Lena DÜPONT

Policy topics Lena DÜPONT is active on

What Lena DÜPONT has said (50)

• 2026-07-13 “(15:20:08 - 15:20:21): Thanks, chair. And, thanks to you, mister Burund, for your presentation and for what you outlined on the specifics, but also, of course, the priorities of the Irish presidency. And I guess, you are already aware of that before you as well, and you can rest assured that this house will always have a close eye on not only what you're doing but also what the member states are doing in that area. Having said that, you also pointed out that there is already a well established approach to rule of law. Indeed, I think that as European Union, we have already quite a consolidated toolbox at hand. But I think there's also a bit of work to be done when it comes to further consolidating the tools that we have. So do you have an idea on how to go forward in terms of making the fullest use of the existing tools, but also in streamlining and combining them probably in a better way than before? 2nd point, you mentioned that, of course, due to the hierarchy and due to the importance of competitiveness, you also want to have a closer look on that. Where I think actually there is a lot for us to gain when we look at rule of law as the underlying principle of anything that is connected to the internal market and the free movement of goods, of people, of persons, of capital within the European Union. So a sentence on that would also be appreciated. Actually, I was, I mean, it was your starting point here, but, I would, of course, love to have a bit of a more concrete examples when, for example, we look at Spain where we see that there is a deteriorating situation when it comes to the judiciary, but also to the independence of executive branches, like the police. Maybe you can say a word on that. And last point, since we are also the committee that is doing, working around judicial cooperation, I would actually like to have a word on how can we actually beef up our judicial cooperation at European level in order to be also an instrument for rule of law strengthening within the European Union. Thanks.”
  Rule of law in Spain
• 2026-07-13 “(16:44:21 - 16:45:43): Thanks, chair. Just comments from the side, so to say, that whenever we discussed both the interim and the permanent solution, I think it was always clear that there was a need for both of them in a sense that once we conclude the permanent one, of course, the interim will not be necessary anymore as a legal base because then, of course, we have the broader perspective there. I think that this was also mentioned throughout all the commission, throughout all the discussions both in committee and in plenary very clearly. Another comment, which I think actually we as house should probably have a bit of an eye on our own working structures and communication here, is the proposed way forward from the commission from the council is actually rooted in the Lisbon Treaty. So it was in no way an invention of a new procedure. It was in no way something that this house had never seen before. It was in no way something that was specifically designed by one person or two persons just to address that fear. I think that this is also something that we as parliamentarians altogether should actually agree on that you can have political different views on the topic. But in terms of running around saying that it has been kind of a backroom deal or whatever, I think we should all stick then to the truth. Thanks.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-07-13 “(16:58:18 - 17:00:56): Thanks, Chair, and thanks to you, madam Schorberg, for your reports. Excellent report, although, of course, also worrying reports. Sometimes also not necessarily new trends, but persistent trends, I would say, also looking back on the presentation last year. There are a few topics I'd like to single out a bit, and also ask for your assessment, but also your guidance here. One thing is, of course, the situation of foreign fighters, where we know that there is a numerous amount of people that are perceived as foreign fighters, where actually no one really knows where they are about. I think that this is something that also requires a European response, and I would like to know if and how Europol could actually support here in making sure that we at least know where the people are, and prevent, of course, terroristic attacks. The second thing, and you mentioned that in your reports, there are two kinds of, I would say, lonesome actors that really worry me. Ones are the ones being in connection with hybrid threats. The other ones are in connection to, let's say, a multi complex diverse ideological, if you even can call it like that, picture picking up, like conspiracy theory and radicalization, extremist thing, religious points, and just kind of cooking a holistic worldview on their own, which makes them very, very actually very difficult to detect. Then, of course, connected to that, the question that is underlying is, of course, the question of the online dimension, and the question of minors being recruited far too often for those attacks on the broad landscape actually of terroristic threats. So my main question, and I know it's almost a philosophical one, but what can we do better from the European perspective? How can we support Europol better, as European parliament? What do you actually need from the member states to be able to support better? And what can the member states do on their own to be better prepared and more secure? Of course, you just said at one point, the national legal threshold is not met. So, again, I know that we've been discussing it here for years, but I still would like to end with a plea mainly towards not necessarily agency, but the member states and really coming forward with a common understanding as much as it is possible in this multi complex area we're in.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-24 “(11:48:37 – 11:49:07): Thanks to you, mister president. And I think you can rest assured that, every member in the room has taken note. And I think it's also a very timely initiative, that you could also comment already on the publication, which most of the members probably haven't read yet. So I think it's, fairly taken note of. We now enter into the political discussion. And, for the EPP, it's Katarina Kenichi having the floor in the usual ping pong format. So 2 minutes question, 2 minutes answer from your side. Katarina?”
  EU public communication strategy
• 2026-06-24 “Thank you chair. And as you can see, I'm not Thomas Toby, obviously. And I'm also not trying to speak with a Swedish accent, but apologies because he can't be here today. But on his behalf, I can state that the EPP group fully supports the measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism and serious and organised crime. Effective cross-border information sharing is essential in this regard. The agreement with Switzerland represents a concrete and important step forward. It will strengthen our capacity to prevent and detect terrorism and serious crime offences, and it complements the broader network of PNR agreements that we have already in place. As you. It is also important as. As it helps bridge an existing security gap in the Schengen area. We have also taken note of the necessary safeguards in place to ensure data protection. We clearly see the added value of this agreement as it aligns with our overall objective of strengthening the union's internal security, which remains a top priority for us as EPP. And as you can already see from this words and intervention, the EPP fully supports the proposal to endorse the Council decision on the conclusion of that agreement. And Thomas, thanks everyone for the constructive work.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-24 “(12:42:52 – 12:43:37): Thank you very much. And last point from my side as the chair for this morning is just to mention that the deadline for amendments is set for Wednesday, July 1 at 12:00. And I wish everyone involved in the work on that file good luck and good negotiations on the opinion. With that, you know and you see that by the members constantly flowing into the room, there is a vote coming in, exactly 2 minutes, up. So please bear with us, and make sure that everyone has the voting cards and, if needed, the voting lists ready and prepared. And I'm happy to pass on to the chair who has already entered the room for the votes.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-24 “(10:20:24 – 10:31:37): Thank you, madam Rapporteur. And as, you might have noticed at the beginning, the deadline for amendment has already collapsed, so no, deadline to be announced. With that, we conclude, that point on the agenda, which now leaves us with a break of about 10 minutes until we restart the committee session with the FRA Fundamentals Rights Report 25. So do not leave the room on a too large extent, and and make sure that you're back, at 10:30. Thanks a lot. Alright, colleagues. Thanks for those who had stayed in the room, and who had managed to get a coffee or a water or whatever is needed, on these warm days here in Brussels. In the meantime, We now go forward with 0.7 of our agenda, which is the fundamental rights report of our fundamental rights agency, for the year '25. And I'm very happy to welcome already Ms. Silva Rautio, known guest here in our committee, and always welcomed. The annual report, is the agency's flagship publication, and provides an evidence based overview of key developments affecting fundamental rights across the European Union. Its findings are an important resource for policymakers and highly relevant to the work of our committee. Here, the latest edition was published on the June 11, reviews fundamental rights developments in 2025 and identifies both progress made and challenges remaining, which is why I'm specifically happy to hand over the floor to Madam Rautiu for roughly 8 minutes.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• 2026-06-24 “(10:10:45 – 10:10:59): Thanks for that. As I don't see anyone in the room from Renew, Next 1 would be Saskia Brighamont for the greens. I look at Tinneke. She's going to replace her. So Tinneke, you have the floor.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-24 “(12:28:22 – 12:29:09): for Thanks. Having You're welcome. We go forward with the next point on the agenda, which is 0.9, digital networks and the amending regulation, with a lot of numbers in it. So in short, the Digital Networks Act, we have to have a consideration of the Liebe Draft opinion to those mentioned. Networks Act, as you know, the commission, Commission's proposal for a digital network act includes several issues that come under the competence of Liebe, such as the protection of privacy and personal data and the fight against fraud. And I'm happy to see that the rapporteur is already, in the room, and I pass on the floor to you.”
  Privacy & digital economy
• 2026-06-24 “(12:50:17 – 12:52:48): Everybody's voted. Vote is closed and it is adopted. Compromise 3, Compromise Amendment 3, vote is open. It is now closed and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 4, vote is open. Now, it is closed and it's adopted. Compromise Amendment 5, vote is open. It's now closed and it is adopted. And then we go to the final vote. Roll call. 6. I'm sorry. 6. Yes. We missed 1. I didn't intend to skip 1. Compromise Amendment 6, vote is open. It is now closed, and it is adopted. And, yes, now we go for the final vote, the roll call vote. Vote is open. It is closed, and the opinion is adopted. Thank you. Now, we move to the 2nd vote, the 2nd file to vote, which is an opinion on the institutional aspects of artificial intelligence in the context of European integration. There will be also electronic vote. And we vote on compromise on a block vote covering Compromise Amendment 1 to 11. The vote is open. It is now closed. It is adopted. Those compromise amendments have been adopted. And now we go to the final vote, the text as amended and it will be a roll call vote. Vote is open. And now it's closed and it is adopted. Congratulations. Thank you. So our vote is concluded. We resume the committee session this afternoon at 02:30. 02:30.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• 2026-06-24 “(10:03:23 – 10:05:57): Thanks a lot, Asita, for the presentation, of of your draft report as EPP shadow. I'm going to intervene now, also on that file. For the EPP, the ISF fund is actually at the cornerstone of the European security architecture, which is which is why we put so much emphasis on a on a good functioning and, of course, efficient use of the money that we have there. We put forward specific amendments concentrating mainly on the cross border cooperation, where we also speak about the necessary tools for those involved in cross border cooperation, meaning also training, but also equipment and tools because we see that there is room for improvement actually and there needs to be a bit of a not so gentle push probably also from the European perspective to foster that cross border cooperation between various bodies and agencies. We also tabled amendments on the insertion of hybrid threats and the protection of critical infrastructure, also as 1 of the points where we actually see that the European Union could and probably should also beef up their support to member states under the common interest that we need to fight hybrid threats, and protect our critical infrastructure by all means possible. We also introduced, the idea of ring fencing, a few parts for the budget. I'm really looking forward for the debates also with the other shadow repertoires on that. And of course, we put a lot of emphasis, like I just said, also on training, the pooling of expertise and experts, but also on the very essence of information sharing between different agencies at European level, but also between agencies at European level and national bodies of law enforcement and the wider range of security actors. And we put lastly more emphasis on the interagency cooperation at European level because we think that this also is 1 of the most successful stories we actually have at the European level, but also 1 of those stories that need a bit more tailoring and need a bit more support on that. We, of course and I'm, of course, also looking forward for the further work on that report. And with that, I'll give the floor to our colleague from the S and T for his 2 minutes.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-24 “(12:47:48 – 12:49:15): Yeah. Abucha. Thick. Well, dear colleagues, please, go to your seats. Have your cards ready for the vote ahead. Well, we have quorum. And as usual, before we proceed to the vote, would like to inform you that the following non Lieber members will participate in today's vote. On, in EPP, Giorgio Saftias will replace Elizabeth Bosember Brionidi. In S and D, Alethia Olmes, Genel will replace Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar. Pietenis, Povilas, Andrea Caitis will replace Cloe Riddell. And PFE Melanie Dizier will replace Pedra Steger. And Catherine Griset will replace Mattia Ballet. No replacement reported in ECR. In renew, Marian Sarek will replace Irena Jobeva. And there's been no replacement reported in the group of the greens, the left or ESN or non attached. So, with this, we can proceed to the vote for the 1st file. It's an opinion”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-24 “(11:31:58 – 11:36:02): Thanks a lot, madam Monter, and apologies that at the end of the debate of the hour that you also took to, be ready to ask question answer question here from the committee, I needed to be a bit sharper because indeed, we are already at the beginning of our next point on the agenda. And I warmly thank you for your availability and also your willingness to answer the question of the members. We are looking forward, of course, for the next report, and we will, of course, have a closer look on the new structure after that. But in the meantime, rest assured that members are, in any case, reaching out to you in case of questions or need for input. So thanks a lot, and good luck, with running over to the commission, I would say. Thank you, Hakte. It is indeed. Next on our agenda is the, annual report of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Corporation, also known as Eurojust. Please bear with us for a few seconds so that we can arrange here on the podium, and make sure that we can listen also to the president, mister Schmidt, in just a couple of seconds. Well, we just wanted to make sure that we give you an entrance, but, please be welcomed here on the podium. Alright. With that, we immediately jump into the next agenda point, which is, as I just have mentioned, the presentation of the annual report of Eurojust for the year '25, and we warmly welcome mister president, mister Schmidt, to present, his annual report. We all know that, Eurojust is 1 of the agencies, very much liked by this committee and also supported on the levels necessary. We also note that there has been a stark increase actually in Eurojust case workloads with almost 1,400 cases being handled by the agency only last year. We, at the same time, provided, hopefully, the much needed support also from the parliamentary side here. But, of course, we are, interested to hear, on what's your assessment, of course, on not only your own work, but also on the unprecedented pace of evolution of cross border organized crime, and, of course, the work, that needs to follow that, specifically with complex international investigation. We also know that '26 is an important year for the agency. And I would even add that today is a special day probably for the agency. And you're, of course, also invited and free to already add a bit comment from your side if you want to on the Commission's proposal that was just presented a few minutes ago. We, of course, expect this review to enhance Eurojust's effectiveness by strengthening its coordination role and to provide for a more proactive support to national authorities. And we are hopeful that the new proposal will enhance the capacity of Eurojust to exchange data, streamline further its governance and ultimately, of course, contribute to yet a more efficient fight against serious, cross border crime. I'm happy to give you the floor now for your introductory remarks.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-24 “(09:58:20 – 10:00:13): Thanks to the commission also for their contribution to the debate. I think it's, safe to say that it's going to be an interesting, report and work that needs to be done on there. Let me announce that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set to the 06/30/2026 at 12. And I think it's also safe to say on behalf of, the rapporteur that he's looking forward again for working together constructively with the shadows. With that, we can go on to the next point on the agenda, which is, again, 1 of our MFF sectorial regulations. We continue our work after the consideration of the draft reports on the proposals for the union support for asylum migration and integration, the new AMI, not fund anymore. And for the Schengen Area, for European integrated border management, and for the common policies on visa at our last committee meeting, today, we have the draft report on the proposal for a regulation establishing the union support for internal security. On the agenda, you know that the commission foresees an amount of €6,800,000,000 for the period of 28 to 34 with the objective to better tackle organized crime, improve cross border cooperation, information sharing between law enforcement agencies, and addresses emerging threats to the European Union internal security. We are exceptionally examining the draft reports after the deadline for the tabling of amendments, but I think that can also help the debate a bit. The deadline has been set for the June 22. But now we are also, of course, done in the, next steps of the draft report, which is why I give the floor to the operator 1st, miss Kanko, for 5 minutes.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• 2026-06-24 “(09:37:54 – 09:38:31): Alright. Good morning, colleagues. I think we we waited long enough for everyone, to arrive in time. As you might have noticed, I'm not the chair. I'm also not pretending to be, the chair, but I'm substituting him, at least until the votes for this morning session here. And, as always, we need to do some housekeeping rules before we enter into the, content work of the committee. 1st thing, if there are no objection to the agenda, there is, Mr. Legerey.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-06-24 “(11:11:53 – 11:13:20): Thanks a lot for those answers as well. I might jump in with one or two questions from my side as well. You already luckily answered quite a lot on the cross-agency cooperation, and it's good to hear that indeed, it's getting ever more closer because I think it's much needed. But one question remains then, which kind of adds a bit to the complexity of not only the interagency cooperation but also the cooperation with member states level and probably also the institutions at European level representing the member states level, meaning the Committee of the Regions, for example. Maybe you can say words on that. You also touched yourself already upon the question of the budget. As you know, we are in the midst of preparing our positions for the upcoming MFF debate. Any comments or remarks, you know that the budget is not endless, but any comments and remarks on that are, of course, also welcomed. You also touched upon it in your introductory remark but also during the discussion that there will be a new structure of the report. Maybe you can say a bit more on that, on why you decided to do so and how it will look like in the end, so for us also to understand what the next report then for us and for our political work is going to look like. Yours.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-06-24 “(09:40:01 – 09:45:43): That point, it's noted as, a point of order. The requested, meeting today is organized by the policy department, but we will take note of your point and follow-up. As I see, there are no other points. Let me inform you that interpretation is provided in all languages except Latvian, Maltese and Irish. And as usual, you are kindly asked to speak your mother tongue. And of course, whatever language you use, do it in a speed that helps actually also the interpreters do their work, whom I already thank in advance, of course, for their important work here. 2nd point on the agenda is the nomination of rapporteur. There is no reports to be mentioned today. There is an opinion, which we are also going to vote on later this day, which is the establishing of the European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fisheries and Maritime Prosperity and Security for the next MFF period where the chair has taken over in his institutional capacity that report. And, also, everyone be aware that there is a vote, already this lunchtime, on that report, but also on other reports as well. Last point for the, housekeeping rules, we do have 1, corrigandum, which is the European Production and Preservation Order for Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters. There has been, we have received a linguistic version of this corrigandum prior to the meeting. It concerns an erroneous cross reference in Article five-two regarding the conditions for issuing a European production order and text adaptations to align a recital and annexes with the correspondent articles. It will be, as usual, announced, at the part session of July 26, in line with our parliament's rules. 3rd point on the agenda is the endorsement of coordinator's recommendation. Does the committee is there any objection to it, which I don't see. So we deemed it as endorsed. And that means we can also start into the meeting as such with the 1st point on the agenda being the establishment, the exchange assistance and training program for the protection of the euro against counterfying for the period of 20 eightthirty 4, the so called Pericles 5 program and the respective Repealing Regulation 21841. Here, this program is proposed to be a successor to the current 4th generation program on establishment of exchange assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfying for the next MFF period. The main changes proposed by the commission are there to prepare the program to new emerging threats to the euro counterfying, be it those related to potential future use of digital euro or the threats, but also preventive investigative possibilities related to the use of artificial intelligence. Our operator, Mr. Nek McNamara, is unfortunately not able to attend today's meeting. So I'm going to read out his comments on his behalf. Well, kind of giving myself the floor for 2 minutes here. Our dear colleague states that the Pericles 5 renews programme renews the union's dedicated programme for the protection of the euro against counterfying funding joint training staff exchanges and technical assistance across police, customs, judiciary and central banks. The 24 interim relation confirmed that the current program has been effective and the commission's proposal is a reasonable basis for continuation. So he builds his draft reports, on that, but also on 3 areas of change. 1st 1 is on cash. He has added language to the recitals, making clear that Eurocash is the only universally accessible means of payment for all citizens regardless of their access to banking or digital services. 2nd, changes on artificial intelligence. The commission text acknowledges AI as an emerging consideration. His draft is more specific, naming particularly threat categories and adding digital currency experts, cybersecurity specialists and AI and machine learning engineers to the list of eligible professional groups, reflecting how the threat landscape has evolved. His 3rd change is on the work program. The Commission's Article 9 provided for work program to be adopted by a commission decision with no formal parliamentary involvement. His draft introduces a delegated act architecture, a stakeholder consultation requirement and annual reporting to parliament and council. This brings the program into line with the oversight standards parliament has consistently thought to apply to comparable instruments. The draft report is also broadly aligned with the ECB's opinion on the file, incorporating a number of the ECB's suggested amendments. And I stop 1st here for this for his report. But of course, he is looking forward for the views of the shadows being present or for those substituting the shadows here by rapporteurs and colleagues. Having said that, I now give the floor to Thomas Tchaikovsky as chair for the EPP for 2 minutes.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-06-24 “(12:27:36 – 12:28:22): Thank you indeed, very much for your time and also for your willingness to be here, in front of the Lieber Committee. Rest assured that, I would guess a lot of members will use the opportunity to visit you also in The Hague in the upcoming weeks and months. And also rest assured that this house has a good tradition in always being, you know, constructively engaging with the commission's proposal on various levels. So, indeed, I can say that we are also looking forward for the negotiations on that very important mandate to try to fix a few things, but also, of course, strengthen the agency, but also the ecosystem of agencies that we need to have a focus on. With that, we conclude that part of the meeting. And thank you again for being here.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-24 “(09:52:57 – 09:53:21): The ECR, and I think it's Acita replacing. So no replacement there. I also don't see anyone in the room from the Greens, which leads us to the commission, which is, present here today by mister Luca Pierini and Daniel Boure, who also, can have the floor if they want to.”
  EU political integration
• 2026-06-24 “(12:49:22 – 12:50:08): It's okay now. Okay. Then we continue. We vote on the opinion on the European fund for economic, social and territorial cohesion, Agriculture and Rural Fisheries and Maritime Prosperity and Security for the period 2028, 2034. So, we start the vote. The vote will be electronic. And we start with compromise amendment 1. Vote is open. Vote is now closed, and it is adopted. Then compromise amendment 2, vote is open.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 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 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
• “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
• “Thank you very much. That was the round of speakers on behalf of the political groups. Now I will open the blue card, and I will ask you to try to stick to your speaking time, so that we can get through the long list of speakers. And the next speaker is, miss Lena Dupont for 1 and a half minute, please. **Lena Dupont Thanks, madam chair, commissioner. Their role, drug dealing, ripping off action in harbors, sabotaging, attacking houses, religious sites, objects, sometimes even committing attacks or violent insults against persons, even requests for being a murderer. Their age, on the average, between 13 and 17, sometimes even younger. Their benefits, money, social benefits, fitting in or being accepted into a certain group. The recruitment tools, peers, and far too often, digital platforms, messengers, the gamification of children's exploitation. The benefits of their recorders, exploiting minors to avoid detection, prosecution, and punishment. And the outlook, colleagues, let's not be let let there be no doubt about it, is grim. There is a trend for more violence, more exploitation, the unholy combination of organized crime, radicalized, and even terroristic groups, and third country interests being played out in the European Union. So that's a problem, and I'm happy to hear that we agree already on some of parts of the solution. So let's act on that. Strengthening law enforcement both at EU level and national level deliver a strong mandate, echo what Thomas had said on Europool, increase and ease the access to information, the exchange of those information for our security agencies both at EU and national level, and improve the coordination between all relevant services that are there to protect children, law enforcement, the judiciary, the social service, and health and education, and, of course, really beefing up the implementation of the DSA also in relation to child exploitation here.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “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
• “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
• “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
• “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
• “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
• “Thank you chair, and thanks to the rapporteur for highlighting the important points in the proposal of his amendments and on behalf of our shadow rapporteur. Um, I would of course, also like to thank the rapporteur for these proposals already at hand. Um, we very much appreciate the approach by the Commission to speed up border controls while maintaining the security by detecting cross-border crime, document fraud and smuggling. And of course, we also very much welcome the aim of the proposal by the Commission that Member States have a bit of a leverage in how to use that instrument at hand. The very aim of our shadow is, of course, to make it as user friendly, as safe and less bureaucratic as possible, with a focus, of course, on the added security value that should need to be there as well. In light of that. Um, we do have a bit of a concern when it comes to a further restriction of the age or the, the, the 18 years here, because there are member states where actually you can already use it by the age of 12. Specifically, when you're traveling in a family context, this is of of importance to us. Um, additionally, we do see a bit the concern of the further restriction of the application usage when only when it comes to 48 hours prior to the departure. I think it could make sense if the user wishes to do so, that they could be able and should be able to access the app as soon as they book the trip, irrespective of the time limit when they're starting the the trip. In addition, the digital travel application is indeed, like the rapporteur mentioned, a voluntary system, but we think we need to reflect and think about further incentives to use that digital tool in order to also have it fully functioning as soon as possible. And in light of that, of course, we will also table the amendments to the proposal by the rapporteur and work constructively. Um, looking forward to that on behalf of our shadow rapporteur. Thanks, chair.”
  EU digital travel & border-data systems
• “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
• “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