Committee on Legal Affairs Ordinary Meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsTiemo Wölken
Stockpiling does not mean placing a product on the market and therefore does not constitute an infringement of patent rights. Moreover, in comparison to the SPC extensions, it will cost member states' health systems nothing. As the committee competent for patent-related matters, I'm very pleased that we have managed to find such a balanced compromise respecting both innovation and competition. As time is of essence to reach a negotiating position, I sincerely hope that the lead committee will take our opinion seriously and give due consideration to the position of the committee competent in these patent-related matters. Thank you, Chair.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Völken. I will open the vote first on compromise amendments and amendments, and then we'll go to the final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. 18 in favor, 3 against, 4 abstentions.
And final vote is again going to be by roll call. Open the vote. Close the vote. 19 in favor, 5 against, 1 abstention. The next one is general budget of the European Union for financial year 2027, all sections.
Bear with me, colleagues, for 30 seconds. I have been appointed as the standing rapporteur on the 2027 budget. The budget committee set the deadline for tabling budgetary amendments by committee on 3rd of September at noon. The committee is invited to confirm the mandate today. So we are confirming only the mandate today.
According to the practice, JURI budgetary amendment consists of pilot projects and preparatory actions and of budgetary amendments on the Court of Justice of the European Union. I have tabled two amendments with PPPAs that received great, an assessment by the Commission. They are a pilot project on machine-readable and standardized licenses in artificial intelligence and a preparatory action entitled structuring the EU implementation ecosystem for sustainability reporting standards.
Concerning the Court of Justice of the European Union, the budgetary amendment contains the restatement of the appropriations of the Court of Justice cut by the Commission. So in a nutshell, the amendments were circulated to the committee by the secretariat before this vote, and the committee may now vote on whether to confirm the mandate the coordinators gave me. I invite the committee to vote by show of hands. And who is in favour? Against?
Abstention? That is not the case. Thank you. And the last vote for today is legal basis, 30 more seconds, under rule 41, and the rapporteur is Maravillas Abadía Jover. You want to take the floor as well, Maravillas?
Did I get you right? No. That is not the case. So this is a single roll-call vote taken electronically. Mr. Mantovani, do we have an issue?
Yeah. No, that is not the case. So this is a single roll-call vote taken electronically and I open the vote. I close the vote. So 25 in favour, no abstentions, no against, and that was it for the votes for today.
Thank you. All right, dear colleagues, please take your bilateral conversations outside of the room. For those staying in the room, please take your seats. We now move onto the consideration of amendments tabled to the proposal for a regulation of 28th regime corporate legal framework EU Inc. And first I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur Mr. Repasi for three minutes.
Mr. Repasi, you have the floor.
René Repasi
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor on consideration of amendments for the EU Inc regulation proposal. We have received in total more or less roughly a bit more than 1,300 amendments on the top of the first draft report that was submitted by myself before the summer break, which shows that given the ambitious timeline that is ahead of us, the whole exercise to get this done not only the parliamentary position but also trilogue negotiations before the end of the year is pretty ambitious. But it shows also another thing, namely that colleagues are obviously unsatisfied with the Commission proposal, otherwise there wouldn't be such amount of amendments. And in that sense, we will take our task seriously to look how these amendments can be incorporated in the final version of the compromise amendments to have a stable majority in this committee and then later of course a majority in the plenary. What we do see if we look into the amendments that they take up on the elements that were already identified by the first draft report, namely the lack of the protection of labour and workers' rights, the lack of protection of any employee participation in decision-making bodies of a future EU Inc if it is required under the applicable national law.
We see a preventive control that needs to be at least at the same level as we have it with comparable national corporate forms in order to avoid any situations of money laundering or abuse. We see that the innovative element of employee stock option programs is in the heart of many of the colleagues that we find need to find a solution that works across countries and that is actually working in the interest of employees thereby being making EU Inc to be an attractive vehicle for talent in the future. We have discussions that relate to the question of the legal basis, a debate that is not totally unknown to this dossier and that will also have to be addressed in our discussions. I'm curious on the position that the shadow rapporteurs have themselves looking at the amount of amendments it's obvious that not all amendments can be taken on board so a prioritization exercise is of importance. Therefore I'm curious to hear the priorities that shadow rapporteurs have with regard to the amendments that are tabled which will give me then an outline for finding a landing zone of compromise amendments and a stable majority on that particular file.
I'm convinced that EU Inc can be something that advances Europe and that will help startups and scale-ups to address the innovation gap that European competitiveness has, but it must be pretty clear that that has to be balanced. Incorporating US regulatory philosophies by let's try and later you are liable will not work in the European context. Therefore an EU Inc that is balanced, that unlocks the potential of the internal market for innovators, startups and scale-ups but that also protects those that need to have protection, namely workers, innovators, creditors and the general public interest is then something where Europe can advance. The current Commission proposal is not up to this and the amendments show so, I'm now looking forward to this debate and hearing the priorities of the groups. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you Mr. Repasi and now we go to the shadow rapporteurs starting with EPP shadow rapporteur Mr. Voss.
Axel Voss
Thank you chair and so I want to start by thanking the rapporteur and also the other shadows and all these colleagues for all their work. Many amendments have been tabled what has already been mentioned but as we consider them I think we should remind ourselves what we actually want to achieve with this proposal. The problem we are trying to solve is quite simple: a European founder should not have to look to Delaware or elsewhere because setting up financing and scaling a company is simply easier there. That's why we need the EU Inc, a common European company form that is fast, digital, flexible, recognized throughout the Union and attractive to investors. But when I look at many of the amendments I sometimes have the impression that we are discussing everything except this object.
We are discussing what the EU Inc should not be, we are discussing labor law, national social models, employee co-determination, sectoral exclusions and additional controls. These may all be legitimate debates in other contexts but the EU Inc cannot become the vehicle through which we solve every other political disagreement in Europe.
So we should be very careful not to use this file to introduce an entirely new layer of social and labor law through the back door. Every additional national requirement, every additional procedure, and every additional exception also brings us closer to ending up with 27 different versions of the EUIN. And then we have achieved precisely nothing. So our benchmark for these amendments should therefore be simple: does this make it easier to start, finance, operate, and scale a company across Europe? Does it reduce fragmentation?
Does it create a genuinely European company form? Because the object must remain clear: one Europe company form, one predictable framework, and a real single market for European companies. This is what we should achieve. Thank you.
Pascale Piera
Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le rapporteur, je dois reconnaître, Monsieur le rapporteur, que vous avez su sur certains points corriger la proposition de la Commission en ce qu'elle comportait un certain nombre de lacunes. Les garde-fous en matière de droit du travail, par exemple, les contrôles anti-blanchiment renforcés et l'interdiction de la cotation étaient des exigences que nous portions, et je prends acte de ce que vous avez modifié dans ce sens la proposition de la Commission. Mais bien évidemment, nous considérons pour ce qui nous concerne que ce 28ème régime est vicié à la base, et vous le savez bien d'ailleurs, pour des raisons évidentes que vous feignez de ne pas voir. Sur la base juridique d'abord, Monsieur le rapporteur, on ne peut pas faire n'importe quoi avec les traités. Cela viole la volonté des États membres, pardon si j'ai dit quelque chose de mal élevé, je répète, volonté des États membres, qui octroient indûment des compétences à l'Union européenne et fait peser un risque d'insécurité juridique majeur finalement pour les entreprises.
Vous avez vous-même admis, Monsieur le rapporteur, que dans votre INL, que l'article 50 du TFUE était nécessaire pour légiférer en la matière. Vous l'avez également souligné dans votre exposé des motifs. Ce n'est donc pas un élément à prendre à la légère, c'est un élément dont nous devons impérativement discuter. Il y a d'autres problèmes de fond majeurs pour ce qui nous concerne. D'abord l'article 9 qui permet toujours de dissocier le siège statutaire, l'administration principale et le principal établissement, pardon, ce qui crée une situation de pure définition de la société boîte aux lettres.
Alors évidemment tout cela n'est pas satisfaisant. Je note que votre article 1 bis règle la question du forum shopping social, mais Monsieur le rapporteur, il laisse entier la question du forum shopping fiscal, du forum shopping sociétaire et contentieux. Vous admettrez donc que l'Europe fonctionne en l'état comme dans l'État du Delaware. Parmi d'innombrables points problématiques donc, je voudrais également citer l'article 103 qui ouvre les aides publiques nationales à des sociétés qui seront sans aucune attache réelle avec le territoire concerné. C'est-à-dire que les contribuables de chacun de nos pays vont devoir payer sans aucune contrepartie pour des sociétés qui leur sont parfaitement étrangères.
Cela, nous ne pouvons pas l'admettre. Ce texte est trop dangereux, Monsieur le rapporteur, nous doutons qu'il puisse être amendé convenablement en réalité, et j'espère que mes collègues se rendront compte un jour ou l'autre des risques qu'ils feront poser sur nos concitoyens et a fortiori sur nos entreprises et sur nos finances publiques.
Mario Mantovani
Sì, grazie presidente. Certamente apprezzabile il lavoro che è stato finora svolto, ma ai colleghi vorrei dire che pur avendo grande rispetto di tutti gli emendamenti presentati e per la posizione di ogni gruppo, è chiaro che ciascuno difende i legittimi interessi. Tuttavia non dobbiamo perdere di vista le ragioni di questo regolamento. EU-INC serve alla crescita, al rilancio della competitività e ad attrarre nuovi investimenti. I dati economici europei non sono certo incoraggianti, i capitali scappano, le imprese pure, nel 2036 il debito dell'Unione raggiungerà il 100% del PIL.
Per invertire questa tendenza è chiaro che ci rimane solo la leva della crescita e la crescita dipende da quante imprese nascono in Europa, da quanti capitali riusciranno a raccogliere e da quante imprese riusciranno a scalare e a creare un'Europa in Europa nuovi posti di lavoro. Su questo io ho concentrato il mio lavoro e su questo vorrei che tutti noi potessimo trovare un'intesa. Ribadisco, le nostre priorità politiche sono: una attenzione maggiore alle microimprese e alle piccole e medie imprese tradizionali. Ho richiesto nei miei emendamenti strumenti finanziari ulteriori per l'accesso al credito e ai capitali e modelli e formulari standard che coprano l'intero ciclo di vita societario, dalla costituzione ai patti parasociali, dal finanziamento alle operazioni straordinarie. Secondo, l'estensione di EU-INC a tutte le imprese e a tutti i settori.
E se le condizioni, un loro accesso diretto ai mercati regolamentati, se le condizioni previste sono rispettate, perché no? Più ampio sarà il ventaglio degli strumenti a disposizione delle imprese e più ampia sarà la loro capacità di crescita e di attrarre investimenti. Un forte controllo di legalità e antiriciclaggio, concludo, che la responsabilità degli amministratori di imprese innovative e di intelligenza artificiale sia graduata considerando l'entità del rischio di questi settori, che è particolarmente elevato. Con l'ordinaria diligenza molti unicorni americani non sarebbero nemmeno nati. Quindi questo è la richiesta che come partito conservatore formuliamo.
Grazie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Grazie Mario. Deynos Jalimas on behalf of Pascal Canfin for the Renew Europe group.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, I will read the intervention written by colleague Pascal Canfin, who is the shadow on this file. First, we thank the rapporteur and all the colleagues for constructive approach in the beginning of the negotiations and we strongly encourage every member to work to meet the ambitious timeline. Second, overall the 50, sorry, amendments that we have set up all go towards the same objective: creating something that is flexible for founders to use and can help the entrepreneurs to scale in Europe. Third, I will highlight these main points of my report.
Firstly, the possibility to do an IPO anywhere in Europe with an EU INC. If the rules that apply to companies listing in a certain country are met, an EU INC should be able to enlist there. EU INC companies shouldn't have to go back to a national regime once they scale and have success. Narratively, it would be terrible. Second, we should also follow for flexibility in the use of stock option schemes.
These schemes are very appreciated by companies and employees alike. Let's make sure that they are working correctly. My amendments limit this EUSO to companies that are young, less than 30 years old, in order for these schemes to be particularly beneficial for startups. These are the companies who need to incentivize young workers, so let's make this tool for them. And finally, I look forward now to starting the negotiations with the first shadow this evening.
Thank you.
Sergey Lagodinsky
Yes, thank you very much, dear colleagues, and this is indeed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to make a step forward towards a single market working better and to make life easier for businesses. And from that perspective, I think it's both innovative and patriotic, and I hope that those who call themselves patriots will reconsider their position as well, because I think this is a very important step and it is amendable. That's why we made a couple of amendments that will from our perspective improve the level of ambition and the safeguards within this proposal. I would like to focus only on two of them. Number one is on scope.
We are of the opinion that the scope should be limited only to those companies that are not publicly listed. And if a company goes public, then it should lose the status. As opposed to the company growing, we think that a growing company can and should, for the sake of certainty, keep the status, but as soon as they go public, so to public listing, the company should lose it for two reasons. Number one, we don't want large corporations to abuse this opportunity. And number two, this opportunity should be used by those who for whom this law originally was created, for startups and scale-ups.
And the second dimension that is important to us is the labor safeguard. Especially four points are important. Number one, the laws in terms of labor laws, employment, and social security laws of the country where people actually work should be those that are relevant and should be applied. Number two, where this regulation conflicts with a rule that protects workers' rights better, the better rule should prevail. Number three, temporary posting of workers abroad should not change which law applies, also to avoid abuse by that.
And the EU stock option, this important opportunity to remunerate employees, we support that. However, it should not substitute salaries. So all the minimum wages and collective agreements should be put outside and should not be affected by EU stock options. I'm looking forward to our negotiations and thank the rapporteur already now.
Arash Saeidi
Thank you. And last but not least, Arash Saidi.
Merci Monsieur le Président, effectivement last but not least.
Je vais me permettre d'être une voix un peu discordante dans cet océan de, je vais dire naïveté, parce que j'avoue que je n'arrive pas à vous comprendre. Nous allons donc en pratique créer un statut qui permettra de contourner plus facilement l'impôt et le droit des travailleurs. Et Sergey vient de le dire, une entreprise cotée en bourse n'a pas besoin de ce genre de statut, ou alors c'est pour contourner des lois existantes. Je sais que je ne vous convaincrai pas par des grands principes, alors je vais faire quelque chose de, parce que les syndicats ont déjà essayé et tous les syndicats sans exception sont opposés à ce texte. Mais je vais faire un simple bilan coût-avantage.
Côté avantage, la Commission européenne estime que 308 843, alors je sais pas pourquoi un chiffre si précis, mais 300 000 entreprises on va dire adopteront le statut d'entreprise européenne au cours des dix prochaines années. Le gain attendu c'est 712 millions sur dix ans de PIB, 2,1 milliards sur vingt ans. Admettons que la Commission ait été un peu frileuse, multiplions par deux, trois, quatre, on reste sur des sommes très faibles sur vingt ans. Côté coût, la liste est longue. Les entreprises pourront être créées en moins de 48 heures pour moins de 100 euros sans contrôle et même dans certains cas sans la vérification effective de leurs pièces d'identité, enfin de la pièce d'identité des dirigeants.
Elles pourront ensuite disparaître presque aussi rapidement grâce à une procédure simplifiée de liquidation et d'insolvabilité. En pratique, par exemple dans le secteur du bâtiment, ça voudra dire qu'une entreprise pourra s'enregistrer n'importe où en Europe, ouvrir son activité en France, encaisser des acomptes, embaucher des salariés, puis disparaître du jour au lendemain sans réaliser les travaux promis. Et charge pour les victimes d'aller saisir la juridiction d'un pays très loin de chez eux, ce qu'elles ne feront jamais puisque par ailleurs l'identité du dirigeant qui a créé l'entreprise s'avérera être fausse évidemment dans ce cas-là. Coût pour les finances publiques. Selon Europol, la fraude à la TVA dite carrousel coûte déjà près de 50 milliards d'euros par an à l'Union européenne.
Imaginez les possibilités multiples de fraude qu'ouvrirait un tel dispositif, et cela même je ne parle même pas d'évasion fiscale en allant faire du shopping fiscal en s'installant dans n'importe quel pays. Je ne parle pas du droit social. Je reviens vite fait sur cette histoire de stock-options. On fait peser le risque de la création de l'entreprise sur les salariés en les payant par stock-options et également sur le fisc. Mais comble de l'absurdité, dans la première version, ces stock-options, au moins quand vous donnez des actions à des salariés, permettez-leur d'assister au conseil d'administration, ce qui n'était pas le cas.
Alors oui là-dessus on est revenus en arrière ou un peu en avant. Mais effectivement Monsieur Repasi, vous avez fait des avancées dans ce texte. Mais l'exemple des stock-options l'illustre à merveille. On partait de tellement loin dans ce texte que oui, je suis persuadé que vos amendements vont faire quelques progrès. Enfin quand on part de moins cent, même avec quelques progrès, on arrive quand même à moins quatre-vingt-dix.
Et moi je vous le dis, ce texte ce n'est qu'un effet d'aubaine, ça ne créera pas de compétitivité en Europe, ça permettra juste à des entreprises de contourner les droits des salariés et d'assécher les caisses de nos finances publiques. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Merci Monsieur Saidi. This was the round of shadow rapporteurs or their replacement. Two more colleagues asked for the floor, Adrián Vázquez Lázara and Angelika Niebler. Adrián, for one minute please.
Adrián Vázquez Lázara
Thank you very much, Chairman. I want to start thanking René and the shadow rapporteurs for the work, as it's not easy to handle so many amendments, and I must say this is a difficult file. And in general terms, I believe that too many new concepts have been added to the Commission proposal, and I don't think this is good. I think this is going to increase the complexity of the business landscape we already have in Europe. I think it's going to slow down the negotiations in this committee, and I think that is taking us away from the goal of the proposal, which is simplification.
I think that as Axel said, we must keep the EU Inc simple, flexible and attractive for entrepreneurs and business. That's the sole goal of the proposal and in this sense, I don't think we should create new regulatory layers in labor or social issues as there are already national norms that exist and are in place. And that is why I'm worried that we'll manage to get this to a good port, but I think that we have to stick to the final goal of this proposal, which is, as I said at the beginning, simplification of the business landscape. Thank you.
And it looks that we are trying to do the opposite.
Angelika Niebler
Ja, vielen Dank, auch von meiner Seite zunächst ein Dankeschön an den Berichterstatter und den Schattenberichterstatter auch für die Mühen jetzt hier vernünftige Kompromisse zu finden, die es ermöglichen, dass mit breiter Mehrheit dieses finde ich so wichtige Dossier zum 28. Regime auch abgestimmt werden kann. Ich möchte zwei Sachen sagen, die mir wichtig sind. Einmal ich find's ganz wichtig, der Mario Mantovani hat das auch angesprochen, offen, der Vorschlag muss offen sein für alle Unternehmen, also nicht nur für die Start-ups. Das finde ich zentral. Und auch, dass die Steward-owned Companies in dem Vorschlag ja wohl mit aufgenommen werden, auch bei den Kompromissen, finde ich ist gut.
Ich hätte drei Themen, wo ich den Berichterstatter noch mal bitte noch mal zu sagen, wo man da jetzt im Hinblick auf die Kompromissfindung steht. Das eine ist noch mal das Thema Mitbestimmung, haben auch Kollegen angesprochen. Wie könnte denn da eine mögliche Linie ausschauen, die nicht zu komplex ist, die die Sachen keep it simple und ich bin beim Adrian, was gestern ja zu Recht sagte, also das, was etabliert ist in den Mitgliedstaaten, finde ich sollten wir auch beibehalten. Das gilt Punkt zwei für das Thema Artikel 14, präventive Kontrolle in meinen Augen auch. Also bei diesen ganzen Schutzmechanismen, die wir ja auch brauchen, ja, damit diese Rechtsform solide und vor Missbrauch geschützt ist.
Ich denke, da sollte man das ein oder andere bestehende Recht einfach hier beibehalten. Und Thema Stock Options, da wäre ich auch noch mal dankbar wie zu hören, wie die Debatten denn unter den Shadows auch laufen, weil also ich bin dabei, wenn wir eine Rechtsform schaffen, da muss die, da muss auch das Thema der Möglichkeit hier Stock Options zu ziehen, die muss einfach da sein, sonst ist das irgendwie, ich sag ich mal, sonst läuft man nur auf einem Bein und ich glaube auf zwei Beinen sollte man stehen. Also es wäre mir ganz wichtig, dass wir da eine vernünftige Lösung finden. Danke.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay, vielen Dank. And we have with us Mr. Dan Dionisie, Head of Unit of the Company Law and Corporate Governance Unit in DG JUST. And I give you immediately the floor, Mr. Dionisie.
Dan Dionisie
Many thanks, Mr. Chair, and many thanks also to the rapporteur, to the shadow rapporteurs and to the honorable members who took the floor. The Commission is glad to see the progress of the negotiations on the EU Inc proposal in Parliament. As in parallel there is also intensive work in the Council, the process remains on track for reaching agreement between the co-legislators by the end of the year as jointly pledged in the One Europe One Market roadmap. Close cooperation between all EU institutions in a spirit of compromise and in view of the common objective to advance Europe's competitiveness is key to making it happen. And maintaining the level of ambition is essential to meeting the high expectations of stakeholders from this initiative and to ensuring that companies are created and grow in Europe, benefiting fully from the single market.
We all agree on the main objectives. We also need to get all the details right and we look forward to the upcoming trilogue negotiations. The Commission stands ready to support the co-legislators and to ensure that all issues are addressed constructively and efficiently. I will limit my comments to a few key issues and would like to start by welcoming the fact that on many of the important aspects, the Parliament's approach converges with the Commission proposal. This is the case in particular as regards enabling digital procedures throughout the life cycle of the EU Inc companies, facilitating investment, maintaining the chapter on insolvency and the deferred taxation of employee stock options.
The scope of the initiative is very important to clarify. EU Inc was never intended to touch labor law, social security rules, taxation, save the very targeted provision on the timing of taxation of employee stock options, or sector-specific requirements. All these are outside the scope of the proposed regulation and the existing rules in those areas will apply to EU Inc companies as they apply to any other company. If necessary to put to rest any doubt, we are open to making this explicit not just in recitals but in the legal provisions as well. Still referring to scope, I would also like to note that the EU Inc proposal is sector-agnostic.
It provides a core corporate vehicle which can be used by founders and companies across sectors, without prejudice to sector-specific rules, which would fully apply to EU Inc as to any other company. Excluding some sectors deemed unlikely to innovate is therefore unnecessary in our view and would limit what the future EU Inc companies can do. The Commission fully agrees that the EU Inc legal form should not be misused for circumvention, fraud or abuse. At the same time, it is important to distinguish between legitimate business activity across the single market, in line with treaty freedoms and case law, and abuse for circumvention purposes. The former needs to be encouraged.
The latter needs to be prevented. We agree that safeguards are important and this is why strong safeguards were included in the proposal to ensure EU Inc is a legally certain, reliable and balanced framework. During the negotiations it will be important to keep the right balance between providing the necessary safeguards and not making the new framework overly complex and unduly burdensome. As to employee participation, we acknowledge that this is an important issue which needs to be discussed. The Commission proposal ensures that EU Inc companies are subject to the same rules as other companies and also applies to EU Inc companies the existing strong safeguards in case an EU Inc company is created through or carries out a cross-border restructuring.
The rules envisaged in the draft report would impose on EU Inc companies a considerably heavier and more complex regime than currently applies to other companies. One of the essential elements of the EU Inc proposal is its modern financing framework. In this context, access to multilateral trading facilities and to regulated markets is an important feature. We believe that the Commission proposal requiring that EU Inc companies accessing multilateral trading facilities and regulated markets must always comply with all relevant EU and national regulatory requirements related to such markets provides an appropriate solution. Thank you for allowing me to share these thoughts.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Dionisie. Mr. Repasi, back to you for your final remarks, if you try to finalize it in three minutes.
René Repasi
Yeah, finalizing this debate in three minutes is as if we were to conclude this legislative dossier before Christmas. So, let me start with one, let's say, drawing a little bit the bigger picture. In my eyes, especially with yesterday's elections in mind, Europe's major problem is its growing inequalities, which can only be tackled by redistributive policies, which will only be possible if there is growth.
And if we want to have growth, it will not be done by slashing rules, but by supporting innovation. Innovation requires a strong Horizon budget. Innovation requires better venture capital access. And innovation may require that innovators have easy access to the internal market in order to unlock this potential. That's the reason why as a progressive I believe that EU Inc can bring us forward in Europe.
But it will not be done if we basically think unleashing any regulatory supervision will bring us the growth that we do need. What we need is that EU Inc becomes a proper seal of quality, which makes it easy for innovators to have access to it, but makes it extremely difficult for those armies of optimizers of tax rules or other protection rules to have access to a new easy vehicle to optimize or better said circumvent existing rules. This is not the European way of legislating. Let's have high speed for innovators, but with guardrails against those who intend to abuse a company form that is easy to be set up. Therefore, it's not my interest and also not the interest of the European Parliament to introduce new layers of regulation, but let's have respect of the existing ones.
Let's not enter into a forum shopping where innovation is built on lowering the standards and the influence of workers, creditors, or consumers, but have it where it is neutral towards it and where competition is actually based on merit, on what is the best innovation and not who offers the worst working and labor conditions. In that sense, I would like to address a couple of those issues and Angelica Niebler was asking very concrete questions. On codetermination, only a truly European solution will bring a solution. And this truly European solution, supported by the case law of the Court of Justice, is to not only disincentivize but make it impossible to set up purely artificial arrangements in the terminology of the court. That means those who are having a letterbox in some country of the European Union and employees in the other one cannot escape their obligations of codetermination under this country.
Where it is not easily identifiable which is the applicable rule to employee participation, let's go for a truly European solution and that is the negotiation procedure that we already know for the SE and from the company law directive with remedying the mistakes that were done 20 years ago in this proposal. That is not adding new layers, but it is bringing more fairness to the system. On Article 14, as it is said, national companies should be treated equally with EU Inc and EU Inc should be subject to the same controls, also in terms of money laundering and other effects. That can also be done within two working days if all documentation is actually ready. On stock options, I agree with also the proposals made by the Renew, that employee stock options can be of added value, but the Commission proposal isn't.
The Commission proposal allows for actually having remuneration completely being replaced by stock options. That cannot be good. So therefore making clear that stock options are a top-up and that they can also be used without putting own money of employees on the table will only make the whole system more attractive but actually isolates it from abuse. Therefore, if we address the issue of forum shopping, then EU Inc can be a success. The current Commission proposal isn't, and as I said initially, what the amount of amendments shows is that the colleagues also see so.
Let's engage into the discussion and try to repair it. In contrast to Mr. Saidi, I do believe things can be repaired and my political creativity doesn't stop at refusing to try so, but actually doing so. Thank you for all those that want to engage in this exercise of getting a proper EU Inc on the table, something that is truly European, but it is also truly taking account of the interests of the vulnerable one, of workers, of consumers, and of creditors.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Repasi, for your closing remarks. Next item is amendments to the decision of the European Parliament of 28th of September 2005 adopting the statute for members of the European Parliament regarding proxy voting, and the rapporteur is our colleague, Wara Wolters. Wara, you have five minutes to present your draft report.
Lara Wolters
Thank you very much. Perhaps just as a quick recap, this is the start back into things after the summer, of course. Earlier this year, colleagues in AFCO led work amending the European Electoral Act to put in place proxy voting for pregnant members of the European Parliament for a maximum of three months before birth and six months after. And work is now ongoing for all 27 member states to ratify that agreement, with Bulgaria, Denmark and Luxembourg already having done so. In the meantime, it falls to us in this committee to adapt the statute for members accordingly, and afterwards AFCO will amend the rules of procedure also.
It goes without saying that I'm working closely with the AFCO rapporteur throughout this process. To comply with the requirement of the Electoral Act, we must explain in the statute for members how the new system will guarantee the conditions of transparency, accountability, traceability, legal certainty and integrity of the vote. These conditions are in many ways fulfilled by clarifying that votes cast by proxy are to be recorded publicly in a similar manner to ordinary votes and that the conditions applying to other votes also apply here. I have strived to make this as clear as possible in my draft while also keeping things as simple as possible. And that's why essentially I propose that the votes governing proxy voting mirror as closely as possible the rules applying to all other votes.
I hope that the shadows see merit in that approach and I thank them for the constructive cooperation across this committee so far. The biggest priority of all here is not the technical detail, but to deliver proxy voting as soon as possible and frankly to make life easier for members of parliament who are pregnant or who have given birth. Many colleagues have been on maternity leave and come back whilst these discussions have taken place, taken place, myself included. And there is consensus in our committee not to hold this up any further now, and I call on both AFCO and member states to do the same. We've already had a successful shadows meeting with the members of this committee and invitations to the second will come shortly.
It's my hope that we can conclude negotiations toward the end of this month and vote already in our extraordinary meeting in the October one session. And to facilitate this, my door remains open of course for anyone interested here or for any feedback and discussions. Thank you.
Adrián Vázquez Lázara
Thank you, Wara Wolters. And now I would like to give the floor to the shadow rapporteur, starting with EPP shadow, Adrian Vazquez Lazara.
Thank you, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Lara. I think it's, this is a very important file and we have to do it as quick as possible. And I think that the text is quite solid when it comes to the JURI side on the, on the operational aspect, but it is true that we have that issue with the proxy.
...has already taken too long to achieve. When it comes to the proxy, I must say that I have some doubts because facilitating the exercise of voting right does not necessarily mean treating the member as physically present for quorum purposes. And we have the precedent of the House of Commons in the UK where they have this facilitation of proxy vote when it comes for maternity leave, for instance, but that doesn't allow proxy. So it is true that I'm not fully convinced that we should actually give both, but of course I think that is more important to push this fast and we will try to negotiate and see what kind of agreement we can find with AFCO. Thank you.
Ton Diepeveen
Dank u, voorzitter. Ik wil Lara in ieder geval bedanken voor het ontwerprapport en ben van mening, en denk ook alle andere collega's wel, dat we als commissie het snel eens kunnen worden over de tekst. Alleen ik wil één opmerking maken. Er lijkt sprake te zijn van een contradictie in de ontwerptekst van AFCO over het reglement van de orde en de ontwerptekst van JURI over het statuut van de parlementsleden. In paragraaf 8 van het ontwerprapport van de AFCO-commissie lees ik dat de stem van de volmachtgever niet mag meetellen voor de berekening van het quorum.
Dit omdat regel 185 paragraaf 2 van het reglement bepaalt dat het quorum wordt berekend op basis van aanwezigheid van de leden. En dat wil zeggen dat wij in dit geval een situatie creëren waarbij het aantal geldig uitgebrachte stemmen hoger ligt dan het quorum. En dat kan volgens mij niet de bedoeling zijn. In het JURI-rapport staat duidelijk in artikel 3 paragraaf 2 onder E dat de volmacht wel moet worden meegeteld voor het quorum. En volgens mij is die benadering meer in lijn met de gangbare praktijk en het recht.
Voorzitter, ik denk wel dat het belangrijk is dat deze tegenstrijdigheid wordt opgelost voor beide commissies verder gaan met de onderhandeling en de stemming van de tekst. Wat mij betreft is de zaak duidelijk: de visie van de rapporteur van Lara Wolters is de juiste en de volmacht dient mee te tellen voor het quorum. Ik dank u wel.
Tobiasz Bocheński
Thank you. And who is going to take the floor for ECR? Mr. Boghenski?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you, Madame Wolters, for very good piece of legislation. And I will be no original here because my only question is about quorum, so the point E. Because it's, I agree with Adrian, I agree with Mr. Diepeveen, that it's very difficult to justify counting members who are not physically present as present when determining whether there is a quorum. It's something beyond our agenda in my opinion, and that the point E is the only one in which I can raise some questions.
Everything else is very good proposal and I agree with your work. It's very good piece of legislation and I think that our cooperation with AFCO should be very close because, you know, they have subject matter jurisdiction in rules of procedure. They are working very strongly right now, so we should be on the same page on it. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you. Lukasz Siepa for Renew.
Yes, thank you, Chair. Very happy to speak for the first time as a shadow rapporteur. Thank you. So I want to thank the rapporteur for the work during the summer break. We fully support the rapporteur's report and the progress it represents on an issue that exists longer than I am alive on this planet.
We recognize that the text reflects the political compromise already reached, even if from Renew's perspective a more ambitious solution would have been preferable. And we hope that in the future that will also become a reality. I'm especially talking about the fact that now we have a fixed time frame for the proxy vote, which ignores the fact that no pregnancy is the same and the medical needs of a woman in pregnancy differ from woman to woman.
Lukas Sieper
I think that's something where the rapporteur and me are in agreement. So this goes just for everyone who's not in agreement with that, just ask your mother, your sister, your aunt if she thinks that three and six months are always the right solution. That aside, I think we should not let imperfection become a hindrance. Members should have this possibility without further delay. To aid this quick procedure, we will submit just a few minor changes making the system clearer, more practical and flexible while staying very much with the agreed framework.
We look forward on working constructively with the rapporteur and the colleagues to get this over the finishing line as quickly as possible. Thank you very much.
Sergey Lagodinsky
Yes, thank you very much. Very pleased that we now have this opportunity to address this important issue. What is clear is that this is a long-awaited step and it's great that we're contributing to solving this issue because the voice of MEPs should not disappear just simply because they are temporarily absent for family and parenthood reasons. We think therefore that it's a good and important first step for a more family-friendly atmosphere here in the Parliament, but we do hope that this is just the first step and that the second step would be that fathers are also covered and that we have an opportunity for fathers to take their paternal responsibility. Why are we talking only about maternal responsibility?
And this would also include same-sex couples as well. And number two, I want to echo what colleague Sieper said. We need some flexibility in terms of the timeframe. It is very difficult to predict, as many women here know and many fathers as well know, how long this phase can be and we should address situations that are unpredictable. So this is a good beginning of trying to bring family responsibility and political responsibility together and we're happy to contribute to that.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je vais être beaucoup plus unanime cette fois. D'abord merci Madame Wolters, chère Lara, pour ce travail. Et évidemment nous nous réjouissons du vote de ce texte, même s'il ne va pas assez loin, mais c'est le fruit d'une longue évolution. Je déposerai des amendements un peu pour, tout en étant lucide sur le fait qu'on ne peut plus bouger aujourd'hui, mais inviter nos collègues à réfléchir sur le fait que dans les couples modernes, en tout cas je l'espère, le père a un rôle identique à celui de la mère dans l'éducation de l'enfant et que ce n'est pas qu'à la mère de s'arrêter de travailler pour éduquer les enfants et que c'est un symbole fort que nous devons envoyer à la société et tenir compte également des nouvelles formes de parentalité.
Mais je prends cette première étape pour ce qu'elle est. Et juste sur le sujet technique, moi je vous avoue que j'ai du mal à concevoir qu'on puisse voter et ne pas faire partie du quorum puisque dans ce cas-là on distingue, une voix est une voix. Et donc soit on accepte de faire voter les gens quand ils sont absents pour raisons familiales et dans ce cas ils comptent dans le quorum, soit on établit une sorte de distinction dans la qualité des votes et pour moi ça nuirait au principe d'égalité entre chaque voix.
Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you Mr. Saïdi. And what I would like to give you the floor for your observations.
Lara Wolters
Thank you, thank you colleagues for your comments here. A few quick things. I'm very grateful to those who have pointed out the realities of modern families and fathers' roles in child rearing and I do wish that in the future that is space that we can explore. We don't have the space politically, technically now, we're aware of that, but certainly I share the need for these changes in the future here. I also think that in terms of the quorum that will be a topic of discussion in the next shadows meeting then.
As far as I'm aware there is no AFCO report on this yet. I am aware that this has been pointed out. For me also one is in extension of the other. For me voting by proxy is an extension of the quorum but certainly this is something that we can discuss in more detail because I do think that what I've heard from colleagues here is that speed is of the essence. I think we agree there.
None of us want to leave the situation unchanged for much longer. I think that we can get there then and I'm very grateful for the bigger context that was sketched by colleagues here including also the unpredictable situations that women might find themselves in during and after childbirth. So hopefully we can discuss those further and get to a conclusion on this sooner rather than later. Thank you very much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you colleagues. Before we wrap up this item please note that the deadline for amendments is set for 10th of September at 5 o'clock, 5 PM. Alright. The next item is institutional framework of the European Union and its interaction with national authorities in the application of Union law with particular reference to Article 19 of TEU. I have the pleasure to be the JURI rapporteur for this opinion.
It may be useful to first recall that the Conference of Presidents authorized AFCO INI report after taking a vote limiting its scope to the remit of the AFCO's competence and deciding that JURI might contribute to the report within the opinion under Rule 57. And now on substance. The relationship between EU law and national authorities particularly through a prism of Article 19 of TEU is a cornerstone of core institutional architecture of the EU and the JURI fully supports AFCO's examination on how European Union law is implemented by national authorities and our analysis the institutional framework in this report to which we are as I said giving an opinion as a committee. Yes, as a rapporteur and a chair I must insist adhering to the exclusive competences of our committee regarding the review of the organization, the statute and functioning of the Court of Justice. We must not confuse the duty of Member States to provide judicial remedies under Article 19 with preliminary oversight of the court judicial independence.
That is why the internal procedures, methodology, objectivity, and of course the structure of CJEU should not remain part of AFCO report. In a spirit of constructive cooperation, of course, my opinion will focus on targeted amendments to ensure the report remains legally sound and tightly anchored within the respective institutional mandate of both committees. So I am looking forward to working with you and with our colleagues in AFCO to refocus the text on the dialogue between judiciaries and respect for constitutional identity without rewriting the rules of the EU's highest court. And now I would like to give the floor to the shadows, and the shadow for EPP, Mr. Vavrikevič. Michal, you have the floor.
Michał Wawrykiewicz
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, as far as I have the pleasure to be a shadow rapporteur of EPP group in that opinion, I would like to say that for my group, our objective will be to prepare this opinion that will firmly ground in facts, reliable data, and established legal framework of the European Union. So that our position remains legally precise, evidence-based, and institutionally balanced. And Article 19, as you said, is one of the pillars, one of the fundamental provisions underpinning the Union's system of judicial protection. It gives concrete expression to the principles of the rule of law by requiring member states to provide effective judicial protection in the fields covered by the European Union law.
And what is also extremely important from my point of view, we want to properly reflect the essential institutional role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in that process, its judgments, and indispensable element of the Union's legal order and of the uniform application of EU law across member states. And we had the occasion, especially in my country, for many years to exercise that lesson that these measures and rulings of the Court of Justice are the cornerstones of the Article 19 rule and the principle of effective judicial protection. Thank you very much.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you. For S&D, Krzysztof Śmiszek.
Thank you, Chair. And on behalf of S&D group, I just want to flag out that we have some fundamental remarks in terms of the report that were presented during the hearing few weeks ago that was organized by AFCO committee. And we are very, I mean, that the criticism was quite visible not only from the side of S&D but many other groups. But of course we will present our amendments. But I just want to say a few things about the report.
In my opinion, there are a number of issues, in our opinion actually, there are a number of issues with this report that to some extent incorrectly interprets the constitutional construction of the EU law. First of all, the opinion builds arguments undermining the principle of supremacy of the EU law based on the, for example, decision issued by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal from a few years ago. And the same tribunal was not legitimate and the issues surrounding this tribunal was one of the reasons for which Poland had the Article 7 procedure triggered against my country.
Secondly, the report tries to build a new, I would say, constitutional dialogue mechanism. Such mechanism already exists, it is called preliminary questions or preliminary reference procedure provided for in Article 267 of the treaty. Thirdly, the report criticizes the lack of dissenting opinions in the verdicts of the Luxembourg Court, which I believe is the not to the constitutional order of the USA. The whole idea of the court speaking with one voice has a very important reason, namely maintaining judicial independence. This is just to name few misconceptions that are present in this report that I would like to address in my capacity as a shadow rapporteur to the JURI opinion on this file.
And I do agree, however, with the rapporteur that there is a definitely room for discussions and I do agree with him to make the allocation of cases, the designation of reporting judges and the constitution of chambers to be more transparent and foreseeable. So on the organizational, I was just also thinking like why this report was assigned to AFCO, not to JURI and we are just presenting the opinion to the report given our competences, but this is a question to the chair, maybe chair will enlighten me why we are not the leading committee in this report. And to conclude, we have a quite a bit of work ahead of us and from my understanding not too much time, but I'm nevertheless looking forward to working with you, honorable chair, and the fellow shadow rapporteurs here on this very interesting file. Thank you so much.
Mario Mantovani
Mario Mantovani for ECR Group.
Sì, grazie presidente. Ma credo che in questa discussione si debbano separare due piani che rischiano di confondersi. Il primo è l'indipendenza della Corte di Giustizia che non è in discussione. Il secondo è la trasparenza del suo funzionamento e su questo la relazione pone dei dubbi legittimi. Tre punti.
Il principio di attribuzione. La Corte ha un ruolo essenziale nell'interpretazione uniforme del diritto dell'Unione, ma il suo esercizio deve restare ancorato ai trattati. L'interpretazione non può estendere le competenze conferite dagli Stati membri. Vale per l'articolo 19 del TUE, dove sviluppi di questa portata richiedono limiti dottrinari precisi e rispetto delle responsabilità costituzionali nazionali. Secondo punto, la certezza del diritto.
Quando le sentenze incidono sugli Stati membri, sui cittadini e sulle imprese, il ragionamento deve essere chiaro e prevedibile. È anche una questione di competitività. Le imprese hanno bisogno di un contesto giuridico stabile e l'incertezza si traduce invece in costi. Ultimo punto, il funzionamento interno.
come si assegnano le cause, con quali criteri si compongono i collegi, perché si rinuncia sempre più spesso alle conclusioni dell'avvocatura dell'avvocato generale. Spesso l'unica valutazione alternativa accessibile al pubblico è il monolinguismo. Questioni poste da tempo, più pressanti dopo la riforma dello statuto del 2024. Discuterne non indebolisce la Corte, credo che la rafforzi. Il parere di JURI dovrebbe muoversi secondo me su questa linea: non intaccarne l'autorità, ma non esitare a indicare le carenze dove esistono.
Un'istituzione la cui autorità cresce ha interesse anche ad essere più trasparente.
Ton Diepeveen
Grazie, Tom Diepeveen for PfE Group.
Dank u voorzitter. Ja, artikel 19 van het Verdrag van de Europese Unie heeft het Hof een bijzonder belangrijke rol gegeven bij de bescherming van de rechtsstaat en de effectieve rechtsbescherming. Maar juist omdat het Hof die constitutionele rol heeft, moeten we ook kritisch kijken hoe het zelf met zijn bevoegdheden omgaat. Er zijn terecht vragen gesteld over de transparantie van de interne werking van het Hof. De toewijzing van zaken, de samenstelling van de kamers, de keuze van de rapporteurs en de concentratie van bevoegdheden binnen het voorzitterschap.
Dat zijn geen technische details voorzitter, het zijn fundamentele elementen van het recht op een onafhankelijke en bij wet ingestelde rechter. Ook de juridische methode verdient aandacht. Wanneer het Hof algemene verdragsbepalingen steeds ruimer en ruimer interpreteert zonder een voldoende duidelijke afbakening van zijn interpretatiemethode, ontstaat het risico dat rechtelijke interpretatie uiteindelijk neerkomt op constitutionele beleidsvorming. En dat is precies waarom ik de kritiek van de rapporteur op een te ver doorgevoerde teleologische interpretatie steun. Bevoegdheden die lidstaten niet aan de Unie hebben verleend mogen niet via rechtelijke interpretatie alsnog een Europese bevoegdheid worden.
En daarbij is ook het constitutionele evenwicht van belang. Nationale constitutionele en hoogste rechtelijke instanties hebben een legitieme verantwoordelijkheid om de constitutionele identiteit, bevoegdheidsverdeling en fundamentele constitutionele beginselen van hun eigen lidstaten te bewaken. Een echte dialoog tussen Luxemburg en de nationale rechtelijke instanties moet daarom structureel en wederkerig zijn. Meer transparantie, meer voorspelbaarheid en meer institutionele terughoudendheid zou het Hof niet verzwakken, integendeel, ze zouden de legitimiteit van zijn uitspraken versterken. En mijn boodschap is daarom eenvoudig: onafhankelijke rechtspraak betekent niet dat rechters aan politieke instructies onderworpen zijn, maar het betekent evenmin dat een rechtelijke instelling buiten iedere vorm van institutionele controle, transparantie en kritiek staat.
Als wij de rechtsstaat werkelijk ernstig nemen voorzitter, moeten dezelfde normen gelden voor alle instellingen, dus ook voor het Hof van Justitie. Ik dank u wel.
Arash Saeidi
Thank you Mr. Diepeveen. Mr. Žalimas are you speaking on behalf of Mr. Sieper? No, that is not the case. I don't see Mr. Lagodinsky and then the last shadow is Mr. Saïdi. Monsieur Saïdi.
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je vais pas m'étendre sur le fond du rapport, je vais juste quelques petites remarques. N'importe quelle juridiction a, enfin il y a très longtemps j'avais encore des cheveux, j'ai étudié le droit et j'ai constaté que n'importe quelle juridiction avait une tendance à interpréter sa propre compétence de manière très extensive si de temps en temps on ne venait pas lui rappeler qu'il fallait qu'elle respecte un cadre.
Moi je regrette effectivement également que les conclusions des avocats généraux ne soient pas si systématiques parce que ça éclaire en général beaucoup une décision. Et enfin vous ne serez pas étonnés si je vous dis que je trouve que l'utilisation du français à la cour me satisfait pleinement. Alors en dehors de la blague, j'ai deux un argument technique et un argument symbolique. Si c'est pour introduire à la cour l'utilisation de l'anglais alors que la Grande-Bretagne ne fait plus partie de l'Union, on le fait déjà ici, ce serait quand même dommage de le faire dans la dernière institution qui ne l'utilise pas encore. Et par ailleurs, cette utilisation du français a une utilité, c'est que c'est de garder l'histoire et l'interprétation constante des arrêts déjà pris et je pense qu'on créerait de l'incertitude juridique à changer la langue de travail de la cour.
Je vous remercie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Saïdi. Sergey Lagodinsky, would you like to take the floor? Okay, that is not the case. So, Mr. Smiszek, on on your question. AFCO added this as INI, JURI contested and Conference of the Presidents decided.
This is the the short version of of the answer. Of course, colleagues, thank you very much for this detailed explanation and observation from your side. I fully take note of your remarks and look forward to strengthen this opinion and of course try to change the mind of our colleagues on from AFCO because obviously we have some big divergences, but also I think we can find a way where we should work together and strengthen the understanding of transparency and the role of the court in Luxembourg. With that, I close this point. Any other business?
That is not the case. And the next meeting will take place here in Brussels on 28th of September, again starting at 3 o'clock, and we are planning to have extraordinary meeting in Strasbourg in October. So thank you for today, dear colleagues. Colleagues, if you agree, we can start the coordinators' meeting immediately. I think we are all here.