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 sittings
I am here.
Okay. Merci beaucoup.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. My name is Philippe Pierre, not Andy Padetente. I am the second petitioner for representing this association. Members of the European Parliament, we are here before you because you allow us as citizens to bring to your attention a very serious problem of public health. Thank you very much for having accepted to give us a hearing once again before the committee.
For five years now, this petition has been before the committee, but never has the European Commission given us a satisfactory response. I'm afraid the interpretation has to stop due to inadequate technical conditions. Thank.
you. Sorry, Mr. Petition. I will receive information that this cannot translate interpreters because this is a fatal technical connection. Yes, ma'am. Yes.
Bogdan Rzońca
Yes. We can. Sorry. It's not our far file and No problem. Yes, please, Mr. Petruzione. We have this?
Bogdan Rzońca
Oh, okay. Let's finish. Ma'am, now.
We'll allow you to finish your talk, petitioner, and then we'll come back to it after you finish.
Continue. Please continue.
Okay.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you so much. I would like to give the floor to mister DG Sante. He's a representative. Yes, please. The floor is yours, madam.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will express myself in English. I hope this is fine. Honorable members and petitioner, as expressed by the petitioner, they expressed concern about the alleged incorrect application of the EU regulation on pesticides, and in particular, as regards the absence of long-term toxicity studies for pesticide products. The commission has addressed this petition here in this committee several times.
First, in February 2022, we have provided an update in March 2024. And more recently, we also provided written comments following some questions in June 2024. Let me summarize our consistent position across these responses. Pesticides or plant protection products are well-defined mixtures. Their long-term toxicity can be assessed based on the individual compounds.
Primarily, we have the active substance, which is the key ingredient that acts against pests, and the coformylants, which are other substances like solvents, stabilizers that make sure that the product actually works. We have a regulation on classification, labeling and packaging of substances and mixtures, the so-called CLP regulation, which provides that long term toxicity of mixtures and PPPs, is assessed following a component based approach. This applies to all chemical mixtures. PPPs, plant protection products, are not an exception. The request for having long-term tests for every plant protection product would be unworkable if you consider that there is such a high number of different combinations of coformulants.
It would drastically increase animal testing without any scientific merit, because if you test diluted mixtures, this reduces statistical power and you risk false negatives. In such a diluted composition, you might not find any problems, like hazards, that could go undetected this way. It would fail to improve safety. So for these reasons, it would neither be scientifically viable nor appropriate to change the rules to automatically demand long-term toxicity tests for all plant protection products. Under the current system, such tests can, however, already be asked, and this is done actually if they are scientifically justified.
No, nothing prevents the member states' authorities from asking for additional tests. The EU has a very strict regulatory system for pesticides. And as part of this system, we can only allow substance to be used in plant protection products if they are approved. So nothing goes without evaluation, as was claimed by the petitioner. 156 coformulants are already banned.
We have a regulation that is banning regularly coformulants that have been assessed to be unsafe. They end up on a blacklist, the so-called annex three to our main regulation. Member states are responsible for assessing and authorizing the plant protection products. There is a double system in the EU. When an active substance is approved or when its approval is renewed, the commission must always confirm that there is safe use.
And this aligns also with the recent court rulings that were mentioned by the petitioner, such as the BLESS case and also the 2025 judgment on cypermethrine. Applicants, usually these are pesticide manufacturers, must provide the data needed for the assessments. And an ongoing revision of the data requirements, we are currently working on that, will strengthen information requirements on coformulants, including requiring full composition of each product and the identity of each coformulant. This ensures that member states will have all the information to evaluate risks. The commission is working closely with member states, with the European Food Safety Authority, and with the European Chemicals Agency to improve harmonization and transparency in how pesticides and coformulants are assessed.
EFSA has already taken steps to increase transparency. In 2022, they published a technical report listing all co formulins used in plant protection products and that were assessed during active substance approvals or renewals of approvals. Also, the commission is very active. In 2023, we held three workshops that focused on the assessment of plant protection products, in particular, on co-formulants. I would like to highlight three key actions that were the conclusions of these workshops.
We decided that we would create a common EU database on coformulants, that guidance would be developed to standardize how plant protection products are assessed, this includes coformulants, and to improve communication on these important issues. So the commission is actively working and will continue to do so with the member states, the European Food Safety Authority, and the European Chemicals Agency. We are making progress on all three fronts, and I would like to briefly update you because we have done a lot. In 2024, we launched a dedicated website on co-formulants. Secondly, as a first step towards a common database, we worked with ECA, EFSA, and nine member states to compile a list of 2,200 coformulants that are used in plant protection products.
This work is currently ongoing. In the longer term, we are discussing with the member states how to build a database that can be a living one and that can be continuously updated for the future. This is a major undertaking. We can see that over half of the coformulants, 54%, that are used in plant protection products are actually appearing in more than one country in the EU. And, therefore, we are discussing with the member states whether there are some of those which might require more scrutiny than others based on the available data, the quantities used, and their risk profiles.
So we are doing a prioritization exercise to be able to tackle those that are most relevant and most toxic first. We have also started drafting guidance to harmonize pesticide assessments, which will be finalized as soon as possible. In parallel, EFSA is working on a mandate from this parliament to review scientific literature and, in particular, on methods for studying long-term toxic or carcinogenic effects of pesticides mixtures, especially those that are caused by interactions between ingredients. EFSA will consult the public on the draft and publish its findings by the end of this year. In short, the commission is very proactive on conformylants.
And despite the complexity of the topic, we are making good progress on all fronts. Member states and EFSA are extremely supportive and fully involved in all the processes. Now a few words to react to the petitioner's speech. The petitioner claims that the fact that EFSA is developing a methodology for conducting this literature research on chronic toxicity would be proof that the system we are currently having for the assessment of plant protection product would not work properly. I'm afraid this is clearly a misconception.
This methodology that the parliament has been asked is actually fulfilling the parliament's request for such a review. They have asked EFSA for such a review, so it is entirely distinct from the methodologies that are used to assess plant protection products. The two serve entirely different purposes and are not comparable. As such, the development of a methodology to address the parliament's request cannot logically be construed as evidence that the existing assessment is deficient. The petitioner also dismissed the commission's argument as cynical, and the assessment methodology as opaque.
I respectfully but firmly would like to reject this characterization. As we have explained, the EU science-based system focuses on component-level hazard identification as required by legislation, and with targeted testing of whole formulations where this is justified. There is no blanket long-term testing indeed, but we believe this is also not necessary. The Blaise case that was cited in the petition did not challenge this approach, actually. It also did not require systematic testing of all formulations.
It just reaffirmed that the current framework, when it is correctly applied, ensures compliance with the approval criteria. The other argument of the petitioner that coformulants would enhance the performance of the PPPs, that this would mean that they also increase toxicity for humans and the environment, unfortunately, is not correct. The efficacy and toxicity are totally different things. Efficacy is referring to the product's effects on pests, how good they really target organisms such as fungi, insects, or wheat, while toxicity is about effects on humans or non-target species in the environment. They are totally different concepts.
The petitioner also alleges that the commission, by not conducting chronic toxicity studies, shifts the burden of proof, implying that the tests would only be required if a problem arises during the product's use, so ex post of their use. This is misleading because all plant protection products are assessed before they are authorized, as I already mentioned. A short word about the Omnibus, if I may, because this is important. The simplification food and feed package is currently being developed. It proposes.
Madam, to conclude, please. Sure.
Speaker 10
I will quickly conclude, but I think this is important, because it's a different topic. It was mentioned by the petitioner, and I think it's important to react. The system of renewing all active substances that we currently have in our legislation is unsustainable. It's causing delays, and even delays of substances for which we have a high risk and that should be assessed quickly. With this new system, we are proposing, we will have more targeted assessment of those substances that are more toxic and require faster action.
We don't lose protection, and the existing processes for review for more than 200 substances will still be ongoing until their end. With this, I would like to finish, and I thank you for your attention.
Bogdan Rzońca
It was a reward for a technical problem. Now that we will go to Mr. Manhuber, EVP. On behalf of EVP, the floor is yours.
Manhuber
Thank you very much, mister chair. And first of all, I want to start with the technical issues because I know very well that the secretariat is informing the petitioner very well about the technical requirements. So I think, it's up to the petitioner to be here or to require the right technical issues. So it was not possible for us to listen to most of the words of the petitioner, but it's up to him. He knows very well the requirements.
Speaker 13
I just want to mention this sense. And I also want to remind that yesterday, the head of EFSA was here in the environmental committee for a discussion with members of the European Parliament and gave a very well explanation of, I think, also some points which have been raised here. And I think it's also what the European Commission already mentioned. Who should we believe if we do not believe in our own paid agencies? They are working with hundreds of experts paid by European taxpayers' money, giving scientific advice on which kind of plant protection product should be used within the European Union or not.
Manhuber
And if we do not believe our scientists, I don't know who else should we believe. This is my main question, and they are working very hard, on a daily basis. If they get new information, they will use them, and that's an ongoing process. But on the other hand, I also want to ask the petitioner what kind of food should we provide to our citizens. We only get the answer what is should we not use or what kind of plant production product should be banned for our farmers.
Speaker 13
But on the other hand, how should they provide food for our citizens? And even there are a lot of organic plant protection products, or all organic plant protection products also have to be authorized by national authorities or by EFSA. So I think with the criteria raised by the petitioner, also a lot of organic plant protection products would be banned because they also look at copper, sulfur. They are also toxic for the soil and for animals. So the really main question is, for me, also how can we provide foodstuff and so on.
We only hear what should be banned, but we hear absolutely no solution. The only concerns raised and no solutions, and that's something I also want to remember. I think our authorities do a really good job. We are calling them within the European Parliament for additional stuff to do all these requests, and there's an ongoing process right now. So I think a lot of things have been done. We got a really good explanation by the European Commission on all these facts, which process is going on transparency and so on.
So I think it's not the right place to blame our own agencies here in the European Parliament. Therefore, I called to close this petition. It still was discussed several times, and I think it's an ongoing process, and we are on a very good way.
Thank.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much, chairman. Initially, I'd like to very sincerely thank the petitioner for having submitted this petition to our committee. As there's been a struggle being carried out by this association, Sigre Toxique, for various years now, and we will continue to be mobilized side by side with them at the national and at European level because the health of citizens and protection is a priority, an absolute priority. The presence of these toxic products in PPEs is something that is not actually very well recognized at European and French level. As the petitioner says, the double assessment by the European authorities of these substances, as well as the food safety agency and for occupational health, has actually pointed out the court decision of 10/01/2019, and they believe that there is a cocktail effect, a mix, and that is concerning.
And the marketing, therefore, of these PPPs, well, the responsibility for that is with the member states. They have to assess the long-term effect on them and the synergies. We are sorry that there is no protocol which has been drawn up to take into consideration these cocktails by the national authorities. We absolutely share the view of the petitioner that the precautionary principle has to be applied here rigorously, in accordance with the case law of the Court or European Court of Justice, in terms of products being marketed, which may be dangerous for human or animal health or for the environment. Transparency is essential.
The publication of co-formulants must be the rule rather than the exception. And finally, the health of farmers has to be protected because they are in the frontline as victims of this. For all these reasons, we desire that this petition remain open at least until the European security, food security, and health authorities publish something about the methods of evaluation used generally for this. Thank you.
Thank.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you very much, chairman. This is an incredibly important issue, and the previous speakers have confirmed that opinion in me, that we should keep this petition open. We need more assessment and more data. We're talking here about European citizens' health, and that's a key priority. And it's vital that we look at this issue without an ideological basis.
So I would definitely suggest that we request more documents, and that we keep the petition open. Thank you.
David Cormand
Thank you.
I'm going to speak in French, chairman. I hope there won't be a technical problem with that. And, my mail hasn't been lost in the spam box. I think it's important to listen directly in their mother tongue. I'm very sorry that was not the case for the petitioner.
And we've had ample time to reply to him. The commission has been able to reply, but we would have liked the translation. Anyway, I'd like to thank the petitioner for having carried out this battle, as it were. And I refer back to what my EPP colleague has said about how we have to have trust in the agencies for public health, and so on. But trust doesn't mean to say that we can't check things, we can't control them.
have
David Cormand
To have a balanced situation, which would allow the member states to do better in terms of their assessments on this. And I would say in the health committee, we've had an indication of concern about this issue and the substitution of PPPs, although they knew since 2020 that the rules were inadequate. So when you change the process, that means there has been an issue. So I am in favor that we as European parliament representatives be on the side of those who want to improve the situation and who raise these issues. Turning now to toxicity and efficiency or effectiveness.
Indeed, we have different situations in the member states. But to explain that there is a product which might kill an organism and that we could perhaps declare that it is less toxic for people or for other organisms which are not contemplated in the rules. Well, I believe that is not a good form of reasoning. We have synthesis molecules in play here, and we know that the situation, therefore, is very complex in terms of their assessment. So we do need a solid assessment.
I hope, therefore, that we will keep this petition open. It's necessary. EFTA is reviewing its protocol to look at these combinations, and there has to be a control exercised on the part of our citizens. So thank you once again to the association, and we will continue to work with you.
Damien Carême
Thank you, chairman and colleagues. I also would like to thank the petitioner and the secret toxic organization for this precious contribution to the debate, and thank them for their work. Three and a half million pesticides used every year in the European in the world. We find them everywhere in water, in the air, and in our daily food. This long-term exposure is a real challenge for public health.
However, we've got a rather stable situation in terms of rules. It's not progressing. These positive pesticides contaminate soil, water, and challenge biodiversity. We've also got some substances in our drinking water, which is then not suitable for consumption. We've got PFAS, which are present everywhere.
So we really have a threat today, and this is aggravated by pollution. It's alarming, very worrying. Have respiratory problems, neurological problems, Parkinson's, cancer, clusters of cancer in children. This happens very much, and we've got some statistics for La Rochelle, in France, in that regard. So there are studies carried out by various scientific associations.
1.7 million schoolchildren are under the effects of these pesticides. However, the European Commission is proposing us the omnibus package to actually weaken the provisions. So they're using obsolete scientific data. They're putting dangerous substances on the market. And this is in contravention of the basic principles of citizens' public health and environmental health.
And also, the principle of do no harm in Brittany. We've had a petition. We've had that before the committee about fumigation and phosphines. This goes back to January 2024. The member is being asked to speak a little slower.
I'm sorry. The use of this very toxic gas is authorized for export. We know that there are significant volumes of cereals involved in the processing of it. And indeed, around the company, the enterprise, they have found cases of dead birds because of this toxicity. So we have toxicity, long-term toxicity, connected to these combination products.
So it's not just the active substances which are used, but the mixes, which are real cocktails, and we haven't got enough assessment for that. So the question is clear. We have to have complete toxicological tests on them, and we have to reexamine the current authorizations, and also look into the question of industrial confidentiality on these subjects. We don't want to withdraw from this. We don't want to lose ground on this.
So we say, keep this petition open until we have some substantive solutions proposed in order to protect our ecosystems. If we can't do that, if we can't guarantee them, then we cannot close this petition, if we look at the public health repercussions that this all has. Well, everything is well in the best of all possible worlds. Well, that's, I'm sorry. That's just not acceptable because we're talking about our health, the environment, and the trust of citizens in the European institutions.
Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 21
Thank you very much. Well, I'd just like to support what mister Corman, mister Karem, missus Laurent have said, and they want to keep it open. I believe that's right. Because they have also a lot of issues in French public opinion about this. And we also, on a European basis, want to support you in that.
Speaker 20
I think the petitioner represents the will of many citizens about these substances, PFAS and so on. And they need a better assessment, a technical assessment, long term.
Thank.
you. Madam Foureau?
Speaker 22
Merci. Thank you. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Secretary Toxic, who struggles every day to get their voice heard in the European Union so that we can have a suspension of this situation. We've got a collection of many signatures in that regard. And more than anything, citizens are involved in this kind of policy and engaged in collecting information about it.
Speaker 23
The commission is proposing this omnibus package, and that has repercussions for the dangerous nature of these substances which are being used. We don't want a non-ambitious situation. So this petition is a cry to survive, a cry for survival. The pesticides today are the cancers of tomorrow, and the victims on the front line are our farmers and our consumers. It's not a luxury.
Speaker 22
It's something that's very essential for certain people, a question of their health. We don't want these products to be marketed just in the name of profit for some. We have to give the floor, as it were, to our European citizens, allow them to have their voice so that we can also break these criminal activities in terms of the marketing of those substances. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you so much. Now let's go back to mister Patissandra. Two minutes, if it's possible. Last remark, two minutes. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. The petition will be opened, and we are waiting for the commission response. Okay? Thank you. We are.
Coming to the next petition, number six, item number 16, petition number 16372025 by Santos Hillera on behalf of Asociacion de Vecinos Colectivo Bruil Alloy Sala Tenereyes on alleged mismanagement of Next Generation EU funds in the area of housing and renovation in Saragossa in Spain. The petitioner is connected remotely. So, without further ado, we can give the floor to the petitioner. You have five minutes.
Good.
Santos Hillera
Morning, Chair, ladies and gentlemen. I represent the Briel Aloisala Tenereas Neighborhood Association from Saragossa. Thank you for giving us a voice. We have been denied that by the institutions in our country. We are here to speak out not just about poor administrative management, but also a violation of the legitimate expectations of hundreds of European families, and a possible misuse of the next generation EU funds.
Speaker 25
The Aloisala neighborhood is or it's composed of modest housing built in the 1950s. These are five-floor apartment buildings where pensioners and low-income workers live. The municipal town hall promised us that European funds would be used to renovate our houses, that they would improve energy efficiency, and overcome architectural barriers. And this was set out in the leaflet that was shared with us. There were supposed to be three phases to this plan, and each of them had an implementing date.
Santos Hillera
Now we know that the third phase was used as mere bait to fatten up the budget and to ask for much higher European subsidies. This is beyond just a human tragedy. It's an unacceptable mockery and contempt. We met all of the requirements in the announcement about the next-generation funds. We had a cost that we had to take on, such as the building logbook, assemblies, projects.
And then we were informed that this would be closed, and that seven, for 70% of the houses, 504 out of the 722 would be excluded from the project. And the only explanation we were given is that there was no money, but the state had to reimburse €60,000,000,000. Ladies and gentlemen, we're not just talking about the facade of the building or electric supplies. These are fundamental rights. These are five-story buildings, and people are living in them who are old and have all of the difficulties that go hand in hand with old age.
Today, we're talking about citizens who are literally being held prisoner in their own homes. They can only get out with help and with medical assistance to go up and down stairs. For them, this is a huge effort. They were promised that Europe would bring the elevators that they needed so that they could live with dignity, and yet now they have no hope. And what's happening is Kafkaesque.
First of all, we were excluded from the European funds that were initially designated for the neighborhood. Secondly, the town hall says that we have to maintain aesthetic uniformity in the works that are done. So what this means is that the people who are excluded from the project can't even look for cheaper alternatives on their own. We're obliged to use the same materials as the subsidized ones, but we're not going to get the subsidy for it. It's been taken off of us.
And thirdly, there was an alarming lack of transparency throughout the process. The mayor at the time was behind this project, and now he's the president of the regional government. This concentration of power has gone hand in hand with an absolute information blackout, against all our complaints. We're not here because nobody wants to talk to us. We've turned to the local institutions, the Aragon courts, the housing ministry, the public works ministry, and the budgetary control committee of this parliament, and nobody's got back to us.
There's an absolute lack of transparency. Faced with this wall of science, we had to go to the European public prosecutor, and they have initiated a possible fraud and misappropriation of European funds file. We've already been summoned to ratify this complaint, and recently, they've asked us for more information. The European criminal justice system is looking at this, and we would ask that this petition not be closed. The money left Brussels, but not all of it ended up in the streets of our neighborhood.
It's clear that there have been shortcomings in institutional management. Somebody has to be held accountable for this, but the people in this neighborhood can't wait for all of the legal proceedings to finish, just so that they can leave their own homes. And so, therefore, we ask this parliament to keep the petition open and that you have a hearing and exhaustive follow-up of how next generation funds are being used in Aragon and in the Aloy Sala neighborhood. Also, specific funds should be allocated, updated to current market prices, to cover all of the costs incurred by the excluded houses and regeneration of this neighborhood. Also, there should be an independent administrator managing these funds, designated by this committee, and that it should not be linked to the local and regional government.
We want to see technical, clean management not linked to local politicians. Ladies and gentlemen, next generation funds are supposed to transform neighborhoods and improve citizens' lives, and to protect the most vulnerable in the green transition. But now as we, this should not be used just for politicians to have photographs or to favor particular investment funds, while old people in the neighborhood are trapped in their apartments. This misuse can't remain with impunity. Europe can't just be a logo and a flyer.
Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much indeed. Now we are going to give the floor to the representative of the European Commission from the task force on reform and investment. Is the representative of the commission in the room? There you go.
Speaker 27
Members, I would like first to stand to start by thanking mister Santos Rilera and the association for presenting this petition. And we also thank this committee for inviting us to present the views of the European Commission regarding the concerns raised in this petition. Mister Santos Rilera raises alleged irregularities in the use of next generation EU funds under Spain's recovery and resilience plan for the rehabilitation of the Aloy Sala housing complex in Zaragoza. He calls on the European institutions to request explanations from the Spanish authorities to investigate the use of the funds and to allocate new funding for dwellings that were excluded. The commission is fully committed to ensuring the transparency and sound financial management of the funds in line with the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the regulation establishing the recovery and resilience facility.
In this context, the commission is constantly reminding national authorities of the importance of implementing next-generation EU funding measures in a transparent manner and of ensuring that control and audit systems function effectively. At the same time, the recovery in the resilience facility regulation does not provide for the commission to request an explanation from national or regional authorities regarding the non allocation of funding. The recovery in the resilience facility regulation does also not provide for the commission to require national or regional authorities to allocate additional funding to projects that were not selected. It is a prerogative of each member state to manage the allocated funds internally to ensure the fulfillment of the relevant milestones and targets in line with national and EU rules. The commission therefore considers that the Spanish director general of the plan and the recovery mechanism and resilience as the national coordinator for next generation EU in Spain, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Agenda as the responsible line ministry at national level, and the relevant regional and local authorities, the autonomous community of Aragon, and the municipality of Zaragoza are best placed to examine the concrete implementation of renovation works and to answer any follow-up questions in this regard.
The commission would also like to underline that the European Public Prosecutor's Office is fully independent, and the commission does not have information on the treatment of a complaint mentioned by the petitioner. Managers and targets under the Spanish recovery and resilience plans, such as those related to energy renovations and buildings, are assessed by the commission upon the submission of the relevant payment requests in line with the recovery and resilience facility requirements. And at this stage, these energy efficiency measures have not yet been assessed by the European Commission. To conclude on this part, we would like to note that without prejudice to the actions of the European Commission to ensure the correct implementation of the Spanish recovery and resilience plan, ensuring compliance with the defined selection process is first and foremost the responsibility of the national authorities, including judicial authorities who are best placed to assess the situation and intervene if necessary. Thank you very much.
Thank.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you very much. I'd like to start by thanking the petitioner. I'd like to start. Having listened to the commission and the unfounded accusations, I want to say that a number of competent institutions have analyzed this issue. And as the commission has said, there has been a written response where they said that they have not identified any shortcomings in complying with the regulations. And so there are no formal elements backing the petition.
Also, clearly say that the petitioners have not brought concrete evidence to back up their statements. Secondly, the housing ministry's director of the socialist government in Spain has made an express declaration in which, and I quote, he says that there is no proof of fraud. The arrogant government also states that everything is okay. And I would just recall that it was a socialist regional government, who was responsible for part of this aid. So I don't really know what we're talking about here.
These are serious accusations, and I think we're all aware that they are unfounded. This petition is the result of frustration. I understand it's legitimate, understandable frustration. It's true that Zaragoza said that they were going to ask for €20,000,000 to renovate these buildings. And in the end, they only got 14,000,000, but that's all that happened.
Nothing more than that. The social, government, and I think its representatives, are aware of this, are the only ones who are saying that there's a problem here. And I would draw attention of the socialist towards that they have the coordinator towards the Patriots and Vox, and we see what's happening here in Saragossa. But we think that we should close this petition. Thank you.
Thank.
Thank you very much.
Thank.
Rosa Serrano Sierra
You, chair. I'd like to start by thanking Mr. Santos Quellera and all of the neighborhood association for being present and for setting out the issue. I would, Rosa Serrano can't be here, and I want to apologize on behalf of her, but she wasn't able to be in Brussels today. But on behalf of my group, the socialists, I just want to express our support to this petition and the fact that it should remain open.
European funds can't be used in a way which allows room for any doubt, particularly in issues that are as sensitive as what we're talking about this morning, housing, accessibility of housing, people's living conditions. It's not just a question of transparency here. We're talking about housing. This is one of the main concerns of European citizens. Then this issue of renovation, energy efficiency, accessibility, these are not secondary issues.
They are very much part of an ambitious European program that we've worked with European funds and with our policy. So we have to be very rigorous on all of this. As we've heard, the locals were promised that this will be done in all of their houses, but over 500 houses were excluded in the end. So what this means is these families believed in the local government. There was a certain amount of expenditures that has been promised, and yet they're left waiting.
And these families are still waiting for a response from the local authorities. At least 500 families are affected by this. So we would ask for this petition to remain open, and we would ask the commission to follow up this case to ensure that funds are being used correctly. And we would urge the authorities to provide a response. These are citizens who are fighting for their rights.
European funds can't be used as a propaganda tool and then just abandoned without consequence. What's at stake here is the credibility of European institutions, and commitments that are made, and promises that are made to citizens have to be kept, so the petition should remain open.
Thank.
Thank you very much.
Ana Miranda Paz
Thank you, chair, and thank you in particular to the petitioner and to the people who are members of this association. There are a lot of elderly people, as the petitioner has said. The recovery and resilience funds have to be recovered. This is what the Court of Auditors has said. They have to keep an eye on whether or not they've actually got to the citizens.
We're talking about millions of euros that Europe promised to the citizens, and then they never got to their destination. We're talking here about accessibility for elderly people, and that's what this petition is asking. I think their requests are legitimate. They're requesting proper scrutiny from the administrations. It seems to be a bit of back and forth between the socialists and EPP, but I'm not from either of those.
I'm here in the middle. I'm on the side of the citizens. We have to ensure that there's proper scrutiny. We have to see where this money has gone. And if the money that did reach its destination is actually having the impact that these people wanted to see and the associations are requesting.
There needs to be proper, exhaustive control of these funds. That seems to be common sense.
Ana Miranda Paz
would like this petition to remain open, and we want to emphasize the fact that the recovery and resilience funds was a model that wasn't good for citizens. They were ad hoc funds that had a much more complex scrutiny method than traditional funds. So we have two European funds can't continue along the lines of this model. We would ask for this petitions committee to write a letter to the local authorities, to the autonomous community, to Saragossa, and to the Spanish government. And here, we should write a letter where we ask about this scrutiny follow-up and the citizens' petition.
Thank you.
Speaker 36
Can return to the mister petitioner now? Two minutes. Two minutes for you.
Santos Hillera
Thank you for giving me the two minutes. I'll try to stick to that. First of all, thank you to those people who have supported my petition. And, also, I would like to say to the only person who hasn't supported us that we've gone to this, we have turned to this parliament because we haven't got anywhere with the other bodies. It's not the people from the neighborhood who have to provide proof here.
We've taken proof to the EPPO, and they've kept the file open. We will provide documentation to them, and then they'll take the decisions that they have to. We were promised over 90,000,000 for Zaragoza. We don't know what happened to this. Only 10,000,000 reached our neighborhood when they should have got at least 23.
We've never had any answers to our questions when we've turned to city hall, when we asked how much was asked, how much was given by Brussels, how much has gone to which area. And now we're facing a situation. Well, the Spanish government is talking about this, 60,000,000,000. We don't know why. Is it because there are lots of local authorities or the EPP, or we don't know who has not been able to properly implement what they were supposed to do?
So I would just urge you to please keep this petition open. As I said before, what's at stake here is the credibility of these types of plans from the commission. And the situation we're facing now is that there are a lot of elderly people who had hoped that they could improve their housing to live in a dignified way. Now these pensioners can only leave their apartments once a week to get to the doctor or go shopping, or something like that. But they need assistance to get down the stairs, and otherwise, they can't leave their apartment.
That's what we're asking for. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. So, yes, this petition is going to be kept open. It's going to be kept open.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Yes. Mister Serjas, I would like to know that the number of votes in favor, and against, it is the same with this name, I guess. So I cannot understand why, because there should be a support, a clear support to keep open this petition. And in this case, it is there is a row, and I will really believe that we should need a majority of this committee to maintain open the petition.
Bogdan Rzońca
The picture is the following. If you look at the votes themselves, it's nine for, nine against for the petition to remain open. So I feel that we may keep the petition open pending the commission's answer. Now it's time to move on to item 19, petition 0748 by it's actually 17, 21, 18 on the development of a universal accessible and language barrier free EU emergency application. I would like to give the floor to the Commission and DG Connect.
Speaker 37
Thank you, chair. Dear honorable members, and ladies and gentlemen, we would like to first thank the petitioner for the ideas expressed in the petition. More exactly, the petitioner argues that the effectiveness of the single European emergency number 112 is reduced in cross border situations, due to language barriers, resulting in critical delays when EU citizens might be unable to effectively communicate with the public safety answering point operators. The petitioner maintains that these obstacles are particularly serious in case of persons with disabilities, including speech impaired and hearing impaired individuals, and this might be particularly life threatening. In the petition, it is argued that the EU should move for an official EU emergency communication application that should function in all member states.
And the reason for this is to ensure several funds functionalities, automatic geolocation, a real-time, AI-based translation between the originator of the emergency communication and the public safety answering point operator, and, optionally, some essential medical and accessibility information could be provided, linked to the European disability card. The commission would like to recall that the European Electronic Communication Code ensures that all users may access emergency services via emergency communications, in particular, by using the 112 single European emergency call number. In case of end users with disabilities, they have the right of equivalent means to access emergency services, and members, they should implement means of access that respect equivalence requirements that are also defined in EU legislation in the commission delegated regulation 444 from 2023. In addition, the European Accessibility Act ensures that interpersonal communication services are implemented in all member states, at least real-time text and, where video is provided, total conversation. That is, video and text in, running in parallel.
So these number-based interpersonal communications are network-enabled and ensure a guaranteed quality of service. For all these common means of communications, very accurate caller location is ensured both network based and handset derived caller location by virtue of the European electronic communications code. When it comes to language barriers, because this is the issue that might not be addressed in legal text, member states are currently migrating from legacy so-called circuit switch technologies to new all IP, packet switched technologies, including in their public safety answering point systems. This might enable them to route emergency communications in real time, from one call handler to the other, also, according to the language capabilities of the call handler. So, in the future, we expect that the issue of handling several languages within the public safety answering point systems would be solved first by this migration to the packet switch technology, which enables an interconnection of the PSAPs across a national territory.
Speaker 38
Secondly, the AI instruments could also be used at the receiving end. That is at the piece up end and might not be necessary that the AI instrument comes into place at the origin of the emergency communication. When it comes to the idea of having an application, the application-based emergency communication could be a useful complement to number-based emergency communications. This is actually recognized in the commission proposal for a digital networks act of '20 of this year. It was issued on January 22, where it is proposed to deploy an emergency communication via mobile applications, coupled with the European digital identity wallets.
Speaker 37
And this would enable end users to access a digital hub for essential services that is emergency services, but not only, you might have, and this is also provided in the digital networks act, a similar service for public warnings. But for these two functions, it is fundamental that such applications where such communications are routed to the most appropriate public safety answering point. This is a key technological challenge. And for this, an interoperability framework is needed. And in the same digital network act proposal, it is proposed that the commission is mandated to adopt delegated acts for implementing such an interoperability framework.
And finally, I would mention that the digital networks act also defines the term contextual information that enables effective emergency communication. And contextual information might be embedded in the emergency communication and the information on the end users with disabilities that the petitioner is referring to, might be also possible to be embedded in the emergency communication as proposed under the digital networks. So, we would conclude that, actually, the scope of the proposal of the petitioner is covered in the legislative proposal that is also on your table, your excellencies.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Now, on behalf of EPP, mister vice president Belarus. Thank.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you very much, chairman. I would, first of all, like to thank the petitioner for the very important problem that he submitted to this committee. The European emergency number 112 is very important because it provides access to services which save lives. That is why we have to make sure that the current mechanism works for all Europeans, including those with disabilities, and that it is effective even when moving cross border. For that reason, we have to study how we can remove language barriers and other problems of access, which reduce effectiveness.
That is why I think this petition must remain open, so that we can continue with this dialogue and have a change of best practice. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. Madam Laurent, s and d. No? Mister Luzhakov, vice president Luzhakov. Yes, please.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. This petition is about a simple but essential principle. Everyone in Europe must be able to access emergency help quickly, easily, and without barriers. We already have the emergency number 112.
However, in real-life situations, access is not always equal. For example, for those who don't speak the local language, for people who cannot communicate verbally, or for persons with disabilities. This is why the idea of a common EU emergency application is so important. Such a tool could automatically share location, enable communication across languages, and offer accessible features adapted to different needs. In emergencies, these are not just useful features.
They can save lives. Importantly, this petition is fully in line with the objectives of the European Accessibility Act, which came into force in June 2022. The act aims to ensure that key products and services are accessible to all, including persons with disabilities. An EU-wide emergence application would be a strong and practical example of how we can turn these principles into reality by making essential services truly accessible and inclusive. At the same time, we must ensure proper coordination between member states and fully respect data protection standards.
But these challenges are not a reason to delay action. Ultimately, access to emergency assistance should be guaranteed for everyone, regardless of where they are, what language they speak, or their individual circumstances. I, therefore, on behalf of SMD, support this petition and encourage further work at the EU level to modernize and improve access to emergency services for all. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sikares.
Pál Szekeres
Thank you very much, chairman. We all know that when we're in trouble, every second counts. Therefore, we need a system which is as efficient and swift as possible when it comes to reacting, and we should not see any barriers to communication. And obviously, this is particularly important for people with disabilities. And when it comes to barriers, language barriers are particularly important.
I can see there's a broad consensus on this matter. It's important for laws to be updated so that we're able to use the opportunities that come from technology, because this could apply to health, personal safety, or perhaps in situations like fires. In all those situations, quick reactions are essential. And I'd like to echo what the previous speakers said. Of course, when there are health emergencies, it's important to ensure access to emergency services.
And this is why we need to take this into consideration very carefully. Data protection is important, of course, but the petition should remain open. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
I gather that this petition remains open pending a written reply from the European Commission. Now moving on to item 18, petition 20, twin 22 to 31 by Spanish citizens on the ban of internal combustion vehicles and the PHEVs in the EU. Now the petitioner is absent. So I would like to give the floor to the European Commission. Is the commission present?
If so, you have.
Speaker 42
The floor. Chair, honorable members. This petition relates to the CO2 standards for cars and vans. That is the instrument to reduce CO2 emissions from these vehicles by setting mandatory targets on vehicle manufacturers. Such targets get stricter every five years, so 2025, 2030, and 2035.
And as it stands now, the target by 2035 is a minus 100% CO2 emission reduction, which means effectively that only zero-emission vehicles are to be put on the road as from that date on. And in practice, the petitioner requests a change to that target to allow for other technologies to be put on the road, in particular, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and also to recognize the role of renewable fuels. To start, the last year was particularly eventful on the front of automotive policies. It started with the Commission's President launching a strategic dialogue with the key actors of the automotive ecosystem to discuss the future of the European automotive industry. This led first to an action plan adopted in March, which set out concrete measures to support the transition to clean mobility and to boost innovation.
Speaker 43
After that and after this petition was launched effectively, the commission adopted an automotive package on December 16 to deliver on the action plan by setting a framework to support the climate objectives of the EU and the objectives of strategic independence, whilst also supporting our industry throughout this transition towards clean mobility. This automotive package includes a revision of the CO2 standards, which maintains a very strong signal towards zero-emission vehicles in the future. But it also acknowledges that there is a need for providing flexibilities, and therefore, it provides for concrete flexibilities to help automotive industries throughout the transformation and to also enhance technology neutrality. In practice, it means that as of 2035, not only zero emission vehicles will be able to be put on the market, but also other powertrains, including plug-in hybrid vehicles. The proposal also supports the development and deployment of renewable sustainable fuels by providing credits to vehicle manufacturers depending on the deployment of such fuels, and also supports the development of low carbon steel made in the EU and of small electric cars made in the EU.
Speaker 42
The co-decision on this proposal is now ongoing. Discussions are happening in the European Parliament and in the Council. And therefore, the process is, as we speak, progressing, and these elements are being discussed. Thank you very much.
Gheorghe Falcă
Thank you, Mr. Falcon. We have the EPP. Yes, please. Thank.
Thank you very much indeed. I'd like to speak on behalf of my colleague who's not able to be here today. This petition highlights very serious problems regarding the ban on the sale and production of internal combustion vehicles and PHEVs. The petitioner says that these measures could have negative, significant repercussions on various sectors in industry, the economy and across society. He also highlights concerns about the violation of the principles of European law.
There are certain key issues highlighted: the need to recognize alternative technologies, correct assessment, and also problems linked to infrastructure and charging infrastructure. The petitioner wants to see more fairness in order through including renewable fuels and hydrogen-based fuels. Instead of a general ban, we should promote awareness-raising, the inclusion of new technologies, and diversity of solutions for the technological transition. After analyzing this, we believe that the points highlighted in the petition reflect concerns that have been in the public debates across Europe. And for that reason, we ask for the petition to be kept open.
Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 50
Thank you very much. Chairman? Well, first of all, I would like to say that this is an issue that should concern all of us. Reducing CO2 is absolutely vital. And currently, it's clear that hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles are essential.
Speaker 47
And we all know that the infrastructure for charging electric vehicles is not ideal in all countries, and we need to improve that and ensure that vehicles can be charged everywhere. We need to encourage innovation. That's also crucial. However, it's going to be difficult to achieve 0% emissions in the near future. This is why hydrogen could be a solution.
Speaker 46
But, you know, charging vehicles isn't easy. For this reason, we must bear in mind that we have to focus on the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. And we believe that the green transition is paramount because people's health depends on CO2 emissions in our cities and in our neighborhoods. We would therefore like to ask for the petition to be kept open, and we'd like to follow this process. There's a lot of work to do still.
Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much.
The petitioner is not present, and yes, the petitioner is going to remain open. We are still going to wait for a written answer from the European Commission. Thank you. Item 19, petition 0748/2025 by a French citizen on alleged irregularities regarding the award of a public contract in Saint Martin, France. Our petitioner is connected remotely.
So you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Speaker 49
Dear members of the European Parliament, good morning. Thank you for giving me the possibility of speaking to you here on behalf of my organization in The Caribbean, of which I am director, and we're working on affecting on looking at certain conditions in the area. We have a significant environmental issue in the region. And for several years now, the sargassum issue has been a problem for us on our coasts, and this has direct consequences for the population. It makes the ecosystem very fragile, and affects our tourism industry.
Speaker 48
It's a structural issue. We've tried to deal with the issue in an urgent way, and we've tried to carry out some sustainable actions through Interact Caribbean. We're trying to come up with some solutions for this sarcasm issue that has been successful elsewhere. And we've tried to process the issue in such a way that we have protected the environment, because otherwise, the population is exposed to toxic gas. And it's also an economic problem and an employment issue. We have an integrated approach, therefore, to the problem, and I'd like to deal with the essential points of it.
Our project, however, has to be supported by a stable administration, which is consistent. And that's the difficulty for us because despite the pertinence of the measures taken, we are being hindered in our task and in the implementation of our task. From an administrative point of view, the amount of red tape, the absence of coordination, and this is a structural issue also. There's a difficulty for the players.
They're pretty slow. Slower.
Speaker 48
The petitioner is being asked to slow down. It's very difficult to deal with public procurement procedures. And we have to say advisedly that, really, the procedure is very difficult for us, we've been faced with the lack of transparency and competition conditions not being properly respected. This situation obviously brings harm. It damages us.
It discourages the people who are putting forward solutions and projects in favor of the population. It's very concerning and is a signal to the citizens, a negative signal. It's a signal for the inhabitants who are still, however, undergoing the effects of the sargassum, and this has effects on our tourism industry. Also, I should point out that since 2023, the national procedures for transparency in terms of public procurement have not been in operation. Implementation on the ground has not actually been effective.
And the essential question here is not a question of rules, but how they are applied? How are they implemented? How are they followed up on? Because actually there's a big gap between what's happening on the ground and these rules. And this, of course, affects people's trust in the institutions.
If we want to have a sustainable solution, then what we're trying to do is alert you to the problem, to point out this system. And the urgency of reestablishing proper conditions for a proper solution. In the meantime, we still have the issue of sarcasm, which is affecting our population. That is why I would like to put forward some concrete proposals. First of all, a recognition of the problem of the sarcasm at the European level. It's very important for ultra peripheral regions and the Caribbean area.
There has to be access to European financing and transparent procedures. We also have to reinforce the transparency mechanism and traceability of the financial flows and public procurement, so that we have a fair playing field or level playing field for everybody. We have to also have specific support for certain projects, so that they can be developed without red tape. And finally, we want to have better coordination between the various levels, local, national, and European, and we want to have coherent action. The ecological transition is often done on the basis of big principles, but here we are concentrating on what's happening on the ground with local players.
Sarcasm is a really major challenge for us. And it could also be an opportunity for us to demonstrate that Europe does support practical solutions and can prevent crisis and have a sustainable situation. And we want to encourage this kind of innovation. We are ready to contribute. We have the solutions, and what we want is commitment.
So what I've tried to explain today is that we want a transparent framework, an efficient framework, which is working on behalf of the citizens. Thank you for your attention.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you. There is probably a DG representative, DG Reggio. Yes, please.
Thank.
Schmidt
Thank you very much, chairman, and thanks to Missus Schmidt, the petitioner. I've taken your comments on board. I do understand you very well. First of all, I should say that the European Commission is very much aware of the issues of sarcasm in the ultra peripheral Caribbean areas. You've actually quoted and described the recognition of the problem, Sargassum, and the need for local support.
We're perfectly aware of that at the Commission. However, the subject of the petition that you have submitted to the petitions committee of the European Parliament concerns one point. That is the way the public procurement system is not working. Public procurement, which obviously is important for you over there. You refer to the European funds.
And you refer to the possibility of your contract to be financed or co-financed by the European Parliament, in particular by the RDF, which is part of cohesion policy. But indeed, that has not been the case. And what derives from that is that the procedure that you're mentioning and the way it's not functioning, your offers have been rejected inappropriately. That is to say, they have not been properly examined. Other offers which are less advantageous have been taken.
But that is the national courts who have to look into that, and what is not regular in that procedure. So that all has to be done. That's the general principle. And then we can see once if, for example, there's a situation in which these other offers are accepted with irregularities, and if these offers at the end of the day get European support. That's when you can intervene, we can intervene, and we can see whether the ERDF is supporting projects which are not eligible. They are irregular.
And that's not the case at the moment. And you have submitted this to our committee here. And you have submitted a complaint also to Olaf. That was in 2025. And Olaf has also confirmed to us that no European fund is in question here, is in play here.
And that is why Olaf has closed the case. But I can guarantee that I am very aware of your worries, your concerns. Well, you've alerted us. You've said that is the main aim of your intervention today. You said you wanted to raise the alarm.
We are following the Saint Martin program. It's managed at the moment by the Guadeloupe Prefecture. So the Saint Martin Collectivite, who have actually published the public notice that you referred to, we've still not had a request from them from that Collectivite to get financing under the ERDF. So having said that, I stopped there, but I'm very happy to reply to any questions that may be directed at me. Thank you.
Gheorghe Falcă
thank you very much. The petitioner is talking about problems with the awarding of a public contract in San Martin. We have listened to the commission proposal as well as the petitioner. And as a person who has worked in administration, I understand this kind of issue. When there are no European funds, then it's the member states who have competency.
That's why I think this petition can be closed. But we have a proposal made by the commission to continue exactly to follow-up exactly what's happening. Thank you.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you, chairman. Well, I would first of all like to thank the petitioner for having submitted this important question to us. You can hear me. Yes. Oh, this petition, if you like, involves certain other aspects.
For example, confidence of the citizens towards their representatives. And this trust is obviously a precondition of a good democratic situation. Therefore, it's necessary that the competent authorities are mobilized to discover exactly what is going on. Also, this is concerning public money, European funds. And that is obviously also a fundamental part of citizens' trust.
People pay taxes and we have to, therefore, be assured that the money is being spent according to the rules and in democratic transparency. And finally, this petition deals with the problem of sarcasm. The sargassum is a problem for public health, for marine biodiversity, and in the islands concerned. And therefore, we've got to take this very seriously. It doesn't really matter what economic situation we're dealing with.
It's still very important from an environmental point of view in Saint Martin. For all these reasons, we are in favor of that the petition remain open.
Yes, please.
Said the petition to remain open.
Rody Tolassy
Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me the floor and allowing me to express my opinion. Personally, I mean, I'm actually involved because of Sargassum. I come from Guadeloupe, so I'm not the best to speak about it, but nevertheless, I do have some qualifications to speak about it. And I think this petition will reveal irregularities in public procurement procedures.
So I address the point to the commission. There's some ambiguity here. Europe is doing its job, but we don't have anything about the sargassum being done. And, for some years now, from 2011, this phenomenon is also affected by agricultural activity. And indeed, we can expect more of this, more of sargassum coming from the currents and the flows of water.
So it is a major problem. The sargassum is definitely not a good thing for our terrain. It's a form of pollution, and it chokes the soil. These seaweed destroys the flora and fauna and chokes off the marine fauna, the marine life, and also causes problems to public health. It emits highly toxic gas.
And sometimes, it means that some schools which are near the seaside have to be closed down and tourism activities affected. It's essential for us. We live by tourism in that area. And any solution which has been found so far, sort of containment of the problem and collecting it on the coastline. Like, I'll leave you to imagine the issues that we also have now with the erosion of the coastline and the pollution.
It means that we can't move on. We can't have other perspectives. We can't use our natural resources. And this is because there's no financing and no priority given to the problem. In 15 years, the European Union, if I may say so, has not really looked into this issue of sarcasm.
That's something that we have to recognize. We've got a few projects here and there, Santo Domingo, Brazil about it. But in European territory, which could take advantage of the European's power in all this is really forgotten. Let's not forget, we are European territory, and we are affected by European policy. We have to comply with it.
We want to be able to count on the principles of the European Union. And we have a situation now where the collectivities are not able to face the problem or to solve the problem. We're faced with increasing quantities in our territory. So my view is that it's absolutely essential to keep this petition open. And I think it will be good to make a visit to Saint Martin in order to understand the problem.
In May, for example, we will be absolutely in the season for the large flows of sargassum. Sometimes it's difficult to imagine what actually is happening on the ground. And I think it would be good if our colleagues could see what is actually happening, the reality. Thank you.
Connection.
Well,
Bogdan Rzońca
In this case, this petition, we'll keep it open. And yes, we can all meet there during our mission.
Schmidt
Thank you very much. I don't want to disrupt the procedure, but I think it's very important to clarify something, which, in my view, has not been made clear. In particular, on what you've been saying. What I was saying was there are no European funds which have been used to contain this problem of sargassum. And that's very important to say because the public contract, which is referred to by the petitioner, which is covered by the ERDF Saint Martin, allows us to support these actions.
But the collectivité of Saint Martin in terms of the public procurement contract has not yet asked us. They may still do so, but they have not yet asked us for the European funds. We are certainly not challenging the problem of sargassum. We are already aware of it. And in the Caribbean, we know that this is a huge problem.
It's not just Saint Martin. There are other projects for the ultra peripheral regions. I'm also involved in the Guadalupe program, and I know very well the programs that they have. And we've already financed actions against sargassum. So we now have a shared management.
We have to recognize that, and it's the member states who select the project. So it's up to them to respect the rules governing how projects are chosen. And so I want to make that very clear. Some funds have been allocated, and that's very important to say, to control sarcasm. I want to underscore that.
But what I'm talking about here is the public contract referred to by the petitioner and the whole procedure around it has been rejected. So we're not talking here about the Sargassum. It is a problem, but what we're talking about here is a dysfunction in the allocation of public contracts. That is why in the national courts, they're trying to see if indeed the rules have been respected or not. I really just had to underscore that, because we have not released any funds.
We have not supported. We have in other places, such as Martinique, Guadeloupe. So I had to make that distinction, and thank you very much for giving me the floor, because it seemed very important for me to underscore that.
Bogdan Rzońca
This all looks quite promising, and we'll be there with a mission and see with our own eyes where the issue lies. Now the petition remains open. But we are moving on to item 20, petition number 0109 by Maris Copet on behalf of the on abolishing the tax in the French outermost regions. Now the petitioner is present physically in the room.
Yes, please. Five minutes for you, madam.
Maris Copet
Good morning, everyone. The goal of our petition is to bring an end to the doc Jews regime in the outermost regions. This is a tax that was created in the sixteenth century, and it remains today only in the former French colonial territories, which since then have been called European Union outermost regions. This is a tax that affects both imported and local products on the territory in these areas: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion. This fiscal measure was designed to protect the local economy against imports.
But now there are significant distortions in the local market because of this. There's a 2021/9.
Maris Copet
One decision from the council, which allows the French authorities to have full or partial exemptions from the dock dues tax based on a limited list of locally produced products that are listed in the annex to the decision. However, the French court of auditors in a number of reports has said that the DOCTU's taxes on imports benefit fewer than 500 companies for very high amounts and basically constitute state aid. So instead of protecting local production, the dock dues tax creates oligopolies to the benefit of certain companies. It prevents imports and new competitors, and we see this being repeated across the outermost regions and overseas territories. A lot of the local population is against this.
This tax has a direct impact on supply and leads to impoverishment of the population. It leads to an increase in consumption prices and import costs, and impacts people's purchasing power. So the economic benefit of this tax is limited, and successive reports from the French court of doctors have said that this measure has not allowed economic development or the creation of a manufacturing base, and the tariffs have not led to greater industrialization. Now we have an economy that's entirely dependent on imports. Local access is limited, and this measure basically constitutes rent dependency rather than favoring local innovation.
The European objectives are not being met. The commission's current position is obsolete. There's a decision that was supposed to come to an end in 2021. And then, based on a French authority's request, it was extended to 2027. And we want to know where from the commission, whether France has actually submitted the report as they were supposed to do at 2025.
And I would draw the attention of the commission and the parliament to the fact that work done by the European by the French parliament has shown that the effects of this are only partial in terms of success. IT organizations such as Eurodom and Fedom are the main interlocutors. They benefit the big companies and those who can interact with the commission. So, the issue here is how reliable the evaluation that this decision was based on was. It was article 349 of the treaty that was used as the basis for this on, outermost regions.
And, these types of adaptions are only allowed when they're temporary and proportionate. And yet this regime has existed for decades now, and the effects are not what the European Union wants to see. So we think this is a disproportionate measure. The regime is not compatible with the fundamental principles of the EU, and has a direct impact on the freedom of movement of goods. There is a becuniary charge, which is applied to imported tariffs because they are crossing an internal EU border.
It's basically a customs duty, which is prohibited in principle. If we see fiscal discrimination. And what's shocking with this tax is that if you get a derogation and if you basically know the local authorities, then you get the exemption. So there's a list of products and companies who don't pay the tax. So it's basically an abusive dominant position.
It's illegal state aid. Doc duties taxes are selective. Those who are exempt have an economic advantage, and it prevents trade between the member states. The argument from the state is that this can help support local government. I would say that the European Union can't tolerate a system which runs counter to its rules, and it just enriches local organizations.
All reports have shown that there is endemic corruption in the overseas territories. That's because of the selective application of this tax exemption. It's favoritism, it's rent-based income, and it has been pointed out a number of times. The most recent report is from 03/20/2024, and it shows once again that the DOCTU's tax has not achieved the objectives that they were supposed to. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much.
Do we have the European Commission in the room from the Tax DG? The floor is yours.
Speaker 58
Thank you, chair, for your, for the floor, and, thank you, the cop here. Thank you for your words. And I must confirm or I want to reassure you that we are taking this very seriously, and we understand your concerns. And I think the aim that we have is common, that we want to help the outermost regions. We want to help the people living there, not only the companies.
And we think that, by this tax regime, we are also helping the people because, by helping the companies to produce locally, we are also helping the employment and people having jobs locally in the companies that produce locally. And we don't want that island to be dependent only, but we want to support the local production. And that's the aim. And as you mentioned yourself, the outermost regions have a special treatment, and they deserve special treatment. And it is in the treaty of the functioning of the EU, in the article 349.
It's encoded there that they need special treatment, and we want to give it to them because they are in a special situation. I think the aim that we have is common with you. Maybe just the way how we support the islands or the outermost regions might differ or, like, the opinion how to help them might differ. The commission has asked a contractor to do a study. It was back in 2019.
The study was done. It was an extensive study to see if this tax regime is helping the regions or not. The study is public. It was very extensive. It has 600 pages.
It is publicly available. It is on the websites of DG Taksut, so everyone can study it or read it. And in the outcome of the study is that it is helping the local economy, but not only the local economy, but also the people. They did a quantitative data analysis, which suggests that if we don't have this regime, the performance of local production activities would have been significantly worse. But to we still have to assess it because for the future because it is this tax regime is temporary.
It's valid until the end of next year. So it's valid until the end of the year 2027. And we have to see if it will be extended or not. France has, last year, submitted a report which the council decision is asking for. So they have done it in time.
And now, this year, we will study the report given by France. We will also take into consideration the French auditor court report and see what is the best way forward. Yeah. So, yeah, this year, we will see. Thank you.
Thank.
You, chair.
Murielle Laurent
First of all, I would like to thank the petitioner for bringing this important issue to our committee. The issue of cost of living in the outermost regions is a very important issue for France and one that should be of concern to all elected representatives and state services. It's important to citizens, and it's important in terms of the values that we are defending here in the EU. The DOCTJUES tax is a tax that has two main legitimate goals. First of all, to protect local production, as we heard.
Outermost regions face structural difficulties, particularly due to their geographical distance, and this makes it more complex for them to be integrated into the single market on the same conditions. The doc dues increases prices for consumers that can't be denied, but it also allows local players to be favored to encourage local production and favor quality jobs. It also helps to finance local government, as we heard, and therefore public services in this part of our territory. The doctor's tax is a necessary fiscal resource for local government, allowing them to support staff, and it makes up a third of their total income. Without them, they wouldn't be able to function, and it would be the most vulnerable who would be affected first if there wasn't this support for public services.
The idea that the state should make up for this tax being removed is a significant step back in terms of autonomy for local government, who would be more dependent on budgetary decisions taken in Paris. Now, yes, there might be questions about how the DOCTU's tax is implemented and should it probably be reformed. However, removing it altogether would represent an attack that cannot be defended. It would affect the most vulnerable and the middle class. It would lead to a drop in employment and public services for those who need them the most.
This is also an issue that should be handled at the national level, not European. Therefore, we cannot express a favorable opinion of keeping this petition open.
Thank.
Rody Tolassy
Thank you very much. I listened very closely to the people who have spoken, and to the commission in particular. Thanks to article 349, there were specific provisions for the overseas territories. I agree. But I would like to hear examples when you say that it benefits local businesses and local manufacturing and everything that goes along with that, because I think we're not on the same wavelength, unfortunately.
My colleague, Madame Laurent, talked about precarity. Sorry. When you know that for in Guadeloupe, the cost of the doctor's tax is about €1,000 per person. If you're a couple with two children, that's 4,000 euros per year. That's what it costs our citizens.
And you're talking about the cost of living. They're the ones who pay for it because the prices come back down to them. And if there's a court of auditors report saying this. It's not the only factor that leads to a higher cost of living, but it's a factor. It absolutely does not encourage local production or protect it.
Quite the opposite. I have about 400 pages from the Dock Dew's taxonomy, and a lot of local products are taxed at the same level as imported products. The reality of this tax is that, basically, it finances local government. And what happens when we do that? Their budget is up to 70% of their total budget, but it doesn't help the local economy.
There are no provisions that help the local economy through this tax. If you want to set up an agro food business, you know, I have experience with this. This tax isn't going to help local organizations do that. The adopt use task, even the idea behind it, the idea was to support local industry, but it's not happening because what happens is that it goes directly to the local government budget. They take everything they can from this tax.
We have problems with water, and yet water is taxed. There's no reason it should be taxed because we should be able to have zero rate. There's no zero rate tax in those areas. No. I'm not rid of getting rid of it altogether, because it does help to provide some level of protection, but it has to be revised.
It has to be reworked, and we have to ensure that it is actually effective in supporting the local economy. It has to be done in a way that is comprehensible, some kind of perhaps like VAT, so you can see what you're paying. But this is a real cost for the local economy. I have plenty of examples I could give you. If you're a company and you import products, for whatever reason, you have to import a product, and then you don't sell it, and it rots.
You've already paid the dock duties tax on the products, even though you don't know if you can sell it or make any profit on it. How can you talk about supporting the local industry? If you have a farmer, for example, who wants to change his tractor tires, they're going to have to pay the tax on the tires, on the paperwork. These measures are supposed to help local businesses, and it's the exact opposite. It kills local innovation because people can't develop the economy in the territory.
They can't make the huge investment that they would need to, and it's the same across a number of sectors. Now there is a nuance here for me. I want the petition to remain open, but you can't just spout rubbish about the jocked Jews tax when it doesn't help the local economy. Thank you.
Maris Copet
I thank the member who just spoke, and I have to say I'm quite shocked by what I've heard. In 2025, I've had enough of this. I don't want to hear it anymore. We have people living in the streets. These are some of the poorest people in the EU.
They are sick of hearing this type of discourse. This tax basically just ensures that big industrial groups benefit from a monopoly. They don't create jobs. They don't encourage local manufacturing. I can give you an example.
If you're a baker in an overseas territory, your flour is taxed. You pay the dock duties tax. Yeast is taxed. If you have to import cereals, you pay the tax on them. So, basically, the basic goods are gonna cost twice what they would cost elsewhere.
Once you've made the bread, then the customs come and knock on your door and say that you have to give us 15% of your income because there is a dock dues tax on imports and on local production. So this tax is just to ensure that nothing is produced locally. We're happy that you have a delegation coming to Guadalupe who is going to come and speak to local authorities, because you have to understand what's happening. The studies from 2019, and the business, the company that did those studies, refused to meet with local businesses. I have written proof of that.
I was in touch with them. I don't worry about that. I can prove it to you. You have a study that's from 2019. You're using that as the basis for your study, but these players, these lobbies decided who had the right to speak to the people carrying out the study.
We, people from the overseas territories, are sick of hearing this. The figures are clear. There's a theory, and then there's reality, madam. We have territories with the highest unemployment rates in the EU. If a mother wants to go and buy some nappies, how much is that going to cost?
A €100 for some nappies? You're supporting a measure that is just completely impoverishing the population. This is an apartheid regime in the EU, as far as I'm concerned. We have populations in an EU member state who cannot benefit from free movement of goods and freedom to set up a business. If you want to create a business there, then everything's going to cost you more.
So, I'm sorry. The commission can't continue like this. We are human beings with 3,000,000 people in the EU that we represent, and we're sick of hearing from the big lobbies, the big powerful groups that, of course, can lobby members of Parliament. Madame Laurent, I would just remind you that public services are some of the worst in the EU. We're not getting any water out of our taps, and the court of audits has said that the jock juice tax just allows the local authorities to recruit incompetent people.
These are the lowest levels of public services. We talk about Saint Martin when we were talking about public tendering. We can see that this is not in line with the rest of the EU. I don't want to hear any more about public services. And, one more thing, it's not going to change anything for France because the local government already has money from the state.
So we're talking about attacks on top of that. They have huge budgets for local government, for oversized terror overseas territories, more than anywhere else in the EU. So I don't want to hear anymore that you're encouraging local production. There is none. This is a tax that ensures that there won't be any local production.
Thank you.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much. We still have some time. If the European Commission has something to add, we will be most grateful for listening.
Speaker 58
Carefully to everything you said. And, I was surprised that you said that there is no local production, because I thought there is some local production. And, as I understand the system, it is supposed to motivate the consumer to buy local products, and the local products should be, should have a lower price than the products coming from the other member states or from the other regions. So that's the main aim. This is how I understand the system, that because there is a reduction of the tax for the local production, it should be cheaper, I suppose, and it should motivate then the cost consumers to buy local production.
About you mentioning water, that there is tax on water, we will have to carefully assess all the products that have this advantage of lower tax. And as I said previously, we will assess all the data that was given to us by France. We are in contact with France. We are studying carefully the report that they have given us with all the data that they have given us on the local production. Well, the decision in the Annex two says that's also transparent what should be given to the commission, what data, what the effect of on the regional employment is, what the gross value added at the regional level is, the prices, the price level index, which is in Mainland France, the price level index, which is in the outermost regions.
So all these data, they provided us with. And, we will assess if there is a need to continue with this scheme, or not. And then it will be the council deciding. So it will be member states who decide on the proposal if it is, if they think that it is useful or not. And, of course, we will take, or the council will take, into account the opinion of the European Parliament.
And in the past, I think it was also supported by the European Parliament. So.
No. It's relevant.
Rody Tolassy
One point on the local authorities and how they're paid for. We're part of a country which says that France is one and indivisible. So I don't understand why we, us French people, already have to pay these taxes and duties to pay for the government and authorities. In this, single indivisible France or even go further, Europe, so they can have an additional tax to pay for the local government. That's the reality of these taxes.
It's discrimination against our compatriots. And to go even further on this, if you're expecting the French government to produce a completely transparent report, one that's completely honest about the fact that you have to reform or eradicate the Jews, the doc Jews tax, I think you might be waiting a long time. They use this tax because instead of just investing in our local territories, they say, you've got the tax. Sort it out. That's the reality of it.
They defend this tax to avoid taking their responsibility when it comes to water, when it comes to public transport, on lots of issues. They just say, you've got the tax. You can adapt your budgets. You can finance works, investment, and so on. And the state just washes its hands of all responsibility.
But it should work the same as it does elsewhere in France. It's supposed to be just like anywhere else in France, but it's not. When you're building a railway, they're not gonna build a railway in Guadeloupe or Martinique. They don't invest in motorways. They don't invest in all kinds of things.
Of public infrastructure works that we could have. We've raised the issue of water. This is a responsibility of the state. I'm not going to go into details, but they have a responsibility here. DOCTU's tax is a tool that allows the state to ignore its responsibilities.
And as I said, this is a vicious circle. The current provision won't help local production, never will, because it finances the local government. So what happens, the more imports there are, the more money they get. That's the reality of it, and no one wants to put an end to it. Are you gonna expect to get a report that says that French government isn't taking responsibility?
I don't think that's going to happen. You're gonna get a report that says we have to maintain it. Go to the local, go to Martinique or these other places, and you'll see exactly what happens with it. Thank you, chair. Just a couple of words.
Murielle Laurent
This debate shows that we need to take a bit of distance on the French tax system. This isn't the national tax system, yes, can be questions. I mean, this isn't really what we're talking about here, and I don't really want to get into it right now. But, perhaps I could speak about financing local government and, more generally. In national mainland territory, we also have contributions.
And I'm saying this as a former mayor of a 10,000-inhabitant city. We get contributions at different levels. We have national taxes. We also have local taxes. So these are an additional tax for citizens and additional tax income.
So that's something that exists on the mainland as well. Perhaps what needs to be done at a national level, perhaps this committee isn't the right place for a debate of this nature.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much to all of you for enlightening us on this interesting topic. We exist to solve this kind of problems. This petition will be kept open, and we will be awaiting the response of DG Tax Suite for the questions that we have asked here. So yes, the petition stays open. Thank you very much.
Item 23 on our agenda. Do we have any other business? I can't see any. So let me tell you that the next petty committee meeting will take place in May this year, obviously, and that concludes our meeting. Thank you very much for your hard work.
Have a nice and restful weekend. And before that, a good lunch. The chairman kindly thanks the interpreters and everyone who contributed to the successful organization of this very important committee meeting. Thank you very much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.