Axel VOSS

Policy topics Axel VOSS is active on

What Axel VOSS has said (43)

• 2026-07-15 “Yes. Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, dear commissioner, Albuquerque, thanks a lot for being present here also, in our committee. So since we have the omnibus package 1, the adoption of the simplified ESRS is the next crucial step in delivering also here on the on this package. So we made a clear commitment to simplify the reporting framework, and now we must follow through without delay. Companies across Europe are waiting for legal certainty, and every month of uncertainty comes to cost at a cost. So as business continue to invest time and resources without knowing what reporting requirements will ultimately, apply. So the previous ESRS standards were simply too complex and too resource, intensive. They need to be replaced now by the engineering simplified set of standards that reduces unnecessary administrative burden while preserving the core objectives of sustainability reporting. So we should therefore more move swiftly now with this clear objective of enabling companies to apply that simplified ESRS already for this financial year. And business need clarity now, and we should not prolong uncertainty by delaying the whole process. Thanks.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-15 “(10:58:14 - 10:59:45): to speak on this matter. Mister Foss? So on behalf of mister Mandel, he would like to say thank you to the rapporteur, and he's very happy also that they are starting the work on this yearly report. The report is supposed to address the core aspect of the European Union's functioning, monitoring whether legislation adopted at EU level is implemented and enforced consistently across all member states. Effective application of EU law is essential to maintaining citizens' confidence, providing legal certainty for businesses, and safeguarding the union's credibility. Our priorities should be to improve the implementation of EU legislation, increase transparency, and reinforce the commission's role as a guardian of the treaties. Our objective is to promote practical, balanced, and legal robust solutions rather than creating additional administrative burdens while ensuring that the report remains within the limits of your remit. Lucas Mandel is looking forward to the work ahead and would like to thank the rapporteur and the fellow shadow rapporteurs already for their constructive cooperation throughout the process.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-07-15 “(11:12:07 - 11:14:33): Thank you, chair. And first of all, I would like to thank you, the rapporteur, for his work on this important file. The EU Inc. is one of the most important competitiveness proposals of this mandate, and it is our chance also to finally give European companies one simple, one modern, one digital company law framework to scale across the single market. So for the EPP, the commission proposal is the right starting point. We want to preserve its core principles. It must remain a regulation. It must be digital by default, fast and open to everyone who wants to use it. That is what makes the EU Inc. attractive. I'm therefore concerned that the draft report moves away from this ambition, excluding entire sectors from the scope risks creating a fragmented company form before it has even been established. If we start deciding which sectors deserve access to the EU Inc. and which do not, we undermine the simplicity and legal certainty that business are asking for. The same applies to the growing number of references back to national law. The more exceptions and national deviations we introduce, the less European EU Inc becomes. So we should also avoid reopening debates that could endanger the entire proposal, and the commission has found a balanced approach on employee participation by preserving existing national rules while keeping this company law instrument. We should not lose sight of that balance. Europe needs fewer barriers to scaling up and not more. So the EPP, therefore, will work constructively throughout these negotiations, but our objective is clear to preserve the commission's ambition and deliver a company form that is genuinely European, simple, competitive, and attractive for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Thanks a lot.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-06-22 “Well, thank you very much. I'm speaking German. Well, thank you for presenting the study. It really is extremely interesting. I was wondering about the commission. Well, they'd said that when it came to these kinds of live events, we didn't need any more legislation. But what do we need then? We don't want this situation to persist, obviously, but there does seem to be some competition here as it were. I mean, notice and action comes under article 16 of the DSA, but, that article doesn't actually look as if it can deal with it. So I was wondering what could we do differently. I think there's a lot of technology involved here, obviously. But for us, the question is, should we do something do more about providers? For example, when they refuse to implement live blocking orders, Should we make them more responsible? Or if 80% of users are using VPNs, does blocking domains have any effect? I mean, that's something that I'm wondering. I don't really know the answer to that question. So how can we be more effective here? That's what I'm wondering. Not only in terms of legislation, but, also when it comes to implementing measures. So domain blocking, we could perhaps do that a bit more intensively or ensuring, that liability is something that VPN providers face as well.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2025-02-12 “E-000641/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Digital Services Act (DSA) 1 aims at creating a safe, predictable and trusted online environment. Although the DSA does not define what is illegal or harmful, it imposes due diligence obligations on online platforms, with more stringent measures on the providers of very large online platforms (VLOPs). Notably, the providers of online platforms are required to process notices of potentially illegal content in a timely, diligent and non-arbitrary manner. Besides, the providers of online platforms must submit the statement of reasons supporting their content moderation decisions on the DSA Transparency Database 2 . Moreover, providers of VLOPs, such as TikTok 3 , have a legal obligation to regularly assess and mitigate any systemic risk stemming from their services, including those related to the dissemination of illegal content or those of serious negative consequences to a person’s physical and mental well-being. The Commission does not have direct competence to moderate content online, nor does it have the power to order the removal of a specific piece of content, but it takes the impact that social media can have on people’s physical and mental well-being very seriously. On 19 February 2024, it opened formal proceedings against TikTok as it suspects, notably, that it failed to diligently assess and mitigate the risks that its service may pose to the physical and mental well-being of its users, in particular the risks stemming from algorithmic-driven exposure to harmful content (commonly called the rabbit hole effect) 4 . This investigation is ongoing, and the Commission is carrying it out as a matter of priority. An EU-wide inquiry into the broader impacts of social media on well-being was also announced in the Political Guidelines 5 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng 2 https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu/?lang=en 3 By “TikTok”, it is being referred to the provider of TikTok. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_926 5 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2024-11-18 “E-002564/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Artificial Intelligence Act (the AI Act) 1 defines an AI system in its Article 3(1). This definition is already aligned to the definition of ‘AI system’ included in the 2024 revised Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2 . In line with Article 96 (1)(f) AI Act, the Commission developed guidelines on the application of the definition of ‘AI system’ used in the AI Act 3 . These guidelines explain that neither Article 3(1) AI Act, nor recital 12 AI Act which clarifies that provision, explicitly excludes statistical methods from the scope of the definition of ‘AI system’. Recital 12 clarifies that ‘the definition should be based on key characteristics of AI systems that distinguish it from simpler traditional software systems or programming approaches and should not cover systems that are based on the rules defined solely by natural persons to automatically execute operations’. Recital 12 further states that ‘[a] key characteristic of AI systems is their capability to infer. The capacity of an AI system to infer transcends basic data processing by enabling learning, reasoning or modelling’. In the guidelines, systems for improving mathematical optimisation, basic data processing systems, systems based on classical heuristics and simple prediction systems, are considered outside the scope of the AI system definition. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828. 2 OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence, OECD/LEGAL/0449. 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-ai-system-definition-facilitatefirst-ai-acts-rules-application”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Yes. Thank you very much. And I would also like to thank all the colleagues for the very positive comments. Perhaps I could just clarify one point. There's a problem in two directions, if you will. At the moment we have a situation where content which is protected, um, is being taken over by AI and we have not been able to protect this adequately. So on the one hand, we have wanted to protect this, but on the other hand, we don't want Europe to be left behind when it comes to the development of AI. Obviously, we have to take a look at what we have on the table in front of us, and we'll try and look through all of this to find the legal solutions when we're looking for a balance, and obviously we are going to have to be a little creative ourselves. We aren't going to get around having to have some legislation. I think the European Commission is quite ambitious. So I don't think it really should take too long before we have some kind of text from them. Obviously, there are certain colleagues who are a little more critical of the report, and to them, I would just like to say that there is legal uncertainty which is being created for AI creators, and the report should be seen as an opportunity to create legal certainty for the creators. Because you have these, you will have these machine readable possibilities for licensing. And I think if we were able to achieve Strike this kind of balance, it would be successful for both sides and I think it would be beneficial to all concerned.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Only four? I'll speak German. Chairman. Honourable members. First of all, thank you for agreeing to work on this report. It is a huge challenge trying to deal with large language models and see how this can chime with conventional rights in the digital area. How can we deal with a rapidly evolving technological environment? How can our laws keep up? Now, it should be clear that we all wish to move swiftly and effectively. We should not await a revision of the Copyright Directive or the Air Act. We all need to move swiftly. The commission has a key role to play here. I'd like to welcome the commission representatives. Our age has to be to support technological developments and ensure that they chime with our legal rights and legislation. We need some sort of sustainable, workable solution. We should not have to grapple with copyright every six years. Adapt copyright law to technological changes. It would be wonderful if we could have a general copyright directive. That would be a good goal to walk work towards. In principle, we need to look at the rights we are enshrining. They should not hinder technological development. We want innovation to be possible, but any innovation must respect rights. And so we need to strike the right balance between protecting rights of creative cultural professions on the one hand and on the other hand, promoting technological innovation. This report, therefore, is an attempt to strike that balance. I believe that we need an interplay between legal and technical solutions. This is very complex in political terms. If we look at the geopolitical setting, we are seeing values diverge.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Well, I don't want to put this too negatively, but are we basically conflating this? Stop the clock idea with the actual contents Or is there some kind of possibility to still separate that? That's a very general cross-cutting question. But if we're on the subject of stop the Clock, then maybe we should have thought of some other possibilities rather than saying we're going to just pressing the pause button. Maybe there would be other ways to proceed. And then third question. Now there's something that's not entirely clear to me. I understand this effort to get the AI and the DSA and the GDPR and somehow get them to work together. But I still get the feeling that there's a lack of clarity. There's still some unclear areas as to how they actually are going to enmesh. How can we ensure That cross cutting issues like deepfakes or child protection or competition in the AI value chain. How are we going to ensure that that actually works together? And then if you've got different definitions, of course, how can they be, uh, somehow harmonized?”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “I will be speaking my mother tongue. Let me start off. Is it working? Well, let me start off then, by thanking you warmly for travelling to Brussels so that we can have an exchange with you. I don't think any of us can imagine in what kind of Worlds. You're engaged in politics. Um, but we are happy to see you, of course, and are happy to to hear from you about how it is on the other side. And of course. You will appreciate that at the political and judicial level, it's difficult to provide assistance and support. But could I ask you what your expectations are of us? Not any military expectations or support, but more when it comes to the judicial side of things. Of course, we will try and do our utmost to support you in this area, but we all know that the processes that we're dealing with are not particularly fast processes. So sometimes you need political support to make sure that you can expedite that. And there are eight political groups here in the Parliament. But I'd like to hear from you how we can assist you in these endeavours.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you very much. I'll also speak German. I actually have two questions. Firstly here I'm talking about Preventing a dual structure because I'm wondering. About the ombudsman and what you do if there's a court case. I mean, what do you do then? Do you sort of withdraw? Do you get involved? And then when it comes to freedom of information, do you, uh, hold back if, uh, there's some kind of a request for information if the Petitions Committee has been written to. Do you hold back? I mean, how do you deal with situations that are being dealt with, uh, in a twin track way, as it were? Can things be better channeled? My second question relates to how can I use the ombudsman for myself in political terms? I mean, for example, if. What you do looks too political, well, that, uh, could be a problem. So do you check carefully how individuals are affected? Or is it enough simply to say, well, I'd quite like to know what's going on there. I mean, is there a check to see that the person who is asking the question has actually been affected by some situation negatively, or is simply using this to kind of make a political point, using a request for information to make a political point? Thank you.”
  Activities of EU Ombudsman
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, probably I would like to continue in my own language. Do you. Want to speak. In German? Um, because we have translation. Otherwise, I can do it also in English. But, um, because of the translation, it's a good possibility. Um.I hope I've been prepared. I feel I have the questions I think I can reduce. Songs for me is a man I would like to. I would like to say a huge thank you to the experts, but also to the stakeholders for their work, but to the experts in particular and to those who were able to make this possible, and a huge thank you to the secretariat. That we can use this opportunity here in the European Parliament too. In principle, and I have. We now have the feeling that the adoption of Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in which copyright represents a problem cannot be adequate, so to speak. Because for six years we had a different interpretation of text and data mining and that is why we really have to, that I am not in the I real or a completely foreign or under-meaning again. Only now the question is how can we, we want, should we, that I do believe that we should somehow or at least give it a reasonable interpretation. The problem that we obviously have politically is that we don't have to key it is a fundamental element for all digital developments, but on the other hand we also naturally expect that those who develop something also have the appropriate legal consideration and we have property here, a fundamentally protected right that we can't just do that, so for me it is somehow and that can be confirmed in the basic proposal that this regulation in the I Act goes against international law in copyright law, that's how I would understand it and then the second question is do we actually really need to look separately at input data and output data or can we not basically say that copyright is once and then it is, so to speak, then it continues.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “(16:22:31 – 16:26:11): Thank you. So dear chair dear, colleagues europe does not lose competitiveness because of our companies lack innovation we lose competitiveness because they spend too much time navigating bureaucracy so up to twenty percent at the end of staff time in companies is absorbed by compliance task so for smes the burden is even heavier and when they operate across borders procedures are still fragmented repetitive and sometimes even paper based so this is not acceptable in two thousand twenty six so the european business wallets can be a real breakthrough here they create a harmonized digital framework for identification signatures mandates and secure document exchange so with full legal equivalence across the union and for the first time a company registered in one member state could seamlessly prove its identity submit documents and receive legally valid notification anywhere in europe digitally securely and instantly so but ambition alone is not enough it's about delivering matters first from my point of view implementation must be realistic and fast business cannot wait years before they see the benefits we already have the eidas ecosystem we already have european trust services we should build on that and ensure rapid availability for companies not long transition periods second this must strengthen europe's digital sovereignty so the wallet should be based on european technology european standards and also european cybersecurity requirements at the same time it must remain market driven and technologically neutral and innovation does not come from overregulation it comes from competition so third we must protect smes from new burdens the purpose of this proposal is simplification so onboarding must be simple and costs must be proportionate micro enterprises and self employed professionals should benefit not even overwhelmed by complex compliance layers if we get this balance right speed sovereignty and simplicity the european business wallet can become a cornerstone of a truly digital singled market and this that is the europe our business need and this is what we should have in mind if we are when we are talking about this so thanks a lot for your attention”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “And we feel that essentially all the political groups are on board with this thinking. There is no political group that wants to go so far, although then I don't really know whether people have fully grasped the consequences. They don't want to go too far on this particular aspect. But when it comes to working towards a simple balance or a simplification licensing system, an automatic licensing system, would this be achievable? There is the idea to have a register with stop signals, for example. But then how can we guarantee to the other side the that AI creators are not revealing their commercial secrets, if you will. And then do we need third persons as trustees or what about watermarking? And one of the main issues is probably going to be the territoriality principle. How to deal with that. Because essentially we wouldn't really want anybody to train using European data anywhere in the world and then coming back onto our market. So if you will. This is the overview of the amendments. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Yes thank you very much. I'd like to speak German today. First of all thank you very much for the presentations we've heard and the ideas as well. You've got ambitious objectives but at the back of our mind we need to remember that this is already a very complex system and if you change one aspect of it it's going to have consequences and we might not really have those consequences in mind yet. We have to make sure that we do this right because otherwise there's a danger of legal uncertainty reemerging. Well we've got lots of digital laws whether we think they're good or not that's another question but you've got the AI law, there's a cyber resilience look package and etcetera etcetera. Each of them has their own scope and their own definitions their own compliance mechanisms etcetera. So that's why we need to think carefully about this cumulative effect and how that can undermine our competitiveness. I'm not saying that we need to change the whole perspective and start some new laws or anything like that but I think that we need to ensure that these laws interact properly with each other that they fit together right. So I think it's a good thing that we are taking this step but what we need to also bear in the back of our minds is will this be enough. We're now in a totally new geopolitical situation where we've got issues about big tech that have now changed significantly. So how are we going to manage to deal with this risk based approach for SMEs and how can we ensure that there is a single interpretation of the data protection regulation across the whole of the single market. We cannot have different member states having different approaches and the question of localization of data is another issue that we're going to have to deal with. Anonymization pseudo anonymization sorry pseudonymization I mean are all issues that we need to bear in mind and we need to modernize. Yes but I think the best thing is if we try and save time by doing the two things at the same time. We don't have a lot of time so I'm glad we're moving in that direction. I've got plenty of other ideas I could flag up but I guess we have time limits. Thank you very much.”
  Privacy & digital economy
• “Yeah. Ah, okay. So thanks a lot for the presentation. I have a lot of small questions. And at first, if you're coming to simplification, um, does this mean also effective tools, competitiveness of our industry, our company businesses and legal clarity? This included um, second, if we're coming to the EU budget, um, are you just looking to, let's say, more or better effects in this whole budget, or are you also considering if the rights of the Parliament are respected or not? This is also something what I would like to have. Secondly. Um, no. Thirdly, probably already, um, if we are coming to corruption and and misuse money, um, Are you also recommending? And I think this is in in the cohesion policy. There has been a lot of misused money. Um, how you can reduce it. Are you also referring to, um, new procedures or something like this and the efficiency of EU funding of financing? Um, is this also a kind of the um, yeah, evaluation of the effectiveness and how you can improve this. So this would be something I would also like to ask about AI and how you're using these and so on. And would this be a kind of a recommendation also for a legislator and so on. But you don't have to answer the last question, please. But if you concentrating on these others it would be wonderful. Thanks.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. We are here for an essential one. But about difficult ones that we have to try and solve here. It's also about questions like this: is this actually a new use? What we have here with territoriality? We basically can't allow that someone does something for free in Japan and then. I think we have to try and see new ways of dealing with it. Non-organized artists, so to speak, also have a way of dealing with it. There is also the feeling that Europe or those in Europe could have a lot of negotiations that will shape it together. But the interests of the different publishers are very different and what we shouldn't forget here is the model of the press publisher. Because that is an area with which we also work for a democracy and which compiles its information and then I think we have to govern accordingly. Then the question still remains. We actually have to make things more secure in the future by doing this in order to be able to recognize things again, perhaps in such origin foundational models. The also we actually want to deal with a sucker brook at the end of the year 2005 and 2016. Maybe a European legislation completely with the I and then we have to go back yes copyright infringements can also start again somehow That's all difficult politically We need a balance to the development and I think there are already legal solutions technology and technology probably have to relate to the corresponding same.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thanks a lot. I would like to talk or to speak in German. Okay. Yes, thank you very much. First of all, for coming to speak to us. Thank you for the exchange of views. And I'm really pleased that you come back to your old workplace, as it were. I've got a couple of comments, but I've also got a few questions. First of all, on the whole omnibus procedure. I think it doesn't make it easy for us to get an overview. It seems like we're working on a couple of things at a time when we're talking about competitiveness. Well, how can we be competitive in Europe these days? Well, okay. It's good that we, uh, tightened up a few screws, do a few small things to reduce bureaucracy, but sometimes it obscures the overview, which we might actually need. Then secondly, we've got the whole issue of looking into AI liability again. So what is the vision of a digital single market? I mean digital and competitiveness are words you can't actually separate. If you want to be competitive you have to digitalize and the question of liability in that whole area. Well, I mean, if we move to more fragmentation across 27 member states, it's going to cost us. And that's going to reduce our competitiveness. So we should go beyond the idea that civil liability is entirely in member states competence. Then you've got the whole issue of copyright and AI and generative AI. We have to clear up a couple of problems there. It's going to be difficult and well aware of it. But our creative sector needs to be protected from theft, as you could put it through these new technological systems. So I'd be nice if we could get an agreement on that.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Can I just come back on that? Is the commission aware that our chemical industry is just about to topple over? The chemical industry produces the raw materials pretty much for everything that we use in our daily life. For 95% of it, everything that we need. So strategically speaking, it's a critical industry. Now, what turned out is that you've got these high wage costs, high energy prices and the ETS on top of that. So the emissions certifications. So we're going to have to find a way to help them somehow. We will say that we want to remain competitive. And with these emission certificates. And what happens at the moment is that you pay the high prices. You're no longer competitive. You have to close your down your factory. And the things that we no longer produce here are related to a higher level of global emissions being produced by other regions of the world. So in other words, our climate policy is leading as things stand, to a situation whereby the global climate is being damaged even more. So what I'm wondering is that for an industry which is so strategically fundamental, something's going to have to be done. It isn't just theory. This it needs to happen now. The plant is closing down. The infrastructure isn't going to come back. Hundreds of jobs are being lost just over the last year and a half. We've lost hundreds of these different factories. 75,000 jobs have been lost. And if it's true that one job in the chemical industry going means that five further jobs are lost, we're going to have to step in. We have to do something. I'll leave it up to the commission to work out what needs to be done. But we are damaging the the global climate with these emission certificates in our chemical industry because it's not working. It's not bringing about the desired effect, and they're fighting for survival. And we, I think, are going to have to step in. It's no good just throwing these ideas around. At this point we're going to have to do something.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “You can do this digitalization so that you've got competitiveness and the sovereignty aspect running in parallel side by side. And out of that, I think you're going to have to do a lot more on the digitalization side of it. Not necessarily all of this theoretical head scratching. What I think we need is a commission that is a manager, a manager of this whole digital or internal market situation. And the final point, perhaps if I could just get that in, is this I think we're talking about this completion of the single market and more needs to be done. But what what's the reason why we haven't done it? You might laugh at these tariffs that are coming from America. We could do that if we had a single market that we could move forward in the right direction. I think what's missing in all of this is a plan. Where are the shortcomings that need to be sorted out? Financially speaking, how can we make progress in the right direction? And I'd rather see the commission as a manager in that context. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Very good. So thanks a lot. Well, thank you very much to everybody who's contributed here. What I can see. Is that in the case of these violations, we can recognize this. And that's correct. Really? Because article four for from six years ago in the reform wasn't planned for building on business models, but was rather meant for private users of a company. And so that's why it's not really able to be used here. And as in the I Act Now IPA was mentioned several times and the register. And we need to think at least I think that we need to think about how copyright law can be made, future proof, so that for every new technological development, that we then don't have to come back and discuss it all over again. And so that's why I think that we need a place where we can have a central access and see exactly what is correctly protected, and that currently doesn't allow us to do anything more. We need to make sure that we can provide simplification so that AI developers have one particular place where they can go and have a look and see what side, what type, what, what's actually protected. So that's the background and then it goes beyond that. Eu IPO should play more of a role if we think about it. If I hold a copyright, how can I recognize my work in this and the way in which it's integrated into this model. And so I think that AI developers quite often have this argument where they say, I'm not going to let everybody have a look at my foundational model.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Can I speak German? Says the speaker. Yes. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. And thank you very much to both representatives of the Commission for the presentation that you've given us of the digital omnibus. And now I'm thinking about these things in my own head. When you see simplification, that's always sounds good. But I think what's also at stake is competitiveness, which doesn't always take the form of simplification. What's also important is legal certainty and practical ness. And here we're not really talking about deregulation, but in other areas that can be an issue. What I wanted to ask you about. Well, I should say that I want to focus on AI and data protection and have a lot more to say on data protection, actually. But maybe it's beyond the scope of today's debate. Now, if I assume that we want to have legal certainty, then I have to raise the question of how that works with stop the Clock. I get the impression that among the member states, there are some who are saying, yes, separate it. If we could basically pause this, take some time to think about the individual elements, because there's a lot of, uh, issue with time pressure that would be removed if we were to do so.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you very much indeed. President. Vice president of the European Commission. Colleagues. Now, we should ask American companies whether actually it's in their interests to be led by our rules, because right now that doesn't really seem to be the case. Instead of cooperation. We are clearly seeing, um, people, um, suspecting the European legislation. And we should also ask whether that's not going to have consequences for their activities on our own, in our own internal market. Um, we in Europe have something to show, something to offer. And it's us, basically, who, uh, link or want to link technology and values. So I think we need to start thinking seriously about this and maybe the possibility of having, uh, stricter consequences if this approach continues, maybe through checking or even putting an end to the transatlantic exchange of data. That's a threat which wouldn't fall on deaf ears, I believe. And that's why I think we need to start thinking about this type of thing as Europe. We have something to offer, but it must be done according to our rules. That's why we need a European strategy. New speed in Europe. Um, the possibility of having new, uh, intensity, new investment risk, capital to build all of this up. Because then we can also stand up against this. Thank you.”
  EU-US data transfers
• “I will be speaking my mother tongue. Let me start off. Is it working? Well, let me start off then, by thanking you warmly for travelling to Brussels so that we can have an exchange with you. I don't think any of us can imagine in what kind of Worlds. You're engaged in politics. Um, but we are happy to see you, of course, and are happy to to hear from you about how it is on the other side. And of course. You will appreciate that at the political and judicial level, it's difficult to provide assistance and support. But could I ask you what your expectations are of us? Not any military expectations or support, but more when it comes to the judicial side of things. Of course, we will try and do our utmost to support you in this area, but we all know that the processes that we're dealing with are not particularly fast processes. So sometimes you need political support to make sure that you can expedite that. And there are eight political groups here in the Parliament. But I'd like to hear from you how we can assist you in these endeavours.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “(15:49:48 – 15:52:09): I'll do my best. I have lots of questions around this matter of intellectual property and AI. Thank you very much, first and foremost, for your presentations. I'll be brief. IPRED to be is to be adapted to the digital age. So AI questions have to be clarified at the same time. And I was thinking about copyrights and and Yuri in March agreed or voted on the fact that we needed to do this. Now any infringements of copyright through AI might be dealt with here and confidentiality requirements should also be brought to bear and somehow aligned with what you're saying about intellectual property rights. So the current instruments, are they sufficient to counter any infringements of the law by AI? Do we need new information and proof rules? Is IPRED actually fit for purpose today? And at another level, where would you see the greatest deficit for implementation? Is it platforms or cross border implementation or international piracy, the fight against that? So I was perhaps not so easy to answer all this, but how I mean, what would it look like, a modernized, I've tried with regard to the its possible legal implementation that would guarantee fundamental rights and against the challenges of a platform economy or a data economy working with generative AI.”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• “Thank you chair. I'll be speaking in German. And thank you very much for the very striking presentation of your situation. I think none of us would like to find ourselves put in such a situation overnight, and the extent of the impact that you are confronted with all of a sudden is something that's very difficult to imagine. Um, for one, living a steady life. My question is, on the other hand, is of course. That we're all very much willing and ready to protect our European citizens and our judges. But my only question is, the names on the terror list in the US seemed to be purely arbitrary measure. And how does one approach that? How can immunity help if it is not respected by the state taking such action? Now, obviously you can provide that protection, but will it stop a name being put on a list? And even if actions are taken against right to protection, what recourse is there? Is there some kind of international definition for a terrorist or is it up to each individual state to define that themselves? And with support from the European Parliament or whichever institution. Is it not necessary to actually seek recourse in the US? And also seek. Removal from this list through due process in the US. Now, obviously, we can take decisions as an institution and it might help in some small way. Um, if we think about a program of protection. To be able to get one's everyday life up and running again, some kind of transitional Emergency measure. But I think that everything will depend on an understanding. Of how things have changed, given that the certainties that we have have now been undermined. And what can we actually do to respond and perhaps change that? So I'm sure we can take. Measures, but what do we then do if those measures are flouted?”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(16:40:12 – 16:41:37): thank you let me try in german this time firstly i'd like to thank everyone who has spoken everyone is full of ambition and i think that is a good thing because we really all do need to do something new we don't want to get stuck in a rut and we need to take advantage of what's already there i am grateful before the hint concerning overlapping legal acts i'm not sure we'll be able to fix everything but i appreciate the suggestion and we'll have to see how to go about that if we go into all of these things like unraveling bureaucracy wallet providers in the eu these are all a good start it's a way of fostering a digital single market it needs extra bits and pieces but it's an important step forward and i think i think that this ambition is good for the debate we're going to have thank you”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “So I will try my best. Thanks a lot. Um, I try in English now, but probably it's easier. Um. Or no, let's change to German then. Probably it'll go quicker. Um, so. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the presentations we've heard. And thank you very much for giving me a bit of speaking time before I have to leave. I will try to do my best to help her. Any reports on that? Now, what is the situation we're in? We're not afraid of the future when it comes to any particular rule. But if you look at the member states, they seem to be world champions in trying to close down any possibility of changes in future. There needs to be a political openness in the member states, but I keep getting the feeling that they're stuck in last century thinking. So we have to create opportunities. But the big problem is because that they they like to hold on to their current legislation and or their prey to right wing populist ideas. They seem to be totally self-focused rather than focused on bringing the European Union forward. The point that you've raised are primarily competences of the member state, so we should expect a barrage of opposition and defensive behaviour. So I can only encourage the commission. It's very difficult to propose something that's independent of national competence and really brings us forward. I think together with René Rapuzzi and myself, you'll get a lot of support from this house for making progress. There are a lot of questions of detail. I'll try and keep it as brief as possible. But you talked about faster progress. The definition of fast in the context of European legislation is an ambivalent term. So. When do you get to the point where you say instead of like, no point going forward, right. How do you get to this point where we see an opening to move forward? Maybe as legislators, we need to rethink our own structures so that we can keep up with developments and rise to the challenges that are out there.”
  EU political integration
• “I also get the feeling that not all of the member states will be on board at the end of the day. Are we on the threshold of a two speed Europe or a multiple speed Europe? We should say, okay, those that want to do it should go ahead and do it. But you might not be able to get all of the member states to move. So that's why I'm raising this issue. Would it be helpful even to have a multiple speed Europe? How do we want to institutionalize all of this as well? Is this something that has to happen at the European level? Creating a register. What about public trust in that kind of register? And should we be, uh, rather strengthening cooperation between member states. And what are the limitations on this? Of course we want Europe to be moving forward, but is this just going to benefit, uh, large companies from other parts of the world who might use this instrument and might use it better than our own companies? So the question is, how can we frame this so that we as Europeans really make progress through this? We have to remember that the international order is disintegrating, and we're going to have to concentrate on our own household. So these are just some of the points I wanted to touch upon. I'm sorry that I can't stay for much longer, but Mr. Rapti is very patient. He will listen to everything and he will pass it all on to me, I'm sure. Thanks.”
  EU political integration
• “Yeah. Ah, okay. So thanks a lot for the presentation. I have a lot of small questions. And at first, if you're coming to simplification, um, does this mean also effective tools, competitiveness of our industry, our company businesses and legal clarity? This included um, second, if we're coming to the EU budget, um, are you just looking to, let's say, more or better effects in this whole budget, or are you also considering if the rights of the Parliament are respected or not? This is also something what I would like to have. Secondly. Um, no. Thirdly, probably already, um, if we are coming to corruption and and misuse money, um, Are you also recommending? And I think this is in in the cohesion policy. There has been a lot of misused money. Um, how you can reduce it. Are you also referring to, um, new procedures or something like this and the efficiency of EU funding of financing? Um, is this also a kind of the um, yeah, evaluation of the effectiveness and how you can improve this. So this would be something I would also like to ask about AI and how you're using these and so on. And would this be a kind of a recommendation also for a legislator and so on. But you don't have to answer the last question, please. But if you concentrating on these others it would be wonderful. Thanks.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Okay. Thank you. So first of all, I would like to commend the efforts of the Commission to reduce bureaucracy in this mandate. As the first rounds of omnibus proposals are finishing up so far, the Commission omnibus proposals concentrate primarily on the big fish, which is good, but seems to be the tip of the iceberg. And here in this regard, um, I couldn't understand really, because we have with batteries, conflict, minerals, deforestation, many Regulations on the same level of CHS triple D in a way. And why not putting these together and trying to find out? Do we want to have a general approach or a more specific approach on these? And this is something where I would consider we could have done even better. A second question. Um, what is making me nervous? Your comment on GDPR and changing GDPR, especially in digital times. It's we need to be more flexible as a legislator. Otherwise we won't really catch up with all these problems. So that's why I'm asking myself where we can discuss on GDPR elements, how we would like to deal with health data with, um, if avatar are biometric data or not, um, location data and so on. I think there is a need of modernization of the GDPR. Beyond the question of of this omnibus right now. And so and I have a lot of points where I would consider we need a better modernization.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, chairman. I would like to warmly thank the rapporteur for two reasons. First of all, because he has seemed to want to create something that is future looking, and he's also drawn on considerable expertise on when it comes to company law, what we would like to see a little more, or rather, we think that the 28th regime has to provide something new, some value added for the single market. And we know that the rapporteur wants this as well. But we see this more from the viewpoint of needing a regulation, because if we had a directive, however harmonized, that could be, it would still not provide a properly harmonized market. So obviously that is a point that we are going to have to discuss, and we are fully aware of the fact that if we do create something like this, that some of the other areas, um, that don't fall under taxation will perhaps be covered by this as well. Other ideas are going to have to be incorporated. But anyway, we are going to have to discuss this, but in principle we are open and positive to this. But there must be this element of value added for business and companies so that this does not end up in fragmentation, because then we wouldn't have won anything.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “President. Commissioner colleagues. The 28th regime could really be a milestone for Europe. With a new corporate form, it should be possible to set up start ups in less than 48 hours to do business and appoint staff in all EU member states without barriers to fully digitalise companies, and to gain faster and simpler access to investments and capital. It all sounds great and that's the way it should work. Europe is full of good ideas. It's full of smart brains, but now we need to give them the opportunity to grow and not to drown in red tape. But I'd like to sound a warning as well, because this idea in itself is not new. It has failed time and time again through member states who felt that their own rules were more important than those of the EU. Now, I don't believe we can afford to fail again if we want to ensure our prosperity. We need companies that are able to grow and compete, and that will only work if we do away with European barriers and hurdles. And that's why I will call on the Commission to come up with a proposal which meets all those requirements, uh, which the more harmonised, the better. And uh, in particular, obviously a regulation would be the correct instrument. I would in particular like to thank our rapporteur and the legal committee for his tireless commitment and his expertise, which has brought this, um, European Parliament, uh, own initiative report to the fore. And I hope that the Commission will now do its job to ensure that we get a genuine, fully harmonised internal market not only for startups, but for all companies and beyond. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(16:41:57 – 16:44:15): Thank you, chair. So dear colleagues, I would like to thank you all, shadows and members, for the amendments to my draft opinion on the European business wallet and the constructive spirit behind them. What stands out to me is not our differences, but how much we actually agree. There's broad support for the core purpose of the European business wallet, making cross-border business simpler, reducing administrative burden, and giving companies a secure way to identify themselves and exchange data across the Union. Several amendments also point in the same direction when it comes to trust and security. In particular, we seem to agree that data within the business wallet should remain under European jurisdiction and supervision. At the same time, members rightly insist that security must be workable in practice, not something that makes the system too complex or costly to use. Another strong single signal from this committee is the focus on SMEs. So the business wallet will only succeed if it is accessible, proportionate, and generally reduces effort for smaller businesses rather than adding new layers of compliance. Finally, many amendments underline that the business wallet must be practical. This tool must function in real life across borders, across systems, and also between businesses, not only within public authorities. The direction is clear. Our task is now to translate this shared approach into a coherent legal framework that delivers on simplification while ensuring trust. Therefore, I'm looking forward to working with you all to achieve that balance. Thanks a lot.”
  Electronic identity
• “A bit longer than yesterday oh thanks so I try to be short thanks commissioner Dobrowski for making this circle through the committees and thanks for the exchange and I would like to thank at first the commission to try to reduce bureaucracy in this mandate and of course the omnibuses are everywhere but sometimes I'm asking myself if I'm looking to the first omnibus why we do not have this broader picture at first. We have these CSRD and CS triple D but why not including batteries conflict minerals and so on these are also little supply chains what is influencing the whole economy. And second question would be why or who is doing the broader picture in reducing bureaucracy so we are focusing on small small little pillars in in digital some laws in these yes CSRD CS triple D some small pillars but who has the control about how to do business in Europe in these days and it would yeah need a kind of a broader approach on this. And I'm I'm asking myself is this still in the pipeline or do you have this in mind because we we we need probably to evaluate more than this what is in the omnibuses and and that we have this link and and this kind of yeah head of of all of it instead of focusing on some elements this is helpful and is is leading also to something but is this all so this is the question thanks.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Look at Europe's stance and the change in views in the US, where companies draw on European creative content. We need to take action here because Europe's future is at stake. So large language models really need to be tackled. We need to recognise that European culture is a key component of our identity. This is particularly important for free and independent press. I have to cut short my lovely written statement because I'm running out of time now. Well, in principle, what we're striving for here is to protect copyright law but adapt it to the digital world. We are looking at some sort of licensing market that would ultimately be automated. It would create a remuneration stream for creative professionals. We need transparency so that content creators know what is happening with their content. We want some sort of automated system that would sound the alarm when necessary. We need appropriate standards. We would be looking at watermarks, for example, and how can we ensure that we move more swiftly and have an effective, efficient system with licensing in a very complicated sector? So my thinking and something we need to Discuss is do we want to look at a registration tool for content protected by copyright? Would that be something that the EU EPPO in Alicante could manage? Could they look at the licensing model? Could they carry out checks on large language models. See whether content is being used? That's really only a third of what I wanted to say, but unfortunately time is short. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you. Chairman. One of the main problems. Is how to deal with generative AI and copyright. There are 370 amendments that have been tabled and we saw a general trend. This. This does constitute an infringement of copyright. So yes, we can say this is a new way of using AI. And but obviously we have to make sure that the principles of copyright apply. There is a general trend to say that there should be some kind of licensing mark, and there should be some kind of compensation system if you like paying fees. But then, on the other hand, if you take a look at the reference in article 53 of the AI act where there is a reference to generative artificial intelligence, then of course there is the indication that we do need transparency. Up till now, the AI office has not been able to come up with a practicable solution. So it is up to us. It is our task to take a look at transparency. And basically this is what the colleagues have been doing. We've also gone or have to give some thought to this, because there is this political problem relating to artificial intelligence that exists at the same time as copyright legislation existing, and we have to give thought to how to strike an appropriate balance.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “Thank you very much to, miss Lopata for the presentation of the working program. Now my question is linked to a message that I want to give you. FRAG for its work program 2026, hopefully, will take the opportunity not just to slim down the flexibility requirements, but also to try and take account of the European reporting obligations and the CSAT and also, there are different groups that supply the same information via other sectoral legal acts, and it would be helpful to have a duplication of labor. So I would say, in my view, the biggest problems that we have at the moment are that we have too many data points. So we're asking for too much data. We have a complex, double system. The supply chain is overburdened, and we also have a lack of prioritizing, which goes hand in hand with the insecurity caused by ongoing changes. So this is my question or my actually, my message to you. Can you reduce the required data points? We have all of these different issues that we have to report back on. And, of course, you have to remain competitive, and that would contribute if you could reduce the administrative reporting burden. Report once used many times. That could be a good slogan. So we'd only have to put this data together once, and it could be used a lot in different scenarios. Perhaps we don't have to ask for every single envisaged piece of information. Perhaps we could restrict ourselves in the future or the FRAG could. And then, of course, we want to protect the SMEs in the supply chain. What data really does need to be asked of SMEs? And, perhaps we need to move towards more standardization. Digital tools will help us here. And stability rather continuity rather than constant need for improvement. So this is what I would like to see happen linked to the question of whether we want to develop in that direction. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:13:27 – 16:14:59): Thank you very much, Uts, for that question. So I believe we need to aim to build a governing model that actually allows for effectively conducting our various mandates. So having an executive board that actually takes the supervisory decisions that ESMA needs to take is very important. At the same time, the Board of Supervisors will remain ESMA's ultimate governing body. And there, all the national competent authorities will clearly be represented. And I think particularly for smaller member states, to my mind, at the moment, they have very little influence over the supervision or even the convergence of supervision over some of the entities that provide the last vast majority of the services to their citizens and to their companies because these, entities are supervised. The big cross border entities are supervised in other countries very often. And so they have to rely on their fellow national competent authority. They might get some information sometimes. But at ESMA level, they will be part of the governance mechanism of ESMA. So I think, actually, they will gain a view and an understanding and an impact on the way ESMO supervises those type of entities that are providing services to the small country as much as to the big countries.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you so dear, dear colleagues, Europe does not lose competitiveness because of our companies lack innovation. We lose competitiveness because they spend too much time navigating bureaucracy. So up to 20% at the end of staff time and companies is absorbed by compliance tasks. So for SMEs the burden is even heavier. And when they operate across borders, procedures are still fragmented, repetitive and sometimes even paper based. So this is not acceptable in 2026. So the European business wallet can be a real breakthrough here. They create a harmonized digital framework for identification signatures, mandates and secure document exchange. So with full legal equivalence across the union and for the first time, a company registered in one member state could seamlessly prove its identity, submit documents and receive legally valid notification anywhere in Europe digitally, securely and instantly. So. But ambition alone is not enough. It's about delivering matters first. From my point of view, implementation must be realistic and fast. Businesses cannot wait years before they see the benefits. We already have the ecosystem. We already have European trust services. We should build on that and ensure rapid availability for companies. Not long transition periods. Second, this must strengthen Europe's digital sovereignty. So the wallet should be based on European technology, European standards and also European cyber security requirements. At the same time, it must remain market driven and technologically neutral, and innovation does not come from overregulation. It comes from competition. So third, we must protect SMEs from new burdens. The purpose of this proposal is simplification. So onboarding must be simple and costs must be proportionate. Micro-enterprises and self-employed professionals should benefit, not even overwhelmed by complex compliance layers. If we get this balance right, speed, sovereignty and simplicity, the European business wallet can become a cornerstone of a truly digital single market. And that is the Europe our business need. And this is what we should have in mind if we are when we are talking about this. So thanks a lot for your attention.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yeah. Well. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Rapporteur. Colleagues. The 28th regime could be a key project if we all focus on competitiveness. If we look at European legal frameworks of startups and we are able to get this, allow them to grow quickly and without burdens. And so we need this unified framework in order to attract investment and and for Europe to be seen as somewhere attractive and competitive. And so the report has a lot of good approaches in there. Thank you very much for that. I feel like it's also in good hands now with the start ups. There is some doubt that's been brought up. We need to make sure that this 28th regime doesn't end up with 27 different, uh, uh, explanations and parts. So we want to make sure that, um. We can break down this, uh, split up that we currently have and can really focus on a regulation. Now, I know that the agreement unanimity in council isn't ideal, but I do think that we should focus on, uh, competitiveness or the currently the not competitive situation. And we should make sure that the council can think about that, that we don't end up getting stuck back in the last century. Turning this into a new company form does bring certain potential for fragmentation if we leave it up to the member states. And so that's why we'd like to see simplification. Not new bureaucratic parallel worlds. And we need to make sure that we have something that works across Europe for everybody and without these burdens. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Can I speak German? Well, thank you for that presentation. Competitiveness is something that is really on our minds at the moment, and it really is connected with the whole sort of whole set of different things. Omnibus. That's a good one. But it only ever shines a light on a small bit of this competitive problem. We want more legal certainty, less bureaucracy, and there are probably measures that need to be taken further in all of that. But that's where the question pops up in my mind as to who actually comes up with the overall plan. Really, at the moment, all we've got a little specialist bits of omnibus, but what we need is a strategic plan as to how we want to become more competitive. The second thing in that context is digitalisation. Doing more competitiveness without digitalisation simply isn't possible in these days. And so we're going to somehow to have to think about that and come up with an answer to the question as to how, strategically speaking, you can do it so that you can and you've got sovereignty issues that play into this.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much. I'll switch back to German. First of all, heartfelt thanks. You've been here quite a few times. Quite often we get the impression that you're actually a member of the committee. So thanks for coming again. A couple of very general questions. Firstly, overlapping files. Would it be possible to study that to to mandate a study to see where overlaps are taking place, particularly in the digital area, where often the commission comes with a very sectoral approach, without a kind of harmonious presentation of an overview of how they all interlock with the first, as we've just discussed with Marianne Wiseman, omnibus package. What's missing for me is a general overview. We've got supply chain sustainable reporting, but conflict minerals, batteries, deforestation, which are also small supply chain related. I seem to be absent. So is there a possibility of getting a kind of coordinated overview of that? The second question, more on the digital area. Digital area. Digitalization of law is something that we perhaps need to move forward so that we may be develop our own AI through intensive training of what our needs are and, in a broader field, legal tech. I have the sense that organizing documents for. Fully tapping the potential of digitalization is something we need to look at. So in terms of the digitalization of this field, I seek further focus. Unfortunately, I won't be able to wait for your answer. My colleague Adrian will be paying very close attention, attention and report back to me. But those are the things that are on my mind at the moment.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU