Committee on Petitions Ordinary meeting
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
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsYes.
Sebastian Kruis
Thank you very much. It doesn't happen often that representatives of SND are not actually here. First of all, they are always talking a lot and talking about racism, but it seems to be asking too much for them to actually be here. Anyway, sometimes they're not so concerned about the actual work that needs to be done here, finding solutions for the citizens of Europe. There's a lot that we could actually say here.
So let's begin with the text, and thank you very much. In December, we were in La Palma as well as in Tenerife, and we were looking at issues relating to asylum and invasion as well. I would also like to thank the secretary for the work done and express my sympathy for those people who presented the petition because when you are at the very end, at the border of Europe, there is such a burden that they have to live with. The colleagues from the left and the S and D are deaf, dumb, and blind, but we have seen other colleagues who were able to see that there is this overwhelming invasion of criminals as well. We see that the doors to Europe are just wide open, and those people who are policymakers must jump in and expel those illegal people. This is important for creating order in countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, all of which are acting as a type of Valhalla.
And so, we need to make sure that we can give better resources to the competent authorities, especially political support when they're getting pushbacks. So, the issue here is to fight for security, and we will win. We are going to suggest some amendments to the conclusions from the report, as well as how the recommendations can be strengthened, so that everything goes in the right direction. So that's what those people who submitted the petition want, and I thank you very much for your attention.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. The other members of the delegation are not present. Let's move on to the EPP group. Do we have Mr.? Dela Holtz, EPP?
Thank you.
Raúl de la Hoz Quintano
Thank you very much, Chairperson. Yes, on behalf of the EPP and as a Spaniard as well. This mission, carried out by our committee in the Canary Islands in September, gave us the chance to actually see how much pressure the southern border of Europe is going through and how complex this issue of unregulated migratory flows in Europe and in the outlying areas such as the Canary Islands is. This draft report presented to us reflects different opinions from competent authorities, law enforcement, and neighbors in the area from many different communities, and all agree on one idea: immigration requires, first of all, coordination from all institutions. Secondly, legal certainty.
And thirdly, and this one is extremely important, responsibility—shared responsibility by all institutions involved. And this is the context in which we understand the decision taken by the government of my country, Spain, to offer this regularization to more than 500,000 people, a figure that some organizations bring up to, in fact, 850,000 people. And, according to police reports, it might reach or benefit more than 1 million people who are currently living in an irregular situation in our country. You can imagine the amount of doubt that this measure has brought up and the questions that the European Union cannot ignore because we're not dealing with an ideological debate about migration here, but rather one about consistency and respect for our common European framework. The immigration and asylum pact in the Schengen area is based on mutual trust between the member states.
For that reason, a unilateral decision taken such as this one by the Spanish government, which has such a broad reach, has a direct impact not only on the Canary Islands and Spain, but also on the principle of free exchange, as well as the credibility of the Schengen system and the free movement of citizens within the European Union. The commissioner for migration, at the previous plenary session in Strasbourg, said quite literally that the regularization of immigrants that the Spanish government was suggesting could not be just an open door for more irregular immigration. They said, as a general principle, persons who are in an unregulated situation in the European Union should leave the country. And I say once again, this was in pen and expressed by the commissioner, and we firmly believe that. And that's the only way we could ensure the credibility of the regulations.
In the Canary Islands, we see that many procedures, especially those related to asylum and determining the age of immigrants, require individualized and detailed analysis to ensure that no fraud is being carried out. For that reason, any regularization process carried out must be applied case by case, with full guarantees and objective criteria about the person having already lived in the country and being integrated. And this exceptional regularization that's gone on, if it were to become a regular measure in the future, could feed this pull effect, which is something that incentivizes the work of the mafias operating on the Atlantic route. For me as a Spaniard, it just seems devastating that this region of the European Union is left to its fate when we speak about illegal immigration. The Canary Islands are already saturated without getting the proper help they need from the Spanish government, which is looking away. The Canary Islands need structural solutions, cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, strengthening their front techs, as well as agile procedures. Also, regularization, if done in this indiscriminate way, can never be a substitute for a proper migratory policy that must be based on order, law, and European legislation.
That's why Europe must act in a unified way. From our point of view, this should also be the conclusion of this draft report. Unity in the acts we carry out is the basic principle of respecting the idea that national measures on migration cannot be adopted without taking apart our joint commitment and putting the Schengen system in danger. Solidarity always demands responsibility as well. That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you very much.
Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Thank you very much, Chairperson. And I'd like you to know that I've never seen you do anything that was not impartial. I
Think.
Jorge Buxadé Villalba
That your behavior in all of these missions here and in the commission has always been completely correct. So what we've seen in the Canary Islands is that the petitioners came here, and what we see is that what they asked for is quite true, quite valid. I'm just going to speak about facts here and leave opinions aside. First of all, figures. 18,000 illegal immigrants came to the Canary Islands in 2025, and in previous years, it was more than that. 92% of them are adult men, of age to do military service.
And so we can see that this is not actually a humanitarian crisis. We're not talking about vulnerable families here because what the petition does show us is that, no, they're not mostly coming from countries that are at war. We can see that the Canary Islands are a port of entry. The immigrants, by both the Canary Islands administration as well as by the Spanish administration, are brought quickly to Continental Spain where they could spend months, sometimes there, before leaving the country. And in practice, this is a way of making sure that people can illegally come into Europe and then find a way to stay in European territory.
This is aggravated, of course, by the extraordinary regularization that the Spanish government or the Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez is suggesting right now, something that goes very much against common sense and the security of citizens. And then, if we think about the economic aspect, the two centers that we visited cost €35,000,000 per year, but we don't have traceability of that money. We don't actually know where the money is going. It's just a logistical hub for people. This is human trafficking, really—that's going on, paid for by the state.
The actual control carried out is quite limited. The checks are quite limited. The people in charge of the center say that the immigrants are not subject to any particular rules. They can come in and out of these centers as much as they like. They have got nothing to do all day long.
This has a direct impact on the daily lives of the people who live in the nearby towns. They even have to give them workshops on respecting women. And I say, and this is one of the directors' centers, I'm quoting them: the immigrants often have trouble adapting to normal life in these neighborhoods and villages because, again, these are places where their lifestyle is not compatible with the way that we live. So, what are these people doing in Europe? What are they doing in Europe?
Fifth point, this brings us to another one of the most visible problems: the people of the towns and villages around them have been complaining about the lack of security, as people are consuming drugs and alcohol. There's also drug trafficking going on and deterioration of the environment. So, the people in the center say that there are difficulties with adaptation. They recognize that in the center in Gran Canaria, they try to make sure that the immigrants leave through the back doors so that the neighbors won't see them leaving. And then the question about the returns as well?
They have pointed out that most countries of origin will not accept the return of their nationals. Morocco, for example, won't accept these repatriations if the migrants don't have proper documentation, documentation which, as if by a miracle, they are suddenly able to come up with in order to justify the right to take advantage of this regularization that's going on. We saw as well that even though they know from where on the African coast they are leaving, they are still able to get from there to Spain because they said that there was a lack of, and I quote, technical aspects to return them to Africa. So they don't have their own helicopters, access to boats, or to the database, and Sanchez has not accepted all of this. And then an eighth point is that there's not enough persecution going on against the mafias.
They have seen that a majority of the investigations that are going on are withdrawn or suspended without having identified who is responsible for this human trafficking. So the problem is that the solution is not going to be this regularization carried out by Sanchez or the Partido Popular, which I point out did not show up until the very last day of the mission. So this is a question, not about parties, but about responsibility and sovereignty. These neighbors came to us with this petition. The report needs to make it very clear that the defense of their security and safety requires that there be a true defense of our borders and an immediate end to this pull effect.
So I would like to finish up by thanking the president and the chairperson of the committee for the work. And I'm not exactly sure what you've been accused of, but I think we can imagine. But I know that you have a clear conscience, sir. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Alvise Pérez
Thank you very much, Chairman. I listened to Mister Bouchardet, and I also listened to our colleague from the EPP. I wanted to speak to Jorge, but he is leaving the committee. I don't know how Mr. Bouchardet or the PP can talk about a migration crisis in the Canary Islands without talking about Morocco, because most migrants come from Morocco. We're talking about mass illegal migration.
According to military sources, these are pre-war hybrid attacks. So, we're talking about daily blackmail in Spain. It's blackmail because if we don't sign certain agreements or agree to certain infrastructure with Morocco, then they just open the doors to their northern border and literally let Spain be invaded by hundreds of thousands of these people. Now, the second-to-last flow from CELTA was 8,000 people. So we're talking about 8,000 individuals, 88,000 out of 80,000.
And this isn't just a problem in Spain. It's a European problem because, as you know, we are the door to your countries. Look at what is happening in Portugal. How many dozens of thousands of Pakistanis are going through Portugal and going to police stations and hubs, and they are basically overwhelming the system? So, we're talking about illegal migration and how to find solutions.
That's important, but we have to talk about the countries of origin and the constant blackmail from Ceuta, Melilla, and Morocco. Morocco is the main culprit here, and I really felt it was very important to state this.
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes. Thank you. I confirm the information that you have just mentioned. You are right. I was present during the mission as well.
So, this was really shattering news that we had, and I would like to thank all the Spanish authorities, the local authorities in Spain, for providing such information. But Spain is helpless because it cannot react when migrants come to waters that do not belong to Spain. They can only take measures when the migrants reach the territorial waters of Spain, and this is the key moment in the entire migration process. So once they arrive in Spanish waters, once the border guards and the police can intervene, it is too late because they have to bring them to the Canary Isles at that point. All the concerns of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands were also reflected in the information that we received during the mission.
We saw it. We witnessed that, and today's discussion confirms it. So, I would like to thank everyone for this discussion, and I encourage you to participate in such missions. So, they are difficult and exhausting, but they can really teach us a lot. Now, I would like to give the floor to the Commission from the Director General for Migration and Internal Affairs.
Speaker 9
Honorable members, thank you very much for inviting the European Commission to this very timely debate. Only last month, in January 2026, the Commission adopted the long-term strategy on European asylum and migration management, and we set out in the strategy that we will continue to work at the country level and that we will be aiming at a European Union where migration is legal, safe, and, most of all, under the control of the European Union and its member states. We want solidarity, and we want responsibility to be the guiding principles behind how we work to achieve these aims. And we want swifter, stronger, and more effective returns of people who are no longer allowed to stay in the European Union. In order to achieve the strategy, we have the Pact on Migration and Asylum with the deadline for implementation in June 2026.
Speaker 8
The implementation of the pact requires much more enforced and coordinated efforts between different levels of governance—regional, national, and European—whereby Europe already supports member states with substantial European Union funding and operational support, including by European Union agencies such as Frontex or the European Union Asylum Agency. The European Commission will issue, in the forthcoming weeks, the report on the state of play regarding the implementation of the pact. This year, we also see the first implementation of the annual solidarity cycle, which follows the publication of the first annual asylum and migration report. And on the basis of this first annual report, Spain has been identified as a country under migratory pressure and will, hence, be able to receive solidarity from other member states. PACT provisions also require member states to submit contingency plans, which are part of joint efforts to have better prepared migration management systems.
A few words about the latest data. Looking at the migration flows into Europe, illegal border crossings are down 50% over the past two years. This is a significant development. When it comes to the situation in Spain, what we have seen is that in 2025, according to the latest data, illegal irregular border crossings along the Atlantic route to the Canary Islands more than halved compared to 2024. On the other hand, there has been a slow increase to the West via the Western Mediterranean route, in particular to the Balearic Islands.
In order to address the challenges that Europe is facing, we, of course, have to cooperate with third countries in the Team Europe spirit, and this cooperation is already yielding results. Our migration partnership with Mauritania continues, while we develop cooperation with countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Gambia, and Senegal. To strengthen this cooperation, we established the Global Alliance to Counter Migrant Smuggling, whereby we address issues on how to prevent migrant smuggling, how to respond to it, and how to provide alternative pathways to those who can and would like to travel to Europe via legal pathways. Looking at the Spanish migration management system. Spain is investing a lot to consolidate its reception system while adopting its legislation and processes.
For example, efforts are ongoing to adapt the current screening procedures, in particular by formalizing the vulnerability assessments. Implementing border procedures will be challenging for all the European Union member states, but Spain is working in this direction both on the legislative and operational sides. When it comes to the support provided to unaccompanied minors that arrive in territories such as the Canary Islands, we have seen Spain implementing transfer schemes from the regions under pressure to the mainland. A few words about the support from the European Union agencies. The European Union Asylum NJC has an ongoing operating plan focusing on supporting the Ministry of Inclusion with reception and the Ministry of Youth and Childhood with unaccompanied minors.
When it comes to Frontex, it provides support to Spanish authorities. Joint Operation Spain 2026 provides year-round and seasonal support to Spain in migration management, border surveillance, and the fight against cross-border crime. Frontex also provides continuous technical and operational support, enhancing EU cooperation on coast guard functions and migration management. The agency Frontex seeks to provide its support in a manner as flexible and tailored as possible to the needs of the member states. More specifically, on one of the recommendations included in the draft report, we would like to underline that, according to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the coordination of search and rescue operations remains within the rescue coordination center responsible for the respective search and rescue region within each member state.
As per the founding regulation of Frontex, Frontex only provides technical and operational support in search and rescue operations for persons in distress at sea. Also, at this stage, Frontex is not present in the Canary Islands with air and naval assets to provide such support. And a final word about the European Union funding to Spain and the Canaries. Spain is currently one of the EU member states that has been benefiting most from the funding under the home affairs funding channel, with €882,000,000 for the period 2014-2020 and over €1,600,000,000 for the period 2021-2027. Spain is using EU funding to expand and consolidate its reception system, and the great majority of the AMIF investment, as well as part of the National Recovery and Resilience program.
There has also been additional support from EU money via emergency assistance to the territories of Canaris and CELTA. To conclude, we believe that our migration strategy and policy, in particular the pact and its implementation, together with the funding and operational support, are allowing member states, and in this case Spain in particular, to be better prepared and equipped to face important challenges related to migration management. Thank you.
Madam Zakaria.
Maria Zacharia
Chairman, thank you very much. I would like you to clarify a point. Did the commission say "illegal migrants" or not? So, did the commission use the words "illegal migrant"? Because if that's what the commission said officially, and if the parliament were to say that, it would not be okay.
Uttering racist expressions is actually an offense in Greece. So, can I please ask what the commission said exactly?
Yes.
Sebastian Kruis
Thank you very much. We heard a question. Yes. What was said is true. Is saying "illegal migrant" racist?
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes. Thank you for these comments. It has been noted. We will try to provide explanations regarding this terminology and the words you asked about. The deadline for submitting amendments is March 6, and we're moving on to item five: consideration of the draft mission report following the fact-finding mission to Madeira, Portugal, in October.
We remember the fact-finding visit. It was initiated in response to two petitions: one on inactivating the EU civil protection mechanism after the wildfires in Madeira, and the other on the housing problem in Madeira. So I would.
Now.
Bogdan Rzońca
Like the members of this mission, I take the floor on behalf of VPP, Mr. Jonski. The floor is yours.
Dariusz Joński
Well, thank you very much, Chair. As you said, the purpose of the visit was twofold. First, to get firsthand knowledge of the consequences of the fires in Madeira back in 2024. The petitioner requested to use EU assistance for the people on the island. The fire that broke out in Ribeira Brava affected several villages and forced the evacuation of around 200 people.
Now, the second topic: the housing problem in Madeira has been further exacerbated. It doesn't focus on matters concerning Madeira only. The rents are growing fast. Property prices are growing, which is a problem after the pandemic in all European countries. It was the topic of discussion on Madeira as well.
We visited the places where the authorities managed to control the fire. We were informed of the difficult weather conditions and the challenging topography of the terrain, as well as our delegation. And we're also given a chance to learn more about the measures taken to rebuild the ecosystems that suffered. Let me also say that the emergency services in Madeira have already been equipped to fight fires. The EU has given significant financing based on different initiatives, but I think we will all agree that further intensive action is needed, as well as further investments, in order to speed up the process of solving such problems.
As regards Madeira and other similar islands, we need to provide them with aircraft. We have been observing climate change. We are dealing with more fires and floods every year. Therefore, special equipment should be included in the next financial framework. We also visited a housing estate where we talked about the growing prices of property and the growing rents.
I want to draw your attention to an interesting conclusion that we reached during the visit, namely that the local authorities on the island have undertaken to solve the housing crisis. They have set for themselves an ambitious objective. The share of 8% of social housing will be available soon. Of course, they cannot shape property prices offered by private developers, but the local authorities want to have new houses and new apartments built, which can then be rented to poorer people. So this is an ambitious objective, and maybe the relevant commissioner, who is responsible for solving such problems in all of Europe, should analyze this issue.
European funds have been offered based on the conclusion that social housing is of key importance to the further development of the island. We met other authorities on the island. We had fruitful discussions. The conclusions of such meetings are far-reaching, much farther than Madeira itself, and should be discussed in the context of the challenges that we are facing, especially after the pandemic and, hopefully, after the Ukraine war. We have to remember climate change.
All of this impacts property prices. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
You. Would anyone else like to take the floor regarding our visit to Madeira? No one. So, I would like to give the floor to the representative of the Commission from the Directorate-General for Energy. Is the representative of the commission here?
Henrik? Yes.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, dear Chair, honorable members. Thank you very much for this very interesting draft mission report on the fact-finding visit to Madeira. And indeed, as you just described, this is not only relevant to Madeira, but it's a topic that is an issue for almost all the member states and all the local authorities in Europe. So, it's very timely and much appreciated that we can discuss this now. I would like to give you a little update on what has happened since this petition was issued and what the European Commission has been doing and will be doing on housing.
Speaker 17
So, in December, the European affordable housing plan was adopted by the European Commission, and we are now in full swing of implementing the plan, which has over 40 actions to help European citizens, member states, regional, and local authorities. The plan sets out actions to support affordable, sustainable, and quality housing across the EU. It's a package of initiatives, including stated reforms, a construction strategy, and the communication and council recommendation on a new European Bauhaus. At the same time, housing is very much a natural and national competence, and the plan is there to support member states, regional, and local authorities in their efforts to address housing challenges. Many of these challenges are common, but not all are.
Housing markets and housing problems are diverse, both across the EU and within countries and regions, with different challenges facing urban, rural, touristic areas, and border regions. In respect of subsidiarity, the plan proposes to set up a housing alliance. It is an opportunity for member states, regions, and local authorities to come together regularly to agree on priorities and to learn from each other, as well as an opportunity for experts to work closely together, exchange good practices, and study diverse solutions. The plan foresees more than 40 actions: some for the Commission, some in cooperation with member states, and some that encourage member states, regions, and local authorities to act. To mention some, we will propose a housing simplification package that will map relevant EU legislation and initiatives, as well as the combined impact on housing supply and affordability.
The Affordable Housing Act is our effort to support public authorities in areas under housing stress by protecting the market and promoting an increased supply of affordable housing. Housing will become a more important part of the European Semester and the country-specific recommendations. Financing is another cornerstone of the plan. The Pan-European investment platform will mobilize a coalition of financial actors and scale up investments in housing supply. This platform will be launched later this year.
We have already started to work together with member states to assist mobile students from disadvantaged backgrounds in increasing the availability of affordable and innovative housing solutions. And finally, the commission will also organize a housing summit as a top-level occasion on housing this year. In conclusion, it was very interesting and reassuring to hear just now that indeed the situation described in Madeira is not unique to Madeira, but it is a local problem that can mainly be solved by local initiatives. And it's very good to hear that what you saw in Madeira, the local authorities are acting upon. We are here to support, obviously, at the European level.
Thank you very much.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. The deadline for submitting amendments is March 6. Here is the draft report from our visit to Madeira. If no one else wants to take the floor on this item, let's move on to item six. This is petition number 23042025 by Luis Garcia Enrique from Spain on the establishment of a noninvasive national system to improve the recruitment of bone marrow donors in Spain.
The petitioner is present in the room. You have the floor. 5 minutes. Not more than 5 minutes.
Good.
Speaker 18
Good day, Chairperson, members of the Parliament. I'm here before this committee to call your attention to an issue of public health. It might seem quite technical in nature, but it has a direct impact on thousands of European citizens. Trying to increase bone marrow donor recruitment and modernize the Spanish system, harmonizing it with practices already carried out, for example, in Germany. I would like to be quite clear from the very beginning.
Speaker 19
Spain is a country with a great deal of solidarity in ethics as well as in medical quality, and we're a global leader in organ donation with high-caliber professionals working in the field. The problem is logistic, methodological, and administrative in nature. Today, in Spanish, if you want to become a bone marrow donor, you have to have blood taken at a special center. And this might seem to be a minor requirement, but it's actually a psychological and operational barrier that drastically reduces the number of potential donors. In Germany, they chose a different path.
Speaker 20
In Germany, they put up a noninvasive system based on taking a sample via an oral swab, and that can be done at universities, in different public centers, and it can even be done at home by the donor themselves by asking for a kit on the Internet, just taking an oral sample from their mouth. And the result is quite different. In Spain, not even 1% of the population is on the list as a bone marrow donor, whereas in Germany it's 12% of the population. We're not speaking about a minimal difference. We're talking about millions of additional genetic profiles that are available for any European patient who might need that profile.
Speaker 18
This difference cannot be explained by anything other than the fact that access barriers have been eliminated in Germany. By taking the sample in the mouth, it turns a medical act into a quick, accessible, and civic act. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the parliament, when we talk about illnesses such as leukemia, especially in young people, the treatment protocols are aligned throughout all of Europe. Spain and Germany use similar therapeutic systems with similar rates in terms of treatment and healing. However, when these treatments don't actually work, it seems that the people in the person's immediate family are going to be the only second resource.
And that's where it becomes important: how many compatible donors exist, because that depends on the volume and genetic variability in the European registry. Every day that we don't make up for this, every day that we lose a potential profile, is a life that could be lost. And there's another thing to take into account here. Spain limits the maximum age for people who can sign up for the program to 40 years, whereas in Germany and other countries, you are allowed to sign up for the program up to either 55 or even 60 years of age, meaning that a donor is active much later in life. There is, of course, a clinical priority on young people, but if you open up the window of inscription, then you make the database even greater.
This is a security network for people who have less frequent hematological profiles. So what we're asking for here is that there be an administrative modernization as well as a European alignment of the adoption of practices, which have already proved to be valid in other countries. To put a national system in place, which is homogeneous and noninvasive in order to take samples via an oral sample, this can be done. This can have an immediate impact and would also increase the number of potential donors, reduce the waiting times as well, strengthen the joint European registry, and above all, improve survival possibilities for the most vulnerable patients. That's why we would ask this committee to urge the Spanish authorities to harmonize or align themselves with the German authorities based on a simple, urgent, and more efficient approach. Bone marrow donations save lives, so time is of the essence.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I have to conclude by saying something that is very European in nature. The European Union is not built only via a common market and regulations, but also to make sure the citizens have the same opportunities to live regardless of whichever state they might have been born in. When there are health care systems that have already proven themselves to be fairer and more accessible, then we must harmonize the systems. To make sure that we can get a greater number of bone marrow donors is not only a national responsibility but also one that is shared because the registries are international. The lives that are saved can be from any European country.
In Spain, we adopt this noninvasive system. This would be an increase in territorial cohesion as well as solidarity, and would turn this into a de facto standard for all of Europe. That's the added value that our union has. When Europe works, the place where you were born does not decide whether or not you have the right to keep living. Thank you very much.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Do we have?
A representative of the Commission, Director General for Health, Santé. Yes. The floor is yours.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Chair, and muchas gracias, Senior Garcia. Recap of this petition on the recruitment methodologies for bone marrow donors. It is indeed an extremely important point for health care. Also, your petition is extremely well elaborated, making clear that to ensure this part of health care, you need not only solidarity but also good organization of health care practices. To explain also for a moment to the room, bone marrow donations and the transplantation, technically of the stem cells that make blood, are indeed a life-saving therapeutic option, in particular for high-risk cancers and for recurrent blood cancers like leukemia.
Every year within the EU, more than 30,000 patients depend on this treatment option and receive a transplant, which is the only option to save their lives. I think many of us will know some of these patients. In essence, this kind of transplant is a transplant of a sick immune system, replacing it with a healthy immune system. Therefore, it requires a very good match between the donor and the recipient. On the one hand, it is necessary to ensure that the new immune system is not rejected by the patient.
On the other hand, it is necessary to ensure that the new immune system is not attacking the sick patient. Therefore, matching is extremely important. As explained by the petitioner, finding a good match requires a broad availability and a broad basis of available candidate donors. Also, I think it's important to mention that these kinds of cells are increasingly important for new innovative therapies like CAR T therapies, which are offering new options for many blood and other cancer treatments. So, as explained, those therapies depend on the availability, willingness, and donations of other citizens.
And therefore, it is important that in every country, there are recruitment campaigns and registries of candidate donors. In Spain, those efforts are organized by the regions under the stewardship of the National Transplant Agency. In Germany, the role is more with bodies like the Red Cross and specific organizations like DKMS. At the European and global levels, we see that those national registries are connected and allow doctors from different countries to search for matches for their patients in registries in other countries. That is a role taken up by an organization located in the Netherlands, the World Marrow Donor Association.
This whole setup and explaining it, I think, makes clear that it's extremely important to have a high number of candidate donors and to bring those numbers together at the European level. To get a high number of donors, there are indeed quite a few organizational factors that are important, like using buccal swabs and online recruitment campaigns. Those are, as explained by the petitioner, more modern approaches that lower the barriers to recruitment. And we see more and more EU countries moving in this direction to adopt those practices. However, having explained this, the EU mandates—the legal mandate is limited by the treaty, which in Article 168 gives us a role to set safety and quality rules.
That is currently organized through a health directive, which is a framework that ensures all collected stem cells are safe, of good quality, and will indeed be effective for the recipient. Starting two years from now, in 2027, a new framework will be put in place. And this framework will, in particular, help to improve access to those therapeutic options for different patients. Also, across Europe, it will help to exchange those therapies across the borders. However, as said, the mandate is limited for the EU, and the methodologies and administrative improvements really fall within the organization of health care, which is a mandate that is not given to the EU but kept at the national level.
The organization's practices are part of health care. And therefore, in each member state, the agencies and the regions in Spain are in charge of that. Unfortunately, we therefore need to conclude that, as commissioner, we do not have a mandate to directly interfere with how donor recruitment is organized in individual countries like Spain. However, we regularly encourage countries to sit together, look into those good practices, exchange, and pick up those good practices. We have, in the past, supported that aim and also worked with the World Marrow Donor Association and professional societies like the European Bone Marrow Transplant Society.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank the petitioner presenting the initiative to see how we can improve the registry for bone marrow donors, and we share their concerns about the need to strengthen public policies that can contribute to saving lives. This is a legitimate goal that we can look at to try to remove barriers for donors, to improve and increase noninvasive procedures, as the petitioner suggested, as well as awareness campaigns specifically aimed at young populations. Now, the experience in several states shows that improved visibility of donation programs is a relevant factor to increase the number of potential donors and to help find compatibility for severe hematological diseases. At the same time, we also feel it's necessary to contextualize the foundation of the bone marrow system in Spain so that we can have a balanced debate based on facts, because Spain does have a model for the coordination of transplant.
It's recognized internationally for its clinical experience, and there is a lot of cooperation between health services and specialized services. And when it comes to bone marrow, the national system works with a public-private partnership, and the technical coordination is carried out by specialized bodies under the supervision and coordination of relevant authorities. This model has helped us guarantee high standards in our national registries. For that reason, we would like to say that any reform to improve the number of donors means that there needs to be good quality information and security within the system. Of course, we share the concern that the petitioner has raised.
There is room for improvement when it comes to increasing the number of donors because the decentralized system in Spain means that these kinds of campaigns can change and vary between communities. So, we do need to improve coordination and look at the common tools that we could use to facilitate registry and registration. As the Commission has said, this has to do with national and regional authorities. However, as the petitioner has said, we understand that the European Union can play a constructive role in improving standards, leading to a strengthening of the health care system and pooling practices, which will help us reach more donors. That is why we would ask the bureau to maintain the petition, keep it open, and carry out a technical analysis to assess operative requirements, improve noninvasive ways of reaching donors, and enhance awareness campaigns and coordination between administrations.
Thank you.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
You. Madame de la Pisa, on behalf of the Patriots.
Thank you very much. On behalf of the Patriots, and particularly from the Spanish delegation of Vox, I'd like to thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to the petitions committee. The donation of bone marrow is often essential for patients with severe hematological diseases, for example, leukemia, especially young patients. But three out of every four patients who require donations of this kind don't find someone who is compatible. So, we need to have a broader registry of donors to improve the chances of finding a match.
The efficiency of this donor process is essential so that we can find the best donor. So, we need to have genetic compatibility studies, and these need to be as simple and as rapid as possible. These methodologies, for example with the oral swab, make it more accessible, and that's why the number of donors could be increased. Spain is one example, or rather, this is a commitment. This shows the commitment of Spanish citizens to be able to contribute, and we could easily reach the percentage that has been seen in Germany.
This solidarity needs to be nationalized. We need to have this so that we not only help the people who are suffering, but also help them in their treatments. There are very few acts that could be so useful and so helpful. So, we need to share good practices between member states, and this is one example. It's always positive to have voluntary convergence with these processes that could lead to supporting deaths that could be avoidable.
And so the European Parliament should work on raising awareness about donating bone marrow. This had already been proposed in the European strategy against cancer, and we think that this should continue to be followed within the European Parliament, especially when these are practices that have been successful in other countries. We have talked about this in the sound committee and will continue to follow this issue. One day, someone's phone could ring, and they're on the registry, and this could completely change the direction of their life. Europe can and should do any administrative process that would help a patient who is waiting for an opportunity to continue living their life.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alvise Pérez
Thank you very much, chairperson. Miss Pisekarion has actually said everything I would want to say. I completely agree with everything she said. However, it's also true that sometimes I think it is as if we are sending a letter to Santa Claus because we have heard a member of the Socialist Party, which has been in power for 10 years, say that we have to improve communication between autonomous communities in Spain. It's great to hear that, and there are indeed a number of people who die precisely because we do not have a correct bone marrow donor system.
But I've read documents that come from the Spanish network of registries and from the Giuseppe Carreras Foundation, which is one of the most important associations that work on this. And they gave information from 02/2010 about what could be done to improve the donation system in the autonomous communities, most of which have socialist governments, as does the government of Spain. Thank you.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you so much, President. I will speak in Spanish.
I'd first of all like to ask for your forgiveness for coming late. There were two committees going on at the same time, which made it a bit difficult. First of all, I'd like to thank the petitioner for bringing this issue to this committee, beyond any technical considerations we might have. This has a direct impact on people's lives and real chances for people to actually heal from their illness, with true chances to find a compatible donor when the illness won't wait. It also shows, or we've seen, that the registry of donors for bone marrow in Spain is principally tied to blood extraction in a health care center, whereas in other member states, such as Germany, for example, we can see that they are using oral swabs, which are much simpler, much less invasive, and allow you to carry out recruitment or uptake campaigns that are much more wide-reaching.
And this has a direct impact on the size of the registry and, therefore, on the true chances of finding a compatible donor. The data is clear. In Spain, only about 1% of the population is in the bone marrow donor registry, whereas in countries such as Germany, that figure is approximately 12%. Therefore, it means that there are more chances of survival in Germany. Spain, in terms of transplants, is an international model.
Nobody doubts that. However, this petition is pointing out to us that there is a problem in terms of quality, that there is an initial barrier in access to the registry that other countries have been able to remove. Illnesses such as leukemia have periods when people might become sick a second time, and there are high-risk areas where a transplant is the only chance for a cure. That's why we must listen carefully to this petition. We ask for it to remain open.
The issue is quite legitimate, and we would ask those who can and still need to do so to actually become bone marrow donors as well. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 18
Chairperson, members of the parliament, I would first of all like to say that I'm deeply grateful to have had the chance to be here and for this opportunity we've been given. And from the bottom of my heart, I would very much like to thank you as well for taking on this initiative and helping us to make sure that we can look at ways to improve the way of attracting bone marrow donors, because that will undoubtedly improve the quality of life of many children in Spain and in Europe. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
You. So, the decision depends on the request by the political groups. So, the petition definitely remains open, and we will wait for a written reply from the European Commission. Thank you. We're moving on to item seven, petition 1105/2025 by Istvan Laszlo Pap from Romania on measures to protect art made by people from artificial intelligence in the EU.
The petitioner is not present in the room, so I would like to give the floor to the representative of the Commission, DG Connect. We have Representative Ray. The floor is yours.
Speaker 29
Thank you, honorable chairs and members, for the invitation. The petition concerns a letter by Mr. Papa on behalf of a group of European citizens and addresses the protection of human artistic creation in the age of AI. Among others, it demands the European Commission and Parliament to ban the monetization of AI-generated creations, to impose digital signature requirements on AI content, to mandate the detection and blocking by platforms of AI content, to establish a European registry for AI-generated works, and to impose clear labeling requirements on AI content across platforms. We express our sincere appreciation for the engagement and dedication to addressing these critical issues. Now, as the petition relates to matters covered by various regulatory frameworks, I will briefly touch upon the most relevant ones.
Speaker 30
First of all, the AI Act prohibits certain particularly harmful or abusive AI practices. Those prohibitions could potentially also cover specific uses of generative AI systems and their creations. Second, the AI Act also subjects providers and deployers of generative AI systems to transparency requirements. The purpose of those requirements is to address and minimize the risk of deception while also supporting citizens in distinguishing AI content from human content. In particular, providers of generative AI systems are obliged to robustly mark the output of their systems in a machine-readable format and ensure that the output is detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Speaker 29
Deployers, on the other hand, of generative AI systems, such as professionals, musicians, or visual artists creating content constituting a deepfake, must also explicitly disclose the AI origin of such content. Such disclosure can, however, happen in a non-obtrusive way if the content is creative or artistic. The AI office is currently facilitating a code of practice on these requirements at the union level, and a second draft will be published in the coming weeks. Furthermore, the AI Act also includes two provisions that aim to facilitate the enforcement of EU copyright rules while increasing transparency in the use of protected works in the training of models. Specifically, AI model providers must put in place policies to comply with EU copyright law.
Secondly, they must also publish a sufficiently detailed summary about the content that they use to train their models on. The code of practice on general purpose AI has operationalized the obligation to put in place a copyright policy, while the AI office, in parallel, has published the template training data summary. That template aims to be simple, effective, and facilitate rights holders in exercising their rights while taking into account the needs of providers and their trade secrets. Then, let's move on to copyright. The European Union has a robust copyright framework capable of incentivizing creativity and supporting artists and creators engaged with generative AI, including through the opt-out mechanism under the so-called text and data mining exception.
This allows rights holders to prevent the use of their works for AI training or to license such works for AI purposes. In this respect, the Commission is committed to fostering a functioning licensing market for the use of content for these AI purposes. And in that regard, we will monitor the effectiveness of the current provisions and consider whether adjustments are needed to the EU copyright framework to ensure that rights holders indeed benefit from new licensing opportunities and effective enforcement. In addition, the commission is also in the process of finalizing a feasibility study on the possible introduction of a registry of opt-outs to text and data mining as a complementary solution supporting rights holders in the effective expression of their rights reservation. We are also aware of the uncertain situation regarding the copyright eligibility of AI-generated outputs.
In general, the commission takes the view that copyright protection is inherently linked to human authorship, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, as copyright requires no registration or other formality for its existence, this further limits the possibility of achieving a clear-cut distinction between authorial works, human-created or AI synthetic works. Therefore, also regarding the proposed creation of a European registry for AI-generated works, it is not really clear to us at the moment how the EU could legally require and monitor the registration of synthetic content created in Europe. Finally, the Digital Services Act. The AIX transparency obligations are also particularly relevant to facilitate the effective implementation of the DSA.
This applies, in particular, to the obligations on providers of very large online platforms and search engines to identify and mitigate systemic risks that may arise from the dissemination of artificially generated or manipulated content via their services. In particular, if there are risks of negative effects on civic discourse, electoral processes, or democratic processes, they must be addressed. Therefore, overall, and as explained, we believe that several existing EU regulatory frameworks offer solutions or tools that address the petitioners' concerns. The commission is and will continue to implement these rules and keep monitoring the emerging challenges posed by AI technologies to the creative sector. Where needed, and based on available evidence, we will consider the need for additional measures to ensure a balanced and fair outcome for all involved stakeholders.
Please, speak slower.
Thank you.
Is it finished? Okay.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. Moving on to the MEPs. Mr. Bogdan, on behalf of the EPP.
Ioan-Rareş Bogdan
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. This.
The petition concerns the use of AI in artistic and cultural works and demands a consolidation of the regulation. It draws attention to the risks of the absence of clear ethical and judicial limits, the risk to copyright, and the status of European artists. From the perspective of our party and our group, we were at the forefront of the debates in the European Parliament regarding the AA Act and the report of the European Parliament on AI. Our objective is clear: to have solid protection for copyright holders while the European Union consolidates its capacity in the field of artificial intelligence solutions, such as digital signatures, watermarking, digital fingerprints, or other methods to identify AI-generated content that evolve through practice codes. The purpose is that if we be.
Ioan-Rareş Bogdan
Have sustainability in.
This is the field. The parliament's report concerning generative AI and copyright underlines that we have to support creators by opt-out options, and we think that these measures have to be monitored and correctly implemented. The dialogue with artists, creators, and parties involved has to continue in order to protect authentic creativity, the value of human work, and fundamental rights in the age of artificial intelligence. We suggest closing the petition because we already have protection tools.
Thank you.
Vasile Dîncu
Thank you, Chair. I speak Romanian. I
I will also tell you something from the perspective of the AFCO committee, of which I am a member and a representative. The author repeats something in a good sense of the term because he has a new petition, a petition which is a real reason for concern for the European Union and for the European Parliament. There are some requests founded on a real concern of citizens, namely that AI can diminish the value of human creation, replacing artists with automated production, as the petitioner says, and infringe copyright and introduce distortion in European cultural production. Some of the main requests of the petitioner are the following: total prohibition of monetizing AI-generated creations, having digital signatures that cannot be removed, automated notification of the copyright holders, and some others. To sum up, and I say this from the perspective of the AVCO committee.
What can we admit from the perspective of the competencies of the European Union? A representative of the commission said some interesting things. Some things which are the competence of the European Union include regulating the single market, the regulations regarding online platforms and digital services, copyright protections which have been mentioned here, transparency and labeling AI content, and defining very clear obligations for the service providers. And, of course, licensing mechanisms at the European level could also be a tool. Well, what cannot be needed is the total prohibition of monetizing AI-generated content.
This can create a conflict with economic liberty and free speech. It should be analyzed from the perspective of proportionality, then the obligation of platforms to block all AI content. This can also affect free speech and would need solid safeguards in order to avoid excessive restrictions. Another request that cannot be applied is the digital signature, which is impossible to remove. This has difficulties when it comes to implementation.
So, all in all, the petition can be admitted because it concerns matters related to the competence of the European Union. Some are in accordance with the legislative framework. Others should be analyzed attentively when it comes to proportionality, technical feasibility, and compatibility with fundamental rights. Any legislative initiative has to respect the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and fundamental freedoms as defined in the treaties of the European Union. Therefore, we propose to keep this petition open.
Vasile Dîncu
We thank the petitioner because, through dialogue with citizens, we can develop the existing framework, especially when it comes to the new field of contemporary culture. Thank you.
Thank you.
Adrian-George Axinia
I would like to talk about the following subject on the agenda, not this one.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Madam Sharon Villas. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I'm glad we have this petition today because it shows the reality we live in: the rights of artists and our cultural heritage have to be protected, and we need to fight for that as politicians in Europe. Artificial intelligence in the creative sector is definitely a key issue, and we must not pretend that the problem will disappear on its own. So, we need to act as the EU.
Let me just remind you, to make it clear for the petitioner, that the parliament in 2024 adopted the Artificial Intelligence Act. It was the first comprehensive act in the EU, which imposed certain restrictions and transparency obligations. Obligations regarding how to label AI-generated content: this act also imposed the obligation on providers who supply the systems to employees and people working with those systems. And on December 2, recently, we adopted an opinion on the Convention of the Council of Europe on Artificial Intelligence, where we focused on the rights of the artists that need to be protected, especially when their works are being used, because the protection of artists is important to us. It's not just a formality.
I'm also a member of the Cult Committee, so I'd like to say that we're now working on an opinion about the impact of AI on the creative sector. And we're analyzing all those mechanisms, as well as the transparency obligations for AI-generated content. We are also preparing an opinion on how to compensate the authors fairly. In conclusion, I'd like to say that, on the one hand, AI may support creative activity, but it cannot come at the cost of the creators. So all these rules have to be fully implemented and enforced, and the legislation that we adopt here cannot just remain words on paper.
It has to be enforceable in practice. So, I would like to keep this petition open. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Perez, please.
Alvise Pérez
Thank you very much, Chairman. What I liked the most in this committee is when I heard the European Commission say that we don't know how to register synthetic content. And I'm very pleased that you've been so frank, because no one here knows how to do it. But what we can guess is what we shouldn't do. In the EU, we think about AI and any other new technology by linking it to past problems.
But disinformation and fake news are as old as the printing press. So, if you read Nietzsche, you'll see that when it comes to aggregated linguistics, you had this before culture itself. What is disinformation? We always think that our colleagues are providing disinformation on certain issues because we don't see eye to eye or sing from the same hymn sheet. I think thinking differently is a good thing.
What am I scared of when it comes to AI? I'll explain. If I'm in my hotel and there's a modem, I might be able to mask my IP with a pretty straightforward program, then create videos with the faces of any one of you and make you say things that I want you to say. I don't have to be an expert. I could do this without any expert knowledge.
So, what do I mean by this? This is a serious problem. And I think we really have to look at how we can stop AI from being used in this way. And it is already being done. I'm sure I'm not the only MEP who has had videos of themselves modified and tampered with through AI.
Because then, there's the whole issue of evidence before a court. One of the speakers who spoke before me just a few minutes ago said they want a signature that cannot be removed: a digital signature. And I'm quoting the speaker: you cannot do that. Digital fingerprints can be replicated by any AI, like Gemini, in a pixelized way. So, people have been saying we mustn't monetize AI.
Or maybe it should be the other way around, maybe because we've been monetizing AI content. Then maybe it's thanks to that that we'll be able to see who lies behind some of the accounts. And this isn't a generation issue. I'm 35 years old, and I can't predict what's going to happen with AI in my sector, in the influencer world, or in the journalism world. So I can be replaced as well.
What's going to happen with jobs and employment? So, I would prefer that we focus on how we can prepare ourselves for something that we can't control, rather than harness AI in the way that was done in the previous plenary in Strasbourg, where you're trying to point the finger at those who have different views from yours and say that that's an offense. Now, I was interested in what the commission said about synthetic content. I think we need to talk about synthetic content and not just AI tools because there's such a wide range of issues that fall within AI that I think it's extremely important to make sure that we weigh our words and use the vocabulary correctly.
Pál Szekeres
Mister Sheikh, on behalf of the Patriots.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Chairman. I think that this topic will crop up on the agenda repeatedly because we face a systemic problem. We'll have a whole set of problems that will raise the issue and give us the opportunity to tackle it. This petition draws our attention to the issue of AI, and we already adopted an opinion on January 28.
And then, we also have the omnibus package on artificial intelligence. So, I think that for all these reasons, we need to wrap up the petition. And I think there will be other identical petitions that will crop up repeatedly. But I think we need to look at the positive aspects of artificial intelligence. If we want to protect our cultures and our cultural heritage, we have to look at this.
But since we've already been working on this, I think we can close the petition. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. After what we've heard here, we will keep the petition open, and we will ask the European Commission for a written reply. Mister Zlotovsky?
Kosma Złotowski
I would like to take the floor because I believe we should close this petition. We talk a lot about artificial intelligence in the European Parliament. We have the AI Act. However, we have little artificial intelligence here, in fact. Let us wait for this technology to mature so that we know what we are dealing with.
And only then should we start working on all these regulations. And let me point out the fact that, thanks to artificial intelligence, we could all watch the President of the USA playing hockey yesterday, Mr. Kobosko, renew. Thank you, President. Well, yes, watching President Trump play hockey is definitely an attraction. And my life changed yesterday.
Michał Kobosko
But on a more serious note, this is a technology that invades our lives every day. It continues to develop. So, we believe this is such an important issue that the petition should remain open. Thank you. Having heard all the requests, we need to keep this petition open, and we will ask the European Commission for a written reply.
Bogdan Rzońca
I close this discussion for the moment, awaiting the reply from the European Commission because we do not have a final reply. Item eight, petition number 20ON1295 by a Polish citizen on the alleged non-execution of a European arrest warrant and the violation of judicial cooperation between Hungary and Poland. The petitioner is not present today, so I would like to give the floor to the representative of the Commission, DG Just. Where is the representative of the Commission? The floor is yours.
You have no more than 10 minutes.
Speaker 46
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Thanks also to the petitioner for putting this case on the agenda. The commission is aware of this important case. We understand that in December 2024, the Russian regional court issued the European arrest warrant for Mr. Romanovsky, the former deputy minister of justice of Poland.
It turned out that Hungary had not acted upon European arrest warrants, as Mr. Romanovsky has not been arrested so far. Apparently, one year later, in December 2025, the court in Warsaw decided to withdraw the European arrest warrant against Mr. Romanovsky. However, according to our latest information, the Polish court issued a new European arrest warrant last Thursday, on 19 February, again requesting the arrest of Mr. Romanovsky. What is the position of the Commission in this case? In general, I can say the following about the rules.
Speaker 47
First of all, the execution of the European restaurant is an entirely judicial procedure, meaning that it should be handled by judicial authorities in the EU member states. Therefore, neither the Commission nor the member states can interfere with or influence decisions taken by judicial authorities. Secondly, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant does not provide for an explicit ground for refusal to execute the warrant based on the sold person's asylum status. Within its assessment of whether a ground for refusal applies to the European restaurant, a judge must take into account the case law of the European Court of Justice on the European restaurant. More specifically, the case law clarifies that member states are, in principle, obliged to act upon a European arrest warrant, referring to the principle of mutual recognition, which is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the European Union.
Speaker 46
The list of grounds for refusal provided in the framework decision is exhaustive, and the surrender can only be made subject to conditions in very exceptional circumstances, as clarified by the European Court of Justice. However, we understand that Hungary has made amendments to their legislation transposing both the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order in January 2026 by adding an additional ground for refusal based on the asylum status of the requested person. We have requested the Hungarian authorities for further information. However, the new legislation has not yet been notified to the Commission. Once the legislation is officially notified, we will assess its conformity with relevant EU laws and take, if needed, the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Dariusz Joński
You. Let's move on to the members of the European Parliament, Mr. Jannski, on behalf of the EPP. Thank you, Chairman. Well, we are talking about two persons who have fled from Poland: the former deputy minister of justice and the former minister of justice.
And they face very serious criminal accusations regarding the government of Hungary, which provided refuge for two persons fleeing Polish justice. The abuse by Auburn's government of political asylum in the cases of persons who face very serious accusations, and the fact that they do not act upon European arrest warrants, as we've just heard from the representative of the European Commission, is, in my opinion, unacceptable. So, I would like to present the whole history of the politicians who were not persecuted but who meticulously planned how to flee from the European judicial system. They flee to a country that enables them to do so. I'm talking about Auburn's government.
That's a place that saved them. So, to start with, on behalf of the entire EPP group, I would like to propose that this petition remain open, and we request measures to be taken by the Commission. So we have the former Prime Minister of the Polish government, speaking of Ziobro, who used to be a Minister of Justice as well. The Justice Fund is the most serious accusation against the former Minister of Justice in the history of Poland. The justice fund was aimed at helping the victims of crimes and for resocialization, and it became a political tool for the Minister of Justice.
The prosecutor accuses him of running a criminal group and stealing nearly 35,000,000 zlotys. The whole structure was organized in the constituencies of the politicians who were governing in that period. They purchased Pegasus software for 25,000,000, the same system that we analyzed here to intercept conversations of judges and prosecutors, organize competitions, and place their own candidates, although the fund was not aimed for that purpose. 26 accusations; his immunity was waived in 2025. The prosecutor requested that the politician leave Poland, and he did.
And in December 2025, he received political asylum from Auburn's government. He claims that he is being persecuted by political bandits and that he will only return to Poland once the rule of law is restored there. He is now in Budapest without being arrested. The Pegasus case was famous in the European Parliament for the interception of conversations of the opposition. It was also the case in Poland. The Minister of Justice bought the system with public money; 25,000,000 were spent from the justice fund for that purpose.
There was also a huge scandal regarding hate speech in the Ministry of Justice. There was a scandal regarding the illegal hate campaign against Polish judges who were criticizing Minister Djobro's reform. His deputy, Mr. Peybjak, had to resign due to this campaign allegedly discrediting judges. There was also the reform of the judiciary by Mr. Jobro. He was the architect of the change who made the whole system political.
Disciplinary chambers were created in violation of the Constitution. Massive nominations of his own candidates and his own specialists for disciplinary issues. So, he's the first Polish Minister of Justice accused of criminal behavior. So, instead of being arrested and tried in Poland, he received political asylum from his colleague, Mr. Orban. And the second person, the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Romanovsky, who did not leave Poland for political reasons.
He fled because he faced arrest due to several accusations related to the justice fund. He knew that this impunity mechanism, which had functioned for many years, was ending, so he decided to flee in advance, not as an act of courage. In the years 09/2019 and 29/2023, he was one of the closest collaborators of Jabro, and he was the real manager of the justice fund that I've just mentioned. He decided how to spend 100 million zlotys. The Supreme Audit Office in Poland found that the Justice Fund became a political tool in Poland and that the funds were spent in violation of legal provisions.
The competitions were awarded on political grounds. So he faces accusations of participation in a criminal group, the mismanagement of the Justice Fund, abuse, and the control of the flow of funds to suspicious groups. PLN 114,000,000 were seized, which shows the seriousness of the accusation. Romanovsky knew that the next step would be arrest and that he would be heard. That's why he fled in 2024.
In December 2024, he fled Poland. He went to Hungary. And on 12/19/2024, he did not appear at the hearing before the court. He is abroad, and the Regional Court of Warsaw issues the European arrest warrant on the same day. So, why am I telling you this story?
Because these are not allegations. These are facts. We have witnesses. We have key witnesses who provide evidence and the prosecutor's office with very serious accusations. Managing and organizing a criminal group within the Ministry of Justice by the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Justice.
They flee to Hungary, where Auburn grants them political asylum and does not respect the European arrest warrant. So, if anything unites Europe, it is a joint respect for the law. And one of its tools being the European arrest warrant, political asylum should not be granted ad hoc to people who flee justice in another member state. So, I would like the European Commission to take action. I know that there is a procedure under Article 7 in a separate procedure, but this is an outrageous case, not just in Poland, but also in Hungary.
People come out to the streets, and they say that if anything changes in Hungary, they will not accept such situations anymore. But we want these people to be sent back to Poland to be tried there and to be punished for what they did, for what I've just mentioned. Madam Sharon Virgos.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Well, thank you very much, Chair. This petition is not only Polish. It is European as well. Hungary is a fully fledged member state of the EU. And as such, Hungary is subject to EU law and principles just like any other country.
According to the TFEU, member states are obliged to provide mutual assistance in penal matters. Member states should cooperate with other countries in fighting crime and not harbor people who are suspects of serious financial offenses. It is our duty and obligation as MEPs to react to this blatant breach of the principles of equality before the law, cooperation in justice matters, and mutual trust. These things are the fundamentals of the EU. Therefore, we must not remain passive.
We must not turn a blind eye to this. We are one European family, and these principles that bind us should be applied everywhere in every member state. So, I'm requesting to forward this petition to the Yuri and Liber committees in order to obtain a formal opinion. We must know whether it is acceptable in the EU to use political connections in order to evade justice. Also, I'm calling upon the commission to give us a written reply to this petition.
We have heard a preliminary opinion today, but I want to have something in writing. The Commission representative told us they requested the Hungarian authorities to give us a reply, so we have to wait for such a reply. But I am also suggesting that we, the petty committee, send a formal letter to both the Polish authorities and the Hungarian authorities. We want a clear reply from the justice ministries of these two countries on why judicial cooperation has been paralyzed and why former Polish politicians are being treated as a privileged group who are above the law. EU citizens might conclude, and justly so, that democratic legal standards are, for some and others, above the law.
Whereas there should be no holy cows in Europe, depending on what party you are a member of. So, we are waiting for a reply from the Hungarian authorities. I'm requesting that this petition be kept open.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you. We have had various opinions in the previous speakers' speeches, but let's look at things in chronological order. And I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the petition has to do with the immunity of Mr. Romanovsky and not of anyone else or any other politicians. Now, if we look at the bigger picture, we can see that this has to do with an internal conflict within Poland, and we have been caught up in this conflict. But before anyone else comes up with very categorical opinions, I would just like to say that you need to read the opinion from the Venice Commission on the functioning of the criminal system in Poland and the dangers linked to the possibilities of influencing opinions, and to understand how he had been appointed Minister of Justice or head of prosecution.
So, in some criminal trials, there could be political motivations. According to the Venice Commission's opinion, the whole system of charges could become political. This case had been closed, the declaration that had been made had been voided, and the arrest warrant was withdrawn. From what I've understood, the prosecution had carried out their investigation, and the withdrawal of this warrant was done because the procedure was considered too politicized. The prosecutor was taken out of his position or something to that effect.
And in any case, there is no more case. We had a petition on Mr. Romanovsky, which was kept in Hungary. And in this case, given that the case on which the European arrest warrant was based has been withdrawn. So, when I checked a few weeks ago and looked at the files, those were the facts. But given that the new procedure has been launched, this means that a new petition should now be submitted to our committee.
Since there has been no clear decision, I think that the current petition we are looking at needs to be closed. And then, of course, they would be allowed to submit a new petition. And in any case, I hope that the two ministers of justice of the two countries will be able to discuss amongst themselves. And in the spirit of communication, we should be able to find a conclusion, and it should be closed now. Thank you.
Kosma Złotowski
This petition should be closed. Mister Zwodowski, on behalf of ECR. Ladies and gentlemen, I have a different request from what Mr. Joynskoye and Madam Schorink Virgo suggested, and I agree with Mr. Sekiras. This is a political issue, and we know it. It has been confirmed by the very touching speech by Mr. Janski, who promoted Minister Djodro Djobro to Deputy Prime Minister. And he described the adventures of Minister Djobro, while the petition is not about Minister Djobro at all.
It's not that he talked about Romanovsky as well, but the petition is only about Romanovsky. And you talked a lot for 10 minutes about the fate of Minister Djobro. So, how is he linked to this petition? He is not. But yes, the case in general is valid.
So you, Mr. Jonski's party, Madam Sergei Virgo's party, form the ruling coalition in Poland, which persecutes not former politicians, as Madam said, but present current politicians. Both gentlemen are legally elected members of the Polish Parliament. So, if they are in Hungary and they were granted political asylum there, it means that there have been grounds for that. Any observer of political life in Poland today easily notices that there is no way they can face a fair trial in Poland, a great example being the case of Mr. Romanovsky. The European Arrest Warrant was withdrawn in his case.
They waived the European arrest warrant. They waived it, and then the judge changed, and the res judicata became judicata once again, which means that we have a wonderful procedure here, in line with the law. So a case that has been judged once is supposed to be judged and closed. But see what is happening in Poland now. That is why I believe that this is a purely political game here at the European Parliament, so that we can present arguments in the political battle in Poland and in Hungary as well, because let me remind you that in less than 2 months, the parliamentary elections will take place in Hungary.
We have a rule in place here that six months before elections, we do not analyze petitions that could have an impact on the electoral campaigns. Opening this petition, the discussion will definitely have an impact on the Hungarian election campaign. So, in my opinion, we should close this petition. And the third argument: the petitioner accuses Minister Romanovsky of corruption. This is an accusation that disqualifies any politician.
But among the accusations announced by the prosecutor's office to Mr. Romanovsky, there is no such accusation. We mentioned 100 seized on his account, as Mr. Jynski said. Well, this is not true. Another argument for closing this petition is what the representative of the European Commission said: it is an issue between two member states, and the European Commission cannot really intervene.
They can only ask for explanations, and this is yet another argument for why we should close this petition, which is my request. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Michał Kobosko
In your turn, Mister Kobosko. Now, I give the floor to Mr. Kobosko on behalf of Renew. Thank you, Chair. On behalf of Renew, I'm requesting that this petition should remain open. I want to thank the author of the petition for having submitted it.
It concerns a very important thing: failure to implement European arrest warrants, and it concerns judicial cooperation between member states. This does not concern one person or one procedure. It is.
Michał Kobosko
Fundamental issue for the trust in the whole European legal system. If one member state starts treating such instruments as the arrest warrant selectively, this is tantamount to a breach of the principle of mutual recognition of court verdicts. And today, we are talking about Mr. Marcin Romanovsky. Similar mechanisms will concern former minister Djobro and any other citizen subject to any other verdict in any member state.
So defenders of Victor Orban and his regime will use any tool available in order to build an umbrella of political impunity. If, shortly, Hungary fails to deliver Mr. Romanovsky to Poland, I will request the Hungarian government to provide us with an in-depth explanation regarding the failure to respect the principle of judicial cooperation. I want to thank the commission. We are waiting for a clear legal opinion. Now, let me remind you that over 100,000,000 zlotys from the so-called justice fund, according to the prosecutor's office, is the amount that was spent irregularly.
Apart from an opinion, the commission should take immediate steps in this matter and evaluate Hungary's actions in light of the treaty obligations. The Polish justice system should be given a chance to have just proceedings for Mr. Romanovsky. This is about the credibility of the entire system of judicial cooperation in the EU. And Mr. Sekarys said there was no European arrest warrant. The second arrest warrant, as my predecessor said clearly, was issued seven or eight days ago.
So, this is the legal status for this matter now. You,
Thank you, mister.
Petras Gražulis
Colleagues, MVPs, I think that we are not interested in justice and truth. We all have our own truth. And I'm surprised that somebody can be so brave as to say that this is not a political decision. Who is the leader of Poland? Tusk.
Who has appointed the Prosecutor General? Tusk, his colleague, who is persecuting political opponents, Tusk's cronies, and you are not seeing this. Peter Gor said that when you compare two phenomena, you get a clearer picture. Quite a while ago, the government majority wanted to remove the immunity of two colleagues from my party. But I am addressing the liberals, the Greens, and the left wing. Open your eyes.
You don't want to open your eyes because you are not interested in the truth. Let's recall the case of Madame von der Leyen. The matter concerns €24,000,000,000, not just €1,000,000. She's carrying on with her duties. Everyone is saying that she is the most conscientious person, the most honest person. Why don't you address law enforcement bodies in her case?
I've been persecuted by the genderist society. I have already said that I was the last political prisoner in the Soviet Union. And I feel privileged because of that. I've met Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. I was at their home.
And today, you would persecute one of them for their views because they were speaking about two genders: female and male. He is dead now. You cannot use him for anything. I'm talking about Mr. Sakharov. And he was fighting the Soviet system.
That was the most important thing. But I want to say that there is no democracy in Europe. Somebody in Germany, actually it was Vice President Wance who said in Germany, spoke about people being persecuted in the European Union, people who have their position, their attitudes, and you are taking care of the genderist society. But what about the majority of Mr. Kaczyński?
Had it stayed in power, we would not see such cases. This is evident. It is evident to everyone that this is a political case, a political persecution. And I see it very clearly. Another example: I've been sentenced.
I was deprived of the right in Lithuania to be elected to the Parliament. Why? Because I allegedly voted for another MEP, a member of parliament in Lithuania. There are many colleagues, former colleagues, in Lithuania who do the same. Nobody has established this fact, but somebody has addressed the Constitutional Court.
And the Constitutional Court said that our constitution has a soul. In my opinion, the Constitutional Court staged a spiritism session, and they decided that I allegedly voted for another person in the Lithuanian Parliament. But in this term, at least 10 members voted for somebody else, and they are not persecuted. But I am an anti-generalist. That's why I am being persecuted.
That's the democratic system in which we are living. There is no democracy. There are double standards, but you won't understand this because you are not interested in the truth.
Thank you.
Łukasz Kohut
Thank you very much. Let's move on to the second round, Mr. Cahoot. Now, Chair, the EU is not an umbrella for one political party. Law and justice, for many years now, have tried to convince us that responsibility was a political attack, that party friends who went to prison were subject to political repression. Now, Djobro and Romanovsky are not victims of the system.
They are politicians who, in the past, felt totally outside the law. He used to say that people who are not guilty have nothing to be afraid of, and then he was the first to flee to Hungary. So, I'm calling upon Hungary now to implement the European Arrest Warrant, and Law and Justice have to understand one thing once and for all. The times when your party was above the law are long over. Thank you.
You, mister.
Adrian-George Axinia
Thank you. I request that this petition be closed. It's clearly politically motivated and forms part of a broader pattern of actions that resemble political persecution against members of the Law and Justice party. Such actions undermine democratic standards and the principle of equal treatment before the law. We have experienced a similar situation in Romania during the period when the National Anti-Corruption Directorate engaged in such practices.
We witnessed court proceedings that lasted for years without reasonable justification, and politicians whose careers were effectively destroyed even though the charges were ultimately vacated. So we propose again that this petition be closed. Thank you.
Thank you.
Dariusz Joński
You. Would anyone else like to take the floor? Mr. Janinski, the third round. Yes.
Thank you. I would just like to reply to Mr. Gragilius. I'm not sure he has the right image of the Polish judiciary. It's the court that decides on the European arrest warrant, not the prosecutor, nor politicians. On 02/17/2026, the regional court in Warsaw accepted the request of the prosecutor in Warsaw to issue the European arrest warrant regarding Mr. Romanovsky.
Listening to you and what you said a while ago, I could ask you the question. Do you like it? I understand you are a member of the Fidesz party, Orban's party. Right? So, do you like the fact that people who face serious accusations are hiding in your country? Do you want Hungary to be associated with a country where everyone who faces problems in a different country can come, and you do not respect European arrest warrants, and your leader grants political asylum to such persons, although they are not entitled to it?
Do you want Hungary to be associated with that? We have the judiciary in every country, and they should decide who is guilty or not. And it is very important. In our case, it's about two former ministers of justice and two deputy ministers of justice. Thank you.
Mister.
Mister Grasulis. Grasuris.
Petras Gražulis
I would like to react. Truth is highly important to me, and I do not always agree with the politics of Mr. Auburn. I really regret that he's blocking sanctions against Russia and support to Poland. But when it comes to family matters, his policy on families is something I can agree with. And I myself grew up in a family of dissidents, and I knew a political prisoner who was in prison for 23 years, priest Sverinskis, a Lithuanian dissident. And in the holy masses, he used to say that if the Soviet regime is persecuting me, it means I am serving God.
And I said more than once to the people in Lithuania today that if the genderist movement is persecuting me, if the liberals are persecuting me, it means I serve God. Otherwise, it would mean that I serve the genderist movement.
Pál Szekeres
Yes. There is just one issue that's been brought up that I would like to respond to. I would agree with that part of what you said. I also think that Hungary has been a certain paradise where people have been able to take advantage, as you mentioned. And as you've said, there really is a political aspect to this case.
We're talking about a former politician who is now in the opposition. And when you carried out your campaign and got into power, you spoke about trying to find those who were responsible. Remember that we need to take into account the presumption of innocence, so the facts must be verified first. I would once again like to make a reference to the commission, the Venice document from the commission. The current legal system in Poland uses political motivations in making its legal sentences.
And specifically in this case, I would agree with the presumption that you yourselves have stated. I don't think that it's very well done that when we've just made a decision about a petition a few moments ago, one would make a reference to the campaign period to not talk about it, but now we're in the electoral campaign period in Hungary to speak about it. I don't think it's fair that one of your colleagues said yes in a previous meeting. This is interference in domestic policy, but they want to do that. They wish to interfere in Hungarian politics.
I would like to call your attention to the fact that if there is a gentleman's agreement in place, then everyone must respect it. I also voted not to speak. I decided not to speak about the Spanish petition. I would ask that there be a certain mutual respect, and for you to do the same. So, we're talking about a case that has been closed and a new case, and I think that we need to close this petition.
It had perhaps not been done with great elegance. But in any case, if you have questions, we're at your disposal.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
And Madam Schoenberg. I would like to reply to what Mr. Gragioli said. Well, please, let's go back to reality. We don't care whether you believe in God or not. We're not in a church.
We're in a committee at the European Parliament. And please do not forget that. And the reply to Mister Sekiris: you just said that the EU was a gentleman's agreement. No. It's not true.
This is a legal agreement. Everyone joining the EU signed up to the European treaties, which are binding for us. And it's not about what you've just said, that someone wants to intervene in the politics of a country. No. It's about everyday, ordinary common sense.
If you are summoned by the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor General, or the police, you need to be present. You need to appear. You do not flee abroad. Minister Jobro, whose story was told here, persecuted me, my family, and me many times, and I did not flee to Hungary, Germany, Belgium, France, or anywhere else. Every single time I appeared before the court, I replied to the questions from the prosecutor, the courts, and the police, and I was not afraid of that.
Mr. Romanovsky and Mr. Djobro is unfortunately afraid of that, and I won all the cases against Mr. Djobro. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. I have a short comment here. In my opinion, in this term of office, this is one of the few petitions, or the only petition, that is about one person, in fact. It's not about two people, just one person. We have a problem here because the other side requested that the person mentioned in the petition be granted the floor, but our regulations do not allow that.
Let me state that very clearly. As of today, our regulations do not allow that, but I would be glad to hear such a person because every single one of us could be the person mentioned in a petition. So, would we like to modify our regulations in the future? So, if we have a personal petition where a person is mentioned with their first name and surname, can we grant the floor to that person to obtain more information about the case? It's a question for all of us.
I'm not expecting any answer right now. But if you believe that the regulations could be changed, we would need to adopt the new regulations in such a case if there was such a request. But today, our regulations do not allow that. And my second comment here: if you request that someone take the floor because that person is mentioned in a petition, it should be announced well in advance, because the secretariat has to organize it technically so that the person can join the meeting. You cannot request that one hour or half a day before the meeting of the commission or the committee.
So, if we change the regulations, it is not possible today. But I would just like to suggest that we think about it. But even if the regulations were modified, we would have to announce it well in advance so that our technical services are ready to provide an online connection with such a person. Do we have any more comments, Mr.? Gazzulis?
Petras Gražulis
Yes. Just another example that there is no democracy. We talk about a concrete person, and we don't have to give him the right to speak. What are you talking about, liberals? These are your rules of procedure and your regulations.
Why? What are you afraid of? Let the people speak. Let that person speak.
Anyone?
Bogdan Rzońca
Else? If there are no requests, the petition based on your request remains open. It would have remained open anyway. It had to remain open even if you didn't say anything today because we do not have an answer from the commission, and we need to wait for the final reply from the commission. We still have time.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Yes. Yes. I would just like to ask if our Chairman, as I requested, will also send a question to the Lieber Committee and to the URI Committee, because I received no reply to my request here. We would have a more holistic answer in that case. Yes.
Bogdan Rzońca
I guess it's possible, but other groups would need to support you and express their opinion. Liebe und Jure. Right? So, we would need to gain the support of other groups. They need to support your request.
Dariusz Joński
EPP ? Yes. Definitely, we support this request. I can immediately support this request to send a letter to these two committees. Renew?
Bogdan Rzońca
Sorry. S and D first. Yes, definitely. We do support it because we believe that we need a full opinion. Patriots?
Pál Szekeres
Yes. I didn't say that we shouldn't speak about it. I think that we should have spoken about it at the right time. In April, at the end of the Hungarian elections, in keeping with our gentleman's agreement. It's not a question of not talking about it.
I'm not against the idea of sending this letter to the committees, but I would ask that we respect the fact that there are elections going on right now in Hungary. And I would like you to come back to this after the elections in Hungary. So, I suggest that this letter be sent after the Hungarian elections, if that's alright with you all.
Bogdan Rzońca
We support the request. And the Greens are absent. He informed me that it's not about the jury committee, only Liebe. So, we can only send a letter to the Liebe Committee, and we agree to send such a letter. But the question remains open as to whether the persons mentioned in the petitions can take the floor, because it limits their freedom in a way.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Yes. Thank you, Chairman, for this vote and for accepting this request. I'm glad that it will be sent to the other committee. But I have another request. Maybe we could vote on it quickly as well because you're running it so smoothly.
So, I also requested that the petty committee send an official letter to the Ministry of Justice in Poland and Hungary regarding the same issue, in order to receive their reply or opinion. So, if we can vote so smoothly and quickly, could we vote on it today? Well, it will be noted in the minutes of today's meeting, and we will check whether we can write to national governments as the petty committee. We will see what the opinion of the legal services is. Mr.
Dariusz Joński
Jenski. Yes. Thank you. Just to complete this request, because the European Commission expects information from the ministries of justice of both governments, I believe, Mister Chairman, that the petty committee should be informed as well. So, I believe these two requests should be merged into the request from the European Commission.
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes. We will ask the European Commission, and we will keep you informed. Yes. So, we will contact the commission, and we will inform you about the feedback from the national governments. Ladies and gentlemen, what about my question regarding the modification of regulations?
Dariusz Joński
Is that clear? Did you know what we would need to amend, EPP? Well, Chairman, if we want to amend the regulations, it would require a longer analysis. If you're a member of the same party as Mr., Romanovsky, when we discussed this issue, it was the wrong moment to suggest those changes.
Well, the regulations have not been amended for years. The ladies from Secretariat definitely know better than I do how long the regulations have not been amended. We cannot change our regulations just because we have a single case. So, every change in the law needs a thorough analysis. So it needs an in-depth analysis, S and D.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Let me tell you this. I want to know how often the rules of procedure were changed in the past. I don't have any information on this. How often did we have a petition concerning a politician? I am in favor of discussing this, but not now, maybe because I want to consult my political group, Patriots.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you very much. I believe that we need to forget about these specific efforts because if we talk about this very specific case, then I think we'll be going down the wrong path. I think that the petition we are looking at is about a specific individual. And I have a certain understanding of democracy, a certain understanding that I hope everyone else shares. We're talking about a very specific individual.
We've got these public hearings where everyone is given the floor. Anyone affected or concerned has the right to speak. The fact that, in this specific case, certain people don't agree means that we're not doing our work as thoroughly as we should be. So, my suggestion would be to change the way we work. We should change our working methods so that we can work in a more objective way.
All those affected by a court ruling or involved in a court case should be given the floor. We should have the right to be heard, and I fully agree with what our chairman said.
Kosma Złotowski
Yes. We agree. We should think about it, but I don't think it should be done here, in this committee. Maybe first, we, the coordinators, should discuss this, come up with a suggestion or a draft, and then vote on it. But in general, we are in favor.
Michał Kobosko
I agree with the previous speaker. The rules of proceeding with the proceedings of our committee, that's a serious matter. Changing it is an even more serious matter. And, between the coordinators, we should discuss possible changes to the rules. We should not be doing this now, in this committee session.
Petras Gražulis
I find it strange, very strange. If we think we are Democrats, why are we afraid to listen to the other side, to the accused? It can be liberal. It can be a leftist or a communist. I would be willing to listen to everyone.
If I am interested in finding out the truth, I would want to listen to the person who is being accused.
Petras Gražulis
I have doubts that the rules of procedure are not right. I mean, it's worse than in Soviet times.
Well,
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we had a lot of time for this discussion. We have the next item on our agenda in 7 minutes' time, but I forgot to mention that we are unable to amend the rules of procedure anyway. Right now, I forgot to mention that the AFCO committee would have to amend them. I forgot to mention that. So, I know your opinions.
We can talk about it during the coordinators' meeting in due time, anyway. But I was not suggesting that we amend the rules of procedure right now because of this single case. It's not our competence. So, if everything is clear, since this petition remains open, we will be waiting for the reply from the Commission. We have a 6-minute break now.
And at 11:30, the exchange of views with Commissioner Michael McGrath will take place. Thank you.
Ladies.
Bogdan Rzońca
And gentlemen, item nine: exchange of views with the Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law, and Consumer Protection, Michael McGraw, as part of the structured dialogue with the European Commission. Thank you, Commissioner, for coming. Thank you for being available. It's important for the relations between the European Commission and the Committee on Petitions that citizens have direct access to the protection of their rights and direct participation. That is why our cooperation is so important.
Thank you for your involvement. Let me explain how our exchange of views will be organized. I will first give the floor to the commissioner for 10 minutes. Then, we will have the first round of questions and answers, where each coordinator or representative of the political group will have two minutes to intervene. Then we will collect all the questions, and I will give the floor to the commissioner again for a maximum of 14 minutes to reply.
A second round will follow in the protocol order, including the non-attached members. Every member will have 1 minute per question, and all the questions will be collected. The commissioner will have a maximum of 10 minutes to reply. And finally, I will give another 3 minutes to the commissioner for his closing remarks. If everything is clear, and I believe it is, I can give the floor to the commissioner.
Michael McGrath
Well, thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the petty committee this morning. It is a pleasure for me to be with you today for this year's structured dialogue, and I would like to begin by conveying Commissioner Shevkevich's best wishes. I know he is a regular guest to your committee, and he regrets that he could not be here today. Let me start by underlining the significance the commission attaches to your work.
Indeed, before I became an EU commissioner in 2024, I served in the national parliament in Ireland for about 17 and a half years. So, I have great respect for the work of parliamentarians, and I believe it's very important that the commission makes itself fully available and fully accountable to the European Parliament in every respect that we can. Engaging with citizens remains of paramount importance, and petitions provide an effective channel for direct contact and open dialogue to help us understand the issues affecting the daily lives of European citizens effectively. It is the Commission's task, of course, to reply to all the petitions you send us, and it is a task we are fully committed to fulfilling. For example, last year, the Commission received a total of 614 petitions.
In total, we transmitted 609 responses to Parliament. The number of petitions received in 2025 was almost double that of the previous year, 2024. These numbers reflect the effort the Commission has made in recent years to improve the speed, quality, and relevance of our contributions to Parliament's replies to the concerns of European citizens. This includes outlining possible solutions at the European or national level. However, when there are petitions that do not fall within the remit of the EU's competences, we must be honest with citizens so that we do not create any false expectations.
Looking at the petitions we received for opinion, one of the main topics raised over the last 3 years refers to the rule of law and fundamental rights in member states. This is not a coincidence. As the rule of law lies at the heart of our union, it safeguards our peace, our security, and our shared prosperity. The commission has already developed a rule of law toolbox, as you know: a coherent set of mechanisms designed to anticipate, monitor, and, where necessary, address challenges to the rule of law wherever they may arise in our Union. At the heart of our toolbox is the annual Rule of Law Report, which examines developments across all member states and issues recommendations to each of them to support their reform efforts and to highlight where improvements are needed, in the view of the Commission.
The 2025 report confirms a generally positive trajectory across the the EU. It shows that the dialogue, which is at the heart of the report, can work. However, the Commission is always prepared to act decisively when we regard it as necessary. We have launched infringement procedures to safeguard effective judicial protection by independent courts. And, in an exceptional case, we've activated Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union.
Under cohesion policy, the horizontal enabling conditions, including compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, allow the Commission to withhold funding until systemic issues are addressed. The conditionality regulation allows us to protect the Union budget wherever breaches of rule of law principles put EU funds at risk. We are even strengthening our approach in the next EU long-term budget. Respect for the rule of law will continue to be a must for EU funds. Our approach is grounded in incentives for member states to invest in the rule of law and safeguards to ensure that the rule of law is respected throughout the EU.
Taken together, these instruments demonstrate the Commission's firm commitment to upholding the rule of law and its determination to continue doing so. The implementation of EU law is a key priority under this mandate because it is crucial to maintaining the credibility of the EU, and petitions play an important role in raising broader awareness of this. In February, we adopted a communication on implementation and simplification, setting out our vision for fast and visible improvements for European citizens and European businesses. When it comes to the enforcement of EU law, the Commission acts where necessary using the infringement procedure, as I already referenced. For example, the commission took several steps in an infringement procedure following complaints and a petition about delays in the Romanian health insurance fund paying independent pharmacies for their services.
Following additional data submitted by the Romanian authorities, the Commission pursued the case on January 30 by sending an additional reasoned opinion. But the infringement procedure is not designed to offer concrete solutions for individuals or to ensure individual redress. As you know, it is aimed at addressing systemic problems affecting a large number of people, often across member states. Petitioners pointing to the incorrect application of EU law in individual cases would benefit more from the mechanisms available at the national level, such as national courts, regulatory bodies, or ombudspersons. If the problem has a cross-border dimension, this network may offer quick and flexible remedies to solve it.
We have heard your calls for more transparency and better information sharing regarding the commission's enforcement actions. The commission publishes its decisions on every step of an infringement procedure on the Europa webpage. In the current version of the infringement register, the public can search for cases with a link to the petition web portal. Those who intend to file a petition can check whether an infringement procedure is already in progress on the topic of interest to them. Such tools make it easier to track the progress of specific infringements and also verify if there is any petition linked to ongoing investigations.
In addition, last year, the Commission published a new Europa webpage to give user-friendly information on infringement cases, the transposition of directives, and pre-infringement dialogues. Let me finish on this point by stressing that the Commission remains committed to addressing infringement-related issues. I want to commend your committee for your work on European Citizens' Initiatives, also called in short EUCIs, in particular for advocating to increase the impact of ECIs and for contributing to the organization of public hearings for successful initiatives. Last year, two such hearings were organized on cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of regional cultures, and on "My Voice, My Choice" for safe and accessible abortion. The adoption of the commission's reply is planned for the next college meeting, indeed, this week.
Therefore, I cannot comment on the content of this reply prior to its adoption. More hearings are coming up. The next one is in just a few days, on March 2, for the ban on conversion practices in the EU and the hearing for the initiative "Stop Destroying Video Games," which I will be working on together with the Executive Vice President for Cunnen. I held an introductory meeting with the organizers of this ECI on Monday of this week. I am delighted to see so many ECIs successfully reaching the required thresholds and being submitted to the Commission for examination and ultimate reply.
The European Citizens' Initiative has evolved into a working tool of democracy, a unique bottom-up mechanism enabling citizens to shape EU policymaking and come up with proposals for action at the EU level. Several legislative acts have been triggered by successful ECIs, such as the revised Drinking Water Directive, the regulation on transparency and sustainability of EU risk assessment in the food chain, and the Nature Restoration Law. Finally, the commission welcomes your constructive cooperation with the European Ombudswoman, with whom you share the objectives of ensuring the transparency, professionalism, and integrity of the EU institutions vis-à-vis EU citizens. Citizens' concerns that reach you via petitions are often the same issues brought to our attention by the complaints addressed to the European Ombudswoman. We have excellent cooperation with Miss Anginio and her team, and our joint commitment to finding solutions has led to concrete and tangible results for the complainants on individual files.
We remain fully committed to act with due respect and the highest responsibility towards the citizens' expectations and demands. And, wherever feasible, the European Ombudswoman's solution proposals suggesting improvements and recommendations will continue to be considered and implemented by the Commission. So I'll stop there, Chair. I think we're right on time. And I look forward to our exchange this afternoon.
Thank you again for the opportunity.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you for your fantastic opinion that the petty committee played a very important role. Thank you so much.
We have requests from MEPs representing the political groups. Each of you will have 2 minutes. Madam Nevado del Campo, on behalf of the EPP.
Speaking in Spanish.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming, being here today, and for your explanation. There are many issues that you've addressed. As a coordinator of the EPP group in the Petite Committee, I would like to focus on two issues that you brought up. On the one hand, the lack of cooperation among the national authorities, both in terms of what comes out of this committee and the deterioration of the rule of law.
Those are the two things I want to talk about. Regarding the first issue I mentioned, I would like you to assess how the lack of cooperation affects the missions carried out by the parliament to different member states, as sometimes our requests are not responded to. We make formal invitations. Sometimes they don't actually get any response, or we get some response, but it's left at a merely formal level. In Spain, we've seen recently a situation where, for example, we were in a mission that was carried out, and the minister, Marlaska, was asked to appear, and we could see how national authorities were in Barbate during that mission.
The national authorities did not participate in that. We're talking about members of the Guardia Civil who were actually killed because their boat was run over by drug traffickers. So, we're talking about an issue that has to do with the protection of the European Union borders. Then there's another one in Almaraz, a very recent case where we saw a report from the chair of this committee who showed that the Vice President and Minister for Ecological Transition rejected the invitation to meet with members of the parliament and of this petty committee. Because, actually, the remit of the petty committee meant that we were not allowed to accept any last-moment changes in that meeting.
We were not allowed to do so. So, that made things difficult. Secondly, I would ask you to, since there have been a lot of petitions concerning the issue of Rola in Spain, make it clear, as you've mentioned, that there are a great number of them and that there is an institutional deterioration that we are seeing. So, this is a follow-up regarding the issues related to the rule of law. I would like to know whether you are also concerned about the changes happening in terms of the rule of law in my country, Spain, and whether you see any way to guarantee legal independence, as well as address the problems we have seen in the different member states that have been discussed here in this committee.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you, Chela. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Okay.
Thank you very much, Commissioner McGrath, for your speech. Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very clear that the petitions committee plays a very important role in the EU, and that if we harness this, there is potential for improvement. We are the only committee that listens directly to citizens. I have a question for you.
You have talked about the shortcomings. Political parties and political groups try to exploit this and replace the voices of citizens through petitions that just reflect party politicking and take over the debates we should be having here in the petitions committee. I'd be interested in knowing your opinion on how we can make this committee more useful. First of all, more and more petitions come from citizens who are very active but may be turning to AI. The European Commission has also mentioned this and is aware of it.
So how can we make sure that we don't have these kinds of petitions saturating our work? Because this means that it is very difficult to reply to all these petitions if this is what is happening. And there's something else that we've pinpointed here. There are issues that do not really fall within our remit. You touched upon the fact that sometimes citizens have legitimate requests or issues, but they might not fall within our remit.
And we have to act as a filter, but the European Commission sometimes replies. So, if petitions fall within the remit of the member states, maybe it could be the national authorities or the national bodies that send a reply. We do have the right to petition in the Spanish Parliament as well, but this might not exist as a right in other countries. So how can the European Commission make sure that the petitioners get replies from the national or regional authorities when a topic really falls within the regional or national agreement? So, I was wondering what you thought about that.
Thank you.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you very much, Chair. I'll be speaking Hungarian. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you for coming, and thank you for what you said about our committee. Now, in the petty committee, we often see petitions about persons with disabilities, health care, other social issues, or a lack of access for those groups.
So, what are the Commission's plans to deal with these issues rapidly, and how would you apply a fair interpretation of that to everyone? Now, my second question: how will you ensure that the rule of law mechanisms of the Commission do not go beyond its competencies set out in the treaties and always respect the member states' identities? And then, a third question. What are the Commission's plans regarding NGOs and their transparency to ensure that we can create a registry of NGOs, so that we can know where the funding of NGOs comes from in Europe? Thank you.
Thank you.
Ivaylo Valchev
Thank you, Chair. I will speak Bulgarian.
Commissioner McGrath, thank you very much for your participation in this dialogue. To us, the rule of law is a fundamental principle of the European Union, but it is equally important for us to know that this principle is applied objectively, without political double standards, and without going beyond the institutional powers of each institution. The citizens who send petitions to our committee require state not statements, but real results. I have 3 specific questions. How do you guarantee that the rule of law evaluations are equally strict and fair toward all member states?
How do you measure the genuine effect of your recommendations? Are there any accountability mechanisms for problems that linger for years? And thirdly, how would you improve communication with the citizens who file petitions so that they can see genuine progress rather than simply procedural answers? Our position is clear. A strong Europe requires strong national institutions that work effectively and are accountable.
Thank you.
Michał Kobosko
Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. Dear Michael, let me begin by sincerely thanking you for taking the time despite your very demanding schedule. As you know, and as you said, it is a vital committee because it is Parliament's most direct point of contact with European citizens. It's where individual families and small businesses turn when they feel that EU law is not being applied properly. In that sense, PATI functions as an early warning system for weaknesses in the implementation of the Single Market.
The single market is not an abstract policy framework. It's something citizens experience very concretely when it works, and especially when it does not. We regularly receive petitions from consumers and SMEs facing cross-border barriers that should no longer exist, whether it be difficulties accessing online services, administrative burdens in cross-border service provision, or inconsistent national application of EU digital rules. We continue to receive petitions concerning cross-border digital barriers, inconsistent national implementation, and ongoing issues despite the geo-blocking regulation. With the implementation of the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, expectations are very high, particularly regarding current enforcement across member states and the protection of citizens' rights.
Therefore, let me ask you three questions. Firstly, how can we strengthen the structural feedback loop between Petty and your services when repeated petitions reveal enforcement gaps and regulatory fragmentation? Secondly, citizens who turn to Petty often do so because they feel the lack of effective remedies at the national level. How can the Commission ensure that, in the implementation of digital and single market legislation, citizens have accessible and effective redress mechanisms across the Union? Thirdly, Petty regularly receives petitions reporting violations of citizens' fundamental rights, such as unfair administrative decisions, unequal treatment, or denial of access to justice.
How will the commission ensure that these reports are systematically followed up, that remedies are accessible and effective, and that citizens can rely on concrete enforcement across the member states? And finally, do you see a risk that inconsistent national approaches to online child protection could undermine effective enforcement at the EU level and unintentionally push users, including minors, towards platforms operating outside of the EU regulatory framework? Let me finish by saying that we, in Petty, stand ready to work constructively with you to ensure that citizens' petitions do not remain individual complaints but become catalytic for systemic improvement. Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, Chair. Welcome, Commissioner, and thank you for your kind words on the role of the petty, in connection to the citizens. But I would like to challenge those kind words a little bit, really asking you how you see petty at this moment, because maybe you have even seen from this debate that, unfortunately, in this mandate, the committee seems to have been used heavily by the political groups to bring their agendas, not the citizens' agendas. And, unfortunately, we have even seen a case of writing a petition in MEP's offices and then bringing it to the PETI through some citizens. So, really, I would like to hear your honest response on how the commission now appreciates or does not appreciate what they're doing in the PETIT, because I think this is really important for the work of this commission.
And my second question concerns the rule of law issue. You are coming from that field, and you also mentioned how most of the petitions are actually from the rule of law area. And I wonder what can be done to speed up the delivery of the concerns we are receiving from the citizens in the field of the rule of law. And there was one example of the petition related to the EPO regulation. Probably, you are familiar with the conflict of competence between the EPO prosecutor and the national prosecutors, which was also brought to you by Miss Laura Kovacic, but it was also brought by the citizens of the EU.
This has been open since 2024, I think. And I know that the commission's work program has promised that they will do the evaluation, which surprised me a little bit because the evaluation has already been done. I remember that the commission ordered an independent opinion study on this problem, not only on this, but in general on the implementation of e-poregulation. So when can we expect not only the evaluation but also some concrete moves? And this will be the best way to answer the citizens' needs when they complain to the petty authorities.
So, thank you very much.
Marcin Sypniewski
Mister Sipenevsky. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for coming to see us for your summary. I like repeating that the petty committee is the only direct hotline where citizens can call.
So, my first question is: what are you planning in order to streamline the process of submitting petitions? And there are more and more petitions, and I think the speed of processing or submitting petitions should be higher. And also, there are petitions where we all agree that the commission should process them efficiently and quickly. But nonetheless, such petitions get lost somewhere in the bureaucratic pipeline. My second question is about the rule of law, fighting corruption, and Ukraine.
Ukraine is not a member state of the EU, but it is a country where we sent a lot of money from the EU budget. There was a project implemented in Poland in the government agency for strategic reserves, where this institution was controlled, and Olaf decided that close to €90,000,000 should be returned due to artificial inflation of prices, for instance. Similar cases relating to the purchase of munitions, where some $40,000,000 were defrauded. There is also the so-called egg gate, where eggs are sold at higher prices. Relevant Ukrainian services have discovered this.
Another issue is that in Ukraine, illegal enrichment amounts to €14,000,000. So, have you done anything to ensure that no such abuse can happen in future public procurement? Have you controlled such a risk? Was it communicated to you? How do you intend to control and manage risks connected with Ukraine?
Now, another question. NGOs. The Commission is spending quite a lot of money in order to finance NGOs. Also, those that are active in the area of ecology received €700,000 in 2023 in order to shape public perception and public opinion. Then it turns out that those NGOs were used to fight farmers' organizations that were against the Green Deal.
Similar thing with the "My Voice, My Choice" initiative. What are you going to do to ensure the transparency of financing for NGOs? The commissioner, please. The floor is yours.
How long do you want me to speak?
A few.
Michael McGrath
No. No. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. And can I thank all of the honorable members for those questions?
A wide variety of questions were raised, and I will do my best to answer the points that you have put to me. A number of them relate to the need for appropriate follow-up and action, and dealing with the substantive issues that have been raised by citizens in the petitions that have come before your committee and, in many instances, have been forwarded to the European Commission. And I can sense some level of frustration about the lack of follow-up, whether that be on behalf of a national authority or another stakeholder, and I'll do my best to address the points that you have made. But I learn a lot as well from listening to you because you're dealing with these individual petitions to come before the committee, and this is a very useful opportunity for me to hear directly, as a commissioner, about the way in which you believe the system works and perhaps how indeed it can be improved. A number of you raised issues around the rule of law and the rule of law process.
And, of course, this is an area for which I have direct responsibility as a commissioner. It attracts a lot of political commentary when we do an evaluation as a commission, reach a conclusion, and make a recommendation to a member state. And that is understandable because there will always be political debate when the Commission arrives at a certain view. What I can say is that the rule of law report every year is the conclusion of a very substantial body of work that we engage in, where we receive hundreds of submissions. We hold many meetings.
My teams do country visits. They meet with different stakeholders. There is an extensive set of consultations with people who have opinions on rule of law issues in different member states. The conclusion that is reached in each of the country chapters that the commission writes represents the commission's objective evaluation of the rule of law environment in each member state, looking at issues like the independence of the judiciary, the effectiveness of the justice system, whether there is an independent, pluralistic, and free media sector within the country concerned, whether there is a robust system in place to tackle corruption, particularly high-level corruption, and whether there is a track record of prosecutions and convictions where such corruption is taking place, and a number of other democratic checks and balances in the system. The rule of law report is only one tool that we use.
It's an important one. But we also have the justice scoreboard, which we publish every year and provides a set of metrics looking at different measures of performance of justice systems throughout the European Union. And that, too, is an important way for us to engage with individual member states. Some of the recommendations that we make in the rule of law report could perhaps be described as being in the nonbinding category, and that's why you see repeated recommendations every year. Now, we engage in dialogue with the member states.
It is always our first port of call to encourage reform and support the member states in their reform process. Other recommendations are more binding in nature because they relate to the need for respect for EU law, respect for the rights and values of EU citizens, and the need to recognize the primacy of EU law. And where we believe that there is a recommendation of a binding nature, where EU law is not being complied with, and where dialogue has failed, we do have the option, and we exercise this option on a reasonably regular basis, to bring an infringement procedure. And very often, that is about ensuring that a systemic issue is addressed within the member state concerned. And what I would say to those who are critical of the rule of law process, who challenge the commission's assessment, and indeed challenge the examples where the commission has taken infringement proceedings.
I would point to what I think is a very good track record of success, where cases have been heard before the European courts, ultimately sitting at the apex of the legal order of the European Union, which is the Court of Justice. And where these matters have been assessed, determined, and judgments issued, the commission has a very good track record in taking such cases. And we have to be consistent as a commission. I fully accept that point, and I think many of you have raised it today, where we see breaches of the rule of law. We must act irrespective of where in the European Union such a breach takes place and irrespective of the composition of the national government concerned.
And what I can assure you is that I make the best efforts to ensure that my team is fully independent in the performance of the duties that we have because we recognize how important the role that we have is. If I can turn to some of the questions you raised about follow-up with national authorities and the need to ensure that the substantive issues raised by citizens are actually acted upon, that is the kernel of this. And many of you who raised the question about the politicization of committees and the work that is done, we all have to remember why we are here. We are here to serve individual citizens and the collective body of EU citizens, and to make sure that their genuine grievances and the issues of concern that led them to submit a petition to your committee are dealt with. And that is my motivation, and I know it is your motivation, too.
But what I can say is that when member states commit to adopting adequate remedies, the Commission monitors the progress made by agreeing on milestones with the national authorities. And there is ongoing follow-up and engagement by the commission with the national authorities. If you feel that needs to be strengthened, then I hear your message, and I will bring that to my service within the commission and indeed ensure that the message is conveyed across the services in the commission to ensure that there is active follow-up and that the citizen gets a response and a remedy where a remedy is warranted, where their rights are not being fully vindicated. It is laudable that this committee on petitions wishes to offer petitioners concrete help, in particular in repeated cases of misapplication of EU law. And as I said in my opening remarks, the commission is not always better placed than national authorities to solve these issues.
And therefore, it's important that the obligation on national authorities is fulfilled, and we have a job to do to make sure that national remedies are available. And there is no or little doubt about the misapplication of EU law. National remedies are very often more effective in terms of the time necessary to redress the situation or compensate for the loss and damage of citizens. And the commission can intervene usefully when it is clear that national remedies are not available or are ineffective. But equally, when national remedies are not forthcoming, I believe we have to be proactive and ensure that the citizen does get the remedy that they require.
In any case, input from citizens, nongovernmental organizations, or businesses in this respect is very valuable and is carefully assessed. This is why the commission values the input provided by petitioners and complainants and carefully assesses whether the facts brought to its attention are likely to constitute a breach of EU law. That is where we have a direct role and can elevate an issue right up to the point of an infringement being taken. It is the Commission's priority to get breaches of EU law resolved as quickly as possible, and in 95% of infringement cases, member states actually address those breaches before the case has to be taken before the Court of Justice. So even the initiation of the action, the issuing of a reasoned opinion, and the entry into formal correspondence with the member state can lead to the root cause of the problem being addressed. And then that should percolate down to all of the national authorities that the reason that gave rise to the initiation of an infringement procedure should be reflected in the work of the national authorities.
So, we do see some positive trends in that regard. In the last three years, the commission actually closed 2,000 infringement cases, which shows that the commission's approach to enforcement works in many cases. I'm not saying it works in every case, but we need to continue with this trend. And it is also clear, and I will acknowledge that some infringement procedures take longer than others and longer than we would like in many instances, and I think we have to continue to focus on that issue. But in recent years, I can certainly point to the commission ensuring close follow-up to breaches of EU law that petitions have highlighted in many areas that directly touch upon our citizens' rights.
I don't need to go into individual examples because I think you're familiar with all of them. But the main aim of us taking an infringement procedure is full compliance of national laws, and indeed practices, with EU law. And we will always seek to ensure that there is full alignment in that respect. We have brought forward new tools to improve the implementation of EU law, and the main source of concern that many petitioners raise with you is that they feel that EU law is not being vindicated and fully respected in their interaction with whatever public authority, or indeed national system or EU system. We are now obliged, as commissioners, to hold at least two implementation dialogues per year.
I have to say, as commissioner, I find that a very useful tool because we bring all of the key stakeholders on a particular issue around the table, and we hear their point of view. It gives us a lot more practical information about the progress that is being made, or indeed the lack of progress in some cases, in the implementation of EU law. Each commissioner was also tasked with issuing an annual progress report on enforcement and implementation. So again, this means we are more accountable and more transparent, and we are measuring the issue of implementation and enforcement, which I think is a key issue. I also acknowledge that when we respond to a petition, we have to make sure that the language we use is as simple as possible and accessible, so that citizens can fully grasp what exactly we're trying to convey. And I think communication by all of the arms of the EU needs to be the subject of continuous improvement, and that's something we are fully committed to.
I would point to the work of the 400 Europe Direct centers that we have across member states. They are a crucial contact point for individual citizens as well. They inform, listen to, and engage with citizens about EU issues. For example, EU citizens can meet with them, ask, and discuss any question, policy, or opportunity related to the EU, including the possibility of submitting petitions. So that can really help to guide the process that governs citizens issuing petitions.
The volume of petitions has certainly increased. It could well be the case that technology is playing a role in that, and I think we always have to keep our working methods under review to make sure that they are as efficient as possible. The issue of disability rights has been raised. I want to acknowledge the importance of this. We seek to ensure that the fundamental rights of our citizens, as stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in relation to the application of EU law, are fully respected and complied with by all of the member states.
And as you know, we are willing to take action where we believe that is not being followed up on. And we can get very useful information from the content of individual petitions because they often reflect the real-life lived experience of EU citizens when they seek to have their rights vindicated as persons with a disability in their interaction with national authorities. So, if there are specific issues that you think I and my colleagues within the commission need to follow up on further, then I would be more than happy to do so. On the rule of law, and us not exceeding our competence, of course, we have to respect the rule of law, and we have to respect the allocation of competences. And, ultimately, if the commission exceeds its competence and goes too far, then that is a matter that will be adjudicated upon by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
We are obliged to stay within the guardrails of exactly what our competencies are, and we seek to do so at all times. In relation to civil society groups and NGOs, can I highlight the importance of full accountability and full compliance with the financial regulations of the European Union? And we have mechanisms in place to ensure that is the case. But, of course, we keep that under review. I would highlight the proposed directive on the transparency of interest representation on behalf of third countries.
This parliament has adopted its negotiating stance. I would encourage the member states to likewise adopt a general approach so that we can get into the detailed trialogue negotiations. I'll finish shortly now, chair. On the issue of online child protection, I will later this year be bringing forward a Digital Fairness Act, which will focus on this issue alongside the existing digital rulebook that we have. I would encourage you to make your views known on this.
The Parliament has already issued a report which provides very useful guidance and feedback to me as Commissioner for the preparation of the Digital Fairness Act later this year, and that's important. Can I say, in relation to Ukraine, finally, that the rule of law, justice reforms, and anti-corruption measures remain a core part of Chapters 23 and 24 of the enlargement process? And we work very closely with Ukraine and indeed with all the other candidate countries on their accession journey. Just last week, I was in Podgorica, Montenegro, where we again took the opportunity to work with the government and the national authorities on their journey to ensure that all of the necessary reforms, under that fundamentals-first approach, are implemented. As you know, it's the first body of work that needs to be opened and the last one to be closed before accession can really progress. We continue to do that with Ukraine and with all of the countries that are on the accession journey. Thank you, Chair.
Peter Agius
Thank you, Chair. I'll speak in my mother tongue, the Maltese language. Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today. We have spoken about the rule of raw reports, and I would like to go to a more concrete level. Yesterday, a letter was published in the Maltese media where a judge in the highest court is swearing on the road about how the prime minister is interfering in the work of the courts. He explains how the Prime Minister considers the choice of a Chief Justice, which has to be decided soon, as a political trophy. He considers it an opportunity to weaken the opposition.
This has shocked the Maltese of every political opinion. I would like to thank you for the work that you do in the commission for the protection of our democracy. However, I am obliged today to ask you a question in the name of the many citizens. After all these rule of law reports, we come across this case in Malta. Even in Spain, the judges have the same issues.
Don't you think that, in certain countries, the rule of law is futile? It's a waste of time. Don't you think that there are those who are bypassing all our European laws?
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much.
Chairperson, and thank you as well, Commissioner, for being here with us this morning. Before asking your question, I would like to recall, as colleagues have said, that this committee is essential and very important because we have a direct connection with our citizens. So, it's a connection between policymakers and citizens. So, it's important to make sure that their voice can be heard and that their concerns can be brought to the EU. I have one concern about this commission or this committee, which sometimes I think is too politicized, and sometimes that can endanger the interests of our citizens.
And I would like to perhaps bring this to a national level. French citizens are not using, or not using enough, the Petitions Committee and the fact that they can submit petitions to the European Union. What do you think would be the ways to ensure that the work of this committee is better known in member states? What can member states do in order to make sure that French citizens, in particular, will actually take advantage of what this committee offers more?
Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal
Thank you very much. I'll be speaking Spanish. Commissioner, the commission is the guardian of the rule of law, but it only has this authority as long as it does not use double standards. If its reaction depends on which government is involved, then there is no rule of law. Then, it is just pure politics.
Let me say that in Spain, appointing members of the court is a political appointment. And you have people who have serious charges against them. Not only do we have people not showing any remorse, but it's pretty clear that they are going to commit the same offenses again. You have self-amnesties. So, groups that will benefit from an amnesty vote in their favor.
We have had issues in Spain. The public prosecutor general in Spain kept his job. He was still hierarchically higher than the prosecutor who was investigating him. And this is just one example, one scandalous example. We have people in jail.
And the commission has really been extremely cautious, more cautious towards Spain than towards others. In other countries, you act in a certain way, and yet you're a lot more cautious. Why these double standards, Commissioner?
Cynthia Ní Mhurchú
And as lead negotiator for a new Europe on the resolution on the protection of EU companies, commissioners, and also jobs and products against unfair competition from third countries, it's clear that we must keep unsafe or substandard goods out of the single market under your remit. But we must also recognize, Commissioner, that for many low-income households, these cheaper products are often the only option in the middle of a real cost of living crisis, and EU citizens should never have to choose between affordability and safety. Unfortunately, reality dictates that they have to. SMEs, of course, play by the rules, and I believe they should not be undercut by unfair practices from third countries. So, my question, Commissioner: under the 2030 consumer agenda, how will the Commission strike the balance in practice? And how will you strengthen protection for citizens and for SMEs while also acknowledging the everyday financial pressures that people face?
And also, how will the commission ensure that fighting unsafe and unfair imports doesn't end up further squeezing those who are already struggling to make ends meet? Commissaire.
Madam Zaria.
Maria Zacharia
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. I'm here. I'm here in the back. We're talking about democracy, justice, and the rule of law. In Greece, not only is there widespread corruption in the government, but we also have examples of people being awarded contracts without a call for tenders.
We also have the wiretapping of journalists, members of the opposition, and others, using malicious spyware. We also have cases where members of the judicial system are appointed directly by the executive. There's also a high concentration in economic monitoring of the media. We have serious media freedom issues. And we have a lot of SLAPP cases against journalists or others who bring interesting cases to light.
There are serious questions surrounding accountability. There are also constant complaints and reports that EU legislation is being violated in people's daily lives. These are not just theoretical issues. We're talking about Article 2, TEU, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, media freedom, and the separation of powers. Many of these cases have also come before the petitions committee.
The Commission's replies are often very vague. We don't get any specific answers. And the Commission doesn't take any measures to deal with this, or at least very rarely. You don't ask uncomfortable questions. Does the Commission think that what I've mentioned is a systemic risk to the rule of law and human rights in my country?
And if yes, will the commission come up with a reply to the issue, showing that the national authorities are not independent? Thank you.
Douglas, do you want to take the floor?
Alex Agius Saliba
Yes. First of all, sorry. I wanted to be here from the very start of this meeting, but, obviously, today we have a lot of committees coinciding at the same time. I'm going to speak in Maltese. I am here this morning because I have been informed that my Maltese colleague,
My colleague doesn't lose any opportunity to try and raise issues that are completely local, issues that he tries to use at a parliamentary level in order to damage the country, not the government. I would like to give some background on the alleged accusations that were mentioned by Peter Rajus on an issue that is still ongoing. There's a situation involving the rule of law. After a number of recommendations from the Venice Commission as well, some issues were present even in the past. Recommendations were never implemented.
They were recommendations on strengthening the rule of law. One of these principal recommendations is how the Chief Justice is appointed in our courts. The Chief Justice under the APP used to be directly appointed by the Prime Minister. Minister. At the time, the Prime Minister used to appoint the Chief Justice.
In the case of the present reforms, the Chief Justice will be appointed by a two-thirds approval from our parliament, as was recommended by the Venice Commission. After a lot of discussions, and these were discussions between the opposition leader, the prime minister, and others, there was a name which was forwarded. The judge, Consuelo Herrera, was not approved by the opposition. The opposition voted against her. Then another name was proposed, and there are still ongoing discussions between the prime minister and the opposition leader.
And up to today, there has been no progress. The chief justice hasn't been chosen yet by the parliament organ. So the opposition hasn't proposed a name. Please give me some time to voice and give my response. He lost the speaker; he has lost the mic.
But it is not; it is totally.
Bogdan Rzońca
We prepare the next meeting with Mr. Graf, Commissioner Graf, because we have a lot of questions. Okay?
Alex Agius Saliba
It's not fair that allegations of corruption in the highest organ in Malta, our judiciary, and that the prime minister is made. I don't think it's fair that allegations like these are made, and we don't give the MEPs, the petty committee, a true picture of the current situation, which is very fragile right now in one of our member states. So that is why I try to give a thorough explanation of what is happening right now and the current process, because it is totally unfair to use this committee for partisan reasons.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. We have very limited time. Sorry. Sorry. Mister Bank Graf, Commissioner, you have time.
Michael McGrath
Yeah. Thank you very much, Cher, and I'll be as brief as I can in the interest of time, but I'll try to address the main points that have been raised. Can I say that we are now at an advanced stage of preparing the 2026 Rule of Law report? It will be published as normal by the commission in July, and we have concluded many country visits at this stage. We have received from the majority of member states their submissions and their views on different issues. Our engagement will continue, and a draft of the report will be prepared, with a chapter for each country, as soon as we have all of the information that we need.
I don't want to go into specific details of individual countries, but a couple of specific issues were raised in relation to Malta in the 2025 Rule of Law report. The commission highlighted the need to reform the appointment of the Chief Justice. At this stage, since the appointment is ongoing, the commission will continue to follow the appointment attentively and report on this issue in the upcoming Rule of Law report. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. In the case of Spain, a couple of different issues were raised in relation to the amnesty law.
The report from last year, 2025, noted that the Spanish Constitutional Court has declared the amnesty law to be compatible with the constitution. The amnesty law is, of course, the subject of several pending court cases, including at the European Court of Justice, on which we will not comment. We take note of the AG's opinions on the amnesty law issued last November. As you know, we don't comment on opinions, but we will continue following developments closely. When I say AG, of course, it's Advocate General.
In relation to the election of judicial members of the Council of the Judiciary in Spain. Again, we note the recommendations of the Venice Commission in relation to this issue. We welcome the opinion of the Venice Commission, which highlights the merits of the different options proposed by the Council for the judiciary, as well as their limits and the necessary safeguards. The European Commission would invite the Spanish authorities to consider the opinion in the upcoming discussions in Spain and to use it to elaborate a balanced legislative proposal. So, again, we stand ready to provide assistance if necessary, and this issue will be considered in the context of the 2026 Rule of Law Report.
Do you want me to conclude, Chairman? Oh, yeah. Just a couple more points, if I may, but the process is quite advanced. Can I say that, in the context of the next MFF, as you know, we have proposed strengthening the link between respect for the rule of law and, indeed, the Charter of Fundamental Rights with access to EU funds? We are ready to engage with you and indeed with the member states in relation to that issue.
What I would say is that most of the recommendations we issue in the Rule of Law report every year are followed up to varying degrees. And where they are of a more binding nature, we do have the option to go further. The commission itself is subject to oversight by the European courts, as you know, and that is, as is appropriate. And we always seek to ensure that the Article 2 values of democracy, equality, rule of law, freedom, respect for human rights, and human dignity are vindicated. And they have been the subject of a number of specific infringement actions, indeed that we have taken as a Commission.
On the final point about ecommerce, we are focused on implementing the 2025 communication that was issued by the Commission, and I have secured the adoption now of the consumer agenda to 2030, as MVP Nimaroku referenced. That is focused very much on greater enforcement because European consumers deserve to have the very high EU product safety standards respected by all vendors, whether they are European companies, Chinese platforms, or others. So, we will step up testing, and I will also be proposing a reform of the consumer protection cooperation regulation later this year. And I know that EVP Sojourney is doing a considerable body of work on the issue of product safety and the possible revision of the market surveillance regulation as well. And I will be bringing forward the Digital Fairness Act later on this year.
On the one hand, we have to make sure EU consumers are fully protected, and we also have to ensure that European businesses benefit from a level playing field, which currently, I think, requires a lot of work. But thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. And, as always, I'm available to you and the committee members to discuss any of these issues on an ongoing basis. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you so much, Mr. Commissioner. We are happy that we can possibly meet with you, and I believe that we have to prepare for the next meetings because the members have a lot of questions. Thank you. Thank you, members.
We are back at 02:30. Coordinators at 2:30, and the committee starts at 3:30.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.