Committee on Constitutional Affairs 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
AFCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
This is 18,000 now under the new regulation, to level it up to 25,000 or 30,000 subject to a proper transparency reporting obligation from third-party private donations. I think investing in a European political foundation is not merely a technical issue. It is strategic investment in the union's democratic resilience and future governance, and I really hope that our report, together with the shadow reporters, will be supported with a large majority, which could translate into a strong political message to the European Commission to propose targeted amendments to the regulation on European political parties and foundations. Thank you.
Charles Goerens
Thank you, Chair. As my corruptor and I have the same reading of the situation, I don't need the five minutes allocated to make my points. The role of foundations is clear. And more important than ever, foundations in Europe have the role of bringing out the profound tendencies which are shaping our present and our future, and to engage in political debate and reflection. They're more than their national components.
They are the extension and the complement of the in the European integration. Defense of your European democracy, a liberal democracy, is not a matter of chance. We have to seize the moment, read the underlying trends, and only the foundations can fulfill that function. They can enlighten us on particular events and situations, which short-termism and the determinism of algorithms are capable of doing. And that's why it's important that the European legislature ensures that the funds made available to foundations are sufficient.
Money isn't everything, but without funding, the foundations are not able to accomplish their task. To that end, the corporatures are proposing, as my colleague said, to raise the threshold of eligible activities to 100%. Why 100%? Because we believe that the more the co funding borne by the state or the union is high, the less will the foundations be dependent on private donations. And that is all the better for their independence in the analysis.
Secondly, we need to be more imaginative, and the contribution system has to be reviewed. We set out some ideas in our draft report, and we believe it would be useful and judicious to devise a system which would make the level of contributions dependent on the level of activities carried out at national level by the national foundations with the European foundations. Thirdly, upstream of the adoption of the multi-annual financial framework, which is upcoming, we need to envisage sufficient funding. And we think it's time now to alert the member states and the European institutions involved in this exercise to the need to revise the initial proposals. And finally, and this is a small point, but it's important, the DG Finance and the European Parliament has drawn our attention to this.
We need to speed up the presentation of the accounts. In the preceding reports that we were given, we managed to abolish the system of IFRS accounting, which was a facility that both the parties and the foundations could avail themselves of. We will be very receptive to what the representatives of the foundations, European foundations, say. No, I didn't have time to discuss with my colleague Vinci, but the recast chosen by the commission of the previous report suits me perfectly because it takes account of our proposals as it did the last time in our own initiative report, which I presented with two different colleagues. The commission is our partner in this, and I can only hope that the measures we outline in this report will be protected by the commission's legislative proposal.
So much for the recast. And then finally, I would like if we could, at European Parliament level and at party political and financial level, if we could agree on the essence of our mission rather than engaging solely in financial acrobatics, it'd be better to ensure that foundations have their full independence because it's a form of respect. And it also enables them to move forward in their work, which is essential for them, and especially for us. Thank you for your attention.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, Charles. And I would now like to open the floor to the members, starting with the shadow rapporteurs for three minutes. So I will give the floor first to Gabou Elebischev. And I would like to emphasize and thank the two corrupteurs for their work until here, that in these difficult times of internal and external threats, it's more important than ever to create a truly European political space. And it was already mentioned that political foundations play a crucial democratic role in this, especially to create this transnational public space where citizens across countries can deliberate.
And in this true sense, also take up the message that Habermas leaves us here to strengthen already these foundations that play a key role in this, and we have to continue to enlarge it. So we all realized that the recently amended regulation falls short here. We realized this at the end of the trilogue negotiations, and this is why we agreed on this endeavor. And, therefore, it's very important here that we address the concerns that were raised also regarding the funding framework. So I agree with the call on the commission to present a legislative proposal revising those provisions.
And we need a sustainable and sufficient funding of the foundations here, and the way to try to do this through a reduction of the co-funding rates needs to be ensured here. We need very practical solutions. We need them fast so that the foundations can play their role in the European democratic discourse. And with this, I will hand over to Mister Girauda Vidal from The Patriots. They are not here, so I hand over to ECR to Mr. Jacky.
He's also not here. How about the Greens and Mister Van Lanschott? Haven't seen him here either. Is anyone here from the left party and from the ESN? No.
Okay. As I know, but also is here. But do any members want to take the floor? I see Mr. Lopez Aguilar. You have the floor.
Speaker 9
For three minutes. I can only salute for sure. I can only salute the outcome of the negotiations that finally brought about the adoption of this relevant instrument, a regulation on political parties and foundations. And certainly, it's a step forward, very significant. And there are some particular points that were of the interest of the S and D contribution to this file, as you just mentioned, relates to gender, the lens to governance standards improved certainly for those instruments.
But I would actually make the point that some challenges still remain when it comes to building up what we expect to be one day a truly believable European public space, a European public sphere in which political parties and foundations are to play the role to the utmost. And, that means that they are to be granted increased political autonomy and stronger relevant role when it comes to not only European elections, but also national elections. That means the link between European political parties and foundations is the branches at national level, the national political parties and foundations. And in that regard, I would simply ask because we are having a panel here as to the expectation of the what is the assessment of the enhanced role that political parties and foundation can actually play when it comes to building up this European public sphere, this European public opinion, this European public space, and building up a political playground, a political sphere in which, actually, the competition between political parties goes European in its scale and its content. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, and also Mr. Laszlo from The Patriots who wants to take the floor.
Speaker 8
Thank you. I'm MEP and also President of the Foundation, so I don't want to jump the queue. I'll take it after the first two foundations. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Okay. Good. Any other members who want to take the floor? I don't see this. So I would like to thank you all for this exchange of views on the draft reform report here.
And I think this is quite important. Please be informed that the deadline for amendments is set for 03/26/2026 at 05:00 in the afternoon. And now we can move to the exchange of views with the European Political Foundations on the 2026 report on the application of the regulation from 2025 here on the statute and funding of the European political parties and European political foundations, and on the activities funded. All 12 registered European political foundations have been invited to today's meeting. I would like to stress that only registered European political foundations could be invited.
11 of them have responded positively and are ready to share their views with us today. And I will proceed here in order of the significance of the funding awarded. Please, and I encourage you, please do not exceed four minutes maximum. And we will start with Mr. Hutanen as Executive Director on behalf of the Wilfred Martin Center for European Studies, you have the floor, mister Hutanen.
Speaker 11
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, committee. It's great pleasure and, you know, honored to be here giving comment on this report. First of all, I tried to focus on the issues which were not mentioned by the reporters to contribute to the debate. First of all, I would like to thank the reporters, mister Vinci and mister Gonens, because indeed the dialogue and the interaction and discussion and planning was very good.
Speaker 12
I would say as a result, report as it stands, because the main focus will be on the, you know, co-financing issue, actually offers the solution. And if it would be able to move forward with that, that would be perfect. But I guess the idea, because the report mentioned the amendments, the idea is also there, but maybe in other institution, there's different views. Second point I would like to make about the importance of the foundations, which was already mentioned here in the committee. Foundations and parties, they don't receive extremely lot of funding.
Speaker 10
But I would claim on behalf of all the foundations that we play a very specific role because if you look at the instruments the European Parliament specifically has to have the democratic direct dialogue in a political sense with citizens. I would claim it's MEPs' offices, it's the political parties, and the foundations. And we can see now everyday work. And also as a consequence, we understand among the foundations that the solutions for the financing of the foundations need to be common. So I think we are having a dialogue among ourselves and understanding that they've and will that all foundations have to have the same availabilities to function.
Now on the proposals. Yes. The proposed solution for increase the co finance to 100%, it that would be indeed the solution. Just to underline, it's not only about money itself, but it's also reducing clear cost. I would claim, we need the European Parliament on in the sense that a lot of the auditing and procedures relate to this problematic aspect of on resource, on resources management.
Hope that we can manage to get it through. But started some proposals, which were mentioned already, but I comment as asked. As the reporter mentioned, the membership fees from the member foundations and the contribution for political parties, in fact, are already part of the current regulation, but they are not much used, and that's the reason why they are not used. First of all, the National foundations membership fees, the ecosystem is not so strong. Many of the foundations are small.
They have very little funding. And, also, there's increasingly the political argument in the sense that now we are there's a European regulation to which forces, the foundations which are funded by national, public entities to transfer that in the European level. So the membership fees, you know, that already exist, that possibility, and it's not, you know, used for reason. And same for the political parties. It was reporter Goransk who underlined the importance of the independence of the foundations, and that goes out between parties and foundations.
The regulation clearly indicates that there needs to be, you know, separation. Would we enhance that financial link between the parties and foundations in a way that parties would be forced tacitly to transfer money that would enforce then that revision. Just my concluding point, indeed, I think that the question really here, what we need to discuss in the sidelines is exactly what is then the strategy if the inter institutional discussion, this increased to 100%, is challenged. Thank you, chair.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, Mr. Huttanen. And the next speaker is Mister Nicolas Schmidt, FEBS president, on behalf of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chair. First, I also want to thank the Afco committee, especially the rapporteurs for their work, and the shadow rapporteurs. I think it's a very solid work to finally give foundations the possibility to do their work in a context of transparency, in a context of autonomy, and this has just been underlined, and also to assure continuity. It would be absurd to have a system where more and more time is spent just to find money to do the work instead of doing the real work, which is finally to contribute to the democratic debate in the European Union, because that's finally what the role of foundations is and that it has been underlined also by mister Gurens. So I think that the basic proposal of the report, and especially the zero or total public financing by Europe, is the best way to guarantee autonomy, transparency, and continuity.
Well, we all know that maybe there will be a debate after. There will be a debate with the other institutions. But at least for us, this is a very strong and good starting point. Now just to comment also briefly on some other ideas on the membership fees, well, this is already possible in the present regulation. But we have to have in mind also that in different member countries, there are specific provisions which allow or do not allow certain types of financing.
So this cannot just be forgotten. And to think that this will swiftly be changed, I think this is not a realistic approach. So we have to consider these differences among member states, so affecting also the local or national foundations and their relationship to the European ones. Now what we have to do, obviously, is to have a transition which is not disruptive. We cannot say, well, now we change everything, and we wait for a new system perhaps in one year, two years, three years.
So this is important also that we manage to have a smooth transition, because otherwise, it could be really a danger for the good functioning of the foundation. Now on EU parties, I absolutely share what has been said by the Martens Foundation. I think we want autonomy because, finally, the role of foundation is not to be a party. It's to help parties to think, to make proposals. Sometimes also think out of the box.
So free from all kinds of political pressures. So I think I'm skeptical about this approach. Now on other members who could provide financing, here also, I'm very skeptical. I do not think that finally universities, which are also in principle autonomous and are not linked to some political context, should then contribute to foundations. Which one?
Which political foundation? So this is, I think, something which will not really function. So I, at the end, I think the best option is what you you're proposing. It's the full financing, the zero going down to zero. And I think, okay, when now other discussions start with institutions, be it the council or the commission, we certainly are open.
We are flexible to see what kind of alternatives can be found, which, again, have to make sure that transparency is guaranteed and that foundations, European foundations, with their important role they have now and they play now and they especially have to play in the future for the European project, is guaranteed. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Mister Laszlo on behalf of the Patriots for Europe Foundation.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chair. I have two technical remarks and two general remarks. The first technical remark is about the corrective measures. I think it is a useful tool, and we should keep it. And we are now transitioning out of this, and I think that's a bad idea.
The second is about article two and the European values, which now all foundations and member foundations must respect. This is incredibly broad and allows for very vague, and not only vague but also political interpretation. For example, transgenders are not in the EU treaties per se, but political interpretation of left wing groups is that they fall under human dignity, for example. I don't think this is something that should be decided by administrative offices, and then the parliament or the commission or any other institutions. The same is true for the status and dignity or rights of illegal immigrants, the question of abortion, and other issues which are simply political and should not be decided based on article two by bureaucrats.
About my general remarks. First, I have only been president of a political foundation for a bit more than a year, but my general experience is surprised about the level of scrutiny, which I think is incredibly excessive. I believe in competition in the economy and also in politics. It is my interest to make the biggest political impact with the work of the foundation in terms of promoting values, ideas, and policy. And I don't mind if my political competitors don't use their funds efficiently or effectively.
If they don't, that puts me at a relative advantage. And I think my competitors would think the same. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be scrutiny, but we have, for example, we have about €3,000,000 annual budget, and it is scrutinized till the last invoice if the EU institutions wish. On the other hand, NGOs get billions of funding with almost zero transparency and public scrutiny. Even as a member of the European Parliament, the commission refuses me access to these project proposals or other financial or activity reports of NGOs.
So this double standard in scrutiny, I believe, is huge. My second general remark is related to the first one, the level of funding, which was already mentioned by several colleagues. As I said, NGOs get billions of funding to promote their ideas, to organize conferences, for networking, pay experts, and draft policy ideas, etcetera. And how much do European political foundations get in comparison in total? I think the comparison is the difference is staggering.
We have totally outsourced the promotion of ideas and policy-making to NGOs, and this is simply wrong. The total funding for European political parties and foundations is ridiculously low compared to the grants given to NGOs by the EU. There are two outrageous organizations who got funding. One is chaired by former MEP Gifford Hofstadt, €50,000,000 funding in four years to European Movement International, if I believe. That's more than most political foundations.
The other is the European Endowment for Democracy, which spent 150,000,000 in six years, and there's zero scrutiny. But that's another question. I'm just giving the comparisons. The most staggering comparison, of course, is one of the political foundations funded in Germany. In 2024, they got €687,000,000 for political foundations.
What do European political foundations get in comparison? I think we all see the amazing difference. So these imbalances make the funding of European party foundations look ridiculous, yet we have the most severe scrutiny. So I just want to join my colleagues in support, that I think political foundations to have a clear funding and stable funding, and that we can focus on our work. We should increase the EU subsidies access to 100%.
Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
The next speaker on my list is mister Wittel de Chevilly, executive director on behalf of the new direction.
Speaker 14
I'd like to thank the two rapporteurs for the excellent work, and thank you to the secretariat of AFCO for having produced this. Well, we've really appreciated the clarifications that we've received in terms of the regulation. Some clarification has been obtained regarding the financing and the working conditions and DGFIN. And we also appreciate the possibility of things progressing in the future, even though there are some gray areas still remaining in this exercise. For example, the common project on the recast, on the revision, that is very important for us in any case, because it allows us to work with local partners and local authorities.
So thank you for the work and the support that we've had from those two institutions in our daily work. I think that this common project is to work with these local partners in a more defined way, apropos of the regulation. As I said, there are some shady areas still remaining. We don't have a problem on the legality aspect, but we'd like a definition to know what that actually means. So we'd quite like some clarification on that.
Speaker 15
We have not had a very clear reply so far. It's been rather vague. We don't have the possibility, therefore, of implementing, amending, or corrective measures. We may make some mistakes, obviously some errors. So we want to be able to ask the right questions.
Speaker 14
We would like answers to our doubts. Then there are corrective measures, which are welcome, of course. Turning now to transparency. Indeed, it's useful and important, but I think that we do find that already in the donation process. We've got a balance, and we give time to DG Finn to verify in the public domain and to check how precise the information is.
Turning now to the certainty. Recently, we've seen that the financial reporting takes a lot of time, the very rigorous procedure attached to that, and that puts our stability in danger because we've got to submit it two years later. I think it'd be important to try to look at the timing of the audit, and look at the number of issues to be dealt with. On the question of the transparency then, I think there's a possibility of getting an easier possibility for private people depending on the category of the sum. If you got a precise sum of money from private donors, I don't really see the need for three categories, however.
And I would also like to, in conclusion, say that it's absolutely essential to have these foundations. Their work is essential, and we want to have co-financing, because we also have the budget for new foundations. And we've got indexation. We've got inflation. So every year, our budget, in real terms, goes down, and we would therefore like extra financing.
That would be welcome. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And the next speaker is Miss Alvar Finn, executive director on behalf of the European Liberal Forum. You have the floor.
Speaker 17
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you also to the AFCO colleagues who have put together the reports, the rapporteurs, and also for inviting us here today. I think we're really grateful for the recognition of our role in the report, and also some of the challenges we are facing. I just wanna talk a bit about the value of our work and really in practical terms how we're working at ELF, because I think that's actually sometimes obscured in the conversation we have. We use all of our money, every single euro, well.
Speaker 16
We do about 40 projects, 105 activities where we're reaching out at national level events, research. We have a podcast. All of this is becoming harder and harder each year because we're getting less money, in terms of inflation. If you think about the amount of inflation that we've gone through since 2021, that's 23%. Our budget line has not changed as a result of that.
We got maybe a couple of extra million euros since then, but not enough to offset that. So every single one of us is having to do more with less. So that's just to say that if we don't have enough money to do this, awareness raising, that's less people in the European Union who know about what's happening here in Brussels. So the value for the money that we do, an extra €2,500,000 should not be that much in terms of 2027 budget line, but also we need to adjust for inflation annually. We're delivering all of that with only 10 full-time staff members.
The amount of time that I spend personally as the executive director on compliance is about 2 and a half days. We have five other staff members out of those 10 staff members working on compliance. That's half of our staff are literally working on compliance all the time, and we have an excellent relationship with the authority and DG Fins, but that is too much red tape. That is too much compliance. We need to fix that.
And I think one of the main ways to do that is we need clearer rules, clearer understanding of what is a joint activity, how much visibility our members are getting versus what we're getting. And I actually agree with our colleagues from the Patriots. The removal wholesale of the corrective measures from the regulation puts us in an extraordinarily difficult position. I am again spending half of my time working on compliance. On any year, I might be told that we are not compliant, and some of those costs will be found ineligible despite the enormous amount of work that I do to make sure that every single euro of this public money is spent well.
So I would advise that we can bring corrective measures in some of those formats and that we have a clear way of working with DG Finns and the authority that is easier for all of us, and a clear method for aligning with how much visibility we give to our members. I mean, I won't repeat what you have already said, which is if we went to complete public spending, that would be much easier. Obviously, that will be a battle in the council. But, actually, it would make our work much more transparent, so we can only support what the repertoires have put in the report, which is moving to complete 100% public financing of the European political foundations. Also, I've heard talk now of maybe the parties giving us more money.
Well, our party gives us zero, and they are also challenged by the fact that there are new political parties. When the money in the pot becomes, is exactly the same and more people enter, that means we need to divide the money among us. So it is not realistic to think that our parties are gonna give us money when they don't now, and it will also interfere with our independence, which is in the regulation, as a tenant. It will also make us less creative if we do that. So these are just a few points.
I'm really happy to bring it forward also individually, maybe with some of the repertoires, and I understand the commissioner here. But this regulation has not completely resolved the problems we are facing. And I would love to take forward also how we're talking about simplification also in this house, all the time. Well, we also need our ways of working to be simplified so that we can focus on telling citizens about the European Union. That's my job, but I spend a lot of my time wasted elsewhere.
Speaker 17
So thank you very much for the report, and we look forward to a continued dialogue.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mister Laurent Standard, director on behalf of the Green European Foundation.
Speaker 18
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you to the members, to the AFCO secretariat, and, in particular, to the reporters. A lot has been said by my colleagues. This is quite a cohesive family of the European Political Foundation, so I will spare you some of the technicalities that have been said. I can only second very strongly what has just been said by my colleague, Alvar, in terms of the burden that it can represent.
Speaker 19
And why? Also, because I'm here as the first representative of the smaller foundations. If you look at the list, the ones after me, we all get a smaller share of that pie, but that burden is the same. And so that burden, that administrative burden, is the same for smaller foundations. They have more difficulty to cope with that.
Speaker 18
Like my colleagues, and I'm very happy to be in this chamber for that, this is also a good moment as MEP Gurens has done to remind us of the spirit, not only the letter of the regulation. And I think we are very, very cognizant of, you know, what is in the report in terms of the work we do as European Political Foundation with, as was reminded by colleague from the Patriots who just left, you know, with the funding that is at hand. This is quite a small amount given the work of the European Political Foundations throughout Europe. For the smaller foundations, just like for the bigger ones, there is this question of the partnership and the joint activities with our national foundations, the member foundations. I think this requires more clarity.
There is a huge leverage effect, and this is the spirit of article two of the regulation. The European political foundations are not there only to do a pan-European job from Brussels, but to collaborate with the member foundations in the different countries. And this has been a very serious bone of contention in terms of either the reporting and the auditing of those activities, or simply the clarification of the rules for us to partner with those foundations. There was a time after the rejection of the treaties in 2005 when the regulation was fought through in this very chamber, where the idea of €1 per citizen for political education and true political foundations was emitted. We're very far from that, so I can only second that element of increase of the budget for the European political foundations in the face of indexation and inflation in the last years.
Lastly, I really thank the core reporters for the report. Also speaking on behalf of the smaller foundations, there's a very clear recognition, and I thank them for that in the different articles and recital of the report. For us, it is clear that autonomy and also freedom from the interference from non-EU actors, which has been so stressed in the last years, including, and I want to stress that on behalf of the Green European Foundation, true donations would be resolved by the full funding of 100% by the public institution. As Green European Foundation, I want to insist also on the need for transparency. It's there, but contrary to some of my colleagues, I insist on the need for transparency to be front and center.
The removal of corrective measures, I think, is a problem. And finally, we will be very, you know, cognizant of the other institutions, as Alva mentioned, the commission and the council, to take into account the very good work and listening of the core reporters in this report. Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Miss Hannah Kress, co-coordinator on behalf of CoPeters Foundation.
Speaker 20
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you to the reporters, and thank you to my colleague. I can only reinforce what my colleagues previously said, especially Alva and Laurent. As one of the smallest foundations, we want to stress especially a couple of more technical issues. We argue in favor of a different distribution key for the budget line for the political foundations, from 10 to 15% of resources distributed equally among the foundations.
So it would mean to revert back to 15% of the distribution key. My second point is regarding the increase of 100% of co-financing for the foundations. We are not against it. It is a positive for us, although maybe worth mentioning is favoring way more the bigger foundation than the smaller foundations. Other couple of more technical issues is, as Alba was saying, we are a very small foundation.
We have only two people working full time, and we spend most of our time on compliance. So the simplification is a crucial point for us. I'm referring especially to the IFRS report. So it is my understanding that we'll have to do it for 2025 or 2026. We will argue against it going further.
We also would suggest to go back to a grant award decision system instead of a grant agreement, that would help us a little bit. And we would ask for a possibility of keeping electronic records instead of the reimbursement papers and the work we are doing, because we are spending most of the time on bureaucratic processes. And, again, only two people, it's really difficult, with the same budget we keep having every year, and we are simply drowning in bureaucracy. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you also for staying perfectly on time. And the next speaker is mister Harian Agassay, managing director on behalf of Sovereignty Foundation.
Speaker 21
Madam Chair, honorable members, distinguished colleagues, for our foundation, this discussion comes at a key moment. After completing the formal requirements for our establishment last year, we are now able to start our substantive work in 2024. We are keen to contribute to a serious debate, and we will rely on a stable and predictable environment that allows foundations to fulfill this role effectively. In this spirit, we welcome today's exchange and stand ready to work constructively with parliament and the authority on practical solutions for the funding and functioning of European political foundations. As a foundation that has only recently been established, we are deliberately refraining from making a more specific statement at this stage.
At this point, I would just like to mention two brief points. First, I would like to support the remarks made by my colleague, Mr. Andras Laszlo, when it comes to Article two values, which all foundations are required to respect. The formulation is extremely broad. In our view, such open-ended political and legal concepts should not be interpreted in practice by administrative offices on their own initiative, but should remain under democratic and judicial control.
Second, I would like to echo the comments made by my colleague, Ms. Alva Finn, regarding compliance and administrative requirements. Even in our short experience so far, it is clear that the level of bureaucracy and the resources that foundations must devote to compliance are very substantial, and this inevitably limits the time and energy available for substantive work. We look forward to listening to the views expressed today, and to engaging in a constructive dialogue in the months ahead. Thank you so much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And the next speaker is Ms. Marisa Matthias, coordinator on behalf of Puerle Pupler.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Madam Scheer. I also want to thank the co-rapporteurs for the proposals in their reports, and the work they have done, we think, is an important work in the right direction. As my colleague just said, we are also a newly-founded foundation. So I've assumed the position of coordinator just in the recent weeks, so I don't have the level of experience of many of the colleagues that have spoken before. But in that sense, I will not be so long, I have just a few comments.
Speaker 23
In any case, I think it's important to reinforce the role of the foundations, the European foundations, in protecting and supporting democracy, especially in the current context. And for that, the foundations to be the proper tools need to also have the conditions to work properly. So we agree with some of the proposals that the operators presented, namely when it comes to the increase of the overall EU budget allocated to the foundations. Also, when it comes to the financing rates, we could agree with the proposal of increasing financing rate to 100%, but also we need more transparency and clarity. It was already referred by our colleague from the Green European Foundation that despite the fact that there were more clarifications in terms, there are still some domains where we don't have the needed clarification we need.
Speaker 22
And specifically, in terms of the joint activities of the European and the National Foundations, it would be very good if we could devote more time and try to clarify it in a different way. So as I said, we still don't have the level of experience, but we could support the general recommendations of the report. We are more than available to do this discussion. And, of course, we also thank for the possibility to take part in this exchange of views. Thank you so much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And the next speaker is Mister Jan Leland, vice president on behalf of Transform Europe.
Speaker 24
Thank you. Thank you all. And I'd like to thank by commending the excellent work of the reporters and the secretariat. I would echo a lot of what has been said by previous speakers. I think the report goes in the right direction.
It enables important steps to be taken for the works of the foundation. Foundations of the European public space, in general, have to meet many major challenges. Public space is in danger because market forces have colonized the public space, there's a danger because of a fragmentation back into national public spaces, which is very strong. And in that sense, the report goes in the right direction and provides for two things: calls for better working conditions, but more importantly, perhaps, the recognition, the repeated recognition of the fact that foundations are a key player in constituting a citizenship space and defending progressive values. So we, therefore, welcome the proposal for 100% public funding.
And also, perhaps on the basis of this, if it happens, we hope it does, to allow a constructive debate which would simplify the work of administration and supervision of the foundations. Because for smaller foundations, it's often difficult to keep up, especially in terms of the restrictions of their resources to carry out all the documentation, and how in future will we find the resources to be able to carry out controls and audits, which would both provide for transparency and allow the foundations to act. That's something we'll have to discuss in the future. But for now, we would very much like to welcome the work of the commission.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And the last speaker on behalf of the foundations is Mr. Johannes de Jong, Director, on behalf of Salux.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much. First of all, my thanks to the AVCO committee for organizing this meeting and especially the rappers, Mr. Finch and Mr. Thanks for the work you've done already. Thank you for that and for the work you're committed to do to improve our work.
I will focus on the following practical challenges, and I agree basically with everything my dear colleagues have said. First of all, I think it is necessary, and it would also end a lot of red tape pressure to end the application of the prohibition of indirect funding for the foundations when they cooperate, specifically with foundations, NGOs, or think tanks, as foreseen in the regulation, actually, at the national level. So the prohibition should be limited to cooperation with political parties. And the reason for that is the following. So this rule was introduced to prevent EU-level meddling with the national political parties and landscape.
Speaker 26
But political foundations and NGOs or think tanks do not field candidates and do not stand for elections. So the application of this rule, of the prohibition of indirect funding in the cooperation with political think tanks and NGOs, creates a lopsided situation. Rich national political think tanks and NGOs can much more easily cooperate with European political foundations than those who do not have big financial resources. And in my opinion, this is wrong because it creates inequality between rich and poor in the possibilities to work with European political foundations, and nobody should want that. And moreover, it creates a bureaucratization, as my colleagues already said, of our work that is unnecessary, and both costly as well for us and for the EU institutions themselves.
Speaker 25
Now secondly, as Ben already said, the abolition of the 5% owned resources rule is a necessity. If this is a relict actually from past times, then when the original regulation was introduced, it was really based on this kind of project funding. But in the current circumstances, that is not applicable. And I thank the rapporteurs for the proposal to abolish that. Now one additional issue is the strange notion that we need to do tenders for producing political content.
Speaker 26
My suggestion is to abolish that specifically for research and publication projects. This is a core task of European political foundations. It is about our political content and should not be subject, and also actually cannot be subject to market competition. So I'm not applying that to the events. I'm specifically applying that to suggesting for publications and research.
So I finally, I thank the rapporteur for underscoring the need for long-term thinking. Thinking is the hardest thing to do for people. And so we have quite a challenging job in that regard. And thinking is also essential in the current geopolitical circumstances. And I would also like to add that our work, and this is, I think, also said by our colleagues, but I would like to emphasize that our work allows us to connect, without a big party political agenda every time, to connect the EU with many people in many different countries and from different backgrounds.
And this is also what the treaty and the regulation actually expect us to do. So the less unnecessary burdens and blockades there are, the better we can do our work. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, and thanks to all the foundations here. It's a good tradition to have you here when we do the legislation. And I would like to open the debate by giving the floor to the first vice-president, Sabine Ferrar Hayen. She is responsible for European political parties and European political foundations. Please, Vice President, dear Sabine, you have the floor for four minutes.
Speaker 27
Thank you very much, dear Madam Chair, dear Gavi Bishop. Sorry. I have a cold, so if I fall in coughing, please excuse that. Dear colleagues, dear mister Klety, dear mister Schonard, dear mister Foti for the commission, dear representatives of the political confederations. We had already several exchanges before on the problematic that was that is there.
Speaker 28
And for me, I have to say the work of the political foundations is essential to advance European interests and to maintain a network of trusted partners in the member states. Often, the political foundations are key drivers of European ideas, and they bring national and regional foundations and civil society closer to the European Union and the European Parliament, and so also to the European principles and ideas. However, outreach and lasting results cannot rely on goodwill and nice gestures alone, and I would like to point out to members to bear in mind a responsible level of financial predictability for the European political foundations, given the fact that two new foundations have been established in the current term. And in addition, political foundations face rising costs and inflation just like everyone else. Unfortunately, the foundations and their work in observing, analyzing, and contributing to the debate on European public policy issues are sometimes forgotten.
Speaker 27
That is why it is so important to have today's hearing to highlight the work of the political foundations and recall the need to find solutions for predictable funding in line with the financial rules. Because one thing is clear, we have the financial regulation. We have obligations out of that. And I think we are talking about taxpayers' money. So let's say a minimum standard of transparency must be there.
But, and that is what I say very clearly, it must be reachable and it must be easy, and not with a too high bureaucratic burden. The work of the foundation is comparable to the work of other entities operating in the world of the EU in the sense that their independence is essential to ensure their work. And this independence, for me, is very important. We should not rely too much on third-party financing but have real independence. Against this background, it is vital to discuss an increase of the co-financing given to the foundations, and they must be able to fulfill their mandate without the fear of relying too much on donations or other forms of income to acquire their 5% share of own resources.
Of course, this also means a lot of responsibility for the foundations, because the more taxpayers' money they receive, the more scrutiny they must accept. Dear colleagues, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Winter and Mr. Thanks for their work and engagement for the foundations. And I stand ready as one of the responsible vice presidents, together with my colleague, Javier Lopez, to help advance the proposals of the report and ensure full support in the bureau.
Moreover, I would like to thank DG Finns for their help in finding solutions, and their work in safeguarding the work of the foundations. And I'm convinced that we are all on the same page when it comes to advancing the work of the foundations and their financial situation. Given the urgency of the matter, we must pressure the commission, and that is what I say clearly also in the direction of mister Forte to present a proposal as soon as possible to establish a predictable and clear path forward. The political foundations are important and they need a clear legal framework in which they can work independently and in relation to their tasks they have. They are an important part of the structures we have in Brussels and in the European Union, not just in Brussels, but also to distribute European values throughout the European Union in coordinating and setting up networks.
And so it is really important that it doesn't take several years until the commission comes up with a proposal. We need it as quickly as possible. So I really beg the commission to be active. Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And we will now hear the director general of the DG Fins, Mr. Didier Kletti.
Speaker 30
Would, first of all, like to thank the AFCO committee for inviting me to this exchange of views in examining regulation 2445. At a moment when democratic systems all over the world are under scrutiny and the need to have financing for political parties, but this needs to be transparent and responsible. Now I've listened to the previous speakers, and I would like to concentrate on the need for co-financing and the importance of mobilizing own resources so that we can have financial stability in the European context. On the question of co-financing, first of all, the current rules require that there be 5% of eligible costs financed with own resources. And these regulations come from the financial regulation of the European Union, Article 196, which sets out the principle of co-financing.
Speaker 29
The principle, in fact, foresees that the beneficiaries share in the financial responsibility and the activities, even if this is not remunerated. However, going beyond the immediate provisions, we have a wider consideration. That is financing isn't simply a question of regulation, but also an indication of good governance. It contributes to assuring the sustainability of the foundations. Our past experience shows that all this financing is not necessarily eligible.
For example, when it is in excess of the budget, or where the eligibility conditions are not met according to the regulation. In 2024, we had €1,000,000 not euro eligible. Now this spending, which is not eligible, must be covered and prior is a priority that this be so by own resources. And the consummation of all the own resources in order to cover these ineligible finances is a kind of new own resources, which will be necessary to be able to benefit from the 95% financing. And there are often very unfavorable consequences to this for the foundations themselves.
So I believe that we have to have enough own resources within the framework of the recast of 2045. And we have to, therefore, collect contributions from the member states. The national foundation members of the European foundation must be able to pay these annual contributions. So the recast must foresee explicitly this possibility and demand from the co-legislators to not have these barriers, these obstacles on a national level, which are a hindrance to the contributions, 25, Article 25, actually could contribute to that objective. And then the possibility of receiving own resources which are collected by parties who are affiliated.
And this must be encouraged because there's going to be a reduction from 10% to 5% in the margin of maneuver. And this would give some sort of leeway to the affiliated parties to provide support through these competencies and tasks, which is set out in the article, the article of the regulation. And on this question of 5%, it should perhaps be changed according to our proposal for a larger contribution to be achieved within the scope of the regulation. And another idea would be to try to mobilize contributions from other members of the national foundations, public financing, European foundations could try to activate other members for contributions. And finally, it would be good to be able to use self-generated resources such as the participation of workshops and conferences to collect a certain sum that way, between 5-10%, for example.
And this would be good for the foundations in terms of activities that they could carry out. Well, these are just some of the ideas I wanted to share with you. Just a final word about the administrative burden linked to some foundation activities. If we look at this closely, we see that there's a 37-page document, finally printed, about what is consented and what is not. And these are buying constraints.
We should have simplicity, simplification, and that must be reflected in the various measures. I'm very happy that we're having this dialogue, and that it will progress. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
The micro now works. We will now hear the Director of the Authority of the European Political Parties and European Political Foundations, Mr. Pascal Schonnard.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much, madam chair, dear vice president Verhaen, dear co-rapporteurs, honorable members, and dear representatives of the European Political Foundations. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our perspective here today. Before coming to the very specific aspects of the foundations, allow me briefly to recall the progress that has already been achieved with the new regulation, not least thanks to the work of the two co-rapporteurs in terms of clarity and overall systemic consistency, and one new challenge it presents as well. Firstly, as regards consistency and systemic clarity, union values, the new regulation introduces a clear obligation for European parties and foundations to ensure that also their member parties and member organizations observe these values. This contributes to the necessary organic perspective of European parties and foundations.
Secondly, we have solid safeguards against foreign interference in the new regulation, whereby within certain geographic boundaries, European parties and foundations may have associated members. However, with governance participation constraints, which in essence prevent non-EU entities from being enabled to remote control European policymaking. Thirdly, the new regulation brought clarifications of definitions, self-generated resources, what are candidates, and also encouraging training and capacity building by foundations for future political leaders. As regards the investigative and sanctions framework, the authority welcomes the facility that was now introduced in tracing donor identities. However, we share the analysis of some of the foundations concerning the removal of corrective measures.
We believe this is a challenge. It was an effective tool for follow-up to infringements. And it is the case that currently we have five to 10 corrective measures per year in financial matters. These may or may not become sanctioned decisions in the future, with uncertainty as to whether it would help in increasing the level of effective implementation. Now, of course, the authority has sought to facilitate the transition into the new legal framework.
We have issued guidance already in November. We provided a preventive tool also to mitigate compliance risks in advance. We call this the regulatory compliance action plan, which allows the parties and foundations to ask in advance if they so wish. It's not an obligation as to new important projects or structural approaches that they are considering. And we also publish, in an anonymized way, answers we give to one party or foundation so that all parties or foundations have the same level of information.
Now let me turn to the special point of interest here today, the European foundations. The importance of them was recalled multiple times already. I can just add that through the years in this position, I've had the privilege to see many of their activities, and it is very often very impressive. I really want to make a positive note of that contribution to the European Union policy making discussions. An important point that is laid down in the regulation for the purposes of our discussion here today, I think, is that they also serve, and I quote, as a framework for national political foundations, academics, and other relevant actors to work together at European level.
So let me emphasize, collaboration between European foundations and national foundations is not prohibited as such. It may even contribute to increasing visibility and substantive impact of EU policy issues that the European foundations are interested in. But it must come with an added value from the European side, as well as clear and compliant financial arrangements. The new regulation already begins to specify that with the concept of joint European political activities. And as regards the authorities' competencies, this means in particular that European foundations cannot use their money for direct or indirect funding of elections, political parties, candidates, or other foundations at the national level.
On the basis of the existing rules, this means visibility. This is not a straitjacket. It's an opportunity to maximize the benefit of any cooperation with national partner organizations from the perspective of the European foundations. So how can we improve things further? Three short points from my perspective.
First, further encouraging European added value. If funding related changes are considered, the authority calls for the modalities of those to continue favoring European visibility and content without rigid typology of activities, that is, but of course, with crystal clear financing arrangements that must be transparent. Secondly, diversification among available revenue streams so as to minimize the risk of sudden shortfalls. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as the saying goes. The authority welcomes that this diversification aspect is mentioned in the draft report, and indeed, many European foundations have already taken steps in that direction.
The regulation, as recently updated, may also help. It recognizes donations, contributions, but now also self-generated resources, although it's, of course, too early for a full assessment of the effectiveness of that. Thirdly and finally, a key certainly lies with cooperation between all levels of government, and that is to avoid silos. In particular, a common approach with member states is essential. Some of the foundations have pointed that out as well, and I'd like to draw your attention in this context to a study that the authority published a while ago on provisions of national law affecting European parties and foundations, which we also shared with the commission.
The key conclusion of that study is that there are very few provisions of national law that take into account the specificities of European parties and foundations. Indeed, national law mainly regulates parties at the national level, and union law regulates European parties and foundations. Now you might ask, where is the problem, then? It's just peaceful normative coexistence. Well, at times, this parallelism creates interface frictions and real practical constraints for European parties and foundations because there are no coordination rules between the two bodies of law.
This hampers the uniform application of the regulation, and this shouldn't be the case, because European parties and foundations have, by virtue of their registration with the authority, a European legal personality. They have European tasks. They may seek the authorized sources of revenue foreseen in the regulation inside all of the EU, and they can exercise lawful activities across the entire Union. As the Court of Justice held a little more than a year ago in Commission v Czech Republic, that access across the Union to lawful political offer is a matter of fundamental citizen rights. Now let me make very clear that in light of our study and also the excellent working relations we have with member states, I'm convinced that the competent authorities of the member states did not intend to create any particular obstacles to the practical implementation of the regulation.
They are our partners in reducing these obstacles. And the authority, therefore, very much supports the cooperative approach with member states that also the draft report has initiated by saying that we, the authority, are encouraged to continue and further develop the dialogue with the national authorities. The authority can help with that. We have a network of contact points. We work with them not only in bilateral case-related matters.
We also have initiated annual conferences of competent authorities in the presence of colleagues of the European Parliament to exchange best practices. We have a stable and very good relationship with them, and it is well worth making the effort to work with member state practitioners who might be able to encourage clarifications also of the national law. As regards finally the cooperation with the commission, we are very open to that as well and, in fact, would like to have much more of it, including in the context of the European Centre for Democratic Resilience that is being built up these weeks and months. Thank you very much for your attention.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And to complete the picture, we will now hear the director for inter-institutional relations in the European Commission, mister Enrico Forte. Mister Forte, you have the floor.
Speaker 32
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Madam First Vice President. I'd like also to thank the rapporteur for this draft report and also the representative of the foundations, Mr. Cletti and Mr. Schonard.
I think I've been working on this file since ten years, so I feel a little bit the pressure from the first vice president. This is something that we have committed to do. Missus Bishop might remind the last trial that we had inserted this timing condition. But we are discussing now a very important report from the parliament that will spell out, of course, all the issues we've been heard today and the difficulties. What I wanted, first of all, to tell you is that, of course, we consider as the foundation have a vital role in the through the promotion of democratic values, participation in democratic life, and ensuring political pluralism.
We've heard a number of other additional, I would say, qualifications, like creating a European public space and training as well leaders of tomorrow. Of course, this is something that we have been trying to improve each time the regulation about the role of the political parties and the foundation with all difficulties. I'm not hiding the fact that it has not been always an easy journey. So we, on this file, one rule is to go step by step. This is my first consideration.
I think that the regulation that we have adopted, the revised regulation, allowed to strengthen the framework under which the European political parties and foundations operate. We have now a strong framework, and we have introduced a number of very important improvements regarding the transparency and the reporting obligations. We have also tightened the condition under which these entities are operating, making them, I would say, protected from foreign and outside interference. We have introduced this concept, of course, of gender equality. Regrettably, there are a number of other things, but we which are not part of the debate of today that we didn't manage to get through is about national referendum and non EU members in the governance.
But, as I said, step by step, today, of course, the main issue of discussion is the financing. And I've heard a number of proposals, which is already a very good step towards the likely solution to address your issues. What I just wanted to say is that I would not indicate the co-financing intervening on the co-financing cap, the only solution, because we are not the only one around the table. And some, I would say, would consider this not sufficient. So I would recommend actually to explore, to take the time that we have ahead of us to explore all the various proposals and suggestions that I might come back to them very briefly that have been mentioned today, but not come up with only the reduction and the 100% financing because this, by experience, faces a number of difficulties to go ahead.
So I would say that we have to find a mix of legislative but also non-legislative solutions. Just to mention a few that have been proposed here. The membership fees, of course, this is something that, as Mr. Cletti mentioned, is something that can help, you know, making the foundation a bit more resilient from the financial point of view. And also, the question of the participation of the European political parties in that.
Of course, there's a question of independence that was mentioned, but there is also a question of service. If you provide the service, I mean, the service has a cost. And by the way, the foundation is anyway linked to their political party. So I would not find this something which would be outrageous. There is also the question, a number of other issues that have been mentioned, and I'm not providing here an answer.
I'm not saying that is yes or no, but that needs to be explored. The question of the amount of the fund of the donations could be also an avenue. The question is very important, of course, in parallel to the revision of the regulation itself to intervene on the budgetary proposals that are on the table, both annual budget, but also on the MFF. We have the parliament is voting, if I'm not mistaken, a midterm report in April that might be the opportunity to have, to have a signal there. And then there are a number of other things that we might discuss in the time that we have before we coming up with our own report.
And these are, I've heard a number of them. Corrective measures. Let's see if we can have a look at that. Cutting red tape, we are all for it on simplifications. I mean, don't have the solution here with you, but the simplification is certainly something of a focus that we will be keen to introduce in the next steps.
I've heard something which is interesting, also the sort of shortening the planification budgetary cycle, how to help this time frame to be shortened. So these are examples of things that I've heard and that are interesting to work on. So we've listened to all of you. We'll be working. I think it is very important that this is collective work.
We shall not work in institution to institution. We should be working on collective understanding first of the issues, but also on collective solutions that will make it easier for the solution to go through. I'm not, you know, proposing a full opening of the regulation. But if the issue is the financing, we may consider a targeted revision at some point in time. And, of course, the work of the foundations, as the work of the European political parties, are also very important in reaching out to those that will be involved in the legislative process.
It is very important that not only the commission, parliament, but also other institutional players involved understand what the problem is. So I encourage you very much to explain very carefully to all those that will be involved in the decision making what the constraints are and what the problems are. Thank you so much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, mister Forte, and it's well received that you underline that it's a collective work and that we need collective solutions that work. Here. We had already a rich input here, but as we have some time before I ask the corruptors, I would like to ask members if they, after this rich input, would like to take the floor, and we would give you two minutes to do so. So, mister Pipirera.
Speaker 36
Thank you, chair. I would like to ask the representative of the authority some details about the annual amounts given to those European foundations and the European parties, because I tried to see the official data, and I couldn't find something which is relevant from this point of view. Some of them are saying that, in 2025, those foundations have been given by the European Union just like around €24,000,000. Some others speak about much more money from the European Union to this foundation. So, I would like to see some clarification from the authority.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Chia, and thanks everybody. I think the sharing has been very useful. I got four points to raise in the light of discussion, sharing the sense of urgency of vice president Verainen. The first point, I think that Mr. Kletti has a point. It's too complicated.
This regulation is too complicated, both for political party foundation as we want to reopen, to improve, to modify the regulation. I think that we should also carry out a serious reflection on how to simplify the obligation for the parties. The foundation is really too complicated, I say it from a political party perspective, but for the foundation, it's the same. Second, transfer financial transfer for part to the foundation. It's a no-go.
Speaker 37
Let's not try, even. It's not possible. The political party had the same problem at the foundation. So we don't solve the problem by saying that the political party should cover the financial needs of the foundation. It doesn't work, and we are against them.
Speaker 34
I wouldn't reopen at this stage the issue of non-EU member participation. Is too sensitive. It's too sensitive, also in the light of the foreign interference. And as director Forte was very diplomatic in saying, we have to take into account the council. If we go to the council, reopening this is a no go.
So, I mean, I will be very pragmatic. It's not the moment to reopen this. Last point is the issue of, as I say, the small foundation, it's extremely difficult to comply with our rules. Extremely difficult. For the big foundation, not because they can have one or two people full time responsible for the implementation of the regulation.
Speaker 35
But we have to think to all the foundation, not only to the big guys. Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And as I don't see any more members that would like to take the floor, I would like on behalf of the two co-rapporteurs, Charles Gurens, to wrap up the debate and also to share your conclusions.
Charles Goerens
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Vinci has had to leave. So I will answer in his name because we read the situation in the same way, and we're both motivated by the same concern to provide a solution as quickly as possible. I'd like to thank, of course, the foundations, the many foundations for having come here today.
And I'd like to thank them for the relevance of their proposals and for their convergence. You didn't agree on absolutely everything, but there is a mainstream. And I think there's a very strong critical mass in favor of the proposals and the views that have been set out in the report that I have the honor of having drawn up with my colleague, Vinci, on behalf of this committee. Now first, as regards administrative costs, we all agree about this, that it's complicated. But to try and resolve this issue through this report would be very difficult.
I don't know what follow-up the commission might give to it, going by what Mr. Foerte says, and what would we do without Mr. Foerte, the representative of the commissioner, I think I can safely say that he's not insensitive to the concerns of our parliament and that we'll be able to resolve the more pressing problems urgently. But I can assure you that Vinci and I have not added any provision which would complicate the administrative burden. Many have mentioned the question of whether or how the runaway inflation can be managed, or how the rate of co-funding could be adapted to the problems caused by inflation.
Well, we are powerless given what's going on in the region of the Strait Of Hormuz, which as this is the cause of additional inflation, and we can't do anything about the consequences that might have for foundations. But I can say to my colleagues who, at national level, who are complaining about the non-adjustment of this, that they should convince their governments to advocate in favor of bigger contributions to the European budget, and that the negotiations underway on the MFF would be a good occasion to match wishes with action. Mr. Ketil opened some interesting avenues. I think we can say that they offer a solution for certain foundations, but not for all.
And we, as European legislators, make the law at European level together with our co-legislators, but not at national level. So I would ask you to take this matter to the highest political level in the European Union. I think the time has come to say very clearly to our governments what we want, that we need to, I think, to clarify the reading of the political situation and look at the capacity of making proposals. So who better than foundations who are working on this, who can bring forward analyses, who can refine certain issues that are very important for our policymaking? And I think this is of crucial importance.
And the experience that we had with the previous report was that the highest levels of policymaking, with the exception of the Commission, are not very interested in what we're doing. The Czech minister of foreign affairs indeed tried to have all their foreign ministers talk about this issue, but he didn't succeed in doing so. So I think it's time to draw the attention of the high-ranking politicians to the importance of this issue. We it's very modest what the foundations are looking for, and what we are looking for mere pittance in terms of the overall funding of the European Union. So let's have a look at these different avenues.
Yes. It would, as I said, it would solve the problem for some, but not for all and certainly not for the smaller foundations. There's some who are very, some states are very generous and authorized the funds that you mentioned, but others aren't. So we need to make an effort at the national level, and that's why I urged networking at the highest possible political levels, which would mean not working that is the current practice.
Regarding.
Charles Goerens
Joint activities, one approach was mentioned, and I didn't hear anyone contradict this idea of increasing the contribution of national foundations, which are a component of European foundations, to have them contribute on the basis of the activities they've carried out jointly with the foundation. So it means at the end of the year, we'd conduct an inventory of the joint actions. And that would mean that we give the foundations a certain margin to meet this co-funding, which would be accounted for at the end of the year of activity. So that's the essence. If we want to make this process work, I think we need to limit ourselves to what is essential.
I think that most of foundations have said that it's urgent, that the finance level is such that in some foundations, their very activity is in jeopardy. Vinci, my colleague, and I are very much aware of this. And what we're proposing is a step, an additional step towards more acknowledgment and recognition of what you're doing and more openness to providing you with additional funds. And Mr. Ferti said rightly that this is an exercise in stages.
As Saint Exepe said, you take a step and then another step, and it's almost the same step, steps in the same direction. And I don't think it's the end of the story in terms of the funding of parties and foundations at the European level. It's another step. We would like to do more. But if I have to choose between something that would give us the possibility of hoping for a solution in the short term, I'd rather take a small step rather than set up a big ambition and end up with nothing.
So I would call on everybody here in this house, and I would be a very big thank you to all the foundations and to the supervisory and financial authorities in DG Finns of this parliament and our vice chair who, despite who has found very clear words to bring us together around what we have tried to achieve here. So thank you very much, and thank you to Gabi for having done so much to chair this session. So thank you very much. The timeline is very tight, so I think it's important to concentrate on what is essential to make progress on this file this year. And then the what's next is that the commission will, and I believe that the commission has a goodwill on this and that will do more in the short term.
But I forgot to mention the reference to the values. I think that most of the foundations here today have not contested this principle, and we had this principle of values in the previous amendment of the regulation. And I've been told that there is no big issue that has been raised in that regard. So that's all I have to say on behalf of myself and of my colleague, Vinci. Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, Charles, and dear colleagues, dear representatives of the European Political Foundations. I would like to thank you all for really this valuable contributions, the insight during today's exchange of views. It is very helpful for us. Charles Gurens highlighted we have a tight schedule, but I think something I would finalize here, and thank everybody is the step-by-step approach that was mentioned very often during today's contribution. We have to do an important step in a tight schedule, and I'm optimistic that we are able to do so.
We have votes foreseen for 11:05, so we will have a short break. And I ask you all members to be here sharp at 11:05 for the voting. Thank you very much, and have a good day. Dear colleagues, I would like to encourage you to take your seats now, so that we can start our voting session in time. Colleagues, take your seats.
Take out your voting cards. Insert them. And we start with the first voting. So please take your seats. Insert your voting card.
The first vote concerns the draft report on amendments to parliament's rules of procedure concerning appointments to union agencies and bodies. It's rule 135. The draft report contains four amendments, and one additional amendment has been tabled within the deadline for amendments. The voting list was circulated to you on March 13, 2026. And, after a brief technical test of the systems that we always do, I will invite all colleagues to proceed to the vote.
So our technical test is, do you think that Europe needs new initiatives to be stronger as a European Union? The vote is open. Yeah. The vote is closed. Ah, Mr. Wincher.
It doesn't work. Do you think you have it inserted in the right way? Yeah. It's the same as well. Okay.
So we have, we can add one more. We, yeah. Maybe we change the place. No? Did we stop the vote?
Yes. Ah, very good. That's why the test is always a good thing to do. So I think we have an overwhelming majority for a stronger Europe. Thank you very much.
And we now go to the vote as indicated on the amendment to parliament's rules of procedure and rule 135. And we start with amendment one or two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
That's, I call, a good result. And we continue with amendment number 3. Who is in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
With a few votes against, also adopted, and we continue with amendment five. Who is in favor? Who is against? I think we check this. So we go to amendment five.
The vote is open. Oh, sorry. One is missing. So we have 13 in favor and 17 against. And that means that we continue with amendment four.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. I think it was a majority against it. Yeah.
We could check it. Amendment four, the vote is open. We just check it. We close the vote, and it's rejected. We go to the final vote.
It's a roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Ah, and we have unanimity. Again, good work.
Thank you very much. First time ever I heard here on this, so thank you very much. And we continue with the implementation of the charter of fundamental rights. Here, the vote concerns the draft report on the implementation of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union within the EU legal framework, and following extensive discussions, an agreement has been reached on 14 compromise amendments. These 14 compromises, however, constitute only the first part of the draft report.
For the second part, individual votes will be held mainly concerning deletions. To facilitate the voting procedure, we will begin with a block vote covering all compromise amendments, immediately followed by the individual votes, which will be 38 in total. The voting list was circulated on Friday, 03/13/26. And before proceeding to the vote, I would like to invite the rapporteur, Alexandro San, to take the floor.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much. I wanted to express graciousness and thanks to the shadow and the respective team, the policy advisers, for the excellent work that was done. Thanks very much to President Seaman for his support during the negotiations, to the AFCO secretariat as well, Maileza, Liv, Diletta, Carla, all of them for all of their support and help. And now this is the result of a very complex negotiation, which took place over the last couple of months. In the last shadow meeting, the S and D group, EPP, Greens, and the left expressed their support.
Speaker 39
So there was broad support on the part of all. The text is very diverse from or different from that which was initially out there, but there is a clear political message. So looking at fundamental rights in this way means delivering a very clear signal on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the charter itself. The position, very clear, voice of unison in celebrating 25 years of the charter. And indeed, I would like to say that the MEP's European supporters, if you like, that we're all voting for this particular charter, of course, for this text which underlines the importance of the charter, and it also emphasizes as well the need that there exists to reinforce our credibility, and it does just that.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, Alessandro. Now I will invite all colleagues to proceed with the vote, and we start with the announced block vote as a roll call vote of amendment that comprises one to 14. The vote is open. And we close the vote. So the result is we have 22 in favor, 8 against, and no abstentions.
And with this, we already proceed, and I invite you all to open page 18. Here to go to the individual votes paragraphs, and we start here with amendment 172 and 173 here, and votes in favor, against, abstentions. I think we have to check. It is quite close here. So, the vote is open, and we close the vote.
And we have 17 in favor and 13 against. And with this, we go to amendment 177 and 178. And who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
We check again. The vote is open. Yeah. It's difficult here. The one more.
Okay. The vote is closed. And we have again the same 17 in favor, 13 against. And with this, we go to amendment 193, 194, and 195. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Yeah. And abstentions, it's adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 199. Who's in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions. Same majority. Check. Good.
I'll check. Vote is open. Vote is closed. And it's good to check, and it is rejected very clearly. So we continue with amendment 198.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions rejected. We go to amendment 200. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Abstentions are rejected. We go to amendment 201 from Libere ninety five. Who's in favor? Who's against?
I'll check this one too. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected. And, with this, we go on the original text. And who is in favor?
Who is against? The original text. Paragraph nine. Okay. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Objections rejected. We go to amendment 202, 203, and 204. Who's in favor? Who's against?
I think we checked this one also. Paragraph 10 amendments 202, 203, 204. The vote is open. Close the vote. And it's adopted, with 17 in favor.
Then we go to amendment 233 on the next page, paragraph 12a and u. Who is in favor? Who is against? Adopted. We go to paragraph, it was paragraph 12a, amendment 233.
We check the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it's rejected. We go to amendment 237, 238, and 239. Who is in favor? Who is against?
I think we check it. It's just safer. Vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 256, 257, and 258.
Who is in favor? Who is against? 258. It looks like the same majority, and it is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 284.
Who is in favor? Who is against? I think I will check that. It was not so clear from here. So, amendment 284.
Check. Closed. Their vote is closed, and it's the same majority, and it is adopted. We go to amendment 306. Who is in favor?
In favor. Amendment 306. Who is against? Yeah. I think we'll check this one too.
Amendment 300 06 06. The vote is open. Vote is closed, and it is rejected. We go to amendment 319, 320, and 321. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Majority here. So, it is adopted. And with this, we go to amendments 324, 325, and 326. Who is in favor?
Who is against? I think here, it is okay. With this, it is adopted. And then we go to amendment 329, 330, 331 and 332. Who's in favor?
Who is against? And this is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 333, 334, 335. Who's in favor? Who is against?
And it is adopted. So the same majority here. And with this, we go to amendments 339, 340, and 341. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstentions. With the same majority, this is adopted. And with this, we go to Liebe 37, the Recital D.A. New? Who's in favor?
And 37, who's in favor? Who's against? We can check on Liebe 37. We can close the vote and it's rejected, but that's a bit different. And with this, we go to amendment 7 to 77 and 78.
Who's in favor? Who is against the same majority. And with this, it is adopted, and we go to amendment eighty and eighty one. And who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstention, même majorité. It is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 85 and 86 on recital o. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstention, same majority. It is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 47, recital d. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Abstentions, same majority, it is adopted. And we go to amendment 98, 99, 100 and 101. Who is in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted.
And with this, we go to amendment number 106, Recital ANU. Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions. We check.
It's open. We close the vote, and it's rejected. We go to amendment 107 and 108. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Adopted same majority, and we go to amendment 109, 110, 111, and 112. Who's in favor? Who is against abstentions adopted? And we go to amendment 117, recital UHUS in favor, who's against, abstentions rejected. And we go to Liebe 65.
Who is in favor? Who's against? Abstentions. We check that one. Liebe 65.
We close the vote, and it's rejected. And we go to amendment 134 and 135. Who's in favor? Who's against abstentions. We check that one too.
Close the vote. And it is adopted. And we go to amendment one. On the next page, citation one, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions are adopted.
We go to amendment 2. Citation two, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions rejected. And we go to amendments five and six.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions. I'll check this one. Amendment five and six.
We close the vote, and it is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 21 on section 10. Who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions rejected.
We check on amendment 21. Vote is open. Closed. And it is adopted. And with this, we go to Amendment 24 and 25.
Who's in favor? Who's against abstentions, the same majority is adopted. And with this, we go to amendment 33. Who's in favor? Who's against abstentions?
This is rejected. And we go to amendment 34. Who's in favor? Who's against? And it is clearly rejected.
And we go to amendment 35. Who's in favor? Who's against abstentions? Same majority. Yep.
That's what I said. Same majority. It is adopted. Good. So we are now going to the final vote, and it's a roll call vote, and the vote is open.
Sorry? Yes. It is. Okay. So we will have a short break, and then we vote.
I think the
So we will have a.
Speaker 3
Short break. Was asked before, after you said that we opened the vote. It is too late now. The vote was open. You can have a pause afterwards, but not now.
It was already open.
Gabriele Bischoff
Yep. If you are not willing to give your colleagues that ask for a break, we can continue to do so. Okay. Yes. We will finalize the vote.
We go on the final vote as a roll call vote, and the vote is open. Final vote, roll call vote, the vote is open. And the result is that it is rejected. So the EP will be the only institution that will not have a report, in the year of the 25th anniversary of the charter, and we'll continue.
Gabriele Bischoff
We continue. Can I ask you to continue the votes? We still have one vote to go, even if I see that some members would rather leave the room. But, the last vote for today concerns the proposal for AFCO pilot projects to the 2027 EU budget in line with rule 96.4 of the rules of procedure. Could you please listen for the last vote, and stop talking? Thank you very much.
So the proposal for pilot projects and preparatory actions must be formally adopted at the committee level before being transmitted to the budget committee for the assessment by the EU Commission. The list of two proposals for pilot projects was circulated on Monday, 03/16/26, together with the voting list. And we start with proposal one. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions, and it is rejected. And, with the same majority as before, and the proposal number two, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, it is also rejected. I declare the voting session closed. And I, if there are no further, could you still continue to listen?
The first part of the AFCO meeting is closed. We continue now with the coordinators meeting, which will take place in Rooms Back 5B1. And the second part of the AFCO meeting will resume at sixteen thirty in Q2 and not as was announced before in Q1. The next day of the meetings will be April 14 from 02:30 to 05:30 and from 03:30 to 06:30 in the afternoon.
Daily. Mail.
Rosportova.
Speaker 44
Shown Trump, Amazon.
Microsoft president.
Trump, the yellow economist, yellow strategist, invested Trevy de Vao president. Trump.
Import.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.