Ignazio Roberto MARINO

Policy topics Ignazio Roberto MARINO is active on

What Ignazio Roberto MARINO has said (19)

• 2025-10-15 “E-004066/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The planned project 1 is to be situated in a Natura 2000 site, a Special Protection Area 2 designated under the Birds Directive 3 . The site is subject to conservation measures 4 . According to the Habitats Directive 5 , any project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of its conservation objectives. Energy installations are covered by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 6 , which requires Member States to ensure that projects likely to have significant environmental impacts are subject to an assessment, before authorisation. For projects listed in Annex II of the Directive, such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member, it is for the competent national authorities to determine 7 if the project needs to undergo an EIA. Moreover, the EIA Directive 8 includes provisions on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention including on transparency, public engagement and access to justice. Compliance with the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principle is a prerequisite for a measure to be included in a recovery and resilience plan (RRP) 9 . The Commission has assessed the Italian RRP according to the legal criteria 10 . It is for the Member State and local authorities to ensure that the DNSH requirements are respected in the implementation phase. Finally, compliance with EU law falls primarily with the national authorities, including judicial ones, who are better placed to assess individual situations and intervene if necessary. 1 Electrical substation consisting of a transformer with a capacity of 132/20 kV. 2 Bassa Valnerina: Monte Fionchi – Cascata delle Marmore (IT5220025). 3 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, pp. 7 – 25. 4 https://www.regione.umbria.it/documents/18/1623440/DGR_180-2013.pdf/5978acde-5cab-4db2-b819d07c197b3b62;jsessionid=BC92482745D20E92B2B8B5C5710EBF7E?version=1.0. 5 Under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 6 Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014. 7 On a case-by-case basis, upon examination or according to thresholds or criteria. 8 As transposed in the Italian law. 9 Article 5(2) of Regulation 2021/241 of 12 February 2021. 10 Criteria laid down in Article 19 of Regulation 2021/241.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• 2025-10-13 “E-003999/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ) annual concentrations in Ioannina have not exceeded the limit value set out in the Ambient Air Quality Directive 1 in 2024 2 , data for 2025 should be reported by 30 September 2026. However, PM 10 daily limit values have been exceeded in 2020, 2023 and 2024. The Commission will continue monitoring the situation and assist the Greek authorities in implementing the Directive. Urban development projects are listed in Annex II of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 3 . According to its Article 4(2), prior to granting a consent for such projects, Member States should determine whether an EIA is necessary, based on a case-by-case analysis or specific criteria related to the location, size or type of projects. Should it be concluded that an EIA is necessary, impacts on air quality must be considered. Projects included in Recovery and Resilience Plans are selected by Member States. National authorities are responsible for planning choices and preparation of projects, and they are also primarily responsible for ensuring that all obligations under EU law are met. The Commission’s role is to ensure that these plans align with the EU's overall objectives and meet the requirements set out in the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation, including the 'do no significant harm' principle 4 to the environment. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, it is primarily the responsibility of the Greek authorities to select the location of projects and ensure that they are developed in compliance with EU environmental law. Decisions taken in this context are subject to judicial review by national courts, who are the common courts of EU law and the best placed to adjudicate on such matters. 1 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, OJ L 152 11.6.2008, p. 1, as amended by Commission Directive (EU) 2015/1480 of 28 August 2015 amending several annexes to Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules concerning reference methods, data validation and location of sampling points for the assessment of ambient air quality, OJ L 226, 29.8.2015, p. 4. 2 according to the 2024 data submitted by Greece in September 2025. 3 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1–21, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18. 4 Commission Notice Technical guidance on the application of ‘do no significant harm’ under the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation 2021/C 58/01, C/2021/1054, OJ C 58, 18.2.2021, pp. 1–30.”
  EU policy on urban development · Air quality policy
• 2025-09-11 “E-003520/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In its judgment of 25 June 2024 in Case C-626/22 1 , the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 2 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to provide that the prior assessment of the effects of the activity of the installation concerned on the environment and on human health must be an integral part of the procedures for granting or reconsidering a permit to operate such an installation under the IED. Such a prior assessment of the effects of the installation’s activity on the environment and on human health must be considered effectively and in a timely manner by the authority responsible for granting or reconsidering that permit. This must occur before the permit is granted or reconsidered. In its judgment, the Court also ruled that the operator of an IED installation must, throughout that installation’s period of operation, continuously assess the effects of the installation’s activities on the environment and on human health. In the context of infringement procedure INFR(2013)2177 3 , the Commission is currently assessing the conformity (i) of Italian legislation and (ii) of the permit granted to the Taranto steel plant via decree n. 436 of 25 July 2025 with EU legislation, namely with the IED. 1 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-626/22. 2 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringementdecisions/?langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byDecision&refId=INFR(2013)2177&page=1&size=10 &order=desc&sortColumns=decisionDate.”
  Air quality policy · Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• 2025-09-05 “E-003457/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. Without prejudice to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, Member States are primarily responsible to ensure compliance with EU law, especially for individual cases like the one in question. In line with its strategic approach on enforcement action, the Commission focuses on systemic non-compliance 1 . 2. In July 2024, the Commission opened two infringement procedures against Italy 2 . Under infringement procedure INFR(2024)2142, the Commission is pursuing Italy for the failure, inter alia, of the national target for preparing for reuse and recycling of municipal waste set in the Waste Framework Directive 3 . Under INFR(2024)2097, the Commission is pursuing Italy for failing to correctly transpose the Waste Framework Directive. The Commission has found that Italy has not correctly transposed a number of provisions of the amended Directive. The Commission is currently assessing the replies of the Italian authorities to the letters of formal notice. 3. The Landfill Directive 4 aims to ensure a progressive reduction of landfilling of waste, in particular of waste that is suitable for recycling or other recovery and sets a target for Member States to reduce the amount of municipal waste landfilled to 10 % or less by 2035 5 . The Commission is closely monitoring Member States’ achievement of this target and publishes an evaluation of the situation in Early warning reports 6 . According to the latest report, Italy is on track to meet this target 7 . 1 As set out in the Communication of 19 January 2017: EU law: Better results through better application C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20 and in the Communication of 13 October 2022: COM(2022) 518 final - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_24_3228. 3 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851, OJ L 312 22.11.2008, p. 3. 4 Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, pp. 1–19. 5 Article 5(5) of Directive 1999/31/EC. 6 Article 5(b) of Directive 1999/31/EC. 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A304%3AFIN&qid=1686220362244.”
  Water pollution · Circular economy
• 2025-01-15 “E-000142/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the report of Bloom on mercury in canned tuna. As the Commission pointed out in its reply to written question E-002835/2024 1 , Maximum Levels (MLs) for mercury in several fish species were revised based on the most recent occurrence data, which showed that there was no margin to further reduce the ML for tuna. According to the available official control data, Member States have not identified cases of non-compliance with the maximum level of 1.0 mg/kg for mercury in canned tuna. The Mercury Regulation 2 mirrors the objective of the Minamata Convention which aims to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury. By addressing the whole life cycle of mercury from primary mining to its final disposal as waste, the Regulation contributes to the reduction of mercury in the marine environment. The revised Regulation 3 strengthens measures to reduce the use of mercury thereby, reducing releases of mercury to water. The Marine Strategy Framework 4 and the Water Framework Directives 5 require Member States to achieve good status of their waters. To implement these Directives, Member States are required to monitor and take measures to ensure that the concentrations of contaminants, including mercury, are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects in the marine and coastal environments. The Commission follows the implementation of these laws closely. The Commission proposed 6 in 2022 to tighten the environmental quality standard for mercury in surface waters. 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-002835_EN.html 2 Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, OJ L 137, 24.5.2017, p. 1–21. 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/revised-mercury-regulation-enters-force-2024-07-30_en 4 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40. 5 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73. 6 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-amending-water-directives_en”
  Mercury · Water pollution
• 2024-10-15 “E-002077/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. EU waste legislation is technology neutral and ensures a high level of environmental protection while respecting the waste hierarchy: first prevention, then preparation for re-use, then recycling, then other recovery (incineration with energy recovery), and ultimately disposal as a last resort (incineration without energy recovery or landfilling) 1 . The Commission has no information that the mentioned incineration plant undermines recycling efforts. Incineration plants 2 must operate in accordance with a permit based on Best Available Techniques 3 . EU competition law does not prohibit exclusivity agreements which are assessed on a case-by-case basis to establish if they are capable of excluding actual or potential competitors from the market. Without prejudice to national or EU rules governing public procurement procedures, this is typically not the case if exclusivity is the result of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure. 2. Emissions from waste incineration are subject to national commitments under the Effort Sharing Regulation 4 . Member States can opt to include these emissions into the Emission Trading system 5 . There are stringent emissions targets for 2030 under both systems. The Communication ‘Towards an ambitious Industrial Carbon Management for the EU’ 6 recalls that the 2026 review of the EU emissions trading system (ETS) 7 will assess the feasibility of including municipal waste incineration installations and other waste management processes in the EU ETS. Regardless of the scheme, EU institutions and Member States shall take the necessary measures to enable the collective achievement of the climate-neutrality objective by 2050 8 . 1 Article 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3–30, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109–140. 2 Annex I to the Industrial Emissions Directive, Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17–119. 3 As described in BAT conclusions: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2110 of 11 October 2022 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, for the ferrous metals processing industry (notified under document C(2022) 7054), OJ L 284, 4.11.2022, p. 69–133. 4 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/effort-sharing-member-states-emission-targets/overview_en 5 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en 6 COM(2024) 62 final. 7 Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system. 8 Article 2 of the European Climate Law, Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999, OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1–17.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you sir, and as you would like to say thank you to Mikhail for the excellent work on on this document. I have some, um, comments mainly about, uh, you know, the approach that we should have about the general budget for the European Union for the financial year 2026. I agree with most of the people that spoke before me about how important is the cost center, if you want to call it in this way for. About the EU for health. Um, however, I think that the amount of money that, uh, being considered for this is too low for all the ambitious targets that we should have and that we discuss so often in this committee. And, you know, I have the feeling and sorry if I make this example that he not here, but in general in the in our Parliament, there is an incredible enthusiasm when we discuss about bombs, missiles, any kind of weapons, bullets. And, and there we become extremely generous in, uh, managing, uh, you know, the budget for these different items. The enthusiasm is decreasing significantly when we discuss health And there is also another indicator that I want to point out to our distinguished chair that every time that we have an important topic to discuss in the plenary in Strasbourg and about health, that that answer in the last time, possibly Thursday afternoon. Like last week, we discussed about endometriosis, such an important issue in in our continent, in the Western world and in our planet. And and to be, you know, when the when the, when the most of the people were leaving Strasbourg. So thank you again, uh, my colleagues, for your work. But I think we need to insist, because health and needs to be recognized as one of the priority. And I my view is more important than missiles and bombs.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm frankly puzzled by the way in which this project has been managed over the years. It raises serious concerns over accountability of those who took decisions on this matter. There have been almost ten years of delay, an explosion of costs which doubled, going from the initial 76 million to 156 million, without any justification of the overall cost of the project of wing M 61 already completed and 96 million still to go. How is it that the necessary safeguards were not taken when drafting the contracts. There is a real possibility that these problems will lead to other delays. German authorities have initially denied the release of the licence to renovate existing wings, unless the commission would agree to build a new wing from scratch if the tendering companies, the same ones responsible for the delays, I presume, will present higher bill in five years without justifying the incurred cost. We will be exactly in the same situation in 2030. This is a very bad way of managing EU public money. And by the way, any money which guarantees do we have that the cost will not increase yet again? For this reason I will not support this project.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “To congratulate Vlad for the very comprehensive presentation that he did today. Um, I will just stick to three simple points, hopefully. Vlad could integrate them in his work. The first one we just heard that prevention is less expensive than treatment. I fully agree with that. And one of the things that I do not understand why we don't do in Europe is what was proposed by many scientists more than 25 years ago that smokers should undergo a simple CT scan without contrast, which probably cost $200 €200 yearly. And in this. In this way, you can do early detection. If you do a detection of a lung tumor when it's five millimetres and you remove it with a wedge resection, the patient is considered cured. He doesn't need radiation, he doesn't need chemotherapy. So it's much better than treating later. The second point is about environment prevention. I guess all of you have a smartphone and probably most of you have the app for the weather. If you look the weather today in Brazil, the quality of the air is very poor. It means there are a lot of air pollution and widespread chemical exposure, which is as dangerous as smoking, smoking. Um, so prevention of the environment and what we discussed before. The Exposome is extremely important. Third, just for saving money, we don't do in any in any of the state members in Europe. A real follow up after a cancer surgery. You know, for example, if a woman and we know that the one woman out of nine will have cancer in her life, breast cancer undergoes surgery for the breast cancer. The year later, she will have just a chest X-ray and an ultrasound. Instead, she should have a CT scan and a Pet to detect early recurrence. And we don't do that because we want to save money today and spend more money and lose more lives in the future.”
  Air quality policy
• “President. Stefano. Commissioner. Varhelyi. Now, I spent 35 years of my life. So almost or more than half of my adult life looking at intensive therapies. And when it comes to pharma, this is not a geopolitical or an industrial issue. I come from a perspective of a doctor who doesn't know how to cure a patient, a patient who comes to the doctor in their hour of need. And we've seen this in recent years. We've seen very small groups who have suffered for a lack of some essential pharmaceuticals, and Europe has paid too much and has relied on fragile and remote supply chains. And when we've had wars or pandemics, that fragility has landed directly in our hospitals. And of course, health is a national prerogative. It is a matter for member states, but this has led to a lack of capacity for us to act. People don't understand why there isn't a health union. Why do we not wish to protect all citizens health. I mean, what can be more important than health? So from a doctor's perspective, I also want to talk about equality because European citizens should not have a greater or lesser chance than finding a cure, depending on the part of Europe in which they live. And that is why we need to conceive of health as an instrument of solidarity between member states without forgetting something very important, and that is that doctors are not a product or a commodity. Now families who are waiting for doctors are waiting for someone who can save a life rather than waste a life. And that is why health must be a European matter, not simply a national one. If Europe Jenny wishes to call itself a union, then it has to change this sterile, nationalistic view of things.”
  EU competences on health (internal-competence axis, sharpened)
• “We need to improve coordination with regulatory bodies and have a proper support for SMEs and biotech startups through public private partnerships, for example, in terms of ethics. And now we've proposed the introduction of greater controls, particularly when it comes to new gene modification techniques and I applied to health. We also stressed the importance of ensuring that biotech should serve patients health. They should. It should respect human dignity and help those with disabilities and other vulnerable people in society. Um, we also hope that it might offer alternatives to our animal experiments. And in order to make sure that we have our high quality, uh, research, which is at the forefront of, uh, technical developments, uh, we also need to have the right kind of scientific information when it comes to taking decisions. And we need to integrate the social and environmental aspects in future policy decisions on the European Union. So we want to be a leader in a technological, technological sense, but we should always take a people centered approach when it comes to the health of our people and our planet.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “Thank you Oliver. Thank you, Commissioner, for your important presentation. And I think this is a very, very important topic. And you said at the beginning of your mandate that you would have worked very hard on this. I have only a couple of minutes, so I will just go directly to a couple of points related mainly to artificial intelligence. You mentioned that, uh, as an important tool, and I myself believe that is an important tool, but I think that we need to be a little careful about simplification. And simplification cannot become a shortcut just to make more money in a hospital and make you to example, I use the Easter break to go back to do some work at my university in United States, and I was a little concerned about the fact that in order to allow the physician to see more patients during a morning, they put, you know, in the in the exam room, a system with artificial intelligence that listens to all the conversation between the physician and the patient. And at the end of the day, the artificial intelligence, uh, prepares the notes of the, of the, all the visit that the, the physician did.”
  Processing of health data
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Varela. To be here with us today and to have this opportunity to have an open dialogue about health care in our continent. Um, I have two questions. One is related to an issue that was not mentioned so far and is mental health. And we, we increasingly see patients and particularly young people, teenagers struggling with anxiety, depression, isolation, and too often we encounter a system that is not ready to respond in the 27 member member states. Um, in this context, I would like to ask, does the Commission plan to launch a long term Integrated and binding EU mental health strategy, as called for by the European Parliament in 2023. And I have also a question about medical devices, which is obviously a very important topic as well. The Commission speaks extensively about simplifying and accelerating access to innovation, but what are the concrete innovations in this revision to strengthen patient safety and maintain high regulatory standards? Our notified bodies, sufficiently resourced and applied consistently across the Member states. And will this revision effectively address the persistent delays in certification and the risk of shortage? I want to ensure that this is not driven solely by industrial consideration, but remains firmly grounded in patient safety and public health. Thank you chair.”
  EU policy on mental health · Medical devices
• “Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a couple of questions, actually. I had one question, but after listening to you, I. Another question came to mind. And this second question is about vaccination and the fact that you mentioned about the, uh, the fact that now we have the risk of seeing back disease like polio and diphtheria and, um, and I wonder, uh, what kind of action is CDC taking in order to inform the population about the need to have a booster every, every ten years? I recently had my booster for tetanus, diphtheria and polio. Uh, but I, I if I think if we ask in this room, I'm not sure who has done that every ten years regularly and and probably very, very few, I believe. I also got my booster because of measles, because I had to go back to United States, to my school of medicine for, for a few days. And in Pennsylvania there is a, you know, a measles. And that disappeared in United States 25 years ago. And now, thanks to John Kennedy, that recommends to take vitamin A instead of vaccine. We have measles again in and as you know, measles doesn't need does not need a passport to go from United States to, to the European Union. So what what are we doing to inform people that keeping the vaccines on schedule with their booster is so important? The other question is, given the climate changes. What is going to be in your vision, the shift in the geographic spread of vector borne diseases? And is CDC planning to publish information on which of our regions are at the highest risk in the next several years? And thank you very much for being here with us today.”
  Vaccination
• “Thank you very much. I will speak in Italian. Um. I'd like to thank, uh, Mrs., uh, de la Korean foreign draft we've put through, or we've put forward a package of amendments to promote innovation in biotechnology. Make sure that, uh, um, ethical principles and, uh, uh, health are at the heart of this. We feel that this, uh, contribution will be positive. Uh, when it comes to prevention, diagnosis and, uh, cures for serious illnesses such as MSD cancers, degenerative diseases, and also real orphan diseases. We feel it's important that there is fair access to these innovations throughout all of the member states. Uh, we should avoid, uh, regional disparities because that would undermine health care in the union. We think it's essential, uh, that we, uh, stop the marginalization of Europe in our clinical, uh, experiments. And that's why a number of our amendments, our focus on regulations to ensure that there is a harmonised framework which will promote high quality clinical research in Europe, whilst respecting the necessary security and transparency standards. We understand that research on Crispr advanced therapy medicinal products is very important, but if we want to make sure that all of this is sustainable, we need the right kind of public investment framework.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. I first of all, I would like to say thank you to Giorgos Georgiou. I have to say that I share all the concepts that he expressed in his speech. And so thank you very much for your for your, for your work. Uh, if I may add a couple of concepts, I suggest that we should have mandatory disability awareness training across all levels of medical education to aggressively address discrimination and improve care outcomes. Also, I think we urge a comprehensive European strategy to transition from institutional care to independent living. And to this aim, we need data collection. Funding and support services. Also, um, echoing what you said about the feeling and the perception of isolation of people with disabilities. I think we really should, at this point in 2025, move ahead with some sanctions against, uh, countries where they have physical obstacles for people with disability to move around. I make you an example, and I'm a little ashamed about that. I have a mother that is 103 years old. Uh, she is, you know, um, in excellent shape, but she cannot move around very well. And when I got to Rome and take her around, I need to use the car street because we we have physical barriers in the, you know, in the side walk. And and that is not really nice. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Commissioner Labib, um, in the in the recent publication of the roadmap for Women's Rights, sexual and Reproductive health is one of the eight priorities for the EU long term vision for gender equality. However, 18 out of 27 countries in Europe have chronic shortage of drugs for contraception, both routine and emergency drugs. Um, what is the plan to solve this critical issue in equality? Thank you.”
  Sexuality and reproduction
• “Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and for being here so we can have an exchange of ideas on the Union Civil Protection mechanism. As the shadow rapporteur, I would like to focus on a couple of practical questions. The European Union has significantly strengthened its capacity in recent years through the Union civil protection mechanisms through the Rescue Reserve, which is a shared European reserve of essential equipment for emergencies and through the creation of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority. This is an important progress. At the same time, from a public health perspective. The key issue is not only the existence of these tools, but is how they function together when they are really needed. Preparedness, by definition, requires continuity. It depends on sustained investment in stockpiles, in production capacity, and overall readiness. And now my three questions. First, how do you ensure that these capacities are maintained over time and not only strengthened in response to crises? The second question how are responsibilities organized in practice? Who identify needs, who takes decisions and who ensures delivery on the ground? Finally, I have another question. As a transplant surgeon, I would like to know how does transplantation fit within the Union Civil Protection mechanism as a vital medical logistics system In Europe we are losing every year 7000 lives. They die on the waiting list and I don't know how to explain to my friends in the United States where they have one system. So if an organ is compatible with the patient in Ohio, the donor from Pennsylvania will give that organs to Ohio. We we in Europe behave like we have borders between France and Germany or Germany and Poland. And so a number of organs that could be used are wasted just because we don't understand that the organs needs to to be compatible with the recipient. And we need to not have borders for this. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on criminal justice
• “And I believe that, you know, there is something more than just words. When you meet a patient, there is a, you know, a human touch, a human feeling. And the, the, the body behavior that you that a machine cannot put in a, in a chart. The second thing I mentioned today at the coordinator, uh, meetings is that just last week, the CEO of an important hospital system in New York, the New York hospital, uh, announced that he will replace all of his radiologists with artificial intelligence. Well, myself, I've been saying for many years that in in the future, I would like to have my CT scan read by artificial intelligence, but with the supervision of a human being. And at the same time, uh, you know, it's a very interesting last week, uh, the University of Stanford published a study Showing that the artificial intelligence when it reads a mammogram, if it's not sure what is reading, the artificial intelligence will not leave you with a question mark, will give you a diagnosis and will invent a diagnosis. And I think this is a very, very dangerous. Thank you.”
  Medical devices