Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home 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.
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMichaela Moua
Secondly, we've launched a joint project with UNESCO to strengthen anti-racism education and organize a cycle of seminars countering racism in the media. Commission will also continue conduct a comprehensive study on anti-Muslim hatred and propose actions to tackle it.
We know that weak enforcement and inconsistent sanctions undermine trust in public institutions and therefore limit the law's deterrent effect. This year soon, the Commission will publish a report on the Racial Equality Directive, analyzing its application in Member States, including in cases of algorithmic discrimination. We'll provide guidelines to implement the AI Act, addressing risks in racial bias. The Commission also has adopted implementing acts on indicators for equality bodies and will continue to monitor the transposition of the equality bodies' directives, which was as recently as the deadline was as recently as a week ago, if I remember correctly. And on hate speech and hate crime, the Commission is also considering a legislative initiative to harmonize definitions on online hate offenses.
And when it comes to victims' rights, the Commission supports the transposition of the revised Victims' Rights Directive, strengthening protection of those targeted by racially motivated hate crimes. To counter racial bias in public administration, the Commission will also compile a compendium of good practices to prevent discriminatory profiling in law enforcement. And of course, the Commission encourages Member States to provide comprehensive training programs also to help civil servants recognize and tackle racial bias. Thirdly, the strategy focuses on equality in everyday life, in areas where we know racialized people, based on data, are disproportionately impacted by barriers, to name a few: education, employment, housing, healthcare, and social protection. Barriers in education affect labor market outcomes, discrimination in housing contributes to segregation, and unequal healthcare access results in poorer health outcomes, so it's really this vicious cycle.
The Commission will present a European teachers and trainers agenda addressing diversity and inclusion, and of course funding programs such as Erasmus+, ESF+, and Horizon Europe will continue supporting inclusive education and reforms. On employment, we'll work with the EU platform on diversity charters on good practices, including guidelines on inclusive hiring. And on housing, the Commission will publish a study on discrimination in housing and put forward a Council recommendation on fighting housing exclusion. Furthermore, the recently published first EU anti-poverty strategy also addresses the root causes of exclusion, recognizing that racialized people and communities are disproportionately impacted by poverty. Then we come to fostering key partnerships, as mentioned by chair as well, recognizing that combating racism requires a coordinated action across all levels of society.
The Commission coordinator's role, the Commission coordinator on combating racism will continue playing a central role with the new mandate also adopted concurrently with the strategy in January. We have renewed recently the Anti-Racism Civil Society Forum and set up also, will set up also a broader civil society platform to strengthen civic space. On the international level, the Commission will establish a high-level international roundtable to deepen cooperation with UN bodies, Council of Europe, and other multilateral partners. We'll also update and strengthen the mandate of the Member State expert group on national implementation of the EU anti-racism strategy, furthermore inviting candidate countries to join.
And on funding, the Commission has proposed 3.6 billion for the CERV plus the Agora program under the multi-annual financial framework. The final chapter of the strategy focuses on EU institutions' own responsibility to lead by example, and here the Commission will update the diversity and inclusion in the workplace action plan in 2026. We'll also implement targeted outreach strategies to attract candidates from all backgrounds and revise the Blue Book traineeship rules. So in conclusion, the strategy provides a comprehensive framework to combat racism in all its forms, addressing structural causes, strengthening enforcement, promoting social inclusion, building partnerships, and ensuring institutional accountability. Its success depends on sustained commitment and coordinated action at European, national, and local level.
Furthermore, the Commission will monitor its implementation closely and report at midterm. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Moat. And thank you for sticking to the time allocated, which is very important, but we have several participants. And now I would like to give the floor to Dr. Atrey, Associate Professor of the University of Oxford. Dear Dr. Atrey, you have the floor for eight minutes, and also welcome to this committee.
Shreya Atrey
Thank you so much to the Chair. I'm not sure if the slides are going to be displayed.
Javier Zarzalejos
Excuse me, Ms. Atrey, just to ask you just to talk at a natural pace so the interpreters can do the job properly and nothing is lost in translation.
Shreya Atrey
Absolutely, fantastic. Thanks so much. So the slides are finally visible. I'm going to be presenting a briefing on the EU anti-racism strategy 2026 to 2030. The purpose of the briefing is to locate the strategy within the anti-racism legal architecture of the European Union.
The legal architecture of the European Union for anti-racism really is originating from the primary treaties, the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which give rise to a range of secondary legislation, most important of which is what we call the Racial Equality Directive or the Directive 2000/43, which is prohibiting discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic origin. Alongside that directive exists a range of other secondary legislation and other legislation and initiatives, including voluntary initiatives, which have a bearing on racial and ethnic origin discrimination. But the most important piece in the architecture of EU anti-racism is really the Racial Equality Directive. It is broad in its scope in terms of the range of discrimination that it covers. It is the most extensive in its material scope and also in its remedial scope, so much so that the Racial Equality Directive initially when it was passed was called to have the greatest level of protection from discrimination in the European Union, and indeed it was considered more equal than protection from other forms of discrimination.
Yet the reality is that it has generated very little case law or jurisprudence, especially before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
There've just been 13 cases that have been brought under the Racial Equality Directive, a majority of which have been deemed either inadmissible or they have been unsuccessful. Before you is a list of four cases that have been successful and that have substantively developed EU racial discrimination law, but these are just four cases. The Racial Equality Directive is thus quite ineffective in dealing with discrimination. It is against this backdrop that the EU Commission first adopted the EU Anti-racism Action Plan in 2020. This was considered to be a step up in enlarging not just the legal architecture but other forms of action that were needed to address racism in the European Union.
Indeed, the plan was ambitious. It tried to tackle individual, structural, and institutional forms of racism that exist within the European Union. As the report on the plan highlights, there was a lot of action taken under the plan. Yet the reality in 2025 remained that racism had increased, not decreased, in the European Union. According to the evidence that is collected from the European Union's own Fundamental Rights Agency, the major forms of racism in the European Union had increased.
These include anti-black racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and discrimination and racism against Roma and Travellers. Even when there were small improvements, these were mild and in fact minor compared to the racism that did exist throughout the EU anti-racist architecture has been in place since the year 2000. It is against this backdrop then that the EU Anti-racism Strategy has been adopted. It's a sobering backdrop to have the strategy adopted. The shift from the plan to the strategy from 2020 to 2026 is marked.
Indeed, the strategy appears to be wanting to do much more than the plan and to be more full-fledged or comprehensive. I'm not going to take you through the granularities of the strategy, but I will highlight three particular normative shifts that have been marked in the strategy. The first is the acknowledgement of the economic rationale for anti-racism. This might strike you as counter-intuitive, but indeed this is what the Racial Equality Directive also acknowledges, and hence the shift in acknowledging the economic rationale is correct. The second thing is a shift to structural racism more firmly than the plan.
The plan also recognized structural racism, but the strategy marks a more complete shift from focusing on individual to structural racism. Third, the strategy marks a shift towards the collective. So not only looking at interpersonal and individual racism and listening to the voices of the victims individually, but in a more collective sense by centering the participation of and partnerships with those who are racially disadvantaged. There's also a range of action which was just highlighted, and that action-oriented plan goes further than initially the EU Anti-racism Action Plan than was initially envisaged. There's a range of action that is envisaged which is more ambitious than the plan.
They're going to, I'm just going to highlight six things which can be done to strengthen the strategy, and indeed there's more which can be done not just on what's on paper but to implement the strategy more effectively. The first is the promise of the strategy to develop a working definition of structural racism. Structural racism and its focus is right, yet a framework, a conceptual account of structural racism is needed to actually ground what we mean by racism.
So a shift in focus from interpersonal and individual racism to structural racism must be marked by a common definition which can be approved and adopted across the European Union. Second, there has to be more done to acknowledge the intersection of racism with xenophobia, which is called xeno-racism. Both the strategy as well as the racial equality directive use the word xenophobia, yet there's no conceptual account of xenophobia or at least a legal account of when does xenophobia actually become racial discrimination and is legally prohibited within the European Union. This must be addressed as we implement the plan. Third, there's an, there's a need to address how coordination would actually work across EU's many anti-racist activities.
This is important not just to address all forms of racism, but also all forms of discrimination racism intersects with, as well as of, as well as all other issues racism intersects with, which include issues of democracy and rule of law, including issues of climate justice, anti-democracy movements, and anti-gender movements. Fourth, it's important to not just center, but to prioritize voices of racially disadvantaged groups. There'll have to be ways to find out how views from racially disadvantaged groups can not just be sought and accounted for, but really be at the forefront of and in leading anti-racism activity within the European Union. Fifth, it'll be important to pass the horizontal equal treatment directive. The strategy is low on its commitment in passing that.
The plan was much better at that, yet we still do not have the horizontal equal treatment directive. We'd have to renew that commitment in order for racism to be addressed across all its forms. And finally, there's, it'll be important to not just address racism on its own as a form of discrimination, but also as it links to all democratic issues. Thank you for your attention.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Dr. Atrey. And now I'll give the floor to Dr. Achiri for eight minutes for your presentation.
Emmanuel Achiri
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to the other panelists, as well as to the LIBE committee for inviting ENAR to reflect on the anti-racism strategy. I'll just quickly wait for the, the slides, the presentation, but in the meantime, maybe a few words about the European Network Against Racism, who I represent. So we represent 140 organizations across Europe that work to combat racism in all of its forms and manifestations across about 30 countries in Europe. We also actively contributed to the development of the racial equality directive because we've been in existence since 1998 and of course also contributed actively to the action plan against racism in 2020 and of course the action, the strategy against racism in 2026. I see the slides, the presentation is not ready yet, but I think I'll just go ahead in the interest of, of time, and of course we are more than happy to, to share this with participants.
Okay, it's right there. Not sure this works. I think I'll, I'll continue. Yes, it works now.
Thank you. So, Associate Professor Atrey and the anti-racism coordinator Michaela Moua have already reflected significantly on the anti-racism strategy. I think we join in as well with their reflections to also highlight that this strategy attempts to build on the action plan and I think that we welcome the strategy. However, we do recognize that the strategy at the same time is a missed opportunity, especially given the findings that were conducted by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency about the rise of racism in Europe. The strategy really misses the opportunity to confront structural racism in Europe and I'll try to go over a couple of points where we think that there are shortcomings and how we can work forward in the future to improve the implementation of the strategy.
So I think the first, which has also been mentioned, is the definition. It definitely offers a definition for structural racism but also this commitment to work and improve on the working definition. But in its current iteration, it defines structural racism as racism experienced over a lifetime that accumulates, but by doing so it also mischaracterizes structural racism as a mere accumulation of individual acts rather than a system embedded in our institutions, laws and policies and also misses the opportunity for a tangible integration of intersectionality in this definition. There is also a lack of conceptual clarity and this lack of conceptual clarity around what structural racism is leads then to a siloed approach and a differential prioritization of different forms of racism and discrimination. For instance, anti-Muslim racism remains the subject of future research and definition building processes while existing definitions of anti-Gypsyism developed by ECRI but also by the Alliance against anti-Gypsyism, which have informed EU Roma policy and are widely used by civil society organizations, are not meaningfully integrated into the strategy's broader anti-racism framework.
It also fails to address the urgency, the scale and the structural nature of racism in Europe as noted by numerous civil society organizations and of course including the FRA as well, but is also really disconnected from the violent realities of racist discriminatory policing and securitization, ultimately leading to the recycling of old approaches which have proven unsuccessful. And this is why we really welcome this opportunity of the review of the Racial Equality Directive because one of the elements really missing in the Racial Equality Directive is addressing racism in policing. So we really welcome this and hope to be able to contribute to this process as well. It significantly ignores how state practices of control, surveillance and securitization actively threaten and silence racialized communities and does not clearly address the intersectional nature of racism where discrimination could be compounded by gender, migration status, class, disability, religion and sexuality. So the strategy, while it promises to centralize racialized voices, does not address the securitization and the criminalization of these voices but also the organizations that work to protect these voices.
It completely, to a very large extent, ignores anti-migrant racism, which is the new face of racism in Europe today, and the securitization of migration through racist policies and discourse, notably through the migration pact, the recently passed what is referred to as the returns regulation but we refer to it as a deportation act, which basically showcase a lack and a problem of mainstreaming of anti-racism policy across EU areas. Because it is one thing to say that there is an anti-racism strategy but then if this anti-racism strategy is not implemented in policies that are being put in place at the level of the European legislation.
Emmanuel Achiri
Yes, thank you, well noted. So yes, there is this disconnect between what the strategy proposes and, you know, different policies that are being put in place, whether that is the AI Act, the migration pact, the deportation regulation. And I mean, we saw that when this regulation was adopted, you know, there were very racist statements that were also made and associated towards this deportation regulation. So there is this significant implementation element which is missing. While the strategy rightfully acknowledges Europe's colonial history and the impact of this colonial history and the continuity of this in contemporary society, it offers no meaningful commitment to reparatory justice or redress following the ongoing material consequences of this history.
And I think it's important to also note as well that a couple of months ago at the United Nations General Assembly, when a vote was put in against, well, to recognize, you know, the enslavement of Africans, but also reparation, that the European member states unanimously do not vote in favor of this, so abstained. So I think there is this disconnect as well again between the promises of this strategy, but also the actions by member states, by the Commission, as well as the Parliament. And of course, any credible anti-racism strategy must protect and support the civil society organizations on the frontline for racial justice. And this strategy definitely talks about centralizing these voices and also about addressing shrinking civic space, which is also of course mentioned in the new, well, in the first iteration of the new civil society strategy. But then on the ground, what we see is a complete different reality.
And I think it's important to reflect that at the very moment where there is a new anti-racism strategy for 2026 to 2030, the European Commission has decided to discontinue ENAR's funding. ENAR is the largest anti-racist organization representing 140 different organizations across Europe as the largest network. When the Commission decides to stop ENAR's funding, it sends a message that, you know, well, the Commission is actually not interested to fight anti-racism in Europe. And so these promises are very hollow. They are meant, well, you know, maybe for our computers or for public speeches, but then in terms of implementation, we see a complete opposite.
And of course, I think that this is a decision that ENAR is going to challenge, but I think we also invite as well lawmakers to also challenge, you know, the decision to defund the largest anti-racism network. And of course, there are conversations and there's talks about EU Agora funding scheme. I think it's also important to highlight as well that while the funding, you know, for anti-racism and civil society would increase under EU Agora, practically the organizations, the bodies that are receiving these funds, there also needs to be a question as to whether this money is actually going to grassroots organizations that work on anti-racism or whether this funding is going to, you know, think tanks and so on and so forth that produce reports that are a bit more palatable for the institutions. That said, there is still a way forward. And as European Network Against Racism, we are committed to work with all institutional actors, so the Parliament, the Commission, member states, but also the Fundamental Rights Agency that we also have an active collaboration with, but also other civil society organizations and stakeholders to work to improve.
Thank you, thank you, Dr. Atchiri, you should be wrapping up. Okay, yes, I would just say that we are more than happy to continue working with the institutions to improve this strategy, but of course that is also contingent on the fact that we are able to continue to get funding, because if we do not have funding, then it becomes difficult to be operational.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Dr. Achiri. Now, Mrs. Lacheva, the floor is yours for eight minutes. Thank you.
Rossalina Latcheva
Chair, honorable members, distinguished speakers, colleagues. Thank you for inviting the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to contribute to this LIBE Committee workshop on the EU anti-racism strategy. I'm pleased to speak after the Commission's presentation of the strategy, the academic perspective, and the stakeholder perspective from ENAR. FRA's contribution is complementary. We bring independent, comparable fundamental rights evidence and a rights-based monitoring perspective on how the strategy can move from commitments to measurable change.
From FRA's perspective, the strategy comes at an important moment. It builds on the EU anti-racism action plan, but it also needs to respond to what the evidence now shows clearly. Racism in the European Union remains persistent, often underreported, and linked to unequal outcomes across employment, housing, health, education, policing, and access to services. FRA's role in this area is not to duplicate the role of policymakers, equality bodies, or civil society. It is to support them with independent evidence, legal and social analysis, methodological guidance, and rights-based indicators that can help assess whether anti-racism commitments are being implemented in practice.
Let me structure my remarks around four points. First, what the evidence shows. Second, why structural racism needs to be addressed through a human rights-based approach. Third, what this means for implementation of the strategy. And fourth, how FRA can support this work.
First, the evidence. I'm not going to repeat a lot of the numbers that have been already referenced. FRA evidence shows that racism is not limited to isolated incidents. It is often repeated, cumulative, and experienced across main several domains of life. EU-MIDIS II collected comparable data from over 16,000 respondents in 15 Member States, covering immigrants and descendants of immigrants from African countries south of the Sahara, North Africa, Syria, and Turkey.
Across the sample, 46% of respondents experienced racial discrimination in the previous five years, and 35% in the previous year. But EU averages hide substantial country and group variation. Among respondents of African descent, the five-year prevalence of racial discrimination reached over 70% in some Member States and stood at 60% in others. This shows why comparable equality data matter. They help identify where racism is most visible in people's lived experience and where targeted action is most needed.
The highest rates of racial discrimination in EU-MIDIS II include employment. 30% of respondents reported racial discrimination when looking for work, 34% at work. This is not only about access to employment, it is also about quality and security of work, as already mentioned. FRA evidence shows that 30% of employed people of African descent have temporary contracts compared to 11% of the general population. 32% work in elementary occupations compared with 8% of the general population.
Over-qualification rate is higher among people of African descent than in the general population. Housing and health also show why anti-racism policy needs to look at outcomes, not only at complaints. Overcrowding affects 45% of people of African descent. FRA evidence on Roma and Travellers points to a persistent life expectancy gap, as mentioned already, which is indicating a gap in the right to life. At the same time, racism remains significantly under-reported.
FRA's data shows among EU-MIDIS respondents the reporting rate of discrimination was 7% and of bias-motivated harassment 14%. The most common reason for not reporting discrimination was the belief that nothing would happen or change. This means that complaints data, police data and administrative data are important, but they show only part of the picture. These are not simply socio-economic statistics. FRA systematically reads outcome gaps between groups at risk of racism and general population together with evidence on discrimination, under-reporting, trust and access to remedies.
From a fundamental rights perspective, this helps assess whether equal treatment, adequate housing, health, work and dignity are effectively enjoyed in practice. This brings me to my second point: structural racism. The strategy's focus on structural racism is important. Structural racism should not be understood as replacing the legal analysis of individual discrimination under EU law. Individual incidents matter and may be unlawful.
Rather, structural racism complements legal analysis by helping us...
Rossalina Latcheva
Okay. By helping us to a broader implementation question. Why do similar inequalities persist across institutions, territories and generations, even where legal commitments exist? FRA's approach to understand structural racism through recurring patterns of unequal rights enjoyment. These patterns may be reproduced through rules, routines, institutional practices, resource allocation, lack of enforcement, barriers to remedies or lack of trust in institutions.
Structural racism is therefore not only about individual intent. It is also about whether systems, policies and institutions produce unequal effects in practice. It can be understood as the system-level reproduction of unequal outcomes through rules, routines and power, while remaining grounded in EU equality law obligations, which is important for the definitional work of the Commission. My third point is: a human rights-based approach helps make this operational. It starts with people as rights holders and public authorities as duty bearers.
It asks who is being left behind, which rights are affected, who has responsibility to act, what safeguards, resources and remedies are in place and how progress will be reviewed. In this way, racism is not treated only as a set of individual experiences, but as a question of whether equality and non-discrimination rights are effectively protected and enjoyed in practice. This is also why the structure-process-outcome approach developed in the context of the OHCHR human rights-based indicators framework and used by FRA in its rights-based monitoring work is useful for monitoring the effective implementation of the strategy. It connects legal and policy commitments, implementation efforts and people's lived experiences of rights. This helps to ensure that monitoring does not stop at whether strategy exists, but asks whether it changes rights enjoyment in practice.
A key weakness remains the lack of systematic implementation data. Who is responsible for which measure, what resources and guidance are provided, how institutions monitor delivery and whether implementation is changing outcomes. What does it mean for implementation of the strategy? FRA underlined five priorities. The first is stronger enforcement of existing EU equality law.
Second is national, regional and local anti-racism plans that are not only declaratory but measurable. The third priority is equality data. FRA data are essential, but FRA data cannot substitute for regular national equality data. This is still not the case across the EU. The fourth priority is reporting, remedies and trust.
Low reporting is not only a measurement problem, it is a rights problem. If people do not report because they don't believe that something is going to change, this signals a gap in institutional reach and accountability. Fifth priority is to address emerging and cross-cutting risks and to ensure policy coherence. In practical terms, implementation should follow a clear logic: define, measure and deliver. Finally, let me say a word about how FRA can support the strategy.
FRA can support in three concrete ways: first, providing comparable evidence to identify racism; second, by supporting rights-based monitoring frameworks, including the structure, process, outcome indicators; third, by contributing methodological expertise on equality data, safeguards, reporting, hate crime recording and intersectional analysis. And to conclude, the EU anti-racism strategy will be judged not only by the strength of its commitment, but whether it improves the lived experiences of rights.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Laceba. And now I open the floor for political groups' representatives and members wishing to intervene. First, the S&D, Mr. Tarquini.
Marco Tarquinio
Thank you, chair. Grazie, presidente, parlerò in italiano. Sono molto grato ai nostri relatori per la lente che hanno usato nel presentarci le loro posizioni e le loro analisi rispetto alla nuova strategia dell'Unione Europea contro il razzismo attraverso una anche una lente che è profondamente economico-sociale. Questo è un punto nodale e i dati sono drammatici, sono echeggiati anche nelle vostre parole, non ci permettono di volgere lo sguardo altrove. Secondo il network europeo contro la povertà, quasi il 45% dei cittadini di nascita non europea residenti nell'Unione è a rischio di povertà o di esclusione sociale.
Avete ricordato il dato della comunità Rom, ventottesimo popolo dell'Unione, l'80% delle persone di questa origine vive sotto la soglia di rischio di povertà. Io me ne sono occupato anche nel lavoro che ho svolto in questo Parlamento come relatore ombra sulla relazione europea del nostro Parlamento a commento della relazione sulla situazione dei diritti fondamentali nell'Unione per il 24 e il 25. I numeri confermano la centralità della questione economico-sociale e dimostrano che il razzismo e la discriminazione non sono fenomeni astratti, ma producono esclusione sociale, vulnerabilità economica, una compressione dei diritti fondamentali. Pongo due domande precise. Ringrazio la coordinatrice Mohuab per aver già richiamato la strategia anti-povertà in collegamento con la strategia anti-razzismo.
È la prima volta che adottiamo una strategia di questo tipo ed è molto importante la connessione. Ecco, io vorrei chiedere in che modo la Commissione intende coordinare e integrare concretamente le azioni delle due strategie al fine di evitare approcci a compartimenti stagni. E poi ancora, come si intende considerare la riduzione del rischio di povertà, della deprivazione materiale e dell'esclusione abitativa delle comunità più esposte al razzismo tra gli indicatori per misurare l'efficacia delle strategie stesse. Grazie a tutti.
Javier Zarzalejos
Grazie, signor Tarquino. Mrs Moa, I think there is two direct questions addressed to you.
Michaela Moua
Thank you to MEP Tarquino for the kind words and for the question. Indeed, I would like to respond to how to ensure the combat against racism is interlinked with the other relative aspects that interlink strongly with racism, namely, for instance, the anti-poverty strategy work of the Commission. Here, one of my main jobs as the anti-racism coordinator is indeed to ensure the mainstreaming of anti-racism across these different Commission policy areas that clearly interlink, that we have data on, and this is, as mentioned, highlighted clearly by Rosalina, the data of the Fundamental Rights Agency clearly highlights the intersection, for instance, with poverty and racialised communities. So this is something that we manage to work quite closely, I manage to work closely with the colleagues working on the anti-poverty strategy and we will continue to do so in the implementation phase. And it is also quite clear from the strategy itself that it highlights the importance of recognising that racialised people are disproportionately impacted also with poverty and this is central to the work of the implementation of the strategy and will continue to be so.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Well, now I will give the floor representing the group of the Patriots to, it will be you, to Monsieur Fabrice Leggeri.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Ce matin, j'ai fait un point d'ordre pour déplorer que malgré l'objection de quatre groupes politiques majoritaires, nous devons subir cet après-midi la présence de l'ENAR, une organisation proche des Frères musulmans et des islamistes, comme l'a montré et établi encore récemment un rapport du gouvernement français sur le sujet. Mais j'en viens au fond et mes questions s'adresseront à Madame la représentante de la Commission européenne. Vous parlez dans votre stratégie d'un racisme structurel. Mais rien dans les traités européens, rien dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux, rien dans aucune législation de l'Union européenne ne définit ce qu'est le racisme structurel.
Alors ma question est la suivante : est-ce que la Commission européenne est encore la gardienne des traités ou bien est-ce que la Commission européenne est-elle complice de ceux qui dénigrent les peuples d'Europe, leurs identités, leurs modes de vie et également leur police ? Deuxièmement, vous avez dans cette stratégie une conception très sélective des victimes du racisme. Pourquoi ne parle-t-on jamais de racisme anti-blanc ? Pourquoi ne parle-t-on jamais de christianophobie et pourquoi n'y a-t-il pas de coordinateur de la lutte contre la christianophobie vu le nombre d'actes anti-chrétiens en explosion également en Europe ? Pourquoi ne parle-t-on pas vraiment des vraies causes de l'antisémitisme exponentiel depuis le 7 octobre sur le continent européen ?
Et troisièmement, votre stratégie accorde une très grande place au rôle des ONG militantes. Alors ma question est très simple ici également pour la Commission européenne. Selon vous, est-ce que nous, élus des peuples européens au suffrage universel direct, sommes moins légitimes que des ONG non élues, choisies selon leur idéologie et gavées d'argent public au détriment du contribuable européen qui n'en est même pas informé, comme l'ont montré des scandales récents révélés par le groupe des patriotes dans l'obtention de fonds européens par la Commission européenne accordés pendant des décennies à des ONG pour influencer un agenda idéologique ? Merci beaucoup.
Michaela Moua
Yes. Thank you for the for the questions. When it comes to structural racism, the work that the Commission does is based on the data that we have. It's very much evidence-based evidence-based work that we have focusing on data, focusing on those areas of life where we know that people living in EU are specifically impacted. And the work that we're doing on the working definition on structural racism is to have a common understanding.
It will be a process that the Commission facilitates, working not imposing anything on Member States, but understanding, providing a facilitating process to ensure that we understand the the way racism functions as comprehensively and exactly as possible to ensure that the policy work, which is my role really is the policy work to ensure that the policy work can be done also in in an impactful and effective way. When it comes to civic space, civil society continues to be a very important stakeholder for for the Commission to ensure that shrinking of civic space doesn't take place, which also will function supports stronger democracies. This is something that we we know that is linked also to democratic democratic backsliding and this is what the Commission how the Commission is committed to strengthening civic space. We recently we recently renewed the the anti-racism forum and had our inaugural meeting and and this is a important stakeholder for us and of course also including people that are impacted by racism is important to us. When it comes to other forms of racism, the anti-racism strategy is a horizontal policy tool focusing on different kinds of phenomenon that impact all people impacted by racism, so focusing on issues such as the enforcement of the legislation, focusing on data, focusing on socio-economic equality as well as social cohesion.
So these are really horizontal topics that the the anti-racism strategy itself focuses on. I have we have I have colleagues focusing on different forms of racism at the European Commission. I have a colleague working on combating anti-semitism and there's a standalone policy document communication of the of the European Commission on this form of racism and there's also a colleague working on combating anti-Muslim hatred as well as a strong history strong history of working of the Commission on working on anti-anti-gypsyism.
So this is, and there's a Roma strategic framework to focus specifically on these different forms of racism. So any kind of discrimination is of course absolutely not accepted by the Commission, be it related to any kind of ground, and that's why the enforcement of the legislation is increasingly important of the existing legal framework. Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of our speakers this afternoon for your interventions. I'm sorry that I had to step out for a moment, but I wanted to ask particularly Dr. Atrey and, yeah, Dr. Atrey basically, and also from the European Network Against Racism, on your perspectives on the backsliding of standards that we are seeing in this institution. And I am referring very specifically to the backsliding of standards here in the European Parliament, not only what we all witnessed last week, which was bad enough, but also in plenary debates, in committee meetings, and all sorts of outings in this house, which makes me think about the point that you made about the institutional component of anti-racism. And I would really appreciate your reflection on how we can combat this from this house, and if you have any good suggestions for us as MEPs. Thank you so much for your contribution.
Shreya Atrey
My legal expertise doesn't go as far as explaining to you how to organize yourselves, but I think a focus on thinking through different versions of racism and how they relate to all EU institutions is important. So between the individual and structural focus is the institutional focus. So the word racism appears in the Racial Equality Directive, but the word individual, institutional, structural does not. These are conceptual forms of racism which don't need to be mentioned legislatively. This is how racism needs to be understood.
Conceptual frameworks cannot be legislated. But the word is there, and one of the pillars of the strategy, which I do appreciate, is to think about the European Union from within. So in addition to the focus on structural racism, which is going beyond the EU's institutional infrastructure, structural racism goes towards the social, political, economic, psychological relationships, the totality of it that exists in the society. Institutional racism, in contrast, is more microscopic. It's a micro perspective into specific systems, and EU is one of them.
And I would really hope that all EU institutions, not just the Commission, continue to think about what they are thinking in terms of institutional racism, what patterns exist within, what are the root causes of those, and how can they be fought.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Atrey. Now for the group of the Greens, Mrs. Kuhnke.
Emmanuel Achiri
Yes, thank you very much for the question. I think the first place to start is the treaties of the European Union, which in Article 10 says that the Union is obliged to combat discrimination based on race and ethnicity. So I think in the treaties the obligation exists.
I think that should be set for the public record. And then in terms of actions that, you know, lawmakers could make, I think that there are several. I think one which is also, you know, particularly relates to ENAR would be, you know, actively campaign against the defunding of anti-racist civil society organizations and the criminalization. This is happening not only at the European level, but at the national level as well. We see the instrumentalization of security policies to justify criminalization.
But this is not only about anti-racist voices. This is about democracy. It's about all of us, because it often starts with certain groups, but then the same justifications are used to, you know, to curtail civic spaces. Also more specifically, I think going forward, it would be interesting if the European Parliament, specifically the LIBE committee, could put in place an independent monitoring mechanism that would, you know, review legislative developments. Of course, we know that such structures or some structures exist, but I think that there should be a mandatory process where this is reviewed and to ensure that any legislation that is going out mainstreams anti-racism in it, so at the inception, not at the end.
And of course, I think it's necessary to also introduce a binding racial mainstreaming requirement across EU migration, security and policing policies. This is really very important because we see, especially in Europe today, that migration is the new proxy through which racism is being, it's a new form of cultural racism. You know, this is the racism today. So I think the deportation regulation, for instance, should not have passed. It is a Jim Crow law.
When you look at this regulation, these are regulations that were in the US in the 19th and 20th century. And I think it's a bit sad that Europe is going back to the 19th century for inspiration in terms of organizing society. So I think these are elements where lawmakers can have very strong positions.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ojele. I mean, if you address questions to more than one of our speakers, there can't be a full question, a full answer from all of them, otherwise we won't have time to do that. They will have to split the available time. Now I move to the group of the Greens and give the floor to Mrs. Alice Kuhnke.
Mélissa Camara
I will speak in French. Oui, pour peut-être premièrement répondre à Monsieur Leggeri, j'ai vraiment hâte qu'on parle de LGBT-phobie, vous seriez capable de nous parler d'hétérophobie. Et je comprends que vous attaquiez la société civile qui documente et qui accompagne les personnes victimes de racisme sur ce continent quand votre groupe se lève après le vote sur le règlement retour pour hurler « renvoyez-les » ou quand des partisans de Marine Le Pen sont filmés actuellement en France en train de crier « Marine au pouvoir, les Arabes à l'abattoir ». Et on le sait, les mouvements, les associations de lutte contre le racisme sont essentielles et notamment pour accompagner et documenter le racisme structurel. Alors justement, cette stratégie souligne à juste titre l'importance de ces organisations.
Et il y a un sujet aujourd'hui, il y a des attaques, de la diffamation, on l'a vu encore aujourd'hui, et il y a un sujet de financement. Et ça a été rappelé, et je voudrais poser la question à la Commission : comment lutter contre ce racisme structurel si les organisations perdent leur financement ? Comment la Commission compte protéger ce financement ? Autre question sur les politiques. En fait, s'il y a racisme structurel, il faut absolument que toutes les politiques publiques présentées par la Commission européenne intègrent cette question, qu'il y ait un mainstreaming antiraciste dans les politiques.
Et on le voit aujourd'hui, par exemple, je reviendrai sur le règlement retour, quand la Commission fait une proposition qui peut éventuellement permettre le profilage racial, nous avons une question centrale. Et comment la Commission compte proposer justement et mettre au cœur de ses politiques cette question de lutte contre le racisme et ne pas proposer des règlements, des directives qui pourraient aller à l'encontre des personnes racisées de ce continent ?
Javier Zarzalejos
Merci. Before I give the floor to the Commission, I will give the floor to Monsieur Leggeri for the references that have been made.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci, merci Monsieur le Président. Et comme Madame Camara, ma collègue des Verts, a évoqué mon nom, moi je souhaiterais simplement dire que d'abord je n'ai jamais évoqué le mot de hétérophobie, donc je ne sais pas d'où il est sorti, mais en tout cas on pourra vérifier les vidéos. Je n'ai jamais parlé de cela. Deuxièmement, vous faites état de partisans selon vous de Marine Le Pen en France qui tiendraient des propos sordides sur je ne sais pas, parlant d'abattoirs. Donc je ne sais pas de quoi vous parlez ni à quel endroit de tels propos auraient pu être tenus ni par qui.
Et enfin, en ce qui me concerne et en ce qui concerne je pense la totalité des membres de mon groupe, je n'ai pas le souvenir d'avoir crié quoi que ce soit en hémicycle. J'ai applaudi effectivement comme c'est l'usage lorsque des groupes sont satisfaits d'avoir pu faire passer une législation. Mais en tout cas je réfute complètement l'idée que des membres du Rassemblement National ou de mon groupe aient pu, de la manière dont vous le décrivez, tenir des propos qui auraient éventuellement offensé des personnes.
Michaela Moua
Thank you, Chair. So when it comes to civil society in Europe, it's of course a crucial, first of all, stakeholder for for the Commission and to include ensure a vibrant civil society also supports strong democracies. And we have a number of initiatives in place, including the anti-racism strategy, but also the EU strategy for civil society, which recognizes the civil the role of civil civil society. And when it comes to to funding, the Commission has proposed to more than double the budget in the current CERV programme under the Agora EU programme. And this is to 1.54 1.55 million, which is the biggest amount we've had until now.
To date, the programme has supported more than 6,000 civil society organisations and supporting civil society organisations will be continue to be central to our work. And this, as I mentioned, is already highlighted with the renewed permanent anti-racism civil society forum, which we had the first meeting quite recently. And this is also central, of course, to my role. When it comes to policy on on migration, the anti-racism strategy focuses on combating racism within the EU and this is part of my mandate and and there are certainly my work is to ensure the mainstreaming of anti-racism into relevant EU policies. However, this is unfortunately does not fall under my mandate.
Pernando Barrena Arza
Thank you, Mrs. Moa. Señor Barrena, the group of the Left.
Thanks, Chair.
26 28 period, a decision that could have significant implications for the future of anti-racism advocacy and policy work across the European Union. For several years, ENAR has been the target of recurring attacks from sections of the far right, as we have regretfully witnessed today, and due to its work in challenging racism and discrimination throughout Europe. The Commission's decision not to renew funding for ENAR, despite the network having successfully passed the evaluation process, the largest anti-racist network in Europe is clear evidence of a lack of political commitment to advancing the anti-racism agenda in the EU. So keeping this in mind, I'd like to ask to the Commission's representative, Mr. Moa, what impact do you expect the non-renewal of ENAR's framework partnership agreement to have on anti-racism work at Union level? And to be more specific, how can civil society organizations working on anti-racism have confidence that the Agora EU regulation will provide stable and accessible support for their work?
What warranties can the Commission offer that funding decisions under Agora EU will be transparent, objective, and free from political pressure? Thank you so much.
Michaela Moua
Thank you for the question. Indeed, the Commission has sent, the process is ongoing with ENAR as mentioned by the ENAR representative. And there is still an opportunity for ENAR to respond to the ongoing situation, so no final decisions have been made at this point. And until that, the Commission can't respond, can't position or respond to this question further. But I'd like to highlight that the anti-racism coordinator, so myself, I have not been involved in the decision of this process.
It has been taken by services in charge of the grant management, and these relate to the financial regulation procedures. My role as the coordinator is to ensure structured and ongoing engagement with civil society, including ENAR. And ENAR is a part of the permanent anti-racism civil society forum and will continue to be a valued partner. Thank you.
Malika Sorel
Bonjour. Je confirme ce que la collègue a dit, Madame Camara, c'est-à-dire il y a bien une vidéo qui tourne de militants du Rassemblement National qui crient "les Arabes à l'abattoir". Et comme je suis d'origine arabe, je me sens un peu concernée. Autre chose, lorsque j'ai quitté la délégation du Rassemblement National, il a été aussitôt dit par des députés, parce qu'on est en train de parler d'institution, que je devais rendre un mandat que j'avais volé, ce qui a été traduit sur les réseaux sociaux "arabe égale voleuse". Et je subis encore aujourd'hui une forme de racisme lié à ça.
Le fait que j'avais menti, ça a été traduit par "d'origine musulmane égale taqiya". Donc, mon propos est le suivant. C'est un sujet qui est extrêmement grave et qu'on doit traiter de manière sérieuse et déterminée, mais il nous faut aussi essayer de trouver la voie qui n'est pas facile à trouver, c'est-à-dire il ne faut pas opposer un racisme contre un autre. Il y a des différentes formes de racisme. Il ne faut pas dire il n'y a que les personnes d'origine... moi je déteste quand on parle des gens blancs.
Il y a quelques années, on ne parlait pas de ça. Et on ne parlait pas, on ne disait pas les noirs non plus. Donc il ne faut pas essentialiser. Plusieurs points. Vous avez dit tous que depuis un certain nombre d'années, il y a des plans qui sont mis en œuvre et ça ne marche pas.
C'est qu'il y a un problème, il faut qu'on se penche sur les plans. Il y a des choses qui ne vont pas. Et je vais citer deux hommes importants, Barack Obama, parce qu'on emprunte les plans que vous mettez en œuvre en réalité, empruntent de ce qui a été fait aux États-Unis, ça n'a pas marché. Ça a été reconnu par Barack Obama, je vous donnerai si vous voulez les passages de son discours, je pense que ça peut nous aider à réfléchir, et qui disait que la stratégie qui avait été mise en place aux États-Unis, et c'est ce dont exactement vous nous parlez, ce que vous voulez mettre en place, ça avait enfermé les États-Unis dans une fracture raciale dont les Américains n'arrivaient pas à sortir.
Deuxième personne que j'ai rencontrée un jour dans une conférence, qui est aujourd'hui décédée, Bob Woodson, qui avait accompagné les compagnons de Martin Luther King. Et il avait fait les mêmes observations que Barack Obama. Et il avait même dit que les sociétés, les villes aux États-Unis qui avaient été dirigées par des Noirs avaient donné de moins bons résultats sur les questions économiques et sociales liées aux Noirs. Donc voyez la complexité du sujet. J'aimerais vous appeler à la prudence, c'est-à-dire qu'on ne participe pas à jeter de l'huile sur le feu.
Il y a un problème de racisme, j'en suis moi-même victime, je le reconnais. Mais sur la question du logement, on a une commission HOUSE. Il y a des énormes problèmes de logement dans l'Union européenne. Donc il ne faut pas toujours répéter que c'est lié aux origines des gens. Pourquoi ne pas travailler, moi je suis prête à travailler avec vous, j'ai écrit des livres sur ça, comment aider certains enfants de l'immigration pour lever le niveau scolaire, les amener vers de meilleures compétences, etc.
Sur la question retour, je veux vraiment réagir parce que bon, c'est traduit déportation. En français, c'est un sujet assez clivant. On a un problème de flux migratoire. Les citoyens de l'Union européenne demandent qu'ils soient réglés. On est obligé de répondre à ça.
Il faut vraiment qu'on arrive à trouver la voie. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Michaela Moua
So, the work of the Commission on the anti-racism strategy is based on data that we have, so evidence. We're focusing on areas in society which we know where we know racism and racial discrimination exists. This focuses on tackling structural racism, on enforcing the existing legal framework to ensure that all Europeans can reach their fundamental rights, to ensure that socio-equalities achieved as well as building partnerships. So this is these are the areas that the strategy itself focuses on. We can stop saying certain words, but it's still not going to stop racism or discrimination from happening.
And this is what the strategy itself is focusing on. It's focusing on based on the evidence that we have, the strong evidence that we have, for instance, from the Fundamental Rights Agency is the base on which we're working on. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Moat. Now we have some time for a second round. I will start by giving the floor to EPP representative, Mr. Vincze Loránt.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you, Chair and panelists. I will make a few comments and maybe you can reflect on that in your respective roles. We in the EPP group, we believe that the Commission's anti-racism strategy is a good step forward, but we all know with strategies, the most important part is that they become reality. We can write a lot of strategies. And in the European society that are very diverse, different communities face different challenges.
Too often, policy discussions focus only on the groups with the greatest visibility and some communities remain underrepresented in data and in policy.
And you certainly referred to Roma people, but I would like to highlight again that Roma as Europe's largest community and among the most affected by racism, hate speech and structural exclusion. They experience show exactly why targeted community-specific approaches matter. And this should be the highlight of the strategy as well, because anti-discrimination of Roma, anti-Roma discrimination cuts across housing, employment, education, public services. It's much broader than just being neglected or facing anti-Roma speech, for example. The anti-racism strategy, if it cannot deliver to Roma, it cannot complete itself comprehensively.
And I would like also to include the other group in this approach, and that is the discrimination faced by the national linguistic minorities. They still face a lot of hate speech against them, and this is an undocumented reality, unfortunately. Now, good policy requires good data. Without reliable data, some discrimination stays invisible. So I would like to ask the Fundamental Rights Agency whether you have enough data and then you can draw the necessary conclusions.
We feel that national linguistic minorities are left out of those data. So from our side, of course, we support anti-racism strategy, but we need also to make sure that everybody is on the board of that train that is moving in the right direction. Thank you very much.
Rossalina Latcheva
Thank you very much for the very important remarks and for the clarifications that needs to be done. So we fully agree that data need to show and to indicate the real challenges and the gaps in the society as a whole, and all groups at risk need to be visible in the data that we collect on equality and discrimination. Very rightly, you started with Roma and Travellers, and FRA for many years now, I think for over 15 years, we collect as the only agency collecting comparable data on Roma and Travellers on a regular basis that provides information on progress or regress or stagnation over time in all with structural inequality in it, with poverty risks, with access to essential services, and always in comparison to the general population. So what is relevant for our approach is that where we do not have enough budget to collect information on comparable groups, we use exactly the same indicators methodology that Eurostat is using for social reporting and reporting on poverty and access to substantial services, to essential services. So this always the data that we present for monitoring purposes is in comparisons to indicators for the general population.
When it comes to information on groups that are still not visible, we agree fully that there are many groups that Member States and Eurostat still do not manage to present, including maybe on discrimination or inequality for linguistic minorities.
Data, comparable EU-wide data, we are engaged in different working groups also Eurostat supporting, for example, the task force on equality statistics to improve, and through this task force, to improve the statistics at the EU level on all grounds of discrimination or different characteristics that might lead to unequal and discriminatory experience. So language is one characteristic that would need maybe to be made more visible, but there's also disability, there's also older people above the age of 74. So there are developments where also FRA provides technical assistance even to member states and other local and regional authority at the national level. So we will continue to support that.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the Commission for the clear statement that it doesn't matter if discrimination is individual, systemic, structural, it doesn't matter, all kind of discrimination is unacceptable. I also have a question and I think it was mentioned in the presentation of the speaker from ENAR when we talk about intersectional discrimination. And of course we have concrete measures, ideas to fight back discrimination based on gender, on disability, on other things, but of course we might see one person, and that's the intersectional discrimination, that is a migrant woman with a disability. And I'm not sure who may answer the question, if it's the FRA or maybe even the Commission, to what extent we already have ideas for measures fighting back these intersectional discriminations.
Michaela Moua
Yes, thank you. Indeed, it's the intersectional approach is central to all of the Commission's Union of Equality strategies, including the gender equality strategy and the persons living with disability strategies as well as the anti-racism strategy and other strategies as I mentioned earlier, the anti-poverty strategy etc. Why? Because there's of course an recognition and understanding that oftentimes people don't necessarily, it's not so clear-cut what the social location is and we have data again from the Fundamental Rights Agency, for example, that highlights oftentimes these intersections that when falling under different protected grounds, the discrimination is actually exacerbated and this should be already taken into account at the preparation phase of the policies to recognize the intersection aspect, which is what we aim to do at the Commission. And again, my role is to ensure the mainstreaming of anti-racism specifically into these other strategies.
Personally, I think it's a bit of a challenge in our institution at the Commission that we work typically in silos, but of course internally I have a working, good working relationships with colleagues working on these different specific areas of discrimination/equality to ensure that the intersectional aspect can be taken impactfully account of. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moua. M. Barroux.
Alexandre Varaut
Merci Monsieur le Président. Tout le monde est d'accord pour être contre le racisme, enfin 99,9 % des gens, en tout cas je n'en connais pas qui pensent autre chose.
La question est qu'est-ce que nous appelons racisme? Qu'est-ce que vous appelez, Monsieur le Président, autour de vous avec nos quatre invités, racisme? Et là, j'ai eu un peu l'impression, mais on va peut-être me détromper, que le racisme commençait par l'idée de contrôler l'immigration. Et j'en ai eu la confirmation par le fait que le représentant de l'ENAR a qualifié le règlement retour de pacte sur les déportations. Alors Monsieur, les déportations, c'est un crime contre l'humanité.
Vous ne le savez peut-être pas, j'ai voté le règlement retour comme la majorité de mes collègues du Parlement européen sans avoir l'impression de commettre un crime contre l'humanité. Mais je relève une peine à perpétuité si j'en comprends votre définition. Et je suis assez content qu'on vous ait invité à nos frais pour venir nous injurier. Ensuite, vous avez évoqué la pauvreté, la délinquance comme signe d'un racisme systémique. Mais prenez trois livres de sociologie et vous comprendrez qu'il est inévitable que des immigrés, surtout au début de leurs immigrations, soient plus pauvres, plus délinquants que les autres.
Vous avez évoqué une police raciste, ce qui n'existe pas dans mon pays où d'ailleurs un grand nombre de policiers sont antillais et où il n'y a pas de police raciste et je ne peux pas laisser injurier ainsi nos policiers. L'Europe n'est pas raciste, ni institutionnellement ni personnellement. Si cette dame veut bien se calmer, je pourrai continuer, elle me répondra si elle le souhaite, si vous le souhaitez, Monsieur le Président. Regardez ce qui s'est passé en Tunisie avec l'immigration subsaharienne. Regardez ce qui se passe au Japon et vous trouverez que l'Europe n'est pas raciste du tout.
Alors évidemment, il y a un certain nombre de gens, d'agences, d'institutions qui vivent de ce fantasme, mais ce n'est qu'un fantasme. Et j'en termine avec ma question. Je pense que la meilleure manière de lutter contre le racisme, c'est dans le cadre d'une arrivée raisonnable de personnes d'origines et de cultures étrangères, que ces personnes s'intègrent en respectant les lois, puis à la génération s'assimilent en respectant les mœurs. Et je voudrais savoir si vous êtes d'accord avec cette vision des choses, qu'il faut d'abord s'intégrer puis s'assimiler ou si vous êtes favorable à une civilisation multiculturelle. Ma question s'adresse particulièrement à la Commission européenne.
Michaela Moua
I'm sorry but I have to say it again that my mandate is the internal EU anti-racism policy. That's what the strategy is working on. I do not work on the migration policy of the European Commission.
Emmanuel Achiri
Thank you. I think it's necessary that we set the record straight. The definition of what is racism is anthropological, is sociological. There are many studies by people who are also more qualified than myself and others here who have worked on this. So I think that this is not a notion that we should debate.
The notion as well that there is structural racism in Europe is also backed up by the data which is also been collected by the Fundamental Rights Agency. So I think my role here today representing ENAR was to speak about the strategy, how we can, what can be improved in the strategy, what its shortcomings are and not necessarily to debate whether there is structural racism in Europe or not because those are facts. And also to set the record straight that as it pertains to the deportation regulation or to racism in policing, a study that was conducted by DG JUST in 2021 did highlight that structural racism in policing is a fact in Europe.
So these are not my statements. These are also studies that have been conducted by the European Union's research institute. So I think that it's important that we have that in the record as well. And last but not least um the fact that Europe is racist or there is racism in Europe doesn't mean that there cannot be racism in other parts of the world. I think we are not it's not an oppression Olympics in terms of some places are more racist than others.
It's about can we fight structural racism? Can we live up to the commitments of the EU treaties about dignity and rights for everyone who lives in Europe but also outside of Europe? I think that is the commitment of the treaty and I think that is what we are fighting for as well.
Speaker 36
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Atchere. I will give the floor to the FRA representative.
Rossalina Latcheva
Thank you very much uh for your remarks. Maybe just to reply as a agency that uh bases its conclusions and recommendation on data and evidence. So it would be it would be good to when we put some arguments at the uh on the floor to use the data. And linking for example integration, migration and racism is an important uh element. And I think based on all our data looking also at the second, third, fourth generation uh you will see that it doesn't matter if persons that have parents or at least one parent that is of migrant background and being born in in the countries of residence and raised and followed school continue to be uh racially harassed, continue to be racially violated, continue to experience uh violence, continue to experience unequal outcomes.
And this is based on data. Using Eurostat data to compare uh but the results are since I think 40 years of research on integration and inclusion. And this is what we need to look at. The evidence that is comparable to identify which are the groups at risk. So we cannot continue to to link simply migration and assimilation and integration without looking at equal outcomes and risks of harassment, discrimination and in different areas of life.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you Mrs. Lateva. We have to conclude here and go to the uh sorry Monsieur Legerri.
Speaker 35
Point of order yes. What is your point of order? Another point of order? Another point of order.
Fabrice Leggeri
Merci Monsieur le Président. Nous venons d'entendre des paroles insultantes pour la police, la police de nos États membres. Ces propos sont indignes, ces propos sont inacceptables et je tenais à ce que ça figure également dans les minutes de cette réunion que des représentants au Parlement européen se sont insurgés contre de tels paroles qui sont vraiment une indignité dans notre institution. Merci beaucoup.
Cecilia Strada
Uh thank you Chair. Uh actually uh first of all I can speak in Italian if I may. Thank you very much. Io sono invece molto stanca di sentire in questa istituzione diffamazioni contro le organizzazioni non governative e le organizzazioni della società civile come ENAR ma non solo che vengono continuamente prese di mira quando in realtà portano esattamente come la FRA esattamente come le altre agenzie portano dati, ricerche ed evidenze. Io penso che dobbiamo smettere in questa aula di diffamare le organizzazioni della società civile.
Penso che chi ha qualcosa da dire che ritiene che le organizzazioni della società civile da quelle che si occupano di soccorso in mare all'antirazzismo abbiano commesso dei reati debbano portare le prove in tribunale, debbano aspettare un processo e dopo aver vinto debbano festeggiare altrimenti debbano evitare di diffamare le organizzazioni della società civile in questa istituzione. Molte grazie.
Javier Zarzalejos
Gracias señora Strada.
We conclude this item on our agenda. Thank you, thanks to our speakers for their input to this commission and the exchange with the members. Thank you, thank you very much. So, dear colleagues, we are moving on to our next item on the agenda. Please take your seats and please be quiet.
Those who want to leave the room, do so quietly. Excuse me. Excuse me, those who want to leave the room, please do so quietly. Okay. Let us move now to the next item on our agenda, as I said, point 13, and the structured dialogue with Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen.
Thank you, Mrs. Vice-President, for being with us today to answer the questions of our members. I'm sure there will be a lot of topics to discuss, including the upcoming digital fitness check, the current proposals on the table on the enforcement of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, or the recently published guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems under the AI Act. We also hear that the EUH verification app should be available to citizens by the end of 2026 and that Member States are being requested to start with the app's roll-out. So let us start the dialogue. I'm sure LIBE members will have additional topics to discuss in the course of this exchange.
So, Mrs. Virkkunen, thank you for being with us today again. You're welcome, and now you have the floor for your initial presentation for 10 minutes.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you so much, honorable chair, honorable members. It's very timely to be here today with you as we presented our package on strengthening Europol and Eurojust just few hours ago.
And our aim is to strengthen the Union's capacity to prevent, detect, investigate and also prosecute serious cross-border crime in an increasingly complex security environment. And we also want to strengthen cooperation and complementarity between these two agencies, Eurojust and Europol, as well with other relevant Union actors in justice and home affairs field and anti-fraud architecture areas. And tomorrow Commissioner Brunner will come here and he will present this new proposal to you in detail. So in my opening remarks I will touch some topical points and then of course I'm very much looking forward to our discussion. So first about our simplification package, Digital Omnibus.
So the Commission's simplification objective with the Digital Omnibus is clear: set the path for the development of responsible AI in Europe in line with our values and protection of fundamental rights. By simplifying our data rules, we support the innovation capacity of European industry and provide for ourselves the means to spearhead AI development. We also want to unlock the full potential of data sharing with the consolidation of the Data Act and we transform also GDPR into a more forward-looking harmonized legislation in line with important technological developments. And this provides much needed legal certainty to operators that want to innovate with AI in Europe and strengthens also our enforcement, all while preserving the key safeguards present in the GDPR. And we also want to address the issue of cookie consent fatigue and the rules under ePrivacy Directive need to be updated to provide more flexibility to businesses not to need to collect consent when there are low risks to the fundamental rights of users.
Another aspect is to make users' privacy choices online easier and also enhance their control. On the cybersecurity side, the Commission proposed the EU single entry point for cybersecurity reporting. It is a very concrete delivery on our promise to cut red tape and reduce reporting burden because that burden has become often the reason why reporting does not take place as it must. And this has serious consequences on our capacity building. I'm resolute in making the necessary efforts to prepare our continent for the challenges ahead of us and work ambitiously towards increased sovereignty in line with the tech sovereignty package proposed by the Commission a few weeks ago.
Then few words about the cybersecurity especially because today's geopolitical context we see that every link in our complex and very digitalized supply chain is also potential target for exploitation of malicious actors with potential devastating consequences to our security. With the revision of the Cybersecurity Act, our objective is providing the necessary regulatory means to protect Member States and the Union. With the ICT supply chain framework, we will ensure that the measures proposed are targeted and proportionate through assessment of their economic and societal impacts to only apply measures to specific assets where we see that security risks are very high and we need higher protection. We have also seen during the last months that the rise in frontier AI presents a strategic challenge now in cybersecurity. The policy point is very clear here: AI must become part of Europe's defensive capability agenda.
And this is why I announced on 19th of May an action plan on AI and cybersecurity, and Commission will adopt that very soon. The most advanced AI models are viewed as a strategic capabilities with implications for national security and also for cyber resilience, which was confirmed by the US government imposing export controls to suspend access to Anthropic's most advanced AI models by any foreign national. While following the developments across the Atlantic, we remain cooperative with the industry and also with our US partners as the deployment of these advanced AI models, they are an area of common concern. At the same time, we remain vigilant on how they might affect our security, and these developments also underline how important it is to maintain our own sovereignty and especially develop our own capabilities in AI. One of our common priorities for European Parliament and for Commission during this mandate has been protection of minors online.
And it's, it's really at the heart of our efforts and, of course, here we have as a crucial pillar our flagship regulation, the Digital Services Act, and its guidelines on the protection of minors. This year, we have fully leveraged these tools to drive meaningful change for children online with our preliminary findings against TikTok, Meta, and four pornographic platforms. If our findings are ultimately confirmed, we may issue a non-compliance decision. And these preliminary findings are just part of our action to make online spaces safer. We are committed that online environment should be safe for everybody, but especially for our children.
In the first months of this year alone, we opened also proceedings against Snapchat, X, and Shein. We have also witnessed that the digital threat of child sexual abuse has really evolved significantly over the past years. The current EU rules, as we know in this area, they were agreed in 2011, so 15 years ago, and had to be adapted now to address the revolution in the digital world that took place since. To give you an order of magnitude of this change, reports of child sexual abuse online increased from 1 million in 2010, so 1 million reports 2010, and more than 33 million in last year. So in 15 years, from 1 million to 33 million reports.
So we are making progress in tackling now this horrible crime. On Monday, a provisional agreement was reached on the directive on child sexual abuse. And this indeed represents now a very significant achievement. But however, we know that it will only be effective if we are also able to identify these offenders. And today, up to 80% of criminal investigations into child sexual abuse are launched because of reports of images and videos of such abuse from online service providers.
So I urge you to reach an agreement with the Council on rules for such reports that effectively prevent and combat child sexual abuse online. And when we speak about protection of minors online, it's also, of course, important to speak about how to verify the age of user.
Besides, as you are aware, President von der Leyen is also currently seeking expert advice through the special panel of child safety online. Without pre-empting the findings of the recommendations of the co-chairs, the President has raised the idea of social media delay. And depending now on the content of the recommendations, we could come forward with the proposal by this summer already. So, dear members, these were my opening remarks, and now I'm very much looking forward to hear your priorities and questions.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Vice-President Virkkunen. Now we open the floor for political groups' representatives. It will be two minutes for members intervening and two minutes for Mrs. Virkkunen to answer. As there are quite a number of members wishing to take the floor, I will have to be rather strict on the management of time, so please do stick to the time allocated. We start with EPP, Mrs. Pedro, two minutes.
Ana Miguel Pedro
Thank you, Chair. Allow me to speak in Portuguese. Senhora Vice-Presidente, a Europa não pode continuar a ser o continente que regula apenas a tecnologia. Tem também de ser o continente que a desenvolve, que a testa, que a protege e que a consegue usar de forma segura e competitiva. Sabemos que a soberania tecnológica é uma questão económica e de competitividade, mas é também uma questão de segurança, de autonomia estratégica aberta e até de poder político.
A própria Comissão reconhece que a União Europeia depende de países terceiros para mais de 80% dos seus principais produtos, serviços e infraestruturas digitais. Na cloud, os fornecedores europeus continuam a representar apenas uma parte limitada do mercado, enquanto grandes empresas não europeias dominam infraestruturas críticas. Na inteligência artificial, o caso Anthropic mostrou como modelos avançados podem ficar sujeitos a decisões unilaterais de controlo de exportação, mesmo quando são relevantes para a cibersegurança europeia. Se reconhecemos estas dependências como vulnerabilidades, que capacidades mínimas deve a Europa controlar autonomamente nos próximos cinco anos em cloud, computação crítica, ciberdefesa e modelos avançados de inteligência artificial, sem pôr em causa a cooperação com parceiros e aliados? Numa outra nota, a inteligência artificial pode reforçar a nossa segurança, mas também criar novos riscos: ataques a infraestruturas críticas, drones autónomos, sistemas militares cada vez mais independentes.
A corrida global à inteligência artificial avançada, aos chips, à capacidade computacional, pode tornar-se uma nova fonte de instabilidade estratégica. Que salvaguardas concretas prepara a Comissão para garantir que a Europa é capaz de desenvolver, testar e proteger capacidades críticas em inteligência artificial de forma segura, responsável e competitiva, evitando simultaneamente novas dependências externas e uma escalada tecnológica com impacto direto na nossa segurança?
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much. I very much agree with the analysis of Member Pedro that we have to really focus now to build up our own capacities in all critical fields of technologies.
And especially when it comes to AI, we have also huge potential in the European Union because we have around 8,000 startups who are developing and training AI. But one big obstacle for them has been that we haven't had enough computing capacity to train the models. And now we are also going to be in better position after that when this 19 AI factories what we are now establishing together with Member States, when they are up and running. And very soon we will also launch the official call for gigafactories and then we are also able to train very, very capable frontier models with that. And in the same time it's also important to make sure that our very promising startups that they are able to scale up their businesses in Europe.
But then when it comes to especially to cybersecurity and AI, we are now working with the action plan really to look that what kind of new actions are needed because of this very capable AI models because we know that they are able to identify the vulnerabilities in our ICT systems in in few hours. And that's why we have to be able also to protect and respond very fast to that kind of threats. So in few weeks time we will adopt our action plan especially focusing to AI and cybersecurity. And also here in the Parliament you have our revision of our Cybersecurity Act currently under discussion and there we also proposed that we will look now all our critical infrastructures and we will look all the components there and we want to make sure that we don't have that kind of high-risk vendors inside in our critical infrastructures so all these fields which are covered under NIS2 Directive. But this is very true that we have to now always take the security and resilience aspect into account and that's why it's important to be very well prepared in all the areas.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much. I will focus on two or three things. I'm really tired after all the many years that I'm still confronted in the internet with a broad range of different cookies. And I'm tired that still it's not even easy to understand if and how I could disagree. But your answer now is to give more flexibility to companies and ensure individual choices and control.
I don't want to have these individual choices. I want to have responsibility for companies that I'm not controlled. So why are you choosing this way? You are talking about innovative companies, but we already have a lot of alternatives to products from Microsoft, for so-called social media, for messengers and also for some AI measures, but we are not promoting them. So it's not good enough to spend money for innovative solutions if then we don't promote them and therefore our citizens are not using them.
So promotion of all these ideas is also important. We have a lot of innovative companies who are using AI in the area of non-personal data. But instead of celebrating this, we are again and again focusing on using personal data and on the digital simplification omnibus we even watered down the definition of personal data and make it difficult to access own personal data. So if we really are interested in sovereignty, we should not only concentrate on technical solutions, clouds and things like that. I wonder why we don't insist on our own rules and standards.
And I would like to know if the sanctions that so far have been done by the Commission and the fines that we have given to companies and I'm afraid they will laugh about the amounts of money, but have you seen any change in the behavior or isn't it true that we still see that even if they are alerted about clear illegal content, they are not deleting it, they are continuing their business model on discriminating people, giving wrong information and not respecting European legislation.
Henna Virkkunen
Thanks very much, Member Sippel. I very much agree that we have a lot of very innovative companies in Europe when we speak about technologies. We have many European alternatives. Often they are smaller and they are not so visible in the markets. So we have to really also make them more visible and also support more European alternatives.
And we can do it with our public procurement. And that's why public procurement is very much key pillar of our tech sovereignty package. For example, with the cloud services where we were now defining four different levels of sovereignty in cloud services, this will create more demand for the European cloud services. And it will also create more demand for European data centers. And this will create more demand for European chips as well.
So public procurement is playing very important role here and we can really give a great boost for those companies by choosing European alternatives. And when it comes to this digital omnibus, we were touching and addressing these both parts what you were underlining in our digital omnibus, the cookies part and the e-privacy here, and then also our GDPR rules. And of course now the discussion is here in the Parliament that what kind of decision Parliament is taking on that. But what we wanted to achieve with the cookies part was really that we wanted to make it easier for the users and simplify the things with our proposal. And also when it comes to GDPR, we wanted to simplify and clarify the rules because we know that this is something that many stakeholders are always addressing that this is one big obstacle in the European market that our rules are not clear enough and also different Member States they have different interpretation when it comes to GDPR, that for example what is personal data and what is not personal data.
And that's why we wanted to provide European approach and more simple rules also for our companies.
András László
I will be speaking Hungarian. Tisztelt elnök asszony! Magyarországon az új kormánytöbbség visszamenőleges hatályú törvénykezéssel és alkotmánymódosítással próbál politikai bosszút állni az ellenzéken, és emiatt három új rendelkezésről szeretném kikérni a véleményét külön-külön. Az első. 36 évre visszamenőlegesen fogadtak el korlátozást jövőbeli miniszterelnökök jelölésére vonatkozóan.
Aki már legalább nyolc évig szolgált miniszterelnökként, soha többé nem tölthetné be ezt a posztot. A második ügy. Két napja újabb módosítást nyújtottak be az alaptörvényhez. Ebben az országgyűlési képviselőségre is korlátot vezetnének be. Aki legalább 12 évig országgyűlési képviselő volt, többé nem lenne újraválasztható a következő választásoktól.
Ez például az Európai Parlamentben ma 164 EP-képviselőt érintene, köztük több frakcióvezetőt is. A harmadik kérdés pedig ugyanebben a módosító indítványban azonnal megszüntetnék Magyarország köztársasági elnökének megbízatását, és mindezt indoklás nélkül. A kérdésem arra vonatkozik, hogy több találkozó is volt már az Európai Bizottság és a magyar, az új magyar kormány között. Volt-e ezekről szó, beszéltek-e ezekről? Lehet-e precedensnek tekinteni ezeket az intézkedéseket?
Ezen túl Európa-szerte parlamenti választások után ugyanis rendszerré válhat a vesztes pártok kiszorítása és ellehetetlenítése. Ön mit gondol erről a három intézkedésről? Köszönöm.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. We know that in our different member states there is sometimes limitations to different political mandates in certain positions. But when it comes to Hungary, I have understood that the discussions are now ongoing there. And of course then it's up to also decision makers that what will be the outcome of these discussions. I will travel to Hungary on Monday and then I have also possibility to discuss with the ministers more detailed about the proposals what they are planning to do in this respect.
Assita Kanko
Thank you, Chair. Madam Commissioner, for your, thank you for your presentation and apologies for arriving a few minutes later. I would like to ask you some questions about the safety of children online. I think this is one of the biggest challenges of our time. And by challenge I do not mean that we need to ban everything, but that it will be very difficult to get things right.
My first question to you is the following: what will you do with regards to minimum age for social media? And we see the developments in the member states. We have heard different things from the Commission as well, but the Parliament has called for a 16 years minimum age. Secondly, the issue of enforcing age appropriateness often hinges on age verification. We have already had a presentation here, and I believe two months ago.
So important concerns here we have are related to privacy, the possibility to mislead the system and data security. What can you tell us about this? And finally, I'm also very concerned about the algorithms used by some social media companies. I have seen presentations about algorithms that push people towards dangerous places and forbidden material such as child sexual abuse material. What are you doing about this?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much, Member Kanko, and these are of course very, very important questions you were raising and not always simple questions also, because we know that online environment is very important part of our everyday life and also minors, they have right to be connected with the friends and they have right also to have access to information. But in the same time when they are online, the content should be fit for their age. So we have to make sure that our online environment is safe for everybody and especially for children. In our Digital Services Act we have also very clear obligation for the online service providers that when minors are using the services, very high level of safety, privacy and security has to be ensured for them. And one year ago we also published guidelines on that topic to really to also show for the online platforms that what kind of practices we are expecting and what does it mean in practice.
And now we are using this as a enforcement tool also. But the question about minimum age is something that we are now seeking the advice of the expert panel. They are supposed to publish it in middle of July, and after that we are ready to take actions. We know that around 20 of our member states are now discussing about this topic that should there be some kind of legal age also, legislation on the age.
But the right age is of course one topic and then the content what is shown and then also the addictive design of certain services is also something that we have been investigating. We also already published preliminary findings on TikTok about this topic. So I think it's our common interest now to make sure that online environment is safe for everybody but especially for our children and we are ready to take actions also in the European level on this matter.
Fabienne Keller
Merci beaucoup Madame la Vice-Présidente, merci beaucoup de venir à notre rencontre pour échanger, pardon je m'exprime en français. Merci beaucoup de venir à notre rencontre pour faire un point sur votre vaste domaine qui évidemment couvre des sujets extrêmement sensibles. Donc je vais poursuivre sur la question de la protection des enfants et avec une question assez spécifique. La Présidente de la Commission européenne vous a demandé de mener une grande enquête sur l'impact des réseaux sociaux sur les enfants, les adolescents. Vous l'avez un petit peu évoqué mais est-ce que vous pourriez nous dire où est où cela en est plus précisément et notamment en s'appuyant sur des solutions qui sont déjà testées ou mises en œuvre dans différents États membres.
Est-ce que vous envisagez de nous proposer des nouveaux outils pour mieux protéger les mineurs en ligne ? J'ai une deuxième dans ce cadre d'ailleurs vous avez évoqué des propositions, est-ce qu'on est dans ce cadre-là ou est-ce que c'est un champ qui est différent ? Je voudrais aborder un autre sujet qui est un sujet moins habituel avec vous qui est la question de l'asile et de la migration et la mise en œuvre du pacte qui est un ensemble de textes très complexes mais où il y a pas mal d'outils du numérique dans le domaine numérique qui sont mis en œuvre avec des questions d'interopérabilité et je pense notamment à la plateforme Eurodac. Je voulais savoir à cet égard si vous aviez un état des lieux sur le soutien que vous pourriez assurer aux États membres pour rattraper leur retard assez important pour permettre une meilleure efficacité de ces outils informatiques partagés désormais qui devraient faire partie des éléments en commun dans les règlements applicables mais qui ont besoin pour cela d'être mis en œuvre de manière opérationnelle par les États membres et c'est encore un petit peu en cours. Donc est-ce que vous pouvez nous faire un point là-dessus et sur votre implication ?
Je vous remercie.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. When it comes to to online dimension and its impacts to to minors' well-being, we have currently our expert panel working on this topic and there is experts from many fields and we have been gathering a lot of information and research and science information also with this group and really seeing that what is the what kind of risks there is for minors when they are using online services. And of course those two main topics like how much you are using time online but then also what kind of content you are seeing there and what kind of activities you are doing online. So we will have very very broad report now published in July by the expert panel and after that we will also decide that what kind of actions are now needed on the European level.
But I want to really underline that we have already many tools in place. And of course the most important is our Digital Services Act. And there we have very clear obligation for online service providers that they have to all the time assess and mitigate the systematic risks what they are posing, for example for people's well-being. And especially when minors are using online services, very high level of security and safety and privacy has to be ensured for the minors. So we have already strong rules in place.
We have also our AVMS directive which is currently now under review and it's it's about content and about video video platforms. And then we have also our Safer Internet Kids network who is helping on ground our our kids also in online dimension. And when it comes to migration pact, our priority is now really to support our member states to implement this pact. And we know that different member states they have a little bit different challenges here, but the Commission's priority is now really to support our member states that everybody could implement the pact now in very effective manner.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you very much. Dear Madame Virkkunen, this morning we invited you to a cross-party initiative for the five year of the Pegasus Project revealing illegal spyware scandal throughout the EU and the three years of the recommendations of our inquiry committee, the PEGA Committee. You know them very well as a former member of this inquiry committee. My question is how come now you are in a position to make a real difference for the victims, to prevent further victims and to end impunity of this illegal use of spyware by our governments, nothing is coming. Madame Virkkunen, continued inaction on tackling illegal spyware has already made the titles.
I was really expecting an action plan today. Something, but nothing, nothing in the elements that you presented us today are really related to tackling this issue. Last time we met, you said that the European Commission was investigating. So where did your investigation lead? Don't tell me about EMFA, we know this is existing now, it needs to be implemented.
Don't tell me or hide behind national security or the competence of the member states because they are the ones spying illegally, so we cannot expect from them to lead thorough investigations. It needs to be done at EU level. The use of illegal spyware is widespread. We have had recent scandals after the inquiry committee, including in Italy. It's not only used by autocratic regimes, it's also used by so-called democratic regimes against journalists, lawyers, political opponents, members of this house, members of the Commission.
It's not used solely to fight against terrorism, on the contrary. And it violates what you, the Commission, we are supposed to protect, the EU treaties, human rights, protection of sources, freedom of journalists, right to privacy, data protection rights. We also learned recently that EU funds are used to fuel spyware companies and the European Investment Bank decided to stop funding foreign companies in this context. So what about the Commission's decisions around EU funds and to monitor, follow up and sanction any illegal use of spyware? And finally, I end there, you mentioned revision of existing legislation.
Do you intend to include spyware in these revisions? Thank you.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much and this is a very important topic, of course, we are speaking about here. And it's important, of course, to underline always when we speak about illegal use of spyware that it's totally illegal. And we have been looking it from various angles of the EU law and also through a non-legislative action. And I think it's important to underline that we have already many legislations in place. For example, Law Enforcement Directive, GDPR, ePrivacy Directive, we have the European Media Freedom Act, as well as the Cyber Resilience Act and also Dual-Use Regulation.
And Commission also will continue to report also on the issue of spyware when appropriate through our annual Rule of Law report, which we will publish very soon again, and especially from the perspective of checks and balances and that of the protection of journalists as well. But I think it's important also now to underline that when we speak about investigations into alleged misuse of spyware, that it is matter of national authorities. It's not Commission doesn't have that kind of power to do that kind of investigation. So it's a matter of national authorities. And this applies notably to allegations of abuse of intrusive surveillance technologies by governments to spy on journalists or activists.
So all in all, the issue has the Commission's full attention and we will continue to explore options for any other further action in this area.
Pernando Barrena Arza
Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions for you, Vice-President Virkkunen. The first one is on the strategic dependence on US technology providers. Recent developments have highlighted the geopolitical risk associated with Europe's dependence on a small number of non-European technology providers. If access to critical software or cloud services controlled by third-country companies were restricted for political reasons, many European institutions could face serious operational challenges.
So this first one would be how does the Commission intend to reduce the Union's dependence on non-EU software and cloud providers and what concrete steps will it take to ensure that both EU institutions and Member States have viable European and open source alternatives for critical digital infrastructure? And the second on the technological sovereignty and regulatory coherence. The Commission has made technological sovereignty a central objective. At the same time, civil society organizations have argued that proposals such as the Digital Omnibus risk weaken existing safeguards in areas such as data protection and AI governance, creating a contradiction between sovereignty and the regulation. As shadow rapporteur for the Digital Omnibus proposal, I intend to table amendments that preserve safeguards, ensure effective market regulations and guarantee that efforts to boost competitiveness do not come at the expense of fundamental rights, consumer protection or regulatory oversight.
So my question is how does the Commission respond to concerns that technological sovereignty cannot be achieved by weakening existing protections and how will it ensure that competitiveness, innovation, effective market regulation and fundamental rights remain mutually reinforcing objectives? Thanks.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much and it's very true what you said that we have many very critical dependencies.
And we know that European countries and European Union, we have been always very open for global businesses and our, our industry has also very long global supply chains. But now we can see that that kind of dependencies, they can be also weaponized against us. And that's why it's very important that now we are identifying all the critical sectors where it's very important that we are able to control the technology always ourselves. And especially with our cloud and AI development act, we were now making a pro, we were making proposal that all the governments, they should do now risk assessment when they are using public cloud services, that what kind of level of sovereignty is needed. And especially higher level of sovereignty is needed when we speak about areas like healthcare, about law enforcement, internal and external security, defense, that kind of very critical fields.
It's important that the cloud is controlled by Europeans and also that the data is localized in Europe. So we have to really look now all our sectors that we don't have that kind of risky dependencies and nobody is in having that kind of kill switch possibility to our services. And for, for the companies, we were recommending the same, especially the companies who are working in the critical fields, like in, in energy systems, in transport systems and, and so on. But it's of course, it's not happening overnight because now really like it was said here earlier, 80% of our technologies is coming outside. And that's why it's now important to focus to, to those critical areas which are the most critical for us.
When it comes to our digital omnibus and the simplification efforts, our intention is not lower any standards with our digital omnibus. We wanted to simplify the things and clarify the things and also make more European approach on this legislations, but our intention is not lower our European standards because for us it's also important all the time that our citizens can trust our technologies.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now as a non-inscrit, Madame Sorel, deux minutes.
Malika Sorel
Merci Monsieur le Président. Madame la Vice-Présidente, vous avez parlé du fait de la nécessité de continuer à coopérer avec nos partenaires américains sur les modèles d'IA avancés. Donc je me suis posé la question, est-ce que vous êtes informée que le Président Trump a émis des interdictions entre autres à Anthropic de nous donner accès à ses systèmes d'IA avancés ? J'aimerais avoir votre position sur le sujet. Deuxième sujet que vous avez également abordé, une forte proportion des sites qui hébergent les vidéos des prédateurs sexuels pédophiles se situent dans l'Union européenne.
Est-ce que vous avez des pistes, des idées à mettre en œuvre pour endiguer ce phénomène ? Autre point, vous avez été ministre de l'Éducation, Madame Virkkunen, dans votre pays. Et pour développer nos propres capacités dans les domaines critiques, vous avez cité un certain nombre d'axes. Je suis entièrement d'accord avec tout ce que vous avez cité, mais à aucun moment vous parlez de la formation des ingénieurs, le fait qu'il faudrait mettre le turbo dans ce domaine et également développer des moyens d'inci pour inciter nos ingénieurs, et le nombre est extraordinairement important, je suis persuadée que vous le savez, qui sont partis aux États-Unis et qui ne reviennent pas. Et je pense qu'il y a là vraiment quelque chose à mettre en œuvre que nous ne prenons pas assez au sérieux.
Et vous dites vous-même, donc je vais abonder dans votre sens, 80 % de nos technologies viennent de l'extérieur. Je suis convaincue que si on met l'accélérateur sur la formation des ingé, ingénieurs et qu'on fait revenir nos ingénieurs qui travaillent actuellement aux États-Unis, ça va énormément aider l'Union européenne. Je vous remercie Madame la Vice-Présidente.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. Yeah, when we speak about the risks what the very capable AI models, what they are posing, what kind of risks to our cybersecurity environment, for example, I see that international cooperation is very much needed here. And it was also under discussion in last week in G7 meeting because no one of country can address alone that kind of risks. In the European Union, we are better positioned when it comes to these risks because we have our AI Act in place. And our AI Act states that when service provider, when they are coming with very capable model to our markets, they have to notify that to our AI office and they have to also assess and mitigate the risks.
And also we have obligation that they have to have certain safety and security features there in place. So with our AI Act, we are prepared for that kind of situation. But as we know, in USA they don't have a similar regulation. Few weeks ago, a President of the United States was signing executive order on this matter where they decided also that they wanna do more cooperation with tech companies, especially about the security aspects of AI. But very soon after that, they were also deciding export control about the most capable Anthropic models.
And it means that no foreign nationalities can have access to these models now. And it has meant that Anthropic has now blocked access from everybody to this model inside in their company as well because it's for them difficult to identify who is USA nationality and who is not. But I think it clearly also tells that it's important also to have rules in place, that you are also able as a policymaker really to cooperate with the industry and also that you are able to also address the risks beforehand because these capable AI models, they are also posing the risks. And when it comes to child sexual abuse material, Commission has proposed a legislation four years ago and now it's under negotiations and I hope that Parliament and Council will reach agreement very soon. I think rapporteur is sitting next to me here.
And also of course we should act as soon as possible because this is very horrible crime now we are speaking and now we have gap in our legislation because the interim regulation has expired as well. And yes, investing in education and skills of course it's crucial pillar of our digital agenda because we really need well-trained citizens.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now we start the second round of interventions starting with EPP, Mr. Seck.
Oliver Schenk
Herzlichen Dank, ich würde gerne auf Deutsch sprechen. Und freue mich erst einmal über den Besuch der Kommissarin und ihre einleitenden Worte. Eigentlich wollte ich sie was zu Forschungsdaten fragen, aber die Diskussion und ihr Beitrag haben mich motiviert, andere Themen anzusprechen dort. Der erste Punkt, ich will noch mal auf das Thema Social Media zurückkommen und die Frage von Altersfeststellung. Ich finde, wir beißen uns da ein bisschen fest in der Debatte und streiten jetzt, welches Alter es ist.
Was ich in dieser Debatte vermisse, ist die Frage, wo sind eigentlich die Eltern? Wie stärken wir die Rolle der Eltern? Wie nutzen wir möglicherweise auch technische Möglichkeiten, dass wir auf den Geräten einen Eltern-Button einführen, über den die Eltern diesen Zugang auch regulieren können und ein Button, der dann mit der jeweiligen App interagiert und die dann freigibt. Das sind technische Möglichkeiten, die heute da sind. Wir müssen sie halt herstellerunabhängig machen und es wäre aus meiner Sicht eine sehr simple, einfache Lösung, die ein leichter erster Schritt wäre.
Ich will auch noch mal das Thema Anthropic ansprechen. Letztes Jahr waren es die Chips, die ein Exportverbot bekommen haben aus den USA, jetzt ist es Anthropic der Zugang.
Es zeigt ja nur, wir müssen unabhängig werden in dieser Frage. Wir können uns nicht darauf verlassen, dass in dieser Welt die Leute mit uns noch etwas teilen, also müssen wir unabhängig werden. Deshalb glaube ich, ist erstmal der digitale Omnibus ein guter Schritt. Es braucht wahrscheinlich auch noch einen zweiten und einen dritten dort. Und wir müssen wirklich diesen Umgang mit Daten professionalisieren, besser machen.
Wir müssen AI-Training ermöglichen dort, dass wir größere Datenmengen, ja. Und deshalb bin ich wirklich sehr dafür, dass wir diesen Omnibus ins Ziel bringen. Ich bin etwas ernüchtert über die Reaktion des Rates dort und will wirklich versuchen, dass wir aus unserer Perspektive da einen Punkt machen können und Sie in diesem Anliegen dann auch mit unterstützen. Vielen Dank.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. And I think Member Schenk, when we speak about the social media and minors, it has been so high priority now in many political areas that different Member States, they have been also carrying out now their own assessments. And today exactly in Germany, for example, the recommendations or the outcome of the expert panel in Germany was published also on this topic. And many Member States are also working together now with us on this topic and really looking that what is the right approach here. And I think it's also important to address also the role of parents.
But now when we have been investigating the big online platforms, I have to say that many of them, they have some kind of or they have parental tools there, but they are not very effective. And it seems that only few percent of the parents are really using this. So of course it should be something very different to be effective on this side. But I think that everybody have to do really more here. So the online platforms, of course they have their responsibility, but of course parents are also playing role.
And then we have to really look that what kind of stronger rules are needed also, for example, to have access to certain services. Of course when we speak about very high-risk services, when we speak about selling alcohol or about gambling or porn platforms, there of course we have to have a very strict and we have legislation, but now we have to be sure that we are able to also enforce the legislation there. But also with the other services we have to look at that. And especially when it comes to this our dependencies and building up our own tech sovereignty, I fully agree that we have to really work now hard in this critical fields, because we see that also these critical technologies, they are really strategic assets for countries. And those countries and those who are who are controlling these critical technologies, they are not only dominating the economy, they are also ruling the world in the future.
So it's geopolitical power also. And that's why we have to build our own capacity here. Maybe few words about because we just carried out also public consultation about the digital fitness check. You know that we are we are planning after this when these omnibuses, when we conclude this and adopt this omnibuses, we are continuing our work with the digital fitness check. And the data was something that many, many stakeholders, they were still mentioning there that difficulties and complicated framework when it comes to data.
So it's of course very important that we have to be able to really create that kind of high-quality data sets for AI training and for innovations.
Kristian Vigenin
and platforms. At the same time, we have the chance to learn from the mistakes of our partners and competitors, because US is not such a shiny example as some try to present it. This chaotic development of AI infrastructure in the United States creates contradictions, especially on local and state level. In EU, the expected expansion of AI infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing and data centers will significantly increase demand for energy, water and grid capacity. At the same time, we are facing growing climate pressures and resource constraints already.
Thank you. Mr. Beguin.
Thank you, Chair, Commissioner. We welcome of course the Commission's technological sovereignty package.
How will the Commission ensure that the drive for technological sovereignty does not create new dependencies or pressures on energy systems and water resources? And what concrete safeguards and incentives are being considered to guarantee that Europe's digital infrastructure is both sovereign but also sustainable? Thank you.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much, and this is certainly a very important priority for Commission and also for me personally, because I want that when we are now building up our own technological capacity, we are doing it in a sustainable way, that our citizens can really also trust to these developments. And we have estimated that we have to really triple our data center capacity in the coming years, because of course when we are now producing more and more data, it has to be stored and processed also, and that's why data centers are needed. But we want to have more European data centers and more sustainable data centers. So it's very important now that we are really supporting that kind of data centers which are using the most energy efficient technologies and which are saving natural resources as much as possible. We know also that our member states are in a very different position now, because some member states, they have big difficulties to have access to clean, affordable energy, and in some member states, it's easier also to build the data centers.
But in the same time, all our member states, they need more that kind of data center capacity. And that's why in our tech sovereignty package, we were also proposing that each member states, they should identify also that kind of data center accelerator zones, that which are the ideal places to set up data centers where is access to clean energy and where they can do it in a very energy efficient manner. So it should be planned more coherent manner in a member state level also, that what is the right place for data center and where they can, for example, use the waste heat, for example, for heating the buildings and do it in a very energy efficient manner. So this is certainly very important priority for us, and we are working together with the energy commissioner on this topic, and they are now working also with labeling, with the label of data centers, because of course it's crucial that we have also transparency on that, that how energy efficient our data centers are.
Mariusz Kamiński
I will speak Polish. Szanowna Pani Komisarz. Szanowna Pani Komisarz, wśród spraw, którymi się Pani zajmuje, jest ochrona tak fundamentalnych wartości jak wolność mediów. W związku z tym chcę Pani zadać pytanie o sytuację w Polsce w zakresie respektowania przez rządzących zasady swobodnego funkcjonowania mediów. Trzy lata temu, kiedy obecny rząd przejmował władzę, doszło do siłowego przejęcia mediów publicznych z użyciem policji.
Działaniom tym towarzyszyło wyłączenie sygnału telewizyjnego i czystki polityczne wśród dziennikarzy. Dziś media publiczne są tubą propagandową partii rządzącej. W ubiegłorocznych wyborach prezydenckich bezprecedensowo wspierały kandydata partii rządzącej, co podkreślali wszyscy obserwatorzy międzynarodowi.
W Polsce trwa atak na niezależne media, opozycyjnie nastawione do rządu. Dziennikarze tych mediów są publicznie znieważani przez polityków partii rządzącej i zastraszani odbieraniem akredytacji umożliwiających im pracę na terenie parlamentu. W ostatnim czasie doszło do szeregu prowokacji, w tym aresztowania dziennikarza, który opublikował szereg artykułów śledczych pokazujących przestępczą działalność jednego z bliskich współpracowników premiera Donalda Tuska. Czy zajmie się pani weryfikacją tych informacji i zwróci się do rządu Tuska o zajęcie stanowiska w tych sprawach?
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. And media freedom, of course, it's something that it's a cornerstone of our democracies, free independent media. And we see overall globally now that our media is very much under pressure. Often the main reason for that is the economic situation because of digitalization, very large online platforms and big tech companies, they have been taking big part of the advertisement. And also people are not used to buy newspapers, for example, like they did before.
And this has meant a lot of economic pressure for for our media. And that's why the Commission has now put forward different initiatives really to support our free independent media. In last year, our Media Freedom Act came into the force and now member states are implementing it. And together with the Commission McGrath, I'm working on this topic and really supporting and looking that the member states are now implementing the Media Freedom Act like they should. But in the same time, we also in last year, we published our Democracy Shield.
And there there also media was very important part of this package. And also in our next MFF, we have first time also proposed funding for news media because we see that this is something that we have to pay more attention in the European Union as well, how to support and protect our independent free media. And this is also traditionally has been something that we have been addressing also in our Rule of Law Report every year, also the status of media freedom of each member states. And the next report will be published in couple of weeks' time.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President, I would say, for your intervention today. Very happy to hear that you also have consideration for the situation with regards to energy use by data centers and to look at a bit more coordinated approach. My question, however, is not about that. I would like to support all of the questions posed by colleague Brichmont on the issue of spyware.
And I'm also very happy to hear you say that media freedom is a cornerstone of our democracies. And it is, we agree. And that's why the PEGA report included recommendations to ensure that spyware cannot be used in the way that it's being used still by governments that are in principle functioning democracies within the European Union in a way that should not be allowed. So I found your answer, I'm sorry to say, a bit too conservative and disappointing. So I would like to repeat the questions about the implementation of the recommendations of the PEGA report and what we can expect from the Commission.
Thank you.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much. And when we look the Pegasus Committee's report, of course, after that, the most important legislative actions has been the Media Freedom Act. And there we have very strong safeguards for journalists against spyware.
So it's a part of our legislative tools what we have in the place. Of earlier we had already GDPR and also law enforcement directive and also cyber resilience act was adopted few years ago and also we have our dual use regulation. So we have already a lot of legislation in place. But of course we are also following the developments in different member states and like I said now in a few weeks time we will also publish our annual rule of law report and this is also the place to really report the issue of spyware and especially on the perspective of the checks and balances and the protection of journalists as well.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you Mrs. Madame Bricmont, if it is a follow-up question please be very brief and very specific.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you. Indeed you can imagine that I'm also not really satisfied with the broad answers that you bring to the follow-up on the illegal use of spyware. So I have three very concrete questions. Will you open infringement procedures against the member states that obviously violated the set of legislations that you mentioned including the GDPR for violating the right to privacy of journalists or political opponents? Two, will you ban EU and non-EU companies from EU funding and grants?
Three, what do you do and intend to do to prevent those intrusive technologies to fall in the hands of private entities? So far as we know officially it's only sold to governments but what if and this rapidly growing and developing technologies becoming more and more affordable it will fall in misintentioned hands? So what then for the security of the EU I think you have the responsibility to act.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes thank you very much. Like I underlined already earlier and we have been debating about this also earlier in this committee and also in the plenary debate when we speak about illegal use of spyware it's it's illegal when there is not clear rules respected and always our member states of course they have to respect our European Union legislation and the commitments they have made under our legislation. And if they are not doing that then the commission of course it's ready to take also actions.
Ana Catarina Mendes
Gracias presidente. I will speak in Portuguese. Muito obrigada senhor presidente, senhora comissária, eu aproveito a sua presença nesta sala que agradeço para lhe pedir um comentário sobre o alerta do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas feito em Londres hoje. E o alerta é um alerta muito preocupante sobre o impacto ambiental acelerado da inteligência artificial. Segundo os dados das Nações Unidas do inquérito o consumo de energia e da água associados à inteligência artificial já duplicará nos próximos quatro anos.
Os data center de todo o mundo, de todo o mundo, já consomem mais eletricidade do que a grande maioria dos países e a perspectiva é que em 2030 este consumo duplique. Numa altura em que nós estamos a enfrentar uma vaga de calor, as alterações climáticas estão aí e é absolutamente essencial que nós tenhamos inteligência artificial e que a coloquemos ao serviço das nossas do nosso desenvolvimento. Que medidas está a pensar a Comissão no sentido de se exigir a estas empresas de inteligência artificial que tenham maior transparência quer na divulgação da pegada ambiental desde logo do consumo da água quer que como é que podemos garantir que estes data center são a 100% até 2030 a 100% que usam a 100% as energias renováveis e não os fósseis. É que a questão é mesmo de da crise em que nós estamos climática ao mesmo tempo que precisamos de gerir a nova realidade da inteligência artificial. Muito obrigada.
Henna Virkkunen
Yes, thank you very much. So I think now when we want to really boost our technological capacity and when we want to digitalize our society, it has to happen in sustainable manner. And I'm thinking about and when I'm speaking about sustainability, I'm not speaking only about environment, which is very important, but also social and economic dimension and all these has to be balanced as we know. And especially the environmental impact of this digitalization and AI and data centers, of course, it's something that we have to address. And that's why also in our cloud and AI development act, we were addressing this topic that we have to really use the best energy efficient technologies always when we are investing to these infrastructures.
And it really matters also because there's big difference also how you are running how you are running the system and the data centers that how much it's using energy and also other natural resources like water. So we want to support most sustainable technologies in Europe and we are very committed to that and we are supporting our member states really also on that. And our AI Act, it's also addressing this part about the transparency about energy consumption of these models. So I think our legislators have taking this in account already, but this is very serious concern of course that when we are now building this capacity that we have to look all the time that we are doing it in sustainable manner and our citizens that they can really trust also to these technologies because we see also in some countries where the citizens are already now very much against of that infrastructure because they have fears about environmental and energy impact of this infrastructures.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Executive Vice-President. Now we have exhausted that speaker's list, so I would invite you if you wish to make some concluding remarks after this session.
Henna Virkkunen
Thank you very much, Chair and all the members. So thank you very much for all these questions. It was great pleasure to be here today with you. And really that was important day for us because we were today adopting two important regulations about Eurojust and Europol. So Commissioner Brunner will come tomorrow to this committee and represent these regulations more in detailed and when you have had also a little bit more time to to look them because they were just published today.
But the main reason is now really that our security landscape of course it has changed very much. And as we were today in in most of the cases we were speaking they were touching about technologies. We know that how strong the linkage is between technologies and our security. And especially also our Europol and Eurojust regulations, it's very much about this that we see that also the criminal activities, they are nowadays much more international, so cross-border dimension, but they are also very digitalized. So that's why we have to also make sure for example that Europol, it can serve as a innovation hub, technological hub for our member states, but also operational hub really to support also our member states and especially when it comes to different technological tools.
For example we were proposing to establish that kind of European police cloud to Europol that our police from different member states that they are able to really work together in real time and use the same resources.
So this is very important interlinkage we have between security and technologies nowadays. And we have to always look to aspect of security and resilience when we are making new new initiatives. And I very much of course thank all of you for the good cooperation. And I very much encourage also you to find fast solutions for the sexual abuse of children online. This part we know that we urgently need now solution for that because this is horrible crime we are facing.
And also with the digital omnibus, I also encourage co-legislators to work now hard on this proposal because we have to really make it easier for our for our companies to to create innovations in Europe because this is crucial for our tech sovereignty. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you so much Executive Vice President for the information you have provided, also for the exchanges with the with the members. We are aware of the importance of the two pieces of legislation that have been proposed by the Commission, both on on Europol and Eurojust as part of the new security architecture in the European Union. And we do look forward to tomorrow's presentation by Commissioner Brunner and DG Justice Mrs. Ana Gallego on both files. We are ready to work intensively on both of them and produce a good result. So thank you, thank you for coming.
Well, after this I would say meaningful exchange with Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, the next item on our agenda this evening is the consideration of the agreement between the EU and Switzerland on the transfer of PNR data. The rapporteur for this consent procedure is our colleague Mr. Jaroslav Sjotz, so I give you the floor for five minutes to present your draft recommendation. The floor is yours.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you very much, Chair. Dear colleagues, the conclusion of this agreement is an important step towards enhancing security of the Schengen area and strengthening international cooperation to fight terrorism and serious cross-border crime. Under the current framework, Switzerland cannot lawfully receive and process PNR data on flights operated between the Union and Switzerland. PNR data is information provided by passengers during booking and check-in processes that are collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes. The PNR agreements with third countries enable the transfer of passenger information to relevant national authorities for security purposes.
This is particularly important because such data can provide valuable insights to help authorities identify suspicious travel patterns and uncover links between criminals and terrorists, including individuals not previously known to law enforcement. This agreement will therefore help national authorities of Member States as well as Swiss authorities to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorism and serious crime offenses, such as trafficking in drugs, firearms and human beings. However, the transfer and processing of PNR data requires strict limitations and effective safeguards. Favorable opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor has proven that the agreement contained the necessary safeguards to ensure compatibility with the Union's data protection framework. During the shadows meeting, Commission also confirmed that the agreement sets high standards for both enhancing security and protecting privacy.
I believe this agreement reflects our shared understanding that today's security challenges require coordinated cross-border responses. The agreement strikes the careful balance between security objectives and protection of personal data and therefore I invite you all to endorse the conclusion of this agreement. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Sjotz. I recommend from the group EPP, Mrs. Dupont.
Lena Düpont
Thanks, Chair, and as you can see I'm not Thomas Tobé, obviously, and I'm also not trying to speak with a Swedish accent, but apologies because he can't be here today. But on his behalf, I can state that the EPP group fully supports the measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism and serious and organized crime. Effective cross-border information sharing is essential in this regard. The agreement with Switzerland represents a concrete and important step forward. It will strengthen our capacity to prevent and detect terrorism and serious crime offenses, and it complements the broader network of PNR agreements that we have already in place as EU.
It is also important as it helps bridge an existing security gap in the Schengen area. We have also taken note of the necessary safeguards in place to ensure data protection. We clearly see the added value of this agreement as it aligns with our overall objective of strengthening the Union's internal security, which remains a top priority for us as EPP. And as you can already see from these words and intervention, the EPP fully supports the proposal to endorse the Council decision on the conclusion of that agreement, and Thomas thanks everyone for the constructive work.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair. On the EU-Switzerland PNR agreement, the S&D group will support giving consent.
Switzerland is a close Schengen associated partner and applies data protection standards broadly aligned with the EU framework, but it's not bound by the EU PNR directive. This agreement is therefore necessary to establish a clear legal basis for the transfer of passenger name record data and to ensure that such transfers take place under robust safeguards. The agreement limits the processing of PNR data strictly to the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offenses and serious crime. It contains safeguards concerning purpose limitation, data retention, proportionality, independent oversight and the protection of fundamental rights. The text reflects the requirements stemming from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeks to ensure compliance with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning privacy and data protection.
For the S&D group, effective security cooperation with close Schengen partners must always be accompanied by strong safeguards for fundamental rights and personal data protection. This agreement provides the necessary framework to achieve the balance. For these reasons, we support giving the consent to the agreement. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Słomka. I don't see any member of ECR. Madame Keller, would you speak for Renew group?
Fabienne Keller
Yes, dear chair, dear rapporteur. Our LIBE shadow rapporteur Anna-Maja Henriksson is unfortunately not able to attend this meeting, but I will read her short speaking points. Thank you for presenting the draft recommendation. For Renew Europe, protecting our fundamental rights and ensuring a high level of data protection has always been a high priority, also in the context of other PNR agreements. At the same time, improving the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism at the external borders is also crucial.
Therefore, I find it very important that the EDPS has given a positive opinion on the agreement with the Swiss Confederation. I am pleased that the agreement contains the necessary safeguards for it to be compatible with the EU legal framework on data protection, and I look forward to the European Parliament giving its consent to the conclusion of the agreement. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Madame Keller. No further speakers in the room, so I give the floor to Mr. Bj$rk for the concluding remarks.
Jaroslav Bžoch
Thank you very much. There's not much to say. I would like to thank my colleagues, my shadow rapporteurs for their work and looking forward to give our consent to this file. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you to the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs for the work you've been doing. The deadline for tabling amendments is Monday, 29th June at 17:00 in the afternoon. So members are reminded in accordance with Rule 170, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure, and I quote, "Amendments in committee shall be admissible only if they aim to reverse the recommendation proposed by the rapporteur." So we conclude this point. Today we are running ahead of schedule, I think.
And we have our last item on the agenda, which is item 15, which is reporting back on the successful outcome of the negotiations with the Council on the directive on combating sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse material.
Speaker 71
Well, he should be, if you give us a short second, we will... No, yes, yes, yes.
Sorry, well, for a short informal break.
Javier Zarzalejos
We welcome the Mr. Lenaers, the rapporteur, just to deal with this last item on our agenda. This is a happy occasion to report back from trilogue on this recast proposal on the 2011 directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child sexual abuse material. As I was very honored to chair the EP delegation and so I'm very pleased to inform that this last trilogue held on the 22nd of June in the Council was the final one and the co-legislators managed to find a compromise agreement that overall we can consider very positive for the Parliament. So before giving the floor to the rapporteur, I would like to congratulate him. It's been a real good job.
The shadow rapporteurs and the technical teams for their dedication and committed and impressive work on this file. But also I think we have to give credit to the Cyprus presidency for its constructive approach and also its commitment to bring this negotiations to a successful conclusion. So I'm happy to give Mr. Lenaers, the rapporteur, the floor to explain the outcome of this important piece of legislation that was successfully agreed with the Council.
Jeroen Lenaers
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I concur fully with what you have said. It was an important trilogue we had last Monday and a very successful outcome. And let me also echo what you've already said. I would really like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs. We had a very good team spirit from the beginning of the procedure.
Also in a great deal to thank our teams, so both the teams that work for me personally, the colleagues of the shadow rapporteurs, but also the LIBE secretariat under your leadership for getting to this result. And indeed the Cyprus presidency and its ambitions and its commitment to this file, even though it was sometimes also very difficult with the member states, should be congratulated as well as the work of the Commission in trying to facilitate our agreements. And lastly, I would also really like to say thank you to many organizations, victims' organizations, survivors, civil society organizations who have really helped also with the expertise to get this great result. Because we all know that the 2011 directive was no longer up to date. It comes from a time where artificial intelligence was not yet there.
Issues like live streaming were unknown. And we see more and more abuse taking place in these areas.
So let me go through some of the main achievements that we made as a parliament. First on AI in general, to make sure that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is also criminalized throughout the European Union. But not only that, but that we also really clamp down on AI systems, so systems specifically designed to produce child sexual abuse material. It's really the EU is now setting a standard in this field and I think that is very important that we don't only go after those who look at the images, those who create the images, but also those who make the technology that makes the creation of such images possible. Secondly, which is also a new offense that we included is traveling.
A couple of months ago in my own member state in the Netherlands there were news articles about 20,000 Dutch men traveling on average a year to other parts of the world simply for abusing children sexually. So to have now in this directive a provision that criminalizes the organizations of travel arrangements for that purpose is new and is extremely important. On consent, even though of course we fought for a definition of consent in the article on definitions, I think we still achieved ambitious wording on consent in two places in the operative part of the directive as well as an extensive recital. And this includes important elements such as that free will is always absent in the case of sleep, surprise or unconsciousness, that the consensual sharing of intimate images cannot be interpreted as consent to any further distribution, etc. This goes well beyond the standard set by the Istanbul Convention and it's very important and I think it's a milestone in EU legislation.
On grooming, the parliament would like to include even more ambitious language to make sure that all kids are protected whether or not they are above the age of consent. But I think ultimately, and you were there chair on Monday, we really got a good compromise on this making sure that all children under the age of consent are fully protected not only for their own and sharing their own intimate images but also when they are forced or pushed to share intimate images of those that are close to them. And for those where adults try to present themselves as peers in order to groom children above the age of consent, this is now also a criminal offense which will address a lot of the issues we have specifically in that age group. Then one of the most visible and most important parts of our mandate as a parliament was the statute of limitations. We feel very strongly across the parties that victims of child sexual abuse have to have the opportunity to get justice done and there should not be a clock or a deadline on getting justice done.
We also know that for the member states, certain member states, this is very problematic and it's an issue that we argued about till the very end.
Where we have depending on the severity of the offense thresholds set at 15, 20 and 32 years, which means that for the gravest offenses victims now have from the age of 18, 32 years time to make a complaint, to file charges, to get process done in order to get justice. So everybody has until the age of 50, which is a huge improvement and it will help many victims get the justice they so much deserve. One of the things, and that's the last thing I'll say, because one of the things that started this for me personally was the issue of pedo-manuals, so guidebooks for those who wish to abuse children, that helps them very detailed how to do it, how to gain trust of children, how to abuse them, how to leave no traces. And I'm very happy that ultimately also now with this package we have a European ban on these kind of manuals throughout the whole of the European Union. So I think those are the most important parts of what we achieved.
I really think it's a huge effort also because from a Parliament perspective we've always looked at this not just to get an agreement. I mean getting an agreement is not the difficult part. What we wanted to have is something that really makes a difference in practice, that really is an improvement to defend the rights of victims and to prevent abuse from taking place by also making sure perpetrators are brought to justice and are being punished. And I think looking back at what we achieved now we can really be proud of this result and conclude that we have achieved that. So now there will be some remaining work at the technical level to make sure that all the language provisions etc. are being respected and then I hope that very soon we can vote on this, we can adopt this and we can really be proud of ourselves to have put in place something as good as this.
So thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Congratulations Mr. Lenaers and congratulations to the shadow rapporteurs and those who have been working in this file. It's a major achievement and I think that what we have seen is a quite committed and impressive display of technical competence. It was a very complex file. We were operating in the most sensitive areas of state competences, but also a display of real will to compromise and a shared concern for the need to protect children. Madame Keller, would you like to join us in the celebration for this file?
Fabienne Keller
No, thank you to the rapporteur on behalf of Hilde Vautmans who was your shadow. Thank you for the good spirit as you said and thank you to have achieved the result. I am not going to open the CSAM and the interim report file, but I think our huge priority now should be to find a solution for the final report on CSAM to complete our set of rules for the protection of children. But thank you for the good work and the good spirit Mr. Lenaers.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, thank you Madame Keller. Any other intervention? Madame Sorel, go ahead.
Malika Sorel
Oui, je suis très contente si tout le monde se satisfait du résultat et surtout sur la notion du consentement. C'est une question que j'avais posée lors de l'audition du commissaire et sa directrice était venue me voir pour dire que justement ça l'avait perturbée. Elle était même allée vérifier et elle n'en revenait pas qu'on parle de notion de consentement. Donc j'espère que si on arrive à quelque chose de bien sur ce sujet c'est formidable.
Javier Zarzalejos
Merci Madame Sorel. On consent I think that is one of the, I mean it was a very good compromise on consent covering all different situations and protecting children and minors, particularly those affected by grooming, having or being above the age of consent.
It was a very, a very good solution. So, I think that we are done for the day and tomorrow we resume our session with an in-camera exchange, an in-camera exchange, and then we will have Commissioner Brunner presenting the proposal on the new Europol's mandate and then DG Justice, Mrs. Ana Gallego, on three proposals: the Eurojust mandate, the European Order of Investigation, and the third one is the data processing in the EU institutions. So, tomorrow we also will have a quite remarkable session. Thanks to you all, we conclude our session today, so enjoy the rest of the evening. Thank you.