Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Ordinary meeting
Nessun capitolo disponibile al momento
Legenda
Indicatori della trascrizione
- testo Frase in riproduzione
- testo Risultato di ricerca
- testo Intervento citato dal link che avete aperto
Cliccate su una frase per riprodurre il video da quel momento. Selezionate del testo per citarlo con oratore, orario e link.
Altre opzioni
LIBE European Parliament
Segui le sue seduteOratore 2
This could be expanded to other policy areas in the future as well. We will set this up by the end of this year, and we are already working on the necessary steps to put this in place, including the elaboration of the time frame, the objectives, possible outputs of this platform, as well as the eligibility criteria. Here, it is particularly important that we learn from the various mechanisms that already exist for engaging with civil society organizations across the different policy areas. We also aim to work with the European Economic and Social Committee, given its role in representing civil society organizations and as an advisory body to the European institutions. At the same time, the platform will also create more transparency and easier access to information on dialogues with civil society organizations across other policy areas.
We will also put forward two intent-guiding principles for shaping and strengthening the Commission's dialogue with civil society organizations across policy areas. These principles cover aspects such as partnership and cooperation, ensuring comprehensive dialogue, transparency, clear communication, and also good representativeness and inclusivity. We will promote the use of these 10 guiding principles and are working with other services in this regard. Now, the second key dimension of the strategy is ensuring support and protection for civil society organizations. Regarding protection and support, the strategy recognizes the need for enabling legal, administrative, and regulatory environments where civil society organizations are protected, supported, and empowered, and where they can operate freely, safe from restrictions and attacks.
To this end, the strategy proposes several measures at the European and national levels. We will set up an online knowledge hub on civic space to better understand developments related to civil space, including threats, and to also inform our responses to them. The hub will facilitate access to existing monitoring and protection projects, tools, and activities, including available protection measures. And for this, we will, of course, work with the Fundamental Rights Agency, which has dedicated expertise in civil space monitoring and also resources to develop this hub together with us. By consolidating our information, the hub will help identify trends and gaps in civil space monitoring and form relevant actions to address such developments.
On this basis, protection measures could also be explored. Now, the strategy also recognizes that access to sustainable, flexible, long-term funding is essential for civil society organizations to carry out their work independently. As a commission communication, the strategy does not propose new funding as such, but rather looks at the overall funding landscape and proposes measures to ensure that the funding we have is used in the most effective way. In addition, the strategy recognizes the need for other forms of support, for instance, in-kind legal support. It proposes the strengths and collaboration between donors, such as private donors, philanthropy, and public donors.
At the national level, we aim to assist member states in implementing the 2023 recommendation on civic engagement, for instance, through regular dialogues on civil space with relevant actors. This will focus on collecting more data on the implementation of the recommendation, but also on developing targeted capacity building and assistance for member states where needed. We also want to hold exchanges at the national level on commonly identified priority areas to support a stronger civil space and engagement between civil society organizations and national authorities. Finally, the strategy also recognizes the role of civil society organizations around the world as key actors in our partner countries too. They often act as implementing partners for European Union-funded projects in partnership cooperation, humanitarian aid, and capacity building, and they contribute to stronger democracies and resilient societies around the world.
To this end, the strategy sets out concrete commitments to strengthening engagement with and support for civil societies across policy areas of European Union external action. These deliverables will be implemented by the directors appointed in the external action. As we move on to the implementation of the strategy and the deliveries, I would like to reiterate that, of course, supporting an open civic space is a shared responsibility and benefits from a united approach between institutions and also at the European Union and national level. Therefore, in the strategy itself, we also explicitly invite this body, the European Parliament, to support the implementation and the objective of engagement, protection, and support for civil society organizations. And with that, I would like to give the floor back to the chair. I am, of course, looking forward to receiving your questions and also inspiration from your side.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you very much, Mr. Musova. And now I give the floor to Mitch, representative, for a maximum of two minutes. Each intervention will be immediately followed by the reply from our guest speaker. So, we start with EPP, Mrs.
Dupont, Mrs. Patrick Evich. Mr. Patrick Evich, please.
Michał Wawrykiewicz
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Madam Deputy Director, I would like to begin by welcoming the Commission's initiative, which is widely regarded as a very important step forward. The strategy provides a strong starting point. However, the key challenge now lies in ensuring that the implementation of this strategy is effective and that it is carried out in close cooperation with those it is intended to serve, namely the civil society itself.
The document very heavily relies on the member states playing a crucial role in enabling and protecting civil space at the national, local, and grassroots levels. It emphasizes that member states are often the first to provide concrete support to civil society, which is actually at risk. Therefore, the document underlines that working with member states to promote a safe, supportive, and enabling environment for civil society organizations throughout the EU is an important priority for the Commission. My question concerns the situation when member states are unwilling to cooperate in this respect and do not recognize the protection of civil society as a priority, which is a fact in some of the member states. So could you please elaborate a little bit more on what will be the situation?
What is the assessment of the commission? What is the program and the plan of the commission in the situation when the member state is not cooperating? Thank you.
Oratore 2
Thank you very much for this question. Indeed, the strategy itself has been prepared and built up in very close cooperation with the civil society organizations and also with input from the member states because we believe that the strategy itself cannot be implemented without them, without strong engagement, and without close cooperation. I have already referred to certain instruments which are enshrined in the strategy, with the gradual implementations this year. I have mentioned the platform. I should have also mentioned the summit because these are the key elements that we would like to deliver before the end of the year, already in the gradual implementation of the strategy.
Now, on your question about the member states not willing, of course, we have several instruments, and I have referred to them in my introduction in terms of boosting the capacity, supporting the member states, and also through the funding instruments. So, those are the incentives. And we also have very powerful tools. I should refer, of course, to the rule of law report where the elements of the checks and balances where the civil society organizations play a crucial role. So it's a key component of the annual report monitoring rule.
You know that in the preparations for the next multi-annual financial framework, we believe that the rule of law report and its recommendations will play an even greater role in terms of providing funding for the member states. And last but not least, as you have seen, the commissioner is not trying to use all the tools that we have at our disposal, should the member states not be abiding by European law, to even use the legal tools that we have at our disposal to refer such a member state to the European Court. And we have had these cases in the past. We are, of course, monitoring situations where some national governments are looking into tools limiting the space of civil society, and we are committed to doing so also in the future.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madam Director, for providing this kind of information on strategy. For us, for socialists and democrats, the strategy is of utmost importance since we do believe that the vibrant civil society that is free to operate at a local, regional, national, and also European level is an essential element of the rule of law and democracy. So I've got two, or maybe three, questions that attracted my attention when I was reading this document. One is a civil society platform that you mentioned. That seems to be a very interesting mechanism and tool.
My question is: how are you prepared to take on board also the small organizations, grassroots organizations, and watchdog organizations from the local level, to avoid having only those big ones whose voice is already heard? So this is one question. Second question: when elaborating the strategy, did you take into consideration the phenomenon of so-called alternative civil society that is generated or created by some of the member states that are not very willing to cooperate with naturally generated civil society organizations? That was a case in Poland a few years ago. This is a case of Hungary and some other countries where the governments like to have friends from civil society that we call Gongos.
And the third and last question is, I am very curious. You mentioned the so-called early warning mechanism in the strategy. How will you ensure that evidence collected through these tools leads to timely and concrete follow-up actions? So I think that the European Commission should be very timely when reacting to the limitation of space for civil society. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Misek.
Oratore 2
Thank you very much. It only shows that Horn and Rural members really engage in understanding well what we are proposing. Indeed, we are proposing something new and complex. And therefore, I don't have a clear answer for you yet because the membership criteria of the platform will only be set up later. Our intention is to embrace as much as possible the variety of civil society organizations and to assure real representativeness, which is also enshrined in the 10 principles that we have embedded for all possible dialogues through the European Commission and all the policies.
Now, what we want to have is also, as I mentioned in my previous reply, a strong engagement with the civil society organizations when developing these criteria. Because this is very important. You mentioned the alternative civil society organizations. We have many different tools, not only the platform already. So let me mention civil dialogues, the dialogues with the use, etc.
So we are really, of course, consultation processes which are open to everybody, public consultation. So we are steadily committed to embracing the whole variety of vibrant civil society in order to have the variety of opinions and views addressed. Now, in terms of evidence, the problem why we are looking at this new phenomenon is that it's new. We don't have much data. We are lacking consistent monitoring.
And yes, let's admit it. So we do not have comprehensive tools at the European level. That's why, again, it will be extremely important to work very closely with the member states. We want to engage with civil society and learn also from Davis because they are the first ones in the first line of attack to understand what the trends are, what the issues are, and how we can eventually address them. They have ordered several instruments in place so that we can actually team up and use them for the benefit of others.
And we want to gradually engage in developing these tools.
Petra Steger
Democracy, as the Commission is trying to tell us. Rather, what it is, is the next step towards Brussels ideologically patronizing us. It's at the expense of our member states and our citizens. Now NGOs are supposed to be the core of democracy here, but they don't mean people taking part in a voluntary fire brigade or doing social volunteering work. What they mean is that these ideologically motivated NGOs are really the long arm of the commission.
And these NGOs are supposed to defend EU values, but there is no longer any kind of balanced consensus on values; rather, the focus is on climate, gender, and migration. This is what is being promoted. Anything else is being pushed aside. This is not a diverse civil society. This is ideological selection with taxpayers' money.
€9,000,000,000 are going to flow through the Agora EU program. 9,000,000,000 euros when we've got inflation, cutbacks, and poverty. This is really a slap in the face for Europe's taxpayers. This is without any clear definitions, without true transparency, and without effective democratic scrutiny. And although the Court of Auditors has constantly called attention to these kinds of issues, 17,000,000,000 went to various shady players.
That's what they decided. But no consequences have been drawn to date. And then we've got this platform for civil society. It seems to be the commission on its own that decides who gets to speak and who doesn't. That's not a political dialogue.
And then you've got the European democracy shield that threatens a system of surveillance and ideological control. So how can you justify this huge amount of budgetary resources during a time of economic decline? And how can you be sure that this one-sided promotion of certain NGOs is going to end?
Missus Mosulva.
Oratore 2
Indeed, the European Union has been built on the basis of fundamental rights and fundamental values. We are defending these fundamental rights and values also on the basis of the Charter for Fundamental Rights. And this is why the European Commission is engaging and supporting the organizations which are defending the same principles, the same funding principles that the European Union project has been built upon. From this perspective, let me recall that the financial instruments we are operating in at the European Commission are then decided upon by the European Commission. These are decided by the college's leaders, including this House.
Let me remind you that in the previous parliamentary period, this house actually topped up the most important instrument, the set of programs, by 500 million euros. So, this was the democratic decision of the democratically elected members of this House. And from this perspective, I can only say that the European Commission is a defender of the treaty and a defender of the commonly shared policies of the colleges that later implement it. You may have different opinions about what the priorities are. The priorities, however, are also set together with the member states, including the priorities where the programs operate.
And yes, everybody makes mistakes. We have learned from our mistakes. We have adopted the funding regulation, sorry, the financial regulation, in order to make sure that nobody is inappropriately getting the funds, which could minimize the risk also for the future, and we are open to reflecting on this in the future as well.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. There's no easier representative in the room. I understand. Then, I give the floor to Mrs. Garcia Armira van der Vali for renewal.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Gracias, presidente. Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the commission for this presentation and for bringing forward a much-needed civil society strategy. My compliments for that. Before I go into my question, I would like to react to the colleague from the Patriots because she started by saying that this does not pertain to organizations with volunteers volunteering in their community. I would like to invite my colleague to talk to the people of Volonto Europe, for example, who group all of these small organizations throughout Europe that work with volunteers in their local communities, and who also receive funding from the European Commission.
So please, colleague, inform yourself before coming here and presenting such accusations. And now, onto my question: I would like to talk about money, and I would like to talk about the civil society context of the next multi-annual financial framework. One of the things that is being introduced in the framework, which I applaud, is the possibility to recommit decommissioned amounts to support civil society organizations. I would like to ask the Commission how you envision this working in practice and what the role of the European Parliament would be. Because while I acknowledge that this is a very good idea, I have some concerns about parliamentary scrutiny of this recommissioning of decommissioned amounts, if you follow me.
So, I would like to see a strengthened role for the European Parliament on this. And I also think that it's important that we look at the simplification of applications to European funds for civil society organizations. We know that they encounter many issues. So, if you could reflect on what can be done, that would be appreciated. It's not a core part of the civil society strategy, but I think the civil society strategy won't be successful if we don't make it easier for final beneficiaries to access these funds.
Oratore 2
Thank you very much, honorable member. And apologies because I probably missed the first part due to the lack of interpretation of the question. Indeed, the European Commissioner is funding volunteering. We have a very strong and robust instrument for strengthening the participation of youth in volunteering streams, which is similar to the Erasmus project, and there is also very robust funding for volunteering as well. Indeed, the simplification is something that we have learned in the current annual financial period.
So we have also tried replying to the calls from many civil society organizations to see how to simplify and make access easier. Also, we have started to test the rebranding of the funds to really have the possibility to address even the smallest civil society organizations. This has also been tested in international instruments, like partnership instruments, and we would like to apply this new knowledge and these new approaches in the upcoming MFF as well. Now, in terms of the role of the parliament, I think that I'm not an expert in budget, but I would have to refer to those standard tools. Of course, we are also hearing that this exchange show is helping us to define the way to approach it.
But ultimately, the last resort is always discharge. But we also have very close cooperation with the European Parliament. And should you have any good suggestions, we are hearing them because we are still in the process of preparing the different program tools.
Tineke Strik
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for this presentation from the Commission. And I think it's really vital that the commission recognizes the important, key role that civil society plays also in upholding the rule of law, be it combating corruption, ensuring checks and balances, and also being a watchdog of the policies. And I think that in these times, the role of the commission becomes more and more vital as a kind of protective shield against increasing attacks on civil society. And there, I think the commission should also use all its available tools to do so.
I mean, here in the European Parliament, we called upon the Commission. We urged the commission to also use the instrument of infringement procedures, specifically by asking for interim measures if it comes to the LGBTIQ law, in order to protect the organizers of the pride, but also regarding the National Sovereignty Act, because you see the backsliding is going so quickly that we cannot wait for years of inaction. And I wonder if the Commission has learned from these things. Also on the funding, of course, we would have liked to see bigger funding in the Agora EU proposal. But specifically, those who are at risk in backsliding countries are strangled by their authorities, and they are also at risk because of the cuts in the U.S.
S. Aid. So, what is the strategy, if it comes to the commission, to let these organizations survive? And do they work? Could you elaborate more on the platform?
Like, there's still so much unknown about the composition; for instance, the powers they have. Is there a right to initiative? How will it work? So maybe you can elaborate a little on that. And finally, you also mentioned the EU protection mechanism for NGOs at risk.
Could you also elaborate a little more on that? Thank you.
Oratore 2
That's a lot of questions, and one more. I'll try to be brief, then. Indeed, the key role of the Social Society organization is definitely recognized by the commission. I have referred to my opening order regarding several actions that we have implemented in past mandates. I think that we are strong, we are committed, and this is our longstanding commitment to support civil society organizations.
And indeed, the rule of law, from this perspective, is a key instrument. In my previous reply, I already mentioned how we are looking into the difficulties of the member states that are considering shrinking the space for civil societies. We have to be, however, as a guardian of the treaty, very strict in terms that we should really recognize the infringement, meaning the noncompliance with European Union law. And from this perspective, indeed, some processes are very complex, and they need to have a really thorough assessment. However, we already have good examples with the sovereignty office, for example, in Hungary, where we have moved towards it, and also in the past, with the law.
So, we have been addressing these issues to the European Court, and we will continue to do so in the future as well. But the point was indeed, those civil society organizations which are most marginalized and more in difficulty, so we are supporting them from the outset. Agora's proposal now is the biggest ever. We are proposing to double the financial support to civil society organizations. And you have also spotted in the strategy that we have a good part, which is looking precisely into how to team up the support from different sources.
Because as a commissioner, we cannot simply step in and fund what has already been funded by the European Union and the United States before. But we can, together with the member states, with philanthropy, with academia, and with businesses as well, look at how to team up and make the best use of all the available funds in order to address these issues. And in terms of the platform and the hub, yes, indeed, we are in the process of creation. So, it is a process where we are first setting the criteria. Indeed, so we will be hearing very intensively what the platform will be proposing because that's why we want to intensify this dialogue.
And for the first, on the topics related to fundamental rights and values, and maybe later on broader topics. And in terms of the protections of the civil society organization, it is very similar. So we will be later on, when assessing, having the data, and seeing the possible tools. We will consider whether we could apply additional instruments.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Mr. Karem, you are not taking the floor. I don't see any ESN speaker, so I give the floor to Mister Lopez Aguilar for the catch the eye. One minute each, please.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Of the commission, by presenting the case of the strategy of civil society. But surely, you know that there has been a rising concern all across this European Parliament about the situation, as it is very worrisome. For one thing, the multiannual financial framework is threatening many of the distinctive lines of action that have made the European Union what we have known so far, including support for civil society. So my question would be: are you, as the European Commission, making sure that it will have its allocations, the programs to support civil society, civil space, to feedback from the concerns that have been expressed not only by this European Parliament, but also the Committee of the Regions and the Committee of Economic and Social Affairs, which are the consultative parties, and particularly to sustain the enhancement of civil society organizations, particularly when it comes to public participation in the regional policy, including those regions which are disadvantaged because of the distance or fragmentation of the territories, as is the case of the outermost regions? That was my question for you.
Oratore 2
I think that one of the first questions was precisely how to involve those most marginalized and in the most difficult situations. So, I have already answered that we cannot do it alone. That's why the role of the member states is very important. Indeed, the Economic and Social Committee was also asked by us to provide the inputs, which are fairly referred to there. But we will be working very closely with the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee in order to make this strategy also resonate in the areas where they are very precious and important partners.
I think that this is a common goal. This is our common endeavor where all the European institutions, also with the Parliament, are very ready to work together. And let me also remind you that when we adopted the sole society strategy, we adopted it as a package to get through with the democracy shield, which is another component where we are, and through this prism, we are looking into the threats that are coming to destabilize our democracies and the values on which the European Union has been built.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Missus Mussova. And here we conclude this item on our agenda. Thank you for your presentation of this really relevant issue that will continue to require the attention of the discussion in this committee. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now we go on to Item 12 on our agenda, which is the report on the liver delegation to Washington in a mission which took place in September 2025. A delegation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs conducted this official mission in Washington DC, reaffirming the European Parliament's strategic engagement with the United States on internal security, digital governance, and fundamental rights. Our mission pursued 4 main objectives. First, to learn about US approaches to tackling organized crime, terrorism, and cybercrime, and to gain insights into American approaches to protecting children online.
Second, to explore avenues for strengthening joint U. S. Efforts in addressing these shared threats, improving the exchange of expertise, and enhancing operational efficiency in common security objectives are essential. Third, to assess opportunities for deepening cooperation between law enforcement agencies such as Europol and the FBI. Finally, the delegation also aimed to discuss recent developments in the field of personal data protection, with particular attention to the EU-U. S.
Data privacy framework and concerns regarding surveillance oversight. Let me remind you that a few days before the mission took place, the European Court greenlighted the U. S. EU data privacy framework in a very relevant ruling. So the program brought together a broad range of stakeholders from across the US political, institutional, civil society, and technological sectors.
Participants met with members of Congress and the Senate, senior officials from key federal departments and agencies, including the State Department, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the FDA, as well as representatives from civil society organizations, think tanks, and the IT industry. Discussions covered a wide range of issues, such as counterterrorism, cybersecurity, border security, data protection, visa policy, and the fight against child exploitation through briefings and exchanges with relevant offices and specialized units. I would like to mention, in particular, our meetings in Congress with the House representatives and senators. We had in-depth discussions on trust, Atlantic operation in IT policy, privacy, and fundamental rights, including surveillance oversight, content moderation of social media platforms, and the regulation of artificial intelligence. Again, content moderation and artificial intelligence regulation were top topics on our agenda.
This mission took place in the aftermath of the Charles Kick assassination and also following the adoption by Congress of the Takedown Act. So we could see some shift in the views of some of the legislators on the need for content moderation, but also on the data protection European framework, which, as you know, has no federal data protection legislation in the U.S. S. And that situation of legislative fragmentation is also being reviewed. So, we share the European Parliament's priorities under the GDPR and the AF Act and raise questions concerning the EU's US data privacy framework, which has not been called into question by the incumbent administration.
The government accesses the data and child protection online. Even so, we do not always agree in our views. I think that both sides reaffirmed their shared interest in deepening the transatlantic cooperation. This visit took place at a decisive moment for the transatlantic partnership. Both the European Union and the United States are confronted with increasingly complex threats, from organized crime and terrorism to cybercrime and online child exploitation, while simultaneously shaping the global rules for emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. So, the discussion confirmed the strong mutual interest in closer cooperation but also highlighted the need for clear political safeguards and areas in which we have divergent views.
The delegation underlined that effective security cooperation must go hand in hand with robust protection of fundamental rights. Exchanges on law enforcement cooperation, as well as on data protection and surveillance oversight, underscore the European Parliament's expectation that transatlantic cooperation fully respect EU legal standards, democratic accountability, and the rule of law, including in the implementation of the EU-US data privacy framework. So in closing, I would like to state that a strong transatlantic partnership cannot be built on security alone, but must be anchored in shared democratic values. The European Parliament will then remain a firm advocate of cooperation that delivers security for citizens while safeguarding rights, freedoms, and trust in our democratic institutions. Now, I would like to give the floor to members of the delegation wishing to speak following my report, starting with Miss Kinichi.
Caterina Chinnici
Of the mission to the United States. It's important to remember that the relationship between the EU and the U.S. S. We are going through a particularly complex and unprecedented phase in those terms. And as you brought out in your presentation, we still need to maintain and even intensify cooperation across the Atlantic because we face common challenges such as security, justice, and home affairs.
And the main issue we're dealing with is digital affairs, of course. The mission to Washington confirmed how important it is for us to have cooperation on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, okay, we've got different positions, and we found very different views on the other side of the Atlantic, but both parties did have a desire to continue cooperation. Okay. There are different approaches and different visions.
But nevertheless, our dialogues with parliamentarians, officials from homeland security, the private sector, and citizens. I mean, we had intense dialogues, and I think they were important for those reasons. We do see certain challenges, priorities, and objectives as being key. And we need to maintain cooperation and coordination. Organized crime, transnational terrorism, cybercrime, money laundering—all of these kinds of phenomena cross borders.
And all too often, they take advantage of different jurisdictions to expand their activities. So, what emerged clearly from the mission is that operative cooperation between the FBI and Europol is essential. And it has to represent genuine added value. We need to boost it so that we can take on challenges, which indeed are joint challenges. One issue that we looked at, particularly on this mission, was the issue of children in the digital world.
We know that the Internet has no borders. So the meetings brought out how important it is to act, and to act together, to prevent children, girls in particular, from sexual abuse. Now, we're facing issues with artificial intelligence. There's also radicalization and recruitment of minors for criminal purposes. So, I think these are all very worrying phenomena.
We see all of these challenges in the online world, and they require joint action and coordination. So I think what was particularly interesting was the neck mech, that's the center for missing and exploited children. And I hope that we will soon have a similar center in Europe. For the Libay Committee, given the complex moment we're in and the difficulties that are out there and have been emerging, where we have different views, inter-parliamentary dialogue with the USA is important, and it emerged reinforced from our mission. I think we need to keep a close eye on these issues and on the Transatlantic relationship.
Mutual support, security, and fundamental rights are key to that. And all of this came back clearly in our mission. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Mr. Kinnichi, as a member of the mission present in the room, I give the floor to Mr. Bjorn.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you, Chair. I'll be very brief because I agree with what you mentioned at the beginning of the summary. We can see that transatlantic cooperation is crucial. Yes, we may have different opinions on many issues, but we have to maintain the long-term relationship because when we talk about the transatlantic relationship, we talk about the long term and not just the short term. Because if we see what we are facing, it is similar things.
It's internal and external security, and it's also technological transformation, etc. So we should look at the things that we have in common. And I can name a few of them. It's combating organized crime, terrorism, and cybercrime, protecting children online, and also addressing the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence. That's what we covered during our mission, and I think those are the topics we should rely on.
If we talk about the transatlantic cooperation, it's also something we touch upon in our mission. It's also the cooperation with law enforcement both in the European Union and in the United States. When we talk again about organized crime and tourism, it is crucial for our internal security. So, we should underline that, in the overall order of things, we belong to the same team. We also want the best to prevail and prosper going forward.
So, our mission to the US shows us that if we want to keep up, we also have to do our homework in the European Union to be a better partner for the United States. But in general, the mission shows that transatlantic cooperation is crucial for us. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Bjoch. I don't see any other members of the mission here in the room. So we move to the next item on our agenda, on feedback from trialogue meetings, starting with the one concerning the proposed circulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse, for which I am the rapporteur. I'm especially happy to debrief you today about the outcomes of the first trial on the CSAM regulation, which was held on December 9 under the Danish Presidency.
As you know, after more than 3 years from the submission of the legislative proposal by the Commission, the Council managed to adopt its negotiating mandate, and the interinstitutional negotiations could finally start. At the first trial, the colleges later presented the main elements of their respective mandates. And as for the EP, I first of all stress the need to quickly set up a permanent legal framework to protect children from the dissemination of CSAM online. So content-wise, I indicated that, without prejudice to the end-to-end encryption principle, our mandate covers all three types of CSAM: known, unknown, and grooming. Grooming is only excluded from the scope of the detection order as it stands in the Parliament's report.
But it remains part of the risk assessment obligations for the platforms and Internet service providers, the risk mitigation measures, and the reporting obligations. Detection orders, also as last resort measures, are included in our mandate along with age verification measures, parental controls, safety by design requirements, and additional mitigation measures for platforms used to disseminate pornographic content on and for online games. Finally, the Parliament maintains a strong mandate for the EU center, which is essential not only for the fight against child sexual abuse but also for ensuring the EU's autonomy in this field. As for the council, the Danish Minister of Justice outlined key principles of the council positions, ensuring the protection of private communication, including through end-to-end encryption, and safeguarding cybersecurity by providing for stronger risk assessment and risk obligations on providers, maintaining the removal and blocking orders from the commission proposal, while adding listing orders as a new measure relevant for online search engines and cross-border procedures for removal and listing orders, following the example of the terrorist content online regulation. The main element of the council mandate is, as we know, the fact that there will be no detection obligations on providers, and that providers should continue their voluntary activities and the integration from the ePrivacy directive.
On top of that, the council has removed the detection orders, is running the commission proposal, and then also discussed it in our report. So, despite the differences in our respective manners, the EP and the Council showed a strong intention to work hard on the proposal and to find and achieve an agreement as soon as possible. Technical teams have indeed started the institutional technical meeting on January 15 under the Cyprus Presidency and have held so far two meetings, from which I can report a good atmosphere and, I would say, remarkable progress on the issues that have been discussed, basically the EU side. So then, I would move to the second report on Trilogs. Regarding the application for the electronic submission of travel data and the amendment of relevant EU regulations concerning the use of digital travel credentials.
The rapporteur is Mr. Juan Fernando López Aguilar. So, Mr. Lopez Aguilar, the floor is yours to report back to the committee.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity to provide some insight into the trial locks and the unfolding of the legislative procedure regarding this piece of legislation, which is electronics, submission of travel data, EU digital travel application, and the amending regulation regarding the digital travel credential. You already know that it's not a complicated piece of legislation, but it is meant to reduce waiting times at airports and borders while crossing external borders of the European Union and to increase security at external borders of the Schengen area. So, we held a first trialogue in Strasbourg, as I recall, on this file under the Danish presidency. But now we're looking forward to the current Cyprus presidency to push it forward and possibly complete the procedure, but it shouldn't be that complicated. We held the first dialogue on December 18.
It was a kickoff to present and exchange our views and political priorities regarding this regulation. But despite the several points that were made, lying on different positions on the matter, I still remain confident that we can actually reach compromises with the help of the shadows through what I have called from the very beginning a pragmatic approach in a reasonable time frame. It should be happening in the cyber presidency. The Cyber Presidency has shown interest, committed to advancing the work, and even reaching an agreement within its term. Why not?
It can happen. But we hold the first technical trial; just tomorrow is the technical meeting. And then, we hope also that swiftly, we will push it forward in order to increase the efficiency of border controls, initiate smoother travel, and enhance security standards. So I can't rely on my shadows to complete the file and affect them for the pragmatic approach and the understanding of the subject matter which is at stake. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mister Lopez Avigar, for your report on this file. And now, it's time that we proceed to the vote, starting in 4 minutes. Hi, Alina. Hi, Alina.
Well, good morning, dear colleagues. We should proceed to the vote. So, we now open the vote in session. I can see, from the number of members present in the room, that we have a quorum. And then I would like to inform you that the following non-liver members will participate in today's vote.
For EPP, Mr. Sergio Humberto will be replacing Ana Miguel Pedro later in the voting session. Marta Bislo will replace Christophe Brezza. Liudas Masilis will replace Bogdan John Rares. Wes and D, Isilda Gomez will replace Francisco Assis.
Pierre Francesco Maran will replace Ebenensir. And Alyssa Corrado will replace Muriel Laurent. Jonas Fernandez will replace Ana Catarina Méndez. For PFE, Thomas Bussek will replace Nicolas Bartusek, and Herman Tersch will replace Jorge Busade. For ECR, Mr.
Gambino will replace Mrs. Asita Canco, Mr. Cabendagna will replace Mr. Weimers and Mr. Berlato will replace Mrs.
Teorescu. And as far as renewals are concerned, Mr. Barry Andrews will replace Mrs. Irena Jobeva. Is there any replacement?
You're here. So, you're not going to be replaced by Mr. Cabelaina ? Okay. That's the information we have.
We correct that. And then?
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much, Chairman. Very briefly, I would like to...
I'd
Fabienne Keller
I would like to make one comment on the negotiations of this report that we're going to vote on per country.
Javier Zarzalejos
Taylor, please. We are in the voting session. There is no time allocated for this kind of company.
Javier Zarzalejos
We have not even opened the voting session yet. There is no time allocated for this purpose. I'm sorry.
Oratore 21
You're substituting the liver? You don't remember the liver? Okay. Have another replacement there. Yes?
Javier Zarzalejos
Yes. Please. Take note of this replacement, and then we will proceed to the vote. We cannot proceed to the vote on the first file. It is an amending regulation regarding the application of the safe third country concept.
We, this is a roll call vote, and we vote on the text as a whole. The vote is open. Closed. And it is adopted. We now vote on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, Amendment Regulation EU 2024/1348, as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level.
It's a roll-call vote. We vote on the text as a whole. The vote is open. It is closed, and it has been adopted. Now we move to the vote on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating corruption, replacing Council Framework Decision and the Convention on the Fight Against Corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union, and amending Directive 2017/1131 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
It's a roll call vote, and we vote on the text as a whole. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted. Now we move to the vote on the report on public access to documents covered in the years 2022 to 2024. And it's also an electoral vote, starting with a block vote.
A simple boat.
Javier Zarzalejos
It's an electronic boat. Yes. And we'll start with the blocked boat. The boat is open. Closed, and it is adopted.
Then, as it has been adopted, we can move to the separate votes. On Amendment number 3, the vote is opened. It's a roll call vote, yes. The vote is open. Amendment number 3.
Amendment number 3.
Javier Zarzalejos
Is it clear what we are voting on? Amendment No. 3. The vote is closed, and it has been rejected. Now we vote, also roll call vote, Amendment 19, recital EA. And the boat is open.
It is now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 32, recital GA. Also, it's a local vote. The vote is open. It's closed, and it has been rejected.
We vote on amendment 21, recital EB. The vote is open. It is closed and rejected. Now, Amendment 22, recital EC, also roll call vote. The vote is open.
Closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 23, recital ED. Roll call, the boat is open. It is closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 24, recital EE, roll-call vote.
The vote is open. It is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 25, Recital EF. Roll call vote. The vote is open.
It is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 75, paragraph 8A, roll call vote. The vote is open. It is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 76, paragraph 8b. Roll call vote.
The vote is open. It is now closed, and it has been rejected. And now, amendment 77, paragraph 8c, roll call vote. Roll call vote is open. It is closed, and it is rejected.
And now, we vote. This is the final vote on the draft text as amended. This is a roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it has been adopted.
Now we move to our next item in this voting session, which is the vote on the implementation of the charter.
Minority.
Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender.
On my own behalf.
On behalf of Anders Laschloff from No.
Javier Zarzalejos
No. We have already explained that there can be no minority position on behalf of a member who has now taken part in the vote. You can present your minority position speaking on your own behalf, but not on behalf of a member who has not been taking part in the vote. That I.
I will present my own minority report.
Okay. Go ahead.
Petra Steger
Thank you, Chairman. The rapporteur rightly recognizes that EU bodies have been shaken up by massive corruption, vaccines, Ursula von der Leyen's disappearing text messages, Qatargate, Didier Rinder, Frans Timmermans, and all their scandals. None of this should have ever happened. There must be personal and regulatory consequences. However, the report does not mention the silencing of massive subsidies to corrupt NGOs.
We cannot put an end to corruption in EU bodies if we don't put an end to subsidies for media and NGOs and ensure full transparency. We had some 17 billion paid by the commission to these bodies in the last programming period, yet they have refused to publish these documents. Despite the fact that the commission holds such documents, we need all of this to be made available on a public website. This report cannot be merely a cosmetic exercise. We need full transparency on subsidies for NGOs and media.
Javier Zarzalejos
You exceeded in presenting your minority position. So now, we move to the vote on the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the EU legal framework. This will be all roll call votes. And then we vote on compromise amendment 1. The vote is open and closed, and it is adopted.
Then we move to Compromise Amendment 2. The vote is open. It's now closed, and it has been adopted. Now, Compromise Amendment 3. The vote is open.
It's now closed, and it is adopted. Now, Compromise Amendment 4 is open. Closed now and adopted. Compromise amendment five, both are open. That is closed, and it has been adopted.
Compromise Amendment 6, vote is open. It is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 7, vote is open. It's closed, and it has been adopted. Compromise Amendment 8, vote is open.
The boat is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 9, boat is open. Now, it's closed. And it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 10, the boat is open.
Close. And it is adopted. Then Compromise Amendment 11, both are open. It is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 12: the vote is open.
Now it's closed, and it's adopted. Compromise Amendment 13, the boat is open. It is now closed, and it has been adopted. Compromise Amendment 14, boat is open. Now, it's closed.
Rejected. It's rejected. Yeah. So now we move to Amendment 42 and 333. The vote is open.
Amendment 42 and 333. Both are identical amendments. The boat is open. It's an electronic boat. Normal boat.
Now the vote is closed, and it is rejected. Now we vote on Amendment 334. The vote is open. It is closed, and it has been adopted. We vote on amendments 335 and 43.
It's not identical. The vote is open. Now it is closed, and they are adopted. They are rejected. Sorry.
Now we vote on our amendments 336 and 44. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and they are rejected. We vote on Amendments 337 and 338. The boat is open.
It is closed, and they are rejected. Now vote on Amendment 340. The vote is open. The vote is closed. And it is rejected.
Now, Amendment 342. The vote is opened. It's closed, and it has been rejected. Now, Amendment 343. The vote is open.
It is closed, and it is rejected. $3.44, the boat is open. It is closed and rejected. EUR $3.41. The board is open.
It is closed, and it is rejected. 40th amendment, 45, vote is open. It is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 346, the floor is open. The boat is closed, and it is rejected.
Three forty-seven, the boat is open. The boat is closed, and it is rejected. 3:50, the vote is open. Closed, rejected. Compromise Amendment 15: the vote is open.
It's closed, and it has been adopted. Compromise amendment 16, the floor is open. It's now closed, and it is adopted. Compromise amendment 17, the floor is open. That is closed, and it is adopted.
Compromise Amendment 18, the boat is open. It's now closed, and it has been adopted. Compromise Amendment 19, the boat is open. The boat is closed and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 20, the boat is open.
Now it is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 21, the boat is open. The boat is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 22, the boat is open. The boat is closed, and it is adopted.
Compromise Amendment 23, the boat is open. The boat is closed, and it is adopted. Compromise Amendment 24, the boat is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected. So we vote on amendments 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, and 429.
The vote is open. It's now closed. And they are adopted. Now we vote on Amendment 431. The vote is open.
No. 31.
Javier Zarzalejos
No. 4:31, yes. No. The vote is closed. Rejected.
And it is rejected. Now we vote on Amendment 432. The vote is open. The boat is closed, and it is rejected. Amendments 433 and 59.
The boat is open.
It's now.
Javier Zarzalejos
Closed, and they are rejected. Now, we vote on Compromise 125. The boat is open. The vote is now closed, and it is rejected. So we vote on Amendments 434, 35, 36, 37, and 38.
The vote is open. And now it's closed, and they have been adopted. Amendment 441, vote is open. It's now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 443, vote is open.
It is now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 400, compromise amendment 26. We move to compromise amendment 26. Both are open. It is now closed, and it has been adopted.
Compromise Amendment 27, bolt is open. Now it's closed, and it has been adopted. Compromise Amendment 28: the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted. We vote by roll call on Amendment 69.
Yes. The vote is open. The vote is now closed, and it has been adopted. We vote on Compromise Amendment 29. There's a roll call booth as well.
The boat is open. The boat is now closed, and it is adopted. Now Amendment 133, so the roll call is open. It is now closed, and it has been adopted. Now amendment 135, roll call vote as well, and it is. Now the vote is open.
And it is closed, and it has been rejected. 136, the boat is open and now it's closed, and it is adopted. 187, the vote is open. Now the vote is closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 210, vote is open.
But it is now closed, and it has been rejected. Two eleven, the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it has been rejected. And then the final vote: it's a roll call vote. The vote is open.
And now it's closed, and it has been adopted. We are not done yet. Yes, but I have to read that. Well, I mean, the distribution of the outcome of the extraordinary coordinators meeting of January 15: two decisions under points 2.1 and 2.2 have been contested and therefore, pursuant to rule 220, will be put to the vote in the committee one by one. So, we will start with the vote on the decision taken by the coordinators on point 2.1, the proposal for regulation of the digital omnibus on AI.
Tineke Strik
Yes. Mr. Because we have clear rules in our LIBE committee on the allocation of files, making sure that all the groups can have a proportionate part of the files. Now these rules have been broken by EPP, S and D, and RENEW because they simply say, "We divide the files among ourselves without paying any points, without being in the ranking eligible to get the files." I think that these practices reflect the rules of the jungle.
We should not do that. We are a Liberal committee. We have to do better. We have to respect the democratic rules that we decided on. Thank you. Altogether.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Strick. You made your point. So, as we have just been told, the Greens Group contested the decision on the allocation of this OLP report to the Renew Group for 0 points. Would you like to take the floor, Madam Kelleher? Okay.
That's it. So, let me be precise about the voting procedure. If you are in favor of the coordinator's decision, then you vote "plus." If you're against the coordinator's decision, you vote minus or abstain. So, we move to the vote on the request of the Greens Group to put to vote the committee of coordinators' decision on point 2.2 on the outcome of the extraordinary coordinators meeting of January 15.
So, the vote is open. The vote is closed. And the decision of the coordinators has been helpful. And then we move to the next vote, which also comes from the Green group's request to put to the vote in the committee the coordinator's decision on point 2.1, or the outcome of the extraordinary coordinator's committee meeting of the 15th of January. So, we again put the request to the vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. And again, the coordinator's decision has been confirmed. And now, we have to move to the voting session with Inco.
Faccia una domanda su questo video: analizzo la sua trascrizione per rispondere.