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 sittingsSpeaker 1
The petitioners include Mr. Iozygouzhikovsky, Senator Mr. Tomasz Okszynski, representing the Trade Union of Individual Farmers; Mr. Grzegorz Tyminski; Madam Justin Eyshinska from the Federation of Trade Unions of Agricultural Producers; Victor Shmulevich from the National Chamber of Agricultural Producers; Mr. Luchan and Mr. Tomasik from the Farmers Trade Union; a madam from Samobrona Trade Union; a mister from the National Association of Sugar Beet Growers; and a representative of the Tobacco Growers Association in Gruyans. I would like to welcome all of you to our meeting, and I will give the floor to Mr. Tomas Okszynski, who is going to present this petition on behalf of the Solidarity Sodanos Trade Union of individual farmers. Then, Madam Yostina Yashinska is going to speak on behalf of the Trade Unions of Agricultural Producers. The floor is yours. Thank you, Chairman.
Speaker 2
Ladies and gentlemen, we have come here to present our petition. Our main requests are as follows: First, we need to have an immediate sanction imposed on those third countries which import Russian fertilizers and fuels. Secondly, we also want to have mirror clauses in the trade unions, trade contracts, and trade agreements signed by the European Union. Today, the European Union is putting subsequent packages of sanctions into action as a way of expressing solidarity with Ukraine.
Speaker 3
We fully approve of such activities and sanctions, but we do not understand why, at the same time, the European Union is opening up its markets to third countries such as India and Latin America, which are helping the Russian Federation and helping to finance it by buying fertilizer and fuels from the Russian Federation. We are self-imposing high standards concerning CO2 emissions in the context of the Green Deal. And at the same time, we are opening up our markets to products and produce from outside Europe, which are manufactured without adhering to these requirements. This trade policy is not coherent, and it goes against the principles and objectives of the European Union. This is a moral duality in the EU's approach.
It is going to turn against us. And the Polish farmer is now put in a tight corner, in a tight spot. They need to produce food by adhering to these standards, but they are not protected against food imports from third countries. This is leading to unfair price cuts. This is a way of killing Polish farming, which is the livelihood of thousands of families.
This is why we are not talking about trade. As simple as that, we are talking about the future of the food industry and farming in Europe. It has a geopolitical impact. The sooner we introduce limitations and restrictions on third countries, the sooner the war can end. We count on the solidarity of other farmers who have been protesting against the same issues.
We are all protesting against unfair treatment. We are calling for a Europe that is strong and based on solidarity because we all feel responsible for Europe's food security. This is why we are appealing to the MEPs, to the European Parliament, to speak strongly in favor of European farmers. We are against the co-financing of the Russian regime. We believe that there should not be any double standards concerning producers of food and agri products in Poland and third countries.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. I give the floor to Madam Justin Jasinski. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Federation of Farming Trade Unions, which is formed by over 30 member organizations, producers of various food products. We have farmers who produce grain, but also poultry and animal production. We are going to present our petition.
Speaker 5
This is the voice of the farmers. We are calling for sanctions to be put against those countries which are importing fertilizer and fuels from Russia. We demand that mirror clauses be included in our trade agreements. We also demand that the reference price for grain be moved from $1.00 to at least €200. We would also like to remind you that the most recent changes in the reference price were introduced in 2013. We also demand that a system of certification be put in place for the production of European food, meat, and cereals.
Speaker 4
We also demand that export subsidies be put in place in case European foodstuffs are exported to remote markets, so that our farmers can effectively and efficiently compete on the global food market. On behalf of European farmers, we demand equal treatment. We demand that a fund be put in place, which will compensate for the actual losses that farmers suffer as a result of trade agreements. We need stronger protective mechanisms in trade. We need to be protected and supported in our production, particularly concerning access to the European markets by countries that are co-financing the Russian Federation.
Ladies and gentlemen, food safety is one of the pillars of European safety. If we undermine this pillar, it will not be enough to just invest in defense. We also need to ensure short supply chains in food production because this will ensure our resilience and protect us against any attacks from outside Europe. We need to have strong and resilient farming, and this is why we want this voice to be heard. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for this very clear presentation of your request, your petition, and I would like to give the floor to the representative of the European Commission, Digitrade.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you to the petitioner for their clear presentation and their petition. I will address both the sanitary and fittersanitary elements in their petition, as well as the requests for sanctions for importers of fuels and fertilizer from Russia. First of all, Mr. Chairman, allow me to note that EU citizens are protected by some of the strictest food safety rules in the world.
Any food product placed on the EU market, whether domestically produced or imported, must comply with the EU sanitizers and filter sanitizers requirements. These requirements are not negotiable and apply regardless of trade agreements concluded with third countries, such as the Mercosur agreement to which the petitioners were referring in their petition. In these respects, our agreements reaffirm the precautionary principle. Both sides in the Mercosur agreement are free to adopt measures to protect human, animal, and plant health, including in situations where scientific information is inconclusive. The EU has prohibited the use of hormones for growth promotion in farm animals since 1981.
This ban also applies to imported meat products. Moreover, as from 09/03/2026, stricter rules will apply to the import of products of animal origin, requiring third countries to ensure such products have not been treated with antimicrobials for the purpose of promoting growth. Likewise, pesticide residues at levels that are not safe for consumers are not allowed. In addition, the commission will pursue, in line with international rules, a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products. In particular, the commission will establish a principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health or environmental reasons are not allowed back into the European Union through imported products.
To this end, a study was launched last year that will support an impact assessment. These rules are enforced through rigorous border controls and regular audits of third countries. When a shortcoming is identified, the third country is required to implement the necessary corrective measures. If these measures prove to be insufficient and if there is a serious risk to human or animal health, the third country's export authorization to the EU for the goods in question may be suspended. Finally, on 12/09/2025, the commission announced a 50% increase in the number of audits carried out in third countries over the next two years.
The commission has also announced the establishment of a task force to further strengthen control over imports. He will gather member states' authorities together with Commission experts. Regarding the petitioner's concerns on the potential detrimental impact of EU agreements on EU agriculture, I would refer to the Commission studies on the cumulative impact of trade agreements on EU agriculture of 2024, and more specifically, as the petition referred to the Mercosur agreement, to the economic analysis of the negotiated outcome of the Mercosur agreement, both available on our internet sites. These studies clearly illustrate that while sensitive products such as beef, poultry, sugar, and rice may indeed increase, granting tariff preferences limited to a fixed volume in the form of tariff rate quotas, like we have done with the Mercosur agreement, is very effective in reducing the impacts on the EU agricultural markets with limited effect on price and production levels. As to the labor and environmental concerns, the Mercosur agreements and other agreements of Europe, all other agreements of the Union include a strong sustainability dimension.
Not only does the Mercosur agreement provide effective implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change by making it an essential element of the agreement, but it also allows the European Union to suspend the Mercosur agreement or parts thereof in case one party leaves the agreement or acts in bad faith. Moreover, it recognizes the importance of the implementation of a Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework and contains legally binding commitments to halt deforestation for the first time ever. As to the request for an immediate introduction of trade sanctions against third countries importing Russian fuel and fertilizer. First of all, allow me to note that the Americas or countries will not be alone in such groups. Several countries with whom the European Union has preferential trade agreements, including the countries of Central America, Canada, and the UK, do import fuels and fertilizer from Russia.
Common Foreign and Security Policy restrictive measures, so-called sanctions, are adopted by the Council under Article 215 of the Treaty and determine the conditions under which restrictive measures apply. As a general rule, EU restrictive import measures on goods originating in Russia apply only to the purchase, import, and transfer into the EU of goods subject to restrictive measures as defined in accordance with the EU non-preferential origin rules. With regard to fuels, by way of derogation from the general principle, existing measures provide that refined oil products from third countries obtained from Russian crude oil cannot be imported into the EU. That's an indirect ban. As we got fertilizer, the same measures do not target the import of Russian fertilizers in two-thirds of countries.
Indeed, they only limit the involvement of EU operators in the purchase of potash fertilizers. As to the introduction of a system of trade conditionality, access to the EU market should only be granted if no raw materials are imported from the Russian Federation or Belarus, except for imports into the EU of steel, gold, diamonds, and fuel. Existing restrictive measures and sanctions do not provide for restrictions on the use of Russian raw materials in goods originating from third countries other than Russia. The only applicable requirement is compliance with the EU non-preferential rules of origin. I have to note that all of these so-called CFSP, Common Foreign and Security Policy, restrictive measures are adopted by the Council voting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission. Thank you a lot, Chairman.
I just want to note that this is my commission oral reply, and as usual, we will provide a written reply in due time. Thank you to you and to the petitioner.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Thank you so much. We will go now to the members. Okay. On behalf of the EPP, Mr. Agios.
Yes?
Speaker 7
Peter. I'll speak in my mother tongue, the Maltese language. I
Thank the Polish farmers who have brought this to your attention. And I take note of the detailed explanation given by the European Commission and, in the name of the EPP, thank you. This explanation should also be sent to the agri committee. I would like to speak about unjustified competition. I am from Malta, president, and I can really relate to all the issues that I've heard here because the Maltese farmers tell me exactly the same thing.
They explained that they can't use certain pesticides, and then other agricultural products come into Malta, and they are not subject to the same norms. So, this is a form of injustice at the end of the day. We need to be more attentive. And I welcome what the European Commission has said to us about the different control measures. Also, for poultry, we say that we have controls on antibiotics, but then we import poultry from countries that are not European.
And therefore, we need to keep an eye on what is happening at the global level. But let us not forget that we need to think about our children's livelihood and health. So, food security: whenever we speak about agriculture, we need to really understand that we're not only speaking about the farmers or our fishermen. It's about the food that we find in the fridge in the evening when we return home from work. Therefore, I would like this petition to remain open, and a letter on all these subjects should be addressed to the Agri Committee.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. As a socialist, the Democrats are not present. Ascendi is not present. So, patrons of Europe, the floor is yours.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. Now, we also support keeping this petition open and sending it to the Agri Committee because protecting farmers is extremely important. Moreover, we're also looking at aspects of environmental problems that need to be addressed. Moreover, we agree that the import of goods should be more strictly controlled. What we do not support are the sanctions.
That should be used against the producers and consumers and would cost more, which would generate more costs.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mister Buda, on behalf of ECR. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very happy to hear this reflection, and I'm very happy that we have received this petition from Polish farmers' organizations. So, ladies and gentlemen, what is it all about? What is the purpose of this petition? Well, it means that the European authorities need to treat farmers in a serious way.
We need to be serious. We are offering loans to Ukraine to support it. And, on the other hand, we are also paying money to Russia indirectly. We keep talking about the safe program, the armament program. Does this make sense if we are also co-financing Russian armament by way of our trade agreements?
That's the net result. Because if we fail to undertake specific trade measures with respect to those countries that are dealing with Russia, we are, in a way, indirectly supporting Russia. This war will never end if we keep doling out money to Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, if we stop importing food from Brazil, they will keep buying fertilizer from Russia and thus feed their war effort. So, we need to be logical and consistent in what we do, both internally and externally.
So how did it happen that the European Commission and some member states are pressing for trade agreements that would force us to increase our trade with exactly the same third countries that have recently increased their trade volumes with Russia? India and Brazil are on this list. Is this a pure coincidence? Why are we pushing for more trade with those countries? Is this really rational?
Let me quote an example of a truly rational approach. Americans are putting sanctions on Russia, but they are also working on another document that's a sanction Russian act, and they are imposing secondary sanctions on those who continue to trade with Russia. What are we doing about it? Well, it is true. As the commission said, we have put a halt to the import of fertilizer from Russia.
The volume dropped by 70%, but prices also grew by 70%, so farmers have to bear this cost to cover it. But Brazilian farmers are buying fertilizer from Russia at lower rates. They buy them at rates lower than those in 2022. So, this is absolutely scandalous. This is outrageous, and I support this petition.
Thank you very much, and I would like to keep it open. And I thank you for this petition because it is.
Speaker 1
Alarm call to the European elite and the European Commission. Thank you. Thank you very much. The second round of questions, Mr. Brudzinski goes first. No.
Speaker 11
You don't wish to take the floor. Thank you. So, we have concluded. Mister Salvino.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to the petitioners who have submitted this petition. I think this is about dignity and justice. We have to make sure that our farmers follow the same rules as those who export to the EU. I think that these people who work the land have to be heard by the European Parliament. We have to listen to our farmers, whether they're Polish, Italian, or from other countries.
They're not asking for privileges. They want to be on an equal footing with those who receive money because of imports. There are so many new rules imposed. And to a great extent, this is because of a highly ideological Green Deal. I think that everyone has to follow the same rules.
Speaker 13
We have to have a level playing field. And, of course, there have to be checks. Not only do we need rules, but there also have to be checks. We believe that the overhaul of the customs union is vital because if we don't have serious checks that are uniform and coordinated at our borders, rules are just words on paper, as we've seen on many occasions over the last few years. So, a strong European customs authority can make a big difference.
Speaker 12
It leads to more traceability. It means that there is better risk assessment and better uniformity when implementing our rules. And I'd like to thank the Italian government for suggesting that Rome should be the seat of the future Customs Authority. In this way, we'll be able to bolster not only the Italian customs system but the whole European system. And this will give a clear response, a clear reply to the world of agriculture that wants a clear answer.
No one is asking us for preferential treatment. They want to be protected. We have to come up with answers for farmers, whether Polish or Italian. We have to provide answers for all European farmers. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that. Now that we have exhausted the list of speakers on behalf of political groups, we will wrap up. I give the floor to Mr. Viktor Smolovit on behalf of the National Chamber of Farming Organizations. Thank you very much, Chair.
Speaker 14
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for receiving and accepting this petition, and thank you for having this debate today. I would like to thank all the MEPs who are supporting us. And this petition has grown out of European soil, as you said. It is not a fruit of imaginary objectives. It is the fruit of our labor.
Farming in the ever-changing world needs to be protected and treated on a par with other areas of activity in terms of environmental health and health concerns. We are still introducing in the European Union solutions that the rest of the world has abandoned or is no longer considering. Here, I'm talking about Latin America, India, Australia, and other parts of the world. These standards are no longer applied there. You say that these standards are being enforced and inspected, but we know full well that it is not possible to carry out a 100% inspection.
The war in Ukraine has been raging for the last four years, and our activities are contributing to financing Russia's war industry through the intermediary of Mercosur countries and India. We believe that this is wrong. In Poland, we have broadly opened up to Ukrainians. We have opened our home to them, and we have accepted them. We have received them at home.
Speaker 15
And we also stand firmly by them, and we believe that it is very important to curb imports from those third countries that are cutting costs and selling their produce at a cheaper price to us. If farming is not adequately protected, it will be ruined. We have developed very good standards. Our products are very good, and they meet health standards. We should not be accepting produce in our markets that does not meet those requirements.
Also, in environmental terms, we are regenerating marshlands instead of using them as fertile soil. Quite the opposite process is in place in Amazonia, in the Amazonian forests. Thank you for your support. Thank you very much. By the decision of MEPs, this petition will remain open, and we will invite the European Commission to provide us with their written reply.
Speaker 1
And we would also invite the Agri Committee to join us in our efforts. I believe that this has also been mentioned by the MEPs present. Mr. Buda? Yes. I confirm that we should talk to Inter and AGRI.
Right. Inter-committee and Agri committee. These two committees will be contacted. We are looking forward to the next developments. Concerning this petition, I would like to thank you very much.
Thank you to our guests from Poland who have represented the interests not only of Polish farmers, but also of farmers Europe-wide. Thank you for caring for us, and thank you for caring for good, safe, and healthy food. Thank you very much. Now, let us move on to the next petition. 19/04/2025 by Serenip Natalie Hernandez de Defendini from Spain on the EU directive 2024/December on the recovery of property.
Well, this is a petition which relates to Venezuela. The petitioner is present in the room. Is that so? I'm asking for confirmation. Mister Hernandez de Defendini, is the petitioner in the room?
Speaker 18
Thank you very much, Chair. Yes. Both petitioners are here today. Thank you. Right.
Chairman,
Speaker 19
Honorable members of the committee, good morning to you. We are here before you today on the basis of Articles 224 and 227 TFEU and Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in order to exercise our right to petition and to base our petition on rigorous economic work, which is independent and which is not linked to any political ideology. We want Directive 2024-12/60 to be implemented fully. This is about recovering the confiscation of assets from people who have committed offenses. So, we turn to the Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission and draw your attention to Directive 2024/1260 on the recovery and confiscation of assets, Decision 2025/43 concerning restrictive measures in Venezuela, and Regulation 2025/1184 that includes Venezuela in the list of European countries rather than the list of countries considered to be high-risk jurisdictions for money laundering.
We want any assets confiscated to be managed in line with directive 2024-12-12/60, especially when it comes to people who have already been sanctioned. We will be talking about 4 specific measures. First of all, we want the instruments in the directive to be fully implemented. Secondly, we want to see the asset recovery office bolstered. We want these assets to be used for social purposes, especially to help Venezuelan victims.
And then we want a trust fund managed by the European Public Prosecutor's Office so that the assets can be distributed according to Article 86 of the TFEU. These measures mean that illicit assets will be used to protect the rule of law and to provide remedies and damages to the victims. So, we would very much appreciate it if this were the case. I would now like my colleague, Mrs. Defendini, you may take the floor.
Speaker 18
Members of the Petitions Committee, we are here today to ask the European Parliament to ensure that EU Directive 2024/1260 on the recovery and confiscation of assets is implemented properly. This is a vital tool that strengthens the member states' capacity to pinpoint, freeze, and manage assets that come from illegal activities, including organized crime and cross-border corruption. There are supposed to be special offices to recover assets. They're supposed to be set up so that this confiscation can take place. It is urgent for the directive to be implemented in the case of Venezuela.
According to GAF and the EU, there are networks of money laundering, and this network is one of the biggest in the world. Venezuela has now been included in the EU list. The chairman interrupts and asks the petitioner to slow down. The EU has recognized this reality and has included Venezuela in the list of third countries that are high-risk jurisdictions for money laundering and terrorist financing, in line with the relevant directive. This includes Venezuela, together with other countries, and there is enhanced surveillance on these countries.
And this is also in line with the decision passed in 2025-43 that concerns restrictive measures in Venezuela. We're talking about serious violations of political rights and human rights in the case of Venezuelan and EU citizens. And in this way, the EU is strengthening the framework that we need to ensure that these assets are not taken advantage of. Spain has revealed very complex money laundering networks linked to the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA, involving misappropriation and embezzlement of funds, among other cases. That is why we are here this morning, in order to highlight a very important point.
The recovery of assets that come from illicit activities is a legal challenge. It is an institutional obligation to protect the European rule of law, the European market, and the rights of those who reside here. The European case law stipulates that confiscation is preventive even if there hasn't been a prior conviction.
Speaker 18
There is a suspicion of assets being illegal. This is about restorative justice that can be extended to assets in the hands of third parties when there is an indication of problems. This doctrine is particularly important for structural corruption and when there are no court cases, trials, or sentencing, as in the case of Venezuela. There's Garofalo and others versus Italy, which was a case tried in February 2024 by the European Court of Human Rights, and it confirms something very important. Preventive confiscation, even if there is no prior conviction, is something that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Assets stemming from illegal activities have been linked to certain trust funds in the EU.
And, of course, this impacts the legal certainty of citizens and companies in the EU. This isn't about foreign policy. This is about rights in the EU and protecting the public interest in the European Union. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, we turn to you, the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament. We want you to urge member states to fully implement Directive 2020/412/60, activating asset confiscation mechanisms that are linked to organized crime, money laundering, and terrorism, especially the 69 individuals included in the list of sanctions and restrictive measures that the EU has imposed.
I'm referring to the 69 individuals linked to the Venezuelan regime. This means that they shouldn't be able to access economic resources directly or indirectly, and there's also a travel ban imposed on them, as we remind you in the 2020 petition that we submitted. There is also the decision PESQ of January 2025 by the council that amends other legislation and looks at restrictive measures given the current situation in Venezuela. That is why we want asset recovery offices to be set up in each and every member state in line with the directive. We want these assets to be harnessed for social purposes, for restorative justice, for those EU citizens and Venezuelan citizens who have been affected by these serious breaches.
We also want a trust fund managed by the European Public Prosecutor's Office to support the Venezuelan community affected by organized crime. We want there to be transparency, traceability, and restorative justice. Europe cannot be a haven for fortunes built on the suffering of the Venezuelan people. We have the ability and the responsibility to act. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Let me now give the floor to the European Commission, the representative of the internal affairs. Do we have someone from the European Commission? The floor is yours.
Speaker 20
Spanish to the petitioners.
Thank you very much to both of you for coming to Brussels and for explaining your petition. The petition deals with an issue which is extremely important, and that is the confiscation of illegal assets. But I will switch to English because it's easier for me to present the commission's comments in English.
So I will change to English now to present the observations of the commission. Before going into the four points mentioned in the petition, we also want to refer to other instruments that were mentioned, namely the regulation which adds Venezuela to the EU list of high-risk third countries for anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing purposes, as well as the connected anti-money laundering directive from 2015. Here, we just want to highlight that the directive, in connection with this list of high-risk third countries, obliges entities like banks, notaries, and lawyers to apply enhanced customer due diligence, for example, including additional information on the customers, on the sources of funds, on the purpose of the transaction, etc. However, this directive does not regulate matters of confiscation nor the reallocation of confiscated assets. However, we understand from the petition that the focus is on Directive 2024/12/60 on asset recovery and confiscation.
And here, first of all, we want to underline that it is indeed a very important instrument. It will strengthen asset recovery efforts across the European Union once it is transposed into national law in November 2026, and it will help authorities to better deprive criminals of their illicit gains. We also want to underline that it is a directive, so there needs to be a transposition act into national law. And in this transposing act, there is also some margin of discretion for the member states. So, with that in mind, I will now go through the points mentioned in the petition.
So, the first request is that member states confiscate assets concerning specific cases that were mentioned, also relating to Venezuela. Here, we want to underline that this does not fall within the competence of EU institutions, while the directive sets out what tools need to be available at the national level, including the confiscation of unexplained wealth. It is for the judicial authorities to apply these tools, and it is for the judicial authorities to determine on a case-by-case basis if the elements necessary for confiscation are met. On the second point, the call on member states to establish asset recovery officers and to give them the competence to trace and identify assets of listed persons. Here, we want to refer to Article 5 of the directive. Indeed, this article provides an obligation for member states to set up these offices, and it also sets out the tasks these offices must perform.
One of these tasks is the identification and tracing of property that may be subject to freezing and confiscation, bringing this obligation into the criminal realm. Also, the subject matter of the directive is proceedings in criminal matters. We also have Article 5, paragraph 4. Here, we indeed have an obligation that asset recovery officers should be empowered to also trace property of persons or entities on the Union restrictive measures lists. However, also here, we have some caveats that limit this obligation put on member states.
So, member states only have to empower asset recovery officers to trace this type of property if there is a request by a national competent authority and if this is based on indications and reasonable grounds for believing that the criminal offense of violation of restrictive measures was committed. So, again, bringing it into the criminal sphere. Accordingly, member states are not required to enable asset recovery officers to systematically trace assets of persons who are on the sanctions list only for being on the list. There needs to be some indication of crimes being committed. When it comes to the third point, the request that confiscated assets should be reused for social and public purposes, we want to underline recital 38 of the directive, where we indeed see that this is the best practice. It sends a visible message to society regarding certain values such as justice, that crime does not prevail, and that there is a prevalence of the rule of law. These measures can also help to make communities directly affected by crime more resilient against criminal infiltration.
So, in the end, it was really a good practice. However, looking at Article 19(1) of the directive, we see that it is only an encouragement for member states to implement these measures into national law. There is no obligation for member states to implement such measures, nor is there an obligation in EU law that would impose how confiscated assets must exactly be used. And on the last point, which concerns the request to create a trust fund managed by the European Public Prosecutor's Office, we want to underline that, according to the current Union legal framework, the mandate of the European Public Prosecutor's Office is restricted and limited to the investigation and prosecution of crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union. There are no provisions that confer powers to the APO regarding asset management.
Also, Directive 2024/12/60 on asset recovery and confiscation does not confer any role on the APO regarding the management of assets or funds derived from confiscation. So, also here, we have to say that there is no legal basis. So to sum up, the matters raised fall largely within member states' competence or within the discretion of member states during the transposition. To recap, the application of confiscation is for national judicial authorities. Regarding the asset recovery offices, there is indeed an obligation to establish them and to assign them tracing and identification tasks.
However, there is no requirement to systematically trace the assets of persons who are on sanctions lists. Regarding social reuse, we encourage member states; however, there is no obligation to implement such measures in national law. And regarding the setup of the trust fund, as we've just set out, there is currently no legal basis for this in EU law. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And let us now move to statements by political groups. Missus Nevado do Campo. Thank you.
Speaker 21
You, chair. First, I'd like to thank the petitioners for having brought to this committee a question which casts doubt on the credibility of the EU in the fight against corruption and the defense of human rights. Because, basically, what is being suggested or asked is if the EU has links to the spoilation of a country and if Maduro's regime in Venezuela is not being supported by the EU. Funds coming from Venezuela linked to people who have committed corruption and human rights violations is the question here. We have to talk about the president of Venezuela and the ministers Avalos and Caldu in Spain, who are both in prison today.
Speaker 22
They flew through that airport, violating the European sanctions. So, this isn't just any petition. This is a very serious issue. It's about the coherence of our sanctions policy and our human rights policy. Here, the EU's sanctions are related to violations of human rights.
Speaker 21
So I think it's embarrassing as a Spaniard that the minister of my country asked on Tuesday in the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU that sanctions be lifted against Venezuela and, in particular, against LT Rodriguez. I want to remind you that she has been under sanctions since 2018 for having violated the rule of law in her own country, for human rights violations, for oppressing civil society, and for oppressive attacks on democracy. The same law must be applicable to everybody. Political prisoners are out in the streets, and we want to see political prisoners released and exiles allowed to return to Venezuela. Only then must the EU reconsider sanctions against Venezuela, not before.
Ms. Machado, the Nobel Prize winner, ought to be able to return to Venezuela freely, as should other exiles from Venezuela. But it is impossible to ignore today the close relationship between Zapatero and the leaders of Spain, the close relationship they've had for decades with Nicolas Maduro and with Delcio Rodriguez as well, who has a personal relationship, in fact, and the relationships of her children as well, who have their business interests in Venezuela. So, the EPP, we are very clear on this point. There is corruption; it has human consequences, as the petitioners have said.
They have devastating consequences: massive poverty, the collapse of essential services, and more than 8,000,000 Venezuelans forced to leave their country while it is being pillaged. So, we want to keep this petition open. If there is no legal framework or legal basis, we have to change or modify this directive, and then we must ask our legal powers to do this. Thank you.
On behalf of the patriots.
Speaker 23
Apparently, there are no socialists in this chamber today, and I think that's very significant. In any case, we have here an issue which is vital for Europe, for the democratization of the Americas, and for Spain as well. For Spain, which today is unfortunately very deeply involved in this question that we're looking at. We're seeing the pillage of Venezuela. We've seen over the last 25 years a regime, a government that has links with drug trafficking and organized crime, which has systematically pillaged the wealth of the country and hidden it largely in Europe, particularly in Spain.
In Spain, they have found a perfect sanctuary. Many of these people who have been pillaging Venezuela, people from this criminal regime in Venezuela, have used Spain to launder money. And often, we know where they are. They have it, but what we need to change now is to ensure that confiscation can happen. We do this so that we can recover these assets robbed from the Venezuelan people.
A week ago, Switzerland talked about this. They said that there are many accounts that were clearly linked to Maduro and his accounts in Switzerland. We, unfortunately, in Spain, under the Sánchez government, and with the collaboration of Zapatero, who behaves as a kind of authority with very close relationships with the drug trafficking regime that has existed in Venezuela and is now being dismantled thanks to the intervention of President Trump. This perverse relationship that the Spanish government has with the narco-terrorist regime in Venezuela has resulted in people taking refuge in Spain. We've got torturers and criminals who are treated in Spain and given privileges.
And Zapatero has even suggested that there should be a transition government, and the ex-president of the government in Spain, Zapatero, allowed the blackmail of Emundo Gonzalez. He said that Martinez Torres, his son, would be freed. Europe has to take measures now, and quickly, with regard to this petition. So we want it to be kept open, and we also want a public denunciation of the perverse links of the Spanish government with this narco trafficking regime. We must lift sanctions against Del C.
Rodriguez and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaya Callis. She has actually made her own, has taken responsibility for this request, which we all should be ashamed of. Thank you.
Perez?
Speaker 25
Thank you.
Chair. Thank you to the petitioners for their interventions. I think this is very important, this cause, this issue of Adelcia. We consider that there are more than 8,000,000 votes there. Eight, together with the Civil Guard as well, want to congratulate all of these people who are part of that organization.
Beyond this issue of money laundering, there's another issue that the petitioners mentioned, which I think is very relevant because it is linked directly to direct declarations of the European Commission. On 01/20/2020, a plane landed in Barajas, Madrid with Del Rio Rodriguez, who has been sanctioned since 2018 by the European Commission under regulations and directives of the EU. This woman arrived in Madrid even though she was prohibited from entering or transiting European territory. What did Sánchez's government do? He sent Minister Avolus to receive her, and there were 40 bags in the plane.
She got into an embassy car. She didn't go through customs controls according to European rules. And the airport officials testified to this. This is a threat to Spain's national security. The Civil Guard found in the IT systems, or in the bags of this person, many gold bars, many thousands of kilos of gold that were hidden.
To conclude, what has this European Commission done with regard to these constant violations by the Spanish government? Absolutely nothing. We drew up the reports. We have these committees. Switzerland, as the member from VOXX who has now left the room, said, "I'm closing now."
Switzerland is talking about $80,000,000, and I'm just asking that the petitioners keep it open as they have asked. They asked that these measures be taken and that we fight against the systematic money laundering going on in this case of Venezuela. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much. Now, in line with what my colleague from VOXX said, we would also like to support keeping the petition open. Thank you.
One minute for the petitioner.
Speaker 18
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to comment on the issue of the legal basis. The Italian model, which has been validated by the European Court of Human Rights according to directive 2024/12/60 and the anti-money laundering legislation, plus the PESQ decision, provides enough of a legal basis to recover and confiscate Venezuelan assets found in the EU without waiting for rulings in Venezuela or asking for prior sentences or convictions, based on proportionality and legal scrutiny. The key is to implement these tools so that we can benefit from them. I mean, there is a legal basis. And the legal basis that we put forward is also due to due diligence, given the high risk in Venezuela.
The European Court of Human Rights talked about three safeguards: predictable and clear legal basis, material links, due process, and legal scrutiny. And.
Speaker 1
Dear petitioner, you are speaking very quickly. You speak very fast. You speak so fast that interpreters cannot keep up with your pace. I have already asked you for a brief wrap-up of this case. I would not like to listen to the petition again.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the petitions committee. The legal basis that I have just outlined, in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, is enough.
It is linked to EU legislation. We believe that the directive we mentioned can be implemented. We firmly believe that the EU, through its asset recovery efforts working with Europol and Eurojust, will be able to channel these assets for social purposes. We hope that the EPPO will be able to put these assets in a trust fund so that millions of victims can benefit. These are victims who have not gained any redress or justice.
We're talking about thousands of European citizens and Venezuelans who have lost their assets and have not been given any compensation. We're talking about thousands of Venezuelans and EU citizens. Their civil, political, and fundamental rights have been seriously breached by the Venezuelan State. We have UN documents proving this.
Interruption by the audience: Thank you very much.
Yeah.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We shall keep this petition open according to your wishes, and we will invite the European Commission to provide a written response. The petition remains open. Now, the next item is petition number 0063/2025 by an Italian citizen with 44 other signatures on the allegedly unfair legal and economic treatment of teachers at music academies and conservatories compared to university lecturers in Italy. I know that we have a large number of guests in the room who wish to speak on this petition.
I will limit the time of the presentation to 5 minutes because our time is limited. So please try to fit your presentation within five minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you, honorable members. What you have read in the petition might seem to you like an issue about the Italian legal order, but that is not the case. This unequal treatment from a legislative point of view between university lecturers and AFAM teachers in Italy is a systemic problem, and it flies in the face of key principles in EU law. May the petitioner please slow down?
Speaker 29
So, this difference in treatment is in line with certain provisions in Italian legislation, and it is discriminatory. And it flies in the face of the EU treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the...
Yeah. Apologies.
Speaker 29
Chairman. Article 2 TEU says that the EU is founded on human dignity, freedom, democracy, and equality. Article 3, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of the European Union talks about the importance of economic, social, territorial cohesion, and solidarity between member states. And then, of course, we have Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU that prohibits any form of discrimination, direct or indirect, founded on personal or social circumstances or conditions. Now, Italian legislation that treats AFAM teachers differently from university lecturers is disproportionate and unreasonable.
AFAM institutions award university degrees, PhDs, or diplomas at the same level, and therefore their teachers shouldn't be treated differently. Italian legislation also limits the free movement of workers and education professionals, which is something protected in Articles 45 and 49 TFEU. This approach means that foreign teachers find it very difficult to come to Italy and work there. It makes jobs in Italy less attractive. And this causes problems for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications against what is stipulated in Directive 2005/36.
Italy makes a distinction that doesn't exist in other member states; therefore, it breaches the obligation to ensure that all those who work in education have fair and comparable working conditions. Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU gives the EU the task of contributing to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between the member states to promote the mobility of students and teachers. These provisions mean that national legislation should not be an obstacle, and it should not throw a spanner in the works, creating structural barriers for cooperation between academics in Europe. Now, we have a strategic framework for education for 2030, and that clearly says that member states have to make sure that all teachers have the same opportunities to develop professionally. And in Italy, where we distinguish between Afam teachers and university lecturers, it means that we do not respect these obligations.
On 04/05/2022, the EU Council issued a recommendation saying that we have to enhance the appeal of the teaching profession, making sure that all teachers have fair working conditions, professional autonomy, social recognition, and transparent careers. In Italy, because we treat AFAM teachers differently from university lecturers, we have a system that harms the teaching of music, dance, and other areas. And, of course, that harms cultural growth, economic growth, and European identity in line with Article 167 TEU. So, Italy is the only country that discriminates against these teachers. The legal and economic status of Italian Afam teachers breaches the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Speaker 32
It violates the principle of free movement of workers, and it is at odds. Please slow down, says the chairman.
Speaker 29
Putting AFAM teachers and university lecturers on equal footing is not only a matter of internal justice, but it is also very important if we are to respect EU legislation in line with Article 4, Paragraph 3, TEU, the Treaty of the European Union, which states that the member states have to ensure that the obligations stemming from the treaties or the EU institutions are respected.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now, we would like to listen to the reaction from the European Commission. Who represents the European Commission today?
Please shorten.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Thank you very much, dear petitioners, honorable chairman, and members. Insofar as labor law is concerned, the question raised by the petitioner regarding unequal treatment with respect to the employment conditions of university lecturers, teachers, and institutions is a matter of purely national law. EU labor law does not contain any rules applicable to this situation. Furthermore, Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, as you also quoted, stipulates that the EU share contributes to the development of quality education, encourages cooperation between member states, and, if necessary, supports and supplements their actions.
Consequently, the commission has a purely supporting legal role to enhance the quality of education systems relating to the organization of education systems, including higher education institutions, exclusively under the competence of member states. So, the EU has no role in organizing education, including higher education, in member states. Given the EU's supporting role in the field of education, member states agreed to achieve the European Education Area, where the first strategic priority is indeed to improve quality, equity, inclusion, and encourage mobility of both students and staff of higher education institutions. This cooperation in the European education area is guided by the strategic framework of 2021-2030, and it is based on shared policy objectives aiming to support member states in developing the national education and training systems. In this framework, the 2024 Council recommendation on attractive and sustainable academic careers stresses that adequate working conditions, including providing commensurate remuneration, are necessary for inclusive and competitive working conditions for academics to raise the attractiveness of academic careers.
Can the EU support mutual learning and the exchange of good practices to achieve these goals? In this framework, we are absolutely ready and open to discuss with our colleagues who are working on supporting culture and arts at the European Commission whether the organization of peer learning activities or the exchange of good practices would help to raise attention to this issue. In regard to what you mentioned related to the Bologna Process, we would like to stress that the Bologna Process is an intergovernmental process where the countries participating in this process agreed to set up the European Higher Education Area. The European Commission is a full voting member of the Bologna Process, but this process is also of a purely intergovernmental nature. So, while they agree on a common case with priorities set for developing the European Higher Education Area, it is also of a purely national and international nature.
So, to sum up, EU labor law does not cover the situation of unequal treatment between university lecturers and teachers at Afam Institute, as described in the petition. Furthermore, matters relating to the organization of the education system, including higher education institutions, fall under the competence of EU member states. So, the commission is very open and ready to support development and quality education, but it plays a purely supporting role in that sense. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief, and I'll speak in Maltese. I really.
Relate to the appeal that has been made by the petty petitioners, so we should lend them an ear. However, I also have to understand what the commission is saying, and that this is a competence which is the responsibility of the member states. Therefore, we need to respect subsidiarity in the way power is distributed because Europe has to have the strength where it needs to speak out. There was another petition that we had discussed, about the precarious work of certain teachers. And when we saw that there were problems and that European regulations were being violated,
However, I think this petition can be closed, but I still make an appeal to the Italian authorities. If you want to have good students, your teachers need to be happy in what they do. Therefore, my appeal is that this petition is also taken care of at the national level.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Chair. I agree with the commission. This question falls under the competence of the member states. For that reason, I propose that this matter be addressed at the national level, and that we close the petition.
Speaker 26
On behalf of Pablo Insalvini, who couldn't be here, I'd like to support this petition because it raises an issue of equal treatment and coherence in the public sector. If the Afam teachers carry out job tasks that are very similar to those of university lecturers and contribute to research and further education, then I don't see why they should be treated differently from university lecturers. So, I would like to see this petition kept open.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank the petitioners. I'd like to thank the petitioners for submitting the petition. I fully support this petition, and I believe it should remain open. And I would like to ask this committee to involve the Culture Committee and the Employment Committee in order to delve into more detail.
The petitioners have already given us the nitty-gritty details of the multiple breaches of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Here, we are discriminating against AFAM teachers who have a very similar job to university lecturers. And, I mean, that isn't just an Italian issue, but also a European issue, because I think that this hampers the free movement of workers. Take Italy. It is so well known for its art and culture.
And yet, it cannot welcome the best teachers and lecturers from the rest of Europe because, even though they want to go and teach in Italy, they cannot due to this unequal treatment. And I think that this really flies in the face of the fundamental principles of the EU. This is about the free movement of teachers and cooperation. So, I think we have to keep the petition open and look into it in more detail. Thank you.
Well,
Speaker 1
Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you very much to the petitioners. But since we have already received the reply from the European Commission, which has indicated the scope of competences and stated that this falls under national competences, and also a majority of MEPs have decided that this petition will be closed. Thank you very much.
We move on to the next petition, item 21, petition number 0987/2022 by Jose Antonio Galdon Ruiz from Spain on behalf of.
Speaker 1
Consejo General de Ingenieros Técnicos is on an alleged violation of EU law by Spain regarding the free provision of services due to unjustified professional reservations in favor of architects. Is the petitioner with us?
Speaker 36
You, chair. Ladies and gentlemen, I have already understood the issue that we have here today. I would say that this petition lays out the vulnerability of the single market, the services directive, and the qualifications of many engineers in Spain, and therefore of engineers in Europe as well. We're talking about the building assessment reports, and this comes from a European directive on energy efficiency in buildings. These reports include the state of the building, the visual aspect, the habitability, and the energy performance certificate.
Speaker 37
In this context, we can see what the problem is. The problem is the judicial creation of a monopoly that has no legal basis. The core of this petition is a doctrine. It's a new doctrine from the Supreme Court of Spain, which establishes professional reservations exclusively for architects and quantity surveyors, modifying the case law that previously existed since 2013, when engineers could also carry out this kind of building assessment report. So there's no legal basis, but the Supreme Court has done this nonetheless.
Speaker 36
So we're talking about the violation of European Union rights. We have the Services Directive, Article 10 of which insists that professional reservations must be proportional and have a public interest reason, and that does not exist in this judicial decision. The directive on professional qualifications: here, we have the principle of nondiscrimination and mutual trust. And engineers in Spain do carry, sorry. Engine engineers carry out these tasks in many other European states.
In fact, in most European member states. There's also the directive on proportionality, which really intends to prevent these disproportionate directives that favor monopolies. This discrimination, or this violation of the European directives, is not something we engineers are saying. The National Commission of Competitiveness has said this. This is the public, independent organization of the government, charged with guaranteeing free competition, and it bases its work on articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Speaker 37
So, this, of course, is part of the European network of competitiveness. We're talking here about the violation, as the competition authority has said, about violating the single market framework and the services directive. This organization says that reserving activities for a particular profession is an infringement of these rights. If there aren't security or public interest reasons, and there are no reasons to exclude engineers from these tasks. They also talk about the serious economic impact that this has on the quality of services available to Spanish citizens.
This is harm done to Spanish citizens. We saw this in Catalonia in 2015, with a value of about €2,100,000. And this is, we're talking about €20,000,000 if we look at the whole Spanish economy. I'll come to you looking. I'll finish now. Thank you.
Of course, what we're asking for is that this petition remains open and that an official report is requested from the National Commission on Markets and Competition, specifically on this question. And also, we ask that the Spanish government take legislative measures to clarify which professionals should be competent in this matter. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I give the floor to the person responsible for these matters. Did you grow up? Over to you. Thank you very much, Chair.
I will speak French.
Speaker 39
Thank you very much. Thank you to the petitioner for raising these issues and for shedding light on the Spanish legislation. It's very useful for us to hear about these points. I'd like to say that these building assessment reports include more than just energy efficiency. It's also about the habitability of residential buildings.
Speaker 38
It's linked to the health and safety of the individuals who reside in these buildings. You mentioned Spanish case law, and that is also why they reached this conclusion in favor of architects. So it's about striking a balance between the internal market rules and accessing services and goods. And then, on the other hand, protecting the health and safety of the individuals who live in these buildings. This is a legitimate interest, which is recognized by EU case law, and EU member states can adopt measures to protect people.
This is linked to a 1989 law. So, there was a reservation back then in favor of architects, and it's still there. It all depends on the type of building. There is a correlation between what can be done and the specific profession, such as what architects can do and what engineers can do. As far as we understand the case law, the Spanish Supreme Court based itself on this reservation and interpreted it in a way to provide more protection to those people living in these buildings.
Speaker 41
They felt that architects were best placed to ensure this high level of safety and that it was up to architects to certify that the building was habitable and to draw up the building assessment reports. Now, of course, there is the issue of proportionality. So, we've got the Spanish Supreme Court involved. We've got the Competition Commission's opinion as well. And it's difficult, if not impossible, to say that this analysis of proportionality is incorrect because this is a Spanish context.
Speaker 38
There are a lot of different interests at play here, linked to the very specific Spanish context. We are not in a position to contest the decisions that have been taken or the reasoning followed to take the decision to protect residents. So, our conclusion is that it is true that rules have to be proportionate, but this is the Spanish Supreme Court's prerogative. The assessment has been carried out on the basis of the reality in Spain. We have received a complaint, but we haven't found any information that could flagrantly contradict the analysis of the court.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the petitioners for raising this issue and for submitting the petition. It is the third chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court that established a professional reservation in favor of architects and quantity surveyors, saying that they are the ones who should issue building assessment reports. This is curtailing access to the activity in Spanish legislation.
But we think that there are no real legal reasons justifying this. I think the case law is extending a professional reservation in an area where the Spanish lawmaker has not done so. I understand that the commission mentions health and safety, but I don't think this argument is reasonable because engineers are fully qualified and can guarantee the same level of safety as architects. For many years, engineers have been drawing up these reports without any problems. And if you also bear in mind that in other member states, engineers are authorized to issue these building assessment reports, we feel that this is a clear obstacle to the free provision of services in the relevant market.
I understand that there are restrictions, and we would like to keep the petition open. That is our request. And we would like the European Commission to urge Spain to overhaul this situation.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. I agree with the petitioner.
You think that, like, during the other week.
We need to discuss this with the competition authorities. Considering the fact that they are open questions, we think the petition should remain open.
Thank you.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much. I won't go into all the details provided by Mrs. Elena Nevado from the PP. But I would like to say that the explanation is quite straightforward. Why can an engineer certify in France, but not in Spain when crossing the border into Spain?
Speaker 42
That doesn't make sense in the EU. We want the petition to be kept open.
One minute for Mr. Perez.
Speaker 44
Seconds. So you'll be saving 30 seconds for someone else. I backed the petition submitted to the Petitions Committee, and I also agree that the Spanish government should provide a reply in writing. We would like to hear what the Spanish government's position is on this petition.
Thank you.
Speaker 36
Thank you for the understanding that you've shown about this petition. I'd like to clarify to the representative from the commission that Spanish legislation has a professional reservation for these building assessment reports, but there's no professional reservation for quantity surveyors and architects for these kinds of reports. As the EPP person has said, member has said, these building assessment reports were carried out between 2013 and 2021. And there were no problems at all during that time. They were carried out with great rigor and great care for the security of Spanish citizens.
And the issue as well is the mobility within the professional sphere for engineers within the EU. And this is going to be, they'll see their mobility reduced or undermined if they can't come to Spain and do this when they can do it in other member states. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much.
We shall keep this petition open, and we are waiting for the updated response from the European Commission. Now, let us move on to item 22, petition 22/81/2025 by Jose Luis Hermosiras and Juan from Spain on the obligation to carry V16 reflective beacons in vehicles that are registered in Spain. And there are three other petitions, number 2361, 2414/25, and 2570/2025, which have been filed by citizens of Spain concerning the need to review the compatibility of Spain's mandatory V16 beacon regulation with EU law. The petitioners are not with us. Hence, I will give the floor to the representative of the European Commission.
Speaker 45
Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Chair, for the floor and for the introduction. Thank you also to the petitioners for their request, which has been summarized in your intervention. And also, thank you to the honorable members of the Parliament for their presence today.
Speaker 46
We are talking about a very important topic: road safety. First of all, you know that in all the European Union, and in particular, the Commission is very committed to continuously improving road safety in Europe. I could say that for years, the number of road victims in the Union was one of the most important indicators used to express the Union's proximity to its citizens. And it has been really impactful; I remember even the Commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, with the white paper in 2010, with the real input on the reduction of road victims. It was always the case of halving the road with Miss.
Speaker 47
We now have a reduction target of 50% by 2030. So, it's a vital activity of the union, and it has the merit of really having high visibility as well with the citizens. Now, road safety is a shared competence of the EU. Part of the activity of the institutions remains at a new level, but another part remains within the member states. In particular, the responsibility for the full implementation of some actions that could directly improve road safety remains with the national authorities of the member states.
Speaker 45
So, the commission has the role of coordinating activities at your level, for instance, setting frameworks. As I said, setting targets and coordinating, especially regarding whether it's a cross-border effect and added value. But member states also have a very important role in implementing and enforcing rules, focusing on education and infrastructure. Also, licensing, for instance, is the responsibility of the member states, although there are EU directives; we set the framework. And also, traffic rules.
In particular, traffic rules are normally a subject completely in the hands of the member states and are not regulated at the EU level. So, in that respect, coming to Spain, I would say that, among others, it's a country which, in terms of safety, has shown spectacular improvements in the last years. I would remind you that in 1990, there were around 10,000 road victims in Spain. The number has decreased to something like 18,100 in 2024. In terms of comparison with the EU and some other member states.
In 2024, in Spain, there were 35 road victims per million inhabitants, while in the EU, the average was 44, with 33 in Germany, 48 in France, and 51 in Italy. As I said, 35 per million in Spain. So, Spain is quite, let's say, a good champion in terms of road safety within the Union. And in that respect, and within the national authorities' prerogatives, they wanted to further improve road safety in their territory. And in that sense, they analyzed the functioning and effectiveness of the warning triangle, which is used to inform about a vehicle stationary on the carriageway, and concluded that in some cases, it could be dangerous.
For instance, considering that the driver, when the vehicle is stopped beside the lane, should get out of the vehicle, walk on the road to put the triangle 50 meters behind the vehicle itself, and then come back, also walking on the road to the vehicle to have a safer position. And in some cases, these led to accidents even with victims. So, the Spanish authorities wanted to address this point. They wanted to increase the visibility of the warning device, which is the triangle normally used. And also, they wanted to, let's say, modernize the approach by possibly having a device which would allow for warnings to be diffused with traffic information systems to all road users, which is not the case with a triangle, which is simply, in inverted commas, visible when a user is approaching directly the site where the vehicle is stopped.
And that is why the Spanish authorities adopted, in 2021, the Royal Decree 159 and related instructions, including, for instance, the ones called Move 2025. And in that respect, maybe I can show you what the device itself is. So, this is the device that the national authorities have envisaged to replace the triangle. So, you see the functioning. There are technical definitions of what frequency is and what visibility is.
So, it has to be visible at 1,000 meters from the stopped vehicle. Definitely, a higher distance compared to the warning triangle, which simply has retro-reflective capability. And they have, for that, used the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic of 1968, which is also covered by the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic of 1949. And if I may, could you indicate which parts of the Vienna Convention are used by the Spanish authorities to introduce this new device? There's an article 23.5, which indicates short terms that domestic legislation should provide for a stationary vehicle to be signaled by at least one appropriate device.
Annex One, paragraph six, says that contracting parties may make it a condition for admission to their territory in international traffic that the vehicle coming to the territory shall carry a device referred to later on in Annex Five. Annex five, paragraph 56, indicates that the device referred to above shall be either a sign plate consisting of a triangle with certain characteristics—equal sides, red, retro-reflective, and so on—or, and that's where the Spanish authorities have taken the lead, some equally effective device prescribed by the legislation of the country in which the vehicle is registered. So what the Spanish authorities did is, let's say, avail themselves of this prerogative given by the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, to which they are signatories. And despite the fact that there are no EU pieces of legislation covering these activities and those devices, neither the Triangle nor the new device, they decided that it would have been much safer, let's say, to use this new device, allowing also, in general, the Spanish authorities at central level to dispose of the information about a vehicle stopped at a point of the national road network, so as to be able to inform all other users about this situation.
So, in two words, let's say, as a conclusion, assessing compliance with EU law. There is no EU law covering those devices. So, we could conclude that there is no infringement of EU law. Conversely, the Spanish authorities have used their prerogative given by the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, allowing them to define a new device. I conclude by saying that, according to the Vienna Convention, as reminded by the Spanish authorities, Spanish-registered vehicles now compulsorily equipped since the beginning of this year with this new device can go abroad, so in other countries, they can simply continue using their warning light without the obligation to carry the triangle anymore, while foreign vehicles in international traffic entering Spain continue using their triangle without the obligation to have the light.
Thank you.
Speaker 21
I need the time. I'd like to tell the commission what the Spanish authorities are actually doing. I'd like to ask if you share my opinion on this. What the Spanish administration has established is the obligation to use a device, this V16 beacon that the commission representatives have shown us. It doesn't exist elsewhere in the EU, and this has created a lot of expense and confusion among Spanish people.
In many cases as well, this beacon simply doesn't work. Why can the rest of the EU keep using the triangle? And we have to have the triangle and this beacon. I think we need an explanation. The government is imposing on Spaniards a device that no one else in the EU is using.
The Home Office has said that we have to buy this beacon, but this doesn't actually improve security. Actually, it does the opposite. The minister told us that there wouldn't be any sanctions initially connected to this V16 beacon, but straightaway, fines have been imposed on drivers who haven't had the beacon. Something really draws my attention. The public administration in Spain had to buy these beacons in bulk, but they bought them at prices above the market prices.
So, I have to ask: what is happening here? 17,000,000 beacons were bought at a very high price, around €44 each, while on Amazon, you can buy them for around €30. So I think this decision is very eye-catching. I think it's legitimate as well to ask if it's possible for a citizen to buy one of these. Why is it that a citizen can buy the device 30% cheaper than the administration can? We also have to put on the table the information that's been emerging about the contracts that have been awarded related to these beacons.
Many companies are linked to a Chinese network. This is a company with just two workers in it, with links to the Socialist Party in Spain. And I think the same company received contracts from the Spanish government in 2013. So we're seeing our traceability systems showing that there are links here between the government and these companies, which need to be looked into. So with this, Beacon is not improving road security or road safety.
This has to be investigated. There is no harmonization at the European level, and we would like the European Commission to put in writing its opinion about European rights and the Spanish government's actions on this point. So, please keep the petition open. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. S and
Thank you.
Speaker 49
Thank you very much. I'm going to start by reading statements that aren't mine but are very interesting. The V16 emergency beacon is a small and easy device that sends out light. You don't even have to get out of the car to use it. People will spot the car better, and this is compulsory.
These are not my words. This isn't from the S&D. It's Mr. Ibanez Sarando who said this, and I'm sure that Mrs. Nevado knows him. He's a Spanish MP from the PP. So I'm sure that you know her.
So, what are we really talking about today? And this is in line with what happened yesterday when the commissioner came. I think they were just mixing up all sorts of things. This is about party politics. This what we're hearing here has nothing to do with the petition, which is about road safety.
And the secretary general of, I don't know which village, and I don't know who. I'm sorry. This is the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament. So, is there a measure taken by the Spanish government that goes against the EU treaties? No.
The commission explained that this is something that falls within the remit of the member states. And the commission also says that this is an excellent measure because it is. It is objectively safer. I think that this is reasonable. And it wouldn't even be worth reading out all the legal arguments we have been working on.
But just to go into more detail, you said that this is discrimination. Listen, this isn't linked to nationality. This is linked to license plates. Are we going to start questioning whether the MOT in different countries and the compulsory equipment that one has to carry also go against nondiscrimination? If we were to do that, it would be absurd.
Secondly, you said that this might go against the free movement of goods. No. The treaty says there can be certain restrictions if you want to protect lives and public safety. The European Commission said this is an example of it. And there is some room for maneuver when it comes to road safety.
The EU recognizes the powers of the member states to establish safety rules. This is a wonderful measure. There's so much fake news and disinformation. You're turning everything into a political battle, and you're wasting our time. So I would like to turn to the committee and ask them to close the petition because, as the European Commission representative said, and rightly so, this does not go against EU legislation, and it falls within our remit.
Thank you.
Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 51
I would like the commission representative to take into account the technical arguments I'm going to make, and I have no wish to get into ideological controversies. These are just technical arguments. The V16 beacon, which is connected and geolocalized, has been connected to the DT30 platform for more than a year. In fact, we have been told that this beacon was going to be introduced in Spain, and we told the drivers that they would need to buy it. I bought one myself more than 1 year ago.
And in fact, just very recently, it was announced that the beacons that were bought weren't adequate. And in fact, only one particular beacon sold by a very small company would be acceptable, specifically the model that they sold. This is an anomaly, and I'd like the commission representative to understand why this actually violates European rights. Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits measures that are like quantitative restrictions. We don't need an official imposing this kind of very technical requirement, which excludes perfectly good products; it is an issue.
This Versus needs to be the V16, must be connected and geo-localized. That's because what is happening is that we're not able to buy alternative devices. Since 2018, there's been this ECOL system which connects and alerts when there's been a serious accident on the road. There is no need to exclude other alternatives that do work. So I ask the commission to keep the petition open and to investigate the issue and evaluate whether this oblique obligation is actually compatible with European law.
I think I'd like to add one thing that hasn't been mentioned and is relevant. There are medical specialists who have talked about the dangers of this beacon. The cardiologist has said it can interfere with defibrillators and implanted heart monitors, which makes them work less well. This is a surgeon who has said this. It can interfere with pacemakers, in fact.
So I've given these examples because I can actually mention these doctors who have said this, but there are many other doctors who have said this as well. I think all of these points are sufficient. I don't want to say what the final decision should be, but I think this is enough for the commission to investigate and evaluate the issue. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Soldier?
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, Chairman. So, we've heard a lot of information from our colleagues in the PP and the Patriots. On this basis, we would like the petition to remain open. We wanted to emphasize what was said: this is about benefiting certain companies. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much for emphasizing what Mr. Girauda says. It's not just Article 34, but also Article 36, TFEU, and TEU. And if you have a Polish lorry driver, a French lorry driver driving through their motorways, they don't have to do it. And while the Spanish ones do, this is called discrimination.
And it is Article 18 TFEU that bans this. We have taken this to the court. This is linked to data protection as well because of geolocation. There has to be a map involved here. And you might not believe it, but there's a real-time map.
You can go to Google, check this map, and look at where people are located in real time. So you can see where the Spanish drivers who have problems on the road are, and the Spanish say that this doesn't breach data protection. I'm sorry. Anyone who knows anything about data privacy and data protection will disagree with this. If you can locate anyone at any time, I'm sorry, then it's not all right.
That's why we have reported this and taken it to court. Mr. Girauda said that he talked about the issue of electromagnetic fields. There wasn't a single study on possible interference with pacemakers, and so on. There's the whole issue of 60 pulses per minute.
So, if anyone has a heart problem or respiratory problems, the use of the beacon could actually cause them health problems. And Missus Gomez from the Socialist Party said that we shouldn't engage in party politicking. This has nothing to do with it. These are published data. Do you know who this is?
Mister Fanjundu. He is a spy, according to the CNI in Spain. And he, among others, owns one of the biggest companies that produce beacons. 90% of the V16 beacons marketed in Spain are Chinese. The Chinese lobby is the economic lobby that benefits.
And you know who else benefits? Mister Rodriguez Sapatero. Here is a photo. Yes. You're laughing.
But when the socialists are faced with reality, they just chuckle. And there's someone else here who is being investigated for money laundering, yet the Spanish ministry is still giving its contracts. Why are you awarding contracts to companies that are under investigation? I'm almost done, Chairman. This is extremely serious.
We're talking about a €1,300,000,000 market. There's VAT involved. And Mr. Mr. Girauda, different models have to be bought from month to month.
Oh, sorry. Okay.
Speaker 21
Thank you, President. I wanted to tell the members of this committee that we have just received the response from the Vice President, the Executive Vice President, on behalf of the European Commission. And contrary to what the commission has just said here, they tell us in writing that the use of this beacon is not harmonized across the EU, and national rules are applied here, as we have mentioned. However, and this is the important point, the imposition of a measure like this, the imposition of specific technical requirements at the national level, can constitute a restriction on commerce in the internal market related to Article 34 of the treaties. And the Spanish government must justify this in relation to Article 36 of the Treaty or on the basis of case law of the TFEU?
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
This petition will remain open, and we are looking forward to a written reaction from the European Commission. Now let us move on to item 23, petition number 0832/2025 by a Maltese citizen on behalf of the Iklin local council in Malta, on nuisances caused by an asphalt processing facility in a residential area in Malta. The petitioner is with us in the room.
Speaker 54
Respectable members of the board, I am here today representing the residents of 8 localities that house approximately 8,000 residents. Eight localities are being negatively affected by asphalt processing activities in the area. We, as local councils, have been receiving complaints from our residents about foul odors since 2021, which were immediately referred to the Environment and Resource Authority in Malta, as well as other authorities such as the police and public health department, for necessary investigations and actions. Our demands to the authorities have always been simple and logical. Basically, investigate whether there are any harmful emissions being released into the environment, especially considering that the industrial activities are taking place less than 500 meters from residences, and impose proper mitigation measures to ensure that the nuisance is removed, irrespective of whether the emissions are harmful or not, since every person has a fundamental right to feel safe in their property and surroundings.
This principle is also enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unfortunately, instead of cooperation from the authorities, we're faced with an uphill struggle to convince them. The Environment and Resource Authority argued for years that it was not the competent authority and that no European or local laws addressed emissions from these types of industries. It is very unfortunate that we have to file a petition to this board at the European level, since we expect that the national authorities should be the beacon of laws, regulations, and directives of the European Union, not only in the strict sense of the wording but also in the spirit and logic of the same laws. Help us ensure that our residents can live with the peace of mind that there are no harmful components in the air they are breathing and that the nuisance of stench and odors is removed.
Whereas a legal notice was recently issued by the Maltese government to start regulating this type of industrial plant, no guarantees were given that the odors will be eliminated, besides the fact that the timelines for regularization of the set plants are too long. Also, the standards and rules that will be applied are not known yet, as it is within the absolute discretion of the environment and resource authority. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. The same fundamental principle must apply to the actions of all competent authorities. It is useless for competent authorities to act incognito.
They must be transparent and assure the residents that they are safe. Anything less than this is a bar to justice. To this end, our requests as petitions can be summed up as follows. Firstly, an independent study with all the necessary safeguards to ensure that this study is truly independent is tasked to measure the emissions from the asphalt plant and industrial activities in the area. And by area, we are referring specifically to the areas surrounding the petitioning localities, and not Malta as a whole.
The small geographic size of Malta, paired with its high population density, requires the application of specific considerations that may not be the same as in other European states. We request an opinion on whether the location of such industrial installations so close to residential areas infringes any European regulations or standards. Thirdly, whether an environmental impact assessment is required for any changes or expansion to the plants. In a recent development permit application, the Environment and Resource Authority in Malta deemed that an asphalt plant arrangement does not warrant an environmental impact assessment. I ask, if this type of industrial installation does not warrant an EIA, what does?
The EIA procedure would at least provide residents with access to environmental justice. Lastly, the suggestion and application of mitigation measures that can be implemented to remove any harmful emissions, or if the emissions are found not to be harmful, the removal of the odor nuisance that is negatively affecting the residents of our localities. Thank you.
Disque Evertzan.
Speaker 55
Thank you. Honorable Chair, honorable members, dear petitioner, ladies and gentlemen. The commission understands the concerns of the petitioner and agrees on the importance of air quality and the role it plays in human health. While asphalt production itself is not explicitly regulated in EU environmental law, there are a number of provisions that national authorities can adhere to when addressing the issue raised by the petitioner. First, the commission draws attention to the EIA directive.
So this is Directive 2011/92 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. This directive requires member states to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their size, nature, or location are made subject to an assessment of their environmental effects before a development consent is given. These projects are defined in Article 4, which refers to Article Annex 12 of the directive. While projects for asphalt production are not explicitly listed in the annexes of the directive, they might be considered as installations for smelting mineral substances under the chapter concerning the mineral industry. For such projects, member states have to determine, either through a case-by-case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment beforehand because of its likely significant effects on the environment.
In case a member state concludes that the project will have significant effects on the environment, an environmental impact assessment must be carried out. If the authorities decide not to require an assessment, this decision should be made public, and the decision has to state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment. This decision can then be contested before national courts. With regard to the above provisions, the responsibility to ensure compliance with EU laws falls primarily on the national authorities. These include potentially judicial ones, as they are better placed to assess individual situations, such as the one referred to by the petitioners, and also intervene if necessary.
Moreover, as the DIA directive has been transposed in Malta, Inter alia, the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act contains specific provisions related to access to justice. The commission does not have the power to conduct this EIA of projects authorized by the member states, and this falls within the remit of the national authorities. In addition, the Commission also refers to the Ambient Air Quality Directive, which sets air quality standards for a range of pollutants in order to protect human health and the environment. In the last 5 reported years, MARTA recorded exceedances in zone M T 001. This is basically the main island of Malta, also covering the area concerned by the petition.
Where the concentration levels of pollutants exceed a limit value, an air quality plan needs to be established and appropriate measures set out so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. Malta is also exceeding air quality standards for ozone, for example, and must take measures to end the exceedance, as outlined in the 2025 air quality plan for Malta. In conclusion, without prejudice to the Commission's role as guardian of the treaties, the primary duty to ensure compliance with the above-described obligations lies primarily with the Maltese authorities. Concerning the individual plant subject to this petition, given that review procedures are available under the relevant national legislation, the Commission invites the petitioner to resort to such redress mechanisms, as this would be the most appropriate means to assert his claims in a satisfactory manner. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. I'll speak in Maltese. Chairman of the President in Malta.
In order to become an MEP, you have to knock on every door. Any political entity must meet the people to be elected. I went to Eclin, San Juan, Birkekara, and Sui in these localities. And these eight localities that have sent this petition, I've met families, and they ask me, "Peter, we can't bear the smell anymore here." So, these tarmac industries are an issue.
I would like to thank the local councilors for representing the residents. They were brave enough to come and listen. And this is why we are speaking with the European Commission, and also about the environment regulation era in Malta. We know what they are saying. However, I think that the national authorities, for many years, tried to get out of it.
Speaker 7
Situation. They always came out with ambiguous statements. But I need to be fair. I need to be honest. This is my obligation.
It is obvious that in past years, the smell has lessened. This is what the residents have said. And also, the ERA, the environment regulator, has taken a different stance lately, and they're referring to the EIA. This is a positive point, and we have to emphasize it. Following the petition, the operators contacted me and told me that they would like to make an effort to lessen the negative consequences on the residents.
So, we have to take note of this. They said that they have taken certain measures to reduce the impact, and they are ready to take further action. So, it is important that in the petition, we speak about the goodwill that the industry athletes have. So why haven't the ERA, the environment regulator, and the authorities come together to discuss all this? I close by mentioning what the Korea European Commission said.
I was an official, and I know what it means to speak and hold a position, a certain line. But the 2011/92 directive stipulates that the member states have to take a case-by-case basis and really look into studies. The national authorities need to consider an EIA. And when they don't do it, they have to explain why they didn't opt for an EIA. So, I'm asking the president and also my fellow MPs from different political families that a letter should be sent, in which we emphasize that local authorities should maybe conduct an EIA.
If they don't, they have to give their reasons. And because Malta is a very small island with a high population density, the quality of our air is an issue. Therefore, the air quality studies should be done. They should be available to the residents so that they can decide about the quality of air in Malta. We have our own estimates, but we need to make this a collective effort so that we address what the residents are calling for.
Thank you.
Speaker 57
You, President. I would like to thank the local councils and the petitioners for having brought forward this petition, which is very pertinent and very important because I really believe, and I've said this publicly, and I reiterate, that tarmac industries should not be close to residential areas. I said this even one year ago when we talked about Rendi, Mabba, and Sigui. This is another area in Malta where similar industries are located. And I discussed with residents from Iklin and from Birkirkara, so these are the areas we are talking about today.
Speaker 58
It is a very urban and highly populated zone, with different localities that touch one another. And it is a very busy area in our country. So, my point of departure is always this: let's leave aside the EIA. I always believed, and I will continue to believe, that these types of industries have no place in residential areas. However, I take note of what the commission has explained: the Maltese government has always followed European directives.
Speaker 57
And even as EPP Peter Agius has said, even the ERA, the environment regulator in Malta, has looked into such projects. The fact that an EIA has no place. I cannot understand why an EIA cannot be done on an industry which is so close to a residential area. So, I think we should have EIAs. But I don't think that this committee, even if the European Commission stresses that all this is the competence of the member state, should not continue to follow, especially when we have seen the latest positive development from the regulator side, and also the residents have said that the smell has lessened.
But we need to know what goes into the air because air quality is not only measured by odor, but there are other considerations. Therefore, a petition has been signed by over 1,800 persons because it was a collective claim made by different localities. These people are really worried. The people who live there are worried not only about their children's health but also that of their relatives. Therefore, it is important that this committee leaves this petition open and ensures that there is continuous contact with ERA, the regulator in Malta, so that we see the latest developments.
Speaker 58
And here, I agree with what Peter Agios has just asked for: when you have such an industrial process, and when people are really worried about these activities, our local councils should be kept informed about the developments regarding the quality of air in these areas. I think the people have the right to know. They have the right to be informed in every transparent way about all that is being done. The ERA, the regulator in Malta, has continued to work to ensure more transparent monitoring. I think this is a very good development.
And also, as Peter Agius has just said, this was confirmed to me, that smells have lessened and Bitmac, this company, has really tried to make certain improvements in its activities. However, the people will still be worried because a tarmac factory is in such a densely populated area. I mentioned the areas: Gargur and Birkere Carra. Therefore, we need to continue the monitoring done by this committee, and the petition should remain open. Thank you very much.
Shakarez.
Thank you very much, Mr. Shakarez.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, sir. Indeed. I don't really have enough courage to list all these municipalities. I don't think I can do this, but this is a very serious problem. And I think it would be a good idea to have a comprehensive study where they look at health aspects, environmental aspects, competitiveness aspects, and economic aspects as well.
So, I think we need to take these necessary measures in order to solve this situation. I think health risks exist. And I think it's a priority to focus on human health and the protection of human health. So, I think this should remain open.
Speaker 1
So, we shall keep this petition open. And we shall move on to item 24 on our agenda. That is petition 1268.
Speaker 57
On behalf of S and D, we requested something to be sent in writing because, otherwise, we're going to be making fun of people who took the effort. It's important that there is a follow-up because, ultimately, we'll have another petition with 100 or more pending petitions, which would be totally useless. It's important that there is a follow-up, and if there is a need, and it seems that there is the same message from other political groups, that we see there is risk observance by ERAF and by this committee about the latest developments for the monitoring of this plant. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Yes. We need to wait for the reply from the commission, and it's only then that we can turn to the local authorities without any questions.
Speaker 1
Such a letter will then be sent. We shall do that if you want us to do so. We shall send this letter to the Maltese authorities. Now, let us move on. Item 24, petition 1268/2025 by a German citizen on banning attached tethered caps of plastic bottles and paper straws, and petition 1559/2025 by Ralph Biss from Germany on the impact of mandatory tethered bottle caps on accessibility.
The petitioners are not with us in the room, so I would like to invite NDG and Vik to present their reply.
Speaker 62
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor, and thanks to the petitioners for raising this topic. Honorable members of the Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, the requirement to attach caps and lids to single-use plastic beverage containers was introduced by the Single Use Plastics Directive 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. The Single-Use Plastics Directive aims to reduce the negative impact on the environment and human health from the unsustainable use of those single-use plastic products that are most often found as litter on European beaches. In line with better regulation rules, the adoption of the single-use plastics directive was preceded by a comprehensive impact assessment and broad stakeholder consultations, including citizens. At the time of the impact assessment, beverage bottles and their caps and lids were the most frequently found litter items on our beaches.
Plastic straws were also among the most littered items. Caps and lids were found more than twice as often as the bottles. The tethering requirement, in combination with the mandatory separate collection targets for single-use plastic beverage bottles, is expected to significantly decrease their littering. Already today, the caps and lids can be recycled mechanically, although not into contact-sensitive materials. To increase the recycling of plastic waste that is currently difficult to recycle mechanically into recyclates of the required quality, such as plastic commonly used for bottle caps and lids, the Commission is about to adopt an implementing act under the Single-Use Plastics Directive with calculation rules, including for chemical recycling technologies.
This ensures that all recycling technologies can contribute to our circularity goals and helps increase the amount of plastic waste recycled into new products. Related to the linked petition 12/2025, including a call to repeal the ban on plastic straws, I wish to point out that straws were among the most littered items on our beaches, and they were banned under the Single-Use Plastics Directive because the assessment identified the wide availability of viable alternatives, including reusable solutions and non-plastic materials such as paper. An exemption applies to straws for medical purposes. The commission will evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value of the Single-Use Plastics Directive by 07/03/2027. This evaluation will include the tethered caps requirement and the ban on plastic straws.
As part of this evaluation, an open public consultation is currently ongoing until March 17, during which stakeholders can share their views on, inter alia, the practical feasibility and inclusiveness of the measures introduced. The commission observes that various other measures are in place to increase the sustainability and recyclability of products in the EU, such as the EcoDesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. The letter includes the provision that all packaging must be recyclable by 2030. As a conclusion, the commission takes note of the petitioner's concerns regarding the potential usability issues that the measure on the tethered caps requirements may pose for consumers with physical disabilities, as well as the proportion of effectiveness and practical implementation of these measures and of the plastic straws ban. These aspects were assessed during the preparation and adoption of the Single-Use Plastics Directive, based on evidence and stakeholder consultations identifying these products as among the most commonly littered items.
The commission underlines that the directive provides for an evidence-based evaluation, which will specifically assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of the measures in question, including consumer usability, inclusiveness, and practical feasibility. Stakeholders are invited to contribute through the open public consultation. The outcome of this evaluation will inform any future considerations in coherence with the EU's broad sustainability and recyclability framework. Thank you very much.
Thank you. EPP.
Speaker 7
Dear Chair, dear colleagues, I am speaking on this petition on behalf of a colleague. First of all, I thank the petitioners for bringing this to our attention, and especially the commission for its very detailed reply. This is an issue which, in our constituencies, is frequently highlighted by people as an aspect of the EU where the EU maybe goes a bit too much into detail in our lives. However, of course, there is an environmental aspect that one cannot disregard. So I understand that there has been a whole series of political developments leading to the commission to identify these top polluters, and this is an aspect of dealing with that.
Having said that, I take note that there is this evaluation going on, and we are looking forward to seeing what this evaluation is saying, that the commission said will come to term in 2027. There is also a public consultation going on. And so I would ask the committee, if possible, the secretariat, to reply to the petitioner also referring to the public consultation so the feedback can be channeled that way. And in the meantime, we keep this petition open. Thank you.
Now, mister.
Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. Of course, it's very important that we keep proportionality in mind, and it's also important that we need to.
A reworking of these rules. I think.
It's important that environmental policies and health policies, of course, play an important role in that realization, but citizens and enterprises should not be overwhelmed by these rules. So, I would like to keep the petition open.
Speaker 1
Yes.
Then this petition will remain open, and we will ask for a written response from the commission. Item 25, petition 12 O1/2025 by Anna Fiala from the Czech Republic on the implementation of the EU carbon trading scheme for private households. The petitioner is with us online. And if possible, we would now like to listen to the presentation by the petitioner.
Yes, please.
Speaker 64
Just before lunch. My name is Anna Ruxandra Fiala Iliescu, and I support the EU climate.
Please start. Start. Start. Yes, please. Okay.
Speaker 64
So, my name is Anna Ruxandra Fiala Iliescu, and I support the EU climate ambition. My petition highlights a small but important gap in ETS 2. I will show one real example, explain why feasibility matters, not only finance, and end with three practical questions. Next. Ets two assumes a simple chain.
Speaker 65
Next. Please do the second slide. ETS two assumes a simple chain. Price rises. People invest.
Speaker 64
Emissions go down. That works when a household has a real option. But in many dense city homes, this option simply does not exist. Because of limited space, shading, decisions made outside of the household, upfront costs, and permits needed. So costs rise, but the pathway to respond is missing.
Next. Let me show you what technical constraints actually look like. In the first picture, top left, you see a greenhouse. That's the picture of the property. In the second picture, you see to the southwest the apartment block creating permanent shading.
In the third picture, low left, you see from the east trees and neighboring buildings reducing solar access. The roof itself, which you see in the fourth picture, faces northwest, which lowers output. The house's own extension reduces space and creates self-shading. Then people often say, "Put panels in the garden." But the garden sits behind the house, so by the afternoon, the structure is shaded too.
And this is not unique to Central Europe. West-facing roofs and desks, urban shadings are common. You cannot move an apartment building. You cannot cut your neighbor's trees. You cannot redesign or stop the city from changing.
So, the issue here is not motivation. It's physics. The Social Climate Fund focuses on financial support, and that is really important. But financial support assumes that an upgrade is actually possible. Here, feasibility comes first.
Low solar yield means an uncertain payback. You don't control the surrounding buildings, and any measures need upfront spending and permits long before any savings. In our case, there is bedrock right under the ground, and the garden inclines toward the house, so there is simply not even a place to dig and install a rainwater storage tank. So now, please let me ask you some simple, practical questions. If a household cannot technically decarbonize, what is ETS2 asking them to do?
Because if the answer is to pay more every year, that is not an incentive. It's a surcharge. Would you buy that home at the normal market price? And if you already owned it, how would you get out? Next.
When technical options are zero, the carbon price stops acting like an incentive; it starts to feel like a surcharge. And in some countries, mine included, households already carry high fixed network charges. Next. My questions are practical. First, oh, next.
You forgot a couple of slides. My questions are practical. Will the EU clarify next, please? Will the EU clarify what "technical impossibility" means in practice? Second, will there be minimum protection so that comparable households aren't treated differently across member states?
Third, if the social climate plan does not help households with no technical options, what will the EU do to fix it? The goal is simple. Keep ETS as an incentive where change is possible and fair where it is not. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Let us now hear the opinion of the Climate DG of the European Commission. Do you have a representative? Yes. The floor is yours.
Did you claim it?
Speaker 66
Honorable Chair, dear honorable members, ladies and gentlemen, the EU emission trading system for fuel combustion in buildings, road transport, and additional sectors, which we refer to as ETS 2, was adopted as part of the 2022-2023 revision of the ETS directive with the support of a qualified majority of member states and a majority of the European Parliament. The ETS complements other national and EU policies and measures to achieve member states' overall emission reductions under the Effort Sharing Regulation. Following a provisional agreement on 12/10/2025 between the European Parliament and the Council, the start of the ETS2 has been delayed and is now expected to be in 2028. However, even with the delay, member states remain legally obliged to meet their twin 30% emission reduction targets in the road transport and building sectors, further underlining the role of complementary measures in these sectors. In addition, the Commission has recently proposed measures on the ETS 2 implementation framework to accelerate prior investments and smooth the launch of ETS 2, following up on proposals received from a broad majority of member states.
The ETS2 framework supports complementary measures and investments in clean building, heating, and road transport for citizens. The Social Climate Fund mobilizes €65,000,000,000 plus national contributions as of 2026, designed with double solidarity. First of all, supporting a socially fair transition for vulnerable households with lower income, member states benefiting the most from the Social Climate Fund. In addition, member states must also target all national ETS2 revenues at measures and investments to support citizens in the transitions. Finally, and most recently, the European Investment Bank has approved a two-front loading facility, which was jointly established and developed with the European Commission.
The facility will make €3,000,000,000 available to accelerate investment in the decarbonization of the sectors covered by the new ETS 2 for building and road transport. This will allow member states to access the funding and prefinance programs before the new system comes into effect in 2028 and before revenues are collected. Under each of these instruments, member states have the flexibility to determine measures supporting the transition of households and transport users based on the approach that fits them best. For example, it can be investments in clean building heating. Effective approaches can also include solar panel electrification, the installation of heat pumps, district heating, or renewable energy communities, among others.
To conclude, the Commission shares the aim of ensuring an effective and socially fair transition. A gradual and smooth start of ETS 2 is an important element in attaining the EU 2030 and 2040 climate targets and can complement member states' actions in the building and road transport sectors to achieve these targets. At the same time, a gradual and smooth launch of ETS 2 is of key importance, and together with the Social Climate Fund, it will generate additional resources that can be directed to support citizens, micro enterprises, and member state measures accompanying the transition. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Dear Chair, I'll thank a lot the petitioner, Anna Fiala. You know, we have spoken so much about ETS here in the European Parliament, in the groups, in the committees, and in the plenary. But sometimes, you have a citizen like this giving you a very concrete rendition of how she sees EU policy affecting her personally, also with these photos. And maybe this expresses things much better than all the statistics and policy statements that we make. I mean, now, coming to the crunch.
Of course, as a group, as EPP, we are behind our climate ambitions. We want to fight climate change because we care about our future generations. Very simple. We care for our planet. We care for our lives and the lives of our children.
However, it is very clear that there is a continuing detachment between what Europe is saying, where Europe wants to go, and how citizens are perceiving it. And in this case, particularly, I think they are right in saying, "Listen." Are you sure you want to do this? Are you sure you have considered exactly the impact if you keep going in this direction? I have gone into some of the aspects of ETS when it comes to the impact on housing prices, for instance.
There is a study from France saying that the energy efficiency provisions—these are basic, not ETS 2, but before that, the energy efficiency directive, insulation of buildings, and so on—had an impact of around 9% on property prices. So if you want to produce apartments which are zero emissions, you have to pay 9% up to 20% more for the apartment. Now, at the same time as the European Union, we're putting a lot of emphasis on the housing crisis. Right? We even have a new committee for that.
And we're saying that young people in Europe should have better access to housing. Now, these things don't go together. If we're saying houses will go up 20% because of ETS, at the same time, we want to make it easier for our young people. So I definitely support the call behind this petition, and I want to stress our emphasis that the commission should continue to provide a very detailed assessment of the impacts on the citizens, on the people directly. And also, to conclude, a small comment on the social climate fund and everything we do.
When we think that we are putting a burden, but then we're putting a fund to help, you know, these funds touch only a drop in the ocean of the impact of a policy change. So, let's not fool ourselves. Funding helps. Yes. It can be strategic.
It helps, but it will not solve the problem. So, let's think about policy more wisely. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, colleagues. Good morning, Missus Fiala. I would recommend to our colleagues in this house to take this petition really seriously because we are basically talking about almost brand new legislation adopted just a couple of years ago, fully to be implemented starting in 2028. And already now, there is, for example, a revision of the market stability results linked to ETS 2 because of the unrealistic way the legislation has been prepared. The petitioner, Missus Fiala, clearly pointed out that one size doesn't fit all and that we were not able, in the previous Monday, to address all the challenges, despite the fact that many of us have been pointing out that there are similar issues.
You might also remember that in the position of the parliament for the trial of negotiation in 2022, the households have been excluded in the ETS two for obvious reasons because the technical and general problems were much bigger than the expected value. So, mentioned the social climate fund. I'm not sure that it would help because the situation of Missus Fjalla is that the technical solutions are not possible. And this direct funding from the Social Climate Fund allows funding families under energy poverty or transportation poverty. But apparently, this is not the case. So, what is needed, in my eyes, is that there is much more flexibility given in the implementation to the member states, including the idea that simply the ETS 2 is not implemented and some carbon price is implemented, for example.
And member states are able to solve these things much better than the European Union. So I would definitely support a colleague from EPP; that relevant committee should invest the time in elaborating this issue. And just one remark to the European Commission: I really expected this. We have heard a very competent presentation from an EU citizen, and the European Commission again came with a prepared answer, blah blah blah. This is the legislation.
Speaker 70
We have a tool. We have a fund. We will redistribute. Everything is perfect. I mean, this is such typical arrogance of technocrats.
Speaker 68
We shall really change this. Invite, especially the climate-related DGs, to change their attitude. It's not about the man who was presenting. It is just that he's doing the job that he's tasked to do, but this is not the way we shall communicate to our citizens. Many thanks again to Missus Fiala, and thanks to you, colleague, for investing attention in this serious topic.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 64
So, thank you very much. And, again, the fund is really important, but funding assumes that an upgrade is possible. And in this case, I hope I showed that sunlight cannot be bought with money. And I can assure you that the first thing we did was to try to put solar panels and a rainwater tank. It didn't work.
We have new windows. We have a new insulated roof. The house is insulated. And now I'm really fearing for our future because the house will be sold at a zero price. If people see that, that's my fear.
Yeah? That they cannot adapt to ETS 2. I'm fearing to lose actually all our life investment. Thank you very much again for listening.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. This petition will remain open, and we are awaiting more information in writing from the European Commission. Well, we have come to item 26 on the agenda. Is there any other business? Is there any other business you would like to mention?
If not, then the date and place of the next meeting on Monday, 23rd March, and Tuesday, 24th March 2026 in Brussels. And I conclude the meeting. Thank you very much to the participants. Thank you to the interpreters. Thank you to everybody present.
This meeting is now history, and we're looking forward to the next one. Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.