Committee on Petitions Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDolors Montserrat
This is a roll-call vote. So we'll start the vote. The vote is closed, and that's adopted. Roll call vote, amendment six. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and that's adopted. Amendment seven, roll call vote. The vote is open, and the vote is closed, and that's adopted. Amendment eight, in favor. This is by raised hands against.
Abstentions are rejected. Recommendation two, amendment nine, raise hands in favor. Against. Abstentions, that's rejected. Amendment 10, raise hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 11. In favor?
Against. Abstentions? That's rejected. Amendment 12. In favor?
Against? Abstentions? I'm gonna check that one. Let's open the vote. That's 12.
Amendment 12. Okay. The vote is closed, and that's adopted. Roll call votes, amendment 13. The vote is open, closed.
Adopted. This is raised hands now. Amendment 14 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Recommendation three, this is 15. In favor, against.
Abstentions rejected. Amendment 16, raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. Amendment 17 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment 18 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 19 in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Rejected. We can now move on to amendment 20. Raise hands in favor. Against, abstentions, rejected. 21 in favor, against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 22, recommendation four. Raise hands in favor. Yeah.
No. I already said that one. We're on recommendation for amendment 22 in favor, against. Abstentions rejected. 2023 in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 24 in favor. We're on a recommendation. Yeah.
Yeah. No. This is right. That's right. No.
We're on 25 rather because that's fallen. We're on 25 now. Recommendation for amendment 25, that's a split. So we're voting the first part, and it's a roll-call vote. So the vote is open.
This is a roll-call vote. 25, first part. The vote is closed, adopted. Roll call vote two, part two of amendment 25. Vote is open.
Okay. Closed. That's adopted. Raise your hands now. Amendment 26 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Recommendation five, amendment 27. This is raised hand. In favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 28. Raise hands in favor, against, abstentions. Rejected.
Raise hands. 29 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. Recommendation five, amendment 30. Raised hands in favor. Against.
Abstentions are adopted. Amendment 31, raise hands in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. Recommendation 32, raise your hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions are adopted. 33 raised hands. In favor? Against?
Abstentions rejected. 34 raised hands in favor? Against. Abstentions rejected. 35 raised hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions rejected. 36 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Adopted. 37 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions. Can we do it again, please, in favor?
We're gonna check it. Let's try it again. Let's check it again now with the vote, with the voting cards. So the vote is open. That's rejected.
38 raised hands in favor. Against abstentions. That's rejected. 39 in favor. Against.
Abstentions rejected. 40 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. 41 raised hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions rejected. 42 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
43 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions adopted. 43 in favor. 44, rather.
We've already done 43. 44 in favor. Against. Abstentions. That's adopted.
Roll call vote, 45. Opening the vote. Closed. That's rejected. 46 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
47 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 48 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. You want to check that one? Maybe I made a mistake. We'll check that.
Let's go to 48. I'm gonna check 48. We're gonna open a vote for 48. I think it was okay. I said adopted, didn't I?
And now I said, rejected. No. Okay. Sorry. Adopted.
Forty-nine and fifty, they're voted together because they're identical, absolutely identical. So 49 and 50 with raised hands in favor, against abstentions, that's rejected. 51 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
52 hands in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. 53. Raised hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions rejected. 54. Raised hands in favor. Against.
Abstentions rejected. 55. Raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions.
We'll check that one. This is 55. I'm opening the votes. And close. That's rejected.
56 raised hands in favor. Against? We'll check that one too. Okay. So the vote is open.
No? Yeah. It is open now. That's rejected. 57 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
58 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 59 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions. That's adopted.
60 raised hands in favor, against. Abstentions rejected. 61 raised hands in favor, against. Abstentions rejected. 62 raised hands in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. 63 raised hands in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. 64 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Rejected. 65 raised hands in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. 66, roll-call vote.
The vote is open. That's rejected. The last three. These are all raised hands. 67 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
68 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. And the last one, 69 raised hands in favor, against, abstentions, that's adopted. And now we'll go to the final vote, and that's a roll-call vote. So we open the vote, and that's adopted. 19 in favor.
So this is a very important draft, and that's adopted draft on. Thank you very much. And so we can move on now to the next point, which is the presentation. Could you leave the room in silence, please, those who are leaving the room? I hope not everybody leaves, and I'm left here by myself.
Okay. Let's go to the next point. I would like to ask the people to take the seat or the people that they don't want to be here just, you know, to leave the meeting room. Every year, the members, the European OBA's woman drafts a report on her activities, which is formally submitted to the president of the European Parliament and presented to the committee on petitions. I will like to inform you that the annual report for 2025 published on 22 April of this year, it's the first report written and published by our European abutsman woman, miss Teresa Anne Hinjo.
And I have the pleasure to welcome to our abuts woman, the European. I have to say abuts woman that, you know, in the last decades, we have always women's being a bootswoman. So we are, you know, we have this pleasure and this honor. So I'm giving the floor to you to present your draft for the last year. Thank you so much to be here with us.
Teresa Anjinho
So dear chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, it is a pleasure to be back in this committee to present the European Ombudsman annual report for 2024. Much like my office, this committee plays a vital role in bridging the gap between citizens and the EU administration, ensuring that people's voices are heard and their concerns are addressed. By working together, we can more effectively strengthen participatory democracy, protect citizens' rights, and uphold the highest standards of public administration. In this spirit of cooperation, I am pleased to share my assessment of the EU administration after more than a year in office. And let me begin with a few statistics.
In 2025, my office handled nearly 3,500 complaints, a 54% increase compared to 2024. We also opened 492 inquiries, representing a 19% increase year on year. The largest proportion of our inquiries, 38%, concerned transparency and accountability. This was followed by complaints related to a culture of service, including failures by institutions to reply, and then cases concerning infringement procedures. Indeed, openness remains central to public trust in the European Union.
Citizens increasingly expect timely and meaningful access to information, particularly in areas that directly affect their daily lives. Regarding the sharp increase in complaints, we believe this is linked to the growing use of AI chatbots, which are increasingly directing citizens to my office when they seek help with the EU administration. In many ways, this is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it's clearly positive that more people are aware of our work. Greater visibility helps resolve individual issues and allows us to identify potential systemic problems.
On the other hand, it places sustained pressure on our resources. A rise of more than 50% in complaints for a team of around 75 represents a significant operational challenge. We are already adapting our internal processes to continue meeting citizens' expectations under these circumstances. However, such improvements, of course, have their limits. It is therefore my hope that I can count on the support of this committee and of Parliament as a whole in addressing this challenge.
In parallel, we have reached out to other EU bodies handling complaints, including OLAF and the EDPS, to discuss the impact of generative AI, explore common solutions, and identify new ways of working, namely the possible use of AI to deal with AI. I am also aware that this committee is facing an increasing number of petitions. I also intend to engage further with the parliament services on this issue. Artificial intelligence was also a significant theme in the substance of our inquiries in 2025. We currently have 3 ongoing inquiries.
One examines how the European Commission ensures transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability in developing AI standards, following concerns about a lack of disclosure of the meeting records. The other two focus on the use of AI by external experts evaluating EU funding proposals, and on possible gaps between the AI Act and the code of practice, particularly regarding the reporting of energy consumption. These pioneering inquiries, and I expect more to follow, reflect the growing use of AI within the EU administration, and the important questions this raises in terms of accountability. Let me be clear. My aim is not to discourage AI use.
On the contrary, it is to support the administration in using it in a manner that is transparent, ethical, and ensures meaningful human oversight. Another big topic in 2025 was urgent decision-making, as you are aware. In an increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment, we have seen the EU simplify and adapt existing legislation across a variety of policy areas at a rapid pace. I recognize that swift legislative action is sometimes necessary. However, even in urgent situations, lawmaking must continue to guarantee minimum procedural safeguards.
In 2025, my office issued joint findings in three inquiries based on complaints concerning the commission's fast-tracking of legislative proposals. We identified several shortcomings in how the commission complies with its own better regulation rules when it comes to lawmaking it deems urgent. Most notably, the commission failed to sufficiently justify the urgency and to document derogations from its internal rules used to justify the absence of public consultations and impact assessments. The commission's reply to our findings was overall constructive. It recognized the importance of ensuring that future derogations are properly recorded and explained, and indicated that it would reflect on how to improve transparency when assessing the need to act urgently.
As you know, the commission also recently announced its plans to strengthen the better regulation framework as part of its work to modernize EU lawmaking. My office is currently finalizing the conclusions of this inquiry, and we will take into account these recent developments. Turning to ethics and integrity. In 2025, my office looked at how EU agencies handled the issue of revolving doors. In an own initiative inquiry, the first of my mandate, we examined the policies in place in 15 agencies and reviewed 54 specific cases.
Throughout this process, we identified many good practices already in place, but we also found several discrepancies in how revolving doors are handled across different agencies. For instance, among the agencies examined, seven have rules on managing conflicts of interest arising from board members' post-mandate activities, while only four monitor the compliance of their former staff with restrictions imposed on post-service work. While I recognize that specific rules need to be tailored to different mandates and risks, flexibility should not result in fragmentation or uneven integrity standards. To help provide a common baseline of safeguards across agencies, I have published a set of guidelines on good practices focusing on clear procedures, consistent decision-making, transparency, and effective enforcement and compliance. Staying on the topic of integrity, I would like to highlight two positive changes resulting from our inquiries and cooperation with the EU administration.
The first concerns third parties paying for staff work trips. We examined how the commission assesses potential conflicts of interest, and proposed greater transparency through systemic recordkeeping. The commission agreed and now records who pays for senior official trips, the costs involved, and related assessments as set out in new staff guidance and its travel planning IT tool. The second concerns the selection of external experts evaluating the European Defence Fund projects, where the commission is not required to publish expert names. Following our inquiry, new safeguards were introduced.
Experts must declare relevant family links and financial interests, and the commission will assess risks earlier and keep structured records of its decisions. Before concluding my presentation, I would also like to mention a new own-initiative inquiry that I have launched. It concerns an issue that affects us all: food safety. Europe has one of the strongest food safety systems in the world, but new technologies, global supply chains, and evolving consumer behavior have the potential to challenge its effectiveness over the long term. Concerns raised by stakeholders about the rapid alert system for food and feed have prompted me to examine its overall efficiency, accountability, and transparency.
As a first step, I have asked the commission how it verifies the information it receives, and how quickly food safety alerts are circulated once the risk is identified. Through the European Network of Ombudsman, I have also invited national ombudsmen to make their own inquiries with national authorities, as this system operates on two levels, European and national. Scrutiny at both levels will help us identify where improvements may be needed and ensure that our food safety system remains resilient and future-proof. Honorable members, before taking your questions, allow me to emphasize that the work of the European Ombudsman depends on the continued and broad support of this parliament. I recognize that the parliament shares this vision and commitment.
The report discussed and voted on each year is not merely a formality. It serves a crucial evaluation of our collective efforts to advocate for citizens' rights. In this regard, I would like to underline that I very much value the political nature of your work and the diversity of the views expressed within this House on the many issues with which my office is engaged. This plurality is both legitimate and essential in a democratic institution. At the same time, it is important both for the credibility of our work externally and for the effectiveness of the office that the annual report is ultimately able to secure the support of parliament as a whole.
Such approval carries significant weight for citizens and stakeholders alike, and reflects the shared commitment between parliament and the Ombudsman to strengthen good administration. It is my hope that you will continue to support and defend our office, ensuring that we have both the institutional backing and the resources necessary to fulfill our mission effectively. Thank you very much.
Dolors Montserrat
Thank you so much, all boatswain. Now, let's go to our MEPs and the group. So now I'm giving the floor to Mister Agios, EPP Group.
Peter Agius
Thank you, chair. My colleague, MP Humberto, will be joining us to intervene on this later. Quick remark from my end. Big thanks to the Madam Ombudsman. Clearly, your report underlines the importance of a transparent, efficient, and citizen-oriented European administration, and it shows that good administration is not merely a technical requirement, but a fundamental condition for trust in the European project.
We welcome your own initiative also on food safety. So many families are left a bit in the dark on what to trust in these times. So I think this adds interest to the debate. And my question is on how the EU institutions can further reinforce both transparency from what you are seeing now on the job. I saw you hit the ground running.
But from what you're seeing now on the job, how do you think that institutions can further reinforce transparency and administrative efficiency, ensuring faster and more reliable responses to citizens while preserving the quality of procedures and the protection of sensitive information. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Now.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you, and thank you to the colleagues. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for this work in 2025, and thank you for your presentation of your report, which highlights some essential challenges to ensure the union run smoothly. I'm delighted to see the continuity of the work and your constant commitment to responsibility, transparency, and ethics within the EU. However, your report does highlight some continuing fragilities, particularly things we can improve on in terms of fundamental rights. And I'm convinced that it is essential that we keep our oversight of the commission in this field. I'd like to just return to three points.
Tracking European funds earmarked for border management. In early 2025, we completed an investigation into the respective fundamental rights in the use of these funds, particularly for Greece. We made several recommendations for improvement. You invited an initial oversight, an additional oversight into this issue with the idea to improve transparency in favor of civil society. This commitment's essential, and the commission responded that it would ask the Greek authorities to take further involvement of civil society organizations.
But beyond that, when will it be operational? Finally, I'd like to welcome your survey, your investigation into asylum procedures. This will be very significant, particularly in terms of access to looking at conditions in centers. Next, talking about the EU staff. Do the documents for the EPSO continue to be available with complaints procedures in 2025?
Have you noticed any points of improvement? As for your visits to member states, how would you qualify the relationship between national ombudsmen and women? And finally, the issue of the environment in your report, in the current context, it does raise some questions. Could you tell us a little bit more?
Thank you so much, Madam Lauren. Now, madam Miranda, on behalf of the Greens, no. Bossana, yes, please.
Thank you. Good morning, madam. And welcome to the parliament. On behalf of the Greens, I would like to welcome your report for 2024. It is your first report, and you can see that you have started very ambitiously, which we do appreciate.
Gordan Bosanac
And, also, we do appreciate the number of inquiries you have been open, but also your own initiatives, in a way to improve the functioning of the European institutions. I would have, I think, three points I would like to ask and highlight from your report, which I find very interesting. So first was, just a second. Yes. Your inquiry is related to the omnibus one legislation.
That was really interesting for us as MEPs are also sitting in this house, looking at how the commission is preparing the legislation in very fast track procedures. And what we have seen is that you have also found some male administration related to that. And you clearly pointed out what were the male administration, but I would like to highlight one other point which was worrying from my perspective. For example, when we've been discussing the legislation related to the cooperative reporting, you know, this was the part package of the ombudsman, not omnibus one. One of the main arguments of the commission was actually that we have to do this reform because of the competitiveness and to put less burden on the companies to have less administrative burdens.
But at the same time, us, as MPs, we've been approached with a lot of companies, business sectors, saying, no. This is not true. Actually, what the commission is doing now, they are punishing all the companies who have done progress in the reporting. So that was kind of confusing. And from our perspective, we wondered, was it commissioned under the influence of a particular part of the business sector who was pushing for this idea of the regulation?
Because we have seen a significant number of business sector who was against this reform. So have you been also able to look at this point to what extent, actually, the commission was under the influence of particular part of business sector? Second, it is also interesting that you have been also dealing with the famous messages and signal messages. We know from the past that it was the big issue. Now it comes again, especially on the issue of the disappearing messages.
So can you also elaborate what is now actually the status of electronic communication by signal, and how do you treat it? Also, having in mind that, you know, we can also understand that in this period of, you know, big turbulences, the decision makers have to have some space of discretion to really communicate with each other because, before, that was maybe nonformal in live conversation. Now this has been changed by the signal and this kind of messaging. So can you, like, summarize what is the position of your position on this communication? And finally, it was also interesting to note that you have discovered in one case about infringement procedures against Spain, that commission actually didn't take any action for three years.
That's quite shocking. So we have launched infringement procedures, which are very, very important ones because they have to force the national government to align with the EU legislation. And then we see, and thank you for this discovery that there is also a gap of doing nothing for three years. Also, can you elaborate maybe on that? What are the commission's stand and excuses for doing nothing for three years?
Is this kind of also political pressure on the commission that they are afraid to do something, or why don't we see delivering on infringement procedures much, much faster? Thank you very much.
Thank you so much. Now, Mister Szekeres, on behalf of Patriots.
Thank.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you very much for the floor and chair. I'm speaking in Hungarian, so please put on your headphones. First of all, I would like to thank you, ombudswoman, for coming to present your report to us, and thank you for your work in the past year. And I would like to extend a special thanks to you for handling rule of law issues and the Hungarian cases of access to documents. My first question is related to this topic.
Bogdan Rzońca
We have experienced it on several occasions that when MEPs asked for documents from the Commission, we did not get them. Do you see a systemic issue with this? Does the commission withhold the documents? And what safeguards are needed so that this doesn't happen in the future and so that we can automatically receive these documents and ensure greater transparency. Then as regards elections, it is very important how we manage to maintain information in the digital environment, what's recorded and what's deleted.
And this is especially interesting in fast reaction systems. Is there a plan? Are you planning to launch an inquiry into this connecting to social media coordination? It is always a good occasion when there's an election, and there are events connected to that. I would like to ask something else regarding disappearing messages.
What do you think about the fact that communication regarding policy decisions was not preserved on several occasions. Is there any rule regarding this? Thank you.
Thank you. Now we can return to Madame Bozeman. The floor is yours. Yes, please.
Teresa Anjinho
So first of all, thank you very much for all your questions. I believe all of them are very important because they touch indeed, let's say, the bulk of my work as a garden of good administration. I will try because some of you touched same issues. I will try to concentrate my answers on them. A very interesting question was, what do I think can be done by the EU administration to increase the transparency, accountability, and integrity.
And this is something that I reflect on often because it comes from my complaints. Looking at my complaints, looking at citizens' concerns, NGOs, companies, what do I see? What are the kind of to-do lists that I go through? First of all, indeed, communication. Many of my complaints were what I see is that there is a problem in terms of communication.
And this is a question of preserving the integrity of EU decision making so that people do understand that when institutions communicate to them, it is clear. And sometimes the office indeed is a kind of qualified translator of the institutions. It's not that the institutions do not have the answer, but sometimes they are unable to reach the citizens. Second, urgent decision-making. Allow me to develop a little bit on that.
I do recognize that we are living in a different world with geopolitical challenges and changes, with a, let's say, technological revolution, digital dependency. And indeed, what we hear more often is a call for speed, for flexibility, for competitiveness, for economic resilience. And this has also led to a reshift, a reframing of many substantive priorities, exactly moving towards defense competitors in this industry capacity. It is not inherently problematic to say this and to acknowledge this. What can be problematic is to understand how the European Union is adapting to this shift and in guaranteeing that we continue to preserve the EU legal DNA, meaning that we have a European Union that is defined by law, through law, that understands that power is constrained by important principles like proportionality, judicial review, transparency, participatory democracy, checks and balances.
So it is important to guarantee that either we continue to preserve these important principles and values, or if they are seen as only managerial principles, then it is the legitimacy of the decision making in EU that might be at stake and be undermined. We see indeed already pressure in terms of our governance structures. We see crisis-driven decision making expanding. We also see more calling to executive discretion. We see consultations being shortened.
We also see impact assessments being bypassed or not done at all. We also understand that this can have a reason, but there is always a problem of its cumulative effect in guaranteeing that, well, the exception does not become the norm. And when it comes to that, the main question is, so what do we do? This is a problem. If we want, how do we go fast and be efficient?
And then at the same time, we preserve legality and our, I would say, constitutional fidelity that is behind, well, our good lawmaking. It's behind the better regulation guidelines. How do we do this? I think it is a time where the rebalancing, reshifting of substantive priorities should go hand in hand with also rethinking our governance structures. We want to go faster.
We want more flexibility. We want more discretion. Then we have to strengthen all mechanisms that are related to transparency, to accountability, to a culture of justification. And this for me is really very important to leave as a main message. We shouldn't speak about speed and efficiency vis-à-vis competitiveness.
It shouldn't go as antagonistic. They can go hand in hand. It's again a question of rebalancing. It's not a question of having to choose one over the other. And that is possible.
And I truly believe that when it comes to the better regulation guidelines, so I followed, as you know, I issued a joint finding. It was a very important inquiry because it allowed me also to see that indeed the commission lacks proper tools, but this should not be the excuse to then make urgency as the new normality. Urgency has to be always properly explained to citizens, properly justified, and properly recorded. This is a question of accountability, and the answer that I received from the Commission is a constructive answer. It aligns exactly with what I am asking at the level of the recommendations. And it remains to be seen what the commission is going to do when it comes to the suggestions that I also leave.
Meaning, when it comes to guaranteeing that then, in practice, the EU decision making indeed is transparent, is efficient, it is evidence based, as it is established in the treaties, as it is developed by the courts, and it should be upheld by the institutions. I followed the communication as probably all of you have followed. I have to say that some of the things in this communication already aligned with what were my concerns, but some of them also deserve a reflection. In the end of the day, what is very important is also to guarantee that the ombudsman, my office, myself as European ombudsman, I will continue to follow very closely this issue, because I believe that is a question indeed of governance quality and of again preserving our model of EU decision making. Then the second question is, so I spoke about communication as a challenge, urgent decision-making.
Now allow me to speak about transparency and access to documents. It's a very big issue indeed, because the complaints continue to rise. I continue to have complaints and citizens, journalists, and researchers, everyone wants exactly to exert a fundamental right. Access to documents is a fundamental right and should be seen and respected as such, because it is the basis for the participation of these citizens that the institutions have to respect in order to tell them, well, your right to participate does not stop on the day of the elections or at the door of the institutions. It can go further.
And we have actually been, along the years, adopting many instruments exactly to guarantee that the citizens are able to do that. When it comes to access to documents, I believe we have a structural problem. I believe it will not go away because indeed the digital made all the administrative procedures more accessible. Citizens are expecting, and rightly so, a higher responsiveness from the institutions as well. And also, the European Union is growing in terms of competencies in areas that go to the daily lives of these citizens.
So they want to know what is being decided, and they want to be involved. It is a problem that is too big to be solved by my office alone, and I believe that it demands a strategy with, let's say, three pillars. One of them indeed is the revision of the regulation. And I mean, it's really important to acknowledge that what we have now is already a regression. When we decided to have the regulation, we decided to have the regulation departing from a presumption of openness.
What we have now is management of disclosure, not of openness. So to open the democratic debate around this issue, I think it is preferable, even with the risk that I hear often of going back. I believe that now it's already back, because it's already not good for the citizens vis-à-vis institutional inertia. I strongly believe that it is time to adapt this regulation to this new data environment because indeed, in the end, the burden is on the citizens, is on anyone that wants to have access to these documents that most of the time has to know ombuds prudence, juris prudence, internal guidelines that change. This is too much.
We need clarity, and because clarity is indeed a path of trust. So.
this
Teresa Anjinho
is one. But it cannot go alone. We need a proactive culture of transparency. And it is important to understand what I mean when I say this. Institutions need to understand that if every document departs from the principle of openness, also there are important techniques and cultures that have to be embedded in the institutions to guarantee that one day they can have a request for disclosure of a document and the document should be redacted in a way that, well, bears less costs for the institution than what is happening now.
I'm very sensitive to the burden that this represents. But again, I cannot indeed say that I only sympathize. I have to recognize that in the end of the day, we are talking about a fundamental right, so there must be political commitment as well and an initiative effort to guarantee that it is complied with. And third, apart from the culture of transparency, it is very important to have the proper human and financial resources dedicated to it, and government structures. That's very important.
The services need to be able to also comply and I'm also sensitive to the burden that exists at the level of the service when they receive these access to documents requests. Also in the same topic, the text messages, the question of the text messages, very important one, because it allows me to tell you that the focus of my inquiry, which is still ongoing, so I'll not develop much more, but the focus of my inquiry is very important in my opinion. Because we are indeed focusing on what the institutions have as a system of retention, registration, and disclosure. And in trying to guarantee, above all, that institutions do acknowledge as well as the commission, considering that we also had previous inquiries related to this, any document that is challenged should be retained exactly to guarantee the checks and balances should not be deleted after being challenged. So if you have access to documents, then that document, even if you don't believe that it is a document or you don't believe that it should be disclosed, has to be retained.
Why? To guarantee that you always have the possibility of having an independent and impartial institution as the ombudsman office or the court to look into that and to restore the trust of the citizens that everything was done by the rules. That's particularly important. And then at the same time, of course, to understand and adapt this system of retention to the new era, the text message era. I think that the judgment of the court, the recent judgment of the court, is already aligned also with that when it says that the commission should have a system of document management that is predictable, non arbitrary.
So to have particular and clear rules on that, it's what we are looking at. Then fundamental rights and infringement procedures, and also environmental matters. Environmental matters are very high in my own priorities as ombudswoman. And I follow the issues that mainly actually arrive to my office most of the time through complaints that are filed by NGOs and are mainly related to access to documents matters. But not only, also impact assessments.
That's something that allows me also to say it loudly, that I will continue to follow and also to support national ombudsman offices. There is a proposal within the European Network of Ombudsman to do something that is new to this network. That's a horizontal parallel inquiry, meaning one national ombudsman office will do an inquiry looking at how national authorities are implementing climate obligations, and they will invite other national ombudsman offices to do the same. This might be very important not only to understand how member states are complying with their obligations under the European climate law, but also maybe if there are gaps that can be in a way also referred to at the European level, namely in this House, in this committee, if we get to that stage. Infringement procedures are very important.
It's a very important instrument of the European Union that guarantees exactly that we do not have a Europa la carte, that guarantees the horizontal implementation of European Union law. And I can say that since the beginning of my mandate, this has been also high in my priorities. And I'm reaching a stage where I can already say that I am analyzing the possibility of also having, during this year, opening an own initiative inquiry on infringement procedures, exactly to understand what was asked. So, what are the problems? Why is it taking so long?
Where is it delayed? Because it is important to, again, restore the trust of citizens in infringement procedures, to understand that it is not politicized, and to understand that it is a very important mechanism exactly to guarantee the effectiveness of the European Union law and actually its identity in terms of values and principles. Then I think I covered it all. Just this the Eno allow me just to develop a little bit more because this year is the 30th anniversary of the European Network Von Bundsman. And that was exactly also one of the reasons why I started the own initiative inquiry on food and feed safety.
Aligning with my strategy that I want to reach the citizens in the member states so that they understand that the ombudsman exists exactly to deal with problems that they have related to the European Union. And I am confident that through this inquiry, we will be able to guarantee that this system actually becomes a resilient system, because indeed it has challenges. And it is a very good inquiry because it also builds on the knowledge of other institutions, namely the report of the European Court of Auditors. It is important for everyone to understand that in a small institution as my own, it is fundamental to have synergies with other institutions and to also build on their knowledge closely. In the end of this year, I hope to also present here in the parliament two other projects that are ongoing with National Bureaus Offices.
One of them is a code of good administration for the digital era, with the main principles that we believe should always be respected in this new digital era. And the other one, also very well ahead, is a report that we are receiving from the National Ombudsman Office related to the implementation of European law. And then we will compile these different reports from Member States, and we will also present to the European Parliament by the end of this year as a way also of celebrating this important collaborative network that Eno is. More and more in this world of common initiative procedures and culture, where many times the gaps exactly exist when you have the European entities vis-à-vis the national authorities. As for fundamental rights and Greece, as it is stated in the report, we are constantly monitoring, and we will try to guarantee that there are these extra efforts to abide by human rights impact assessments, fundamental rights values, as well as in Tunisia.
So it's not something that the work of the emboldment is done. The follow-up always exists, and particularly in areas where we know that one thing is to commit, which is already very good, but another thing is to guarantee the enforcement. And we will continue to monitor also closely with the National Ombudsman Offices, in particular in the case of Greece. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the Ombudsman. Thank you very much for your presence. Thank you for your presentations and the answers. This is the first report of the current ombudsman. And I do believe that we will be discussing this report in a very serious and responsible manner, just as you are working, madam ombudsman, ombudswoman, in a serious and responsible way.
Bogdan Rzońca
Much appreciated. I think the European Parliament will appreciate your involvement, indeed. Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, let us proceed. Item number five on our agenda.
I hope you are ready. We are going to have an exchange of views on the follow-up to the resolution on organizational mismanagement of the EBSO competitions of the European Personnel Selection Office competitions. I would like to welcome Martin Okidritski, who is an assistant to the director of the ESO office. On November 4, our committee has voted on a short resolution on the mismanagement of the EBSO competitions that was unanimously adopted, and then we voted it in the plenary on November 27. In the meantime, EBSO announced the launch of a new competition for graduate administrators.
Today, we are having an exchange of views. It's a good opportunity to take stock of the recent developments. It will be a follow-up on our resolution. I would like to give the floor ten minutes for you.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I'm Olivier Salas, the director of EBSO, and I'm happy to be here with you for this important exchange and to have a chance to react on the resolution that the petty committee adopted last November. I had the opportunity to be physically present in Strasbourg and to hear the comments from some of the MEPs. At the time, on behalf of the commission, commissioner Albuquerque already gave a few elements of reaction and answers.
And then we do it a bit later in March by providing a fully fledged written answer, commenting on several of the points from that resolution. This resolution was quite solid and far-reaching, mentioning a few potential weaknesses, proposing some corrective measures, and we have tried to comment a bit on some of those proposals. I would like very briefly to comment on three of them. And then I will give you a quick update on where we are and where we go with this big 85 generalities competition. Maybe, yes, three points on the result in Shell.
Olivier Salas
One call to EBSO was to try to develop some more candidate friendly procedures and reforms. And I want to reassure the committee that we are doing solid efforts in that direction. Just to give a few examples, we have revamped quite seriously our website to make it clearer, more transparent, and allow the candidates to access the necessary information in a more fluid and seamless way. Another thing we have tried to improve is the instructions to the candidates. It's true that the procedure for the competitions is quite complex, and we have to guide them through some fairly precise instructions.
Speaker 29
We have tried to revamp them and make them a bit simpler and clearer. For instance, by making a clear distinction between the official legal requirements on one side and what are more practical and administrative recommendations on the other side, so that there is a better distinction between the two. And finally, we are using a new test platform with a new service provider, OAT. And candidates have the possibility to make some pretests of that platform built before the official running of the test stations of a given competition. And when they are enrolled in a competition, they also have the possibility to do what we call a prerequisite test.
Bogdan Rzońca
So they also have a chance to connect to the platform, see how it will flow, see how the questions will pop up, so that they are less worried or stressed the very same day of the testing. The second point I wanted to comment on quickly is the use of artificial intelligence. There was an invitation to EBSO to handle it with cautious and care. And this is obviously what we are doing. And, actually, to be very clear, we don't use AI much in the running of competition.
There are only two little elements of AI we use. One is on our website. We have a little chatbot like on many public websites, which allows candidates to put questions and they get a partially automated answer. But all the elements are coming directly from our website, so there are no larger searches. So it's directly geared through the information which is available on our website.
And apparently, it's working quite well. We had several thousands of questions and answers generated by the chatbot on our website. And two, there is a partial AI based proctoring tool the day of the testing. So candidates are expected to follow a certain number of rules and to avoid forbidden behaviors, and this is partially monitored by an AI proctoring tool. But with a double human check.
So registrations are then checked by the provider itself in case of deviation compared to the expected behaviors, and then they are checked by colleagues' office itself. And finally, a quick word on the competition model itself. There were some comments on how we organize and run the competition. And here, I would like to remind the committee that the governance of the office is fairly atypical. And in a way, we don't decide much ourselves.
All the strategic decisions are taken by the EBSO management board where the high representative of all 10 institutions is sitting, including the one from the European Parliament. And this is the kind of overarching body who guides, which guides largely the decision making in steering and organizing the competitions. And it was the EBSO management board who decided in '23 to reform a bit the setting of those competitions and also to move completely to online testing, then removing at the time the famous assessment centers. So we are ready to explore potential improvements on the competition model, but all that will take time, and we'll have to go through some thorough and detailed discussions with all the institutions. And finally, last precision.
Sometimes there is a bit of confusion on the precise role of the office itself. We are in charge of organizing the competition themselves and then to release some list of successful candidates. So we produce a list of laureates, but we are not in charge of recruitment. The final specific recruitments are managed by each institution, and many of them have some specific procedure. The commission does it in a specific way.
Speaker 29
The parliament does it in a different way. It also stands for the council and other institutions. So there is this distinction between selection and recruitment. I wanted to make that clear. Quickly on the 85 generalist graduate competition.
Bogdan Rzońca
First of all, it was in the pipeline. It has been in the pipeline for many years. It was largely expected. The last big lower grade competition dated back to 2019. And following my appointment last May, I decided to be a bit prudent and to wait that all the conditions to be in a position to run it efficiently should be there.
It was the moment where we are going through a kind of double transition, the integration of a new service provider, Tahoe. And we are also having some solid developments of a new European Commission IT tool called HRT, which was at the time not fully delivering all the expected features and tools we'd need to run those competitions efficiently. But earlier this year, we felt that there had been enough progress to feel confident enough to release that publication. So it was published in February. And as you all know, there was an incredibly high number of applicants, which was not anticipated neither by the member states, by the institutions, and by us.
So it was partially a surprise for all. There are some explanations on how we have seen so many candidates. Maybe we'll come back to it later. But, of course, it creates huge challenges. We, Epson, had anticipated a potential number of candidates around 55 to 60,000.
So we have three times that. And in a way, it means that we have an extra, if you count an average of 5,000 or 6,000 candidates for a specialized competition, it means we have an extra 30 competitions to organize all of a sudden in terms of volume. So we had to go back to the drawing board and try to explore how correctly we could run this competition. We discussed it twice with the institutions. And in those discussions, we try to balance three elements, which were some kind of key cornerstones of our risk assessment.
One element was the speediness and the duration of the competition itself, trying to make sure that it would not last too long. The other corner of this risk assessment was safety and security. We wanted to be sure that we will be in a position to provide a stable and secure experience to candidates, that they will be able to connect, to run their test sessions fluidly. So that was an important element from our end. And the last element was the legal security and the reputation risk surrounding the potential decision on how to organize the competition.
So at the end of the day, we have submitted a proposal to the institutions, which was acknowledged. And in order to be on the safe side, we have decided to postpone the first big testing session a bit. It was not possible to do it before the summer. So the first big testing session will take place in after the summer, probably in October. And the other thing which is more or less certain now is that we will make a separation between the different testing sessions.
There will be a first one covering the classical multiple choice questions, the verbal, numerical, abstract, and reasoning testing, which will take place first, probably on a couple of days given the number of candidates. And then all that will be corrected, processed. We'll answer the questions like we do every time. And then the second round of questions, the EU knowledge, the digital skills, the written essay will take place later so that we will have a sequencing between those two big testing phase. So if all that runs smoothly with sufficient support from other institutions, we have asked them for short term reinforcement because the burden is heavy on the office.
And if the IT tools are stable and efficient, we hope to be in a position to release the list of successful candidates more or less one year later, so in October 2027. That's a bit the plan for the AD Generalist competition. I stop here, and I will be happy to come back to some other issues or answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much, Mr. Director. I didn't know you. I didn't know you, and we appreciate you present. Thank you. And now we can go to Mister Agios, EPB.
Speaker 30
Thank you, chair. I will speak in my mother tongue for the first part of my intervention. Thank.
Peter Agius
Thank you for your presentation. I'm not 100% satisfied. However, I acknowledge the fact that the director has only recently taken up these responsibilities, and he is making up for problems we identified in our resolution. I have passed the EPICO competitions in the past. I was working for an official.
I was an examiner. I was a member of the board of competitions. And I remember a time when EBSO was considered exemplary. It was exemplary for the rest of the world. A huge democracy of 27 countries where you select your staff from 27 countries, and it was a great example of participatory democracy when anybody can become a new official.
And this is what we're talking about today, that every European citizen can participate, can be an official in these European institutions. So this hearing is very important because 75,000 people have applied to this EBSO competition, an open competition that we have been waiting for for six years. Epso, it has been six years since the last Epso competition was organized. So we need certain guarantees. We need to make sure that we don't face all the different technical problems that are quite shameful, really, or quite embarrassing.
I find it embarrassing to speak to my constituents who say that, for example, their test was cancelled. I'll switch to English now.
By Epsom. We are told that there is a new contractor which was recruited. But, recently, up until February 26, we saw that, for instance, competitions were canceled and court procedures were canceled. So we are not totally reassured. Of course, I see the goodwill expressed by Mr. Sal.
I really wish him and his team the best, concentration to make sure that this competition succeeds, because this is by no means easy. This is a mammoth task for everyone. So really, really bon courage. But, of course, we are not very happy also when your reply re-sends us to the board of EBSO. We're not very happy with that because the European Parliament has expressed itself with the majority of its members, and we have made it very clear that we believe that the citizens should have the right to a fair treatment, to a good testing procedure.
And, therefore, now I think EBSO has a very big test. There are 75,000 candidates plus one, which is EBSO itself. So we'll keep an eye on this. Big thanks for all your work. I don't want to undermine or to minimize the very big work you're doing in EBSO.
But please, let's make sure that we do not disappoint citizens. We have already had too many experiences like this. And in this committee, we care that we keep an eye on this and make sure that this is a success. Thank you.
Thank.
Thank.
Speaker 31
You, chair. And thank you, Sal, for your presentation on EBSO's action and the improvements that have been explored. In November 2025, this parliament sounded the alarm. And to everyone impacted by the repeated mismanagement at EBSO, through the resolution we adopted, the message was very clear. We precisely listed any problems and reminded, very clearly, that transparency and trustworthiness need to be central to all measures of the European Union. This is essential to preserve citizens' trust in our institutions.
Murielle Laurent
Candidates need to have faith in a fair, clear, and truly accessible process. Given the large number of complaints from European citizens, it's been clear that this has not been the case. And these problems have not only had an adverse impact on candidates, but have tarnished the image of the European Union. This is why last November, we called for the urgent reform within EPI. As I said, I'm delighted to see that action has been taken to improve efficiency and the integrity of the selection procedures.
The implementation of the action plan follows on from the audit in December 2024. This is in progress, and we hope that the results will be in line with our expectations and, above all, what citizens deserve and what the European Union requires. I'd just like to return to two points. It's been specified that it's not in EBSCO's mandate to prepare candidates for the competition. I think this is a shame because in other institutions there are these provisions.
External service providers currently offer training, but this is very expensive. And I think this is discriminatory. Many candidates feel that it would be fairer for these presentation materials to be provided to them. And then I'd like to return to another point, which is the use of artificial intelligence to support several stages in the episode competition with human supervision. This is nevertheless a significant change, and it might raise certain concerns.
Director, you mentioned, but perhaps not with enough precision, and maybe this isn't the place for it. But it would be useful to share this information with the petty committee because we would like to have some guarantees in order to be sure that fairness and transparency in these procedures are really applied. Thank you.
Thank.
Thank you very much.
Murielle Laurent
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much for the information. Is the interpretation working? All right. Thank you.
Bogdan Rzońca
My colleagues from the EPP and the S and D have already drawn our attention to the general issues, and I agree with most of them. Obviously, we also welcome the reforms that have started and already produced some visible results. We are going to keep monitoring the developments. The director mentioned that the online testing facilitates participation for certain groups, including people with mobility handicaps. This.
Bogdan Rzońca
A step forward when it comes to online testing, but we don't talk so much about other disability groups. How are you planning to provide that people with limited vision or hearing, or people living with other kinds of disabilities, have truly the same chances at these online tests. Have you prepared a differentiated impact assessment and data collection on how the online testing concerns these groups? What concrete accommodations are available? And how uniform and transparent are these in practice?
Is the commission planning to strengthen the targeted guarantees for people living with disabilities so that this is not just accessibility, but true equality? Thank you very much, and I'm looking forward to your reply.
Thank you. On behalf of the left, Mr. Karim. Now we'll return to Mr. director. Sorry.
Bogdan Rzońca
Switch to French to answer Miss Laurent. And maybe just to make a clear distinction between the principles of fairness, reliability, and transparency, which, of course, are crucial to EBSO's work. I hope that we fully respect these elements in all the information that we give candidates. The general way in which the competitions are organized really does meet these principles of fairness and transparency. And as I said previously, we provide a huge amount of information to candidates, how the test is conducted, what it will be about, etc.
There's a vast amount of information on our websites on the instructions to candidates. Unfortunately, sometimes it's not always read, but that's how it goes. So in terms of principles, I really do hope and believe that we are in line with those. Something else on technical incidents during the tests. So for me, these are two separate issues.
Of course, sometimes incidents do occur. Epso nevertheless released 29 lists of successful candidates. And so it's not like we're doing nothing. A lot has happened. The institutions have had access to these lists, from which they can recruit.
And so recruitment is going well, and that's encouraging. We do have to acknowledge that even with your provider, there have been some incidents in testing sessions, particularly for construction-related competitions in January and last year for data management. The good news is that the failure percentage has declined, but, of course, it's not right that there are some people who can't properly finish their testing session. So I can guarantee that after each test session, we quickly analyze the incident along with the provider, and we always draw up an action plan to take any corrective action, and that very quickly. I always take the time to have meetings with them and high level meetings with the CEO to ensure that progress is quick.
So there's a real desire to make commitments to this progress. But, of course, this has to mean concrete results with almost zero failure, so we're working on it. Now I hope that for a d85 graduates, this will be the case.
People with disabilities, I'm grateful for the question because we don't have many occasions to comment on it. Actually, we do a lot, but maybe it's not so much well known. We have a fully established policy and procedure regarding candidates with specific needs. To start with, we apply the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, and in particular, the article granting tailor-made reasonable accommodations. We offer candidates a lot of support.
There are some manual guidelines brochure on our website, in particular for our pregnant or breastfeeding candidates. All candidates who consider they have a specific needs can write to us, fill in some requests and forms, which are analyzed one by one. We have a full dedicated team who sometimes interact with them to clarify a bit the needs and to check with the medical service in case there are some elements to be clarified so that they can be offered some specific conditions to make sure they will be able to demonstrate their competencies and skills and competing with other candidates on an equal basis. That's the principle we try to apply. And to give you a few concrete examples, first of all, on the testing platform itself, and actually, it applies to all candidates, not just to candidates with disabilities.
There is what we call an accessibility toolbar. So there are a few tools they can use to make their testing session more flexible. For instance, they have what we call an answer eliminator. They can highlight the questions. They don't retain as pertinent and focus on the remaining options more rapidly.
They can customize the mouse pointer. They can customize the zoom functions, the color contrast themes, and they also can have the questions read to them. But for the more specific and delicate case, we, Epson, also offer some specific physical options to candidates with disabilities. We can adjust the duration of the test. We can add 25, 33, 50% of the time for the people who have some specific needs.
We can offer some other assisting tools than the ones which are provided in the platform itself. And more importantly, in some cases, we offer them physical testing. So we welcome them in our premises so that they can see the test in person. Sometimes with assistance, they can have a reader or a scribe. They can have more time.
They can have specific pens and papers. So in some instances, we offer them a physical testing session. And to conclude on a positive note, we never had any complaints about not taking care of those potential candidates in a correct way. So to conclude, I would like to thank you for the positive interactions with the committee. It was also interesting and useful for us.
And I can confirm also to the first speaker that we will keep on our efforts to offer a stable and solid experience to the candidates. So we'll keep on publishing all the competitions in the course of this year, but in a measured and risk based approach so that we will make sure that we offer a stable and efficient experience to candidates. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, dear director. Thank you very much for being here. We are grateful that you have come here, and we are keeping our fingers crossed. It's amazing how many competitions there are and how many candidates, but I'm sure you will be okay. We are also keeping our fingers crossed for our candidates, and I wish you a lot of luck with organizing it.
Let us move on to point number six, petition 0253 Stroke 26 by Aldara Gonzales Conde, Spanish, on the mass regularization of immigrants by member states. Our petitioner is connected remotely. I hope we have the connection. I hope everything is working.
Okay.
No. Oh, sorry.
Adara Gonzalez
Good morning. I'll be using my mother tongue, Spanish. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the petitions committee, I am Adara Gonzalez. I'm a Spanish citizen, and I work as a nurse in the National Public Health System. I'm here before this committee not just as a professional, but also as a direct witness of a situation that is quickly changing, and which I believe requires profound reflection at EU level.
The reason I am speaking today is the fact that Spain has recently used a royal decree act in April 2023 to adopt an extraordinary regularization, which could impact approximately half a million people who are in an irregular situation. Firstly, it's a question of procedure. This has been done using an exceptional tool, the royal decree act, which, according to our legislation, should only be used for extraordinary and urgent cases of need. However, a decision of this magnitude, which will have structural implications when it comes to social provision, as well as economic and European implications, should have been subject to parliamentary debate, a wide and transparent debate. We have not had this debate, and so this reduces democratic scrutiny, and reduces participation of citizens in a key issue.
I wonder whether this really is an urgent issue and really didn't have to go through the usual mechanisms for representation, which will be courts in our case. Secondly, it will have an impact at the European level. Mass regularization by one member state will have a direct impact on the Union as a whole. On the one hand, it may make movements within the Schengen space easier given that these people will then have the right of freedom of movement, and so that will affect other member states. And furthermore, there is supposed to be a common focus on the 2024 migration and asylum pact.
It's supposed to ensure coordinated management and a responsible handling of migratory flows. It will increase the encouragement for people to come and weaken shared efforts to control our borders. Furthermore, it sends out mixed messages because it's against the fair competition set out in article 4.3 in the TFEU, which says that national decisions should not undermine shared objectives. Thirdly, it's an issue of security and verification. There is a genuine question of whether prior criminal records can be checked.
In many cases, these are dependent on foreign administrative systems, which do not always ensure speed or reliability. There are exceptional mechanisms when this information can't be accessed in good time. For example, a declaration of honor by the person, in question. But this all raises legitimate questions about how correct this process is. In certain Spanish cities, you can see that there is a high concentration of social problems and criminal issues, which worries the inhabitants.
For instance, according to IDESCAT, which is the Catalan Statistics Institute, in Catalonia, 65 percent of all people arrested in 2024 are of foreign nationality. According to data from the regional police of the Basque Country.
Should.
conclude.
Okay.
Adara Gonzalez
In conclusion, so to conclude, I would ask for an urgent evaluation from the European Commission of the impact that this met measure will have on the space, the Schengen space, and that there should be greater coordination at European level in regulation policies. We also need to have more demanding criteria defined to check any past history as they will have an impact on public services and social sustainability, and also a review of how this will have an impact at European level.
Thank you.
Group.
Adara Gonzalez
Thank you very much, petitioner. Now my mistake. I would like to give the floor to the commission director general for migration and home affairs, DG Home.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much, honorable chair, and thanks a lot to Madame Gonzalez for bringing this petition and presenting this petition. And, thanks for giving the commission the opportunity to present its views. Now, over the past years, the commission has adopted several measures to ensure an effective migration management across the European Union. Madame Gonzalez mentioned the pact on migration and asylum that the European Commission adopted in 2024 and, by the way, will enter into full operation in just one month. With the pact, we have modernized our rules for an effective migration management.
Speaker 39
We have a comprehensive legislative reform that now we have to, of course, fully implement. We are developing an assertive migration diplomacy vis a vis third countries, we are also having a number of operational measures to ensure better migration management. All these measures, legislative, operational, diplomatic, have led to a stable decrease in the regular arrivals in the European Union since 2023. Now building on the pact, the European Commission this year, in January, has also adopted the first five year strategy on asylum and migration management. Now the strategy has three main objectives: preventing illegal migration and breaking the business models of landlords, protecting people fleeing from war and persecutions while preventing abuse of the asylum system, and attracting talent to boost the competitiveness of the EU economy.
Speaker 38
Now, of course, migration remains a shared challenge between the EU and its member states. Some issues remain with the responsibility of the individual member states. When it comes to the extraordinary measure on regularization that has been introduced by Spain, we need to take into account the distribution of competencies between the EU and the member states. At the same time, we are in an area without external borders, so we cannot ignore, as also mentioned by the petitioner, that the actions of one member state may have an impact on the other member states of the European Union. And when it comes to this particular measure, as part of issuing a residence permit, it is the responsibility of the national authorities to assess whether the country nationals that apply for a residence permit pose or not a risk to the public security of that country and then to adopt the necessary measure.
And it is also the responsibility of that member state to assess the impact on its social system, on its public services. However, it is important to note that a residence permit in one member state does not give authorization to settle freely around the European Union, but only to live and work in that member state. And this means that if ever a person holding a national residence permit that has been issued by one country is found to be legally staying in another country, in another part of the European Union, this person must go back to the member state that issued the residence permit. In this respect, national authorities must act in the spirit of sincere cooperation. On this basis, on the basis of the legislation that we have, on the basis of the implementation of the pact on migration and asylum, on the basis of the implementation of the migration and asylum strategy, the commission will continue to closely monitor the implementation by member states of legislation and policies.
We'll closely monitor the situation in Spain, and we'll monitor the implementation of the applicable EU rules. Thanks.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much indeed. And now we will have the political groups, Mr. Zuiko. Thank.
Speaker 38
You, chair. And I would like to thank the petitioner for their words. It's clear that this is not an internal Spanish policy, but it's going to have a direct impact on the Schengen area and the migration asylum pact that has entered into force recently. The Spanish government has passed the largest regularization of irregular migrants in our history, and that violates commitments that the government has taken. And they've done it alone.
Speaker 43
They believe that regularization could benefit up to half a million people. But according to the National Migration and Border Association, it could go up to 1.3 irregular migrants. There's not enough information from the borders commissioner. There it could lead to up to a quarter of a million secondary movements to other Schengen countries from Spain. And we this is not, the words of the PP.
Speaker 41
It's the institutes, and the governments are fully aware of this, but they close their ears to the fact that the situation could be worse than they are estimating. This situation means that Spain could be the entry door for illegal migrants to the whole of the EU. It will encourage people to come, and the only people that will benefit are the mafia. These types of measures are not going to act as a deterrent to people. They're going to encourage them.
Speaker 46
People are allowed to merely declare a lack of any criminal history through a declaration of honor. We see that, in 2024, the legislation was adopted, which said that there should be proper, rigorous individual biometric checks on people. Now it means that we won't know if people have prior police records or any complaints against them. So it's clear that irregular migration is not being handled correctly. And so this means that, Mr. Sanchez is making Spaniards at risk within Europe.
Speaker 41
And so, chair, I would urge you to keep this petition open and that there should be a formal communication to the Spanish authorities asking for proper, reliable information that can be verified about how many people are going to be effective, what kind of checks they're applying, and the social and economic impact of this measure, as well as whether or not it's in line with European legislation. We're not talking about dehumanizing migrants. Quite the opposite, what we're talking about here is acting responsibly. This is a question of EU responsibility. It's a question of responsibility for the EU as a whole and the Schengen Area.
Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you. First of all, I'd like to welcome the petitioner. She is exercising her rights protected by the charter in the correct forum. I would also like to reassure you she's expressed concerns, and I want to send out a reassuring message to her, in line with what the government has said. And they have clearly fully explained a measure that is coherent with the EU history of regularizing migrants over the course of the last 25 years, which has happened over 40 times in various member states, most recently in Italy.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
That was 2020, and also in Portugal in 2021. Spain also has a history of regularizing migrants. It's been done by other, PP and socialist governments. We know that this is a minority position within the EU that the government has adopted, but we should be proud of the policy. It applies humanity to the policies and uses safe legal challenge channels.
Sorry. We know that there are thousands of people who live amongst us, work amongst us, and should be able to contribute through their taxes, through their contributions towards supporting social services. It's absolutely false to say that these migrants are, act as predators upon social services. Migrants contribute a lot more than they get from the public services. They help to finance them when they're able to work legally.
It's also untrue to say that they're a security threat. And most of the migrants come from Latin America. So what the right are saying is completely untrue. We know they're just against the progressive Sanchez government in Spain. We say that they want to come over and take advantage of our daughters, but that's not true.
It doesn't coincide with reality. The percentage of foreign committed crime is in line with crime rates in Spain as a whole, and comparable with the rates of the population that are foreign or Spanish. So we shouldn't be distinguishing between crimes committed by Spanish people or other people, and that's completely incorrect. This is a measure that has the support of both the trade unions and the employers. There are 900 non-governmental organizations from civil society, including the Catholic church.
The pope himself has spoken out in favor of a humanitarian approach, that we see through this regularization. It's not true that they'll be able to move freely around the whole of the EU. The commission itself has said this, and it's up to member states. We want to put them in a legal position, which is what we're doing here. Also, Spain's economic growth and employment roads have been positive, and we see that there's a positive effect of integrating and including migrant populations who come to Spain to work.
We've accepted over 200,000 Ukrainians who've come to Spain to flee Putin's war. And we've seen that that hasn't had any negative impact on the social security systems because they want to be able to contribute towards them through their taxes. They're also helping in demographic terms. We know that Spain, like many European countries, has an aging population. So we have to see the positive sides of migration.
I don't think it's against European legislation. I think this is the correct method, as do the rest of the socialist group. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I would imagine that most of you in this room can think about somebody comes to your house and sits in your living room and starts to enjoy all of the benefits that you enjoy. This is what's happening in Spain.
Speaker 47
We see this mass regularization, as the petitioner said, has an absolute torpedo when it comes to the stability, economic stability, social security systems in Spain and across the whole EU and Schengen. Article five of the Schengen Agreement says that anyone who comes into the Schengen area has to meet certain criteria. They have to be able to present documents that say they meet the requirements of their stay. They have to be able to pay for themselves during the course of their stay. They have to be able to show that they're not on a list of inadmissible persons from their country of origin, and won't be a risk to national order and security.
Diego Solier
Member states should be denying entry to the Schengen area to anyone who doesn't meet these criteria. And yet, if people and if these people haven't got on the boat or the plane to go back home after three months, then they should be found and put on it. And yet the socialists just want to give them grants and money and houses. This is outrageous. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have worked in Spain without anyone making them go home either by sea or by air or by road.
Speaker 47
Hundreds of thousands of foreigners, sorry, who come illegally into European territory have been, now regularized by Pedro Sanchez and those who work with him. And they have no idea about their history in their country of origin. They don't know their economic situation, and they've given money from the Spanish taxes. It's absolutely wrong to say it's a lie to say that they're working because to work in Spain, you need a residency permit. So it is a lie what the Spanish government is saying.
It creates vulnerabilities. The socialist colleague spoke for four minutes, so I should have the opportunity to speak for the main part of the time. We're showing that they're creating a vulnerability, and you get this from NGOs who are the payment of the government here. We see that from Bangladesh to Morocco, to Latin America. They're coming here.
As the socialist colleague said, they're replacing the Spanish population. Sanchez's acts have meant that Spanish citizens are no longer safe, and they won't have the same access to employment, education, social security, housing. Prices are going up. Rents are going up, and salaries aren't. And the richest are rubbing their hands with glee at this.
Diego Solier
I'm concluding, chair. The Spanish workers can't handle this anymore. We can't have any more Sanchez policies that are just for his own electoral ends, and he's committing fraud just to win in 2027. While Sanchez is doing all of this, we are trying to take it to court. We agree with the petitioner that this should be kept open.
Speaker 47
We should be deporting people here illegally who have overstayed. We should be focusing on our national requirements. Thank you.
Mister Oliver.
Diego Solier
Chair, thank you very much. I'd also like to thank the petitioner for bringing this subject to our attention. There's a huge amount of illegality among immigrants, and that affects all of the Schengen area and the social and economic situation in the European Union, as we've been seeing in the debate that took place in Strasbourg a few months ago. And with this change in position by the commission, we’re seeing that the Schengen space has been placed in danger through Spain. We've taken there have been some alarming measures taken in Spain, and the petitioner has mentioned these in their petition, such as the overburdening of the public services and the stabilization of our labor market and our cultural identity.
We can't allow that these policies happen without respecting citizens and the economic space, and that this leads to effects on the social situation in Europe. This process needs to be accompanied by legality. We need to make sure that what we're seeing is not feeding into mafias and is irresponsible and dangerous. We want to keep the petition open, and we want the European Parliament to carry out its function of supervision. And we'd like to thank you for allowing us to present this petition.
We know that there are real impacts on expenditure in public services, and we'd like to support the data that has been presented. And in addition to all of this, we'd like to respond that this is putting in danger a delicate balance that we currently have. And it's gone through, it hasn't gone through a correct decision making process. We need to use as an example the security of our borders and the upholding of our well-being within the European Union.
Thank you very much. Now I'll now it's time to wrap up because we have run out of time. And soon, there will be a meeting of the coordinators. The working time of interpreters is also limited. Therefore, there will be no time for concluding remarks of the petitioner, but the petitioner remains open.
Bogdan Rzońca
And now we will be waiting for a written reply from the European Commission. Thank you very much.
Karim, please.
Thank.
Bogdan Rzońca
You, chair. What threatens Europe today is not the migrants. What threatens Europe today is the gradual abandonment of its own values. This petition is unfortunately part of a political climate in which migration is approached in terms of fear, suspicion, and disinformation, rather than in terms of facts, law, and human dignity. The hundreds of thousands of people affected by Spain's measure didn't arrive yesterday.
Damien Carême
They're here already. They work on our construction sites, in catering, in care, in domestic services. They participate in our economies while being kept in administrative precariousness that fuels exploitation and abuse. The regularization carried out by the Spanish government is precisely a pragmatic and humane response to the structural hypocrisy. I also want to denounce the fantasies entertained by the far right about a so-called pull factor or a threat to other member states.
These arguments are legally false and politically inaudible. Jordan Bardella stated on X that these people will tomorrow be able to come and move freely in France, and even settle, attracted by the generosity of our open social system without conditions. This statement is false. The certificates it issued in Spain do not allow free settlement or movement to the rest of the Union or automatic access to social benefits from other member states. And so using this measure to feed fear of a massive invasion or influx is pure political manipulation.
This petition purports to defend the correct application of EU law, but in reality, it calls into question a member state's ability to implement a regularization policy in line with its national competencies and social and economic needs. Let's remember, regularization policies and the issuance of residence permits fall within the competence of the member states. The European Union in no way prohibits these approaches, which in fact can strengthen inclusion, social rights, tax collection, and social cohesion. Given this fear and rejection, let's remember a simple truth. No one puts their children in a boat unless the sea is safer than the land.
We want this petition to remain open, and declared inadmissible.
Thank you very much. Everyone who wanted to take the floor has taken the floor. The petition remains open. The decision has been taken. We are waiting for the reply of the commission.
Bogdan Rzońca
We have wrapped up 0.6. So we don't have a lot of time, and we need to move to the meeting of the coordinators. Thank you very much, everyone, for your presence at the previous part of the meeting, but now we are starting an internal meeting for coordinators only. So no cameras are allowed. So please leave the room unless you are a coordinator.
Okay.
Bogdan Rzońca
All the representatives of the media, all the photographers and cameramen are asked to leave the room.
Speaker 53
Please leave the room unless you are a coordinator, an assistant to a coordinator, or an adviser to a coordinator. If you do not belong to any of those three groups, please leave the room.
Very.
Well done. Let us start.
Mhmm.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.