Committee on Constitutional Affairs – Extraordinary Meeting – Structured Dialogue with Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič
Legenda
Marcadores da transcrição
- texto Frase em reprodução
- texto Resultado da pesquisa
- texto Intervenção citada pela ligação que abriu
Clique numa frase para reproduzir o vídeo a partir desse momento. Selecione texto para o citar com o orador, a marca temporal e a ligação.
Mais opções
AFCO European Parliament
Seguir as suas sessõesGabriele Bischoff
So thank you, colleagues. The voting session is closed, and I would like to remind you that the AFCO recommendation will already be voted this Wednesday. You know, we will have a long voting session on Wednesday in the plenary, and that I'm quite optimistic after this vote here that it also will find the majority of component members in the plenary. And we are waiting a little bit until the ones that want to leave the room have the time to leave. And at the same time, we see that our guest is really very much on time.
If you all take your seats, thank you very much. And I'm very pleased to welcome again here Maros Šefčovič , commissioner for trade and economic security, institutional relations, and transparency in our committee. You are always a very welcome guest here in our committee. So today, we would really like to hold an exchange between our committee and you within the framework of the structured dialogue as foreseen in the framework agreement on our relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. And, before passing the floor to colleagues, I would really like to stress some aspects of legislative cooperation between our house here, the Parliament, and the Commission in AFCO-related matters.
Firstly, and quite obviously, I would like to mention the revised framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. And I would like to reiterate our gratitude to you, dear commissioner Safkowicz, for your efforts in addressing the parliament's concern during these not always easy negotiations here. So we are all waiting for the final step, the signature of the new framework agreement by our respective presidents, and it is scheduled already to take place tomorrow on April 28. And in this regard, I would also like to highlight the final provisions of the framework agreement, in particular, the commission's commitment to review existing legislative acts that were not adapted to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny before the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty with a view to aligning them with article 290 TFEU. This is an important step towards a coherent and treaty-compliant system of delegated and implementing acts.
And I would also recall the shared commitment to strengthen inter-institutional cooperation both at the political and technical level, in the context also of better lawmaking. In this context, I would already ask the commissioner whether the commission intends to propose a revision of the interinstitutional agreement on better lawmaking in the near future. Such a revision should pay attention to parliament's considerations that we did in our resolute resolution of 03/10/2026 on better lawmaking covering 2023, 2024. It could further include proposals for technical or procedural arrangements for institutional cooperation and special legislative procedures where parliament enjoys the right of initiative here. And furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the commissioner's commitment expressed on several occasions here in our committee in the AFCO to engage in the dialogue on a new regulation on the European Parliament's right of inquiry.
You know, this is really close to our heart here, and a political stock taking meeting on the file took place already on April 20. It was made possible thanks to the constructive engagement of the EU commissioner and the Cybert Council presidency, and the dedicated leadership of Propertur Thijs Reuter. The meeting confirmed a shared willingness here among the three institutions to continue discussions at a technical level. Lastly, on behalf of our committee, I would like to thank you for providing the follow-up document to the European Parliament's non-legislative resolution on the institutional consequences of EU enlargement negotiations that we adopted in the 10/02/2025 plenary session. And, this is very important because it contains a number of relevant and substantive observations and proposals.
The committee also looks forward to the forthcoming commission communication on pre-enlargement policy reviews and reforms, in particular as regards the governance component, which is discussed these days a lot. Could you, commissioner, indicate when its publication can be expected, given that it was initially already foreseen within the first 100 days of the new commission. So without further ado, dear Mara Stevkovic, I would like to give you the floor for your initial presentation, and you know the time frame we had foreseen, so we have time for debate, is around 15 minutes.
Maroš Šefčovič
Thank you very much, dear Madam Chair, dear Gabi, honorable members of the European Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost, very happy to be here for our structured dialogue. And one of the reason is, and I understand that you also discussed it in your previous debates, that our democratic life continues to be tested, and I would say, on a daily basis. And the challenges we face are simply a reminder of the importance of this committee's work. So I'm very glad that we have a chance to discuss a number of institutional issues which are essential for the governance and future development of the European Union.
First, this commission has made it a priority, as you know, to strengthen our partnership with this house, and I want to express my personal gratitude for your collaborative approach. Our cooperation during this mandate is a testament indeed to what we can achieve when our institutions work hand in hand with mutual respect, with shared purpose, and with a common resolve. Solid proof of this is the, as you rightly pointed out, madam chair, the newly revised framework agreement, which was concluded after much cooperative effort. I would underline the word cooperation, but also effort because it took us some effort to get to the finishing line. And I would like to thank you.
I would like to thank mister Simon and mister Lange with whom we really spend a lot of time, as well as respective teams, because it was very much a collective effort and the hard work was invested in. And indeed, without a constructive approach to the negotiation, we wouldn't have such a positive result. I would also underscore the fact that revising the framework agreement was a critical achievement, which can act as an enabler for us to work on the real reforms that are needed. I would like to recall some of the most important aspects of the revised agreement from the commission's perspective. First, concerning article one to two, which we discussed on several occasions.
Here, the commission has committed to providing comprehensive justification and information in the exceptional cases where our proposals use these legal ways. Second, we have further solidified clear follow-up to article two to five resolutions, which are very important for this high house by codifying the existing practical arrangements. We have also agreed on a joint upstream work while parliament is preparing such a resolution. And I can tell you from the practical implementation over the last year, this is extremely important, and I'm glad that we managed to have such a good working relationship between the services, but also on the political level. As well as for the parliament to accompany a resolution with a report considering why the proposed act, under the two to five article, is necessary, taking into account the expected burden and financial implications.
So that would be, I think, the effort which would again help us to do our work even more efficiently. On our part, the commission will continue delivering on our commitment to respond to parliament resolutions and articles two to five with legislative proposals in full respect of proportionality, subsidiarity, and better lawmaking principles. We will also ask commissioners to take part in structured dialogues with the parliamentary committees on all these resolutions. Third, on international agreements. The commission will further enhance the flow of information to parliament on ongoing negotiations, as well as on the provisional application of agreements and nonbinding agreements.
This will help improve your understanding of our work in progress. At the same time, we have ensured that the revised tax would not, in any circumstance, affect the prerogative of the council as late in the treaties, something of which we have kept them fully informed. And fourth, pertaining to your rules of procedure, we now have a better way to engage with parliament whenever any amendments proposed to those rules may affect our bilateral relations. We have also provided for a better way to organize the presence of commissioners in the parliamentary proceedings at both plenary and committee level. And likewise, and equally important, parliament has committed to regularly assessing how to continue improving the presence of its members during the plenary debates.
As a revised framework agreement marks an important milestone for the European Parliament and the European Commission, we should now focus on ensuring the smooth implementation so we can fully enjoy its benefits. But I'm sure you asked me also about that right of inquiry. And as I have said on previous occasions, including during my confirmation hearing in November 2024, the commission has always recognized the parliament's right of inquiry without prejudice to the powers conferred by the treaties on the other institutions and in conformity with the procedures set out there. To recall, this is a special legislative procedure requiring the consent of both the Council and the Commission once all the concerns have been addressed. And I agree that parliament's right of inquiry needs to be Lisbonized, and that commission is ready to work in that direction.
Last year, the commission services engaged in inter institutional technical discussions to clarify the concerns of the council and the commission and identify those provisions that could be solved at technical level and those that need a political discussion. And last week, I met Mister Reutendra Porter and secret presidency of the council to discuss how to relaunch trilateral discussion on the file. And I really would like to thank Thijs and his team for excellent work and for this outreach activity, which was very much welcomed by both council and the European Commission. And I also would welcome any attempt by this house to work on the new draft report, which takes into consideration the concerns raised by the Commission in the past. I would like to recall that any official inter-institutional negotiation should be based on a clear mandate formally endorsed by the parliament.
And I hope that all three institutions will adopt a solution-oriented approach toward this file. And finally, if you allow, madam chair, I also would like to touch on the EU ethics body. I'm, of course, fully aware of the outcome of the vote in Afco last May and the sensitivities involved. It is important for the commission to confirm its continued commitment to the ethics body. We're closely involved in the implementation of the agreement from May 2024, whereby the eight participating EU institutions and bodies will set up the ethics body.
And I should emphasize that other parties have also reconfirmed their commitment, some calling for urgent progress. For the commission, it is important to set common minimum ethical standards across EU institutions, ensuring a consistent and high level of integrity in the public service. By promoting transparency and accountability in the EU public service, it is our hope that the body will contribute to the strengthening of public trust in EU governance, a key objective for all of us. Significant preparatory work has already been carried out following the entry into application of the agreement in 2024, and I'm delighted that good progress has been made at the technical level in the secretariat of the Ethic Body for the further procedural steps that are needed to make the body fully operational. And therefore, optimistic that under the council's chairmanship this year, the final steps will be taken so that EUBATHIGMA can start its substantial work.
And if you allow, madam chair, so these have been my introductory remarks. Would you like me to go through your questions right now? Yep. Okay. So let's start with a review of international inter institutional agreement on better lawmaking.
As you know, my colleague, Ivaldi Dombrowski, was tasked by the president already in political guidelines to lead the work on the revisions of these inter institutional agreements, taking into account also our joint endeavor for the simplification. As far as I recall, only a month ago, you discussed this work with him in the plenary. He informed the college. He informed the services, and I believe that this discussion contributed to the further reflection and work on this eye of betromaking. And, of course, I will pass again to him, your wish, to work on this as quickly as possible, and I think that this is also our wish.
Then if it comes to the review on RPS, I believe is the abbreviation, and I think we've been discussing it in my previous mandate. I think last time it was in 2016, if I recall correctly. And as you would recall, what has happened at that time was that, we clearly agreed on the need to kind of address this issue from the perspective to use this old mechanism in the new Lisbon manner. So how to transform this RPS into the implementing and delegated acts. And we've been talking at that time about 168 acts.
What you need under the Lisbon treaty is to have an agreement between the co-legislator. What would be delegated? What would be the implementing act? And we managed to have, and find that agreement for 66 of these acts. On the rest, both legislators have been in totally opposing positions. So what happened at that time was that this proposal was blocked.
And now what we are suggesting is that we would review all these acts when we will be reviewing the basic acts. So we will be doing it one by one when the basic acts will come up to the revision, so that will also give us the opportunity to look again on the RPS and decide and propose what would be the best solution for it also in that regard. On the European Parliament on the inquiry, I think I already provided the answer in my introductory remarks. Once again, I would really like to thank mister Reutten because we've been discussing already, in the previous year, how to kind of unblock this process. I think now we found a way, and I just would like to make sure that we would create a conducive atmosphere so we can push the discussion forward and really create the best possible way for all three institutions to actually fund the solution for this very important element.
But I believe that we are on track. We have support not only of Cypriot presidencies, but I'm very glad that Irish presidency, incoming presidency, is already involved, encouragingly positive. So I think that we have a good, you know, ambiance to proceed with this work. If it comes to the enlargement resolution, as you heard also from the president of the commission in her several political speeches, we fully recognize that, where there is a need and where the EU could be made more efficient, that we would also support the treaty change. Of course, if it comes to the enlargement, you are also following, I would say, the current situation and the challenges we are faced with in every way.
And, of course, you also are aware how important the overall enlargement process is and how it would impact, transform, and we, in the commission, believe in positive sense, the European Union, the geopolitical weight of the European Union, how it would spread political stability, how it would positively impact the European prosperity, and how it would offer stability to many, many nations who want to join the European Union and who are trying that for many, many years. So, therefore, what we are doing right now is to have a thorough preparation, which will be presented to you in the form of the policy reviews. I mean, it will happen this year. I'm sorry. I do not have the precise date, when this will happen because it's a very, very intense work.
And, of course, once this is completed, it will, of course, come in front of your committee, and I'm sure all other committees, for which the policy reviews would be relevant. So, madam chair, I just spared eighteen seconds. So thank you very much for being generous with the time, and, of course, I'm ready for the questions of the honorable members.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, dear commissioner Safkovich, dear Marasch, not only for being perfectly on time, but also addressing all important issues that are on the table here between the commission and us and of interest. And I would like now to give members the floor to address questions to the commissioners, and we will start with the coordinators. So you will have two minutes each to formulate your questions, and we will, here with the AFCO coordinators, have the possibility that US commissioner can answer these questions one by one. So we will start with Lorne Wincher for the EPP.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you very much, Chair, and welcome, Commissioner Sarczovic, to our structural dialogue on behalf of the EPP group. I have three topics I would like to raise. One is on the funding for political foundations, the second, the European citizens' initiatives, and the third one on interinstitutional cooperation. First on, the European political foundations. They play, I believe, a crucial role in our democratic debate, but we discovered that they lack financial stability, a stable financial framework.
And the message from our recent Afco exchange was unequivocal from this point of view, so we prepared a report with my colleague, Charles Gerens. We are of the opinion that we need a sustainable funding framework to ensure the independence of the foundations, and we are calling for an increase in union funding in the next MFF for the political foundations and also revision of the regulations, specifically allowing 100% EU funding for eligible costs for these foundations. But, of course, we also identified additional avenues to diversify the revenues of the foundation. So I would like to trust you that you conveyed our message to commissioner McGrath, to have a prompt and decisive action to amend the regulation to quickly have a request regulation. Second, on the European citizens initiatives, the recent revisions have been improving accessibility, but the success rate remains extremely low.
Organizers, including active civil society groups, repeated to us that their success relies entirely on very expensive data-driven campaigns, and it is just impossible for them to beat the social media algorithm. So my question is, do you consider that the current regulation is sufficiently digital proof and future oriented, or you plan a review next year where we can address these shortcomings? On better institutional cooperation, generally, it looks well, but you mentioned, and our chair already raised the question of special legislative procedures, the right of inquiry, but also the European electoral law. We lack the procedural detail when, in the treaties, when there are frictions between parliament, commission, and council. Do you believe it is necessary to address this shortcoming and try to have some sort of a better cooperation, better framed cooperation between our institutions.
And if you allow me, chair, just I mentioned the ethics body. Yeah. Transparency, accountability is important for us, but the majority of this, parliament already believes that standards and norms should be developed inside of each institution. So, I'm expecting that the parliament is not really aiming to be full participant in the ethics body. Thank you very much.
Maroš Šefčovič
you. Thank you very much, honorable member mister Vinci for your four questions, actually. I mean so I'll do my best to take them one by one. Indeed, if it comes to the European political parties and European political foundations, here, we are preparing to carry out the evaluation of the new legal framework. And we, of course, take the issues raised in parliament's report on the implementation of this regulation very seriously.
I think what is very important right now is to make sure that, also on this issue, we would all work together on something which could sustain the time. It should be sustainable, over the long term because I think this would give the stability and predictability to the environment we've been so ably describing. So what we are committed here is to examine further the issues which you raised in the report. And I know that my colleague, commissioner Mergra, is fully on it. And, of course, I will pass the message to him, but I think that he is doing really excellent work.
He takes it very seriously, and I think he's an excellent partner for your discussion on this topic, but I will see him tomorrow in the college. So I will clearly inform him also about your interest and about our discussion this evening. If it comes to the ECI, that's kind of an issue that I'm here for quite some time. So I still remember how we've been introducing it in 2012. And if I look at the progress as in that time, so I think it's quite obvious.
I believe that the revised regulation makes it, if I compare it with 2012 situation, it really makes it easier to start to manage and also to support the ECIs. And I think that this was also confirmed by the first periodic review of the application of this revised regulation, which we adopted in December 2023. And we've been, of course, talking also to the organizers, and what we heard from them was the tool is more accessible, is more campaign friendly today. And I think what is, I would say, the best proof of that is the fact that since 2020, we could already register 49 initiatives and only had to refuse one. And I can tell you that now it's my duty around the college table.
So when there is a new application for the registration or ECI, I'm briefing the whole college. What is it about? What is the aim? And, of course, if it manifestly out or in. But before we take this decision, we also ask our legal service to provide the advice to the organizer so we would avoid, I would say, the negative decision.
But coming back to your question, we understand that, everything, of course, could be improved and could be better. So we'll carefully assess whether other additional changes to the ECI would be needed in the context when we will have a next periodical review, which should be due by the end of 2027. So let's discuss it, I think, in a run up also to this review and all the, I would say, indications or suggestions how to improve, you know, the mechanism we, of course, will be very happy to address. On the questions of the right of inquiry, electoral law, I think what is very important here, if you allow me to kind of address this a little bit more personally, the procedures will not solve the matter if you do not have enough of the political investment into the process. I mean, in the end, we need to find the political solution on the political level because we have very, I mean, professional teams.
We have excellent lawyers. We have advisers. But there are, of course, the political decision which has to be taken, and sometimes to find the agreement among three institutions is quite challenging. So I would say in a positive sense, more politics, I think, needs to be invested in resolving some of the issues. And on an ethic body, I understand that they really have a bit differing of the opinion because for us, it's to have the same minimum standards for all EU institutions.
Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And there are also people here that put this on the agenda. It was our house, to just remind us all of that. The next speaker will be Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar for the S and T group. And please, can I ask you really to focus on one or two questions because then it's also straightforward, with the answers?
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Sure. I will. First of all, I do thank you, dear Maroszakovic, for engaging regularly in this structured dialogue with the Constitutional Affairs Committee in your capacity as the commissioner in charge of their relationship with the European Parliament. You've made a number of points, and certainly, some of my colleagues will be highlighting the importance for the S and D group of some of the points that you had mentioned. Certainly, that will be the case by this return of the right of inquiry.
He's in charge. But I would rather dwell on the pending initiative by the ECB in parliament to reform the treaties, which are absolutely compelling as a challenge, as an array of issues related to enlargement, not only. But the thing is that when it comes to EU law, treaty reform being initiated by this European Parliament takes at least the duty to respond from the Council. And the council has not even responded, which is a violation, a gross violation of EU law. I mean, the council can say no, but at least it should respond.
It cannot ignore the message sent by the European Parliament. I would like you to take it as an issue for all the commission because the commission is guardian of EU law, guardian of the treaties, and the commission should actually take initiative in order to break this stalemate, this blocked situation as it is. And of course, we can only also express concern by the lack of fulfillment of the ethics body mandate of the international arrangement. So the thing is, what do you think you could do in order to fill the gap of compliance of this aspect of the international arrangement agreement regarding the lack of fulfillment of the issue of the parliament of the mandate of setting in place a common minimum standard of ethic conduct, including an ethic body? Thank you.
Mr Commission.
Maroš Šefčovič
Thank you. Thank you very much, madam chair. And I also would like to thank honorable member, mister Juan Lopez Aguilar, for his question and for the fact that when I'm in a planner, he's always there. So I mean, I'm sure that he must have one of the highest attendances. And thank you very much for both questions.
I will start with the first one because this is something what we discussed on a regular basis, and I appreciate the concern and appreciate the question. And I think from the perspective of the commission, I think you heard it from the president of the commission and also from me that we need the treaty change in those areas where it can improve our union, and we must also use an enlargement as a catalyst for the progress in terms of our capacity to act, but also in a way how to adjust our policies. And I think, of course, it would also have the impact on our spending programs. And I think it's also quite clear that enlargement cannot happen if both the EU and also member states would not be ready for the enlargement at the time of the accession. So it's very clear that we have to work on both in parallel.
And, you're absolutely correct, that your resolution from November 2023 has triggered the treaty revision process in article 48 of the treaty of the European Union. And as you know, the matter is now with the European Council. And I can tell you that, we and the commission are absolutely committed to keeping an open mind in the reflection on the internal reforms, also in the case of treaty change, and we are very open to discuss this matter anytime with the parliament and the member states and whether we are fully ready to play our interinstitutional and institutional role in this procedure set by the article 48, in particular to give its opinion if and when consulted by the European Council. In the meantime, I think what we are focusing on is that we want to do everything possible to improve the EU's governance by using the full potential of the current treaties, and this includes, of course, activation of the pastoral clauses and other mechanisms in the current treaties. And I also would like to tell you that this is a topic which I very regularly open, in the discussion of the general affairs council.
We always do it when we have this inaugural meeting with the incoming presidency. I have to say you have countries which are more enthusiastic than the other, and it's very difficult for us to kind of force them into that discussion. I can promise you that that's a message which is regularly passed, and I will continue to do so. And, clearly, we will also do it at the next general affairs council. And this was also part of that?
I already mentioned this.
Maroš Šefčovič
I already but I think I can probably recall because the question was also, I think, mentioned already in our chair's introductory remarks, and it was concerning the commission's reply to the parliament's resolution from October of last year on institutional consequences of the EU enlargement negotiations. So here, I think it's good that I can report that we adopted, as a commission, our reply to the parliament resolution very recently, just a few days ago. And I have been told that the advanced copy of the reply was sent to the parliament on the same day, which was 04/20/2020. And, of course, once this reply is translated to all the languages, you will get it also officially. Thank you, madam chair.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And the next speaker for the Patriots is Marika Elas.
Marieke Ehlers
Thank you very much, madam chair. Mister Sefkovich, welcome, and thank you for your presence here tonight. I have five questions, but I promise to stay within the two-minute time limit. The first is on the parliament's report of 11/04/2025 on the report on subsidiarity and proportionality, where we made several proposals, including extending the deadline of the early warning mechanism and increasing or strengthening interparliamentary dialogue. My question is, what steps are being undertaken by the commission to address these concerns?
They are also shared by the national parliaments. In the reply that we have received from the commission, the commission seems to be positive about the report, but I lack some introspection about what the commission could do to improve on these issues that have been identified in this report? Then secondly, you talk about improved communication between the Commission and the Parliament and improving inter-institutional relations. My question is, with the Mercosur agreement, do you believe that is evidence of good interinstitutional relations ignoring the parliament's position on that? With regard to the ethics body, more of a remark.
But as you know, the new political reality in this house is that there is no longer a majority for this ethics body. And then you also mentioned in one of your replies that the same standard should apply to all institutions. The big difference, of course, being that we are directly accountable to our voters, while you are not. Then my fourth question is about Matt's comments today, where he basically told Ursula von der Leyen that she is not doing enough in terms of deregulation and simplification. My question is, do you believe that the commission is doing enough when it comes to simplification and deregulation?
Last question is about unanimity and qualified majority voting. Is the commission continuing to push for this? And what are the consequences for your commitment to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting on most, if not all, matters of European law? Thank you very much, and sorry for taking ten seconds extra.
Maroš Šefčovič
The floor. Very much, madam. Ellers. On the subsidiarity and proportionality, I think this is, of course, the question which we are discussing on a regular basis with the national parliaments. And I'm, of course, I'm also in charge of that relationship, and I can tell you that this discussion is very intense, be it under, I would say, the subsidiarity check chapter, but also in the form of a political dialogue. So we are getting back and forth a lot of letters of the political nature where we are explaining our policies or responding to the inquiries coming from the national parliaments.
And, of course, if it comes to these two principles, we fully share the view that the rigorous application of the subsidiarity principle in new legislation is of great importance for really focusing the work of the European Union where it offers most added value. That's the principle. And, I would say that this is, of course, the shared responsibility of all the institutions. And, therefore, we are so glad that also in our framework agreement now we will be, I would say, sharing this responsibility as well. So, for example, under the 225 process to which we promised that it would politically react with the incoming legislative proposals.
And I'm very glad that European Parliament undertaken the commitments that will also present the analysis about the improvement this proposal will bring about the costs and about the feasibility of the agreement, because I think this is how we would contribute to what I think is important for every good legislation, and this is very thorough impact assessment. Maybe to conclude on your first question, I also would like to tell you that our regulatory scrutiny board also adjusted the way how they prepare this impact assessment because there are very clear, very, very clear parts of their work, which is focused on subsidiarity, on proportionality, and also they are measuring these aspects as well. And we are always, as a commission, ready to explore in cooperation with national parliaments and, of course, co legislators, and other actors how we can continue to ensure that we will always find this right balance for the European legislation in attributing responsibility to the European, national, or be it regional and or the local level. If it comes to the Mercosur agreement here, I think we are acting fully within the framework agreement, because there are very clear and very precisely stipulated paragraphs on provisional applications and absolutely convinced that all elements of this paragraph in particular have been fulfilled.
And we did it for the sake of economic operators in Europe because we believe that the market access and the new possibilities which this agreement would bring to the European economy are clearly very important. And this was also not only recognized, but I would say, welcome by political groups in this house and not least, by the chairman of the Inter Committee and, also who was, at the same time also leading, co leading the negotiations on the framework agreement. On the ethic bodies, I already expressed myself. I understand that there we have diverging opinions. And simplification, we take it very seriously in the commission.
So only for the last year, in the omnibuses, which you are also debating in the house, there are savings, if I recall, almost $1,212,000,000,000 euros. But what is, of course, very important is that we want to do it, in full accordance, with the European law and with your cooperation. So we just have to prepare the simplification proposals, and we have to work with the colleges later, you know, to amend these proposals which have been approved again by you as a college legislator. I think that we see how the world is changing, how it's transforming, and I think it's absolutely natural, normal, and good that we are adjusting also our role so they would reflect better the current reality situation on the markets, the, I would say, condition of our market operator. Also, technological evolution.
In some areas, just simply believe that we would be more advanced by this time than it's the reality. And if it comes to the unanimity and the QMV, I would recall, madam Alec, that, and I'm sure that you are absolutely aware of the fact that this is already enshrined in the Lisbon treaty. So already at that time, when this very important treaty was being discussed, negotiated, and approved, so there have been the areas that the sector indicated were, if, of course, there is a consensus around this question, we can transform certain areas from unanimity to the QMV. And, as former court reporter to ambassador, I can tell you that once you have a QMV, you legislate and you review, adopt the decision much, much faster. So, I mean, if you are talking about enlargement, I think, clearly, this would be one of the issues which would need to be considered.
Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And as ECR is not present here, I immediately hand over to Sandro Gotti for renewal.
Sandro Gozi
Thank you, chair. Thanks, Maros. Thanks, commissioner. Let me read you this phrase, and then I give you the date. An ambitious reform package to ensure the proper functioning of a larger union.
This was July 2024, and it was the president of the European Commission. That then she added, in the first 100 days of the new commission, I will present a proposal to ensure the reform in parallel with enlargement. Today marks 648 days since this declaration, and you told us that you hope that by the end of the year, we will have a proposal, the commission. That means 217 days more. That means a delay all in all of 865 days.
Now I hope that your reform, the Amaros, is not called Godot. Then call it as you wish. Call it Ursula. Call it Maros. Call it Mickey Mouse.
But I hope the name of this reform is not Godot. So I tell you when you are going to present your proposal to reform the union to make it fit for the enlargement, as this commission committed to do before getting the approval and before getting elected by this parliament. Secondly, I tell you what are these targeted reforms you are open to because the commission every time comes before the parliament, you tell us that you are open to some targeted reform that you have. You got the time to think about that? So can you tell us today what the targeted reforms are? Then third, you also mentioned, as we did in our report on the institutional council of enlargement and the president of the commission does all the time, that you want to fully exploit the potential of the treaty of Lisbon referring to pastoral flexibility.
Why don't you do it? Why don't you activate the close? What are we waiting for? We got a similar experience, dear Maros. If we wait that the council gets the consensus of the reform before tabling your proposal, you will never table it.
Because you perfectly know that to create a consensus of the council, you need to keep the ball rolling. They made your mistake of the president of the European Commission, and that she's thinking, she's waiting to create a consensus on minimal institutional reform in the council, and then put on the table this proposal. I mean, we haven't we were not born yesterday. We understand that this is a strategy. It is wrong.
It will never fly. And you know perfectly that if you wanted to fly, you need to present a proposal before the council gets a consensus to create the consensus. This is why we are so concerned about the violation of the political commitment by president Waterlai. And this is why the sooner you present your proposal, the better, not for you, not for us, but for the union that otherwise wouldn't be fit for the geopolitical challenge we have to face, that is enlargement.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Maroš Šefčovič
Thank you very much, also to mister Sando, Gotti, and I know they feel very, very, very passionate about this topic, and I fully understand. And, of course, the president of the commission is fully aware of her commitment, but we also are living a different political reality today. I mean, we can count the wars that have started. We can count the economic dire straits we have to face with. I think we had the most economically turbulent year since, probably, COVID, stroke of the whole world.
And now, again, we are going through not only geopolitical, but also economic and energy crisis. So this is, I would say, not an easy time. And I can tell you that, you did an outstanding job, and I know that we had a we've participating, all of us, on the conference on future of Europe. We spent many weekends together talking to our citizens, and you did your very detailed resolutions. And it was presented to the council.
And I, as I'm telling you, I was raising it in many, many general affairs council. But, I mean, you cannot force the member states into the treaty change. You have to work with them. You have to do the political outreach. And I know that you are doing that, but you need to get some kind of political traction, and, you need to kind of generate the political dynamics which would give you the reasonable chance of success.
And if the institutional and treaty provisions are telling us, and now the ball is in the court of the European Council, and I would just remind that these are the European heads of states and government. Can we kind of jump the queue? Can we just force the decision upon them? I think it's very difficult. So I prefer the engagement.
I prefer the, you know, the common work of the institution or something which would have then realistic chance to succeed. And, yeah, indeed, political, economic environment, geopolitical position is not conducive to such an institutional discussion. But what I also believe is that once we start to discuss in greater detail the very pertinent questions of enlargement and these policy reviews that are in our commission work program, so we will come up with that. We will present to you. I do not have the date now.
I would love to tell you, but I don't want to mislead you. So it's a commission work program for this year. I don't think it will be before the end of the year, because, I mean, the work on that is ongoing. And, of course, it would be very clear that this also institutional questions, budgetary questions, will be pushed even more, to the forefront. And I think that would be one of the topics which the council will have also to discuss how we would operate as a larger family.
So, that would be my best explanation. We are very sorry about the first 100 days. We didn't know that, we will have such a turbulence when this commitment was undertaken, but it's in our work program for this year, and I'm sure that this year, we also will be having detailed discussion on that.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, commissioner, for addressing all the answers to the questions raised. And I have Rainer Van Lanschoot for the Greens here as the next speaker.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Thank you, chair. Thank you, Commissioner Sevkovic, for being here again. It's good to see you. And looking at your work, I imagine that the first two years of this mandate of the European Parliament, you have been very busy with the trade part of your mandate, and rightly so. And there were some good achievements there.
But my hope is that in the next three years, the second half of this mandate, we will achieve some things on the institutional part of your mandate as well. And there are three of them that I like to highlight. Ukraine as an EU member state, a reformed Europe with more democratic legitimacy and more decision-making speed. And thirdly, a European defense union. And I would like to ask some questions on all three of those.
So on Ukraine's accession, there are heated discussions about what kind of EU membership needs to be offered to Ukraine. We have the regular options. Sometimes you hear a gradual accession or reverse accession. Now I've heard of a pact model, a political accession with commitments to transformation. All of these different models have institutional implications.
And I wonder, what is your vision on this? And secondly, small size side question, would it be legally possible for Ukrainian civil servants to join commission units as observers already in the lead up to this accession, so they can learn and see your work from the inside already? The second question is on EU governance. We're asking oral questions, and we want to debate about EU governance under pressure, institutional responses to global challenges. Because you mentioned there are some reasons for the delay that Mr. Gozi pointed out.
Those reasons are understandable, but precisely because of those reasons, of that war, of that economic turbulence, that is precisely why we need these reforms. And that's why I think my colleague, Gozi, is stressing the speed, and why I'm also stressing it. I think we have a window of opportunity after the Hungarian elections, and it might be a small window. You never know when the next electoral door closes, and somebody starts misusing vetoes. So how do you intend to use that small window of opportunity we have to create European reform?
Thirdly, on European Defence Union, sorry for going a bit over time. Last week, many leaders discussed how to operationalize Article 42.7. And your colleague, Commissioner Corbelius, has proposed a European Security Council, a military headquarters, and a rapid reaction force. And we will actually have an INI in AFCO and SADA on exactly these topics in the coming months. And I wonder for this European Defense Union that Mr.
Kobilius is in favor of what institutional changes should happen for that, according to you? Thank you.
Maroš Šefčovič
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much also to mister Fan Lanshot for his question. And I would like to reassure you that the inter committees of the opinion that I spent too much time on interinstitutional and transparency. So I believe that I'm somewhere as one of your colleagues asked me, how do you feel in this hanging there?
So that's a little bit like hanging in between, I would say, many, many responsibilities. But, I love my job, and I like to interact with you because I believe that we do something very important, for Europe and for our countries and our citizens. Maybe just to bring a little bit more light, what is the inter institutional part, which maybe it's not always so seen, to the AFCO committee. And I'll just be very, very brief in that case. I mean, every single month, I mean, if we have the general affairs council, which you have to prepare, which discuss at first the agenda for the European council and then, of course, the draft conclusions.
And you have, of course, many, many table rounds, of all 27 member states to try to make sure that the leaders will be spared of drafting, and they can spend more time for real political discussions. And as you can imagine, the number of topics they're focusing on right now, it's quite numerous. I think that we also did a very good job together if it comes to the framework agreement. That was also not a given, and I can tell you that we also did it in much faster time than the first framework agreement, which I was also negotiating, and I think they agreed it in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. So I that was very intense work, and I think all the colleagues from the committees can testify to you that, again, to find the balance, you know, how can we work better, how can we respect the treaties, and how to avoid possible legal challenge was a very, very sensitive one, but I'm very thankful to everyone that we did it.
Thanks to Thijs and his team. Think I we are unblocking the file which was blocked since, what, 2012, if I recall correctly. So it's, again, something which is quite significant. And, also, it doesn't happen by itself. I mean, you have to work on it.
And, of course, I had to introduce the whole machine behind positive responses to your two to five. I mean, I have to go to all my college colleagues. We have to get it through, you know, what we call the grief is just to have a collegial support for that decision. And I'm doing it because it was clear political commitment to the parliament. And, of course, madam Erez is not here, but we also take part in regular dialogue with the national parliaments in COSAC and other meetings.
And then I have ombudsman. I have an economic and social committee. I have a committee of their agents. So, I mean, I can assure you that, also, on my inter institutional files, I'm definitely not bored, and my team here would never let me? You know?
So I really spend a lot of time. If it comes to your very concrete questions on Ukraine, accession, of course, I saw I will combine the interinstitutional and trade part of this. I mean, last year, we had very difficult discussions about export of Ukraine sensitive commodities. I'm talking about agricultural products. I think it was very sensitive also in your country.
We're talking about steel and other things. So we saw that to keep the political support from also common citizens for accession of Ukraine, you also have to find a balanced solution for these very sensitive issues. And therefore, for me, I would say, if I can, if I should answer it too right now, I think we need to find the solution where Ukraine and Ukrainians would feel that they're part of the European Union family. What would be, I would say, the sequences, how detailed it would be, you know, what would be the stages? It's really for this policy review, for the assessment of the financial implications, trade implication, and many others to do.
But I think this is what the Europe Ukrainian people expect. This is what they would see as a major assurance that the destination landing zone is very clear, and that's where we are. We share the flag. We share the continent. We share the future.
I think that if we can give them positive answers on this question, I think we already did a great part of our jobs. And observers, as a Ukrainian, Ukrainian officials, of course, we can provide you with a more detailed answer, because we would need to check with the services. Again, if I can give you my personal take on it, I recall when we've been in pre accession as my country, Slovakia, at that time. So there is a certain time where you have so-called technical assistance support, where you have to do so-called TAICS work, which is kind of you have to align your legislation to the European legislation. And I was also in this TAICS office where we've been, like, taught how to adjust our laws into the European law.
So this is something that is happening. And then also many of the civil servants from the new accession countries have been trade. So I'm sure that something like this would happen under the umbrella of technical assistance. But to provide you with a precise answer, I will check with our human resources. And then on reform of European Union and especially the defense dimension, I think it's kind of, in a positive sense, revolutionary that we have this discussion.
I mean, two, three years ago, it would be, probably not possible, but the current reality is that simply are pushing us into this. This is seriously discussed. And if you look at, I would say, the article forty point two six and forty point two seven, there is a, of course, first, very, very clear solidarity that we have to be absolutely solid, solidaire with each other and help each other also in a case of war, but also, you know, economic and other, you know, natural disasters and so on and so forth. But we are, for the first time, operationalizing it. How to do it?
What does it mean? What would work? And, of course, this is something what will have to be discussed in a greater detail, and this is definitely in the remit of Kaya Kallas, commissioner Kubili. So I cannot speak on their behalf, but the fact that we are having this discussion on the EU levels and it's supported by the EU leaders, it's already something which we haven't heard before.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, Commissioner Safkovich. As the left and also ESN is not present anymore, we have an opportunity here to have questions of four members that ask for the floor, but we will collect them all and then give you the opportunity to answer. And, before I give the floor to mister Shinkovich, our colleague, I would like to come back to this window of opportunity. Rainer Van Lanzschot was mentioning, is there also an analysis of the commission on this small window of opportunity and how to react to it? But we will collect further questions, Mr. Sinkovich.
Thank you.
Mister.
Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz
Commissioner, thank you very much for being here. And please believe me, I do appreciate the openness of your answers and the detail. My question is very specific. It will help me understand the commission's position better, in particular when it comes to the parliament's right of inquiry, a very important matter. I would like to ask about the commission's position about this rather controversial provision that any person residing in the European Union may be requested to provide evidence before an EP Committee of Inquiry.
This is a decision that dates back to 1995, but we are now in the process of legalization of the law. And I'm very interested to hear your position on this matter. And when it comes to the ethics body, as colleague Ehle rightly said, there is no majority in this house. There is no enthusiasm among the MEPs. One of the reasons is that the members of the European Parliament are convinced that lack of ethics is punished and shaped by the law, not by the bodies responsible for the matters of ethics.
So, what is foreseen? Is it foreseen to verify the ethical standards of the members of this body? If not, that would be absurd. Thank you.
Thijs Reuten
Yes. Thank you very much. And you already spoke yourself, Chair, and also Commissioner Severkovich, about the right of inquiry. So I don't have any questions for the Commissioner. I just wanted to confirm to all colleagues that indeed what you said and what the Commissioner said is true.
We had a kind of breakthrough, I think, having a very fruitful conversation with both the Commissioner and the Cypriot presidency. And I want to thank again the Commissioner for his commitment to this file from the start of this new mandate. And also, I think the help of the Polish presidency earlier on in the mandate, and of course, the work that I did with my colleagues, one of them is still here, helped to create that atmosphere in which we can now bring the file forward. And I think the conclusion indeed is that the preferred option would be to bring an updated legislative proposal to vote that can already count on both institutions' consent. For that, we have to work hard, and then we will have an accompanying report on that as well in this special procedure.
But I look forward to work on this with the institutions and, of course, with my colleagues who will meet in two weeks' time in the shadows meeting. Thanks.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you, Thijs. And the next speaker is my colleague Jimenez Lallace from the EPP. Thank.
Borja Giménez Larraz
Thank you very much, madam chair. Commissioner, a few weeks ago, you saw the text agreed between the EU and the UK on the future of Gibraltar. Now the European Parliament is not able to ratify this, but this is an agreement which is exclusive to the European Union. And there are serious constitutional doubts in Spain because it covers areas such as tax, which aren't the powers of the EU, and really affect Spain. What is the commission's legal view?
Why have members been excluded? And then there's the issue of good governance and standards here. Now, there's the issue of Gibraltar as a tax haven. Now, commission can have powers when it comes to indirect taxation, but there can be special corporate tax arrangements, organized by Gibraltar. So I'm wondering about the problem of no taxes being paid, companies dodging taxes in Gibraltar.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Marash. I would like to come back to enlargement to Ukraine to treat the changes, institutional reforms. You know, just Sandra Goze mentioned excellent name Godor. You know?
Godor. But, you know, I sometimes think that we need to not speak about God or, but it would to speak about we will we will rock you. Can you imagine? Now we are coming closer to midterm. And now it's the next three years, Ireland's Lithuania, Greece.
Are you ready to present the next three years some, for example, scenarios about enlargement, especially Ukraine, because Ukraine would be higher on the agenda. And we need to say we need to calculate time. Time is running out of our hands. Sailing on the seas, Franco-German proposal was done two years ago. What were we together?
You remember Jean Claude, you got proposals five scenarios going into CBO. And now where we are, and now in front of the next three years, in front of enlargement, in front of a window for opportunity, what can we do? Can we really say, we will we will rock you with keeping in mind that you can present to us proposals. Thank you.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you. And Commissioner Sevkovich, you have the floor for the final round.
Maroš Šefčovič
of the answer. Thank you very much, madam chair. I also would like to thank the honorable members for the last question to mister Senke, which, I would like to say, Dzenke Bartoszavaszekwesiye. We could probably do it in Polish as well. But, if it comes to the right inquiry and your very concrete questions, which is relating to 1999, it was, if I recall correctly, May before our both countries even joined their opinion.
It just shows how complex, I would say, the right of inquiry is. And, therefore, when the Lisbon treaty was being approved, there was also a very clear idea of all those who've been negotiating and improving Lisbon treaty that the whole, I would say, complex of the European law should be should be Lisbonized. And since that, we are trying to achieve that. So your very concrete question is, of course, an issue which will be now discussed among the three institutions. And therefore, I think we should leave it up to the negotiations just to make sure that conducive atmosphere, which I'm very happy to confirm.
I mean, with miss Droit, and we've been there together. And, honestly, having worked on this file for many years, I really feel that this is the breakthrough. So I think let's I would say our negotiations to progress to find the balanced solution. And I think that also the political approach of mister Euitton to kind of have intense negotiation before this proposal would be put on the vote, the European parliament is correct one. So we would have kind of, already very, very solid consensus among the institution how to proceed, and we would be, of course, working very closely with the rapporteur, with the teams, and, of course, all the issues would be on the table.
And I believe that we are fully aware that we can resolve the solution only if we would respect each other in this discussion and if we would work as three institutions in the best endeavor to deliver the positive results, and that would be clearly the position of the European Commission. If it comes to the ethic bodies, I already referred to this several times. I just would recall that also in the previous Monday, this was one of the priorities of the European parliament to have an ethic body. And I think that it was one of the priorities to have common standards. And I think the matter of negotiation in pushing for common minimum standards so we would know that, and I again, I'm very thrilled by the fact that we have eight institutions which want to do that.
So I think that European parliament missing, I don't think it would be, you know, the best of the sign. But I understand the debate around this, so let's continue. I know that both presidencies of the council would like to work with the European parliament and with the commission on other institution on this. So let's see how much we can achieve. To mister Euertens, I think I already recalled because I think we are completely aligned on how we want to proceed and what we would like to achieve.
So allow me to spend a few words, on the issue of Gibraltar. You are from Spain, mister Jimenez Lara. So I do know that I do not have to explain to you the history, the importance of this solution for the people of the Campo De Hebreltaire, of the tens of thousands of people who are crossing every day, the border from both sides and how politically sensitive this was. Therefore, when I kind of started to work on the implementation of all the very complex Brexit and post Brexit issues, one of the, I would say, the latest, you know, the piece of all that post Brexit mosaic was actually the protocol on the Gibraltar. This has been extremely complex, detailed, and complicated negotiations for the many reasons you rightly pointed out, and some of them, which even have been not mentioned.
But all of them been dealt with in a with extreme detail, and therefore, the agreement which also based on the withdrawal agreement between EU and UK clearly falls under the remit of EU only agreement. Therefore, it will be voted on here. It would be agreement between European Union and United Kingdom. And we've been working extremely diligently with the government of Spain. And, we've been also debriefing on a regular basis your colleagues in a UK coordination group throughout the whole period.
And I also understand that the Spain who, of course, played a very special role in this negotiation, was having very intense internal debates, including the, I understand, quite detailed parliamentary debates in the last couple of weeks. So I hope that from the point of view of transparency, from the point of view on all the details and explanations, I hope that all the necessary information was provided. And I believe that, in the end, approval of this agreement would be good news for the people living in the camp of the Gibraltar, in Andalusia, and in all the Spanish region because it would bring the predictability, stability, and it would also preserve the standards of crossing, which otherwise would not be possible. So I can assure you that it was the best possible intention invested in then, and I think that this is actually the good news for everyone. And to my very good friend, Wittanese, Andrew Kaitins, I think we share the same passion for politics, for Europe, and also for Queen, as I see for the music.
And I also like to rock the things, and hopefully, he'll be also able to rock in this regard. But, you're absolutely right that all the plans and ambitions which we had in our times when we've been serving in the commission together, it was very much affected probably much more than we could anticipate at the time by the geopolitics and all the challenges. So we need to work with our member states to have a support of our people to have a support of our member states. But I understand that what you would like me to do, what Sandro was very clear in his messages, is that we have to notch, push, encourage the council to react, to bring up with their positions, and I can promise you that I will continue to do so. So, madam chair, thank you very much for this opportunity and for being a very generous chair who let me speak a little bit over the time.
Thank you. Thank.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much. And I would like to warmly thank you, dear commissioner Safkovich, dear Marash, because I think everyone in this room can feel that you really value the exchange with European parliamentarians, and that the exchange and the structural dialogue is not just some procedural thing you have to do. And this is very appreciated, together with your huge institutional experience in the commission. I think it is unmet. So we also enjoy exchanging with you.
So thank you very much, and I close this debate. And I would like to mention, because we are really running out of time, any other business. If there are no further comments and observations, I declare this committee meeting closed. And I will just announce that the next AFCO meeting is scheduled to take place in May from ten to eleven and from eleven to twelve, and it will take, as it's very clear on this date, in Brussels. So I would like to extend many thanks to the interpreters and the secretariat for their support. We are still in time two minutes, and I wish you all a very nice and pleasant evening.
And thanks again here also to the secretariat for the great work to prepare everything. Have a good evening.
Faça uma pergunta sobre este vídeo — analiso a transcrição para lhe responder.