Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
ECON European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenTeresa Ribera Rodriguez
Even if regulatory dialogues may help to achieve compliance, some cases require enforcement action. We currently have four non-compliance investigations open. We have also started the pre-assessment procedure to evaluate the possible designation of new gatekeepers in the cloud markets, as I have just said, as an evolution of the Digital Markets Act. And in parallel, we are working on many other workstreams that could deserve some short notice in this session. For instance, in December last year, we adopted the new state aid rules to facilitate investments in affordable housing at national, regional, and local levels.
In February, we published guidelines under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation to bring further predictability and ensure transparency for companies. And before summer, we will be presenting the first review report to Council and Parliament on the Foreign Subsidies Regulation enforcement. Without preemptively disclosing the report's contents, I may say that the feedback coming from the different stakeholders confirms that this regulation is fit for purpose. We are still learning, but there is a sense that enforcement can come with lower administrative burden. So we need to pay attention and to find ways to do it.
A month ago, we also launched a public consultation on the new aviation guidelines, important to count on the support for airports and the aviation sector. It was something that we had to do, but in this given context, with the impacts of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the availability of jet fuel and flight travels, this becomes even more important. The consultation will be open until 12th of June and the new guidelines will be adopted in the beginning of next year. We continue progressing work on the review of the General Block Exemption Regulation, which will be adopted before the end of this year, with the understanding that we want to reduce the administrative burden of member states and undertakings and give more flexibility in designing support measures, but according to the criteria being provided by these updated guidelines. On that file, we recently finalized the public consultation on the draft test.
We have received around 570 replies representing the broad variety of stakeholders: member state authorities at national, regional, and local levels, non-governmental bodies, business, and some of the practitioners in the competition family. All of these are valuable inputs. We have heard that the stakeholders are trying to come up with their main points of concerns and recommendations, and we want to balance the various interests expressed in this revised draft. For example, we will make adjustments to the exclusion of undertakings in financial difficulties to allow that innovative startups can have better access to state aid, notably for research and development.
As you may see, the DG Competition is deeply involved in important streams of work that have a day-to-day impact in our economy. The work streams that have in common that we have, the work streams have in common one goal: be ready to ensure that competition instruments fit for purpose, that our policy delivers and keeps the right balance. So to ensure that in an unstable and volatile world that is represented by the world economy of today, supporting well-functioning markets, innovation, sustainability, social cohesion as part of our goals is key and remains, as it has always been, the best way to make the European Union a reliable, appealing and fair partner. Now I'm looking forward to listening to you. Thanks.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. And we will start with Markus Ferber for EPP, one minute and a half for the question and three minutes for the answer. Markus.
Markus Ferber
Ja, vielen Dank. Wenn Sie gestatten, würde ich gerne in meiner Muttersprache sprechen. Europas Kapitalmärkte sind bis heute stark zersplittert. Es gibt Dutzende nationaler Handelsplätze, Abwicklungssysteme, Clearinghäuser, die kaum miteinander verbunden sind. Wir arbeiten ja zurzeit als Parlament an einem Paket zur Marktintegration, das die Zersplitterung überwinden soll.
Sie haben es ja angesprochen. Die bisherigen Versuche, die Marktinfrastrukturen grenzüberschreitend zusammenzuführen, sind aber immer wieder am Wettbewerbsrecht der Europäischen Union gescheitert. Ich habe Ihnen bereits das letzte Mal diese Frage gestellt und ich habe eine sehr allgemeine Antwort bekommen. Deshalb heute ganz konkret: Bieten die neuen Fusionskontrollleitlinien der Kommission endlich die Instrumente, um bei der Bewertung von Zusammenschlüssen auch die Integrationsvorteile zu berücksichtigen und nicht nur die Wettbewerbsrisiken? Sehen Sie die Wettbewerbspolitik als aktiven Baustein zur Vollendung des europäischen Kapitalmarkts oder werden wir weiterhin erleben, dass genau die Zusammenschlüsse scheitern, die Europa braucht, um international wettbewerbsfähig zu sein?
Vielen Dank.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
I have to say that I loved your questions, the two of them. No, because I think that, of course, the answer should be yes. And then you may tell me, well, let's explain a little bit what it means and then let's see to what extent we agree or disagree. I think that the merger guidelines has been a fantastic exercise internally, quite open to inputs coming from different interested players. And what we try to provide is clarity on how we engage since the very first moment on this assessment.
So there was a clear demand coming from the business community: please let us know what is the theory of harm, let's use a level playing field to understand why you consider something risky, why we consider something positive.
And I think that this is a fair comment and it is reflected in the guidelines. Something which is also important to underline is that for the business community, for the final consumers, price is relevant. Competition drives innovation, competition may facilitate lower prices for business and for consumers. So competition still remains something that is thinking on the impact in the market and for the final consumers. But of course, that is not the only element that is important in something that may be very well justified for reasons that are also supported by our economic block, by our society, how we can create innovation, sustainability, long-lasting business successful examples in our economy while keeping the level playing field.
And this is why we thought that it was important to stress that price is relevant, time dimension counts, it may count taking into consideration these dynamic effects to be taken into consideration, dynamic efficiencies based on an early engagement. What it cannot accept, and I think that everybody agrees on that, is a kind of free pass. Whatever is accepted, of course not. I think that that's part of the exercise, the responsibility of the teams, but I think that it's been quite interesting to see how we can engage and provide this upfront understanding on how we are going to assess the criteria. My sense is that it is probably one of the most advanced approaches that has been built in in all world jurisdictions and I think that now we need to learn to implement and to work together in the next phase.
By the way, even if it is open and not adopted, I think that it also shows an anticipated manner to work with the different stakeholders or business operators willing to to present an operation along this along these lines. On building blocks to ensure a proper capital market, a single market, I think that well, we can identify some examples on the banking sector and the capital markets here in Europe that show on one side the the interest, the appealing, the the need, the appetite to get into cross-border operations and to what extent we have not managed to get this deep development of a capital unions, a capitals union taking place in in our continent. So let's hope that with concrete cases we can also learn how we can accelerate and facilitate this integration that may mean a very relevant add value in terms of maturity of the financial markets that could allow startups and small business to grow up with European tools, European capital at lower cost of capital instead of accepting that they need to go abroad or counting on banks and financial opportunities abroad.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thank you and welcome, Madam Executive Vice-President, to the committee once again, delighted to see you here. I would like to continue the discussion on the merger guidelines. However, when my colleague from EPP is coming from a little bit bigger member state, I'm coming from a little bit smaller member state and I have noticed that among the smaller member states there is lot of concerns what is happening here and we have to acknowledge that there are different angles and also different interests. There is the competition angle and then there is the angle of European competition and worldwide competition and we have noticed that there is also discussion and need to create so-called European champions.
But lot of quite competitive companies in the, at least in the, in the smaller member states, they are really concerned. Is there a big risk that they will be eaten out of the markets? And now my question is that what would you say to these people in the smaller member states who are worried what is happening in the Union now?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you so much. Yes, I think that this shows to what extent we need to keep this balanced approach on how to handle the different expectations and to preserve the economic ecosystem and the innovation in our territory. This is why we decided, and it was well welcomed, to develop an innovation shield. When and how we consider that the presumption to keep the innovative approaches, the innovative startups here do deserve the protection of any operation that could be dangerous, being complemented with further developments of what we have been trying to achieve in the previous years according to the tools that we had within reach, which is to prevent killer acquisitions happening in our territory. And yes, I think that we will be witnessing and experiencing how in practice these concrete examples may take place.
But I think that there are certain messages there that are important, particularly for these startups, innovative companies that fear being undertaken by big players that could kill their capacity to innovate and to challenge the traditional incumbents or, on the contrary, could be willing to count on small, medium-sized someone that does not represent a dominant position in that given market but could facilitate a further development of their own initiative. So the two things are being covered by the draft guidelines as the criteria that is appreciated by the teams when making a proper and fair assessment of the operations.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Sí, muchas gracias, presidenta. Señora Ribera, usted comparece hoy ante esta comisión como responsable de una transición limpia, justa y competitiva. El informe Draghi de su comisión reconoce que los elevados costes energéticos destruyen la competitividad europea. Y yo me pregunto, ¿cómo puede presentarse hoy aquí usted como defensora de la competitividad cuando es usted la principal responsable del calendario de cierre nuclear en España? Una energía que es estable, limpia y asequible.
Y esto ya no solo lo dice Vox, lo dice su propia jefa, la señora von der Leyen, que reconoció en París hace apenas solo unos meses que alejarse de la energía nuclear fue un error estratégico de Europa y de hecho ya ha anunciado inversiones millonarias para reactivarla. Así que yo me pregunto cómo casa este objetivo de la Comisión de ser el polo mundial de la energía nuclear con que España sea el único país europeo con un calendario de cierre de sus instalaciones nucleares gracias a usted. ¿Va a hablar usted con su excompañera Sarah Agrensen para que evite ese calendario de cierre? Porque de lo contrario, Almaraz será la primera central nuclear de Europa que cierra por motivos ideológicos y políticos gracias a usted.
Y ya la última cuestión. La Comisión, esta Comisión supuestamente exige transparencia y responsabilidad en el uso de sus recursos públicos. Sin embargo, usted figura expresamente en la querella por el rescate de Plus Ultra y formó parte de un gobierno cercado actualmente por escándalos de corrupción que ocupan portadas en España día sí, día también. Yo me pregunto, ¿considera que su papel de vicepresidenta en esta Comisión refuerza la confianza de los ciudadanos en las instituciones europeas o cree que hay dos Europas, una para los ciudadanos que rinden cuentas y otra para los comisarios que las evitan?
Aurore Lalucq
Merci beaucoup. Merci beaucoup. Je tiens juste à vous rappeler qu'on est ici dans un cadre européen, qu'on parle des affaires économiques, monétaires, de compétitivité et de concurrence au sein de cette commission et que nous ne sommes pas ici pour commenter ce qui se passe dans tel ou tel État, que ce soit la Finlande, que ce soit la France, que ce soit l'Allemagne, que ce soit l'Autriche ou je ne sais pas. D'accord? Je tiens juste à vous rappeler les quelques règles fondamentales qui ont cours ici.
Maintenant, si Madame Ribera veut répondre.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Señora Borrás, yo también me alegro mucho de volver a verla con sus mismos temas de siempre. I will be more than happy to discuss on European affairs whenever you want and in the cases that you raise, probably you could be happy to discuss these topics back in the Spanish Parliament if you consider that this is the case or if there is any concrete example of state aid, then that could be our case.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. For ECR, I don't know if Mr. Zunza is here. No, he's not. So I give the floor to Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, pardon Stéphanie, notre rapporteure d'ailleurs sur la question de compétitivité.
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
Merci Présidente Lalucq. Merci Madame la Présidente. Madame la Vice-Présidente exécutive Ribera. Bon, je constate que comme mes collègues serbes ne sont pas là, j'aurai le double de parole et en plus j'ai la chance d'être rapporteure sur le rapport. Ah, merci Madame la Présidente.
Bon, les nouvelles dynamiques internationales rebattent bien sûr les cartes et la concurrence n'est plus un sujet uniquement économique. On voit que c'est un sujet de souveraineté et de sécurité économique et l'Europe doit être capable de faire émerger des acteurs en mesure de rivaliser à l'international. J'accueille donc aussi comme mes collègues favorablement la révision des lignes directrices en matière de concentration, mais il faudra effectivement suivre attentivement la finalisation et le rapport du Parlement européen sur la politique de concurrence qui sera soumis au vote de notre commission ce soir et dont j'ai l'honneur d'être rapporteure porte cette ambition. On appelle à l'émergence de champions européens dans les secteurs stratégiques tout en préservant une concurrence sur les marchés. Mais finalement la question ne s'arrête pas aux règles, elle concerne aussi leur application et à ce titre, Madame la Vice-Présidente exécutive, on le voit aujourd'hui, les États membres jouent un rôle central dans le blocage de champions européens.
Si je prends un dernier exemple en date, le blocage par l'Allemagne de la fusion entre Commerzbank et UniCredit, ce n'est pas un cas isolé. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle encadrer ou peut-être mieux encadrer les interventions des États? Sur le deuxième sujet dont vous avez parlé concernant le cadre temporaire pour les aides d'État, j'aimerais savoir comment les États membres se sont emparés de cette mécanique. Est-ce que toutes les aides notifiées ont été validées compte tenu de l'urgence? Et enfin rapidement, chacun reconnaît l'utilité du DMA et du règlement sur les subventions étrangères avec effectivement des aménagements, mais on voit leurs limites et leurs limites c'est le problème de ressources de la Commission européenne et de la DG Concurrence.
Que doit-on faire, que peut-on faire ensemble pour vous aider là-dessus?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you so much for the three questions, I would say if I properly identify three different topics in your in your comments. So starting with the state aid for this temporary crisis connected to the to the closure of the state of Hormuz and the availability of fossil fuel resources, as I said, we have already adopted or cleared the proposals coming from two member states, so to support fishers and farmers, but there are still some additional demands coming from other member member states. Dealing with the yes, dealing with the appeal being made by national governments on security issues to prevent the adoption of mergers, what we have tried to reflect in the guidelines, as I had the opportunity to comment in in a previous occasion, is to remind member states that security concerns can be quite legitimate if they are read in a very restrictive manner, so not to give an open general approach to prevent operations when one of the companies being involved is considered a relevant company in that in that member state. And the final the final comment was connected to I didn't take note. That was it?
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
Non, c'était sur le DMA et le règlement sur les subventions étrangères, utile mais limité notamment par vos problèmes de ressources. Que peut-on faire concrètement pour vous aider ?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Yes, yes, you're right, you're right, that was the most that was the most important question. How we can strengthen the because we have a very strong and committed team. And I think that they are working in a very professional manner. I think that the discussion on whether there may be more available resources is not a discussion that can be handled in an isolated way, that's part of the broader discussion dealing with with the budgetary discussions also in this house. I think that the efforts to reinforce the most complicated lines of work, streams of work in the DG competition that are new, technically complex, depending on players that do not necessarily count on the information or the headquarters in the in Europe is is relevant.
So we are trying to reinforce the teams with the available resources and and I appreciate your comments of appreciation for their work and your comments of support.
Isabelle Benjumea
Muchas gracias, señora vicepresidenta, bienvenida. Yo quería seguir hablando, la verdad que le han preguntado mucho sobre las directrices de fusiones y en relación a los campeones europeos. Yo reconozco que veo con cierta preocupación tanto algo que ha comentado la colega Jean Courtin de las injerencias de estados a la hora de intentar bloquear esas fusiones y por otro lado también en relación a la pregunta de mi colega Markus Ferber en relación al papel que va a jugar la Comisión o que puede jugar la Comisión aplicando esos esos criterios a la hora de aprobarlas o no aprobarlas. Y yo lo que temo y se lo propongo para que me comparta sus reflexiones, es decir, al final ¿quién tiene que decidir una fusión?
Tienen que ser las empresas, sus comités de estrategia, sus accionistas, sus consejos de dirección, que son los que verdaderamente pueden tener esa información, o nos vamos a encontrar en un sistema en el que pues va a haber un dirigismo político y van a primar al final intereses o del gobierno de turno o intereses políticos de la Comisión. Y en relación a la energía nuclear, en este contexto en el que usted ha hecho referencia de pues crisis energética, sí le quería decir, usted ha hecho una frase que estoy totalmente de acuerdo, que el precio importa mucho al consumidor. Yo le quería preguntar qué papel tiene la energía nuclear para rebajar ese precio?
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
So thank you so much for the different questions that you have raised. I would like to insist on the need to read carefully our comments so to prevent and to read in a narrow manner the possibility of national governments to impose a ban on an operation that has been cleared or is fully compatible with the internal market and the mergers assessment and the mergers regulation. But at the very same time you have raised another comment where I sincerely do not agree. 90% of the mergers do happen with no problem. There is a simplified process, so it takes a few weeks to go through that process.
And the concentration of the attention and the efforts of the DG Competition in the cases of the enforcement of the mergers regulation remains in the most strategic and most important cases. And the reason why this happens comes from I would say the history reasons why the competition policy was considered an important element to ensure a well-functioning market and the prevention of any risk of abuse of a dominant position in a given market. So I think that it is important to defend the competition policy and the role of the enforcers. What it is an add value in this case in the guidelines is that we try to provide in a very transparent manner the way we understand the criteria that could be relevant when assessing any of these operations, so that the business community, those willing to enter into one of these kind of operations because they think that it helps to innovate or to grow or to build resilience at the European scale, can count on this updated and upfront information on how we understand these concepts. And I think that it helps.
I think that it helps not only to build a much more robust economy in Europe, but also a much more robust economy when playing in global markets. So I think that it is good to count on a very professional and a very transparent team that helps into this common goal, public interest to defend a well-functioning market, which is fair, and that takes into consideration also the demand of consumers to be protected, the demands of the business community to count on fair prices and fair behaviors from their competitors or from anyone being a traditional grown incumbent. Yes, I think that price is very important. I think that price is very important and I think that price depends on many things. And what it is important and that I could reflect back on something that was has been raised is that there may be demands coming from different owners of different power companies, very much in particular when dealing with the nuclear reality, that do demand on counting with state aid.
And in that case, DG Competition assess whether this state aid is justified or is not justified, it is at the right amount or if it is not at the right amount. Otherwise, prices established by the market and by the electricity market design that defines how the prices in any electricity market in any member state is being shaped.
René Repasi
Thanks, Madam Chairwoman. Welcome, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, great to have you here in the structured dialogue. My questions refer also, big surprise, to the merger guidelines. And last week I was, as Vice-Chair of the EU-China delegation of the European Parliament, on first mission of the European Parliament to China in eight years. And we had not only meetings in Beijing, but we also went to Wuhan, the place where COVID started, but not to try to find out where the virus was made, but to see how the industry is working there, where because there are many car manufacturing sites and others.
And why I'm referring to this is obviously there is this, we are in enormous global competition with China, and there's a certain, I believe, misreading and misconception about what is making China strong. It is not that they have one large big company that is then dominating the rest of the world, but they have actually a survival of the fittest internally. They have many companies working on the same thing and only the one who survives at the end of it is the one who is becoming the global champion. And in that sense, I do believe that merger guidelines should make sure that competition based on merit and the survival of the fittest within the internal market is ensured. Just size does not ensure global competitiveness.
So how do the merger guidelines ensure that we not simply take into consideration size, but actually make use of the internal market as the empowerer of our companies? So therefore, how is innovation used as a criterion? How does, how do we actually evaluate the effects of mergers on innovation in the guidelines? And second, on killer acquisitions, since after the Court of Justice's judgment in Illumina, Article 22 was ruled out as an option, which deals with thresholds, how do the merger guidelines intend to address the matter without touching the thresholds because this is secondary law and not made by guidelines? Thank you.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
Thank you, thank you so much, Anna. I think that you have raised something which is very interesting because yes, probably what we have witnessed in China is fierce competition. And well, we also take into consideration other elements. So when competing on innovation, on resilience, on sustainability, we also, we are also aware of the importance of complying with social and environmental standards generally speaking, broadly speaking, and that may or may not be the case in other jurisdictions, but that is important. To make a second comment, a second consideration that is absolutely, absolutely key, which is that we need to keep this boost, this enabler of building champions according to competing contexts that allow the best ones to keep on growing.
And that's also part of the Draghi report. Draghi does not say, please build champions because there is a state decision being imposed on this or that player. It, it could be good to grow, and competition is a very relevant element to grow, so to be resilient and to be attractive and appealing for investors, but also to sell our products in the other markets.
What we got is that what it is important is to come up at an early stage explaining why there could be an added value in terms of innovation if the merger takes place. And to what extent the merger taking place is the only way to ensure, of course, to a certain degree of probability, it is impossible to say 100% because we are having this time dimension that is larger, longer than what it was considered in the previous guidelines, is quite helpful. And this is where we need to strike the balance. Of course, if we take into consideration the reality of today, we may have 100% certainty on what could be the impact in terms of harms or benefits in today's reality. But normally when thinking about innovation, we are thinking about the benefits, the efficiencies to take place in the time to come.
And I think that the good thing of the guidelines, or the openness of the guidelines, is to say: we recognize that this is true. For this innovation to happen, there may be a need for maturity to take place, and it may take a little bit longer. So, how we can reflect that when assessing a merger that may be having creating some harm in today's realities? And this is why we insist on: we need sound assessment, scenarios, modeling, explanations to get a better understanding on where the companies being part of this merger identify the benefits in terms of innovation. But we also say: they are right.
Maybe they may be thinking on these benefits and we don't share where we see the dangers, the harm. So, why we do not commit in this very open manner to start in a very early moment this engagement, so to share where we see the worries, the concerns, the eventual harm, the theory of harm being expressed by the team, and where the companies willing to merge identify in a sound manner, in a convincing way, backed by the information that they can provide, the eventual benefits, efficiencies to come in the time to arrive. So I think that this is where we will need to refer to the concrete cases and still a path to walk. But I think it is, it was needed, it is important, it has been welcomed, and I could even add it is very forward-looking and fit for purpose as it stands. Now we will learn what anyone may will to share in this coming weeks in the public consultation process and then immediately after in the implementation of these guidelines to the concrete cases.
Thank you. Oh, killer acquisitions, yes. Sorry. Yes, we also provide guidance on how we read killer acquisitions. And we have tried to reflect as much as we can according to the cases, and Illumina-Grail has provided quite a lot, but also to facilitate to anyone that intends to count on certain protection and capacity to react on whether it may be something that is viable or whether it may be something that could not be allowed even if it is implemented by the national competition authorities that will certainly read these guidelines and we have been developing the work together with them, so probably will be inspired by the very same criteria.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you, thank you very much, Chair, thank you Commissioner. I have an FSR question, Foreign Subsidies Regulation. It's a very interesting instrument we have to be able to investigate companies that come over to Europe and we see if there's not only is there fierce competition as Mr. Repasi indicated, it's also competition on steroids because most of the competition is supported by local development banks or other kinds of financial support mechanisms, which was recently again confirmed by the OECD. But my question now is about the fact that the Chinese government or party has indicated that companies should not cooperate anymore with Foreign Subsidies Regulation investigations by the European Commission. Now, for us to establish if there was unfair subsidies, we need information from inside their financial system.
So we are dependent to establish a breach of the FSR on their information. The Commission has not reacted to this yet. And I would like maybe a bit more political reaction from you than what we heard from the spokesperson service. How does this affect the ongoing investigations, especially regarding Nuctech, for example, and would the Commission be ready to say, okay, if you don't cooperate with the FSR, then no more public tenders for you in Europe, which I would find an appropriate measure in this case.
Fernando Navarrete Rojas
Thank you. Mr. Navarrete, you wanted to ask a question, right?
Sí, muchas gracias, presidenta, bienvenida vicepresidenta de la Comisión. Yo le quería preguntar por el marco de ayudas de Estado. La flexibilización sistemática de los marcos de ayudas de Estado que hemos visto desde la pandemia y quería preguntarle, y ahora es el momento, evidentemente tenemos un shock, hay que flexibilizar, pero lo que nunca viene es el tiempo de volver hacia atrás, de volver a tener un marco vinculante de ayudas de Estado que garantice la unidad de mercado. Porque sinceramente, si seguimos por esta ruta de solo flexibilizar cuando es necesario y nunca volver atrás, el mercado único está en riesgo. Yo sí creo, como mi colega Repasi, que al final la competitividad es el crecimiento de las compañías mejor adaptadas.
Con ayudas de Estado este mecanismo se debilita de forma sistemática. Así que querría saber qué piensa hacer la Comisión a este respecto. Muchas gracias.
Aurore Lalucq
Je me permets aussi de prendre la parole. On a des niveaux de dépendance assez inquiétants en matière de défense, en matière d'énergie, en matière de système de paiement. Sur les systèmes de paiement, on est en train d'avoir l'euro digital. Sur la question du numérique maintenant, qui est une question qui est revenue finalement ici en sous-jacent un petit peu, vous avez publié, présenté un paquet sur la souveraineté technologique. Comment est-ce que vous comptez utiliser la politique de concurrence, notre bras armé réglementaire, pour briser certains monopoles qui peuvent être problématiques, monopoles étrangers, et faire émerger des champions industriels européens dans ce domaine parce que ça a été dit aussi bien du côté de Renew, des S&D que du PPE, il y a des inquiétudes notamment dans le domaine des ingérences et cetera.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
And when we try to tackle, to figure out whether there is a market failure that justifies being covered with state aid, with subsidies, we count on regulation, on rules, on transparency. But when we have the impression that there may be players willing to enter into our market, which is a well-paid market, but are not transparent on whether they have been using steroids, that may have a terrible effect in terms of the level playing field and in terms of the distraction of the industry. And that's, that's a key point. And it is true that it is not that the foreign subsidies regulation may solve everything or may count on every single instrument to ensure the deterrence, because there are other elements that need to be taken into consideration, very much in particular you were referring to trade or building resilience back home. So I think that there are different levels where we need to work to build the case in the industrial policy in Europe, to be sure on how we can get the information to assess whether the steroids exist or do not exist, they are fair, they are unfair, whatever, and what we do in case we consider that we don't count on the information being provided by the ones being asked to provide that information.
As it happens in other cases where the DG Competition tries to assess whether there is something that it is not according to the law and there is any kind of harm happening in the market, there are also references that allow us to make a factual estimate on what it may mean. So yes, of course, any operator, including those that are non-European, that may be operating in our markets, that consider that whatever is happening is not fair, can go to the court. But we can also keep on going on our procedure and trying to apply the rest of the instruments that are within the competition policy framework or eventually, if there could be a decision stating the non-compliance or asking for any additional measure to be taken, it may happen either in the context of the competition tools or eventually elsewhere. So I think that this is a debate that is probably one of the debates, most important debates that is happening right now, how we can reconcile the domestic and the external policies, how we may work as an open market economy that in fact wants to build resilient and competitive industrial grounds in our own territory. And I think that there is a combination of elements, including by the way the respect to the international law and the trade, World Trade Organizations.
But that, the short way is there are means to estimate what it could mean by the indirect references that could be taken into consideration. We appreciate when companies cooperate, that's always easier. But on the state aid, well, I would say that there is this approach coming from a few decades already that state aid should be something very restricted to those cases where there is a market failure. And I think that it has been the rule since those days and that whenever it, there is a market failure and there is someone willing to use a subsidies policy, it is important to have this clear and perfectly identified.
What we have done in the recent years is to try to be again upfront when stating when and how it could be taken into consideration as something that could be justified, so that if there is someone having a very different idea, it's not that it is forbidden, but it has to be demonstrated and it needs to go through a very insightful procedure to understand whether it is justified and it is proportionate or whether it is not. What it is new, and that is something that it is not ideal, that we also know, is that we have experienced one crisis after the other in the last five years. And what it is also truth is that broadly speaking, Europeans, national governments, European institutions consider that we should make use of those elements that can provide support and ensure that households or companies can survive this crisis. So our role in this case is to facilitate when and how it is legitimate and it can be known by everybody that there is a response using subsidies to this crisis. There is another aspect that you have not, I think that you have not explicitly mentioned, but it is also important, which is what about accelerating, facilitating the transition?
So the clean industrial state framework that we also adopted last year, so to be sure that if there is this interest to modernize at a high speed the decarbonization of the industries, the decarbonization and the transformation of the energy system, we know what we are talking about and we count on concrete rules. And I think that this is, this is, this is key. And in fact, there has been quite a few demands coming from different member states and we have cleared those demands and these demands and these schemes have been public and the clearance has been published. Finally, on the, on the your comments about weakness and vulnerabilities, dependencies coming from abroad, speaking about defense, digital, energy and payment systems. I think that they, you were addressing to very different topics.
Today we have adopted this sovereign technology package and as in the other cases, reducing our dependencies and weakness is part of what we want to build as this strategic autonomy, gaining freedom, so not to be dependent so much on others that maybe weaponizing very key aspects of our day-to-day life. In the technology context, what we have adopted today covers different aspects, including something which is also very well reflected by Draghi and Letta: let's build on our own capacities and our own strengths. It could be very difficult just getting this sovereignty and mature sector through subsidies. It would be very difficult just by forbidding others to enter into our market, but we need to combine different tools. And competition has a role to play here.
This is where the Digital Markets Act, playing with the upfront obligations of the gatekeepers and assessing the position of these relevant players in each given market is so key. It has been successful up to now, the implementation and the enforcement and the Digital Markets Act, and we are still reading, acting and keeping along these lines to ensure that because it is a very competitive market open to new players, those willing to boost in our continent have the opportunity to do it and not just accepting that the traditional incumbents will always remain at the single successful players in our market.
Aurore Lalucq
Well, thank you so much for this dialogue. I don't know if you want to say a few words of conclusion.
Teresa Ribera Rodriguez
My word of conclusion is thanks a lot for all the questions, for all the comments, and we'll be more than happy to come from time to time to update in this very intense period full of excitement and novelties, just to comment.
Thank you so much.
Aurore Lalucq
So, mes chers collègues, je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue à Monsieur Piero Cipollone, membre du directoire de la Banque centrale européenne, qui va nous présenter les derniers développements sur l'euro numérique. Dans sa communication la plus récente, la BCE a annoncé la signature en avril de trois accords avec des organismes de normalisation européens afin de réutiliser des normes techniques ouvertes existantes et accessibles à toutes les parties prenantes pour le traitement des paiements en ligne en euro numérique. La BCE a également poursuivi ses travaux sur son projet pilote dont le lancement est prévu au second semestre 2027 avec la participation du secteur afin d'être prête pour une éventuelle première émission en 2029. Concernant le processus législatif, nous avons déjà eu un certain nombre de débats sur le projet de rapport et sur les amendements des membres de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires lors de précédentes réunions de cette commission. Et les échanges politiques et techniques entre les rapporteurs fictifs sont actuellement en cours et en vue d'aboutir à un texte consolidé avec un vote le 23 juin.
Aujourd'hui, Monsieur Cipollone fera le point sur la poursuite des travaux de la Banque centrale européenne sur le projet d'euro numérique dans le prolongement de l'échange que nous avons eu avec lui dans cette commission en mars dernier. Comme d'habitude, je vais d'abord donner la parole à Piero Cipollone qui est un habitué de cette commission et puis il y aura un jeu de questions-réponses. Bienvenue Piero.
Piero Cipollone
Thank you. Thank you, Aurore. So, dear Chair, honorable members of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be back. I am encouraged by the good progress being made on the single currency package and I look forward to the European Parliament adopting its position. Today, I will start by addressing the important issue of ensuring access to cash.
I will then focus on two key objectives of the digital euro project, an update on these two. The first is the agreement that we have signed with European standard-setting bodies and the second one is the preparation that we are making for the pilot that we will start next year.
Let me start with cash. Ensuring that people remain free to use cash is at the core of our work as a central bank. We therefore welcome the fact that the legislative proposal for the legal tender of cash and for the digital euro have been treated as a single package. This reinforces the notion that the euro cash and the digital euro are the same money. They just use different technologies.
We strongly support the proposal on the legal tender of cash as it safeguards its acceptance and availability and finally aligns cash policies across the euro area. Our commitment to cash is also reflected in the ongoing redesign of euro banknotes. The new design will be based on either European culture or rivers and birds. We expect to have decided on the final theme by the end of this year. We are preparing to issue the first denomination of the new series of banknotes in the early 2030s.
They will incorporate enhanced security features and be produced using more sustainable materials and production methods. As I said, together cash and the digital euro safeguard monetary sovereignty and freedom of choice when making payments. Turning now to the digital euro, let me say a few words about our work on standards. Standards are the language of technology, enabling payment cards, phones and terminals to communicate seamlessly. Just like a shared spoken language allows people to understand each other, standards ensure that payment systems work smoothly, securely and across borders.
Today, Europe heavily depends on proprietary standards controlled by international card schemes. This limits scalability of European solutions as they are dependent on these non-European standards. The European solutions need to either pay for the use of these foreign standards or convince the merchants to use European standards that are currently, that currently have a limited reach. Both of these solutions are costly and inefficient. But the digital euro, thanks to its legal standard status, will provide uniform open standards across the euro area, ensuring that all payment cards, phones and terminals speak the same European language that we have created and that we own ourselves.
European providers will have the option to use this digital euro standard for free to support payments in commercial bank money made at merchants across the euro area. This is one clear example of how the digital euro complements and benefits private solutions. In May, we signed the cooperation agreement with three European standard setting organizations, thereby providing the market with early clarity on the standards that the digital euro will use, upon which private operators can already safely start to build their own solutions. The standards are identified, have been identified in close cooperation with market participants through the rulebook development group.
This early clarity has immediate benefits in that it reduces the adaptation costs for the market and facilitates coordinated adoption. For instance, merchants have to periodically update their payment terminals, so they can already take these standards into account in their next upgrade cycles. Payment service providers can align development plans for their own payment solutions accordingly. However, technical clarity alone is not enough. Only the co-legislator can provide legal certainty that these standards will apply across the euro area by establishing a digital euro that has legal tender status.
Timely progress on the legislative framework is therefore essential. It will allow the benefit of these standards to materialize and European players to scale up even before the digital euro is issued, thereby contributing to our autonomy in payments. We are also preparing for piloting exercise. This exercise will use the infrastructure that we are developing, validate its functionality in real-world conditions, and allow us to collect feedback from all participants. In recent months, we have published supporting documentation and actively engaged with market participants interested in joining the pilot.
In mid-May, we closed the call for expression of interest for PSP wishing to participate. We received more than 50 applications, which we are now evaluating. The applications received show a good balance across business models, including small and large banks, acquiring and distributing PSP, and country coverage. We will announce which PSP have been selected in July, with a view to start developing in the third quarter of this year. The pilot itself is expected to start in the second half of 2027.
Let me conclude. On January 1st, 2027, we will mark the 25th anniversary of euro banknotes and coins entering circulation. Finishing the trialogue and adopting the single currency package by then, including both the legal tender of cash and the digital euro file, would send a strong symbolic message that cash and the digital euro are two sides of the same coin. It would show how money we issue in Europe evolves so to maintain people's freedom to pay, be it with physical cash or the digital euro. I look forward for your questions now.
Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. So, question for EPP, Fernando Navarrete for one minute and a half.
Fernando Navarrete Rojas
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Cipollone. I would like to ask you a couple of questions regarding standards and interoperability. One in the digital euro domain, and so you've spoken about, you've been more explicit about the open standards you announced the last time you were here, but there was also comments from this house telling the other way around.
How is the ECB planning to reuse pre-existing European standards in order to reduce costs for the development of the whole digital euro project? So I want to ask you the other way around. So, my second comment is also on interoperability but on the wholesale space. We had this week the announcement by the Bank for International Settlements on the Agora project. And I'm going to ask you that basically shows that it's possible to have cross-border multi-currency settlement in central bank money, and I think it's a big development.
And I would like to ask you what is the ECB doing that their its own projects Agora and Pontes are going to fulfill the criteria to be interoperable with other central banks might be designing in their own jurisdictions. Thank you very much.
Piero Cipollone
Thank you, thank you for this question. So on the on the usage of of current standard, the standard we have adopted are market standards that are currently used in Europe, so we are not reinventing anything. We are just, you know, we have been talking and we have been talking with the with the market participants as I said, this standard have been identified in the work of the rulebook development group, which is a group where market participants are are part of it, has been identified, those have been identified as the most suitable solution, they have been already in use in Europe. The the difference is that the adoption is voluntary, in that case will be instead mandatory for all merchants and therefore this will provide an integrated solution. So we are reusing the the standard that are already that are already in place.
As for the as for the Agora, we welcome the the news because as you might know, we are part of the Agora. We are not outside the Agora. We are part of the Agora project and what has been done at this point in time there, we are together testing with real real-world transaction whether what you said is possible and indeed we will be running this experiment in June. So the inter I mean, the Agora is part of our is embedded in our API solution, especially for the cross-border solution. So it's really integrated with what our thinking and therefore we really hope, we really hope that the project will work.
As you know, instead, other jurisdiction are not participating, the central bank of other jurisdiction are not participating with tokenized money and this might be hopefully will not be an impediment to a full successful success of the project. But let me repeat, Agora is an integral part of our project on Pontes of our Agora of our API project. Is the inter if you want, in a simple way, is the international part of the API Pontes API Pontes integrated project.
Nikos Papandreou
Welcome, Mr. Cipollone. Thanks for updating us on the progress so far from your side and as our good rapporteur knows, we're progressing quite well on finishing the the file.
Things have been developed, the rulebook's been developed, infrastructure provider selected, two-tier model confirmed, pilot design for 27, first issuance for 29. So I think the other part that's, I'm sure you can inform us on is the awareness of the citizen about the digital euro. Right now, less than half know about it, which is something that's, makes sense. So I guess my question is, what's the ECB strategy to communicate the digital euro to European citizens, not as a technocratic instrument, but part of their lives? What preparations are in place?
What's your timeline? And do you also envision a role for the PSPs, the interface with citizens? Thank you.
Piero Cipollone
Thank you. Thank you for this question, indeed, this is a central issue. So far, you know, we discussed several times this issue, how much the ECB should be involved in the communication. So far we have been kind of in a reactive mode. When asked, we explain because it would have been completely inappropriate for us to go and, you know, advertising a product that is not there and has been not receiving the blessing of the, of the, of the co-legislator.
But now that we see the, the light at the end of the tunnel, we are really planning on that. So what we will be doing in the coming months, we will, we will probably call for a, what, we will put forward a call for both creative ideas and implementation, and this will be a Eurosystem approach. So all central banks, including the ECB, will be together in doing this procurement project, and the first part of the project will be exactly on that. How do we communicate to citizen? We are not, you know, the ECB is not expert on that, so we need, we will rely on market providers, sharing with them our own idea.
Internally, we have been look, we have been working on this, you know, basic idea of, you know, how the logo might look like, what kind of communication we want. So we have been working so far in preparation of that. But certainly, our intention is to have a first, if everything goes in the right way, we will have a first rollout in the communication in view of the, of the pilot, the 2027 pilot, but certainly the full rollover will be in the 2028 in view of the launch. But definitely, this is, this is what, you know, together with the technical preparation, the engine, this is a dimension that is occupying our, our time now. Really, really this is at the center of our reflection.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you, Mr. Cipollone. Thank you very much for your explanations. I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Auk Zijlstra, Patriots shadow rapporteur on this file. Basically, what he wants to say is that the European Parliament is now approaching the final stage of its work on the digital euro package, with the rapporteur aiming to bring the file to a vote before the summer recess. As you are aware, the EPP rapporteur has decided to side with the left on the most contentious issues.
This concerns not only the bundling of the online and offline functionality, but also issues such as the compensation model and the safeguards accompanying the rollout of a digital euro.
For instance, the Parliament position, unlike the Council's position, doesn't include exceptions for Member States where the where transactions fees are very low, which means that digital euro transactions in these countries will be far more expensive than payments with card schemes. Another example is the issue of the pilot phase, where the EPP also decided to side with the left and refuse amendments from the right asking for additional safeguards for vulnerable users, including the elderly and the visually impaired, and rejected the suggestion to include the ethical hacking during the pilot phase in order to increase cybersecurity. By doing so, the European Parliament seems to put a speed...
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Yes, my question is hurry up. What's the ECB view on this issue, especially regarding the national exception under the compensation model and additional cybersecurity and user protection safeguards such as ethical hacking during the pilot phase? Thank you very much.
Piero Cipollone
Um, so first of all, let me take this opportunity to to really thank the the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteur for the work they've been doing. This is not an easy file. Has been a long journey. We all start from different position, different views, but I think is the essence of democracy to discuss and get to a common view for the good of not for us, not to to feed our ego, but for the good of the people that we represent in a way, actually you represent, I am a technocrat in a way on another. So, uh, I really I re- it's not it's not a secret that we started from different position, but through long, uh, thorny discussion, I think the project is getting much better, more robust, more secure, because we have stress-tested it in all this long discussion in the last three years.
So my thank to the to this committee, to the rapporteur and to the shadow rapporteur. On the compensation model, this is a matter of legislator and, uh, you know, what we have been doing is trying to make sure that everyone can benefit from from this from this project. And that's what...
Redner 21
Uh, the first one is actually on, uh, you know, even even though we uh hasn't haven't finished this part, but I would like to know about some future prospects for the euro area, especially in the area of the wholesale digital euro and also potentially using digital euro for, I don't know, uh, defining stablecoins and other things. So how is this perimeter looking right now? And the second one, which has already been mentioned by colleagues, is a communication, because even in this house, sometimes we have to answer the same questions five or six times in a row. Uh, and I know that partially this is because also the some of the citizens do not understand exactly what does the digital euro mean compared to a digital card payment with their own cards. So, uh, I also wanted to know, uh, whether is there any plan, you mentioned some of it, but also together with the industry, together with consumer organizations, to explain the people, uh, the devils which are in the details of the digital euro.
Piero Cipollone
Thank you also for this question.
Let me start for the wholesale. This is very important. It's extremely important. It's extremely important for one fundamental reason. We think that digital finance, tokenized finance, which means that asset being transformed from the current situation in which they are structural entry into the books of some entity to become physical files that people can exchange on a DLT.
This would make huge, huge difference. Will make the market much faster, more efficient, will lower the cost for everyone to issue and to trade asset on the DLT. Will save money, will make possible solution and services that today we don't know. So from the very beginning we have been supporting of this. This is a journey we started in 2022.
Starting reflecting, then you know in 2024 we made this large trial, allow people to experiment with that, providing a cash leg. Why we enter in this space? Because we are, we think the following. If we do not provide a cash leg to this transaction that is on the same ledger, two things can happen. Either the market will never develop because people will not want to run the risk to have a settlement asset something that brings credit risk, so the market will never develop and therefore we lose this opportunity, or the market will go for private solution, only private solution.
We don't have anything against private, but only private solution in the form of stablecoin. So we think that putting central bank money in this space will make the market not just more robust because you have central bank money which is the safest asset you can imagine, but because of the central bank money being available, this market will grow. And by growing will increase the demand also for private solution because today in the wholesale market central bank money is not the only solution, there is also commercial bank money. So we want to reproduce the same structure in a different environment. So we think that there will be a constellation of solution: central bank money, tokenized deposit and possibly stablecoins.
As long as you have a menu of choice, let the market decide which means of payment, which solution is best. The fundamental issue is that everything has to be anchored in central bank money. That's what we are doing. This is the essence of the APIA project. It's not easy.
It's not easy because there are many implication of that. I mean, think about doing monetary policy in the current environment versus an environment where money is on DLT. It's a completely different paradigm and we need to understand. That's why we are taking a little bit of time to develop this whole concept. But the direction of trial is very clear.
So in 20, we will start with a pontes solution, a bridge solution starting from September 2026 and move into this space by the end of 2028.
On the communication, you are absolutely right. This is really, this is really at the center of our reflection, so we are designing now the approach. Certainly, a common, a common communication with the market, especially merchant and PSP providers, if we speak the same language, if we send the same message, this will be much more, much more efficient and reassure citizens that we are doing something important for them. On the one word of caution, I mean, this is difficult stuff. So it takes time to understand.
I mean, if I think at the, at the time that I asked over and over the same question to my team, because it's complicated, it's very complicated. So don't be surprised if there is some uncertainty that people come and go on the same question. We need to be patient. We are doing really something that is transformational and, you know, if this takes a little bit of more time, let it be it. The important thing is to do it well.
Siegbert Frank Droese
Ja, Madam Chair, I will speak in German. Vielen Dank für die Ausführungen, Herr Cipollone. Ich freue mich immer, wenn Sie da sind. Es ist immer wieder erstaunlich zu sehen, mit welcher, mit welcher Leidenschaft Sie uns hier den Euro, den digitalen Euro sozusagen an die Hand geben wollen. Ich teile naturgemäß nicht ganz Ihre Leidenschaft logischerweise für den digitalen Euro.
Ich habe zwei Fragen, eine zur Rechtsgrundlage und zur Akzeptanzpflicht. Der Vorschlag zum digitalen Euro sieht verpflichtende Akzeptanzregeln für bestimmte Marktteilnehmer vor. Wie begründen Sie, dass solche Eingriffe in die Vertragsfreiheit noch vom Anwendungsbereich des Artikels 133 AEUV als Maßnahme zur Verwendung des Euros als einheitliche Währung gedeckt sind? Und die zweite Frage betrifft ein bisschen die Notwendigkeit. Ich frage mich eigentlich, welche Probleme werden denn eigentlich mit der Einführung des digitalen Euro gelöst?
Also europäische Bürger können bereits heute mit Bargeld, Karte, Girokonto, Echtzeitüberweisung schnell und zuverlässig bezahlen. Also ich frage mich immer, welches Problem wird hier eigentlich gelöst? Oder es gibt aus meiner Sicht kein Problem, weil natürlich wird hier oft die Unabhängigkeit von den USA ins Wort gehoben, also Visa und Mastercard als kritisch gesehen, aber warum sollte die EZB ein neues Zahlungssystem aufbauen, anstatt bessere Rahmenbedingungen für unsere europäischen privaten Anbieter zu schaffen? Das frage ich mich. Vielen Dank.
Piero Cipollone
Thank you, thank you for this, for these questions. The mandatory acceptance is a, is a concept that is associated to the legal tender. But I want to, I want to follow you on your reasoning, right? You say, what is the freedom, the contractual, where is the contractual freedom? We are not imposing to anyone to accept something that they don't already do.
As far as I know the legislation, but I might be wrong, we require to accept the digital euro only to those that are already accepting digital means of payments. So it would be strange that they, people accept certain solution, not the central bank, the central, the, the, the central bank money and the legal tender.
On the other hand you could say yes there is the contractual freedom but at the same time you have also to wait for the freedom of people to pay with the money of the states because that's what the legal tender means. On what problem we are trying to solve. Let me put in this way. And I want to make a point on freedom. Then we can discuss about the implication of this for resilience of the market resilience of our payment system.
I just want to remind you that there are 13 country in the euro area where people where there are no even domestic solution domestic solution which means that if something happens to certain provider these people will not be able to pay at all for for. But my fundamental question is today or 10 years ago Europeans were free to pay with their with their central bank money. They could go around and basically do everything they wanted with the euro with the banknotes. Today this is not possible anymore because at least one third of our transaction goes online. So essentially if we don't do anything on this space we are restricting let me stress this word restricting the freedom of people to pay with the means of payment they choose to do.
So we are not here to decide how people should pay. We are here to preserve the freedom of choice of Europeans and freedom is a fundamental value which we all hold dear and we all try to to uphold. So what kind of problem are we trying to solve at the highest level we are trying to solve the problem of preserving people freedom to choose how to pay.
Luděk Niedermayer
Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr. Cipollone to be again with us. So let me start with thanking my colleagues because I believe that that work on digital euro is on the track. So let me ask you because you need this you believe you know that parliament wants to see the project to be started latest early 29 what can go wrong because this is highly demanding IT technological projects that can get difficulties so what are in your view bottlenecks? And the second let me continue with Ludo other question on wholesale digital euro that is completely different animal. So what concrete steps will take place and what's the interplay between possibly tokenized tokenized assets and existing target that is RTGS system based on the central bank money.
Thank you.
Piero Cipollone
So what could be wrong could you go wrong? Obviously you know as a you try to minimize the risk and but things may happen. So the solution we have is to have some some some space some ability to to adjust. So so far everything is going very well.
I mean we are several months into the into the the preparation of the project everything is working as a clock so far. And we have some buffer in case things things go up. One thing that could help would could help is to gain some buffer in the rollout. Let me I'm not asking I'm just posing the problem. If we were we will if we will be required to issue everything by day one we will do.
The margin to adjust at the you know for some things are lower than if we are allowed to say rollover the solution in I'm not asking I'm just posing the problem since you you pose. So a little bit of flexibility in the rollout would offer additional buffer that could be used in case is needed. But I'm not I'm not asking anything I'm just saying. We have very good providers. The core of the system is being built by sophisticated national central banks that have a long experience in constructing that.
But obviously you know then then you have to onboard thousand of banks thousand of PSPs. We are working with them we are you know preparing the third party provider we are doing our best to make sure that everything goes well. So you know let's keep the finger crossed and hopefully nothing will. Now on the wholesale. There are two dimension to that.
If we really want to push this market and we believe this is a good things we really also here we need a strong private public partnership. Private sector need to believe in this. So far we have around the world about 30 billion of asset tokenized. We hope that this market can develop. So private investor they should start to play with this.
They should start need to try to explore useful use case where they can prudently go into and experiment the real advantage of this. But we can help the private sector in doing this in reducing the risk. And we think that there are three things that can be done from the last from the side of the public sector three things. First the ECB need to be providing central bank money in tokenized form. And we are working on this.
So far everything is going well. Second we need to provide some assurance legal assurance. What is it that what is it a tokenized deposit in Europe? We don't know. We need some you know clarification and solid base.
How this asset will be treated? Are we going to treat them along national lines and therefore fragmented again the market or are we going to provide a European regulation? This is also very important. Third things definitely this market will take off if some member states will start to experiment issuing their sovereign bonds on DLT.
I know that there is some experiment going on in Europe, we should encourage that. This is extremely important because as far as I know, Europe is the only jurisdiction around the world that is thinking so holistically on this issue. We should not lose this opportunity and leverage this this lead.
Jonás Fernández
Muchas gracias, chair, un placer tenerle aquí de nuevo, señor Cipollone. Estamos ya en los últimos días, podríamos decir, de la negociación parlamentaria en torno al paquete del euro digital. En otras ocasiones le he preguntado por detalles referentes al reglamento del euro digital, pero en esta ocasión me gustaría preguntarle sobre el reglamento del legal tender. Porque, en fin, desde desde que se ha iniciado esta esta discusión, este proyecto, yo he recibido infinidad de comentarios de ciudadanos europeos pidiéndome que refuerce el uso del efectivo en la vida real. En este edificio, en este Parlamento, hay comercios en los que no podemos pagar en efectivo, que yo creo que raya el marco el marco legal.
Y como decía al inicio, para ganar legitimidad para el euro digital, necesitamos también asegurar a los ciudadanos el uso del efectivo. Y en este sentido, en fin, en el marco de la discusión que estamos teniendo, mi grupo ha presentado varias enmiendas para fortalecer el uso del efectivo que aparece en la propia propuesta de la Comisión. Creemos que hay espacio para mejorar y fortalecer el uso del efectivo y me gustaría preguntarle en qué medida usted considera que la propuesta de la Comisión puede reforzarse en este área, que es clave para garantizar la legitimidad y el apoyo de los ciudadanos. Gracias.
Piero Cipollone
So, I could not agree more. I mean, the ECB, I think the ECB has been very clear from the very beginning. We think that we should do our the utmost to preserve the possibility to have cash as a mean of payment in the economy. And as far as I know, in the opinion that we expressed, but also in the discussion, we have been among the most vocal in asking for reducing as much as possible the exceptions to acceptance of cash. Exactly because because cash has several several important implication.
One is resilience, and we know that things can happen. Second, inclusiveness, people can pay, even the least educated people know how to pay with cash. It's very natural way, so it's very important. Privacy, taking into account the all the AML consideration. So we have been we have been we have been vocal on this.
Now, there are two dimension of this. One is the supply, you know, the possibility to have access to cash, and one is the possibility to pay with cash. We should look into the details and make sure that we work on both dimension, on the accessibility of cash, and we are doing our part, you know, producing new banknotes that are more robust and more relatable for people.
But again, I mean, whatever can be done to make sure that people preserve the possibility to pay with cash, we will support.
Fabio De Masi
Thank you, Chair, that was quicker than I expected. Thank you, Mr. Cipollone. So I fully understand that the digital euro tries to mimic cash like a kind of digital cash. However, you know that there are widespread concerns in our constituencies that it would contribute to drive out further physical cash. And we know that driving out physical cash entirely would of course make people more vulnerable to digital oligopolies.
I noticed that in Austria there is an initiative of the Austrian National Bank that they are also set up more ATMs in rural areas to guarantee the supply with physical cash in rural areas where commercial banks retreat. Would that be an initiative that the European Central Bank would, let's say, be supportive of, more national central banks adopting such a complementary strategy?
Piero Cipollone
As I said, there are several initiatives around Europe to preserve the possibility of people to have access to cash. That is one. Another one is payment service providers, banks sitting together to offer local solutions to have access to cash. There are initiatives where, for example, the cashback also is a possibility where you can withdraw cash from the merchants. So I don't know whether there is an optimal solution, but again, I think that's very important that private initiatives, for example, the post offices also another important access point for cash, and these are all welcome initiatives.
We don't, again, I insist on this, we really think that cash is an important solution and we welcome any initiative which preserve the role of cash. Obviously, everyone has to do the job. I mean, we cannot force the private sector to do something or other things. Certainly the legal tender status and the fact that we harmonized the way in which cash will be accepted in Europe is a clarity that will help to have cash. So again, I mean, we have been, you know, from our side, I think we have done really whatever was in our remit to make sure that people had the possibility to preserve cash and we also have, you know, been very vocal on this.
So whatever initiative can be taken from the private sector to implement this, I think we can safely say that we support it.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. Any question? No.
Je me permets de vous poser une question, Piero. Peut-être deux questions sur la nécessité de se projeter. On a du mal à savoir exactement, même si c'est les colégislateurs évidemment qui vont décider comment on paiera avec l'euro numérique, mais en gros, est-ce que vous pourriez à un moment nous faire une sorte de simulation ou projection ou d'explication de comment concrètement on paiera avec l'euro numérique ? Est-ce qu'on paiera comment, est-ce qu'on aura une application dédiée sur notre smartphone ? Enfin, comment ça fonctionnerait ?
Ça c'est la première question. Deuxième question sur la question des rails de paiement qui est vraiment à mon sens la pierre angulaire de ce projet, mais vous me direz si c'est vrai ou pas, et sur lesquels les solutions privées pourront tout de suite se greffer. Est-ce que ce sera prêt d'ici 2027 avant même qu'on ait l'euro digital sur nos smartphones par exemple ? Merci beaucoup.
Piero Cipollone
So the way, thank you Aurore for this question. So the way I mean the way originally we thought this could work and we still think hope that this will be a solution is that there could be two ways for people to pay. Let me make the first the most simple. Either people can have a card like today which is a digital euro card and they can pay very much like today. Or people can download through their PSP an app representing the app of the digital euro which is the way, I mean you would use it very much like any other app.
Now this app could be standalone or embedded into say the app of the bank. So open you have your own bank, you open the app and then you have different possibility to pay. Why we have been insisting on the importance of this app? For I would say three reasons essentially. The first reason is the fact that is inclusiveness.
We are designing this app or we will design this app, actually there is already a group a company that is working on that. We will design this app in a way that is has features that are much better than the one required by the legislation. We have a European accessibility requirements. We want to do much better than that to take into account the difficulties that we have in part of our population. We have an aging society, people might be not completely tech-savvy.
So we want to design an app that will be catering also that will be simple, user-friendly to be able to cater for the needs also for these people. So inclusiveness is a very important issue. Second, resilience. You want to make sure that, you know, you have an alternative way to pay in case the private solution does not work. And I forgot the third reason.
Oh yeah, the obviously is the resilient part, is the resilient part of the digital euro.
Now, we opted and, you know, we have been very clear asking to make mandatory for the PSP to provide this solution exactly for this reason that I mentioned. Also being also knowing the fact that this is not hugely costly for the banks to implement. In case this will not in case this will not be mandatory, then then the solution will be implemented by the banks. They will have an app through which they will allow you to pay through the digital euro. They need to provide you the same level of access.
I forgot your second question, sorry.
Piero Cipollone
Now, the the rate to pay definitely let me put it in this way. The acceptance network will be there because people will as I was trying to say, right, we know the standard. From the moment from the moment the legislation will be approved, everyone will know that what are the what are the standards that need to be implemented at the terminal. Now, this terminal 80% of this terminal can be updated through software. So you don't need to physically replace it.
You can implement you can update through through software and therefore it's not going to be very difficult. There is a 20% that probably need to be replaced, but those are the only are the old ones. And this stuff has a cycle that it's lasts about five years. So we expect that from, you know, the moment in which we will have in place the legislation until the moment we will roll out, the natural cycle of substitution of the of the terminals will will also cater for for this. So we this is not we don't expect to be a problem.
For the for the pilot, for the pilot, we will have, you know, the preliminary part of it, the the part that we will implement in 2027 is what we call family and friends. So will be a restricted number of people, essentially these are the the employees of the of the Eurosystem that will try and we are preparing what we call the beta digital euro to be sure that we can roll out this.
Piero Cipollone
Yeah, if there are no questions other questions. So no, I I really want to take this opportunity to to really thank the the ECON Committee, the chair, the rapporteur, the the shadow rapporteur, because it's been a long journey. I understand, I realize that as I said at the beginning, you know, was not easy. This is really an important topic, was not easy. The as I said many times, right, money is trust.
The debate we had for the last three years, I hope are going to these debates are going to reinforce the trust of the citizen in what we are doing. This is really important. So I know how much work you have put in it. I know how many discussion you had.
You turned all the possible stones and I really thank you for that because this, as I said, has made the project much more robust, much more resilient. And we have stress-tested it from the very beginning at the maximum extent we could do. So, let me thank you once again. And I hope that you will invite me anyway, even after the legislation is in place, so that I have the pleasure to update you about the evolution.
Aurore Lalucq
Merci, Piero Cipollone. Merci beaucoup d'avoir été, d'être venu régulièrement vous prêter à ce jeu des questions-réponses. C'était extrêmement utile pour construire justement cette confiance. Merci infiniment.
Dear colleagues, can go back to your seat. We now turn to the first exchange of view on the market integration and supervision package, which follows the presentation of the legislative package by the Commission in December 2025. The package consists of three legislative proposals: a master regulation, whose rapporteur is Markus Ferber for EPP, a master directive, whose rapporteur is Eero Heinäluoma for S&D, and the settlement finality regulation, whose rapporteur is Giovanni Crosetto from ECR. I don't know if he's here. He's not here.
Okay. So, I will start with the rapporteurs and I will give the floor to Markus Ferber for six minutes.
Markus Ferber
Vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen, das Paket, über das wir heute sprechen, trägt seine Ziele bereits im Namen. Es geht um Marktintegration und um Aufsicht, Marktintegrations- und Aufsichtspaket. Es geht also darum, ob europäische Kapitalmärkte endlich die Rolle spielen können, die sie in einer Wirtschaft, in einem Binnenmarkt spielen müssen, nämlich Investitionen in ausreichender Form auch zur Verfügung zu stellen. Neben diesen beiden Zielen möchte ich auch noch kurz auf das Thema Innovation im Finanzsektor und einige horizontale Aspekte eingehen, die ebenfalls hier mit zu adressieren sind. Ich beginne mal mit der Marktintegration.
Beim Thema Marktintegration hat die Kommission viele gute Ansätze identifiziert, um grenzüberschreitende Hindernisse abzubauen. Passporting, mehr Interkonnektivität, besser integriertes Reporting, das sind alles Aspekte, die in die richtige Richtung gehen und die wir auch weiterentwickeln sollten. Es gibt aber eine Dimension der Marktfragmentierung, die meiner Meinung nach zu wenig im Paket Beachtung findet, die Fragmentierung der Liquidität. Wir beobachten seit Jahren, wie immer mehr Handelsvolumina auf intransparente, bilaterale Handelsplätze verlagert werden, weg von den regulierten, transparenten Märkten. Das ist kein technisches Detail, sondern wirklich ein Problem, denn eine fragmentierte Liquiditätslandschaft schwächt die Preisbildung, erhöht die Kosten für Anleger und macht unsere Märkte in Europa weniger attraktiv für institutionelle Investoren.
Das zweite Thema, das ich kurz ansprechen möchte, ist das Thema Aufsicht.
Das Paket verfolgt zu Recht das Ziel konsistenter Aufsichtsergebnisse. Aber gleichzeitig gilt auch: Zentralisierung an sich ist kein Selbstzweck und sie ist auch nicht überall die passende Antwort. Was spricht natürlich für eine zentralisierte Aufsicht? Immer dann, wenn es um grenzüberschreitende Infrastruktur geht, macht es auch Sinn, zentral zu beaufsichtigen. Ich glaube, das ist eine grundsätzliche Linie, die wir hier verfolgen sollten.
Zentrale Gegenparteien, Zentralverwahrer, große Handelsplattformen, das sind grenzüberschreitend tätige Institutionen, wo eine zentrale Aufsicht auch Sinn macht. Ein bisschen anders liegt der Fall bei Sektoren mit vielen kleineren, stärker lokal verwurzelten Akteuren, zum Beispiel bei Investmentfonds im Kryptobereich. Hier ist das Argument für nationale Zuständigkeit durchaus überzeugender aufgrund der schieren Anzahl an Marktteilnehmern, aber auch, weil hier lokales Aufsichtswissen einen echten Mehrwert mit sich bringt. Also mir geht's darum, nicht einfach zu sagen, Zentralisierung ist ein Wert an sich, sondern wir müssen bei jedem Thema genau anschauen, wo ist die Aufsicht am besten anzusiedeln. Innovation und Digital Ledger Technologies.
Europa hat bei diesem Thema, bei Distributed Ledger Technologies, bisher alles richtig gemacht. Und das ist ja selten genug. Wir sollten also alles tun, um diese erreichten Dinge auch entsprechend weiterzuentwickeln. Es gibt ein regulatorisches Pilotregime, das sich bewährt hat und das geholfen hat, die Technologie ausreifen zu lassen. Dieses Regime wird international als ein vernünftiger Rahmen anerkannt, aber die Nutzung bleibt begrenzt.
Deswegen sollten wir darüber nachdenken, wie wir hier die Praxistauglichkeit verbessern können. Die zentrale Frage lautet also: Was hält momentan die Marktteilnehmer davon ab, dieses Regime zu nutzen? Sind's die Schwellenwerte, die Übergangspfade, die Unsicherheit, was nach dem Piloten kommt? Ich glaube, dazu sollten wir Antworten geben. Ich werde das auch versuchen in meinem Bericht, um ein möglichst ambitioniertes DLT-Regime zu entwickeln.
Europa kann in der Tokenisierung von Finanzinstrumenten eine globale Führungsrolle übernehmen, aber dafür braucht man einen klaren Rechtsrahmen, der Investitionen in diese Infrastruktur auch attraktiv macht. Und ich glaube, dafür müssen wir jetzt die Weichen stellen. Da gibt's noch ein paar horizontale Fragen, wie so oft bei solchen Paketen. Die wichtigste horizontale Thematik ist dabei die Governance der ESMA. Das Paket greift diese Frage auf, aber es reicht, glaube ich, nicht weit genug.
Ein zentrales Problem, das uns bisher bei der ESMA-Governance ja auch Sorgen bereitet hat, ist, dass die ESMA von den nationalen Aufsichtsinteressen dominiert wird. Sowohl die rein nationale Perspektive als auch der zu starke Aufsichts- und Risikofokus sehe ich hier als Problem. Deswegen sollten wir darüber reden, wie wir die europäische Perspektive stärken können. Die Kommission schlägt ja ein Executive Board vor und ich glaube, das sollten wir auch stärken, damit wirklich diese europäische Perspektive stärker zum Tragen kommt. Wir sollten aber auch überlegen, wie wir zu einem holistischeren Ansatz kommen, der auch das Thema Wettbewerbsfähigkeit als eine Aufgabe der ESMA stärker berücksichtigt.
Die Modelle bei den Briten zeigen, dass das funktionieren kann. FCA ist ja bekannt, dass hier das Mandat ausgeweitet wurde. Ich denke, dass wir darüber auch nachdenken sollten. Dazu kommt noch die Frage der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Jede neue Berichtspflicht, jedes neue Level-2-Ermächtigung muss sich auch an einer Frage messen lassen, nämlich: Steht der regulatorische Mehrwert in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zur Belastung?
Das gilt für die Verordnung, aber natürlich auch für die Richtlinie ELTIF, wo ich dein Shadow sein darf, die in einzelnen Bereichen das Risiko ja birgt, bestehende Anforderungen zu verschärfen, ohne einen klaren Integrationsgewinn zu erzeugen.
Das sind in aller Kürze sechs Minuten einige Aspekte, über die wir beim Marktintegrations- und Aufsichtspaket im Detail reden müssen. Ich freue mich auf die Debatte und bin gespannt, was die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dazu beitragen. Vielen Dank.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thanks, and the starting point is really clear. It's 34 years since the creation of the single market in 1992, allowing free movement of persons, goods, capitals, and also services. We know that since then Europe has changed dramatically. What hardly hasn't changed though is regulatory and supervisory fragmentation in the financial markets, and that's a pity. A problem we all know for a long time, which seems to be hard to tackle effectively.
And this comes at a cost, which in the end is picked up by EU investors, citizens, companies, as clearly outlined by the IMF. Internal barriers within the single market are equivalent to 45% tariff on goods and 110% tariff on services. So it's obvious this MiPS package is long overdue. It's therefore key to stick to this political momentum and make ambitious progress. Looking at the master regulation, my group welcomes ambitious reforms in the trading and post-trading landscape.
There should be no taboo, be it in the field of stock exchanges, CSDs, CCPs, GAPs. These are all critical entities in the whole financial architecture. However, they are in the first place facilitators, or that's what they should be. And that's what we should do with this package, introducing reforms which facilitate to ensure investors and EU companies get the better deal and can operate more seamlessly across borders under clear centralized supervision. Therefore, consolidation towards bigger groups can be positive to create more efficiencies.
However, this should generate also more competition and better end prices for investors. This should be our main objective with this package, and as it is not sure we have seen this so far, neither in the trade or post-trade landscape. We need ambitious reforms, not just cosmetic changes. One important question here is the question of thresholds of the scope. To me, this is quite simple.
In is in, regardless where the entity is based. We also need better interconnected post-trade entities, as the prices in the EU are far too high for these services. We also need in this package a solution for the multi-issuance problem of stablecoins, problem which we have acknowledged before in this committee. If we are serious about an integrated capital market which is efficient and delivers, all these points are no-brainers. On the DLT part, we, my group, would be like to be on the side of real innovations which can take place in an environment which is responsible from financial stability perspective.
And then there is the question of supervision, which was already mentioned here.
Rules which are not properly supervised are properly and properly enforced are not worth the paper. After 40 after 34 years more or less of muddling it's quite clear we need a new start in this respect. We therefore need a strong ESMA responsible for supervising all significant entities. And we should provide it with effective tools and instruments which can bite and with the governance that is workable and which can decide swiftly and independently. On the master directive in particular we need to set the bar of ambition high.
We simply cannot continue with fragmented fund landscape regulated by UCITS and AIFMD rules. Of course there are also other reasons behind this picture but the ESMA numbers are quite clear. 6,500 funds 65,000 funds in the European Union versus 7,500 funds in USA. Against this background I welcome many of the Commission proposals. It's positive that marketing notifications get streamlined and cross-border distribution of funds gets easier.
There is no place for gold-plating in an integrated market. At the same time it's clear that Commission falls short on some other areas. Indeed for example the supervisory approach as suggested risks to fall a little bit short towards the ambition and risks not to be future-proof. This needs to be modified in the Parliament. An integrated market can only function properly in a financial stable environment where investors are properly protected.
In this respect I believe the master directive can still benefit from some additional measures to address risks properly or where we see that the market has failed. And finally it's also essential that an investment fund industry who wants to reap the benefits of a fully integrated market also contributes its fair share to the European Union without any setting up of links towards non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. To conclude I look forward to work on this package with my colleagues towards a strong Parliament position position which will make this Commission proposal even better.
Giovanni Crosetto
Thank you Chair dear colleagues. Before opening with a few reflections let me say that this is a package that must be approached with the right level of seriousness and a strong spirit of cooperation while carefully taking into account both the opportunities and the potential risks that such an important revision may entail. We as ECR group express our appreciation for the initiative of the European Commission aimed at simplifying and streamlining key aspect of the Union legislative framework within the market integration and supervision package. The market integration and supervision package we are discussing today is an important step towards more integrated efficient and competitive financial markets. Three parts of the package can be distinguished.
First the package contains a kind of omnibus for capital markets law where barriers are taken down and procedures are simplified.
Second, the package proposes an overhaul of the supervisory structure on a broad set of mostly significant non-bank financial sector companies towards more powers for ESMA. Third, the package introduces adaptations to the regulatory framework for the usage of DLT to facilitate financial market innovation. With regard to the first element of the omnibus for capital market law, several elements are going in the right direction. We support the objectives of the proposal of breaking down barriers for cross-border operations and of the interconnection or interoperability of our capital markets. We also support the simplification on several dimensions, such as simplified authorization procedures for cross-borders operations, changing directives to regulations and data management.
Greater transparency and interconnection requirements have the potential to spur competition. We do need to remain vigilant that our proposals are proportionate and envisage the competitiveness and robustness of our financial system. On the second element of supervision, stronger powers of ESMA can bring about more supervisory convergence. Several aspect need to be taken into account in this discussion. ESMA will go through a substantial organizational change, so a careful balance will have to be sought to make this a success.
It will be important to take a gradual approach to make sure that the current expertise endures in the new supervisory framework. Many lessons can be learned from previous episodes of reforms of the supervisory framework in the financial sector. On the one hand, there are risks that remain at the national level, even if the package is adopted fully, so we will need to find a way to engage the national competent authorities in certain decision-making processes. On the other hand, we need to make sure that our proposals do not simply create a duplication of costs. On the third element of financial innovation, the regulatory framework needs to be ready for the future.
The EU has played a leading role in the experimentation within DLT, and nowadays third countries are picking up the technology rapidly. To allow for wider take-up in the traditional financial markets, we will need to work on adapting our regulatory framework, also to avoid creating permanent parallel regimes, where technological neutrality is the keyword. However, a more detail analysis highlight certain issues which, if not adequately managed, risk undermining the achieving of the objectives pursued. In this context, it is also necessary that ESMA, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it, systematically takes into account the need to strengthen the competitiveness and integration of the Union's capital markets. And we, as ECR, believe that competitiveness should be part of the mandate of all the European institution, and not only an empty statement.
Let me now briefly finish with the package on which I am rapporteur, that is settlement finality.
The shift from a directive to a regulation marks a major step toward a truly European market. It gives us at last the possibility of a single rulebook in an area where legal certainty is not a secondary issue, but should be the foundation of trust, stability, and cross-border activity. Settlement finality may appear highly technical, but its importance is profoundly political and economic. When market participants know with certainty when a transfer order enters a system, when it becomes irrevocable, and when settlement is final, they can operate across borders with greater confidence, lower legal risk, and lower operational cost to foster deep and liquid capital markets. As you know, this is a very comprehensive package, colleagues, with many technical details, many political implications, and we know many national interests.
But we have to be committed to work principally in the European interest. Thank you very much.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. We'll now give the floor to the shadow rapporteur. I don't know if there is someone from EPP. Okay, so we move to Renew, and I will give the floor to Billy Kelleher.
Billy Kelleher
Merci beaucoup, Madam Chair. Firstly, thank you rapporteurs for your outlining of the position with regard to MISP. This is an extremely important package for the competitiveness of the European Union. Both the Draghi report and the Letta report identified fragmented European capital markets as a major obstacle to growth, investment, and competitiveness. Europe faces an investment gap of about 800 billion per year, probably has increased since Draghi published the report, and to close that gap we need to mobilize private capital more effectively and channel it towards productive investment.
And if you look at the balance sheets of and public debt of member states across the European Union, it clearly a lot of the heavy lifting will require private capital rather than public funds. The European Commission and the member states have recognized the urgency of this project and its potential to act as a catalyst for growth, and they have set themselves an ambitious timeline, and Parliament should seek to match that ambition. I really urge all colleagues to realize the importance of speed in terms of addressing this particular proposal that has come before us to ensure that while we scrutinize it, while we assess it, it is a significant package at the same time. I believe that we should not put obstacles towards its passage through the Parliament and ensure that the other co-legislator as well moves quickly to implement. On supervision, supervision understandably is at the center of the debate surrounding this package.
The proposals are ambitious and deserve careful consideration, and we should assess each provision against four key objectives: one, supervisory effectiveness; two, business confidence and legal certainty; three, simplification; and four, market integration and investment capacity. One important principle that is that responsibility for supervisory decision-making must be clear, whether decisions are taken at national level or by ESMA. The framework must ensure decision-making is efficient, precise, and responsive. And when you look at the report, I mean it is the one key area I believe we have to make progress in to ensure that if it is ESMA is the supervisory authority, well then it has to be clear in that, and we have clear lines of demarcation rather than we having a situation where we are still unsure after passing this package as to whether it's national competent authorities or ESMA or a combination of both are the supervisory authorities. Clear distinctions must be made.
We strongly welcome the proposals to simplify and streamline the rules on authorization, passporting, marketing, and distribution, and we can also see the rationale for introducing a definition of an EU group. However, we will need to assess carefully whether the proposed definition aligns with established market structures and normal industry practice.
On the consolidated tape, we welcome the proposal to expand the scope of the market data from one to five layers and to introduce venue attribution. We should examine carefully which entities and asset classes are brought within scope to ensure the framework supports market efficiency and enhances the attractiveness of EU capital markets. Already reference has been made to the fact that we need to have deep liquidity in our markets and that's certainly something that will be either a testament to our success or otherwise in what we decide to pass ultimately from the Parliament's perspective. On clearing and settlement, we strongly support measures aimed at improving interconnectivity and interoperability across the Union. These provisions have the potential to reduce fragmentation and improve efficiency of European markets.
However, we also need to look at whether the proposed structures and calibration is proportionate. On digital ledger technology, we support the extension of the DLT pilot regime. If you look at it, it hasn't been uptaken with the volume that we had hoped and certainly I think we should take on board what has been said by Ismael and others and we certainly need to extend it and to maybe facilitate some alterations to it while still providing the necessary safeguards to make it more attractive for take-up as it is a pilot scheme and we need to broaden its usage. In conclusion, this is a mammoth package and it has the potential to deliver a mammoth impact. I look forward to working with colleagues across this committee, many of whom bring significant expertise to these files.
As we proceed, we should keep sight of broader objectives, building deeper, more integrated European capital markets, and we must avoid becoming entrenched in national positions and instead focus on delivering outcomes that strengthen the European economy as a whole. And I'd just say this, I mean, we've debated this in the plenary sessions and at committees from time to time and in other fora and at conferences, etc. I mean, if we look at this through the prism of member states only, well then we are going to have a fragmented capital market. And I just urge that colleagues would all be brave in this context, in view of what Draghi has said, what Letta has said, and what we know ourselves as well, what we know ourselves, that if we try to protect national sovereignty of oversight in every aspect, well then clearly we will be doing a grave disservice to the future competitiveness of the European Union and to the generations that depend on us increasing our competitiveness to make Europe an attractive place for investment and to build on our success to date. So thank you very much, Chair.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. I will now give the floor to the European Commission, to the Director-General of DG FISMA, Gerassimos Thomas.
Gerassimos Thomas
Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members. It's a pleasure to be with you today to discuss a topic which I must say is close to my heart and has been close to my heart for most of the 34 years that was mentioned by Eero Heinäluoma. So I've been around a long time and it's not the first time I've been here to talk about this subject. But let me begin this occasion by thanking the rapporteurs and the shadows for their work on this highly important file. I have to say overall I'm very encouraged by what I've heard today.
The market integration and supervision package, or the MISP, is a cornerstone of the savings and investment union. It reflects a simple reality, as identified by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, that a more integrated and efficient single market for capital is essential for the EU to boost its growth and competitiveness.
Now the starting point is well known. Despite past efforts over so many years, EU capital markets remain fragmented and underdeveloped. They do not provide the scale that Europe needs. Now this matters because in today's economy, competitiveness increasingly depends on innovation and scale. Let's be clear that Europe is not short of innovative talent.
Too often, however, it is short of the financing conditions needed to develop those ideas, scale them up, keep them in Europe. So the unfortunate fact is that our EU savings leave the EU to finance our EU innovation, but somewhere else. This is not really a situation that seems very sensible. And that's why creating a strong and vibrant European capital market is not some kind of luxury. It's a necessity, and even more so in the current geopolitical circumstances.
And against that background, this package is a classic single market exercise. It removes barriers to cross-border activity and supports market-driven consolidation in trading, post-trading, and asset management. It also addresses barriers to innovation and those stemming from divergent supervision. The package simplifies rules and reduces burdens. By harmonizing requirements, reducing gold-plating, and streamlining overlapping supervisory arrangements, it makes it simpler for market participants to operate across borders and therefore integrate the markets.
Supervision is, of course, one of the more sensitive topics. But if we're serious about a single market for capital and we're serious about removing barriers, we also need to remove supervisory barriers. Today, different supervisory practices across Member States create those barriers. They create costs, they create complexity, and they create opportunities for arbitrage. And in all these ways, they make cross-border activity more difficult than it should be.
Our package on supervision is not a one-size-fits-all approach, but proposes the supervisory arrangements that are most appropriate depending on the case in hand. All the measures in the package are interlinked. They'll have the greatest impact if the package is preserved as a coherent whole and with high ambition. And speed is also essential. The One Europe, One Market roadmap agreed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission commits the three institutions to an agreement on MiFIR by the end of 2026.
That roadmap acknowledges that achieving this goal will require political will, engagement, and ambition from all institutional actors at EU and national level. We should be clear that we are closely watched by investors across the globe. These people are searching for attractive places to put their capital. Delivering on the MiFIR gives a strong political message showing that we're really serious about integrating our markets and building a true savings and investment union. On that basis, those investors will decide to relocate significant investments towards the EU.
So in conclusion, Madam Chair, the Commission relies on the European Parliament to maintain the European vision needed to take this exceptionally important file across the line with a high level of ambition. And of course, the Commission stands ready to support the Parliament fully in its work. Thank you.
Elena Alexandra Calistru
Thank you. I will now give the floor to Ms. Elena Alexandra Calistru, President of the ECO section of the European Economic and Social Committee, for two minutes. The floor is yours.
Thank you so much for having us, especially since we still have a bit of time to build on the consensus, not only around the diagnosis that we all share, but also on the potential solutions. What I can tell you from the EESC, and this was adopted with a strong unanimity, is that we support the Commission's proposal and we also ask for a bit more ambition when it comes to this package, because we do need that in order to mobilize, we need more capital and we need more private capital if we want to finance all the objectives that we have.
In particular we recommend two major things. The first one is to increase transparency and reduce liquidity fragmentation in EU equity markets more specifically to increase transparency for systematic internalizers and to ensure that ESMA and the UK Financial Conduct Authority work together to solve the data issues that might appear. We think that Europe cannot build deep capital markets while the liquidity remains fragmented across multiple trading venues and jurisdictions. The second major recommendation and this is coming from the experience that our rapporteur has had is to establish a category of covered cross-border bonds for large private placements under an EU level rulebook with of course ESMA supervision that could enhance attractiveness of public markets in the EU. On supervision we we recommend to ensure that the supervisory authorities deliver identical outcomes across the EU that they are further removed overlapping reporting obligations and that we reduce duplication and complexity by allocating clearly the responsibilities at the EU and national levels.
Of course it's also necessary to avoid overlapping layers of supervision by mandating further coordination between the different supervisory authorities. I just conclude by saying that we hope that the package proposed by the Commission will not be watered down and that it will as one of the rapporteurs said be pushing for more ambition with the help of the Parliament we think that we we get a strong reminder that Europe needs capital markets that are more integrated more liquid and more competitive if we want the European savings to finance European growth. I thank you very much and we stand at your disposal for any doubt or additional details. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. Any catch-the-eye? No so I will give the floor back to the rapporteur for some closing remark Markus Ferber for EPP.
Markus Ferber
Yeah thank you very much I will try to do it now in English. First of all I appreciate the spirit. I hope we can maintain that that till the end of the negotiations we have this good cooperation which I felt already when we had the hearing and I am feeling today as well. I appreciate all the support we get even from the European Social and Economic and Social Committee but especially from the Commission and I have discussed more than once with our Parliament's President that all services are provided that we can deliver in proper time as well sorry that means meeting rooms translation capacities and all the stuff as well to fit the target what the head of states have already agreed on. So I hope we can manage that as well.
You will be surprised that a lot of things which have been brought up by the colleagues will be already be in my report but as I had only six minutes to present the first ideas I could not go in all the details but I think everything which I have heard throughout all the colleagues you will see even in my draft and I hope that my ideas will be brought forward from my colleagues as well in their files. So I'm really optimistic that we are not only able to deliver in time but we are also able to deliver a European approach which creates a benefit for the European Union for the single market and for the people.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thank you. Eero Heinäluoma for the S&D.
Thank you and may I also thank for all the contributions and also thank for the good spirit in in the presentations it tells that we all acknowledge our responsibility in this area.
We know each other's, I'm pretty sure that we will have a fruitful and constructive process in the weeks coming. I can just say that Marcus is a little bit longer in your work and I'm a little bit behind, which means that I can totally take into account all the discussions here today. And the draft will be next week's duties. Thanks.
Giovanni Crosetto
Yes, also also from my side, thank you very much to to the colleagues for the spirit that all the negotiation team has having approach in this very important package. And with regard, I will use this this time to add maybe some details about the package on which I have the opportunity on being rapporteur, that is the third, the settlement finality one. I think that the shift from the current directive to a forthcoming regulation seems positive in the interest of harmonization in the EU, thereby reducing legal uncertainty and enhancing predictability. And I think that this is especially true with regards to the uniform and unequivocal identification of the moment of finality, that is the time of entry of a transfer order in a design system, its relevant irrevocability and subsequent finality, which is particular importance also in the event of default of a counterpart to the transaction. Indeed, we strongly value the European Commission intention to harmonize the timing when a transfer order becomes irrevocable, the timing when settlement becomes legally final and binding and the way this interacts with the timing of insolvency.
Likewise, we value the European Commission new definition of system with common rules and standardized procedures, as well as we value the new framework for the designated system. Again, thank you very much to all of you. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Okay, dear colleagues, if you can go back to your seat, we have another report to discuss. And we now turn to the presentation of the draft report on the amending regulation on sustainability-related disclosure in the financial services sector, SFDR. And I will now give the floor, please, thank you, to the Renew rapporteur, Mr. Herbrand.
The floor is yours for six minutes.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it's great after the work done on the draft report that we can now finally present the report. But before I start doing so, maybe a few general remarks, because I think they are important to better understand this file. First of all, it's important to understand what this regulation is about and what it's not about. And it's important to emphasize that this is not a regulation that tries to describe how people should invest.
And nor is it steering investments towards sustainability. It is most of all a disclosure regulation. It aims to enhance transparency and especially focusing on retail investors. And through creating more transparency, it should help mobilize private funds towards sustainability aims. In 2022, a comprehensive assessment and review started.
And it became quite clear by then and even before that the sustainable finance disclosure regulation was not very efficient. The transparency was not functional for the main target group, being retail investors. It was too detailed and quite often too extensive. And in time, it was more and more being used as a labeling and marketing tool, but it was not designed to do so. And like many other regulations, it had too much compliance burdens for, in this case, the financial market participants.
And it's good to emphasize that the European Commission did a very good and thorough job. It, all stakeholders were fully engaged in the assessment and their input was well received and used for the revision. And so if we look at the current revision, we see that it's considerably simplified with far lower compliance costs, that it makes sustainable investment products easier for investors to understand and compare, and that it much better prevents any greenwashing. But of course, when I started as rapporteur, I also talked to many, many stakeholders myself. And I do believe that there are a few elements that can improve this already very good proposal from the Commission.
And I identify three main elements. First of all, we should even make it more transparent. We should be aware that the SFDR is a voluntary regime for those financial products that really integrate sustainability strategies and want to use it as a selling point to customers. And therefore, we should make it clear to those customers when a product is not categorized under SFDR with a simple statement. And I also believe that it's important that the comparability of products between categories is improved, so that customers should be able to gauge between product best, which product best suits their needs within a category by comparing them on the same indicators.
And that is not the case with the Commission proposal.
Second element I would like to highlight is credibility. I think we need more credibility for this regulation because the SFDR only works when retail investors can rely on the promises and that sustainable investments are really sustainable because those investors that deliberately choose for the sustainable option they have to be certain that their option is clearly sustainable. And once again they're not forced or steered towards it it's their own choice so it's a matter of credibility that the sustainable investments as we define them are really sustainable. The third element is that we can even make it less burdensome and that has mostly to do with the to start applying this regulation as soon as it enters into force so that is my my third element. Finally Madam Chair we're all aware that there are lobbies to stretch the definitions of Article 7, 8 and 9.
And they want to stretch it in such a way that more private companies and also public debts can qualify under these articles. And I fully understand the political and also financial interests here but it would be a wrong approach and it would be undermining the credibility of the SFDR which I explained before. And I started my presentation with saying what the SFDR is and what it is not and it's mostly about transparency. And we make this law especially for retail investors for people who have relatively little money to spend on these financial products. And this is for people that are deliberately choosing to invest in sustainability financial instruments or focus on other social or governance objectives.
And they have to be able to trust these categories. They have to be reliable and I very strongly believe that it's important that we as EP take that seriously as well. Thank you Madam Chair.
Luděk Niedermayer
Thank you the rapporteur. I will now give the floor to the shadow rapporteur and I will start with Luděk Niedermayer for EPP.
Thank you very much Madam Chair and thanks rapporteur for very good description of the file that I to great extent really share. This is about disclosure about usability to allow investors to make good judgment about what how to select between the option of financial products and that's also brings a little bit trick because one cannot say if less is more or more is less because we are here creating the transparency space not trying to influence the behavior of the of the firms or changing the financial products. I guess one of the aim of this review is really to improve usability to make it more more simple but still providing good information. I guess we want to tackle the greenwashing because it was unfortunately shown that the the regulation was misused for for kind of greenwashing and there is also fair amount of the simplification that we very much welcome. I also fully share with the rapporteur assessment that the Commission did very good work it take time but it was worth it because there was extensive consultation with expert with financial industry and I always heard very high assessment very high appreciation of the work made by the Commission nevertheless as we always believe it can be it can be improved.
I guess deadline is tomorrow, but we still have some, some things that we are, we are looking at. Obviously, in the center of that is the issue of data quality and the estimates. I guess Commission make fair amount to deal with that. We are still looking at the issues. We will not be enthusiastic on reverting some of the Commission proposal for, for the simplification because we believe it's done pretty well and it's, it's proportionate.
We assume that this is start of the work and some other legislation like benchmark legislation will be later on, on aligned. But the biggest question probably that is on the table is the transitional category. And that means the question to which extent this should be category that will encourage firms to speed up the transition to more sustainable operations, or if it's reward for those who are pretty much progressing in transition. And this is not that one is good and one is bad. This is matter of the, of the choice that will be probably in the center of discussion even in Parliament, but I know that this is in the center of discussion of the, of the Council.
But I understand that with the rapporteur and team, there will be very good spirit of cooperation and I believe we will preserve good parts of the Commission proposal and will try to make it little bit better and create good condition for, for work in trilogue. So I really look forward. Thank you.
Jonás Fernández
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Our shadow rapporteur Lara Wolters cannot attend to this meeting and she asked me for reading this note, yeah. So in this committee, we are often gravely concerned with our Union's competitiveness, the ability of our economy to effectively compete with other major power over market power and innovation. But regarding the subject of the regulation that we will discuss today, the opposite is the case.
In the field of sustainable finance, Europe is an undisputed world leader with over 80% of sustainable funds assets located in Europe. This figure should not surprise us. First of all, it shows that European asset managers and investors know that Europe's path to prosperity must lead through sustainability. Not only by double down on the clean energy transition will European industry be able to compete internationally, as the ongoing energy crisis demonstrates once more. As legislators, we should not forget this.
Second, this figure illustrates the importance of purposeful measures and well-designed legislation. The EU sustainable finance framework has allowed Europe to take this leadership role and become an international standard setter in the field of sustainable finance. As we move to revise the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, I urge my fellow lawmakers to remember these two points. The Commission proposal, as other shadows and rapporteur said before me, is a promising start, increasing the credibility and the usability of the SFDR by moving to a labeling regime to clear-cut categories and exclusions.
In my amendments, I will try to further build upon the ambition sought by the rapporteur's draft report by strengthening the key features of EU's sustainable finance framework: transparency, ambitious and scientifically informed standards. I look forward to constructive negotiations with the other shadow rapporteurs. Thank you so much.
Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová
Thank you for the floor. I will continue Czech. Vážená paní předsedkyně, vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, vítáme, že Komise navrhuje zúžení působnosti nařízení a jasnější zaměření informačních povinností na finanční produkty. Tento přístup představuje správný krok ke zjednodušení pravidel, snížení administrativní zátěže a posílení právní jistoty pro účastníky finančního trhu. Domníváme se však, že návrh lze dále zlepšit.
Proto navrhujeme zavedení cílené výjimky pro produkty určené výhradně profesionálním investorům a pro registrované správce alternativních investičních fondů. Profesionální investoři mají dostatečné znalosti, zkušenosti i přístup k informacím a neměli by podléhat stejným požadavkům, které jsou navrženy primárně pro retailový trh. Dále navrhujeme zjednodušit zveřejňování hlavních nepříznivých dopadů takzvaných PAI a zaměřit se pouze na nejrelevantnější ukazatele. Pokud již návrh obsahuje mechanismy bránící investicím do škodlivých aktivit, měly by být související informační povinnosti omezeny na nezbytné minimum a nastaveny tak, aby byly prakticky proveditelné a nákladově efektivní. Součástí našich pozměňovacích návrhů je také posílení ochrany obchodního tajemství a vyjasnění role orgánů dohledu.
Ty by měly kontrolovat dodržování pravidel a zveřejňovací povinnosti, nikoliv fakticky ověřovat nebo certifikovat ESG data. Předložili jsme rovněž návrhy, které mají zajistit, aby přechodová kategorie skutečně podporovala financování transformace evropské ekonomiky. Jsme přesvědčeni, že investice by měly být posuzovány podle skutečných výsledků, ukazatelů udržitelnosti a důvěryhodných transformačních strategií, nikoliv na základě příliš mechanických a plošných vylučovacích kritérií. Stejně tak nepodporujeme automatické vyřazování částí investičního univerza pouze na základě ESG ratingů, které by mohlo vést k omezení investičních možností a snížení konkurenceschopnosti evropského finančního trhu. Věřím, že naše pozměňovací návrhy přispějí k vytvoření jednoduššího, přehlednějšího a konkurenceschopnějšího rámce SFDR, který bude lépe odpovídat potřebám investorů i finančních institucí.
Děkuji za pozornost.
Denis Nesci
Thank you. For ECR, Denis Nesci.
Grazie, Presidente, parlerò in italiano. Vorrei iniziare ringraziando il relatore per il lavoro che ha svolto. La revisione del regolamento SFDR rappresenta un passaggio cruciale per il futuro della finanza europea e più in generale per la competitività del nostro sistema economico. Noi riteniamo che la sostenibilità sia un obiettivo condivisibile, ma non può essere perseguita attraverso un approccio troppo ideologico che finisce per penalizzare le imprese europee e i risparmiatori.
Il nuovo sistema di categorizzazione dei prodotti finanziari con le categorie transizione ESG e sostenibile deve essere uno strumento di chiarezza per gli investitori non una gabbia burocratica per gli operatori di mercato. Accogliamo con favore il principio di trasparenza ma ci preoccupa la rigidità delle soglie proposte. Un vincolo del 70% di investimenti conformi rischia di escludere dal mercato prodotti perfettamente validi e di restringere le scelte a disposizione dei risparmiatori europei. La nostra priorità è chiara garantire una transizione realistica graduale e tecnologicamente neutrale. Non possiamo accettare un quadro normativo che di fatto condanna interi settori industriali.
Penso all'energia alla manifattura alle piccole e medie imprese senza offrire loro un percorso praticabile di adeguamento. Le esclusioni troppo ampie del perimetro degli investimenti ammissibili rischiano di privare di capitale proprio quelle aziende che hanno più bisogno di finanziamenti per rinnovare e decarbonizzare. Inoltre riteniamo fondamentale il principio di proporzionalità. Gli obblighi di informativa e di due diligence devono essere calibrati sulle dimensioni e sulla complessità degli operatori. Non è pensabile imporre gli stessi oneri a una grande gestione istituzionale e a un intermediario di dimensioni più contenute.
Chiediamo poi che venga riconosciuto il ruolo delle fonti energetiche di transizione compreso il gas naturale il nucleare nel percorso verso la neutralità climatica. Vi è poi una questione di assoluta rilevanza per gli Stati membri il trattamento dei titoli di Stato. Non possiamo accettare che il quadro normativo sulla finanza sostenibile finisca per penalizzare gli investimenti in debito sovrano creando di fatto una discriminazione tra emittenti pubblici sulla base di criteri ambientali o sociali definiti in modo arbitrario. I titoli di Stato sono la spina dorsale del risparmio europeo un pilastro della stabilità finanziaria. Qualsiasi restrizione alla loro inclusione nei prodotti finanziari categorizzati avrebbe conseguenze gravi sulla domanda di debito pubblico e in ultima analisi sui costi di finanziamento per i nostri paesi.
Su questo per noi è una linea rossa. Infine un punto politico di fondo la finanza sostenibile deve servire all'economia reale non il contrario. Non siamo disposti ad avallare un sistema che in nome della sostenibilità finisce per rendere più costoso più complesso l'accesso al credito per famiglie e imprese. La nostra visione è quella di un mercato finanziario europeo competitivo a livello globale trasparente nei confronti degli investitori ma libero da vincoli ideologici che ne compromettono l'efficienza e la capacità di generare crescita. Grazie.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you for the Greens on behalf of Kira Peter-Hansen Marie Toussaint.
Marie Toussaint
Yes thank you and I want to apologize Kira that was not able to be here but she indeed gave me her remarks that I think won't surprise the rapporteur but I first want to underline that she really thanks you for your draft report especially since when compared to the one from the Commission we think it's going in the right direction. I will go a bit fast on what we welcome but also to underline maybe what we would like to see move still. First of course we strongly support maintaining the fossil fuel exclusions. Despite we perfectly know that there is a lot of pressure and more and more pressure on this issue but for us entitling as sustainable investment product that is going into fossil fuel is a contradiction in terms. We also welcome the strengthening of the principle adverse impact indicators especially their role in relation to Article 7 8 and 9 products but I might have some remarks later on but we do support the direction is taking.
And then we also very much support the deletion of the automatic safe harbors for products tracking and we think it's important to ensure a more level playing field between passive and active managers to avoid sustainability recognition without a proper assessment of the products itself.
Then maybe more on what we could still work on. First and foremost, maybe the structure of the Commission proposal itself leaves too much discretion for financial market participants. And the categorization of products remains relies on criteria that remain extremely broad that we would like to change because if we acknowledge the fact that the current SFDR framework has been vulnerable to greenwashing, then we cannot go towards a more flexible approach, but on the contrary towards enforceable criteria. We do have strong concerns about the very concept of Article 8 products as light green products because as I just said, we don't think it's greenwashing proof enough, and we are actually wondering what even light green does mean. So this is something that we would like to work further.
On the principal adverse impacts, we still need, as I said, that we think it needs to be strengthened even further to not respect the to not repeat, sorry, the mistakes of SFDR 1. The level one should provide clearer directions on the role of PAIs, their relevance for product categorization, and the actions expected from financial markets participants to remediate adverse impact. And then last remark as I'm watching the time as well, we think the objective should not be limited to regulating a small green niche of the financial market, but that we do have a broader challenge to mainstreaming sustainability across all financial products and investment practices to have a lever impact. And in that respect, we think that Article 6a still needs to be clarified and strengthened. And products that do not fall under the sustainability-related categories should proceed to meaningful disclosures that allow comparability, not merely allowed to make vague positive claims, but well.
So in a nutshell, we do support the direction you're taking, and we want to keep on working.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. Any catch-the-eyes? No, so I will give the floor back to the rapporteur for some closing remarks.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and and many thanks to my colleagues of which a few were well, very positive about the draft, so I I strongly welcome that, but not only that, they were also talking about a good spirit of cooperation among each other. So I'm I'm very much looking forward to building the bridges that are necessary to find a majority in this house. I must say I'm not surprised by a few of the comments. Most of them were positive, a few were more critical. I'm quite certain that it's possible to find a relatively large majority in this house, and also looking at the developments within Council, this rather technical file shouldn't be too difficult to be finalized at the end of the year.
But of course, optimism is important, but realism as well. So I'm very much looking forward to start working with my colleagues. I think Mr. Niedermayer was absolutely right that one of the biggest questions will be the transition category, and let's work on that together, and I'm I'm very much looking forward to seeing your amendments later this week. Wish you good luck with the coming 24 hours tabling them, and we'll start working together after that. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you to all of you. The deadline for amendment is tomorrow at 12:00, and the vote in ECON is scheduled for July 15th. Thank you to all of you, and we will be back for the vote at 6:00 PM.
Redner 42
Dear colleagues, if you can go back to your seat. We may have a long session of vote. Okay colleagues. Find your seat. Okay, so we now pass onto agenda item 10 regarding the vote on the draft report of rapporteur Michalis Agi-Pantela on the amending regulation as regard the access of the European Public Prosecutor Office and the European Anti-Fraud Office to value added tax information at Union level, and we will start with a test vote.
I open the vote. Test, test vote, test vote, do not panic, it's always the same, we start with a test. Okay, and I close the vote. Okay, ça marche hein? Okay, so everything is working well.
Renew is good.
Aurore Lalucq
Okay, we will start. We will proceed to the vote now by showing of hands. And we will start with CONT 18. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 19. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 20. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise A. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise B. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 27. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise C. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 33. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Wait, wait, wait. Compromise D. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 6. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 8. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. CONT 9. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. And the final vote by roll call vote. I open the vote.
Oh, there is a baby. And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 47 in favor and 6 abstentions. Congratulations to the rapporteur. And welcome to the baby that I can see over there.
Welcome to the baby. We now pass to the vote on the draft report of rapporteur Thomas Kubin. I remind you that we have to vote for two reports. I also remind you that there are alternative compromises tabled by S&D, Renew and Greens. Therefore, pay attention when voting.
We will start with the recast structure and rates of excise duty applied to tobacco and tobacco-related products. Seven compromises are tabled by the rapporteur and seven alternative compromises are tabled by S&D, Renew and Green. We will start not with the alternative compromise, but with the compromise. Okay, by showing of hands, compromise B. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? I need to check this. I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 33 in favor. Okay. Compromise C, who is in favor? By showing of hands, who is in favor?
Compromise C, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Who abstains? Okay, I need to check this too, check and open the vote.
And I close the vote. Okay, it is adopted. Compromise C by showing of hands, who is in favor? D, D, sorry, D, D. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted, the majority. We move to compromise E, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise F, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise G, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise A, recital, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. And the final vote by roll call vote, I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 32 in favor, 21 against and two abstentions. We will start with the second vote, amending directive as regards the general arrangement for excise duty in respect of tobacco and tobacco-related products. On this one, we will start with alternative compromise, okay? So, alternative compromise A, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. Compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. So we move to the final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 32 in favor, 21 against and two abstentions.
We now pass to the vote on the competition policy annual report 2023 and I will start by giving the floor for one minute to the rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin.
Stéphanie Yon-Courtin
Merci madame la présidente. Chers collègues, les rapports Draghi, Letta, Noyer et les chefs d'État le répètent, nos règles de concurrence ne sont plus adaptées aux règles du jeu international et pendant ce temps nos dépendances énergétiques, numériques, technologiques, industrielles sont utilisées comme levier de pression contre nous. La concurrence est la colonne vertébrale de notre économie, ce qui permet aux PME de grandir, aux enfants aussi de grandir, aux citoyens de choisir et à l'Europe d'être souveraine. Alors il est temps d'agir, d'abord en adaptant nos règles, non pas pour affaiblir la concurrence mais pour l'adapter aux réalités d'aujourd'hui, pour permettre l'émergence de champions européens capables d'affronter la concurrence internationale et pour que nos citoyens aient de vrais choix européens. Ensuite en appliquant ce que nous avons, l'Europe dispose d'un cadre, un cadre envié, parfois copié, mais nous ne pouvons pas avoir peur de le faire respecter et le DMA doit s'appliquer sans compromis, sans pression extérieure.
C'est pourquoi le rapport ouvre la réflexion sur une autorité européenne de concurrence indépendante de l'exécutif comme c'est le cas dans chaque État membre. Merci à tous mes collègues rapporteurs fictifs, shadow, pour nos échanges constructifs et un grand merci à toutes et tous pour vos votes positifs. Merci.
Aurore Lalucq
Merci chère rapporteur. We now move to the vote by showing of hands. Compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise B, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise C, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise D, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise E, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 41 in favor, 2 against and 12 abstentions.
Congratulations to the rapporteur. On the feasibility of a 28th tax regime and its potential to support EU competitiveness by rapporteur Ludovit Odor, by showing of hands. We start with compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise B, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted.
Compromise C, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise D, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise E, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? Adopted. And the final vote by roll call vote, I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 36 in favor, 18 against, and one abstention. Congratulations to the rapporteur. We now pass to the vote on the ECON opinion of rapporteur Gilles Boyer establishing the single market and customs program for the period 2028-2034. So we move to the vote on a coherent tax framework for the EU financial sector.
And rapporteur is Matthias Ecke. Compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise B, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise C, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise D, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, the vote is open. And the vote is closed. And it is adopted with 37 in favor, 6 against, 11 abstentions.
Congratulations to the rapporteur. And now we pass on the vote to the vote on the ECON opinion of rapporteur Gilles Boyer establishing the single market and customs program for the period 2028-2034 and repeating regulation, a lot of regulation. By showing of hands, compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise B, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise C, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote, I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it is adopted with 42 in favor, 3 against, 8 abstentions. Congratulations to the rapporteur. Okay, we now pass on to agenda item 16 regarding the vote on the ECON opinion of the regulation establishing the European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fishery and Maritime Prosperity and Security for the period 2028-2034. Start with the proposal in the in amendment 19 to call on the BUDG, AGRI and REGI committee to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
This is by roll call, I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is rejected. Okay, we now proceed to the vote by showing of hands, compromise A, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise B, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Adopted.
Compromise final vote by roll call vote I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted with 40 in favor, 9 against and 5 abstentions. Congratulations to the rapporteur.
Et la prochaine session sera au mois de 23, le 23 juin.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.