Committee on Legal Affairs Ordinary Meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsIlhan Kyuchyuk
Now we are on your item, amending several regulations known as Digital Omnibus. I would like to give you immediately the floor in your capacity of rapporteur to this committee.
Brando Benifei
So, thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, I am pleased to serve as the rapporteur for the JURI opinion on the Digital Omnibus, and I will present it today together with the AI Omnibus, on which I served as the shadow rapporteur in the IMCO committee. These two files represent the two pillars of the Commission's broader digital simplification agenda, and therefore they deserve careful scrutiny. After a few months of fruitful discussions with experts, different stakeholders, and colleagues, the draft opinion has been sent for the translation on the 5th of June. The Commission's proposals aims to improve the coherence of the Union's data framework.
However, while presented as a targeted intervention, it introduces changes that alter the overall balance of the framework without a complete impact assessment examining the effects of the proposed amendments, despite the fact that several of them go beyond purely technical simplification and may have substantive legal and policy implications. Unsurprisingly, this has sparked a broad debate involving businesses, civil society, academics, and public authorities. For these reasons, I follow the balanced approach fully respecting JURI's remit, supporting simplification where justified, while preserving the key principles of the Data Act and the Data Governance Act. In line with JURI's competences, the draft opinion focuses on legal certainty, governance, supervision, contractual fairness, interoperability, and the trustworthiness of data sharing ecosystems. The draft I presented seeks to preserve the neutrality and trustworthiness of data intermediation services by maintaining registration requirements and strengthening safeguards on transparency, accountability, and secondary uses of data.
It also protects the Union's open data principles by preserving non-discriminatory access, interoperability, and open licensing models for non-personal public sector data, while avoiding fragmented restrictions that could undermine the reuse of public sector data. On the topic of business-to-government data sharing, the draft maintains a framework for public interest access to privately held data beyond the purely emergency situations, subject to appropriate safeguards. At the same time, it narrows certain emergency-related provisions, notably by removing the ambiguous concept of mitigation, in order to improve the legal certainty. The amendments also strengthen the protection of trade secrets while ensuring that access rights under the Data Act remain effective. Refusal of access should remain a measure of last resort, with identified risks addressed primarily through proportionate safeguards.
Furthermore, I opposed the repeal of the platform-to-business regulation, considering that the scope, objectives, and beneficiaries of the DSA and DMA differ from those of the platform-to-business regulation, which provides specific transparency and fairness safeguards in platform-to-business relationships that are not covered by the DSA and DMA. I also preserved cloud switching and interoperability obligations in order to reduce vendor lock-in, safeguard portability rights, and maintain fair competition in cloud and data processing markets. Finally, the draft maintains minimum safeguards for smart contracts, including requirements related to security, interoperability, controllability, and auditability, and seeks to strengthen coordination and coherent enforcement across the Union by reinforcing the role of the European Data Innovation Board and clarifying cooperation between competent authorities, particularly in cross-border situations.
To conclude, I can say I'm very much looking forward to working constructively with all shadow rapporteurs and with all of you throughout this process and I'm confident that together we can deliver an ambitious and balanced text, one that supports innovation and reduces unnecessary burdens for businesses and SMEs while preserving legal certainty, effective governance and the high standards of protection and fundamental rights that European citizens expect from us. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Benifei, and I would like to give the floor to the shadow rapporteur starting with EPP shadow rapporteur, Mr. Radev. Заповядайте, господин Радев.
Emil Radev
Благодаря, господин председател, уважаеми колеги. Приветствам усилията на докладчика господин Бенифей за по-балансиран и прагматичен подход в рамките на цифровия омнибус. Нашата задача е ясна: по-малко бюрокрация, повече правна сигурност и по-добри условия за иновации и инвестиции в европейската икономика. Проектостановището съдържа редица предложения, които ЕНП би подкрепило. Те са свързани с намаляване на административната тежест и подобряване на конкурентоспособността на европейските предприятия.
Тази цел заслужава подкрепа, особено в контекста на засилващата се глобална надпревара и необходимостта Европа да устоява своите позиции, като насърчава иновациите и инвестициите. Разбира се, имаме и различия по някои въпроси и ще предложим съответните изменения. На първо място, в ЕНП обръщаме особено внимание на защитата на търговската тайна. В цифровата икономика именно данните, алгоритмите, бизнес моделите и стратегическата информация са сред най-ценните активи на европейските предприятия. Настоящите изменения в закона за данните слагат тежест на доказване върху притежателя на данните, което обаче създава сериозни практически затруднения.
Защитата на търговските тайни и киберсигурността не трябва да се разглеждат като изключително обстоятелство за отказ на достъп до данни, а като легитимно и обосновано основание за отказ. Ето защо ЕНП ще внесе изменения с цел по-добра защита на търговската тайна. Сериозни въпроси поражда за нас и предложението на Комисията за заличаване на регламента за отношенията между платформите и предприятията. Регламентът беше приет именно за да осигури минимални стандарти за прозрачност, предвидимост и справедливост в отношенията между онлайн платформите и бизнес потребителите. Макар впоследствие да бяха приети и други законодателни актове в цифровата сфера, P2B продължава да изпълнява важна функция, особено за малките и средните предприятия, които разчитат на онлайн платформи за достъп до пазара.
За нас в ЕНП въпросният инструмент е ценен и трябва да остане. Така че категорично подкрепяме докладчика в тази насока. Подкрепяме предложението на докладчика за по-тясно определяне на понятието обществена извънредна ситуация, както и подхода по отношение на определението за достъп в закона за данните. Връщането към първоначалния текст на регламента ще осигури по-голяма правна яснота и ще предотврати противоречиви тълкувания. По отношение на услугите за посредничество за посреднически услуги за данни смятаме, че регистрацията трябва да остане доброволна със задължително уведомяване на компетентния орган.
По този начин ще се осигури необходимото ниво на надзор, без да се създават непропорционални административни изисквания.
Бих искал да обърна внимание на организациите за алтруистично споделяне на данни, като в по-голямата си част са по-малки организации или предприятия с ограничени ресурси и трябва да бъдат защитени от допълнителни административни задължения. Поради това за тях следва да се обмисли доброволен режим или изисквания, съобразени с размера и капацитета на работата им. Подкрепяме създаването на единна европейска точка за докладване на инциденти в областта на киберсигурността за предприятията, попадащи в обхвата на НИС 2. Това ще намали административната тежест, ще подобри координацията и ще осигури хармонизирани процедури и образци, следвайки подхода, възприет в Акта за киберустойчивост и единната платформа за докладване. Засега това са точките, върху които акцентираме, като разбира се предвиждаме да внесем и някои други технически изменения.
В заключение, несъмнено опростяването на цифровото законодателство е необходима стъпка, но то трябва да върви ръка за ръка с ясни гаранции за правна сигурност, киберсигурност, защита на търговските тайни и справедливи пазарни условия. Благодаря още веднъж на докладчика и се надявам за ползотворно сътрудничество. Благодаря за вниманието.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
И аз благодаря, господин Радев. For PPE group will be Mr. Tom Diepeveen, the shadow.
Ton Diepeveen
Thank you, chair. I speak in Dutch. Voorzitter, de vereenvoudigingsinspanningen van de Europese Commissie die juichen wij toe, zeker om die complexe digitale en dataregelgeving in de EU te verduidelijken en te vereenvoudigen. En dat verlaagt de regeldruk voor bedrijven en stimuleert de verantwoorde en innovatieve ontwikkeling van nieuwe technologieën, een domein waarin Europa achterloopt op andere grote markteconomieën. In de voorstellen van de Commissie bevatten echter nog enkele punten die de rechtszekerheid wat ons betreft kunnen ondermijnen en ik noem er kort even twee.
Ten eerste steunen wij een sterkere bescherming van bedrijfsgeheimen, zodat gegevensdeling kan worden geweigerd aan derde landen met een hoog risico, zoals China bijvoorbeeld. In de praktijk is het voor het bedrijfsleven echt niet altijd mogelijk om het vereiste bewijs voor zo'n risico te leveren, zeker niet voor de kleine ondernemingen. Van individuele bedrijven mag daarom niet worden verwacht dat zij zelf een dure en tijdrovende analyse uitvoeren van buitenlands recht en buitenlandse praktijken. Een verzoek tot gegevensdeling moet ook kunnen worden geweigerd op basis van algemeen bekende risico's. Het volgende punt dat zijt is dat wij tegen de oprichting van één centraal Europees meldingsplatform zijn.
Wij pleiten in plaats daarvan voor één meldingsplatform per lidstaat. Een centrale Europese database roept vragen op over cyberveiligheid en biedt weinig meerwaarde voor ondernemingen die uitsluitend nationaal actief zijn, zoals veel MKB-bedrijven in Nederland en grote instellingen waaronder bedrijfspensioenfondsen. Voorzitter, ik stel vast dat de rapporteur vooral inzet op verdere harmonisatie van registratie- en rapportagevereisten, onder meer door geharmoniseerde procedures en een versterking van de toezichthouders. Dit soort sluipende Europese harmonisatie lijkt me niet in overeenstemming met de doelstelling om de digitalisering van onze ondernemingen te versnellen en op te schalen. Desalniettemin kijk ik wel uit naar een constructieve samenwerking en onderhandelingen met de rapporteur.
Dank u wel.
Mario Mantovani
Thank you, and for ECR group will be Mario Mantovani. Prego, Mario.
Sì, grazie presidente. Ma la strada dell'Omnibus digitale è sicuramente quella giusta, alleggerire gli adempimenti ed estendere le esenzioni ad una più ampia categoria di imprese.
È una liberazione per le imprese, a condizione che però si definisca con chiarezza cos'è il basso rischio rispetto al rischio elevato. Sulla relazione dell'onorevole Benifei, l'Omnibus prevede un regime più leggero sul cloud switching per le PMI, ma la relazione Benifei lo vuole invece cancellare. L'Omnibus elimina obblighi ambigui e costosi sugli smart contract, ma la relazione chiede di ripristinarli. L'Omnibus semplifica la registrazione degli intermediari di dati, ma la relazione Benifei la rende di nuovo obbligatoria. Quindi io credo che la vera sfida politica su Omnibus ci pone sia di continuare a semplificare togliendo degli emendamenti inutili e onerosi, senza tuttavia compromettere le tutele e le salvaguardie per le piccole imprese e il piccolo commercio.
E su questo chiedo al relatore magari un impegno maggiore, se possibile. Concordo invece sul mantenimento del platform-to-business. Sono diciannove articoli che non pesano sulla burocrazia, ma che tutelano concretamente le piccole imprese. Questa è la semplificazione di cui hanno bisogno le piccole e medie imprese europee. Non mancheremo comunque di formulare i nostri emendamenti.
Grazie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Grazie Mario. On behalf of Laurence Farreng will be Dainius Žalimas for Renew Europe group.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, thank you chair. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work on this matter and I will present our shadow rapporteur's comments, considering that the JURI competence is limited to the non-personal data provisions. First of all, our shadow rapporteur finds that the rapporteur's approach on trade secrets leakage is measured and reasonable. There are legitimate concerns, but the keyword is proportionality and the new proposed mechanism goes too far in giving rights for refusal. Secondly, the most pressing issue concerns the changes to data intermediation services.
The Commission's proposal makes the regime voluntary, removes the separate legal entity requirement and loosens the neutrality conditions. The low uptake is not primarily a sign that the rules are too strict, but a problem in implementation. And in response, the draft proposal of the Omnibus proposes to change everything that makes data intermediaries trustworthy and accountable. We therefore oppose changes to the rules on data intermediation services. Thirdly, we also support the rapporteur's approach regarding the business-to-government data regime.
Restricting the scope to public emergencies alone also goes too far and risks impeding a functional data economy. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you Mr. Žalimas. For the Green-EFA group will be David Cormand, the shadow. David.
David Cormand
Oui, merci monsieur le président, chers collègues.
La proposition de la Commission vise à améliorer la cohérence de notre cadre européen des données. Mais sous couvert d'une simple simplification technique, ce texte modifie en profondeur l'équilibre de nos lois, et ce sans aucune étude d'impact globale. Cette méthode est inacceptable, elle contourne le débat politique et menace nos droits fondamentaux. C'est pourquoi je ne peux pas soutenir la direction actuelle de la Commission, notamment l'affaiblissement de la gouvernance. Je refuse de transformer l'enregistrement obligatoire des services d'intermédiation en une formalité purement volontaire.
La fragmentation des données ouvertes, supprimer les cadres existants sans garanties solides va bloquer la recherche et le journalisme transfrontalier. L'attaque contre les données personnelles, je rejette toute restriction de leur définition et plus encore le pouvoir donné à la Commission de la redéfinir seule par acte d'exécution. Le passe-droit pour l'IA, utiliser l'intérêt légitime pour traiter des données sensibles biométriques ou socio-économiques reviendrait à légaliser des discriminations systémiques. À l'inverse, voici l'approche équilibrée que je souhaite soutenir et créer au sein de la commission JURI. Je veux préserver les piliers du Data Act et du Data Governance Act en me concentrant sur la sécurité juridique, l'équité contractuelle et la confiance.
Je soutiens un partage de données privé-public ambitieux pour l'intérêt général, tout en supprimant la notion ambiguë d'atténuation en cas de crise. Je défends le droit d'accès aux données de notre charte, il n'est pas négociable face à la compétitivité. J'exige le maintien du consentement pour les cookies et l'interdiction stricte de la publicité ciblée. Ensemble avec les rapporteurs fictifs et le rapporteur Benifei, j'espère que nous construirons un texte équilibré qui stimule l'innovation sans jamais brader la protection de nos concitoyennes et de nos concitoyens. Je vous remercie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Last but not least from the shadows is the shadow for the Left group, Monsieur Arash Saidi.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le rapport de notre collègue va globalement dans la bonne direction, ce qui n'était pas chose aisée compte tenu du texte initial proposé par la Commission. À travers ce Digital Omnibus sur les données, la Commission européenne nous démontre une fois de plus qu'elle peine à distinguer simplification réglementaire et déréglementation. C'est pourquoi je devine la tâche ardue de notre collègue et je souhaite tout d'abord saluer plusieurs avancées contenues dans ce projet de rapport. D'abord le travail réalisé sur l'article 1 qui limite les exemptions fondées sur le secret des affaires et réaffirme que le refus d'accès aux données dans le cadre du Data Act doit rester une mesure de dernier recours. Les risques identifiés doivent être traités au moyen de garanties techniques, organisationnelles et contractuelles proportionnées et non pas des refus préventifs et arbitraires susceptibles de vider les droits d'accès de leur substance.
Deuxièmement, je me félicite du maintien de la référence au règlement P2B qui demeure un pilier essentiel de la protection des restaurateurs, des hôteliers et des PME du secteur du tourisme face au pouvoir démesuré des plateformes, y compris celles qui ne relèvent pas du DMA. Toutefois, il est temps de nommer l'éléphant dans la pièce. L'article 3 portant sur le RGPD, pourtant essentiel, est totalement absent de ce rapport. Rien n'est dit sur la modification de la définition des données à caractère personnel, rien n'est dit sur la marge d'appréciation supplémentaire accordée à la Commission pour déterminer ce qui constitue ou non une donnée pseudonymisée, rien n'est dit sur les dérogations envisagées pour certaines catégories de données utilisées dans l'entraînement des systèmes d'intelligence artificielle. Rien n'est dit non plus sur les possibilités de dérogation concernant le traitement des données biométriques.
Pourtant, à mon sens, ces questions sont essentielles pour la sécurité juridique de notre cadre réglementaire et relèvent à mon avis pleinement des préoccupations de la commission JURI. C'est dans cet esprit que nos amendements pardon, nos amendements viseront à compléter et renforcer ce rapport. Je vous remercie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. Do other members wish to speak? That is not the case. Does the Commission wish to speak? Yes, that is the case.
We have Madame Diana Voat-Causic, team leader on regulatory simplification, DG Connect, and you have the floor, ma'am.
Diana VOAT-CAUSIC
Thank you very much, Chair and honorable rapporteur, honorable members. Thank you for the debate today, for the discussion today, and for the work that you're doing in this committee. I think it's definitely a realization that simplification is complex and it is a good moment to actually look at the policies and the laws that we have adopted from different angles. And this is never easy in organizational structures like ours or the Parliament's, of course, but this debate is absolutely necessary and we we welcome it. I think on the on the draft opinion that that the the chair... sorry, the rapporteur has shared, we definitely welcome some of the points of convergence which are crucial for the Commission's proposal.
And definitely that is the support to small and micro-enterprises and and mid-caps as well. But also the realization that we do need to make an effort for coherence across legislation, and this is what we're proposing. And certainly with the two aspects that you have covered in your in your draft opinion, one on the Data Act and data-related legislation, and on the platform-to-business proposal from from the Commission. So here you'll allow me to take a few seconds and maybe to share some more thinking on some of the topics that you have raised today. And obviously the the one... I mean, you were you were talking about elephant in the room, the one that was most recurrently mentioned was the the handbrake on trade secrets in the Data Act.
And just maybe going back to why we've made this proposal. Yes, this is part of two legal proposals, one on the AI Omnibus where we try to streamline the rules on artificial intelligence to have that predictability. And then the second one, quite frankly, is mostly about making sure that data is available in the European economy and to European companies and they have the legal predictability for themselves, but also for their investors to develop in particular responsible AI solutions. That was the Commission's thinking for the proposal on the Omnibus. On trade secrets, we definitely did not want to to harm that balance that the Data Act in itself has brought to the market in making sure that more data is made available to companies.
So our proposal does have two components. One is, of course, the conditions under or the the circumstances under which a handbrake can be used. And then the second one is linked to procedural safeguards that it's we know when these these handbrakes are being used and that we they are not abused by companies. But the geopolitical reality is a different one. And this is why the Commission has made this particular amendment and we're very happy to continue the discussion on the balance and continue pointing you to the evidence and the reflection that we've summarized in our staff working document.
And then the second point that that was on the Data Act recurrently, I think, voiced here was about the data intermediary services. And then there again, this is a piece of regulation that did not have its as its intention to regulate a market. It had as its intention to enhance trust in a type of business model that was promising. And what we see years later is that that has not led to that type of incentive, regulatory incentive, which is why we're proposing an approach that we have impact assessed at the time of the DGA as well, in turning this voluntary. And of course we can discuss the details of what are the conditions for these types of of companies to offer those services and and how we can enhance trust in in encouraging data sharing through data intermediary services.
And last and certainly not least, the other point of regulatory coherence on the platform-to-business regulation, which is a piece of regulation I have worked together with later on the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.
And here, I think what we see is this logic of you do not bite the hand that feeds you. What we see with online platforms and marketplaces in particular, as actually not in particular, but certainly with marketplaces, is that there is a dependency in between their business users, a seller on an e-commerce marketplace, a hotel on an accommodation platform. There's a dependency that makes it so that they have not used and are not using effectively a transparency-focused instrument like the platform-to-business. There is an overlap, and then maybe here I will be guilty of not having calculated percentages of overlap. It's not 100%, but I'm pretty sure we're going closer to 90% in between what rules you have today for business users of online platforms in the Digital Services Act and what do's and don'ts you have for certain gatekeepers in the Digital Markets Act.
Our assessment is not that P2B makes no sense. It's that, or that the principle of the platform-to-business regulation make no sense. They do. What we are saying is that we have them replicated in the evolution of legislation with two of our gold standard pieces of law that actually have a strong enforcement. And this is where we are trying to focus our energy from the Commission's perspective, and we know we have conversations in this house as well about it, where we want an assertive enforcement of the DSA and the DMA that does not put a small business in front of a big platform, or medium-sized platform for that matter, they depend on, and start complaining, because this is all what the P2B does.
So we want that transparency, but we think we have better instruments, and that's where our proposal for a repeal in the interest of simplification here in particular for the 10,000 European platforms comes from. We are very happy to continue the conversation and support your discussions at technical and political level, of course, and thank you so much for giving me the floor, Chair.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you for your intervention, Madam Voat-Kaustik, and the floor goes back to the rapporteur for three minutes.
Brando Benifei
Yes, I think I can be even shorter because I can just say that I see there are a lot of points of convergence already in the positions expressed by the shadow rapporteurs. Obviously, there are areas where we need to find compromises to advance on some common agenda where it's still not there. It will be important to look at data, to look at evidence, and to be, I mean, convinced of a common objective that I think we all share, that is to make our data economy working, but not at the expense of fundamental rights and protection of our citizens. I think we can build simplification without deregulation and with ensuring that we can build more trust because we need to build trust in Europe around this kind of issues. And I think it's important that we are effective as JURI committee by working on the areas that we are most expert on, that we are also competent on in a very straightforward way because our objective obviously is to influence with our work the work of the two leading committees in the most effective way.
So we always need to take also that into account if we want to do something significant and useful for the parliamentary work on this file. I hope, to be honest, to conclude, that the timing will also be fast enough because we cannot rely, we cannot leave, sorry, the situation on such important topics in too long uncertainty. So also we need to do our part to make it sure that this process ends in the due time so that we can conclude the work on the digital omnibus.
Thank you very much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you Mr. Benefe, the deadline for tabling amendments is the 26th of June at noon time. Thank you for this debate and now we are moving to next item towards the EU strategy to protect and strengthen the international justice system and institutions mechanisms and the partners and rapporteur for the opinion is Tineke Strik from the Green EFA group. You have the floor Tineke.
Tineke Strik
Thank you chair and also great to see you as shadows in the room. International justice is under increasing pressure. Courts, judges, prosecutors, UN mandate holders and civil society organizations who are engaging with international courts are being intimidated, obstructed and even sanctioned precisely because they seek to ensure that international law is applied correctly and independently. And this of course strikes at the very core of our rules-based international order. And it has also serious real life implications as it hampers accountability for the gravest crimes known to mankind, it obstructs victims' access to justice and it erodes the credibility of the international rule of law that the EU seeks to uphold.
The AFET draft report already provides a strong and timely basis for genuine EU strategy to protect international judges mechanisms. It rightly recognizes the need for operational, diplomatic, financial and legal protections for the ICC and for other international justice mechanisms, their personnel and the organizations that enable their work. It also rightly stresses the urgent need to respond to extraterritorial coercive measures and overcompliance unfortunately by private actors. From the JURI perspective, our task is to make sure that the Union's commitment is not only principled, but legally coherent, operational and enforceable. Our opinion therefore strengthens this report in four respects.
First, we call for legal clarity and accountability within the EU legal order following international judicial decisions including ICJ advisory opinions. The Commission in our view should present a comprehensive assessment of all consequences that relevant international decisions and advisory opinions have for the EU legal order. This must include a careful assessment of whether Union legislation, policies, programs, funding instruments, trade-related measures, diplomatic and administrative practices are fully consistent with the Union's international legal obligations, so also including ICJ's rulings. Where they are not, corrective measures must follow and the Parliament must be informed. Second, we insist that no EU actions or funding may ever contribute to violations of international law.
It sounds very logical, but still there's sometimes really big risks for this to happen. So that means the Union financial assistance, programs, cooperation agreements or other instruments must not directly nor indirectly facilitate, aid, assist or otherwise be linked to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or other serious violations of international humanitarian, criminal or human rights law.
So we therefore call in our opinion for a stronger ex-ante and ex-post assessment, monitoring and safeguards across all EU action and with a focus on international and human rights law. Third, we strengthen the EU's duty to protect and cooperate with the ICC. Full support must mean more than statements. It requires effective domestic implementation of the Rome Statute, practical support for investigations, witnesses and civil society and protection against the chilling effects of sanctions and overcompliance. We also call for a monitoring and reporting system on the implementation of the EU-ICC cooperation and assistance agreement so that the Parliament can hold the institutions to account for delivery on those commitments.
And fourth and finally, we address the Commission's continued inaction on the blocking statute. When foreign sanctions target ICC officials, UN mandate holders and organizations who cooperate with international justice mechanisms, the EU must defend both the independence of these institutions and the integrity of its own legal order. The blocking statute is an available legal instrument, yet the Commission has still not activated it to provide the necessary protection and clarity despite numerous calls so far by the Parliament to do so. Such persistent inaction simply cannot pass without scrutiny. The opinion therefore underlines that Parliament should use the instruments available under the treaties and its rules of procedure, including the setting up of a temporary committee of inquiry under Article 226 of the TFEU to examine possible maladministration or failures in the implementation of the EU obligations relating to the ICC and the blocking statute.
Such an inquiry would ensure the democratic oversight that this matter plainly requires. So colleague, international justice survives only when those who administer it can do their work without intimidation and when those who support it match their words with action. The JURI opinion builds constructively on a solid draft report. It asks the Union to be legally consistent, operationally prepared and political courageous. I really look forward to working with all of you to ensure that our opinion and the final report sends a very clear message that the EU will not merely invoke international law when convenient, but that it will defend the institutions, people and legal obligation that give it meaning.
Thank you. And you will announce the deadline for tabling amendments.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay, thank you for tasking me with that. And I would like now to give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs and first among them is the S&D shadow rapporteur Krzysztof Miszek.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair, and first I would like to thank the rapporteur Tineke for her, as always, amazing, amazing work. So as from the S&D, what is our position? I mean, we are now at the time when international rules-based order is under unprecedented pressure. The European Union must demonstrate that its commitment to international justice is not merely rhetorical.
We therefore strongly welcome this report and its call for a comprehensive EU strategy to protect and strengthen the entire international justice ecosystem. The report rightly recognizes that accountability depends not only on the International Criminal Court, but also on the broader network of international and hybrid tribunals, UN mechanisms, civil society organizations, victims' groups, and accountability initiatives that work together to combat impunity. We welcome the amendments presented by our colleague Tineke, which further strengthened the text by highlighting the indispensable role of civil society, reaffirming the EU's obligation not to contribute directly or indirectly to violations of international law, and recognizing the important contribution of international tribunals to the development of international justice. We also strongly support the report's call for stronger protection of international justice actors against external coercive measures, including through the activation of the EU blocking statute and efforts to reinforce Europe's financial and technological autonomy. As negotiations continue, our group will seek to further strengthen the report in several areas.
We believe that victims must be placed even more firmly at the center of international justice, including through stronger references to reparations, participation, psychosocial support, and the Trust Fund for Victims. We also see a need for greater attention to gender justice, including accountability for conflict-related sexual violence and other gender-based crimes. Furthermore, international justice should be understood in a broader transitional justice framework, encompassing truth-seeking, memorialization, institutional reform, and guarantees of non-recurrence. Finally, we should continue strengthening partnerships with countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia to reinforce the universality and legitimacy of the international justice system. Overall, however, this is an excellent report which deserves our full support, and we look forward to working constructively with colleagues to ensure its successful adoption.
Thank you so much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Smisek, and for ECR group will be Mario Mantovani. Prego, Mario.
Mario Mantovani
Sì, grazie Presidente. Anch'io sono d'accordo con l'importanza di questa relazione, purché non la si guardi almeno sulla questione dei principi si sia sempre d'accordo. I trattati e le corti internazionali devono essere rispettate, se non vogliamo che alle relazioni globali si applichi la legge del più forte. Però questo rispetto deve sempre essere chiaro, perché su questi temi c'è spesso una grande strumentalizzazione e un'ipocrisia. Cioè, se vogliamo che l'Unione Europea si pronunci, si deve pronunciare anche su fatti che a volte sono scomodi.
Penso al Venezuela 2023, quando il governo socialista di Maduro ha ignorato l'ordinanza vincolante della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia, annettendo militarmente una regione territorio della Guyana, dove non c'è stata nessuna posizione particolare.
In Brasile il presidente Lula dichiara pubblicamente che se Vladimir Putin si recasse in Brasile non verrebbe arrestato ignorando il mandato della Corte Penale. In Nicaragua il regime sandinista di Ortega respinge le ordinanze della Corte Interamericana sulla scarcerazione dei prigionieri politici definendole delle interferenze imperialiste. Poi Sudafrica e Messico, insomma mi piacerebbe sentire qui una condanna anche di questi comportamenti sui quali da una certa parte politica non ho mai sentito rivolgere delle critiche in particolare. Mi auguro che in futuro quando si guardi alle istituzioni comuni non lo si faccia con le lenti dell'ideologia ma si sia chiari tutti sui principi. Grazie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Grazie Mario Mantovani. Next is Renew shadow Mr. Žalimas, Dainius Žalimas.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you. Thank you chair. First of all I would like to congratulate Tineke as the rapporteur for the JURI opinion and the AFET rapporteur for their excellent work in producing strong texts that capture many important points. Support for international institutions is a treaty obligation. Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union states that in its relation with the wider world the EU shall contribute to the strict observance and development of international law.
Supporting and protecting international justice institutions and mechanism is therefore an essential component of fulfilling these treaty obligations. And I particularly share the rapporteur's regret that the Commission has not taken all necessary steps including activating the EU blocking statute to protect against the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions targeting ICC officials. I believe that simply calling for the activation of the blocking statute is not enough. We must also strengthen the EU's broader counter-coercion framework and provide greater legal certainty for businesses across the Union. Many operators are legitimately concerned about being forced to choose between losing access to the US market and navigating unclear and uneven enforcement of the blocking statute within the European Union.
Therefore I would encourage the Commission to assess the effectiveness and consistency of Member States' enforcement of the blocking statute and where necessary establish a dedicated coordination mechanism to monitor implementation, issue guidance and address over-compliance. The Commission should explore a new guarantee, insurance and emergency support mechanism for entities and individuals that suffer financial losses as a result of complying with the EU law and refusing unlawful extraterritorial coercive measures. I will therefore table amendments to strengthen these provisions and provide greater legal certainty for European operators. I wish the rapporteur and our opinion rapporteur every success in advancing this report and the JURI opinion as they represent an important and necessary step towards ensuring that the EU defends international justice and the institutions that uphold it. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you Mr. Žalimas. Again last but not least Arash Saeidi, the shadow for the Left group.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais d'abord remercier la rapporteure et le collègue d'AFET pour leurs excellents rapports et vous dire que je soutiens globalement ces rapports. Juste permettez-moi Monsieur Mantovani, je me demande où vous étiez depuis deux ans parce que moi depuis que je suis élu j'ai l'impression que ce Parlement ne fait que voter des résolutions sur le Venezuela, sur le Venezuela, sur le Venezuela et sur le Venezuela. Donc je n'ai pas l'impression qu'on ait été absent à ce niveau-là. Mais voilà, c'était une petite remarque.
Si vous voulez je vous les envoie.
Le 6 février 2025 Donald Trump a signé un décret qui sanctionnait le procureur de la CPI. Le 5 juin 2025 les États-Unis sanctionnent directement quatre juges de la CPI. Le 20 août 2025 Washington élargit encore les sanctions à quatre autres responsables de la CPI. Le 18 décembre 2025 les États-Unis sanctionnent deux juges supplémentaires. Vous l'aurez compris, je vais insister sur un point de ce rapport puisque je le soutiens globalement.
Les conséquences de ces sanctions sont radicales. Outre l'interdiction du territoire américain, les comptes des personnes sanctionnées sont bloqués, la fermeture ou la suspension de tous leurs comptes américains Apple, PayPal, les accès à des logiciels et cetera sont fermés, les systèmes de paiement type Visa, Mastercard leur sont interdits et toutes les banques en lien avec les États-Unis leur ferment leurs comptes. Ces sanctions, ces fameuses sanctions extraterritoriales n'atteignent pas que les juges de la CPI, elles sont une attaque directe contre la souveraineté de l'Union européenne puisque malgré nous ces sanctions s'appliquent sur notre territoire. Et face à cela que faisons-nous ? Alors par la voix de sa haute représentante l'Union a réagi, enfin je dis réagi c'est un grand mot, elle regrette une nouvelle fois profondément ces sanctions blablabla blablabla blablabla.
C'est tout. Rien d'autre. Effectivement tant que nous n'activerons pas le règlement de blocage nous ne serons pas crédibles. L'Union européenne sera faible sur la scène internationale et ses mots n'auront aucune conséquence. Donc je vous l'ai dit je ne vais insister que sur un point.
Nous devons condamner fermement toute action unilatérale visant à faire pression et sanctionner tout individu dépositaire d'un mandat de l'ONU, notamment les juges de la CPI. Nous devons considérer que les sanctions extraterritoriales contre ces individus menacent la souveraineté même de l'Union européenne et nous devons demander urgemment à la Commission d'activer le EU Blocking Statute pour contrer les actions américaines. Pour renforcer le droit international puisque c'est le sujet dont nous parlons aujourd'hui, notre soutien doit être inconditionnel, et je dis bien inconditionnel aux juges de la CPI et pas seulement quand leurs sanctions, leurs enquêtes concernent des pays africains, asiatiques ou sud-américains. Je vous remercie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Merci Monsieur Saïdi and the floor goes back to the rapporteur of the opinion Tineke Strik and we have three more minutes to finalize this meeting and I would like to thank the interpreters for their additional five minutes. Thank you.
Tineke Strik
Thank you chair and also thanks interpreters I will keep it brief. Thank you a lot for your support and and I very much concur of course with what my Renew colleague for instance said that it also follows from the EU treaty that we need to give full support and and make the need to guarantee compliance with international law. I would like to I also want to stress the the importance of that is also said in my opinion that international law is far too precious to politicize or instrumentalize it. This is also why we don't mention any kind of country or whatever. This is about the principles that we need to lay down but also a strong call upon all EU institutions to comply with it in a non-discriminatory and consistent manner.
And I think this is one of the added value of this report. Regarding the blocking statute I'm I'm also happy with the support for that.
I would like to say also to my Renew colleague that of course companies can be, you know, end up in a kind of uncertainty, but this is already the case. It's also the case without the imposition of the blocking statute. We now have a recent CJEU judgment making very clear that automatic application of a sanction is not allowed. They need to do an individual assessment of the proportionality. So I think that it also serves the certainty that companies need that the blocking statute is being activated because then they know what to do, what the obligations are on the EU territory.
So I welcome very much any amendments from Renew also on this, but I really also hope for support for the proposed inquiry committee because within that committee we can also assess how the companies can be granted the legal certainty that they need. Thank you very much. Look forward to the amendments.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. And the deadline for tabling amendments is the 26th of June, 5:00 PM. 26th of June, 5:00 PM. That concludes today's discussion on this item. And thank you very much, dear colleagues, and see you at 2:30 for the exchange of views with Commissioner Dombrovskis.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.