Lena DÜPONT

Policy topics Lena DÜPONT is active on

What Lena DÜPONT has said (29)

• 2025-07-23 “E-003063/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 1 establishes maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides across the EU, thereby ensuring food safety and a high level of consumer protection. This Regulation ensures that all food products comply with consistent, health-based safety standards, making it easier for consumers to trust the food they purchase. The approval of thiacloprid in the EU was not renewed 2 due to the contamination of groundwater with potential carcinogenic metabolites as toxic for reproduction category 1B. The Commission proposed an initial draft regulation to maintain, among others, an import tolerance for thiacloprid MRLs in tea 3 , that was rejected by the European Parliament 4 . This proposal was based on a risk assessment conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) prior to the EU's adoption of the latest criteria on endocrine disruptors. Following this rejection and due to concerns about the potential endocrine effects of thiacloprid, the Commission prepared a new regulation provisionally lowering all the MRLs for thiacloprid until EFSA completes a further assessment 5 . In this process, the Commission was informed by stakeholders about the potential impact of the envisaged measures on Indian tea imports, especially given the heavy reliance on thiacloprid to manage mosquito bugs. Alternative plant protection solutions were discussed, and the Commission discussed the matter with Member States before the finalisation of the Regulation. As a result, a transition period was provided for products already on the market before the Regulation became applicable. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj. 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/23 of 13 January 2020 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance thiacloprid, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 8, 14.1.2020, p. 8, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/23/oj). 3 G/SPS/N/EU/651. 4 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0016_EN.html. 5 Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711 regarding the maximum residue levels for thiacloprid in certain products.”
  Pesticides & trade · Maximum residue levels
• 2025-05-29 “E-002168/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 1 and Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 2 do not refer to ‘slurry and slurry products’ or to ‘slurry solids’ while ‘manure’ is defined in Article 3.20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and subsequently regulated by Article 13 of that Regulation. The objective of these Regulations is prevention of public and animal health risk posed by animal by-products, such as by manure. For that reason, the former Regulation does not provide for the use of manure as bedding in establishments keeping animals, among them dairy cows. However, these Regulations provide for proportionate and science-based rules on safe processing and disposal and valorisation methods for manure, including rules to apply it on land. In combination with Regulation (EU) 2023/1605 3 these rules have established a safe and sustainable manufacturing chain towards EU fertilising products after several risk mitigation measures render manure safe. In that context, manure has already been considered a valuable starting material and resource, supporting sustainability and circularity in the farming sector. 2. The Commission is not aware of such Member States where slurry and slurry products, such as slurry solids, are used as bedding in dairy stalls. 3. The Commission does not intend to amend the above-mentioned Regulations for the mentioned purpose. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 1–33. 2 Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive OJ L 54, 26.2.2011, p. 1–254. 3 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1605 of 22 May 2023 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of end points in the manufacturing chain of certain organic fertilisers and soil improvers (OJ L 198, 8.8.2023, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/1605/oj).”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2025-03-19 “E-001177/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission As stated in the Commission’s Communication ‘A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations’ 1 , continuous support for organic farming remains essential for the Commission. Organic farming is a voluntary scheme 2 based on precise legal standards set in Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products 3 and its associated secondary legislation. Organic farming has been increasingly successful over the last decade as EU consumers choose to support a model that is based on ambitious environmental and animal welfare rules. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 generally requires poultry to have access to open air areas and herbivores to have access to pastures and provides only time-limited exemptions to these requirements related in particular to weather conditions, state of the grounds or animal health diseases 4 . 1 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Vision for Agriculture and Food Shaping together an attractive farming and agri-food sector for future generations, Brussels, 19.2.2025 COM(2025) 75 final. 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming_en 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2008, OJ L 150 14.6.2018, p. 1. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2024-12-01 4 Frequently asked questions ON ORGANIC RULES, replies to questions 12 and 14. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e5b18da2-e7a7-4535-8425-db81ebe7e5ba_en”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-02-21 “E-000813/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Habitats Directive 1 in its Article 6(3) and 6(4) provides a clear and flexible procedure to address potential conflicts, applicable also in cases between flood protection and nature conservation needs 2 . Article 6(4) allows plans and projects with significant negative effects on a site to proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, in the absence of alternative solutions and if compensatory measures are taken. This can typically apply to flood protection measures that relate to human health or public safety which are explicitly mentioned in Article 6(4), second paragraph. 2. The Commission does not plan to amend the Habitats Directive beyond the current proposal to align the Annexes to the amendment of the Bern Convention 3 . Regarding compensatory measures for impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the context of application of Article 6(4) of the Directive, it is the national competent authority which decides on the need and character of such measures. The German authorities have a long-standing experience with successfully applying exemptions for flood protection measures 4 . The implementation of these flood protection measures shows the feasibility of such measures and the flexibility of the Habitats Directive. 1 Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 2 The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail//publication/11e4ee91-2a8a-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 3 COM(2025)106 final: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/8ec6689c-a7d8-422e-829dc4231fc32872_en 4 The Commission has been notified pursuant to Art 6(4) about the following protective dykes, among others: Strengthening of the Rhine flood dyke/right side of the Murg dam (responsible authority: Raststatt/BadenWürttemberg State Council Office), Strengthening and reinforcement of the right-hand Elbe dyke near Fischbeck (responsible authority: district of Stendal/Saxony-Anhalt), Raising and strengthening of the Emden harbour dyke (responsible authority: Lower Saxony State Agency for Water Management, Coastal Defence and Nature Conservation/Lower Saxony).”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.) · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2024-10-16 “E-002111/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission Following the adoption of the EU legislation on fortified foods 1 , the Commission initiated work on a risk management methodology in close cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders. In 2020, the Commission resumed its work to set maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals. Preparatory work to set the maximum amounts with the help of Member States’ experts is ongoing with a view of the adoption in the course of 2025. In this context, a call for evidence and consultations with relevant stakeholders on the possible impacts of this initiative are foreseen to ensure evidence-based and transparent EU decision-making in line with Better Regulation Principles. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 on the addition of vitamins, minerals and of certain other substances to food (fortified foods).”
  Nutrition
• “Thanks, chair, and allow me to first share a word of appreciation for the citizens initiative here, and also for the very strong and encouraging and also also very, let's say, respect demanding statements that you had also sent a here in person but also connected digitally. And I can only applaud the the courage that you actually had taken not only to organize the citizens initiative, but also to be here and speak about it and demand actions from, from various levels. At the same time, allow me to to be a bit let's say focusing on the practical terms of, of the initiative. And as you rightly also said in your intervention already you identified three categories or reactions that could possibly be and the first, of course, the addition to the definition of euro crimes, which is, of course, a treaty change. And I guess we all have a bit of a feeling on how long that might take and actually to go to go forward on that second point. You also mentioned legal initiatives, but as well legal initiatives are connected to member states being willing to participate not only in the negotiations, but also in aligning on the political purposes of that. And that is a bit of a question both to the organizers, actually, but also to the commission at a certain point on how they see the I assume, and as far as I know, very diverse picture within member states.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Thanks, chair. And thanks to Mr. Zan for the really good and precise and concise summary of the mission. On behalf of our rapporteur. I would also like to echo some of his political messages that he had been sending out. And it was particularly in thanking the agency for having received the members of Parliament in the agency itself, but also being very open for the dialogue throughout the thematic programme. And for us, I think it's very important. Like we also highlighted in the previous discussion we had with Fra, that the more strategic approach also to the networking, let's say here in Brussels, is of importance so that we can make sure that the expertise and the recommendations of the agency are duly taken into consideration not only here in the committee, but also when other committees are concerned as well. So I think it is a well established dialogue that we have with the institutions here. And I would also like to see that, of course, for the other agencies as well. And I'd like to thank you also the rapporteur and the chair of the delegation for the visit and the good cooperation.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “And since there is also logically a link between the broom and the police information exchange, and also there because they negotiated it, I remember that we already had a bit of an opening for customs authorities there. I know it's not necessarily only connected to broom, but of course, I would be very interested on on your stance on the current debate on the customs data hub and the possibility to have access to that data for law enforcement as well. I think naturally it should be because there again, when it comes to drug trafficking, when it comes to port security, when it comes to trafficking of human beings and so on and so forth, there is a need in a closer cooperation there. And I would say it goes for both sides, for the customs and for law enforcement there as well. And the last point, last question on that, of course is our technical system fit for any kind of third country cooperation enlargement, so to say? And if not, what do we need to do to make it fit for purpose? Thanks.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Thank you chair. And thanks, Mr. Commissioner, for the presentation. And not only by the length of the presentation, it really clearly shows, um, How how complex, but also broad and and wide ranging. The portfolio is. And I'm very much happy and welcome that the Commission puts a lot of emphasis on the security of the European Union. So actually delivering on the security security Union strategy and the points you rightly mentioned. So. So allow me to um, because it's not surprisingly that for most of the points I voice my support on various levels. But allow me to, um, have a detailed question, uh, for on on three topics. The first one is organised crime and the port strategy. Um, there we need to find a tricky balance. By the same time reaching out to other countries, let's say destination countries of drug trafficking, to see how we can enlarge our cooperation there and at the same time, within the European Union, make sure that also smaller ports are part of the port strategy, because actually what we see now is having a flashlight on the bigger ports, having more control possibilities at bigger ports. It actually means that the drug trafficking or the flows are directed at the smaller ports. Now, so how can we bridge that? And you also mentioned the geopolitical situation and the internal security strategy there. The really honest and open question, do we need to adapt something of the internal security strategy content wise, but also time wise? So do we also sometimes need to think about, um, shortening some some, some deadlines, some timelines in order to propose something earlier, for example, on the information exchange, which is a very crucial part, by the way, not only for the internal security strategy, but also for the preparedness strategy.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “So are there things that we can actually learn from your from your initiative, but also from the campaign around it? When it comes to the debates in, in some member states to the commission, of course, the question on, on, let's say, the timetable of the study that you started last month. On on, let's say, the scale and the impact of a conversion practices. And I know that it can be frustrating from time to time, but I think just over skipping member states and the competencies at European level and the division between that might also be a bit to, to short in the end, if we want to actually achieve something at, at European level which is why the second question and then I'll quit. Second question specifically also to the organisers again, is not only what we can learn from from your initiative and the campaign, but what actually can be learned from the member states that had already banned conversion practices and how we can foster dialogue between those member states and the other ones who didn't do so so far. Thanks.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And, um, well, one, welcome back to the European Parliament, madam. After the last visit here actually, was your hearing. So pleasure seeing you again. And pleasure also, of course, hearing the steps that had been taken up so far. Um, allow me probably to touch upon something that comes more from an angle. You know, that we are currently also in the midst of revising our anti-fraud architecture within the European Union and therefore, um, the information exchange between a variety, I would say, of, of agencies could be and is of utmost importance when fighting not only anti-fraud, but also, of course, money laundering and everything that is connected to that. When when we look at the angle of a crime, terroristic threats and so on and so forth. So maybe, uh, a few reflections from your side on, let's say, on the position of amla, uh, in, in that, in that area. And of course, um, a question that we also have been discussing during your hearing, but knowing that all the things you mentioned on the IT infrastructure and the the required needs for that to be set up, I would like to also, of course, hear a bit on your, let's say, own protection system of that IT infrastructure. Knowing the ongoing cyber attacks, uh, that we are seeing in the recent weeks and months. Thanks a lot.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• “Madam President. Commissioner, cyber bullying is a silent monster. It cuts social bonds. It undermines human interaction. It erodes trust in society. And it can ultimately. And we just heard the reminder of Coco's example here put the life of children at risk. Contrary to their public humiliation in group chats and social media forum in gaming channels, effectively in real life, victims far too often suffer in silence because they feel not seen. They feel not taken seriously, that their interests and their vulnerability does not matter. For years now, reports and warnings have been skyrocketing. By now, 1 in 6 children between the age of 11 and 15 in Europe alone states that they had been victim to cyber bullying. It is high time to end that. For that, we need a clear mixture of short, mid and long term instruments. Instruments that we need to strengthen because they are already there, and new ones where we need to deploy the possibilities. Digital literacy and prevention, including all relevant actors, is important. Further support helplines and ease their usage across the EU is also very important, but we also need to assess the possibilities of streamlining the EU's and member states approaches to foster a common understanding and definition and, if needed, streamline criminal law. Ultimately, we need to strengthen law enforcement capacity and possibility to react and apply to ourselves. Let us not simply accept that there are legal gaps and put them forward as normal. Let us act on it. Thanks.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “So are there things that we can actually learn from your from your initiative, but also from the campaign around it? When it comes to the debates in, in some member states to the commission, of course, the question on, on, let's say, the timetable of the study that you started last month. On on, let's say, the scale and the impact of a conversion practices. And I know that it can be frustrating from time to time, but I think just over skipping member states and the competencies at European level and the division between that might also be a bit to, to short in the end, if we want to actually achieve something at, at European level which is why the second question and then I'll quit. Second question specifically also to the organisers again, is not only what we can learn from from your initiative and the campaign, but what actually can be learned from the member states that had already banned conversion practices and how we can foster dialogue between those member states and the other ones who didn't do so so far. Thanks.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “Thank you and thanks again to you Mr.. For for being here and thanks for already answering. I would say the most prominent two questions from my side, which is the timing of the proposal and of course the third countries the Commission has in mind and full support of course, for, for specifically the Schengen associated countries, because I think there we can look at a at a track record of good cooperation, which, which can be useful there. And also for, for the other ones that you just mentioned, I think it's worth deploring. The possibilities there. Which automatically leads to the question, are there any countries you didn't mention yet but could also potentially be of interest specifically looking again at, let's say, at specific policy areas where we have an interest as European Union, look, for example, the links to to the port strategy and the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking, for example. So if this is also in the thinking of the commission there, I very much remember from the negotiations on a broom and the police information exchange in the previous term, that there was already a discussion about whether the categories inside the European Union, but also potentially outside the European Union, the categories of data are still fit for purpose or if we need to have a debate on that as well.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Thanks, chair, and allow me to first share a word of appreciation for the citizens initiative here, and also for the very strong and encouraging and also also very, let's say, respect demanding statements that you had also sent a here in person but also connected digitally. And I can only applaud the the courage that you actually had taken not only to organize the citizens initiative, but also to be here and speak about it and demand actions from, from various levels. At the same time, allow me to to be a bit let's say focusing on the practical terms of, of the initiative. And as you rightly also said in your intervention already you identified three categories or reactions that could possibly be and the first, of course, the addition to the definition of euro crimes, which is, of course, a treaty change. And I guess we all have a bit of a feeling on how long that might take and actually to go to go forward on that second point. You also mentioned legal initiatives, but as well legal initiatives are connected to member states being willing to participate not only in the negotiations, but also in aligning on the political purposes of that. And that is a bit of a question both to the organizers, actually, but also to the commission at a certain point on how they see the I assume, and as far as I know, very diverse picture within member states.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “So are there things that we can actually learn from your from your initiative, but also from the campaign around it? When it comes to the debates in, in some member states to the commission, of course, the question on, on, let's say, the timetable of the study that you started last month. On on, let's say, the scale and the impact of a conversion practices. And I know that it can be frustrating from time to time, but I think just over skipping member states and the competencies at European level and the division between that might also be a bit to, to short in the end, if we want to actually achieve something at, at European level which is why the second question and then I'll quit. Second question specifically also to the organisers again, is not only what we can learn from from your initiative and the campaign, but what actually can be learned from the member states that had already banned conversion practices and how we can foster dialogue between those member states and the other ones who didn't do so so far. Thanks.”
  LGBTIQ+
• “And a final point in German in on Friday, you might have seen that Margaret Freelander, one of the strongest voices in Germany at the age of 103. Who was a strong voice in remembering the Holocaust passed away. Now these voices are incredibly important, but they're disappearing. And so we need to ask ourselves how we can boost the fight against anti-Semitism, but how we can ensure that we have a culture of memory and how we can boost that because we're losing the voices of survivors. So what can we do as the European Union there? Thank you.”
  Jewish culture and antisemitism
• “I listen to both of them. So first of all, thanks to to both commission representatives for sharing your your thoughts and reflections also here and also to listen to, um, the colleagues here. But probably allow me and I'm speaking here on behalf of our shadow on the GDPR part. Uh, Oliver Schenk, allow me to come back. Come back a bit to the very core of the proposals, which is, um, what both Draghi and Letta actually had written into very concretely, very precisely and also very demandingly, I would say, uh, into our agenda, which is a competitiveness. And I think it's it's an overarching, um, challenge we're facing here. And also those two omnibuses need to feed into that. Having said that, I think the the the competitiveness problem overall does not necessarily lie in the overall, um, or in too overly high standards, but an overly complex and fragmented regulation, which is why we we very much support the approach of the Commission here. But linked to that core. And I come to my question, um, maybe you can dwell a bit more into details on how the proposal ensure that simplification leads to legal certainty, because this is that, uh, that, that we need to address and that companies ultimately have fewer and not just different or contradictory, um, obligations. And the second thing, um, connected to GDPR, um, everyone knows that there's a clear, um, that there is a lack of a clear distinction between high risk and low risk data processing, and the proposal requires the Edpb to produce a list of high risk non-high risk processing activities and create a template for for companies. Um, but not much more clarity actually is provided there. So maybe you can say a few words on that as well. Thanks.”
  Privacy & digital economy
• “Thanks, chair, and allow me to first share a word of appreciation for the citizens initiative here, and also for the very strong and encouraging and also also very, let's say, respect demanding statements that you had also sent a here in person but also connected digitally. And I can only applaud the the courage that you actually had taken not only to organize the citizens initiative, but also to be here and speak about it and demand actions from, from various levels. At the same time, allow me to to be a bit let's say focusing on the practical terms of, of the initiative. And as you rightly also said in your intervention already you identified three categories or reactions that could possibly be and the first, of course, the addition to the definition of euro crimes, which is, of course, a treaty change. And I guess we all have a bit of a feeling on how long that might take and actually to go to go forward on that second point. You also mentioned legal initiatives, but as well legal initiatives are connected to member states being willing to participate not only in the negotiations, but also in aligning on the political purposes of that. And that is a bit of a question both to the organizers, actually, but also to the commission at a certain point on how they see the I assume, and as far as I know, very diverse picture within member states.”
  EU engagement with citizens
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues, today this House has in principle taken an important and necessary decision because when it comes to the protection of children online, uncertainty is not neutrality. It is a risk. The temporary derogation was always meant to ensure that companies can continue detecting and reporting online sexual abuse, while we negotiate the permanent child sexual abuse regulation. Without this legal uncertainty certainty, companies face a real dilemma. Act to protect children, face legal uncertainty or stop detecting abuse altogether. And. We have seen what happens when this decision needs to be taken? In 2020, when companies were unsure whether detection was permitted under EU law? Reports of abuse from EU based accounts and I emphasise that, dropped by 48% just in a few weeks. So let us be clear a drop in reports does not mean a drop in abuse. It means fewer victims are identified and fewer perpetrators are stopped. At the same time, the digital landscape is evolving rapidly. Generative AI now enables the creation of abusive material that has never existed before. That makes detection even more urgent, not less so. Working on the current rules based on the compromise expressed by E, P, S, and D and renew is therefore not a technical detail. It's the difference between proactive protection and turning a blind eye. We had always been clear protecting children must come before protecting perpetrators, and this is why we urge this House, but also the Council to really rapidly conclude the trilogues and work with ambition on the standing framework for child sexual abuse material and the fight against it. Thanks.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “Thanks to both chairs. And first of all apologies from our shadow rapporteur from the Labour side because he cannot make it today. I'm reading out his notes on, on on his behalf. First of all, I would like to thank you, both rapporteurs, for their ambitious approach and the committed work on the draft report. The Commission's proposal rightly addresses the long standing challenge. Many European companies face disproportionate regulatory burdens, particularly when they begin to scale up by extending certain specific SME measures to small mid-cap enterprises. This directive will make it easier for businesses to operate and encouraging more firms to grow, invest and innovate. And for us as EPP. Also in Libya, the priorities are clear strengthening competitiveness, reducing unnecessary red tape and ensuring that our companies can actually do businesses in the European Union. Having said that, the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur strongly welcomes the recognition of small mid-caps as key drivers for competitiveness but at the same time wants to make sure that the measures are balanced and complementary and should not come at the expense of existing regulation or financial support for SMEs, and specifically thanked for taking that point into the report as well. It is. This file is an important step in the right direction, and he's looking forward for the cooperation over the next week. Thanks.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “And since there is also logically a link between the broom and the police information exchange, and also there because they negotiated it, I remember that we already had a bit of an opening for customs authorities there. I know it's not necessarily only connected to broom, but of course, I would be very interested on on your stance on the current debate on the customs data hub and the possibility to have access to that data for law enforcement as well. I think naturally it should be because there again, when it comes to drug trafficking, when it comes to port security, when it comes to trafficking of human beings and so on and so forth, there is a need in a closer cooperation there. And I would say it goes for both sides, for the customs and for law enforcement there as well. And the last point, last question on that, of course is our technical system fit for any kind of third country cooperation enlargement, so to say? And if not, what do we need to do to make it fit for purpose? Thanks.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “President. Madam vice president. Just yesterday, Commissioner Brunner presented the new proposal on return. It is not only a welcomed proposal, it is a missing piece to the pact. And it signals to our citizens that we do hear and see their concerns. But it also proves that the commission is delivering on key aspects in time mutual recognition, harmonised procedures, new balances of rights and obligations for third country nationals, tools and means to address security cases and suspected criminals. Stronger measures to prevent absconding and a way forward for enhanced third country cooperation. These elements will not only strengthen our ability to increase the numbers of returns, it will put the common asylum and migration system back on its feet. Still, the proposal is only the start and the EPP stands ready. Of course, to work constructively and in a good spirit in the upcoming negotiations. Looking ahead, we also welcome the Commission's announcement to follow up swiftly with the safe third country concept, another crucial part for the pact. But yet again, the world does not halt changing. We will need to further follow developments on the eastern border of the Union, not only as regards Instrumentalisation, but also in the broader security context. So looking ahead, there is an urgent need for a broad understanding of security, ranging from defence to internal security and to preparedness. So citing the initial report. Our security landscape requires a whole of government, whole of society, all scenario approach, and in that sense, I am looking forward to another quick delivery on the closely linked Defence White paper. The internal security strategy and the preparedness strategy. Thanks a lot.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Thank you chair and thanks, Commissioner. Good morning to everyone. Thanks for being here in the Parliament and also, um, transmitting and explaining the messages behind the strategy because like you just said, I think it cannot be appreciated too much that it is it is indeed the first ever visa strategy that the European Union has put forward. Uh, like you just said, if we would have it earlier, it would have been better. But it's good that we have it now because it really sits at the crossroads of different silos. So you can see, I can say within, um, uh, home affairs, within neighbourhood policies, economic development, but also support for third country cooperation. And I think that there actually really is a huge leverage that the European Union could use and should use better than we have been doing so far. So of course, first question that comes to my mind regarding that. How do we coordinate the silos? So if we are breaking up silos, of course we need to increase the coordination. And how do we make sure that this is indeed a one fits all approach, so to say. And second question, because I think it's really good that we are ambitious, but also having in mind that member states are probably the ones that need to be convinced at a certain point. Maybe you can say a word on their perception so far. And as you also mentioned, hybrid threats. I think it's also very much appreciated that we take that into consideration. So that security has really a strong impetus on visa policies as well, but also knowing that there are some discussions between member states, specifically when you look at, um, putting people on countries on the list that are not allowed to enter the European Union for various reasons. Look at the Estonian proposal for the Russian soldiers, for example. And last point, um, I think that really shows the variety of tools and, um, policy fields we have in hand. You also touched upon the question of competitiveness. How can we make sure that specifically small and medium sized enterprises are benefiting from that visa strategy as such? Thanks.”
  Legal migration
• “Yeah, that's that's correct, sir. And, uh, like you rightly mentioned, on behalf of our shadow rapporteur, Lucas, who unfortunately cannot be here today and apologizes for that. Um, let me highlight some of his, um, priorities and aspects with regard to that file, starting from the commitment to uphold gender equality as a fundamental right, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. He aims to strengthen both the EU and national legal frameworks to prevent and combat gender based violence, with a strong emphasis on victim protection and improving cooperation among law enforcement agencies. He perceives as equally important the safeguarding of the rule of law, particularly in the context where women's rights and gender equality are under threat. This will require a clear monitoring mechanism and strong responses within the EU framework to prevent any setbacks in the progress. Additionally, he wants to address the emerging threats like gender based digital violence, including online harassment, deepfakes and algorithmic discrimination. Our approach must be prioritized rights based and proportional solutions that protect individuals while also allowing for innovation. He also is committed to promoting a Promoting gender sensitive digital and AI policies that protect the rights, fostering innovation and ensure the full participation of women in the digital economy. Lastly, he sees that we need to intensify our efforts to combat trafficking in women and girls, especially for sexual exploitation. And this will require, of course, an enhanced cross-border cooperation, better victim protection and targeted prevention measures. These are the priorities that he wants to include in his work, but also together, of course, with the shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteurs team. And he's looking forward to working effectively with the colleagues to achieve the best outcome. Thanks.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thanks a lot for your presentation and also the explanation. And of course, first and foremost, on behalf of my group, thanks for your long standing, excellent work on rule of law. And of course, also, um, on the very much welcomed updated checklist that you just highlighted and presented. We think it's both timely and necessary, and it gives us a bit of a tool at hand to have a bit of a more comprehensive framework, which is at the same time more comprehensive and helps also transparency and comparability in in the usage of that. And I specifically liked what you said about, um, the, the resilience of democratic institutions on, on checks and balances and so on and so forth, because I think that this is very much, um, not only welcomed as a message, but also very, uh, worth deploying, in our future discussion here. Allow me to to address you with four hopefully short questions. Um, first one is how do you see the use in practice, um, at EU institutions of that report? Uh, second question connected to that. Um, in what way can it help actually also, uh, improving the consistency in the credibility of what we are doing here. Um, third one, you touched upon it a bit, uh, on the future outlook, you mentioned two challenges, um, education and, uh, and AI. But I would like to ask if you have a bit of a more sentiment on what might come in terms of deterioration, where we should we already prepared for in order to have, let's say, the counter-reactions already in, in mind and at hand. And the last one, um, uh, is a bit of a broader reflection on rule of law itself. How do you and the Venice Commission. As such as a body as an institution deal with, um, the, let's say, the current mood in the discussion around rule of law. Also, uh, your institution being in the midst of kind of trying to undermine your credibility, um, or your impartiality from time to time. Thanks.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(15:36:03 – 15:38:17): Thanks, Chair, and thanks, Madam Thales, for your presentation and also for highlighting, let's say, the three pillars of your work. And although we might not always fully agree on all the guiding principles here and some political questions, of course, let me first of all thank you for the work that the EDPB is doing, let's say, navigating in very complex policy areas and in very demanding, actually, balancing acts that we need to do there. As you just mentioned, it's of utmost importance that the GDPR is, let's say, easy, understandable, and implementable. And we've seen in the past that there are some hurdles, actually, we are addressing now with the Omnibus. So happy also to hear your nuanced view on that, that there are indeed also some good parts in there. And the rest, I think, is going to follow through the political debate also here in the house. We are in the negotiations still. So I think there's also room for, and very intense, and probably not only room, but also the need for a very intense debate here between political groups. But let me ask you three questions following out of your presentation. You said that you're going to publish some guidelines also on anonymization soon. Maybe you can say a word on the timeline and probably if you can already give us a bit of a glimpse on the expected proposals there. You also mentioned that still the cooperation with the national DPAs is of utmost importance because there is still some, let's say, asymmetrical application of GDPR between the member states. So maybe you can give us an update on that, specifically also in the cross-border context, by the way. And, of course, I mean, a question since this house is also in the midst of taking up the MFF debate for the next years to come, probably the easiest and, at the same time, most complex question of all. You said that, of course, financing is of utmost importance in order to be able to do your job. So if you can mention a wish, feel free to do so here so that we can take it up also in our debate on the MFF. Thanks.”
  GDPR
• “Thank you and thanks again to you Mr.. For for being here and thanks for already answering. I would say the most prominent two questions from my side, which is the timing of the proposal and of course the third countries the Commission has in mind and full support of course, for, for specifically the Schengen associated countries, because I think there we can look at a at a track record of good cooperation, which, which can be useful there. And also for, for the other ones that you just mentioned, I think it's worth deploring. The possibilities there. Which automatically leads to the question, are there any countries you didn't mention yet but could also potentially be of interest specifically looking again at, let's say, at specific policy areas where we have an interest as European Union, look, for example, the links to to the port strategy and the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking, for example. So if this is also in the thinking of the commission there, I very much remember from the negotiations on a broom and the police information exchange in the previous term, that there was already a discussion about whether the categories inside the European Union, but also potentially outside the European Union, the categories of data are still fit for purpose or if we need to have a debate on that as well.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to you, Mr. Lautner, for highlighting the. I would say the main points, the main facts of the upcoming report. And let me probably I mean, no need to say that that of course readmission um, cooperation uh, and, and agreements are a fundamental part to return policies. As such, you yourself also referred to the ongoing negotiations, but of course, also in the broader context and set out on the tools and leverages that we have at hand at European level. And I think that the constant plea coming from the EPP to make full use of that leverage is again to be highlighted here as well. Let me probably start with a more of a general question. Since the last, um, meeting we had on that in April 25th. Uh, it's not only roughly a year, but a year that kind of contains almost ten years. And one I would say. Maybe you can say a few words on, let's say, the changing mood in the structural cooperation, if there is a changing mood, and if so, from which kind of, um, angle and how to address that at European level.”
  Asylum & border control