Committee on Legal Affairs
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsOkay. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.
I'm sure that's just yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just you
Know, I'm calling this the order of the shuttles.
Sergey Lagodinsky
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Dear Axel. So thanks for the excellent draft report.
I think it's much needed and provides a potential for a genuine game changer, I think. And this is the kind of simplification that we need, and not some strange omnibuses that are driving through the streets of Brussels. That's precisely what we need, but we need to be pragmatic and not to repeat the mistake of data intermediation services under DGA, the Data Governance Act that we made. I think we need to focus on three core points, and these are implementing acts, open source, and third country providers implementing acts. This proposal is very short.
It is short for the reason that the details, the technicalities will be regulated by implementing acts. And they need to be out and ready before the regulation is applicable, not after. This is something that we had, we have now with the AI Act, all these problems that follow from that. Otherwise, the whole framework is compromised. So this is a matter of sequencing it in the right way.
Then on open source, I agree that the framework should be as tech neutral as possible. However, we can utilize open source that should be clearly prescribed in law, because open source supports both sovereignty and transparency, as well as decentralization. And number three, I'm not sure that opening our markets to providers from third countries is something that we need now. So I propose to allow for this possibility only after the adoption of a mutual recognition agreement with third countries. In addition, I propose to include data storage requirements in the union.
I think, knowing the sovereignty issues in the digital realm, this would be, this would make sense. So thank you very much. I'm looking forward to further negotiations.
Marion Walsmann
Yeah. I'll leave a colleague in.
Colleagues, I'm responsible for the EPP and the ITER committee, so I'll be brief. Thank you, first of all, to Axel for his draft opinion. The commission proposal is very timely and has great potential to further deepen the European internal market and improve the competitiveness of our businesses. It's not uniformly welcomed by the industry, whether it's a practical instrument to overcome increasing bureaucracy, but offers that possibility. So I welcome the important amendment proposals, which will provide greater relief for SMEs, and it's also more consistent in terms of the twenty-eighth regime, and it generally strengthens the European position in this critical area.
So in that regard, I would like to invite you all to our hearing on European business wallets here in the Parliament next Wednesday. And I would be delighted if URI members would attend too, and I'm looking forward to moving this important proposal forward nice and quickly.
Mario Mantovani
you. I too would like to thank Mr. Voss for the work done. Your proposal reflects a wish which I share that offers our firms simple, functional, and useful digital tool without that unnecessary bureaucracy. And thank you for including references, as Jenny Wassman mentioned, the need for an ecosystem of microenterprise is a theme close to my heart. So I would like to do a bit more with a few amendments that I'll be bringing in.
So I wish I could ask you for your support. I hope there would be easy access or affordable access for micro enterprises to this, especially during the configuration phase? Because it's important that a proposed system, system proposed to eliminate bureaucracy and costs, should not become itself a fixed cost for small businesses. It would not allow direct access to European banks and European procurement tool for small firms. So the deadline of six months proposed by the rapporteur is a good one, because often you have delays on the part of the commission. But there should be a conditionality clause so that the deadlines for public administrations and states should run from the completion of the technical acts by the commission, and not only by the entry into force of the regulation.
This would strengthen the use and operability of the system. One final point, in terms of systemic completeness. Now IDEIS has been implemented in all member states, but the digital wallet comes from two point zero, which is standard certification that is still being worked out in many member states. So if IDS 2.0 is not implemented, then the digital wallet will remain an empty concept. So this should be noted in the legislative text.
So to conclude, this is a step forward, and let's flesh it out and make it more accessible to all European businesses, including the smallest ones.
Thank you. Next is mister.
I was
Lukas Sieper
21 years old, and we marched on the streets with a poster with a caricature of Axel Voss, and we were saying that he was destroying the Internet, and he was destroying Internet freedom. He's a terrible man. And now here he is, and he's making a huge contribution to our digital legislation. And I can wholeheartedly support it. And like Mister Kozinski, I think that there are a couple of points that we still have to discuss.
But on the whole, I think it's an excellent job of work, and I won't be marching in the streets about it again.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay. Thank you for your information. And now I would like to give the floor to Warren Walters, the S and D shadow rapporteur.
Lara Wolters
Thank you, and many thanks to the rapporteur for his work here, and looking forward to getting stuck into this file. And I share the perspectives that the development of European business wallets could bring benefits to our business environment across the EU, simplify paperwork, and unlock cross-border opportunities. I support the ambition of the commission proposal and think it's a good basis for us. And in my opinion, in this committee, we should be quite focused on adding value in our areas of expertise, particularly on company law and data protection. I would like to commend this draft opinion.
I appreciate the attentiveness to questions of interoperability, and I share the rapporteur's views when it comes to strengthening provisions to ensure business wallet data remains in the EU. Likewise, I also see the need to strike the right balance when it comes to public authorities. On the one hand, the public sector should lead with sufficient ambition to kick-start uptake of the business wallet, but we do need to be realistic when it comes to smaller municipalities. So I'll be paying attention to that in my amendments. And finally, I think Yuri should insist on high levels of trust when it comes to business wallets.
We need to ensure that all procedural and notarial requirements are fulfilled irrespective of the business wallet usage, and we need to ensure that any automated processes retain the same levels of trust as if a human conducted them. And in these days, that is not a mean feat. I believe we can really add value to our Itrich colleagues here, and I'm looking forward to working with you all.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Walters, also for your intervention. And now I would like to give the floor to the Commission representative. And if I understood correctly, we have Miss Christian Kirketep with us today, acting director in DG Connect. You have the floor, ma'am.
Christian Kirketep
Thank you so much, Chair, for inviting us to this meeting. Also, I would like to thank the Mr. Voss, for this very constructive approach and the very good cooperation we've seen throughout this process. As we can also see from today's discussions, the European business wallets are vital in enhancing the competitiveness of our businesses and also in promoting a truly integrated single market. And we appreciate the rapporteur's ambition to ensure that businesses can use their wallets as soon as possible.
Speaker 17
It is also essential to maintain the obligation for all public sector bodies to accept business wallets, to ensure widespread adoption and usability throughout the union. This is not only important for the success of the business wallet itself, but also for the effective implementation of other key initiatives, such as the 28 regime, which, as we know, will rely on the seamless interaction between businesses and public authorities, and this is exactly what the business wallet will facilitate. We know Derape Portoire's focus on the various use cases and agree on their potential to bring significant benefits, for example, in environmental reporting. We also are very happy with your focus on the SMEs in this discussion. The European business wallets will be particularly beneficial for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often faced with a disproportionate administrative burden simply due to their limited resources and capacity.
Christian Kirketep
By providing a simple, secure, and efficient way to interact with public authorities and access key services, the business wallets will help to level this playing field for our SMEs. We've also taken note of the rapporteur's suggestions to clarify the requirements for the business wallet providers to be EU-controlled. Protecting the EU digital sovereignty is essential, which is why our proposal foresees that the European business wallet providers must be established in the union, have their principal place of business in the union, and their main operations in the union, and that they are not controlled by a third country or a third country entity. And as we move forward in this legislative process, you can certainly count on our full support and cooperation on this file. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you for your intervention. And the floor goes back to the rapporteur, Mr. Voss.
Thank.
Axel Voss
You, chair. I think it's lovely that the parliament's rapporteur is attending this debate and is also a member of it. So I hope that you can take the proper input to the IMCO Committee. And I'd like to thank the commission for the feedback. I think it's important to all of us now on the Bay, in terms of the changing world and so on, that we need to focus more on the question of sovereignty.
So it's not just that the data must stay in Europe, but the providers of the identifiers must also be European, so that we don't have to worry about whether things will be passed on to others. So I think it's important to keep that in the back of our minds. And I agree with those two who said here that the implementing acts must be brought in before the application of the guidelines, as was said. With the AI act, we're witnessing this kind of chaos that we really don't want. So it's important.
I agree that should work. As regards to size of businesses, I think once you have it installed, then I think micro businesses can use it too if they think it will be helpful to them. Your points are very welcome in that regard. And to Lara, I must say that the whole thing must have added value. There's no point in doing something which we more or less already have and incur great expenditure.
There must be added value in terms of interoperability within the European system, too, and we will obviously have to bear that in mind. And so, thank you for the very good and creative feedback in this regard. But, again, to conclude, it's highly and urgently necessary that in this digital world, we move fast, effectively, and sovereignly. It's already urgent, but we need to also send a signal to business that we're doing stuff, that we're not permanently just protecting things. But, for example, with the twenty-eighth regime and the business wallet that we're really setting the tone, and that we can show that we can actually do things actively.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Mr. Voss. And the deadline for the tape for tabling amendments is 04/17/2026, of course, at noontime. With that, I'll move to point 18, item 18, jury mission to Madrid in February. We'll proceed with the reporting back from the mission. The mission, in general, was successful.
The delegation included four EU members, myself, Maravias Abadia Hoffer from EPP, Mihael Wavrikevich from EPP, and Yana Tom from Renew. The topic of the discussion was the fight against online. Piracy of sports and other live events is of utmost importance for the committee. As you know, the committee keeps working on this topic and did a good assessment of our work. Spain is the member state which has established a singular judicial precedence to combat the illegal streaming of live events, combining judicial actions, law enforcement, and stakeholder cooperation.
Therefore, the committee decided to send its delegation to explore the topic in further detail. The delegation met with institutions and authorities, which play an active role in the fight against online piracy of sports and other live events, and exchanged with the ministry of culture, the senate, the national court, and the national police. In that show, it was very interesting to have the opportunity to grasp very valuable knowledge and feedback on how the fight against live events piracy is organized in Spain, getting, in particular, insights of the different procedures at the disposal of rights holders in this combat, administrative, civil, both with the possibility of ensuring dynamic blocking injunctions or penal. The key role of cooperation between institutions, public authorities, and stakeholders was underlined, as well as the vital role of education and the EU values. Delegation also warned that the police played an increasing role as life events, privacy has attracted a growing interest from criminal organizations.
The mission to Spain has kept its promise. The visits and the discussions the delegation had with public authorities, institutions, and stakeholders gave the opportunity to grasp information, expertise, and feedback from different perspectives on the system place in Spain in order to fight against online piracy of sports and other live events. This mission provides a very good opportunity to understand the holistic dimensions of the issues at stake, which will feed into the legal affairs committee's future work in this area. This was my initial report, and I'm gonna ask Abadia, Hofer, if she wants to add her impression from the mission.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Thank you very much indeed, Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank the secretariat for the organization of this mission. It was a very tight, but very complete program. We had a very concrete problem that was very relevant Europe-wide, this fight against piracy of live events in the broadcasting sector. Now we talked about public entities and legal entities to see how copyright and intellectual property is being protected using the tools available to us now, and how this fits in with the competences of the European Union.
We talked about two private entities that are involved in the case of La Liga. We were able to see on site how violations are being monitored and what action is being taken. Now online piracy is not something that's limited to foreign criminal gangs from outside the European Union. No. It's some homegrown.
And what's being done now isn't enough, not enough for the rights holders and the legitimate broadcasters. So I think that's why we call on the commission to take a step forward, and for this committee to move forward with this work. Anything that works shouldn't be fixed, but when something doesn't work, we shouldn't shy away from correcting it. So I think the Madrid mission was very relevant, and it showed us that the fight against piracy is not just a case of applying and implementing the law, but about protecting our European cultural ecosystem. So I thank all the organizers, the public and private entities that took their time to meet us and share their experience with us.
Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Badia Hoffer, for supplementing my report. Is there any other colleague wishing to take the floor on this matter? No. That is not the case. The next mission was to Germany, took place in Stuttgart and Heidelberg on 30 and 31 of March.
Delegation included three members from our committee: myself, Axel Voss from EPP, and Brando Benite from SND. The topic of discussion was EU artificial intelligence development and the influence of the artificial intelligence act on it, of utmost importance for the committee. The committee keeps working, as you know, on this topic as it did during the previous term, recently, on the opinion on the digital omnibus on AI. The committee decided to go to Germany to discuss opportunities and legal challenges related to the issue of artificial intelligence, and I think it was a good meeting with very specific focus on your core competencies, such as ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, protection of intellectual property, and other matters. The intention was to meet directly with stakeholders and to hear their voice regarding the EU's AI framework.
We visited Germany's AI factory for manufacturing, engineering, and research, Hammerheim in Stuttgart before heading to Europe's largest center of excellence for AI and modern robotics, CyberValley. We also took stock of the issues related to AI ethics with representatives of the University of Tübingen. Further, we traveled to Heidelberg to talk to representatives of the Amaria, and we had a deep exchange with them. After that, we visited Aleph Alpha, a company helping other businesses to protect their data and intellectual property. To better understand the challenges related to the use of artificial intelligence in the health sector, we also talked to representatives of the German Cancer Research Center.
The main message I can give you is that in the EU, we have important development, and use of artificial intelligence is going on. In that regard, the focus seems specialization on particular aspects, specialized watch language models, specialized software and hardware for 3D technology, and others. In a nutshell, dear colleagues, the mission kept its promise. The visits and the discussions the delegation had with stakeholders gave the opportunity to grasp information and feedback on the spot from different perspectives, such as private, public, and mass mixed public and private stakeholders. We could see firsthand what development and entrepreneurship is going on, as well as access their worries and thoughts on the application of the artificial intelligence act. I can summarize that AI governance and regulation do not prevent development and business.
We heard, nevertheless, the message that we need predictability as well as an informed and equal application of the rules. Mister Voss, would you like to add your thoughts on that mission?
Axel Voss
I'd be more than happy to. Well, I want to thank the repter for that, and thank you for the report back. And I thank the secretary for the excellent work in organizing everything, putting everything together, and also the insights we were able to gain from the two-day mission, very interesting indeed. And I think quite often, it's about speed where we're not really up to speed, and the importance of the sandboxes as well. So when you need to focus on the SMEs and their dimension, so that we're tackling it from a sectoral perspective, and also really trying to promote talent and spot talent in our education system.
We really need to be much more focused on that aspect. Another very interesting fascinating element, which I hadn't expected to find before going on mission, was that the issue of the deceased and the digital afterlife and just the sheer scale of that. I think that was quite hard for me to fathom before going on the mission, because I think there's much more behind this than most of us imagine. Of course, we were told we need more regulations, fewer directives. And on the legacy and on the case of the digital afterlife, I think China and others are ahead of us.
On the specialized aspect of that was stressed very much. So we thought this was a highly interesting, valuable mission, and I thank all those who are involved in putting it together very warmly.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Very much. I think that concludes the report from Germany. And the next point is presentation of the jury committee's gender mainstreaming action point, and the rapporteur is Leire Fahim. We have the floor there.
Thank you so much, dear chair colleagues. Finally, we are here. Let me start by saying that, during the previous legislature, the jury committee made significant progress in advancing gender equality in all areas of work. We strengthen the presence of women in European companies on pay transparency rules, promoted gender sensitivity due diligence in corporate law, highlighted the gendered impact of the digital divide, and supported protections for precarious labor in the creative sector. Our hearings reflected growing awareness of gender issues also.
So some achieve full gender balance, and the panel on the Women on Boards directive intentionally showcases female expertise. These are, of course, important achievements. They show that jury can deliver real impact when gender is made visible in the legislative process. However, we must also acknowledge the challenges that remain present in our daily work. Women represented around 25% of jury members during the last legislature, and the current term shows a regression.
Only 14 out of 50 members are women. In a committee traditionally dominated by men, this trend is concerning. Gender balance is not symbolic. It directly shapes perspectives, priorities, and legislative outcomes. Gender equality must begin at the structural level within the institutions that design laws and policies.
We cannot credibly call on partners inside and outside the European Union to advance gender equality if we do not act consistently ourselves. The renewal of the gender action plan on the jury committee offers an important opportunity for us, not to start from scratch, but to consolidate progress and address persistent gender gaps. The jury gender action plan followed the decision of the bureau, which approved this plan in December 2023. It aligns and it is complementary with the gender action plan of the European Parliament, but it provides some insights and recommendations that really relate to jury main areas of work. Those are mainly in the specific areas of civil law, access to justice, non-discrimination, rule of law, family law, intellectual property, digitalization, and many other important legislative fields.
Some of the recommendations are, first, we must improve representation. A political dialogue should explore fair gender balance, including in reporters and leadership roles. Women must be strategically positioned in those fields and in those files and policy areas dealing with economic, legal, digital, and external affairs to prevent gender silos in policy makers. Second, gender mainstreaming must be embedded in legislation. The plan calls for a clear methodology for gender impact assessment under a systematic application.
Major legislative initiatives should include gender impact analysis, and reports should reflect structural discrimination and equality considerations. Third, institutional culture matters. Mandatory training on gender equality and consistent bias alongside annual refreshes on the structural inequalities will help ensure that gender awareness is not optional, but integral to our work. Fourth, transparency and accountability are essential. A gender equality scorecard, and while reporting on panel composition and a minimum of 40% representation threshold for hearings, will strengthen credibility and monitoring.
Fifth, we must adopt an international approach. Equality assessment should consider age, disability, ethnicity, and eligibility plus identified, reflecting the multidimensional nature of discrimination in law. And finally, stronger cooperation is key. A structural collaboration between jury and firm, as well as closer engagement with the European Institute for Gender Equality, will ensure coherence and evidence-based policy making. We have then a solid foundation, but progress is the result of constant work.
If we are serious about equality, it must be visible in our composition, reflected in our legislation, and measurable in our outcomes. I hope this renewed jury gender action plan, approved by a large majority of the members of the bureau, will help us operate in a joint effort, leading by example, advancing towards more equality in the European Union. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Leire, for your report, but also for your strong commitment on this important matter. I'm going to EPP as a first. No. That is not the case. And then, colleague Siper from Renu.
Lukas Sieper
Thank you. Thank you, colleague. I think we are in agreement in every principle and in 99% of the plan. Now I would not be German if I did not take the liberty to point out the one thing. We are not in agreement, and I think where the plan lags behind.
Now I personally think that there are not 40 different genders, but I think there's more than two. And this is reflected in today's society. It is reflected in a lot of legislation. In Germany, we have men, women, diverse on the passport. Now if I see here that we want to have a balance where 40% representation should be for either gender, that lacks everyone who is not man and woman.
And I think we should allocate at least something between 1% and 5% for those who are not fitting within the two classical genders that we know and understand. I think that's a very important issue because if we try to achieve gender balance but do not do it for all genders, no matter how many there are, this is still for the scientists to find out, then we will not have gender balance. Thank you very much.
Sergey Lagodinsky
Thank you. Now the new reality is that Lucas Zipper is within the renew group, and I and he took, of course, the most important point that I wanted to make, together with him. Yes. I do think and we do think that there is more than two genders, and that's why 40% rule is a little bit too imprecise. Generally, the refresher trainings is probably something that should be emphasized, and I have no idea who among us as new MEPs or old MEPs have actually done a special training, on those issues.
I even tried to look, myself, whether because I did a lot of trainings. I don't I I'm not sure that this was done, so I will look through this, the gender mainstreaming training. Don't know if Lucas has gone through one, but as a new member, you probably should, as well. So, the other points is that, the gender equality angle, within the files, we think that this is important, indeed, but it should be not just where relevant, but where a substantial file exists. Because where relevant, who determines where it is relevant and where it is not?
And I know it from my own experience. If you know that you have to find a gender equality angle, then you find it because those angles are everywhere, even in unexpected topics. So I would urge us not to limit this only to the legislative initiatives where relevant, but where the substantial legislative initiatives are. So these are probably the most important things, and I want to thank the Rapporteur for doing this. This is a very important work, and we can maybe disagree or complement each other on details.
But, generally, we are all in the same boat, and I'm very grateful for the work that the Rapporteur has been doing. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Mr. Mantoumani. Thank.
Mario Mantovani
You, chair. I would say that only that equality within men and women is an objective shared by all, and I think not only through representation, but also by creating conditions so that feminine talent can emerge and have the possibility to follow their ambitions. But on one point, I have a reservation that you've done about an intersectional approach. It's a rather vague term. It's not thoroughly mentioned in the training.
So its competence and not the state, ethnicity, gender, whatever, any objective, any training principle should stay anchored, and we should only look at skills and added values. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Montuvani. Do other members wish to take the floor? No. That is the case.
Thank.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, do want to stress the fact that we do agree on 99% of the content. Let me focus on that. I want to welcome the intersectionality and diversity objectives, so LGBT plus as well. But let's bear in mind that half of the population is not benefiting fully from equal opportunities, and that's where we need to make progress. I'd like to thank certain members of the committee, Lara Walters, who was co-rapporteur on the women on board's directive, as well as many others, and played a key role, which I wish to stress here, in making those steps forward, which help us move forward.
Now on the training and gender mainstreaming, obviously, the members of this house need to follow that training. They need to get the training, not only new members, but also all those old hands. Thank you.
Thank you very much. That concludes the meeting, and we'll see each other tomorrow. That was it. For those things for the coordinators meeting, we start at 05:30.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.