Adina VĂLEAN

Policy topics Adina VĂLEAN is active on

What Adina VĂLEAN has said (20)

• 2026-07-14 “Splendid. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you. The representative from the commission for trying to update us. I have some questions in three areas of interest for myself. One would be the single market for secondary materials that the commission recognizes already. The fact that we have all these fragmented EPR schemes and waste transport rules. So I understood correct. Regarding the legal instrument, will the act contain directly applicable EU wide end of waste criteria with mutual recognition, or will it once again delegate some of the harmonisation to member states implementation and comitology. Which is how we got the current fragmentation. I hope I understood that we are aiming a high level of harmonization. This to be clarified. A second area of interest would be regarding innovation and industrial development on. In the circular economy. We. If we look at the patent data, we'll see that most of the waste management and recycling technology patents filed at the European Patent Office come from outside the EU, with China alone accounting for a large majority. And my concern is that prescribing too much, telling companies and scientists what categories of technologies to develop will lead us to stagnation and not development. So this would be a question for the commission.”
  Circular economy
• 2026-07-14 “Will you look at the technological neutrality in the upcoming act and which would be the benchmark of success for this? Act, will you measure your obligations created or the patents filled? Because I think we are. We should aim at the latest and the last area of interest or. The question for today would be the we and the urban mining. The Commission said that the we revision will be part of the Circular Economy Act. So my question is whether it will be a market building revision or a targets revision, because we had collection targets for years and I think we need now a business case. Recovering the materials from complex products is technically possible, but commercially less viable when the recovered content has no reliable buyer, no harmonised quality standard, and no price advantage over imported Overreported virgin material. So I heard you talking about the feedstock. But will the revised framework treat waste electronics as a strategic feedstock with harmonised recovery standards, legal certainty on secondary raw material status across all 27 member states and demand side pools so that the material is recovered in Europe are actually bought in Europe. I rest here, thank you very much for bearing with me.”
  Circular economy
• 2026-06-16 “Madam Commissioner, colleagues. Well, we we are serious about competitiveness. Building state of the art digital infrastructure is a necessity, but is not enough. Europe does not need fiber 5G cloud capacity only to take target on a scoreboard. We need them to be used at full capacity for our businesses, researchers, hospital industry and public services. Too often when the commission is bold, the council becomes mellow. Too often when we promise simplification, we multiply reporting. And too often when we say we deliver for consumers, we reduce the debate to low prices for internet entertainment. But serving citizens means building a vital digital economy that produces value, multiplies jobs, and keeps innovation in Europe. Decoupling from the rest of the world is not possible. Unlocking our own market potential is possible, as well as helping market forces work across borders or giving predictability to investment. Europe does not need isolation or overregulation to be sovereign. Europe needs a digital infrastructure that is built, scaled and put to good use. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• 2026-06-16 “Madam commissioner, colleagues, well, we've we are serious about competitiveness. Building state of the art digital infrastructure is a necessity, but it's not enough. Europe does not need fiber, 5 g, cloud capacity only to take target on a scoreboard. We need them to be used at full capacity for our businesses, researchers, hospital, industry, and public services. Too often, when the commission is bold, the council becomes mellow. Too often, when we promise simplification, we multiply reporting. And too often, when we say we deliver for consumers, we reduce the debate to low prices for Internet entertainment. But serving citizens means building a vital digital economy that produce value, multiplies jobs, and keeps innovation in Europe. Decoupling from the rest of the world is not possible. Unlocking our own market potential is possible as well as helping market forces work across borders or giving predictability to investment. Europe does not need isolation or overregulation to be sovereign. Europe needs digital infrastructure that is built, scaled, and put to good use. Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “(16:02:44 – 16:04:38): Yes. Let me start with the last point. What we are trying do is really finding a way to protect children in the least invasive way from a privacy perspective. So that's what we're trying to do here. Now on on your question on the time line, we have a number of front runner member states that are working on basically having this service available soon. France and Denmark are the first ones, most likely. Spain also a bit later in the year. And there are 4 others that are among the front runners. Now we have asked the member states to do it before the end of the year. Not all of them will comply, but that's in the recommendation that we issued last last year. So your point about speed, we take that very seriously, and we are pushing member states. Now last week, in Nicosia, the ministers were there together, and, there was convergence that this is really an important action and also commitment to move. Let's see let's see how fast that that goes. On the enforcement, well, Julia has indicated what we're doing in terms of the enforcement. Article 28 is there, and, the platforms are feeling good. They also know that they have to have reliable agriification measures in place. And if they build on the specifications of our blueprint, they know they're also relatively safe that this is a good method that will be accepted. So that's why this, blueprint and the app is so important also in view of the enforcement for the platforms. Thank you. Mr. Diana, would you like to add any final remark? Okay.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “Yes, thank you very much. So if you don't like a proposal or something, please don't confuse it with a person. So don't hate me for supporting this report, because I'm trying to do my best here and work with everyone. Um, from your comments and thank you for them. Um, I feel the need to repeat what I said in all our meetings. So we are talking about Hungary and that the stigmatisation safeguards. Let me say that Hungary is doing what it's doing in an absence of such a law. So it's not like if we have this directive, then it means then Hungary will start doing things. So this is one thing. Second, what are they doing? They are doing in clear contrast with our proposal. They are blacklisting NGOs. They are imposing prior authorization for funding target groups on ideological grounds. And this is exactly the opposite of this proposal. By contrary, if we would have such a directive, then we will keep Hungary and all member states to a higher standard than in the absence of this directive, because we are enshrining safeguards in this directive. Affirmation of legitimacy of interest. Representation. It's now enshrined exclusion for legal professions. Media diplomacy. Requirement for member states to designate supervisory staff with fundamental rights expertise. As we were advised here in this committee by the representative from the Human Rights Agency. So this introduces a basis of standards which does not exist at this moment, and it should be compulsory. So I would say more safeguards for those who are, let's say, threatened by, um, such laws as Hungary is aiming to have. Um, then I see, I think some of you spoke or they are under the false impression because we changed a lot from the initial proposal.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you. Um, I tried to address the question, directed me about the role of member states first. Um, I think there are two things one can do about this. The first one is if the Air Office becomes a trusted institution because it attracts lots of talented experts. Member states will assume rather quickly recognize its value. And if there's like one common theme about all sorts of risks and benefits of AI is that we don't precisely understand how they will evolve over time, and it will be difficult for at least some member states, if not all member states, to build an institution that can deliver such valuable information over time. There's just benefit in centralizing this. Um, it is important to build a top notch, trusted institution, um, for that. Um, and then secondly, and this relates to some of the other comments being made, is that it is at least plausible that we are living in a world, living in a world where a winner takes all. There are some of the most frontier models with most of the benefits there will be most influential. For better or worse, on the rest of society. Um, and if we have this institutionalized, more centralized knowledge, we may be able to better compete. It was raised the question of where are the EU companies? There are some um, but the the most advanced models with the largest training runs, they're currently being developed in the United States.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Chair from the president. Dear colleagues, before diving into the state of play of this file. Um, allow me to recall you a couple of facts which were at the basis of this proposal. In 2,023rd Eurobarometer, 81% of the Europeans say they are concerned about foreign interference in our democratic processes. And this is a statistic not to be dismissed. It's a call of action. And I think it is our responsibility as elected representatives to make sure that this concern does not fall on deaf ears. Yet this directive is not a silver bullet does not eliminate forms of foreign interference. But it is a concrete first step, a targeted tool for transparency, allowing us to monitor how resources from third countries are being channeled into the European interest representation market. It does not criminalize cooperation. It simply opens the window. Where do we stand today with this report? The draft report was met with a 279 amendments from members and political groups. And this is in addition to the 133 that I have tabled to the draft. In the draft report, and I want to thank all political groups for their involvement. Many of these amendments are strengthening the report, and I'm absolutely happy to have them. Some of them are going much further. And I'm referring to the fact that they are fundamentally altering the scope of this directive. In particular, the proposal to remove all references to third country direction or funding. Transform this into a general EU lobbying law, and this is a profound departure from the Commission's original intent. What began as a measure to guard against external influence risks becoming an instrument that regulates all interest representation in the Union. And this is without preparation, without proportionality, and without consultation.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Thank you very much. And I really apologize. I have been running, but you were very speedy today. And nevertheless, I had a look at the report, and the first thing I wanted to say is that I very much appreciate, and I do believe it's interesting and a useful report. And I also wanted to stress on the from my part also on the issue mentioned also in the report, the matter that remains at work in progress within the European institution. You just mentioned yourself the geo blocking for sectors impacted by the copyright and coming from a country as Romania, which has a very thriving film industry. I was looking more into detail on how is the business model of the film producing? And I do worry that by one hand we need to improve the market, by the other hand, we have not to disturb a well-established business model unless we have a very strong impact assessment regarding how is this going to work? Actually, so I just stopped here. I wanted to make a point and I will contribute in further discussions on the issue. Thank you very much.”
  Geo-blocking
• “Thank you very much. Um, my idea is that we won't be able to, um, support in a controlled way the innovation. So we are very good in regulating. We are trying to make sure that no hidden dangers for our citizens, workforce and so forth are, um, happening with the development of the, um, artificial intelligence. The problem is that this is going to develop more and more outside Europe. And the cultural model in learning for this, um, artificial intelligence won't be European. So we have to allow in a way, to create the conditions for a better and more, maybe of more free development of artificial intelligence in Europe, or else we will end up everyone in Europe using the models, which were trained on a different cultural model than European, will end up that our children will learn from ie all things which are American or Chinese or Asian or I don't know. So it is important to keep in mind that this will develop nevertheless. But if it is developed only outside Europe, we will end up using a different cultural model for the future generations. Thank you, thank you. So back to our guest speaker. Now after these questions and remarks, and I will do a reverse order again, starting maybe with Christoph Winter.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Um, first, I would like to thank all shadows, and the members of the Parliament have contributed to this process. We had several technical meetings as well as shadows meetings. We worked in good faith to improve the text. Some of the compromise amendments clearly strengthen the draft. They bring legal precision, improve definitions, and reinforce safeguards, particularly on exclusions, proportionality and transparency. These are welcome and important steps forward. We've also found common ground on key aspects like minimum harmonisation and flexibility for Member states. And I appreciate the shared effort to reduce administrative burdens while maintaining national discretion where appropriate. Where we remain divided is on the scope. Some colleagues have proposed removing all references to third country interests and transforming this into a horizontal EU lobbying law. I believe such a change would fundamentally alter the natural nature of the proposal and risk derailing it entirely. A few arguments in this respect. This proposal responds to a very specific problem the lack of transparency around foreign governments funding lobbying activities in the EU. So we are addressing a clear vulnerability. Even before Qatar Gay, the Parliament had already called for this kind of tool in the last mandate through the report of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference. Public concern is also real. 81% of Europeans are worried about foreign influence in the EU policymaking. So we have a responsibility to act and to do so in a focused and proportionate manner. Turning this into a general lobbying law. It's not a minor adjustment. It would definitely kill the file because there is no political consensus for such an initiative, no impact assessment, no budgetary planning.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, um, I really appreciate the fact that finally we have, uh, from the commission put it forward, this Digital Network act. It was long awaited, and it brings some really well expected and well defined improvements regarding harmonization for the single market, regarding the spectrum policy, cybersecurity, resilience, so on and so forth. So I really appreciate it. And I'm looking forward for the debate and try to improve, uh, all of these topics, there remains a couple of things I want to address right now. One is the vision, as always, that the Commission puts a target on the member states to develop the infrastructure because it says the member states needs to develop national plans for infrastructure. This is wrong as usual, because the companies and the the industry is the one who invested until now, not the member states. We never have enough money for that. So we have to address the industry and give the right incentives for them to develop the infrastructure. But for this, we have to look what they need. And here I think it fails a little because one, it needs to address the competition issue. And I know that the commission is working in silos, but they promised they stop to do that. So even though it's not digital, it's competition. But you have to address this if you want to develop infrastructure. This is absolutely one thing, and the other one is the monetization of the use of networks, because in any other structure, in electricity, in energy, everywhere, in transport, when someone is using an infrastructure, it has to pay accordingly. And this is not solved yet by the Commission through its policies. Thank you very much.”
  Senders-pay
• “Thank you very much for the presentation. I find very interesting data there. I was wondering two questions here. One would be, um, regarding the repayments. Uh, we know as a fact that the lack of demand for reparation means that these services to repair products are becoming more scarce. That means that products are going to reparation would often. Take a long journey. Is the Commission looking into the environmental footprint of repairing goods? Because sometimes it might be that, apart from the cost of reparation itself, the cost for the society of insisting on repairing goods, it might be something not negligible. You know that from Belgium, if you want to repair something electronics, it goes to Netherlands or Germany. So it means the product, in order to be repaired, takes a journey. That journey means consumption of electricity of fuel, so on and so forth. So this would be a question if the Commission looked from this angle, if it's worth it or not, because of course it is presented or in our mind, the fact that we are not repairing the goods and just replacing them. It looks like a waste. And the second, regarding the sustainable, sustainable products, the fact for me, it was clear from your presentation that the cost for more sustainable consumption of food is a deterrent and also the lack of trust on the environmental credentials. But was it inquired also if this means also a lack of trust in the authorities, because the ones who need to check the environmental credentials of products would be the national authorities? Is did this show in your analysis? Maybe. Indeed. We have a problem with enforcing the law. Um, and this, um, digs at the trust of the consumers that the authorities, uh, can endorse, truly a label of, uh, a sustainable product. Thank you.”
  Ecodesign & durability
• “This directive has travelled a long and bumpy road, shall I say, through our house. Even if it asks for something very simple, yet absolutely essential. The transparency. Transparency from those who, through their services, represent the interests of third countries in our union. And we know that our citizens demand it. 81% of Europeans want to know who seeks to influence decisions in the EU. And of course we through this file, we are trying to give an answer and reassurance to our citizens that this is our wish too. I want to thank everyone from all political groups. There was a lot of involvement and passion and a constructive approach, and I think through the compromise amendments proposed today, we can show that we can have a broad consensus in bringing forward this file. So I really hope for support on it. And thank you again to the Secretariat and the staff of political groups, because they also put a lot of work into the file. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Very briefly, on the this recurrent accusation of similarities with the foreign agent law and also the issue of stigmatisation. I think, um, the report tackled very clearly these two, um, two issues. There is absolutely no comparison between this proposal and the foreign agent law. We do not criminalise anyone. We do not prohibit organisations from receiving foreign funding. We do not ban organisations. We explicitly excluded media from the scope of the directive. We do not categorise Activities as good or bad. We do not target NGOs. This is an internal market instrument focused exclusively on the Interest Representation Services market. The directive does not cover all foreign funding, only funding linked to the interest representation activities conducted on behalf of third countries. Any reputable NGO already discloses its sources of funding, and this is simply a matter of transparency on the issue of stigmatisation. In addition to the safeguards already embedded in the original Commission proposals proposal, I have tabled 20 amendments specifically aimed at preventing any risk of stigmatisation of civil society. We remain open and committed to incorporate any further constructive ideas. The directive includes the following key safeguards. Clear language affirming the legitimacy of interest. Representation services. It defines the scope narrowly. Registration and Financial declaration for CSOs apply only to activities carried out on behalf of third countries.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Um, China is catching up. Um, but when we think about the strategic place that Europe can play is, of course, when it comes to regulation, we can, um, we can influence the development via that, but we can also support our ecosystems. And if we are living in this world where whether we like it or not, where a few winners take all of the benefits and impose all of the risks on the rest of society. We need to have a place at the table of negotiating when relevant models will be released. And this is easier if we are also in a position where there are 1 or 2 European companies that develop frontier models and can compete over time at the frontier. That, for instance, would have implications also for how many giga factories should be built, since it's much tougher to train an AI system on Gigafactory that are vastly distributed over Europe. Again, this is not whether this is sort of not a normative claim on like there should only be a few winners. This is really an empirical observation of we don't know, but this is a plausible world we're living in, and we would need to prepare for that if we live in this world. Member States becoming aware of this, we'll also realize that there are strong benefits in having the EU play a much stronger role.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty · Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “And now I didn't change my mind, but we are in a different reality from the beginning when I said the commission should take it back. Why? Because I was pleading with the commission to take it back. And they didn't. And it was not an EVP. Let's say emanated the directive this. I mean, the former commissioner who proposed it was not from our political group. The current commissioner I was engaged with asking for taking back the directive. It's not from our political group. But as I said at the beginning, I think there is a certain public pressure for us to keep our word when we said we are going to work on something in this respect, and I do believe this is a minimum step we can take. And it's not aimed at no one, but it's just to respond. So yeah, Madam Chairwoman, that's why I didn't change my mind. But I, I was in the situation that we have to work on it. And in the end, I said, okay, this is our job here. So let's try to do our best. So thank you very much again colleagues. And please read it again. And if you want to improve something. But with a compromise I cannot find a compromise. Between deleting third countries or keeping the reference to third countries. Here we cannot build a compromise. I mean, we cannot introduce second countries or fourth countries or what would be a compromise. It's either in or out. So that's why I here. It's not that I'm against, but I don't see how I can build a compromise if I'm, um, around this provision. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs
• “Let me raise raise three key concerns regarding the attempt to broaden the scope. First, we need to legislate responsibly a horizontal EU Below is a different proposal. It targets a vastly broader ecosystem with different dynamics and legal implications. Such a shift requires a dedicated legislative initiative, starting, as always, with a proper impact assessment. Secondly, we have not consulted the right actors for this. Stakeholders from civil society to legal experts, industry to academia have not been brought into this conversation in a structured way. And this is a red flag for any significant legislative expansion. Thirdly, the numbers do not lie. The Commission's impact assessment estimates that this directive, as proposed, would apply to 700 to 1100 entities, a general lobby in law, up to 3.5 million. Alien. Even if we introduce financial thresholds, we are still looking at hundreds of thousands of entities and we are not prepared for this scale. Legally, administratively or financially. So, dear colleagues, I'm absolutely certain that all these proposals come from a place of very good intention, but I think it's not the right moment to try to broaden the scope of this directive. We are not prepared for such a thing. We need a different proposal. But still, if we can go through with the proposed directive, it's a first step which will just increase the transparency on these actions. I do believe overall it is a balanced report and we can do a reasonable job by improving it, but not going somewhere where this directive was not meant to go. I stopped here and I'm really looking forward of comments, especially from my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, who are very much on top of this subject. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Legal services. Media. Diplomatic activities are explicitly excluded from the directive scope. To further mitigate risks, the directive requires the supervisory authorities assign a staff member with specific expertise in assessing and managing fundamental rights risks, and we align the content with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Treaties to ensure that respect for human rights is central to this directive. Then I reject the accusation that EPP has a hidden agenda which targets civil society. I do believe these kind of statements are made only for The political reason or fight. And I don't want to get into this discussion, but I do believe that we need to send the signal to the citizens that we support a minimum transparency harmonization for third country interest activities, services or around the European Union. Let's do this in a very reasonable way. But we have to support that. Or else the the message we are sending as a house is that for various reasons, or pointing fingers one to another, actually, we refuse to do something which is a concrete and basic proposal. Thank you very much to all of you. Looking forward for compromise.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, well, I don't want to refer to the whole communication as such, because I'm trying to refrain myself on the fact that we are sitting in Imco committee, or else I would have many, many comments. Um, my first observation is that we see a lot of interventionism in this communication, and this is a contradiction in terms with the single market. I don't see how subventions and state aid are going to help the single market, because we know very well that state aid depends on the wealth and the strength of a member state, and this is not helping the single market. Actually, I was trying to look and see here what actually is helping the single market. And I couldn't find any. And I didn't get it from the presentation made by the Commission. Any element which will strengthen, of course, the old one when we eliminate the barriers and the permitting. But we are doing this for tens of years. We are continuingly eliminating the barriers and we are facilitating the permitting. I wonder when we are going to end this endeavor, which apparently is indeed for Gulliver himself, not for the Lilliputians. I would say whom we are in a way. If Gulliver is a single market, then I see here that there are so many things about the competitiveness of our clean energy, clean industry. And I was wondering if a communication will come addressing the competitiveness of the European market as such. Because here is a lot of focus on how we strengthen or increase the competitiveness of clean industries inside, in our inside the European single market.”
  State Aid