that I think that we all feel has the priority, and it certainly has my attention. And it's something that, um, that, um, yeah, it belongs to the things that I think that we should address in the, in the near future. Um, so I take that on board as well. Um, I cannot, I cannot not say this. I appreciate the input from all groups. I would also invite, like to invite all groups to if you have an opinion about this file, please participate in the negotiations because some groups are not very present, so it's very difficult for me to work with input from groups who are not present in the negotiations that I wanted to say as well. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. We have a huge problem. Last year in The Netherlands, some 1,500 attacks were carried out with fireworks. The young perpetrators were often children from difficult socioeconomic backgrounds, easy prey for organized crime. They are child soldiers. They are harnessed, they are used to intimidate others. They themselves face deadly threats. Rotterdam mothers were powerless last year, and this problem can be seen not just in The Netherlands but around Europe. And so we are pleased that the European Commission is looking to adapt the regulations governing fireworks, in particular illegal fireworks. We need to share information on illegal gangs, and we need to be far stricter when it comes to the online platforms turning a profit on the backs of young people being recruited into crime. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “The Ombudsman. Or woman in this case, in the previous case, is one of the biggest fighters for transparency in our union and more specifically, for the right to access public documents. And she has rightly pointed out that the commission president's deliberate deletion of text messages is a case of maladministration. I note in my conversations, and we have seen it very often in this Parliament that this has given munition to the extremes to come up with all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories, and this has unfortunately hurt the trust in the EU enormously. President von der Leyen has to understand that exercising the right to transparency by citizens, by civil society organisations, by journalists is not a threat. It's not a sign of mistrust that should be limited or thwarted. Proactive transparency is not a luxury. It is an opportunity, a necessity to show our citizens how we make decisions, to involve them, to regain the lost trust. Because cover ups and half truths rarely stand the test of time. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Comisario colleagues, the cohesion policy is a foundational policy for our union. We invest in our weakest link to create a stronger chain. All of our regions and all of our citizens should benefit as times change and new challenges arise. We want and need cohesion policy to adapt and modernise. We can simplify access to funds without lowering the standards. We can strengthen our European defence while investing in smaller companies and poorer regions. We can address one of the biggest concerns of the European citizens present here today, namely the housing crisis, and meet our green ambitions. Cohesion policy is valuable. Literally, it is the best ambassador of our values and the desire for an ever closer union. And therefore, we have to be fierce and ruthless in defending its foundation. Centralisation as proposed by the European Commission undermines these fundaments. In this Parliament also today has been very clear. Regions should remain at the core of this policy, and we need to ensure that not one single euro from European funds ends up in the hands of those who want to destroy the rule of law and our shared European values. No money to autocrats and their cronies ever. Cohesion policy is worth improving. An idea dear to all of us. A Europe that protects. Thank you.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Preventing corruption cases, we would also alleviate the burden on the competent authorities of the Member States to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate corruption offences in a later stage. My apologies to the interpreters. I'm coming to an end. We currently we are currently planning the next trilogue meeting, and in the meantime, the work goes on at a technical level. In general, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and satisfaction to work with the chair and this team of shadow rapporteurs, which has been a great pleasure so far, and I hope that we can maintain this good spirit until the end. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “No worries. Chair. Thank you so much. Thank you, commissioners, for being here tonight. Indeed. I am replacing my colleague who has just welcomed her first daughter and is recovering, and they're doing well, and she sends her regards. And, uh, the nicest having been said, I would like to to make clear what the position of renew team are is for the national and regional partnership plans, because as the Commissioner may be aware, we have been quite critical of this proposal from the beginning, but constructive, and we have tried to integrate our feedback in the new proposals. And it is it is quite disappointing that the feedback that we have delivered has not been taken on board, at least not fully. So I would like to repeat what our key priorities are to ensure that this investment policy delivers for our regions, and that we allow our citizens to keep trusting the Union on the ground, and to counter irresistible skepticism, which is one of the biggest concerns of our group. If we carry on with the experiment of the national regional Partnership plans the way they are. We would like to strengthen the regional dimension and the partnership principle.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Gracias, president. I will speak in English on behalf of our shadow rapporteur for the new, um, Mr. Jenkins. Um, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the draft report, which has already some excellent points. I agree with the position to introduce additional safeguards regarding data protection. I also support the deletion of travel data from the national database after a traveller has crossed the border. This is in line with the recommendations by the Edps, also in line with the Edps and data security. In my amendments, I will try to clarify the relationship between the European Digital Identity wallet and how digital travel credentials could be stored in there. Lastly, I want to avoid that this is yet another project which exceeds by far the proposed timeline for its implementation, as we currently see with the iOS. Hence, I want to introduce some provisions to allow for a close monitoring of the establishment of this application and the infrastructure around it. Overall, I think the digital travel application is a very good step in the right direction of making Europe more digital and traveling to and from Europe easier, faster and simply more convenient. Thank you.”
  Electronic identity
• “None of those goals can be met without social, territorial and economic cohesion. None of those priorities can be met without a strong cohesion policy. This regulation will therefore determine how we ensure that the EU budget is spent on issues that are critical to our citizens and how effective we are in doing so. And it will also determine how regular citizens can see and feel the impact of European funds close to home. The draft opinion aims to reflect the core issues that have been raised not only by our shadow rapporteurs, but also by a large number of stakeholders who have shared their views with me and my team. The expertise provided by the Secretariat has been invaluable and importantly, we have listened very carefully to the analysis and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors. We share the repeatedly stated opinion of the European Court of Auditors that the performance framework, as presented in the Commission's proposal is too fragile, relying largely on output indicators with insufficient focus on results. A more robust framework is one of the main priorities in the draft opinion. A more robust framework also means meaningfully integrating horizontal priorities such as gender mainstreaming and climate mainstreaming. Secondly, the opinion emphasises the need to safeguard the role of local and regional authorities in implementing EU policies and managing managing funds, and this is crucial to achieve genuine partnership and avoid unnecessary centralisation.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. Chair. That was not my argumentation because I appreciate every single thing that is done for women to become more independent. I am talking about all those men in Hungary who influenced by social media platforms which are totally out of control. Think now that women should be under their direct financial control. That's what I'm talking about. You are not responding to that.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “(17:11:32 – 17:15:04): Chair, I would like to start with a word of thanks, to the services of the European Parliament starting with, the Secretariat as well as our European Parliament office in Madrid, for the, the good care and for having arranged this mission in a very successful way. As the chair said, I would also like to start, before going on to the conclusions with and I read from the co chairs' report that we regret that key institutional actors, including the president of the government, the minister of justice, state owned enterprises, and the public broadcaster, were not able to meet and to engage with this mission. And I say this because I truly believe that such exchanges would have contributed to a more complete, again, I'm still reading for the from the co chair's report, and balanced assessment of the situation. I think that the, the mission, noted a variety of views expressed throughout, different stakeholders. And, I think that we also have to remark that we can conclude that there is a very lively debate in the Spanish society on topics related to the judiciary, to the fight against corruption, media freedom and non discriminations. I agree with my co chair that the discussions pointed out to a rule of law system that remains structurally sound and embedded in a mature constitutional framework, but marked by recurrent institutional tensions and political polarization. While Spain continues to perform comparatively well in successive European Commission rule of law reports, and none of the interlocutors suggested the existence of systemic backsliding across all of the, explored areas, we did observe a context of increasing political polarization, which is reflected in the institutional dynamics and legislative practices. We did see formal safeguards in place, but we also noticed and want to note and I want to note that these developments risk affecting the balance between institutions and consequently the effective functioning and perceived impartiality of the rule of law framework. In particular, as my Co Chair said, ongoing debates surrounding digital governance and institutional relations point to a growing tension that may undermine confidence in the neutrality and stability of the system. And then to end on a very personal note, I have really read very, many times the more than 28 pages of, tightly written handnotes that I took during the mission. And, I really think that 1 of the main takeaways is that in order for many of the reforms that have been, started in Spain but not completed, it will be necessary that different stakeholders keep voicing their views in the same way in openness, in confidence, in trusting, the institutions and other stakeholders as we heard in Madrid. So I also, think that, for me, 1 of the main takeaways of of of this mission is that the livelihood of the debate, while not having to turn into complete polarization, will be 1 of the key elements of, maintaining a strong rule of law system in Spain with open societal dialogue. Thank you very much. And again, thank you to my co chair for the pleasant collaboration.”
  Rule of law in Spain
• “Thank you. Chair. Merci. I was shocked to hear that in Trilogues, essential medication for women was simply dismissed as non-essential. And I'm talking about abortion medication. And this. While women in Europe still die today because of lack of access to safe abortion. Now, we could be solving this on a European level, and groups such as yours still refuse. Now your party leader, Marine Le Pen, supported enshrining abortion as a fundamental right. So I do expect you to vote tomorrow for the amendments which try to achieve this at European level. Could you confirm that you will do so? Thank you.”
  Abortion policy
• “Gracias, Senor president. Thank you. Commissioner. Um, I'm going to ask a first question about the use of, um, pyrotechnics or heavy fireworks by criminal networks to perform their criminal acts. That's a problem. Which started in the Netherlands but now has spread to other member states. I am very happy that you replied to my written question, saying that there would be an evaluation of the current legislation and a feasibility, or possibly a study of the situation. And my question to you about that matter is whether, um, you could give an indication of when the study will be finalised by DG home and we can expect the conclusions. But also, if you could commit to initiating quick legislative action at EU level, if the study indeed confirms that heavy fireworks are increasingly being used by criminal networks, this has been already signalled by Europe. Also in the last, last socta. Um, so I hope that this will be taken on by the commission. My second question is building up on something that you mentioned in reply to your to the question from the S&D colleague about third countries and return hubs. Um, our question is how will you be monitoring that situation when, for example, agencies like UNHCR are already being heavily affected by cuts? What are the mechanisms that the the European Union is going to put in place to ensure that the compliance with human rights, which you also mentioned, is going to be followed up thoroughly. Thank you.”
  EU policy on criminal justice
• “(16:57:07 – 16:58:15): you, chair. Thank you to the speakers for the very good presentations. I have, well, a comment and a question. My comment is we have read in recent years, in SOXTA analysis of Europol, also in the terrorist threat assessment, more recently in the impact assessment of the new proposal for against trafficking in illegal firearms. That's the issue of pyrotechnics and heavy pyrotechnics in the European Union is more and more a growing threat. I am very happy that the commissioner has announced the revision of the pyrotechnics directive. So my message to DG Home is to do this as soon as possible in 2027 so that we can avoid use by criminal groups, including hybrid threats. That's my comment. And my question is, is as follows. Hybrid threats has been identified by member states as something that they are not particularly happy to see included in a revision of the mandate of Europol is my understanding. And I was wondering if DG Home could reflect a little bit of this and if you see any room for maneuver there. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “I expected it. Well, this is not related to the election campaign, Mr. Berenson. But thank you. You talked about a future focused economy and, uh, economic power. Yes, we believe that's important. But do you also think that our regions have to be at the heart of these plans? And would you agree with me that the current proposal from the Commission on Reform of the MFF has kind of ignored, uh, the regions and that that should be put. Right?”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds · Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues, as just mentioned by the chair, I would like to give you an update on the last trilogue on the anti-corruption directive we had with the Polish presidency on the 26th of March. But if you allow me, I would like to start on a more personal note. Last week I visited the port of Rotterdam together with my colleagues Signor Ruotolo and Monsieur Lasserre, as part of the mission, and literally from every agency, authority and company that we spoke to, we heard about the importance of an effective, harmonized approach when it comes to preventing and combating corruption, as this is something that they encounter and have to deal with every single day. The word corruption was literally bold in every PowerPoint presentation we got, and this indicates a very strong anti-corruption directive is essential. And I will keep this in mind while negotiating this law further. Regarding the trilogue, it started with a more in-depth discussion about the offences. We explained to the Council that Parliament would like to see that everywhere in the Union, the same offences should be criminalised. Otherwise people or companies with bad intentions can still go to the Member States with the least strict rules on these offences, what we call forum shopping. The presidency understood this, but we but would still like to see some optional clauses, such as for certain offences in the private sphere and for abuse of of function in the public sector on some offences, such as misappropriation in the public sector and trading in influence.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “It's a much longer process, which is also what Mrs. Rep has has mentioned today. So I think that we have to, to reach a balance between what are informed assumptions that we can make on the final result of the interventions, but also not not letting us be too limited by that, because if we're waiting to see the results on gender equality of interventions now, in some cases it might be a question of a decade and we don't have that time to measure tracking to track and measure performance. So that's why we try to reach to to reach a balance there. And on the issue of annex one, um, and, and taking a closer look to the indicators, um, I think that's something that will come up during the negotiations, at least that's something that I expect looking at, uh, at your input. So I'm looking forward to that as well. Then going back to my role as chair, it's a bit difficult this today. Um, I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is the 21st of April, 2026 at 12 in the afternoon. The vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting on the 1st of September 2026. And with this, I would like to close this part of the session and we will go in camera. Go on in camera with the coordinators meeting. Thank you so much for this morning and see you this afternoon.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “President. Dear Commissioner. Colleagues. As Spanish by birth, I have experienced the transformative power of the cohesion policy of the EU, investing in every region so that every European has a fair chance at a better life. I have seen the importance as well of minority languages for your for your sense of identity. I'm a convinced European and I am convinced that we can do more for both of these things. We can strengthen our cohesion policy so that Europeans have the right to move around, but they also have the right to stay where they feel rooted, where they feel at home, and that the question of minority languages can be integrated in the legislation of the EU. Member states ought not to continue to ignore recommendations of the Council of Europe. If we were to integrate the conventions on minority languages and minority rights in EU legislation. The rights of minorities and cohesion should go together. So I call on the Commission to take our citizens concerns seriously.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Gracias, president. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Thank you to the commission for this presentation and for bringing forward a very much needed civil society strategy. And my, um, my compliments for for that. Um, before I go into my question, I would like to react to the colleague because from the Patriots, because she started by saying that this does not pertain organizations with volunteers volunteering their community. I would like to invite my colleague to talk to the people of Volunteer Europe, for example, who group all of these small organisations all throughout Europe who work with volunteers in their local communities, and they also receive funding from the European Commission. So please, colleague, inform yourself, because before coming here and presenting such accusations and now into my question, um, I would like to, um, to, to talk about money. And I would like to talk about civil society in the context of the next Multiannual Financial framework. Um, one of the things that is being introduced in the framework, which I applaud, is the possibility to recommit decommissioned amounts to support civil society organisations. Um, I would like to to ask the commission, how do you envision how this would work in practice and what would be the role of the European Parliament? Because while I acknowledge that this is a very good idea, I have some concerns about parliamentary scrutiny of this recommissioning of decommissioned amounts, if you follow me. So I would like to see strengthened role for the European Parliament, um, on this one. And, um, I also think that it's important that we look at simplification, uh, in applications to European funds for civil society organizations. We know that they encounter a lot of issues. So if you could reflect on on what can be done, that would be appreciated. It's not a core part of the civil society strategy, but I think the civil society strategy won't be successful if we don't make it easier for final beneficiaries to access these funds. Thank you.”
  EU engagement with civil society
• “More importantly, it is crucial for the effectiveness of our policies. Thirdly, we aim to make simplification a guiding principle of this regulation, but not as it is in the proposal simplification, mainly for the Commission and the Member States. The opinion calls instead for simplified and user friendly framework that reduces red tape for beneficiaries such as regions, SMEs and civil society organisations. We believe clear, proportionate and harmonised rules are essential to ensure legal certainty and facilitate efficient absorption of funds across all regions. Lastly, but crucially, parts of the Commission's proposal simply go against the principle of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law making, and this is something which absolutely must be corrected, because protecting our role as the European Parliament and for this committee is essential to ensure transparent and accountable policies which can stand public scrutiny. As your rapporteur, I cannot stress this enough. This regulation is one of the cornerstones of the whole building of the next multiannual budget for the European Union. We must get it right, and we only have one chance to do so. I know that the shadows share this urgency, and I look forward to your input now, as well as to the next few months of fruitful collaboration. Thank you so much. And I would like to give the floor now to the shadow rapporteurs to hear your perspectives. So first for the EPP, Madame.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Discussions are still going on and we need some more technical work in the upcoming weeks. We also had more general discussions on the penalties and limitations period, limitation periods, immunities and amnesties, and prevention on penalties and limitation periods. The Polish Presidency expressed a view that we should adopt the same approach as in the recently adopted Environmental Crime Directive and the Violation of Union Measures Directive. We, as Parliament negotiating team responded, however, that we cannot compare environmental crime to corruption as environmental crime often comes much earlier to the surface. Whereas corruption does not have a visible victim or visible effect directly and therefore requires a different treatment, both in the types of penalties and in the length of limitation periods. And this is something, by the way, which has been confirmed in conversations with prosecutors from member states. So they do see the need for a different approach. We do need to have a differentiated approach in criminal law among different instruments, and cannot just copy paste from previous instruments, was our message to the Council on Immunities and Amnesties.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “As we hear from a lot of final beneficiaries, and also a better usability of the available funds so that the oversight is is is better is organized better. And third and very important point is to maintain direct funding for local and regional authorities. And this will contribute to efficiency, to speed and to to avoid the risk of politicisation. We would also like to remind all of us that it is very important that we can include administrative capacity and support for administrative capacity or sufficient administrative capacity within regional funds, so that we can help final beneficiaries in doing the work that that we want them to do for our European goals. And I think that it's also or colleague thinks that it's also very important to make the MFF also in the field of cohesion policy, fit for private investors who want to invest in regional policy. I think that it's very good if if colleagues have read the report of the ECA on financial instruments on on regional policy and of course, always approaching this from the principle of respect for subsidiarity and the fact that we have to design cohesion policy with full consultation or involvement of the local population in defining the funding needs. It's very important that we do this with absolute respect for the rule of law and that by applying the rule of law principles very, very strictly, we avoid any politicisation in the distribution of cohesion funds. So thank you so much again and we look forward to the work ahead.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “(15:51:41 – 15:52:40): Thank you so much for your explanation. Thank you also to mister Ioannidis. I think it's really important that we keep insisting in legal pathways for migration, so I was very happy to to to hear you, put the emphasis on that. My question, however, has to do with something that a colleague from the left has already mentioned, and that is the invitation extended to the Taliban to come to Brussels, on short notice to discuss returns. You will be aware of the fact that the European Parliament, has, in a majority, rejected this meeting, condemned this meeting, and asked for no further legitimation. It's impossible to apply a European asylum pact when we are returning people to countries where are they are not safe and where the, regime is, abusing a significant part of the population, particularly women and girls. So my question is very simple. Are you going to listen to the wish of this European parliament not to engage with the Taliban on the issue of returns? Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Thank you very much, chairman. Since the debate is taking place in Spain, always about Spain, I'll continue in Spanish. I'd like to thank the commission for the answers that they've given as well as this. Initiative about trying to avoid these high risk of service suppliers here. I think what we're seeing with the case of major data transfers from tech giants from the United States, for example, to the US authorities. And there really isn't much clarity about whether or not these transfers contain personal data of EU citizens. Which is being transferred without taking into account the rules which exist on this. When we're talking about national security and privacy. Here we're talking about wiretaps, which, of course, is to do with our privacy and our fundamental rights. On behalf of my group, renew, I would like to call upon us to evaluate the different contacts or contracts that we have, rather, and what's actually going on when it comes to the United States and China, and I would call on all of the members to be very much aware of the slippage that's going on here and the fact that when it comes to defending European sovereignty on our technological independence, we should be careful.”
  EU-US data transfers
• “President. Yes, Europe has to change fundamentally, but let us not throw out the foundations of Europe with the bathwater. That foundation constitutes our solidarity. That means we're, as always, as strong as our weakest link and as rich as our poorest region. That's a very clear logic that is set out in the Draghi letter reports. The support for these regions, which are poorest for the EU, is at the lowest level. So cohesion policy is absolutely essential for democracy, democracy and safety. And it can contribute a great deal more to other strategic goals. But that's not going to be successful if we attack the mid-term review to try and get money from the poor regions, to move them to the rich regions. Yes, Commissioner. That's what I fear about this proposal, because that risk is clear and it does concern me. Let's build a strong Europe. Everybody wants that. But that can only be done if all of Europe is on board.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “We expressed the view that rules on lifting immunities are necessary to avoid impunity for the highest officials of a member state committing corruption. However, the presidency insisted that the proposed rules for lifting immunities would not align with constitutional limits and that also the proposed ban on amnesties for corruption cases as proposed by Parliament would not fit into the legal basis of this proposal and would raise questions on amnesties for other crimes. Also here, further work is needed regarding prevention. The presidency indicated that the legal basis for this proposal does not allow for harmonization of preventive measures, but only allows for minimum rules that are ancillary to the main objective of this directive, which is combating corruption. The more detailed provisions on prevention, the more difficult for Member States to organise this in their national system. So it should be left more free to the Member States. How to organise preventive anti-corruption measures. The ambassador mentioned although I realise that the quite rich Parliament's mandate on prevention cannot become the final law and we will have to reach a compromise, as said by the chair, we will have to find the right balance with the council and in this way, by preventing corruption cases, we would also alleviate the burden on the competent authorities.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law