Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home 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
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPaulo Cunha
Europol and Eurojust have identified the obstacles to international cooperation as one of the main challenges cybercrime poses. This UN convention allows cooperation in investigations on cybercrime and in the collection of electronic evidence with a broader number of countries compared to the current framework. It does represent an important step to enhance the global fight against cybercrime, especially against organized cybercrime. The EU has played a key role in the negotiations on this convention, whose text now includes provisions on safeguards and fundamental rights, which are unprecedented in UN cooperation agreements. The several meetings we hold with the European Commission, EU and UN bodies, and other stakeholders clarified how such provisions make the text of the convention compatible with the EU's laws and values, despite some concerns raised at an earlier stage.
The EDPS also confirmed that the convention provides member states' competent authorities with the necessary instruments to implement its provisions in respect of EU values. It is also important that the EU SWIFT concludes the convention to continue playing its key role also in the early implementation of this new global framework. For all these reasons, I firmly support the proposal of the reporter to give parliament's consent to the conclusions of the agreement. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Matjaž Nemec
It's not me, actually. It's another colleague. No? I'm not on that topic, their chair.
PFE, Missus Sellers.
Marieke Ehlers
Thank you very much, Chair. Please accept, Mister Legeri's apologies for not being able to be here this morning. Also, many thanks to the rapporteur for the work on this file so far. The European Commission presented last July a proposal for a council decision on the signing on behalf of the European Union of the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime. The convention is largely based on the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention, and is intended in particular to facilitate the exchange of data solely with third countries that are not members of the Council of Europe.
This convention aims to establish common rules at a global level in order to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat cybercrime, as well as to facilitate the collection of electronic evidence for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings. It will also create a basis for cooperation with many countries with which neither the EU nor its member states currently have agreements in place. State sovereignty is respected, and the convention provides for important safeguards to prevent any abuse by participating states. Any interpretation that would lead to restricting fundamental freedoms, in particular, freedom of expression, conscience, opinion, religion, or belief, as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association, is explicitly excluded. In addition to the European Parliament, national parliaments will also have a say through the ratification process.
International cooperation may be refused if states consider that requests are politically motivated or contrary to their domestic law. It is also positive that the council has adopted safeguards to ensure data protection as well as respect for the division of competences between the EU and the member states. Thank you very much, once again, to the rapporteur.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Hellers. Now any speaker on behalf of the ECR group? Yes. Yes, Miss Kanko. Go ahead.
Yeah.
Assita Kanko
Yes. Good morning. Thank you. I am the shadow for the ECR Group. Just a short comment here.
I would like to say that for us, it's very important, of course, to tackle cyber criminality and to include the principles of this convention into the way we're acting. The EU has helped safeguard certain of the points that were important for us. And in that perspective, for the ECR, we consider that the concerns have been sufficiently addressed and that the EU and national judicial systems will not be negatively affected if we ratify this convention.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Kanko. Now for the group of the Greens, Missus Kregorova.
Markéta Gregorová
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur, Mr. Konner. We are being asked today to give our consent to the UN Convention against Cybercrime. For two decades, the global gold standard for fighting cybercrime has been the Council of Europe's 2001 Budapest Convention. Russia has vehemently opposed the Budapest Convention because it requires robust human rights safeguards. Failing to destroy our framework, Moscow explicitly initiated this UN alternative in 2019.
Proponents argue we need this for international alignment, yet look at who is absent from the table. The United States is refusing to sign due to severe domestic lobbying by Big Tech and all of civil society. India is walking away because the treaty fundamentally undermines its constitutional data privacy. From a purely pragmatic law enforcement perspective, this file is empty. Throughout our preparations, not a single expert has been able to identify one tangible operational advantage this UN treaty provides over the existing Budapest framework.
It gives European police forces zero new tools to catch actual cybercriminals. Colleagues, we need to drop the diplomatic politeness, so the Green Zifa group will not support this institutional self-sabotage. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Gregorova. The group of the left, I may be blinded by the light. There's no representative of the group of the left than the ESN. And then I give back the floor to Mister Konner for a very brief concluding remarks.
Moritz Körner
Thank you very much, chair, and thanks, colleagues, for your comments. I think there's broad support by the group for the convention. And I just want to highlight that actually in our discussions, and we had several discussions also with civil society and law enforcement. There was already signaled an additional support for law enforcement through this new convention. Of course, it's very clear that, also, as it was mentioned, this process was started by Russia and China, but that's why it's also very important that the European Union stepped up and fought hard for additional safeguards and human rights standards.
And it's also important why the European Union has to still push and be active in the process to make sure that this convention is not used by states against fundamental rights and civil liberties. I think that is what we want to ensure. We were very careful in assessing the whole convention through several shadow meetings, not only in this term of the parliament, but also in the term before. And we found that, all in all, we would want to give consent to this convention, and that's what I would conclude today.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kerner. And now let me remind you that the deadline for amendments is set on Tuesday, the 24th, at noon. And, as it is, as you know, in this kind of files, amendments in committee shall be admissible only if they aim to reverse the recommendation proposed by the rapporteur. So we conclude this item, and now we move to item number five, which is the interim report in view of the consent procedure on a broad package of agreements to consolidate, deepen and expand the bilateral relation with the Swiss Confederation.
This package of agreement was signed by the president of the European Commission and the president of the Swiss Confederation on March 2, and the council's request for consent has already been referred to the parliament. And now I'll give the floor to the rapporteur for the opinion, Mister Lucas Mandel, to present his draft opinion for a maximum of four minutes. Mister Mandel, the floor is yours.
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. First of all, I would like to thank the secretariat and the advisers for their tremendous work on this file. Furthermore, I would like to thank MEP Guller for his excellent work on the AFED report, which seeks to incorporate opinions from all opinion-giving committees in their specific topics and remits. The European Union and Switzerland are bound by a uniquely close relationship rooted not only in shared history, culture and values, but also in strong and dynamic economic ties. The connection is also visible in everyday life.
More than 1,500,000 EU citizens have made Switzerland their home. Nearly 350,000 Swiss nationalists live across the union, and every day, several 100 thousand people cross the border to work. These figures are not just statistics. They are a clear illustration of how deeply interconnected our societies and economies truly are. Switzerland is also a Schengen-associated country and, as such, plays an integral role in safeguarding the common area of free movement, contributing to shared security, effective border management, and police cooperation across Europe.
We need to and we want to further strengthen this cooperation, ensuring that our partnership continues to deliver concrete results on migration management, security, and the protection of our common external borders. My opinion warmly welcomes the provisions established in the package of agreements and focuses on the freedom of movement, the residence and cross-border status of European Union citizens in Switzerland, the equal treatment of EU students in Switzerland, and calls for enhanced dialogue between the European and the Swiss parliament. The goal is to underline, after years of failed negotiations, the need for a completion of this package of agreements and enhanced cooperation between the two parties. In a time of increasing geopolitical uncertainty, closer cooperation on migration, on border protection, and on security is not optional, but necessary if we want to ensure and maintain the free movement of persons. We must deepen our joint efforts in tackling irregular migration, human trafficking, and hybrid threats.
My draft opinion also underlines the need for support and clarification of the status of EU citizens in Switzerland, their equal treatment, and their equal opportunities. Finally, I take the opportunity to make clear that parliament is for the swift agreement of the package of agreements to give our citizens more legal certainty, opportunity, and freedom. We must ensure that this framework is based on clear rules, transparency, and effective dispute settlement mechanisms, providing long-term legal certainty for citizens and businesses alike. Thank you very much again as well to the Liebe shadows involved, and we look forward to the negotiations and swift resolution of the opinion. Let me also add, as a former rapporteur of AFET on the Switzerland report last mandate, it's mutual trust.
It's mutual confidence and mutual trust that the EU and Switzerland should develop. It's of utmost importance for the Swiss economy, also the Swiss security, and, of course, for Europe in its entirety to have proper relations. Needless to say that also the Switzerland report from the last mandate states, Switzerland would probably be pretty welcome in the European Union as a member state as soon as they are ready. Until then, we have to negotiate on such things, and we have to convey to the Swiss people who will probably vote in a year or two years from now. It's not that clear that our mutual relations are of utmost importance for both sides.
And trust and confidence is, I would say, well deserved from both sides because the European Union very much cares for Europe's unity, Europe's strength to the outside, Europe's freedom to the inside, and already the geography tells us that Switzerland is very much included there. I'm extremely happy that in Liebe, in our committee, we have pretty much a strong alignment of all shadow apertures in this endeavor, and this is a very clear message from here to there and to everywhere. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Mendel. And now the floor to the shout rapporteurs or group representatives for a maximum of two minutes, starting with Mister Moreno, S and D Group. Thank.
you very.
Javier Moreno Sánchez
much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I'd like to thank Lucas Mandel for his work. I'd like to thank our rapporteur. He's done a sterling job with a comprehensive and balanced opinion.
And thank you very much for working hand in hand with us as shadows. Now, when it comes to relations with Switzerland, I would say they're intense, complex, and of key importance, especially against the geopolitical backdrop at the moment. I think Switzerland plays a very important role. We've had intense and complex relations since 1992, when Switzerland decided not to join the EEA. There have been different waves of bilateral agreements.
And finally, we have a comprehensive package. It's very significant, and it will be a stable framework for our relations with Switzerland, especially at this crucial point in time in geopolitical terms. Now, the rapporteur mentioned the free movement of workers there and people. There are thousands of people who cross the border, Geneva or Basel. And it's extremely important that we have a crystal-clear framework.
There's another point which is pretty clear, and it's up to us to highlight it. We have to make sure that the Schengen area is fully operational, because Switzerland is part of it. We have to make sure there aren't checks in place to facilitate mobility. And then there's the recognition of professional qualifications, the mutual recognition of qualifications and work, and so on. And I think that this gives a lot of stability.
As rapporteur said himself, we have to convince our Swiss colleagues to vote in favor of this. This is extremely important, because there will be a referendum on this issue. And that's why I'd like to say that in two weeks' time, the International Trade Committee will be sending a delegation on a visit to Switzerland, and we'll make the most of this opportunity to speak to our Swiss friends and to make it very clear to them that this agreement is as important for them as it is for us. I think that Switzerland is a key country. I don't know whether they're going to join the EU one day or not.
That, of course, depends on them. I actually was born in Switzerland. I know it very well. It's a complicated country. But we'll be working hard on this because I think it would be important for Switzerland to get married to the EU one day.
Group. Miss Sellers?
Marieke Ehlers
Thank you very much, Chair. Again, on behalf of mister Legeri, his apologies, many thanks to mister Manol as rapporteur on this file. Just a quick note, let's please not try to convince the Swiss of anything, and let them decide for themselves what they wish to do with agreements such as these. If it's good for them, they will know whether it's good for them or not. Then I would like to read the statement on behalf of Mr.
Lazeri. The new broad package of agreements between the European Union and Switzerland aims to strengthen and modernize the foundation of their bilateral relationship, enhancing cooperation across a wide range of areas, with the aim of ensuring mutual and full benefit from the existing economic, historical, cultural, social and political ties. In this context, the package updates existing agreements in fields related to the internal market and extends cooperation into new areas of common interest as well as parliamentary cooperation. Although the procedure is formally limited to parliament's consent, the scope and sensitivity of the issues involved justify close political scrutiny by the Lieber Committee, particularly as regards free movement, citizens' rights, and cooperation in sensitive policy areas.
Marieke Ehlers
On free movement, Switzerland will align with EU standards and subsequently implement a dynamic alignment, meaning it will incorporate future EU rules on the free movement of persons. Our group generally welcomes this comprehensive package of agreements between the European Union and Switzerland, which respects national sovereignties and will continue to contribute to strengthening cooperation among neighboring countries facing similar challenges in the field of security. We thank that operator for his work, and we have taken note of his opinion, most proposals of which appear to be reasonable. Thank you very much.
Nice, man.
Assita Kanko
He, my colleague here, thank you, chair. My colleague here, this is Deshado, but he will speak during EULisa's point. I guess a short comment here that, of course, we understand it's important that we have such agreement with these fees, but we also understand their concerns. And we expect that they will, of course, have maybe a referendum in the country about this. But it has been a very long time that we are trying to have a good understanding and good agreements with the Swiss.
Also, term, it has always been difficult because at a certain point, they don't follow-up with the agreements that we have. And probably, they're also worried about how we are dealing with our internal, our external borders. But now they are also in the Schengen. So we still have great cooperation regarding police, for example, and I think we need to not be too optimistic about what the Swiss are going to do, but we will find out soon enough.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Kanko. Anyone from the group of renew? I don't see any speaker. Greens either. And no one from the group of the left.
ESN. So, yes, Mister Mandel, any final remark?
Lukas Mandl
Thank you very much for the good exchange. I just want to emphasize one thing. I very much defend the freedom of speech. So we have the freedom to share with our fellow Europeans of Swiss citizenship what we think about the European Union and how important the European integration is, our unity, our strength to the outside, our freedom on the inside. And I think we do not only have the freedom to do so, we also have the obligation to do so, to share everything that's in our hearts and on our minds, in order to even more contribute to the ever closer union.
And this is also good because I've experienced the Swiss people as people of deliberation, who are very open to exchange, open for talking to each other, open for new horizons. And this is why the exchange is not only an opportunity, but I would say mandatory for the sake of Europe. Thanks again for the good exchange.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Mandel. In this file, the deadline for amendments is set for Monday, 23rd at 5PM then. Then we move on to item number six. We continue then with another draft opinion, this time to the joint effort report for the global euro program, part of the multi-annual financial framework. And to present the draft opinion, we have the rapporteur, Mister Yaghlan, and I give her the floor for a maximum of four minutes.
So, missus Jalan, the floor is yours.
Thank you, mister.
Estrella Galán
Thank you very much, chairman. I'm going to give a brief explanation of the political priorities that I feel strongly about and that I talked about last week in the shadows, and that will be included in the draft opinion that Liebe will provide. We want global Europe to be in line with the main objective of the EU's development policy. We want this to factor in what is an Article 208 and the 2,030 agenda. That means that this instrument has to focus on eradicating poverty and reducing inequalities.
And the priority shouldn't be different interests, which shouldn't influence or be included in this instrument. Our suggestion is to have minimum spending percentages for gender equality, climate change, human development, and support to civil society. We would also like to boost a cross-cutting issue approach based on human rights. This needs to be mainstreamed into anything financed by Global Europe. That means that international law has to be respected.
This means that there cannot be any discrimination. And we need to pay particular attention to vulnerable groups and incorporate the no significant harm principle. And we need to boost the exclusion clauses and other clauses when there are risks of human rights being violated. And in this way, we can have independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms in order to make sure that if there is a suspension, this won't harm the groups of beneficiaries or the civil society in the given country. We believe it is key to boost the role of civil society in this policy.
So it needs to be more involved in programming and in direct access to funding. And they have to play a very important role in protecting civil space, especially when there is repression or when we cannot have a guarantee that human rights are respected. The fourth point I would like to make is that we want to shift from migration control to a more human approach. We have to make sure that this is all in line with international law and human rights. So we have to look at the root causes of forced displacement.
We have to help refugees and displaced persons. And we have to reduce their vulnerabilities so as to reduce the chances of these people being exploited. So we need to look at reception needs and make sure that we promote legal and safe channels, so that we reduce risk in migration. We want to get rid of the negative conditions or strings attached that affect third countries when it comes to returns and readmission. We have to avoid using development aid as a way of putting pressure on countries to control migration and borders.
So I don't want to drag this out too much, but I think it's important to enhance policy coherence by emphasizing the importance of transparency, parliamentary scrutiny on the use of these funds, especially in relation to budget flexibility mechanisms. By way of conclusion, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs from the different political groups. We already held the first meeting. It was last week, as I mentioned before. I am very confident that we're going to work very well together.
Liebe was asked to draft this opinion. So we now, over the next few months, will be working hand in glove in order to produce the best possible opinion. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Paulo Cunha
thank you very much. From the EPP's point of view, it's important to acknowledge the fact that the Global Europe program has proved that it plays a very important role in the context of the EU's foreign policy. There are conflicts, instability, and migration pressures. And that is why the EU needs a flexible, robust, and efficient tool in order to fight against crisis and in order to provide support to our strategic partners. Global Europe does have this advantage.
In other words, it brings together development, stability, and it projects European values, and it contributes to dealing with the situation against increasing competition. We have to emphasize the role of this program in promoting fundamental rights, democracy, and the rule of law. And of course, this has to include partnerships with third countries. And I think in this context, it's important to make sure that when we harness this tool in relation to migration, that it strikes a balance between operational needs and human rights. The EPP feels that it's very clear to tap into the solid foundation of global Europe. So we need to harness the results that we've already obtained and the experience that we have under our belt.
I think that we have to make sure there's continuity. I don't think we should jump the gun and start tweaking structural aspects. We have to have a clear priority. Let us maintain the efficiency, effectiveness, flexibility, and strategic approach taken by Global Europe. And at the same time, let us make sure that EU human rights and values are respected.
Thank you.
Matjaž Nemec
Thank you for the floor, Chair. I wish to also thank Estella for the draft report, which is a very good basis for discussion. Global Europe is going to be the most important foreign policy financial instrument of the EU in the next MFF. We warn that for the Libre opinion, it is important to stay within the midst of the Libre competencies. On behalf of S and D Group, we will table some amendments in order to further improve it.
We were very much look forward to the constructive cooperation. Thank you so much to the chair and Estelle, also to you. Thank you so much.
Fabrice Leggeri
Very much, chairman. On behalf of Susanna Cechardi, who is the shadow rapporteur for the Patriots, I'm gonna read out the following message. I'd like to thank Madame Rapporteur for presenting her draft opinion and for organizing a shadow meeting last week. We have taken note of her proposals, but we are very concerned because she wants to get rid of any kind of strings attached. We believe that this approach is wrong and flies in the face of the EU's interests, because the EU needs to curb illegal migration.
The amendments are about the whole text and not just those areas that fall within the remit of the civil liberties committee. From the point of view of the patriots, we believe that this opinion on global Europe should focus on the most relevant issues that fall within our remit, especially when it comes to the external dimension of the EU's migration policy. So it's vital that the new funding instrument reflects the EU's priorities on migration management by boosting cooperation with third countries on preventing illegal migration, border management, and returns. In line with Article 37A of the Liebe's position on the new returns regulation adopted last week in Strasbourg, we believe that funds for development cooperation have to have strings attached. That means that partner countries have to commit to fighting against illegal migration, and have to agree to readmitting their nationals. So from this point of view, we hope that these priorities will be reflected in the Libby opinion.
The Patriots Group is planning to table a set of targeted amendments so that we can see our priorities reflected here, the priorities that we believe the EU should push ahead with in order to curb illegal migration. So that is Mrs. Chaccardi's message. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Legere.
Miss Kanko?
Assita Kanko
Yes. Thank you, chair. I would like to say here that for us, this proposal is important because it represents a step towards a more strategic and interest-driven EU external policy. The increased emphasis on migration cooperation and the introduction of conditionality regarding readmission are points that we appreciate because for us, it's important that we strengthen the link between EU funding and effective cooperation on returns and readmission, but also on women rights. It's, therefore, very likely that we are open to support this proposal depending on what further happens with it.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Missus Ikanko. I don't see any representative of the group of renew. And as far as the group of the Greens is concerned, I don't see any representative in the speaker either. No.
Yes. One speaker. I understand. So, yes, missus, I give you the floor. Missus.
Estrella Galán
Galan, you have the floor for your final remarks. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank all the shadows for their comments. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on some issues and in some cases, but I really think that we'll be able to produce the best possible opinion by doing the work that Liebe is asked to do. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Missus Galan.
Javier Zarzalejos
Remind you that the deadline for amendments in this file is set for Tuesday, April 7 at 5PM. And we now continue with the next item on our agenda, which is the presentation of the report on the outcome of the Libre mission to the EULISSA headquarters in Tallinn from September. The Libre delegation was composed of Mister Gades Gadi and Mister Matthijs Bali. As you know, due to the heavy LIBA agendas, this presentation had to be postponed on several occasions. But now this is the day.
So I give the floor to Mister Yadi for a maximum of five minutes to present the mission report. Mister Yadi, the floor is yours.
Geadis Geadi
Thank you, President. I will speak in Greek.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I'd like to thank the whole team, all the staff that accompanied us to Estonia for their excellent work and for representing the European Parliament so well. I headed the Liebe delegation, and it was a great honor for me to have the opportunity to visit EULisa's headquarters in Tallinn, Estonia, and to represent our committee and the European Parliament as a whole. The aim was to have an in-depth exchange of views on all the issues that fall within the area of managing EULISA, including funds, as well as the implementation of large-scale IT systems that support our asylum policy, border management, and migration to the European Union. We got to see close-up the crucial role that EU LISA plays when it comes to the EU's safety. EU LISA is at the core of how we manage large-scale IT systems that support asylum policy, migration policy, border management.
And it ensures that we have effective, safe, and constant handling of EU data in the area of justice and home affairs. It supports homeland security here in the EU, as well as free movement of persons within the EU. During our visit, we saw that the EES, the SIS and the VIS systems, as well as Eurodac and a whole set of other programs, are key when it comes to protecting the Schengen Area specifically, but also when it comes to protecting EU borders in general. The EES will help us pinpoint those individuals who overstay their visas in a given country, because they will be electronically registered. So all third countries that enter and exit Schengen will be registered electronically, and there will be biometric checks.
ECRIS, the two ECRIS systems, connect national criminal records and include the crimes committed by third country nationals, making sure that all custodial sentences and judicial rulings are mutually recognized. And we have the exchange of judicial data. And there's also the JITS platform that allows for the safe storage and exchange of data linked to cross-border prosecution, among others. This platform will make it easier for the European judicial and police authorities, the competent authorities in the EU, and OLAF. The organization explained what its AI strategy is.
They will also look at boosting cybersecurity, protecting personal data, and the need to have enough funding and specialized expert staff so that the organization can meet rising expectations. Now when it comes to safety and security, the aim is to make sure that all these systems work twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week without any hiccups, even if there is an earthquake, a cyber attack or any other crisis. EU, Lisa, has to be able to make sure that all systems can operate regardless of the circumstances. And in order to do this, there has to be encryption, constant monitoring and surveillance. There have to be checks.
And of course, there has to be cooperation with the national security agencies as well. So when we were there in Estonia, we realized how important interoperability is. All the systems have to be interoperable, and there has to be member state cooperation. That's why we need very strong technological support. So the report that I am presenting today shows how much progress EULISA has made.
And that is why we would like to welcome all the progress made to make sure that the system is resilient. But also, they face a whole set of issues. And the European Parliament has to support EULISA, making sure that we provide enough funding, enough staff, and enough monitoring of EULISA during the negotiations on the upcoming MFF? Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you very much, Mr. Garry, for your report. We have a representative for EULisa in the room, and I would give the floor to this EULisa representative for brief remarks. Who's taking the floor? Yes.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today. My name is Sonia Caputa. I am the team leader of the Brussels team of Ulysses.
Welcome. Thank you.
Speaker 30
First of all, I would also like to thank mister Jadi and mister Vale and the entire Libbe delegation for the very fruitful discussions that we had in Tallinn last year in September, but also to the Libbe secretariat because the organization of the visit required a lot of efforts from all our sites. So to thank them for the excellent collaboration in organizing the visit. As one of the takeaways, a two day visit, I think it was ideal, allowing us to thoroughly discuss together with the agency senior management various experts from the agency side across business, security, technical, and legal and policy units in the agency to discuss the various systems and project that EULISSA has in its portfolio. And beyond that, to also cover other areas. Mr.
Giadi already mentioned the budgetary and financial aspects, security, data protection, artificial intelligence, research, and innovation. The agency is, of course, very pleased to see that the Libbey delegation found the visit informative, constructive, and, of course, to see the positive conclusions in the mission report. We are also thankful for the Liber delegation appreciation of the agency expertise and, also, especially for reaffirming the readiness to support our work in ensuring secure, interoperable, and efficient large scale IT systems for the European Union. With that, I will end my intervention. Thank you again, and looking forward for our collaboration in the remit of this committee, of course, but also in arranging the next mission of Libet to you, Lisa.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much for your remarks, and then we conclude this item on the agenda. The next point will be an exchange of views on the rule of law and fundamental rights risks arising from the criminal code amendment in Slovakia on the continued application of the post-war legislation based on collective responsibility. In December, Slovakia's parliament adopted a government proposal to introduce several substantive amendments to the Slovakian criminal code. One of these amendments has introduced a clause which states as follows.
Whoever publicly denies or questions the peaceful settlement of relations after the Second World War, which was established on the basis of legal acts of the representative bodies of the Czechoslovak Republic or the Slovak National Council, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to six months. The so called Benes decrees would be this amendment would apply. The so called Benes decrees in Czechoslovakia were implemented by acts of the Slovak National Council in 1945, and they established the legal basis for withdrawal of nationality of ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia, confiscation of their property, and the resettlement after the Second World War. Although those acts constitute a part of the historical legal order of both Czechia and Slovakia, they were considered as legally distinct at the time of accession to the EU and therefore without continuing legal effects. Nevertheless, several such instances of confiscation of property have been recently reported in Slovakia as being based on the aforementioned legal acts. Some of these cases give rise to court cases, including one which has been adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights.
So therefore, we invited several experts to discuss possible implications of these amendments to the Slovak criminal code from the perspective of the rule of law and protection of fundamental rights. We have with us today a representative of the European Commission, Mrs. Marielle N. Boulanger, Deputy Director in DG Just Doctor. Janos Fiala Butora, who is an international lawyer and research fellow at Galway University, and representatives of Pubnisti International Slovakia, Mrs.
Camilla Gunisova and Katarina Medlova. I will start our debate by giving the floor to our speakers for their introductory remarks, which should be no longer than five minutes. Okay? And after the presentation, we will open the floor for speakers on behalf of the political groups. So I would now give the floor to Madame Boulanger, the Deputy Director of DG Just for five minutes.
Speaker 31
Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Che. Good morning, dear honorable member. So first of all, I would like to thank you for inviting the commission to this exchange of view. And I would like to address two points, the Benes decree and second, the colonization on the questioning of the Benes decree in line of right and rule of law.
Regarding the first point, the discussion on the nature and the applicability of the business decrease is not a new one. And let me recall that in 2002, ahead of the enlargement of the European Union in May 2004, in the context of the accession of the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, the commission undertook an in-depth investigation on the compatibility with EU law of the nature and acts of such decrease. Now the commission findings during the accession negotiation were based on the fact that the decrees cannot be applied anymore, and that all deadlines for filing claims under restitution legislation have expired. The commission concluded that historical acts undertaken by the authorities of the former Czechoslovakia prior to this moment and not having any continuing legal effect, which would be contrary to EU law, cannot be the subject of any retroactive scrutiny. On the basis of those assessments, it was agreed that the postwar presidential decrees of the Czechoslovak president did not pose an obstacle to the accession of this country to the EU.
Like also to recall that at that point in time, the legal service of the European Parliament shared similar conclusion. Now going to the second point, the canalization of the questioning of the business decree and fundamental right and rule of law. This in-depth assessment was engaged prior to the 2004 accession. It has been the basis of the commission's position on the matter over the last years. Those are historical acts undertaken by the authorities of the former Czechoslovakia prior to accession and not giving rise to new legal effects, which would contribute to EU law, thus cannot be subject to retroactive scrutiny.
However, as guardian of the treaty, the commission continues to monitor that these premises remain valid. Against this background, we are aware of the new law amending the criminal code, imposing criminal sanction to those who question the postwar settlement of relations, which may include the legal framework of the Benech decrees. And on this matter, let me, first of all, underline that the commission, in line and within the remit of its competence, is committed to ensure compliance with fundamental freedom. We are committed to ensure that any national law falling within the remits of EU law complies with fundamental rights as established under the charter, including freedom of expression, right to property, nondiscrimination. Restriction to freedom of expression have to be made in accordance with the principle of proportionality, in line with this requirement, when falling within the scope of EU law.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can confirm and conclude that the commission will continue to follow the development closely in a spirit of cooperation and with the necessary vigilance and readiness to make use of instruments as appropriate. And as we have clearly demonstrated in the past, we're hesitant to act when necessary. The commission shares the commitment of this house to uphold the rule of law and the protection of rights in all member states, including Slovakia. Thank you very much for giving us the floor.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Boulanger. And now I'll give the floor to Mister Doctor Gianos Fiala Boutora for five minutes.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy to be here. Well, to understand the context of this criminal law amendment, we have to see that since 2018, there have been confiscations taking place in Slovakia based on collective guilt. And I have been involved as a researcher and as a human rights lawyer representing victims of these confiscations, in exposing these confiscations. We have evidence of hundreds of confiscations taking place.
I brought a policy brief, several copies of that. But the government was not reacting to these for a long time. But once the European Court of Human Rights confirmed them, and the Slovak Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and the Council of Europe, the opposition party started criticizing them. And last year, they proposed that maybe the confiscations should not continue, because they violate human rights norms. This is when the government reacted by amending the criminal code.
The purpose was to deflect criticism from current confiscations to the historical ones because they thought they cannot defend the current confiscation. So they are pretending that any criticism is an attacking the historical confiscations. This is what the criminal code is doing. It is suppressing the discussion. It has a chilling effect by design.
Its purpose is not to punish everyone, but to silence free speech. But this effort backfired. Instead of silencing the discussion, it fueled it. There are many Hungarians and Slovaks also who are critical of the current confiscations, and they started talking about that. We have been saying from the beginning that the law is unconstitutional.
And to test it with two of my colleagues, we initiated a petition. I also bought several copies, which is asking the government not to apply collective guilt in the twenty first century, but to place its position on human rights. And by this, we violate the criminal code amendment. The amendment has an explanatory report. I brought English translations with me.
I have several copies, which specify that it's criticizing or contradicting the government's statements on the banished decrees, which is part of the violation of the criminal code. We did that in the petition. The petition was successful. More almost 8,000 people signed it, and we reported ourselves for violating the criminal code with my two colleagues. The police started a criminal investigation against us, and they stopped it three weeks ago.
The investigator concluded, confirmed to our position, that the law, the criminal code amendment, is unconstitutional because it's violating freedom of speech. It is very unclear. It's not possible to tell exactly what the government wants to punish by the amendment. And, also, our statements regarding the banished decrees are historically correct statements and implicitly. So what the government is saying about the banished decrees is incorrect.
This is not the final decision, and the prosecutor can still order the police to continue the investigation. And the law is still in force, obviously, so the government can still apply it, still use it. The government was partly successful in conflating the historical and the current confiscations. I'm saying that because, also, the European Commission has been aware of these ongoing confiscations since 2021. And in their answers, they always say that the banished decrease relates to historical acts.
That is true. The decrease is both a historical issue and the current human rights problem. But my neglecting this latter dimension plays into the hands of the Slovak government. So I believe for today, the issue is not whether Slovakia is violating human rights. We know the country is violating it.
The question is whether the European Union sees any problems regarding this from the perspective of a breach of EU law. If it is possible to confiscate property or compensation on the basis of ethnicity and then criminalize the criticism by a half-year prison sentence, then there really is no protection of even basic rights in the EU. And then it is all just a question of a political power game. How can the EU then criticize any violations of the rule of law and not appear hypocritical? I think both EU citizens interested in upholding human rights and authoritarian governments suppressing them are watching this debate very closely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Doctor Janos. Thank you, Doctor Janos. Now I will give the floor to the representatives of Amnesty International in Slovakia. I understand that Mrs. Will deliver the introductory remarks, and then you will be both available to take the questions.
So, the floor is yours, Mrs. Kunisova, also for a maximum of 5 minutes.
Speaker 33
You, chair, members of the European Parliament. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee on behalf of Amnesty International Slovakia. We approach this issue from a solely human rights perspective. Our concern is whether the recent amendment to the Slovak Criminal Code is compatible with international human rights law, in particular, protecting freedom of expression and strict limits governing the use of criminal law. Three principles are particularly relevant in addressing this legislation.
First, freedom of expression protects the open discussion of matters of public interest. This includes historical events, legal arrangements, and state actions, as well as the views that may be critical or not widely accepted. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that the freedom of expression protects not only the ideas that are favorably received, but also those that may offend, shock, or disturb. For these reasons, restrictions on expression must meet a high threshold. They must be clearly prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.
Second, criminal offenses restricting expression must meet strict standards of legal certainty. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that criminal provisions must be formulated with sufficient precision so that individuals can reasonably foresee what conduct may give rise to criminal liability. In this case, the offense is defined as the public denial or questioning of the postwar settlement established by the legal acts of the Czechoslovak authorities. However, these terms are broad and open-ended, and the law does not clearly specify what forms of expression fall within the scope. This creates legal uncertainty for those engaging in legitimate public discussion, including historians, journalists, researchers, lawyers, and civil society actors.
And the third, criminal sanctions represent the most severe interference with the freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently emphasized that the use of criminal law to restrict expression requires a particularly strong justification where individuals are prosecuted or detained solely for peacefully expressing their views. This raises the risk of cases that Amnesty International would consider prisoners of conscience. Council of Europe guidance on so-called memory laws similarly warns that criminal legislation regulating statements about historical events must be approached with caution due to its chilling effect on freedom of expression. In particular, criminal law should not be used to penalize the mere questioning or criticism of historical or legal arrangements unless expression reaches the threshold of incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
And finally, the issue also has a minority rights dimension. The banished decrease were historically associated with the measures which had significant consequences for members of national minorities, particularly persons of Hungarian and German origin. From a human rights perspective, it is important that affected communities, as well as the researchers and civil society actors, are able to openly discuss the historical and legal context and consequences of such measures. International human rights law requires that any criminal measures targeting speech remain narrowly defined, necessary, and proportionate, and that they do not criminalize protected expression on matters of public interest. In Amnesty International's view, the current provision raises serious concerns in this regard and risks placing Slovakia in tension with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Therefore.
You should be concluding.
Speaker 33
Okay. Yes. Amnesty International Slovakia considers that this provision should be reconsidered to ensure that criminal law is not used to penalize protected expression, and that space remains fully safeguarded for research, journalism, and open public debate. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Missus Guinisova, for your remarks. And now I open the floor to the political group representatives, starting with EPP, mister Pince, for a maximum of two minutes.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you for the floor, Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues, and I would like to also welcome our representatives, guests, experts from Slovakia, Nistar Hosteijnuk at Dorpedi Empreyem.
Welcome.
Loránt Vincze
I have some comments and a question at the end. The banished decrees, as confirmed by the Slovak parliament in 2007, enforced collective guilt by confiscating land from Hungarian and German communities solely based on their ethnic origin. We discussed this confiscation in this committee 19 years ago. Despite petitions, parliamentary questions, and plenary debates since then, there has never been a thorough EU assessment on how such laws can still be implemented today. These confiscations are not history.
They are an everyday reality. And as our witness testified, Slovak authorities and courts with government support continue applying these measures in what resembles a mafia-style land grabbing scheme. Since 2017, the land fund and forest authority have accelerated procedures against the descendants of those originally affected. Hundreds of cases involved thousands of hectares, with no compensation ever paid. I think we are talking past each other with the commission, and I urge once again the commission to verify if these lands are linked to investments funded from EU taxpayers' money.
I already have a written archive of questions that I had to the commission in the past years. They were never properly answered. Furthermore, the recent changes to the Slovak criminal code aim to limit public debate regarding the banished decrees. This attack on freedom of speech spotlights serious rule of law and human rights concerns. Ethnic discrimination and the restriction of freedom of speech have no place in Europe.
As we heard, also the amendment of the criminal code is so absurd that the Slovak police is not able to properly investigate such allegations. I call on the commission to examine the broader legal framework on the ongoing confiscation practices using the rule of law tools. I also call for a resolution in the parliament focusing on both the discrimination and the freedom of speech matter. And my question shortly, how are the domestic, Slovak courts interpreting the ongoing application of the banished decrees? Was any judge considering asking a preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice under article 267 of the TFEU?
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Vinci. Who of the speakers do you address your question to?
Mister Fiala.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I will need 2 minutes. The practice of the Slovak courts is very unstable at the moment because they don't know how to deal with these confiscations. Many are saying that the confiscations are unconstitutional, but the constitutional court has to confirm this. It's only the constitutional court which has the power to do that.
So we see lower courts, some of them rejecting the confiscation proposals, some of them approving them. The problem is all cases which go to the Supreme Court are confirmed by the Supreme Court. And there was at least one case we know which went to the constitutional court, and the constitutional court confirmed the confiscations. I have been trying to ask lower courts to issue a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EU. They refused it.
Yet this is a politically very sensitive question in Slovakia. We have to understand. So they are expecting some resolution from the political level, obviously, but we will continue to try to do that. The second problem I'll just mention is that most of the cases do not actually go to court. We're using administrative procedure and even going around the administrative rules in Slovakia.
The authorities are implementing these confiscations without even notifying the victims. They only learn about it later when it's too late to do anything. So that is why the case law of the cause is not satisfactory. Thank you.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much, chair. I think I can keep it short because I have only a few questions. After we all follow these latest developments and debates, for me, it seems to be very clear that all these confiscations are unlawful. So a question to the commission would be, do you believe that this is a national issue, or is it, and I think it's clear after all we heard, also a European issue that we have to ask the government to change this legislation. So this is not only true that this is a European issue for freedom of expression, but maybe we also have to look into the legislation.
It will, in no way, justify the decision of the Slovak government to take away positions from people simply because of their ethnicity without any payment or something like that. But I also hear again and again that Orban is talking about a great Hungary, talking about the areas where the Slovak government now is taking away ground from people. So a speech is not justifying anything. And I'm sure the commission will say, based on a speech, we cannot do anything. But shouldn't we at least criticize these kinds of speeches, which means we are not respecting borders that have been created in the past.
But once again, this does in no way justify the legislation we see now in Slovakia. And the question is to what extent, not only on freedom of expression, but also on the fundamental issue that the position is taken away from people. To what extent can the European Union react to that, and how far are we in the debates? And maybe this is more a question for the commission.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Sepel. Madam Bulazia, I think this is your call.
Speaker 31
Thank you. Thank you very much for this discussion. I just wanted to repeat what we have mentioned earlier. What I've mentioned earlier is that we continue to follow closely the development, and in a spirit of cooperation and close monitoring involves the points which have been raised. So that's what I can say at this point in time, and I think it has been clearly raised that if there are issues related to the EU compensator, a euro, that's something we monitor closely. Thanks a lot.
Kinga Gál
Thank you, chairman, and welcome to our speakers here in this debate. I think it's very important. Let me continue in Hungarian. It.
It is very unfortunate, and I can say that on behalf of the Patriots that the big political groups did not accept that Mister Bubik be invited as representative of the Hungarian community in Slovakia, would have contributed to the authenticity of this debate. The European institutions and these political groups, including the Commission, have been silent for decades. Wherever we raise the issues concerning Hungarian communities across our borders, they just sweep these cases off the table. In some cases, they are not as shameless when they are actually shameless in applying double standards and teaching lessons to certain member states. It is unacceptable that the Banach decree still remains in force.
The issue of collective guilt is a recurring topic here in the EU institutions and in Slovakia. Representatives of the FIDES, including me, have on many occasions tried to use all the tools available to us. In 2011, I wanted to start a debate, and I started the debate in this commission. And later, we held a meeting in the petitions committee on the same subject. The European institutions remained silent, and nothing was resolved.
Independent of which party was in power in Slovakia, references to the banach decrease remained on the table. Confiscations continued. No Slovak government ever took any steps to resolve these issues. And they again use this as a political tool in their domestic debates. Collective guilt cannot form the basis of legal acts in the twenty-first century.
And neither is the use of the Hungarian minorities should be allowed in the twenty-first century. What can we expect from the European Commission? What steps can be foreseen? We remain in contact with representatives of the Hungarian community in Slovakia, using all tools at our disposal to protect the Hungarian community in Slovakia.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Scala. Is there any specific question you would like to put? And you would address that to the commission?
Okay.
the commission to take in.
Speaker 32
I didn't understand these as questions, but I will address them. So, the representative of the commission mentioned that they follow closely the developments in Slovakia. I'm not sure what this means, because it is only the government who has information about the scope of the confiscations. We learn about some confiscations, which we have evidence for. We issued reports, but the commission has never been in touch with us.
And the government is not releasing the information. It's not even collecting the information. So I really doubt that the commission has access to that information, to which even the government is not disclosing it to its own department. That's one thing. About the double standards, maybe this is also connected to the previous speaker.
Yes. We see a double standard in how the commission approaches some human rights issues. But well, I have to say, the Hungarian government is also not working on closing the gap in this double standard, but maybe making it worse. So I think we would like to see a close cooperation between members of the European Parliament and the commission and the Slovak government in trying to fight a human rights compliant solution to this issue, and that's not what we are seeing. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now we move to the next speaker. Next, speak ECR Group. Is there any non ECR Group speaker. And then for the group of Renew, Missus, who is taking the floor?
I have Mrs Jarrod on the speaker's list. This is not the case. Mister Minkjev. Okay.
Nikola Minchev
Yeah. Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, would like to thank also the representatives of the commission, and the representatives of the academic sector and the civil society sector for participating in this discussion. Dear colleagues, my intervention is not exactly a question, but more like a comment and more like a request towards everyone to pay attention, to pay close attention to what is happening around the European Union. Because we are witnessing a dangerous trend where antidemocratic forces, not only in Slovakia, but also in other EU countries, including my own country, Bulgaria, use similar tactics to undermine the rule of law, the very backbone of our democracy.
In those countries, parties distract the public from their attacks on the rule of law by fueling emotionally charged conflicts. In Slovakia, the government is weaponizing the banished decrees to turn ethnic minorities into a political tool for division, hoping to divert public attention from their problematic amendments to the criminal code. Similarly, in Bulgaria, we witnessed the exploitation by populist parties of a genuine tragedy, the Petrohan case, to smear the very parties and associations that advocate for a truly democratic and transparent state. And we must see through these smoke screens and stand firmly on the rule of law, and especially we here in Libya, are under obligation to do so. Whether in Bratislava or in Sofia, or anywhere else in the EU, our message is clear.
Human rights and tragedies are not tools for political manipulation. And then again, I'm addressing this as a request to everyone, civil society and to the European Commission, as well as the guardian of the treaties where, Rule of law is enshrined as a founding principle of the European Union, to pay close attention to this and act strongly and whenever this is necessary. Thank you very much, chair.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Mincef. I understand there's no question from you. Then I give the floor now to the group of the Greens, Mr. Stick.
Tineke Strik
Thank you, chair, and thank you very much to the invited guests. I'm really happy to see civil society again here on the panel, because that doesn't happen so often anymore. I'm really happy that we have this issue in the Liberal Committee, because the freedom of expression is really one of the core values of the EU. And, unfortunately, if I look at Slovakia, it's not a self-standing issue. I mean, it's part of the broader context of autocratization, and Slovakia is not the only country.
And, as a rapporteur on Hungary, I really see a lot of similarities going on in Slovakia, compared to Hungary. And, my main concern is actually that what we have seen, what happened in Hungary and also before in Poland, that the lack of an adequate EU response, so the impunity, is only increasing and fueling the further dismantling of the rule of law. So, therefore, my question to the commission is also, does the commission draw lessons from this? Because if we really want to stop this development of autocratization, it means that we need to act much swifter and much firmer if it comes to any regression. I understand that the commission has started an infringement procedure against the constitutional amendments that were adopted last year.
But I would really want to ask you, does the commission also consider asking for an interim measure? Because if we have to wait for years before the Court of Justice will come with a ruling, things have become worse and worse ever since. And also, does the commission consider the freezing of the funding? Because also, in that sense, I think it would be an adequate instrument. And maybe that would also be my question to the experts, both of you, like, what do you see how the EU could help, the EU's response could help in order to stop this development and dismantling the rule of law in Slovakia.
Thank you.
Speaker 31
Thanks a lot. I can reply to the point on the infringement to the Slovak constitution, a primacy of EU law? And I'm sure you're aware that the commission has launched an infringement procedure with a letter of notice being sent on November 25. And, the case, on the basis of the reply we've received, is currently under assessment. So, thanks a lot.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, madam. It's difficult to say how the commission could solve this issue because, obviously, this is a very complicated issue, but the commission can play a positive role in two ways, we think. First, by setting clear standards on what EU law requires and what it doesn't allow. And so far, that has been missing.
And second, by shedding more light on the issue. Because currently, the debate is stuck. Many people in Minaslovakia are still even doubting that the confiscations are taking place. The commission does have powers towards the Slovak government to request information and to conduct investigations. That would be tremendously helpful.
And lastly, obviously, if there is clear violations of EU law, and we know that some of the affected property is under highways, is built from EU funds, then there is a place for legal steps to be taken against the Slovak government for violating EU law, but that's the end of the process. I believe that even just starting the conversation by domesticating what's going on, significant developments could take place even on the domestic level. So maybe there will be no need for intervention, but something needs to be done by the commission now.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Missus Munizwa. Your turn to take the question. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 49
Thank you for the question. I'm Katarina Medlova from Amnesty International Slovakia. And I would also like to talk about human rights.
You have one minute.
Okay.
You have a question.
Speaker 49
For I would like to also note that connected to this issue is also freedom of assembly. I would like to know that in March 2025, members of special procedures, I have sent a letter to Slovakia warning that the adoption of the so called Lex assassination law severely restricts the right to peaceful assembly and includes provision that limit protests near the government buildings and private residencies, and further curtails the ability of Slovak citizens to express this content and violates international law. And as far as I understand, there have been cases connected exactly to the issue at hand, which maybe my colleague would be able to tell more details about.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now, I don't see any speaker, any representative from the group of the left. Yeah. I will give you the floor. I was talking about the group of the left, then ESN.
Zsuzsanna Borvendég
Thank you, chair. I'm gonna speak in Hungary. How.
Is it possible that collective guilt still has a legal effect? Where is the EU when communities are discriminated against? The discriminative points of the bonus decrease should be abolished forever. We know that this is an attack of the liberal forces, and they attempt to destabilize us. We do not want to play a role in this, but respecting human rights is a basic demand that we cannot let go.
We also want the Hungarian community to be recognized as a founding community, and all sorts of ethnic discrimination should be abolished in the inheritance procedures. And the already confiscated land should be mitigated in the context of a legal remedy. But there are other issues as well. Slovakia is preparing a language law which would forbid the use of minority languages in public areas.
Zsuzsanna Borvendég
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, chair. Okay. So there is an okay. There are.
Other problems as well. In Slovakia, they are preparing a law on language use, which would forbid the use of minority languages in public areas. This is unprecedented and unacceptable. The commission should also react to this. In areas inhabited by Hungarians, the full and official use of Hungarian should be ensured in the cities where the majority is Hungarian.
The prohibition of double citizenship should be abolished. Hungarians are nearly 10% of the Slovak population. They live in their homeland, and their wish to become Hungarian citizens should be respected. Slovakia has not managed to create a law to protect minorities in 3 decades. Why is the EU not stepping up against this?
Full cultural autonomy should be ensured together with education and cultural institutions, and regional inequalities in development policy should be corrected because this is putting Hungarians into disadvantaged positions.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Well, now we start the second round of interventions. I've got several requests for the floor. Starting with Mr. Laszlo. Just one minute, please.
András László
This is a surreal debate, but it is a good reflection of the shameless double standards that can be observed in the EU. There is this debate about the banished decrease and about the violation of rights of the Hungarian minorities. And the socialist MEP uses this to attack Viktor Orban, as does the green MEP. But just look at the facts. In 2007, FIDES MEPs brought the issue of the banished decrees into the committee for the first time.
And the European Parliament or the European Commission has not done anything concrete. And when we wanted to invite Mr. Bubik, as a representative of the Hungarian community, the People's Party, the EPP, prompted by TISA, refused to do that, and you pretend to be protecting minorities. This is shameless. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I have two questions for the representatives of Amnesty and Transparency. You represent an international network of NGOs. There were Hungarian people belonging to the Hungarian minority pulled into the draft into the Ukrainian army who died, and you haven't done anything to protect these recruits of the Ukrainian army, Hungarian ethnic Hungarian soldier?
Speaker 33
this situation. However, we haven't taken any position on it yet. I'm not really sure if the Hungarian amnesty is really trying to focus on this issue, but I can give you the updates if you are interested in.
Javier Zarzalejos
Okay. Thank you. Now I'll give the floor to Mrs. Jarre. Floor is yours.
Lucia Yar
Thank you very much, chair. And I would like to commend the speakers that came here and to present the case because as you mister Fiala Butora has correctly said, this became this is an internal political issue of which my party, Progressive Slovakia, brought shedding the light bringing the light to the issue that many Slovaks and Hungarians, especially Hungarians in the southern regions of Slovakia are facing still today. So, what actually happened, and Ms. Kunisova also said it correctly, that this is not a question of nationality, but a question of legal certainty. And I'm very proud that my party, Progressive Slovakia, brought these things forward, that the issues that are still ongoing and people are facing are here, and we discuss it.
Nevertheless, also the declaration that we presented as a party was very much in line with the Komarno declaration. So, the kind of misinterpretation that we hear now from FIDES is not really true. What happened also, and I think this is important for the discussion and bringing also to inform other MEPs and the public, is that the government, the current Slava government, actually presented the amendment that says that anyone who publicly questions the post war agreement can be sentenced to six months in prison, which is not only a pretty much amateur's legislation, also very absurd. That's why three months later, we are discussing this, let me call it, absurdity of the current Slovak government in the parliament. Also, to the current Slovak government, also the Hungarian government, minority issues are often instrumentalized in the hands of wannabe authoritarian governments.
So, I am happy that we bring it here in a sense that we need to address it together, together with the government of Hungary, together with the Slovak government, possibly in the future, those better one or those that are facing the issues with democratic and liberal appreciation of the law. And just a little question, because what we hear in Slovakia is that the examples of confiscations are not happening anymore. If you, mister Fiala Butora or miss Gunisova, could talk about some concrete examples that are still happening today, because we don't have that. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Is up. I will group the questions, and then there will be a final reply by our speakers. So now I give the floor to Missus Katarina Nevadalova. One minute, please.
Katarína Roth Neveďalová
I'd like to say that I regret the fact that this political discussion is coming up here. Who asked for this? Some people asked for it. Now they're not here. Half of the political group didn't take the trouble to come here.
This is Slovak. It concerns Slovakia and Hungary.
Yeah. Hungarian political campaign before the elections. I am very sorry, that this is why we are discussing it here. I have a cheerleader sitting behind me, not mine cheerleaders, but cheerleaders for the Hungarian opposition who are clapping and shouting, and I would like to request them to refrain from this behavior because this is a political debate for the members and they are here as the observers, so they should be quiet. Slovakia is a rule-of-law state.
There is nothing happening like this, what we are saying. The amendment to the criminal court is saying that if somebody is questioning the settlement after the Second World War, this shouldn't be happening. And I hope that this is one of the statements of why European Union was established and that we shouldn't something like this happen. The Banner's Decrees, this is something which is there. And as the commission correctly said, this was there before Slovakia joined the European Union.
So I don't know why we're questioning here and requesting the European Union to make some statements or do something.
Thank you.
This is.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. That's it. And now, there are no further requests for the floor. Yeah. Missus Raquel Garcia, Anderwale.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Look. I think this debate has reached a level of absurdity.
One minute. Yes.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Reached a level of absurdity that I was not even expecting. The European Union foundational value is a value of respect among others for minorities and the rule of law. And in this case, the Slovakian government of Robert Fico is not respecting either minorities or the rule of law. So, the commission should do something about it. And I am sorry, I am very disappointed with the answers that have been given today.
Secondly, the liberal forces are trying to destabilize us. The liberal forces are here. My group, Renew, the liberal group in the European Parliament is here. Today has been here with four different people from Bulgaria, from The Netherlands, and from Slovakia, fighting for the rights of minorities, all minorities, not the minorities that suit you when it suits you. Because we believe in the rule of law and in these rights in the European Union.
I have no further questions for the speakers. I thank you for your presence, and please know that you can count on a very big share of this parliament to support you in this fight. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Garcia Armida. Please refrain from inspections of support. Now I'll give the floor just for one minute to Madame Sorel.
Malika Sorel
In various committees in recent days, we have been looking at the position of Europe in the world. The European Union spent a huge amount of money spreading all over the world the principles of democracy. And yet, in the European Union, we can see these principles being violated. I have not been convinced by what the commission has said. It has been inconsistent to light, and I am very worried about the way that we are dealing with these questions here, these enlargement questions.
They are not being studied in sufficient detail. Confiscation without compensation because of ethnicity, that could take place in France or Germany one day. So I am worried, and I want action to be taken. What can Parliament do to force the European Commission? And mister Fialapa, this is a question for you.
What do you want from the European Parliament? And have these questions been raised at the council? Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
For a brief concluding remarks to the speakers, starting with the commission.
Javier Zarzalejos
They want to do so. Madame Bronsay, the floor is yours for just one minute.
Speaker 31
Thank you very much. I will reiterate our commitment to continue to follow the development closely, in the spirit of cooperation and with the necessary vigilance and readiness to make use of our instrument as appropriate. And I would like also to come back a bit on the charter to remind that we are committed to ensure that any national measure which are implementing law in the meaning of article 51.1 of the charter comply with the charter. And I will leave it there. Thanks a lot.
Merci, madame Boulanger.
Thank you, Miss Boulanger.
Speaker 33
I would like to express that the issue we've been talking about today is not an issue of the right to property or to take some position on historical interpretation in amnesty view. It is really from our concern, it's purely human rights issue. And, therefore, we are concerned and really call on the European Commission to use all the available tools and measures to make sure that the criminal law is not used to punish protected expression under international human rights law. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now finally, I give the floor to Mister Fiala Butora for his concluding remarks of the reply to the questions I have put to him.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I received several questions, so I will try to answer all of them. Missus Nemedelova, human rights are not a matter for internal debate only. The European Union does have competence over human rights. I have been sitting here in the European Parliament giving evidence on violations of rights of persons with disabilities, violations of rights belonging to LGBTQ persons, and so on.
Minority rights of ethnic minorities belong to the larger family of human rights. So obviously, there needs to be a debate on that. Concerning the confiscations, the Slovak Supreme Court confirmed them. The European Court of Human Rights confirmed them. The Slovak Constitutional Court confirmed them.
The Council of Europe Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for National Minorities confirmed them. I don't know what else would you expect to see in the confiscations. I'll give an example to the other speaker. Just three days ago, I received another request from a client whose grandmother had died. And in the inheritance proceeding, the Slovak land funds stepped in, and they are proposing to confiscate the grandmother's land.
It is worth €125,000 on the ground that in 1946, when the Benes decrees were applied, she was Hungarian, and they should have confiscated the land from her at that time. She was on the list of persons who were to be expelled, and now they found her name on the list, saying that she should have been expelled. We should have confiscated in 1946. We forgot to do it then. We will do it now that she is dead.
Because she died, she is not part of the proceedings. The family doesn't know what's going on. They are asking me to defend them in front of the court. It is very difficult to do procedurally. There are several examples like that.
My colleagues are here who are also lawyers, and they're representing people in these situations. We are very happy to speak to anybody interested. I brought a policy paper. There is a lot of evidence of this confiscation going on. And lastly, what I would like to see from the European Parliament, a clear declaration of standards and a request towards the European Commission.
The European Commission is in a position to put more light on this issue, to request information from the Slovak government, and to reiterate what the European standard on this is. There is a problem. We're not upholding human rights correctly in the European Union. I teach you all, like all my colleagues, we are critical of that, but we need to work together on all the human rights issues. Hungarians from Slovakia, who are mostly affected, are also interested in other human rights issues.
So we need to work together with the commission, helping the commission, and I'm expressing my willingness to help the commission with this issue to put a satisfactory end to this problem.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much. We conclude this point on our agenda. We thank our guest speakers for their contribution to the debate and the information they've provided. And now we move to our item number nine on our agenda.
Speaker 70
Expected. We have only three. We'll have a play. Yeah. Then we have for this vote.
But it's also, yeah.
Speaker 70
But they don't, you know, we need to call members to come back at one because I think we'll finish maybe 2:30, and then we start the afternoon as a call. And then with the UPS. So the whole afternoon is there, but Libra resumes at such.
In this very room.
Yeah. One of them.
Javier Zarzalejos
Well, your colleagues take your seats, so we can start with our next point on our agenda. Which is the report from the Democracy, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group. Well, as you know, this group was the monitoring group established in October 2024 with the same mandate and composition as in the previous legislature under the chairmanship of Miss Sophie Vilmes. The group examines the possible threats to democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights across the EU, and this is the third reporting back since the beginning of the term. The group has been actively engaged in both country-specific monitoring and debating horizontal issues through a combination of in camera meetings, missions, public exchanges of views.
A report is available in the meeting documents. These discussions have deepened the monitoring group members' understanding of their role on the rule of law and fundamental rights situation in the union and specific member states, leading in turn to further exchange of views in Libre, plenary debates, or missions. So we now look forward to hearing from Missus Vilmes on the monitoring group, recent activities, and upcoming priorities. Since the last report in back deliver took place in October. So, missus Vilmes, the floor is yours for 6 minutes.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you, chair. As you have described, the purpose and the mandates of our monitoring group, I will immediately go to the report on our activities. Between October 25 and February 26, the Democracy Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights Monitoring Group have held seven meetings addressing both country-specific and horizontal issues. We organized one mission. During those times, we discussed the democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights situation in Bulgaria, in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, during INCA MEHRA meetings.
The meeting of Bulgaria focused on independence of the judiciary, anti-corruption and independence of the media, media pluralism, while the meeting on Poland has a particular focus on independence of judiciary, women's rights, LGBTQI plus rights. The session on Romania focused on independence of the justice system, anti-corruption framework, while, lastly, regarding Lithuania, media freedom and pluralism were examined. These discussions include contributions from a diverse range of stakeholders, national authorities, mostly at ministerial level. This was the case for Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania. National and international independent bodies, civil society organizations and representatives of media outlets of the judiciary. This in camera session offers the FMG members, I hope, a detailed and nuanced picture of ongoing or new challenges to democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights in Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Lithuania.
In addition, as you are well aware, the Chair of the Monitoring Group organized a mission to Spain in February. During the mission, the delegation held discussions on independence of the judiciary, transparency and anti-corruption, equality and non-discrimination. The delegation met with a broad range of Spanish authorities and stakeholders. A mission report will be presented in Libet in the coming weeks. The DARE FMJ also addressed a number of horizontal themes, like we always do.
We had, for example, an exchange of views with Advocate General Capita on ECG's European value case. Advocate General Capita presented her opinion in which she considered that prohibiting or restricting access to LGBT content in Hungary infringed EU law. The case is also important for the question whether the commission can bring an infringement case on the basis of a breach of Article 2 on the European values as a separate legal ground. Another DereFMJ meeting was devoted to the question of monitoring compliance with the rule of law by the EU itself. Member examined the possibilities of intensified cooperation between the EU and external monitoring bodies like GRECO.
And finally, not later than Monday, we had, again, a DARE FMJ meeting where we spoke on protecting and empowering civil society, strengthening support, and ensuring transparency. It was too late to include it in this report, but we gathered a lot of interesting input and the challenge on the challenges for and expectations from civil society regarding a thriving civic space. Beyond the more official meetings, members of the monitoring group also had an informal lunch in Strasbourg with the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty. So as you see, the DFFMG has had a busy agenda and will also have a busy agenda for the coming months, including country-specific discussion on Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic, but also thematic discussions like we always have on media freedom and pluralism, rule of law conditionality under the next MFF, very important topic, the single market and the rule of law, and how the Commission annual rule of law report can drive change in enlargement countries. So we are looking forward to the discussion.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much, Missus Vilmes. And now I'll give the floor to members of the monitoring group, for a maximum of two minutes each, and then there will be also a further round of catch the eye if necessary. So I will start with EPP, Mrs. Wisser Lima.
Isabel Wiseler-Lima
Dear chair, dear colleagues, on behalf of the PPP group, I would like to express our strong appreciation for the work carried out by the working group and thank, in particular, Sophie Wilmes for her way of chairing the monitoring group. UP Group has always been firmly committed to the rule of law in the European Union and to upholding the Union's fundamental values across the member states. We therefore consider the work of this working group to be of utmost importance, and truly value the dedication and efforts invested over the past months. Over the past half year, the working group has held a series of meetings looking both at country-specific developments and at horizontal issues such as media freedom. And it is precisely in this area that we are becoming increasingly concerned.
We are seeing growing pressure on media freedom in several member states, both at the international institutional level and through practices such as SLAPPs, harassment of journalists, and other forms of intimidation. Journalists play a fundamental role in our democracies. They must be able to work freely, safely, and without fear. The same applies to civil society organizations, which are essential to safeguarding pluralism, accountability, and the rule of law. Their protection must remain a priority for the European Union.
This is why we want to strongly underline the importance of the proper and effective implementation of the Media Freedom Act in all member states. The FLMG has also conducted several missions to assess rule of development on the ground. These missions are essential as they allow us to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the situation in the different member states. Clearly, it's that the challenge to the rule of law is not limited to a small number of member states. They can arise across the union, particularly when institutional deadlocks, political polarization, or governance issues begin to put pressure on checks and balances.
While the challenges can take different forms across the Union, the severity is not the same everywhere. In some cases, concerns remain structural, persistent, and require particular attention. This is why we must remain vigilant, consistent, and united in our approach. The rule of law is not a given. It requires constant attention, commitment, and political will.
Our responsibility as this parliament is to ensure that these principles are upheld everywhere in the union, without exceptions. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Wisser Lima. And now the floor goes to Mister Smisek on the S and D group.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, chair. And on behalf of S and D group, I would like to express our gratitude to Sofie Wilmas for her leadership and for how she leads the group. It is extremely important that the working group is a space where we can have an honest discussion on important issues for European democracy, which is media freedom, which is space, free space for civil society, which is judiciary and human rights, and many other burning issues that we are focusing on. So, thank you so much for your report, and thank you so much, Sofie Foujo, for how you lead this group. Our group also would like to mention one thing, and this is something that we also have to have an honest discussion on, that for us up to now, we see that there is quite a big focus on countries from Central Eastern Europe, which is Slovakia, which is Poland, which is Bulgaria, which is Romania.
And, course, in these countries, we do have a lot of things to discuss in terms of how democracy is respected. I'm saying this as a former deputy justice minister, Hervey of Poland, very happy to discuss Polish issues as many times as possible. But, I think that to preserve the respect for this group and credibility of this group, we also need to have an honest discussion on other countries. We had a mission to Spain. Our group wants to and upholds our willingness to have a mission to Italy, not only our group, but also many other groups.
We are upholding our will to go and to see how democracy works in Italy. Unfortunately, this is being blocked and we do not understand what's the reason behind. So, to sum up, the group is a crucial instrument in the parliamentary debate on how democracy is being respected by respective countries. We are very much willing to contribute as we did so far. And we think that we need to make it even stronger to have the voice of the European Parliament being heard even more at the European level.
Thank you so much.
Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Thank you very much indeed. Chairman. I shall speak in Spanish. But I shall be very brief, because I think everybody is familiar with the position that this group holds in terms of the working group and my political group's position on that. There are one or two points that I'd underline.
I very much respect the work that the chairman does. I respect the fact that the meeting in Spain, the mission in Spain did lead to a good summary being produced. I think that this has got to be made public in order for it to be truly effective. And I think that the fact that we have so many discussions in camera really is a problem because internal discussions may or may not justify our prejudices and our bias, but we don't get our message out to the outside world. So that's really something that I wanted to flag up.
I'd also like to say that I think it's extremely important that the national authorities cooperate with us. If we are organizing these missions and doing this work, we need to ensure that we can count on support in order to be able to do our work effectively. So we need to have that counterpart working with us. And I would have to say that there was a distinct singular lack of cooperation on the part of the prime minister and all the ministers and the mission in Spain, and that is actually one of the problems that underlies the whole report. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchardier.
Javier Zarzalejos
I don't see any speakers from the ECR group. And mister Orlando, would you like to take the floor at this point? Okay. Then anyone from the left wishing to take the floor, if there is any member present here? For the same with the ESN.
Well, then if that is the case and no other member would like to request the floor, I give the floor to Missus Vilmes for her concluding remarks on this point.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to all colleagues for their positive feedback and the comments. Maybe to go one by one, it is true that the work on democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law is a never-ending work. It's a work in progress, and it is important to remain vigilant, as Missus Lima has said, and it is indeed our duty.
This is why the monitoring group has been put in place. I understand the wish of what has been expressed by mister Smischek to be able to visit or work in other countries than what we have been done today. I have to say that as a chair, I am obliged to work with the cards I have been dealt, which means that I am not deciding on my own in which country we are making missions or in which country we are not, or in which country we were supposed to have missions and which countries we are not at the end, or which country we are working on during our in camera meeting, and I will come back to that as well. It is the wish of the group, and I'm trying to find equilibrium for everyone. It is true that I share some wishes to be more free to exert our monitoring duties while the way we should do it.
Mister Bouchardet has expressed his respect for the work that we are doing, and I thank him for this, for his. We had already a discussion with mister Bouchardet about the in-camera meetings, so he's very coherent with his point of view already expressed. I think that it is in camera meetings are indeed the habit of this monitoring group. It's not new. And one of the points, it's to indeed avoid making from the monitoring group a media show.
What we want to avoid is to make it a media show, and really try to get in-depth with the different stakeholders about the content. Last but not least, I do share the point of view that if we really want to have meaningful discussions, we have to have it with civil society, but also with the representatives of the government. And I do believe that no one should be scared of seeing us and talking with us. We have seen it, for example, in Slovakia. Slovakia, we had very strong discussions.
Still, we met the prime minister. And it's a sign also of respect, even if we are in disagreement with what's going on. So I want to also underline this because it's a point of view that I do share. So, voila, we hope that we are going to nearly soon find the destination of our next mission with an open heart if ever possible in this great institution. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Vilmes, for your report. And for your remarks, we take good note of them. There is no need to, I mean, highlight the importance that the Liber Committee attached to the working of the group and the importance of your work in supporting our responsibility as a committee on the rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights. Thank you. And now we move to our next item on our agenda, which is feedback from the trial of meeting on the extension of the interim regulation on detection as the delegation of the privacy allowing the detection, removal, and reporting of child sexual abuse material.
As you know, unfortunately, we didn't reach a compromise with the council, and I think this makes it particularly important for the Libre committee to get the feedback from the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur. So I may give the floor to Missus Sippel, rapporteur for this file.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much, chair, and I will continue in German. Thank you.
At the end of last week, I actually thought we were going to be voting on the outcome of the negotiations from the trilogue on this interim regulation. And I imagine that many people are wondering what has actually happened. Last week in plenary, we sent a very clear message on this regulation that it can't continue unamended. At the same time, the parliament also made it quite clear that there were certain priorities and red lines for us, and we could not move from this position. In terms of implementation, we were concerned about personal communications only being examined on the basis of a legal warrant and justified suspicion.
They could not, without grounds of suspicion, unless there was suspicion of grooming, and in the case of new material, only on the basis of specific evidence and specific reports. This is evidence based policy, which we have espoused for five years throughout the discussion on this and the discussion on the implementation report from the commission. And it's quite clear that investigations into materials that had already been identified were going to be much easier to carry out than that into new material. So there were already problems in having a parallel track there, and there are many reports from users on the use of technology, some of them justifying the way in which it was being implemented, others saying that it was a disproportionate interference in individual communications, and therefore, was a breach of communications of young people, adolescents and so forth. But we went to the trial, minded, prepared to negotiate, aware of the fact that we were not going to be able to get all our priorities through, but that's exactly what the basis of negotiation is.
And, unfortunately, right from the outset, the council made it clear that they were not able to or prepared to put forward an offer. They took note of our position. And in this second trial, we held they were not prepared to take even one tiny step forward in terms of accommodating what we had said were our red lines. I've been a member of parliament since 2009, and I think that this is a crass illustration of the lack of flexibility, and it's also an illustration of a lack of respect for the parliament. It left me absolutely perplexed.
In fact, I was really quite shaken by their intransigent, and it's put us in a position where we have actually been prepared to accommodate some of the council's positions, but we were not given any scope for negotiation or compromise. And at the end of the second trial, the chairman decided simply to wind it up without any result. And now we're in the position that there's no vote, and therefore, we can't extend the application of this regulation. And so we have no regulation. Could I just say that this has provided us with some lessons learned for the future?
We have to effectively protect children online and offline. We definitely need legislation on this. We need clear provisions. We need to respond in an effective way to the ways providers are operating, because we can't ignore the business models that they're using. They are actually operating on the basis of attracting people to click on their sites as many times, irrespective of the consequences.
Everybody knows that there's doom scrolling going on, that algorithms are manipulated, that this provides profits for the operators, and that it also creates absolutely dire consequences. People have been, I think, shaken by what's happened in New Mexico this week, where a new public account of a minor girl, she was 13 years old, was a subject of thousands of likes and requests for friendship. This girl, note Meta, noticed this. Yes. They took note of it.
Did they respond? Well, yes, to some extent. But they said, you should capitalize your account. That was their response, rather than looking at it and saying, this is a case where a warning needs to be issued as a matter of urgency. It's all money-driven.
It's all a question of monetizing the operation of these sites on the part of the providers, and they're not open. They're not behaving and conducting themselves in an appropriate way. We need to protect children's rights. We need to protect fundamental rights, and this is so important, chairman. I am concluding now.
It means that we've got to continue to work intensively on this. We've got to support our negotiating team, and we've got to do something through CICEM and the ordinary negotiating procedure, because that's how we can make the best out of a very unfortunate situation. As I say, I've been absolutely shocked, perplexed, and very upset by this, and I really did not see this coming. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
I will speak as rapporteur for the EPP group. First, we deeply regret this outcome, which will make the legal basis for the detection, the removal, and the reporting of CISAM will lapse as from the third of April. Our position on content at the beginning was very clear. We were in favor of a straight negotiation with the council on the length of the extension. We thought it was no, there was no point in reopening the discussion on substantive issues.
First, because they are being negotiated in the ongoing trials on the permanent regulation. And second, because we had a very complete and thorough set of safeguards that were agreed upon under the reportorship of Missus Sepel in the negotiation of the interim regulation, the ePrivacy delegation. So we were satisfied with that. But it is true that this position was not shared by the rest of the groups. So, we have to show flexibility and be open for a more, let's say, complex mandate on the side of the parliament.
It was not enough in the course of the negotiations. We really saw that the council was not prepared to compromise, was not prepared to go beyond a very, very limited mandate to negotiate on the length of the extension. And then we are here having failed in our, I would say, in our responsibility to provide this legal framework. I think that now we will have to rely on the general provisions of the DSA on notice and action on illegal content, and the legal possibilities offered by national legislations, which are not sufficient, are fragmented, and certainly do not constitute the ideal situation. As far as we are concerned, we will then move as fast as possible in the negotiation of the permanent regulation.
Negotiations are progressing at a good pace, and we would expect that to be finalized in the coming months, within this year, if we can get the support and the cooperation of our political groups. And I think that would be a shared purpose. So I don't know if the PFE group would like to take the floor. I don't see the shadow reporter here. Then ECR, Missus Kanko.
Assita Kanko
Thank you, chair. I would like to say it's very difficult to be diplomatic when discussing this file, specifically now in the Libya committee. I think when we want to be diplomatic, we don't choose this committee. So I'm going to be very blunt. Birhit, I totally understand your emotions, and I understand what you feel, but I can't help saying it's also your fault.
You have received a very easy field. Your only goal was to extend the derogation so that we could protect children, what we all want to do. So I also have emotions today. I quite feel angry and disappointed by how things went. When this file was opened, it was very easy just to prolong it.
You have opened the box of Pandora. That's what you did. And then we found ourselves reducing the scope. We found ourself reducing the duration of the delegation. We found ourselves now facing a wall while children are going to be exposed as of April 3.
So just let's be focused next time when there is something to do, to focus on the essence. We all have issues when it comes to this kind of files, but we all must have one priority, and that one priority is to protect children and to make something that works. And you did not do that. You played some games, and now you are feeling sorry for yourself.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Kanko. I would like to see who is taking the floor. Yeah. Just hold on a second. Are you taking the floor on behalf of Mrs. Yabeva?
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you. Thank you, chair. I'm taking the floor on behalf of Renew, indeed. First thing I would like to say is that I would like to thank the negotiating team for sticking to the parliament's mandates. And I know that must not have been an easy task.
So I think it's important to highlight that and to commend you for that because there was a clear mandate from parliament. And I am sorry that it is an emotional subject, but I also don't agree with colleague Kanko that this is to be put on the shoes or on the shoulders of one single person, in this committee or the rapporteur in this case. There is no majority in this parliament for an extension as it was of the derogation, because this parliament has been made very clear that we have a very strong negotiating position and that the council needs to move. And I think it's quite unacceptable that the council in their communication also afterwards is trying to put the responsibility for not protecting children on this parliament when this parliament has had a negotiating position already for a while with a large majority in this parliament, with a strong mandate, and the council have not been able to move an inch and they have not been able to come to an own position for a very, very long time. I don't think that is something that as a parliament we should accept.
And I also don't think that we should accept the frame that we are not doing anything to protect the children. We want to protect children, but we also want to protect fundamental rights and privacy and do the protection of children in an effective way, which is not the case in the council's mandate. Thank you.
Erik Marquardt
you. I'll speak chairman to, for simplicity's sake, I just wanted to take the floor because I think we have to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of sinking into propaganda here. It's difficult if the council is intransigent and if it won't engage in, okay, complex, but nevertheless democratic procedures, and it won't move one iota from its position, then we're absolutely doomed to failure from the outset. And I think that we do need to be aware of that, and I think we need to make it clear that the council is wrong to be attributing blame to us. It can't be the 730 people in the parliament who are always responsible for some piece of legislation not seeing the light of day.
As things now stand, we've got to find a constructive way forward. We have to find a way of protecting children. Even with this temporary regulation and the extension, it's not going to be effective enough. And, therefore, it isn't a question of whether people are in favor of or against protecting children on the Internet. Of course, we need to protect them.
It's a question of technology, resources, what we're actually going to do, how we're going to ensure that we don't cause more harm than they've already got to contend with. There are so many threats out there, and we have to protect the children without having mass surveillance, because that wouldn't serve them well either. I'm really very sad that the council was so entrenched and unprepared to compromise, but I equally think it's very important that we here in parliament have got to find a constructive way forward, and ask ourselves whether we're actually conducting ourselves in the best way realistically possible when sometimes we're approaching colleagues on the other side of the political spectrum and actually forgetting that what's at stake here is the protection of children. Thank you. You.
Birgit Sippel
There's just one point I'd like to come back to, which is that, of course, we need to protect children offline and online. We need an awful lot of different provisions, and the legislation that we have just had hereto hasn't made it possible for us to protect children comprehensively enough. Therefore, we need to up our game in many ways. If Miss Kenko wants to think it's my blame, well, okay. I will accept that.
But I'd remind you that the parliament had a very clear negotiating mandate, and as you said, chairman, I'll just reiterate your point. There was a EPPS and D renew package of compromises, and there were over 400 out of 600 votes cast by the parliament in favor of our position. And therefore, that's a very clear mandate, and I really was completely blindsided when the council was so intransigent. They just said, we've got our position. You can do whatever on earth you want.
We don't care because we're not moving. If we turned around and said that to them, then how would they respond? They would think it was ridiculous. And I really do feel that here, there are double standards. And I know it's a very emotive issue, but it has a lot of very fundamental points to it.
And we've really got to clarify, I think, our position, and make sure that we've learned the requisite lessons from this. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Sepel. We conclude this vote. And in three minutes, we will start the voting session. Well, please, dear colleagues, take your seats, as we are going to proceed with the voting session. Let me remind you that at 1PM, we will have a joint voting session with Imco.
Well, first, as I can see from the number of members present in the room, we have quorum. And before we proceed to the votes, I would like to inform you that the following non-Liberal members will participate in today's vote. An EPP, François Xavier Bellamy will be replaced by Christophe Gomar. Elizabeth Bosenber de Onidi will be replaced by Giorgio Saftias. And S and D Francisco Assis will be replaced by Andre Frankeira Rodriguez, and Ana Catarina Mendes will be replaced by Marta Temido.
On the PFE, Mr. Bande Trisse will be replaced by Mr. Yaron. No replacements in reporting in this year group. And the new, missus Abid Al Salani will be replaced by missus Thoom, and mister Malikasmani will be replaced by mister Gruthios.
Yeah. Veronica missus Veronica Cipro Bostrejonova will be replaced by mister Henriksson, and missus Jobeva will be replaced by mister Brandstatter. No replacement report is reported from the Greens or the left or ESN. So we can proceed now to the vote of the first file. Conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland.
Fabienne Keller
Sorry. Can we just wait a second? My colleague is not yet at his place. So, yeah. Sorry, Mister President.
And mhmm.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Well, we vote on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of passenger name record data to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute terrorist offenses and serious crimes. There is a single vote. It's a roll-call vote. Vote is open, and it is closed, and it's been adopted. Now, we vote conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on the transfer of passenger name record data to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute terrorist offenses and serious crime.
Again, it's a single roll call vote. Vote is open. It is now closed, and it is adopted. And now the third and last, vote is a vote on the pilot projects and preparatory actions supported by the Libre Committee for an executability assessment by the commission according to rule 96, four. So it's an electronic vote.
Vote is open. And now the vote is closed, and it is adopted. So we end our voting session. And again, just bear in mind that at 1PM, we will have the joint voting session with Imco, okay? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, dear colleagues. Please take your seats as we're going to proceed in a joint session, Imco and Lieber Committee, to the vote. As the first item, I will submit the following changes on the draft agenda, as the vote on the decision to enter into the inter-institutional negotiations will no longer take place at committee level, as the conference of presidents, the COP, approved last week a vote on this file in the part session of March 2. If there are no objections, the joint draft agenda is adopted. Then let me also remind you that interpretation is provided in all languages except Latvian and Irish.
Also, I would like to remind ImcoAlibaba members that the meeting is webstream live and that the meeting application is available on tablet or laptop to access the meeting documents. And then I will pass the floor to the IMCo chair for first procedural remarks.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, Mr. Sasselechos. Also, welcome from my side to the joint vote of the IMCO and the Lieber Committee on the draft report and the proposal for amending regulation 2416 89 and 2018 1139. So before we start, I just wanna announce which non-Imcor or Libre members are replacing the respective members today. So for SND, Daniel Attais is replacing Alex Agiosa Liba. For PFE, Katrin Grise is replacing Elizabeth Deringer.
For renew, Agnes Traxzema is replacing Svenja Hahn. For years end, Thomas Froelich replacing Anno Bausermeer, and Milan Masorek replacing Peter Biston. So, today, as we said, we don't go directly to Trilog. We will have a plenary vote, that is scheduled on March 26. Just also for giving you a nice statistical overview, 426 amendments were tabled by M.
Liebe Menders, in addition to the 24 amendments represented by the corruptors. And also, Kult and Juhri had adopted opinions. So it's a very complex endeavor that we are gonna vote on today. I'm very much looking forward. Now the Liberté.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now before the vote, I would like to announce the non-Liberal members replacing a full or substitute Liberal member. My VP, Francois Avelami, will be replaced by Jessica Porfjord, and Johan Rades Bogdan will be replaced by Hildegard Bentele. In s and d, Francisco Assis will be replaced by Isilda Gomez, and Ana Catarina Mendes will be replaced by Carla Tavares. On the PFE, mister Banditrice will be replaced by Pierre Pimpi.
No replacements reported in TCR. In renew, Abir Al Salani will be replaced by Miss Toum. Mister Malikasmani will be replaced by Miss Grotius. Missus Benonika Cifro Barstio Honova will be replaced by mister Baycic, and missus Jobeva will be replaced by mister Petrov. No replacement reported in Greens, Left, or ESN groups.
So, I give you the floor back. Sorry. Yes. Before I give the floor back to my Inco chair to open and conduct the vote, I will give the floor to the co-reporters for a maximum of two minutes each. So I give the floor to Missus Arva Kokolari as co-rapporteur.
Floor is yours. Thank.
Arba Kokalari
You, chair, and thank you, colleagues. This is a very big day for European legislation and the future of AI in Europe. I would say that this is maybe a small step for Europe to become an AI continent, but it's a big step to cut bureaucracy for the European companies. Finally, with the AI omnibus, we are pausing parts of the AI Act to give European companies.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.