Committee on Constitutional Affairs Ordinary meeting
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AFCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Thank you very much, honorable Chair, dear Sven, dear members of the AFCO Committee. It is both an honor and a privilege to address this committee right at the outset of the Cyprus Presidency to present our priorities. Right at the outset, let me underline that for this presidency, the European Parliament is our indispensable institutional partner, our colleague later, and we will act in a spirit of engagement, transparency, and openness in full respect of institutional propriety. This is the house of European democracy. You are the voice of our citizens, the source of legitimacy for our union. Honorable members, Cyprus assumes the presidency with pride to be at the helm of the Council, but above all, with a deep sense of responsibility to deliver for our Union on our shared priorities.
Speaker 5
Cyprus has also assumed the presidency from the southeastern frontier of our Union as a member state that deeply understands from lived experience the indispensable value of upholding a Union attached to international legality and the rule of law. We understand firsthand, being the last member state of this union that is under military occupation. We understand the devastating consequences of the violation of international law on the ground, and what it means for territorial integrity and sovereignty to be violated, whether that concerns Ukraine, Greenland, or anywhere else. In the midst of intense geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges and social pressures on our citizens, in the face of attempted erosion of international rules-based order, as we know it since the post-World War II era, rest assured that Cyprus is well aware of what is at stake. Now is the time to work together in unity for a union that is more autonomous and open to the world. Autonomy is the next necessary step in our European integration process.
Speaker 4
A vision of a union that is strong from within, able to act independently when necessary, while remaining confident and capable of cooperating with external partners whenever necessary. Strength through partnership. As a partner that is reliable, predictable, stable, and strong, we are more viable to our partners when we are stronger. Our vision for a union that is more autonomous and open to the world runs through all five of our interlinked priorities. Firstly, autonomy through defense readiness, security, and preparedness in a 360-degree manner; autonomy through competitiveness; a union open to the world.
Fourthly, a union of values that leaves no one behind, and fifth, a long-term budget that allows us to deliver on our strategic priorities. In pursuing these priorities, we count on close cooperation across the board with the European Parliament, with your committee, which plays a central role in safeguarding and evolving the Union's constitutional framework. Let me now turn to some of the key issues under your committee's remit. Starting with the future of Europe. Over the decades, while faced with a plethora of challenges, crises, and shifts, the union has demonstrated its ability to act in a timely, efficient, and united manner.
The Union is a project that has constantly evolved and will continue to do so when necessary. There is indeed a shared understanding among our institutions that enlargement remains the Union's most powerful foreign policy and geopolitical instrument. It expands our common space of security, stability, and opportunity across Europe, while reinforcing the Union's credibility and strategic depth. The Cyprus presidency is firmly committed to a credible, ambitious, and results-oriented enlargement agenda, guided by the established methodology, strict and fair conditionality, and the principles of own merit and reversibility, with a strong focus on fundamentals, the backbone of the enlargement process. As enlargement advances, and yes, following Russia's aggression against Ukraine, there is renewed momentum in enlargement. Internal reforms must proceed in parallel, as underlined by the European Council in its December conclusions, so that the EU is fit for the future.
Speaker 3
In this regard, the presidency looks forward to the commission's in-depth policy reviews as important contributions to the discussions ahead. We consider it important that these reviews examine different accession scenarios, recognizing that their implications will inevitably vary. The presidency also takes note of the European Parliament's important work on these matters, in particular your recent resolutions on the institutional consequences of enlargement and the institutional aspects of the Draghi report, which together with the letter report guide our work on competitiveness and the single market. Reforms are not limited to treaty changes. They also include deepening the single market, advancing work on the new multi-annual financial framework, a top priority of the Cyprus presidency, and simplifying the regulatory and administrative frameworks to better support European businesses, especially SMEs, the backbone of our economies.
Speaker 4
Together, these efforts strengthen the Union's future and will be a key focus in the months ahead during the Cyprus presidency. Concerning the revision of the framework agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission, the Council welcomes the European Parliament's efforts to improve its functioning and further strengthen interinstitutional cooperation. As co-legislators, we share the common objective of enhancing the efficiency and quality of the EU legislative process in full respect of the principles of sincere cooperation, institutional balance, and the respective competences of all EU institutions as set out in our treaties. The council takes note of the recent political agreement reached between these two institutions and is currently examining the text. Moving to a topic of particular importance to the European Parliament.
The 1976 Electoral Act requires updating, and the council recognizes that. The 2018 decision of the Council on the electoral act itself reflects a shared recognition that reform in this area is both necessary and possible. We are cognizant of the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved in the 2022 proposal. Discussions within the council, at both the political and technical levels, have shown that significant challenges persist on a number of elements of the proposals, notably due to the lack of unanimity among member states. These challenges have been encountered by successive presidencies.
Speaker 3
Against this background, the presidency will maintain close and constructive cooperation with the European Parliament, with a view to exploring possible ways forward where consensus can be built. Regarding the proposal on proxy voting for members of the European Parliament during late pregnancy and early motherhood, the presidency recognizes and agrees with the underlying rationale of the Parliament's important initiative. The proposal touches upon fundamental principles of democratic representation and inclusiveness, reflecting the need to actively support parenthood and work-life balance. Building on the work carried out under the Danish presidency, the Cyprus presidency has already, from the very beginning of its term, initiated discussions in the working party on general affairs, treating this file as a priority and approaching it with an open and constructive mindset, with a view to concluding this file during the Cyprus presidency. Throughout this process, the Council is keeping the European Parliament fully informed and looks forward to continuing close exchanges on this important and sensitive matter.
Speaker 4
Remaining within the field of elections, as regards the recast of the council directive on mobile voters and candidates in municipal elections, the presidency is confident that work on this proposal can be successfully concluded during our mandate. The participation of 13,500,000 mobile EU citizens in European and municipal elections is a tangible expression of Union citizenship and a vital pillar of our democratic life. As regards the Parliament's right of inquiry, the Presidency and the Council fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary committees of inquiry as instruments of democratic accountability. The political sensitivity of this file calls for a balanced approach. The Council, together with the Commission, has engaged with the Parliament in technical discussions at the services level and successfully concluded a mapping exercise aimed at creating a common understanding of respective positions and clarifying technical issues.
The presidency remains open to engaging in continuous constructive dialogue with the European Parliament on any new proposal, while respecting the institutional balance as laid down by the treaties. Coming now to the ethics body. As of 01/01/2026, the council has taken over the chairing of the interinstitutional ethics body. The council remains fully supportive of its operationalization and intends to resume work at the technical level to advance the setup phase. We are aware of the internal challenges at the European Parliament in the past months on this topic, and we have respected the time required to address them.
We look forward to receiving more information on how the European Parliament will engage and contribute to our joint efforts for transparency and accountability. Coming now to the European Democracy Shield. Protecting and defending democracy is a fundamental priority for the European Union, for the member states, and for the Cyprus presidency. At a time of growing geopolitical tensions, evolving and emerging threats, our democratic systems and institutions are admittedly under increasing pressure across the Union. Strengthening democratic resilience, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring that our citizens can exercise their rights freely and without interference are therefore more important than ever.
In this context, the Cyprus presidency has welcomed the Commission's initiative for a European Democracy Shield, which was discussed at the General Affairs Council, the first one under the Cyprus presidency two days ago, as well as the valuable work carried out by the European Parliament's Special Committee on the Democratic Shield. We take note of the committee's recent report and recommendations, which provide a basis for further discussion and joint work to reinforce democratic resilience across our Union. Coming now to the transparency of interest representation on behalf of third countries. The council has made significant progress on the proposal for a directive on the transparency of interest representation on behalf of third countries, with technical work still ongoing. The presidency remains committed to making as much progress as possible during this semester, so as to start the interinstitutional negotiations following the adoption of the EP mandate.
As for the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, which we consider of great importance for ensuring coherence of human rights standards across Europe, the presidency, in light of the request for an opinion submitted by the Commission to the Court of Justice, will work for the adoption of the internal rules that will allow the smooth functioning of the EU within the European Convention on Human Rights. Dear Chair, dear Sven, honorable members of the AFCO committee, there is certainly still much work ahead for us and views to reconcile, but reconciling and dialogue are what we do best. Historically, Cyprus has been a bridge between continents, civilizations, and ideas. This is how we view our role as the presidency of the council: a bridge between institutions, perspectives, and interests. Rest assured that we are fully committed to engaging in meaningful dialogue, advancing discussions, and achieving tangible results whenever possible. I am confident that in the months ahead, we can count on your committee's openness, your expertise, and readiness to work together for the benefit of our common European home.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Minister, for your presentation. I will now give the floor for two minutes to each coordinator. And as I said, we will then use the ping-pong system. The first speaker on behalf of the European People's Party is Laurent Vincent.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Chair. Missus Rauner, it was great to hear you, and good luck with the Cypriot presidency. It's always a challenge for any member state to be the host of the council negotiations and the entire process, but it is even more challenging for a smaller member state. So, good luck, and I hope to see you on occasion. Thank you for your words regarding the call for European unity and for the drive to have European autonomy in as many areas as possible.
And thanks for mentioning almost all the topics that we work on here in the AFCO committee. Probably, we would like to hear a bit more on the specific topics, and mostly, we would like to have answers from the council on many files that were proposed by the parliament, namely on the treaty change. I understand from your words that it's not a favorable position or the same as with the electoral act from 2022. Probably, even if the answer is no, it's good to have a formal discussion between the two legislators. Regarding the right of inquiry, you spoke about a mapping exercise and the technical-level discussions.
As members, we would like to be involved in this process. We are truly looking forward to negotiations. We have here the reporter Reut and my colleague Sinkevich, also ready to work meaningfully on this file. You didn't mention the accession to the ECHR that the chair introduced. What is the status of this?
Maybe you can tell us. And really, thank you for your engagement and hope to have news from the council in a formal manner. But anyway, it would be good to have answers on some legislative files that left the parliament for the council but stayed there for years sometimes. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. I have noted four topics. Let me start with the right of inquiry. Both the presidency and the council fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary committees of inquiry. As I've said, they're instrumental for democratic accountability.
Speaker 4
As you know, the council informed this committee, through the former chair, that following the parliament's non-paper, there had been some remaining concerns on the site of the council. The mapping exercise, which was concluded in 2025, has indeed created new momentum in these efforts. And we are looking forward to a new proposal that the EP may put forward during this legislative term with the aim of addressing these concerns. A political stock-taking is something that can be done during our presidency in order to assess the positions of the institutions and determine the next steps. When it comes to the European electoral law, as I've said in my remarks, this is a law that dates back to 1976.
We absolutely understand that it needs to be revised. The issues that are at hand, as you know very well, are of legal and sometimes of constitutional nature when it comes to member states. Some of the issues are the transnational lists, the European Electoral Law Authority, and the issue of speech and candidature, where the problem is that there is no unanimity among member states. What I can say is that the presidency remains open to engaging with the European Parliament in order to explore possible ways forward. We will monitor developments in the European Parliament on the 2022 reform of the European electoral law and any new initiatives to engage with the Council, and we'll also monitor the ratification of the 2018 reform.
With regards to the European Convention of Human Rights, I touched on it at the end of my intervention. Right now, the presidency, in light of the request for an opinion that was submitted by the commission to the Court of Justice, will work for the adoption of the internal rules that will allow for the smooth functioning of the EU within the European Convention on Human Rights. And coming now to the issue of treaty change. As you know, on 12/18/2023, the council submitted the European Parliament proposals to the European Council and notified the national parliaments as required by the treaties. The issue of treaty change is something that is particularly sensitive and serious.
It's something that needs to take into consideration both the geopolitical context and the internal situation in member states in order to ensure that we indeed have positive results, particularly at a time when our most valuable asset is our unity and the need to preserve it. As I have said, there is, at this moment, broad hesitation amongst member states when it comes to treaty change, and there is a growing support to leverage solutions and the flexibilities within the existing treaties. This is something that we will continue to follow. Thank you.
Speaker 8
And Democrats, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguila. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madam Ronald. We had a talk yesterday in another committee. And surely, you heard me say that we are all aware that Cyprus is one of the smallest and least populated countries. And yet, with an ambitious agenda, we can only wish you well.
And surely, as a matter of principle, whenever there's a rotating presidency of the European Union, it deserves the credit of the best expectation. But besides, we think you really have room for maneuver to deliver your best, and we wish you to put all the energy into it with our cooperation, for sure, from this European Parliament. And insofar as we are compelled to be complementary to each other, not to repeat ourselves, not to make the same points. I intend to make the point, of course, about the EU reform, considering that, yes, it's an ongoing argument, particularly in the plenaries in Strasbourg, that the European Union has to do something about itself in order to respond. We cannot lean on unanimity much longer when it leads to a block, meaning impotence or silence when our voice needs urgently to be heard.
But I would simply dwell on two points that have not been made by my colleague from the EPP and are interesting. Of course, we are also interested in the right of inquiry, for sure. We have been working on it for much too long. But then, there is the case of EU electoral reform. You know that we have an EU electoral act with dates all the way back to 1976, and it needs to be reformed.
There are two initiatives: one from 2018 and another from 2022. And it's still pending in the council to make up its mind, to work on it, and to push it forward, trying to build its own consensus because, yes, let's face it, it takes unanimity as the rules are now. As the rules are now, it takes unanimity. But at least it needs to work on it whenever the President wants to hear something about it. And then there is another file, which is worth noticing depending on your presidency, which is one we set in motion just recently, in order to respond to the situation of pregnant MEPs who are about to give birth or have just given birth.
And we adopted an initiative, which is precisely reforming the EU Electoral Act, Article 6, in order to make it possible for women who are giving birth to be represented in the voting by someone from their delegation in that particular case. And that could be perfectly completed by the Cyprus presidency because it's so tiny, so targeted, so well meant that if you put it on the table, it should be adopted just like that. Want your word on it?
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Aguilar, for those important points. I will start with the proxy voting. It's also very close to my heart as a woman, as a mother, and I would like to congratulate you for this important initiative. What I can say is that we have put it on the agenda of the competent working party from the first week of our presidency. There is broad support for the scope to remain as it has been proposed by the European Parliament.
Speaker 4
The discussions right now, if I may give some more information, at the council are focusing on the implications and possible modalities of the proposed measures. There are some questions that pertain to legal certainty and to the practical implementation of proxy voting. But what I can assure you is that this is a matter of priority for the Cyprus presidency, and that our objective is to continue working, to continue this work with a view to concluding this file during our presidency. We have put a very specific timeline internally to conclude very soon the discussions at the working party, without prejudice to the discussions that are still ongoing, taking it to a level to be able to advance it. On the 1976 electoral act, I've acknowledged in my remarks and in my answer to the first question that we fully acknowledge that this needs to be revised. The position of member states on the 2022 electoral law is still valid.
These are known to the European Parliament. And if the European Parliament is ready to address these concerns that have been raised by member states, on our side, what I can assure you is that we are ready to engage with the European Parliament and with the member states in exploring possible ways forward. With regards to unanimity, again, it is a very sensitive topic amongst member states. You know, we were not dogmatic. You know, this is an issue that comes to the council and is being discussed. What is true is that there is broad hesitation amongst member states with regards to treaty change, with regards to shifting in some areas that are provided by the treaties from unanimity to QMV.
There is no common position. We are expecting the pre-policy reviews from the commission, where we've said that this discussion on reforms will, of course, address governance as well, not just governance. It will address the policy. It will address the budget and governance. It's also an issue that will move in parallel with enlargement, another key priority of the Cyprus presidency.
I'm very pleased that this week, less than three weeks into our Presidency, we have our first intergovernmental conference with Montenegro.
Speaker 10
Many thanks, Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister, for presenting the priorities. We spoke at the Libay Committee as well, and we're pleased to have you today at the AFCO Committee. Last week, a majority in the European Parliament asked the European Court of Justice for an opinion on the Mercassau agreement and whether it meets European law, which means that the Parliament cannot approve it while a decision is pending. Some sources have said that just after this vote, the council put pressure on the commission to bring some amendments to the Mercosur agreement, where the European Parliament's majority was ignored and we were deviating from the European justice system. What is your view of this trend, the role of the European Parliament in trade policy, and the position of the European Court of Justice on this matter?
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Madam Mellers, for your question on this important issue, which we handled as presidency right at the beginning of our term on this very important trade agreement. What I can say as a horizontal point, and this is very close to the heart of Cyprus, is that there is across-the-board full respect for interinstitutional balance, full respect for the institutional role of the European Parliament as prescribed by the treaties, and this concerns, of course, trade agreements as well. When it comes to the discussions at the council, we followed the prescribed, established procedure in line with the treaties. When it comes to the approval at the council and the next steps. There was a decision taken by the European Parliament regarding referring cases to the Court of Justice within the remit of the institutional role of the European Parliament.
Speaker 4
The council has its position, and that stands in full respect of the role of the European Parliament. Allow me a brief point on trade agreements, if I may, because it's an integral part of our vision, and the vision of the European Union, I believe, for a union that is more autonomous and more open to the world. And when we talk about autonomy and independence, European independence is not just about defense and security. It's, of course, about defense and security, but it is also about our economic power and our trade footprint. And at this moment of unpredictability, the European Union is the political and economic actor that is stable, that is predictable, and that is truly committed to international law and international trade law.
And I think trade agreements are an indispensable component of our global strategic standing. And I think the agreement also reached yesterday with India is of historic importance.
Speaker 1
Overstepping my competencies, if I may add, because this is a public meeting and I'm defending the rule of law as long as I live, there is Article 218, paragraph 5, which gives the Council the right to authorize the signing of an international agreement and decide on its provisional application before the agreement enters into force. So the political dimension is somehow different, but it would be in line with the treaties if the Council decided together with the Commission to apply this agreement provisionally. Next speaker.
It's not really fair if you don't give me.
Alright.
To repeat.
That. This.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and good luck to the Cyprus Presidency. I was very pleased to hear from you that you fully appreciate the report on the institutional constraints of enlargement because I know it pretty well. I know that report pretty well. But then I would like to go back to the count of the report because that report wants to make the union more efficient, more powerful, and more democratic.
How? First, using the pass right close with targeted treaty changes, fully exploiting enhanced cooperation and structured cooperation, because what the parliament, now its official position, wants is a Europe of free political will, where those who want to advance must be allowed to advance without obliging the others to follow, but without accepting that the other block. So, a more democratic approach would be to ask to resume the talks on the European electoral law. So we understand that your answers on each of these points are not fully satisfactory. So I would like to know what you will do at least to encourage the council to use enhanced cooperation and strategic cooperation in a more strategic way, starting from defense, but not only.
Second, I would like to know what you mean by concern regarding the Council of Europe's electoral law. We don't know the concern of the Council Electoral Law because the Council has never started a renegotiation with the Parliament, as we have been asking. And the Parliament has asked twice recently, in a report of EPP rapporteur Gimenez Lalaraz and in the report of which I had the honor to be the author, to engage in serious talks about the European electoral law, of course, in 2018 and 2022. I would like to know whether Cyprus counts its presence and if someone would like to come up with a compromise proposal, at least within the General Affairs Council. There was, for example, a compromise proposal presented by France, which has never been really discussed in the General Affairs Council. It was a full step because it didn't take on all the requests of the European Parliament but sought to find a consensus between the concerns you mentioned of the Council and the priorities of the European Parliament.
Are you ready to do something similar? Are you ready to put on the table a compromise proposal to start serious talks about the European electoral law, yes or no? Then, on the ethics body, you mentioned the fact that, of course, you have probably been waiting too long for the position at the European Parliament. What will you do if the stalemate persists in the European Parliament? Which formal initiative is the Council ready to take if the stalemate within the Parliament continues? And last, very last point: mobile voters. As I'm one of these, the council has always been very shy in ensuring proper information for mobile voters and the simple registration of mobile voters.
Do you intend to tackle these two issues, which are the real obstacles to the use of our rights as European citizens? Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Ghossi, for the broad range of questions. Enlargement is also very dear to my heart. I started working in the European Union on enlargement, and it's a file that I have followed very closely and is also very close to the heart of Cyprus, a member state that acceded in 2004 and for which it has been the greatest diplomatic success since our independence in 1960. So, let me start with enlargement, in fact. First and foremost, as I have said, we recognize that with an unenlarged union, we'll need to come up with reforms.
Speaker 4
This is simply inevitable. We will not be able to function as a union of 27 with what we have in place in the case of enlargement. But it needs to be an informed decision by the council, by the European Union. And that is why we are expecting the in-depth policy reviews by the commission. There has been a tasking by the European Council on that.
In order to see the impact, first of all, of such enlargement and of different enlargement scenarios as well. First of all, when it comes to our policies, our budget, our institutions, and yes, also to governance. So, on our side, we fully recognize that the EU needs to be ready. We need to be ready, institutionally and politically, to welcome new members into our union. And, on the other hand, these institutional changes, including possible changes to voting procedures, must be approached carefully and, above all, consensually.
And as I have said, nothing is more valuable right now for the European Union than our unity and preserving it. Decisions on enlargement, as you know better than I do, are some of the most consequential decisions that we take as a Union. It's about meeting new members into the European Union, and this deserves, in our opinion, the highest degree of legitimacy and the highest degree of ownership from all member states. Having said that, we are open to discussions on how to make decision-making more efficient without taking steps right at this moment, as our unity does face challenges that risk deepening divisions or weakening the sense of shared responsibility in our union. I also believe, if I may, that we need to focus at this moment on where we identify a real source of blockage, and work towards finding solutions, engaging, and dialogue where there is blockage.
And we believe that there is room to do more of that as a European Union, as member states. But as I have said, once we receive the policy reviews from the European Commission, we will advance this discussion at the Council. There was a question on the interinstitutional ethics body that you have posed. As I have said, what we are engaging in now as a council is fully recognizing that there are challenges at the European Parliament on this internal late nature. We are now engaged in trying to make the body fully operational.
This is in line with our role and duties as the current chair of the body. In fact, tomorrow there will be a first technical meeting on this issue that will focus on two main points. One will be the rules of procedure, and the other will be the appointment of independent experts. We attribute great importance to this body, and we will continue to work fully and constructively on making it operational. With regards to the electoral law, I'm sorry, I'm taking a little bit more time.
Feel free to interrupt.
Generous today.
Speaker 3
Very generous. Okay. Good. Good. With regards to the electoral law of 2022, we have the outcome of the questionnaire that takes stock of the difficulties that have been shared with the European Parliament.
Speaker 4
Those changes, as I've said, pertain to some member states' constitutional nature or are linked to the electoral traditions of some member states. Those are often deep-rooted in a number of member states. But awaiting the response, we are ready, and we are preparing to engage in dialogue in order to reach compromises on this issue. On the last one, on the directive on municipal elections, and on the council directive on mobile voters, as presidency, we are confident that this proposal can be concluded as I serve during our presidency. There are a number of issues that have been raised by member states that are currently being discussed at the council.
Thank you, Mr. Ghossi.
Speaker 1
So maybe the colleague from the Greens will ask a follow-up question on the ethics body, namely how you see the situation that, according to the current agreement, the Council has the right to set the standards but is not bound by them. But okay. The floor is given to Daniel Freund from the Greens.
You can.
Daniel Freund
Thanks, Chair, and thanks to the Presidency for being here and outlining the program. I'm actually going to start on the question of unanimity, and we have discussed this with preceding presidencies as well. I have a bit the impression that, you know, what we hear in these presentations from the council is still a bit the old world. But I fear, you know, when we see how unreliable our former partners in the US have become, questioning the inter-territorial integrity of member states, when we have Russia continuing the onslaught in Ukraine, we live in a bit of a difficult, different world. You yourself said that a big priority for Cyprus in this presidency is enlargement.
But enlargement is basically made almost impossible if Viktor Orban has, I don't know, how many dozens of vetoes on the Ukrainian session, for example. So, I think this is a debate that we need to have based on these new realities. And I would very much appreciate it if, I mean, we made a report on treaty change in this house, which was adopted with a solid majority, and we haven't basically heard back from the council, and it's been over two years now. Right? And I think we need to start that debate.
I know there are hesitations. I know there are questions. There will always be. Right? But we need to have that debate.
It needs a simple majority to start the debate. Council, Parliament, Commission, and national governments: I think that's the framework in which those discussions can actually be had. And the hesitations also, I think, should be addressed. So I think that would be the direction that the council should work towards. The second question I have is indeed concerning the ethics body, and colleagues have pointed out that there are some issues in this institution.
But the agreement has been ratified by 8 EU institutions. It's in force. Unfortunately, while we're nearing the second birthday of the entry into force of that agreement, we have seen a number of scandals in this house, in other EU institutions, the former foreign policy chief being arrested, and whatnot. I think it's about time that we start the reflection on those common standards that all our institutions said we would start reflecting on. So I thank you, and you already said that there is a meeting tomorrow at the technical level, but I think there needs to be a meeting at the political level, given how long this has taken.
And Parliament is a signatory to that agreement. We have not left the agreement. So, I would expect that the legal service has also said so. There is no obstacle for us to participate. As long as no one puts forward a motion to leave this agreement, we are part of the agreement, and I think we will constructively engage.
So, I can only encourage you to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Daniel, for the support and encouragement, and thank you for your personal work on this very important file. Look, as I have said, on our side, we are focused and committed to operationalizing the ethics body. We started with this step-by-step approach right at the beginning of our presidency on this. We are resuming work on the technical level, which is the first step. And if the European Parliament agrees, we are ready and we will also proceed, as you have said, to the political level in this very important fight.
Coming back to enlargement and unanimity. Don't get me wrong. I hear what you are saying. I understand the arguments that are being made and that there is a lot of frustration. You know, on a personal level, taking off the hat.
Speaker 4
I feel the frustration sometimes when we are working on these files. But at the same time, while this issue is being raised, it's also important to acknowledge and be pragmatic that right at this moment, we don't have consensus on shifting from unanimity. And we also need unanimity to change. As I have said, the presidency, fully in line with its institutional role, if we've included it in our work program, we are expecting the in-depth policy reviews, and I think that's an important step because we need to be making informed discussions. We need to know the impact of the discussions and the decisions we are taking across, as I have said, on policies, budget, institutions, and governance. And as soon as we have them, it will be a material priority on the table for discussion at the council.
Speaker 3
Allow me also to address this point when it comes to enlargement and unanimity. We have proven, I believe, over the course of our life since the inception of the European Union that we are agile, that we are able to respond to crises, to a plethora of complex challenges together, and that each and every time in this process, we've evolved as a European Union. And the truth is that the existing treaties and the flexibilities built into the treaties have allowed the European Union so far to adapt and be able to respond to institutional and enlargement challenges. This is also reflected in the fact that it is not without difficulties, Mister Godzi, not without challenges, but it's never a union of 27; it's not going to be easy or smooth. It's what makes us a union of dialogue, consensus, and unity.
Speaker 4
But in the Conference for the Future of Europe, around 95% of the proposals across the sectors, and not only limited to the issue of enlargement, could be addressed within the framework of the treaties. But, again, that being said, I do not want to prejudge the discussions in light of the commission's forthcoming policy reviews. On enlargement, despite the challenges—and there are many—the steps are arduous. The enlargement process needs to be arduous because it is a transformative process for the candidate countries. It requires reform. It requires commitment across the board, from the Copenhagen criteria to CFSP alignment, which is very important in the framework of enlargement.
And yet, we have progress. Yet, we have progress. In 2004, we had 10 new member states joining, not least Cyprus with its own difficulties. And on Montenegro, we have had remarkable progress when it comes to the enlargement negotiations. Have the discussions been difficult?
Yes. But right now, we are able to talk about an ambitious but realistic goal, subject to reforms continuing, subject to the institutional role of all parts, that we can talk about having a 28 member state by 2028. It's a priority in our presidency, and we are working towards this goal to set up the ad hoc working party on the accession treaty, which would be the first time after Croatia and would send a very important signal to all candidate countries. When it comes to Albania, we expect and we are working for the Ibars, the interim benchmarks, which would actually pave the way for closing the first chapters. With Ukraine and Moldova, we acknowledge the challenges there, but the work continues.
It's continuing at the technical level. We've already invited both Ukraine and Moldova to be with us in Cyprus on the margins of the informal General Affairs Council and hold on-site informal meetings to inform them on the benchmarks for specific clusters. We will continue working on this track and also on the track of building consensus, which is what we do best as the European Union.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for this. Now we have three other speakers, and I would really like us to set the clock so that we don't overdo it. The first speaker from S and B is colleague Antrio Kaitis.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much for a very excellent presentation of the President's country. Now we are also listening to you very carefully because the next three years are Ireland, Lithuania, and Greece. Yes.
And, of course, we are looking very carefully at your agenda, keeping in mind the issues that should be in continuity. And of course, as you know, as the projects just mentioned about enlargement, institutional reforms, and activities. May you know an excellent study on sailing the high seas, presented by 12 German and French experts, who shared their views on what Europe should do in the face of enlargement. Cyprus is surrounded by seas, and you are clearly sailing in high seas. You know?
It is clear. But my question is, you are just mentioning unity repeatedly. But unity doing nothing is not unity. And unity, doing all issues with unanimity, is also not unity. Unity is diversity, and mobility is a movement that can strengthen our union and our unity.
Good to know. Are you ready to be leading countries? Saying yes. Let's go from Letargo and move into unity through possibilities to discuss issues that vary in concert in the future of Europe, the European Parliament, and, you know, I'm also proposing maybe next debates involving much more, you know, NGOs and civil society in front of those challenges because unity requires courage, strength, and movement.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Indeed, Cyprus, from the southeastern frontier of the European Union, has been sailing in very turbulent waters for centuries in a very complex neighborhood. Yet, it has consistently acted as a bridge for dialogue and cooperation, both among its neighbors, promoting regional cooperation, but also among the neighborhood of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is a key point of reference for our presidency under the pillar of a Union open to the world. We will be implementing the Pact for the Mediterranean during our presidency. So, a bridge between this geo-strategically important region and the European Union. And we've also put maritime security as one of our priorities under the umbrella of security.
Allow me to respectfully disagree. When saying that, under the face of unity, we do nothing. I would argue the exact opposite. Look at how far we have come as the European Union. The strides that have taken place after the Russian aggression against Ukraine, where we've stood behind Ukraine, standing on the right side of history in doing so.
Speaker 4
Because defending and supporting Ukraine is supporting our security architecture. This is the litmus test for the European Union. We have taken bold decisions when it comes to building our defense capabilities since the Russian aggression against Ukraine. We're now talking about implementing, during the Cyprus presidency, the safe regulation of announcing and approving the first projects under the safe regulation. We are now talking, and a few years back, this would have seemed very far away.
We're now talking about military mobility, which, in the long term, will be a military Schengen zone for the European Union. On competitiveness, within a very short time, we have taken concrete steps. We have now put on the table 10 Omnibus packages. We've closed how many? Constantinos.
3. We've closed three Omnibus packages, and we've had our first trilogue on the defense Omnibus packages. This will continue as a point of reference during the Cyprus presidency. The list is long. And the European Union, in the midst of crisis, is able to project itself as a stable, reliable, and predictable partner. And we see this in our trade agreements.
And again, I make reference to the FTA with India. And, again, with respect to subsidiarity and proportionality, we, as the European Union, are touching areas such as affordable housing, which is one of the greatest challenges faced by our citizens. So, the European Union delivers. It is not a perfect project. No one is arguing that it's a perfect project, but it is a project in evolution and one that continues to deliver.
Speaker 1
So now the floor would like to take our rapporteur for the inquiry file, please Reutend from S&D.
Speaker 17
Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. And I will indeed focus on the right of inquiry, although I'm tempted to say things about enlargement as well, but maybe for another time. The good thing about the right of inquiry is that it doesn't require unanimity in the council, so that's good. It's a special procedure, and there is a result to achieve here for the Cypriot presidency: a good result, I think.
And I think that we have come quite far after many years of very little progress. Last year, we found a way forward with the much-appreciated efforts of the Polish and Danish presidencies, and we are now in a position to take the step forward. And I would be a little more ambitious than you because I think we can take the final step, not just a step in the process, but the final step. So, we need to speak soon, hopefully, about getting a picture of how we look at the mapping exercise. And then, to move forward indeed, to hopefully finish this file, because in this mandate or in this legislative period, that is not the timeline that the Parliament has in mind. And I, in all earnest, think that it's also time for the council to, as you said yourself, realize that the right of inquiries, the instrumental scrutiny of this house, is important and is a vital part of what you said in the beginning of your intervention: the strength of a directly democratically elected parliament, as this house is.
So I hope that we, together with you under your leadership, can really move this file hopefully over the finish line. I'm ready. We are ready. And hopefully, we can make progress soon on this.
Speaker 3
Let me assure you that we are ready too. We are on the same page. The presidency and the council fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary committees of inquiry, as you said, as I have said, as an instrument for democratic accountability. Indeed, the mapping exercise that took place in 2025 has created a new momentum. We are ready to follow up this exercise with a political stock-taking meeting as early as possible during our presidency, and we stand ready to work closely with you on that front.
Alexandre Varaut
Thank you.
And thank you for the sincerity of your responses. I say that because sometimes people don't say things clearly, and it's not the case here. It's very good to hear this from you. We've spoken about enlargement, of course. I was first elected in 1999 to this parliament.
I'm not the oldest, but I'm probably one of the most senior people here. So, for more than 25 years, I know that enlargement is essentially something that raises the question of majority vote versus unanimous vote. And we were always told we are eighteen, twenty-one, twenty-eight, and now there are too many of us, so we have to have a different system. And people can think what they want about that. What we have to address in a question is this issue of unanimity.
And to do so, we have to enlarge it. We have to get as many countries as possible, as quickly as possible. And I'm not sure really where you would put me, you know, where I would be in the hemicycle, but we are not in favor of enlargement. There are countries that concern us, so we know that Ukraine is a subject that really moves us. We have this war by Russia against Ukraine.
But perhaps that shouldn't really make a member of the EU necessarily. There are people who have concerns. We see that in the common agricultural policy, we are afraid. Well, we've seen Mercosur. What has happened with that?
That's really brought us down, and Ukraine is on top of that. So it's a real, serious subject in France. France is historically a very important agricultural economy, as you know. There's another country that comes to mind, which is Turkey. And we had an open meeting in this committee for candidate members, and I can really say that at the meeting, I expressed my desire for Turkey to join.
And there was a minister there who was very kind and heard what I said. He said, "Don't worry." One day, we hope, he said that Turkey could join the EU. And this is also an issue for your presidency today. But could it be easier just to say no, and that would be clearer for everybody?
But what do you think of the issue of the EU and this issue of Turkey? Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Varol, for that question. Cyprus is, among the European Union countries, the closest geographical neighbor to Turkey. There are parts of our coast in the Turkish-occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus where, on a clear day, you can see the Turkish coast. Cyprus took the decision to support, at the time, the beginning and the launching of accession negotiations with Turkey.
Why? Because we believed that geography cannot change. Cyprus and Turkey will always be neighbors. That is not a factor we have control over. What we can have control of is to do all that we can to have a neighbor that is democratic, that respects the rule of law, that respects international law, and that acts in line with good neighborly relations.
Speaker 4
Turkey and the enlargement are guided by conditionality. We say this. This is the jargon we use, but it means something. It means that the European Union sets the requirements in line with its standards, values, and EU law, and the candidate countries need to align with those standards. And that applies to all.
There are no different categories of candidate countries. In the case of Turkey, there are a number of conditionalities. We have not seen the necessary progress. In fact, we have seen backsliding in democratic standards in the country and in the rule of law. Back in 2019, if you remember, we had violations of the sovereign rights and the sovereignty of member states, including that of Cyprus in its exclusive economic zone.
And the combination of that led to a halt in the accession process. And, of course, part of the conditionality is Turkey's contribution to the efforts to reunify Cyprus in line with UN Security Council resolutions and EU law. Turkey right now is still a candidate country. A candidate country that has a staggering 4% CFSP alignment, and that is a remarkable percentage. We are not saying that we are closing the door.
We are saying that the European Council in October 2023 and April 2024 set out a path for engagement with Turkey. This is guided by the principles of proportional, reversible, and gradual engagement, and we are expecting Turkey to deliver. And where Turkey delivers, the Council will consider, within this framework of established concessionality, the steps to be taken. I will agree with you that enlargement is, as I've said, one of the most consequential decisions that we take as a union. That's why it's important to work to build consensus within member states, amongst European citizens, and address concerns where there are any. Ukraine has been making very important progress despite the fact that it is doing so while fighting a war of aggression.
And we stand ready to continue supporting on all fronts.
Speaker 1
So, this concludes our first session with the minister and the Council Presidency. Thank you very much, and also thank you. You have been the first minister in the council presidencies who did not oppose our ping pong method. At least, I'm not aware of all the others I had to convince. Thank you also for that.
Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for being here, and all the best for the rest of the presidency. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
So, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, please take a seat so that we can proceed. So, our colleague for item number 6 is not yet here, but she will arrive soon. I would propose that we proceed with item number 7, namely the framework agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission. The revised framework agreement which we negotiated represents, in my opinion, a significant institutional advance for Parliament if we use it. It reinforces Parliament's indirect right of initiative, clarifies the conditions governing the Commission's use of Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, and enhances accountability by ensuring the presence of Commissioners in plenary and committee meetings when requested.
Maybe, to be a bit more precise, on Parliament's right of initiative under Article 225, I still find it surprising that the European Parliament, officially in the treaties, doesn't have the right of initiative, but it is using it quite successfully. Most national parliaments have it, but do not use it. That is an interesting situation or phenomenon. On article 122, for the first time, the framework agreement codifies the use of article 122, originally designed as an emergency clause. Under the revised text, Article 2 may only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, as it is written in the treaties, whereby the Commission, and this is, I think, the advancement and what we could reach, must provide an immediate justification and conduct an assessment of the legal act.
This is the added value. We must ask the commission to do so, and we must simply use this right, which is now ours, which we fought for. Finally, the presence of commissioners. The revised agreement grants Parliament the right to request the presence of commissioners in plenary and committee sessions. This provision will reinforce accountability within the EU's institutional framework, but I must also tell you, colleagues, that the big wish of the Commission, particularly the Commission President, is that when the Commission is present in plenary, it is appropriate that some members are present in plenary as well.
This is a little bit of a weakness of the European Parliament, which we put on ourselves, and I have several proposals. Maybe we can soon also talk in this committee about how to improve the presence in plenary, which would make us stronger as an institution. Do you have any comments or questions? If this is not the case, then not for the text itself, but for Marieke Ehlers. Yes, please.
Speaker 20
Is this the round for the shadow reporters to speak, or should we have general remarks? Because I'm speaking on behalf of the Patriot Shadow Reporter. I wouldn't differentiate here. Okay. So, well, in that case,
I will. In that case, you have the floor.
I will read our position.
Thank you.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Chair, for this important exchange. I would like to apologize on behalf of Mr. Girauto Vidal, who cannot be here today, and I am here to present his position. Thank you also for your work on behalf of Mr. Geraldo Vidal is the negotiator during this procedure. First, implementation matters more than wording.
While the framework agreement is a step forward, its value will depend entirely on how the Commission applies it in practice. Commitments on information, presence, and accountability must lead to real changes in behavior and not remain formal declarations. Secondly, exceptional procedures must remain exceptional. Repeated reliance on emergency legal bases and soft law risks undermining ordinary legislative procedures. Crises cannot become a permanent government's method, and exceptional tools must not be normalized.
Thirdly, the need for regular and transparent political follow-up cannot be underestimated. The framework agreement should be accompanied by systematic and public monitoring of its implementation, particularly regarding commissioners' attendance, information flows, and respect for national competencies.
Speaker 12
Thank you, sir. We welcome the agreement. We think that many strong requests from the parliament are very well reflected. From our perspective, as you said, on Articles 2 to 5, yes, our record in the end is probably better than the National Parliament's, but the commission should, however, act more promptly and more substantially on our proposal. I think that we also have to stress that, on the international agreement, which is another point touched in the framework, we should take the commitment to give our consent in a reasonable time frame because that also is a matter of influence and credibility of our institution. Where we have real power, we have to exercise it in a credible, serious, and constructive manner, in my view.
Also, we insist on strict limits and full justification of Article 122, which we have mentioned. And I believe that one of the potentially most interesting evolutions is the possibility of making the question time a real question time with a group of commissioners in the house, probably the President and other commissioners. Of course, it goes hand in hand with our presence in the house, as you said in the plenary. But I think that this new framework agreement, if fully exploited, can allow us to have Smith.
Speaker 21
Real collegial question time would be a major improvement in the political dialogue between others and the Yes. Thank you very much. Now, Juan Fernando.
Speaker 8
Agree with the question time. That's been one of my obsessions over the years. We should actually make it happen. That's a real parliament. We always said this is a very unique institution, the only directly elected body in the EU system and in the EU architecture.
We are a parliament. We're directly elected. We are a supranational entity, and we are a lawmaking body. We invest in the commission. We can bring it down by a motion of censure.
But controlled parliamentary scrutiny should actually be exercised, truly exercised on a regular basis, at least in the plenary. There should be a couple of hours. Live question, answer; question, answer; question, answer. And the commission should be there to respond. Then that is part of the idea of strengthening interinstitutional relations and effective cooperation between the European Parliament and the Commission.
And it also relates to detailed information about all policy areas, getting to know that exceptional procedures, namely Article 122, are actually exceptional. That should be the exception, rather than the rule. We have made a word about Article 122 on good grounds. Then there is also the point of strengthening accountability that we have mentioned related to Article 225. Whenever there is any report, the commission should follow up.
The commission should follow. It's not a choice that we take the bother of asking for the legislative initiative from the commission, and they actually do not. They should follow. Article 225 should be taken seriously. And then, interinstitutional cooperation in budgetary matters, including the scrutiny role to be strengthened in defense and security.
European common defense and security strategies should be subject to scrutiny. So, exchanges prior to the adoption of mandates in that field should also be of importance, as is the case with the flow of information and negotiations on the implementation of international agreements and memorandums of understanding. Those are the points we are willing to make in this framework agreement report. You.
Thank you very much. Colleague Orlando.
Speaker 22
Mr. Che, thanks on behalf of the Greens Group. We need a strong European Parliament as a fully equal college legislator with the Council, with its own legislative and scrutiny rights. It's a longstanding European Parliament, AFCO, and Greens' position. Europeans have a right to hold truth to power, especially when Europe becomes an increasingly powerful geopolitical actor with new tools affecting citizens' daily lives.
Speaker 23
The framework agreement makes some good progress in improving the parliament and prerogative, especially. The flow of comprehensive, timely, and tailored information to Parliament. The strengthening of the political responsibility of the Commission, the use of Article 122, all in exceptional and justified circumstances, and the strengthening of the Parliament's right of initiative under Article 225 of our city. More information was provided during the negotiation of international agreements. But what is most important is to consistently apply the agreement?
Speaker 22
Some commissioners show much more activity in committee. They are asymmetrical here. The same is true for the timely flow of information. Often, a member of the European Parliament's letters remain unanswered or responses arrive very late without substantive explanation. And, crucially, the European Parliament still lacks fundamental tools that normal national parliaments already have, especially the right of initiative and the right of inquiry.
In the long run, the European Parliament should become the lawmaker in a bicameral system as part of European parliamentary democracy, controlling an elected European government replacing the present European Commission. This will be a truly transformative framework agreement. We cannot have that type of solution but require a fundamental overhaul of our system of government. Thanks, Mr. Mario.
Speaker 1
Any further comments or questions? If that is not the case, please let me know. We could give the floor to the next speaker.
Speaker 24
Commission, if you like. Please. Thank you. I'm sorry, but my colleague is on his way here because you thought he would reverse the point. So, well, he will just come, but I'm not sure he will be able to make it. Sorry.
Speaker 1
I can conclude this point and go on since the other colleague is still not here. To item number eight: amendments to Parliament's rules of procedure concerning appointments to Union agencies and bodies, namely Rule... She's just arriving. Ah, she's just arriving. Come here next to me, and we will immediately start with item number 6, namely the interim report on the proposal for the multi-annual financial framework for 2028 to 2034, and the draft opinion on the interim report of the Batch Committee on the proposal for that framework. And I right now have the pleasure of welcoming to the AFCO committee one of the two core reporters in the Badge Committee on the interim report, our colleague Ms.
Carla Tavares, who kindly agreed and is running through different committees today, will guide us briefly through the architecture of the new MFF proposal and maybe highlight the challenges it poses to the institutional balance laid down in the treaties. This is our focus here in the committee, in particular regarding Parliament's prerogatives, of course. Before I give the floor to the Bajko rapporteur, let me remind you, colleagues, that the AFCO Committee is one of the 16 committees delivering an opinion under Rule 57 on the batch interim report on the future MFF, and the draft opinion consists of 10 amendments, which aim to preserve the institutional balance and guarantee democratic accountability within the new multiannual financial framework. Let me also recall that our committee will deliver a report on the interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation and budgetary matters, and on sound financial management, which is part of the next MFF package. We would also be interested to hear from you about these negotiations.
And now, without further ado, I will give the floor to our speaker. Please, Cala.
Speaker 25
Thank you, dear colleagues. Sorry, I'm late, but I came from Regi. I'm here in my name and in the name of Siegfried Morcent. Today, it is not possible for Siegfried to be present at this meeting. I would like to thank, of course, the invitation to take part in this change on the future opinion of your committee in our interim report on the next MFF.
And dear rapporteur, congratulations on your work on this first draft. I'm here to listen more than to talk, but I think it's important to share some points that, for us reporters, are still a big concern in this proposal of the commission. After the letter, we now have the letter, which is essential in the national and regional plans, but we have some concerns. Three particular concerns. The overall size of the batch is one of the concerns that we have.
So, as you know, in this draft opinion, we propose an increase in the size of the next MFF. The model of the architecture and the budget is another concern. The other concerns also relate to the governance of the budget. As we see, the commission is trying to exploit its discretionary powers of implementation under the guise of efficiency, thereby proposing to decrease both the transparency of the budget and the capacity of the budgetary authority, including parliament, to make policy decisions. So, about this commission in particular, I think, as a member of the Committee on Budget, I will speak for many of us when stating that many points in your draft opinion raise some of our long-standing demands to strengthen Parliament's role as one arm of the budgetary authority.
From the need to involve parliament at every stage of MFF negotiation and implementation, to the respect of the standards established in the financial regulation, and to our concerns on the lack of adequate parliamentary scrutiny, not sufficiently justified by the shift towards more flexibility. We share many views. Your draft opinion addresses all elements such as the decision maker to proceed with the MFF on the own resources decision, the timeline and framework for the MFF midterm review, and other concerns of institutional balance. I, therefore, warmly welcome this test, and I look forward to taking account of your final demands once the opinion is finalized and adopted. So now, ensuring that the next MFF is decided with Parliament involved at every stage, we'll be guiding priority throughout the next two years from this moment.
So we have at this moment some concerns with the national and regional level. I said this in the beginning: the model of the architecture of the next MFF. We're still working with all the committees. Of course, it's very important to the Parliament. Until 29, until tomorrow, we have the amendments to the budget committee.
Until March 5, we have the amendments from the old committees. It's important that we still try to work together on this proposal from the parliament because all of us, I think, know in the end. I'm trying to be very sincere with the colleagues. I think we have, we think, 62 problems: the size of the next MFF and the own resources, because we talk about increasing some areas that for all of us, or the majority of us, are very important. But we need to discuss the own resources, the new own resources. And, of course, the model of governance and the rule of the parliament. The parliament is the authority in control, and it's impossible to have all the power over all the decisions in the commission throughout this whole process.
The rule of regions and municipalities is another concern. In the budget committee, we talk and work a lot with courts. And all of us, I think, know what the position is in all the reports from ECA. They are very critical of the model of the MF RRF. And when he saw the proposal from the commission, for the most part, we saw the model that we had in the RRF, and we think it's not a good way for the next MFF, especially when we have, of course, a lot of challenges.
It has the defense, security, and competitiveness; of course, we understand. We need a modern model of the next MFF with more flexibility, but we think we have a long work to do together in the Parliament to have a strong proposal from the Parliament at the end of this process. Just one more thing, and we think it's important. We think it will be possible to have this discussion in a batch in April. The discussion in plenary and the vote will take place in May 2026.
We start the meetings with the Cyprus Presidency about the next MFF, and we think it's very important that the Parliament can close the whole process by 2026. It's important to the member states. We know what has happened with this MFF. I think we need to try. We think we need to try.
I don't have the delayed input to the parliament in this decision, and we know that the year 2027 will be a more difficult year. We have many elections. So we think it's very important to close this whole process by 2026. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. So, who would like to take the floor? Saint Rogozi, please. Excuse me. Marieke Ehlers.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Chair. Mr. Annemanz could not be here today due to medical reasons. So, I will briefly outline the priorities regarding the institutional aspects of the next multi-annual financial framework for the Patriots Group. First and foremost, the European Union must refocus on what truly matters: the problems faced by European citizens and European undertakings.
Enlargement should, therefore, be taken off the political agenda. Under the current MFF, approximately €14,200,000,000 is allocated to Turkey and the Western Balkans through pre-accession assistance. In the Commission's proposal for the next MFF, this amount explodes to €43 billion. At a time when more and more European families are struggling to make ends meet, and where our businesses are suffering under the disastrous consequences of the Green Deal, this is simply unacceptable. The entire pre-accession funding envelope should be scrapped.
Our limited resources must be used to improve the quality of life of our citizens and to strengthen the competitiveness of our own economy, not to line the pockets of NGOs and political elites in faraway countries. This brings me to a related point. This house has recently expressed serious concerns about the territorial claims made by one NATO member against the territory of another. Yet, at the same time, NATO member Turkey has been occupying part of NATO and EU member state Cyprus for more than 50 years. During those decades, Turkey and the occupying authorities in Cyprus have received billions of euros in EU funding and have even been granted candidate status.
This double standard is nothing short of hypocrisy. If we genuinely care about the territorial integrity of our member states, all EU funding to Turkey must be stopped immediately. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Now, San Trogozi. Thank you, Chair. We welcome the overall approach of the draft report, but we would also like to emphasize some points which have, in our view, particular importance. First of all, the broad dimension of democratic legitimacy should also include the long-term objective of putting the MFF procedure under the ordinary legislative procedure. This distinction does not make sense.
It's obsolete. And I think that we should insist strongly on this institutional reform. The second is the rule of law and conditionality. We think that we should insist on a systematic parliamentary scrutiny of its application within the budget and within the MFF. And we should also take another step towards a real smart conditionality, so an assessment of the respect of the conditionality rules by the member state, while at the same time ensuring that some final beneficiaries continue to get the necessary support, because otherwise, they would be punished twice: for the violation of the rule of law in their country and for the freezing of the European fund.
We also think that the next MFF must be really enlargement-ready by design. So the dimension of governance, the institutional dimension to make it enlargement-proof, is absolutely necessary because we cannot find ourselves in a fair, complete situation where we move on with enlargement and we haven't adopted the budgetary structure and, more broadly, the institutional structure. It is clear that we would like to restate what we already said in the report on the institutional consequences of enlargement. We need to introduce our resources and go beyond the self-imposed 1% limit of G and I, which makes the enlargement absolutely impossible to accept politically in many member states and also among many members of this parliament. Thank you.
Speaker 26
You, Chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the work he has done so far and Miss Tavares for his presence today in our committee. I welcome several elements in the draft opinion, especially stronger parliamentary scrutiny, the use of Delegated Acts when needed, and greater transparency in monitoring the rule of law. We support this first opinion. We will, of course, come forward with our proposal based mainly on the Commission working document in the MFF.
We will focus, in particular, on transparency and parliamentary control over the budget, the gender perspective, and the traceability of funds. Thank you.
Anybody else? No, please.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. Of course, they are important for all, work that we need to do in the parliament. It's important to have the opinion from the committee by March 5.
I think you have finished or are working on this opinion to be incorporated in the final document to the budget committee at the beginning of April. And I think our concerns, the majority of concerns, not all of the concerns, are in line with this draft interim report that we present now to open again the discussion around the next MFF. We are completely available to come again to AFCO if you think it will be important because if we don't try to work together in the parliament, all of us know the negotiation with the commission will be very tough, very difficult. So it's important to try to valorize what we have in common with the different committees and inside the committees, to have a strong position from the parliament at the moment of the negotiation with the commission and with the council too. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you very much. Yes, indeed, we have the deadline for amendment 6 February, and we will vote on it on the 24th. So, we have time to reflect on it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Have a good day, and good luck with all the other committees. So now, we would then come back to the framework agreement if the representative of the Commission would like to come in. Please, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Speaker 27
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Honourable members, many thanks for your flexibility, and my apologies. I'll be very brief. Many thanks for inviting the commission to briefly react to the report that you have discussed today, and also to the process and outcome of the revision of the framework agreement on relations between our institutions.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank Parliament's negotiation team for excellent cooperation. Negotiations were not always easy; they were always carried out with a constructive approach on both sides and the willingness to find workable solutions that led to positive and mutually beneficial outcomes. And we see this outcome very positively. Now we have ahead of us the formal adoption, then the signing of the agreement, and then comes the implementation that matters. Here, the commission stands ready to do by the letter what both institutions have agreed to do, and we are sure that the same goes the same way for Parliament.
We're looking forward to our continued loyal cooperation. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Yes, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for the good cooperation and collaboration, as well as our own team. I see Guillaume McLaughlin, thank you very much for your support. That was really a huge workload which you took on, and it was very supportive, as well as my team from the secretariat. And I think we really did a good job in the end. There's some progress, and both sides are happy.
And as Marieke Ehlers said on behalf of our colleague, the question now is whether we really implement it. It's just a text, and too often maybe we draft texts and then don't apply or behave according to the text, and this is the most important here. Thank you very much. So, item number 8: amendments to Parliament rules of procedure concerning appointments to Union and bodies, rule 135. At its meeting of November, the conference of presidents invited the conference of committee chairs to come forward with a proposal for the revision of the COP decision of 5 March 1998 on the rules on the designation by the European Parliament of members of the management boards of the specialized agencies and bodies.
The CCC adopted revised rules on the appointment of parliament representatives to EU agencies or bodies at its meeting in September, which were subsequently endorsed by the COP on 22 October. In July, President Metzola asked AFCO by letter to examine the implications of those new rules for Parliament's rules of procedure, in particular with a view to keeping the list of agencies and bodies up to date without requiring further amendments. The draft report, therefore, proposes a modification of Rule 135, which currently only governs appointments of Parliament's representatives to certain economic governance bodies, in line with the decision taken by the COP. The amendment aims to broaden the scope of this procedure to all Union agencies and bodies where Parliament either has the power to decide on the appointment or must be consulted. The content of this draft report has been discussed in a shadow meeting on the second of December.
Yes. And now, I would like to open the discussion by giving the floor to the members, starting with the shadow rapporteurs. I don't know if you have any comments or questions, or who would like to take the floor? Juan Fernando, first, and then...
Speaker 8
As to the rules of procedure, €135,000,000. The only point I wanted to make is that, yes, we agree that it's a good idea to broaden its scope, make it more general, and not only limited to economic governance agencies. And the priority of our group should be to ensure that this procedure is as transparent as possible. I want the rule to encompass all possible appointments, including those of agencies and bodies yet to be created, not only agencies that already exist but also those that could possibly be created in the near future, maintaining the accountability of those who are already being appointed and preserving the role of our European Parliament in these procedures. Our proposals, after this file, will follow these lines. Thank you.
Thank you, Marie Kailas.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Chair. Indeed, I agree that it is strange that we still list a very limited number. This should be broadened to the extent that we don't have to amend it again in case something else is added. I think during the shadow meeting on the rules of procedure, I might have had the same question, and I cannot fully remember the answer to that question. But what is the thinking behind the addition in Amendment Three?
Why are we adding that? And as you might know, I am personally very reluctant to give competencies to the conference of presidents, which actually should be with individual members, because I don't think in all cases the political group leadership reflects the majorities within the house, as we've seen a lot lately. My second question is: what was the rationale behind deleting the deletion and the amendment? Why are we deleting the possibility for the committees to invite these people to make statements in front? I mean, each candidate shall be invited.
I could live with each candidate, maybe invited, but I don't understand the rationale behind deleting it. And I don't understand Amendment three in accordance with the implementing provisions laid down by the Conference of Presidents. What implementing provisions? Does it mean that they decide what the committees can and cannot do? I'm not entirely sure what those two amendments aim to achieve.
Speaker 1
Yes. Concerning Amendment three, this is a common procedure, and they already have these implementing provisions laid down. This is an annex to the COP decision. COP decision. COP: Yes.
But an annex to which no, it's just a COP decision. It's just a decision of the COP to which we refer here. And on this amendment, yes, this is exactly, I think, in your sense. If we delete it, that means the committee may invite, but does not have to if they don't want to. And also, we would then have coherence between the rules of procedure and the implementing provisions laid down by the conference of presidents.
Speaker 22
Thanks, Mr. Chair. On behalf of my colleague, Daniel Freund, in changing the rules of procedure, it is suggested to anchor the rules to hearings adopted by the Conference of Presidents. This part seems to be unproblematic for us. But what I wish to underline is this suggestion in amendment four to the late paragraph two of rule 155, which stipulates that each candidate shall be invited.
In the COP rewards, it is only a May invite. May I ask why not shall? I think that this change would reduce the transparency of the selection of candidates because some candidates might never be heard in the public hearings. We do not understand the reasons for this lack of transparency, given that the number of hearings per committee over the years is so small that it does not create a new burden. We consider amendments or voting to express these concerns.
Speaker 1
Ah, yeah. That is a political decision. I also do not know. There were, in the past, this practice in the house, as far as I was informed. For example, in Leber, they simply didn't want to hear. And then, it's a question of the majority to decide.
All of us here take the decision with majority, and then, of course, in plenary, they must do the hearing, and then the COP would have to amend its implementing provisions. Yes. Yes. It is a
Speaker 1
I think that's the normal procedure, and then it has to be decided here in the committee first, and then in plenary how the House sees this point. I had the same thought yesterday evening when I saw it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
If you do, yes, from a formal point of view, you would not need a new amendment. You would just have to vote against this amendment to delete it. Yes? Further? Oh, the deadline for amendments is the 12th. Wait, wait.
In December. Deadline for amendments is December at noon. Yeah. Okay. Item number 9.
An exchange of views on the own-initiative report on the institutional aspects of artificial intelligence in the context of European integration. On 3 December, we held a workshop on this issue to discuss the key governance questions raised by artificial intelligence. IMCO and LIBOR committees will deliver opinions on this file. And now, I thank you for your patience. You're waiting all the time for this moment.
Speaker 32
Thank you very much. Let me first clarify the proposed timetable for our ENI report on the institutional aspects of artificial intelligence in the context of European Union integration. Today, we have the first exchange on the report. On the 27th of February, the draft report will be sent for translation. On 17 March, we have the consideration of the draft report in the NAFCO committee.
Plus, we have a hearing on democracy and elections in the AI era. On 14 April, we have an inter-parliamentary committee meeting with the maps of national parliaments on AI. On April 21, we have the deadline for amendments, and on May 5, the consideration of amendments. Dear colleagues, on the 3rd of December 2025, a workshop took place on the institutional aspects of AI. On the plenary of December, we had the first informal shadow meeting with the participation of the rapporteurs of the IMCO and LIBE Committees.
My intention is to cooperate and collaborate closely with the shadow rapporteurs and the rapporteurs of the other committees. As for their contribution from the very beginning, AI is a complicated, politically sensitive issue. For this reason, in February, I will invite the shadow reporters and the rapporteurs of IMCO and LIBE for a meeting in Strasbourg. And if necessary, we can organize the second shadow meeting in February. In addition, the reporters of IMCO and LIBE will start working after mid-March, and they will have read their opinion not earlier than June. Also, on the fourth of July, the United Nations organized an annual summit named AI for Good in Geneva, and we intend to participate.
And in mid-July, we have an AFCO committed mission to the United Nations in New York. Finally, we have the vote in AFCO. Alternatively, the June 2, July 15, or September 2 vote declaring accordingly. Having all this in mind, I tend to propose to the coordinators to ask for a derogation from the conference of presidents until October 2026 for our report. That means we have two September votes in AFCO and a June vote in the plenary.
Dear colleagues, for our report, we propose four key institutional priorities. First, reform of the European electoral law. The current European electoral legal framework is insufficient to address the impact of artificial intelligence. Existing European Union electoral law, including Council Decision 2018, was not designed to address these challenges. Second, the proposed establishment of the European Parliament AI Observatory.
The report proposed the creation of the European Parliament AI Observatory within the Parliament administration. The observatory will support Parliament's treaty-based scrutiny role. A task could be described as monitoring AI development at the European Union level in close cooperation and collaboration with the European Commission's AI office, as well as the development of the member states. Third, towards an international convention for artificial intelligence. Your colleagues, in 1968, took the initiative on nuclear power.
Today, artificial intelligence is a new force. We need to define it before it overtakes us. We propose an international convention on artificial intelligence with principal limits and transparency. The Council of Europe Convention on AI reminds me of the community of nations of the interwar period right before World War II and the creation of the United Nations. 4, reflection of future treaties reform.
The European Union government's architecture does not respond effectively to emerging AI challenges. In future treaty reforms, we should take into account AI issues. Dear colleague, with this introductory remark, I am at your disposal for questions and clarifications. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you very much. I think that those colleagues who would like to take the floor should also raise their voice on the proposed postponement. I think there's a justification if we have this AI for Good in July and we have the trip to New York in July as well, then there's a good justification to postpone. The vote in AFCO behind that, meaning on 2 September, would be the proposal, and then we would have different deadlines than originally planned.
Who would like to take the floor? Juan Fernando, actually, I'm not.
Then for S and D colleagues, please.
Speaker 16
Yes. I have a shadow in this report. Let's present our group's position. Artificial intelligence is becoming a component of European Union governance and integration. It can improve efficiency, consistency, and policy delivery at the EU level, provided that it operates within clear democratic, legal, and institutional boundaries.
The use of AI in EU governance must be fully aligned with the treaties, which anchor the Union in democracy, respect for the rule of law and human rights, and representative accountability. AI may support decision-making, but it can never replace political responsibility or weaken parliamentary scrutiny. As EU-level AI governance structures develop, including within the Commission and EU agencies, it is important to respect institutional balance. Parliamentary oversight, legal clarity, and proportional use of delegated powers can strengthen legitimacy without slowing innovation or implementation. A government must reinforce representative democracy but not replace it with technocratic decision-making.
My political group emphasizes that democratic choice must be free, informed, and equal, not manipulated by algorithms. We anchor AI governance firmly in new constitutional values: Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union—democracy, equality, social justice, and the rule of law—and Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU—social clause, mainstreaming social considerations—and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights—dignity, equality, data protection, and nondiscrimination. For S and D, AI governance is inseparable from social justice and fundamental rights, from democratic accountability and transparency, from the protection of workers, voters, and vulnerable groups, and from strong public institutions under political control. AI can support EU integration only if it reinforces democratic governance, social fairness, and citizens' trust. AI must remain a tool serving public policy objectives and the implementation of European public goods, not a driver of technocratic or market-led integration detached from democratic control.
A stronger union requires democratic, transparent, and socially responsible AI governance at the heart of EU institutions. We also have to make sure this report remains within Afco's elements. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Unfortunately, Mr. Anna Chalabaroz cannot be here today as shadow rapporteur for the Patriots, and I thank you for your understanding in this regard. So I will be the one who briefly presents my position.
Firstly, we would like to thank the rapporteur for the preparatory work and for sharing the priorities in advance. We recognize the effort invested in this complex and important topic. However, the strategic direction outlined in the working document raises serious concerns for the Patriots group. Regarding the proposed reform of the European electoral law, the Patriot Shadow believes that it goes far beyond a technical update and risks introducing a political and ideological shift. AI is already addressed under the AI Act.
Electoral law lies at the core of democratic legitimacy and should not be used to pursue broader regulatory or ideological goals. The democratic legitimacy of elections continues to derive from the nation-states, and the Patriot group rejects any attempt, even if indirect, to reshape the European electoral system at the expense of member state competence. For similar reasons, the Patriot Shadow Reporter cannot support the establishment of a European Parliament AI Observatory. Creating additional bureaucratic structures will not solve fragmentation or improve oversight. What is needed is clarity, restraint, and accountability within the existing frameworks.
Finally, any reflection on future treaty reform is premature. The treaties are the constitutional foundation of the Union and must be approached with careful, evidence-based analysis and political balance before any discussions of change. In conclusion, our shadow recognizes that AI presents significant policy challenges, but it must not be used as a pretext for competence creep, additional bureaucracy, or rushed constitutional ambitions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For the ECR, colleague, would you like to take the floor? No. Then, yes. Okay.
Then, George Piperia, please.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Chair. It happens that I'm a rapporteur for an opinion on this in a report in IMCO. And first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Kefalujanis, for the invitation to participate in this discussion during the plenary session in February in Strasbourg. Also, I have to tell you that I read this draft document, a working document drafted by Mr. Keith Halogenes. It's very interesting.
Speaker 35
But first of all, I have to tell you that yesterday in IMCO, we voted for a document which is extremely important also for what we are speaking about here. It's about the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law. And taking into consideration the fact that Mister says that we have to go to the level of the United Nations for an international convention. I have to say that we already have a kind of international convention. This convention is signed in Ville Neuve in December 2024.
Speaker 34
And it's very interesting and also very important for the scope of work because there are a lot of concerns here that are drafted in this convention. For example, the concerns about the electoral procedure. Also concerns about the risk of damaging human rights and the rule of law, especially the separation of powers, sorry, principles and the attribution of competencies of the tribunals. And also, it's about workers' rights regarding the risk of losing their jobs because of international artificial intelligence. And also, there are a lot of regulations in this convention, this framework convention about the remedies, because there are a lot of things to be done, also in this report.
Speaker 35
I suggest to the rapporteur to analyze in detail this convention because it is important, as it concerns human rights and citizens' freedoms. And last but not least, what is important for us is not just to be the first alliance of countries, the first international legal entity in the world to regulate artificial intelligence. The important thing is to regulate artificial intelligence in such a manner as not to affect democracy, not to affect the basic principles of our treaties and the basic principles of our philosophy of life.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Chair. I also speak on behalf of Elmuth Brestatta, the shareholder rapporteur. And as a coordinator, I would also like to add a few thoughts about your proposal and the proposal of the rapporteur. We think that this is a key issue, and we are very pleased with the first draft because it encompasses the right approach, democracy, and societal aspects, which are linked to the AI revolution. There are several committees, as our colleague from here just recalled.
There is also the Democracy Shield Committee that is working on this issue. So it is important that we, as the Constitutional Affairs Committee, have a broader horizontal approach; we include, or at least take into account, all the relevant work which is done in the different committees from the fundamental principles and constitutional dimension perspective. For us, it is also very important to fully implement the instrument which we already have to ensure the respect of fundamental principles when it comes to AI and the democratic process. I refer to some aspects of the AI Act, certainly on the political advertising regulation. All these must be implemented, taking into account the need to preserve and defend democracy, constitutional principles, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and fully independent, not manipulated, electoral processes.
And all these must be inserted in the current geopolitical context. I would like to add some remarks in the light of the presentation of the rapporteur and of your proposal, chair. I think that I'm very pleased that the rapporteur insists and emphasizes that, also from the AI perspective, we need to revise our institutional instruments. So, we need to revise the European electoral law, as was clearly proposed by the rapporteur. And we also have to take into account AI in the next treaty reform.
So I guess that the rapporteur also insists on the need to update our treaty with targeted changes to take into account the evolution. And certainly, AI is one of these evolutions. So if the reporter wants to insist on the need to reform the electoral law and to reform the treaty also because of the high challenges, he will certainly find our convinced support. I think it makes sense to adopt a new calendar because it is very important that we can take part in, listen to the UN conference in Geneva, and also make full use of our mission to the UN on this aspect and on the United Nations Resolution on Artificial Intelligence. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Leo, Luca, Orlando, please. So, any further comments, requests, or interventions? No. And then I think we also agreed that we will have the draft reports and the translation entered in February. In March, consider the draft, and the vote would then take place in the committee on September 2 and in plenary in October. Perfect.
Thank you very much. Item number 10. I've been commissioned to Sarajevo. A six-member delegation visited Bosnia and Herzegovina from the 5th to the 7th of November. The mission focused on the constitutional setup and the complex institutional system of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The detailed mission report is available in the meeting documents. I could not participate and was replaced by the Vice Chair, Adrian Vasquez Lazara, who informed me that he doesn't feel well today. This means I don't know whether you have any comments on this report. Otherwise, yes, Marieke Ehlers, please.
Speaker 20
Sometimes you hear nothing from me, and other days, I will take the floor on every point that we have. I think I'm the only member left in the room who participated in the mission. I would like to extend my gratitude to the Secretary for really organizing the wonderful mission. It was extremely interesting, obviously, and also very concerning because there are deep institutional and constitutional issues still remaining in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But definitely an interesting mission, and that is all I have to say about that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And then I declare with this word the AFCO mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina report endorsed. We had another mission to London in December, and we should also consider this report. Six members visited London over two days. The purpose of this delegation to London was to engage with members of the UK Parliament on matters of standards and public life, the application of the code of conduct, the role of advisory bodies for members, and other issues related to the application of relevant parliamentary rules in the UK.
I'd like to thank all our interlocutors for the insightful exchange of views and for the informative meetings. Also, I would like to thank everyone who contributed. In particular, I'd like to extend our gratitude to the head of the external ISO office, Ms. Lina Maria Linus. And I think it's very important that we have this office there.
It's very good. The collaboration was really excellent, and she helped us a lot to find interlocutors. The governmental and parliamentary liaison office in London is Ms. Sana Kangarsharu. I don't know. And, of course, Joao Rodriguez, our staff member and the secretariat, it was already the second mission which you perfectly organized, and we really got insights, and I learned a lot.
Most likely for me, besides, for example, the fact that they are a little bit more advanced and experienced in all those topics, more reasonable maybe than we sometimes act here with reporting obligations of who we meet and so on. That doesn't exist there. And, of course, it doesn't, because it's normal for a member of parliament to meet people from NGOs, from lobbies, and others. It's very normal. This is one of the main parts of our job, besides voting and working on files.
Why should we report that? But okay. And what fascinated me was the commissioner for standards, who sees one of his main tasks as protecting members of parliament against false accusations when he thinks that it is a false accusation, and then it goes into the procedure. But that was quite interesting to see. Sometimes, I have the impression that today, one colleague said that we had many scandals.
My impression is that we have many issues and not so many scandals in the end, but okay. The detailed mission report is in the meeting documents. If you have no further comments, then I also declare this report of the AFCO mission to London endorsed. Any other business? If there is no other business, I declare this committee meeting closed.
I would like to thank our interpreters and the secretariat for their support, and I wish you all a pleasant evening.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.