Committee on Petitions Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
The following bullet points are kind of a continuation of the findings of the first part. So, unfortunately, I think at some point, I have to a little bit jump in between this slide and the next slide, but we start with the transposition. And that was kinda the main thing to look at, which is a little bit of a tedious job. So you compare the articles of the END to the articles in the Maltese legislation. And I also here would like to point out that the environmental noise directive has not really been amended at all, apart from the annexes, which tend to be quite technical in nature.
And that's quite different if you compare it, for instance, to air that has been amended several times. So the approach here was just to look at those articles which are relevant for Malta and not including those articles which are putting requirements, for instance, on the commission or the European Environment Agency. And they'll be then looked at conformity or nonconformity, which is a legal aspect, and then we looked at the relevance. So, for instance, nonconformity on something that's linked to the commission is not really relevant for Malta. And the next issue was infringement.
So, has there been any infringement proceedings against Malta? And we also looked into other environmental issues just in case there would be something indicating problems, for instance, in public participation, that might also then be an issue in the implementation of END. And we use the European Commission's infringement proceeding website and database between 2015 and 2024. And I also would like to add that we also looked into infringement proceedings against other EU member states, but only in relation to the EMD, basically, to have an understanding of how Malta compares to those. And we also wanted to know if there are any end implementation issues.
And here, we looked at the strategic noise mapping and action plans. So ENT requires to for member state to set up strategic noise mapping, which basically is areas based on noise indicators. And those agglomerations with high noise levels, then require the member states to develop action plans. So that's, in a way, the best way to see how things have been implemented. And finally, we also looked at the consultation surveys and petitions.
And now the next slide, please. So, we started by looking at if they are trying to assess if there is a transposition problem or not. And after going through all the articles, there were only minor issues, perhaps two with a little bit more of an interest, and those were about the criteria to develop action plans that was missing in the Maltese legislation as well as missing limit values in Annex five. But, otherwise, everything was absolutely transposed. So if everything was fully transposed, then we looked at infringement problems.
And there hasn't been any infringement proceedings against Malta during this time period between 2015, 2025, and whereas lots of other member states have had quite a few. The only other environmental issues that Malta had were in relation to access to justice and public participation. And then finally, we come to implementation. And there we have a couple of issues. So, and that's mostly linked to delays.
So member states have to develop these strategic noise maps. And then later, based on those noise maps, try to find ways where you mitigate the noise impacts through these action plans. Has not been successful to reduce the gap between the strategic noise maps and action plans. So a good example is the round three noise mapping that was published in 2018, but the action plan for 2019-2024 was published in 2023. So there's almost a 5 year gap.
And the same thing also applies to public consultations, that there seems to be a delay between public consultations and the publication of them. And the recent public consultation for round four was in November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025, and it hasn't been published yet. And the action plan has not been published yet, even if it should have been published by July 2025. So one, perhaps, of the issues in relation to the action plans is that if there's a big delay between the consultation and the strategic noise mapping, it becomes more difficult to implement those issues and address those noise impacts that have been identified during the strategic noise mapping. So if that's not the issue, implementation was not really an issue.
It's just about delays, and there's no transposition or infringement problems. We looked at the consultation responses in these consultations. And most of these worries and complaints are about noise sources, which are not covered by the environmental noise directive, which only covers noise pollution from transport, rail, air, and also road, but installation, which are part of the industrial emission directive. So this is one of the major points that the noise problems in motor are from sources which are not covered, not in the scope of the environmental noise directive. So at that point, we decided then that we have to look at other issues which might have caused these problems.
Just yes.
Speaker 2
Okay. I'll just very quickly then summarize it. That the implementation problems in Malta are linked to how noise is covered by environmental authorities as encouraging noise to be an important part of Maltese noise policy. And it's also a little bit linked to enforcement issues in how you deal with noise problems in local areas, which are not part of the END. Okay.
Thank you. I finish here then.
Thank.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed. And I now give the floor to the commission for 10 minutes. DG Environment.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the study results indeed, which is very important, and we find them very useful. The Environmental Noise Directive indeed has a long history. It was adopted in 2002.
And here, with the study, thanks to the study, we are able to see how it has developed, how its implementation has evolved in one of the member states throughout two decades. Here, also, it's very good to probably remind the scope and the objectives of the directive. When it was adopted in 2002, it primarily dealt with the noise coming from transport, mainly from transport, which is railways, airports, and road, as well as very precise reporting obligations for the member states to map and also based on their strategic mapping results to act upon the noise hotspots where it is most needed. And in this case, member states were requested to develop the noise action plans depending on the strategic mapping results. As was very rightly pointed into a study, indeed, and also, first of all, in the context of the petition that the study was commissioned, for a lot of noise sources which have not been covered by this directive in the beginning.
And, in this case, we speak also here about the entertainment sources, entertainment activities, as well as sport activities or construction works. And this is why it's very interesting to see the study results as well the findings, which may be useful for the future development and as well a reflection of the directive in, at both EU level and possibly at the member states level. And here as well, I would like to remind that the COVID directive is the subsidiarity principle, which invites the member states to set the noise reduction limits or targets at the national level. This means that the directive does not set any mandatory noise reduction limits at the moment. It is up for the member state to decide and which limits are important for them to take the action upon.
As regards the imprisonment procedures and as well other implementation support, I would like to reiterate indeed that commission stands here in support for the member states by providing different help, different assistance. First of all, we are following up with the competent authorities of each member state by making sure that they are in compliance with the environmental laws directive for the obligations that directive imposes, as it mainly results in the infringement procedures as well as in administrative engagement, administrative dialogues. Also, recently, a commission has adopted the technical support study, which aims to support the competent authorities to develop the noise action plans. As I was already briefly mentioned before, directive please have discretion for the member states to decide upon the action as well and about the necessity, appropriateness of the measures which should be applied at the national level. However, we find that it is always very important to have a good discourse as well as the list of all available noise reduction measures at hand and also to help the member states in weighting the efficiency as well as effectiveness and across many other criteria, which noise reduction measures would be most suitable in a particular area, in a particular issue, noise issue.
Therefore, this technical support study is expected to help the member states to achieve better results in terms of noise management within the territory. As well, talking about the future outlook of the directive, I would like to remind here that the commission has accepted the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors, which call the commission to assess visibility by 2029 of introducing new noise reduction targets and noise limits in the environmental noise directive, as well as aligning the noise exposure reporting thresholds as closely as possible with the dose recommended by the World Health Organization. Probably here, I would like to stop and as well to invite, to follow-up on another important document that was adopted last year. This is the NICE in Europe report, which our colleagues from Copenhagen from the European Environment Agency have summarized very well the key findings, the recent findings and data of the nose exposure in Europe and as well as possible conclusions further. Thank you very much for your floor.
Thank.
Speaker 1
you. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the members in order. Peter Aria.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Maltese to start, and then switch to English. First of all, I feel very privileged in this committee that you are giving so much attention to this issue, that is affecting so many Maltese people. Malta is a very small country. It has the highest population density in Europe.
It's a very touristic place as well, so we have a lot of noise, and some noise is natural. However, we need to help ourselves. We cannot accept that Maltese are complaining because of excessive noise, and they are not given any solutions. I think this report is very interesting because it shows very clearly how harmful these noises are to human health. Air are high blood pressure, heart problems, premature death, and a lot of psychological effects.
These are the effects of excessive noise in the environment that we are inhabiting. I felt the obligation to support this petition that was discussed in the committee, and I believe that the person who has raised this petition should be satisfied that this has led to a very relevant report, a very detailed report, in my opinion. And I think it is covering a lot of important matters. I will now switch to English.
I wish to make a few technical points on this report, starting with the good ones. We have 13 recommendations, which this report is proposing, where Malta can reduce noise affecting citizens. There is a very thorough analysis in this report, including on all the health aspects of noise in Malta. And there is also a good framework of the EU legislation and the national legislation. Now I come to the less positive aspects.
I believe that this report identifies part of the problem but underestimates the problem in the sense that it is clearly indicated in this report that we have a governance issue when it comes to enforcement on noise pollution. What do I mean? Whereas we have what we can call formal compliance, therefore, in the directive corresponding to articles in national law, this report itself identifies that there is no one responsible for many of these actions. In fact, on page 55 of this report, we see that the provision in the directive which obliges the government to have national authorities nominated especially to enforce noise pollution is not actually implemented. There is also, as identified by the report, the different obligations are scattered over different pieces of legislation.
So we have a question of governance. A right is of no value if you have if you don't have the means to actually enforce it. And this is what the situation with noise pollution in Malta is all about. So I do contest the wording in this report, which says that there are minor nonconformity issues. If it is a government or governance issue, it's not a minor issue.
It's a significant issue. I also want to make a point with the European Commission, given that we have the privilege of having commission colleagues here. I take note of the commission's statement here of its consideration of a revision of the noise pollution directive and the updating of EU provisions with noise thresholds, and also looking at what WHO is doing. But, also, I want to contest a reading of the European Commission when it comes to neighboring noise, when it comes to definitions and the scope of the directive itself. In fact, when I read the directive, I read that environmental noise shall mean unwanted and harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by transport.
So the directive is not about transport, but it includes transport. So I think the commission should take up the courage and consider a wider scope of the directive to consider other sources of noise, which are coming from other human activities. With this in mind, I switch again to Maltese.
I would like to appeal to the Maltese authorities that are following this discussion to take very seriously the recommendations in this report in order to implement a structure so that we are able to safeguard the rights of our citizens and ensure that we have less noise, because we need to have better governance. We need to have a better distribution of responsibility. Because the situation in Malta at the moment, it is so that when one is complaining, one is simply deferring responsibility to someone else. If one complains to the police authorities, one refers the person to the environmental agency because they say it is not their responsibility. So the citizens are feeling that they have no way to ensure that their rights are safeguarded.
Thank.
Thank.
Alex Agius Saliba
You, chair. I am always surprised how my colleague, Peter Hughes, does not miss one opportunity, even in the case of this report, where it concludes and I will be quoting Page 43. And I thank the EPRS who have worked on this report. This report has focused on the implementation of the directive in Malta and how Malta is implementing it. This report in page 43 is saying that
In implementing, and compared to many other member states.
And then I listened to my colleague, Peter Agios, that still insists on saying that in Malta, we have a huge problem with governance with regards to the implementation of this directive. I would say one thing that even if we just look at the simple figures in this report, when we are comparing different sectors that fall within the scope of this directive with other member states, for example, road traffic and the investments that have been placed in the transport sector. Motor has one of the least figures in terms of noise coming from air traffic and road traffic when compared to the other member states. However, we still see that Peter Aduis is trying to say that in Malta, there is a lack of implementation. And the competence of this report lies with the EU, and it is concluding that Malta has a good implementation rate that has been done better than other member states.
However, in order to gain some political points and in order to have some political statement on social media platforms. We are still trying to use this committee as a partisan tool in order to hopefully win a few political points locally. I think that even with regards to complaints that can be done also with regards to this directive, as well as other national legislation. Are we going to address every complaint to the European Commission and ask the Commission to instruct us on how to write our national legislation? It is up to every member state to see how national legislation should be managed, transposed, and implemented.
Even with regards to noise coming from the entertainment industry, it is the member state that should regulate the industry and not the EU. One of the recommendations is saying that on a voluntary basis Malta is encouraged to include other sources of noise in order to have reports on those. And I think there is a danger there, a real danger, because it is opening very wide to other sources of noise that should be reported. And I believe that this kind of very open recommendation that is put forward in this report, we can impact very negatively the celebration of traditions that are part of our Maltese identity, like fireworks that are now part of our national heritage as Europeans as well in our traditional village feasts. So we need to be very careful what kind of power we are delegating to the EU, because I believe that, as has been confirmed in this report, there is no problem in the implementation of this directive in Malta.
So we are in a better position compared to other member states. However, I do not believe that the EU should be given powers with regard to noises emitted during national village feasts that are very important to our national identity. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 1
thank you very much. Mr. Hiep, I give you the floor so that you can reply to some of the comments and questions from the floor. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much for your insights and your kind words. I think that there's a couple of issues which would probably enable Malta and the noise problem to find a common ground. And I think one of those is considering the population density in Malta. And I do think that if you think about how the population density affects the type of noise sources you have, that also should be perhaps taken into consideration when thinking about any future noise policy. The other thing is that because the noise sources, which seem to be the problematic ones that have been mentioned here, are covered by other Maltese legislation, and there's a number of them linked to construction, linked to the entertainment industry.
It would be important to perhaps have one guidance document that goes through those. And another issue which would help if the national authorities and regional authorities who are responsible for noise issues would actually include noise into their website. So many of the action plans have great recommendations, but it doesn't seem that they have been implemented in practice. So I'm hoping that when the next action plan is published, Malta will revisit the recommendations from the previous action plan and include those after reflection, and see what actually has been done. And finally, I would like to point out that noise doesn't have to be seen as a technical issue.
It should be seen as a holistic approach where it has the same importance as for air, and also that it will be part of other important political decisions like land use planning. And if we do that, then I hope that these, more like technical aspects, will not be that important, that Malta might have a land use planning where soundscapes and noise are going hand in hand, and noise policy and air policy as wise. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Very much. And now we go on to item 23 of our agenda. This is petition number 1535 of 2020 by Gerard de Lucas Abril, a Spanish national on the illegal occupation of buildings. Petition number 1124 of 2021 by a Spanish citizen on behalf of Sudadano Cerro Pelos in Mataro regarding classifying the illegal occupation of dwellings as an offense and regarding occupation in Mataro. Petition number 503, 2022 by Maria del Mar Baraio Perao, a Spanish national on the illegal occupation of dwellings in Catalonia.
Petition number 12023 by Ricardo Bravo Alvira, a Spanish national, on behalf of the Plataforma des Affectados Pour la Ocupacion on the suspension of eviction procedures and squatting. Petition number 15042025 by Spanish citizen on the extension of the suspension of evictions for tenants and the impact on landlords in Spain. Petition number 20 120 5 by a Spanish citizen on squatting in Spain. The petitioner or petition, 01/12/2023, is in the meeting room. So dear petitioner, you have the floor for five minutes to present your petition.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon. We are for Petition 100 12-20-23, and we have a presentation. We can start. There's a presentation to be able to put on the screen. Okay.
We are from the platform for those affected by squatting in Spain. And two years ago, we were here, and we were given many false promises. Next slide, please. We're here to talk about a phenomenon in Spain. We call it the phenomenon of tenant squatters.
We don't want to argue with any members about the definition of this because the Fundeo Rei has come up with a definition, and it is when an individual is initially a legal tenant and then stops paying. Next slide. Now this is about the Royal Decree from 11-20-20. And what this did is it halted all evictions of vulnerable families that did not have housing resources. Now this was supposed to be just for the pandemic, and it would have been very reasonable if that were the case, but it's become something more permanent because it has been extended several times over the past 6 years.
Now what this degree has done is mean that many people abuse the law, saying that they're vulnerable, but it also means that the government is not taking responsibility for these vulnerable families. Next slide. Now fortunately, the decree failed to pass, thanks to the work of the platform, but we fear that it will be passed again. Next slide. And we ask ourselves, why does the Spanish government need a royal decree to not evict vulnerable families if the vulnerable families are their responsibility?
Well, it's because there isn't enough housing, and there isn't housing because their housing policy has been disastrous. What they are doing is they are shirking their own responsibility to provide housing, and they are shifting it onto small landlords. According to the governor of the Bank of Spain, there's a shortfall of 700000 dwellings. Next slide. The royal decree says it should be the public authorities that offer housing to these vulnerable families, but they haven't complied with it.
Next slide. What are the consequences of all this? Well, when you halt an eviction in a rental market where 93.4% of housing is offered by working families that only have one dwelling rented, what you do is you destroy their lives, and you cripple them financially. Next slide. Some examples of those affected.
For example, Rogelio, who was living in a garage.
Speaker 11
Could I ask you please to speak a little bit slower for the interpreter's benefit? Thank you.
Thank.
you.
Speaker 10
Thank you. So we also have Annabel, who needed to take on several jobs to be able to pay the bills of her squatters. Next one, we have other cases. For example, Amaya, who needed to ask for money in the streets to cover the costs of her tenant squatter. Next slide, please.
Or, for example, Rocio, who had to live in a storage unit because there was an illegal tenant squatter in her house, and he wouldn't leave. Next one. And here we have Jose, who had to live in a van for 9 months, and Rosa, who's battling cancer. Next slide. For a long time, we have tried to meet with ministers for housing and justice.
Since October 21, we have contacted them monthly, but they have never responded to us. Next slide. Now the consequences are obvious. There is legal uncertainty. What that is doing is distorting the rental market.
We are seeing we've lost 300,000 dwellings in the rental market, yet we need 700,000. Next slide. What are we asking for? We are asking for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU to be complied with. If we look at Article 17, for example, right to property, we cannot exercise this right if there are squatters in our house.
The government talks about compensation, but we do not know how this has been paid or to whom. Only 3,000 people have received compensation in six years, yet apparently there are 80,000 halted evictions in Spain. Next slide. The next article that we'd like to see respected is the right to effective legal protection. What's the point in a binding ruling if it cannot be executed?
That is not justice, and that is what is happening in Spain. Next slide. To conclude, the responsibility of the government under Article 34 is to look after vulnerable families. It cannot be private individuals who need to provide for the needs of those families. Next slide.
And this is the last one. Two years ago, in this house, the Socialist Party that is in government in Spain voted in favor of our initiative. They said that they were aware of our situation and how hard it was, and that nobody could deny it in Spain. But on March 10, the same party voted in favor of the report, on the housing report in Article 28 calls for legal certainty and measures to combat illegal squatting in Spain, thereby protecting small landlords. We have come here so that they can commit to complying with that.
Thank you.
Paulie?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the commission for 10 minutes. Directorate General for Justice and Consumers, just and the Directorate General for Energy.
Speaker 12
Yes. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone. So I will provide the replies from the Director General for Justice and then pass over to my colleague from DG Ener. I'll start to briefly summarize the five petitions, which concern the situation of property owners in Spain, in particular relating to certain practices and legislation regarding the occupation of dwelling, also described as squatting. I want to start by reassuring that the European Commission promotes and protects fundamental rights as they are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by ensuring that all the legislative, policy and administrative measures falling within the union competences comply with the Charter fundamental rights.
As we have already stated in replies to all of the petitions raised today and reiterated as well in previous meetings that covered these petitions, I would like to make the following points, in particular, as regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its scope of application. In the Charter, the right to property is explicitly set out in Article 17, which provides everyone has the right to own, use, and dispose of their lawfully acquired possessions. But it nevertheless needs to be underlined that the charter is addressed to the member states only when they are implementing European Union law, limiting the scope of the application of the charter. Under the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission has no general powers to intervene. It can do so only if an issue of union law is involved.
This is also laid out in article 51, paragraph one of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. And it should therefore be noted that in these particular cases that were raised by the petitions, the situation of property owners is a matter which remains within the competences of member states, which also means that the situation falls outside the scope of application of the Charter, and therefore the Charter is not applicable. In situations like this, it is for the Member State in question to ensure that their existing obligations regarding the protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of property, as it results from their international agreement or from internal legislation in the area as relevant, is respected. I would also point to some of the public order dimensions raised by the petitions and maintain that the maintenance of public order is an exclusive competence of EU member states, and that it is up to national authorities to investigate whether, for example, an alleged illegal occupation of property is associated or linked to drug trafficking or other criminal activities, as it was raised also by one of the petitions discussed today. Therefore, the petitioner can bring the case to the attention of the national authorities who are responsible, including the judiciary, or where the national measures are exhausted, before the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights.
Speaker 14
Yes. Just to complete, I would like to also take the floor to stress the empathy and the understanding of European Commission on the individual situations that the households, that are represented by the petitioners, have been suffering. We have full understanding of the situation. But as we already told in several occasions, the petitions at stake, they relate to contract law. They relate to measures stabilizing rental markets, which are outside the competence of the European Commission.
This being said, since last time we came, we also adopted the European affordable housing plan. And there, we have a specific action where the commission has taken the commitment to identify models and share good practices combining the protection of property rights of owners with tenant security. So we are, what we want is to identify good models and share these among member states in order to get a better balance between property rights and the security necessary for tenants. So as my colleague from DG Justice has just said, we would recommend the petitioners to indeed address the national authorities and, in particular, the national courts, because as compared to previous occasions, as it was also mentioned by the petitioner, given the fact that at least in some of the cases, some of the petitions, the joint petitions here, notably petition 0154 and 0112. The petitioners are explicitly mentioning a royal decree, royal decree law that extended the suspension of the rights of the owners towards vulnerable tenants.
And this law has now, basically, not been convalidated by the Spanish parliament. We think that at least in these two cases of the petitions, the object might have disappeared. That's all from our side. Thank you.
C'est Pauline?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now we give the members a chance to speak, according to the order. Now for the EPP, Mrs. Monserette, but we have a problem with our timing on the agenda. So please be as succinct as possible.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, chairman, and thank you very much to the petitioners for bringing this issue to parliament. A problem that the left is trying to hide and trying to trivialize. This is not just a curse. It's a political fraud which is penalizing landlords. The European Union is the guardian of the treaties, and the member state in question, Spain here, needs to do all it can to protect private property as outlined in the charter and fundamental rights of the EU and the Spanish constitution. To squat and then make the owners pay the bills for that is not just a crime. It is an attitude which jeopardizes freedom, the security, and safety of the owners, and also all other property owners.
And this is where the Spanish government is failing. Sanchez is violating the constitution, fundamental rights in the European Union, because he is complicit, incompetent, and cowardly. He is supporting these criminals who are squatting on private property. They live in those places while the owners have to pay the bills. This is not just a myth or it's not fake news that the left says.
No, this is the reality in Spain. Seven, we have more than many thousands of that are squatted, more than 21,000 families are victims of squatting. Now the left says we can't do anything about it, but that is a lie. Spain has received more funding from the EU than any other country, but it is at the bottom of the ranking when it comes to social support. We are way below the 9.3% EU average.
Plan Sanchez has on his table a plan of measures that was presented by the PP in the Spanish parliament, and the socialist majority is blocking it because they do not want this to be processed. But one thing to the European Commission. In the Senate, in November 2023, an anti squatting law was passed led by the PP, an anti squatting law that was adopted, approved, but the government of Sanchez does not want to implement. And this parliament has done its homework. After just 14 days ago, we approved a report led by my colleague, Borja Jimenez.
This condemns illegal squatting, and it causes and calls on governments to take effective action. We are going to carry on till the end defending freedom, security, and private property, and we support and call for any fact-finding mission available in Spain so that Europe can see with its own eyes the dramatic situation of legal squatting in Spain. So we would support any request for a mission to Spain. Is it not we've had enough with impunity? We need to have the squatters out, and homeowners back in their houses.
And I'd like to say to the European Commission, who's the guardian of the treaties, we were told that it is the citizens who should go to the courts, but you are the guardians. There's a law approved in the Senate that the government has a duty to comply with and to implement. And I say this as a person who has been the victim of squatting. And the squat, this squat, the house ended up becoming a drugs squat. And for months, you pay the mortgage.
You and all you're left with is the option to sell that house, losing all of your savings. For Sanchet and Pesoye, this is a minor issue. But I say to the Pesoye and the Socialist Party, look at the victims in the eye. These are the owners who are victims because what's happening, this is ruining families' lives. So we, as a PP, are requesting that the petition be kept open, that the Spanish government be told that it must implement the anti squatting law that's been approved in the senate, and the Spanish government must be called upon to implement that law.
And it's also not implementing the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which says that one of those rights is the defense of private property. Thank you.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much. S and D, Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you very much, chairman. I'm going to speak in French. First of all, I would like to thank the petitioners for having brought this to our attention, a situation which certainly is very difficult from the personal point of view.
We're talking about Spain, of course, here, but this is a situation which we can encounter in other member states. Behind each of these petitions, we have to realize that we have real-life stories, that of owners who are not protected enough and people who are also vulnerable. I think what is essential here is to look at it in a realistic fashion, and look at the fact that some of these occupied dwellings are used for drugs. It's also important to look at the context. When we talk about dwellings in other member states, we talk about a structural problem.
Three out of four of these problems are connected to the rental market. It is a problem of giving people affordable housing. In this context, the question arises: why haven't we put more pressure on the housing market, on those responsible for that? We have the European Commission's position, which is very clear. It's not a direct application of European law.
So the responsibility lies with the member states who have to make sure that fundamental rights are respected in this situation. And we know that there is no legal basis for us to intervene directly. So the challenge here is as follows: How can we make progress towards structured solutions for public housing, more housing, and a more balanced housing market? These are, however, under the remit of the member states. I think, however, this petition must remain open, and we have to make it known to the Commission.
Speaker 18
You, Chairman, and thank you, of course, to the petitioners. We can see from the petitions that children have been mistreated, schools have been abandoned, and we feel completely abandoned. We have no money left. We're on our knees. We are in despair.
Speaker 19
This is a situation where mafias are driving the situation. This is the reality we can read from the petitions. And then the commission said that they do not have a remit on this. But what about the affordable housing plan you want to put in place? Do you have competence or don't you?
And then when you want it, you say that the charter is not being applied, but the Court of the European Union constantly refers to this charter. So please clarify this. Now the figures have been mentioned. We're talking about thousands of families who have rented property and then bought a property, and the system has left them unprotected for years with the complicity of all the parties that have voted in favor of the extensions in the Spanish parliament. These, the PP, have, together with the Socialist Party, left these people unprotected. There's another part of squatting, which is violent or criminal squatting.
And we can't distinguish between squatting and tenant squatting. Both of these are in violation of private property, which is one of the fundamental aspects of the market economy in Europe. Squatters are criminals, and therefore, we need to seek harsher penalties. But the PP, as you know, we've had a nice speech from the PP today. But in 2018, they did not change the law to ensure that there will be prison time for squatters.
Now obviously, this means that there's no incentive for criminals or criminal squatters to stop engaging in this behavior. Now I'm not sure whether the European Commission thinks they don't have competence in this, but in April 2025, 15 regional police officers in the Basque Country were injured during evictions of illegal squatters. We've seen it in other places as well, with Algerian squatters in Zaragoza. And then in October 2025, we saw three police officers killed because they were evicting squatters, and there were butane explosions intentionally caused. And what this does is it's against the rule of law, and it is completely sacrificing private property owners and landlords.
The petition needs to be kept open. I'm happy that the PP representative said that she supports a mission to Spain to look at squatting. That's great because this has been declined by the PP in the past when the Patriots have actually proposed this now. To conclude, obviously, we know the government will not comply, but we need to tell the Spanish government that it must talk about the measures that it will take to defend private property and also need the general judiciary council to inform us of the number of criminal and civil proceedings related to the eviction of squatters in Spain that are awaiting sentencing and that are awaiting effective implementation. And of course, the home affairs ministry, we'd like to see a report from Mister Madlaska, a report on how many police officers have been injured or killed by groups of squatters in the past 8 years while this government has been in office.
Thank you.
Nora Junco García
Thank you, chairman. Thank you very much to the petitioners, because this situation is something that any Spanish person could face. We have no protection. Thousands of Spanish people have suffered this. I'm in the housing committee, and we've looked at this issue.
And the rest of Europe is not aware of tenant squatting and just how bad things are in Spain. What we've seen is not just a crisis of access to housing. It's about legal uncertainty. Private landlords are not able to get access to their own property because of long legal proceedings and dealings to ensure that those people who are not complying with the law comply with the law. And the far right has normalized the idea that if you own a property, you should be able to just give them up without any right to compensation.
This is not social policy. It's shifting responsibility from the state to the citizens. Furthermore, we need to be very clear on this. The problem of evictions will not be solved by stopping them indefinitely. No.
It's about dealing with the problem at its root. We measures to prolong halting evictions or excessive processes in the rental market have had an undesired effect. We've seen higher prices, less investment. Therefore, in the housing committee, we know without legal certainty, there is no market. And without a market, there is no proper access to housing.
Protecting the most vulnerable is essential, but to do so with public effective policies, not violating fundamental rights such as the right to property. We need to act to strike a balance between swift procedures and clear processes. Thank you.
And now we have an independent Mr. Perez. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Chairman. Anyone who comes to Spain can see that if someone enters a house, changes the lock, and then starts to live there, it's not a criminal. No. They're someone who's vulnerable and who needs housing resources. This is what many people here say in this chamber.
If you go into a shop and you shoplift, then you'll be arrested. But if you do, you go into a house that's not yours and move in there, then you can just do so, forgetting about the person who's been paying their mortgage for 30 years. This is so clear. But even though we're in agreement, we end up arguing among ourselves. It's a shame that mister Bouchardet is arguing with the PP on such basic issues.
Perhaps we could show some common sense, especially when we're facing those who are defending these criminals. These criminals who go to houses that aren't their own. Solidarity always needs to include someone else's property, apparently. The patriots and the EPP and ECR, none of them talk about completely eliminating taxes for the people's first home in order to increase housing supply. Why does no MEP in this committee talk about the fact that more than 30% of housing costs are taxes?
Why do we not talk about the fact that young people can't access housing, and local councils often make a lot of money from these taxes? Nobody seems to be focusing on the real problem at hand here. I've listened to Ms. Monserrat from the EPP talking about the law that was approved in the Senate. Well, obviously, the Senate in Spain is simply pointless.
All it is is for all of the politicians who are 70 and 80 from the PP to give them a nice income.
Thank.
Elena Nevado del Campo
You, chairman. Well, first of all, I'd like to start by saying that Mr. Voucher, you can only do one mission a year. And you asked for a mission to Valencia, and we supported the mission to Valencia. And we agreed on a mission on squatting for 2027.
So please do respect the truth. We are going to go on a mission so that this parliament can see what is happening in Spain with the injustice of squatting. I'd like to thank the petitioners for coming here to highlight a problem that we in Spain are suffering from, illegal squatting. The problem is shocking. It's evident.
But I would like to ask you here and reiterate what my colleagues said. Did you know that if you go to Spain to see your, you go away for a few days to see your family, that somebody can end up occupying your house? Do you know that if you go away for work for a few days, when you return, someone may have kicked your door down, and you may find someone sleeping in your bed? Did you know that if you buy an apartment, which is completely impossible at the moment in Spain, and then you rent it out to pay the mortgage, then the next day, you may end up with a house with a tenant who stops paying, and then you need to carry on paying your mortgage or as many retired people do in order to supplement their pensions. And you need to carry on paying the unit utility bills, the electricity, for example, or the water as the owner because if the utility is cut off, it's the owner that is committing a crime.
So this means that the landlords are being criminalized, and the squatters are being protected. We in the EPEP last month, as last month highlighted, we proposed we passed a report to deal with the housing crisis in Europe defending the fundamental right to private property in the face of illegal squatters. There is not enough affordable housing in Spain for vulnerable people, but the socialist communist government in Spain has made those who have dwellings the vulnerable ones. And what this is doing is violating article 17 of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU. And we do not understand how the commission seems to understand the very opposite of that.
Justice is a fundamental value in all European treaties, and what we are seeing now here is injustice. Therefore, we request that this petition be kept open. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Well, petitioner, it is now your turn to comment or sum up. Thank you. The petitioner.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for highlighting this issue and for raising your voices, which we do not have in Spain. We who only own one dwelling should not have to wait for the government to comply with its responsibility to build social housing for those who need it most. And what we cannot do is to hand over our houses for this use. This is in the royal decree, but even the ministry for housing knows that these people are not paying.
So the European Commission should take another look at Article 17. This talks about the public use of property, but it requires compensation. If there is no compensation, article 17 is not respected. Since 2020, we have been fighting tooth and nail against a government that doesn't even want to listen to us. Sandra Gomez, the MEP, entered, asked her assistant if they are still looking at the issue of squatting, and then left the room.
This is what it's like in Spain. Those who are suffering the consequences of their policy are being ignored. We want everyone in Spain to hear about this, and the European Parliament as well. For years, we have been suffering as a result of the Spanish government's policies. Thank you.
Speaker 1
you. Well, it's very clear from the debate that this is a petition which must remain open and get a response from the European Commission. After what we've heard from the members, it will also be sent to the member states. And with that, let's move on to Item 24 of our agenda, Petition 2,278,025. Jesus Munoz, a Spanish national, on behalf of the association ANAVIT, on alleged violation of victims' rights caused by the use of dysfunctional electronic monitoring bracelets in Spain.
In addition, we have petition number 2640 7225 by David Gutierrez Prieto, a Spanish national, on behalf of the Spanish Police Confederation on alleged violation of victims' rights caused by the dysfunctional electronic monitoring bracelets in Spain. The petitioners are in the meeting room. Petition 2278, 2025. Dear petitioner, you have the floor for five minutes to present your petition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, we're not quite sure what has happened with that presentation. So let's move on to the petitioner for Petition 2647 of 2025. Dear petitioner, you have the floor for five minutes to present your petition.
Thank.
Speaker 26
thank you very much. Thank you to all of you for having us here. On behalf of the Spanish Police Confederation, we've put forward this petition. I'm just going to explain to you briefly what it's about. It's about some defective bracelets, had been attached to people who were suspected of a victim of crimes, and they had to wear them all the time.
And whenever they got near their victim, the police should be alerted so that this would effectively prevent them from approaching their previous victims again, and hopefully constitute a legal step forward in terms of the situation and protection. But some of these devices have been dysfunctional. In 2024, the contract which the government had for the supply of these devices was changed, and some of them, which are now being used, are very low quality, and there have been huge problems with failures with failing to locate the suspect or with devices which failed to trigger a notification to the police when the suspect was too near the victim or both. And this, so this is very important. The problem is that many women have been left completely unprotected, and this is a very serious situation.
Obviously, as a member of the police force, we I perceive this as a serious, serious problem because there are ever increasing numbers of complaints and reports of instances where women have been assaulted or importuned, at the very least, by men and when there has been a tag solution decided upon. We have, on occasion, been unable to pursue a case in court because we were not able to get the tracking data from the device. And so the case fell. So this is really very important, and this is why this petition has come to you in the European Parliament, because these devices were actually paid for with European funding under the next generation funding which came to us. This was very important to us, and we feel, therefore, that the European Union should know that their funding was going to purchase low quality devices, which did not protect the fundamental rights of the people they were intended to protect.
So this is quite unacceptable because the contracts that were concluded were of dubious legality, clearly, if the items were not fit for purpose. And the purpose was to protect the victims. They failed in that. This is therefore also a breach of the fundamental rights of the individual victims. The directive which affords this protection to the victims requires that they're protected through any physical means possible, and this is an instance where the attempt at physical protection has completely failed.
This is extremely important. It's the first time the Spanish Police Federation has submitted a petition, but we do feel that this is very clearly a breach of the charter and a breach of the individual's fundamental rights: right to life, right to personal safety, right to protection, right to effective judicial protection. And therefore, for all these reasons, we've submitted this petition because there have been all these breaches of European legislation and rights. And as I said, the funding came from the RF funding allocated to Spain. We feel it is only right that you should know about this.
We want to know more about the conditions under which the contract was signed and how it was possible for the people to be left in the lurch in this way. We're going to be pursuing further investigations ourselves to try to ascertain what exactly has happened, to shed more light on it, and to try to find out exactly what happened with these contracts for defective devices. So in conclusion, what I would say is that it isn't really the defect of the device per se that's the biggest problem. It's the complete failure to protect vulnerable victims because some devices which were arguably fake have been funded with European funding. But it is the flagrant breach of the requirement to protect victims, which is the most serious matter. A victim can't live in any kind of psychological equilibrium if they fear that their aggressor may approach them at any time, if they can't count on the device functioning and notifying the police if this person approaches them too closely in breach of the conditions of bail or Internet.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, let's go back to the previous petition, 1,278,2025. So the petitioner has the floor for 5 minutes.
Good.
Speaker 27
Afternoon. Hopefully, the presentation might work this time. Oh, yes. It looks as if it has come to life. So good afternoon to you, everybody.
Thank you very much for allowing me to take this time to present our petition on lack of protection for victims. This is not just an administrative decision. It's an absolute scandal, which is a breach of the provisions of the rule of law and the rules governing use of electronic tags in Spain. It's a breach of fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals. It is absolutely vital that we address this.
These tags are being used despite being technologically defective, and they were sold as effective, whereas they are in fact completely unsafe and ineffective. They don't provide any kind of security or safety guarantees, and effectively, it is additional torture for the victims to know that they have no certainty as to what is going on. These are objective devices which have been funded by the government, particularly under the socialist government, where allegedly for judicial protection, these tags were being used to deter abusers. The Saboteiro government announced a system which cost billions of euros and was to provide a system for surveillance, which would ensure that the police could know where people aggressors were. But minister Montero and other ministers have simply been paying money to private companies and engaging in contracts which are not worth the paper they're written on.
The data which we have from the last 10 years is extremely worrying. In the last seven years, since 2009, only some 27% of the devices have actually been used at all. But the fact that is more serious is that the institutions have just drawn available the fact that they had bought thousands of devices. And although the government aspires and claims to be a feminist government, half of these devices were absolutely unusable, not fit for purpose at all. They were not effective.
So, basically, safety and security were being outsourced and completely failing the interests of the victims. It was.
Speaker 11
Could you please speak a little bit slower to the benefit of the interpreters? Thank you.
Speaker 27
Apologies. My apologies. I shall try to do so. Imagine the situation. Our judge is trying to give a sentence, but they can't access the information that they need because the device is defective.
And for example, the interdict might say the person can't approach the victim within 1,500 meters, but the device can't quantify or calibrate 1,500 as opposed to 400. Therefore, it is completely ineffective. In reality, there is no protection for the individual. This is just a typical device that's not worthwhile. And yet there are real faces behind these victims.
There are female victims who live in a state of anxiety and perpetual fear. They're terrified that the batteries won't work, that the connection won't work, that there'll be false positives or false negatives. The judges can't get readouts from the system. The victims don't know if the aggressor might actually be approaching them or stalking them. And sometimes there are innocent men involved in legal cases who can't actually prove their innocence because they may live hundreds of kilometers away from the alleged victim.
But because of these dysfunctional devices, they are implicated wrongly, and they can't live in any kind of safe date or security or psychological equilibrium and CAM either. Therefore, these devices, which are supposed to function on the basis of GPS, Internet connection, and so forth, are completely ineffective. They have been used on a large number of occasions. They've been used, allegedly, to protect people, but in fact, they are completely ineffective because they are so unreliable. The prosecutors have cited umpteen different cases where an accuser has actually managed to approach the house of the victim and even set the garage on fire.
Therefore, there was absolutely no protection. The situation is very problematic for men who find it even harder to get any protection, theoretical protection, than women. The prosecutors have been saying since 2024 that these devices are defective and dangerous, creating a situation of legal uncertainty and avoid where there should be legal protection. The state is seeking to surveil its citizens with failed technology, and we feel that the politicians need to be held to account. There needs to be an external audit, and we are not prepared to accept such a woefully defective type of technology, which is leading to a failure of justice and a flagrant violation.
Speaker 29
Could you please wind up, please? Because we're running out of time. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Apologies. So we have already said that the yes means yes. Legislation has been very problematic in Spain. Some people have been released in Spain. A number of them were actually convicted of sexual assault, but others have been convicted for offenses which they did not commit at all, precisely because of failures of this technology.
Thank you.
Speaker 31
Thank you to the petitioners. As the petitioners have said, these two petitions concern the Spanish government's establishment of a system of electronic anti-approach devices for victims of domestic violence or the so-called electronic monitoring bracelets. These bracelets have been partly financed under the EU recovery and resilience facility, in particular, Milestone 47.2 of the Spanish resilience facility. The petitioner states that there have been technical and operational malfunctions with the system, which risk undermining the protection of victims of domestic violence. The petitioners also consider that these deficiencies might constitute breaches of EU law, both in terms of victims protection and in terms of implementing and controlling EU funds, notably the victims rights directive, the violence against women directive, and the regulation 241 on the recovery and resilience facility, particularly as regards to the effectiveness, supervision, and proper use of EU funds.
The petition calls on the committee to investigate this further, including by investigating the implementation of milestone 472 and verifying the compliance with EU requirements by requesting the Spanish government to share reports relating to the implementation of electronic monitoring bracelet system, and by assessing the need for corrective and accountability measures. I can share that the commission is currently assessing this petition. In my capacity today, I can only provide points on the aspect of gender-based violence, violence against women, and protection of victims. The commission is fully committed to combating gender-based violence and to ensure victim protection. In May 2024, the directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence was adopted.
The violence directive is a milestone. It is the first comprehensive legal instrument at the EU level to tackle these issues. Emergency barring orders, restraining, and protection orders are covered by article 19 of the directive. Recital 46 specifically mentions electronic monitoring and states that electronic monitoring makes it possible to, where relevant, ensure compliance with emergency barring, restraining, and protection orders in order to record evidence of breaches of search orders and to enhance supervision of offenders. The recital further states that, where available, appropriate and relevant, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the legal nature of the proceedings, electronic monitoring should be considered to ensure the enforcement of such barring orders.
Lastly, the recital states that where electronic monitoring is used, victims should always be informed about its capabilities and limitations. It must be noted here that member states have to transpose the directive into their national legislation by June 2027. In support of this process, the commission is holding implementation workshops to support member states in the correct transposition of the directive, and to ensure that all member states, including Spain, meet the standards set at the EU level. Moreover, the victims' rights directive provides for a set of rights for all victims of crimes, including victims of gender-based violence. The provisionally agreed revision of the victims' rights directive will further strengthen those rights, including ensuring victims' physical protection.
The commission is monitoring the state of implementation of the victims' rights directive in all member states, including Spain. In particular, the commission has analyzed whether member states have completely transposed all normative provisions of the victims' rights directive. According to the commission, the Spanish law fully transposes the victims' rights legislation into national law. In addition, the European protection order directive allows for protection measures for persons in danger taken in one member state to be recognized in other member states, in order to continue the protection of such persons when they travel or when they move to another member state. The specificities of national protection orders and the tools to enforce these, however, remain the responsibility of the member states.
My colleagues, who are working on the recovery and resilience facility in the commission, are currently assessing this petition on those points. So, therefore, I cannot provide more comments on this today. However, I can assure you that this petition is still assessed in detail by the commission. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now I will give the floor to the members according to the order. We don't have much time, so I'll have to be very strict about the timing. EPP, Ms. Navarro de Campo.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you. I wonder whether Miss Erance could actually take the floor first. Would that be possible? Because she has another commitment she has to go to. I think she's asked if she could possibly just take the floor.
problem. You have the floor, madam.
Speaker 32
Thank you. I'd like to thank you. I'd like to thank the petitioners, the Spanish Police Confederation, and the National Association for Victim Support in Spain. I welcome the fact that you've brought these petitions forward. The prosecutors in 2024 published a report, the judicial authorities have published reports as well on this, and the observatory on domestic violence.
And judicial supervisory authorities have also commented on the fact that these electronic tags were actually more of a risk to victims because they didn't work. The fact that they didn't work meant that the abuser could approach the victim. The device didn't work. The victim was at work. The interdicts were being breached.
There was no evidence because the devices were not working. The tags weren't recording the information they were supposed to record, and a lot of cases were simply dismissed. So there have been very worrying consequences. It's not been possible to prove that the abuser has breached the interdict or the exclusion order. There was a case in Ibiza where there was actually an exclusion order in place.
He wasn't allowed to go into the house, but he went into the house and attacked the woman, the sister, and the mother. And the woman in question had had two operations.
Could you come to the end? So.
The result is that, as the petitioners have said, this is a breach of all kinds of public legislation. This is the European Union legislation, the RRF that's being breached because there are no positive results being generated. It's a breach of the directive on victims' rights and on domestic abuse, and there needs to be an urgent response, because we have so much evidence that there's been no proper follow-up by the Spanish authorities. In all these instances of flagrant breach of the obligation to protect victims and individuals who have been victims of abuse. Therefore, this petition must remain open.
Spanish authorities must be required to account for themselves, and the European Commission must get involved in order to ensure that the European funds are being properly spent and hold Bain to account for misuse and abuse of funds. Thank you.
Thank.
Sandra Gómez López
you. I'd like to thank the petitioner for being here. I think that the first petitioner has been here on a number of occasions and talked about a number of different topics. And in terms of the content of the second petition, I think it is clear that there have been many cases where these devices have not functioned, and where they have been inadequate and defective. There are men whose lives have been destroyed by having to wear these devices.
There have been others whose lives have been destroyed because they failed. Some of these men have committed very serious offenses of violence. Some of them have been in custody because they have assaulted their female partners violently. So it's not a question of them being a victim having to wear a tag at all. It's quite the opposite.
There may have been failures in the system of procurement, but what's important to my group is the rights of the victims. At least 14 women have been murdered in the last few months of this year. 1,367, way more victims than the victims who were killed by terrorist violence by ETA, and people just continue to deny the existence of violence against women, whereas it is an incontrovertible fact. And what my group is concerned about is the victims and the safety of the victims. And in order to be fair to them, to give them honest support and which they merit, we do need to take some action here.
No woman should be forced to live in fear like this. And some of the women who have been failed by the system have ended up losing their lives. We need to have a system that protects women. This is absolutely imperative. And even if it's only sometimes that these devices fail, it is a few times too many, and it generates a climate of terror and fear in the minds of the women.
Thank.
Speaker 19
you. Well, of course, I haven't prepared a speech. And I have been listening to my colleagues, and I just want to say what is coming to my mind. I thought this is acceptable to my socialist colleague. It's actually distorting what I said, but manipulating the views of the petitioner is much worse than manipulating or twisting my words and ideas.
I don't think this is acceptable. You can't be making accusations against the police confederation representative who has been here to the petitions committee, yes, on more than one occasion. And why? Because your government is systematically breaching the fundamental rights of Spanish citizens and leaving them unprotected. All the Spaniards, especially women, but all the women.
Of course, it is more common that women are the vulnerable victims of violence, but I certainly feel that it is up to Pedro Sartas to be paying for the compensation, which is due to these women through the flagrant breaches of their rights through the ineffectiveness of this system. There are many women who have been failed. They have not been protected. And therefore, Sanchez and the minister for equality don't care about the victims. This is why the legislation that they have proved they have adopted has simply reduced the sentences that were imposed on people who committed sexual abuse and violence.
Seventy percent of the people who were actually affected by these people who have been released were minors. We're not just talking about sexual violence. We're talking about minors who are victims of sexual abuse. And you were leaving so many women, and so many girls and young people completely unprotected. This is just propaganda, feminism at best, and lies at worst.
It's humiliating women. And this is what you're responsible for, instead of standing up for the principles which you claim to espouse. Please, chairman, I would like to ask for this petition to be kept open. And in particular, I would like to ask that all this information is forwarded to the European public prosecutor so that a proper investigation is carried out into what has happened with these European funds, which have been allocated to the purchase of bracelets which did not function and which have no proper after sales maintenance. This is a complete breach of the RRF regulation, and therefore, I would insist that the EPPO look into what is going on.
And the superior council of magistrates and the judiciary should also be involved in this in order to ensure that we get to the bottom of what has happened. Thank.
Nora Junco García
Thank you very much. The petitioners are not here because one or several devices failed. They're here because a whole system has failed. A system which is established in order to protect victims has failed. This is a very serious issue.
They're just the tip of the iceberg. It is true that they were funded with European money, but the rights of these individuals are flagrantly breached. And it is impossible for the authorities who want to hold aggressors to account to access the information that they need. You're able to have algorithms that can follow where your pizza delivery guy is in real time, but not an aggressor who's been forced to wear an electronic tag because he was convicted of some offense. Therefore, we need to have proper systems where these devices are properly funded, are fit for purpose, and are audited and accounted for.
Speaker 36
And therefore, this petition must remain open, and we need to take it much further. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 39
It is very strange to me. How shall we understand? You are the socialist from Spain, representative of the EPP. You are the ruling majority. Why are you arguing among yourselves?
Speaker 38
Can't you sit around the table and deal with the problems? Is this because of approaching election or something else? You want to show that you're not working together, but you are working together. Who can answer this question for me? And another question is gender-based violence.
How do you explain? You now mentioned 107 genders. How can you explain how many genders there are? I only know man and woman. Another thing is it appears that a man can be violent against another man.
A woman against a man can be violent, but a man against woman cannot be violent. In general, there should be no violence. Doesn't matter. Woman against man, man against woman, a grandpa against a grandson. Why do you say that one type of violence is good and another type of violence is bad?
Speaker 21
Thank you. I'd like to thank the petitioners for being here, and I'd like to apologize for what my colleague from the socialist group said, because I know that every day you're out in the streets protecting everybody's rights, men, women, people who are victims of abuse, and you should not have to listen to words which could be construed as offensive or which are unacceptable. And, therefore, I apologize for that. So, Sandra, the issue is that you should be polite enough to listen to what I'm saying. There can be reports and complaints that are submitted to the police.
They can affect any gender. Men can abuse women. Women, men can abuse men. Women can abuse women. And it's not something that does not affect your party, might I say.
This sort of abuse or mistreatment, offense or insulting. And here, you come doing exactly that to a member of our magnificent police force, saying that there isn't enough focus on women's rights. Well, Miss Montero has been saying this for years. And what has actually happened in reality? The models which your government has been implementing are simply defective.
And the so-called experts who are supposed to be helping women are in online call centers thousands of miles away, and they're not properly trained to give the support on these helplines. So what use is that? The directive on victims' rights and victim protection is not being enforced because the victims are continuing to suffer abuses of their rights. And indeed, the RRF, in this aspect anyway, has been a disaster. And we certainly must keep this petition open, and we must continue to investigate what is happening.
Sandra Gómez López
Chairman, could you please ensure that it is minuted that I'm not apologizing for what I said. I was making references to provisions in the rules. I did not make any offensive comments vis-à-vis any colleagues or anybody present in the meeting. So please could you have this minute and make sure that this point of order is well noted. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Please, can I ask you to respect the members? There is no dialogue possible at this point. And now I give the floor to Mrs. Novelda de Campo. Thank.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'd like to try to put things in context. We're not here debating just any petition. Therefore, I'd like to thank the petitioners for their presentations. They have provided figures and data and objective facts that really should be the focus of the petty committee.
This is not a party-political fight. No. We're trying to look into the misuse of EU funds that have been spent on Chinese products, and I'm sorry that I have to say it so bluntly. This is one of the biggest failures of Spain's feminist government with this whole story of anti-abuse electronic bracelets. Eighteen years, eighteen years service free service has been provided around gender-based violence, male violence.
And when you make the claims here, you should think about this, because gender-based violence and male violence exist, and it kills women. And what's worse, it kills women in the name of love, and I have experienced this firsthand. This committee cannot turn a blind eye when a system is being funded with EU money, a system that's supposed to protect vulnerable people, and the government of Spain could have recognized its error. It could have apologized to the victims. It could have tried to remedy the situation, and then things would have been different.
But instead, what did it do? It tried to hide the truth. It tried to distort data, and they tried to provide incomplete information. And there was the approval of the least feminist minister in the history of Spain because this government has been incompetent, and there has been scandal after scandal, and we've seen so many people's sentences being reduced. We need to act.
This is what the commission was saying. And I'm very happy with what I heard because it'd be very good if the commission could look into this issue, and the EPP would therefore like to ask for this petition to be kept open. Thank.
Speaker 1
you. Well, I'd like to thank the petitioners. And what has emerged from the debate is that this is a position which must remain open, and we will ask for a written response from the commission. Next petition. It will be presented by our Chairman, President, Mr. Zonza.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 45
Chairman. You haven't given the floor to the petitioners to respond. You have to do that. Court order, please. Point of order.
Speaker 32
Have a point of order. Before closing the petition, the petitioners need to be given the floor again. In any case, what the previous chairman was saying was that the petition would be kept open, that we would send a letter to the Commission. And I also said that a letter should be sent to the Spanish authorities, but I think this petition should be given the floor first.
Bogdan Rzońca
Okay. We have a problem because our time is limited. We have to discuss Item 25 now, following petition. We've got interpreters helping us, and we have problems to discuss the petitions that are still left. The previous petition has been discussed, has been closed.
Item 24, petitioned 13 42 25 by an Italian citizen on alleged violations of GDPR in Sweden.
Elena Nevado del Campo
All of the members of the EPP here and the other political groups want the decision to not give the floor to the petitioners to be subject to a vote. One minute for each speaker, and that will close the petition. Thank you very much, Chairman. I'll be very brief. Now I'd like to recall some articles from the charter.
Speaker 26
One, human life is unassailable. Two, everyone has the right to life. Three, everyone has the right for its physical and mental integrity to be respected. 6, everyone has the right to freedom and personal security. 47, everyone has right to effective legal protection.
The commission cannot turn a blind eye. The commission has the duty to look at the fundamental rights that have been breached. And when it comes to the member of the socialists who fled the room so quickly, I'd like to respond to her and her group. I am not happy. It's not because I am ideological or sectarian like them.
No. This is about concerns for the victims. And she may say that they're protecting victims, but what they're actually doing is releasing sex offenders, and this leaves victims unprotected. The police in Spain will always protect victims, and we will come here as many times as necessary. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for making this possible. I would also like to say two things to the member of the Socialist group. I have been the victim of 7 false accusations of misuse. My mother was attacked herself, a member of the socialist party, used public funds to destroy the lives of my family.
And the Socialist Party approved this law, but we have seen many reports, but many people were then considered innocent. Now all this has been done with this law on the bracelets is leave many victims unprotected. Thank you.
Okay.
Bogdan Rzońca
Okay. Thank you very much. Let's discuss the next petition. I would like to warn you, UMAPs, that we have a very limited time. We still have six petitions, and I would like to discuss them all nicely.
So please mind me, mind what our role is. I will be limiting your speaking time so that, with the support of our interpreters, we can finish on time because interpreters might simply leave us at a certain point and we will be left with a problem. So Item 25, Petition 1340, 2025 by an Italian citizen on alleged violations of GDPR in Sweden. The petitioner is connected remotely. I would like to give them the floor.
Please connect him.
Speaker 48
Honorable chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address you today. I'm here to draw your attention to a series and ongoing issue regarding the public exposure of personal data in Sweden. Several Swedish websites openly publish sensitive information about citizens and residents, and this information includes full names, addresses, age, dates of birth, telephone numbers, household composition, income, and profession. This website operates under a publisher license, which allows them to claim exemption from the general data protection regulation based on Swedish press freedoms. However, these platforms are not traditional news media.
They are commercial data aggregation services that profit from publicly displaying personal data, indexed and researchable by anyone worldwide. This situation carries significant risks. The publication of personal information without consent exposes individuals to identity harassment, stalking, and other forms of abuse. It also prevents effective remedies. Requests for removal are often denied, or temporary, or difficult to implement, particularly to foreigners.
This exposure is not abstract. It carries real risks. To give one personal example, I composed music, and some days after a local concert where my name appeared in the program, I discovered someone had waited near my home to congratulate me. This encounter, innocent as it might seem, shows how easily publicly available personal data can allow strangers to find you in the real world. The implications go far.
Bogdan Rzońca
Beyond Mister Kotishion, I have a short question for you because you should present your opinion a little bit slower because the translator has a big problem.
Yes, please continue.
Speaker 48
This is about household members may reveal sexual orientation, putting individuals, particularly foreign residents from countries where certain orientations are not respected, at risk of harassment or even violence. The implications go far beyond inconvenience. Publishing date of birth and age can lead to ageism or discrimination in employment and beyond. Information about one's professional income can unfairly influence salary negotiations. For some, exposure of their home address could be dangerous due to personal or domestic circumstances they have tried to leave behind.
Even after starting a new life in Sweden, they remain vulnerable because this information is publicly accessible. The GDPR was designed to protect the privacy and personal data of all EU citizens. Sweden's blanket exemption for this website raises questions about compliance with the EU law and the charter of fundamental rights. It effectively undermines the right to privacy and data protection, leaving citizens and residents vulnerable. I respectfully request that the committee and the European Parliament investigate whether Sweden's implementation of the exemption violates EU data protection law, assess whether these platforms are abusing the exemption to avoid GDPR compliance, ensure that all residents and citizens have equal and easy access to the removal of their personal data, and consider whether guidance or legislative reform is necessary to safeguard the privacy rights of the EU citizens.
In conclusion, this is not a theoretical risk. It is a real and ongoing threat to the privacy, safety, and dignity of many people living in Sweden. I urge the committee and the European Parliament to address these as soon as possible, ensuring that the fundamental rights are respected in practice and not just in law. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 49
Thank you. The questions on the certificate of no legal impediment to publication called Utrechiefenings Pewiss, as the petitioner has described in his presentation, are primarily related to the implementation of Article 85 of the General Data Protection Regulation. This requires member states to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression and information. It is not an easy task. It's a sensitive issue for the member states.
As was described, the Swedish Data Protection Act in this Chapter one, Section seven, provides that the general data protection regulation and then that act shall not apply where this would breach the Freedom of the Press Act or the fundamental law on freedom of expression. In 2003, this so-called constitutional protection for freedom of expression has been extended to private sector companies, which are managing publicly available search services on which information is provided, which either was published by public authorities or requested from public authorities by those companies. This information is then made available either for free or against payment. And for doing this, the companies need this certificate, certificate of no legal impediment to publication. This extension of the so-called constitution protection was introduced to adapt to technological developments and to promote new forms of mass media activity.
The commission services are in contact with the Swedish authorities to discuss how Article 85 of the General Data Protection Regulation has been implemented in Sweden and, in particular, on the issue of this Giffenix Pervis. Before going to the developments on the national level, I would like to inform you on the pending preliminary.
question,
Speaker 49
c 199 24, on that issue. In April 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union received a preliminary question from a Swedish court. Several issues in relation to this topic will be clarified during the procedure. For example, the rights of data subjects. The opinion of the advocate general was delivered on September 4.
According to the Advocate General, Article 85 of the GDPR does not provide a legal basis for member states to declare the entire General Data Protection Regulation to be inapplicable. It says that article 85.2 allows member states to provide exemptions or derogations from certain chapters only for journalistic purposes. And the advocate general also questions whether the activity of operating these databases should be considered to be carried out for journalistic purposes. The case is still pending now, and so far, the date of the judgment has not been communicated to the commission services. Then on the developments at national level, the risk of conflict of this scheme with the right to data protection has been examined by different Swedish parliamentary committees.
Also, to the discussions between commission services and the Swedish authorities, national law was amended already to limit this protection concerning the publishing of certain sensitive data, particularly health data. Then the effect would be then the GDPR and the Swedish Data Protection Law is applicable to that data processing. And the Swedish Data Protection Authority would also be, or is also, competent supervisory authority. A further reform concerning data relating to criminal convictions and offenses failed in the Swedish parliament in 22. In October 2023, the Swedish government appointed a special investigator to review this topic.
The aim is to strengthen the protection of privacy when personal data are published by such search services. The investigation report was delivered in October 2024 and analyzes the issue, and presents different approaches for reforming the Freedom of the Press Act and the fundamental law on freedom of expression. The commission services understand that the Swedish authorities now recognize the need for reform of the rules. Also, in view of some recent national judgments, the Swedish Data Protection Authority considers itself now competent for some of this data. However, the Swedish authorities want to wait for the judgment before finalizing their firm project.
And to conclude, I would like to stress that the commission services will continue to follow closely the developments at national level. We'll continue the dialogue and then decide on the possible next steps, taking into account, in particular, also the judgment of the European court. Thank you.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you very much. Just very briefly, I listened to the petitioner. Thank you very much to him for his work and his petition. Now we've had explanations from the commission, which I think can reassure the petitioner because of this potential breach of the GDPR and the charter fundamental rights of the EU. Therefore, we would like to ask for the petition to be kept open, because the freedom of press is fundamental in democracy.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much, chairman. Thank you to the petitioner for his presentation. Unfortunately, I didn't hear all of it. I don't have any particular comments, but we would like this petition to remain open.
Speaker 53
Thank you, Raj. Mister Kobosko, renew. Very briefly, Mister Chair, we would like to keep this petition open. Thank you. Excellent.
Gesulis, the floor is yours. I
Speaker 39
Don't know whether we should add the facts from my country, Lithuania, to this petition. Two weeks ago, more than 10 people had their personal account numbers published on the Internet. The sums of money they had, how much money they paid into the account, what payments have been made. And numerous portals have published this information. I think this is a grave violation, and I would address the committee of the petitions to add these violations happening in Lithuania. I went to the prosecutor general and other institutions.
They have remained silent. I think that this is a grave violation when the private account numbers and the sum of money people have are published on the internet.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much for leaving the petition open and for letting me address this topic. I wish for the future that the solution will come and will come soon, because as it was mentioned before by the members of the committee who intervene, it has been going on for a long time, and no solution appears close. It is always postponed, so I'm glad that the petition will be open to monitor on this. Thank you.
Thank.
Bogdan Rzońca
thank you very much. So the petition will remain open. We're waiting for the response from the commission. And there will be a letter. Yes?
Okay. So we're only waiting for the response from the European Commission. Item 26, Petition 10-3-20 25 by Valeritz Zepkalo from Belarus on behalf of the Belarus Democratic Forum on alleged human rights violations involving Raiffeisenbank in Belarus. The petitioner is present in the meeting room. Is that correct?
Yes. So I would like to give you the floor.
Speaker 54
Mister chairman, dear honorable members of the European Parliament, my name is Valerii Sapkala. I used to be Belarus ambassador to the United States. Later, I created the largest IT park in Central and Eastern Europe with 75,000 software engineers who played an important role in 2020 events. And in 2020, I was running for the president and I was a front runner, collected the second record number of signatures for my endorsement. And for this reason, I was banned from running further, and I was convicted for 17 years in prison by the Lukashenko regime.
Later on, I helped create a famous female trio. I made a phone call to Maria Kolesnikova when Viktor Bobarika was sitting in prison, and I asked her to support Svetlana Tihanovskaya who didn't have any team inside the country and who didn't have any resources to continue the campaign and who was unable to organize even a single rally in Belarus. And I also asked my wife and my team to endorse and to support the only remaining candidates on the list of the presidential candidates. However, I would like to speak not about this issue, but about the complicity of Raiffeisen Bank in the territory of Belarus and its actions or inactions, because you understand that neutrality in certain issues means compliance rather than being just neutral. For those of us who are not aware of Raiffeisen Bank, I would like just to give you a couple of figures.
Raiffeisen Bank is the only European bank that continues to stay in Russia. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Raiffeisen bank paid €2,000,000,000 to the Russian state budget to support the Russian efforts to continue the war. Raiffeisen Bank is considered by Forbes Magazine among the three top Russian systemic banks because through this bank, you may not be aware of that, but from 50 to 60 and in certain aspects up to 70% of the trade of Russian external trade turnover is served by Raiffeisen Bank. I do that. I would like just you to note that it's not Chinese bank, not the banks from Singapore, not the banks from India or from any other jurisdiction, but the bank from the European Union serves up to 70% of all Russian international trade turnover.
Not only with Europe, but all over the world. You may also not know that, refising makes more profit from the Russian market than 12 its affiliation in Europe combined. It means that it's in fact a Russian bank. However, this bank remains untouched and we had just a very interesting discussion during the last Charlemagne Prize meeting with Maria Lui Albuquerque, who is CEO Commissioner on Finance. I asked her why this happens and, she explained me that, it was because revising helps to fight with potential famine, with potential starvation in the Russian market, and with the lack of medical equipment and medicines in pharmaceutical products on the Russian market.
I later checked and it appeared to be not very correct information, maybe she was deluded by someone, by Raiffeisen probably, because Raiffeisen was also there. Rayfizen, as you are probably aware, is the major sponsor of Charlemagne prize. And they believe that because for the first time in their 75 years of history of Charlemagne prize, they gave a financial award to Mrs. Madame Ursula von der Leyen for over €1,000,000. They may believe that this financial reward makes them immune from being persecuted for being subject to sanctions. But you know, just my presentation and my petition is not about right-sizing.
My petition is about whether European laws apply equally to everyone, or it's like in a famous story that some corporations or some individuals may be more equal than others. I can give you an example that you know, just all Russian banks.
Speaker 54
Yeah. Yeah. Well, just a simple conclusion. Simple conclusion is that I would like to keep the petition open. I would like the European Parliament to consider whether European laws are applied equally to all the companies or the exceptions, and whether this is tolerable when we can hear on the highest level that you are thinking about fighting against imposing sanctions and continuing efforts to finish the war in Ukraine.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Now.
I'd like to give the floor to a representative of DG Just. Five minutes.
Speaker 58
Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to intervene. As the petition makes clear, the petitioner has called on the commission to consider institutional responses, including sanctions and legal review under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, and the EU global human rights sanctions regime. And if you allow me, I just briefly address each of them in turn.
Speaker 56
As was explained earlier today by commission colleagues, the application of the EU charter of fundamental rights is only triggered in cases that involve the implementation of EU law, and the application in the relationship between private entities raises additional questions. So based on the circumstances that have been presented in the petition, which is directed against Raiffeisenbank International as a private entity, it is not clear how the charter could become relevant in that case. That said, when it comes to ensuring respect by companies for human rights, the EU has recently put in place a legal framework that specifically addresses this important objective. That is the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, shortly called the CSDD. It requires companies that fall within its scope to identify and address adverse human rights impacts in their own operations, but also in the operations of their subsidiaries and in their value chains, and it provides for a public enforcement regime and a private enforcement regime through effective remedies and compensation.
The human rights covered are, for instance, the prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with a person's privacy, family, or home, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and the right to liberty. However, while the directive is already enforced, it is not yet applicable. In fact, following recent changes through the so-called omnibus initiative, member states have until July 2028 to transpose the directive into international law, and it will only become applicable one year later to companies, so from July 2029. So, unfortunately, it is not yet possible for victims of human rights abuse to rely on the directive or the national law transposing it before supervisory authorities or courts. As for the EU global human rights sanctions regime, it targets serious human rights violations and abuses wherever they occur, so globally, and it applies to state and non-state actors with the possibility to also address entities associated with the main perpetrators.
Speaker 57
This regime in the form of the European Union, Belarus sanctions regime and the council regulation 765 of 2006 has already been used to target individuals and entities responsible for or involved in repression and intimidation, human rights violations, and the undermining of democratic processes and the rule of law in Belarus. Currently, this includes 310 sanctioned individuals, including Alexander Lukashenko and his son and national security adviser Viktor Lukashenko, as well as other high-ranking officials, the prosecutor general, and members of the judiciary. It also includes 46 sanctioned entities, including companies benefiting from or supporting the Belarusian regime. The measures include travel bans, asset freezes, and the prohibition to make funds or economic resources available to listed individuals and entities. It is important to note, though, that this is not an instrument that is in the hands of the commission.
Speaker 56
It falls exclusively under the authority of the Council of the European Union. The current measures against Belarus were last extended until February 2027, and it would be for the council to eventually extend them further, including in terms of the individuals and entities covered. So that would be what I can say from the commission side, and that's said, I think losing one's home, especially for a family with underage children as is explained in the petition, is extremely serious, and using it as a means of intimidation and repression is utterly reprehensible. And so I hope, there will be a day when this wrong is remedied. Thank you.
Thank.
Thank you very much.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you, chairman, and thank you very much for the presentation to the petitioner. I think this is a petition which must remain open.
Speaker 53
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the offer of the petition, mister ambassador Tsirkawa, for offering this petition on such appalling issue. We are discussing a petition, which is not something theoretical. It's not something marginal. It's a petition which touches a very concrete financing mechanism, thanks to which funds are flowing into structures which are responsible for terror, state terrorism, breaking human rights and persecution in Belarus, and also financing activities related to activities of Russia.
This also has been discussed one day before the day of solidarity with Belarus. And we have to remind ourselves about the solidarity with Belarus and the Shuku is fighting for democracy in France. And that solidarity has to be real and not symbolic. Why is it so important? Sanctions by themselves are not efficient if they are not accompanied by mechanisms of execution and responsibility by the member states of the EU and institutions of the EU.
And differently than what was done recently by the United States, the EU should not tolerate, should not withdraw sanctions against authoritarian regimes. On the contrary, we have to be even more consistent in our actions. And it is not a political narrative, it's a test of the credibility of the European Union. If the institutions of the European Union, with seat in the European Union, through the commercial activity, strengthen regimes who are responsible for terrorism against all citizens. That means our legal and political instruments have to be strengthened.
The European Union has centrism mechanisms which will ensure real responsibility for the financing of regimes breaking human rights. We have to ensure support for the democratic forces in Belarus, including the cabinet of Madame Chikhanovska, through real political, financial, and diplomatic instruments. So ladies and gentlemen, this petition is not just an analysis of the past, it's also a warning. What may happen if the EU will not face its challenge, will not build a real mechanism of protecting its values that we all declare as valid. So on behalf of Europe, I would like to ask for this petition to remain open.
Speaker 39
I have been shocked by this information, which showed total hypocrisy of the EU. All the banks, European banks, are banned from working with Russia, and one bank is allowed to do it. How do you evaluate this? Who do you support, Russia or Ukraine? Answer me, the ruling coalition.
Speaker 38
Why do you allow the biggest bank from Austria to work for more than four years with Russia? Where are the sanctions? Half 1,000,000,000.
Speaker 38
profits from financing trades of Russia. You are hypocrites. This bank has to be closed immediately. Maybe somebody also profits from that. Can you answer yourselves?
Bogdan Rzońca
Okay. Thank you. We are going back to the Mr. Petitioner. One minute. One minute.
Speaker 54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to explain its application only in relation to Belarus. But it touches me also personally because Raiffeisen Bank delivered voluntarily without using any available mechanism. My house was the only house where I had two small children, you know, they delivered it to the Lukashenko regime without using any protective measures that are required for the European Financial Institution to observe according to OECD, according to the EU, United Nations, and other instruments and other regulations. And, the very strange what happened with Raiffeisen Bank, how they exited the Belarus market because they sold its affiliation to a company that consists of only one person who used to work for the firm that worked for the Lukashenko family and who was in fact very close to Lukashenko family.
They service this family. So you know, this is just about the sanctions about Lukashenko family members. You know, they somehow reached an agreement on how to cleanly exit Belarus market. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. The petition will remain open. The petition remains open, and we'll be waiting for a written answer from the European Commission. We still don't have it. So the matter will be proceeded.
Item 27, Petition 11-49-24 by Salvador Galva Martin, a Spanish national, on behalf of the European Alliance Corridores on railway crossing of The Pyrenees with high performance through the construction of the Low Peak Tunnel in Spain, and the Petition 18-18-20-25 by Federico Aranaga Alvarez, a Spanish national, on behalf of Allianz Europoadores on the inclusion of the Central Pyrenees railway crossing in the indicative list to the proposed CEF regulation connecting room facility. The petitions of the authors of the petitions, are they present in the room?
Speaker 60
Thank you, chairman. I'm Ignacio Aronarowiti, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Corridoris EU European Alliance. I'd like to thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to present this petition to you on the high performance railway link on the Lope Peak Tunnel in Spain. The European Union has identified rail as a vital means of sustainable transport, high volume, and sustainable and economic transport. Sustainability is extremely important, and the European rail network is absolutely essential in terms of accessibility, intermodal connections, goods, and passenger transport. So that the system can continue to be as effective as it is and to improve still further its system and its offer, it needs to have a comprehensive network.
We already have a network. We have a lot of interconnections where lines cross, and connections are possible. This needs to be a coherent network. We're talking, of course, of a continent-wide network, which exists only in part as yet, although it is comparatively far-reaching, not least because of the efforts of the European institutions. We therefore want to see this railway network rolled out still further, and we have identified some priority corridors, which we would like to see in place, and we would like them prioritized so that no short-term interest, pragmatic or otherwise, could hold them up.
As far as we're concerned on the Iberian Peninsula, it's very important that we achieve certain connections. We feel that there isn't enough trans-European planning for passenger or goods traffic. For the Iberian Peninsula, it is not possible to have enough choice of routes to get to the rest of continental Europe. It's really important that the construction and improvement of infrastructure are assured so that these infrastructures can provide the service that we want to see. We therefore need the planning, and we need the structures, and we need the European standards to be guaranteed, so that there are no technical impediments to having a comprehensive rail network.
We also need to have comprehensive networks with a view to ensuring that we have a network which operates reliably, sustainably, has alternatives in cases of incidents, and provides the service that the passengers require. We feel that there isn't enough geographic vision in the planning by the authorities responsible for railway networks. And so the objective here is to build on our observation that there are inadequate border crossings between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of the continent. We have two at either end of the Pernice, one Perpignan end and one Irun end. But passengers and goods need to have more options, and there need to be other places where the border can be crossed.
Therefore, a low-level base tunnel would be an asset to the whole Trans European Railway Network. It would be possible to integrate it into the comprehensive network across the continent and ensure a high-speed link, which would complement the Algreteras at Sarcosa in Madrid links and other Central European links. So this would be available both for goods and for passengers. It was previously identified as one of the priority investments for February by the European Parliament. And there was also a 2010 part petition on the objectives for developing a European trans comprehensive transport network.
The regulation and the decision from 2010 have not yet actually provided us with the comprehensive network that we aspire to see. Unlike some of the priority projects which have been funded, these railway connection projects, the Trans European across the Pyrenees, have not been prioritized. And therefore, we need to see a change in this. And we need to see this base tunnel, which is absolutely key to guaranteeing the completion of the European transport railway network. The Spanish and the French governments have already collaborated on this, but at the moment, there's no structured planning in place, and certainly no time frame.
And the hope would therefore be that technical studies and planning and construction work would get underway before too long, in order to ensure that we can actually deliver this network. In conclusion, the third point is that, of course, we need to ensure that the time frame of the project identified is a tier two. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Thank you. I should have a PowerPoint. Thank you very much indeed, chairman. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present this project of the inclusion of the Central Pyrenean Railway crossing. You will see that the railway crossing across the Pyrenees is restricted to two railway crossings at either end of the Pyrenees, one at Hirona Nendaya and the other at Porboo Seva.
In order to have a resilient and redundant network, we need to overcome the bottlenecks in the CET network, which the Pyrenees constitute. The Alpine crossing has a number of different crossings, and therefore is resilient and has complied with the principle of redundancy. But where the Pyrenees are concerned, there are only two crossings. We therefore need to have a base tunnel connection, which would be a strategic addition to the European transport network, integrated into a European network, which would enable a cross-border railway to be built in the center of the Pyrenees. It would complete the Agadiras Sinha's Madrid Sarawatta Toulouse network, and facilitate comprehensive connections with Northern and Central Europe.
Would make it possible to encourage transfer of goods from the roads to the rail, and this in Spain and in France. The TCP is not just intended for goods transport. However, it is also intended to facilitate passenger transport. The Ukraine war has also shown us that we need to invest in dual-use infrastructure so that we can enable rapid, large-scale mobility of troops, equipment, and supplies across Europe. So the TCP is not just a piece of transport infrastructure, but also an investment in European defense and security.
It would provide a direct, secure railway crossing between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Europe. The recent disruptions in Catalonia have shown the lack of alternatives. If there's an incident such as a natural disaster or sabotage or whatever, there can be a complete stop on goods transport, freight flows, and it impinges considerably on strategic mobility. Therefore, a high capacity rail network needs to have this redundancy built into the resilient network. Resilience is key.
It therefore means that you need to have viable alternatives in case of incidents. So we have to recognize that climate considerations and many other factors can all take their toll on railway connections. At the moment, if there is one line affected, there is really no strategic mobility possible and no viable railway connection, no adequate railway connections between Spain and France across the Pyrenees. We need, therefore, to have a much more resilient infrastructure. This is particularly important in the context of the future CEF regulation.
The European Commission has already said that the current transport infrastructure is insufficient and is not suited to support a deployment of troops, equipment or heavy material, which is necessary for European security. The CEF regulation has identified cross-border sections at military mobility, dual-use infrastructure, synergies in transport and energy, telecoms as priorities, and the TCP complies with all these. It's a matter of strategic, legal, and budgetary coherence that this investment be assured. Therefore, it is a priority that this network be completed. We're just asking it to be included in the CF annex as an indicative list of dual use cross-border rail sections, and it should be proposed for further structural studies, plans, and infrastructural recommendations so that it can be built.
The European Union has recognized how important it is to ensure that its railway is resilient, that we can guarantee mobile military mobility. And, the TCB should be in the annex of the CEF regulation, in the interest of strategic coherence and a comprehensive network. So for all these reasons, we want it included in the TCP annex of the CEF regulation. And, if not in that, then through a delegated act. Thank you.
DG Muf.
Speaker 63
Thank you, chair. We would like to thank Mister Galve Martin and Mister Aranaga Alvarez of Corridores. T u, European Alliance, for their petitions and for the presentations today. We recognize the importance of the Central Pyrenean railway crossing project for competitiveness in Spain and in France, and the EU in general, and its relevance for modal shift and for military civilian dual use. So the petitioner's request is basically a certain political and financial push for the project, and also the inclusion in the annex of the next CEF regulation, connecting Europe facility regulation for the period 2028-2034.
Speaker 64
So the inclusion in the annex, which is an indicative list of transport infrastructure projects with a cross-border dimension. We provided replies to both petitions recently. And concerning the petitions specifically, we would like to just have a word of background to say that the Connecting Europe Facility is the main EU funding instrument for transport infrastructure projects located on the Trans European Transport Network. And CEF funding is oriented to EU added-value projects of common interest on the TNT. The TNT network has several layers, basically, core network, the extended core network, and the comprehensive network, depending on their priority and on the completion target date.
Speaker 63
The Central Pyrenean railway crossing project is located on the Tenti comprehensive network, which the member states have committed to complete by 2050. And so the petitioners will understand, and they mentioned this in their presentation, that the project is of lower priority in a sense as compared with projects which are located on the TNT core network, whose completion target date is 2030. So the target date is approaching very quickly. Now in terms of the first petition, so on the completion of the 10 t between Spain and France, the priorities are the core network connections. So, basically, the GPSO, which is the Grand Projet De Sud Ouest, on the Atlantic Corridor, notably the Dax and Dia section, and the Montpellier, Perpignan, and over to Barcelona section on the Mediterranean Corridor.
Concerning the second petition, so, basically, the commission's CEF three proposal already includes in its annex on indicative projects with a cross border dimension, three connections between Spain and France, two connections on the core network, which is basically Bordeaux Burgos on the Atlantic Corridor and Montpellier, Perpignan, Barcelona, Valencia on the Mediterranean Corridor, and one connection on the comprehensive TEN-T network, which is. And so we would like just to make a couple of considerations to finish. We would like to emphasize that the list in the annex of the CEF 3 proposal is purely indicative and does not establish a priority for CEF funding in the future. You may know that following the commission's proposal, the council in December 2025 adopted what they called a partial general approach concerning the commission's proposal. This is basically the council's mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament, which are ongoing.
The council approved some limited modifications to the commission's proposal, but still, the present annex does not include the Central Pyrenean railway crossing project. Now, discussions, as I said, are ongoing between the council, parliament, and commission. And in the context of the decision-making process, the European Parliament will be able to contribute to the proposal, to the final text of the regulation. And if they deem it necessary, they may propose this project for the annex of the regulation. Thank you, chair.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Thank you so much. I would like to remind you that you have a very limited time. We have short comments from your side. Yes, now close open.
Okay?
Thank.
Speaker 65
you. I'd like to thank the petitioners for all the work that they've done and all the effort that they've made to bring this topic to us. This is a very serious and very vital complementary petition. This is a real corridor, which is a critical piece of infrastructure. The EU already said in 2004 that it was critical infrastructure.
It's part of the transport TNT, but for all kinds of political reasons, it was pushed down the priority list in 2011. But given the new geopolitical realities that we have, it's clearer than ever that the base tunnel under the Pyrenees decision is one which has absolutely got to go right up to the top of the priority list. It will improve the connectivity of Spain and Portugal with the rest of the European Union, cut costs, cut the risk of accidents, and make a very positive contribution to defense mobility, security, and energy transportation throughout the EU. So in short, it's key to decarbonizing transport, and it's key to achieving the 30% modal share, which has been agreed on for rail. We're talking about 15,000 lorries in Uncara and large numbers also in Dia, and they could also all be replaced by real.
The commission therefore needs to fund and support the technical studies so that they can be done as quickly as possible, and so that by 2050, we actually do have this very vital railway in place and in operation. The petitions are consistent, coherent, ambitious, but realistic, and the commission can't start distracting itself with other alternatives for the base tunnel. It needs to get to grips with these and get them implemented. They're excellent. They're complementary.
Speaker 66
They're vital. And, otherwise, we're going to fall behind the commitments that we've already made in terms of security and defense commitments to the other members of the European Union. Therefore, they need to be mentioned explicitly in the annex of the future mechanism for Europe. Thank you.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
answer. Thank.
Thank you very much, chairman. We're talking about an extremely important project. It's a priority to enhance the connections across borders for climate, mobility, and military purposes. And, therefore, this would be a dual use, both military and civil, project, and it would have a big impact structurally on speeding up and improving cross-border mobility. It would be an excellent rail corridor, fully aligned with European objectives in defense.
It would enable much shorter journeys to be achieved across the border, and it would also provide greater volume for diversification of passenger, civil, military, and goods transport. It's absolutely vital that there is a link across the center of the Pyrenees, because the other two coastal crossings are under a lot of pressure. So this link would enhance our strategic autonomy and would be a vital contribution to the NATO structures. From a technological point of view, it would also be very important because the tunnel would enable us to install secure fiber optics for surveillance and control, telecoms, and resilience operations. This would be a digital connection too between member states and would enhance cooperation functions in cases of stress or crisis in the system.
Therefore, it would be so important from a transport connectivity, digital connectivity point of view. And, therefore, it's vital that the requisite studies are implemented as soon as possible so that this route having been designated is actually built.
Thank you.
Speaker 70
Thank you very much from me too to the petitioners. Thank you very much for bringing these two petitions to us. This is an absolutely vital route. VOXX has always said that the central route across the Pyrenees is absolutely critical to bring Spain, Portugal, and France together. Saragossa, Paris, is a very vital link.
We can tackle the challenges and difficulties of linking the Atlantic and the Mediterranean countries with this link. We can overcome many vulnerabilities, provide for the transport of goods and people, and more. I think we've seen that as of now, we should have this connection. This makes it all the more important for the future to have energy, for civilian, for military points of view, for Spain, for Europe, and for Portugal. So there is no reason not to embark on the construction of this project immediately, and we regret very much that the Spanish socialist government has not put forward any constructive proposals here.
There are no plans or strategy. There are no structural studies. Pedro Sanchez has done less than nothing on this. He's just shacked up in Montclair, making the most of his impunity and failing to do anything useful. We've already seen tragedy on our railway lines because of his inaction.
Therefore, this could be extremely useful. We could see what the roads are like in Spain, how bad the rails are. They're both in a terrible condition. It's taking a big toll on our economy and on security. So this central corridor would offer full communication and connectivity of telecoms for the military, for goods.
And the study that was done in 2008 and was extended in 2014 really has got to be ruled out now, because it's been paralyzed for far too long. It may look self-evident, but the reality is it's more than high time that we overcame the party partisan interests of certain parties. I'm concluding. I'm concluding. So we want the petition to remain open, and we want the central connecting base tunnel to be part of the annex to the CCT next budget.
And we want SEDI and Tran to be associated with further work on this in line with articles one through three of the parliament's rules. Thank you.
The office with the petition.
Okay. So I'll start.
Speaker 71
And therefore, we have to recognize this strategic role with a double-use corridor, civil and military. However, we shouldn't force the situation in the Iberian Peninsula. In the geopolitical, which is extremely difficult, we have to have a robust situation in place. And therefore, having this capacity, having this third solution will reduce dependence on the existing links. Apart from the corridor, it's very important to have energy links.
These are critical. And fulfill the geostrategic priorities of the European Union in terms of the energy transition and in defense. So in the Pyrenees, this would not simply be an infrastructure issue, but would be a strategic investment for all of Europe. It would help industrial competitiveness and give a response in the European Union for the future. So this area must be included in the CEF to have a transborder link with double use.
Speaker 72
And this would be an infrastructure for all of Europe. So we want this petition to remain open because of this strategic issue.
Bogdan Rzońca
So the petition remains open. Petition will be kept open. You have used your time. Everything is clear. Everybody who took the floor supported your idea.
So this is why the petition remains open, and we'll be waiting for a reply from the European Commission. So congratulations to the authors. Congratulations to this initiative because it was supported by all the political groups. And unfortunately, we need to discuss the next petition. Thank you very much, gentlemen and the lady, for your statements and for the comments.
Item 28, Petition thirteen twenty one twenty 20 you to.
next ask.
UNIDENTIFIED
Speaker 74
Team Chairman, honorable members, representatives of the European Commission, thank you very much for once again giving us the opportunity to speak here in this house. And a special greeting to all of those who are following us online from Seville and its metropolitan area. I'd like to start with a specific case. Mateo is a student of medicine who's 22 years old. He is a student of mine.
He lives only 15 kilometers from Seville, just 15 kilometers. To be able to get to class, which starts at 8 AM sharp, he needs to get up quite a bit before 6 AM. And this is not a huge distance. This is a daily reality, which is the result of the fact that Seville is unique. It's an exception in Europe because it's the only metropolitan area of its size that does not have a metro network.
This uniqueness limits the study opportunities. It makes it hard to access opportunities, and it may also affect work and the quality of life. And today, to a large extent, we are here for people like Patel because at its core, what we are talking about is equipping a metropolitan area with infrastructure that it's lacking, a metro network which is needed so that we can have equal opportunities. And that is why I'm here today. Matteo's story is, at its core, an issue of timing, urgency, the timeline, the timing of funding, and political timing.
And to be clear, there is a solution, but we are running out of time. And when it comes to the timeline, first of all, thanks to ERDF funds, the northern stretch of Line 3 of the civil metro is already under construction. But if we want it to be operating by 2030, we need to speed up the following steps. 2026 is a decisive year. Secondly, funding.
Seville needs more European funding to build the metro network that we need for daily travel. What we receive now from Europe is not sufficient, and we have a very clear priority, line two, which will be built after line three. Line two will connect the east to the west of the city, crossing the historical center. But we need to have a feasibility study in advance of the designs because if we don't, it won't just lead to administrative delays. We could also run the risk of losing European funding.
And then, thirdly, political timing. This year, we will have regional elections in the Andalusian region in 2023. Local and general elections are planned in Spain. This is why it's important that this is formalized in advance, so we do not see uncertainty or delays. Now we would like to acknowledge the progress that's been made since we were last here two years ago.
And we're also grateful for the cooperation between all the institutions. Starting work on Line 3 North is an important step, but there are still some key elements outstanding. First of all, a commitment by the Spanish government to co-finance Line 2 and Line 3 South. Secondly, we also need to see the necessary designs finalized to continue. But there's something else we'd like to highlight.
Cohesion funds that have been allocated to our region are not enough to deal with the lack of infrastructure in our metropolitan area, which we have been suffering for decades. If we want to complete a metro network for a metropolitan area of more than 1,500,000 people, we will need to explore additional tools and new forms of funding, because the problem of the Seville Metro network is metropolitan, and the solution we need is a metropolitan one. Now I'd like to conclude by calling on the Andalusia government to speed up the drafting of designs needed to start work, especially on Line 2. Secondly, you called on the Spanish government to make the commitments for co-funding to develop the network, and then the European Commission to explore the possibility of using what's left of the ERDF from 2021 to 2027 and help Andalusia to identify all of the funding sources possible, commission. Andalusia needs EU funding, extra EU funding, to build its metro network.
We can't do it alone. And in this context, we call for the committee to keep this petition open and to actively monitor milestones during this very decisive year, because behind every deadline, tender and operational program, there are thousands of people like Matteo who simply need to get to university, to get to work and build their future in reasonable conditions. Thank you.
Speaker 76
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much to the petitioner. The commission recognizes the importance of the arguments that have been presented on previous occasions in this committee as well, and today. As you mentioned, the current ERDF program funds Line 3 North, that is an important large project, and we understand that there's been significant progress. We are monitoring that regularly and looking at its progress and implementation.
When it comes to the need for new funds, we'd like to recall that the ERDF programs and cohesion policy are managed under shared management. So the responsibility for selecting projects is down to the management authorities and the intermediaries, that is the Ministry for the Economy in Spain and the Government of Andalusia. So allocating funds within that period is up to those bodies. ERDF programs fund sustainable urban transport, but there are many different priorities because there are a whole range of priorities under these programs to develop our regions. And.
Speaker 76
The Line 2 and southern part of Line 3, we think it's a very good idea that you have mentioned. We need to ensure that these projects reach their maturity and that feasibility studies are carried out, so that very soon, they can also benefit from EU funding. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you very much. So now Zaida, EPP, brief statement.
Speaker 77
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'd like to start by thanking Manuel Alejandro and Luis Manuel, the petitioners. They have come here year after year, always asking for important infrastructure, vital for Seville. There's a long history of a lack of investment in Seville, and this goes back several decades. But in recent years, this has been a problem at the local, regional and European level.
Speaker 78
Many people in Seville think about children playing in the metro tunnels when the socialist government under Lucia stopped the project, and we saw no progress. Several years later, when I was mayor of the city, we wanted to develop the metro in Seville, but the economic crisis stopped us from doing so. And in recent years, we've seen a change. We've seen a different trend. We've seen 60% of Line 3 being under construction, as the petitioner reminded us, and this will benefit up to 120,000 people.
And there's also the connection with Alcala to the city of Seville, which will also benefit many thousands of people. Now this is a contrast to a more painful story. Seville is right at the bottom when it comes to investment in rail infrastructure by the Spanish government, with just EUR 215,000,000 since 2018. This is much less than the €1,400,000,000 that Valencia has received or what Barcelona has received, for example. To have a full Seville metro network should be above all party-political issues.
It's in everybody's interest to Seville. Completing the Seville metro network will not only improve hundreds of thousands of people's lives in Seville, it will also improve communication and the economic competitiveness of the CS Capital. And I conclude here, therefore, I think it's right to ask the European Union to keep investing. And in this sense, I would like to ask for this petition to be kept open. Thank you.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you very much to the petitioners. On behalf of the S and D group, we'd like to reiterate our support for this petition so that the city of Seville can have an adequate, modern metro network, which is adapted to sustainable transport needs. Now, obviously, it's not just about sustainable transport. It's also about ensuring equal access to sustainable infrastructure, investing in the region, reducing inequalities, and not leaving cities behind that, because of their size and relevance, should have much more efficient transport systems. Seville is one of the few European and Spanish cities that has 1,500,000 citizens in its metropolitan area, yet does not have a full metro network.
Furthermore, this petition is not only aligned with European priorities such as decarbonization, mobility, sustainable urban transport, and territorial cohesion. It's also aligned with the commitment for Seville to be climate neutral in 2030, to be part of the 100 cities in Europe. Therefore, we'd like to keep the petition open, and we call on the government of Andalusia to prioritize the funding of this work, to clarify the status of the work and the deadlines involved. And we'd like to ask the Spanish government, as it has done so far, to fund 50% of Line three, and that's also to the Ministry of Transport. And we call on the European Commission to continue supporting this project with technical monitoring, and looking at potential future use of ERDF programs and ensuring proper funding.
This project not only benefits those in Seville, it will also bolster territorial cohesion and social justice in Europe. Therefore, I call on the committee to demand an urgent, clear response from the commission to this petition to ensure that Seville can move towards a sustainable future. Thank you.
Thank.
thank you very much,
Speaker 79
And thank you. Welcome to the petitioners. Of course, I'm going to ask for this petition to remain open. But I'd also like to stress a number of grievances that Seville has suffered. Mr.
Seido was the mayor of Seville, then there aren't many explanations for that. We're talking about a metro network when Line 1 was planned in 1968, and then it was implemented in 2008. We saw it was 40 years. That was the original sin of this project. The execution of that should have been sped up. And so the north part of line three is under construction, but then line 2 hasn't been started.
And then we need 50% funding by the state and the government of Andalusia, but it turns out there aren't enough funds. 1,200,000,000 is needed to complete the work. And it seems that Andalusia has EUR 800,000,000 for the whole of Andalusia for the next seven years. So we need to clarify what the internal competencies are here. We need to separate that out.
But we have to remember that there is a European position, that is, that we cannot have a metropolitan area of 1,500,000 people that does not have proper rail infrastructure. I think that that's crucial. And obviously, then we see calls for low emission zones in all the cities, but we don't see proper transport networks. It's a complete contradiction. As a European Parliament, we need to think about this.
To what extent does this make sense? Obviously, people are forced to circumvent the center rather than go through the center. But what they're actually doing is they're condemning those who are being second class citizens. It's a fundamentally, you know, classist system. And then when it comes to the state budget, obviously, this is being addressed to the socialist member because we have a socialist government in Spain.
But then if we take into consideration the investment and the budget for infrastructure and the number of inhabitants, if we compare those two things, it is the community, the region with the least amount of funding. There's a series of problems that have all accumulated. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'll be very brief. You forgot about me. I'm from Seville. I have to talk about this.
In Seville, we have a metro line from 2009. Barcelona has 12. Valencia has nine. Getzeville, the fourth biggest city in Spain, but only has one. This is a disgrace.
But the problem is party-political. The average age of Andalusia is 37. And yet we've had the government, the PP in several, so the 37 years of socialist rule in Andalusia, and now we have the PP, but we still haven't seen progress here. And this is all party-political. We've had many traffic jams in Seville over the years, and now people simply want to get votes.
All I will ask for is the committee to keep this petition open. And every euro that is spent on mobility in Andalusia should be checked because it cannot depend on these two big parties. The party will be over in a few weeks when we have the regional election. Thank you very much to all the British groups for their sensitivity to this, to correct a historical error that has gone back generations in Seville. Androsia and Seville in particular need a future.
Speaker 74
We've had two years of work, but we need to see a change. And change is an opportunity. We need new ways to continue funding. We cannot stop this now because the return on investment is huge in terms of opportunities, in terms of transport, health, the environment, all these opportunities. Every single euro that's invested has a huge yield. And I would like to conclude by saying that we are not asking for special treatment.
No, we want a proportionate response to a case that is not standard whatsoever. Thank you very much.
Bogdan Rzońca
So the petition remains open, and we'll be waiting for an updated opinion reply from the European Commission. The petition remains open. It will still be discussed. Item 29, Petition 19 60-20 25 by a Portuguese citizen signed by 14,520 other persons against the European Commission's proposal to amend directive 2014/45/EU in order to impose mandatory periodic inspections on motorcycles. The petitioner is connected remotely.
Speaker 84
Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to the members for giving me the opportunity to speak to you here today. I want to talk to you about motorcycles and the situation which is not simply the case in Portugal, but also in France, in Holland, in the Netherlands, that is. And motorcycles are very important in Europe. And indeed, in Portugal, they have gone up fourfold in use. The people who use them represent all sectors of society: managers, all kinds of workers, all kinds of economic conditions.
People who come from different backgrounds, motorcycle riders are responsible people. Motorcycles are not so polluting and actually don't cause traffic problems or parking problems. In other words, there's less congestion with the use of motorcycles. Nevertheless, we're investing in all kinds of transport. But there's no strategy for the use of motorcycles to prevent accidents.
And so, this is a very important petition. I'm a signatory of this petition. And the Portuguese parliament has unanimously voted on the obligatory controls which motorcycles have to undergo. And measures have been introduced in terms of safety. And now there is a new directive, which is preventing in some countries, Finland, Ireland and so on. And they're making technical mistakes.
So having an MOT every two years would be a way of identifying these problems, these technical problems. But we know that accidents which come from technical reasons are only 0.3 percent of all accidents. And more than 37 percent of accidents are due to the behavior of the motorcyclists. And of course, vehicles can be involved and be responsible for causing accidents. It could be the weather conditions.
It could be the state of the roads. All these reasons. But, the European Union seems to be going for a solution which is not effective and risks worsening the situation because it's taking attention away from other more important aspects of the travel situation and the accident situation. So we do have to have, yes, efficient measures in place. But there are alternatives which are much more valid to improve the road safety of European citizens.
On this new directive, which is amending the previous directive, is simply an intrusion into the lives of European citizens. It just adds red tape and a burden. And it is a cause of higher expenditure without creating more safety. In the proposal of the commission, references are made to some organizations. For example, an international committee which is involved with MOTs, they obviously have an interest, a direct interest in this situation, so they cannot be objective. And another association, which is mentioned, represents the manufacturers of certain machines.
So we're talking here about a proposal which has a very direct effect on the life of European citizens. And there's no association being invoked which represents the interests of the motorcyclists themselves. So I would like to refer you to something that happened in 2023, where certain MOTs were obligatory. And in The Netherlands, in the same year, there was a 19 percent decrease in the controls and the MOTs, whereas somewhere else, there was a decrease of 20 percent of fatalities. So what does this mean?
Speaker 86
It means that these technical tests, MOTs, do not protect the citizens and do not improve the situation of road safety. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 85
Yes. Thank you very much. Let me start with a little bit of background. Thank you very much for the petitioner. It concerns a commission proposal.
Of course, just to be clear, the current EU rules, the directive mentioned by the petitioner, so directive 2014, '45 on periodic testing of vehicles already requires member states to introduce such periodic tests for motorcycles since 2000, '22. However, there is indeed a possibility for an opt out for member states to implement effective alternative measures based also on some statistics of the previous years. Just to give you a picture of how this has been implemented by the member states. So 20 member states do apply periodic technical inspection for motorcycles. Two others are considering introducing it.
And so it leaves basically five countries, which are still hesitant about the benefits of periodic technical inspection, PTI for short. Now, the commission made its proposal based on a number of considerations. First, the parliament itself in 2021, called on the commission to reconsider the possibility of that opt-out exemption for member states to make motorcycles subject to PTI, largely based on the fact that reduction in fatalities has been too limited, too slow, especially in the case of motorcycles. I will come to the statistics a bit later on. And the commission did propose in this new revision, which was adopted, well, adopted by the commission last year in April, did propose to remove the opt out in line with the parliament's earlier call.
Because it's difficult to implement, we think there has been legal cases in front of national courts, which resulted, by the way, in the introduction of PTI in the concerned member state. It was also mentioned by the petitioner. It's the case of France. And, at the same time, it's also not clear really from this provision which allows such opt out what the alternative measures should be and what are considered effective. Now, the petitioner contests the added value of periodic checks, and says that it only costs and brings little benefit.
He mentioned 0.3 of the cases being linked to technical defects of vehicles in the case of accidents or fatalities. And, the petition itself refers to a study, which we did look at. In fact, that study does talk about five to six percent of cases where technical failure of a vehicle or some component not functioning contributed to the accident, which percentage is very much in line with the Commission's own impact assessment, on the basis of which we made all the calculations in the impact assessment. And in fact, the results show that, with the introduction of PTI in only those couple of member states, you do save 60 lives, and over 2,000 serious or light injuries over the next 25 years. Now the petitioner also says that it's too costly, brings a little benefit.
But then again, the impact assessment does show that the benefits outweigh the cost by at least 2.5x. The main beneficiaries are not the inspection centers. They do benefit. It does create a bit of extra jobs, let's say. But the main beneficiaries are the motorcyclists.
And secondary beneficiaries are society at large because of reductions in air pollution. Motorcycles do pollute, even if maybe their numbers make it a smaller contribution compared to cars. But a single high emitting vehicle can emit 100 times the normal, the normal level. And, as regards the numbers, just to recall that 20,000 people lose their lives more or less every year in the EU. Eighteen percent of those are motorcyclists, and is the only user group, the only road user group in which case, this percentage is increasing every year.
It has increased by 7% over the last 10 years. In the case of Portugal, specifically, the increase has been 80%. I mean, the petitioner said that there has been an increase in the use of motorcycles. Fair enough. But then again, 80% increase in fatalities, that's quite significant.
In 2023, 165 people died on motorcycles in Portugal. In comparison to Spain, for example, where 455 people died, okay, it's 3x bigger in Spain, but the motorcycle fleet in Spain is more than seven times bigger, which means it's two and a half, three times more accidents in Portugal compared to Spain. In Spain, you have to test motorcycles as well as mopeds. To conclude, the commission proposal did focus on the most powerful motorcycles, not mopeds, not the light motorcycles, because these are the ones which are mostly involved in fatal accidents. I think they are almost 10 times more involved in fatal accidents than MOPEDs.
In the case of MOPEDs, the numbers are going down, which is quite good to see. And here, the commission proposal leaves complete freedom to the member states whether or not to apply PTI to mopeds, as well as in terms of the frequency of testing heavy motorcycles, and the content of the test is to be determined by the member states. So there is a large margin of appreciation for the member states to adjust to national specificities, specificity, sorry, if there are. Having said that, not testing heavy motorcycles at all during their lifetime, we think it's impossible to justify. So, to conclude, the proposal is being discussed in the transport committee as we speak, and we do hope that the commission proposal is maintained in this respect, and we would like the petition to be closed for the same reason.
Thank you.
Thank.
Paulo Cunha
Chairman. Thank you. Dear petitioner, signatory, members of the committee, we're talking today about a petition, which has collected 14,520 signatures in Europe. So it is a petition which concerns the amending of directive 2014-45 EU on the mandatory periodic inspections for motorcycles. I think that the presentation we've heard shows the causal link which exists when there are accidents.
We've had various documents presented, references being made to the state of the roads, the behavior of motorcyclists, but also to the technical problems. And it seems to me that it's the technical issues which are the objective of these tests. And they are rather low. The incidence of the technical problems is 5 percent to 6% only. On the other hand, it's quite right that there should be some kind of balance in the European legislative landscape.
We've got to, nevertheless, consider the specific conditions in each member state because each country may have a different approach to this. But a legislative initiative to harmonize this at the European level should be approached with caution because, as I said before, we have different situations in the member states. The commission is making its proposal and alternative policies such as training, raising awareness with motorcyclists, preventive measures, and infrastructure. The signatories believe, and we agree with them, that the obligatory nature is actually just hiding the real problem. It's distracting attention from the real problem.
The problem is the risk that making these PTIs obligatory will delegate responsibility. They'll be saying, oh, well, we're satisfied that we've done everything that is necessary. But we have to have public policies which create good conditions to avoid accidents. So restricting ourselves here to imposing mandatory periodic inspections is ignoring the substance of the matter. And that is why the petition is asking us to have a wider-ranging debate, a wider-ranging reflection on what could be useful, what could be effective.
Speaker 89
And we have to listen more closely to the people on the ground. We want the petition to remain open.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. I would like to give the floor back to the petitioner, because it seems there are no other speakers. So yes, please connect us.
Speaker 84
Thank you very much, Chairman. And once again, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I appreciate all the comments which have been made. In fact, the member states could, at the moment, choose what the best method is to guarantee the safe circulation of motorcycles. And now we're faced with this generalized imposition.
And we find it difficult to understand it. If we look at the principle of subsidiarity, see that it's the member states who can define the most effective way of regulating motorcycles. Sweden is different from Spain and Portugal, or from France. So imposing this decision is not fruitful. I would also like to add that in line with the draft directive and given that we only have 5 percent or 6 percent of accidents due to technical problems, perhaps it would be better to look carefully at the situation and the roots of the question and see why what causes the other 95 percent of accidents.
Because our aim here is to save lives. Motorcyclists face traps every day. The signage material which stops cyclists slipping, all sorts of different factors which influence motorcyclists. So we should have an awareness-raising campaign at European level so that motorists, for a start, could try to understand why certain accidents occur for motorcyclists. There should be better signaling, better signage, rather, and better road quality because some roads are dreadful.
They're just very slippery, and these cause accidents for motorcyclists. So we should be looking at those measures and how we can intervene to improve the safety of motorcyclists. Now, the directive is requesting mandatory conditions, which will not improve safety. Reference has been made to high cylinder vehicles. But I would just remind you that in Portugal, 75% of vehicles have a low cylinder capacity.
So, this is a contradiction. Many motorcycles don't come under that. They're not within that scope. In any case, I hope that the petition will remain open, and we'll have a more effective policy to improve the safety of these citizens. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes, it was indeed an interesting topic. But we have used up all our time, and €0.3 is other business. The petition remains open, of course. We'll be waiting for the explanation or a reply from the European Commission. Item 30, would anyone have any other business?
No. So the next meeting will take place on April.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.