Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 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
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsChristel Schaldemose
I agree that, it's good that they gave us some promises on what they're going to do. We will have to follow it closely because I don't believe it until I have seen it that they, you know, wanna take on the responsibility as an importer, for instance. That's what the seller. That's what Timo told us that they wanted to do, but they didn't answer from when. So we will have to follow it.
But, I think that one of the other topics that you, not topics, but, you know, things that made an impression on me was the fact that they're very, very good, you know, fast, efficient. They use AI for a lot of things. And, the competition we will face from China will probably in very few years not be on noncompliant products, but, on costs, speed of delivery, etcetera, because they're so fast in things. So I also think that us who are very keen on making sure that we have a well functioning internal market, we also have to consider that part, the competitiveness part from China and see what we can do to help our own companies delivering on that. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much. And also no further remarks or questions. Then we come to the next reporting back item that is the joint working group on the implementation enforcement of the artificial intelligence act, where Randall Benite is the co-chair of the working group. And I will give the floor to Crystal to replace him because he, I think, is in the US this week, if I understand correctly.
Christel Schaldemose
Correctly. And, on behalf of him, I will read his statement. So he says, dear colleagues, on April 15, the AI working group held its second interparliamentary session, this time in public, with delegations from 16 member states: Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Finland. The session focused on where member states stand in setting up the national structures in the AI act, required to test and supervise AI systems before and after market deployment. The picture that emerged was uneven.
Some countries like Spain, Lithuania, and Latvia reported meaningful progress, while most allegations now acknowledge little or no operational infrastructure in the place, and some noted that their governments had not yet taken any concrete steps. The August 26 deadline for these structures to be operational was a recurring concern. Members also raised questions about how national enforcement bodies are being designed and resourced, and whether national parliaments have had adequate opportunity to scrutinize those choices where significant divergence across member states was noted. The discussion extended to parallel legislative initiatives at national level, notably the French Senate's recent adoption of a bill on copyright protection in the context of AI training, while raised broader concerns about fragmentation if national approaches diverge without EU level coordination. The shortage of qualified AI policy expertise across public administrations and the need for greater sharing of practices between member states were also prominent themes.
The session reinforced the case for sustained inter parliamentary cooperation, with members broadly agreeing that closer dialogue between national and European parliaments is essential to ensure coherent democratic oversight of the AI act implementation. The next session of the AI working group is planned for June 10, and will focus on AI literacy. Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Great. Thank you very much. We come to the last, reporting back for this morning, and this is the joint working group on the forced labor regulation where we're also in the implementation phase, and Maria Grapini is our IMCO co-chair of the working group. Maria, please.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Our working group met on April 21. It's an intern IMCO joint working group, and it deals with the regulation on forced labor. In the course of our meeting, the commission talked about implementing this gradually until December 2027.
So in 2026 and 2027, we'll be looking at the practical preparation and the computer systems. June will be an important milestone. There'll be some guidance set up on the basis of cooperation between national experts and the Commission. And we'll be talking about the inquiry process, which is linked to the implementation, and how information can be transmitted. Now, by June 2026, the commissioner has to come up with a database, which is based on risk and proof by sector and by geographical region.
And this will be based on data from international organizations. There will be some information about the development of the infrastructure, including the module on forced labor, ICMS, and that is going to be focused on exchange of information between customs authority, member states, and the commissions. And that continued throughout the implementation phase. At the end of this process, so at the April, an act should have been adopted, but this has not yet happened. The commission also has an expert group.
It would help the interpreters if the speaker could slow down. There's a working group which looks at proportional implementation by the SMEs, the burden of proof, and the specific criteria for this sector. The commission is launching information events and communication in order to ensure the proper preparation of the economic operators, particularly the SMEs. And I'll keep you abreast of developments, and we have to see what the commission publishes on the database by the end of the month. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. And, of course, also when we were in China, we addressed the point that there will be a forced labor regulation. So we come to the next agenda item eight, establishing the single market and customs program for the period '28-'34. So the next, MFF, our rapporteur is Mister Dibrani from the SND. And today, we have basically the opportunity to discuss the draft amendments and see what the rapporteur wants, what the shadow wants.
So I give the floor first to our rapporteur, and then we have a round of shadows. Please.
Adnan Dibrani
Thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Today, as the Chair said, we will exchange views on the amendments to the Single Market and Customs program, and our progress on this file. Starting off, I would just want to highlight that as we adopted the EPS position on the next MFF last week, we also adopted the position on the financial envelope for the program. The parliament took a position to increase the envelope to €6,870,000,000, which is €630,000,000 more than the commission's proposals from the beginning. And, while some of you know, I'm a very frugal Swede, but still I want to reiterate that for this program, it's okay, and I fully agree with the increase.
I said it before, but this program is really at the heart of the EU and critical to the single market in uncertain times when our internal market is increasingly under pressure with intensified global competition, massive influx of non compliant goods and fraud on the rise, we need to gear up. And this program is a key to deliver this. It will enable us to do more in areas that matter on customs, market civilians, anti-fraud, to name a few of them. And will it also enable us to do better, more synergies, better cooperation, and more efficient common operations. In a nutshell, the SMCP will be critical to strengthen the internal market in the coming MFF period.
And I think our joint ambitions need to be to make the most of the resources at hand by delivering a smart, efficient, and fit for purpose program design. Turning to the content of today's discussion. We received about 200 amendments to the draft report. And first of all, I would like to thank all the colleagues for their constructive inputs and many good, concrete proposals. In general, while it's clear we have different views on some technical aspects, I think we largely have a shared view on the central elements, and this is very positive.
For example, I think it's fair to say that there is quite a broad agreement that we need to strengthen the governance structure to ensure better control, transparency, and oversight. Secondly, balance more flexibility with more accountability, with a budget breakdown clearly linked to key priorities, and thirdly, clearly clarify core objectives and introduce proper safeguards for mandatory systems and legal obligations. And in addition, I think there is also common understanding that we need to really prioritize some key areas. Customs, for example, is a clear priority. Market surveillance and protecting EU economic and financial interests are others. So to sum up or wrap up, the SMCP will play a key role in strengthening the internal market and the integrity of our Union in the years ahead.
Again, I would like to thank the colleagues from all the groups for the constructive inputs and good cooperation. We do have a strong common ground. And from the good dialogue that we have seen on the technical level so far, I feel confident that we will deliver. So I look forward to continuing this work together and seeing my fellow colleagues in the future. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thanks so much for the presentation. And as I said, we have now the round of shadows, and we start with Dirk. Oh, I see a lot of synergies with the customs reform.
Dirk Gotink
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Mr. Dibrani.
I think a lot of what you said is very much shared, also between groups. And you being a frugal Swede, you probably also know that what parliament decided last time around will not be the end result of the amount of money that will be available for this program. And so focusing and making sure that we are not sort of imaginatively spending more than what we will have in the future will help us a lot in making this program effective. But, of course, we are fully behind the parliament's position. Right?
So technical level progress has been very good, and I'm very happy with that. Thanks also to all the advisers that are working on it because as mister Dibrani said, this is super important for the protection of the internal market. In fact, it is something that we would have already needed to have a long time ago. And a lot of what I will say has already been said, the infrastructure, there's an underinvestment in infrastructure and control capacity. And it is we can blame many other CERD countries in the world for stuff that they sent to Europe, but actually, we should blame ourselves that we're not able to stop it from coming into the market.
And that is also very much the approach that we should have, building capacities, building what some could call then also strategic autonomy or control of our border for goods so that we can actually also make policy on that border and take decisions and actually that are followed up on that border. Of course, we need to talk about what kind of equipment is at the border. I think those discussions are in a good way. And the access of member states also really get that financing, because we all know that a mobile scanner is a very expensive and complex piece of equipment, and not everyone can afford that. Not every border crossing point can have one, and they should have them if goods and especially trucks pass the border.
So and that's what my friends from, especially, the Eastern Part Of Europe tell me, Dick, our external border is not only about ports and harbors. We have a very long land border, and we have a lot of crossings that we need to control them. And I think also for Imco, that is a very good perspective. So I want to thank simply Mr. Ibrany and the work that is done. And let's look for a good balance also between businesses, citizens, the consumer angle, and also try to make sure that what we do simplifies the work going forward.
And then I think we'll have an excellent result. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much. We continue with who is not there. Correct? No. ECR, not here.
Renew, Janet. Oh, I see also custom synergies.
Jeannette Baljeu
Thank you, chair. Yeah. I saw that too. Well, thank you, and thanks to the rapporteur. And I agree that the constructive tactical cooperation is really going well.
So looking forward to go ahead in the upcoming shadow meetings. Very confident that we can work it out. There are many files, many topics that we agree upon. So looking forward to that. I'd like to touch upon three issues as they I think are key aspects in this file, and it's a very important topic expressed by both speakers already.
But on the budgetary integrity, this is a consolidation of five programs into one. And there must be clarity and not an invitation to shuffle the budgets around, especially because some of the components are very well, all of them are important. But it must not be able that one component, if it's a stronger component, takes over the weaker ones by shifting the budget. So it is not a simplification. It cannot be a backdoor for defunding these essential activities.
So transfer between components must remain exceptional, explicitly justified, and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. On the customs and scanning equipment, also a topic that's very important to renew. I know we cannot be naïve. The security dimension of customs infrastructure demands that we are firm and high on high risk suppliers. We have a lot of discussions here in Inco on that.
So vague risk mitigation language is not sufficient. If a supplier poses a documented security risk, they must be excluded from the program participation. So this is a strong point that we have to be firm on. Our borders are not the place for political hesitation. This needs clarity.
And then on the anti-fraud, crime does not respect borders, so it is increasing digitally. The inter fraud information system in cooperation with Olaf, Epel, and Europol, and robust cross border investigation who and we us. Strong team operational. We owe that to our European taxpayers. So there's a lot to do.
I'm looking forward to advancing the file, and I think we have a good agreement on the topics of importance. So thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much. And now my green colleague, Katrin Langsietem, is stuck in votes, and I will read out her contribution because she wanted to be here, but she cannot do magic. So dear chair, oh, yeah. That's to me. Dear Rapporteur, dear colleagues, firstly, I would like to thank you and your team for all the work done so far and for the very constructive and inclusive approach in the negotiations.
I think we can all see that the idea to bring the different programs related to the single market under, so to say, one roof, creates not only opportunities, but also some challenges. However, I think we are heading in a good direction to make the best of it. At this point, I would like to share three specific reflections with you. Firstly, I believe it is important that we put a strong focus on the European consumers and consumer protection, particularly in the objectives of this program. Secondly, I think we should make sure that the program provides for strong support for the work of the European stakeholder organizations and to their role in representing the public interest in the sanitization process.
And thirdly, I would like to stress that it is also very important for us to make sure that the flexibility that is anchored in this proposal is really meaningful. And this means we need to make sure that the funding of the objectives remains predictable, and that the priorities don't compete. It further means that we need to make sure that we, as parliament, will have real power to strengthen and adjust the funding during the next MFF as needed and in proper detail, instead of only dealing with the big headlines. Thank you, again for all the work, and Catherine is looking forward to the very constructive and important debate. Thank you so much.
And then on the left, we have Laila Chaimi. Sorry. I think that's not there. I kind of don't know. I think I need glasses.
Okay. Thank.
Maria Grapini
you. I think this is very important. I was offered the customs code. I sent amendments to the budget control committee. I'd like to thank the operator, but nevertheless, it's important to understand that you can't have better checks at customs level.
I said that when we discussed the customs code. We can't have better checks if we don't have the necessary equipment. So it's absolutely essential that all border crossing points be equipped with this kind of equipment. And we have to consider the level of risk. As my colleague was saying, if we don't have the relevant equipment, we can't detect what the risk is.
And I'm not just talking about scanners. We need laboratories to carry out detailed checks, because how can we check that a certificate which has been issued by a third country is a real certificate? As I was saying to the commission, we need to think about how we can check the veracity of certificates of conformity. These checks have to be carried out in line with what everybody has said, for the protection of consumers, in order to ensure that there's fair competition on the single market. So thank you for your efforts, but please do push the budget as well.
Anna Cavazzini
This is not the case, then I give the floor to the commission. I welcome Sarvathore de Prette, deputy head of unit from DG Grow. Welcome.
Here I.
Speaker 18
am. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot.
We're very grateful for the discussion, and thanks a lot for inviting us here to participate in your exchange of views. We, of course, the commission is fully committed to engage in the next phase of the negotiations. And I think we can all agree that these programs are a key proposals in the new MFF, the single market, and the customs union are key elements of the European Union, and they need to be protected. And this program is the way to do so. Indeed, the proposed program with its simplified, flexible, and agile design will contribute, as I said, to the single market and customs union to make it more competitive and resilient while at the same time protecting the financial and economic interest of the EU.
Speaker 20
We just like to remind that the embedded flexibility would allow to preserve the ability of the program to react in an agile way to any future evolving needs, which are not foreseeable right now. And we can see in the current context, this is very relevant. At the same time, the proposal recognizes the imperative for continuity as the bulk of the program's budget and will need to be used to fund the legally mandated activities. As they are legally mandated, there's no way to get out of them. So they will be implemented.
Now, that's thank you for your insightful comments. We take note of the increased emphasis on the security-related aspects, with consideration going beyond article 136 of the financial regulation to protect the sovereignty and avoid dependency on high-risk suppliers. This is an objective which is really embedded in the current discussion and which led to the revision of the financial regulation. In the next MFF, just like in the current one, the budgetary authority will be involved in the annual budget procedure and will have a say on each budget line of the programs. Consequently, the next MFF proposal does not change this annual budgetary procedure that is in the treaties and in the financial regulation.
Therefore, the budget authorities will have a say. The nomenclature provides the clarity and transparency necessary for the budgetary process, facilitating the identification of the main objectives of each budget line. Budget implementation of the less is a competency directly conferred on the commission by the treaties, and it is executed by the commission implementing decision, which is the financing decision, which constitutes at the same time the work program. The condition the commission continues to support the regional proposal in its exclusion of the provision of comitology in line with the financial regulation and for reasons of simplification and flexible implementation, particularly since the SMCP will mainly fund operations that the commission is legally required to implement. The commission remains committed to engage with the European parliament during the dissolution negotiations and in the next phases.
Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Okay. Thanks for your comments and for being here. And with that, give the floor back to the rapporteur for concluding, if you want.
Adnan Dibrani
So I thought maybe you wanted to say something. But thank you so much, Chair, and colleagues. To be honest, this is probably not the or it's not the biggest program in the MFF budget. But for me, it's the most important one because it's about making sure that the single market works well and making sure that our border is working well. And with that, we will make sure that our companies have a fair condition, but also that the consumers are not harmed in any way.
So in that sense, I feel that if we do and even if we have the best legislation in place and a lot of money put into it, we still need to have good control mechanisms. And here, we all agree that we need to do much, much more in terms of protecting our holy grail, which is the single market. And if we do it right, then we will get a lot of money back. But if not, at least we will have good and fair conditions for our companies, but also making sure that our children live in a good and healthy way of living without any more or less shit coming in from some of the other countries. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. And to everyone who is negotiating, a lot of success on this important file. This concludes agenda item eight. And now we come to the next one, agenda item nine, the institutional aspect of artificial intelligence in the context of European integration. So the AFC committee is doing an initiative report, and we are doing an opinion.
The rapporteur for our opinion is Mr. Pipira. And today, we have the opportunity to get the draft opinion being presented and discussed. So I give the floor first to the rapporteur for presenting.
Gheorghe Piperea
Thank you, chair, and sorry for being late. You moved very, quickly, unusually quickly today. Yeah. So allow me to speak Romanian for better understanding. Stefan Skoledge, just.
Dear colleagues, I'm the main rapporteur on this file for Imco, but I'm also the shadow rapporteur. This is a significant report in the current context, which is the introduction of AI. I agree that we have to consolidate the EU's capacity to manage this transition. We have to be watchful of consumers and workers. A healthy economy needs these people.
And, secondarily, we also need this instrument. We can't sacrifice people's dignity or democratic principles and values. From the IMCo point of view, I would like to present three points that were introduced in the draft report, which will provide the basis for our negotiations. Firstly, AI should help institutions, not replace them, and help citizens, not replace them. It should remain an instrument, not a decision making tool.
For example, AI cannot create laws or make legal decisions without real oversight. Why? Because the rule of law and democratic responsibility are part of the values that are enshrined in the treaties. We can't do without them. So we have to keep an eye on that evolution.
We have to look at the jobs market. AI can't be in charge of an automated system. So I don't want us to fall into the trap of super-centralization that would disrupt the way that jobs are currently done. We have to look the real risks in the face. We're looking at market fragmentation.
All member states don't have the same technology, the same infrastructure, the same data centers, the same capacity. Some member states are lagging behind, such as Romania, for example. If we don't act in a coordinated way, we'll have a two-tier Europe in the area of AI as well, which is, of course, counterproductive and would disrupt the functioning of the single market and the economy. Next, we need to protect citizens' fundamental rights. The use of AI raises questions.
Who takes the decisions? How can a decision be appealed? So we have to look at AI from the consumer's point of view, especially because we're in the IMCO committee. The question is, can AI become a tool for disinformation or a way to deceive consumers? We have to make sure that doesn't happen.
Speaker 23
So with rules that are not uniformly applied, we could distort competitiveness within the single market. We need innovation, but we have to strike the right balance. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. Now we have the round of shadows. I think in theory for APP, it is Henrik Dai, but you're replacing him there. Okay. Perfect.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you, Cherry. Yes. Henrik is not in Brussels today, so he asked me to read the statement. So that's what I'm gonna do. Dear colleagues, I very much welcome this AFCO report that our opinion is about.
It is important that we remain attentive to the potential institutional implications of artificial intelligence. At the same time, I believe this is an area where we should not only focus on risks, but also recognize some of its opportunities. AI can be a valuable tool to strengthen our processes, support better policy making, and improve the effectiveness of public administration. And I don't think mister Pipiria referred to replacing people, but there are quite some tasks that are done by people that could more easily, faster, and more efficiently be done by AI. And they actually, I believe, would make the quality of work increase and the happiness of people at work increase.
So, therefore, I intend to table amendments to the report that place greater emphasis on the positive potential of AI, and ensure that this dimension is more clearly reflected throughout the text. As the discussions move forward, I would encourage a continued effort to maintain a balanced perspective. Overall, AI should not be seen only as a challenge, but also as an opportunity to reinforce the Union's institutional capacity and performance. Thank you very much, chair.
Maria Grapini
Okay. Great. We move to the S and D. Maria Capini. Thank.
Thank you very much. As the shadow rapporteur, I'm going to table some amendments that I've already prepared. I think the debate on AI shouldn't just be held at a theoretical or institutional level. We have to move to the implementation phase. So looking at how the AI is being implemented in the market.
So my amendments have a very strong single market aspect. Making it clear that we have to protect consumers' product safety and data privacy. There has to be a uniform application across all member states, otherwise, there is a risk of fragmentation. At the same time, we need to strengthen the role of the European Parliament. Artificial intelligence is used in political institutions, and the parliament has to be able to have oversight.
Not only does it need expertise, it needs resources to do that. Another plank of our amendments is that we clearly state that AI needs to be checked by a human. We have to have oversight on its decision-making, and it cannot replace humans. We need substantial human supervision and access, especially when those decisions affect citizens and consumers. These systems have to be used responsibly, because otherwise, we'll end up with fragmentation between member states.
So we are calling on more consolidation to increase capacity and better cooperation. Responsibility has to be taken, and it shouldn't be passed on to end users or consumers, because there is a risk of manipulation and disinformation or unfair digital competition. So we have to make sure that AI governance in the EU is not only ambitious, it should also be equitable and help boost the single market. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. For PFE, Elizabeth Deringer.
Speaker 24
I'd like to thank Apporteur for the draft. At some point, we agree with others, and we don't. I'd like to take up 3 of these. We welcome the fact that Apporteur talks about transparency and budget discipline. From the AI structure, there should be no double structure.
There should be jobs depending on the demand. But they didn't ask about the usefulness of this. We don't see any convincing reason why the parliament needs its own standing office when the AI board in the commission and the RPS already exist, requiring transparency of an institution that is not necessary, doesn't solve anything. And then there's a call on the commission to come up with new financing structures from the member states with limited digital capacity. We recognize that there are differences in the implementation of the AI Act in the single market.
But we do have the program of Digital Europe, which is there for that very purpose. Before we come up with new mechanisms, we need to evaluate why the existing mechanisms don't work, and that has to be done without delay. And then on the chain of responsibility and responsibility washing, I understand the concern of the appurtenance. If you develop a system, you shouldn't be able to dodge the responsibility. That is clear in the AI liability regulation.
Speaker 25
We have revised liability rules, and that is sufficient. To introduce new legislation in the form of an EINI report is over the top. We can't have rules of liability coming through the back door.
Anna Cavazzini
Liz, I think Reduce is not here. Greens. Saskia, you will not speak on AI. Right? No.
Christel Schaldemose
The rest of the groups are not here, and then other members can come in. Kristin.
Oh, thank you very much. Well, this is, in many ways, an interesting topic, AI, because there's no doubt that also in our own institution here that we already now see people using AI. And there are benefits to be harvested, but also, things we need to be aware of. So for instance, I think that once we do it and have made decisions about how to use it in the parliament, For instance, voting lists could be one of the areas where we could really save some time. I know how much time, the secretariat and our staffs are spending on that.
But if we could have a system, a database where all EU legislation we're in and the hierarchy could be used. I think we could spend, we could save quite a lot of time. And then it's interesting to discuss, then what should we use this time for? Could we put some quality tests in other parts of our political regulation? I think that we need to talk about it, and we need to have a dialogue, because there are definite benefits.
But we also need to involve those who will be affected by the use of AI. Translation is one of the areas. We are so dependent on it. But on the other hand, technicalities, in few years, the systems will be quite good. They are not that today, but they will be.
What, how will it impact us? So I think that we need to discuss it. So what I wanna say here is that there's a lot of things we can do, but I think it's important that we involve the people who will be affected by the uptake of AI. And we need to have a dialogue. And, of course, as we said also in AI act that human first, AI can be good, but we need to have, of course, a focus on how can we make sure that we still have jobs for human beings, and how can we do it in a good manner so we can harvest the benefits but avoid having the downside being too much impacting people.
Anna Cavazzini
So I hope that we can have a discussion about awareness and be critical, but also harvest the benefits. Thanks.
Is there any other member who wants to come in this extremely interesting debate? If this is not the case, then I give the floor to the commission. And I welcome Irina Orisic from also DG Grow, I believe. Hi. Welcome.
Irina Oršolić
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, also for letting us join this interesting debate. First of all, most of you will know that we already try to have a very balanced approach. And whilst, indeed, legislation normally is very much in the news and discussed by everybody. Indeed, we also have a large number of activities for innovation, for competitiveness.
We have the objective to make Europe an AI continent. We do have the apply the AI strategy. We have the continent action plan and a lot more, indeed, to foster innovation. But at the same time, indeed, AI needs to be safe. It needs to be trustworthy.
And this is why we are having the AI act. The AI act that regulates AI, in particular, where there is a particular high risk, that was also designed with the co legislators in a way that provides us with the possibility to react quickly to new developments and also, for example, to broaden the high risk use cases and, really to be able with codes and other tools to be as much future proof as it is possible. Now you all know that the AI act is very recent, and also that it is currently being discussed, some aspects of it in the omnibus. So what we want with the AI Act is to provide legal certainty. This is absolutely key, and I believe in that context, we should also give it the possibility to be implemented, enforced, and to see what kind of other needs there are or might be.
For now, we will it is there, and it will provide legal certainty across the EU to ensure that AI is being developed and deployed in a trustworthy way and respecting all our fundamental values. Now what was done with the AI act is that the AI office was created, and the AI office indeed also has aspects of an observatory. And with the AI office, we are very closely cooperating with the Parliament. There is the Colibo working group, and we are in very, very close exchanges about what is happening. And I'm very happy about that, and hope it will continue like that.
Thank you very much.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for being here and for your comments. Very helpful indeed. So I give the floor back to the operator for concluding remarks.
Gheorghe Piperea
Just a few words. First of all, I'll be happy to discuss with all the colleagues, and especially with the shadow rapporteur. So I thank madam Grappini because she practically said everything, almost everything I said, in the draft opinion. I am, of course, okay with what Elizabeth says about not to hire, to have higher cost for this implementation. I am sure that we will have a good report on this issue.
Anna Cavazzini
And, again, thank you, madam president.
Okay. Great. Thank you so much. That concludes agenda item nine. And I just wanna come back to one of the announcements I made in the morning, because I think I caused some misunderstanding.
So not the whole afternoon is canceled, just the single market point is canceled. So at 02:30, there's still the point with the anthropic. So sorry if I cause confusion. So very clearly, again, not the whole afternoon is canceled, just the single market point because this we moved to June with EVP, but then the traffic point is kept. So just to make this super clear.
Sorry for the confusion. Now we come to agenda item 10, the evaluation of the market surveillance regulations. So we have a presentation in exchange of use with the European Economic and Social Committee. So you know that also, here in this committee, we try to have a very close connection to the European Economic and Social Committee. We try to include the reports all the time.
We had several brainstormings with them also on how to earlier and better include them. Probably all of you, but I also go a lot there, to present, the parliament and exchange with them because I think it's super important to include all the different views of these important stakeholders, of this important institution in our legislation. So I'm very happy that also now very early before we start our whole process with the legislation, we have already the EESC working on the exchange of the market surveillance regulation and that we also basically have the opportunity of hearing Miss Antje Gerstein, a member of European Economic and Social Committee, to present the ESG evaluation report on the market surveillance regulation, where she's also the rapporteur. So, very happy to have you here. And I give you the floor for ten minutes to present your report, and afterwards, we have the opportunity to ask questions, but also exchange, of course, with the members.
The floor is yours.
Antje Gerstein
Thank you very much, President. Thank you, Anna Cavazzini. Dear members of the parliament, thank you for having us here today. We are very happy to be able to present our evaluation report on the market surveillance regulation. Also, as we believe, this is really a very timely discussion we are having now.
I would like to start, and then I also have a presentation here, as you can see. But I would start maybe with a summary at the beginning. In a nutshell, what we found out is that we have more of an enforcement problem than an actual regulative problem or regulation problem. So enforcement of market surveillance provisions is really problem number one, and that showed in all interviews and questionnaires. So, first slide, please.
Yes. How did we work? So, the focus of the evaluation was really an exposed approach to see what has worked and what has not worked so far. So, it was based on interviews, which were by questionnaires but also physical interviews with stakeholders. So, those included authorities, manufacturers, importers, distributors, and so-called authorized representatives.
The clusters we were asking about were around relevance, effectiveness, and coherence. And, also, because we are the EESC, we were asking about civil society engagement. So this is what we did, and I will show you now in the next couple of minutes our main findings. Next slide, please. So starting point was the better regulation tool 47, adapted to the EESC needs.
We had 12 EESC members involved. We were looking at four countries, two big ones, two small ones. The big ones were France and Germany. The small ones were Malta and Greece. The selection of the countries was also because market surveillance, for example, in France is organized very centrally, whereas in Germany, it is decentralized with the lender being in charge.
In Malta, has developed to be a kind of a hub for these small parcels, so we thought that would be interesting. And from Greece, we knew that market surveillance was really sort of weak institutionally, and we wanted to know where the weaknesses were. We consulted 43 organizations. Next slide, please. So what were the main outcomes?
First cluster relevance. Stakeholders across all countries agreed that market surveillance regulation remains highly relevant to prevent noncompliant products from entering the EU market. So there was really total consensus on this. Everyone saw the totally changed global environment with the e-commerce boom, particularly with regard to Chinese platforms such as TEMU and Xinyin. The complexity of supply chains, and, of course, limited resources concerning the equipment of authorities.
So was regarded still highly relevant, but also seen that particularly SMEs and micro-enterprises are under pressure. So and struggle to comply because the rules are getting more complex. Next slide, please. From the questionnaire, we got the information that most visible in implementation are manufacturers, and most strategically important, because that was really reported particularly from the authorities, is the need to have authorized representatives in the EU market. So call for action was also to have formal quality criteria, what is an authorized representative, and to have an EU database that is public and transparent.
Next slide, please. With regard to effectiveness, the market surveillance has strengthened cooperation and information exchange, but not enough. And that's what I said before. The tools are there, but unfortunately, we really have an implementation issue that is also highly linked to a lack of possibilities also of technical and digital cooperation. So these are the enforcement gaps that are very serious: online marketplaces and small third country shipments are, amounting to a level that is not possible to handle anymore.
Lack of staff and resources, limited sanctioning powers, that was one thing that was reported by the market surveillance authorities in practically every interview, that this is really also a cause for a high level of frustration and the slow and reactive enforcement that can only take place at a too slow pace. Next slide, please. On the questionnaire issues, answers were about the same. So also there are issues with the authorized representatives that are often just letter boxes, if at all, no physical people that are actually could be held accountable. We still have a number of unsafe products on the market.
We have inconsistent cooperation with online marketplaces outside of the EU. And in total, all these results also in weak consumer protection. That was also one outcome that I personally found very shocking or frustrating, also that in interviews with consumers, it came out that the general attitude is that consumers, of course, do trust if they buy products online no matter where. They believe that if it enters the EU, it must be safe. And this cannot be guaranteed anymore.
So I think we really have a point here where we have to address consumer awareness, but also make sure that our high level of product safety we have here, and which is an asset of the single market, is preserved. Next slide, please. Coherence was another major issue that we were interviewing. So there is definitely a huge degree of regulatory confusion. We have market surveillance.
We have customs regulations. And all these regulations are highly complex. We have consumer protection. We have AI regulation and fragmented authorities in the member states, inconsistent definitions, and overlapping laws. So I think also in our exchange with the commission, it's quite clear that the upcoming product act will actually exactly address this regulatory confusion, and it's high time to do that.
Next slide. So this is just undermining what I said before. Also, the questionnaires we got back totally confirmed this. So I don't have to go into the details. A bit of a repetition of the slide before, but you see that this was really one of the major problems that were seen particularly by the authorities, but, of course, also by companies.
Next slide. So the added value of civil society was the particular angle from the European Economic and Social Committee. What we could see is that in France and Germany, there is institutionalized consultative dialogue with civil society. Whereas in Greece, we heard that the engagement of civil society is really minimal. And in Malta, there is a proactive outreach, but the resources are very limited.
So also here, particularly with regard to consumer organizations, there's room for improvement in the upcoming legislation and its implementation at member state level. So I will wrap up. Next slide, please. So the highlights of the policy recommendation we elaborated were ensure coherence between the market surveillance, the product safety regulation, sector specific legislation, and the union customs code has to be improved, avoiding overlapping compliance streams and clarifying responsibilities across the enforcement chains. Establish a reinforced European enforcement capacity capable of addressing systemic cross-border risks and large-scale digital trade flows.
Also, the use of AI tools could play a significant role in building such capabilities. Next slide. And this, in my view, is the most important point. Clarify the responsibility chain and make it fit to operate by introducing minimum quality criteria for authorized representatives, including proof of establishment in the Union, identity verification, proof of solvency, and demonstrable operational capacity. Qualified authorized representatives should be referenced in the publicly accessible central EU database.
And this is the whole thing: if these parcels flow in the EU with unsafe products and there is no one to be held accountable, this is really a main issue. And next one, of course, improve interoperability. I was talking to that. So last slide, the cost of nonaction, I wanted to highlight this to you. No.
Antje Gerstein
Sorry. The slide before. So recent a study of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research found out that Chinese online platforms and retailers such as TEMU and Xin deliver. This is a German point of view, but you can scale it to your country. These numbers are very recent. Deliver 460000 packages to Germany every day.
Across the EU, that figure stands at 12,000,000 packages per day. Both companies violate numerous EU regulations with regard to product safety. According to the study, which I'm happy to provide you if you are interested, the costs for the German economy amount to €2,400,000,000 in lost value creation annually, €1,300,000,000 of which are in the retail sector alone. So you see, if we want to somehow get control over this uncontrolled inflow of unsafe products, we have to act now. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for the presentation. I think very insightful. And I would say it's not a confirmation bias, but you also confirm a lot of the observations that, I guess, we are sharing here in this Parliament. So, I think the commission is not yet here, but, anyhow, we have other opportunities for the members to come in, to comment, and also, of course, ask questions to our guest. So just raise your hand.
We take all. So the secretary takes all. And I see already Elizabeth.
Thank you, chair. I'm speaking German. Thank.
Antje Gerstein
thank you very much. For this presentation. And when you see a presentation like this, you can really see how dramatic the situation is and to what extent there is a need to take action. There are different kinds of cooperation with the consumer protection bodies in the member states. How could you optimize this, as far as you're concerned?
And how could a future digital act improve this type of cooperation? What would be the perspectives? And where do we need to concentrate our efforts? You mentioned certain points. It is, of course, urgent.
I think that was particularly clear from the last slide, what damage has been done to the single market and how strong the distortion of competition is, because products made in Europe have to stick to all the rules, and that really should apply to imported goods as well. Thank you.
Dirk.
Antje Gerstein
Thank you very much, and thank you, Mrs. Gershun, for that very recognizable presentation. Also nice to see indeed that AI is already being used in the institutions to make presentations a bit more lively, visual. So every, I mean, we focused on all these topics in the customs reform. The lacking IT systems, it will take some time, but it's on its way. The data hub will be a huge, I would say, step in being able to provide a data platform.
Also, hopefully in the future for market surveillance authorities. What we saw also in that work is that there is a huge difference in the relations between the market surveillance authorities. So the governance environment of these institutions in the different member states, their relations, for example, to customs or to consumer organizations. Some are very much integrated with each other, like it's in the Dutch situation. And in some places, they hardly have each other's phone numbers.
So it makes it very complicated. And especially in a country like Germany where you have the lender's responsibilities, it is also very difficult. You have a European access market, but I don't know how many different authorities that are responsible for it. So, yes, it is very much also something we can do on a regulatory and a governance level, but member states have a huge responsibility also to sort out the governance mess when it comes to supervision of their market because Europe will not be able to take their role. Now, in terms of what I'm very, or what came out of that process of the customs reform and also I think Jeratham said it here last time, there are more than 300 laws that need to be applied at the border for goods on our external border, 300 laws.
If in your discussions with the market surveillance authorities, are they do they have the capabilities at all to apply these laws? Do they have the expertise to do this? Because we are and we will, at the end of this mandate, there will be even some more laws that need to be applied at that border. But my feeling is more and more that we're living on a paper, paper reality and that the distance between what is real and what we want to do is getting bigger and bigger. And now maybe a reflection on the capabilities of the different organization and the feeling you got from your interviews, on those issues.
Thank you very much.
Antje Gerstein
Thank you so much. Now I have Saskia Prigmore.
Thank you very much. Thank you also from my side for your very interesting presentation. And we have the full study, but if we could also have your summary, it would be very interesting. Also, I was wondering if you have more data like the ones you showed us on Germany and the real concrete economic impact on our member states. Because I think if we do not acknowledge that there is a problem there and it needs to be tackled as such, we'll never get out of the impact of very large platforms on our economies.
We issued from our side an initiative report on ecommerce where we have different recommendations also to move forward and to address most of the elements that you pointed out in your study, like on the authorized representative in the EU. I think this is one of the key elements that we need to also address, and it's I don't know if the commission was there to hear it, but it would also be interesting to have their reaction. I'm also very much interested in getting the figures of what it means in terms of workforce by country when it comes to the customs officials and also the market surveillance authorities. Because from year to year, they've had a growing number of responsibilities and activities on their shoulders, more and more complex activities also to perform. And legislation contains provisions as to their training, but we don't ask whether they're sufficiently staffed.
And, obviously, this is one of the elements that you point to. So if you have figures, data per country, it would also be interesting for us. You mentioned the issue related to large online marketplaces, but the DSA doesn't explicitly refer to market surveillance authorities. It foresees that the member states shall designate one or more competent authorities to be responsible for the supervision of providers of intermediary services and the enforcement of the regulation. So I was wondering if these authorities and market surveillance authorities conflate in the member states or not.
And if not, I presume that it's part of the reasons why the effective enforcement of product safety on online marketplaces remains problematic, and the lack of enforcement. I don't know in the meanwhile if the commission is there, but I would like to ask, the commission's position, since there's a willingness, and I support that, not to reopen the DSA, but how then to ensure effective alignment and cooperation between DSA competent authorities and market surveillance authorities. And also particularly in leveraging the DSA's existing provisions concerning VLOPS and to address non-compliant products on online marketplaces. And last but not least, because we are in a huge simplification process leading to deregulation. And I think when we see the overall picture, and, yes, the different legislations, we do not need the regulation, but I fully agree with you.
We need coherence also to simplify the work of the authorities. But I would like to have maybe more input from your side on how effectively to ensure this coherence without jeopardizing the effectiveness of each of these pieces of legislation or creating. I was wondering in that context if the problems that we try to solve through the customs codes, the reviewed customs codes, might be one of the answers to this lack of coherence. We're also creating a specific authority. What role could this authority play in bringing this coherence? Thank you.
Thank you so much. As we are very well in time, I have left you more speaking time, just for information. Next one is Annette.
Well, thank you, and thanks for the presentation. Unfortunately, it's not surprising anymore what we have. But it's still shocking. So it has been said that a lot has been done on the new customs regulations. So hopefully, that will at least help something.
Antje Gerstein
But what would be your because we must admit that there isn't an illusion that we could check every item. I mean, this can never happen. But what would be the main focus that we should look at as parliament with our member states? What should the member states, first of all, do at this point now that we still don't have the regulations in place, hopefully soon, but what would be the main focus from your side? One point.
Thank you so much. This exhausts the list of members. I'll just check again. No one else wants to come in. So I give the floor back to our guest, to Miss Gerstein.
So, please, there were a lot of different questions. And afterwards, have the commission here, so that's good.
Antje Gerstein
Yes. Thank you very much for these questions, which I probably cannot all answer in an exhaustive way, but I will try to go through what I heard. So the question, consumer protection, how to optimize? That's a very important question. We had a hearing when we started our exercise with different consumer protection organizations that were also involved, and also enforcement authorities.
And I thought it was quite interesting to see a Danish example where the Danish market surveillance authority really launched a video addressed to consumers about unsafe products and how they have to be careful. So it was an awareness raising exercise launched by the market surveillance authorities to sensibilize consumers. And I thought this is a really interesting approach because we also have to inform about the risks that are involved when you buy products on these kinds of third country platforms. Now I'm also I find this very important to say in the whole context. When we talk about third country platforms, we are, of course, not talking about competition from products that come outside the European market.
We are talking about unfair competition. That's the issue. These companies or these retailers and platforms just do not comply with the rules that we have in the EU. So for me, this is very important to underline that the issue is unfair competition. It's not a competition as such.
Antje Gerstein
It's unfair because they do not comply with our rules, whereas the European companies comply. Digital product pass will play a crucial role. By the way, also packaging rules will play a crucial role, because we will have systems in place where we can track and trace products. So that will also, of course, has potential. With regard to the data hub in the whole context of the customs reform, yes, that is probably one of the most important elements that we need today.
And, of course, I totally agree. Member states have to take their responsibilities. That hasn't happened yet and have to agree and really seriously commit to this data hub. So there's also a lot of homework at home. The capability of authorities to apply these complex laws at all.
Antje Gerstein
Indeed, I can confirm in our interviews with the auto authorities that was, of course, an issue. And, also, even if you have very highly functional authorities, it is almost impossible. And I think this is the big task for the commission now, to make sure that we have more coherent provisions and regulations in place. There was a question, and I want to come back to this about the loss of working places and workforce with regard to this kind of disruptive unfair competition. Now the study I mentioned has also looked at this, and I also want to say it is a brutal fight about market shares.
So the study found out that in German retail alone, so I just have the German figures. But in German retail alone, Chinese platforms have led to a loss of 28,300 jobs. Then you, of course, you have the whole sector of in the supply chain of suppliers, so that counts to another 8,900. Then, of course, because the consumption is also lower, that's another 300, 3,400 jobs. So in total, we are about having a figure of about 29,000 in German retail alone that are being lost by these unfair business models that cannot be tracked.
What else did I have? Yes. There was this comment. We cannot check every parcel. Indeed, that's not possible, and that's, I think, common sense.
Antje Gerstein
So probably there is probably not one answer how to find solutions. We have to apply the whole toolbox, the whole package. So we have from the commission the communication from last year that already had a set of tools that could be applied. We will have now the handling fee. We will have the abolishment of the de minimis regulation.
We have the reform, the customs reform, that is hopefully proceeding as fast as possible because we really need that. We can ask the authorities to better cooperate. We hopefully will have the EU data hub. So we have many elements that have to come together. And then this business model becomes more and more unattractive, and I think this has to be the goal.
So we cannot aim at controlling every parcel because indeed, you saw the figures, this is impossible. But a business model that is based on unfair competition has to become unattractive. Thank you.
Thank you so much. And now I give the floor to the commission. We have Gianfranco Cianale. I hope I pronounced this correctly. Team leader, market surveillance, GT Grow.
Welcome.
Antje Gerstein
Madam chair, honorable members, distinguished participants, on behalf of the European Commission, I would like to thank rapporteur Antia Gerstein, co-rapporteur Anastasis Iapanis, and all members of the European Economic and Social Committee that contributed to the evaluation report on the implementation of the EU market surveillance regulation, which is turning out to be a valuable asset for the commission's own evaluation of the regulation. This evaluation of the EESC, in fact, confirms the three problems that we are trying to tackle in the revision of the EU market surveillance regulation as part of the European Product Act. First, the presence of regulatory loopholes makes it difficult for market surveillance authorities to enforce union amortization legislation throughout the EU, in particular, with respect to online sales. Second, the subpar market surveillance capacity that member states can field throughout the EU in terms of overall resources and expertise, but also in terms of the uneven distribution of existing capacity among member states. And third, lack of effective cooperation procedures among relevant authorities within and between member states.
The recommendation of the EESC evaluation report are equally useful and are consistent with the policy option whose impact we are assessing with the aim of devising a solid commission proposal. This is the case of the recommendation to clarify the responsibility chain and make it fit to operate by introducing minimum quality criteria for authorized representatives, and to ensure that digital tools such as the digital product passport are effectively integrated into the surveillance framework to simplify compliance rather than create parallel systems. Before concluding, I would like to turn to the questions that I've heard from the honorable members, and I spotted two particularly relevant ones. The first is an unauthorized representative. This is one of the biggest aims that we have through the reform of the UMSR, to ensure that there is, in any event, a responsible economic operator for goods that are placed in the EU single market.
We know that authorized representatives of foreign manufacturers are turning out to be, either in existence or fictitious, and therefore, we are assessing policy options that establish verification mechanisms to ensure that these authorized representatives exist and have a mandate from a manufacturer. But we're also not stopping there. We are also assessing the responsibility that authorized representatives incur. Right now, their responsibility is limited to being a communication channel between the market surveillance authorities and the foreign manufacturers. We are assessing options that raise the level of responsibilities, approximating those of an importer right now. I've also heard calls for enhanced cooperation and coherence.
This is the third policy objective of the UMSR revision, which is making sure that authorities cooperate efficiently, not only within member states, but also amongst member states. And we will make sure that this enhanced cooperation procedure also affects authorities, under the DSA. We are more broadly making an attempt to ensure coherence across the board, also with the general product safety regulation. In conclusion, let me express, once again, the appreciation of the commission for the swift and thorough work of the EESC on the evaluation report, which is proving helpful for our endeavor to revise the EU market surveillance regulation in the context of the European product act. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank you so much, also for being here, for also commenting from the Commission side. And, again, thanks to the ESC and also, of course, to the colleagues, to the referee. And if I'm well informed, you were just elected president of the section. So congratulations also from the IMCO committee to our sister committee, whatever.
Antje Gerstein
So, congratulations, and yeah, hope to work with you in the future again. So this concludes agenda item 10. And we come to agenda item 11. We do, like, a one minute technical break, and I welcome already our guests from Vinted and Ball, but we just do one minute technical break, and then we continue. Okay.
So after a little bit of bilaterals in the corridors, I think it was important to also follow up and say thank you to our guests. We can continue with agenda item 11. You know it, and I wanna repeat it. We have a recurring topic in our IMCU's agenda. This is scrutinizing e-commerce platforms for illegal and dangerous products.
Antje Gerstein
And we added, on this exchange of view also including the sale of new and secondhand goods. And we are on a very regular basis inviting different types of companies, big Chinese ecommerce platforms, but also, yeah, European platforms to see where we stand, what we can do better, what is also the view of the companies, but what is also the compliance policies of companies because it's also very interesting. And I welcome our guests today from Vinted and Paul. Thanks so much for coming. It's always a good opportunity for us as members to exchange directly with the companies.
I also welcome the commission again, here in the room with us, and we will have the following order. First, the commission speaks, and then the guests from the companies. And afterwards, the members can ask questions and raise comments. You can already tell the secretariat if you want to speak, and we will do a speakers list. And afterwards, of course, there's also the opportunity for the companies and the commission to reply.
So we start with the commission, and I welcome again, mister Kianale, and also Rica Howard, head of unit on ecommerce. So I give you the floor for, in total, 6 minutes.
Hi. Good morning, everyone, and it really feels like coming home. We are coming so many times. So good to see you all. So, I, again, try to tailor a little bit my intervention so that I don't always say the same things.
Antje Gerstein
But, of course, I mean, we all understand that why we are here. So the most recent data indicates that in 2025, the EU imported 5,800,000,000 low-value parcels, and this was 26% more than in 2024. And over 95% of these parcels originated from China, with a significant proportion of these imports being handled by a small number of major players. However, as we know and we have here, the representatives of some smaller platforms, so not online marketplaces, are as big as the main Chinese platforms. And within the EU, a number of well-established platforms and online marketplaces are actively contributing to the EU's global competitiveness.
And smaller platforms, including those specializing in secondhand goods, play a crucial role in enhancing consumer welfare by strengthening Europe's long-term economic resilience and sustainable growth. Then I would like to talk a very little bit about the ecommerce communication, which you all well know. So it was adopted in February 2025. And, already, within this framework, a number of actions are already on their way, such as the political agreement on the customs reform regarding the customs duty relief for goods of up to, I mean, packages up to euro 150, and also the temporary customs duty, which will kick in in July. But what I want to talk a little bit about is that other legislative initiatives are also on their way, and I am sure that colleagues from DG Grovia mentioned these.
What I just want to say is that it's very important, and the commission is very mindful that any future legislation should safeguard the diversity of business models in e-commerce. And that means that special attention would need to be paid to smaller marketplaces, including those specializing in second-hand goods. And any solution to fix the problem of the flood of illegal goods would need to be carefully thought through in this regard. And what is also very important is that, whatever changes will be legislated, they should strengthen every tool in the EU's toolbox to safeguard ecommerce. And I just want to say in the ten seconds I have that, of course, the DSA obligations are tailored to each online service's role, size, and impact.
And micro and small companies have lighter requirements based on their size, to keep them accountable by helping them to scale up. And bigger platforms obviously have more responsibilities, and therefore more obligations. So thank you very much.
Antje Gerstein
Thank you, Rebecca. Madam Chair, honorable members, as you may be aware, the commission will propose a European product act. Two of the core objectives of these initiatives are particularly relevant for today's discussion, providing greater clarity for economic operators involved in product circularity, and strengthening market surveillance in the EU. On the first objective, the European Product Act will provide greater clarity in definitions and responsibilities for both economic operators involved in circularity, such as remanufacturers and refurbishers, while also clarifying key concepts to better distinguish between refurbishment and substantial modification. And ensure that manufacturers provide in the digital product passports the necessary information to enable the safe refurbishment of their products, and introduce lighter conformity assessment procedures for refurbished products.
All of this to foster the development of the secondhand market and to contribute to a more sustainable and resilient consumption model, with particular benefits for SMEs and local economic activities, as highlighted in the 2025 European Parliament resolution on a new legislative framework. On strengthening the market surveillance, the message from the European Parliament is unequivocal and well heard. Europe cannot accept a single market where unsafe and noncompliant products reach consumers simply because they are sold online. Yet such products are circulating on our markets in increasing numbers for three main reasons. First, accountability for product compliance is often absent.
Second, products that are identified as illegal or unsafe reappear on platforms with alarming ease. Third, using existing tools, relevant authorities can simply not keep up with 12 million low value consignments that entered the EU daily in 2024. The commission is strengthening coordinated enforcement actions, foreseeing more joint actions next year, is working with member states to improve data sharing across authorities and at EU level, and is deploying digital detection technologies, such as web crawlers, to identify noncompliant products. In addition, the European Product Act will, amongst others, ensure that EU-based economic operators for third country manufacturers are identifiable, responsible, and legally accountable, reassess the responsibilities for product compliance of all actors involved in the supply chain, and strengthen enforcement capacity through better use of resources, modernized digital tools, and coordinated EU-level action. Honorable members, the principle is simple.
A product sold in EU must be safe and compliant regardless of whether it comes from, how it is sold, and of whether it is new or secondhand. The commission is committed to delivering this, and we expect all actors, including e-commerce platforms, to match that level of ambition. Many thanks.
Thank you so much to the two of you. And, again, happy to have you as regular guests. And that's, of course, also shows how much importance we as ImcoCommittee put on this topic. So now, as I mentioned at the beginning, we have our guests. So, each company has around six to seven minutes in total, and we have several speakers.
Probably it's the easiest if you can just introduce yourselves, because then I don't make the mistake of mispronouncing your names. So we start with Vintet.
Madam chair, honorable members, and representatives of the commission, thank you very much for inviting us to contribute to this important discussion from the perspective of a European secondhand marketplace. I am Jesse Dellemassette, and I am the VP of corporate affairs for Vinted. Every day across Europe, millions of EU citizens make a very simple decision. Instead of buying something new, they buy something secondhand from each other. They do it to save money.
They do it because it's now easy to find items that they like, and they do it to make things last longer. And increasingly, they do it because secondhand has become a normal part of everyday life in Europe. At Vintage, we see this shift every day. Let me start by introducing who we are. We are a European company born in Lithuania and raised in Europe.
Today, we are active in 24 EU member states and employ over 2,200 people across the continent. We are proud to be a European tech company growing within the single market, and contributing to it. At our core, Vinted is a marketplace that connects people to buy and sell second-hand goods. We are predominantly a consumer-to-consumer platform, enabling individuals across the EU to give items a second life, and we believe in making secondhand first choice. And we see the effect this is having on consumers.
In 2025 alone, 88% of surveyed EU buyers say they now check vintage before buying something new. This matters to the European Union because secondhand is already a meaningful and growing part of the European economy, supporting affordability, consumer choice, household resilience, and a more circular internal market, and that's why this discussion matters. Importantly, around 99% of our users are private individuals. They are parents selling children's clothes. They are students looking for a vintage piece, or they are people decluttering before a move.
The goods traded on vintage are already in circulation within the single market. We do not introduce new products to the market. We help extend the life of goods that already exist. That means we operate differently from traditional retail models. We do not sell products ourselves.
We do not set prices. We do not hold inventory, and we do not run high-volume import operations. Each item on Vinted is a unique listing. This creates a distinct model centered on secondhand and peer-to-peer exchange of goods. Understanding how our model works is essential when we talk about safety and regulation, which brings me to my next point, that we share a common objective.
Products should be safe, consumers should be protected, and unsafe or illegal goods should be addressed quickly and effectively. For Vinted, trust and safety are not optional extras. They are conditions for our model to work, especially in a consumer-to-consumer environment. If users do not feel confident buying and selling on Vinted, our model does not work. Secondhand only becomes the first choice when it is reliable, affordable, easy, and, importantly, safe.
This is why we have built and continue to strengthen trust and safety systems designed specifically for how our consumer-to-consumer platform operates. We have dedicated teams covering detection, policy, and operations. We have a task force focused on harmful listings, including recalled and unsafe items. We use human moderators combined with automated detection systems. Users can report problematic listings, and we act through warnings, suspensions, up to and including permanent bans when our rules are breached.
We also collaborate and work with authorities on notices, takedown requests, and safety alerts, so that cases raised by regulators can be reviewed and acted on quickly and with priority. At the same time, we continue to invest in proactive detection and better tools so that risks can be identified and addressed as early as possible. And we keep learning and adapting as our platform evolves. It's also important to recognize that some approaches designed for standard retail models do not always map neatly onto consumer-to-consumer secondhand platforms. Listings on Vinted are created by private individuals, often at home with their iPhone, taking their own photos and writing their own descriptions.
That means there is no standard catalog image. There is no uniform product information sheet. There is no controlled studio photo with a background and good lighting. Many safe and lawful products in their second life will have lost their initial information. For example, people cut tags and labels out of secondhand clothing before they sell it.
So photos, descriptions, and formats vary widely. That makes automated detection more complex than in standard B to C environments with controlled inventory and uniform product information. But that does not mean lowering standards. It means designing systems that work in practice for secondhand sales by private individuals, rather than simply mirroring systems built for large retail models with large volumes. The same logic should apply to regulation, with rules also reflecting how secondhand platforms function.
We all want the same thing, a thriving market in which products are safe, and consumers are protected. The first place to ensure that is when new goods are placed on the market and sold to the consumers. That is where products can be checked, documented, and made compliant most effectively, and where the primary responsibility for product safety should be. This matters for secondhand too, because a safer first market creates a safer second market. In conclusion, approaches that treat intermediary marketplaces in the same way as manufacturers, retailers, or high volume import models do not fully reflect the role of platforms like Vintage, and they are unlikely to solve the root problem.
Requirements that do not reflect this reality risk excluding legitimate secondhand goods from the market without improving safety outcomes. The EU has a real opportunity here. It can show that consumer protection, circularity, affordability, and innovation do not have to pull in different directions. It can build a secondhand market that is not only safer and more trusted, but also stronger for consumers, and better for households. At Vintage, we are proud to grow a successful European business contributing to that shift, and we stand ready, as always, to work constructively with the parliament and with the commission and with national authorities to make it happen.
Thank you very much, and we look forward to the exchange.
Thank you so much for your intervention and for being here. And, again, I'm also looking forward to the debate afterwards, but let's first hear your colleagues from Ball. So you also have six to seven minutes to present your company and also probably your compliance policies. And then, yeah, we have the debate afterwards.
Thanks. So dear members of the EMCO committee, thank you for your kind invitation to contribute to these important sessions. My name is Johan Palem, and I'm the chief legal officer of Bull. Your initiative comes at a crucial moment. Consumer markets are being disrupted at an incredible pace.
While Europe's competitiveness is under growing pressure, the policy choices ahead, and especially on trust in the digital economy, will be decisive. In a world that is becoming more transactional, more divided, and even sometimes hostile, trust in markets, products, and people is increasingly vital. At Ball, facilitating a trustworthy online shopping experience is not a future. It's a foundation. We started as Europe's first online bookstore in 1999.
Today, we are an e-commerce platform active in Belgium and The Netherlands, connecting 14,000,000 customers with 42,000 sales partners. Together, we offer 56,000,000 products and generate over €6,000,000,000 in general merchandising value. As a Dutch Belgian player, we operate closely with our customers and are deeply rooted in the communities we serve. We are a local business accelerator. Around 60% of our turnover comes from local SMEs.
Our platform is their growth engine. We create jobs. Beyond our 3,000 employees, we indirectly create 15,000 jobs, for example, through our supply chain partners, like PostNL in the Netherlands and bPost here in Belgium. And we take our responsibility. We are very proud of our B Corp certification, meeting the highest social and environmental standards.
Bull is one of the few strong local players in a market increasingly dominated by global platforms. That resilience is not accidental. It's the result of operating very closely with our customers, being firm on top of the products. We offer and maintain close proximity to local entrepreneurs and suppliers and take swift and decisive action against unsafe and illegal goods. Our strength lies in accountability and staying connected to the realities on the ground.
This is how we protect consumers and uphold the integrity of the European market. Today, we would like to share how this European model can remain strong and competitive through smart, proportionate, and well-enforced regulation. And I will conclude with two concrete recommendations in this regard. As said, competition is extremely fierce. We compete with large non-EU platforms from the US and China.
These players benefit from global scale, deep capital, and, in some cases, an uneven playing field. In an environment where these large players are increasingly dominant, EU players face significant challenges to operate healthy businesses, but it does not mean we can't compete. And this is because we do see trust not as a constraint, but as a key asset to compete. Customers comfortable with a broad, affordable, and safe assortment. They come for reliable delivery and service.
We cannot deliver that without our partners, and we help them grow their businesses. This is also why we offer an international assortment, but well curated, safe, and compliant. Delivering on trust is essential to make sure that our consumers come back to our platform. Our intrinsic motivation to run a safe and reliable platform, combined with strong local market knowledge, is what sets us apart. This is a balancing act at the same time.
On the one hand, we need to support and are very dependent on our sales partners in growing our business on the platform. On the other hand, we enforce strict rules and, when necessary, take decisive action against partners who do not play by those rules. So, how do we do that in practice? First, we focus on enforcement at the gate. We don't just let anyone sell on board.
Every partner undergoes rigorous screening, including ID checks and the provision of extensive information. For non-EU players, we are even stricter. They must have a responsible economic actor operator within the EU, and we do not allow direct to consumer shipping from outside the EU. Secondly, we fully embrace the DSA and the GPSR. The current framework gives us flexibility to take voluntary measures without immediate liability.
This allows us to remain scalable and innovative. And let me give a few examples. We use AI driven validation to scan 56,000,000 products. We block products automatically if mandatory data is missing. We ensure proactive integration with the safety gate and human review.
We enable transparent reporting of non-compliant products for our authorities and users. And lastly, we perform random physical conformity checks. On what we think Europe needs. So it is definitely not unique. Across Europe, there are EU-rooted platforms with European values of consumer safety, data protection, and fairness.
With companies like Bol and our colleagues from Vintet, when they thrive, we keep jobs, innovation, and value creation in Europe, and we uphold our standards globally. If Europe wants its platforms to compete on trust, then trust cannot be optional. It cannot be the case that when responsible platforms invest in compliance, while others grow by ignored rules. For this, we do not need another stack of new rules. We need smart, proportionate rules that are enforced fast, firmly, and without exceptions.
Then the two recommendations. First, focus on enforcement of the existing rules. We kindly request to fix the safety gate's blind spots. Currently, the EU safety gate is isolated. We see unsafe products flagged in the UK or Australia that don't show up in our system.
These global safety portals should be connected to protect EU consumers better, and speed matters. We very much welcome the investigation from the European Commission into noncompliance by non-EU players. At the same time, it takes time to investigate. Fast moving competitors already take a significant part of the market and build a powerful position. Enforcement, therefore, needs to match the speed of the market.
Secondly, make the digital product passport work for e-commerce. It's a very powerful transparency tool, but only if it's practical. We need one standard. We need one uniform set of rules for how data is accessed and displayed across all categories. Second, we need access to our marketplaces.
Give us clear access rights to this data so we can automate our compliance checks and show it to consumers in a user-friendly way. And as well, we also always stand ready to share our insights, best practices to help build a safer digital Europe. Thank you very much. Thank.
Thank you so much, also for your input. Very. And now, we have the members come in with questions and comments. So please indicate to the secretariat if you want them to speak. And, we have already Kristel Scheidemose.
You were very fast.
I was very fast. I didn't know that. Thank you very much for your presentations, and this is such an important topic. And I think it's clear for all of us that there are no quick fixes to solve this problem. It is unfortunately something that we have to spend some time on.
There's no doubt that the CPC revision, the European Product Act, the customs reforms, and the DSA altogether can play a role. Some already is here now. Others need to be revised before or started being implemented. But I do believe that you're raising some very important questions in terms of, for instance, reuse and or waste. You could even say that I know that waste is not something we work with in Imco, but it's still a part of this.
And here, I really think that we need to look into what we can do, and I'm looking at the commission also because you need simply to do something. Because when people are buying goods online from China or other places and it's noncompliant, it still goes into our waste system, and it is costly for taxpayers in the local communities where they have to pay for it. So we probably need to do even more than we're doing today. One thing is, in the long run, to make sure that the packages coming in are compliant. I think that we are on a track for that.
It might last a couple of years, but we are on track for that. But what about all the things we already have bought that are in the EU right now and we have to tackle? And it is complicated. So you could maybe consider, and it is not necessarily popular, but you could consider an environmental extra cost when you buy goods outside the EU so that we can make sure that we can pay for the cleanup. The other thing is that I think about vintage or reuse and charity organizations, we need also to look at them.
They are not a classical economic operator, but they will end up with the obligation anyway. And I think we need to find ways to help them not be responsible for the waste when they get stuff in. We need to make sure that we look at the circular economy in a good way, and help them. And I'm happy that we have a lot of organizations, but also companies working with Vintage. I think it is important.
But in order to make this work, we need to find ways where the responsibility on the content of the goods are in place. So, thank you for coming here. Thank you for highlighting the issues. We're looking at it. We are, I think, quite united here in Imco on the need for doing something. We have already done a lot.
The customs reform is something where I'm really optimistic. I am looking very much forward to the European product act, but we can do even more, the CPC, etcetera. But even more good ideas are welcome because there are, as I said, no quick fix. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Kristel. Now, Dirk.
Thank you very much. Thank you also to the speakers for their very interesting input there. Of course, quite different business models, but I think what they have in common is that they're both, well, they're first of all, they're both European. And secondly, they're usually affected by third-country business models that are noncompliant. And, whether it was the first wave of Americans or that now the wave of Asian, they, so they had to survive in extremely difficult circumstances, whereas we, the legislature, asked them to invest in compliance.
But every day, the competitive advantage of the others grew. So our people, our businesses invest in compliance. The others don't. So who benefits? The others.
Yeah? And who do we enforce? The companies that we know, not the companies that we don't know because we don't have their phone numbers. And we do have the phone number of Vinted, and we do have the phone number of Boll. So, apologies for all that.
But maybe in looking at this from your perspectives, could you maybe reflect on how has for Bol and Vintage? So for Vintage, I suppose, Shaolin is a huge challenge because I suppose Shaolin products are being sold on your platform. Yeah? And, no, it's, of course, a lot of people that are mothers selling their kids clothes and fathers getting rid of their old sports stuff and whatever. But, of course, this is also a business model for people.
It is a very useful interesting platform. How do you prevent that kind of reselling in Europe of, for example, those kinds of clothes, of which we don't have a clue what kind of chemicals, coloring or other kinds of stuff or glue that is used in, for example, shoes? On bol, I would also like just to hear how do you deal with the competition that is so tough on price? You say trust, of course, but we are both Dutch. So we know that the cost of product is very decisive in sort of consumer decisions.
We choose cheap. So in what sense, how do you adapt it or how do you integrate maybe also and have maybe integrated in the past elements of these other models in order simply to survive? Thank you very much.
I think if you make fun of your own nationality, it's okay. No? Alice.
Thank you, and thank you, Cher, and thank you to our guests for being here. Being a mother of a whole bunch of girls, vintage is now a big part of my life. Every day is something. Oh, I'm going to post this and so on. And I can especially see on my youngest daughter who is 14, with my permission, of course, she is so limited, then you are allowed, how she also becoming a businesswoman. I mean, she's he she has really developed in scrutinizing, putting up. I mean, I never do anything.
I just check that everything is right, but she is now collecting her money, selling things, having focus on, I mean, I can't buy everything, but I sell this now and I sell this, and then I will buy this. And sometimes I say, you just bought that pair of jeans. Why are you selling it again? Oh, because I saw another pair that I need to sell. And she's really now into she has developed as a businesswoman.
I think that's very inspiring, but also the older ones. And I really see I'm so proud of you being Europe and that we now have this tool to both reduce waste, reduce overproduction, and extending the life of products, I mean, in a really concrete way as you see, not at least also as a green politician. I see this, and I'm so inspired. But at the same time, we also have, through my daughter's business idea, been facing some problems when it comes to winter. And this is my question to you, missus Della Merced, because you mentioned some of your tools.
And you also told us about the complexity of identifying scams. But I would like if you could elaborate a bit more deeply on some of them. One is about what you are doing to prevent professional sellers from operating under the radar as individual private individuals because this we have been seeing, and thereby avoiding consumer protection rules when they do pretend to be private individuals. And my other question is about what concrete measures do you take to proactively detect and remove fraudulent or dangerous content before users are exposed to it? And then my third question is, what measures would you, as a priority, like to see us take at the EU level to increase the competitiveness of e-commerce platforms as yours, while at the same time ensuring product safety and consumer protection?
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Janet?
Thank you, and thanks for the presentations, explanations on what you are doing. I think it's important that Sciences Fintech promote the circular economy. That's very helpful. But of course, we also see the new products on other sites. Many questions have already been raised by the colleagues.
But in the previous discussion, we were also discussing the awareness of consumers and how to deal with the awareness that, well, at some sites, it's less obvious that there is a check. And how do you create, how can you contribute to the awareness of the choices of consumers? I do agree that all the platforms here show their responsibility and take responsibility. But well, it's sometimes difficult to say, the others are not doing that. But at least we have to raise awareness with all of us.
So what can you contribute to that? Thank you.
Thank you so much. Elizabeth?
Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you very much for this very interesting presentation on sustainable economy. Alongside the questions that have already been asked, I'd like to ask this. You say Vincent has more than 2,200 employees, more than 3,000. I'd be interested to know what kind of job we're talking about and how are these jobs divided up across Europe? Thank you.
Thank you, chair. I'm going to speak as normally as I do in Spanish. Thank.
Thank you very much to the representatives both of Vinted and Bol. I'm also a father of five kids, and I didn't know Vinted until I found out that one of my kids was buying and selling on there. And I'm sure these were things that he didn't buy. Well, we bought. But after this brief introduction about Vintage, first of all, congratulations.
I think that having digital businesses such as Vinted and Bol are good news. It's important to recognize that, and congratulate them. Secondly, a couple of questions. First, you've entered. Well, 3.
The first, what about stolen goods? I know that you have some mechanisms for when stolen goods are posted on the platforms to take them down, and collaborate with law enforcement. I think that's quite hard to do in 24 EU countries, the 24 EU countries in which you're operational. What about counterfeit goods? The same.
We've got a wave of counterfeit goods, not just luxury goods. So what we used to have in Spain, which was people selling counterfeit goods on the street, and now selling online. What are you doing to stop that as it's really harming those who pay for royalties, for example, to be able to produce branded goods? And the third question is about minors and children. What mechanisms do you have in place so that underage children who are using digital devices can't operate on your platform, as they are restricted from doing on some social networks?
It seems like a small issue, but it's not. I don't know very much about Bol, I have to admit, but I understand that you operate in the Netherlands and Belgium. I understand that, like any good digital platform, you'd like to grow and offer your services in other countries. And, with regard to market fragmentation, that's something we're always trying to fight against. So could you tell me some, give me some data about that and whether it's a problem that you face, only selling in two countries?
Or if this is your policy, is it because of regulatory fragmentation? That's what I'm interested in finding out. Thank you.
So much. Kim.
Thank you. I'll speak Dutch.
Over the last months and years in this committee, we have regularly discussed what goes wrong with distance selling through marketplaces. And we see we've been flooded by millions of parcels coming in every day, particularly through Chinese companies. And the customs measures that have been taken are not a day too early. And I'm glad to be able to discuss with the European operators today. I have a question for Paul.
It's recently what turned out that there was play sand on the market which contained asbestos. And even after Ball stopped selling it, there were still these products on the market. So how systematically do you check the safety gate, for example? And how can you guarantee that we don't have any unsafe play sand on the market anymore? And for both platforms, how do you handle the sales from the Chinese platforms?
And what do you need from the EU to help you?
I have one last question, and then I give the floor back to our guests. While, of course, this is more in the future, the NLF reform, but also the product act, I still wanted to ask to Vintit. But I hear a lot from stakeholders, and we did actually, as a green group yesterday, big conference on circular economy, is that reuse products actually don't have a place right now in the single market, and this is also basically a problem for more reuse products. Do you face the same challenges, and what would be your policy recommendations in that regard? Thank you so much.
And with that, I give the floor probably first back to the companies, and then at the end of the commission. So we start with Vinted, please.
Thank you. My name is Aurelia Plitiena, and I'm senior director for trust and safety at Vinted. So these topics are my daily life. And, of course, I could talk about it for hours, but I know you'll stop me if I do. So I'm gonna try to stick to a very short time.
So let me start with the question on c two c and, or how much of it is our predominant user base. 99% of our users are C to C customers, individual sellers, and our typical seller is typically the one decluttering their home. We do not allow hidden professional sellers, and we use reports from users and detection systems that monitor the pro-like behavior, such as high upload volumes, frequent sales of brand new items in multiple sizes, or commercial style photography. Those signals go hand in hand with patterns that we continuously improve over time, and they then become better at catching such behavior. On counterfeits and illegal goods, of course, they are in our prohibited item list, and they don't have room attentive.
99% of items that get reported to us that are found by regulators or IP owners are taken down within one day, and that gets supplementing our proactive measures, detection measures, as well as enforcement, leading to permanent ban if we see the same patterns occurring.
I'll do my best to follow-up on some of the other questions in the time allowed, and we'd be happy to follow-up in writing if we don't cover everything. So I think there was a question about educating consumers. Because we are in a predominantly consumer-to-consumer environment, we recognize that tools and enforcement are not enough on their own, and that our users do need clear guidance. So we help our users understand what is allowed and what is not, so that they can use the platform safely. So that's clear rules, but also inapt prompts, awareness campaigns on restricted product categories, and scams such as phishing.
And since introducing an educational striking approach for prohibited and unsafe items, the repeat uploads have fallen by about a third. So we know that this approach works, and it's something that we will absolutely continue to do. On minors on the platform, minors must use Vintage under the supervision of an adult, but we work to make Vintage a platform that is safe regardless of age. We want Vintage to be safe for all ages, and we are committed to building a safe platform. And finally, thank you very much to the honorable members for the kind words about our platform.
We are incredibly proud to be a European business that is growing within the single market and promoting circularity. We want to show that it is absolutely possible to create a safe and compliant marketplace and be a leading tech company born in Europe. The way that you could help us best is to ensure that the legal framework and obligations account for the fundamental differences of our platform to some of the other platforms that have been discussed in this forum, and that they are proportional so that we can continue to grow secondhand as a sector in the single market. Thank you very much for having us. We'd be very happy to host anyone at our HQ at Vilnius, and we'd be happy to follow-up in writing if there are questions we didn't get a chance to address today.
Thank you. And with that, to Paul, please.
Yeah. Thanks for the many questions, and especially thanks to pointing out how incredibly frustrating it can be that we invest in compliance and see other people not doing that. And I don't wanna say we're perfect, but at least we are trying to be. So on the question, how do we then survive and fight with that competition? Because price is incredibly important, and I don't think it's also only a national thing.
We also see that very much in the Belgian market. Price is incredibly important, and we don't have pockets comparable to our competitors. So we do need to differentiate ourselves. So I don't wanna repeat myself too much, but trust for us is key, but also the local proximity. So we have a partner service desk.
We have a consumer service desk. People can actually reach human beings at all who really help them if there are issues. And secondly, we do invest heavily in our quality teams under the leadership of my colleague next to me. And I think AI is helping us as well. So I think maybe there are a lot of complaints about AI and a lot of worries, but it allows us to scale.
So as a smaller company, we very much benefit from the scale efficiencies we get from AI. We can do more with fewer people. So it is, we can mention the investment portfolio we don't have against big competition. I think that's also an answer to the question why we are only operating in Belgium and the Netherlands. We looked outside, but it is difficult because a lot of the markets in Europe are already dominated and taken by those global players.
So there are depth, there are simply no entrance points. It's not affordable to go out. And the last question I want to pick on before I hand over to my colleague, the 3,000 employees are all located in Belgium and The Netherlands. We have 18 nationalities, of which we are incredibly proud, but they are located all in Utrecht, in the Netherlands, and in Brussels here in the Belgium office. And with that, I would for the last question, you have the answer to my colleague.
Yes. Thank you. So my name is Johan Vendorsen, responsible for platform quality within bol. And also, here to answer your questions. And I will take the example of the asbestos play sent because I think that's a real good example for how we see challenges, but also how we enforce upon compliancy topics.
So it all starts with enforcement at the gate, with mandatory attributes like my colleague already mentioned. So that's the first check where we try to stop noncompliant products coming in. We have automated checks with the safety gate. But this is, I think, one of the examples my colleague also mentioned where the Australian safety gate picked up the example first, and we don't have a connection to the Australian safety gate. We are connected to the European Safety Gate.
So here in the asbestos bill place sense case, I think that would be a real good example how products flow over continents, but also compliance flows, information sharing should flow over continents. We, as my colleague already mentioned, are built on trust, so we take preventive measures directly, and we are in close contact also with the Dutch national authority, the NWEA. So in the case of the asbestos placement case, we didn't wait for the outcome of the investigation by the Dutch NVE. We just decided we are gonna take all the asbestos placement offline until we're sure that it's okay. And that's always the case.
We always choose customer protection above any other KPI. That's how we build our company, and that's how we also distinguish from other platforms.
Yeah. Thank you so much. And with that, I give the floor back to the Commission. You can decide who starts.
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you to all participants to this interesting discussion. We have heard calls for clear regulations and enforceable sets of rules. We'll keep that as a priority for when drawing up the upcoming European product act. Particularly interesting was the idea of competing on trust and the fact that compliance abiding measures taken by platforms can be a floor on which different platforms, EU and non-EU, can compete.
Particularly noteworthy was also the call to ensure interoperability amongst relevant digital tools. This is, lays at the core of the revision of the EU MSR. We found that there are various EU level, database and digital tools related to product compliance, safety gate, ICSMS, but also sectoral databases and also databases at national level. We'll make sure that they communicate with each other to provide a consistent digital framework for ensuring product safety and compliance throughout the EU. Let me just finally reiterate on circularity and secondhand refurbished goods.
Our intention, first of all, to provide clarity in the definition and responsibility for the economic operators involved in circularity, and also ensure that manufacturers provide in the DPP the necessary information to enable the safe refurbishment of their products, and also our intention to introduce lighter conformity assessment procedure for refurbished products. I thank you, chair, and all people who intervened.
And I would just like to reiterate that the commission is fully committed, and we are working actually very hard to use all tools at our disposal to tackle the flood of illegal products coming to Europe to consumers. And, of course, that also includes the DSA. And I think that this is also very important to create a level playing field for all ecommerce players in the EU. And thank you very much.
Thank you so much. As it was said, I think if the members that are interested in more follow-up, probably you can do it now or also in writing. But thanks again to our guests to follow our demand for a scrutiny session or exchange session with you. I think it was very helpful. And, also, again, thanks to the commission, to be continued, because you know it's a recurring agenda item, so we will also be inviting more companies until the summer.
And this concludes agenda item 11. And also our morning session, we have the coordinators' meeting at twelve. So we keep it at twelve because that's how it was scheduled, and then continue in the afternoon at 2:30, and then again tomorrow morning with commissioner McBra at 9:00 in the morning. So, thanks to everyone.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.