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
JURI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsJim O'Callaghan
This will allow the Council to enter into inter-institutional negotiations with the European Parliament as soon as possible. A further priority for me is to seek progress on the Justice Programme regulation within the context of negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework. Ireland stands ready to engage in trilogues on this if the Parliament comes to a position on it.
In line with the importance the Irish Presidency has placed on digitalisation, the Justice Programme will support progress on digitalisation, improving cross-border cooperation and interoperability of systems. Our Presidency is committed to supporting the Council's ongoing work to uphold and strengthen respect for EU values and fundamental rights. Work will continue on the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, an important step in reinforcing the Union's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. The European Union is founded on respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights. These values are not optional.
Particular attention will be given to combating domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. This remains one of the most pervasive and damaging forms of violence in our societies. Protecting victims and strengthening prevention efforts must remain a priority for all of us. The Irish Presidency will also place a strong emphasis on protecting and promoting the rights of the child. Children are rights holders in their own right.
We will support initiatives that enhance children's participation in decision-making processes and advance work on the proposed regulation on the recognition of parenthood. We will continue to champion the rights of minority communities and those who experience discrimination, racism and hate.
This will include the adoption of Council conclusions which will support the implementation of the new EU anti-racism strategy. At the same time, we're advancing important discussions on the child sexual abuse regulation with the next trilogue taking place tomorrow. There are few issues that demand greater urgency than protecting children from exploitation and abuse, particularly in the digital environment, and hope we can reach agreement on that file. Let me briefly touch on other key priorities for the Irish Presidency which, while not directly under the remit of your committee, are topical issues for the Union as a whole. The successful implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum will be a central priority of the Irish Presidency.
The Irish Presidency will also oversee the second annual migration management cycle under the Pact, including the establishment of the solidarity pool for 2027. The Schengen area remains one of the great achievements of European integration. The Irish Presidency will continue to support work on strengthening Schengen governance, advancing implementation of the EU visa strategy and progressing the EU digital travel application. We will also continue to stand in solidarity with those displaced by Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. In terms of internal security, the publication of the Protect EU internal security strategy provides an important roadmap for strengthening Europe's internal security.
The Irish presidency will prioritize this work. In particular, we look forward to engaging on the proposal to strengthen the mandates of Europol and the forthcoming Frontex proposal. Providing member states with the tools and resources necessary to address organized crime and enhance resilience is a critical investment in our collective security. The revision of the European investigation order, the strengthening of Eurojust, and efforts to combat firearms trafficking each represent important opportunities to improve cross-border cooperation. So the Irish presidency will work constructively with member states and this Parliament to advance these files, as well as the Commission's proposals on lawful access to data and organized crime, if presented during Ireland's term.
The success of the Justice and Home Affairs agenda depends on close collaboration between member states, the Commission, and the Parliament. And the Irish presidency is committed to that partnership approach, and that's why I'm here today, Alan, to hear from your committee members. Thank you very much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, dear Minister, for presenting the priorities of the Irish presidency. And now I would like to give the floor to Marion Walsmann on behalf of EPP.
Marion Walsmann
Ja, sehr geehrter Herr Minister. Ich bedanke mich, dass Sie heute bei uns sind und die wichtigen Prioritäten der irischen Ratspräsidentschaft im Bezug auf das Justiz- und Rechtssystem uns aufgezeigt haben. Ich habe zwei Fragen und eine Anmerkung. Die erste Frage bezieht sich auf den Innovation Act. Der neue Innovation Act schlägt einen gemeinsamen Rahmen für die Bewertung geistigen Eigentums sowie einen europäischen Marktplatz für Rechte an geistigem Eigentum vor.
Wie kann denn der Rat sicherstellen, dass dieses Instrument oder dass diese Instrumente KMU und Start-ups tatsächlich dabei helfen, Patente und andere Vermögenswerte des geistigen Eigentums zur Finanzierung zu nutzen, anstatt eine weitere Ebene administrativer Komplexität zu schaffen? Und Sie nannten ja die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, und das könnte ein entscheidender Vorteil sein, eben die Finanzierung durch geistige Eigentumswerte zu nutzen.
Und das Zweite, was ich betonen möchte, ein ausdrücklicher Dank für die Priorität auf die Modernisierung der Justizsysteme. Dort sind, glaube ich, die Problemlagen, dass die Digitalisierung sehr unterschiedlich ist in den Nationalstaaten, auch die Systeme, die genutzt werden. Wir brauchen aber die länderübergreifende Zusammenarbeit eben auch, um Kriminalitätsopfer rechtlich gleichzustellen, zu helfen und auch länderübergreifende Strafverfolgung zu ermöglichen.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair, and welcome, Minister, to our committee. Minister, I mean, that was touched upon before, the Justice Programme, which we are working on and it's very important for us. The Justice Programme is the EU's funding instrument for judicial cooperation, the training of justice practitioners and effective access to justice, including the rights of victims of crime. The proposed 2028-34 programme, currently under negotiations, aims to foster an effective, inclusive, resilient and digitalised EU area of justice, with a strong emphasis on the digitalisation of justice.
An inclusive area of justice must also work for those who are most vulnerable in proceedings, including victims of gender-based violence and children. You touched upon and you said that these issues are very dear not only to your heart, but also to the Presidency's heart. My question is, will the Irish Presidency treat support for victims of gender-based violence and child-friendly justice as priorities in its work on the Justice Programme, and how does it intend to ensure they are reflected in the final text? We are witnessing here in the Parliament, but also in the Council, some political forces that want to stop talking about gender-based violence victims, so I would love to hear your opinion and your declaration about those issues. Thank you so much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Krzysztof Śmiszek. For the ECR Group, it will be Tobiasz Bocheński.
Tobiasz Bocheński
Thank you, Mr Chair, Mr Minister. Nowadays, everyone talks about deregulation or so-called simplification. All European politicians observe growth of US and China. EU has a huge trade imbalance. The source of our economic problems is a lack of competitiveness, overregulation and great restraint to deregulate.
We have worked on few omnibus packages here in Parliament and we are working on them now. What's your point of view on deregulation? Do you believe that we should speed up and go more deep into our previous legislation or our current state of affairs is quite okay and all endeavors of Madame Ursula von der Leyen is enough? Thank you.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you Chair. Dear Minister, first of all I would like to express my gratitude for very comprehensive presentation of presidency's priorities and of course I welcome strong emphasis on fundamental rights apart from migration resilience, also on the rule of law and access of justice. I also appreciate the particular attention you are giving to the rights of children, including their protection in the digital environment. So I have two questions. First is related with protecting minors online.
I strongly support stronger safeguards including effective age verification.
At the same time, privacy and digital rights organizations have raised concerns about possible collection of sensitive data, the security of age verification systems, and the risk of such tools being used for purposes beyond age verification. These systems need to be robust enough to actually protect children, but public trust will depend on strong privacy safeguards. So how does the presidency see this balance and which legal safeguards should be at the center of our work on age verification? And second, on Justice Programme, what do you see as the main priorities for the presidency? One area where I believe the program could be strengthened is cooperation with international and regional organizations, including through joint initiatives on the rule of law, fundamental rights, judicial independence, judicial reform, judicial training.
The Venice Commission, for example, is particularly relevant here. Its updated rule of law checklist, which we are going to discuss by the way today in this committee, provides an important practical benchmark at a time of democratic backsliding. What do you see value in using the future Justice Programme more systematically to support this kind of cooperation with international organizations? Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, Mr. Žalimas. That was a round for the coordinators.
Minister, I can take two more questions if that's okay with you, yeah? Okay. Okay. Mario Mantovani. Prego, Mario.
Mario Mantovani
Sì, grazie Presidente. Buongiorno Ministro. Abbiamo apprezzato l'impegno del programma della presidenza irlandese per la strategia e-justice, la giustizia digitale, la formazione giudiziaria. E la digitalizzazione può rendere certamente la giustizia più efficiente. Però, mi lasci dire, non la rende più giusta.
E noi abbiamo bisogno di una giustizia più giusta. Lei, nella sua esperienza politica nazionale, si è impegnato a favore delle vittime di reato. Le voglio parlare oggi di vittime dimenticate, quelle della malagiustizia. Penso a chi subisce un'ingiusta detenzione, un errore giudiziario, un processo senza fine, a chi viene colpito da procedimenti usati come strumento di lotta politica. Ecco, questa commissione, esaminando le richieste di revoca dell'immunità, riconosce non di rado un fumus persecutionis.
Eppure, incredibilmente, il quadro di valutazione dell'Unione della giustizia non conta queste vittime. Non esistono dati europei sugli errori giudiziari, sulle detenzioni ingiuste, sulle loro cause e sull'efficacia dei risarcimenti, che sono spesso decisi dalla stessa categoria di magistrati che ha commesso l'errore. E non esiste un database ufficiale europeo e neppure una sua valutazione. Signor Ministro, ciò che non si misura non esiste, per cui su questo avremmo gradiremo un suo impegno. Poi, per quanto riguarda la giustizia digitale, che può raccogliere i dati, la strategia europea per la formazione giudiziaria venga definita anche sulla base di questi dati, dati di cattiva giustizia, contribuendo a ridurne le cause, e affinché la Commissione li inserisca nel quadro di valutazione e nella relazione sullo stato di diritto.
Una seconda domanda è più trasversale, l'ha già anticipata l'onorevole Bocheński. Pochi giorni fa, tredici Stati membri, quasi la metà dell'Unione, tra cui Austria, Italia, Germania, Polonia, hanno chiesto una revisione profonda delle norme dell'Unione Europea.
Mi chiedo, vorrei chiederle, come mai l'Irlanda non figura tra questi firmatari, che naturalmente ci darebbe, ci consentirebbe di fare qualche riflessione. L'ultima domanda, se no il presidente mi richiama, è sull'immigrazione. Le chiedo se abbia mai letto qualche opera che paventa che cosa succederà con l'immigrazione smodata. A Ceuta questo racconto ha già preso vita. Se intende assumere qualche posizione.
Grazie.
Michael McNamara
Thank you very much. Minister, you mentioned CSAM and combating CSAM online as being a priority of the Irish presidency and I welcome that. Just before summer, a temporary piece of legislation was agreed. It was quite contentious within the Parliament and there's very much a fear that that becomes the solution and takes the pressure off to achieve something more permanent. And I hope that the Irish presidency will continue to work towards something more permanent because it is clearly something you don't have to be a parent to believe that we need to combat the proliferation of child sex abuse online.
I think being a parent brings it into very sharp focus, but everybody would agree to that.
But equally, I don't want to be the parent of children growing up in a society where all correspondence is the subject of surveillance, where we live in an age because of course all correspondence is now digital. I think it's only politicians and debt collection agencies that send letters anymore, everybody else uses email. So everything is online and therefore all correspondence and communication is subject to surveillance unless there are safeguards in place. So while we do clearly need to protect against the appalling evil that is child sex abuse, equally we need to make sure that the privacy of correspondence is maintained. And I'm just wondering how you hope to bridge that, to strike a balance in that regard.
The second thing I suppose I'd like to discuss is AI is something that's within the remit of this committee. It works in these issues, but it's with regard to legal aid. Of course you mentioned the Convention on Human Rights and moving towards ratification of it. One of the fundamental rights in that is the right to legal representation. Airey in Ireland was a seminal case in that regard.
The legal aid system in Ireland is in, I don't need to tell you, is in a uproar about proposed reforms. I can see what you're seeking to achieve with those.
I mean, you want to introduce a system where you have more simplicity, you've less administration and having to pay for repeated appearances in court, and also to root out sort of unscrupulous abuses. But AI does offer that possibility of sifting through and identifying anomalous applications and perhaps practitioners that are less scrupulous in how they apply for payments for representing clients. So is that something that you have considered introducing in legal aid payment system in Ireland because the result, you know, the administration is understandably expensive. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you so much. Minister, you have good ten minutes to answer the questions.
Jim O'Callaghan
Okay. Yeah, thank you very much and I want to thank all colleagues for their questions and I apologize at the outset if I don't recall each person's name, but I'll just refer to them in terms of the numbered questions. First question was about the Innovation Act, which sets up the common framework for intellectual property. And the issue here was whether or not this will help SMEs. I will raise that with my colleague Minister Neale Richmond, who has direct responsibility for that and I will feed her answer back into you.
And I would certainly hope that if it is going to be innovative, the whole purpose of it is to help SMEs. We don't want to bring in more regulation which isn't going to have the consequence of making life easier for SMEs. So hopefully it will have that impact. In terms of the modernizing the justice system that you also raised, obviously the way we can modernize the system, digitalization should necessarily assist in that, but it's not the only way by which that can be done. And I think we need to ensure in our member states that we've a justice system that operates speedily and without excess of cost.
It is important that people who seek access to justice get a processing of that application for justice in a very prompt manner. The second questioner asked about the Justice Programme. Obviously, in terms of the Justice Programme, the Council position is settled. We stand ready to begin trilogues in respect of it.
And also one of the issues was raised in terms of digitalization. The Council has and will continue discussing options for harmonization of digitalization, but as of yet, there are no concrete proposals. You also raised the issue of domestic sexual gender-based violence, what the Irish presidency was doing in respect of that. At the informal meeting in Dublin in July, I specifically put on the agenda the impact of what we're now seeing as violent and extreme pornography and the impact that it's having in terms of increasing violence against women. And that is an area that really needs to be confronted on a concerted and a coordinated approach.
The third questioner raised the question about the growth of US and China and in terms of the omnibuses, what is being done. We're prioritizing every omnibus. It is important that the European Union remains extremely competitive and gets more competitive. We can't allow a situation where other, I suppose, large blocks, economic blocks within the world are more competitive than us. However, we also have an obligation to ensure that we respect rights whilst ensuring that we become more competitive.
The fourth questioner was in respect of the fundamental rights of children. Obviously, and this is an issue that was raised by Michael McNamara as well, there is a balancing act that has to happen here. On the one hand, we have to balance the protection of children and ensuring that we have in place laws that enable the protection of children. And on the other hand, we have to take into account the privacy issues and privacy concerns of citizens within member states.
My own view and the view of the Irish presidency is the balance should be very much struck in favor of the former, namely protecting children. We can't allow a situation to develop where there are clear threats and dangers to children happening online and we're not actively seeking to introduce legislative mechanisms or policy responses to protect them. I hear what you say as well in terms of the in terms of the Venice Commission and the role played in terms of our judiciary, and I think that is an important issue as well. The fifth issue was raised the issue of digital justice, but also emphasized judicial training. It is the case that we need to ensure that we do have an effective response by the judiciary in a speedy time to claims that are brought before the courts.
One of the issues that was raised was the issues of victims' rights. You know, we're aware that we really need to ensure in the aftermath of the Blanco judgment as well that there is put in place by member states a statutory regime to ensure that victims of criminal acts can have some claim arising from the damage that has been inflicted to them.
The questioner also specified the forgotten victims as he categorized them, those who were victims of judicial error. In fairness to the judiciary, they're as human as the rest of us and like politicians they make mistakes, but the reason why we have appellate structures in all our member states is to ensure that we have a system that can find out and rectify and correct where there has been judicial error. And that is the benefit of the appeal structure, the appellate structure that exists within all our member states. In terms of delays, where there has been delays in terms of the conclusion and the determination of justice, we need to ensure, and it's a priority for the Irish presidency to ensure that the measures we're introducing, whether it's digitalization or otherwise, that they have as their objective not just making justice more effective but also making it faster. Because justice delayed is justice denied and we need to ensure that there's a system in place that people can get a response to their justice claims promptly.
I was also asked by the questioner about the 13 member states called for the revision of the rules of the EU. I suspect that's a reference to the meeting that took place in Munich in respect of migration. As presidency, it was important for Ireland to be there, like I've to hear from all member states in respect of it, but Ireland doesn't have a position in respect of it.
The reason for being there was to facilitate those member states in discussing and hearing what they were saying. And finally, the questions from my friend Michael McNamara, who again identified the real threat to our children from child sexual abuse material. As you will know, or people will know in terms of the LIBE committee, that tomorrow there is the trilogue in respect of the child sexual abuse regulation. I think it is imperative that we get agreement in respect of that. It is really important for the Irish presidency that we can try to progress and conclude the child sexual abuse regulation.
I note what Michael said in terms of, you know, privacy rights and people being subject to surveillance. It is important to point out, however, that where there is that balance or conflict between protecting children and privacy rights, I will always opt for the former, even if it does result in some interference in terms of surveillance in the latter. And finally, Michael mentioned the issue of legal aid. I'm hoping to introduce, subject to approval, changes to the civil legal aid scheme. I think it is important that we have a broader and more generous civil legal aid scheme in Ireland.
You also asked about AI assisting in terms of legal aid. As you know, sometimes lawyers can be hesitant to accept any change, but certainly I don't think we should rule out technology that can facilitate people in terms of getting a speedy response to their justice queries. The most important issue for all of this committee and for me as a minister and the presidency is how can we facilitate citizens of the European Union, persons living in the European Union who are seeking access to justice and who want an answer to their justice complaints. Thanks very much, Chairman.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Minister O'Callaghan, dear Jim, for your presence and for your staying engagement with members of Legal Affairs Committee. We wish you well during the Irish presidency and we really want to see you advancing with all your priorities. With that, dear colleagues, I suspend the meeting until 5:00.
Mario Mantovani
Bene. Riprendiamo la commissione, prego. Mi esprimerò in italiano. Il prossimo punto all'ordine del giorno riguarda lo stato di diritto e la lista di controllo aggiornata sullo stato di diritto preparata dalla Commissione europea per la democrazia attraverso il diritto del Consiglio d'Europa, nota come Commissione di Venezia.
Come sapete, stiamo lavorando alla preparazione del parere della Commissione affari giuridici alla Commissione LIBE sulla relazione di iniziativa annuale della Commissione sullo stato di diritto. Il presidente Kucukner è relatore. A questo proposito, le spiegazioni della Commissione di Venezia sono di estrema importanza, ovviamente, per il nostro lavoro. È un piacere dare oggi il benvenuto qui alla Commissione JURI al signor Iain Cameron dell'Università di diritto internazionale di Uppsala, Svezia, e membro della Commissione di Venezia. Darò quindi la parola all'onorevole Cameron per una presentazione prima di aprire il dibattito con i nostri parlamentari.
Quindi, signor Cameron, la parola è sua per quindici minuti. Grazie.
Iain Cameron
Thank you very much. And first of all, thank you very much for this invitation to the committee to present the Venice Commission Rule of Law Checklist. I'm, I should say at the beginning, I'm happy to answer questions at the end more generally concerning the Venice Commission, the work of the Venice Commission and, as I said, I'm happy to answer these more general questions, but I will deal with now simply with the Rule of Law Checklist. So, next slide, please.
What is the rule of law checklist and what are the purposes of the rule of law checklist? Well, it was designed as a tool for a variety of different actors who wish to evaluate or assess to what extent the rule of law is respected in a state. And these actors could be NGOs, it could be IGOs such as the present body, but also state authorities. And as regards the work of the European Union, the European Commission has stated that member states should take the rule of law checklist into account in structuring and reforming their justice systems. Next slide.
So, the approach of the checklist is to break down the components of the rule of law. The rule of law is one of these values or principles that everybody can agree in theory upon. Even autocratic regimes claim to follow the rule of law. But the value of the rule of law checklist is to break down this principle that everybody can in theory agree upon and to make it a working, operational device. The rule of law checklist is constructed in the form of a large number of questions.
And to apply it involves an interactive approach on the part of the evaluator. You have to put some work into it, I'm afraid. It doesn't, it's not an automatic process that you just measure values in and then you get a result. So it's very definitely not a numerical process. That you find some NGOs engage in such a process in which they add up a lot of values and come to the conclusion that state A has a score of 78% and state B has a score of 77% and therefore state A is better than state B.
The rule of law checklist is not devised in this way. The other thing the rule of law checklist is not, is it is not a single model of respecting the rule of law. On the contrary, it is based on constitutional pluralism.
We we know that there are many ways of reaching the same goal, shall we say, and the rule of law checklist respects that. Next slide. So the the original rule of law checklist, because what I'm speaking about today is the updated rule of law checklist, the original checklist was adopted in 2016 and it consisted of five broad benchmarks. And these are legality, legal certainty, the prevention of abuse of power, equality and non-discrimination and access to justice or fair trial. And these benchmarks were quickly adopted by the European Commission as its own benchmarks regarding the rule of law.
The difficulty with this concept of the rule of law was basically that everybody could claim that they were following it, but when you broke it down into these different benchmarks, you quickly could identify those states which were genuinely trying to follow it, because it is after all an ideal. Nobody can can say that they they follow it to 100%. And those states that don't really interest themselves in it at all.
Now, as a result of developments since 2016, the Commission has decided to update its checklist. We decided to elevate two factors which were present in the original checklist from 2016 and make them into independent benchmarks. And these two factors are checks and balances, which includes issues such as the separation of powers but is not limited to that, and constitutional review. So there are now seven benchmarks in the updated rule of law checklist. And then each benchmark is then broken down into subheadings.
And these subheadings in turn are followed by a commentary and by references. Next slide, please. In addition to the benchmarks, there are two challenges to the rule of law. Now, there are many challenges to the rule of law. It's one of these values that is threatened not simply by its enemies, but also by its friends, I should say.
Especially the dynamics of politics are such that politicians naturally want to get stuff done, and the rule of law can be seen as an obstacle or a hinder on the way. But there are two challenges that we took up in particular in the rule of law checklist, which have been integrated into the benchmarks.
And these are new technologies and AI on the one hand and private parties on the other. And these two challenges are of course interrelated in a number of ways. And then there are two further challenges, namely restoration of the rule of law, since we know that rule of law backsliding has been a problem in a number of states. So restoration of the rule of law was a particular issue and also legal or civic education was the final issue. And these are dealt with at the end of the rule of law checklist.
Next slide please. Now the private actors challenge. I should say something very briefly about it. The rule of law has traditionally been seen as setting out standards for state use of power, setting out limits, mainly procedural limits on the state exercise of power.
However, if you go further back in time, the rule of law was designed to limit abuse of power, whatever the origins of the power was. So the origins of the rule of law go back to the time, for example, when the nobility were a major power in many states, not simply the king or the executive, but the nobility were a power. And you could say that in a sense we are re-entering such a period where the nobility in the form of oligarchs or tech barons are exercising power that previously, on a level and of a type that is equivalent to that of the state. And the rule of law checklist takes account of that, that the power doesn't have to be simply state power, but even very powerful individuals or companies can, under certain circumstances, be governed by rule of law safeguards. And the checklist also gives considerable prominence to the need to protect and promote the civil space, that is the NGOs and media.
Next slide, please. Now, what relevance does the rule of law checklist have to the work of this committee?
This committee has, of course, overarching competence for the monitoring of Union law and for its simplification and for better lawmaking. As such, this committee is interested in the quality of legislation, including the quality of legislation for businesses. And as we know, the rule of law is traditionally seen as a safeguard for individuals, but it also has important functions for stability of the business environment and for encouraging investment. So it's an, obviously, dispute settlement for companies involved in disputes with the state or other companies. So it has a relevance even for this.
But the rule of law checklist goes into detail on, first of all, the quality of legislation when it comes to benchmark B and legal certainty, but also what should be regulated and how it should be regulated, which is dealt with under benchmark A.
And I should say that the rule of law checklist does not in any way exhaust the relevance of the Venice Commission for the work of this committee because the Venice Commission has also adopted a wide variety of different opinions, including an opinion on the role of the opposition in a democracy. Next slide, please. The, I think you'll have to go through, yes, if you could go through all the points on the legality issue. Now, I'm not going to go through each of these, but it's in particular I should say point one that is of course of relevance for the work of this committee because the supremacy of the law, the need to take account or having a hierarchy of norms and for settling disputes if there is a dispute that arises as to the hierarchy of a norm, that obviously for EU states includes EU law. And also point six and point five are of relevance to, particular relevance to the work of this committee because it deals with the lawmaking procedures, what should accompany lawmaking, and also to what extent powers can be delegated to the executive, in this case delegated by means of a regulation to the Commission or other EU bodies.
Next slide, please. Legal certainty, as I mentioned, deals with the quality of the law. And legal certainty has a number of different elements: accessibility, foreseeability, stability and consistency, legal certainty in court decisions, the need to reason court decisions. There are certain basic principles. All of these principles have passed into EU law in different ways.
And finally, we, in line with what I mentioned earlier, we have integrated challenges to legal certainty which have emerged as a result of new technologies. Final slide, please, and I'll wrap up my presentation. I mentioned that the final challenge that we have dealt with in the Rule of Law Checklist is what can be described as education for legality.
The rule of law is seen very much as a legal value, and those among you who are lawyers probably need no explanation about the rule of law and why it's important. But the Commission, the Venice Commission, considers that the rule of law cannot be just simply left to lawyers. It's too important, shall we say, to be left simply to lawyers. It's everybody's responsibility. And in this respect, it's very important to explain to ordinary people what is the value of the rule of law.
It's all very well for lawyers to drone on about it, but lawyers can unfortunately become a sort of arcane priesthood who all speak about the value of things that other ordinary people don't really understand.
And this is why I would formally recommend that you look at what the European Commission has tried to do in this webpage. It's tried to show in a number of simple animations for ordinary people what happens if you don't follow the rule of law. The effects on ordinary people's lives if you don't follow the rule of law. And I, the Commission itself doesn't use this term, but I thought this the best way to describe this is to borrow the American songwriter Joni Mitchell's song about the big yellow taxi. And she sang in that, you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
And that is the best way to understand the value of the rule of law. You understand it very well when you don't have it, basically. All the disadvantages of the rule of law, or not having the rule of law, come very starkly into view. And that's what these animations seek to show in simple terms. Thank you.
That concludes my presentation.
Mario Mantovani
Bene, grazie, signor Cameron. Ora passiamo la parola ai coordinatori o loro rappresentanti. Hanno un primo ciclo di domande, un minuto e mezzo circa. L'onorevole Śmiszek.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Professor, for being with us today. It was extremely interesting to go through the presentation. Thank you for your insights.
I think that your expertise will help us to hold ourselves to the highest rule of law standards in our daily work, and we are very grateful for it. Well, you said that you don't want to, let's say, get involved in the discussions on individual examples. However, I would I would present shortly one individual example and then we can have a discussion at the more general general level. Well, the updated checklist is an essential reference for legislators and judges alike. And this is especially true for my country, Poland, which is still working its way out of a long rule of law crisis.
That work is now being obstructed. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal is at a standstill because the President of the Republic has refused to receive the oaths of five judges elected by the Parliament. This leaves the Tribunal unable to function properly and prolongs the constitutional crisis instead of resolving it. The checklist speaks directly to this situation.
Paragraph 102 lists among the most common measures that may undermine judicial independence and impartiality, the failing to appoint or vote on nominees. My question is therefore, in your view, what constitutional solution or legal solution would safeguard judicial independence where the executive power in practice creates legal uncertainty around a judicial institution by refusing to swear in duly elected judges? Thank you so much.
Mario Mantovani
It's a very valid comment, honorable. Prima ascoltiamo le domande e poi rispondiamo. Onorevole Zadimás.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, Chair. And first of all, of course, I would like to thank very much the representatives of the Venice Commission for a very detailed and comprehensive presentation, which really inspire us to even more decisively defend the rule of law. And thank you also for all the work done in preparing this updated rule of law checklist, which seems to be the most comprehensive work on this subject. And I find several aspects of the updated checklist particularly important.
First, it reflects how our understanding of checks and balances has evolved. We can no longer look only at the classic separation between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The experience of democratic backsliding has shown the importance of the broader institutional environment. Civil society, academia, and free and independent media are particularly also important. So I think it is particularly important that the updated checklist recognizes these actors as well as a part of the system of checks and balances.
And this is very relevant also to experience of some of our countries. I can refer to Lithuania, where last and the beginning of this year we faced an attempt by, including by legislative means, by the parliamentary majority to take control of our public service broadcaster.
And ultimately it was strong mobilization first of all by civil society together with journalists, independent media and that helped prevent this takeover. And by the way the Venice Commission proved here to be very efficient, the most efficient I must say from international institutions because its two critical opinions really contributed to the efforts of the civil society to stop this takeover. So my question of course is related with the problem which already was raised by the colleague on the restoration of the rule of law because it's this second innovation I of course not the only one but I find it also very useful. And we are confronted really with the challenge not only how to prevent the erosion of the rule of law but also how to restore. And the colleague already touched this issue what to do if really there is total paralysis.
And I understand that the Rule of Law Checklist partly relies probably on Polish experience, but maybe you already now see the necessity to update it, to make it as a living instrument, also taking as an example other countries like Hungary. And my question, to which extent the Rule of Law also, how to say, approves the actions which may be called even sometimes contra legem? Because really I don't see here any other possibility, like in the case of Poland my colleague already referred, than to act by means which formally can be contradicting to the Constitution and the traditional understanding of the Rule of Law. And the last, you mentioned of course the relevance of the Rule of Law Checklist to the European Parliament, but can you elaborate a little bit which principles in concrete are the most relevant from the updated Rule of Law Checklist regarding legislative activities and maybe also you mentioned also the role of opposition. So thank you.
David Cormand
Merci, merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, merci beaucoup à la Commission de Venise pour cet exposé. Je vais parler au nom de ma collègue Tineke Strik qui ne peut pas être là et qui a trois questions à vous poser.
Merci donc pour votre exposé. Première question, l'une des innovations importantes de la liste de contrôle actualisée sur l'état de droit réside dans l'attention particulière accordée au rétablissement de l'état de droit après une période de régression systémique. C'est précisément le défi auquel la Hongrie, par exemple, est aujourd'hui confrontée. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour évaluer si l'état de droit a non seulement été suffisamment rétabli sur le papier, mais s'il fonctionne également de manière efficace et authentique dans la pratique ? Deuxième question, pensez-vous que les rapports annuels de la Commission sur l'état de droit sont suffisamment alignés sur votre liste de critères actualisée ?
Ou bien estimez-vous que certains éléments ou critères de référence spécifiques méritent une attention plus ciblée dans ces rapports ?
Plus précisément, conviendriez-vous que les restrictions aux droits fondamentaux devraient également être expressément couvertes par le rapport sur l'état de droit et que la non-exécution des arrêts pertinents de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne et de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme devrait systématiquement y figurer ? De plus, quelles seraient vos recommandations pour que la Commission puisse mieux évaluer les effets cumulatifs de mesures formellement distinctes afin de mieux rendre compte de leur impact de détérioration systémique sur l'état de droit ? Troisième question, dans plusieurs États membres de l'Union européenne, le recours au pouvoir d'urgence a affecté, a affecté pardon ou limité l'autonomie financière ou institutionnelle de certaines autorités locales. Selon vous, une autonomie effective de ces collectivités locales devrait-elle faire partie d'une évaluation systémique des contre-pouvoirs et de l'équilibre des pouvoirs ? Et je me permets d'ajouter une question qui concerne peut-être les travaux que vous avez faits sur, j'ai envie de dire, une évaluation préalable à la résilience d'institutions de certains pays à un crash test totalitaire.
Je sais que mon groupe politique avait financé une étude pour la France, une étude dont les résultats n'étaient pas très rassurants pour évaluer en cas d'arrivée au pouvoir d'une d'une majorité politique d'extrême droite, dans quelle mesure les institutions telles qu'elles sont résisteraient à ce choc politique. Et est-ce qu'une telle étude élargie aux 27 pays de l'Union serait possible, envisageable, est-ce que vous avez réfléchi à cela ? Je vous remercie.
Mario Mantovani
Bene, grazie. Volevo anch'io cogliere l'occasione di questa presenza della Commissione di Venezia, dell'onorevole Cameron, per porre qualche domanda. E vorrei sollevare una questione che ho appena discusso con il Ministro della Giustizia della Presidenza irlandese che ci ha preceduto. Nei parametri e nei principi di valutazione della lista, hanno uno spazio autonomo di valutazione gli errori dell'amministrazione di giustizia ? Penso a chi subisce un'ingiusta detenzione, a una vittima di un errore giudiziario, l'entità dei risarcimenti, la lunghezza per la loro decisione e all'effettiva indipendenza dell'organo che decide sui risarcimenti rispetto a chi li ha causati, che insomma gli errori giudiziari sono valutati dagli stessi giudici.
Questa commissione, peraltro, esaminando le richieste di revoca dell'immunità, riconosce non di rado un fumus persecutionis, cioè un uso politico della giustizia. Eppure incredibilmente queste fattispecie non vengono quasi mai considerate, non vi è un database ufficiale europeo che raccolga i numeri e l'entità di un fenomeno così importante e direi preoccupante. La Commissione di Venezia come valuta e in che misura queste criticità che sono tutte interne all'amministrazione giudiziaria? Grazie.
Adesso onorevole lei ha cinque minuti di tempo, se non ci sono altre domande, ha cinque minuti di tempo per rispondere. Prego.
Iain Cameron
Thank you very much. These are all very relevant and complicated questions, and I will do my best to try to answer them.
First of all, the issue of restoration in the context of Poland. Amongst the principles that are emphasized in the checklist is the principle of loyal cooperation of state institutions. Now, the state institutions in this case are clearly not cooperating with each other. The president is not cooperating in accordance with his constitutional duties. We don't say in detail in the checklist what the consequences of this violation of the principle of loyal cooperation are.
However, we do say that divergence from the normal principles of the rule of law are justified in order to restore the rule of law. So points six and seven in the special treatment of the challenge of restoration deal with this. And above all, they say that is there a pressing social need to diverge from the rule of law and is the divergence proportional?
As I understand it, there are situations envisaged by the Polish Constitution in which the Speaker of the Sejm can act instead of the President when the President is hindered from carrying out his duties, and maybe the hindrance in this case is the President himself. However, I won't go into more detail on this particular issue other than to say that there's a clear violation of the principle of loyal cooperation, but we haven't spelled out in detail what the consequences of this is. I think it must depend on the circumstances and that divergence from normal rule of law rules in this case, following the letter of the Constitution as opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, could be justified. However, I should say that you should take my remarks as only being preliminary because the Venice Commission itself is dealing with precisely this issue in the upcoming session in October.
So I'll leave it at that. To move on to the issue taken up by Mr. Jallamas, I'm grateful to him for reminding me of the issue that Lithuania had quite recently and also to his emphasizing of how quickly the Venice Commission can act under certain circumstances. It's been called the constitutional fire brigade of Europe in that the Venice Commission, being a sort of semi-autonomous part of the Council of Europe, can act very quickly and produce, because of its exceptionally good secretariat, I should say, and the flexibility of its members, can produce high-quality opinions relatively quickly. I say relatively quickly because obviously this is very often complicated issues which require a comparative assessment. And one of the values of that very opinion that was mentioned is the comparative treatment of how other countries have dealt with this issue of the media space and the independence of the public broadcaster.
And again, I should say that the rule of law checklist has particularly taken up now in its treatment of checks and balances the need to protect public broadcasting and the need to protect media pluralism and the civil space. The second question relates to the implementation or, sorry, non-sorry, there was which principles in particular, yes, which principles in particular under the first benchmark that are particularly relevant to the work of this committee when it comes to legality. And I would say points five and six of benchmark A which deal with legality. And these go into some detail as to what is good legislative practice. What, you know, what should you look at?
What should a legislator look at before it's legislating? It states the basic principle that all issues which are of societal importance should in principle be dealt with by the legislator. And then of course it accepts exceptions because we have a very complicated society and the legislator cannot decide everything.
Some things have to be delegated to expert bodies and to the executive. But the principle is that the parliament should deal with the with the issues of most importance to society. And then there are certain ways which which this should be done: impact assessments, proper deliberative discussion. The parliament is not simply the democratic validation of the will of the people. It's also important that the parliament has a deliberative democracy and looks at all the issues, gives the opposition sufficient time without taking away the the major principle of democracy, which is of course that the majority decide.
The when it comes to non-implementation of judgments, this is specifically taken up in in the principle on on access to justice, fair trial. That non-implementation of a judgment is is a denial of of access to justice because I mean the judgment is of no use if if if it is not implemented.
So this is specifically taken up as part of fair trial access to justice, that the judgment actually has to be implemented. Um, the other issue on relation to local authority powers, this I confess is not an issue that I have thought of and I'm not certain if the if the Venice Commission goes into any detail on that. Having said that, the Venice Commission is a bit unusual in that it's it's an international body, but it it can break down the state into different components and these different components within their area of of competence, such as regions under constitutional law or local authorities under constitutional law, are permitted to ask questions of the Venice Commission. So the Venice Commission has written quite a lot on different aspects of of local authority self-government and regional self-government, and these opinions can be found on the Venice Commission website.
And the Venice Commission is, one of our customers is the Congress of Local Authorities, which is the part of the Council of Europe that deals with local authority autonomy issues. But your specific question on how, shall we say, budgetary matters can affect local authority autonomy and local authority budgets, I cannot speak specifically on that. Finally, the issue on immunities. The Venice Commission has looked at this issue before, some time before, but I should also say that we have an opinion coming up in October which deals in more detail with this issue, namely to what extent a government minister who comes from the parliament can enjoy parliamentary immunity. And that, like many other works of the Venice Commission, has been presaged by a comparative survey.
So we've looked at what different countries, how different countries deal with this issue of waiver of parliamentary immunity, as this committee is very familiar with.
We have two aspects to that: the non-liability and and immunity as such. And and here the practice is very clear that that states give non-liability to members of parliament for their statements in parliament. They must have this this almost absolute non-liability, whereas the trend seems to be towards less functional immunity. But then there's can be divergences, that different states can have can have different models in this respect, particularly influenced particularly by an authoritarian past. If if members of parliament have been subject to persecution in the past, then then it's more common to find a broader functional immunity.
But the Venice Commission survey, which will be available, I should say, in October when it's published, is notes that there is a movement away from from broad functional immunity while retaining more or less absolute non-liability for parliamentary members.
Mario Mantovani
Bene, se non ci sono altre domande, ringraziamo il signor Cameron per essere stato qui nella commissione giuridica e per questo scambio di opinioni interessante. Le auguro il migliore lavoro per la sua attività e la sua commissione. Grazie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We are about to start.
It is with great pleasure that I welcome today in JURI committee the European Ombudsman, Ms. Teresa Anjinho, who kindly accepted our invitation. JURI has had the opportunity to engage with the office of the European Ombudsman in the past, and today's exchange of views allows us to continue this beneficial dialogue and discuss matters failing within our own competence, our own remit, in particular better lawmaking, respect for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, as well as recent cases handled by European Ombudsman. Madam Ombudsman, I can give you the floor for 10 minutes, and then 15, or that's also fine with our committee, we can be a bit more generous today, and then I'll go back to the members and they will put their questions to you. Is that okay? Okay, please.
Teresa Anjinho
Dear Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, thank you. Thank you for inviting me to this important and topical discussion. It is always an honor to come to this Parliament. I firmly believe that our structured dialogue and, even more important, our common efforts have a concrete positive impact in closing the gap between the European citizens and the European Union. Today's discussion and its proper follow-up is a very good example of that.
Almost exactly one year ago, I sat before this committee.
At the time, our inquiries into how the Commission prepared urgent legislation were still underway, and I could only tell you what we were examining. Today I come back to tell you what we found, what the Commission answered, and what remains to be done. This practice matters. Accountability is not just a single moment. It is a conversation that continues.
Returning here, year after year, to account for our work and to hear yours is how two institutions serving the same citizens turn dialogue into follow-up. In a moment, I will share my perspective on better lawmaking. As you may know, my office has received various complaints related to how the European Commission prepared recent legislative proposals. We have also carried out several inquiries and made concrete proposals to improve the Commission's lawmaking process. But before I get into details, allow me to briefly touch upon the role of my institution when it comes to how EU decisions are taken and how EU laws are proposed.
I see my office as a bridge between citizens and their EU administration. In short, we are here to ensure that the administration treats all citizens fairly and respects their rights. In a democracy, one such right is the right to participate, to have a say in the rules and regulations that affect us.
Of course, democracy is not limited to elections. Europeans want to be involved in the decision-making process itself, especially when those decisions concern their livelihoods, their health, security, and values. Increasingly, people expect not only to have a say in who governs them, but also in how they are being governed. Yet, just as citizens are moving in this direction, a series of overlapping global crises is threatening to pull their public institutions the other way. Geopolitical and economic pressures are increasingly leading to accelerated decision-making, to more centralization, and to the prioritization of speed over process.
Allow me to say that I recognize the pressure that the whole institutional framework, so the Commission, but also this House and the Council, is under to respond to the many challenges the EU faces. From where I stand, citizens, companies, and organizations are also confronting the same uncertainty and anxiety. This is a moment that indeed demands adaptation.
But this quite understandable instinct to accelerate when the world is quickly changing might come with consequences if we don't find a new equilibrium. In particular, it risks creating a legitimacy gap between what citizens want their public administration to do and what that administration ends up doing. And if this gap is left unaddressed, it will not only undermine the efficacy of policies, but also erode the foundations of trust and inclusion upon which our democracy stands. Part of my role as Ombudsman is precisely to make sure the EU administration does not stray from the law-making rules that protect participatory democracy, to ensure it does not abandon the procedures and processes that foster legitimacy and promote citizen trust. This does not mean that my office will inquire into the policy itself.
We don't, and let me be crystal clear: the Ombudsman focuses exclusively on procedures. We look at the preparation of a policy to ensure it was sufficiently transparent, evidence-based and inclusive, three pillars of the European project. We do not question the merits of legislative simplification. In the past couple of years, my office has carried out three notable inquiries that concern how the Commission applied its own better regulation rules when preparing legislative proposals it deemed urgent.
These inquiries were the result of complaints sent to us by civil society organizations. They argued that the Commission had failed to carry out the necessary public consultations and impact assessments for proposals simplifying sustainability due diligence rules for businesses, the Omnibus 1, for changes in the EU Common Agriculture Policy, and for new rules to counter migrant smuggling. As the issues in each inquiry were similar, we decided to publish joint findings. In them, we identified procedural shortcomings that when taken together amount to maladministration. These shortcomings notably included the Commission's failing to fully justify the urgency of its legislative proposals, as well as failing to document its reasoning for deviating from the better regulation rules for lawmaking.
While these issues concerned all three legislative processes, we also found problems specific to each.
For instance, in the case of the common agriculture policy, the Commission published a document with evidence supporting its legislative proposal only after the legislation had already been approved. When it came to the Omnibus one, meanwhile, the Commission reduced the consultation time between its own department to less than 24 hours over a weekend. We made a series of recommendations and suggestions to ensure more predictable, consistent, and non-arbitrary application of the better regulation rules in the future. For example, we recommended that the Commission formally define the concept of urgency and comprehensively record and explain decisions it makes to exempt certain proposals from the usual rule-making requirements. I want to stress here that deciding that a proposal is urgent is not a just technical or semantic matter.
As we saw in these cases, this distinction is increasingly being used to set aside key elements of normal lawmaking processes, such as conducting public consultations and impact assessments, elements that help ensure EU laws are well informed and that EU lawmaking is participatory. The duty to consult widely is not a guideline. It is a treaty obligation. Even the treaty's own urgency exception requires reasons to be given. In addition, we also recommended that the Commission establish a procedure to ensure that the urgent preparation of legislative proposals, when it does happen, still complies with the principles of transparent, evidence-based and inclusive lawmaking.
The respect for these principles is not an abstract institutional goal. It is a concrete and structural demand for decision makers, particularly for the institution that holds the right of initiative. This Parliament, as representative of European citizens, is not only called to decide on future legislation. It is entitled to be aware of all the circumstances that justify each initiative. This matters also for the principles at the heart of your report.
National parliaments have eight weeks to assess whether a proposal respects subsidiarity. They can only do so on the evidence placed before them. When an impact assessment is skipped and the supporting analysis arrives months later, that check is weakened before it begins. Good procedure is not separate from subsidiarity and proportionality. It is their precondition.
The Commission response to our findings was constructive overall, but it was not very concrete.
The measures it said it intends to take were described in general terms and often lacking in detail. As you know, the Commission also published a communication on how it intends to reform its better regulation rules. In drawing final conclusions, we looked at this document as well. We found that it too does not contain sufficient information on whether the principles of good law-making will be upheld in urgent situations and whether the Commission will fully implement our recommendations and suggestions. For example, one of the parameters the Commission has cited for assessing the need for urgent action is political context.
In our view, this is too vague. It also raises the prospect that the pursuit of political goals alone could justify the use of urgent procedures. This in turn increases the risk of urgent EU law-making becoming the norm rather than the exception.
The Commission has publicly committed to improving its implementation of the better regulation guidelines and has stated that two simplification omnibus proposals presented after our inquiry and its communication already apply these new principles, including an impact assessment and evaluation from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. Overall, the general nature of the Commission's response leaves us currently unable to determine whether future urgent legislative proposals will be the result of a sufficiently transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based process. My intention, therefore, is to continue to monitor how the Commission handles urgent lawmaking and how it follows its better regulation rules. Apart from the urgent lawmaking, my office continues to receive complaints about the decision-making procedures at the Commission. Recently, I opened an inquiry to examine how the European Commission ensures that its reality checks meetings stakeholders follow transparency requirements.
This inquiry is ongoing, and I cannot, of course, anticipate right now our conclusions. But it shows how participatory democracy is highly topical nowadays. May I make one concrete suggestion: that your report invite the Commission to report back to Parliament on how it has implemented these recommendations once its better regulation rules are revised. Honorable members, let me close with one final thought.
Our world today is one of rapid change and upheaval. Times like these cannot help but test the limits of our traditional ways of governing, of open, deliberative, and inclusive rule-making. There is an ever-growing temptation to find shortcuts and cut corners, to quickly patch the old structure rather than build new foundations. I recognize that we must adapt. But we must find ways to do so that do not compromise our values or endanger our commitment to participatory democracy.
We must show citizens that EU law-making can be simultaneously agile and inclusive. The laws we create will be better not despite the rules, but because of these rules, and our union will be stronger. I hope then to return next year, once the revised better regulation rules have been applied in practice, and to tell you whether the commitments have indeed been followed.
Thank you very much, look forward for your questions.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much, Madam Ombudswoman, for your introductory statement, and I would like to start giving the floor to representative of S&D, Laura Walters.
Lara Wolters
Yes, thank you so much, and thank you so much, Madam Ombudswoman, for being here, for attending our committee, but of course mostly for your very hard work to shed light on the situation of new lawmaking and new traditions that seem to be created in the Commission and the recent instances of the Commission's preparation of all the initiatives since the 2024 elections. The one that concerns this committee most was the first Sustainability Omnibus, and if I speak very frankly, that was rather a traumatic experience for some of us, not only because of the sweeping changes proposed, but very much topical today because of the way in which those changes were proposed. I think we're familiar enough with the case, so I don't need to go over details, but your findings of maladministration were both very welcome and very difficult, of course, because those very findings were ones that members of Parliament were continuously pointing out and that seemingly were ignored by the Commission.
But we need to now look to the to the future, learn lessons from from this regrettable start of the mandate and I hope I hope that we can, but from your report and the commission's response so far, I am I am not sure that we will be able to learn lessons or at least that the commission is is wanting to to learn those lessons. So I suppose some of the questions that I have, first of all, do you feel taken seriously with the the findings that you published and with your final report? Because the response of the commission that creates a lot of space for itself in basically doing the same thing all over again to me suggests that the findings are not being taken very seriously, but please please please say. The second question was could this could this happen again, could a sustainability omnibus happen again? And I think I already heard your your warnings, but I'm I'm putting that question out there.
And lastly, and you made a suggestion of inviting the the commission here, but what other things do you think we have recourse to, you would have recourse to if we do see that similar patterns will be will be repeated? What what concrete things are there are there out there and what tools are in your toolbox? Thank you.
Marion Walsmann
Liebe Teresa, ganz herzlichen Dank für das Dasein heute. Und ich hatte ja schon öfter die Chance, auch im Austausch mit dir zu stehen. Dein Büro hat den neuen EU Law Tracker ausgezeichnet, der die Transparenz im Gesetzgebungsprozess merklich erhöhen soll. Welche rechtlichen Mindeststandards bezüglich der Barrierefreiheit und der verbindlichen Richtigkeit von dort automatisiert bereitgestellten Dokumenten sollten wir deiner Meinung nach langfristig verankern, damit aus diesem Transparenztool keine Rechtsunsicherheit für Bürger und Unternehmen besteht? Das würde mich interessieren.
Es ist eine wahnsinnig gute Sache. Wie können wir das noch perfektionieren? Herzlichen Dank.
Mario Mantovani
Sì, grazie Presidente. Salutiamo la mediatrice europea, grazie per essere qui oggi nella nostra commissione. L'argomento è legiferare meglio e rispetto dei principi di proporzionalità e sussidiarietà.
Credo che il motivo per cui alcuni colleghi abbiano richiesto questo incontro di oggi sia stato mal posto, non me ne vogliano. È evidente che il problema sono gli omnibus, né la rapidità delle procedure di semplificazione che erano dovuti. Quello di cui si dovrebbe invece discutere oggi è perché si sia arrivati agli omnibus e perché ci si accorga solo dopo averla approvata che una larga parte della normativa europea ha portato oneri burocratici, costi inutili a danno dei sistemi economici, delle microimprese, delle piccole e medie imprese nazionali. Non solo la rendicontazione sostenibile e la due diligence, ma penso all'intero Green Deal, al sistema ETS, al CBAM, al packaging, ai chip, al digitale, eccetera. La Commissione prima legifera e poi si accorge che ha combinato qualche disastro e che quindi seguono provvedimenti che naturalmente rovinano le economie, le piccole e medie imprese nazionali.
Ma come sono state valutate e motivate quelle normative al momento del loro concepimento?
Quale considerazione si è fatta non solo del rispetto dei principi di proporzionalità e di sussidiarietà, ma del test PMI e del principio Think Small First? Questo è il problema, non quanto velocemente si sia posto rimedio a norme dannose. Quindi chiedo alla mediatrice, e concludo, se non ritenga invece opportuno avviare un'iniziativa strategica e sollecitare un'analisi complessiva dell'intero acquis europeo per ricondurlo al rispetto di questi principi. Segnalo che questa stessa iniziativa è stata opportunamente richiesta qualche giorno fa da tredici Stati membri, tra cui l'Austria, l'Italia, la Germania, la Polonia e così via. Grazie.
Dainius Žalimas
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, dear Ombudswoman, for your presentation and for the work of your office. And I particularly share your critical attitude towards urgencies and frequent use of urgent procedures.
By the way, your presentation correlates a lot with what we heard before in discussion with the Venice Commission on good lawmaking European standards. And here, of course, I fully share your criticism with regard to insufficient stakeholder consultation, inadequate or even absent impact assessment, insufficient transparency through accelerated procedure. So, in light of the revision of the better regulation framework, what specific changes would you expect to see to address these risks? For example, do we need a very clear definition of urgency, minimum consultation standards in urgent cases, or timely publication of the evidence base? And second question, I am particularly interested in your ongoing inquiry into Commission's so-called reality checks.
Direct exchanges with businesses and other stakeholders can clearly help identify problems with EU legislation in practice. At the same time, of course, there is a very thin line between gathering factual information and consultation that may influence future political choices.
How do you think that line can be drawn? And more broadly, how can we preserve the usefulness and informality of these exchanges while ensuring that we know who has influenced the policy-making process and that different interests have a fair opportunity to be heard? Thank you.
Catarina Vieira
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Ms. O'Reilly, for being here today to speak on these important matters with the European Parliament. On behalf of the Greens/EFA Group, I would like to welcome the Ombudsman's final decision in identifying maladministration in the Omnibus 1 case, and to directly thank you for your hard work on this important dossier. We really consider it a good example of the importance of having this role genuinely listening to the concerns of people and of civil society, as well as putting forward the tools for improving European processes. As already mentioned earlier, some of the key findings in this dossier are the Commission's definition of the notion of urgency being too vague.
We agree that the improvements promised by the Commission in this regard fall short of specific and concrete commitments and there's a real risk of so-called urgent lawmaking can be used to push political priorities rather than genuine societal needs. The Ombudsman revalorizes the impact assessments and public consultation as part of the legislative process, which are of course key, and the proposals of the Commission regarding stakeholder consultation in urgent cases are definitely not going in the right direction. We agree that these implementation dialogues and reality checks are insufficient to ensure balanced representation of all stakeholders as should always happen. Therefore, we're very grateful to your warning to the European Commission that the matter is not over and your criticism and skepticism about the Commission's plan to revise the better regulation guidelines. So we hope that you'll remain vigilant as future complaints are brought to your attention.
We'd also like to thank you for bringing up the idea that this committee takes on forward the Omnibus case in the annual better lawmaking report. So to the questions, I would have three questions for you. Have you received further reactions from the Commission on your final decisions and if so, what were those reactions?
Secondly, the Commission has several times mentioned that several of the critical elements that the Ombudswoman raised would be addressed in the foreseen review of the better regulation guidelines and toolbox, in particularly as these elements were not deemed sufficiently addressed in the Commission's communication on better lawmaking in April this year. So as part of your follow-up in this dossier, will you also monitor the Commission's foreseen review of these tools? And finally, last but not least, next to the joint cases covered by your decision on the 25th of June, have any other cases been brought up to you that concern the Commission's actions targeted at simplification and deregulation agenda of EU law? Thank you so much.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Monsieur le Président, je m'exprimerai en français. Je ne le dis pas pour vous, vous le savez, je pense que vous n'attendiez pas autre chose, mais notre invitée n'est pas forcément au courant. Merci pour votre présentation. Je vais vous poser des questions à la fin d'une manière un peu formelle parce que j'ai peur de connaître les réponses, mais merci pour votre présentation qui va un peu dans le sens de ce qu'on constate dans cette commission assez souvent. Je vais prendre un exemple.
Nous avons débattu un petit moment dans cette commission de quel véhicule législatif il fallait prendre pour le 28ème régime. Je pense qu'à peu près tous les juristes sont d'accord pour dire que la Commission n'a pas pris le bon véhicule législatif, mais que pour des raisons politiques, elle a choisi le mauvais législatif.
Pourquoi je vous parle de ça ? Parce qu'on nous parle... Je suis un nouveau député, j'ai failli dire jeune, je n'ose pas. Un nouveau député ici et depuis que je suis là, la Commission nous fait beaucoup de présentations sur le better law-making. Alors j'ai l'impression qu'elle n'écoute elle-même pas ce qu'elle dit puisque depuis deux ans, elle n'a de cesse...
Je crois qu'on est rendu à l'Omnibus 10 de revenir de manière précipitée, rapide, en faisant l'exact contraire de ce qu'elle prône dans les better law-making sur des pans entiers de la législation. Et ceci pour des raisons politiques. Le problème, c'est qu'effectivement, quand on fait de la législation rapidement, sans consulter, sans faire les études d'impact, sans prendre son temps de bien légiférer...
Alors quand je dis prendre son temps, ça veut pas dire perdre dix années, hein, mais ça veut dire parfois juste prendre le temps de ne pas faire dans l'urgence, de ne pas déclencher une procédure d'urgence et d'avoir une procédure législative normale avec des consultations, en nous laissant débattre et en ayant des études d'impact correctement ficelées. Souvent, un an, deux ans, trois ans après, on est obligé de revenir dessus parce qu'on se rend compte que non pas, Monsieur Montevani, je suis d'accord avec vous que vous voulez revenir sur des législations, mais ça c'est pour des motivations politiques, c'est pas parce que ces lois avaient été mal faites. Et je respecte votre volonté de vouloir revenir sur la CSRD, la CS3D, mais c'est pour des raisons politiques. Ces textes-là n'ont pas été mal pensés, c'est que vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec eux. Le problème des omnibus, quel que soit ce que j'en pense sur le fond, c'est que la façon dont ils sont faits font que ils vont être mal faits et qu'il y aura des corrections à apporter.
J'en viens à ma question : est-ce que vous avez une seule seconde l'impression que la Commission va tenir compte de vos remarques et essayer de légiférer moins vite sur les sujets qu'elle considère importants et sur lesquels elle a envie de revenir très vite ? Je vous remercie.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Merci, Monsieur Saïdi. Madame Ombudsman, you have fifteen good ten minutes to answer the questions.
Teresa Anjinho
Let's see if I manage the minutes. Because these are all, first of all, thank you very much. Thank you very much for the interest.
I think that it's important for this Parliament to understand that also my power derives from you and from your follow-up of everything that I do, my work. So that is paramount for me, not only a matter of resilience of the Ombudsman, which I have, but also in guaranteeing that indeed the Parliament is also able to understand that the proper follow-up of our recommendations also depart from you, members of the Parliament. Honorable Mrs. Wolters, we already spoke about this often. It's very important to answer you when you asked me if I believe that I'm taken seriously by the Commission. I think that in a way it is also what Mr. Saïdi also asked.
And I have to say that I do, when I say that the answer of the Commission was a very constructive one, I truly believe that it is a constructive one. It could have gone in many other directions. It replied constructively and it committed to records, which is already very important. It committed to publish reasons, it committed to publish evidence, to include climate consistency assessments, which was a doubt in the beginning. And it committed already also to establish certain limits to urgency.
Now, this said, I do not think that commitments are equal to results and many of them remain general.
For example, if you have, now you have three different procedures, not just two, it's three. So you have the normal procedure, the urgent procedure and the extremely urgent procedure. In the extremely urgent procedure, there is a commitment for the analytical document to be published within three months. What is important is to guarantee that it is published on time to inform, of course, particularly the co-legislators. So I'm just giving a very small example of what remains to be seen.
And this comes from not only looking at the revised Better Regulation Guidelines, but looking at the practice. When I said, when I actually did my candidacy to this role, I said the European Ombudsman is a complaint-handling mechanism. And our power, and this actually also responds to Mr. Mantovani's remarks and question, my power comes specifically from this important reply to citizens. It's there that I can restore the trust that should be maintained between citizens and institutions. And indeed, the complaints are coming.
And they are coming even after the, and I'm also responding already to Mrs. Vieira's question, even after I closed the omnibus. So I closed the omnibus with, of course, the fact that I'm going to continue to monitor the issues, but still the complaints continue to arrive to the office. And what I decided to do was all the complaints that actually would touch immediately the recommendations that were already issued, so they were not continued, so they were closed, seven of them. So in total 14. Other seven, three, four are actually ongoing and three are under assessment.
One of them is, Mrs. Zalimas asked a question on that, is the reality checks. And it's a very important complaint because it will allow us to also look at what reality checks are. So when you have urgent procedures, you have the commitment of the Commission that they will do always a call for evidence. Already there, you can hear certain criticisms that for sure also you heard to the fact that the public should also be allowed to be consulted or have a say when they already know the proposals. And that can happen via targeted consultations, either the reality checks or the so-called implementing dialogues.
It's very important that we look at them because there is a lack of trust if indeed these reality checks are bypassing transparency requirements. This is an ongoing inquiry, so I cannot really develop much more on that, but this is the focus of the Ombudsman. We are an independent, impartial, important institution that with robust arguments can restore trust of citizens in this new ways of legislating or proposing legislation. And I do not say that this is not necessary. I said that in the beginning.
I truly believe that we are living in another context that requires different instruments, but it is important to be agile and at the same time guarantee that there is an equilibrium that respects the important principles that derive from the treaties. And indeed they do derive from the treaties, so they're not just political in certain areas, the content it is, but in all the others, in terms of the procedure, we're talking about legal requirements to guarantee that the rule-making model of the EU remains transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive. And that is in my opinion very important for the Ombudsman to continue to look at. If I think that it will go away, I do not know.
I cannot predict the future. I do know that it will require from the Commission to put the commitments as results in the revised regulations to guarantee that indeed there are boundaries for defining urgency. I am worried with the vagueness of the concept of political context. I think it's very important to guarantee that they go ahead with the recording of the derogations, maybe as well in terms of the governance of these same derogations and to the explanation to the public. It was very important to see already in the analytical documents the commitment of the Commission to have certain minimum matters in these analytical documents and, of course, the fact that climate consistency assessments are always mandatory.
But if citizens do not trust in the Commission's words, of course that they can always come to the Ombudsman office. And you and everyone knows that in the Ombudsman office, you'll have a voice that will hear them and will reply with independence and impartiality.
The EU Law Tracker and accessibility, Mrs. Walsmann, it's very important because indeed sometimes we have these new tools, but the tools do not work because they are not accessible. It requires someone to be a law expert to be able to indeed have access to those, to those documents. I think that further effort should be done exactly to guarantee. I think the EU Law Tracker is a wonderful instrument that was exactly why it won the Good Administration Award. It's a very important moment where we can indeed merit important projects that indeed go in line with the principles that we abide for.
And I think in any case, it's an instrument that merits continuation of efforts to guarantee its accessibility. And I'm aware that everyone that is working in this, on this tool is also aware of that necessity. Then the why we need the omnibuses, I already believe I answered to that. Of course, we can always have strategic inquiries, own-initiative inquiries if that is indeed necessary. But for now, as I said, I received 14 more complaints.
I'm a small office. I don't know, it's always important to state we are 75 in the Ombudsman office.
And I am concentrated and my prioritization is indeed the complaints that I receive. So if I'm still receiving complaints that allows me via the voices of the citizens, the voices of the complainants to look at the procedures, that's exactly what I will do. If I come to a point, as for example I'm already more or less in the matter of access to documents, where I see that what is important for me is to also look at the state of the art and to understand structurally if the changes that are being done are working or not, then I open an own-initiative inquiry, but always with standards and also with optimization of my available resources. And as for the proportionality and subsidiarity, you are absolutely right. That's what I tried to say in my initial remarks.
It's very important to understand that evidence is paramount if you want to, of course, evaluate the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality, even when you invoke urgency as a matter to bypass procedures. And that's exactly why impact assessments matter, that's exactly why the reality checks, if they are related to data opinion or to observational data matter, the quality of data matters. I think that's important as well to state.
And I do know that also sometimes national parliaments also struggle with this. And this is not a novelty. I really don't remember who said that but it's true. I think it was you Mr. Mantovani that this is not a novelty. We know already for quite some time now that sometimes impact assessments are indeed skipped in many lawmaking procedures.
It's important of course to recognize that. The report of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board is as well very important to be aware in this in this area. And as so what changes they they do align with what I recommended. As a complaint handling mechanism I can only stick to my complaints and what I see in my complaints. So of course they are aligned and I've already stated.
As for how they the transparency, inclusiveness and evidence-based requirements are going to be applied it remains it remains to be seen. And I think I covered more or less everything in the time but if not please you can ask again. Thank you very much.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you very much Madam Ombudswoman for your presence and for this debate today.
Certainly you can count on this committee and we really look forward to our next meeting.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Or even less, it would be sometimes. Any other business, dear colleagues? No, that is not the case. The next meeting will be in Strasbourg on 8th of October and on 19th of October. Please be informed that Aurora Párraga Jiménez, until now heading the Plenary Records Unit in the Directorate-General for the Presidency, will take up the position of Head of Unit of JURI Committee Secretariat as of 1st of October.
With that, I would like to thank sincerely Els for your commitment, dedication, and leadership in this committee since June 2026. So big applause to Els.
Brigitte van den Berg
I've listened to the different groups and I can definitely live with this compromise and also the change in the text that Susanna proposed.
We don't share the concerns that are behind it, but we can live with the outcome of the text, so let's, for the sake of compromise, go with that.
Speaker 22
Yeah, thank you. So I will not apologize for Sarah not being here, unfortunately she has a double booking. So we'd like to thank you for finding a middle ground. As you know, we preferred the first proposal where stakeholders would be more institutionalized into the framework of the agency, mainly because we think the role of a sounding board by stakeholders would be important and it would help the executive director in implementing many of its activities. It would also be helpful for public accountability, transparency, but we understand there is no majority.
So your proposal would be the second best option. There's just one reference that we would like to mention somewhere in the article, which is about allowing people without the necessary means to actually be able to participate.
So, a sentence that says that the center shall ensure the necessary arrangements to facilitate effective participation of all relevant stakeholders. So, the rationale is that, of course, not all stakeholders have similar resources that they could dedicate to such activities. So, we have to ensure that all stakeholders have a fair chance to contribute.
Mohammed Chahim
Yeah, thank you. Please share the text, please. Sorry for the Greens. Share the text if you haven't done that yet, and then we can have a look.
Clara MATTEI
Thank you. Yeah, I did promise Mr. Peklausen to apologize on his behalf, and he said don't say sorry, but I will anyway. But as it might not come as a surprise for you, but we wish to go back to option number one. We really think, we really would prefer to keep a permanent stakeholder group. This kind of permanent body would create legal certainty for stakeholders who could invest time and resources knowing that the body will continue to exist.
We also think the previous version guaranteed the inclusion of circularity and substitution, just transition and external cooperation, and that these interests really must be structurally represented. Further, we actually think that access to information and prior briefing as well as transparency is really, really important and is still not included well enough in this text. Yeah, and then also in the end we want to highlight that actually a stakeholder group is in consistency with existing EU practice. Thank you.
Mohammed Chahim
Okay, thank you very much. Then at this point I conclude that I will have, we will have a look at the text that the EPP has sent, but I sense that there's a broad majority for that. And I will also have a look at what I think the intention is of what the Greens would like to have on paper is that of course when we have these stakeholders forum that it should also be accessible and that people can participate. And I think that would be also good to find a text that reflects that. Having said those two points, can we move that to the, sorry, the budget rapporteur, my apologies, sorry, the budget rapporteur on point one when it comes to the forum.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Okay, thank you, thank you so much, dear colleague. I was appointed as a budget rapporteur, I mean two weeks ago and I'm entering in this discussion right now but I'm fully committed with the proposal of this critical raw material center. I I already prepare some words, I mean it's a global approach related with the topic to share with you in this my first meeting. And firstly I wish to point out that we are here to support you on your work. It's I mean it's simple but it's necessary to emphasize this point because sometimes when we see the budget the budget colleagues come to the to this kind of of I mean shadow rapporteurs meetings I have this experience due to the fact that I'm the shadow rap I'm the standing rapporteur for the all the agencies and when we start I mean the the discussion of the the regulation of each agency I try to clarify the financial the part of the regulation and sometimes the colleagues don't understand my position but to clarify my position is to support your proposal in the all the time.
And sometimes the colleagues don't understand my position. But to clarify, my position is to support your proposal all the time. Having said that, I would like to raise two questions, one related with the center's financial and human resources and the second one with governance. Going back to the first, normally speaking, one of the big issues with the agencies' regulations is to ensure that the financial and human resources that the Commission proposes to allocate to the agency are sufficient. And it is a key point because in the majority of the cases, the Commission doesn't propose the sufficient financial resources to feed the agency.
And I'm raising this question in the initial point because it's a crucial point. One agency or other organization without enough financial support means that the organization couldn't accomplish the mission. And we are killing the mission by default.
The situation here is very different because we do not have a commission proposal with the legislative financial and digital statement with the agency's proposed budget and the number of posts. The this second point the number of posts it's also another key issue financial support one second the number of posts. Nonetheless it is essential to get the budget and the establishment plan right. The success of of the center as an agency depends upon it. It is also a question of good budgetary practice to understand what resources are needed.
When we get the negotiations in trilogue we will need to ensure that the commission provides the necessary information in good time. I mean the LFDS the legislative and the financial and digital statement we need to I mean to press and to stress the commission related this this document. It's a key it's a key document for all the agencies. One option would be to get the commission to make a preliminary analysis on the basis of the agency tasks included in the parliament position.
We could then make the necessary changes depending on the tasks agreed by the legislator. If in any event and in line with the interinstitutional agreement on the budget discipline, the Commission should provide an update financial statement before the negotiations are concluded. Okay, it's again, I'm raising this question to support your proposal because without money, we don't have party. I'm, I'm joking, but it's, it's true. The second point, governance, the text on the table covers the most important horizontal aspects of the agency governance.
In particular, I support what you have proposed on the voting rules that is often a very sensitive point because sometimes the, the Commission try to have, I mean, the, the veto, veto and the ways of voting in a very, I mean, autocratic way. We have a horizontal approach on voting rules that we have applied in the other agencies as agreed by the co-legislators on the European Maritime Safety Agency, by, by the example.
In conclusion, I wish to point out as a standing rapporteur for the EU decentralized agencies, this is my sixth file on the changes of the mandates of the agencies, and I try to keep an horizontal approach on the files, adjusting it to the particular needs of each agency. And please count on me because I will work close to you. The most part of the time, I will be, I mean, with my mouth closed because I'm not an active MEP in your role, but when I need to raise some questions, please count on me because I will be there.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you very much. We appreciate the work of the budget committee and several members sitting here are also members of the budget committee and have been sitting in your place and have participated also making sure that when it comes to budget, the things that the other, let's say, sectoral committees are doing is in line, and we appreciate that. I've had many, many fights in my life with the budget people, and I can tell you that you will end up losing them.
So I prefer not to have these fights anymore and work very good together in order to make sure that this center can become possible. When it comes to point one I want to conclude that still the same I think there's a quite a strong majority to include the text of of as presented by the EPP and I feel a lot of sympathy for the for the text that the Greens has said that the necessary arrangements it's a bit unclear what that then means but at least that people then can participate and that it's not only only an empty position that you have within the forum. Let's try to solve that on a technical level I think that should be possible. Yes? Point one is done.
Then we go to point two unless anyone still would like to say something because the last thing I would like to hear is that I didn't give you the floor. No then we go to the second point the CRMA board responsibilities vis-à-vis the governing board and also of course Mr. Sousa Silva has said something about that we will include that in this discussion. So with establishment of the center we need to ensure that the scrutiny role of of both the member states and the parliament is clearly defined and preserved. They clearly it was the parliament last time that made sure that within the CRMA act a CRMA board was established and you know that Hildegard Bentele is the permanent representative of the parliament in that board and it may be that I am her replacement in in that in that center which is really good to to get the information to be present to listen and to also have a feeling about the types of project and of course the parliament is there.
So, my team together with, it took note of views expressed that the current level of Member States oversight through the CRM board should not be diminished, but maintained at the same level of political scrutiny. Against this background, my team proposes a two-tier approach. The CRMA board with all 27 members represented would continue to scrutinize the Commission's work, while the governing board, also comprised of 27 representatives from the Member States, would oversee the operational work of the center. At the same time, several groups raised a legitimate question. With the number of tasks being delegated from the CRMA board to the governing board of the CRMA center, how do we ensure that this does not create unnecessary layers of administration or slowing down the center's work?
The governance structure must provide strong political oversight without turning into an additional bureaucratic hurdle.
We included the option to establish sub-working groups in the governing board to accelerate decision-making. I think there's now also an Excel sheet with all the different tasks that where we are where the secretariat is trying to or has made this this let's say task overview and where it should then be allocated whether it stays with the CRMA what is it CRM board or it goes to the CRMA center governing board to make sure that there are no overlaps unnecessary overlaps etc. Yeah, that's it and of course you've received the text so let's do a tour de table to see whether you are supporting this mandate of the current draft and like always I start with the EPP.
Susana Solís Pérez
Thank you Shahim, but for us it is very important we avoid overlapping with those two boards. So what we propose is to adapt the current structure of CRM board so that it can effectively perform the governance functions foreseen for the new center. It would require amending the existing CRMA provisions. For us the objective is to avoid creating two parallel bodies with largely overlapping membership and functions.
The CRM board already brings together Member States and the Commission and has developed significant expertise and has established dedicated subgroups and stakeholder structures. So rather than duplicating this work through a separate governing board, we believe the CRM board should be reinforced or reformed to reflect the governance needs of the center, preserving the expertise and structures already in place while ensuring a clear and efficient institutional framework. So reforming the current CRM board, not overlapping, it's very important for us, and creating subgroups or whatever is needed to take on board the new governing board, governance board.
Mohammed Chahim
Let's, I'm going to write it down, let's continue the tour de table and let's see how, what we will do at the end. Please, EPP.
András Gyürk
Okay, thank you. So our objective is obviously the same. Let's see how can we get there, I mean, to avoid duplication of administrative bodies. My group believes that while the CRM board functions well and is a useful body, we should strive to avoid any overlap with the governing board of the center, both regarding composition and functions.
We should try to include the expertise and knowledge of the CRM board to the newly established governing board. If both bodies are kept, it needs to be ensured that the CRM board offers genuine added value. If a sort of merger of the two bodies is performed, let's think about it together, if a sort of merger of the two bodies is performed, sufficient transitional time as well as provisions are required for that. The EPP has made some points that could serve as a useful basis for further work on this issue, either on technical level or during the trilogues. But to sum up this point, we believe that the full abolition of CRM board would go too far.
However, a significant streamlining of its tasks should be needed considering the functions of the to be established governing board of the center. So.
Mohammed Chahim
No, no, but I mean, I think based on these two comments, I think we want the same. That's not about I don't think there is big difference in what we want. But it's also about the governance, the one is connected to the strategic project that the European Commission does and ideally this center is a standalone EU center. So we have to also look at it from a legal perspective what can be done and what cannot be done. I do not exclude that the exactly the same people will be in the one or the other.
That's not something that I can already exclude.
But that doesn't mean that they are the same. Like I'm in ITRE, and I'm in ENVI, and I'm in BUDG. But that doesn't mean that those three bodies should be merged. You understand? So let's look carefully at the tasks as set, and let's look carefully at how we then write it down.
And of course we'll also have the discussion with the Member States that will probably also have their ideas. But there are separate entities that have separate tasks that should not overlap. Let's be very clear on that. I go to ECR.
Speaker 29
So, what can I say? We support in general the idea that the people that worked on the CM board in some way has to be saved because of their expertise, because of their knowledge, because the connection that they already have.
But since we are creating an agency and we are giving them a lot of public money and we are giving them a lot of task, a lot of responsibility, we believe that the governing board should be the better solution because the meaning of the governing board is the involvement of member states at higher possible level. But for sure we want to save the role and the function of the CRM board and the people involved in that task. So.
Brigitte van den Berg
Yes, so this is a really problematic point for us, even though we've come far in the technicals and I recognize that. Let me state clear that I really value the current CRM board and I think it's a good thing that they are that it consists of all 27 member states and that it should keep its tasks. What we are now doing of course is establishing an agency. So the tasks will not only increase around CRM, but also will become a lot more operational and we have to really adjust to that. We have to adjust our governance to that.
So concerning the relationship between the CRM board and the governing board for the CRM center, I agree with you, Mohammed. It should have different tasks and be clearly distinguishable.
I think in practice it's going to be quite easy because you just have quite the same people are members of that. So you organize the meetings on the same day and you open the one meeting, close it, and then open the next meeting. I mean, it's just going to be quite practical that it has the same people in it and that's fine. But officially you keep a strong distinction. Where my problem lies is that the governing board of the CRM center needs to be efficient and effective, needs to be decisive, needs to be ready to act in times of crisis, and needs to have because it needs to have a very close cooperation with industry.
And industry acts fast. And for that, it really needs a lean daily governance. So therefore, I would propose that when it comes to governing the critical raw materials center, there is the general governing board, which consists all 27 member states, but it has a daily board for daily governance that consists of less member states. And of course, the general governance board will decide who's going to be in that daily board.
And they also will always have the power to actually take back the power from the daily board. But there needs to be a mode in which a smaller group of people can take a decision and then can actually be held accountable by the general governing board. And I think this is essential for it being a success. Last week I was visiting ASML and we were discussing the Critical Raw Materials Center and they are like, yes, this needs to be done. Yes, we see a good example, for example in Japan.
If it could be like that, it's amazing. And I said, what is the essential thing that Japan does well, making that a success? Do you know what their answer was? They're one country. They can actually make a decision and you will not be able to make a decision, or that's what we are afraid of.
So this is where our large risks lies.
So we really need to make sure that we get a text in which efficient, decisive, and effective decision-making is incorporated. Thank you.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you. Let's go to the Greens and then the Left, and then let's see whether we can discuss it a bit. The Greens.
Speaker 22
Yes, thank you. So, I'm going to echo a few comments that have already been made in the sense that the CRM board and the governing board have very different tasks. Whereas the CRM board is mainly an advisory body to the Commission, the governing board is supposed to do concrete implementation and controlling concrete implementation of the activities in the center. So that's independent from the Commission. So these are two very different beasts.
So for the sake of public accountability, we need to have proper oversight over the CRM center and sufficient protection of the interests of the Union. Let's not forget that there are some tasks that the CRM board has to do and that the CRM center cannot do, for example, the permitting provisions in Article 9 of the CRMA, the strategic partnerships. So they will anyway remain with the board.
And also note, by the way, that the governing board, well, the Commission has voting rights, which is not the case with the CRM board, just to underline the many differences. So, of course, we are open to adjust the tasks of the CRM board if, with the CRM center now, some functions have become obsolete. That stands to reason. But we would, we're not yet convinced that we should then reform the CRM board wholesale. So let's look at the table and then see what makes sense, because up until now, we've not never had a real concrete proposal of what exactly should be changed.
We don't think much needs to be changed, only what is now covered by the CRM center. Yeah.
Clara MATTEI
Yeah, thank you. We really are really flexible on this. I mean, we agree with the comments about accountability mentioned by the Greens, but for us to see it goes in the right direction and we can really be flexible here.
Mohammed Chahim
Yeah, so again, I'm going to repeat what I said before.
It has to be, I mean, the CRM board has a clear position with respect to strategic projects and the Commission and that procedure. If we would create a center, we should think about governance. Of course, these two should not overlap. So we need to make sure that when it comes to tasks, that they are separated and clearly, like, made independent of each other, because else you would create a bureaucratic, like, crazy situation. So we don't want that.
I think everyone has that intention. The question is, does the text that we have reflect that sufficiently? Then we have a discussion about who would then be in the governance board. That's a separate discussion. And whether having a governance board and then below that a management team with, or, I mean, I mean, that's something we should, I mean, I think we first should have the discussion, do we agree that the CRM board will continue to exist because it has different tasks and it has a different position, and then the CRM center with a governing board should exist?
And we should make sure in the text that the tasks do not overlap. At least when it comes to who's the deciding on these specific issues that they do not overlap. I mean, I don't care if they sometimes look in each other's kitchen, but when it comes to responsibilities, they cannot overlap.
I think that's the principle we agree upon. To what extent does the text not reflect that? Because that's the question. And I don't think that's the case. And then we still keep the problem with what Renew would like to see, how can we make it as lean as possible.
My discussion there would be, let's try to solve that during the trilogues because I can clearly know that the member states will have their demands. They will tell you, okay, if we have an agreement on where the center is, I would like to have the decision who's going to be in the member board, and I'm going to have, I mean, they will come up with something. So, but I'm going to give you the floor in a bit. But I think the principle we don't agree, so I don't see the big issues here. The only element is that Renew would like to see something significantly different when it comes to who should be then in the, let's say, sub-day-to-day board.
That's a new element. And I would say, if we, I don't think there's a majority for it now, but that's I think something that will pop up during the trilogues because the member states will have clear ideas about these management boards and positions. Brigitte, please.
Brigitte van den Berg
I agree with you that the one discussion about the CRM board continuing to exist and a CRM center governing board coming into existence, we agree there. There's no no issue there. So let's park that, done. The point about having a daily board and a general board is really something different. It's also something different than have have the directives, like that's a different level, right?
So we're talking about a system that also many other agencies have, a general board and a daily board, which is especially the agencies that need some fast decision-making have this structure. If we go with this text to the trilogues, because I agree with you the Member States are going to have their opinions about this and we're going to negotiate on it there. But if we go with this text into the trilogues, we are actually going in with a text proposing 27 daily board members. So we're going actually in with the least efficient position. So this is what I'm strongly opposed to because I know that in the end the Member States are going to have their demands, so it's probably going to become a bit less efficient in the discussion with the Member States.
So let's not go into the negotiations with the least efficient proposal, making all 27 member states part of the daily board. That's not an option, I think.
Mohammed Chahim
Well, I'm Dutch and I know this principle from many, many different boards. The problem is we're trying to do something quite innovative, quite new. And let's try to be careful with giving member states a reason to block or to say no to it. And if we now already talk about a 27 general board and let's say a still not determined less number of day-to-day board, that, I mean, if that comes out of the discussion, I don't think that should be problematic. I'm not against that.
But I think the text is also flexible enough to still have this possibility if the governing board would like to see it. But okay, let's rephrase. Just write the text, share it with us, then we can have a look.
Brigitte van den Berg
Just one more comment on your, because how can ever in the trilogue, how can it ever become the outcome of a trilogue that there will be less members of the daily board if we go in with the position that all 27 are going to be part of the daily board?
Mohammed Chahim
Because the governance, no, but it's not decided that the governing board, which is a supervisory board, that's something else than that they are day-to-day supervising. They can have discussions with the management team about the long-term projects and they can have, I mean, they should define the frequency of meetings. It's not me, it's depending on the number of projects and the type of project and how they organize it. So the outcome could be out of the governing body, a daily or a sub-something should be. I mean, it's already quite new and if we create already a management board, oh no, sorry, governing board with under that a sub-governing board with under that a management, I think we're creating something very complicated.
And I think we can formulate it in the text in a way that we do not exclude that this could happen, but I do not know whether we should already write it down now.
Brigitte van den Berg
Okay, so I could have a text proposal in which the option is created, because I think that's essential, that we already call into existence that option and I'm happy to share it.
Mohammed Chahim
Please share it. I have no issue with that because I don't think it's the principle of our, that there's no difference in how we perceive it, only it creates unnecessary complications. But if it's an option, then I think it's already better. Does anyone would like to respond on this point?
Did you see the text already, because I haven't seen it?
Speaker 35
Yes, I've seen the text, and I have no problem with it. We can try to propose another different text in that direction.
Speaker 36
I can read it. Our proposal is in the line with your proposal. The center and the governing board shall cooperate...
Susana Solís Pérez
Susana, use the mic, use the mic.
Sorry. Our proposal: the center and the governing board shall cooperate with the Critical Raw Materials Board and make appropriate use of its expertise in areas falling within its responsibilities under this regulation, while avoiding duplication of tasks and without prejudice to the respective responsibilities of the Critical Raw Materials Board, the governing board, and the executive director.
Mohammed Chahim
But I have no problem with this text. The issue that I have now is something different. I think we can, this is not problematic. I think this is in line of what we said. The difference is the governing board of the Critical Raw Materials Center.
That's now, that's what we are discussing.
Susana Solís Pérez
I know, but if we limit the Governing Board to five Member States, we see a problem on this for the... for the Council. So, I know that it will not be accepted.
Speaker 37
Okay, just share with you the position... share the text, Brigitte, or read it, then we can have a discussion on that. I have the text. I'm going to read it from Thomas. Thomas, yeah, for the sake of efficiency... okay, sorry. Let's... I'm going to read it and then...
Mohammed Chahim
So, I've had a look at the text and I would like to, I think, I think a couple of elements that I would like to say. One is that the first part, the first sentence, when it comes to, for the sake of efficiently implementing of tasks referred to paragraph two, the governing board shall set up an executive subgroup of its members that oversees the work. I mean, can we merge this with the idea of the composition of the governing board and then a paragraph four where we say that the governing board or its standing or temporary working groups referred to in the article.
Because then you can have working groups created out of the governing board. Because the problem that I have here is that theoretically, if we would have this, then the selected five or six or seven members or 26 members, if we would take the smallest subgroup out of 27, would out that other member with the minimum of one, maximum more, can then take decisions on acquisition under article 43J. I can guarantee you that the council will kill this. Will never accept this. They will never accept this.
And we have to be smart there. So but what we can do is create subgroups that the board, that you can say, you know, when it comes to this part of the center, we have a subgroup consisting of five member states. This subgroup is chaired by name one of the countries and every year or several years they decide themselves on who which country participates in which member, which subgroup. I think that's easier. But the way you formulate it now, I don't think it will have a majority in this house, but I guarantee you that the council will never accept that.
Because when it comes to acquisition, when it comes to, for example, the hostile takeovers from China, let just imagine that four, five countries then decide that are in the subgroup or in this executive board could decide on whether or not to intervene. I think then we will have a problem on an EU level if we would allow that.
Please, the PFE. Let's do it tour de table because then everyone can speak. Susanne, EPP, can you comment? Are you going or...? Okay, Rupert will stay.
I have an appointment right now, but we will communicate. Perfect, thank you. Please.
Susana Solís Pérez
As I mentioned before, I think we should... I would like to work on this proposal, but I agree with you that if we have a subgroup of five member states, it will never, never be accepted by the Council when there are financial decisions on it. So I think it's... for us, it's not acceptable because we know it will be rejected.
András Gyürk
Yeah, first of all, I 100% agree with your argument concerning what the member states' approach will be towards a proposal like this. But as an addition, I just would like to highlight the fact that we have an executive director. So when it comes to the executive tasks, we've already named the executive director to deal with it. We don't need an executive subgroup.
That would result in a confusing situation.
Mohammed Chahim
Okay. So through the PfE, ECR through the PfE 100% agrees with me. That's fine, like very inefficient, but doesn't matter. I accept. Brigitte, please.
Brigitte van den Berg
So I feel there's a one big misunderstanding that changes everything. It's that the general board decides themselves, so the 27 Member States decide what they want to delegate to a daily board and what they would not. And they always, in any moment, would have the power to withdraw a delegation from the daily board if they think the daily board is not taking the right decisions.
And so I think it, so it's only actually to really be able to make fast decisions, but the moment that the daily board has to report back on their to the general board, they can actually withdraw the delegations of their of the powers. The other point is that you're so you are talking about working groups as an alternative, but this is fundamentally something different because a working group is preparing something for a for a general board and just really makes an extra layer, not a faster, but actually a slower way of working. So I don't think that's that's the right alternative. Thinking strategically, going ahead that we are going into the negotiations, I could live with the idea to reduce this option to like a single sentence in which we say there the general board should have the option to create an executive daily board. Something like that.
We can formulate a sentence and send it to all of you.
Mohammed Chahim
Yeah, I personally would like please write it. But again, so the only problem is when it comes to governance, if we have an executive board and then under that an executive director with the management team, we have to clearly have an idea what then the responsibilities are. Because the idea of of course a management team, of course the member states will fight who will have a place in that management team and who will be the director and the vice director. And basically this idea that you have will be indirectly implemented without the exclusion, no so, the 27 member states will decide who will be the board. That's how it always goes.
And they will have a fight among each other who will get a place, a seat. Look at AMLA, look at any other organization. So implicitly what you want will be happening. The difference is that you next to that would like to have let's say a subset of member states like explicitly member states that have certain tasks with respect to the management. I think that's difficult.
But what we can do, and again I'm trying to listen, is have a recital stating that of course the organization, the interaction between the board and the executive team should be lean and fast and cannot be delayed. I mean something like that because I would like to accommodate you as a political group, but we have to make it in such a way because there's not a majority for this specific idea. So if we can think of a recital where we state that our concerns about the speed, about the efficiency, about the executive board working with the general board, I think something like that would be something I can support and then probably also others can. But please Birgit, please respond.
Mohammed Chahim
I'll give you a couple more if you want, no problem. I'm going to continue with the round if you are okay. I go to the Greens.
Speaker 22
So originally in paragraph three, we actually proposed this concept of working groups through which you can delegate some of its tasks. So we felt that to a large extent their concerns were taken on board, but that said, we sympathize with the general idea behind it and the need for speed and efficiency. So we could actually live with their proposal or even just a sentence with the option to create such a board, executive board. But maybe one other option is to explain in more detail in a recital what paragraph three could mean. And yes, during trilogue we will see what Council thinks.
But then again, I don't think the argument that Council will not like it should not preclude, I mean, we have to decide what we want and then we'll see what they want. So I would not argue for censoring ourselves prematurely and stick to the agreement here.
Clara MATTEI
Yeah, thank you. I mean, I need to talk with Per because I can't give a clear answer. I don't think we're necessarily against the idea of establishing like subgroups or working groups, but I am pretty sure he would think the last sentence is going too far when it's about financial issues like this. Yeah.
Mohammed Chahim
Okay. You need another minute? By the way, people that know me know that I will never be... that I don't take things into consideration of the Council that lightly, but I also think we should be rational and we should not come up with proposals that overcomplicate things. And of course, at the end of the day, I need to make sure that there's a majority in Parliament. So again, I would like to accommodate Renew.
I think I don't see a majority, but I do would like to accommodate them to see if we could maybe your idea explain a bit more or elaborate a bit more in a recital and also emphasize the speediness and the effectiveness of the board vis-à-vis also the management and the secret raw materials center. Renew, please.
Brigitte van den Berg
Um, so yeah, I think we are trying to talk about the same thing, but we're actually not. Because if I look at AMLA and the which you gave as an example, the proposal that I'm doing is actually in the text of AMLA. Because there is actually an executive board and an general board. So this is actually exactly what I want. I want to create what is there too.
And that is not the same as having a general board and then having a group of directors. That's something different because the group of directors, they are the hands-on people doing the daily management. So I think I'm not inventing extra layers that that don't exist in other agency. I'm actually pleading for what what agencies that have comparable tasks and comparable speed and a comparable pressure on them have in their agency text. Um, but I see that that we're not getting anywhere in this discussion.
So I would, I want to say that it's really important for my group to have a sentence in the text where it is possible to create a daily board that is possibly consists of less member states, but that we are, that I'm willing to compromise to not make it an such an extensive text and that it's put in the text as an option and not as an obligation.
So I I also want to be constructive.
Mohammed Chahim
I mean, what I can say from my experience is that comparing agencies is always complicated, the difference, I mean, and there's also differences between stand-alone agencies and agencies that have a specific legal task that they need to do and again, I'm not, I don't want to discourage you, so please, if we can write something, if they think that the working group should be reformed into executive working groups or working groups that have specific tasks, I think there, I think there is space and room to look at that. But in the governance, having a general board and an executive board and then under that a management team without an executive director, because that would be the consequence, I don't think something, I mean.
Brigitte van den Berg
No, please, please take the floor, take the floor. So it's not the case that if there's an executive board that there's no executive director.
That's not the case.
Mohammed Chahim
I mean, but then we have to clearly identify what the tasks are. Because if you have an executive director with the task of implementing the day-to-day task that he or she gets from the governance board, then of course a day-to-day executive board would then be double management in my opinion.
Brigitte van den Berg
So it's the governance tasks that can be delegated to a smaller group. But it keeps being governance tasks.
Mohammed Chahim
No, but okay, then I think we should, because for me it's also the working groups are also delegating part of the governance of the governance board to some of the working groups.
Speaker 40
Okay, so but with working groups I'm thinking they prepare something and they have to go back to the general board to... That does not necessarily have to be the case. That depends on how you define the tasks of the working group. So I think there maybe we can align things. Well, I see that for example in the agency, which media regulator, sorry, I've got the name...
So they call it a steering group. I mean, I'm fine to look for a word that's more comfortable.
Mohammed Chahim
If it's a steering group, that also is... If I look at the text, we say for the sake of efficient implementation of the tasks referred to in paragraph two, the governing board may set up working groups and may be composed of a limited number of members of which one represents the commission to which it may delegate some of its tasks. I mean, if you delegate the task, then that doesn't necessarily mean that you go back to the governing board. So maybe I think the idea that you have and we mention the implementation, we mention the efficiency, maybe we can elaborate a bit more what the goals and ideas are behind that in the recital without... Let's try that.
Because I clearly see that there's no majority to explicitly mention another executive board, but let's give some of these executive tasks to the working groups because they can be delegated to them through the governing board. Shall we try that again on a technical level? Because I don't want to kill it because I see there's no majority.
I can also say no majority, but you know, I'm a I'm a very sympathetic guy, you know.
Brigitte van den Berg
Just to to try to find a solution, if we would call it something like a steering group and not give it a theme immediately because that working groups, they are really very specific on specific themes and that's I think not what we want.
Mohammed Chahim
Come up with a couple of names and then we can discuss that on a technical level. Steering group, executive working group, working group. For me, I have I'm okay with that. I think if you come up with some examples, we can look at them and then come back to that. Is that okay?
Brigitte van den Berg
Can I just hear from the other groups what they think about putting something like a steering group in place, if they can if they could live with that?
Mohammed Chahim
Steering working group, I would then say something. They will tell you they will give you no's. They will give you no's if you keep it with me, then we can try still. Because he's already saying keep it with me and then let's try to find a solution. Else you'll get no's.
Speaker 46
Yeah, please. Let's let's find the solution on the technical level. I'm I'm going to do my best.
Mohammed Chahim
Let's have a look there. I understand what you mean when it comes to emergencies, when it comes to very critical moments in time where things need to be decided quickly. We have to set up something, let's try to find something. Yes, thank you for now. We close this point, we go to the last point on the agenda.
Bear with me. So, on Article 43J, paragraph 10, for the rapporteur, so, yeah, so we've had many discussions I think in the past also about this point. And I think it's very important to include the consultation of indigenous people in the article related to the plans. As a compromise, we agreed to move it to the article on financial support, but it was not our intention to expand the scope agreed so far. And our priority is to make sure that the rules we propose are implementable for all kinds of projects covered both inside and outside the unions.
The Green groups would like to extend the provision in Article 6 and 7 to all projects covered by the center, not only strategic projects as intended in the original Critical Raw Materials Act. And therefore I would like to explore to what extent we like to accommodate the Greens without changing the scope.
I'm going to do a tour de table directly. Susanna, EPP.
Susana Solís Pérez
So, as you know, this is a very sensitive point for us. We would like to add something in paragraph 5 of the article related to objectives. We can support strengthening the sustainability language in paragraph 5 of the first article as part of the general objectives of the center. However, we cannot accept a direct reference to Article 6(1)(c) as a condition for accessing financing in this article. The reason is that the criteria in Article 6 were designed for a different legal purpose, to benefit from faster permitting, and financing is a separate instrument and should not automatically be subject to the same legal text.
Extending Article 6(1)(c) to all projects seeking support from the center would effectively import the full strategic project eligibility framework into the financing pillars, and for us, for the EPP, we consider it is a burden. This is a burden.
This could unnecessarily restrict the center's ability to finance viable projects, particularly in third countries, and could also create additional burdens for European projects that need financing but do not require or qualify for strategic project status. So, as a compromise, we are ready to reinforce paragraph 5 so that the center, in pursuing its objectives and supporting investments, promotes high environmental and social standards, respect for human and labor rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, meaningful engagement with local communities, and responsible business conduct. This would preserve the political objective of ensuring sustainable and responsible investment without transforming Article 6.1.c into a mandatory financing criterion for every project supported by the center. I could share with you this text if you want.
Yes, please.
But if you want.
András Gyürk
Okay, so while we respect the rights of the indigenous peoples, we believe the corresponding provisions in Article 7 are too prescriptive and would prefer to have the previously suggested more flexible wording in the review.
András Gyürk
Well, it's, we need some time to reflect on it. We'll think about it.
Speaker 47
Susanna, look at them. Let's go to the table and then... Okay.
Okay, then I go to ECR.
Speaker 29
I don't want to be rude, but I don't understand why this became a political point since there wasn't any agreement at technical level on this, so we cannot support the inclusion of Article C because it's really, really, really prescriptive.
I want to read the text.
Brigitte van den Berg
I understand the concern that's been addressed in this point and I actually would have no problem with having it like this. So I'm... well, I'm willing to find a compromise if we have... if there's a better text, I have to look at it.
Speaker 53
Okay. I go back to the Greens. The proposal of the EPP, would you like to read it first?
Speaker 52
Okay, then we wait a couple of minutes. Shall we just do two minutes? Yeah? Then we wait. Coincidentally, my son is calling me for the second time, so that's a good excuse.
Mohammed Chahim
Susana, when you were reading the text, I thought you said indigenous people explicitly. Yeah, but it's not in the text, so you read something because I think that would matter.
Speaker 59
So instead of affected communities, also and indigenous people, something like that.
Mohammed Chahim
Oh, we forgot indigenous. You said that. But I mean, this is a typo, sorry. I don't know why we forgot indigenous people.
Speaker 60
Instead of affected communities, we can put including indigenous people.
Speaker 56
I mean, it was affected communities. Affecting communities, affecting communities and indigenous people, no?
Speaker 63
Affecting communities, affecting communities and indigenous people, no? We can avoid duplication in paragraph five. So basically we can add part of this by deleting the other. It seems to be better. But this is not mandatory.
Speaker 64
Okay, I think we have had enough time, no? We have something. Yeah. I didn't get it yet, but I think we all know now the text by heart. We don't have to wait for the email.
I'm looking for the response of the Greens quickly because then we can finalize this and close it. I think it's okay. I mean, there's quite a big majority for it. I think it's okay to reflect, I think, the intention.
Speaker 22
Well, yes, look, ultimately this does not 100% address the concerns that we raised during the technical meetings, which is that you will have an unlevel playing field when you finance projects between those who are strategic and those who are not strategic. So we understand that there's no majority for addressing this. We expect that this will cause problems in reality where some, well, ultimately some projects who or some project promoters would not like to be labeled as a strategic project because they would be constricted by extra criteria. But in the sake of compromise, I think I can see the room that there's no more support, so we can accept the proposal by EPP.
Speaker 65
Okay. Okay. Oh. With including, eh? Sorry, what including what?
Including the indigenous... Yeah, but it is as it is now, we got it. No, it's such as. Such as. No, including.
Such as indigenous people, I think that's okay. Including indigenous people. There are more affected communities such as...
Mohammed Chahim
I think, I think, I think it's a fair compromise. It's including affected communities such as indigenous people, it does not exclude indigenous people, but for example also urban communities, etc. Don't think it's exclusive now, I think it's a fair text. I don't want to push, but I think it's a fair text. Okay.
Yeah? So, having said that, I would like to thank everyone. I go to the final point of the agenda, which is normally.
Speaker 69
Sorry, my apologies. My apologies. Oï oï oï. I was doing my best to hold my right hand.
Clara MATTEI
No worries at all. I just want to highlight that this is a really, really important point for us and a really important point for Pär especially. So I'm not sure he can live with the compromise, even though I appreciate the try and I also would appreciate it to be local communities and indigenous people because it is not the same and we see like severe discrimination in these areas where the indigenous people are living.
So there's also a risk that local community will be included without the indigenous community as well. Thank you.
Mohammed Chahim
My apologies, Clara. I personally have no issue of stating affected and then local in between communities such as indigenous people to emphasize that the local communities are very important. But that's a small element I think we can add on a technical level. Does not change anything. Yes.
Then normally we have any other thing or whatever. Is there any other business?
Susana Solís Pérez
I think there is an agreement, a majority for affected communities such as indigenous people. We don't need to be more specific because we have already compromise and it was very sensitive for us. Even indigenous people, it will take a lot of time.
Mohammed Chahim
But the problem is, Susanna, we are also with our local people, you know. No, but it's fine. I think it's not excluding that affected communities includes of course also local communities. So let's keep the text as is, as agreed, because I would like to close this. Yes.
I close this. I would like to thank everyone. I do a formal any other business to make sure if there are any problems we can conclude and we can go to the vote. EPP, nothing. PfE, nothing.
ECR, nothing. Renew, nothing. Greens, nothing. The Left, nothing. The Budget Committee, nothing.
Me myself, nothing.
Thank you all and hopefully we can conclude everything. Thanks for the interpreters, without you we cannot do our job. We really, really, really thank you very much. And of course the secretariat that has been working a lot with my team to make sure that this could be done. Seriously, I mean the whole summer they were doing their best for the center.
Thank you all.