Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 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
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
In the area of innovation, Europe risks losing its edge. Despite world-leading universities and growing employment rates, research and development expenditure and patenting rates in the EU remain broadly flat. Startups and scale-ups struggle to grow into unicorns. Digitalization is progressing more slowly than in competing economies. It is thus high time to switch gear and achieve an industrial renewal.
We need to continue our ambitious industrial policy agenda to accelerate decarbonization and close the innovation gap. To this end, the Industrial Accelerator Act will boost economic security and industrial capacity. The '28 regime EU Inc. It will provide a single set of rules for companies to set up, operate, and grow throughout the EU. Progress on the Savings and Investment Union will unlock the needed financing.
The third main message is that strategic dependencies remain elevated amid sweeping changes in the global trade landscape. European industry is coming under mounting pressure as third-country overcapacities are increasingly directed towards the EU, and important international currencies depreciate. The systemic and strategic application of increased tariffs, export controls, and weaponization of dependencies highlights the need to strengthen the resilience of European supply chains. On the upside, the good news is that the EU maintains a strong position in international trade, showing remarkable resilience amid fierce competition. Yet, Europe's share in incoming FDI has dropped sharply over the past years, from a peak of 27% seven years ago to 14% in 2024.
Strategic dependencies on the import of raw materials, components, and industrial products remain largely unchanged. At this stage, only six out of the seven Cleantech components tracked under the Net Zero Industry Act exceed the benchmark for the domestic manufacturing rate. There's a need to rapidly scale industrial capacity and strengthen supply chains. Through Resource EU, we work to facilitate a steady supply of critical raw materials to EU industries. And again, the Industrial Accelerator Act will help here.
In addition, efforts to advance future free trade agreements and partnerships help us diversify supply chains and create new business opportunities for businesses. In summary, yes, we faced tremendous challenges, but we have also set a clear strategy and tools to address them. But we cannot afford to be complacent. It is thus high time to achieve a true single market and lay the ground for a strong and resilient industry in Europe. To this end, the president, Oslo Funderlein, has announced a One Europe, One Market roadmap.
It is crucial that we, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council, join forces to make progress together. Thank you very much again, and I'm looking forward to your reactions, comments, and possible questions.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for the presentation. I mean, we have, I guess, all read the report, but it's always good to have a concise summary. And let's now move on to questions, comments, and answers if you want to.
Auf Deutsch? Yeah.
Axel Voss
Can I speak German? Well, thank you for that presentation. Competitiveness is something that is really on our minds at the moment, and it is connected with a whole set of different things. Omnibus, that's a good one, but it only ever shines a light on a small part of this competitiveness problem. We want more legal certainty, less bureaucracy, and there are probably measures that need to be taken further in all of that.
But that's where the question pops up in my mind: who actually comes up with the overall plan? Really.
Axel Voss
At the moment, all we've got are little specialist bits of omnibus, but what we need is a strategic plan on how we want to become more competitive. The second thing in that context is digitalization. Doing more competitiveness without digitalization simply is not possible these days. And so, we're going to have to think about that and come up with an answer to the question of how, strategically speaking, you can do it, considering the sovereignty issues that play into this. You can do this digitalization so that you have competitiveness and the sovereignty aspect running side by side.
And out of that, I think you're going to have to do a lot more on the digitalization side of it. Not necessarily all of this theoretical head-scratching. What I think we need is a commission that manages this whole digital or internal market situation. And the final point, perhaps, if I could just get that in, is this. I think we're talking about the completion of the single market, and more needs to be done.
But what is the reason why we haven't done it? You might laugh at these tariffs that are coming from America. We could do that if we had a single market in which we could move forward in the right direction. I think what is missing in all of this is a plan. Where are the shortcomings that need to be sorted out, financially speaking?
How can we make progress in the right direction? And I'd rather see the commission as a manager in that context. Thank you.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much. Could you please put on your hats? Because I would like to speak in the beautiful Romanian language. Since 2014, since I've been here, I've been hearing about competitiveness. You presented this report and said that 6 out of 7 components do not observe the clean economy criteria.
But do the components we import from third countries observe this criterion? My question to the commission is: do we have a finished product in the European Union that does not depend on any component from third countries? We cannot have competitiveness in these conditions. We need innovation, research, budgets, and competencies. So, my question to you is a concrete one.
We are launching here some slogans: a roadmap, One Europe, One Market. But then I go back to Romania, and I say, you know, in the European Parliament today, we have discussed one Europe, one market. In 2026, I will bring Romanian associations here, and they will ask us, "What did you do for the single market?" What did you do for industrialization? Commissioner Breton had a project for the reindustrialization of the European Union.
The commission has changed. In the meantime, it put that project in a drawer, and now we start all over again with one Europe, one market. What is there concretely in this roadmap? Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. I had put myself on the list, and I can actually just add to this question. I also wanted to ask you: what exactly is this roadmap, and what does it mean? Because, also very practically, I'm thinking, of course, together with the committee. So how can we, at the Internal Market Committee, also contribute to the roadmap or implement the roadmap? What is the Parliament's role in this roadmap?
So, probably you can elaborate a little bit on that. I also wanted to underline what the colleague Axel Foss said. I found one figure very interesting in your report about this: 20%. Less exports to the US could be easily, basically balanced out with 2% more internal market or something, and this is, of course, a figure that says it all. We would really help our economy. We would really help our businesses strengthen the internal market, especially in these times of geopolitical hiccups.
I think that would serve us more than 50,000 weird omnibuses, but okay, this is another question. And for me, creating the internal market has nothing to do with the omnibus. Also, make this very clear. I have one very concrete, tiny question, but I also have the feeling that when it comes to obstacles and creating or improving, or really creating the internal market, it is often nitty-gritty things. I just met with one company in my constituency that said, basically, okay.
If I just want to send a package from, say, Germany to Spain or to the Czech Republic, do I need to register my package every time? Like, do I have to have some kind of registered authority or something for €2,000 in every country? I could almost not believe it. Do you know this example? And are you also working on that despite the fact that it's not in the Top 10? Thank you so much. Laila, to the left.
Leila Chaibi
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your presentation. I wanted to ask you about the choice of KPIs in the report. These indicators are the KPIs, using the jargon that comes straight out of an expensive consultant's Excel sheet. When it comes to the single market's competitiveness, you wanted to focus, for example, on the share of private investment in European GDP, the economic integration of the European Union with the rest of the world, i.e., liberalizing the economy through free trade agreements, and simplifying European rules, i.e., deregulating our laws through omnibuses in every sector.
In addition, the opening of member states to posted workers occurs despite the risk of social dumping. And you draw a simple conclusion, which is that it's necessary to continue deregulating and continue liberalizing, including thanks to the supposed 28th regime. In order to measure the effectiveness and competitiveness of the single market, it would, in fact, have been very relevant to study other types of key performance indicators (KPIs). For example, the number of accidents and deaths at work. The most recent figures from Eurostat tell us that there is an increase in the number of workers dying at work.
This figure should have been included in the report. When it comes to gender equality, for example, despite all the calls from feminist organizations, women still make less than their male counterparts. Or the increase in the number of people in poverty in Europe, for example, would have been an interesting indicator. And it's also part of the reality of the single market. I'm not going to list every point, but I'd like to know why the commission did not want to take into account other types of indicators, like the ones I just mentioned, when it came to drawing up this report.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Chairwoman. Thanks for the presentation from the European Commission. And, I mean, for us, it's music to our ears that there is the promise of one Europe, one market. And it's not the first time that we hear this message in this committee in some sort of wording. But, unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen that we spoke a lot about what should be done, but we have seen too little action.
Maria Grappini was referring to this. Other colleagues were referring to this, as was Axel. The question is: what can we do to turn it into action? And, I mean, I think it's great that there is very strong leadership inside the European Commission with Stephan Cechonnet and Ursula von der Leyen on this. But as we know, the laws are made by two institutions: the Council and the Parliament.
And there are the traditionalists like Miss Shaibe who are saying, "Oh, we have to do more." In fact, what we don't do enough is look for fair market conditions across countries. And if we don't consider this more seriously, it will be very difficult. And what can we do there? We can only count on the council to support proposals that have already been in the system.
And we have to observe, and I want to be very blunt with this, that I don't have the impression that the council this time really understood the message. And therefore, I would like to ask the European Commission: what evidence do you have that this time it's different? What proof do you have that the 28 regime this time will find the majority? What information do you have that this time, on cross-border posting of workers, there will be an agreement in the council? I don't see it because the declaration proposal is in the system.
The council had a common position, but now it doesn't have it anymore. I mean, it doesn't make sense to dream. We have to turn it into action. And I would like to know from the European Commission if they have insights from the Council that we can really talk seriously about getting into action. Thanks.
Jeannette Baljeu
Dan Kixalin at Nedlands Sprache. It is jammerlag dot vina danseen dot.
Thank you. It's unfortunate that the European economy is not as strong as it could be. It really is a shame that we are not making full use of our internal market; hence, the importance of continuing to work in this area. And I see that the commission is proposing measures, but simplification, the terrible 10, is not enough. Yes.
It's a package, but there are, in my opinion, other ways to make things simpler and to avoid this fragmentation and these divergences. The commission has tools based on artificial intelligence without mentioning things like ChatGPT. The commission could certainly use a member state's tools as well. AI would allow for a real analysis, enabling us to see the differences between member states. I'd like to know whether the commission is making use of these kinds of tools.
And if not, I would encourage them to do so. It would also be interesting for the Parliament to understand where the differences exist between member states.
Thank you so much. Henrik Dahl.
Henrik Dahl
Thank you very much. The ASMCR points out that fragmentation and administrative burdens continue to undermine the full potential of the single market. And I would like to join the chorus and say that this is hardly news. Businesses faced divergent national implementation, and gold plating has not yet been abolished. And this weakens equal certainty and competitiveness.
So, my question is: what are the concrete enforcement measures and the concrete implementation measures that the Commission is planning to prioritize to ensure uniform application of EU laws across member states, and, in particular, with regard to the terrible 10 barriers that were identified last year? Thank you.
Dóra Dávid
Thank you. I'd like to make a few remarks in Hungarian. This report.
Shows that we are lagging behind in terms of competitiveness, and we have a lot to do. For example, reinforcing the automotive industry. The 2 billion car battery package may help in that. But while we are reinforcing the industry, we cannot take every risk. In Hungary, we have serious concerns regarding car battery factories, including environmental and health issues.
News surfaced in the Hungarian media that workers were exposed to toxic materials exceeding 200 times the official limits. Still, the authorities did nothing. Yes. We have to become more competitive. Car battery factories can play a part in this, but not at the expense of the workers' health.
We have always known that the urban government is toxic to the Hungarian people, and now we have proof of that.
First.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
All, I completely agree. We continue to talk about the same thing and have been for 35 years, ever since this idea was first placed on the table. I think now is the time to do it. I won't go into detail on what's already been said because we've been repeating ourselves for many years, and this is starting to feel like déjà vu. But it's true.
We have good reports. This type of study is all very well regarding the single market and its competitiveness, but the reality is that we then don't do what we say we want to do, whether that's because the Council doesn't let us, because the Commission doesn't dare to, or because we, as MEPs, aren't doing our work. But the reality is that the single market is not working as well as it could because of terrible fragmentation. We still have high administrative burdens. Energy prices are still very high.
And when we talk about a single energy market, that's an idea, but it remains an idea, then gets put away in the drawer and is never carried out. And this has brought us to where we are now. We have lost a number of points in the GDP. We're not competitive. And Europe has always grown thanks to overcoming crises.
Currently, we are facing a crisis, which may be the greatest we have faced since the European Union and this project were launched, and I think we need to continue growing through crises. This crisis is an opportunity to make the single market a reality. This is no longer a debate. I would say, as the famous brand slogan goes, just do it. We should just do it.
We have a way to do it. We know what the problem is. Now is the time to do it. Let's stop debating. Let's stop having reports, etc.
Let's stop putting ideas on the table. Let's do what we know we need to do so that the single market can be the tool we all know it can be, but which it never manages to be because we don't finally conclude it. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Gracias. Okay. Perfect. So I now give the floor back to the commission. We can also see if we need a second round.
I mean, we still have a little bit of time until 4. So there were a lot of questions, but that doesn't mean that you have to talk for 25 minutes. So, please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2
Okay. Thank you very much. Many good points. I will still try to stay concise. I think maybe to start with, there was a big political point coming several times about political leadership and political commitment for the single market.
Starting with the question: who is leading on this? Who's, how are we making sure we'll walk in the same direction? I think, on the commission side, it's very encouraging to see how strong the leadership of the president is on this. I think it's clear to see that my executive vice president is really fighting for the single market and our competitiveness. But I think more broadly, we see that we have a team of commissioners who are fully committed to the cause in the area of digitalization and simplification.
And then, of course, there was also this point, but what is different this time with the other players, with the lead, with the council? And we know that many of the single market issues, of course, require a lot of determination, and we need to figure out good compromises. But I think what we had now, two weeks ago, was the informal leaders retreat, a full day dedicated to competitiveness. I think that we really have material tailwinds here, and so I would fully agree with your statements. I think one of you said, "Just do it."
I would agree. I think it's a good moment to get to action. That's why I think the Commission has already put on the table quite a few proposals under the header of the Competitiveness Compass, the Clean Industrial Deal, and the Single Market Strategy. Some of you were asking for examples. I think, if you think, for instance, about the single market strategy, we'll have the reform of the public procurement framework coming up.
We'll have the European Product Act coming up. We're working very intensely with member states to identify and address barriers. So I think a lot is in the pipeline and a lot is happening. And so I think especially that me also means that once things are on the table, let's work together to make progress. Then, to come back to some of the more specific points, one question was about companies operating in the single market and the costs of delivering products in different countries.
This mostly refers to a certain extent of fragmentation that we sometimes have with extended producer responsibility schemes. And to this end, there's the environmental omnibus that was brought forward by the commission, and there will also be the Circular Economy Act. So our intention is to use these proposals to address the issue. Then, I think one question was: what are you doing concretely on enforcement? And here, maybe one thing also to do, again, is to provide a specific example.
We have, for the first time, an annual single market enforcement agenda in the annual single market and competitiveness. And it is set for 2026 in the area of the single market. Two priorities are going to be late payments and transactions between undertakings and public authorities. Second, obstacles in construction and installation services related to the green transition. So this is to give you a tangible example.
Then I think there was one question about why those KPIs and not other KPIs. And to be frank with you, it is very difficult to make a choice about what is really the most important. This year, to better cover the single market strategy and to clean the industrial deal, we have widened the total number of KPIs, but it's also very important to flag this here. We have the annual Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard. It's an online tool that has a more comprehensive set of indicators.
It covers more than 160 indicators, and these indeed also include some of the indicators that you mentioned as being very important. I think that is it, thank you very much. I think this is the main gist that I thought I picked up.
Anna Cavazzini
Sorry. I probably misheard it because I had to manage something in between. Did you answer the questions on the roadmap? And yeah. And the AI question from Jeanette.
Speaker 2
Yes. True. Roadmap. Sorry. I think here, the road map is very important.
And here, I think the statement of our president already sets out what are going to be the five main blocks of the roadmap and the intention here. So I will not read them out here, but I think what's also important is one of the questions was about the role of the European Parliament. And here, the president said that it's the ambition that we have the road map committed and agreed upon not only by the Commission, but also by the two co-legislators, that is, the European Council and the Parliament. So I think clearly here the commitment of the president is to bring a joint commitment with the parliament and with the council. And then, the question on the use of artificial intelligence.
I think this is a very important aspect. I think in the administration, in the daily work of the commission, there is more and more use of artificial intelligence in the area of simplification, in the area of our daily work. We make increasing use of it to be more efficient. And I think this is a nice example of how very important initiatives like the AI Act and the AI Gigafactories are complemented by work on the ground. And as far as I can tell, I think there's quite a bit of day-to-day interaction also with member states and other administrations trying to identify and learn from good practices.
Axel Voss
Thanks a lot. I will continue in German once again. So.
Can I just come back to that? Is the Commission aware that our chemical industry is about to topple over? The chemical industry produces the raw materials for pretty much everything that we use in our daily life, for 95% of it, everything that we need. So, strategically speaking, it's a critical industry. Now, what has turned out is that you've got these high wage costs, high energy prices, and the ETFs on top of that, so the emission certifications.
So we're going to have to find a way to help them somehow. We will say that we want to remain competitive. And with these emission certificates, what happens at the moment is that you pay high prices. Competitive. You have to close down your factory.
And the things that we no longer produce here are related to a higher level of global emissions being produced by other regions of the world. So, in other words, our climate policy is leading, as things stand, to a situation whereby the global climate is being damaged even more. So, what I'm wondering is that for an industry which is so strategically fundamental, something is going to have to be done. It isn't just a theory. This needs to happen now.
The plant is closing down. The infrastructure isn't going to come back. Hundreds of jobs are being lost. Just over the last year and a half, we've lost hundreds of these factories. 75,000 jobs have been lost.
And if it's true that one job in the chemical industry going means that five further jobs are lost, we're going to have to step in. We have to do something. I'll leave it up to the commission to work out what needs to be done, but we are damaging the global climate with these emission certificates in our chemical industry because it's not working. It's not bringing about the desired effect, and they are fighting for survival. And we, I think, are going to have to step in.
There's no good in just throwing these ideas around at this point. We're going to have to do something.
Anna Cavazzini
TS is not really a problem. We can discuss everything in the Internal Markets Committee. We have time for two or three more MEPs if you want to come in. I will probably get back to you. No.
You're not listening. I will get back to you on this question. Sorry that I'm insisting so much on this roadmap, but is it, like, a law? Is it several legislative initiatives, or is it more like a communication? Like, probably you can just explain a little bit.
And how should the Parliament commit to it? I would be really interested in knowing this. So now, I mean, just double-checking if there's any other person wanting to come in. Maria?
No. I'm
Maria Grapini
Yes. I'm coming back. So please use the headphones, because you haven't answered my question. In addition to that, you did not answer my question on the roadmap, which Anna also referred to; you didn't say anything in concrete terms. You only said it would be five blocks and that you would work together with the parliament.
And I asked another question. Do you have any statistics on whether there is any finished product from any industry in Romania, such as furniture or the car industry, that doesn't need components from a third country? Because unless we develop horizontally, unless we produce the components we need in all industries in the EU, like the chemical industry and the steel industry, which is collapsing. We now have an agreement with India. So, I don't know what will happen with the steel industry.
So, how do we ensure the value chain you are talking about? Please give us examples. A product from the EU that contains components made only in the EU. If we don't think in strategic and pragmatic terms, we will continue talking about competitiveness, but we will never achieve it. Thank you.
Pablo?
Well,
Pablo Arias Echeverría
It's true that there have been very difficult questions to answer. I can't answer all of them, but I'd like to talk about the innovation gap. Mister Schwab talks about Regime 28, whether there's a possibility of using European innovation law. That's a question; we don't have the text yet. We don't know what it is going to be about.
And the Scale Up Europe Fund, same thing. The European research space and the digital law: I'd like to know whether you can give us any information about these issues, how we can reduce the innovation gap as defined, and how we can make sure that we don't lose competitiveness due to gaps such as talent. How can we make sure that the roadmap Miss Grapino is talking about, and you're talking about the five blocks, includes measures to retain and attract talent and to make up the gap we've lost over the last 10 to 15 years? Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. If there's no one else, I give the floor back to Mr. Schmidt Nielsen.
Speaker 2
Okay. Thank you very much. I think, first, back to one market, one Europe. Of course, we are at an early stage. But I think I cannot say much more than what the president said. However, there is an important hint in her statement on the nature of the proposal, where she says, "I will present a one Europe, one market roadmap and action plan."
So, she says she will present a One Europe, One Market roadmap and action plan. I think she outlines five broad blocks. One is simplification. One is building a market where there are also references to the savings and investment union. The third pillar is energy, building a single energy market.
Fourth pillar: digital. And finally, the external dimension: international trade. On the question, can I name a single product that is made 100% inside the EU? I don't have a list in front of me of certain products which are 100% EU or 0% EU. I think the way I would approach this is, in particular, that we are a very open economy, and this has served us very well.
And this, working with others and creating integrated supply chains, is extremely important for our industry to be competitive. This being said, we also need to ensure that we have critical strategic capacities within the European Union, which create the necessary resilience. So I think my reply would be, rather than saying our product is 100% EU or not, the most important thing is that we achieve a good balance of European capacities and integrated supply chains. In the area of chemicals, I think this is really a very burning and important issue that you raise. In mid-2025, we adopted the European Chemical Industry Action Plan because we identified this as one of the most urgent sectors that require particular attention.
Together with the plan, we adopted a chemical omnibus focusing on classification, labeling, and packaging to provide, at least on the simplification side, progress. In addition, we have initiated the process to update the ETS state aid guidelines. So this, as well, will hopefully help and support the industry. So these are two examples. And I think then there was a bit of a question: do we have, how can we, are we covering all the necessary angles, including innovation?
And I think, indeed, what is crucial to make the single market and our industry more competitive is to try to use our full policy toolbox to support companies and make sure that the different policies we deploy—single market, simplification, industrial policies, innovation policies—push in the same direction, are well aligned, and collectively ensure that our businesses can be more innovative and more competitive.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for your patience in answering all our questions. And you also heard the interest of this committee to stay and focus on the famous road map, or whatever it is, and to contribute our part in that. So this concludes agenda item 9, and we come to agenda item 10. When US sanctions target EU citizens defending the DSA and Europe's digital sovereignty. We put this exchange of views on the EMCO agenda because, as you all know, the US imposed a travel ban on EU citizens, so they don't allow them to enter the country.
The Trump administration put it in place on December 23 last year. And, of course, we want to show today that the European Parliament finds this unacceptable and that we also show our solidarity with the people being sanctioned for working on our EU legislation, for implementing our EU legislation that this house democratically voted on in the past years, namely the DSA, which is, of course, as you know, our democratic will for the Internet. So, I think today's exchange is sending a strong signal that the European Parliament stands with the sanctioned people, and this house also defends our EU regulatory autonomy. And, of course, that the sanctions are unjustified and also need to be lifted. But, of course, we also want to hear from the people concerned.
That's why I'm very happy that almost all of you here are connected online to share your experience and why what you are doing is important for EU democracy, freedom of speech, and a safe online world. I'm very happy that we can start with our former commissioner, Thierry Breton, who joined us digitally and whom we all know because many of us negotiated with him in these kinds of rooms in the European Parliament, on our digital legislation that we are proud of. So, Thierry Breton, welcome. The floor is yours.
Thierry Breton
Well, good afternoon, everyone. And I should tell you, good afternoon, of course, to the chair and to the panel. Good afternoon to all of you. And I don't want to name all of you, but of course, a special hello to Christel, Andreas, Stephanie, and many of you who are present in the room. So maybe a few words just to tell you first that, of course, I was, let's say, astonished when on December 23, I understood that I would be banned from going to the U.
S. For two reasons. The first one is that, of course, I worked heavily in order to make sure that I would protect the general interest of Europe when I was a commissioner. You all know that. And the second is that, of course, like many of you, I know very well the United States, and I love the country.
And I spent a big part of my time in the US. I met my wife in the US. I worked in the US. I teach in the US. And of course, like all of you, I still love the country, even if we have to cope with the situation right now that we are discussing this afternoon.
But of course, I should tell you that I didn't take this personally because, as you know, the work we have done together was, in fact, your work. As a commissioner, my mission was to propose some acts, and it was, of course, the DSA, the DMA, but also the DATA Act, DGA, and, of course, the AI Act. And you made the law. I would like to congratulate you and thank you for everything you did. And I know, with the dedication you have worked on this, I was very impressed with your dedication to do again what you have done—not against anyone, not against any country, but for us, for our fellow citizens in Europe, for our children, for our democracy, to protect our democracy, and not to impose anything outside of Europe.
And I know this is in this spirit that almost 90% of the parliament voted for this law, including the DSA, and 100% of member states also voted in favor after our very hard work and some very productive trialogue. We all remember this. So, in fact, it is all of us who are concerned by this decision, and not only one person, of course. I know that I have been mentioned as the mastermind behind it, which is a great honor, but I'm not the mastermind behind it. I was part of it, and we were a tremendous team working together to protect our fellow citizens.
But, of course, I also wanted to tell you that I have been very touched by all your messages, I mean, your personal messages. A lot of you sent me personal messages after this decision, and I would like to thank you. Of course, I will not name you, but you will recognize yourself. Many of you. And also, by the way, the European Parliament is also under the leadership of Roberta Metsola.
And the COP decided to send a very strong message to our institution and to the commission to make sure that the commission, because at the end of the day, it is, of course, the responsibility of the commission to protect not only the commissioner, former commissioner, but also the civil servants working on this. And I think it was very important that the message you sent would be well received because, at the end of the day, of course, what is important is to have a discussion at the highest level to reverse this decision. Why is it important to reverse it? Not only for my case, of course, but because we need to make sure and clarify to everyone that, again, our legislation, our rules follow a very strict democratic process. And, again, we need to make sure that we keep the independence of our institutions, of our bodies, regardless of any interference.
Okay. There was probably a misunderstanding on this one. It needs to be clarified, but we also need to make sure. And I'm speaking, of course, of my successors and also of my former teams. And, of course, for you, everyone involved in the setup of this regulation should be able to do it just keeping in mind the general interest of Europe and following, not more, but not less, what you have decided as co-legislators.
So that's why, again, I really think it's important that we will all be very cautious to make sure that no one is in my situation and that my personal situation could be reversed. This being said, of course, I would like to tell you that I am very proud of what we have done together. And I really would like to thank you for having been able to put, for the first time in our history, a coherent, comprehensive, and robust regulation to make sure that, in addition to and on top of our internal market, we still have now—and we all have now—built a digital single market, thanks to these five regulations acting like five pillars: DGA, DSA, DMA, Data Act, and AI Act. Finally, we have one global set of rules, unifying 450 million of our fellow citizens in one single digital market. This is, by the way, a fantastic opportunity for our companies, but also for others coming from everywhere.
We would like to benefit from this huge digital internal market. But everyone must understand that, in order to benefit from it, everyone has to follow the rules. For all of this, I would like to tell you again, thank you very much from my heart, and I'm really looking forward to seeing you again soon. Hopefully, Anna, next time I will be able to come live. But thank you very much for your hard work, for the general interest of Europe.
Long live Europe.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you, Terry Breton. I don't know if you could hear it, but there was a lot of applause here in the room, again showing a lot of solidarity. To you. Thanks so much for coming. We come to the next, sanctioned citizens because they work on our digital legislation.
I give the floor to Miss Annalina von Houdenberg, who works for HATE Aid, an organization that is actually implementing the DSA in Germany.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, dear Chair, dear committee members. My name is Annalina von Hudenberg, and together with my co-director, Josephine Ballong, I'm heading HATE Aid. HATE Aid is a human rights organization. We are working on protecting the human rights of citizens online, and we are also Germany's first national helpline for victims of digital violence. That means we support and strengthen people who receive death or rape threats, who have been defamed, or who have suffered from antisemitic attacks.
Over the last 7 years, more than 8,000 people have turned to us for emotional support and security counseling. We also work to ensure that the rule of law, our laws, and rules also apply online, and that social media platforms are safe places for all of us and for our children. For doing this work, on the day before Christmas, the US State Department imposed a travel ban on us. These sanctions have far-reaching consequences. They target Josefina Ballon and me not only professionally but also in a very personal and private manner, as they do not only hit us but also our families.
They further target everyone working in our organization. It is unclear if they will still be able to travel in the US and what other repercussions this might have. That's why we are especially grateful for the support we received from the German Foreign Minister Wadefuhl, Justice Minister Hubig, and the European Commission, who immediately, on the same Christmas day, condemned the sanctions on us. And I can assure you, we will not be silenced, and we will continue our work, but it has become difficult. We have been warned by a number of people from diplomatic circles that this is not the end of it.
We have to be prepared to face further sanctions that could lead to the cancellation of our bank accounts and the shutdown of our digital infrastructure. We have seen this cloud that is over us also in the tweets that have been published by Undersecretary Sarah Rogers. Since Christmas, we have immediately started preparing for it. But if you are here or look at the companies you use on your phone or when you work on administrative things, they are almost all US companies. And you can imagine that switching to independent, open-source companies is time- and cost-intensive.
And although this is affecting us personally and as an organization, I am here today to point it out to you. This is not about us. We are just a pawn in a wider transatlantic struggle. These sanctions are actually a message for you. Because, as you can see, I had this in the tweets by Sarah Rogers: they sanctioned us because of our work as trusted flaggers and as former members of the DSC Council in Germany.
In other words, we are sanctioned because we take part in the enforcement of the Digital Services Act, which you have put into place. And they are a direct response to the very first fines the European Commission imposed on Musk's acts in December under the Digital Services Act, fourteen days before we were sanctioned. So I hope you have received this message very clearly. It is not about us, the civil society organizations. It is about the question of whether US big tech companies must follow our laws and rules here in Europe, as any European company has to do in the United States.
As we can see, those large platforms don't want to do that because putting up safeguards and strong safety standards to protect users and our children is expensive, and the US administration is backing this course. So, at the end of the day, this is a question about our European sovereignty. Will we stay the course, or will we simply throw the rule of law overboard when we are threatened by the United States? And I want to make another point very clear. The Digital Services Act relies on civil society and scientists.
It is constructed this way. The Commission and the digital services coordinators rely on evidence of violations of the law from civil society and scientists to enforce the Digital Services Act. And I can assure you, the community is shaken after these sanctions. So it is now up to you to protect us because if not, no scientists or civil society organizations will do this work anymore. And then this law will not be enforced because there will be no evidence of violations.
Let me also say this. Digital sovereignty is not about protectionism. It is about making your own choices for your own markets and for your own societies, and it means protecting the values that are dear to you. And here in Europe, we decide to protect our children from online violence, pornography, and sexual abuse online. We decide to protect the images of our girls and women from being transformed into naked pictures and videos by artificial intelligence like Deepfake.
And we ensure that freedom of expression is guaranteed for everyone, not only for the bullies who threaten, defame, or insult citizens until they no longer dare to share their opinion online. Our democratic values are the foundation of Europe, and the Digital Services Act is our tool to ensure that these values also count online. Now, it is up to you to stand up in unity and uphold these values for every citizen of Europe. We owe it to them. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for the explanation of what you're doing and also for the importance of it for all of us. I think this is a very important message that Mister Breton also actually gave. It's not on him personally. It's not on you personally. It's about our legislation and this parliament, actually.
You just have to let me; Josephine Ballon will also talk, or do you not want to? Okay. Because I think she has a bad connection. This is what I understood. Okay.
Then we move basically to Claire Melfort, the co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index. Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much. GDI is an independent research nonprofit that strongly supports the European Commission in the DSA implementation. We're also a signatory to the Code of Practice on Disinformation. We document how platforms and content creators profit from harmful content online. Such independent scrutiny is essential to stopping the monetization of harmful content.
Speaker 28
The recent US visa bans on me and other European citizens today pose a direct threat to the civil society monitoring capacity on which the DSA was designed to rely. The outpouring of support following the visa ban has been extremely heartening, from President Macron to Commission President von der Leyen, and we are very grateful to all those who have spoken out. For eight years now, GDI has provided independent, transparent assessments of where advertisers are unwittingly funding foreign propaganda, polarizing content, and harmful speech online. We don't buy or sell ads. We don't dictate editorial decisions or have any power to take content down.
Speaker 26
We publish research to inform advertisers, the public, and policymakers about how the Internet enables the monetization of hate and propaganda. This ability is now what is under threat. These sanctions risk eliminating the independent civil society scrutiny on which the EU's flagship regulation, the DSA, depends.
Speaker 27
DSA establishes multiple layers of accountability. One, formal audits under Article 37. Two, commission enforcement. And three, independent civil society monitoring through Article 40. Each layer provides distinct value.
Speaker 26
Auditors assess compliance processes, but civil society researchers verify whether those processes actually work in the real world. GDI's monitoring cannot be replicated by formal audits. At the start of the Ukraine conflict, for example, we documented ad-funded content promoting anti-Ukrainian disinformation in breach of international sanctions. Civil society uniquely provides real-time detection of emerging harms between cycles and the independent verification of platform claims. By banning European citizens from those civil society organizations from traveling to the US, a crucial country in technology accountability work, the US administration has dealt a blow precisely when the DSA's risk-based framework requires such robust ongoing verification.
Surely, this is an infringement of Europe's digital sovereignty. Monetization and foreign interference require this continuous monitoring that civil society can provide. Article 34 requires platforms to assess how monetization systems amplify systemic risks. This cannot be captured in an annual audit snapshot. Article 34 explicitly requires the assessment of risks of foreign interference.
Speaker 28
GDI, for example, has expertise in tracking the monetization that funds foreign information campaigns—expertise that periodic auditors simply cannot replicate. Again, travel bans that impede the work of civil society organizations in this space risk leaving a gaping hole in DSA enforcement processes and infringing on Europe's digital sovereignty. We call on the Commission to commit to three immediate priorities. Firstly, publicly recognize civil society monitoring as essential to the DSA infrastructure. Secondly, expand Article 40 research access to a wider civil society with sanctions-resistant infrastructure.
Speaker 26
And thirdly, fund ongoing civil society monitoring capacity, including monitoring during elections, public emergencies, and other high-risk periods. In closing, the DSA's effectiveness depends on complementary accountability layers working together. The US travel sanctions have already had a chilling effect on the production of research documenting information manipulation within Europe. Formal audits provide compliance. Civil society monitors whether that compliance actually works.
The DSA was designed to enable both. European democracy requires both. Imco must now act to protect this infrastructure from external attacks. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much to all of you for your testimonies and also your statements on the importance of our digital legislation. We start now with a round of MEPs and, at the end, have the opportunity for you to answer if there are any questions or comments. Of course, we start with Kristal Schaldemose, the chair of the DSA working group.
Christel Schaldemose
Thank you very much, Chair, and welcome to all of you here at IMCO. And in particular, a warm welcome to Thierry Breton. So good to see you again, and thank you for the great cooperation we had during the last mandate. Thierry, you did, in fact, make a difference personally because you fought for this and also paved the way for solutions in both the European Commission and the Council. So you can really thank yourself also because we did an excellent job together, but you really played a crucial role.
I believe that the DSA is still, you know, a wonderful, good law. It gives us a lot of opportunities to make sure that we protect society, users, and democracy, etc., if it's enforced. And in the beginning of the DSA implementation, it was kind of slow, the enforcement, but I think we're getting there now. It's getting better, also thanks to civil society. So when I read and heard about the travel ban for several of you, I was kind of shocked, and maybe not because I was not so surprised in the end, because what they are trying to do from the American side is to silence us, and they will not be able to do so.
We have a law decided democratically with huge support in the last mandate from, as you said, Thierry, from the council, commission, members here in the parliament, etc. So we're all standing behind it. And in fact, the more you push us, the more we will probably stand up for it. We are not allowed to give in; we should not give in. We need to fight because we have the right to decide what is happening in Europe for European society, for us, for our citizens, and for our democracy.
But I will also have to say that last week, I went to the US myself, and I entered without any problems. It's the first time I have entered so fast, by the way. So, we had several conversations with different stakeholders over there. And what I realized was, and this is maybe also a question to you, Gerald Petrone, because I realized that when we spoke to them about the DSA and learned about some of the content, they were still critical, but maybe not so much. And they, in my opinion, I'm not sure that they really understand the DSA.
So, my question is: do you think that we should do more? Can we do more to make sure that the US understands the DSA better? Because this misunderstanding about it being a censorship law is rubbish. So, just this question: do we need to do more to make the Americans understand the DSA? But don't worry.
We will fight for it, and we will not lean back. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. Now, on the round of the groups, Andreas Schwab for the APP.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, Chairman. Thanks for bringing together all these people that we know from the last term. And I would like to say, first of all, Europe is the best place to be. So, we shouldn't care that much about other places. We can be very proud of where we live.
And Europe is a place where democratic structures are defended offline and online, where everyone can say what he or she thinks, as long as he doesn't create an offense to his neighbor and his counterpart. And, therefore, we have created a setting that is making the digital world as fair, unfortunately, as imperfect as the normal and real world. But we have to observe that some rules in the real world work differently because, when you see people and read the paper that you have in your hands, the responsibility to direct contacts is still higher than in the online world. And there is a risk that we have been addressing together with the Digital Services Act, which is currently under enforcement. And we believe in it because it is setting the rules similarly to what we see in the real world, and we want the digital world to be as fair and as correct as the world in which we are living.
And for that reason, there can be no doubt that we have all felt the same when we saw these decisions, which probably won't stay in place. And we defend these rules together because it is what Europe values: the freedom of speech and the freedom of citizens to express themselves in whatever way they want, as long as they stay within the line of the rules that have been set here together. And, therefore, I think it's a very good moment to speak about that together and to say to the world that we will not change our rules for whatever reason there might be. Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, Andreas, and also some applause. I take Pierre Jouvet for S and D.
Thank you.
Pierre Jouvet
You, chair. I'll speak French given that he will understand his mother tongue. I'm very happy to be here with you today. Thank you for speaking. It brings us to the heart of the debate.
Firstly, as Crystal did earlier, I'd like to thank Chile Bhuton particularly, and I'd like to thank him for what he has brought to all of you under this mandate and the courage he's had since the American ban, which is concerning to all of us. And that's something we should be looking at today. What happens to all of you? What has happened to a political representative is something that could happen to any of us, and we need to stand firmer in this ME cycle. We share the need to vote for the right rules that we voted on.
Sometimes we vote; sometimes we agree with the vote, sometimes we don't. But a law and a rule go for everyone the same. And that is the honorable point about Europe: our democracy. And standing firmer on that isn't a weakness in terms of redefining empires, as is happening at the moment with all these changes. Europe needs to stand firmer on its rules and be more powerful.
And we've said several times at S and D, and I know people will agree, our rules aren't applied enough. DSA isn't. Infringements happen on a daily basis, and there aren't enough sanctions. Thierry, when you were European Commissioner, you started the first few surveys, which are just leading to conclusions, the commissions of inquiry. They're not enough in terms of what happens on a daily basis on these platforms, and that's why we need to strongly call upon the Commission to take action quicker, stronger, and harder. That's why we need a commission of inquiry.
And that's why we insist on this: not to stand against, but so that European citizens are respected and that we don't end up with other people, like you and the previous speaker, receiving this same kind of sanction because this affects all of us.
Anna Cavazzini
Now, for the PFE, I had Elizabeth, but she is not here. So I take Jose Martin Frias. You wanted to speak? Yeah.
Jorge Martín Frías
Thank you, Chair. Well, I do understand these sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on all of you because of attacks against freedom of expression in the US. Now, what happens is that the censorship is still ongoing, set up by General Breton, and the commission needs to get rid of it, but not before responding to the conclusions in the justice report from the US Congress. And according to that, the US exerted pressure on digital platforms for years to change their moderation rules. The commission also censored true information and canceled political debates that didn't agree with the ideas of the commission.
And finally, it says that the commission observed at least eight elections in six countries in Europe, and that is something that Mr. Breton got involved with in Germany and Romania. So the commission needs to take all actions necessary to reverse the situation. And you can't hide behind civil society because civil society isn't canceling other people.
For ECR,
I will speak Polish.
Ladies.
Piotr Müller
And gentlemen, we have heard quite a lot about what democracy is and what freedom of speech is. And this is along the lines of the defense that you are now speaking about. This harks back to the times of the anti-communist opposition, and my father was incarcerated at the time. And he faced charges of printing underground newspapers, or perhaps he was hampering the building of the communist system. Now, that was the justification for the so-called illegal actions of my father, and the reason was that they wanted to incarcerate him whenever he wanted to print some truth about the communist regime back then.
Now, going back to the present, I can now tell you that some digital instruments are safe in the hands of politicians. Now, I don't really believe that because we cannot bestow any such powers into the hands of any politicians. And Commissioner Breton's actions are a case in point here. Where did we start this debate? The commissioner is threatening one of the owners of the social media platforms for intending to interview a running candidate for the post of President of the United States.
And he quoted the European law as background. This is a clear case in point when political instruments are used to actually hamper freedom of speech. Thank you.
Sandro Gozi
You. Thank you, Chair, and the Attiridia representative of the NGO. I think that the count of the Trump administration is wrong because it shouldn't be five people who are not allowed to go to the United States. According to my calculation, we should be 565. And I tell you why: 565.
Because 539 members of the European Parliament voted in favor of the Digital Services Act in Strasbourg. And there were 26 commissioners, together with Thierry Breton, who voted in favor of the DSA, DMA, Political Advertising Online, and AI Act, and the responsibility of the commission, as we all know, is collegial. It's not Thierry Breton's legislation. It's the proposal of the European Commission. So, first of all, the Trump administration got the number wrong.
Be nice to us all. We are all guilty. I plead guilty here to having defended our values and our democracy by approving our digital legislation. Second, the reaction of the European Commission is very disappointing because it is not a personal issue. It's not a personal issue.
Thierry Breton is not being targeted because the US administration doesn't like him. But as a former commissioner, the reaction of the European Commission on this should have been much stronger and much louder. Political reaction, institutional election. And we haven't seen this. Our colleagues are rightly saying, what shall we do?
What could we do to help the American understand the essay? Well, dear colleague, dear chair, we were together with Jim Jordan, and it was clear that the letters are written by big tech and they are sent by Congress and the US administration. It is useless to talk to them. Let's talk to big tech because the origin of our problem is there. The Washington is only transferring the letter written in Silicon Valley, going through Washington, and arriving on our table.
To our colleague here, I would like to say that freedom of speech is not freedom to reach with any violent, hateful, offensive, illegal, or dangerous content. Freedom of speech is not to be viral with any content. What is illegal offline, dear colleague? It is legal online, and you voted, and you were here when we introduced this principle. Europe is not the Wild West.
Europe is what the United States of America used to be before Trump, and I hope it will be that way again after Trump. Thank you very much.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. I hope you can hear me, and I apologize for not being able to be in the room. I think it is very clear, listening to the statements of our speakers, that we are in a very strange and unprecedented situation. The sanctioning of European lawmakers and civil society by the US government is an unprecedented attack by the Trump administration on Europe's democracy, following the steps of states like Russia and China. And why?
Speaker 41
Because these are people, politicians, and NGOs that have tried to make big tech responsible for keeping their platforms safe because they spoke out against sexual violence against women and because they simply researched online hate. And I think the wildest thing about this is that there are so many lies being told about censorship in Europe. At the same time, it is actually US tech companies like Instagram and LinkedIn that have started censoring the LGBTIQ+ community for being offensive, taking down any criticism of Donald Trump, and silencing critics of the genocide in Palestine. I think this is the ultimate attack on freedom of expression in Europe, just like putting our ex-commissioner and civil society defenders on a sanctions list. Europe cannot leave this attack on our democratic values and our democratic laws unretaliated and unanswered.
Speaker 40
And I think the commission has been incredibly silent throughout all of this. So, I am very happy to hear again from our speakers, who have already been very brave in their expressions and have explained to a broader extent that this is not about them. This is about Europe. What is the thing you would most like to see happening from the European Union now, and how can we make sure that you are not the first but also not the last on the list of Trump? Thank you.
Leila Chaibi
Merci, madame la présidente. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for all of your statements. You can be sure that you have the full support of the left group in the parliament in the face of the pressure you are under from the US administration. I think it's fundamental to recall the case of Judge Nicolas Guilhoy and Francesca Albanes, who were also sanctioned by Donald Trump and who no longer have access to their bank accounts simply because they defended the implementation of international law. With these sanctions, Washington is crossing another red line.
Unfortunately, European leaders, including Ms. Van der Leyen as the leader, remain in complicit silence. This is the state of transatlantic relations. A former commissioner, leaders of NGOs can be sanctioned simply because they combated some of what American big tech was doing by applying a text, the DSA, which was voted on and applied democratically. This is an unacceptable attack on our digital sovereignty. However, while other countries have sanctioned European leaders, the response of the Union in those cases did not happen immediately.
The removal of trade agreements and resolutions in the parliament, just to name a few. But here, there is absolutely nothing. On the contrary, the Commission is negotiating to send European citizens' biometric data to Trump. Everything is upside down. I have two questions.
The European Commission was supposed to speak in the initial statements. I have a question for the commission. If there is a representative of the commission here, perhaps you could reply to me. Will you show a minimum amount of solidarity with your former colleague by, for example, suspending access badges to the commission for the members of the European Union (EU) US mission and members of the US Chamber of Commerce? And then, a question for Mister Breton.
How would you describe the support provided by the European Commission and its President? Were you able to obtain the legal assistance that you deserve to have? Thank you.
Much. So now, for ESN, Peter Bistron.
Thank you.
Petr Bystron
Thank you very much. I'm going to speak German. I'd like to thank the speakers for their valuable contributions. Freedom of expression and censorship have been lumped together in the European Union. And I'm really delighted that Thierry Breton has graced us with his presence and said that our democracy is something he wishes to see protected.
He set out the time during which he has been doing that. I remember a TV interview where he said that we did it in Romania, and we will carry on doing it. And that was related to the attacks against TikTok. So, the free expression of views in Romania ahead of the election. So, thank you for enlightening us with that.
I'm somewhat surprised that parallel structures have been built up here with NGOs that have or are supposed to take over the functions of the state. We have rules in each of our member states. We've got the courts and the judges. It all works. They don't understand why some journalists who come from RTL, for example, which is famous for its broadcast with Tutti Frigi, should be considered better than the whole apparatus of the state when it comes to monitoring and perfect scrutiny of freedom of expression.
Perhaps you could shed some light on that. Both here, Madam Chair, but also the actors themselves. I don't have any questions. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
We come now to the second round of MEPs, and I probably have about 10 more. So, we can probably make it a little bit shorter because we actually have a vote at five. So, we have Pablo Arias Echeverría. If you can, for one minute.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
If I can. Thank you. I'm going to speak in Spanish.
The first thing I want to say is...
I had the privilege of being the coordinator for my group when we were working on the DSA and the DMA, and I'm very proud of that. Very proud of the cooperation with Mr. Breton and his team, and with the Commission on these two very important laws out of the five that have been mentioned here. I think we were right to create order with certain regulations in the digital sector of the European single market. Having said this, I think it is a great mistake by the Trump administration to issue this travel ban against Mr. Breton and against the other people who have spoken with us today, who are not able to enter the US as a consequence of these rules and of defending these rules. It's not an ideological question.
If we talk about censorship and free speech, each person can express themselves in the way they see fit, provided they are in line with the law. That shouldn't have, as a consequence, a ban on entry into a certain country, in this case, the US. So, I think it is an error on his part. And I think, in time, this will need to be resolved and reversed. If this is the position, then fortunately, the famous show, The Network Dilemma, starring Justin Harris, was made prior to the Trump administration; otherwise, if it had been afterwards, these people would be facing serious legal problems with the US government, if they aren't already.
But in that program, they clearly expressed freely what they believed, and there are member states where there are attempts to create legislation like what we have here, copying it as a result of the disorder we see in the digital world. Mister Breton, I think that you were absolutely right in carrying out this law, and I hope that the situation you are experiencing will soon be reversed. You have all my solidarity. Thank you.
Now for Sindika Ternabale.
Katarina Barley
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much for this discussion. What we're seeing here is the real battlefield. It's not the military one. It's this one. It's an attack on all of us.
It's especially an attack on our youth. It's an attack by disinformation, addictive design, hate, violence, and misogyny of the worst sort. There is no collateral damage. This intent is to control the fact base, the emotions, well-being, and decision-making of us here in Europe. This is why the DSA and the other laws that we pass are such a threat to this US administration and to the tech bros in Silicon Valley.
And this is why we have to fight back against any attempt to sabotage our legislation or its execution that protects our citizens. This is why we have to put more pressure on the Commission to execute this excellent law. I'm totally in line with Christel Childe and others to say that this is a very good piece of legislation, and why we have to stand firm with those who have been sanctioned and all the others that suffer the consequences from these unhinged tech bros in the U.S. S? Thank you.
Ernő Schaller-Baross
Madam Chair, former Commissioner, Mr. Breton, esteemed colleagues. The controversy around the Digital Services Act is not just technical; it's also political. The question of digital sovereignty and common sense. We see European institutions shrug off U.S. criticism, yet the Americans have a point.
When implementation is opaque, decisions appear to be politically motivated. And market actors cannot now know on what basis they may be sanctioned. There is a serious problem. This is not about avoiding regulation. Europe must regulate its digital market.
That's without a question. But regulation cannot be arbitrary, ideological, or a geopolitical tool. The commission seems to fall short on meaningful consultation. Dialogue is replaced by dictation. Transparency is political, signaling.
So my question to former commissioner Thierry Breton is, how did the commission ensure that all US stakeholders, from large platforms to smaller providers, have meaningful opportunities to contribute to implementation? What steps were being taken to assess the potential economic and political impacts before enforcement? And how do you think the Commission plans to maintain trust and predictability for the digital ecosystem in Europe now? Ensuring open dialogue and careful impact assessment is not optional. It is essential for Europe's competitiveness, innovation, and credibility.
Regulation is necessary, but how we regulate is what matters. Thank you so much.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. Now we have Cosma Swotovski for ECR. And probably all of you, please, can you be a little shorter? Because we still want our guests to speak at the end.
Kosma Złotowski
Thank you very much. I will try to be very brief. During the debate on the DSA, I also pointed out that there may be some elements in this document, in this law, which may allow censorship. And indeed, we see the report by the American Congress that Brussels tried to influence content published on American portals. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the DSA.
We have the AI Act. We have other regulations. And, at the same time, Mr. Gosse would not be able to boast about his achievements to American voters. It is the Americans that have the technology, that they have these companies, which means that European law doesn't work very well. Why has no one in Europe come up with the idea to create another Facebook?
Now, we cannot complain that President Trump uses such visa bans and other sanctions. You can also use the Internet in your homes. You don't have to go to the US to do that. When I read about the monitoring by civil society, this reminds me of communism in Poland, where scouts were monitoring what was being published in papers.
For renewals, Stephanie or Cotton?
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
I didn't. Thank you, dear. Well, dear colleagues, dear Thierry, dear guests, we are experiencing a period of unprecedented tension with the US. And as someone from Normandy who grew up in a land marked by deep friendship with the US. I'm very troubled after the tariff blackmail carried out by Trump in reaction to our digital legislation.
We are now seeing direct sanctions and bans against those who contributed to developing our laws, and I'm very pleased that President Macron has made contact with President Trump regarding Thierry Breton, asking him to lift the ban on entering the United States. But what about the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen? Has she finally decided to write to President Trump on this topic? If yes, the Parliament should know. We would like to have been informed about this letter.
And if not, when will she do it? Because it falls to her to guarantee the protection of Thierry Breton, a former commissioner in the previous legislature. We know that this is becoming even more worrying now. Just a few days ago, members of the House of Representatives, including Jim Jordan, essentially our counterparts as members of parliament, published a report including thousands of emails between European leaders and NGOs regarding digital laws. It publicly exposes the identity of civil servants of the European Commission as well as members of civil society, whereas the names of members of big tech in the US are anonymized. This creates a major threat of retaliation, and I've taken the initiative to draw up an email.
I ask all of you to sign it by tomorrow afternoon, and thank you to those who have already signed it, stating that this is unacceptable. What is the Commission doing to protect its commissioners and its civil servants? Miss Melford, Miss Van Hobeneman, Miss Ballon, Mr. Retterell, a member of the French Parliament who was not able to go to the United States just a few days ago, we are with you. Madam Chair, we hope to organize new exchanges in the following month so that we can continue to follow up on the consequences of these sanctions.
Agreed.
Yeah. I would love.
Alexandra Geese
To support that proposal. That is also an idea I had because this year, which has been made by the judiciary committee of the House with a lot of lies, is actually threatening the officials of the EU Commission working in enforcement. I think that is very dangerous. Just to some of the far-right speakers, there is no censorship by European institutions. There is a lot of censorship by the platforms.
Ninety-nine percent of content moderation decisions, where content is taken down, are made by the platforms. Only 1% is based on legal provisions in the member states or in the EU. And only in 2025, 52% of those content decisions were reversed on the basis of the DSA so that people get their freedom of speech online against the platforms. This is thanks to the DSA. And why is the Trump administration so obsessed with the DSA?
Because it takes power away from the platforms to control our opinion, to control through algorithms whose opinions are visible and whose are not. And we have a lot of evidence that democratic parties and the classic media content are suppressed, while extremist parties and movements, hate, and violence are boosted by the platforms. So, this is part of an authoritarian attack against democracy, and this is why it concerns all of us, not only the sanctioned individuals. At this point, I wonder: what is the EU Commission? What are member states doing to protect these individuals who are part of that enforcement chain, whom we really need to protect for safety in Europe?
Why is the commission president not inviting them, for example, to a formal reception to pay her tributes? What are we doing to defend them? Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. Just for transparency reasons, I have 4 more MEPs. Please be concise, and then I would love to give the floor back to the invited people. Thomas Lapsokol has already gone. Very good.
We saved some time. Maria Krapini. Thank you.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much, Chairwoman. I will be speaking Romanian. I would like to be very concise. I believe that even here in the room, people do not understand the rules of democracy. In democracy, we need rules.
We cannot have chaos. I come from a former communist country, Romania. And, dear colleagues, please do not teach me what censorship is. I know what censorship was until 1989, the year of the revolution. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it.
There is procedural injustice right now regarding what happened to the elections. TikTok recognized that there has been interference. So, again, if we, as members of the European Parliament, do not want to—if we want, sorry. If we want to defend our citizens' rights, that is not censorship. We're defending our citizens, and we're defending our children.
People and companies that operate here need to follow European rules. I was here at the hearing with Facebook, and Facebook told me, you know, it's free. If you want to use it, that's up to you. What if I made clothing and put cancer-causing substances in the clothing? Is it also okay if I put it on the market?
These laws and regulations that we have made are for the defense of our citizens, for equal commerce, and to defend truths. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. Online, we have Georgia Pipetta. I hear typing, but no voice. Hey, Georgia, are you there? If not, then we will probably take Francois Caillefon first and try to reconnect.
With you?
Yeah. Now we can see you.
Speaker 58
Hi. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I don't know if I would be able to speak Romanian to be shorter because I have some questions for Mr. Thierry Burton.
Speaker 57
Audio conditions do not allow for interpretation, according to the decision of the bureau.
Anna Cavazzini
Because we can't understand Romania because it's not being translated due to the connection.
Too bad.
Speaker 58
Okay. So I will switch back to English. I'm sorry for this. Very short, two or three questions, very short, for Mr. Thierry Breton. First of all, do you have any knowledge about the fact that during the election in November 2024, there was interference from the open commission or not?
Second, do you admit that DSA is projected as an ideologically weapon-oriented tool? And the third question: you were penalized by the Trump administration. Was this a grounded decision? Was this a diplomatic kind of answer to your obligation regarding this DSD? What do you say about the fact that somehow this is a proof, an evidence, I'm sorry, for the very...
Thank you.
Speaker 58
Backbreaking of the diplomatic relations between the European Union and the United States.
Mister.
François Kalfon
Bertrand, thank you for being with us. This is a very serious situation. Under Donald Trump, the United States is now carrying out diplomatic terrorism by banning you and representatives of NGOs from entering the United States. Why? Because you are one of the architects of the Digital Services Act.
You are part of the very closed club of only about 10 Europeans targeted by these types of sanctions from the US administration. Before you, there was the judge of the International Court, Nicolas Dieu, and Eric Bedoreau, a French parliamentarian who denounced the dangers of the former social media site. We are being treated as scapegoats. Targeting European citizens and legislators means that Trump is trying to intimidate and punish us. He is sanctioning us, and Miss Vonderlian is looking away rather than defending us.
And even worse, Miss Deputy Sousa, in the so-called border of peace, went along with the US narrative. So, Mr. Breton, if you were in Ms. Vanderlaien's place, what would you do to react to these sanctions? Thank you in advance for your reply.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much to all of the colleagues who put forward questions and comments and also tried to be short. We now have the last six minutes to have our guests reacting and coming in again. We start with Mr. Pretend.
Thierry Breton
At least, Pierre, you see, and I tried. So I will be very short, and thank you again for the questions. I'm, of course, not the only one with questions; there are many questions for the commission. And, of course, I cannot answer for the commission. You will obviously understand this.
But I would like to tell you a few things regarding what Christel said. And, by the way, thank you, Christel. Thank you also for your comment, Sandro, and everyone. But Christel, I would just like to remind you that we have been extremely clear. And if this regulation, the DSA, has been voted by almost 90%, I believe, this is what Sandro reminded us, it is because we keep freedom of speech as it is.
It is absolutely mandatory for us. But, of course, we have our rules also in the physical space for freedom of speech, and we just tried, I mean, as co-legislators, to apply these rules or to transfer them into the digital one. So this is why it has been voted for by almost 90% of the parliament. And this is why, again, of course, we don't have the First Amendment in Europe, but we have our own rules. And of course, the First Amendment, we understand why it is so important in the U.S.
So, does the First Amendment apply in the U.S.? S, and we fully respect that, but it doesn't apply in Europe. And by the way, if someone is willing to use a platform that is regulated in Europe, of course, then everyone has to understand that you just have to follow the rules in Europe as long as it is used and received in Europe, not more, not less. So I can hear that there were some questions about the fact that some people do not understand this yet in the US. I could tell you, and I say this in front of the parliament, that I spent with my team a tremendous amount of time coming to the US myself, explaining to all the companies, to the government, to the CEOs of the platforms what you decided as a legislator to do and what we wanted to do—not against, again, freedom of speech, not against any company, not against any country, but just to have the opportunity to enter and to benefit our European market, not more, not less.
So, I could tell you that everyone understands what it is about. So now, maybe there is a new administration. Maybe we need to spend some more time. But to tell you the truth, at least for the one I know, the head of the big platforms, and by the way, it has also been put on video on many platforms. Not only when I explained to them what you wanted to do, they understood and agreed. So, that's the fact.
So, I understand that there is some... I will be very polite because I'm in front of the parliament. So, I will say there is also misunderstanding from some of the MEPs here, and not some fake news or lies: the DSA cannot change a vote again. It hasn't been designed like this, whether in Romania, Germany, or anywhere else. The DSA is just here to make sure that the law regarding the way we speak in the physical space is maintained in the digital one, nothing more, nothing less. And finally, I would like to say that, regarding what the commission told me—and again, I don't want to speak in the name of the commission, of course—you understand this.
The commission told me that if I wanted to use the services of a lawyer, the commission may help me to finance or co-finance it. But of course, it's not the point. The point for me is, of course, to make sure that at the right political level, a discussion will be engaged, like the one President Macron proposed to open with President Donald Trump, the President of the United States. And, of course, this is, I believe, what should be done to make sure that this misunderstanding is corrected at the highest level. It's not a question of a legal issue.
It's a question of political attitude. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, Teri. Thank you so much. One organizational point: we normally have a vote now in the other room, and we know we are coming five minutes later. So, no panic. We continue and finalize this, and then we can all go to the event.
Annalene from Hundenbeck.
Speaker 25
Yes, please. Let Josefina Balon speak because she now has a connection. So, please connect her.
Speaker 66
Thank you very much. I will point out the question: What is the best support for CSOs now? The best support for CSOs working under the Digital Services Act is to strongly enforce this law, which has unfortunately been done too little so far. If CSOs like Haydead and GDI are not intimidated by the threats of the US government, then the EU Commission should also not be intimidated. And I want to add one point about the House Judiciary Committee report that was mentioned a couple of times now.
Speaker 65
The online platforms were for a long time considered part of the solution rather than the problem. Now, these platforms join forces with the US administration, adding more threats to the US government that do not come from sanctions but from very serious safety concerns. The last report of the House Judiciary Committee from Jim Jordan included not only many lies about content moderation in the EU. It also included thousands of pages that were subpoenaed from online platforms, which were obviously very happy to comply and hand over thousands of emails exchanged with civil society and the European Commission. What is very striking about this is that only the names of platform employees are redacted.
Everyone else is on display and practically doxxed in these documents as employees of CSOs and the European Commission. I want to make this very clear. This makes it impossible for all actors to safely engage with online platforms in general. This is part of why I'm convinced that enforcement of the law is the only option left, and that this option needs to be done very decisively, because the best protection that we can ask for is the support of European institutions, protecting the law that they passed, and not leaving us alone. And we saw a lot of solidarity, and we are extremely thankful for that.
But we also hope that more will follow in the future. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, also, for answering some of the questions. Yeah. Miss Medford, please.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. The only point I would add to what Josephine Ballon has just said is that the five or six technology companies that control most of what we see online today are American companies. The only one that is not is TikTok. They have only one goal: to maximize engagement to sell advertising. That is not a democracy-protecting way to have your entire information ecosystem moderated.
So, the role of civil society is crucial as an external monitor that is not governmental and does not have an advertising-based incentive behind its work. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, and thanks to all of you for coming here, for connecting online to the Finne Ballon, Terri Breton, and for all the members. I think I can express only my strongest support from this European Parliament. And, again, we hope and want the sanctions to be lifted and that the US administration is not putting further sanctions on other commission officials or other civil society actors. So, thank you again for this excellent discussion. And now we go to the vote, together with Envy. Have a good afternoon.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.