Committee on Legal Affairs
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
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
We need to remove these barriers. We need to act more quickly in relation to harmonization, specifically to avoid fragmentation of the single market. Let's take an example, the difficulties for an SME which wants to set up in another member state. Right now, that SME would have to deal with a huge mountain of administrative documents. They would also have to open a local bank account.
There's the fact that national systems, digital systems are not interoperable, and that's why we are going to follow up on measures to be taken to remove these barriers. But we've last week, we also presented the 20 regime, the EU Inc. That's something that you've already worked on. We want to offer entrepreneurs a true single market, so not 27 different national regimes or the 60 current legal forms. So specifically, this twenty-eighth regime, the EU Inc.
Will like to set up a business in 48 hours, done completely online. It'll cost less than €100. And with no startup capital, insolvency proceedings will be simplified for startups. And, we want to make people able to take risks without having fear of failure. We want to make a system which is attractive for everyone and that can bring talent and innovation into Europe.
Now I know this is a file that you've looked at extensively. Your work in Sarah is absolutely vital to mend this, a legal instrument which has broad support and is also robust. Harmonization, fighting fragmentation, that means we need to simplify the rules we already have. And this is perhaps the second area that we are focusing on. This is a really major challenge for competitiveness in Europe.
Now the conclusions from the European Council last week highlight this quite clearly. We need to screen all of the EU rules. We need to legislate better and less. We need to reduce costs of conformity for businesses. And your committee, again, once, is at the heart of this.
You know? President von der Leyen has announced a deep analysis of our EU rules. We're be in a range of stress tests to look at the effectiveness of all the rules which affect the single market and industry. I think commissioner Dombrowski will be with you later on today, and I'll leave it to him to go into that in more detail. I think, in fact, he's coming straight after me.
However, I would like to say a couple of words on one file, which I know is of particular importance to you. Sergei Lagendinsky, you're here with us. This is the proposal on the European cross border associations, and I can imagine you may have some questions on this. We have proposed the withdrawal of this file in our work program. I perhaps wanted to clarify that a little bit.
So this proposed withdrawal does not mean that we do not understand the vital role of cross-border associations. I'm aware of the role they have, and in fact, I welcome, acknowledge the role they have, and it's important for your committee. You have an own initiative report on this, which was taken on board, taken into account, and it shows the intention and the focus the commission has to proposals coming from the European Parliament. We have more difficult budgetary constraints, but we know that this text has been blocked in the council for many years now. We welcome the commitment of this committee to defend the file.
We will keep a close eye on what follows after this, and we will look at the position that the council then takes on this as well. As a result of that, the commission will then decide whether we think there is a good opportunity of actually moving forward with this. Maybe it needs withdrawing. Maybe it needs changing, but we'll do so we can overcome the reticence which exists in the council on this. And I think we'll probably come back to this in our discussions, but there's a formal procedure which needs to be followed.
When the text is blocked, the commission needs to act on that. But I do want to say quite clearly, there is a text which the commission does support in relation to its aims. It's not that we don't want to see this text implemented. It's just that the process is blocked. Now finally, I want to mention another extremely important area for competitiveness, that's intellectual property.
This is something which has many ramifications, so we need to approach this in a pragmatic manner. We have a strong base to work on this. We need to continue to do so, and we need to continue discussing with our member states and all stakeholders in this. When necessary, we need to show our agility. At times, we're going to have to take non-legislative measures where necessary to ensure we are in line with the changing context.
Now I think throughout this discussion, we'll be able to look at the different aspects of intellectual property, but I do want to underscore how important that is in general. We see it as a geopolitical lever at a time when there is a battle ongoing between continents. Europe needs to be agile, modern. We need to ensure that our legislation reflects that. We need to think about what we can do in Europe, and also how we can ensure certainty for businesses in relation to patent protection.
We are seeing how power battles are changing in international organizations. We have the World Intellectual Property Organization as well. We're seeing developing countries taking on more power. We're seeing certain delegations want to undermine the protection provided by PDOs and GIs. And the EU needs to remain a key driver of discussions in this area, and the commission is working on this.
We are coming up against some quite aggressive action, and we need to be able to defend our points. So ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of points I've mentioned, twenty-eighth regime simplification. You know, these are not just technical topics. These, above all, are political topics. These are the bedrock of Europe.
Europe wants to strengthen, innovate without sacrificing its values, and wants to be competitive while still being open to the world. We're seeing a return of protectionism around the world, but also, there's a review of the public procurement directive as well. And I'm sure that's something you are going to be focusing on, and the council as well. We need to modernize and simplify our public procurement rules. And above all, there's 15% of the European GDP.
That's something that we need to put to the service of European industry over the coming years. China, Russia, The US, India, they have a strategy when it comes to public procurement to support their national industries. That's something that we need to think about, when it comes to review and have that clearly in mind if we want to have businesses which can be global leaders in new technologies over the coming years. Now we'll be able to go into a range of other topics. There's a whole list of topics we could delve into in our exchange.
Speaker 4
Thank you for your attention, and I'm here to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Very much for your initial statement. And let's start with coordinators or their replacements for EPP. Will be Mister Axel, was the coordinator for two minutes.
Speaker 6
Speaking German. So firstly, welcome to our committee. It's good that we can see you here again. I have a question on the twenty-eighth regime on EU Inc. This is something that has potential for cross border businesses, but how can we ensure that this proposal will actually remain harmonized and will there be, obviously, simplified rules?
Axel Voss
And, obviously, we've had proposals in the past on a similar line, which have failed in the Council. Hopefully, we have the political momentum now. The council and member states can be on board with this proposal, but I think the proposal from the commission is very ambitious, and that's fantastic, but we need to ensure that it can actually come into fruition. Now, second point. Copyright is the next point in intellectual property.
How can we ensure that we protect our works here in Europe? And this is a major problem right now, and the added value from our creative industries is drifting to the US. So my question is, how can we ensure that through the implementation of intellectual property law or future intellectual property law, how can we ensure there's transparency when it comes to training data being used by technology systems and the output? So, you know, are we expecting a new proposal in this area in the coming twelve months?
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, commissioner, for joining today's discussion. Indeed, you covered quite a few topics, and I also wanna emphasize some of the issues that were referred to by colleagues from EPP. Firstly, regarding intellectual property rights and, of course, the growing demands also of the economic sector to have predictability when it comes to those rights and, in particular, the copyright in relation to AI. To which degree could we expect the commission to come up with new proposals when it comes to copyright related to AI, when it comes to machine and AI language, but also when it comes to AI agents, which actually are reproducing a lot of the work that is being done by creators, and we're wondering whether you are going to deal with that, and what would be the European approach on this topic. And the second issue, again, on EU Inc, an initiative that this house has supported in the past.
The issue that we wanna raise is on the actual implementation. So there were a lot of PR stunts being done, a lot of communication, but how is this going to be put into effect, and whether you have measured and evaluated the impact that this kind of system will have on the creation of companies at national level, whether we are creating a competition, and whether we could also have, and this is very important, clarity when it comes to the supervision of the activity of those companies, when it comes to money laundering, when it comes to the use of your funds, whether all those details have been defined, whether they can use your funding, whether they can, whether, again, who will have the responsibility of monitoring their activity, cross border activity, but also within member state. Thank you.
I will talk in my own language.
Speaker 13
Chair, Mr. Commissioner. Firstly, congratulations. I believe your birthday is coming up on Thursday, so happy birthday. I probably won't see you on the actual day itself. Now EU Inc, the twenty-eighth regime, I think the commission is trying to boost competitiveness and innovation in Europe.
Speaker 12
You're doing so by focusing on procedures for setting up a business, which should be accelerated and simplified. Now at times, we know that faster is not always better. We've seen a whole range of rules, introduction of rules, for example, know your customer rules, which we're trying to fight against shell companies, etcetera, etcetera. Now to do this, we need time and expertise. Now with this new EU Inc, the 28th regime, there's a huge risk of money laundering.
We can, there's also, obviously, the issue in relation to the capital, which is required. And again, this leads to high levels of money laundering. If you can see capital levels very much linked to money laundering levels, we've seen businesses set up in Delaware or elsewhere. This has all been clearly documented. This could create huge numbers of businesses and very complex structures which could be used for money laundering.
So with this proposal for EU Inc, the twenty-eighth regime, we've here, you say that it is, you know, it's too much legal work. So you want to try and you want to ensure that you can understand who are the beneficial owners of these businesses, but we need to have safeguards as well. We can't just rip out all the safeguards in the name of simplification. We can see the context of money laundering now. We're fully aware this is a step backward.
Speaker 11
Now, what are we going to do about these risks? And if you accept that they do exist, what are we going to do about them?
Mario Mantovani
Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon, commissioner. Welcome to our committee. And I would like to join the comments made by other colleagues. I mean, as you're aware, the twenty-eighth regime issue is something that we've discussed a great deal in this committee, so something that we're particularly fond of.
I must say that calling it EU Inc. Doesn't sound great to me, but the question is how are you going to try to ensure that it becomes a tool that produces convergence via harmonization rather than producing further fragmentation within member states. I think that's one of the key elements here for us. My second question relates to the cost of the energy commissioner. The European industrial strategy is being held hostage by price volatility, which isn't actually at the moment responding to market logic.
Basically, this comes from the stock market, so the Amsterdam gas market, the London oil market, and the ETS market. And what happens is that pollution certificates end up penalizing less-polluting businesses as well. Now for the first time, the European Council has spoken out in favor of a review, also pushed by the Italian government. So what does the commission intend to do to remove the link between energy and speculation and give markets back their original purpose, which was risk coverage? Thank you.
Speaker 21
Thank you so much, dear Vice President, dear Stefan. Nice to see you again, and thanks for addressing some of the issues that are important to our committee. First of all, the twenty-eighth regime, we are fully supporting, and I personally also support the legal basis that was proposed by the commission going towards the regulation and having more harmonization. I think this would be the right way. But we, of course, are on the side of the rapporteur here, in the committee of Mister Repazi.
Speaker 16
Very briefly to the issue that you already addressed and well knowing and being also grateful that your DG is one of the allies in this project and one of the authors of this law. Still, this is a critical time for the future of EGPA now, and, also, it is a crucial time for much more than this. Because what is happening now and what, especially the French government, is exercising here could create a precedent for the future. And the precedence about that, what they're how they are framing it is that harmonization is generally coming at the expense of security. And this is the wrong paradigm and the wrong couple of terms.
Speaker 17
And this could get traction, and we see this also with some colleagues, addressing the 28th regime with the same concerns. These concerns have been mitigated. I have a whole study by two professors from the Central European University. I can send it to you and to your DG, that very clearly mitigates the concerns of security that is proposed by some of the member states and especially by our French partners. The German government is finally waking up.
Speaker 16
They will be addressing the commission in support of keeping ACBA alive. There will be a letter that you will hopefully receive soon. We are having a very clear position of this committee that was manifested, and also of the committee of the committee chairs. The mister Lange also wrote a letter, that is also against the withdrawal. So I do plead here, to be very careful and also very strategic about this step.
It will cost us again thirty, forty years. We are talking about the agenda of creating a common market and strengthening common market, twenty-eighth regime. I think it's also important to give something to civil society in the same realm. So I hope and continue hoping for your personal support, and we will be doing our homework. You will hear from us soon.
Thank.
Speaker 18
You, chair. I'll be speaking French for the commissioner. Mister, you've spoken about the 28th regime. You've spoken about harmonization. So I can, you know, we're going to harmonize the rules for setting up a business, try and make life easier for entrepreneurs.
Speaker 19
Now you didn't speak about making things easier for the workers. The twenty-eighth regime, for me, is just another way for the line for forum shopping. So you're harmonizing. You're making things easier for setting up a business if people can set up a business anywhere they like in Europe without having previously harmonized social rights and tax regimes. So this is allowing people to circumvent the range of rules.
Is this a national level social rules, tax rules, and just allowing people to set up where they want it? And we're seeing, we'll see tax evasion. This will lead to, obviously, without even talking about tax havens, there's tax evasion just within the EU, and we're seeing social dumping and undermining of rules for workers. And you're just going to add to this with this 28th regime proposal. This is a major concern that I have.
Speaker 18
I have to ask you a question. You know? How can you reassure me on this? Do you plan to have some minimal safeguards in relation to workers' rights and tax rules in relation to the 28th regime, or is it just an open door to forum shopping? Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much. This was the first round from the coordinators. Also, allow me to add a couple of elements from my site, in addition to what I addressed in the beginning. You spoke at length about the success of EU Inc. I personally find it a good initiative.
And also in your presentation, you linked it to the registry. So what is the status quo of the registry and how the registry would look like? Strictly to my role as a chair of a committee on legal affairs, we are very much interested in the pending package of SPCs, so supplementary protection certificate, if you elaborate a bit on this. And last but not least, one message to Bellarmo, we're not satisfied with unilateral decisions. And, unfortunately, we see more and more unilateral decisions coming from the European Commission.
We worry about delegated implementing acts, and how they are deprioritized. So if this can be our message from today's meeting, yep, less unilateral decisions, more cooperation, I think, is needed, not only between the institutions, but also for the sake of the European citizens. With that, I would like to give you back the floor for 10 minutes.
Thank.
Speaker 2
you. Well, let me begin with this 28th regime because everyone raised the subject. There are perhaps two political challenges for us. These kinds of initiatives have emerged before. There have been blockages in the council.
And so the first point is to have political support for the initiative. I'll come back to the substance of the proposal later, but we do, I think, need a large chunk of the Parliament and also the Council working on this in the very near future so that we can have an agreement. I mean, we've got a balanced proposal on the table, we think, and we believe that it enables us to take a first step towards simplification and also to make it attractive. Now the second challenge is for this tool to be used. There's no point in setting up a 28th regime.
If it just is a further regime with more differences, and it makes everything more complex, I mean, businesses aren't gonna be very interested in using it. I mean, if it's complex, it won't work. So those are the two key elements. Think we need wide-ranging support from the council and the parliament in order to get this through, but also the tool needs to be something that can be used, and it needs to be attractive as well. In addition, it should be something that is attractive for businesses.
I mean, obviously, there are safeguards that need to be put in place, and I'll come back, as I say, to the substance. But the real problem is that there are businesses being set up outside the EU using EU capital, and you've got businesses that are setting themselves up elsewhere. So the main goal, obviously, is to establish the appropriate conditions in the internal market in terms of registration and setting up a European business, and making that attractive. So we're not really looking at intra-European member state competition here. This is more a tool that can be used to compete internationally.
So the question for a start-up would be, should I go to the US or should I go to Europe? We could make it complex so that we had two 28 different regimes, but startups in that case would just simply continue to go to the United States. So that's just an initial point in our discussion. Everyone starts by talking about the geopolitical situation, complexity, competition, etcetera, etcetera. But I think we need to take a step back and really note that we are currently competing with very attractive models when it comes to setting up businesses.
So I think we really need to put something in place that can compete there. Now, a second point on the substance. Well, we could have proposed harmonizing social and tax rules, but that's not the subject of this proposal. So the establishment of a business will take place in a harmonized manner, be recognized everywhere in Europe. It won't cost much, but labor law remains member states' labor law, obviously.
And when it comes to protecting workers, well, you can't have any circumvention, because activities will depend on the place where the business is located. It won't depend on where the business is headquartered. It's where the business actually takes place. So if we wanted to have a fully integrated system, yes, we could go that way, but we'd need far more sensitive political discussions, because we'd have to respect the various social models in place in the various member states. So I do share what you say, but we should have discussions about harmonizing labor law and tax laws prior to proposing an economic and business model that's fully unified.
That's a debate that has to be held, but that's not the subject of this proposal. This is a proposal that aims to simplify procedures when it comes to setting up businesses. By definition, that's what it's trying to do. So there shouldn't be any circumvention. Business activities will continue to be carried out locally in Europe.
It won't be possible to have activities carried out outside the European Union letterbox company style, for example, as we've seen under the single US model. So EU link EU Inc, excuse me, does have safeguards in place, I'd say, from that point of view. So we'd have to make sure that businesses do actually carry out activities here in Europe, rather than elsewhere. And we don't want to cease our convention, of course, so we'll have checks in place there. Now this is a first step, but I wouldn't want us to undermine the convergence we already have.
It may have come into being for the wrong reasons, but nevertheless, it's there. So any business that wants this European statute and already exists, well, nothing's going to change there. They're not going to change anything in terms of their headquarters or their obligations. The way I see it, the aim of this proposal is to make Europe more attractive for those businesses that have the choice of setting themselves up outside or within Europe. So I think that's the main point. I think.
That's what we have to bear in mind. That's what I'd like to persuade you of. Now on intellectual property rights, the commission is currently preparing an analysis of the copyright directive in the digital market in order to assess the effectiveness and practical impact of the rules that were introduced in 2019. And we're also looking at their relevance in an environment that is developing very rapidly. We clearly need additional measures there to enforce the application of copyright and related rights.
I remember that when I was a member of the European Parliament, I drew up a report on that subject in this committee with Axel Voss. It was right at the start of the previous parliamentary term. So this is something that I'm very aware of. And I think we now need to speed up in what we do, and we need to take account of all these new obligations and the fact that there are many things that aren't covered, which leads to a clear lack of predictability. And as I said in my introduction, the European Union had a comparative advantage in terms of the predictability of our rules, and we need to continue to make progress there in the field of intellectual property so that we can provide stability for authors and creators.
And I think our proposal is going to help in that context. So I'd like to thank you and the committee for continuing to work on these issues, because I think it's important to have a bit more visibility.
Ekba?
Speaker 2
I think your arguments are actually the most persuasive. We're coming up with this 28th regime in the economic sphere, and Ekba is a step forward towards a 28th regime for civil society organizations, I'd say. Basically, the ambition there is similar to that with the 28th regime. And that's why in my introduction, I said that for us, there was no problem with regard to the purpose of the proposal. Now what we have to do is find the appropriate elements to reassure the member states.
And perhaps there might be movement if the council and particularly the Competitiveness Council could get a position on this. And then that could mean that we could perhaps reorganize matters and see if there's a different way of pushing this through. But clearly, we're going to be trying to facilitate things from our side and the Commission so that we can try and ensure that your proposal makes progress. Now energy is a big subject, of course. I'd invite you to talk to my colleague, Mr.
Jorgensen, on this subject and on European energy policy in general. But what I could say in terms of regulation is that with the issue of circumvention and Chinese overcapacity, well, the other problem we have to deal with is the price of energy, because this relates very closely to our competitiveness. The energy market is one of the responses, but it can't do everything alone. There's a national remit on a lot of things, the energy mix, interconnections. That, again, is something that comes under the remit of member states, the deployment of grids, for example.
I mean the commission can do quite a lot on planning and financing all of these things, but building the market itself won't deal with the issue of energy prices. So we're going to have to move forward with short-term and long-term measures at the same time. But one thing that is certain, and I'm going a bit outside the remit of this committee here, but looking internationally and at the Internet what's been done internationally, decarbonizing the economy and moving away from our dependency on gas and oil really is a good thing. It means that we can have an impact when it comes to energy prices. I mean, it's become an economic strategy almost more than an environmental strategy now.
And so I think the price shocks that we're seeing show that the more we can move away from fossil fuels and the more we can ensure energy sovereignty and produce energy in Europe, the better things will be. It'll enable us to also have industrial sovereignty and ensure that our sectors are more competitive. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much. I'd like to speak German, Commissioner, if I may. Now let me just ask a couple of questions on various issues that are important. Now the first question relates to the directive on the implementation of intellectual property rights. Now the practical implementation of this is one issue.
There is an appropriateness check in the directive, but apparently, this affects only 0.6 percent of cases in practice. Now there are other figures that suggest 94 percent of IPR needs protection. So there are some sectors that are technically complicated, the semiconductor industry or the car industry, for example. And there, you have tens of thousands of patents that come under a single product. And you have, for example, patent trolls, and they're a massive risk.
They could stop the production of an entire product. And there are SMEs that are involved in building some of the smallest components, and they're worried about production stops as well, because of these kinds of issues. So, is the commission doing anything to deal with that? And the situation is constantly getting worse, as we're all aware. So isn't it time to review the rules on IPR to ensure that they are proportionate?
Speaker 27
And then a second question. So what are you, ah, the speaker is interrupted. Next. Thank you, chairman. I will speak Spanish.
Speaker 30
Now on the twenty-eighth regime again, I'd like you to tell us a little bit about how you're going to include the twenty-eighth regime into the European industrial strategy if it is appropriately concluded. And I'm concerned about this because when we talk about industrial scale ups in Europe, and there aren't very many of them because there aren't as many of them as start-ups, but I think they're more important than start-ups. But they have problems in terms of funding. And so in terms of your remit, what are you going to do to ensure that this twenty-eighth regime follows these European industrial champions when they reach scale-up? And then vice president, how are you going to inspire sectoral frameworks in the future 28th regime?
Speaker 25
Is it can there be a sectoral label, for example, in the future 28th regime? Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Firstly, let me apologize because I wasn't here earlier during your initial presentation, commissioner. But I would nevertheless like to use this opportunity to ask you a question on the twenty-eighth regime, which is something that I'm concerned about.
I believe that it's more appropriate to talk about that rather than constantly talking about omnibuses. But the idea of being able to set up a business more quickly, 48 hours, a digital business, I think it's a good one. It's very necessary. But I think there is something that's missing here, for example, in terms of rules on active blockages to prevent acquisitions or whatever. We need to have a certain regulatory context to ensure, for example, that labour laws are appropriate.
Where will labor laws be? Where will they be run from? What about the administration of the company? So we really need to, okay, push this entrepreneurial spirit, but nevertheless, we do need, for example, some kind of alternative dispute resolution mechanism for businesses that are set up under this framework, because I don't think that exists at the moment. Businesses will need to resolve disputes, and they need to be able to do it rapidly, so that we can generate confidence if these kinds of things come up.
Speaker 32
So those ideas are something I'd like to hear a little more about. Thank you.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Thank you, Vice President. One of my colleagues, I think, has touched on all the issues that I wanted to bring up. But I would like you to tell us a little bit more about an issue that is a concern to businesses, particularly scale ups, so new businesses, because it would be good to have this twenty eighth regime. They're going to be focused, it's going to be focused on SMEs. But if we're interested in Made in Europe, we can't be effective unless we ensure that these European startups can continue working in the medium- and long-term.
Now what we don't want is to overturn market rules, but I think what we're doing, so what I think we're doing is going in the right direction because the concern is not so much setting up a business rapidly but ensuring that it can survive. So my question is, how's the commission intending to ensure that innovative businesses are not only born in Europe, but they also scale up and stay in Europe? Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. Mister Sayyidi Sayyidi, I understand that you want to come back with more questions.
Speaker 19
Yes. Just very briefly, Chairman. Mr. Seygenou, let me go back to the point that I raised earlier, if I may. You said that rules that will apply to employees are those in the place where they're employed.
But that goes against what the parliament asked for. It wasn't a very left proposal, even that one, but you're proposing that the proposal was that workers would come under the laws of the place where the business is registered rather than the place they work. So I think this really clearly shows the problem that you're creating, the gap that you're creating because you're not taking up one of the rare proposals from the parliament which aim to protect workers by harmonizing rules. On this small point, you've decided to do things differently and apply the law of where the business is registered.
Speaker 31
From Mario Mantouwani, but make sure that the commissioner will have less than five minutes to answer all your questions.
Mario Mantovani
Just very briefly, Mrs. Von der Leyen in Davos announced measures on EU Inc., which talked about uniform taxation and a uniform level of competitiveness. I mean, we are all very hopeful, of course.
Speaker 33
Thank you for your questions, dear colleagues. Commissioner, we have eight minutes. Eight. Not five. Eight minutes to answer the question.
Speaker 2
Not five, but eight. It's very. Okay. That's very specific than 8 minutes. Thank you.
I'll perhaps begin with Mrs. Voltzmann's question on the EPREC directive, which is applied on a daily basis by legal practitioners. It's a very important directive. And while talking about stability and predictability, I think this is important. I mean, it's a long nose.
It's in that context that we talk about this potential revision, but it would have a significant impact, because it would open up an awful lot of things that currently aren't causing a problem. The main challenge isn't the text itself, I'd say, but its implementation. And within its implementation, it's the issue of the principle of proportionality that arises. So I don't think that we should not reflect on these issues because there is something that needs to be looked at and a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
with. But.
Speaker 2
I'd have to balance that idea with the risk of reopening a text which is working and covering the idea of the principle of proportionality. I think what we could do that firstly is by holding discussions with member states and also looking at judicial cooperation. I mean, could perhaps have a role in that in this committee by holding some kind of hearing with those involved and hearing their various arguments in terms of proportionality. But I'll be very happy to hear from you what you think in terms of a solution that wouldn't destabilize the mechanism as a whole. Now on the twenty-eighth regime, sexual issues, well, there were two possible approaches.
The first was to find a status which will be common to everyone, so either a sectoral approach or an approach based on the size of the business, SMEs, small businesses, etcetera. The commission decided to go to as far as wide ranging an approach as possible, which would enable all kinds of businesses to benefit apart from perhaps innovative businesses in certain technological areas which would be able to benefit a little bit more perhaps from the insolvency mechanisms. I can't remember who it was saying it, but businesses in that sector of that size need to be set up. They need to be able to quickly disappear and be re-established rapidly. So they have a different life cycle than large businesses or other businesses.
So we need something that's quick, that can be flexible, and which also responds in situations where the business has gone out of business. Essentially, you need predictability for everyone. So wide-ranging scope. I think you'd do well to have a hearing with Mr. McGrath Commissioner McGrath, who'd be able to tell you all the details about the setup phase, the scale-up phase, and the going out of business phase for businesses.
And the idea, of course, relates, as I say, to predictability. And we look forward to holding discussions with co-legislators to improve the text. Intuitively, I'd go for more ambition rather than more restrictions here, particularly if we want it to be used, of course. And I think that we're already at the limit of where we should go. So my main message would be, let's not recreate 28 different regimes.
Sorry. 27 different regimes basing ourselves on the 28th regime. And that's the kind of tendency I've seen in discussions. I know how discussions between the council and the parliament work, and that's the kind of thing that happens. And I imagine it'll actually come more from the council than from the parliament.
So I count on you as members of the European Parliament to maintain the ambition for this tool. And we need to ensure that it's something that can respond to a particular need for businesses, and it's up to us as political representatives to ensure that we can use this political tool to persuade businesses to invest in Europe. We need to ensure that this makes us attractive. And when it comes to labor law or someone who's working in France for a business who has this status, an Estonian business, for example, who comes under this 20 regime, well, this worker, this employee would come under French law. That's very clear.
It's clearly in the proposal. That's something, of course, that we can that will be discussed certainly during discussions between the co-legislators, but that's gonna take us into social and labor rights. But we'll leave that to the political debate. That's not something that the commission went into. Now moving on to another question.
Oh, it's from you, Missus Voltsmann. Well, this is something that we're still discussing. I don't want us to reopen something that member states do not see as useful. This is the Igalim law. This is basically a French system, and it seems that not everyone is clear on the need for having it at the European level.
There are problems when it comes to circumvention. There are issues when it comes to producers, distributors, and farmers. There are certain things that are regulated in certain ways in certain countries. But what we don't want to see is differences between the member states. I've spoken a great deal about the single market.
And given that, I have to say that we need a more or less unified European system when it comes to distribution and production. Obviously, I have to say that to be credible in what I say, but I do understand the constraints that different parties face, and we'll try to come up with something that deals with the real issues here with my colleague who's responsible for agriculture. I mean, what we're talking about is farmers' income, essentially. And sometimes we take the long path to regulating when we could actually go straight to the point. I mean the actual point is, as I say, farmers' income.
And what we could do is perhaps look at that rather than regulating the price of shampoo right across Europe, to carry couture what we're talking about a little bit. Let's deal with the real issue, because otherwise, there'd be side effects elsewhere. So I'll leave it there, chairman. I've spoken for 8 minutes now. But, obviously, I remain happy to answer any other questions there might be in the field of intellectual property or reviewing public sector marks or whatever it is.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. Vice president, Sher Stefan, thank you for your today's presence and this lively exchange of views with our members, and we hope to continue this dialogue in the future.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Dear colleagues, please take your seats. Let's go immediately to exchange of views in the context of the structured dialogue with Valdis Dombrovskis, commissioner for economy and productivity, implementation, and simplification. Commissioner Dombrowski, it is a great pleasure to welcome you and to thank you for joining us today at our meeting, which is part of the structured dialogue between the parliament and the commission on 2026 commission work program. The simplification of rules and smooth implementations continue to be a key part of the commission's work program also for this year, which states that the 2026 work program will further build the simplification momentum. This was the quote. The commission has also presented its first annual overview report on simplification, implementation, and enforcement.
The exchange of use in these areas is thus crucial as the committee on legal affairs is interested to discuss the implications of the commission's priorities in the context of simplification for the areas under our remit and for our future legislative work. With my first initial words, I would like to give you the floor for about fifty minutes, and then we'll continue the exchange with the members based on our previous, I believe, good experience. First, with the coordinators, you answer their questions, and then we go for a second round if there is a need for that. And then you answer the questions from the second round. Is that okay?
It's okay. So you have the.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Thank you, honorable members, good afternoon. It's good to return to this house for today's structured dialogue to provide a comprehensive overview of recent and upcoming developments on simplification, implementation, and enforcement. The commission's efforts across these three areas must be viewed in a broader context. Europe's growth and productivity challenges have been building for some time now. This was obvious and has serious implications for our capacity to safeguard our prosperity and achieve our strategic objectives.
But the urgency of addressing these challenges has increased sharply in today's rapidly changing and increasingly challenging world. Simpler, clearer, and better-enforced rules are crucial pieces of the puzzle to improve Europe's competitiveness and realize our economy's full, productive potential. I'm very grateful for a continued high attention of the European Parliament to these priorities. Today's dialogue, together with broader exchanges with the committee, is an important contribution to achieving our objectives in this area. So, as Geraldine mentioned, last December, I presented the 2025 overview report on simplification, implementation, and enforcement.
This is a key element of the commission's reinforced annual reporting to the European Parliament and the Council, and I'm pleased to return today to present how work has advanced since then. A simpler, lighter, and more coherent regulatory framework is not just about making rules more efficient. It's about reigniting the engine of Europe's competitiveness and securing our long-term prosperity. Together with deepening the single market, simplification, implementation, and enforcement are key priorities of this commission's mandate. By removing regulatory bottlenecks and streamlining processes, the EU is enhancing the effectiveness of its policies.
This helps to tackle structural barriers holding back growth, and to preserve our social market economy. Take innovation, for example. It needs to be at the heart of any strategy to drive growth, raise productivity, and enhance our competitive. Recent OECD report, however, highlights how red tape is getting in the way. 3.9% of EU employees are engaged in compliance functions, compared with just 1.7% in research roles. Needs more people in laboratories and fewer people filling out forms.
Simplification can help achieve a subjective and more. Back in February, we set an ambitious target of 25% reduction of administrative burden for all businesses and 35% reduction for SMEs. Translates into €37,500,000,000 in yearly administrative savings by the end of this mandate. And since then, the commission has proposed measures with a potential for €15,000,000,000 in recurring administrative savings and €6,000,000,000 in one-off relief. These are real savings that contribute to boosting the competitiveness of the EU economy.
So during the last year, the commission tabled 10 omnibus proposals. These packages targeted sustainability, reporting and corporate due diligence, investments, agriculture and farmers, defense readiness, chemicals, small mid caps, digital rules, environmental key, automotive, and food and feed safety. However, simplification is not just a one-off exercise. It is a recurring process to seek constant improvements in the quality of EU legislation. More than half of the legislative initiatives in the 2026 commission work program have a strong simplification focus.
This means that they must deliver net administrative savings. So in addition, the work program foresees three simplification omnibus packages on energy products, taxation, and reducing burdens for citizens. We want everyone to feel the benefits of simpler and more effective EU rules and call our member states to do the same with national rules. At the same time, the commission services are screening legislation in their remit to identify outdated, redundant, or inefficient rules. This is expected to lead to a further proposal to simplify, codify, withdraw, or repeal or consolidate rules.
The screening extends to delegated and implementing acts. This is how we propose to deprioritize 30% of those planned for this year, after careful consideration. This represents an additional and significant burden reduction. All these actions share a common goal, creating yeah. Sorry?
Valdis Dombrovskis
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. All these actions invite. Okay.
Tom. Share a common goal, creating a virtuous circle of less complex rules, clearer obligations, and better implementation. By removing regulatory bottlenecks, we are accelerating the shift to a more innovative and dynamic economy. This is one which is better able to meet the challenges posed by today's rapid technological changes and rising geopolitical tensions. Simpler rules mean faster permits, quicker innovation, and more investment.
This is exactly what Europe needs to meet its ambitious economic, social, and environmental objectives. On a good progress so far, the commission is preparing a dedicated communication to reinforce its better regulation implication and enforcement practices. These are different topics brought together by the unity and clarity of purpose, as I was just describing. We are working, for instance, on new pathways to strengthen the analytical underpinning of legislative proposals, including through more systematic and more pertinent impact assessments. We're also considering options to boost better regulation across the policy cycle, including for urgent proposals or during legislative negotiations.
The communication will also contain an action plan on the in-depth regulatory review and cleaning. So based on stress tests, a targeted initiative to address gold plating, a set of actions to strengthen enforcement as recently announced by the president. As you know, according to the OECD assessment, the commission has one of the most credible better regulation systems in the OECD. It is grounded in evidence, rigorous impact assessments, evaluations, and extensive stakeholder engagement. But we are convinced that we can do even better and address challenges that persist, including implementation and enforcement gaps, and unnecessary national overregulation.
So large expansion of the regulatory framework over the recent decades also poses a major challenge in terms of ensuring the coherence and operational feasibility of legislation. The upcoming communication will chart a path to gradually address these realities in close cooperation with all the legislators. So honorable members, let me now focus on the topics of implementation and enforcement. For people and businesses to enjoy the benefits that our common rules provide and how the rights are protected, the EU law must be applied fully and correctly across the EU. We must listen to those directly affected by the rules to identify possible obstacles to implementation, and determine how best to support member states in implementing EU law.
To that end, we launched several new consultation tools last year, including the implementation dialogues. Up to today, all members of the college have held 57 implementation dialogues, engaging with over 1,100 diverse stakeholders. These include industry representatives, SMEs, social partners, central, regional, and local authorities, and civil society from all member states. Actually, earlier today, I held an implementation dialogue with European farmers' representatives and national statistical authorities on agricultural farm statistics. This was an insightful exchange on the implementation of the regulation on integrated farm statistics and identified possible simplification measures in the collection of data.
And also today, commission Seraphin and Albuquerque are hosting their implementation dialogue focused on strategic technologies for Europe platform, and European venture and growth capital funds, respectively. So we are committed to listening to stakeholders across all sectors and seriously considering their call for action on faster implementation. These efforts do not stop there. Cooperation with member states is the fastest way to improve implementation and address identified challenges. This is why the commission is strengthening its implementation support.
The aim is not only to ensure legal compliance, but to help meet targets, achieve objectives, and deliver on our policies. And we're already seeing concrete results. To support the implementation of EU laws in April 2025, the commission introduced a transposition roadmap IT tool to improve information flows between the commission services and member states. These roadmaps are meant to help anticipate challenges in the transposition process. And in less than a year, this new feature has been used by commission services and a select group of volunteering member states in the implementation of certified directives.
We're also following up lessons learned through implementation dialogues with other measures to support the better implementation of EU policies and funds. For example, following an implementation dialogue on the value added tax in the digital age or VIDA, a technical assistance project was launched to provide support to 12 member states with e-invoicing and digital reporting requirements. At the same time, when cooperation on the implementation of EU law fails, resolute enforcement becomes a necessity. Over the past year, the commission has launched 552 infringement procedures. We have pursued landmark cases to protect our single market, our fundamental rights, the rights of consumers, and the primacy of EU law.
The commission also decided to refer 71 cases to the Court of Justice last year concerning 21 different member states. In 20 cases, and all in which the treaties provide for such a recourse, the commission accompanied the referral decisions with a request for financial sanctions. At the same time, the commission closed 554 infringement procedures as member states achieve compliance with EU law. This means 554 positive outcomes for our people and businesses. We also made increasing use of pre-infringement dialogues with member states.
They are used where they are likely to lead to swifter solutions and have proven very efficient with a resolution rate of 76% in 2025. Having said all this, the commission is also aware that there is still a rather large number of ongoing infringement cases, around 1,500, and that nonapplication of EU law has consequences. For instance, unjustified barriers and fragmented implementation of single market rules undermine Europe's competitiveness. Is why, as I mentioned earlier, our upcoming communication on better regulation and simplification will also consider enforcement. It will launch specific actions to level up enforcement of the single market rulebook and strengthen enforcement across all policy areas.
So to conclude, honorable members, I have presented our vision and strong commitment to simple and enforceable legislation. This implies a shift in how we approach our work, the attention we give to this task, and how we allocate our resources. And this task is not an easy one. It requires a shared commitment among all EU institutions, in particular, the Parliament and Council as co-legislators. We all stand to gain from embedding better regulation principles across the policy cycle, not only at the stage of preparing policy proposals, but also during the legislative process.
This is why we hope to count on the cooperation of this committee and this house to consider pragmatic ways to identify substantial amendments and assess their impacts during the legislative process. To this end, the commission stands ready to increase the number and pertinence of its impact assessments, and we ask the call legislators to show an equal level of commitment to its principal intern. At the same time, we're also asking of member states as they tackle national overregulation that counts a single market. This so-called gold plating, where member states impose stricter or extra rules, create barriers, distort competition, and ultimately reduce our shared prosperity. So we plan to partner with member states to discourage harmful overregulation.
This includes through using new technologies to identify areas of friction and possible solutions, and enhancing cooperation via existing forums such as a single market enforcement tool. People and businesses will not judge us by the number of rules that we adopt, but whether those rules deliver tangible benefits in practice. This agenda also has wider consequences, in terms of Europe's overall economic weight in the world. In a challenging world where size and strengths matter more than before, a competitive and dynamic economy is essential for defending our values and interests. I look forward to hearing your views and hope to count on your support to make a wide ranging and ambitious, this wide ranging and ambitious agenda a success.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Commissioner Lombrowski, for your introductory statement, and I will start immediately with the rapporteur or with the coordinators for their replacements. Mister Voss for the EPP.
Speaker 6
Thank you. And I would also speak German. So.
Well, let me begin by thanking you for being here, and also for your very ambitious words and the direction that you're looking to go in. I was wondering, I mean, given that we're talking about quality, let's try and implement it properly, because obviously, in a commission, we have different DGs that have to agree. And in the parliament, we also have different DGs that need to agree, and in the council too. So it's not always clear what's going to emerge from the discussions. But on the other hand, I was also wondering whether we perhaps need faster legislation so that we can react more quickly, because we're talking about simplification, but we've been working on it for years.
And actually, we need simplification now. So perhaps we need to look at our own structures in this context. Now the other thing I would say is that simplification helps, but is it enough on its own? If you look at the internal market as a whole and want to do something there, well, it's important to look at the various reporting obligations for businesses. Perhaps they could come up with a kind of summary of all the reporting, and then they could perhaps report once via the European business wallet or something.
And then I also think that it's important to look at risk capital, venture capital in this area. We need to really try to activate that. That needs to be something that can be done much more quickly, because otherwise, we're at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other regions in terms of financial firepower. So I think we do need to improve things. I mean, okay.
Speaker 38
It's easy to say, obviously, but the implementation is the difficult part. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you, commissioner Lombrovskis, for being here and for sharing explanations with us. Often, when we talk about the omnibus projects, it limits our ability to analyze things because of the tight time frames. The AI omnibus was adopted in record time, and these projects are often focused on simplification but also in bringing together legislative frameworks, and we would like to have more time to analyze them in more depth. But I have two questions I'd like to pose. Now this has been a subject of debate in the parliament recently, and I'm talking about the legal basis and the institutional balance.
Because with the increasing use of exceptional financial instruments, often doubts arise about what the appropriate legal basis is. And this includes the scope of competencies and also the actual legislative proposal or procedure, rather, could the commission give details about the legal criteria that it is using in respect of the principles when it comes to the role as colegislator that the parliament occupies? And my second question relates to legal certainty and the fragmentation of EU law. Legal certainty is a structural requirement in the EU framework, and the increasing number of hybrid instruments, ad hoc instruments, etc., can lead to possible risks, fragmentation of rules, and that can impact the predictability of EU rules for member states and other economic operators. We believe that this is a risk.
And I'd like to ask you how the commission sees this risk from a legal standpoint. And what mechanisms do you have in mind to ensure consistency and clarity in the EU rules? Because we don't have legal certainty, we won't be able to garner that trust in EU law. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 12
You, chair. Thank you, commissioner. I have two questions. The war in the Middle East has important impacts on energy prices in the EU. According to the experts, we're going to be up against the worst energy crisis since the Suez Canal crisis.
So we want to coordinate actions to ensure that energy is affordable for companies and also for the European citizens. Well, we don't want vague promises. I think that we have to focus on actions, for instance, a strategic reserve. They're going to be empty in a few months, and this isn't a long-term strategy to control prices. We must be ambitious and go further.
More ambitious omnibuses, especially the Green Deal. These are key aspects for us. Unilaterally withdrawing the ETS system as well. I mean, what do you think about this? Last month, I saw in Paris that you were planning to speed up the accession of Ukraine to the EU.
Now Commissioner Kos is under his remit, and other member states commented on this. You said that you want to follow the rules for accession, but what do the College of Commissioners think about the unusual methods used for the accession of Ukraine? So could you go into a little bit more detail on that? Thank you.
It will be Mario Montevar.
Mario Mantovani
Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon, commissioner, and welcome. Three simple questions. Firstly, on simplification and authorizations. The European Council, pursuant to Italian and German initiatives, has recognized that it takes too long to get authorizations in renewable energies.
It can take up to 11 years for a wind farm. Does the commission intend to introduce binding time periods with automatic authorizations, for example, if there is administrative inertia, as proposed by the Italian government? And my second question relates to microbusinesses. It's a question I've already asked Commissioner McGrath. We have 25,000,000 micro businesses in Europe, 95% of our industrial fabric.
Omnibus IV extended simplifications to small and mid cap businesses, but there's a big difference between a micro business with five employees and one with 750 employees. There's a massive difference in terms of administrative capacity and regulatory resilience. So don't you think it would be appropriate to have exemptions and simplifications aimed at just that sector of micro businesses, and also looking at impact assessments just aimed at those businesses? And now on fiscal matters and EU Inc., which is something I'm a bit obsessed with. Now President von der Leyen talked about taxation as the pillar of the twenty-eighth regime.
Delaware works because it combines business law and also an 8% corporate tax. Just a few days ago, we heard in this parliament that low taxation would be a competitiveness multiplier in the EU, and would eliminate the risk of foreign forum shopping. Now the refit proposal is blocked in the council, but EU Inc. As an optional tool, could be ideal to deal with these issues. Would this be a possibility?
Tineke Strik
Green EFA Group. Yeah. Thank you very much, chair, but also thank you very much, commissioner. I would like to draw your attention to the complaint at the EU Ombudsman on the procedures that have been applied during the first Omnibus, because the EU Ombudsman concluded this was a case of maladministration, which is, of course, quite a severe conclusion. The ombudsman said there was a failure to identify that the concept of urgency was applicable in the right way, which is necessary, of course, to justify the derogation from the normal procedure, which, for instance, requires an ex ante impact assessment and many other safeguards.
And the ombudsman also concluded that even in a derogated procedure, you need to fulfill, of course, the criteria on transparency, evidence based policy making and an inclusive preparation, and that also these safeguards were not met, as well as the mandatory consistency checks on compliance with the EU's climate goals. Now I saw that the commission replied in a way that it rejected the idea of maladministration. So I would really like to know from you how you will act in the future. You already mentioned some improvements that you want to apply. But, will you ensure that in the future, you will only derogate from the rules if there's a case of an actually narrowly defined and objective urgency and not in a case of political priority, for instance?
And, could you also make sure that you balance your discretion in your power with the requirements of impartiality and objectivity? And will you also commit to perform a climate consistency assessment in these kinds of urgency procedures? And finally, will you also ensure an effective, inclusive consultation of stakeholders, which also should be complied with in these kinds of accelerated procedures? Thank you.
Libya Commissar.
Speaker 23
Well, commissioner, I have a question on the omnibus procedure. We have the timelines. These run up to the end of the year. So there's obviously, there seems to be the whole range of omnibuses, which will come one after the other. But obviously, we have other legislative procedures as well.
There are review clauses, for example. And some of these are linked, obviously, to the omnibus simplifications. So who is maintaining an overview of this? Are we going to make sure that rules are going through the correct procedure, that we're making sure that everything is compatible between the reviews that are taking place or the omnibuses which are coming through. So the question is about compatibility between the legislation which exists and the omnibuses which are coming through at the same time.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. And the last intervention, from today, is from mister Daniel Zalemas, the coordinator for the New Europe group.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you. Thank you, chair. First of all, dear commissioner, I would like to thank you for coming here and for this useful exchange of views. And I have several questions. First of all, simplification, yes, became a central priority of this commission, notably through the increasing use of omnibus packages.
However, during the first such proposal, we witnessed a majority being formed with the support of far-right groups, which raises broader political questions about how these initiatives are advanced and what kind of alliances underpin them. How do you assess this development, and how can you ensure that the pursuit of simplification through omnibus packages does not risk becoming a vehicle for deregulation or lead to a systemic lowering of standards and safeguards, particularly when such systemic pro-political coalitions, the far right, are mobilized to support these measures? Do you see a risk that this type of political cooperation could call into question the credibility of omnibus packages as the legislative approach? And my next question is a standing rapporteur on the monitoring of the application of EU law. I would like to refer to parliament's ongoing work in this area, where we call on the commission to consider bringing forward legislation, codifying minimum standards for administrative procedures to enhance fairness, transparency, and digitalisation of EU public administration.
Do you consider this a feasible and realistic proposal, and how does the commission intend to engage with these emerging recommendations? Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Zalemas. Sir Dombrowski, I think we had some good questions, and you have around 20 minutes, I would say, to answer them. Sufficient time.
Valdis Dombrovskis
Yes. Honorable members, thank you very much for those questions. So, oh, okay. On first question, how to move forward with simplify simplification agenda. Do we need to move faster, and so?
Well, certainly, from a commission's point of view, we see it as a priority. We defined two overarching priorities for this commission's mandate. One is security and defense in a geopolitical context, and another is strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy, and simplification is a part of the broader competitiveness agenda. From that point of view, it is important that we address our competitiveness issues as soon as possible. And therefore, indeed, it's important to move forward quickly.
Of course, it's not for commission now to, you know, tell college legislators how to organize the work. We know that the practice in council and parliament is different. Council has created an ad hoc working party to work on those implication proposals, and that has speeded up the work on a council side. It's obviously, from parliament to decide on your working processes. And, also, in today's discussion or questions session, we already heard some asking for moving faster, some question is urgency.
So, in a sense, it's for parliament to determine how to organize. The second is simplification. Enough referring to our single market and other elements. Well, obviously, simplification alone is not enough. That's why I was mentioning that, is one of the important elements of our competitiveness priority, our competitiveness compass, but there are many other important priorities, including the removing of obstacles for the single market.
So that's why we have also, as a commission, set up a single market road map for 2028. We have identified what we called a terrible 10 barriers in a single market, and we'll be addressing those barriers also as a matter of priority, because that's important for companies to be able to use a full scale and full potential of the single market. On European business wallet, that is being prepared, and the work is on track. And indeed, hopes are quite high in terms of alleviating some burdens, providing for trusted identity cross border and so on and so forth. On venture capital and access to finance, I think that's even a broader question on and also part of our competitors' agenda is access to finance for European economy, which brings us to, let's say, need to implement savings and investment union and, capital markets union in particular.
There are a number of legislative proposals which are already with a call legislator, so it will be important to make swift progress with those proposals because sometimes we see that there is a certain mismatch between political rhetorics where everyone is in favor of Capital Markets Union. But then as an urgency of moving forward with Capital Markets Union proposals. And the level of ambition of those proposals is not always the same, but that's indeed one of the critical elements. Then on the question on omnibuses, on AI, omnibus or digital omnibus, more broadly, I would say. Well, maybe just a few words on AI because that's indeed a strong focus of the commission.
One could say, we missed a bit of the previous digital or Internet revolution. We are not having, like, digital giants in Europe. So we don't want to miss also the AI revolutions. That's why we came up with this AI continent action plan with a range of actions both on supply side with AI, Gigafactories, so on, but also on demand side facilitating that businesses are actually adopting and using an AI in their operation. Then on the question on which legal procedures to select, how it affects inter-institutional balance and this.
Well, the commission has committed to have a strong restraint in using the article one or two procedure. I think that was a question basically implied with this, which is an urgency procedure, which allows us to move fast. But, obviously, we need to be mindful of also this inter institutional aspect. Course, we see, that we live in very complicated times. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has entered its 5th year.
We now have a conflict, war in Iran and the Middle East. We are facing other challenges, so we must have the tools to react quickly if it is really necessary. But I fully agree on what you were saying that, also, we need to be, we should not be abusing this instrument, really preserve it for emergencies and not for just a way of legislative facilitation. Then, okay. So there was a broader set of questions on energy crisis on Ukraine succession to the EU.
I would say it goes, outside the scope of today's discussions and outside the scope of my portfolio, but I'll try to respond on some of the main elements and considerations in this regard. Well, on the impact of war in Iran on the European economy, indeed, that is something which we are currently assessing. I think one conclusion is clear. The impact will be more pronounced as longer and broader the conflict lasts. So that's why revolt is also seeking diplomatic avenues towards quick de-escalation of conflict, because that's, in a sense, needed to unblock Gulf of Hormuz, also to stop damages and destruction to the energy infrastructure in the region, which is a key oil and gas products production region.
And but at this stage, we do not really know in which scenario we are finding ourselves, how quick or long the conflicts will be, how broad it will be. So we'll have to be able to react in an agile way as the situation develops. And indeed, we're already looking, also what is a possible short term response, concerning the energy price shock, because the risk what we see is basically that this energy price shock can create
Valdis Dombrovskis
Stagflationary impact on the European economy. On one hand, elevated inflation through trickling down energy prices. On the other hand, slower growth due to, again, higher energy prices, due to confidence effects, due to disruptions of supply chains, funding conditions. So there are ways how we can alleviate the situation in a short term, including member states can use certain energy taxation and elements like this. We'll have further discussions on this specific question now in the coming days and weeks.
I cannot now elaborate in details that because it's really not my portfolio, but certainly, this issue is firmly on our radar. And from my portfolio side, I can say that we see serious potential economic implications. That's why we think it's important to act on this. Again, on Ukraine's accession to the EU, its enlargement is, again, not my portfolio, but what we had made clear is that Ukraine belongs to a European family, and the commission is firmly committed to advancing Ukraine's accession to the European Union and supporting the swift progress in key reforms to achieve it. And, despite Russia's ongoing aggression, Ukraine remains strongly committed to this EU accession process, having successfully completed the screening process and advanced on key reforms, something we also outlined clearly in our latest enlargement report.
And so from our side, we welcome this completion of the bilateral screening in record time. And, the commission assessment is now that all six classes are now ready to be opened. That's obviously then for member states to take further decisions, and bring it forward. But, from our side, we stand ready to support Ukraine and its European path. Then questions on two long authorizations for notably renewable projects and so on.
Indeed, that was also part of our environmental omnibus and certain other policy initiatives. There, of course, we must be also a bit careful. It's in a sense not a race just to set shorter deadlines because we also need to see what are the member states' obligations, what needs to be done during those deadlines, if there are some requests for some environmental assessments, if there are requests for consultations and so on. Because then if we just set a cert short deadline during which the permits must be granted, and then someone who is not happy with the project suing that look, this consultation was not done properly or that assessment was not done or certain elements were not respected, then it risks blocking the for the whole process. So, therefore, I urge in a sense not just to look at the timings, which is important, but to look at what are the processes, determines this timing, and to address also the underlying processes because only then we can make progress and be sure.
Okay. On small, midcaps omnibus, indeed, we want to avoid certain threshold effects and extend the number of benefits which SMEs are having or number of elevations which SMEs are having for small midcaps. But you are right. There's a big difference between 750 employees or just a few employees in a microenterprise. Whether we can foresee a certain elevation for micro enterprises.
Well, personally, I'm open for this discussion and see what are the areas. I also note certain issues which were there. Like, for example, there was a proposal for a simplified insolvency procedure for micro-enterprises, but at the end of the day, there was no agreement in the legislative process. So we were not able to agree on this, simplified insolvency framework. Just one example.
So but, I think it should not prevent us from exploring what can be done and seeing how we can make progress. This twenty-eighth regime and EU INTs indeed. So currently, it's focusing on company law, including foreseeing, say, stock option schemes for employees because it's geared for innovative companies, even though it's available for all companies. And, basically, the idea is to pursue what one could call a modular approach that we can then look whether we can attach certain models to this, like taxation, like insolvency, certain labor market aspects. And there, why we organize this work in this way, it's kind of finding the balance between being ambitious but realistic.
I was mentioning, say, an ability to find agreement on a simplified insolvency regime for micro enterprises. Does it bode well for finding agreement on a simplified insolvency regime for EU ink companies or taxation? We know how difficult it is to move any taxation file with a principle of unanimity. So, therefore, we want to make progress where it is feasible, at other areas. If we can make progress, great.
But if we cannot make progress, at least it does not block the entire initiative. So that's why we use this modular approach. So then on, say, question of ombudsman's inquiry, indeed, as you already mentioned, say, commission transmitted its reply to European ombudsman on February 19, so ahead the deadline set by ombudswoman. And in that reply, we explained how commission is substantially addressing many issues raised by the ombudsman. And the upcoming communication on better regulation will put forward actions and measures to ensure that high-quality and proportionate analysis support its proposals, including in urgent situations.
A specific question on climate consistency check. So commission carried out a climate consistency assessment and summarized its conclusions in the staff working document and the explanatory memorandum. And the analysis concluded that the proposed simplified reporting and utilization requirements, without affecting material provisions, align the EU legislation with climate target, and these conclusions were also transmitted to ombudsman. So, in terms of concrete follow-ups, what we foresee as the next steps. So first, and this will be done, how to set up a clear procedure for recording of derogations. The requirement for an explanatory memorandum to explain the urgency, the requirements for staff, working document presenting the analytical evidence, minimum requirements for consultation, and substantiating and recording as a procedure for interservice consultations for files requiring urgent action.
So just so we are working seriously on this issue. Then future legislation for new proposals. Indeed, this whole simplification exercise is more backward-looking exercise, and the question remains also moving forward. That's why we are now working on this new better regulation approach to ensure that we do not create unnecessary additional burdens also going forward, that we are serious about our competitiveness and SME tests that we do. Well, we discuss just the proper stakeholder consultation and other elements, and that we have already at the stage of preparation of the logistical proposal, also the implementation in mind.
So how those proposals are going to be implemented with implementation guidelines and other elements to facilitate the practical implementation, because it's true in a sense. It would be a miss if we with one hand, we'll be taking out unnecessary complications through simplification and then putting new ones in result adjusting our legislative processes. So on the question of simplification not becoming deregulation, well, this is something we clearly communicated from the very beginning, that simplification is not deregulation, that we are not moving away from our ambitious social or environmental targets. Rather, simplification allows us to achieve those targets and goals in a simpler and less costly way. And that's the approach we are pursuing.
On parliamentary majorities, well, obviously, it's not for a commission to comment on parliamentary majorities. As a general remark, obviously, we find it important to have a pro-European center working together. You mentioned our proposal of codifying the work procedures. I'm not aware of the specific proposal. Probably, we'll need to look.
Well, I don't know whether codifying is the right word, but, to a large extent, our procedures are already described, and there are certain processes which are quite prescriptive and quite precise. But there, I would need to familiarize with the question or proposal you raised to be able to give a substantial answer. So thank you very much, and yeah, exactly on time.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Absolutely. We're exactly on time. Thank you very much, Commissioner Dombrowski, dear Valdez, for answering all the questions. And some of them are falling within your portfolio. Others are beyond your portfolio, but thank you for giving competent answers to all of them.
And with that, I would like to give the floor to Marianne Wassmann, who will share the next part of the meeting, and I hope to continue this good exchange in the future. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 23
So, members.
Of the legal affairs committee, this brings us to agenda item number 20, and I'd like to warmly welcome our vice president of the European Parliament, Missus Eva Kopac. And I welcome her as EP coordinator on children's rights. She will be presenting the annual report 2025 on the activities and the work programme for that year. So Missus Kopac, as always, it's great to have you here in our committee with us. You have the floor, ma'am, please.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much, madam chair, members of the committee. As is the case every year, today, I will be presenting to you, as members of the legal affairs committee, a report on my activities as European Parliament's coordinator on children's rights. We and here, I mean, my office and I have a unique and very close cooperation with you as a committee, and I'd like to thank you for that. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to begin today with a topic that has been high on my agenda for several years now. Four years and one month ago, the Russian aggression in Ukraine began, which forced 4,000,000 children to flee their homes.
One in five Ukrainian children has lost one of their loved ones during this war, and more than 3,200 children have lost their lives or their health. The Russian aggression comprises 1,600 destroyed schools. Hundreds of thousands of children who have been forced to learn, study remotely, or be in shelters for more than four years. There are also tens of thousands of children who have been illegally deported to Russia and Belarus, separated from their loved ones, ruthlessly given a more Russian identity, and uprooted from their Ukrainian identity. It's our duty to remember these children and to insist in the strongest possible terms on their immediate return to Ukraine, which is what I'm doing.
I'm being as firm as I possibly can on this issue. Ladies and gentlemen, over the past year, I've continued the tasks entrusted to me in the framework of the coordination of the European Parliament's activities in the field of children's rights, both internally and with other EU institutions as well as with international organizations and civil society. My activities are mainly focused on cross-border family law, the protection of the rights of children in armed conflicts, the safety of children in the digital environment, the mental and physical health of young people, and the protection of the most vulnerable groups of children. I won't hide the fact that the list of problems our youngest citizens are currently facing is a list that increases every year, and that's why I have worked with various parliamentary committees, social partners, and organizations to protect the rights of children placed in alternative care. And I've also looked at the situation of young carers, issues relating to healthy lifestyles, digital education, and support for children experiencing various forms of violence, including peer violence.
We focused in particular on the impact of social media and screen time on young people's overall development and on their mental health. Many of the events that I launched featured the voices and perspectives of children and young people. And here, I would like to underline the fact that any involvement of children in these projects was in line with the principles of child participation. They were organized in a safe and young person friendly manner. A detailed description of these and other activities can be found in the report that was circulated by the secretary of the committee on legal affairs last week.
Today, I'd like to focus on cooperation with your committee, which is delivering clear results. No policy on children should be developed without taking their voices and perspectives into account. And given that, a few years ago, in the legal affairs committee, we started working on a children's rights test in the EU legislative process. In this context, I'd like to thank you very much for your support for mine and chairman Kyuchuk's amendment, which was included in the Warborne report on better regulation, which was adopted in March. This is something that I personally called for in my discussions with Commissioner Mick Aleff.
And I'm pleased to be able to say that today, the European Commission is already implementing this so-called children's rights checklist to assess the impact of EU legislation on children. I hope it's not gonna remain a mere paper tiger. I hope that this checklist will become a mandatory tool in the EU legislative procedure. I also think that our work was particularly fruitful when we organized the December workshop to mark the 45th anniversary of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I hope that the conclusions of our eminent experts will lead to further joint initiatives, particularly in the area of family mediation.
I firmly believe that the work plan for this year on cross-border family mediation will contribute to promoting this form of family conflict resolution. I also hope that our work will provide impetus for future legislative action in this area. These are important sit issues for our citizens because they touch on the most important relationships in their lives. E, family relationships. As you'll be aware, my office also serves as a help desk in cases of parental child abduction and other cross border family disputes.
In 2025, we dealt with nearly 60 cases, which was an increase from the previous year. As in previous years, the issues raised by citizens were legally complex and also subject to significant conflict. Some of them have been in the hands of my office for many years. Most of the queries received in 2025 concerned international parental child abduction, and also cross-border custody and access disputes. Most of these were situations reported by parents without regular contact with the child, and most of the people were fathers.
From the perspective of my work on these reports, it appears that in many of these cases, early mediation could have effectively contributed to resolving the dispute, and that would have been in the best interest of the children involved in the conflict between the parents. I'd therefore like to thank you very much for your support of my initiative to draw up a comparative study on the use of family mediation in member states' legal systems. Ladies and gentlemen, last year, we also saw a significant increase in the number of inquiries related to family disputes governed by national law. Many people expect legal assistance in ongoing proceedings or even an intervention when the court issues a decision that they don't like. I would therefore like to make it clear that as EP coordinator, I don't have any remit when it comes to intervening in the decisions taken by national courts.
However, we do understand the difficult situation of those who report to my office. And given that, where appropriate, we refer them to the competent authorities and institutions in the appropriate member state. Also in this context, I'd like to bring up another issue, which I'll be focusing on during the coming months, which is the possibility for the European Union to accede to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its protocols. This is an extremely complex issue, but I do think that it's worth examining in-depth. It's also worth looking at other legal solutions to effectively implement and monitor the application of the convention at the EU and also at the national level.
Last year, I approached Commissioner Mikhailov with this idea. And just a few days ago, I received confirmation that the legal services of the European Commission would look into the matter. Ladies and gentlemen, let me draw your attention to another important point, particularly as the Committee on Legal Affairs is very much involved in matters related to the rule of law and the functioning of civil society. Last month, I organized the first roundtable meeting between the ENOC network, children's rights defenders, and EuroChild NGOs. We discussed fighting child poverty and supporting young people's physical and mental health in Europe.
But in addition to that, we raised an issue of great concern to child rights organizations. Everywhere in Europe, we're seeing a growing wave of radicalization, which is affecting organizations and institutions set up to protect individual rights, in particular children's rights. Unfortunately, we're seeing that organizations that protect, support, and educate children and young people about their rights on a daily basis are increasingly becoming the targets of these kinds of attacks. This is a very dangerous trend, especially in countries where these organizations and institutions complement or even replace the state in the task of safeguarding the rights of our youngest citizens. It's important that in these difficult times, we stand together to resist this trend.
I'd like to conclude by thanking you once again, ladies and gentlemen, for your cooperation, commitment, and support so far. In order to effectively uphold children's rights, we need to take a cross-cutting, horizontal, and collective approach. And that's why I firmly believe that step by step, we can strengthen the protection of children's rights in Europe, so that every child has a genuine opportunity to have a safe childhood and a good start in adult life. Thank you very much.
President.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Missus Kopac, for that presentation. Let me now give the floor to members who want to give us their views, comments, or questions. Two minutes each, members, and let's begin with Missus Kinichi, please. Thank you. Thank you very much, madam chair.
Speaker 50
And I'd like to thank Vice President Kopac for the commitment with which she is working to look after the rights of children. This is something we should all get involved in because, as I always say, we're all responsible for our youngest citizens. So I'd like to thank Missus Kopac for the work she's done. She touched on various points, and it's that we haven't got time to go into all of them, but there are a few comments that I would like to make in addition to what Mrs Kopac said with regard to the interventions that were undertaken in terms of cross-border child abduction and also cross-border family disputes. I would say that personally, I very much appreciate the work that's being done given this increase in the number of cases, which sees children deprived of the presence of both their parents.
So I'd like to thank you for having taken onboard this idea of cross border family conflict mediation, because in my experience, I know and I've worked a lot in this field. I know this is very important when it comes to supporting both parents and children. I'm going a bit rapidly, and I apologize for that. But another important issue is children who were de facto deported from Ukraine to Russia and to Belarus. Now you've said a great deal on this already, but with regard to the measures that have already been taken, I mean, what more can we do at the international and EU level to try to bring these children home?
And then to conclude, just one final question on the protection of minors vis-à-vis the risks that they find online. This is a very topical issue as well. We know how much young people suffer in extreme cases. They're even driven to suicide by what they see online. So what can we do to provide further support to our young people so that they can be safe online?
Speaker 49
Because there are major opportunities there, of course, online. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. So now, Mister Oyevich, please.
Speaker 51
Thank you very much. Well, ladies and gentlemen, protecting children doesn't only relate to rules and programs. No. We have to establish our level of responsibility vis-à-vis all these millions of young people. Let me recall that around 3.5 million babies are born every year, and they don't have the possibility to decide on their own fate.
So it's our responsibility to establish the rules that need to be in place in order to ensure their rights and well-being are protected. So I'd like to thank Missus Kopac. I'd like to thank her for her full and consistent commitment to protecting and fostering the rights of children in Europe, and that is one of the main tasks of our parliament, I'd say. And it should be a European priority. So we need a cross-cutting approach in everything we do, whether we're talking about the rule of law or the digital sphere.
Now in 2025, there was a major focus placed on the visibility of these kinds of issues, and also in including children's voices in our process, and we fully support those ideas. As a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, we have been able to do our make our little contribution to this fight for the rights of children. In your report, Vice President, you mentioned a further challenge in terms of the mental and physical health of young people. And also, talk about the digital sphere. Now it's true that digital developments comprise both risks and opportunities.
And so we do need to establish rules and support for parents when it comes to education and other content which is published on the internet. We also need to ensure that we can help and support children who are in custody, for example. But I'm also thinking about refugee children who are fleeing conflict areas or war zones. Missus Kopat, you mentioned another issue as well, the Hague Convention and all the areas regulated by the convention. I mean, that's a key issue as well.
And I'd agree with my colleague here as well, because I think this is something that could foster cross-border family dispute mediation. And I'd like to also thank Missus Kopac.
Speaker 51
Having talked about the various parties that are involved in disputes, these cross-border family disputes. You talked about fathers, but also about mothers. I also hear your call for us to maintain a high level of ambition in our work. And well, yes. I'd agree with you.
Speaker 23
We need to work hard because the quality of our society depends on how we protect our young people. Thank you.
It's Peterson.
Speaker 54
Thank you very much, please. Thank you very much. It's Mrs. Adamovich now. I'd like to thank Missus Kopac for her exhaustive report. Thank you very much for having touched upon the various areas in which children's rights, in which we work on protecting children's rights, and for having discussed them all in so much detail.
Speaker 52
Now I'd like to go back to one of the issues that you mentioned, Missus Kopac, i.e., the issue of disputes. Colleagues, you mentioned that as well. It's true. But clearly, we need to act in the area of mediation. Imagine, ladies and gentlemen, you may well authorize your child to go for a walk in the most deprived and difficult neighborhoods of your city at night, and that would leave the child alone.
But, and obviously, no parent would authorize that. But we actually do that on a daily basis because we give them mobile phones and computers, and that gives them access to pedophiles, hate content, illegal content of all kinds, etc. And that's a really serious business. The Internet is the most dangerous neighborhood in the world, and we're letting our children go there alone. Child abuse, pedophilia, all these things, we hear many cases right across the media every year.
Speaker 55
In just a few clicks, a child can access content that changes their lives in a very negative way. They may even be driven to suicide. So we really need to do something here. How can we get rid of these screens? Because what we're doing is using the pretext of the freedom of expression to leave our children in the hands of these oligarchs and all this negative content.
Speaker 53
How many suicides? How much sexual abuse is there on children? How many of these crimes need to take place before we say enough is enough? We should not be submitting to these Internet oligarchs, and we shouldn't be submitting to these criminals who are making so much money. Regardless of our political stripes, we should come together and do something about this issue.
Speaker 52
We cannot simply say this relates to freedom of expression, because our children are being damaged. You can't be an apologist for child abuse and say no. No. No. This relates to freedom of expression.
I mean, we're talking about all kinds of cyberbullying here. We can't talk about freedom of expression, but remain silent vis-à-vis these children whose lives are being destroyed by the digital sphere. How can we defend people's rights to a private life, but remain silent in the face of children who are facing cyberbullying, blackmail online, or who are being encouraged to commit suicide? We can't simply leave families to it. We shouldn't say parents get on with it.
We've got these oligarchs. They're sitting pretty. They're making a lot of money, and we're not doing anything to stop them. We need to be firm on this. We need to find all this damaging content and take it down as quickly as possible.
We need to do that unscrupulously, and we also need to launch investigations. Then when it comes to these platforms that protect criminals, well, they need to be accountable. They need to face very high financial penalties and also judicial liability. And we as parents also need to be educated because the Internet is an open window on what's worst in our world. Once again, I would say no parent would allow a child to walk through a dangerous neighborhood at night alone.
Speaker 23
And so we all need to come together regardless of our political affiliations to do something about these terrible things that are happening online. You much. Is there anyone else who would like to take the floor? Ah, please. Mister Tsalibis, off you go.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, chair. Thank you very much, dear Madam Kopac. Of course, I would like, first of all, to express my gratitude for your important and devoted work for the sake of our children. And I have several questions on which I'm very interested what your thoughts are. So first of all, of course, I fully echo what has been said before on the digital security of our children.
And the first question is, what do.
You think?
Dainius Žalimas
How we, as the European Parliament, can ensure that the Digital Services Act and Artificial Intelligence Act are enforced to safeguard children's mental health, especially for those in the marginalized communities, who may sometimes lack even digital literacy. My next question is about the child guarantee. I mean, one of 4 children in the European Union remains at risk of poverty, and the Renew Europe, which I am representing, believes in evidence based policymaking. How do you think we could measure the guarantee's real world impact, and will children themselves be involved in shaping these evaluations? And you also mentioned that you pay attention to protect the children in cross-border disputes and both fleeing conflicts.
Renew Europe advocates for a child-friendly justice system. What specific actions can we consider to take to ensure these children receive timely legal protection, and how can we help to reduce the bureaucratic barriers that probably exist? And my last question, I believe that all the children shouldn't be subject to discrimination and stigmatization from the very beginning of their childhood. I have in mind that there are children growing in the families of same-sex couples. And in some member states, of course, they are stigmatized from the very beginning because family life, even of those couples, is not even equal. Parental rights are not recognized in all the states equally.
So how do you think we can encourage that all the children should be entitled to the same trust, right to happiness. Thank you very much.
Speaker 23
Well, thank you very much. Let me now give the floor back to Vice President Kopac to react to the questions and comments made, please.
Thank.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much for your questions and your comments, and also, thank you for your kind words with regard to my work. I'm a pediatrician by trade, and children have been at the heart of my work for many years. I've loved working with children, but what I'm doing here in my office is also extremely important work. We provide information. Madam Mariana, my other team members who are here with me, they work in the office, the coordinator for the rights of the child.
And thanks to all of this administrative work.
Speaker 48
are able to carry out excellent work. So I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for that work, and I'm very pleased to be able to carry out my mandate. So I'd like to come back to some points that you have raised. So the children who are kidnapped or have been kidnapped by the Russian authorities, this isn't the first time that we're talking about this. Certain children have already returned, but it's just a small percentage of them who have been able to go back into their families.
Now this is a tragedy. It's a tragedy for the children, for their families, for their loved ones. And, of course, the mediator in Ukraine is carrying out a lot of work. The NGOs are supporting the mediator in Ukraine. They're working hard, officially and unofficially.
And sometimes the energy NGOs use unconventional methods in order to do their utmost to bring the children back to Ukraine, and too few have returned. In other words, I would say that I recognize the work of these organizations, and we do hope wholeheartedly that the war will come to an end and that the children will be sent back to their families. So our rule, rather, we must keep up the level of attention on what the NGOs are doing and also be mindful of what is happening in the political arena. I think that we can also continue to talk about these issues. I'll move on now to the issue of the Internet, the fact that it's dangerous, social media, etcetera.
And, yes, you're right. We have the Digital Services Act, which does ensure greater security for young people. But I'm not totally in agreement when you say that there is an issue with regard to platforms, only platforms. A lot of money is made through this content, but we've also got a role to play here. It's not just up to the platforms.
For instance, children who face cyber harassment or bullying are also affected in their family life. Only 20 percent of them have actually contacted their school teachers or their parents to explain what is happening. Most of the children who face cyberbullying are alone. They can't talk to anyone. So I think we've got lessons to learn here, all of us, as parents, as teachers, and, of course, all of those who legislate, because the rules must, of course, hold accountable the owners of these platforms and ensure the protection of children's rights.
We have a plan for cybersecurity. It was presented to the EESC. There was a high-level meeting. All the countries were present, and we saw what the plans were for this plan to ensure the safety of children online. And I've heard the same thing time and again.
Education is key. Not just education for children, but also for school teachers, for parents, because, and of course, I can give you an example here. When I met the European platform for children and I asked a question, so how did they think that we should shape EU legislation? And they said that children should be involved in designing the laws, giving their opinions, etc. When I talked about online safety, artificial intelligence, there was a bit of a provocative tone, and we heard that AI was, there were more pros than cons.
So this made it clear to me that the platform is a good initiative, because it is important that children are part of the legislative process. I asked the children what they thought or what their parents think when they're sitting there with their phone in their hand or they spend hours behind the screens. And I was asked, well, what do you mean? And the children said that their parents were happy because they had a little bit of peace and quiet for a couple of hours. So it is really an education issue, including education to parents and school teachers, artificial intelligence.
I've read studies and interesting opinions on this. For instance, what we can do with AI in the parliament, we can simplify administrative procedures and even the legislative procedure. One suggestion is that AI will only be relevant if it serves humankind, not the opposite. So I think that this is the view that we must take. It must be beneficial for humankind.
So against this backdrop, we can use it in a reasonable manner, but under no circumstances should we give it carte blanche, especially when it comes to young people. Because young people sometimes say, I don't want to read my books for school, etcetera. I can just use Chat GPT. We must encourage young people to read and to focus on details, and not to fall into the trap of AI. And also, let's not forget about human relationships.
We have different ways of conversing. We send SMSs.
Speaker 48
I often suffer as a result of how slowly online safety problems are dealt with. We hear encouraging strong words, but it often is just in theory, because the freedom of a person ceases where the freedom of another person begins. We don't talk enough today about the rights of children and the rights of these children to be protected from cyberbullying, which happens 24 hours a day. The law seems to have been disconnected from harassment. Children are bullied at school, and they go home, and they're bullied online.
So we must create the right list of the framework so that platforms have to react, and we also must have a simple and reasonable way to deal with this, while we also respect freedom of expression. But we must ensure that illegal content and abusive behavior are removed. So we must ensure that respect between children of the same age is ensured online and offline, and this, again, relates to education. I think that we must take action together. And in that way, I think that we can achieve our objectives.
Speaker 23
Oh, yes. Thank you very much, also for the replies. We don't have a lot of time left, but I'm gonna give the floor to Marisa Cirillon from the European Commission. DG, just she's nodding, so I must have got the right name. So, three minutes, please.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much, madam chair. And indeed, from the commission side, we really welcome with very warm heart also the commitment of vice president Kopac in a role of EP coordinator for children's rights and also the commitment of the parliament on the different dimension of child protection and empowerment. To name a few, indeed, Miss Madam Kopac also referred to child participation. We warmly welcome a commitment to listen to children in well-being at school last week, indeed, with the European, the EU children's participation platform, engaging in discussions with also MEPs with directly children, and they ask for very concrete actions. So to name a few, indeed, thank you so much for your commitment to helping those families in cross-border disputes and calling for mediation there.
Indeed, the whole dimension of child-friendly justice, which is very high also on the Commission's agenda. To name a few, that was also mentioned, the strengthening of the child guarantee would also be informed by Children's View. There were 41,000 children consulted under the platform. And also in all what you are supporting on digital safety, indeed, what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. There is also this very strong commitment, also very I mean, from the president of the commission to make sure that the online world is safe by design, by the enforcement of the legal framework, and also through, for instance, the cyberbullying action plan that was also informed by the views of 6,000 children on mental health, and to make sure that the different dimension of children, notably as consumers, will also be tackled.
In a word, indeed, it's about creating also the framework, making sure that children's rights are embedded also in impact assessment. That's why, indeed, as you mentioned, there is specific annex when looking at the impact on fundamental rights on children's rights. To also mention Ukrainian children, this is very high on the commission's agenda. And, indeed, all of the efforts of this house are set to push for the support of children on the territory and also in Ukraine, also making sure that children are returned are very high. So very warm thanks also for this cooperation with vice president Kopac with the European Parliament, and we very much look forward to continuing this cooperation and to continuing listening to children's voice.
Thank you.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much. Missus Kopac, let me thank you very warmly on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee for your commitment to promoting and protecting the rights of children. So thank you very much. It's very important work that you do there in the European Parliament and outside. We've worked on several files together, and I've always found that, well, very pleasant, and also very effective.
And so I'm extremely pleased that you work so closely with the legal affairs committee, and I'm very pleased that we play such an important role in protecting the rights of children. I mean, it's great to be such close allies in this fight. So all the best for your future work, and I'd like to thank your team as well. Thank you. And thank you for being here with us today.
Colleagues, we haven't finished yet. Let's continue without further ado. So, item 21. So we're talking about the protection of adults here. And I'm going to give Mister Salimas the floor on behalf of Missus Tom, if I've understood correctly.
Please.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you. Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, I have a pleasure to present on behalf of Jana Tom the report of the first trial meeting on the protection of adults. Overall, the meeting marked a positive start to discussions among the two local legislators. From the presentations of the two positions, it is clear that both institutions share a common objective to provide clarity on the conflict of laws between the EU member states when it comes to measures to protect and support adults that need such protection and support.
The two co-legislators decided to agree already on a large number of lines that were identical in both positions. This includes the deletion of chapter eight on the introduction of a system for the interconnection of registers across the EU. Some key issues were identified through the discussions, and this will be worked on among the negotiating teams. The teams will continue to meet in the following weeks in order to find compromise solutions for these differences. The next dialogue meeting is scheduled for May, and the parliament is confident that we will be able to reach a provisional agreement with the Council.
The rapporteur looks forward to presenting you with such good news at the future meeting in May. Thank you.
Colleague.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much. I can just look out to the floor and see if anyone is asking for the floor. I can't see anybody asking for the floor. So then I would like to thank Mister Salimas for this item and move on to item 22, chairs' announcements. I have the following announcements to make.
Firstly, corrigendum. Parliament's been asked by the competent council services to give its agreement to the correction of article 2.1 of directive 2024/2853 on liability of defective products. Information about the was sent on Monday, March 16. I've not received any objection to the suggested course of action or to the court's agenda itself. The court agenda is therefore deemed approved and will be submitted to plenary in accordance with rule 251.3.
And now we have a comment on a coordinator's decisions. Well, there was a coordinator's decision which was taken as follows. Firstly, there was the appointment of coordinators in relation to the rules with the Cape Verde Island sets. Secondly, Brando Beneffe has been appointed rapporteur for the opinion on the digital omnibus. Thirdly, Timo Verkins has been appointed as rapporteur for the opinion on the European Biotech Gazette law.
Fourthly, Dominic Dodzinski has been appointed as rapporteur for the lifting of the immunity of Ilyan Kuchuk. Daniel Salimis has been appointed rapporteur for the application to lift the immunity of Borys Burka. And David Corman has been appointed as rapporteur for the request to waive immunity for Diti Latinopulu. Maria Farrell has been appointed as rapporteur for the application to lift immunity, after Clara Dobrev. And Cinzibniewski, if I pronounce that name correctly, as rapporteur for the application to waive the immunity of Andre Tivada Kula.
Adrian Vasquez Lazada has been appointed rapporteur for the request to waive the immunity of Siebert Frank Drosa. And Christophe has been appointed rapporteur for the request to waive immunity, Matei Tonin. Fifth point, the following proposals for the second half of this year of 2026 will be supported. Firstly, a trip to a mission to The Hague. And secondly, the ICM will look at copyright issues, and they will be supported.
Now the sixth point that is for the CCC, which are the points which have been afforded to the head of the conference on committee chairs. And those are the key decisions taken in the coordinator's meeting. And now item 24, any other business. I have no request for any other business. Item 25, next meetings.
And then I can announce that the next committee meetings will be held in April. Do I have a date? Do I have a date? The fifteenth and the April 16. And, obviously, those meetings will be held in Brussels.
And with that, we have completed our agenda for today. So April are the next committee meetings. I thank my colleague there. And now we have actually completed our agenda, and I wish you a very pleasant evening. Thank you.
Very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.