Loránt VINCZE

Policy topics Loránt VINCZE is active on

What Loránt VINCZE has said (12)

• 2025-06-30 “P-002630/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission Respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on EU 1 , are fundamental EU values and key to its relations with all its partners. For potential and candidate countries, the Copenhagen criteria require stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. These are central to the accession process and apply equally to all countries, including Ukraine. They are monitored and assessed by the Commission, notably through the annual enlargement package. In the framework of accession negotiations, the rights of persons belonging to minorities are an integral part of chapter 23 of the EU acquis. The Commission screens candidate countries’ alignment with acquis on fundamental rights and monitors implementation. Subsequently, countries are expected to prepare a rule of law roadmap outlining reforms. In Ukraine’s case, authorities are expected to implement adopted legislation and the action plan on national minorities effectively, in line with EU standards and in dialogue with the national minorities’ representatives. Within the EU, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU 2 . Monitoring, dialogue, and funding mechanisms such as the European Social Fund Plus, the European Regional Development Fund, or the pre-accession financing instruments/facilities, among other initiatives, underline EU’s commitment to fostering inclusive societies. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2012/art_2/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT.”
  EU and national cultural identities · EU competences on human rights
• 2025-04-22 “E-001599/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The respect for minority rights is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union 1 . Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2 prohibits any discrimination including on grounds of ethnic or social origin, language or membership of a national minority. The Commission is committed to ensure that there is no place for hate 3 in the EU. The 2008 Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia 4 requires Member States to criminalise public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin, when directed against a group of persons or a member of such group. National authorities, including national courts, remain competent to determine whether a specific behaviour or act qualifies as hate speech or hate crime under applicable national law. The High Level Group on combating hate speech and hate crime 5 , which is in place since 2016, has contributed to develop widely used standards and guidance to support national authorities in their responses to hate crime and hate speech and the effective enforcement of national laws on the ground. The High Level Group will maintain a comprehensive approach on all forms of hate speech and hate crime, in particular focusing on the grounds listed in the Framework Decision, including ethnicity or nationality. Enhancing the protection of individuals and groups at risk of hate victimisation based on these grounds may also bring protection for groups speaking minority languages, as relevant in specific national contexts. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT. 3 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council JOIN/2023/51 final on ‘No place for hate: a Europe united against hatred’ JOIN/2023/51 final. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913. 5 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combattingdiscrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-hate-speech-and-hate-crime_en.”
  EU and national cultural identities · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2025-02-06 “E-000549/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union 1 . Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) prohibits any discrimination including on grounds of ethnic or social origin, language or membership of a national minority. As the Charter applies to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law, the Commission ensures, within the remit of its competence, that fundamental rights and, in particular the right to non-discrimination, are respected. The 2008 Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia 2 obliges Member States to provide for criminal offences regarding certain types of hate speech and hate crime. The Commission is not competent to intervene before the national authorities in alleged individual cases of discrimination, hate speech or hate crime. It is not foreseen to extend the material scope of the Rule of Law Report to cover the protection of minorities. The Report is only one part of a broader effort at EU level to strengthen the founding EU values, including democracy, equality, and respect for human rights. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913”
  EU and national cultural identities · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. Council and Parliament. The European People's Party is committed to respecting human dignity. It's unacceptable that anybody in Europe could be discriminated against when it comes to accessing services, healthcare, accessing education just because they're older. Or perhaps they have a certain religion. For the EPP. Equal treatment is not just a principle. No, it is an absolute requirement. We need to continue negotiations to ensure that the directive is adopted. But we shouldn't be too acrimonious. Colleagues. If in member States. Don't want to see discrimination against, for example, national minorities. This is also important. This often is left out of the commission proposal in 2025, in the heart of the European Union, in Slovakia, they still use the principle of collective punishment. State authorities in Slovakia annex property from foreign citizens, those who are of Hungarian and German origin, and this is based on the Benes decrees. And last week the government in Bratislava even said that anybody wants to criticize the declarations would be punished as well. This is a complete flouting of freedom of expression as well. And often intimidation is involved as well. There can be hate speech used against the Hungarian speaking community and often communities. Flags are taken down in their communities. No, this is complete discrimination. It's not hooliganism, for example. We need proper action against that. The EU's credibility depends on eliminating double standards. We can't be sensitive to certain types of discrimination when we are completely ignoring other discrimination. We can't be selective when it comes to equal treatment.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “Dear colleagues, the rapporteur, support for fundamental rights and freedoms lies at the very core of the European project and remains central to our 21st century understanding of democracy. This is precisely why the European Parliament continues to monitor the state of fundamental rights. The committee carries out an annual assessment, and the Afco Committee has undertaken an implementation report specifically focused on the operation of the charter. Although the ECB and the Afco reports are being drafted in parallel, their purpose differs as recital B of the Afco draft report rightly underlines, this report is not intended to assess each individual right in the charter, but rather to analyze the Charter's implementation as an instrument of EU primary law. However, the main body of the Afco report currently shifts away from this constitutional and institutional focus. Instead of evaluating the Charter's role as a cornerstone of EU primary law, it examines selected individual rights and obligations. Through our EPP amendments, we aim to refocus the report on Avco's core mandate, and we kindly invite the rapporteur to consider our proposals in that light. We are also confident that the report remains the appropriate place to address the substantive concerns raised in this draft report, concerns that go way beyond our institutional remits.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you president. Madam Commissioner. Equality is at the very heart of the European project. However, the million people who come from minorities are ignored by the commission. You were given the mandate of helping minorities when it comes to historical peoples who've been living in Morocco for years. We don't hear anything from you. But there are 90% of our cultural diversity. They defend their identity and their language with dignity. Tyrolean Bretons and a lot of other people, a lot of them are subject to. Discrimination and losing the language of what we see in Belgium with the German speaking minority, shows that it's possible to do something. Not a single one of the 11 initiative citizens initiatives have actually got as far as a legislative proposal. It's time to act, and this particular initiative deserves that you act.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, on behalf of the EPP Group, I would like to warmly thank our colleague Emmanuel for his serious and committed work, as well as for the inclusive approach throughout the drafting process. This report makes one point unmistakably clear artificial intelligence is no longer merely a technological issue. It has become a constitutional and democratic question at the very core of the European project. It is encouraging that the European Union, and particularly the European Parliament, is not reacting passively At the same time, we must remain realistic and cautious. The European Union should avoid overregulation, technological development and AI is advancing at a pace that legislation can hardly match. If we regulate too, hardly and too rigidly and too early, we risk stifling innovation, undermining competitivity. The key is smart and proportionate governance. In this regard, the proposal to establish a European Parliament's AI observatory is a welcome step. It strengthens democratic oversight and expertise with unnecessarily constraining the innovation. We must also address one of the most pressing challenges the impact of AI on democratic processes, particularly elections and public discourse. The growing presence of AI generated content raises serious concerns about manipulation, disinformation and erosion of trust. Therefore, a fundamental principle of any regulatory framework must be clear. We must always be able to identify human responsibility behind AI generated content and actions. Accountability cannot be outsourced by the algorithms. At the same time, we should not overlook the positive potential of AI when used responsibly. It can improve legislative quality, support better implementation of EU law, and enhance coordination among the member States. And probably we will hear such stories or ideas from the representatives of the national parliaments. Finally, the report rightly positions the EU as a global standard setting. Europe should aim not only to regulate internally, but also to shape international norms while remaining open, competitive and innovation friendly. Thank you.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “Thank you very much, chair. Mrs. Rona, it was great to to hear you and good luck with the Cypriot presidency. It's always a challenge for any member state to, uh, be the host of the council negotiations and all this process. But it's so more challenging for a for a smaller member state. So good luck and, uh, and hope to see you, uh, in many, on many occasions. Thank you for your words regarding the call for for a European unity and and for the thrive to have a European autonomy on as many areas as possible. And thanks for mentioning mostly all the topics that are here in Afco committee we work on. Um, probably we would like to hear a bit more, uh, on the specific, uh, topics. And mostly we would like to have an answer from the, from the Council on Magnifies that were proposed by, by the Parliament, namely the on the treaty change. I understand from your words it's not a favourable position or the same with the Electoral Act from 2022. Uh, probably even if the answer is no is good to have it, to have a formal, uh, you know, discussion between, uh, the two legislators, uh, regarding the right of inquiry. You spoke about a mapping exercise and the technical level discussions. As members, we would like to involve in this in this process. We are and we are truly looking forward for negotiations. We have here the rapporteur and my colleague Sinkiewicz also ready to to work, uh, meaningful, uh, on on this, on this file. Um, you didn't mention the accession to the Echr that the chair, uh, introduced. Uh, what is the status on this? Maybe you can, uh, you can tell us and, uh, really thank you for your engagement and and hope to have news from the from the council in a formal manner. Uh, but, uh, but anyway, it would be good to have answers on, on some, uh, legislative files that left from the Parliament to the council but stayed there for years, sometimes.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for your dedication and work on this file. In strengthening the democratic rights of the Parliament and in the negotiations with the with the Commission, you went into the negotiations having put forward an ambitious list of proposals to enable the Parliament to better fulfil its role as a co-legislator and budgetary authority, and in its role to scrutinise the Commission. And you were successful. The team of Parliament was successful in obtaining positive reactions from the Commission, and I think President Metsola rightfully said of the political agreement on the text that it is an upgrade that reinforces transparency, accountability, cooperation and trust. You already mentioned a few of the many improvements of the text from the Parliament's point of view. Indeed, the biggest win probably is related to article 122 that will now be codified. The good news is that the rule in our rules of procedure, rule 138, is already in place to make sure that Parliament is ready to fulfil its scrutiny. Role on article 122 when it is needed. As committee, our task is to make a recommendation to plenary in the renegotiated agreement for the EPP Group. I can already tell you that we are looking favourably at the text of the agreement. But of course our work will not stop here. Colleagues, was the agreement we received the back of the majority in the plenary, it will be up to us and our colleagues in the different committees to follow up on the new commitments and cooperation opportunities, and make sure that the Parliament makes the best use of the provisions. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you chair. Firstly, as a standing rapporteur on European Citizens Initiative in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, allow me to stress that despite the promise in the Lisbon Treaty to empower citizens and give them a direct voice in shaping EU policies, the ECI so far never have achieved new EU legislation. This persistent gap suggests that in practice, citizens participation is disregarded by the European Commission. It's crucial that from a so-called agenda setting instrument, the citizens Initiative, become what they were meant for to result in legislative acts in policy areas that are considered important by a large number of citizens. Today, the Commission has another opportunity to provide good governance and to address this shortcoming. It only needs the political willingness to do so. And now I will address the matter in Hungarian.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Thank you chair. Dear colleagues. Well, it's a very interesting exchange. Also the expert's opinion. But but later the comments of of of colleagues and it's obvious, uh, from the perspective that we have that treaty change on, on defense clause and on other matters will not happen. And it's important to say it from, from our perspective, uh, speaking about the treaty reform today is a waste of of political resources because any change requires unanimity. I think the solution is not a new constitution, but a better use of the flexibility that we have within the treaties. And I think in this time span of, of of two years, we acted bravely here in the Parliament, but but also the Council. And I think finding more money for, for defence does not require a treaty change, enabling the internal market to better fit the defence industry is a must to work on better synergies between member states. Infrastructures is possible without any treaty constraint. So I agree with the majority that has been said that we should not spend years on institutional gazing while while the war is at our borders. Now questions to Steven Blockmans. How can we improve the speed of crisis response within the current intergovernmental model without reopening the the treaties and perhaps making better use of the constructive abstention? We need to be innovative in this given situation, and then having into taking into account the position of neutral member states. Do you believe that a coalition of willing within the EU framework is the most realistic path forward for for deepening the defence cooperation effectively. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “The 364 amendments tabled so far clearly show how divergent Members expectations are both on what falls within, of course, competence and what does not. A large number of amendments are deletions that represent a majority in this committee. So I kindly invite the rapporteur to negotiate in good faith and respect the majority of the political, uh, groups when proposing a compromise amendments or when deciding to keep parts of the report ahead of next Tuesday's shadows meeting. Let me inform you on behalf of the EPP Group, both as coordinator and shadow rapporteur, that we will negotiate with full respect to the limits of competences. Past experiences of other reports. The drug report, led by our colleague Bonafe and the enlargement report by my colleague Gozzi, showed that difficult negotiations often resulted from the inclusion of amendments that were ultimately deemed out of scope. We should not repeat this this experience, and from the outset, we should be able to say clearly what is in our remit and work with those and let other issues pass to other committee remits. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs