Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Q&A: Ukraine Update

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Iowa Chuck Grassley
    Q: Why did you write to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about Ukraine?
    A: As a Pentagon watchdog, I’ve dedicated decades of congressional oversight to track taxpayer dollars appropriated for national defense, including military dollars assigned to help our allies. From government purchase cards  to $10,000 toilet seat lids and sloppy accounting that allowed a years-long $103 million embezzlement scheme, I keep my nose to the grindstone to root out wasteful spending, mismanagement and defense contractor fraud that run rampant at the Pentagon, no matter who’s in the White House. Under seven administrations, I’ve worked in the U.S. Senate to fix lax financial controls, including my bipartisan bill that would require the Department of Defense (DoD) to pass a full, independent audit. Astonishingly, the Pentagon is the only federal agency that’s been unable to earn a clean opinion on its audit, despite federal law requiring all federal agencies to conduct annual audits since 1990.
    At my annual 99 county meetings, Iowans have shared concerns about the amount of federal spending in support of Ukraine. Since the war started in 2022, Congress has appropriated $175 billion to help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian invasion, support allies in the region and to help avoid World War III. While I strongly support pushing back against Russian aggression, I’m also a relentless taskmaster to ensure scarce taxpayer dollars aren’t squandered once they leave the federal treasury. That’s why I’m asking Defense Secretary Hegseth to account for payments made with money Congress appropriated in national security supplemental bills. While the Pentagon does not send any money to Ukraine, it has received significant funds to replace military stocks delivered to Ukraine and to conduct a range of activities to help Ukraine and our European NATO allies in the region defend themselves. The Pentagon must ensure taxpayer dollars are accounted for and used as Congress intended, but the same problems with poor accounting systems at DoD were evident with the funds from the national security supplemental bills. Last October, the DoD Office of Inspector General (IG) published a report examining how the Pentagon expended the money for Ukraine. Its audit raised alarm bells, and I’ve asked the Secretary of Defense to track down the money trail left behind by the Biden administration. Specifically, the IG’s report revealed that of the 479 disbursements it reviewed, DoD didn’t provide documentation to support the accuracy of 323 transactions. We’re not talking peanuts and cracker jacks. The amount of undocumented expenditures exceeds $1 billion. Without supporting documentation, we don’t know how that money was used. What’s more, as federal auditors conducted the investigation, the Biden administration flunked fundamental fiscal stewardship responsibilities. According to the DoD’s watchdog, the audit team’s requests for information faced noncooperation and insufficient responses, allegedly providing insufficient responses to 52 requests and no response to 14 requests to document where the dollars went. I’m not ever going to let up on my efforts to improve the Pentagon’s financial controls. Protecting taxpayer dollars and strengthening military readiness, including U.S. strategic stockpiles, are too important to allow the Pentagon to go unchecked.
    Q: How are you standing up to Putin on behalf of innocent Ukrainian children?
    A: It’s been more three years since Russia started its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II. The senseless killing of civilians and casualties on the battlefield have led to needless human suffering and geopolitical ramifications around the world. One of the war’s atrocities has far-reaching consequences for Ukrainian society. Russia has abducted tens of thousands of Ukrainian children through unlawful deportations and forced transfers to Russify them. The goal is to erase from memory the children’s Ukrainian names, language and identity. What’s more, the State Department’s 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report found Russia recruits or uses child soldiers, has state-sponsored policy or pattern of human trafficking and is among the worst hubs for human trafficking in the world. In March, I called upon Secretary of State Marco Rubio to continue supporting investigations that are seeking to unravel the whereabouts of these innocent children and bring them back home. As President Trump leads efforts to secure a peace agreement to end the war, I’m leading a bipartisan resolution in the U.S. Senate that calls for the return of kidnapped Ukrainian children before any final peace agreement is reached. It condemns Russia’s abduction and forcible transfer of innocent young children to brainwash them and wipe away their heritage. The mass kidnapping of Ukrainian children by the Russian regime is yet another example of Vladimir Putin’s diabolical mission to restore the former Soviet empire. History shows this is a page out of his KGB-playbook when Stalin’s Soviet regime sent women and children from the Baltic countries to Siberia. The United States ought to demand the innocent children of Ukraine are returned before any agreement to end the war is reached so the Russians cannot use them as bargaining chips.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Text adopted – Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 – P10_TA(2025)0114 – Thursday, 22 May 2025 – Brussels

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Parliament,

    –  having regard to its previous resolutions on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations,

    –  having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

    –  having regard to Articles 20, 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the right of EU citizens and residents to bring their concerns to the attention of Parliament,

    –  having regard to Article 228 TFEU on the role and functions of the European Ombudsman,

    –  having regard to Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right to petition the European Parliament,

    –  having regard to the provisions of the TFEU relating to the infringement procedure and, in particular, to Articles 258 and 260 thereof,

    –  having regard to the concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 21 March 2025 on the combined second and third periodic reports of the European Union,

    –  having regard to Rules 55 and 233(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

    –  having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A10-0063/2025),

    A.  whereas the purpose of the annual report on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations is to present an analysis of the petitions received in 2023 and of relations with other institutions, as well as to present an accurate picture of the objectives achieved in 2023;

    B.  whereas in 2023, Parliament received 1 452 petitions, which represents an increase of 16,2 % compared to the 1 217 petitions submitted in 2022 and of 4,0 % compared to the 1 392 petitions registered in 2021; whereas the total amount of petitions received continues to be significantly lower than the peak reached in 2013 and 2014, when Parliament received 2 891 and 2 715 petitions, respectively;

    C.  whereas in 2023, the number of users supporting one or more petitions on Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal was 26 331, which represents a considerable increase compared to the 22 441 users recorded in 2022 (both numbers are considerably lower than the 209 272 supporters recorded in 2021); whereas the number of clicks in support of petitions also increased slightly in 2023, reaching a total of 29 287 (compared with 27 927 in 2022 and 217 876 in 2021);

    D.  whereas however, the overall number of petitions remains modest in relation to the total population of the EU, revealing that efforts still need to be stepped up to increase citizens’ awareness of their right to petition and the possible usefulness of petitions as a means of drawing the attention of the institutions and the Member States to matters that affect and concern citizens directly; whereas in exercising the right to petition, citizens expect the EU institutions to provide added value in finding a solution to their problems;

    E.  whereas the criteria for the admissibility of petitions are laid down in Article 227 TFEU and Rule 232(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which require that petitions must be submitted by an EU citizen or by a natural or legal person who is resident or has a registered office in a Member State and is directly affected by matters falling within the EU’s fields of activity;

    F.  whereas of the 1 452 petitions submitted in 2023, 429 were declared inadmissible and 13 were withdrawn; whereas the high percentage (29,55 %) of inadmissible petitions in 2023 confirms that there is still a widespread lack of clarity about the scope of the EU’s areas of responsibility; whereas in order to reduce the number of inadmissible petitions, efforts still need to be made to clarify further the scope of the EU’s fields of activity;

    G.  whereas the Committee on Petitions (PETI) played a significant role in combating discrimination against Romanian and Bulgarian citizens during the period in which their countries had not yet joined the Schengen area; whereas PETI made a key contribution in advocating equal treatment and addressing the unjustified barriers faced by these citizens; whereas the starting point was Petition 0004/2023, submitted by Răzvan Eugen Nicolescu on behalf of the ‘Asociația pentru Energie Curată și Combaterea Schimbărilor Climatice’, as well as the subsequent plenary resolution on accession to the Schengen area, adopted under Rule 227(2) of the Rules of Procedure(1);

    H.  whereas the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental right of EU citizens, offering both citizens and residents an open, democratic and transparent mechanism to address their elected representatives directly; whereas this essential tool empowers citizens to actively and effectively participate in the life of the Union; whereas through petitions, EU citizens can complain about failures to implement EU law and help detect breaches of EU law;

    I.  whereas Parliament is the only EU institution directly elected by EU citizens; whereas the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens and residents and it allows them to address their elected representatives directly; whereas many persons with disabilities lack equal access to information and communication due to the limited availability of accessible formats and due to the fact that national sign languages are not recognised as part of the EU’s multilingualism; whereas Parliament has long been at the forefront of the development of the petitions process internationally and has the most open, democratic and transparent petitions process in Europe, allowing petitioners to participate actively and effectively in its activities, whereas in exercising the right to petitions, citizens expect the EU institutions provide added value, cooperating with the Commission and Member State authorities, in solving their problems;

    J.  whereas the information submitted by petitioners in their petitions and during committee meetings, along with the Commission’s assessments and the replies from the Member States and other bodies, also provide valuable input for the work of other parliamentary committees, given that admissible petitions are forwarded to the relevant committee for an opinion or for information; whereas, therefore, petitions can also play a role in the legislative process, providing concrete feedback on the impact of EU policies and enabling policies to address emerging needs;

    K.  whereas the activities of the Committee on Petitions are based on the input provided by petitioners, enabling Parliament to enhance its responsiveness to complaints and concerns relating to respect for fundamental EU rights and compliance with EU legislation in the Member States; whereas petitions are therefore a useful source of information on instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law, enabling an assessment of the application of EU law and its impact on the rights of EU citizens and residents; whereas in 2023 fundamental rights were one of the three most important concerns of all petitioners; whereas, in the context of the structured dialogue with the Commission, the Committee on Petitions called on the Commission to fight discrimination in the European Union, including through initiatives to guarantee equal rights and to strengthen measures against all forms of discrimination, including those based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation;

    L.  whereas according to Article 17 TEU the Commission should ensure the correct application of the Treaties and of measures adopted pursuant to them; whereas the Commission’s strategic approach to addressing issues raised in petitions must be fully consistent with the Treaties in order to ensure the most effective follow-up of petitions, aiming at guaranteeing full and timely protection of citizens’ rights arising from EU law;

    M.  whereas each petition must be considered and examined carefully, efficiently, impartially, fairly and transparently, in line with the standards set in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the Right to good administration; whereas all petitioners have the right to receive a reply informing them about the decision on admissibility and follow-up actions taken by the committee within a reasonable period of time, in their own language or in the language used in the petition; whereas timely and effective responses by the Commission and Member States to the issues raised in the petitions, along with solutions for redress, where appropriate, contribute to strengthening the trust citizens place in the Union and its policies;

    N.  whereas the Committee on Petitions attaches the utmost importance to the examination and public discussion of petitions at its meetings; whereas petitioners have the right to present their petitions and frequently take the floor in the discussion, thereby actively contributing to the work of the committee; whereas in 2023, the Committee on Petitions held 10 committee meetings, at which 191 petitions were discussed with 114 petitioners present and actively participating by taking the floor;

    O.  whereas the main subjects of concern raised in petitions submitted in 2023 related to the environment, fundamental rights, personal matters and justice;

    P.  whereas when adopting its meeting agenda, the Committee on Petitions pays attention to petitions and topics with a high degree of relevance for discussion at EU level and to the need to maintain a balanced geographical coverage of topics according to the petitions received;

    Q.  whereas 82,4 % of the petitions received in 2023 were submitted via Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal, which is a slight increase compared to 2022 (79,05 %), thus reconfirming it as by far the most used channel for citizens to submit petitions to Parliament;

    R.  whereas in February 2023, the Petitions Web Portal was revamped and relaunched to align it with current expectations and make it easier for residents of the Member States to exercise their right to submit petitions to Parliament; whereas the updated Petitions Portal 2.0 integrated seamlessly with Parliament’s web publishing tool, enabling faster and simpler content updates and new features (including seven ‘Quick Start Guides’ that provide clear, step-by-step instructions for submitting, tracking and supporting petitions); whereas a new search engine powered by elastic search technology enhanced the user experience by delivering more accurate results efficiently leading to the new portal’s prioritising a truly citizen-centred approach; whereas during 2023 all petitions were prepared and published in a timely manner, within a few days of their adoption, and all internal and external requests for support on the use and content of the Petitions Portal were replied to successfully, in a timely manner and in all languages;

    S.  Whereas in 2023, the Committee on Petitions (PETI) held four fact-finding visits, during which Members travelled to Romania to examine the management and the protection of the brown bear population and illegal logging, to Donegal (Ireland) to investigate the use of defective mica blocks in construction in Ireland and to Catalonia (Spain) to assess in situ the language immersion model in Catalonia; whereas PETI members were also part of a joint delegation from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and PETI that travelled to New York to attend the 16th session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD COSP);

    T.  whereas under Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Petitions is also responsible for relations with the European Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about maladministration within the institutions and bodies of the EU; whereas the previous European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, presented her annual report for 2022 to the Committee on Petitions at its meeting of 27 June 2023;

    U.  whereas the Committee on Petitions is a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, which also includes the European Ombudsman, national and regional ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States, the candidate countries and other European Economic Area countries, and which aims to promote the exchange of information about EU law and policy, and to share best practice;

    1.  Emphasises Committee on Petition’s fundamental role in protecting and promoting the rights of EU citizens and residents by ensuring that petitioners’ concerns and complaints are examined in a timely, effective and appropriate manner and that petitioners are informed about the actions taken and progress made on their petitions; recalls that all petitions are treated through an open, democratic and transparent petition process;

    2.  Commends the essential work done by the Committee on Petitions on the petitions concerning the Akamas Peninsula, the most biodiverse area in Cyprus, which has for decades experienced repeated systemic violations of the Habitats Directive(2) and the Birds Directive(3), in an overall context of a lack of effective and legally binding measures to protect this area and in view of recent plans brought forward by the Cypriot competent authorities, with devastating effects on the area’s very fragile natural ecosystems, in violation of EU environmental legislation; underlines that, following the Committee on Petitions’ work on this matter, on 13 March 2024 the Commission decided to bring Cyprus before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the Cypriot authorities’ failure to comply with the Habitats Directive; regrets that in the time that has passed since that decision – over one year – the Commission has not submitted a file to the CJEU, and has thus failed to officially start legal proceedings;

    3.  Underlines the key work performed by the Committee on Petitions on the protection of workers’ rights against discrimination and the abuse of fixed-term contracts in the public sector in Italy; appreciates that the Commission took into due account the very sound legal documents provided by the petitioners, which were carefully assessed in various meetings of the Committee on Petitions, when it decided to bring Italy before the CJEU for failing to end the abusive use of fixed-term contracts and discriminatory employment conditions, in breach of Council Directive 1999/70/EC;

    4.  Commends the PETI Committee for considering Petition 1168/2023, submitted by Mihai Igna on behalf of the Association ‘Together We Bring Prosperity’, which calls for the restitution of Romania’s national treasure and historical archives currently held in Russia; emphasises the profound historical significance of this debate for all Member States that have been historically impacted by Russia’s acts of looting, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, as it highlights the broader challenges related to cultural preservation and safeguarding national heritage during times of geopolitical conflict; stresses that the PETI Committee’s engagement with this issue demonstrates its commitment to upholding the rights of EU citizens and Member States, and protecting Romania’s historical legacy and supporting its legitimate claims on the international stage; recalls the subsequent plenary resolution concerning the return of Romanian national treasure illegally appropriated by Russia(4);

    5.  Reiterates the importance of a continuous public debate on the EU’s fields of activity in order to ensure that citizens are properly informed about the scope of the Union’s competences and the different levels of decision-making; calls for an EU-wide enhanced structured information and communication campaign to be carried out without additional cost (i.e., by using the current resources of the European Parliament Liaison Offices) in all EU official languages in collaboration with national and regional ombudsmen, NGOs, and educational institutions to increase awareness of petition rights among citizens from all Member States, particularly addressing rural and disadvantaged communities and marginalised groups, as well as remote islands and regions; proposes an expansion of outreach efforts free from additional costs through social media and local community events; emphasises the need for broader public awareness and awareness-raising campaigns, through the active involvement of communications services, to help increase citizens’ knowledge about their right to petition, as well as the scope of the EU’s responsibilities and the competences of the Committee on Petitions, with a view to reducing the number of inadmissible petitions and enhancing citizen engagement in the decision-making process; recommends improving the digital accessibility of the Petitions Portal, including through adaptations for people with disabilities and higher quality translations into all official EU languages; recommends exploring the potential of the existing IT tools in order to increase citizens’ support on the portal, including through redirecting options to relevant complaint mechanisms;

    6.  Recalls the European dimension of the Committee on Petitions, which can be addressed by citizens from all 27 Member States on issues that fall within the scope of the EU Treaties and EU law; believes that the Committee has a special responsibility to uphold this European dimension and to demonstrate the added value of European unity and integration to citizens; underlines that the European dimension must be based on solidarity, the promotion of social and economic rights, the protection of minority languages and cultures, and the active fight against climate change;

    7.  Points out that petitions constitute a unique opportunity for Parliament and the other EU institutions to directly connect with EU citizens and maintain a regular dialogue with them, particularly in cases where they are affected by the misapplication or breach of EU law; stresses the need for enhanced cooperation between the EU institutions and national, regional and local authorities on inquiries regarding the implementation of, and compliance with, EU law; believes that such cooperation is crucial to address and resolve citizens’ concerns over the application of EU law and that it contributes to strengthening the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the Union; calls, therefore, for the participation of Member States’ representatives in committee meetings and for timely and detailed responses to requests for clarification or information sent by the Committee on Petitions to national authorities; notes the increase in the number of petitions received in 2023 addressing structural disparities, including in remuneration and retirement income among population groups; calls for these concerns to be systematically analysed and addressed through coordinated action with the relevant committees and the Commission; further calls for enhanced protection and support for individuals exposed to abuse or exclusion who face obstacles in accessing appropriate support mechanisms and justice;

    8.  Recalls that petitions contribute considerably to the exercise of the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties by providing citizens with an additional tool to report alleged breaches of EU law; stresses that constructive cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the Commission through timely and detailed answers from the Commission, which are based on thorough examinations of the issues raised in petitions, is essential to ensure the successful treatment of petitions;

    9.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide legal clarifications on the key criteria underpinning its strategic approach to enforcing EU law and to regularly update the Committee on Petitions on developments in infringement proceedings and to ensure that the Committee on Petitions gets access to the all relevant documents on EU Pilot and infringement procedures and legislative initiatives that were launched based on petitions received; is of the opinion that increased transparency and regular feedback on the handling of ongoing infringement procedures by the Commission would be beneficial for the Committee’s follow-up of open petitions; welcomes the recent Commission initiative to include petitions in the search system of the infringement register of the Commission; stresses that it is important for the Commission to conduct timely investigations into petitions, highlighting violations of rights affecting a large number of citizens and residents within the EU and to consult, where appropriate, the relevant national ombudsman; expresses its concerns about the way the Commission is handling some infringement procedures launched against Member States, including those related to issues raised in many petitions; encourages the Commission to put in place all necessary measures to improve transparency and effectiveness of its management of infringement procedures, which can be perceived as opaque by citizens;

    10.  Calls on the Commission to assess whether the national authorities are taking the necessary measures to respond to citizens’ concerns, as expressed in their petitions, where cases of failure to comply with EU law occur, and to launch infringement procedures where necessary; emphasises that timely and proactive action by the Commission in cases of breaches of EU law is crucial to prevent such breaches, which could undermine citizens’ trust in European institutions, becoming systemic in nature;

    11.  Recalls that freedom of expression is a fundamental pillar of European democracy; condemns any attempt to censor, marginalise or intimidate citizens or their elected representatives on the basis of their political opinions; stresses also that respect for the results of elections, at national and European level, is essential for maintaining citizens’ trust in the democratic process;

    12.  Emphasises the need for enhanced and more active cooperation between Member States and the Committee on petitions in order to unblock those petitions requiring prompt responses and reactions from the national authorities; recalls that the delayed responses of the Member States could have an impact on the timely resolution of issues raised by citizens and negative consequences for the solution of breaches of Union law; notes that the Member States should guarantee responses to petitions within the three-month deadline requested; stresses that improved coordination and dialogue would facilitate a more efficient handling of citizens’ concerns, prevent unnecessary delays and strengthen the effectiveness of the petition process;

    13.  Notes with concern that the recommendations issued by the Committee on Petitions in its report of 19 March 2024, following its mission to Catalonia, have not yet been fully implemented by the relevant educational authorities, particularly those concerning the protection of linguistic rights for all students and their families; expresses deep regret over the tensions encountered by members of the Committee during their visit to Barcelona from 18 to 20 December 2023, and calls for respectful dialogue and cooperation among all stakeholders to ensure that democratic institutions can carry out their mandates in a climate of mutual respect and understanding;

    14.   Strongly condemns the harassment and intimidation to which the official members of the Delegation of the Committee on Petitions were subjected during their fact-finding visit to Barcelona from 18 to 20 December 2023, with the aim of assessing in situ the language immersion model in Catalonia, its effects on families moving to and residing in the Autonomous Community, as well as on multilingualism and non-discrimination and the principle of the rule of law;

    15.  Regrets that the competent education authorities in the region have not implemented the recommendations issued by the Committee on Petitions in its report of 19 March 2024 following the mission, aimed at protecting the linguistic rights of students and their families;

    16.  Recalls that the e-Petition database is an essential internal tool that allows the members of the Committee on Petitions to access all necessary information in order to follow up on the state of play of each petition and to be able to make informed decisions on the treatment of the petitions; notes that the e-Petition database also plays an important role in communication with petitioners;

    17.  Recalls the Commission’s commitment to create an interinstitutional IT tool, together with Parliament, with which to share information and documents on all follow-up actions taken on petitions, such as infringement procedures, legislative proposals or replies by national authorities, thus enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the treatment of petitions, which, in a wider context, would contribute to increasing citizens’ trust in the EU institutions and the European project;

    18.  Recalls that cooperation with other committees in Parliament is essential for the comprehensive treatment of petitions, paying particular attention to petitions on gender equality, family diversity, environmental justice and the linguistic rights of minorities; notes that in 2023, 34 requests for opinion (corresponding to 31 petitions) and 223 requests for information were sent to other committees; notes that of the 34 opinions requested, only 25 answers were received by the end of 2023 (in 14 cases an opinion was provided, while in 10 cases the committee decided not to draft an opinion and on four occasions no official decision has been communicated); recalls that petitioners are informed of decisions to request opinions from other committees for the treatment of their petitions; underlines that parliamentary committees should step up their efforts to actively contribute to the examination of petitions by providing their expertise so as to enable Parliament to respond more swiftly and comprehensively to citizens’ concerns;

    19.  Believes that the petitions network is a useful tool for facilitating the follow-up of petitions in parliamentary and legislative work; trusts that regular meetings of the petitions network are crucial in order to ensure more visibility for the Committee on Petition’s activities and a better understanding of its work and mission, as well as to strengthen cooperation with the other parliamentary committees;

    20.  Underlines that the Committee on Petitions expressed its position on important issues raised in petitions by adopting its report on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2022(5);

    21.  Highlights a slight decrease in the number of petitions submitted on external relations issues compared to 2022; notes that this could be explained by the new geopolitical context in 2023 and in particular a decrease in the number of petitions on the war in Ukraine and a significant increase in petitions dealing with the new conflicts in the Middle East; notes that the Committee on Petitions took account of citizens’ concerns about sanctions, security, conflict resolution, visa policy, progress of EU candidate countries, among other issues, putting on its agenda a number of petitions dealing in particular with questions related to the situation of refugees, in particular of children and on the situation of Venezuelan refugees in the EU; acknowledges the efforts of the committees already actively addressing these issues and emphasises that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs should take note of these petitions in their deliberations;

    22.  Takes note that health, which was one of the main areas of concern for petitioners in 2022, appeared to continue to play an important role in 2023; notes, in particular, that the Committee on Petitions examined and discussed petitions on the ban on chemicals and heavy metals in children’s toys, on support for healthy and environmentally friendly food systems and lifestyles and on the implementation of EU regulations on added sugars in foods intended for infants and young children;

    23.  Draws attention to the significant number of petitions submitted and discussed in relation to citizens’ concerns over the reintroduction of border checks between some Member States raising the problematic aspect of limitation of the free movement of persons within the EU and other aspects such as the strengths and the weaknesses of the extension of the Schengen area; recalls that Member States may reintroduce internal border controls(6) in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security, or under exceptional circumstances threatening the overall functioning of the Schengen area; appreciates the significant role played by the Committee on Petitions, in particular the host of activities carried out, the adoption in committee of a short motion for a resolution on the accession to the Schengen area on 27 June 2023 and the related Parliament resolution, to strongly support the enlargement of the Schengen area to include Romania and Bulgaria the organisation of the public hearing on Schengen Borders on 18 July 2023 in association with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; welcomes the unanimous decision by the Council for the full membership of both countries of the Schengen area as of 1 January 2025 allowing the full exercise of the fundamental freedoms of the EU Single Market; emphasises that preventing Member States from joining the Schengen area despite fulfilling all necessary requirements was a discriminatory decision that lacked legal justification and severely affected many EU citizens;

    24.   Takes note of the sudden increase in petitions of Spanish origin in the second half of 2023 concerning the risks to the rule of law in Spain as a result of the Spanish Government’s intention to adopt an Amnesty Law contrary to constitutional and European law; deplores the attacks on the rule of law and the separation of powers carried out by the Spanish Government;

    25.  Underlines the work of the Committee on Petitions in connection with petitions relating to common rules on a single standard for hand luggage dimensions, highlighting citizens’ concerns about the inconvenience and discomfort caused by inconsistent rules on airline carry-on luggage and the resulting hidden costs; emphasises its call for compliance with a relevant European Court of Justice ruling in the context of the revision of EU air services legislation; points, in this regard, to the short motion for a resolution on standardised dimensions for carry-on luggage adopted by the Committee on Petitions on 20 September 2023 followed by the adoption of a resolution by single vote of the European Parliament on 4 October 2023; welcomes the fact that in November 2023 the Commission put forward a review of the passenger rights framework and a series of proposals designed to improve the experience of passengers and travellers, including the requirement of a limited number of common sizes and weights to reduce the confusion; notes with regret that passengers with disabilities are still facing too many barriers while travelling, especially in case of multimodal journeys; regrets that the public transport systems of many Member States do not comply with the requirements of United Nations Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD);

    26.  Notes that environmental issues remained an area of serious concern for petitioners in 2023 with more than 21 % of petitions dedicated to environmental issues; regrets that some of these petitions allege incorrect implementation of EU legislation by the Member States, with some Member States already facing infringement procedures for the breach of EU environmental laws; notes that numerous petitions describe complaints about air quality, noise pollution, waste management/treatment, the deterioration of natural ecosystems and violation of the Habitats Directive in different Member States; highlights the public hearing on the state of implementation of the Habitats Directive organised on 24 May 2023; notes the work the Committee on Petitions continued to carry out in 2023 on the impact of climate change in different fields, not only in the environmental area, but also in the use of land, putting a number of petitions received on these topics on the agenda; points to the workshop on the impact of climate change on social security and the most vulnerable groups organised on 22 March 2023 and also to the presentation of the study on compensation for victims of climate change disasters on 18 July 2023;

    27.  Draws attention to the workshop organised by the Committee on Petitions on 25 January 2023 on transparency of pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products, which discussed transparency from the perspectives of patients and consumers, producers of medicinal products, and academic research; notes that the discussions focused on research and development costs of companies and information available on the prices paid for medicines, underlining the importance of transparency on these issues;

    28.  Stresses the importance of delivering on EU citizens’ expectations regarding the protection of the environment and urges the Commission, together with the Member States, to ensure the correct implementation of EU legislation in the environmental field, in particular in the field of illegal logging; points to the petitions on environmental issues, which reflect a growing public concern about the implications of climate change, requiring consistent enforcement of the existing EU environmental legislation by both the Commission and the Member States; stresses that addressing EU citizens’ expectations regarding the protection of the environment should be considered as important as taking into account the economic realities of each Member State; underlines that excessive regulations have a negative impact on emerging economies; highlights, therefore, that each Member State should be allowed to make decisions about its transition process and that environmental legislation should not hinder economic competitiveness;

    29.   Acknowledges the positive effects of the fact-finding visit to Romania from 15 to 18 May 2023 on the management and protection of the brown bear population; notes with regret, however, that there are still too many fatal accidents caused by brown bears in connection with humans and livestock, making further monitoring and cooperation with the national authorities necessary; underlines that the protection of human lives and security should always be the priority;

    30.   Following the fact-finding visit to Romania, stresses the need for a balance between wildlife protection and the citizens’ safety; underlines that each Member State should be allowed to take measures, including population control of the species, in order to prevent threats to the lives and property of its citizens;

    31.  Stresses the commitment of the Committee on Petitions to protect the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls the annual workshop of held by the Committee on Petitions on 29 November 2023 on the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls that its first part focused on how persons with disabilities dealt with the recent crises (energy costs, war, high inflation, etc.) and how EU measures helped to overcome these obstacles while the second part addressed the issue of how the European institutions have built inclusive communication with citizens with disabilities; also highlights, in this context, the adoption by the Committee of an opinion in the form of a letter on establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities on 29 November 2023; stresses that access to social security benefits for persons with disabilities falls under national responsibility and social coordination schemes, and that disputes should also be addressed through and respected by the judicial mechanisms in place and their competencies via the obligation of the exhausting of legal remedies, rather than through direct intervention by the Commission, in respect of the principle of subsidiarity; underlines as well in this context the imperative need for a full and consistent transposition of the European Accessibility Act and calls on the Member States to avoid further delays that hinder the rights of persons with disabilities; recalls that the Accessibility Act aims at improving the life of at least 87 million persons with disabilities, facilitating their access to, inter alia, public transport, banking services, computers, TVs, e-books and online shops;

    32.  Stresses the important contribution made by the Committee on Petitions to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, as revealed by its treatment of a number of petitions on this sensitive topic; acknowledges, in this context, the efforts of Parliament’s services and notes that not just the best technical but the most accessible solution for deaf citizens must be found in order to communicate with them in their own mother tongue, in national sign languages; requests the modification of the Rules of Procedures in close cooperation with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in order to eliminate the mandatory exclusively written communication with citizens who are sign language users, deaf or hard of hearing so that, upon their request, they can use their sign language during the procedure; also highlights, in this context, the adoption by the Committee of an opinion in the form of a letter on establishing the European Disability Card and the European Parking Card for persons with disabilities on 29 November 2023;

    33.  Underlines, furthermore, the specific protection role played by the Committee on Petitions within the EU in the framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities through its capacity to hear petitions and highlights the committee’s important ongoing work on petitions concerning disability-related issues; while noting a slight decrease in the number of petitions on disability in 2023 compared to 2022, stresses that the number nearly doubled compared to 2021; further points out that discrimination and access to public transport and employment, continue to be major challenges faced by persons with disabilities and emphasises the Committee’s special attention to the request for the European Disability Statute to recognise the rights of people with autism; welcomes the adoption of a short motion for a resolution on harmonising the rights of autistic people, emphasising the need to improve access to diagnosis, healthcare, education, employment, accessibility and provision of reasonable accommodation, legal capacity and lifelong community support including as regards culture and sport; draws attention, furthermore, to the particular role of the Committee on Petitions in safeguarding the rights of children and their parents, acknowledging numerous petitions received on children’s rights, which require special attention and action; recalls, in this context the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular the Article 24 thereof on the rights of the child, to allow every child to maintain a personal relationship and direct contact with both of his/her parents, unless that is contrary to the child’s interests; reiterates as well the risk that families with autistic children are being targeted by offers of unproven, potentially harmful and illegal therapies and interventions which may amount to serious physical abuse of children;

    34.  Recalls the fact that relations with the European Ombudsman represent one of the responsibilities conferred on the Committee on Petitions by Parliament’s Rules of Procedure; welcomes Parliament’s constructive cooperation with the European Ombudsman, with whom the Committee on Petitions shares the objectives of ensuring the transparency, professionalism and integrity of the EU institutions vis-à-vis European citizens, as well as its involvement in the European Network of Ombudsmen; stresses the need to step up cooperation with the European Ombudsman in order to ensure a swift, impartial and transparent response to citizens’ complaints about any administrative malfunctioning within the EU institutions;

    35.   Underlines the key work performed by the Committee on Petitions on the protection of workers’ rights; underlines that several petitions received in this area were followed up by further actions such as the debate on the use of fixed-term contracts, as well as that on the European citizens’ initiative-turned petition ‘Good Clothes, Fair Pay’ focusing on the harmful situation of workers in the global garment and footwear industry, or the Parliamentary Question for Oral Answer on the Working conditions of teachers in the European Union, also having as its basis a petition received on this subject; reiterates the importance of ensuring fair working conditions and greater protection of workers in the EU, calling on the Member States and the Commission to effectively address concerns raised in petitions related to labour rights and trade unions; 

    36.   Recalls the European Parliament study on Homelessness in the EU which was commissioned by the Committee on Petitions and presented at its meeting in November 2023; notes that this study made an important contribution on this pressing social and economic challenge, which represents one of the most severe forms of societal exclusion, highlighting the need for a public policy change towards preventing homelessness in the first place, inter alia by providing secure and affordable housing; recalls that illegal squatting cannot be considered a solution to homelessness, as the right to property is enshrined in Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; underlines that Member States should seek real solutions rather than promoting illegal squatting, as housing policy falls under the exclusive competence of the Member States;

    37.  Acknowledges the European Ombudsman’s regular contributions to the work of the Committee on Petitions throughout the year; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, bodies and agencies must ensure consistent and effective follow-up to the recommendations of the Ombudsman;

    38.  Stresses that European citizens’ initiatives (ECIs) represent an important instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomes the discussion in some meetings of unsuccessful ECIs, which were sometimes subsequently reformulated as petitions, giving citizens the opportunity to present their ideas and hold a constructive debate, while contributing to their participation in the EU’s democratic processes; takes note of the significant number of new ECIs registered by the Commission in 2023, which shows that citizens are seizing the opportunity to use participatory instruments to have a say in policy and lawmaking processes; calls on the Commission to better engage with citizens and give adequate follow-up to successful ECIs; welcomes the important effort put in place to organise, in association with other committees, four public hearings on successful ECIs, which allowed the organisers to present the initiative’s objectives and engage with Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission; underlines that the Commission’s commitment to responding to valid ECIs is essential to maintaining citizens’ trust in the ECI as the most significant instrument of participatory democracy;

    39.   Urges the Commission to give due consideration to the parliamentary resolutions adopted on European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) and to enhance its engagement with citizens, particularly by ensuring appropriate and effective follow-up to successful ECIs, thereby reinforcing the democratic process and ensuring that citizens’ voices are adequately reflected in EU policymaking;

    40.  Underlines that the Petitions Web Portal is an essential tool for ensuring a smooth, efficient and transparent petitions process; welcomes, in this regard, the improvements to data protection and security features that have made the portal more user-friendly and secure for citizens; stresses that efforts to make the portal more accessible must be continued, including making it more accessible for sign-language users and persons with disabilities; notes that the Petitions Web Portal has been one of the European Parliament’s most visited websites, thus serving as a first point of contact with Parliament for many EU citizens;

    41.   Recalls the European dimension of the Committee on Petitions, which can be addressed by citizens from all 27 Member States on issues that fall within the scope of the Union’s activities; believes that the Committee has a special responsibility to uphold this European dimension and to demonstrate the added value of European unity and integration to citizens and continue addressing issues related to violations of EU law, as well as loopholes and shortcomings in the provisions of existing EU law; believes that timely avoidance of petitions with clear national competences along with comprehensive explanations and instructions about alternative courses of action, where appropriate, could contribute to a constructive approach and an enhanced citizens engagement considers, in this context, that the European Parliament should increase its efforts to promote the role and work of its Committee on Petitions and raise awareness among all EU citizens of the possibility to address a petition to the European Parliament; recalls that due to the limited time allotted to committee meetings, most petitions are treated through written procedure; recalls, in this context, that all petitions received, including those in the area of international affairs, should be handled with the necessary transparency and impartiality; is of the opinion that the selection of petitions for discussion in committee should reflect a geographical and political balance of submissions received; believes, moreover, that geographical balance should also be sought when organising the committee’s fact-finding visits, yearly and over the course of each legislative term;

    42.  Welcomes the adoption of the short motion for a resolution on the creation of a European Capital of Local Trade(7) at the plenary session of January 2023; underlines that this achievement is an excellent result for the Committee on Petitions, noting that this project has been successfully included as a preparatory action in the 2024 budget, with a total budget of EUR 3 million; recalls that the project to create a European Capital of Small Retail (ECSR) was officially presented by the Commission in Barcelona in December 2023;

    43.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, their petitions committees and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

    (1) OJ C, C/2024/3999, 17.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3999/oj.
    (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj).
    (3) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/147/oj).
    (4) OJ C, C/2024/6559, 12.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6559/oj.
    (5) Adopted by Parliament as its resolution of 23 November 2023 on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2022 (OJ C, C/2024/4220, 24.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4220/oj).
    (6) Articles 25 to 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/399/oj).
    (7) OJ C 214, 16.6.2023, p. 2.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Countering the instrumentalisation of migration – legal framework – E-001941/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-001941/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Mariusz Kamiński (ECR)

    State actors are exploiting migrants to artificially create migratory pressure as a tool to achieve political goals and for destabilisation. Migratory pressure has been used in this way at the EU’s external borders in Greece and Spain. However, it is the EU’s eastern border that has borne the brunt of this phenomenon; Moscow and Minsk have been instrumentalising migrants – with no regard for the humanitarian cost – in order to achieve geopolitical goals. While Poland, the Baltic States and Finland have been decisive in their response to this situation, the EU’s response has been, and continues to be, delayed and inadequate considering the scale of the threat.

    I am certain that Regulation (EU) 2024/1359[1], adopted a year ago, as well as the amendments to Regulation (EU) 2016/399 that are already in force[2] and the communication published in December 2024[3] will do little to discourage Minsk and Moscow from continuing to engage in this kind of hybrid warfare. This is evidenced not least by the agreement Belarus has signed with Pakistan[4], as well as the latest wave of attacks on the Polish Border Guard[5]. Against this backdrop, it is concerning that, in February, the Commission’s 2025 work programme announced the withdrawal of its proposal for Regulation 2021/0427(COD) on addressing situations of instrumentalisation[6]. As a Parliament rapporteur, my view is that the original draft was outdated and failed to meet expectations. No comprehensive alternative was provided for the withdrawn draft. It is particularly worrying that the instrumentalisation of migration was omitted from the proposal for Directive 2023/0439(COD)[7], as recognised by the Council[8].

    • 1.Has the Commission consulted the countries that have been the target of instrumentalised migration, and does it consider the legal framework for countering this phenomenon to be adequate?
    • 2.Why has the Commission omitted the issue of instrumentalisation from the proposal for Directive 2023/0439(COD)?

    Submitted: 14.5.2025

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1359/oj/eng
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/399/oj/eng
    • [3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0570
    • [4] https://www.rferl.org/a/lukashenka-belarus-pakistan-migrants-eu/33382244.html
    • [5] https://wpolityce.pl/kraj/726559-atak-migrantow-na-straz-graniczna-wsrod-nich-bialorusin
    • [6] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0890
    • [7] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2023_439
    • [8] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15916-2024-REV-1/en/pdf
    Last updated: 23 May 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Meetings with National Parliaments – Implementation of the Directive on Protection of Environment through Criminal Law – 04-06-2025 – Committee on Legal Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    2025.06.04_ICM_Env Law_banner.jpg © European Parliament

    The Committee on Legal Affairs, with the support of the Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments (DG PART), is organising an Interparliamentary Committee Meeting (ICM) on ‘Implementation of the Directive on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law’. The event will take place on 4 June 2025, from 14:30 to 16:30.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – Workshop on Generative AI, on 28th Regime and ICM on Environmental Crimes Directive – Committee on Legal Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    Picture GenAI.PNG © Europarl

    At the meetings of 4 and 5 June 2025, JURI Members will host, with the Policy Department, a workshop on Generative AI and Copyright. The Workshop will be preceded by the presentation of a study on the same topic and will be followed by an exchange of views on the dossier Copyright and generative artificial intelligence – opportunities and challenges (2025/2058(INI)).

    At the same meeting, the JURI Committee will host, with the Policy Department, a workshop on the 28th Regime: a new legal framework for innovative companies and an interparliamentary meeting on the Implementation of the Directive on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. Additionally, JURI Members will exchange views on the amendment of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B (025/0023(COD)) and will hear a reporting back to committee on the negotiations pursuant to Rule 75(3) by the rapporteur of the Compulsory licensing for crisis management and amending Regulation (EC) 816/2006 (2023/0129(COD)) dossier. Members will also vote on amendments in the opinion on establishing harmonised requirements in the internal market on transparency of interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (2023/0463(COD)) and will hear a presentation by EFRAG on its Work Plan 2025.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Workshops – Unlocking the own resources debate – 04-06-2025 – Committee on Budgets

    Source: European Parliament

    The proposals of the European Commission for the next generation of own resources have been awaiting decision by the Council since 2021 and 2023, and there seems to be no progress.

    This workshop will provide an overview on the state of play and set out some possible ways forward. It will inform about the rationale behind the blockage and identify possible ways of going around or going beyond what is already on the table, by looking post-2027, to identify the best possible candidates for own resources in the current economic and political situation.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: At a Glance – Plenary round-up – May II 2025 – 23-05-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    The second May plenary session in 2025 opened with Nataša Pirc Musar, President of the Republic of Slovenia, addressing Parliament in a formal sitting. Following her call for European solidarity, Members then debated the EU’s response to the Israeli government’s plan to seize the Gaza Strip, the urgent need for humanitarian support and for all hostages to be freed. Members also debated the Hungarian government’s drift to Russia-style repression, including threats to freedom of expression and democratic participation, and approved new tariffs on agricultural goods from Russia and Belarus. Members also debated and voted on a report on the Committee on Petitions’ activities in 2023.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 22 May 2025 – Brussels – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     253k  688k
    Thursday, 22 May 2025 – Brussels

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 09:00)

     

    2. Choose Europe for Science (debate)

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to present our Choose Europe for Science initiative.

    As President von der Leyen stated in the Sorbonne in Paris a few weeks ago, Europe is determined to start a new age of invention and ingenuity. We are making a clear choice to place research and innovation at the heart of our societies and economies. Europe is choosing science.

    Today, this choice is more urgent than ever. Science is a source of prosperity, but it is also fundamental to our sovereignty and economic security, our resilience, democracy and leading role on the global stage. For example, scientific leadership in AI or quantum is directly linked to the ability of protecting our society and our values. We need talent to progress in those crucial technology domains.

    Countries understand this. Global research and development has recently surpassed EUR 2.5 trillion per year. At the same time, we also see science exploited for political ends, and academic freedom is under pressure.

    Last month, we had the opportunity to discuss developments on the other side of the Atlantic. Their universities, and fields like vaccine science and climate research, are being targeted by funding cuts.

    But it is not only in the United States. Elsewhere in the globe, scientists are instrumentalised, at best, and openly attacked, at worst. In conflict zones, schools and universities are not spared. In Ukraine, Putin’s war has physically damaged over 1 400 science-related buildings, constituting 30 % of all research institutions, and displaced 20 % of the country’s researchers.

    In this context, Europe must do more than hold its ground. We must become the best place in the globe to do research, the place our young people choose for their careers, and the place global talent comes to help us tackle global challenges.

    This is the ambition of Choose Europe for Science. It builds on four dimensions. First: scientific freedom. Europe must remain the global leader in free and open research. We need a research and innovation union where knowledge flows as freely as goods, services and capital. This is why we commit to protecting freedom of scientific research through law with the new European Research Area Act. This is in line with the European Parliament’s resolution of January 2024 on protecting the freedom of scientific research.

    Second: funding. Horizon Europe is already the largest international research programme. It is a global magnet that received applicants from 194 countries, with 90 countries associated and more wanting in.

    In addition, earlier this month, President von der Leyen announced a EUR 500 million package for the programming period 2025–2027. It will include a new seven-year super grant under the European Research Council. We will support the brightest researchers regardless of their origin.

    We are also expanding our Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions with a new pilot starting in October. It will build on the attractive conditions offered by Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, with longer contracts and more secure professional perspectives to support excellent early-career scientists choosing Europe.

    For established researchers, we are doubling the top-up funding for grantees moving in Europe. We also work with Member States to reach our 3 % GDP target for R&D by 2030.

    Furthermore, the European Regional Development Fund is spending around EUR 35 billion to increase research and innovation capacity across the Union. This will help reduce the innovation divide by strengthening regional R&I ecosystems. Member States and regions are improving their innovation performance and cohesion, and thus retain their talents and attract new ones. Under the next Framework Programme, we will put forward ambitious proposals on research and innovation funding.

    Third: fast-tracking innovation. We must ensure our excellent research can be translated into breakthrough innovation, so that our citizens can benefit from science. Horizon Europe beneficiaries already submitted over 600 patent applications, and we are going further. Next week I will present Europe’s first start-up and scale-up strategy. Retaining and attracting talent will be a crucial dimension of this strategy. Next year we will table a new European Innovation Act, further simplifying and accelerating the path to market.

    Finally: global talent. If you want the best minds to choose Europe, we need to make it easier for them to come and live here. We are working to make the legal framework for researchers more effective, and to speed up entry to the EU. At the same time, we will strengthen our EURAXESS platform, which already links global researchers with thousands of opportunities across the EU.

    Honourable Members, to achieve this ambition, we also need mobilisation at national level. In the past weeks, we have witnessed our Member States opening their doors to talent, from the Welcome to Poland initiative and Choose France for Science, to Estonia’s Mobilitas 3.0 or Czechia’s Junior Star, and many more.

    Here we need a true Team Europe approach to maximise our efforts. As the European Commission, we stand ready to promote this coordinated approach, including through enhanced public communication, starting from tomorrow’s Competitiveness Council. I wish to thank the Polish Presidency for its leadership on this subject.

    To conclude, the aim of Choose Europe for Science is clear: to make Europe the leading destination for researchers on Earth. We can achieve this together as a Union with the active commitment from the Member States and, of course, with the crucial support of this House. The European Parliament has long championed scientific excellence and academic freedom. Your leadership has paved the way to our action today. So thank you very much and I look forward to working together.

     
       

     

      Christian Ehler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think Choose Europe for Science, the initiative announced by President von der Leyen, is an important signal for Europe and the world, but luckily it had been accompanied also by a press conference where the President had been announcing that there will be a stand‑alone research programme, which necessarily is the base for that ambition.

    I think we should also emphasise that this is not that we want to attract the most talented in the world, it is that we stand in also for the freedom of science. Much smaller programmes, like the programme for researchers at risk, are an expression for that stand-in. Yes, we want to be attractive for the world, but we also are the safe haven for researchers, women researchers in Afghanistan, researchers under pressure in other parts of the world – we are the safe haven for them. So it’s both: our expression for excellence or ambition for excellence, but also our expression for standing in for the freedom of science.

    Basically, we all know that it’s just going to work if we have a strong research programme. We can appeal to the world, but if we do not have a higher ambition in terms of research, it’s not going to be attractive. What we need is, simply put, more money. The last programme had been designed for a budget of EUR 120 billion and we ended up with EUR 80 billion. So, research budgets are in constraints and that is in complete opposition to what our formulated ambition had been – that at least 3 % of the GDP of Europe should be allocated to research and innovation.

    So in a way, ambitions should follow also with the political courage to prioritise research and innovation in Europe. If I may conclude: now that the Commission and even the President have fully recognised the importance of science for the future of Europe, we also expect the Commission’s proposal for FP10 to be a Commission which also chooses science for Europe.

     
       

     

      Giorgio Gori, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, negli ultimi mesi l’amministrazione Trump ha attaccato l’autonomia del sistema educativo e universitario degli Stati Uniti, ha ridotto i finanziamenti agli atenei e limitato la libertà accademica. Queste scelte indeboliscono l’attrattività degli Stati Uniti per ricercatori e talenti globali. La rivista Nature ha rilevato che le domande di lavoro all’estero degli scienziati statunitensi sono cresciute del 32% tra gennaio e marzo 2025 rispetto all’anno precedente.

    La Commissione europea ha colto questa opportunità annunciando un piano da 500 milioni di euro, per il periodo 25-27, volto ad attrarre ricercatori internazionali. Tra le misure previste, una super sovvenzione di sette anni gestita dal Consiglio europeo della ricerca che offre stabilità e incentivi raddoppiati per chi si trasferisce in Europa. Questa iniziativa è un passo nella giusta direzione per rafforzare la posizione dell’Europa nella ricerca scientifica globale.

    Tuttavia, è essenziale fare di più. Negli ultimi venti anni l’Europa ha perso molto terreno rispetto ad altre regioni del mondo – su tutte Cina e Stati Uniti – riguardo alla capacità di attrarre investimenti per la ricerca e di coltivare talenti e progetti nei settori dell’innovazione più avanzata. E questa è una delle cause del declino della competitività europea.

    Non basta, quindi, l’iniziativa della Commissione: gli Stati membri vanno spinti a costruire un quadro legislativo in grado di valorizzare e sostenere stabilmente la capacità dei ricercatori, di quelli che sono emigrati e vogliamo che tornino, di quelli che vogliamo attrarre e, soprattutto, di quelli che sono rimasti ma che vivono e lavorano in condizioni di precarietà.

    Vanno aumentati i finanziamenti nazionali e i salari dei ricercatori, vanno progettati percorsi di carriera solidi e trasparenti e per chi sceglie di venire in Europa vanno semplificate le procedure di visto. Solo così la ricerca potrà fiorire in Europa, diventando motore di innovazione e di ricerca.

     
       

     

      Catherine Griset, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, à la Sorbonne, haut lieu de la culture française, Emmanuel Macron et Ursula von der Leyen ont organisé une mise en scène européiste: faire passer des activistes américains pour des martyrs de la liberté académique. Soyons clairs: ces chercheurs ne sont pas persécutés, ils sont sanctionnés pour avoir transformé les universités en foyer idéologique, où la science cède la place à la propagande.

    Alors qu’on leur déroule le tapis rouge, que devient la recherche en Europe? Elle est noyée sous des financements pour des projets sur le genre, la race ou la déconstruction. Erasmus+ subventionne même des universités islamistes. «Horizon Europe» est devenu un guichet pour l’idéologie. Quant à la Hongrie, elle est exclue, non pour des raisons scientifiques, mais parce qu’elle ose penser autrement. Voilà la liberté académique selon Bruxelles: un outil politique.

    Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, on efface désormais la France, jusque dans sa propre langue. Pour cette opération de communication, le français a été remplacé par un «globish» fade et sans racine. Les identités sont gommées, les cultures sont nivelées et l’Europe est standardisée à coups de slogans creux. C’est plus qu’un renoncement, c’est une soumission culturelle assumée. Cette opération n’a rien de scientifique: il s’agit d’un plan de rééducation idéologique et nous la combattrons.

     
       

     

      Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Widzimy na świecie w tej chwili wyścig nauki w różnych miejscach, w różnych dyscyplinach, ale przede wszystkim w takich obszarach, jak sztuczna inteligencja, rozwój energetyki, biotechnologii, najnowszych technologii informatycznych. W tych obszarach Unia Europejska powinna poczynić wszystko, aby stanąć w tym wyścigu jak równy z równym, w szczególności w kontekście konkurencji ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi czy z Chinami.

    Jest to tylko możliwe wtedy, gdy faktycznie środki finansowe skoncentrujemy na tych najważniejszych obszarach i faktycznie na nich się skupimy. Z racji tego, że oczywiste jest, że zasoby podatkowe, zasoby finansowe, którymi dysponuje Unia Europejska i państwa członkowskie, są ograniczone, musimy podjąć taką decyzję. I musimy też odważnie powiedzieć, że wydatkowanie środków finansowych na lewicowe, ideologiczne badania jest po prostu stratą środków finansowych. Jest stratą nadziei na postęp nauki w takich obszarach, o których przed chwilą powiedziałem. I dzisiaj odważnie lewica musi wybrać, czy chcecie, aby finansować wasze lewicowe pomysły, badania na temat tego, czy jest 30 czy 35 płci, czy chcecie, żeby Europa podążała w wyścigu w zakresie rozwoju sztucznej inteligencji, energetyki czy innych obszarów, które przełożą się na jakość życia obywateli.

    Szanowni Państwo, to nie jest kwestia dyskusji o wolności nauki, bo każdy może prowadzić badania naukowe, jakie sobie chce. Może decydować o tym samodzielnie. To jest decyzja o tym, gdzie idą pieniądze podatników. A pieniądze podatników powinny iść tam, gdzie efekty przełożą się na lepsze życie obywateli.

     
       

     

      Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, «le réchauffement climatique est un canular inventé par les Chinois pour nuire à l’industrie américaine», «le bruit des éoliennes cause le cancer», «le pacte vert pour l’Europe est un manifeste communiste», «un désinfectant est plus efficace qu’un vaccin contre la COVID-19», «l’huile de foie de morue réduit la mortalité liée à la rougeole», «les professeurs sont l’ennemi, nous devons attaquer agressivement les universités». Ces déclarations sont l’œuvre de Donald Trump et de son administration qui ont fait de la science et des scientifiques des ennemis de l’Amérique.

    Mes chers collègues, ce n’est pas seulement aux États-Unis, mais partout dans le monde où les extrêmes progressent, que la liberté scientifique est menacée. L’initiative «Choose Europe for Science» promeut cette liberté scientifique. Elle vise à renforcer l’attractivité des carrières scientifiques en Europe. Elle veut accélérer l’innovation en facilitant le passage de la recherche fondamentale au marché.

    Madame la Commissaire, le groupe Renew Europe soutient pleinement cette initiative. Il est à vos côtés pour faire de l’Europe ce pôle d’attraction pour la science. Il est à vos côtés pour défendre notre identité, celle d’une démocratie européenne qui nous protège de tout obscurantisme. Alors travaillons ensemble pour octroyer davantage de moyens aux scientifiques européens et étrangers et pour faciliter le retour des chercheurs européens expatriés.

    Je le dis aux scientifiques du monde entier: entendez cet appel et choisissez l’Europe pour continuer à travailler. Des financements, un environnement favorable, des facilités administratives, la mobilisation d’un budget de 500 millions d’EUR, ainsi que le soutien inconditionnel à la liberté et à l’excellence scientifique sont là pour vous. L’Europe est généreuse, car elle a besoin des scientifiques.

    Chers collègues, sans recherche, sans innovation, nous ne parviendrons pas à répondre à l’enjeu de notre compétitivité. C’est l’une des conditions pour faire de l’Union européenne une puissance politique pleine et entière. L’équation est posée. Alors avançons.

     
       

     

      Anna Strolenberg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the plan to attract scientists to Europe is called Choose Europe. But what does it mean to choose Europe? It means to choose academic freedom, to choose a continent that still believes in climate change – and thank God for that – it means to choose diversity being a strength instead of a weakness.

    Choosing Europe also means long and difficult visa procedures. It also means having your diplomas recognised in one country, but not in the other. To choose Europe means to talk about researchers and professors that we want, but sometimes forgetting about the nurses, truckers and caregivers that we need.

    Choose Europe also means that sometimes we don’t use our full workforce potential because refugees and women don’t always find a job. I want the best talent to come to Europe, but I also want the best for talent in Europe, and I believe we can do both if we invest in the people here and if we see labour migration as an opportunity.

    So why don’t we train the people in Ljubljana but also look for them in Lagos? Why don’t we help women in Düsseldorf to find a job, but also look for them in Delhi? Why don’t we pay our professors and teachers in Saint-Étienne a fair wage, but also look for them in San Francisco?

    I would say, let’s not ask why people would choose Europe, but let’s ask ourselves, how can we make Europe the destination of choice for all talent?

     
       

     

      Ilaria Salis, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mentre negli Stati Uniti di Trump la libertà accademica è apertamente sotto attacco, anche in Europa non possiamo dormire sonni tranquilli. L’abbiamo visto nella repressione delle sacrosante proteste contro il genocidio a Gaza e contro l’occupazione coloniale della Palestina: studenti e ricercatori manganellati, conferenze annullate e accuse infondate e pretestuose di antisemitismo. È un segnale grave, gravissimo.

    L’iniziativa Choose Europe for Science è importante e la sostengo: l’Europa dovrebbe sempre essere un rifugio, un luogo di libertà, cooperazione e speranza. Sarebbe bello – aggiungo – se lo fosse anche per migranti e richiedenti asilo, che fanno altri lavori e provengono da altre parti del mondo; ma non lo è.

    Apriamo le porte solo alle eccellenze, come se il sapere non fosse sempre frutto di un lavoro collettivo, spesso invisibile e quasi sempre sottopagato. È una visione miope, che tradisce un’idea elitaria della conoscenza: l’idea capitalistica. L’Università va difesa nella sua interezza, come comunità, come luogo di sviluppo condiviso e non come vetrina di merito individuale.

    In Italia chi fa ricerca è spesso un lavoratore povero, intrappolato in una precarietà cronica, costretto a una mobilità imposta, con conseguenze materiali e psicologiche devastanti. I posti di lavoro sono pochi, le prospettive pesanti, spesso solo all’estero. L’Università non si costruisce selezionando pochi eccellenti ma garantendo a tutte e tutti l’accesso al sapere.

    Pertanto servono politiche pubbliche ambiziose, inclusive, di massa. Servono veri investimenti nella ricerca, perché la produzione di sapere è il miglior valore aggiunto che possiamo generare, non solo sul piano economico ma, soprattutto, sul piano culturale, sociale e democratico.

     
       

     

      Marc Jongen, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Choose Europe for Science. Warum sollten junge Wissenschaftler das tun? Doch nur, wenn sie sich zum Komplizen der politischen Lebenslüge unserer Eliten machen, dass Europa noch immer für Exzellenz, für akademische Freiheit und für Wohlstand steht. Die traurige Wahrheit ist doch: Es gibt heute Hexenjagden gegen kritische Wissenschaftler in ganz Europa, die nicht hundertprozentig dem linksliberalen Mainstream folgen, wie vor Kurzem gegen den jungen Historiker Hasselhorn in Deutschland. Lesen Sie das mal nach, Herr Brandstätter! Und Frau von der Leyen hat es in Paris in ihrer Rede Anfang Mai ja gesagt: Diversity is the lifeblood of science. Trump räumt gerade in den USA mit ideologischen Diversitätsprogrammen auf. Und wer deshalb von dort flüchtet, der ist sicher kein exzellenter Forscher, sondern Ideologe, den wir nicht noch mit teuren Programmen nach Europa locken sollten. Wir müssen aufhören, Agendawissenschaften wie Gender, Critical Race usw. in Europa zu fördern, und endlich auch einen freien Diskurs in der Klimaforschung zulassen. Nur dann werden wir wieder Exzellenz herstellen, und dann werden auch die pathetischen Worte von Macron und von der Leyen an der Sorbonne, die ja sehr schön waren, aber leider heuchlerisch, wieder der Wahrheit entsprechen.

     
       

     

      Letizia Moratti (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la scienza è uno degli strumenti più potenti che abbiamo per migliorare la vita dei nostri cittadini. È grazie agli studi, alle ricerche, alle competenze e alle eccellenze del nostro continente se oggi possiamo contare su terapie innovative contro il cancro o su vaccini che hanno sconfitto la poliomelite e la pandemia da COVID-19.

    L’intelligenza artificiale sta aprendo nuove frontiere: potenzia la ricerca, accelera le scoperte e rende le nostre industrie più competitive a livello globale. La scienza dunque non è astratta: è concreta, genera soluzioni, crea futuro.

    Eppure in Europa il trasferimento tecnologico rimane una delle nostre maggiori debolezze. Abbiamo ottimi ricercatori, ma non sempre riusciamo a trasformare la ricerca in valore sociale ed economico. Gli investimenti pubblici in ricerca nell’Unione europea – fondamentali investimenti che vanno potenziati – sono pari al 2,2 percento del PIL, mentre negli USA sfiorano il 3,5 percento. Anche gli investimenti privati sono ancora troppo bassi: solo l’1,5 percento del PIL contro il 2,2 percento degli Stati Uniti.

    Dobbiamo agire per colmare questi gap. Serve facilitare la ricerca di spin-off e start-up universitarie, promuovere partnership pubblico-privato, creare un ecosistema favorevole che attragga investimenti, acceleri il trasferimento tecnologico e quindi attragga i migliori ricercatori.

    L’Unione europea deve essere protagonista nell’affermare una scienza libera che non solo scopre ma costruisce per il bene dei propri cittadini. E questo significa anche sostenere con forza la sua applicazione industriale ed economica: è una sfida che dobbiamo vincere.

     
       

     

      Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, en un momento en el que, por un lado, Europa necesita mejorar su competitividad, pero, por el otro, la libertad académica y la ciencia están siendo también cuestionadas en otros lugares del mundo, la iniciativa Elige Europa para la ciencia es más importante que nunca.

    Europa debe posicionarse como refugio para las y los investigadores que buscan desarrollar sus ideas en un entorno de libertad y de respeto por la diversidad, por el pensamiento crítico que inspira el propio método científico, y Elige Europa para la ciencia es un paso en la dirección correcta, pero debe ser un proyecto verdaderamente europeo para evitar crear desigualdades. No podemos permitir que esta medida beneficie solo a algunos territorios: esa no es la Europa que queremos.

    Queremos que Europa sea un lugar donde puedan investigar en libertad y abordar los desafíos globales, donde puedan colaborar con personas expertas de todo el mundo y donde se puedan aprovechar bien las oportunidades de financiación. Y para eso debemos garantizar, principalmente, dos cosas: primero, un presupuesto fuerte, y segundo, un programa europeo de ciencia e innovación autónomo. Afortunadamente, la presidenta de la Comisión el otro día anunció que así sería.

    Tenemos que convencernos de que, sin ciencia, no hay ni competitividad, ni democracia, ni proyecto europeo.

     
       

     

      Annamária Vicsek (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! A kutatás és innováció kulcsfontosságú Európa versenyképességének megőrzésében, ezért üdvözlendő a Bizottság célkitűzése, hogy megállítsa, sőt visszafordítsa az agyelszívást. A válassza Európát, válassza a tudományt elnevezésű kezdeményezésben viszont egy súlyos ellentmondást láthatunk. Miközben Brüsszel tengerentúli kutatókat csábít, addig egyes uniós kutatókat kizár a közös programokból. A magyar kutatók már három éve nem férnek hozzá a Horizon Europe forrásaihoz. Nem tudományos vagy adminisztratív hibák miatt, hanem politikai okokból.

    Az Európai Bizottság a magyar kutatói közösség kizárásával akarja büntetni a magyar kormányt, pedig ezzel pont azt fogja eredményezni, amit elvileg meg akarna akadályozni, az agyelszívást. A magyar kutatók ma nemcsak az uniós, hanem már harmadik országbeli kollégáikkal szemben is hátrányban vannak. Ez a kirekesztés nemcsak igazságtalan, hanem Európa versenyképességét is gyengíti. A kiváló magyar kutatók megérdemlik, hogy az egységes kutatási térséghez tartozzanak.

     
       

     

      Marion Maréchal (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Emmanuel Macron et Ursula von der Leyen se sont livrés à la Sorbonne à un drôle de numéro: les voilà donc ardents défenseurs d’une recherche académique libre et indépendante contre l’obscurantisme de l’administration Trump.

    Pour l’occasion, le président français n’a pas eu honte de proposer 100 millions d’euros pour attirer les chercheurs américains, alors que dans le même temps, le budget français dévolu à l’enseignement supérieur et à la recherche s’est vu retirer 1 milliard d’euros en 2025.

    Pendant que les États-Unis consacrent plus de 3,5 % de leur PIB à la recherche et au développement, l’UE, elle, peine à dépasser les 2,2 %. L’Europe, en effet, peine à garder ses chercheurs, puisque, depuis 2010, le taux de départ des docteurs européens vers les États-Unis est d’environ 20 %.

    Alors, avant de vouloir faire venir les chercheurs américains anti-Trump en Europe, commençons déjà par comprendre et faire en sorte de garder nos propres chercheurs en Europe grâce à une rémunération et à des crédits dignes de ce nom.

    Profitons-en aussi pour nous interroger sur les orientations budgétaires de la recherche publique dans nos pays qui, en France par exemple, avec le CNRS, est devenu le paradis des sciences molles pour militants woke au détriment de la recherche scientifique qui, elle, crée de la richesse et de l’emploi.

     
       

     

      Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, fin mars, nous alertions déjà sur la situation aux États-Unis: coupes budgétaires massives, recul des libertés académiques, licenciements. Aujourd’hui, ses scientifiques cherchent un refuge. L’Europe a donc une opportunité unique: devenir le nouvel eldorado de la science libre.

    À cet égard, je salue l’initiative «Choose Europe» et l’annonce d’une enveloppe de 500 millions d’euros jusqu’en 2027, mais soyons clairs: les 22 millions d’euros du programme pilote, via l’action Marie Curie, ne suffiront pas. Ce programme pilote doit ouvrir la voie, oui, mais l’ouvrir vite, avec des procédures d’accueil simplifiées, une sélection rapide des projets et des perspectives de long terme pour celles et ceux qui veulent reconstruire ici leur avenir scientifique.

    Par ailleurs, l’excellence scientifique n’est pas incompatible avec l’agenda stratégique de l’Union, bien au contraire. Les projets portés dans ce cadre peuvent, par leurs résultats, contribuer aux priorités de l’Union, du climat à la santé en passant par les technologies critiques et de rupture.

    Enfin, j’en appelle à toutes les universités, académies et centres de recherche européens: rejoignez le mouvement, ouvrez vos portes.

     
       

     

      Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE). – Gospa predsedujoča! Spoštovane kolegice in kolegi! Kot profesor iz prve roke poznam preobrazbo na moč znanosti, ki mora biti svobodna, odprta za sodelovanje in ima intelektualno dostojanstvo.

    V času, ko so ogrožene akademske svoboščine v Združenih državah Amerike in drugje, kjer so dejstva spolitizirana, akademiki pa utišani, mora Evropa dajati zgled. Biti moramo upanje za tiste, ki iščejo resnico in ne nadzora. Za tiste, ki iščejo sodelovanje in ne cenzure. Zato moramo odpreti vrata svetu z novimi programi, kot so Erasmus+ za Indijo in Afriko, ter vzpostaviti nova partnerstva s tretjimi državami.

    To niso le programi mednarodne izmenjave, ampak so lahko tudi rešilni čoln za tiste, ki so danes ogroženi na Harvardu, Columbiji in drugje. Evropa mora sprejeti bistre ume iz vsega sveta. Naj jasno povem, če verjamete v svobodno misel in dostojanstvo znanja, potem izberite Evropo za znanost.

     
       

     

      Catarina Martins (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, este debate é um desfile de horrores.

    Um grupo da extrema-direita chega e defende cortar o financiamento a universidades que se posicionam contra o genocídio na Palestina. Logo a seguir, outro dos grupos da extrema-direita vem defender cortes na investigação científica sobre mulheres. Como se não chegasse, vem o terceiro grupo de extrema-direita deste Parlamento e propõe adotar o conceito fascista de ciência: só se investiga o que lhes der razão.

    A questão da liberdade académica não é um problema só nos Estados Unidos, onde a administração de Donald Trump está a perseguir as universidades e os cientistas. A interferência e a ameaça contra as universidades, o desrespeito completo pela autonomia, a falta de conhecimento — onde sobram racismo, misoginia e homofobia, elevados a critérios da ciência, que se pode ou não produzir —, também já estão na Hungria. Já está à espreita em tantos países europeus. E não foi, afinal, o que ouvimos aqui hoje?

    A iniciativa Escolhe a Europa para a Ciência tem o objetivo de atrair cientistas de outras partes do mundo para fazer ciência na Europa. E é bom que a Europa o queira fazer, que se queira abrir ao mundo e que perceba que a ciência é fundamental.

    Mas olhemos para o que está a acontecer: orçamento para a ciência insuficiente, xenofobia no centro da política de imigração e, mais, com a cobertura crescente que populares e liberais dão à extrema-direita um pouco por toda a Europa, quem acolherá os investigadores americanos, europeus, seja onde for, quando a perseguição, aqui, também se tornar a regra?

     
       

     

      Zsuzsanna Borvendég (ESN). – Elnök Asszony! A kutatás-fejlesztés erősítése a versenyképesség egyik kulcsa, de a célok kijelölése tagállami hatáskör. Központosítással durva aránytalanságok állhatnak elő, és komoly problémák léphetnek fel. Már a bolognai folyamat is színvonalesést eredményezett az egyetemeken, de figyelmeztető jel az is, hogy a Covid-diktatúra idején boszorkányüldözést folytattak azon tudósok ellen, akik megkérdőjelezték a WHO diktátumait.

    A tudományos szabadság nem tűri a politikai és ideológiai nyomásgyakorlást, ezért káros, hogy a tervezet eleve kiemeli a zöld átállást, a gender-tanokat, és kiemelt figyelmet fordít az ukrán kutatókra, ezzel kvázi meghatározva a támogatás politikai feltételeit. A mobilitás túlhangsúlyozásával az európai kutatók hátrányba kerülhetnek a harmadik országból érkezőkkel szemben. Vagyis rejtetten a migrációt segíti a tervezet, ráadásul nehezíti a kutatók visszatérését saját hazájukba, ezzel az Unión belüli agyelszívást fokozzák, ami a kevésbé gazdag tagállamokat súlyosan érinti.

     
       

     

      Diana Iovanovici Şoşoacă (NI). – Doamnă președintă, da, vorbim despre cercetare. Este foarte frumos, aveți intenții foarte bune, vă gândiți la bani, vă gândiți să aduceți cei mai buni cercetători din Statele Unite ale Americii, ăia de care America nu mai are nevoie, dar nu vă uitați la cercetătorii din Europa și, bineînțeles, fiind româncă, vreau să-mi laud cercetătorii din România: cercetători care au pus bazele Institutului de la Măgurele de Fizică Atomică, pe care îl lăsați în paragină; cercetători care au pus bazele celui mai important institut, „Cantacuzino” – datorită căruia n-am mai fi avut nevoie de vaccinuri COVID cu cercetări pe care nu știu pentru cine le-ați făcut, poate pentru Auschwitz, pentru că au omorât și omoară și acum, nu știu ce cercetători au fost – Institut „Cantacuzino” care nu mai există, iar cercetătorii au fost puși să se ducă la adunat de legume prin țările dumneavoastră; Institutul de Geriatrie „Ana Aslan”, cea care a inventat elixirul tinereții.

    Nu faceți absolut nimic pentru Europa. Vă bateți joc! Aduceți doar vaccinuri care au efecte secundare și omoară oameni. Ideologii de gen, asta este cercetarea europeană. Când veți învăța să respectați Europa și cercetătorii europeni, atunci veți avea excelență.

     
       

     

      Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Europa ist ein hervorragender Standort für Wissenschaftler aus der ganzen Welt. Die Freiheit der Lehre, der Forschung, der Wissenschaft ist für uns in Europa ein ganz hohes Gut. Dafür zu werben und Anreize zu setzen, dass Talente nach Europa kommen, ist genau das Richtige. Ich begrüße das neue Förderprogramm für Spitzenforschung, Spitzenforscher und internationale Talente. Ich begrüße diese Superfinanzhilfe für den Europäischen Forschungsrat. Ich begrüße die bessere finanzielle Ausstattung für Marie-Curie-Stipendien. Das alles, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sind doch hervorragende Initiativen, und sie helfen auch, eben unseren Standort noch weiter attraktiv zu machen.

    Woran wir wirklich noch arbeiten müssen, ist, dass wir hier auch die Rahmenbedingungen für die Talente, die nach Europa kommen, erleichtern. Ich höre aus der Wissenschaftscommunity, dass es immer noch Riesenprobleme in den Mitgliedstaaten bei der Erteilung von Visa gibt, dass es beim Start schwierig ist – auch in dieser neuen Umgebung. Das ist jetzt nicht in erster Linie Aufgabe der Kommission, aber vielleicht kann man doch auch darauf hinwirken, dass die Talente, die zu uns nach Europa kommen wollen, sich hier auch wirklich willkommen fühlen. Und das beginnt damit, dass wir bei der Visaerteilung Erleichterungen schaffen.

     
       

     

      Sofie Eriksson (S&D). – Fru talman! Det vi ser i USA just nu är ett systematiskt sönderfall, en demokrati som monteras ner bit för bit, en president som föraktar rättsstaten, som underminerar vetenskapen, som bara verkar bry sig om att berika sig själv och andra superrika, som gärna vill hålla folkflertalet utan utbildning och förnekar dem utbildning eftersom att vi vet att en bildad befolkning kommer att ifrågasätta auktoriteter.

    Men vi hör ju samma rop här i denna sal här i dag från extremhögern som hånar vetenskap, som förnekar klimatförändringarna, som vill bygga makten på rädsla och förakt. Det duger inte.

    Därför måste Europa svara, inte med tystnad utan med mod. Det är nu som vi måste ta ställning. Vi ska vara den självklara platsen i världen där kunskapen får andas, där sanningen inte är till salu. Därför är det här initiativet från kommissionen viktigt. Men det behövs mer än ord. Det krävs handling, det krävs förnuft. För låt det nu inte bli så att vi skrumpnar till torra, bruna, orangea och sura apelsiner, utan låt oss vara stolta i Europa där vetenskapen alltid har en plats.

     
       

     

      Jana Nagyová (PfE). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, bylo nebylo, Evropa kdysi bývala centrem pokroku, místem, kam lidé upírali oči v naději na lepší budoucnost. Ta doba je však pryč. Svým přesvědčením, že jsme ti nejlepší, svou nabubřelostí a byrokracií jsme nechali mnoho mozků a vynálezů utéct do třetích zemí. Problémy jsou nad slunce jasné, odliv mozků, o třetinu nižší výdaje na výzkum a vývoj a jen čtvrtina registrovaných patentů ve srovnání s USA a Čínou. Uvádění inovací na trh podle reálné situace je ještě horší. Není divu. Zásadním krokem pro Evropu je totiž splnění úkolu, který zde zůstává nedokončený již téměř sedmdesát let od doby Římských smluv, a to je realizace čtyř svobod. Roztříštěnost trhů stojí Evropu každý rok přes 200 miliard EUR a přitom my hledáme nové finanční zdroje. Máme je na talíři.

    Člověk však musí věřit, že bude lépe. Proto věřím, že poslední kroky Evropské komise, a to je program Choose Europe for Science a příslib samostatného programu Horizont přinesou své ovoce. Jen doufám, že přístup do něj bude nastaven tak, aby i menší státy měly reálnou šanci z toho čerpat. Jinak bude platit „Poslední zhasíná“.

     
       

     

      Diego Solier (NI). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, hay dos cosas raras de ver: una patera yendo hacia un país comunista y un investigador pensando en quedarse en Europa. Europa quiere ser el hogar de la ciencia, pero para eso tiene que ser un lugar donde vivir, trabajar y crear no sea un deporte de riesgo.

    Somos un continente con democracias sólidas: sanidad, educación, movilidad… Sí, pero ¿puede un joven e investigador pagar un piso en Ámsterdam, Múnich o Madrid con un contrato de tres años? Financiamos ciencia con Horizonte Europa, pero llenamos a los investigadores de papeles y formularios. Los científicos pasan más tiempo acreditando que investigando.

    Además, no podemos permitir que nuestros investigadores vivan en la precariedad. Necesitamos más vínculos con las empresas, más empleabilidad y más sinergias. Si queremos que elijan Europa, hagamos de Europa una elección real, no una apuesta inestable. La ciencia necesita libertad, continuidad y estabilidad. Sin ciencia no hay Europa.

     
       

     

      Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señora presidenta, estamos en un momento en el que presidentes de distintos Estados son invitados a la Casa Blanca con intención de ser ridiculizados, se dispara contra diplomáticos y civiles de todos los bandos cuando se quiere presionar ante violaciones de derechos humanos y actuaciones inhumanas y la plutocracia y extremismos ganan terreno, limitando libertades fundamentales y pensamientos críticos. Hagamos de Euskadi y de Europa un espacio de oportunidad para quienes quieran mejorar sus condiciones de vida desde el respeto a los valores europeos y un lugar de desarrollo profesional para quienes quieran sumar sus capacidades investigadoras a las nuestras y nos ayuden a reducir dependencias a partir de la innovación y el desarrollo. De eso va el programa Elige Europa para la ciencia.

    En este nuevo tablero geopolítico, el liderazgo científico e innovador proporciona una ventaja competitiva cada vez mayor. Y eso, en el medio y en el largo plazo, se traduce en nuevos y mejores puestos de trabajo, más autonomía estratégica y menos desigualdades.

    Por lo tanto, en una Euskadi que siempre ha apostado por la investigación y el desarrollo, por la libertad científica y el fomento del talento, esperamos que esos más de 1 250 millones de euros sirvan para hacer crecer nuestro espacio de oportunidad y nuestro país.

     
       

     

      Anthony Smith (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, c’est formidable, formidablement hypocrite! Mme von der Leyen et M. Macron s’érigent en défenseurs des libertés académiques et politiques en octroyant l’accueil aux scientifiques étasuniens, par exemple, persécutés pour leur engagement en faveur de la Palestine.

    Ce sont les mêmes qui, ici, s’enlisent dans des circonvolutions pour ne pas dénoncer le génocide en cours à Gaza. Les mêmes qui, ici, frappent d’anathème les militants et les étudiants dénonçant les massacres de Tsahal; les mêmes qui, ici, accusent d’antisémitisme toute personne critiquant le gouvernement d’extrême droite de M. Netanyahou.

    Depuis que M. Macron est au pouvoir, le budget de l’enseignement supérieur par étudiant a baissé de 15 % en France. Une destruction méthodique de l’université publique a lieu sous nos yeux. Les universités ne parviennent plus à boucler leur budget et la précarisation des personnels et des étudiants atteint des niveaux records.

    Assez de cette hypocrisie et de ces plans de communication obscènes! Nous défendrons toujours les libertés politiques et académiques et les moyens nécessaires à leur expression, tout comme nous défendrons toujours l’accueil des réfugiés, peu importe leur origine.

     
       

     

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, só teremos uma Europa desenvolvida, próspera e soberana se colocarmos a ciência e a inovação no centro do nosso projeto comum. A iniciativa Escolhe a Europa para a Ciência é um passo crucial nessa direção.

    Pela primeira vez, os investigadores terão não só financiamento robusto e direto da União Europeia, mas também a garantia de contratos prolongados por parte das instituições e a necessária continuidade da carreira científica.

    Além disso, com a exigência de cofinanciamento que esta iniciativa impõe, devemos garantir que todas as instituições sediadas em regiões com menos recursos possam realmente participar sem deixar ninguém para trás.

    Mas precisamos de sonhar mais alto. Precisamos de garantir que esta iniciativa posiciona a União Europeia como líder global em ciência e inovação, oferecendo um ambiente de investigação aberto, bem financiado, coeso e com forte ligação ao setor empresarial. É muito importante que tal aconteça.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D).Dear President, colleagues, Commissioner, o futuro da indústria e da competitividade europeia não se constrói com salários baixos nem com desregulação sem limites; constrói-se com uma estratégia para a inovação, estratégia que nos faltou.

    A iniciativa Chose Europe, agora apresentada, acrescenta 500 milhões EUR, que permitem valorizar os nossos jovens qualificados e novos centros de investigação. Mas o aumento de financiamento abre também portas ao recrutamento dos melhores cientistas que já não estão na Europa.

    Falo daqueles que, nos Estados Unidos e noutros países, sofreram cortes no apoio ao seu trabalho e que sentem a ciência ameaçada por parte dos mesmos que em Gaza ameaçam crianças, mas que no mundo ameaçam a verdade.

    Esta é uma oportunidade única para reinventar a Europa como líder de uma nova era do conhecimento na descarbonização, na inteligência artificial ou nas biotecnologias de saúde. Mas, sejamos claros, o futuro não vai esperar por nós. E é por isso que, mais do que é importante apresentar, é urgente fazer. Essa deve ser razão suficiente para que o Velho Continente volte a ser o mais iluminado.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Bruno Gonçalves, quero fazer-lhe duas perguntas.

    Primeiro, como é que Portugal sai da situação de dependência dos países mais fortes, das grandes potências da União Europeia, no acesso aos fundos para a ciência? A União Europeia acaba de anunciar um conjunto de medidas com grandes fundos associados. Portugal continua sempre numa posição de dependência, porque, para aceder a esses fundos, as nossas unidades de ciência e de investigação precisam sempre de encontrar alguma espécie de consórcio com unidades de países mais importantes, mais fortes, para conseguir aceder aos fundos.

    A segunda pergunta é esta: como é que o PS resolve a contradição do seu discurso e do seu posicionamento, defendendo, por um lado, o investimento na ciência e na investigação, mas, por outro lado, estando de acordo com todas as restrições e condicionamentos orçamentais que a União Europeia nos impõe, nomeadamente através do Pacto de Estabilidade?

    Precisamos de fazer o investimento em ciência e tecnologia, e isso não é compatível com a aceitação das restrições orçamentais que a União Europeia nos impõe.

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Se eu pudesse responder com uma venda, eu diria que esta intervenção vem de um partido profundamente europeísta, preocupado com a Europa e com a forma como os fundos europeus são alocados ao nosso país. Não é o caso.

    E, portanto, responderei sendo de um partido profundamente europeísta, de um partido que criou, em Portugal, a Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, de um partido que aprofundou a integração europeia também no conhecimento, e que já na última legislatura — não na última legislatura do governo AD, mas do governo do Partido Socialista — criou clusters em Portugal que não só permitiram aceder a mais fundos, mas permitiram aceder a mais fundos entre empresas e universidades portuguesas.

    E, portanto, essa visão cética sobre a Europa é algo que caracteriza bem a bancada de onde o senhor deputado vem, mas não é algo que seja refletido nos dados públicos, que nos demonstram que, hoje, temos pessoas mais qualificadas, mais inovação — e muito mais do que tínhamos antes da integração europeia.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, mevrouw de commissaris, ik ben blij dat het besef er is dat investeringen in onderzoek en innovatie een absolute noodzaak zijn voor ons concurrentievermogen. Ik ben ook trots dat Vlaanderen hierin een koploper is en zelfs de ambitie uitspreekt om van 3,5 % naar 5 % van het bbp te evolueren.

    Het gemiddelde in de Europese Unie ligt nu rond de 2,2 % en dat is ruim onvoldoende. Onze productiviteit lijdt hieronder. Zo kunnen we de wereldwijde concurrentie niet aangaan en dreigen we aan welvaart in te boeten. Dus goed dat de Commissie actie onderneemt. Maar sta me toe, mevrouw de commissaris, drie belangrijke kanttekeningen te maken:

    1) laat fundamenteel onderzoek niet vallen. Dat brengt het Europese concurrentievermogen op lange termijn immers in gevaar;

    2) behoud de zeer waardevolle bottom-upbenadering in het Marie Curie-programma. Hierin is politieke sturing niet wenselijk;

    3) let op met het reguleren van academische vrijheid, want het enige kader ter bescherming van de academische vrijheid is net dat er geen kader is.

    Conclusie: kiezen voor onderzoek en innovatie is kiezen voor de toekomst.

     
       

     

      Jüri Ratas (PPE). – Austatud president! Head ametikaaslased, komisjon. Toetan tugevalt ideed, et teadus peab olema Euroopa poliitika keskmes, kui me tahame tagada meie tulevikku ja konkurentsivõimet. Teadus on nagu voolav jõgi, mis toidab kogu meie ühiskonda, meie majandust ja meie tulevikku. Kui me ei hoolitse selle jõe eest, siis ta kuivab ja koos sellega takerdub ka meie edasiminek. Me ei saa lubada, et see teema jääb Euroopa Liidus vaid tühjaks hüüdlauseks. Peame kiiresti jõudma tegudeni. Euroopa teadus on tähtis meie konkurentsivõime, julgeoleku ja heaolu jaoks. Euroopast peab saama teaduse liider. Peame olema innovatsiooni esirinnas ja toetama ka teiste riikide teadlasi Euroopas tegutsemas. Tean seda ka Eesti kogemusest. Meie teaduse maastik on maailmatasemel, kuid meie teadlased, ülikoolid ja teadusasutused vajavad kindlamat tuge, suuremaid investeeringuid, et nad saaksid jätkata Euroopas tipptasemel lahenduste väljatöötamist ja viiksid siin oma unistused ellu. Ma tänan!

     
       

     

      Elena Sancho Murillo (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la ciencia y la innovación son nuestro presente y nuestro futuro y, por eso, Elige Europa para la ciencia debe ser la hoja de ruta para afrontar los retos de los próximos años.

    ¿Qué hubiera sido de nuestra historia sin Marie Curie, la española Margarita Salas, Charles Darwin o Grace Hopper? Os aseguro que la historia tal y como la conocemos no hubiera sucedido. Continuemos rompiendo barreras en defensa de la ciencia y de la tecnología y rompiendo, además, techos de cristal para que las mujeres también seamos líderes y estemos presentes en esta transformación de la innovación y de la ciencia.

    El desarrollo en I+D, la tecnología, la inteligencia artificial y la digitalización deben reforzarse como herramientas de avance, de libertad, de seguridad y de competitividad europea frente a las amenazas de los oligarcas estadounidenses como Donald Trump o Elon Musk.

    Elige Europa para la ciencia debe ser el compromiso por el liderazgo de Europa en innovación para que nuestros jóvenes elijan venir y quedarse en Europa. La inversión anunciada son buenas noticias, pero debemos seguir siendo ambiciosos. Debemos seguir atrayendo talento a Europa a través de más inversión y buenas condiciones laborales. Si queremos el avance científico de Europa, debemos estar del lado de los científicos y científicas.

     
       

     

      Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! Európa vezet a tudományos publikációk számában és a nemzetközi együttműködésekben, de a globális versenyképességhez innovatívabb, befogadóbb tudományos ökoszisztémákra van szükségünk. Olyanokra, amelyek bevonzzák a legbrilliánsabb elméket. Először is vonzó hellyé kell válnunk a legjobb kutatók számára. Ez kiszámítható, hosszútávú finanszírozást, külön keretprogramot, világos és vonzó karrierutakat, jó munka-magánélet egyensúlyt jelent, különösen a nőknek és a fiatal kutatóknak, valamint egy olyan kutatási kultúrát, amely a kiválóságra, a nyitottságra és a bizalomra épül.

    Nem feledkezhetünk meg a kutatási innovációs szakadék csökkentéséről sem. Erős európai kutatási térséget kell kiépítenünk, kiváló infrastruktúrákkal, amelyek minden régiót és tagállamot bevonnak, beleértve Magyarországot is, amely a jövőben, amikor majd mi, a Tisza leszünk kormányon, visszaadjuk az Akadémia szabadságát, és majd ismét élénk tudományos ökoszisztémává válhat, ahol a tehetség valóban kibontakozhat. Európának erősítenie kell tudományos szuverenitását, nem csak a csúcstechnológiába kell befektetnie, hanem az azt létrehozó emberekbe is.

     
       

       

    Procedura “catch-the-eye”

     
       

     

      Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Dabartinė JAV administracija ruošiasi nurėžti finansavimą nuo, pavyzdžiui, NASA, nuo Ligų kontrolės, prevencijos centro. Būdamas mokslininkas, žinau, per kokius sunkiai įveikiamus biurokratinius brūzgynus tenka brautis formuojant, pavyzdžiui, sveikatos duomenų registrus. Tokių duomenų nepalaikant, ta unikali sukaupta globali vertybė nueina niekais. Tad Komisijos pirmininkės pasiūlytas pusės milijardo paketas apskritai yra laiku ir vietoj. Tai turi aprėpti mokslininkus iš įvairių trečiųjų valstybių, įskaitant, pavyzdžiui, Ukrainą. Tiesa, septynerių metų „super grantai“ gali kelti nelygybės pavojų tarp jau egzistuojančių ir dar tik besiformuojančių kompetencijos centrų. Tačiau džiugina požiūris į jaunus mokslininkus ir jog nepamirštama parama jiems. Dar pridurčiau apie būtinybę į finansavimą įtraukti dvigubos paskirties tyrimus. Dėkoju.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, you know very well, Manuel Heitor’s report – align, act, accelerate. The report is based on the Letta Report proposing a fifth freedom, but a fifth freedom for research and development requires infrastructure and an ecosystem at pan-European, supranational level.

    And of course, Draghi mentioned the necessity to build a research and innovation union. A union requires a lot of effort and a whole-of-Commission approach and a whole-of-government approach. We are just proposing to establish a pilot project using European reference networks, using artificial intelligence fabrics, using a health data space, using biobanks and one million genomics to build an ecosystem and a reduction in the area of rare diseases, rare cancers and low prevalence diseases.

    It would be a good example to have pan-European infrastructure. I will send you our proposals.

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     
       

     

      Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Mr President, some right-wing colleagues told us that Trump wants to chase away just the ‘woke’ scientists. That’s wrong. I have here the editorial of The Lancet, a well-known publication of science. What they’re writing is that Elon Musk’s department slashed federal budgets and awards, interrupting investigations into paediatric cancer, diabetes, HIV, prematurely ending at least 113 clinical trials and withholding funds from more than 200 universities. PhD projects have been cancelled, graduate admissions rescinded and infrastructure investment foregone. The visas of foreign-born American students and faculty have been revoked.

    So that’s the situation. In the United States, they can’t work freely anymore. So please, Commissioner, go there, get them. We really have to do something. They have great talent and they should come to Europe.

    One more thing: yesterday, we had a conference about the mental health of the children of Ukraine. They are refugees – 20 000 of them were stolen and brought to Russia. They need a lot for mental health. Please think about them as well. Let’s do something for them.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Zaharieva, o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico é um aspeto absolutamente essencial para o desenvolvimento de qualquer país. E as assimetrias e as desigualdades de desenvolvimento entre os países da União Europeia são um problema grave, que tem de ser combatido — e, por isso, é absolutamente essencial que as opções da União Europeia em matéria de ciência e tecnologia deem um contributo decisivo para esbater, para eliminar essas diferenças e essas desigualdades de desenvolvimento entre cada país.

    Mas as opções que têm sido feitas são exatamente no sentido contrário. Não apenas nas políticas económicas, que determinam, para alguns países, melhores condições de desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico e de incorporação da ciência e da tecnologia na sua atividade produtiva, mas também porque, no acesso aos fundos, as condições de acesso entre países não são iguais, e os países menos desenvolvidos têm mais dificuldades em aceder aos fundos da União Europeia para poderem garantir melhores condições para o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico.

    Os países menos desenvolvidos têm mais dificuldades também em fazer o investimento com os seus próprios recursos orçamentais, porque as limitações e os condicionamentos da União Europeia pesam mais.

    É preciso inverter essas opções para garantir que haja verdadeiramente coesão dentro da União Europeia.

     
       

     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Ich bin Ihnen sehr dankbar für diese Debatte, die mir erneut vor Augen geführt hat, was der Unterschied zwischen Politikern und Wissenschaftlern ist. Ich denke, Choose Europe for Science ist eine sehr wichtige Initiative, die aber nicht genug auf das eigentliche Ziel eingeht, das wir damit verfolgen. Jeder weiß, dass es dabei am Ende des Tages um die Einführung einer fünften Grundfreiheit geht: der Wissenschaftsfreiheit. Aber das sollte in diesem Programm ausdrücklich erwähnt werden. Wir sollten in der Lage sein, mit unserer Wissenschaftsfreiheit Visionen für die Zukunft zu schaffen, und nicht nur kleinteilig das Jetzt zu regeln. Und das Gleiche gilt auch im Kleineren. Es ist richtig und wichtig, was im Einzelnen hinsichtlich der Anerkennung von Forschungsabschlüssen und der Erleichterungen für Visa darin steht. Aber wir gucken zu wenig auf diejenigen, die noch keine Forscher sind, nämlich diejenigen, die jetzt gerade in der Schule sind. Wir brauchen europaweit harmonisierte Schulfächer, wie zum Beispiel Digitalkompetenz und Medien, damit jene, die in Zukunft in Europa exzellent forschen können, dafür alle nötigen Kompetenzen mitbringen.

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Ekaterina Zaharieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I’m really grateful for your intervention. I felt really broad support for the Choose Europe for Science initiative, which confirms that uniting us is one of the most powerful attitudes that science has. It goes beyond the national and party borders and I think that’s precisely why Europe’s research is open to all of those who share our values.

    Today, already 42 % of our young doctoral and postdoctoral researchers that we support through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions come from outside the EU and 80 % of our publications that we fund through Horizon Europe are open access. I think that we have to be proud of our European model that we have for research. In Europe, science is free. In Europe, we celebrate both questions and our diverse academic traditions. In Europe, people are at the centre of scientific research and we should be proud of that.

    I heard a lot of you who said we have to improve the conditions of European researchers who are already here and that we have to create a true union of science and research. This was actually one of my number one priorities. In the five minutes at the beginning, I unfortunately wasn’t able to present the full package of Choose Europe for Science, but I can reassure you that we are working on everything that you mentioned, like improving career development, improving conditions for scientists in Europe, visa facilitation – we worked with Commissioner Brunner and with the Member States on that – and all the other questions that were raised and proposals that I heard today.

    I want to share with you one concrete number: now, with only 5 % of the world’s population, Europe is already home to one fourth of scientists in the world. In a decade, the number of European researchers will have grown by 45 %, which is significant. That means that young people choose science and choose to become scientists despite disinformation and science scepticism on the rise. They embrace science and for those young people who choose science, we are obliged to continue to do our best for Europe to remain the best place to do science in the world. I am committed and I rely on your support to work to achieve this.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you, Commissioner Zaharieva, for your statement and your involvement.

    The debate is closed.

     

    3. Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 (debate)

     

      Peter Agius, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, the Committee of Petitions is about giving a voice to citizens. It is the committee of the citizens. Through us, citizens can put pressure on the Commission, on the Member States to make sure that from laws we pass to rights.

    Because after all, this is what citizens really care about. They do not care about laws; they care about rights reaching them and their families. During the year 2023, the Committee of Petitions received 1 452 petitions representing a 16 % increase over previous years, but we believe there is room for much more. We believe there should be much more awareness about this important tool for citizens.

    The main topics of the petitions were the environment, internal market and fundamental rights. We received, for instance, many petitions on the Data Protection Regulation and its breaches in various Member States. We received petitions on the rule of law and democracy and a lot of petitions on environmental concerns. In fact, it’s fair to say that there is no Petitions Committee hearing without matters on environmental protection discussed in the committee, including wildlife conservation, forest policy and breaches to the Habitats Directive.

    We received many petitions also in the area of health, and this clearly shows that citizens want more out of Europe in this area. And in many discussions we had in the committee, it is with pride that I say that a lot of our discussions lead to changes, lead to implementation, lead to enforcement, lead to investigations. Of course, we need more of this. We need the Commission to dedicate even more resources to following up, to responding to petitions and to implementation.

    In 2023 we organised also four public hearings, some jointly with other committees, and these covered a wide range of petition-driven issues, including the Schengen border concerns, the impact of climate change on social security and vulnerable groups. The committee and the Commission maintain a very solid ongoing cooperation and we need, as we said, more involved Commission services and dedication to responding to petition concerns.

    Nixtieq nagħlaq bil-messaġġ bil-Malti billi nenfasizza r-rabta ċara li hemm bejn id-drittijiet tagħna bħala ċittadini Ewropej u ż-żmien li ndumu biex neħduhom id-drittijiet. Bl-Ingliż ngħidu Justice delayed is justice denied. U hawn nieħu eżempju minn Malta, l-elettorat tiegħi. F’Malta suppost għandna standards Ewropej għal baħar nadif imma tiltaqa’ ma’ familji bit-tfal, jgħidulek: “Jien ma nistax ingawdi l-bajja għax hemm id-drenaġġ ħiereġ fil-bajja”. Fil-fatt, meta tara l-istorja tara li l-Kummissjoni Ewropea ilha għaxar snin tibgħat l-ittri. Is-sena l-oħra kellna sentenza tal-qorti li fl-aħħar qalet li għandna bżonn ninfurzaw il-liġi Ewropea. Però, sadanittant, dawk it-tfal saru adulti u ma gawdewiex il-bajja. Ejja nagħmluha aktar, kollha kemm aħna, biex niffukaw fuq l-implimentazzjoni. Għax wara kollox l-implimentazzjoni twassal għad-drittijiet.

    Aħna fil-kumitat tal-petizzjonijiet ser nagħmlu l-biċċa tagħna billi nagħtu l-vuċi liċ-ċittadini li ħafna drabi m’għandhomx triq oħra ħlief li jiġu quddiemna. Għalhekk nagħlaq billi nirringrazzja lill-kollegi tal-gruppi politiċi kollha u anki MEPs bla grupp, tal-ħidma dedikata immens f’dan il kumitat u nħares ‘il quddiem għal djalogu interessanti llum u vot b’saħħtu u koerenti għar-riżoluzzjoni li għandna quddiemna.

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to welcome Mr Falcă’s report, which offers a comprehensive overview of the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2023.

    As Mr Agius has just said, petitions are an effective channel for direct contact and open dialogue on problems affecting the daily lives of Europeans.

    As mentioned by Commissioner Šefčovič last week in the structured dialogue with your committee, the Commission remains committed to providing timely and pertinent contributions to the European Parliament’s response to these concerns.

    A clear signal of this commitment is that, throughout 2023, Commission representatives were present at all meetings of the Committee on Petitions, including at the highest political level. For example, Vice‑President Šefčovič was with you in February 2023 for a structured dialogue in accordance with the Framework Agreement on relations between our two institutions, and Commissioner Dalli took part in the annual workshop on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in November 2023.

    According to your report, in 2023, you sent us 557 new petitions for opinion. In total, we provided on 984 petitions. The Commission continues to deploy the resources necessary to ensure that all petitions you send are properly addressed.

    Looking at the petitions received in 2023, the main topics raised were the environment, the economy and fundamental rights. These concerns remain valid today and broadly align with the priorities of this Commission, as outlined in President von der Leyen’s political guidelines and reflected in the 2025 Commission Work Programme adopted earlier this year, which focuses on bold action to bolster our security, prosperity and democracy.

    I would like to reiterate our commitment on addressing petitions that raise concerns on the implementation of EU law – a core priority under this mandate, and something crucial to maintaining the credibility of the EU institutions.

    In February, we adopted a communication on implementation and simplification, setting out our vision for fast and visible improvements for Europeans and European businesses.

    When it comes to the enforcement of EU law, the Commission takes action where necessary, using the infringement procedure. But the infringement procedure is not designed to offer concrete solutions for individuals or ensure individual redress. Rather, it is aimed at addressing systemic problems affecting a large amount of people, often across Member States.

    Petitioners pointing to the incorrect application of EU law in individual cases would benefit more from the mechanisms available at national level, such as the national courts, regulatory bodies or ombudsman. If the problem has a cross‑border dimension, the Solvit network may offer quick and flexible remedies.

    We have heard your calls for more transparency and better information‑sharing with regard to the Commission’s enforcement actions. We publish decisions on every step of an infringement procedure on the Europol webpage.

    In the current version of the Infringement Register, the public can search for cases, with a link to the petition portal of Parliament. Tools such as this make it easier to track the progress of specific infringements, and to verify if there is any petition linked to any ongoing investigations.

    The petitions portal now also links to the Infringement Register, allowing those who intend to file a petition to check whether an infringement procedure is already in progress.

    In addition, the Commission has recently published a new Europol webpage to give user‑friendly information on infringement cases, the transposition of directives and EU pilot dialogues.

    Finally, I want to commend your committee for your work on the European Citizens’ initiatives, in particular for advocating to increase the impact of European Citizens’ initiatives and for contributing to the organisation of public hearings for successful initiatives.

    Several legislative acts in recent years have been triggered by successful European Citizens’ Initiatives, such as the revised Drinking Water Directive, the Regulation on the Transparency and Sustainability of EU Risk Assessment in the Food Chain and the Nature Restoration Law.

    The next public hearing will be on the successful European Citizens’ Initiative on Cohesion Policy for the equality of the regions and the sustainability of regional cultures.

     
       

     

      Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la labor central de la Comisión de Peticiones es defender los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos, protegerlos y hacer un seguimiento de sus peticiones para que puedan participar activamente en la vida de la Unión Europea.

    El examen de esta Comisión de Peticiones de 2023 se ha hecho con eficacia, atención, imparcialidad, equidad y transparencia. Los ciudadanos han enviado peticiones sobre muchos temas, como ha comentado el ponente, pero me gustaría referirme especialmente a la preocupación sobre la situación del Estado de Derecho en España: se han presentado más de cuarenta peticiones sobre este tema, básicamente por los ataques a los jueces, las colonizaciones de las instituciones y la reducción de las penas por delitos de corrupción.

    Entre las misiones realizadas, me gustaría destacar las de Irlanda, Rumanía y España y, más concretamente, esta última, de la que debo resaltar y lamentar los ataques y tensiones que allí se vivieron. Yo estuve presente y nos insultaron diciendo: «Fuera, fascistas, de estos barrios. No metan las narices donde no les llaman». Creo que esta no debe ser la actitud.

    También me preocupa que no se haga un seguimiento de las recomendaciones que formulamos, pues lo hacemos para poder proteger los derechos de los ciudadanos. Por último, quiero poner en valor el trabajo tan magnífico que se ha hecho desde esta comisión.

     
       

     

      Sandra Gómez López, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, desde el Grupo S&D lamentamos profundamente el resultado de la votación en la Comisión de Peticiones. A pesar del trabajo constructivo que realizamos con el ponente y de los compromisos alcanzados con los grupos proeuropeos, seguramente por influencia y por imposición del Partido Popular español ‑que es quien realmente politiza y manosea esta comisión‑, la Comisión de Peticiones decidió romper el consenso y aliarse con la extrema derecha, dejando un informe que poco viene a reflejar los verdaderos intereses y preocupaciones de la ciudadanía.

    Lo siento por el ponente, pero lo importante de este informe –de este debate– ni siquiera son las enmiendas o el informe, es la estrategia de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre todo en el año 2023, que ha consistido en politizarla, utilizarla y manosearla para la propia agenda del Partido Popular. Y, realmente, peticiones que sí que son importantes y son de la ciudadanía nunca fueron atendidas o, como estamos viendo, son vetadas por intereses políticos, como es el caso de una petición gallega o de una sobre la DANA en Valencia, en donde su ciudadanía –las víctimas– ha podido verse antes con Úrsula von der Leyen o con Roberta Metsola que comparecer en la Comisión de Peticiones.

    Yo le quiero hacer una pregunta al resto de delegaciones del Partido Popular o de Patriots. ¿Van a seguir consintiendo que una delegación concreta utilice una comisión, que debería atender a la ciudadanía, pero que se ha convertido una especie de sucursal del Congreso de los Diputados? ¿Están utilizando recursos del Parlamento Europeo para hacer oposición a un Gobierno de un Estado miembro?

    Nosotros no vamos a aceptar que una comisión, que debería ser un verdadero instrumento de participación ciudadana, sea una mera fábrica de confrontación política, una pantalla de propaganda, y que se haya convertido en eso, además, exactamente en el año 2023, bajo la presidencia del Partido Popular Español y de Dolors Montserrat. Nosotros no vamos a ser cómplices y, por lo tanto, no vamos a permitir que se destruya lo que tanto costó construir: una Europa al servicio de la ciudadanía y no de sus partidos.

     
       

     

      Pál Szekeres, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! Először is szeretném megköszönni azt a munkát, amit a Petíciós Bizottság végzett a 2023-as esztendőben az uniós polgárok hangjának meghallgatásáért. A jelentés számos fontos témát tár fel az alapvető joguktól kezdve a környezetvédelemig. De engedjék meg, hogy egy területre külön felhívjam a figyelmet, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogainak védelmére, és ezen belül különösen a jelnyelv használatának előmozdítására.

    Üdvözlöm, hogy a szakbizottság elismerte, hogy a kommunikáció nem luxus, hanem alapjog. Ezért nagyon fontos, hogy szorgalmazzuk a Parlament eljárási szabályzatának módosítását annak érdekében, hogy a siket polgárok tudjanak a saját anyanyelvükön, a nemzeti jelnyelven kommunikálni. Ez nem csupán technikai kérdés, hanem kötelezettség is, amelyet az ENSZ fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló egyezménye is aláír és deklarálja. Én üdvözlöm a pozitív lépéseket, és felszólítom a kollégákat, hogy ne engedjék, hogy az eredmények kirakatintézkedésekké silányuljanak, és nagyon fontosnak tartom, hogy továbbra is támogassuk az európai polgárokat, hogy petíciókat tudjanak benyújtani, hogy tudjuk, hogy mi a véleményük a munkánkról.

     
       

     

      Jana Toom, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the work of the Committee of Petitions is unfortunately often underestimated, which I consider a big mistake, because we are the first – if not the only – direct channel for Europeans to address their concerns and seek solutions.

    This report very well reflects these expectations, as well as our ability to meet them. This ability, to be honest, is pretty limited. While citizens are very well aware of their rights, they are not so well aware, for instance, of Article 51 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which clearly states that the charter is obligatory to follow only if Member States implement European law, which leaves a huge gap between the rights and values we promote and the real life of our citizens, which in turn leads to disappointment and Euroscepticism.

    There are two ways: we leave this as it is and wait for the next crisis to force us to open the Treaties and remove these and other obstacles, or we find courage to put political pressure on our governments and not only promote, but truly defend the rights of Europeans are entitled to exercise – at least on paper.

     
       

     

      Ana Miranda Paz, em nome do Grupo Verts/ALE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, com este relatório, os grupos à direita e a extrema-direita deste Parlamento conseguiram silenciar e minar o importante trabalho realizado pela Comissão das Petições, em 2023, sobre temas ambientais e climáticos e sobre direitos das pessoas. A Comissão das Petições é, para mim, como deputada europeia, das mais importantes deste Parlamento Europeu.

    Mas não fizeram só isso, também usaram esta comissão para tratar de assuntos da exclusiva responsabilidade dos Estados-Membros — nomeadamente do Estado espanhol —, com acusações infundadas, gerando um ambiente de pouco consenso e levando a que a maioria das alterações do nosso grupo fossem rejeitadas sempre por questões ideológicas — como sempre fazem e continuam a fazer.

    Um dos aspetos mais censuráveis é a atitude do Partido Popular espanhol desde que as maiorias parlamentares mudaram. Antes, era capaz de pactuar com os grupos progressistas deste Parlamento e, agora, prefere alinhar-se com a extrema-direita para bloquear qualquer iniciativa interessante e construtiva proposta pelos outros grupos parlamentares, ignorando, assim, a cidadania europeia. Tal como as petições que, no ano passado, foram apresentadas contra a empresa de macrocelulose Altri — um projeto que trouxe à rua mais de 100 mil pessoas —, não lhes importa.

    Por isso, Senhor Relator, tenham este aspeto em conta, porque temos de mudar as coisas na Comissão das Petições e temos de fazer um trabalho que seja de todos os grupos, conjuntamente, e não trabalho sectário e manipulado, como fez o Partido Popular espanhol, manipulando também esta Comissão das Petições.

     
       

     

      Marcin Sypniewski, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący! Zalewacie nas codziennie tysiącami stron raportów i analiz, a tak naprawdę macie duży problem z transparentnością. W sprawie tajnych SMS-owych negocjacji szefowej Komisji Europejskiej z Pfizerem sprawa musiała trafić do sądu. Były tu ukrywane ustalenia na miliardy euro. I co? Jest wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, i co z tego? Żadnych konsekwencji.

    Podobnie w sprawie popularnych polskich pasów bezpieczeństwa dla dzieci, Smart Kids Belt, które zostały zaorane przez regulacje unijne. Tu też sąd stwierdził, że Komisja prowadziła kontakty z konkurentami i to wykończyło polską firmę. I żadnych konsekwencji. Posłowie nie mają też dostępu do ważnych dokumentów i ustaleń. Jaka to jest transparentność? Tylko w teorii. I te instytucje tak naprawdę działają tylko dla elit, a nie dla ludzi. I to widać w tych petycjach, które rozpatrujemy.

    Od siedmiu lat nie możecie znieść zmiany czasu, ale gdy trzeba wydać kolejne miliardy euro, gdy trzeba załatwić kolejną zapomogę dla Ukrainy, to działamy ekspresowo i bez namysłu. To małe sprawy, ważne dla ludzi powinny być załatwiane ekspresowo, a ważne sprawy dotyczące wielomiliardowych wydatków powinny być rozpatrywane rozważnie i z namysłem.

     
       

     

      Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, I speak today on behalf of the communities in Donegal and Mayo – places where families are living in homes that are literally falling apart around them. These houses were built with defective concrete blocks containing too much mica and pyrite, causing serious structural damage, emotional and financial strain for many, many people.

    In 2023, I joined colleagues from the Petitions Committee on its fact-finding mission to Donegal, a powerful moment that helped bring much-needed European attention to this crisis. The Parliament visit was built on years of local advocacy and resulted in clear, practical recommendations: first being faster access to a scheme that is fit for purpose, less red tape, stronger support for families, including mental health services, and accountability, with assurances that this would never happen again.

    We must properly enforce rules on construction materials and hold those to account and prevent this from ever happening again. We must ensure colleagues in the Irish Government and this Parliament deliver on those recommendations to strengthen the protections for everyone’s future.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE). – Señor presidente, son los ciudadanos los que se dirigen al Parlamento, por lo tanto, les pido que no les insulten.

    El Partido Socialista español pretende instrumentalizar hasta el Parlamento Europeo. Confunde su forma de hacer con el derecho de los españoles a trasladar sus preocupaciones a este Parlamento y su preocupación por los permanentes atentados al Estado de Derecho que estamos padeciendo. Porque los españoles, en 2023, fueron los ciudadanos que más peticiones presentaron a esta comisión. Esto es la consecuencia del asalto de nuestro Gobierno al CIS, el ataque a los jueces y a los tribunales, la colonización de las empresas y el uso de la Fiscalía, del Tribunal Constitucional y del Banco de España. Es la consecuencia de casos como el caso Koldo, el del hermano del presidente, la amnistía por los condenados por el procés, el derecho a protestar por la imputación de la mujer del presidente y un largo etcétera. Eso es lo que debe preocuparnos. La Comisión de Peticiones está para responder a estos problemas. No les insulten.

     
       

     

      Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Pirmininkaujantis, gerbiamas Komisare. Kai kartą šiandien Lietuvoj renkama peticija Europos Parlamentui, nes buvusi, buvusi, dabar esantys valdžioje, socialdemokratai, dalyvaudami rinkiminėje kampanijoje, pasipriešino tuometinei valdžiai ir sakė, kad mokesčių nekels. Tame tarpe nekilnojamo turto, gyventojų pajamų mokesčių ir kitų. Atėję į valdžią, jie šiandien po pateikimo priėmė mokesčių pakėlimą. Žmonės piktinasi apgauti. Vieną kalbą prieš rinkimus, o po rinkimus atlieka visai kitus veiksmus. Žmonės mato, kaip švaistomas visuomeninis turtas, kaip plečiasi biurokratija. Tai nustatinėja net ir Valstybės kontrolė, tačiau nesiima veiksmų, apiplėšinėja žmones. Aš tikiuosi, kad ir Europos Komisija, ir Europos peticijų komitetas atsižvelgs ir rimtai nagrinės šimtus tūkstančių surinktų Lietuvos piliečių parašų.

     
       

     

      Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή Αναφορών αποτελεί το βασικό θεσμικό βήμα μέσω του οποίου οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες εκφράζουν τις αγωνίες, τις ανησυχίες και τα προβλήματά τους. Ο ρόλος μας είναι ξεκάθαρος: να υπερασπιζόμαστε και να προωθούμε τα δικαιώματά τους χωρίς εκπτώσεις. Είναι απογοητευτικό ότι μια δεξιά-ακροδεξιά συμμαχία εντός της επιτροπής δρα για να κλείνει αναφορές που ενοχλούν τις δεξιές κυβερνήσεις. Επίσης, είναι απογοητευτικό το γεγονός ότι η πλειοψηφία των κρατών μελών επιλέγει συστηματικά να μην απαντά στα ερωτήματα που τους τίθενται από αυτήν την επιτροπή. Η λογοδοσία προς τους πολίτες δεν μπορεί να είναι επιλεκτική. Πρέπει να είναι καθολική και χωρίς υπεκφυγές. Γι’ αυτόν ακριβώς τον λόγο, είχα προτείνει, τουλάχιστον, την εφαρμογή της διαδικασίας «name and shame» για εκείνα τα κράτη μέλη που αρνούνται να συνεργαστούν, να απαντήσουν και να λογοδοτήσουν. Δυστυχώς, τα περισσότερα μέλη των πολιτικών Ομάδων επέλεξαν να προστατεύσουν τις κυβερνήσεις τους. Εμείς, ωστόσο, θα επιμένουμε, θα συνεχίσουμε να διεκδικούμε ονομαστική λογοδοσία για την υπεράσπιση των δικαιωμάτων των απλών ανθρώπων.

     
       

     

      Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλουμε να καταγγείλουμε την απόφαση του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου και της Επιτροπής Αναφορών να κλείσουν χωρίς συζήτηση αναφορά των αντιστασιακών ελληνικών οργανώσεων για τις γερμανικές επανορθώσεις, με τον προκλητικό ισχυρισμό ότι δεν εμπίπτει στις αρμοδιότητες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Όμως οι αποζημιώσεις για τα εγκλήματα των Ναζί, το αναγκαστικό κατοχικό δάνειο, την κλοπή αρχαιολογικών θησαυρών καθορίζονται από διεθνείς συμβάσεις που δεσμεύουν δύο κράτη μέλη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θεωρεί αρμοδιότητά της να παρεμβαίνει σε κάθε διεθνές ζήτημα, σε ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους σε κάθε γωνιά του πλανήτη· να στηρίζει τη γενοκτονία του παλαιστινιακού λαού από το Ισραήλ· από τη Ρωσία, πριν καν τελειώσει ο πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία, απαιτεί επανορθώσεις. Στο θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων, όμως, κάνουν τους αναρμόδιους. Η στάση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, της κυβέρνησης της Νέας Δημοκρατίας και των προηγούμενων, που δεν διεκδικούν για να μη διαταραχθούν οι σχέσεις με τη Γερμανία, είναι πρόκληση απέναντι στον ελληνικό λαό, την ηρωική αντίστασή του και τις βαριές θυσίες του στην πάλη κατά του φασισμού. Συνεχίζουμε τον αγώνα ώστε οι κυβερνήσεις της Γερμανίας, της Ελλάδας και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να τοποθετηθούν επίσημα απέναντι στις δίκαιες απαιτήσεις του ελληνικού λαού για τις γερμανικές πολεμικές αποζημιώσεις.

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 10:45)

     
       

       

    PRESIDENZA: PINA PICIERNO
    Vicepresidente

     

    5. Voting time

       

    (Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)

     

    5.1. Amending Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 as regards additional assistance and further flexibility to outermost regions affected by severe natural disasters and in the context of cyclone Chido devastating Mayotte (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Iniziamo con la richiesta di decisione d’urgenza presentata dalla Commissione AGRI per quanto riguarda l’assistenza integrativa e l’ulteriore flessibilità per le regioni ultraperiferiche colpite da gravi calamità naturali e nel contesto delle devastazioni provocate a Mayotte dal ciclone Chido (cfr. punto 5.1 del processo verbale).

     

    5.2. Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism (A10-0085/2025 – Antonio Decaro) (vote)

       

    – Dopo la votazione:

     
       

       

    (Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta di rinvio in commissione)

     

    5.3. Modification of customs duties applicable to imports of certain goods originating in or exported from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (A10-0087/2025 – Inese Vaidere) (vote)

       

    – Prima della votazione:

     
       

     

      Inese Vaidere, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, many agricultural producers have become increasingly dependent on Russian fertiliser imports. The dependency on Russian gas is being replaced with a new dependency on Russian fertiliser.

    In addition, it has had a negative impact on the European fertiliser industry. Instead of a ban on importing Russian fertilisers as we, the European Parliament already called for in September, the Commission proposed to gradually, over a period of three years, increase import duties for fertilisers and agricultural goods from Russia and Belarus.

    This will give the farming sector time to adjust and the fertiliser industry time to boost their production. Additionally, European producers will benefit from increased tariffs on other agricultural goods imported from Russia and Belarus. To prevent that these tariff measures have a negative effect on the agricultural sector, we have asked the Commission to provide a statement about their action plan.

    Dear colleagues, I urge you to adopt this proposal without any amendments. This way, we will be able to ensure that this regulation enters into force, as foreseen, by 1 July this year. Every delayed day will mean lost lives in Ukraine.

    Of course, this proposal is a compromise and it’s never the case that compromises make everyone happy. Can you name a law that everyone is 100 % happy with?

    The Council has already confirmed their readiness to adopt this regulation without any amendments. I sincerely thank the Members who were able to set aside their particular interests for a while to agree on the overarching goal at the forefront. We need to stop financing Russia’s war in Ukraine. War is right next to our external borders. Stopping it is needed for our safety.

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Commission would like to make the following declaration.

    The Union’s food security depends on the continuous existence of the autonomous Union’s nitrogen‑based fertiliser production industry that can supply the European Union market. The present level of imports from the Russian Federation, competing unfairly in the EU market due to gas price differences, is undermining the EU industry.

    At the same time, it is essential to ensure that Union farmers have predictable, sufficient and affordable access to nitrogen‑based fertilisers as this is indispensable to the stabilisation of the EU agricultural markets. Article 2 of the Regulation provides that the Commission shall monitor prices applicable in the Union of the goods listed in Annex II during four years from the application of this Regulation.

    The Commission recalls that it already publishes regularly data reflecting the price evolution of fertilisers. Trends shown by this data set are discussed during the EU Fertilisers Market Observatory meetings.

    On this basis, the Commission will continue the monitoring of the prices of nitrogen‑based fertilisers subject to this Regulation and will make the information about the results of this monitoring available to the Member States on a regular monthly basis through a consolidated document published on the website of the Commission.

    The Commission notes that the Regulation provides for the suspension of tariffs for concerned fertiliser products imported from origins other than the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, as one of the potential appropriate actions in case of a substantial surge in fertiliser prices. The Commission commits to take such action if this case arises.

    Already in 2022, the Commission proposed, and the Council accepted, a temporary suspension of common customs tariffs on some nitrogen‑based fertilisers from countries other than Russia and Belarus due to a significant price increase in the Union market.

    Furthermore, the Commission recalls that since the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, it adopted measures to support European farmers in all Member States whenever it was considered necessary. The Commission recognises the need to take fully into account the competitiveness of the EU fertilisers industry in the future actions implementing the Clean Industrial Deal.

     

    5.4. Granting equivalence to Moldova and Ukraine for field inspections and seed production (A10-0043/2025 – Veronika Vrecionová) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Procediamo ora con la relazione dell’onorevole Vrecionová sulla concessione alla Moldova e all’Ucraina dell’equivalenza delle ispezioni in campo e la produzione di sementi (cfr. punto 5.4 del processo verbale).

     

    5.5. Amendments to the Capital Requirements Regulation as regards securities financing transactions under the net stable funding ratio (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla proposta sulle modifiche al regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013 relativo ai requisiti prudenziali per quanto riguarda i requisiti per le operazioni di finanziamento tramite titoli nell’ambito del coefficiente netto di finanziamento stabile (cfr. punto 5.5 del processo verbale).

     

    5.6. Euratom Research and Training Programme for the period 2026-2027 complementing Horizon Europe (A10-0083/2025 – Borys Budka) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla relazione dell’onorevole Budka sul programma di ricerca e formazione di Euratom per il periodo 2026-2027 che integra Orizzonte Europa (cfr. punto 5.6 del processo verbale).

     

    5.7. Partial renewal of Members of the Court of Auditors – HR nominee (A10-0088/2025 – Ondřej Knotek) (vote)

     

      Presidente. – Passiamo ora alla relazione dell’onorevole Knotek sul rinnovo parziale dei membri della Corte dei conti – Candidata HR (cfr. punto 5.7 del processo verbale).

     

    5.8. Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2023 (A10-0063/2025 – Gheorghe Falcă) (vote)

       

    – dopo la votazione sull’emendamento 42:

     
       

     

      Fabienne Keller (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je souhaite vous proposer un amendement oral au rapport annuel sur lequel nous votons actuellement. L’amendement est ajouté à la fin du paragraphe 35 et est formulé comme suit. Je vais le lire en anglais.

    ‘Urges, in that sense, the European Commission, in due respect of the spirit of the ECI – the European Citizens’ Initiative procedure – to provide adequate, concrete and effective follow‑up to ECIs related to fundamental rights of citizens, such as the one calling for a binding legal ban on conversion practices targeting LGBTIQ+ citizens in the EU and the ECI ‘My voice, my choice’.’

    Chers collègues, cet amendement est nécessaire, à l’heure où les droits des communautés LGBT et les droits des femmes sont menacés partout en Europe. Avec mon groupe Renew Europe et avec beaucoup d’entre vous, je l’espère, nous sommes engagés en faveur de la défense de ces droits inscrits dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne et nous apporterons notre soutien aux communautés LGBT lors de la Pride de Budapest le 28 juin prochain.

     
       

       

    (Il Parlamento non accetta di porre in votazione l’emendamento orale)

     
       

       

    (Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni)

     
       

       

    (La seduta è sospesa per pochi istanti)

     

    6. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è ripresa alle 11.42)

     

    7. Explanations of vote

     

      Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca le dichiarazioni di voto.

     

    7.1. Amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism (A10-0085/2025 – Antonio Decaro)

     

      Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zagłosowałam za przyjęciem rozporządzenia upraszczającego i wzmacniającego mechanizm CBAM. Uważam, że to krok w dobrym kierunku. Uproszczenia zaproponowane są odpowiedzią na realne problemy związane z implementacją CBAM. CBAM ma chronić unijny przemysł obciążony restrykcyjną polityką klimatyczną poprzez nałożenie opłat na import towarów takich jak: stal, cement, aluminium, wodór czy nawozy z państw trzecich.

    Niestety pierwotne przepisy okazały się zbyt skomplikowane. Objęły nawet mikroprzedsiębiorstwa importujące niewielkie ilości towarów. Dlatego propozycję, by wyłączyć z systemu tak zwanych importerów okazjonalnych, czyli tych, którzy sprowadzają do Unii mniej niż 50 ton rocznie, uważam za rozsądne i proporcjonalne rozwiązanie, zmniejszające obciążenia biurokratyczne dla MŚP i niezakłócające unijnej konkurencji.

    Niemniej mechanizm CBAM wciąż wymaga dopracowania. Kluczowe wyzwania to zapewnienie wiarygodności danych dotyczących emisyjności produktów z państw trzecich oraz zapobieganie obchodzeniu przepisów. Co więcej, CBAM nie może być jedyną odpowiedzią na problemy przemysłu. Potrzebne są komplementarne działania, w tym powrót do bezpłatnych uprawnień emisyjnych i dalsze wsparcie dla firm dotkniętych wysokimi kosztami energii.

     
       

     

      Presidente. – Non c’è la possibilità di intervenire su quella relazione.

     

    8. Approval of the minutes of the part-session and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      Presidente. – Il processo verbale della seduta odierna e di quella di ieri sarà sottoposta all’approvazione del Parlamento all’inizio della prossima seduta. Se non vi sono obiezioni, procederò alla trasmissione immediata delle risoluzioni approvate nella seduta odierna ai loro destinatari.

     

    9. Dates of the next part-session

     

      Presidente. – La prossima tornata si svolgerà dal 16 al 19 giugno 2025 a Strasburgo.

     

    10. Closure of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è tolta alle 11.46)

     

    11. Adjournment of the session

     

      Presidente. – Dichiaro interrotta la sessione del Parlamento europeo.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI: Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. Announces Commencement of Stock Offering

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    DUNKIRK, N.Y., May 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. (“Lake Shore Federal Bancorp”) (NASDAQ: LSBK), the holding company for Lake Shore Savings Bank (the “Bank”), announced today that Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc. (“Lake Shore Bancorp”), a newly formed Maryland corporation and the proposed successor holding company of the Bank, is commencing its offering of common stock in connection with the proposed conversion of Lake Shore, MHC from a mutual holding company to a stock holding company. As part of the conversion, the Bank will convert its charter to a New York commercial bank and will be renamed Lake Shore Bank.

    Lake Shore Bancorp is offering for sale up to 5,750,000 shares of its common stock (subject to increase to up to 6,612,500 shares) at a purchase price of $10.00 per share. The shares will be offered for sale to eligible depositors of the Bank and to its employee stock ownership plan. Any shares of common stock not subscribed for in the subscription offering may be offered for sale in a community offering, with a first preference given to natural persons (including trusts of natural persons) residing in the New York counties of Chautauqua, Erie and Cattaraugus and a second preference given to public stockholders of Lake Shore Federal Bancorp as of the close of business on May 5, 2025 and then to the general public.

    All questions concerning the conversion and stock offering or requests for stock offering materials should be directed to the Stock Information Center at (800) 552-2535 (toll-free). The Stock Information Center will be open Monday through Friday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, beginning on May 27, 2025 and through June 24, 2025, the scheduled expiration date of the subscription offering. The Stock Information Center will be closed on bank holidays.

    Lake Shore Bancorp must sell at least 4,250,000 shares of its common stock in the stock offering in order to complete the conversion and stock offering. Completion of the conversion and stock offering is also subject to the receipt of final regulatory approvals, the approvals of the stockholders of Lake Shore Federal Bancorp and the members of Lake Shore, MHC, and other customary closing conditions.

    Raymond James & Associates, Inc., is acting as marketing agent to Lake Shore Bancorp in connection with the stock offering.

    About Lake Shore
      
    Lake Shore Federal Bancorp is the mid-tier holding company of Lake Shore Savings Bank, a federally chartered, community-oriented financial institution headquartered in Dunkirk, New York. The Bank has ten full-service branch locations in Western New York, including four in Chautauqua County and six in Erie County. The Bank offers a broad range of retail and commercial lending and deposit services. Lake Shore Federal Bancorp’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market as “LSBK”. Additional information about Lake Shore Federal Bancorp is available at www.lakeshoresavings.com.

    Safe-Harbor

    This release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about Lake Shore Federal Bancorp’s, Lake Shore Bancorp’s (collectively, the “Company”) and the Bank’s industry, and management’s beliefs and assumptions. Words such as anticipates, expects, intends, plans, believes, estimates and variations of such words and expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements reflect management’s current views of future events and operations. These forward-looking statements are based on information currently available to the Company as of the date of this release. It is important to note that these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve and are subject to significant risks, contingencies, and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond our control including, but not limited to, that the proposed transaction may not be timely completed, if at all, that required final regulatory, stockholder and member approvals are not timely received, if at all, or that other customary closing conditions are not satisfied in a timely manner, if at all, data loss or other security breaches, including a breach of our operational or security systems, policies or procedures, including cyber-attacks on us or on our third party vendors or service providers, economic conditions, the effect of changes in monetary and fiscal policy, inflation, tariffs, unanticipated changes in our liquidity position, climate change, geopolitical conflicts, public health issues, increased unemployment, deterioration in the credit quality of the loan portfolio and/or the value of the collateral securing repayment of loans, reduction in the value of investment securities, the cost and ability to attract and retain key employees, regulatory or legal developments, tax policy changes, dividend policy changes and our ability to implement and execute our business plan and strategy and expand our operations. These factors should be considered in evaluating forward looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements, as our financial performance could differ materially due to various risks or uncertainties. We do not undertake to publicly update or revise our forward-looking statements if future changes make it clear that any projected results expressed or implied therein will not be realized.

    Important Additional Information and Where to Find It

    Lake Shore Bancorp has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a registration statement on Form S-1 that includes a proxy statement of Lake Shore Federal Bancorp and a prospectus of Lake Shore Bancorp, as well as other relevant documents concerning the proposed transaction. STOCKHOLDERS OF LAKE SHORE FEDERAL BANCORP ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT, THE PROXY STATEMENT, AND THE PROSPECTUS CAREFULLY AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. When filed, these documents and other documents relating to the proposed transaction can be obtained free of charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Alternatively, these documents, when available, can be obtained free-of-charge from the Company upon written request to Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc., 31 East Fourth Street, Dunkirk, New York 14048, Attention: Taylor M. Gilden, or by calling (716) 366-4070 ext. 1065.

    Participants in the Solicitation

    The Company and its directors and its executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies with respect to the proposed transaction. Information regarding the Company’s directors and executive officers is available in Lake Shore Federal Bancorp’s definitive proxy statement for its 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, filed with the SEC on April 11, 2025. Other information regarding the participants in the proxy solicitation will be contained in the proxy statement, the prospectus, and other relevant materials filed with the SEC, as described above.

    This press release is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy common stock. The offer is made only by the prospectus when accompanied by a stock order form. The shares of common stock to be offered for sale by Lake Shore Bancorp are not savings accounts or savings deposits and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other government agency.

    Source: Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc.
    Category: Financial

    Investor Relations/Media Contact
    Kim C. Liddell
    President, CEO, and Director
    Lake Shore Bancorp, Inc.
    31 East Fourth Street
    Dunkirk, New York 14048
    (716) 366-4070 ext. 1012

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: QCR Holdings, Inc. Announces Annual Meeting Results and a Cash Dividend of $0.06 Per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MOLINE, Ill., May 23, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — QCR Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCRH) (the “Company”) today announced the election of three Class II directors at the Company’s annual meeting of its stockholders. The directors, Brent R. Cobb, Mark C. Kilmer, and Amy L. Reasner were re-elected to three-year terms. The directorships of Larry J. Helling and Donna J. Sorensen, J.D. ended at the 2025 Annual Meeting resulting in a reduction in the number of Board of Directors members from 13 to 11.

    Todd A. Gipple assumed the role of President and Chief Executive Officer due to Mr. Helling’s retirement and Nick W. Anderson assumed the role of Chief Financial Officer due to Mr. Gipple’s move to Chief Executive Officer, as previously announced. Brittany N. Whitfield will serve as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company.

    Additionally, on May 21, 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.06 per share payable on July 3, 2025, to holders of common stock of the Company of record on June 18, 2025.

    About Us
    QCR Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Moline, Illinois, is a relationship-driven, multi-bank holding company serving the Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids, Cedar Valley, Des Moines/Ankeny and Springfield communities through its wholly owned subsidiary banks. The banks provide full-service commercial and consumer banking and trust and wealth management services. Quad City Bank & Trust Company, based in Bettendorf, Iowa, commenced operations in 1994, Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Company, based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, commenced operations in 2001, Community State Bank, based in Ankeny, Iowa, was acquired by the Company in 2016, and Guaranty Bank, based in Springfield, Missouri, was acquired by the Company in 2018. Additionally, the Company serves the Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Iowa community through Community Bank & Trust, a division of Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Company. The Company has 36 locations in Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois. As of March 31, 2025, the Company had $9.2 billion in assets, $6.8 billion in loans and $7.3 billion in deposits. For additional information, please visit the Company’s website at www.qcrh.com.

    Contact:
    Nick W. Anderson
    Chief Financial Officer
    (309) 743-7707
    nanderson@qcrh.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Croatia and China agree to jointly develop green technologies

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    ZAGREB, May 23 (Xinhua) — Croatia and China have reached an agreement to cooperate in developing knowledge and technology for biodiversity conservation and green development, the Croatian government said in a statement on Friday.

    It was reported that Chinese Minister of Science and Technology Yin Hejun, who is on a visit to Croatia, met with the country’s Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic and the Minister of Science and Education Radovan Fuks, and signed a memorandum of cooperation with the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education in the field of biodiversity conservation and green development with the aim of jointly promoting sustainable socio-economic growth.

    According to the statement, this is a continuation of the process of Chinese companies’ participation in infrastructure and investment projects in Croatia, and also underlines the Croatian government’s desire to increase exports to China.

    The document also emphasizes that, as a member of the European Union, Croatia will continue to advocate for maintaining good relations between the EU and China by maintaining an open dialogue. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: Harvard University Sues Trump Administration Over International Student Ban

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, May 23 (Xinhua) — Harvard University on Friday filed a second lawsuit against the Trump administration, a day after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced a ban on international students at the university.

    “The revocation of our foreign admissions authorization is the latest in a series of government actions designed to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and submit to the federal government’s unlawful efforts to exert control over our academic programs, faculty, and student body,” Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in a letter to the university community.

    “We condemn this illegal and unjustified action. It jeopardizes the future of thousands of Harvard students and scholars and sends a disturbing message to countless others at colleges across the country who came to America to educate themselves and pursue their dreams,” Garber said.

    Harvard’s president said the university has already filed a lawsuit and will file a motion for a temporary injunction soon. “While we seek legal relief through the courts, we will do everything we can to support our students and researchers,” he said.

    U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the Trump administration’s decision on Thursday. “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and educational institutions across the country,” Noem said in a statement. “Admitting international students is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege has been revoked due to Harvard’s repeated failure to comply with federal law.”

    The minister noted that in addition to the ban on the enrollment of future international students, “current international students at Harvard must transfer to another university or lose their legal status.”

    On April 11, Trump administration officials sent a letter to Harvard demanding that the university undertake “meaningful governance reform and restructuring.” Among the administration’s key demands are rooting out what it calls anti-Semitism on campus and eliminating diversity initiatives that favor certain minority groups.

    On April 14, Harvard University rejected the Trump administration’s demands for sweeping changes to its governance, recruitment, and admissions systems. Just hours later, the White House announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts previously awarded to the university.

    On April 16, Noem demanded that Harvard University provide information about illegal and violent activities by holders of foreign student visas by April 30, threatening that otherwise the school would lose its permission to accept foreign students.

    On April 21, Harvard University said it had filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s funding freeze, calling the measure “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

    According to Harvard, international students made up more than 27 percent of the university’s total enrollment in the fall 2023 semester. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Russia: US court temporarily blocks Trump administration’s attempt to strip Harvard of right to accept foreign students

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, May 23 (Xinhua) — A federal court in Boston on Friday issued a temporary injunction blocking the Donald Trump administration’s policy of barring international students from Harvard University, saying the ban was “justified” to maintain the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.

    If Harvard’s motion for a temporary restraining order is not granted, “the institution will suffer immediate and irreparable harm before all parties have a chance to be heard,” according to a document issued by Judge Allison Burrows of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

    Accordingly, the Trump administration is prohibited from: implementing, enacting, maintaining, or enforcing the plaintiff’s SEVP revocation; or giving any force or effect to the revocation notice issued by the Department of Homeland Security on May 22, the judge ruled.

    U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the White House’s decision to strip Harvard of its ability to admit international students on Thursday. “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and educational institutions across the country,” Noem said in a statement. “Admitting international students is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege has been revoked because of Harvard’s repeated failure to comply with federal law.”

    The minister also noted that in addition to the ban on the enrollment of future international students, “current international students at Harvard must transfer to another university or lose their legal status.”

    Earlier on Friday, Harvard University filed a second lawsuit against the Trump administration.

    “We condemn this illegal and unjustified action. It jeopardizes the futures of thousands of Harvard students and scholars and sends a disturbing message to countless others at colleges across the country who came to America to study and pursue their dreams,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a letter to the university community.

    On April 11, Trump administration officials sent a letter to Harvard demanding that the university undertake “meaningful governance reform and restructuring.” Among the administration’s key demands are rooting out what it calls anti-Semitism on campus and eliminating diversity initiatives that favor certain minority groups.

    On April 14, Harvard University rejected the Trump administration’s demands for sweeping changes to its governance, recruitment, and admissions systems. Just hours later, the White House announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts previously awarded to the university.

    On April 16, Noem demanded that Harvard University provide information about illegal and violent activities by holders of foreign student visas by April 30, threatening that otherwise the school would lose its permission to accept foreign students.

    On April 21, Harvard University said it had filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s funding freeze, calling the measure “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

    According to Harvard, international students made up more than 27 percent of the university’s total enrollment in the fall 2023 semester. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Health Care Access Expanded for Major Sporting Events

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today signed legislation authorizing out-of-state and county medical professionals to provide health care services during major upcoming sporting events including the Ryder Cup and 2026 FIFA World Cup.

    “From the Ryder Cup to the World Cup, New York is teeing up a marquee slate of sporting events — inviting fans around the world to celebrate their teams, athletes and everything our state has to offer,” Governor Hochul said. “That’s why I’m signing legislation to ensure our visitors have all the support they need to succeed on and off the field.”

    Legislation S.7620/A.8147 authorizes certain health care professionals licensed or certified by a foreign government or another state or territory to provide services in the state in connection with the 2025 Ryder Cup.

    State Senator Monica R. Martinez said, “The 2025 Ryder Cup will bring many of the world’s greatest golfers to Long Island, and with them, the medical professionals they rely on to stay at the top of their game. This temporary authorization recognizes that these providers are essential members of a pro’s team and helps ensure athletes can compete with the care they know and trust. I’m grateful to my colleagues in the Legislature and to the Governor for signing this bill and, for a few days, helping to make Farmingdale the center of the golfing world.”

    Assemblymember Judy Griffin said, “I am delighted that Long Island’s Bethpage Black Course will be hosting the Ryder’s Cup for the very first time this year. I’m proud to have sponsored this legislation, which ensures that visiting qualified health professionals can provide medical care to their teams. I am pleased to have been able to help facilitate this historic event on Long Island and am grateful to the collaborating medical teams who will help make this event a success.”

    Legislation S.7623/A.8149 authorizes certain medical professionals certified by a foreign government or another state or territory to provide medical services during the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 and the FIFA World Cup 26.

    State Senator José M. Serrano said, “The FIFA Club World Cup 2025 and the FIFA World Cup 26 will bring the eyes of the world to New York. This legislation ensures that certified providers from other states and countries can continue to care for their athletes throughout these historic events. I’m deeply grateful to my colleagues in the Legislature and to the Governor for signing this important bill and helping make New York a welcoming and world-class host on the global stage.”

    Assemblymember Jon D. Rivera said, “The World Cup is one of the greatest sports spectacles on the planet. Given the international attention and participation this tournament draws, there are a host of rules and regulations that dictate how medical services can be provided to elite athletes within the country where the tournament is being held. This legislation will allow those services to be provided by medical professionals, regardless of their country of origin, to the players, coaches, staff, and foreign delegations, so that the tournament will feature the highest quality of soccer possible with reduced injuries. New York and the rest of the host sites for the 2026 FIFA World Cup deserve a tournament to be remembered, and I was proud to sponsor this legislation to promote a safe, healthy experience for everyone involved.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: State sends more money to local governments: Governor Newsom funds additional $56 million to reduce youth homelessness

    Source: US State of California 2

    May 23, 2025

    What you need to know: California is providing $56 million in grants to help counties provide services for young adults at risk of homelessness.

    SACRAMENTO – Continuing California’s success in reducing homelessness in youth, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) today announced $56 million awards to help 52 California counties provide housing and supportive services to young adults at risk of homelessness. The funds will help counties prevent homelessness by providing services for youth transitioning out of foster care or probation systems in California. Last year, California reduced the number of youth experiencing homelessness, and saw a smaller increase in unsheltered homelessness than 44 other states. This is in part due to programs such as this one, which has helped 14,048 young adults since 2020.

    “California will continue to support our local governments in their efforts to address homelessness. California has provided unprecedented resources to counties and local communities to help their residents in need. We will continue to work together to help them address these local issues and ensure those experiencing homelessness have the support and care they need.”

    Governor Gavin Newsom

    There are currently an estimated 9,871 young adults between the ages of 21 and 24 in California who exited foster care at age 18 or older, and another 3,000 young adults exit foster care in California each year. Studies have shown that those exiting the foster care or probation system face disproportionately higher rates of homelessness, with unaccompanied youth up to age 24 comprising 10 percent of California’s homeless population. Researchers and advocates also cite lack of stable housing as a significant barrier to continuing education for current and former foster youth.

    “These grants will provide vital services to our young adults as they transition out of foster care and probation system so that they are able to access housing and wrap-around supports,” said Tomiquia Moss, Business, Consumer Services and Housing Secretary. “In partnership with counties, these state resources will create pathways to stable housing and independent lives.”

    These awards were granted by the Transitional Age Youth programs administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which include the Transitional Housing Program, the Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program, and the Transitional Housing Plus Housing Supplement Program.

    “Many young adults exiting the foster care or probation systems face homelessness and need resources and guidance to thrive,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “These programs, and the important partnership with our counties, helps our vulnerable youth receive the tools and support they need to secure and maintain housing and succeed in the future.”

    The $56 million in awards announced today are allocated to counties based on need as demonstrated by each county’s percentage of the statewide total of young adults who are currently or formerly in the foster care or probation systems. The awards include:

    • Transitional Housing Program which helps county child welfare agencies identify and assist with housing resources and improve service coordination. Today’s announcement includes $33.3 million in THP awards to 52 counties.
    • Housing Navigation and Maintenance Program, which provides counties funding to train child welfare agency social workers and probation officers working with non-minor dependents as housing navigators with a broad understanding of available housing resources. Today’s announcement includes $13.7 million in HNMP awards for 51 counties.
    • Transitional Housing Plus Housing Supplement Program, which allocates grants to assist young adults who have exited foster care on or after their 18th birthday in counties with the state’s highest market-rate apartment rental costs. Today’s announcement includes $9 million in THP-SUP awards to six counties.

    With the investment announced today, the three programs will have funded housing assistance for 14,048 young adults ages 18 to 24 since 2020.Of the counties eligible to receive TAY funding this round, 52 of 56 accepted THP awards; 51 of 56 counties accepted HNMP awards; and all six counties eligible for THP-SUP accepted their awards. Counties that declined awards even after receiving technical assistance from HCD indicated a combination of low TAY caseload and insufficient staffing to stand up a new program. Consistent with previous years, any funds that were declined were redistributed to eligible counties with the highest demonstrated need.

    The Point in Time Count for homelessness among the age group served by TAY dropped from 11,403 in 2020 to 9,908 in 2022, and again to 8,569 by 2024.

    Visit the TAY Program webpage for more information on HCD’s TAY programs and today’s awards.

    Counties receiving funding from today’s announcement include:

    • Alameda
    • Amador
    • Butte
    •  Calaveras
    • Colusa
    • Contra Costa
    • El Dorado
    • Fresno
    • Glenn
    • Humboldt
    • Imperial
    • Kern
    • Kings
    • Lake
    • Lassen
    • Los Angeles
    • Madera
    • Marin
    • Mariposa
    • Mendocino
    • Mono
    • Monterey
    • Napa
    • Nevada
    • Orange
    • Placer
    • Plumas
    • Riverside
    • Sacramento
    • San Benito
    • San Bernardino
    • San Diego
    • San Francisco
    • San Joaquin
    • San Luis Obispo
    • San Mateo
    • Santa Barbara
    • Santa Clara
    • Santa Cruz
    • Shasta
    • Siskiyou
    • Solano
    • Sonoma
    • Stanislaus
    • Sutter 
    • Tehama
    • Trinity
    • Tulare
    • Tuolumne
    • Ventura
    • Yolo
    • Yuba

    Recent news

    News What you need to know: Six canine officers joined the force to fight back against crime and drug trafficking — the first class trained from day one to detect fentanyl. Sacramento, California – After months of specialized and intensive training, six K-9 teams…

    News What you need to know: California is helping launch an 11-state coalition that will work together to sustain the transition to affordable clean cars. SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that California would join an 11-state coalition to advance…

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Tala Khalaf, of San Carlos, has been appointed to the Physical Therapy Board of California. Khalaf has been a Senior Physical Therapist at the Stanford Orthopedic and Sports Medicine…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement from Governor Lombardo on Senate Bill 451

    Source: US State of Nevada

    CARSON CITY, NV – May 22, 2025

    Yesterday, Governor Joe Lombardo received Senate Bill 451 (SB451) from the Nevada State Legislature, and he signed it into law.

    “I signed Senate Bill 451 because it maintains essential funding for police officers in Southern Nevada,” said Governor Joe Lombardo. “Without this legislation, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) would lose nearly 25% of its police force, which would be an untenable loss for law enforcement and deeply detrimental to the safety of Clark County and its millions of residents and visitors. SB451 is not a new tax or a tax increase, and the extension of this voter-approved measure is critical for ongoing public safety efforts in Southern Nevada.”

     Background:
    • Taxpayers will not see an increase to their property tax bill as a result of SB451.

    • The current revenue supports approximately 860 police officer positions (which represents 25% of current authorized police force).

    • To be clear, the fundamental question presented by SB451 is whether the tax dollars in question should continue to support 860 police officers or whether those same dollars should become windfall revenue for other government entities. The Governor believes the answer to this question is clear: these dollars should ensure that public safety in Southern Nevada is not compromised.

    • Nevada Revised Statutes limits annual increases to property taxes to no more than 3% for residential properties and no more than 8% for commercial properties. The vast majority of properties are taxed well below the value of their property due to these partial tax abatements. As a result, 92% of taxpayers currently receive a discount to their annual tax bill. Discontinuing the current levy will reduce the amount of taxes that are abated but not the amount of taxes that are actually paid for the vast majority of taxpayers in Clark County.

     ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Following illegal Senate vote, California and 10 other states launch Affordable Clean Cars Coalition

    Source: US State of California 2

    May 23, 2025

    What you need to know: California is helping launch an 11-state coalition that will work together to sustain the transition to affordable clean cars.

    SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that California would join an 11-state coalition to advance clean cars. This follows yesterday’s illegal vote in the U.S. Senate to attempt to revoke California’s authority to set its own clean air standards. 

    The Affordable Clean Cars Coalition — led by the U.S. Climate Alliance — will sustain America’s transition to cleaner and more affordable cars, support U.S. automotive manufacturers and workers, and preserve states’ clean air authority.

    Participating states include: California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.  

    The federal government and Congress are putting polluters over people and creating needless chaos for consumers and the market, but our commitment to safeguarding Americans’ fundamental right to clean air is resolute.

    We will continue collaborating as states and leveraging our longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act, including through state programs that keep communities safe from pollution, create good-paying jobs, increase consumer choice, and help Americans access cleaner and more affordable cars.

    As we consider next steps for our clean vehicle programs, our states will engage stakeholders and industry to provide the regulatory certainty needed while redoubling our efforts to build a cleaner and healthier future.

    Governors Gavin Newsom, Jared Polis (CO), Matt Meyer (DE), Maura Healey (MA), Wes Moore (MD), Phil Murphy (NJ), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Kathy Hochul (NY), Tina Kotek (OR), Dan McKee (RI), and Bob Ferguson (WA)

    States participating in the coalition will work together to develop solutions that make cleaner vehicles more affordable and accessible to all Americans who want them, including by reducing cost barriers, increasing availability of options, and expanding accessible charging and fueling infrastructure. They will also defend their longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act to adopt transportation solutions and explore options for next-generation standards.  

    The U.S. Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition of 24 governors representing approximately 60% of the U.S. economy and 55% of the U.S. population.

    California’s climate leadership

    Pollution is down and the economy is up. Greenhouse gas emissions in California are down 20% since 2000 – even as the state’s GDP increased 78% in that same time period.

    The state continues to set clean energy records. Last year, California ran on 100% clean electricity for the equivalent of 51 days – with the grid running on 100% clean energy for some period two out of every three days. Since the beginning of the Newsom Administration, battery storage is up to over 15,000 megawatts – a 1,900%+ increase.

    Press releases, Recent news

    Recent news

    News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:Tala Khalaf, of San Carlos, has been appointed to the Physical Therapy Board of California. Khalaf has been a Senior Physical Therapist at the Stanford Orthopedic and Sports Medicine…

    News What you need to know: The state today began restoring shallow water habitats in the Salton Sea as part of California’s first major habitat restoration project in the region – a key step for improving local wildlife conditions and suppressing dust to improve air…

    News What you need to know: Governor Newsom announced California will fight the U.S. Senate’s illegal vote aiming to undo key parts of the state’s clean vehicles program in court. SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced today the…

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Nebraska

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Nebraska

    President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Nebraska

    WASHINGTON — FEMA announced that federal disaster assistance is available to the state of Nebraska to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by the severe winter storm and straight-line winds from March 18-19, 2025

    Public Assistance federal funding is available to the state, tribal and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair and replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storm and straight-line winds in Boone, Burt, Butler, Cass, Clay, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Hamilton, Jefferson, Johnson, Lancaster, Nuckolls, Otoe, Platte, Polk, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Seward, Thayer, Thurston, Washington, Webster and York counties

     Hannah Penn has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area

    Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments

    amy

    ashbridge
    Fri, 05/23/2025 – 17:00

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Missouri

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency 2

    ASHINGTON — FEMA announced that federal disaster assistance is available to the state of Missouri to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by the severe storms, straight-line winds, tornadoes and flooding from March 30 – April 8, 2025.
    Public Assistance federal funding is available to the state and eligible local governments and certain nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities in Bollinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Cooper, Douglas, Dunklin, Howell, Iron, Madison, Maries, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Texas, Vernon, Wayne and Webster counties.
    David R. Gervino has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area. Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further assessments. 

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Kansas

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Kansas

    President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Kansas

    WASHINGTON — FEMA announced that federal disaster assistance is available to the state of Kansas to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by the severe winter storm, straight-line winds, flooding and wildfires from March 14-19, 2025

    Public Assistance federal funding is available to the state, tribal and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair and replacement of facilities damaged by the severe winter storm, straight-line winds, flooding and wildfires in Barton, Chautauqua, Edwards, Elk, Ellis, Gove, Graham, Gray, Greeley, Hodgeman, Jewell, Lincoln, Logan, Ness, Norton, Osborne, Pawnee, Phillips, Rice, Rooks, Rush, Russell, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Stafford, Wallace and Woodson counties

     Hannah Penn has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area

    Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments

     
    amy

    ashbridge
    Fri, 05/23/2025 – 17:27

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: IAM’s California State Council: A Catalyst for Worker Power

    Source: US GOIAM Union

    The California State Council of Machinists recently met in the capital city of Sacramento to build voter momentum statewide ahead of crucial upcoming political races in the Golden State.

    The post IAM’s California State Council: A Catalyst for Worker Power appeared first on IAM Union.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Iowa

    Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Headline: President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Iowa

    President Donald J

    Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Iowa

    WASHINGTON — FEMA announced that federal disaster assistance is available to the state of Iowa to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by the severe winter storm on March 19, 2025

    Public Assistance federal funding is available to the state, tribal and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities in Crawford, Harrison, Monona and Woodbury counties

    Constance C

    Johnson-Cage has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area

    Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further assessments


    amy

    ashbridge
    Fri, 05/23/2025 – 13:38

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on the Rights of the Child Commend Brazil’s Programmes to Improve the Situation of Children in Alternative Care, Raise Questions on Combatting Racism in Schools and Child Food Insecurity

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its review of the combined fifth to seventh periodic reports of Brazil under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and its initial report under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Committee Experts commended the State on programmes developed to improve the situation of children in alternative care, while raising questions on how Brazil was combatting racism in schools and addressing the high levels of food insecurity in the country, particularly for children. 

    Bragi Gudbrandsson, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said there were three public comprehensive polices or programmes which had recently been introduced in Brazil to strengthen the family and improve the situation of children placed in alternative care.  These were wonderful programmes; were they coordinated in terms of implementation at the federal, state and municipal levels?

    Faith Marshall-Harris, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said the federal law 10639/2003 was very impressive as it sought to change a culture of racism and teach Afro-Brazilian history in schools.  However, 71 per cent of municipalities had failed to comply with this. What means did the State have to ensure compliance?  Cephas Lumina, Committee Vice Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said there was information that education in Brazil was not fully inclusive; what steps were being taken to enforce the law which mandated the teaching of Afro-Brazilian culture in primary education?

    Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said 33 million Brazilians were believed to be living in food insecurity.  What was being done to reduce social inequality, guarantee access to decent housing, and combat food insecurity?  Did the State party have a multidimensional measure on child poverty? Ms. Marshall Harris also said Brazil had become the leading donor in the Global South.  However, it was concerning that charity was not starting at home, as there were many children that were hungry.  These children needed to be looked after first.   

    The delegation said the State was committed to implementing the law 10639/2023.  In the first year of functioning, 97.3 percent of municipalities had committed to participating, which did not reflect the 24 per cent suggested.  Public schools aimed to promote Afro-Brazilian teachings and Quilombola culture throughout the school curriculum.  It was ensured that these topics were reflected in teaching materials and throughout the school programme.  In August this year, 150,000 basic educational professionals would be trained in ethnic and racial relations. 

    The delegation said Brazil understood the importance of addressing the situation of hunger affecting children.  According to data from the United Nations Children’s Fund in 2023, the number of those suffering from hunger dropped to around five per cent compared to around seven per cent in 2018.  Policies such as the Bolsa Familia programme had been improved and were used as a key tool to identify and reach the most vulnerable families.  Brazil had been investing in data systems for years and used this information to flag the levels of vulnerability in families and maximise the allocation of resources, ensuring it reached those who needed it most. 

    Introducing the report, Macaé Maria Evaristo Dos Santos, Minister of Human Rights and Citizenship of Brazil and head of the delegation, reiterated the Government’s commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of children and adolescents in Brazil, which was the duty of the country.  In 2025, Brazil was commemorating the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent.  Since 2023, under President Lula, essential public policies, which had been dismantled, were put back in place, giving priority to human rights in public policies, and guaranteeing broad social participation, respect for diversity, and implementation of efforts to overcome inequality on the basis of class, gender, religion and other factors. 

    In closing remarks, Ms. Marshall Harris said Brazil’s star was on the rise and the country was fast becoming a world leader in many areas, including agriculture, technology, and research.  However, if the State continued to disengage, disinherit and decimate children of African descent and other ethnic groups, there would be nothing left for anyone to inherit.  Brazil needed to urgently invest resources in nurturing all children in the country, not just some of the children.  The Committee was confident this could be done. 

     

    In her closing remarks, Ms. Evaristo dos Santos said Brazil was proud of recently adopted public policies and believed that these would help young Black people and other marginalised groups to achieve their dreams.  Inequality remained the main challenge in Brazil, and it was important to ensure that State policies addressed the most vulnerable.  The country was determined to build on the progress presented over the past two days. 

     

    The delegation of Brazil was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Human Rights and Citizenship; the Ministry of Culture; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Racial Equality; the Ministry of Social Assistance and Development, Family and Hunger Relief; the Ministry of Women; the National Council of Justice; the National Data Protection Authority; and the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations Office at Geneva. 

    Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s ninety-ninth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 5 p.m. on Friday, 30 May to close its ninety-ninth session. 

    Reports

    The Committee has before it the combined fifth to seventh periodic reports of Brazil (CRC/C/BRA/5-7), and its initial report under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC/C/OPSC/BRA/1). 

    Presentation of Reports

    MACAÉ MARIA EVARISTO DOS SANTOS, Minister of Human Rights and Citizenship of Brazil and head of the delegation, reiterated the Government’s commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of children and adolescents in Brazil, which was the duty of the country.  Brazil did this through the Constitution, laws, plans, initiatives and programmes. In 2025, Brazil was commemorating the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Statute of the Child and Adolescent. 

    The census of 2022 showed there were 52 million children and adolescents in the country, making up 25.4 per cent of the population.  The indigenous and Quilombola populations had a bigger percentage of children and adolescents, 35 per cent for the indigenous population and 29 per cent for the Quilombola population.  In 2022, there were 80,000 complaints made, with 41 per cent of them affecting children and adolescents. 

    Since 2023, under President Lula, essential public policies, which had been dismantled, were put back in place, giving priority to human rights in public policies, and guaranteeing broad social participation, respect for diversity, and implementation of efforts to overcome inequality on the basis of class, gender, religion and other factors. 

    In 2022, the National Council for the Rights of Adolescents was established, and the twelfth national conference on the rights of the child and adolescent was implemented in 2024.  Democratic policies, with direct participation of children and adolescents, had resumed through the participatory committee for adolescents.  The comprehensive protection of children was a key factor in all State policies in a decentralised manner.  A comprehensive agenda for children and adolescents had been created up to 2027, with 109 relevant actions.  These efforts had been designed to ensure the right to food and minimum income.  The income transfer programme had contributed to decent living standards, giving access to health, education, social assistance and poverty eradication. 

    The social assistance system had different areas of action for vulnerable families and established social centres, which were refuges providing social assistance for street dwellers.  A national care policy had been established in 2024, focused on children with disabilities, older persons and women.  As for food security, there was a national school food programme which supported over 38 million school children.  Assistance was provided regarding basic education to vulnerable students, with the goal to achieve another four million enrolments by 2026. 

    The child literacy programme, present in 29 states, sought to increase the child literary rate from 36 per cent in 2021 to 56 per cent, recovering to pre-COVID-19 levels. A programme was in place to support children in middle school with monthly bursaries, assisting four million young people in low-income families in 2024.  The implementation of the national equity policy for education for children, including the Quilombola and indigenous education programme, sought to invest by 2027 in these populations.

    Brazil had a comprehensive public health system which provided primary care to the vast majority of the population.  The State sought to reduce child mortality, promote breastfeeding, and ensure early childhood development, including ensuring vaccination and combatting disinformation.  As a result, Brazil was no longer on the World Health Organization list of countries with least vaccination rates.  Brazil also sought to reduce maternal mortality, particularly among black women, and organise and ensure effective pregnancy, birth and post-partum care. 

    A digital health book for children had been created to ensure childhood development.  There had been investment in the healthcare of indigenous children in 2024 through vaccinations, treatment from malaria, and the construction of new health facilities.  As for children with disabilities, in 2024, a new plan was implemented with measures to create specialised rehabilitation centres and a plan for special and inclusive education.  A ministerial working group was established for children diagnosed with autism.  The State was investing heavily in services for children with disabilities. 

    In 2025, the fourth national action plan to prevent and eradicate child labour would be published, and the State would create a national unit to support children involved in child labour.  This year, the State celebrated 25 years of combatting the abuse and sexual exploitation of children and adolescents.  The notification of cases of sexual violence had increased and there was a greater awareness of this phenomenon.  Over 500 units and 30,000 professionals were trained to address this, including educators, judges, police officers, and volunteers in child rights centres, among others.  This was part of efforts to prevent violations of child rights.  In 2017, the law on protection was adopted and response centres had been established, including in the Amazon, which provided safe care to victims of violence.  The centres provided psychological assistance, medical evaluations, health care and access to the justice system.   

    The Black Youth Alive Programme covered several ministries seeking to protect this vulnerable population group.  Strong action was being taken to protect lives and promote cultural rights among young people.  A national judicial policy had been created for young children, which sought to broaden access to justice and promote collective actions.  Brazil was committed to overcome the obstacles that still affected the full enjoyment of the rights of all children in the country. 

    Questions by Committee Experts under the Convention 

    FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said she had great respect for the plans outlined by Brazil, which were well drafted and creative. Additionally, the Statute of the Child and Adolescent was one of the earliest documents of its time but also one of the most advanced.  However, its implementation was lagging behind the goals that the country had set out, which was a shame.  What was the reason for this lag?  Was it because of State resistance or due to a lack of resources?  Where was the gap? 

    The federal law 10639/2003 was very impressive as it sought to change a culture of racism and teach Afro-Brazilian history in schools.  However, 71 per cent of municipalities had failed to comply with this. What means did the State have to ensure compliance?  The size and complexity of Brazil was difficult.  However, not enough strides had been made concerning what the State had set out to do and what had been done. 

    The multi-year plan to 2027 included children but was not specifically about children.  Would this be revised to target children specifically?  What efforts were being made to coordinate civil society to achieve outcomes for children? To what extent were civil society members engaged by the Government?  It was concerning that investment in education seemed to be decreasing, according to reports.  Could this be explained?  The school feeding programme was very admirable; however, why were so many children still hungry in the country?  It was concerning that the data being received was not disaggregated.  The State was urged to do more in the way of data collection. 

    HYND AYOUBI IDRISSI, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, thanked the Minister for the introduction.  Discrimination was everywhere, affecting many groups, including indigenous children, children of African descent, and those who were economically vulnerable.  What measures were being taken to ensure there was a comprehensive law which prohibited all forms of discrimination? Were there measures being taken to implement mechanisms for appeals and reparations?  What was being done in terms of prevention?  What assessment was conducted on the best interest of the child? What was being done in terms of the participation of children below the age of 12? 

    Progress had been made to combat child and infant mortality since 2016, but there was still a persistence in deaths, particularly of indigenous children under four, due to respiratory diseases from deforestation.  Violence was very present and was a worrying phenomenon.  Between 2021 and 2023, there had been more than 15,000 murders of those under 19 years old, with 17 per cent of deaths due to the actions of law enforcement agencies, with most victims being black teenagers. What was being done to tangibly remedy this situation?  How were these deaths being prevented?  How could the State put an end to the disproportionate use of force?  Had any independent enquiries been carried out? If so, what were the results?  Had any reparations been provided? 

    There had been a rise in deaths of children aged zero to four and between the ages of five and nine due to domestic violence.  What was being done to tangibly combat this?  Each hour, 13 children and adolescents were affected by violence in Brazil; what measures were being taken to implement the relevant legislation? What measures were being taken to end child marriage?  What measures were being taken to prevent sexual violence?  How was it ensured that the reporting mechanism would be accessible for children and adolescents?  What was there in terms of rehabilitation? Was there statistical information on the number of prosecutions?  What reparations were being taken regarding these children? 

    CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics showed a notable rise in birth registration for indigenous children.  However, the region in the north still lagged behind the national average. What steps was the Government taking to strengthen efforts to achieve national birth registration?  The preliminary ban on data for the use of artificial intelligence systems was welcomed.  What efforts was the Government taking to strengthen regulations around data for children?  What steps was the Government taking to ensure that regulations in the digital environment safeguarded children from harmful materials?  Were there any established procedures and mechanisms for prosecuting instances where children’s rights were violated?  Were there any avenues for seeking redress in this regard? 

    BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said there were three public comprehensive polices or programmes which had recently been introduced in Brazil to strengthen the family and improve the situation of children placed in alternative care.  These were wonderful programmes; were they coordinated in terms of implementation at the federal, state and municipal levels?  If so, how was this managed?  Were these programmes evaluated regularly?  Did they address the systematic racism across sectors?  How was it ensured that they equally benefitted all children in all states and municipalities in Brazil. 

    It seemed there were around 46,000 children in institutions in Brazil and 4,000 foster parents; were these figures correct?  Would the State work to improve data on out of home placements?  How were municipalities supported in recruiting foster families, particularly in rural areas?  Was there support, training and counselling for foster parents?  Were there quality standards for residential care institutions?  Were the monitoring reports systematically established and published?  Did children have safe spaces to report abuses in the institutions?  Had there been awareness campaigns to promote domestic adoption for children permanently denied of parental care? 

    The law which allowed incarcerated mothers to care for young children under house arrest was often not applied correctly; was there a monitoring mechanism for this law?  Did legislation provide for psychosocial assistance for children whose parents were incarcerated? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said Brazil was a federated republic and was dealing with states and municipalities, which was why there were some difficulties in implementing policies. The Federal Government co-financed activities which were priorities, including on early education.  In Brazil, there was a fund which financed basic education and it had resources drawn from taxation.  Co-financing was a key element in reducing inequalities. 

    There needed to be huge efforts made to implement legislation.  The Black and indigenous populations had been exploited over hundreds of years, and progress had only begun to be made this century.  Brazil was now playing an important role in reaffirming the value of democracy and multilateralism and promoting a society free from racism.  There had been efforts made to set up the Ministry for Women and the Racial Equality Ministry, which had made major strides for the Quilombola population. The children living in these areas often suffered from violence. 

    The Human Rights and Citizenship Ministry had been destroyed under the previous administration and a number of agendas were now being rebuilt.  For the first time in the country, there was now a Ministry for Indigenous Peoples which was a major step forward.  It was important to recognise the crucial role played by indigenous populations in defending the land and protecting nature.  Brazilian and transnational companies sought to move into the disputed lands.  It was vital to protect these traditional lands and communities. 

    The plan on violence and sexual exploitation, the plan on the care for young children, and the plan on addressing child labour were currently being implemented among all federal states.  Civil society participated in building public policies.  The cross-cutting agenda to 2027 brought five agendas in all public policies.  There had also been a twelfth national conference on the rights of children and young people in April, which discussed COVID-19 and needs for reparations and health, among other topics.  There were a lot of proposals adopted and 47 young people participated in the conference.

    The unified social assistance programme was decentralised and worked as a system of protection.  There were around 9,000 centres of reference which worked with vulnerable families carrying out prevention campaigns on sexual abuse.  In 2024, care was provided to 58,000 adolescents and children who were victims of violence, as well as 35,000 victims of sexual violence. 

    There were many children involved in the deinstitutionalisation process.  The State was aiming to have more children in foster care.  There had been a 405 per cent increase in the number of services.  A joint recommendation had been made, aimed at increasing the number of foster care places. 

    Research had been conducted to understand what was happening with co-funding.  It was determined that this was not a well-known area. A guide for fostering had been introduced, with more than 35,000 copies disseminated.  National and regional seminars had been held to inform people, along with online courses.  This would ensure that the more far-flung regions of the country could be reached.  The aim was to have 25 per cent of children in foster homes; however, much remained to be done in this regard.  All institutions were monitored at the federal level and municipal councils were also responsible for monitoring.  It was important to hear from the children and teenagers themselves to determine if any violations had taken place. 

    The National Council for Justice was a public institution which aimed to perfect the judiciary’s work in Brazil.  A range of judicial decisions had been adopted to protect children and adolescents. Resolution 299/2018 established specific methods for specialised listening of the testimony of children who were witnesses or victims of crime.  It aimed to ensure children’s testimonies were only heard once, so the child was not revictimised.  In Brazil, there were 187 minor courts which were exclusively for crimes against children and adolescents; 817 new rooms had been implemented for children to make testimonies. 

    It was important to incorporate a racial dimension to legal sentences.  A protocol was developed to combat racism within the judiciary, aimed at strengthening equitable practices within the justice system. It also highlighted the need to address the specific vulnerabilities of children and adolescents in judicial cases. The National Council had a campaign regarding registration, aiming to increase access to documents for the most vulnerable.  Psychosocial care could be provided to children or adolescents if their parents were incarcerated.  The National Council always conducted its operations with the best interests of the child in mind. 

    The national education system was a key tool to secure the rights of children, ensuring all children in all territories had access to quality, public education.  The school census of 2024 found that there were 47 million enrolments in 179,000 primary schools.  Programmes had been designed to ensure comprehensive child education, including one which aimed to have a million new registration enrolments every year. School attendance was a condition of receiving the cash transfer.  A programme had been created for an allowance, which could only be withdrawn when a child had finished middle school.   

    A law was introduced this year which prohibited the use of smartphones in schools, even in breaks, except in exceptional circumstances.  This initiative had meant there was more social interaction and led to better mental health for students.  The connective schools programme provided resources to ensure that connectivity in all schools was prioritised, and that all pupils had access to different technologies.  Efforts had been made to train teachers through continued education. 

    A statement had been published stating that any data processing should seek the best interest of the child.  A regulation was being drawn up with an article regarding the processing of data on children.  The biometric data regulation applied to facial recognition and was used often in schools for monitoring security.  A guide was being provided for high-risk data processing and other instruments.  The data protection law guaranteed citizens’ rights, including children, to have clear information on the processing of their personal data. 

    Questions by Committee Experts under the Convention 

    BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said there were two significant plans regarding the rights of persons with disabilities.  It was understood that there had been issues in implementing these plans; could more information be provided?  What was the State doing to overcome these challenges? Did the Government have plans to address inadequacies in funding in the healthcare sector?  The family health service was a fundamental measure that ensured family health care access.  However, only 60 per cent of the population enjoyed these services; what measures were being undertaken to expand and strengthen the service?  Were there plans to address the issue of child mortality? Was the State party aware of shortcomings in the mental health services?  Was there a strategy to address these?

    It was concerning that there was a rise in the numbers of suicides and self-mutilation; what were the explanations for this and how were these issues being addressed?  It was noted that hormone blockers were now banned and treatments for transgender children was being delayed from 16 to 18. It was clear that the current situation for many was a life-threatening situation.  Did the Government have plans to support the trans children and adolescent community by ensuring access to support?  How was it ensured that children received comprehensive reproductive materials?  Access to abortion was not ensured across the State and other services were extremely lacking, which needed to be addressed; was the State aware of this?  Could pregnant girls rely on support from the authorities if consent for abortion could not be obtained from their parents? Were there any plans to prohibit non-consensual therapies against intersex children? 

    HYND AYOUBI IDRISSI, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said 33 million Brazilians were believed to be living in food insecurity.  What was being done to reduce social inequality, guarantee access to decent housing, and combat food insecurity?  Did the State party have a multidimensional measure on child poverty? 

    CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said the Committee was concerned about the issue of environmental degradation, particularly deforestation in the Amazon.  Children in rural communities were disproportionately affected by climate change. The insufficient participation of children in climate policy was also a concern.  What steps was the Government taking to combat environmental degradation? How were children’s needs and views considered in the development of climate change programmes?  What measures was the Government implementing to tackle the issue of toxic pesticides? 

    What steps was the Government taking to address the disparities in education quality between public and private schools, and ensure that private schools were fully integrated into the national education system?  There was information that education in Brazil was not fully inclusive; what steps were being taken to enforce the law which mandated the teaching of Afro-Brazilian culture in primary education? 

    How did the State plan to address the disparities in access to educational opportunities between Black students and their peers?  The Committee was concerned about the dropout rates of girls; how was the Government tackling this issue? 

    FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said the State had previously welcomed a large amount of Venezuelan and Haitian children, but this had recently been halted.  In terms of immigration, there needed to be a reform, so that children did not end up trafficked or on the street.  How many children were being denied their ancestral rights, including to inherit the lands their parents grew up on?  Were the lands still being sprayed by pesticides?  It was concerning that children were drinking contaminated water due to the extractive industries.  It was hoped the State would address this. 

    The access to justice for indigenous children seemed limited; how was the State party teaching them their rights?  There needed to be official statistics for street children; what was the State doing for these children?  Child labour was too high in Brazil.  Were labour inspections undertaken?  Domestic servitude of Black girls was worrying and needed to be addressed. What had happened to the Black Youth Alive strategy?  Was the State as concerned as the Committee about what was happening to Black youth, including shootings of Black youth in the favela areas by police.  It seemed that Brazil did not have an age of criminal responsibility. 

    Questions by Committee Experts under the Optional Protocol 

    BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said the first national strategy to protect children from violence, crimes and drugs had been launched; did this include issues covered by the Optional Protocol?  Did it target children in the most vulnerable situations? How was awareness raising of the Optional Protocol conducted?  The Committee was concerned about rising cases of children trafficked for illegal adoptions, often facilitated through digital platforms.  Was the State aware of these concerns?  What measures had been taken to address them?  The tourist law was a wonderful law; however, there were concerns that child exploitation continued to occur in tourist areas.  Had measures been taken to identify child victims of sexual tourism?  Some 87 per cent of parents believed that companies were not doing enough to protect children online; how was the State addressing this concern? 

    ROSARIA CORREA PULICE, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, asked how Brazil was specifically criminalising cybercrimes?  What were the specific penalties and sanctions regarding the production and distribution of child sexual material, used to extort children? What would be the specific penalty in this regard?  Regarding child sex abuse in sport, there was not much data in this regard, leading to underreporting.  The highway police had identified 9,000 areas along the federal highways where there could be child sexual exploitation; however, there was no further information as to the outcome of this programme.  What cases had been heard?  What cases had been prosecuted?  How many convictions had there been?  There had been an operation which led to the detention of 470 adults and the rescuing of 80 minors; what had happened with this operation?  Where did it lead to?  Had there been studies conducted on the victim profile?  The tourist law regulated other forms of abuse, including applications like AirBnB.  How was this regulated? 

    Questions by a Committee Expert under the Convention 

    FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said Brazil had ratified nearly every human rights treaty, but it was shocking that it had not established a national human rights institution.  When would the country do this?  Brazil had become the leading donor in the Global South.  However, it was concerning that charity was not starting at home, as there were many children that were hungry.  These children needed to be looked after first. With the business sector, it was important to establish regimes to eliminate child labour, and to establish impact assessments for industries harmful to children like the extractive industries.  The State should carefully examine access to justice in terms of the marginalised communities.  Were all professionals working with children trained in the area of child rights? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said Brazil understood the importance of addressing the situation of hunger affecting children.  According to data from the United Nations Children’s Fund, in 2023, the number of those suffering from hunger dropped to around five per cent compared to around seven per cent in 2018.  The State recognised there were still challenges and was targeting specific efforts for people of African descent, but there was a positive downward trend. 

    Policies such as the Bolsa Familia programme had been improved and were used as a key tool to identify and reach the most vulnerable families.  Brazil had been investing in data systems for years and used this information to flag the levels of vulnerability in families and maximise the allocation of resources, ensuring it reached those who needed it most.  The Food and Agricultural Organization had noted a drop in overall food insecurity in 2023.  Brazil shared its technical knowledge with other countries who were facing similar issues of food insecurity.

    There were more than 300 ethnicities of indigenous peoples all across Brazil.  Significant work was being done to train indigenous teachers, who organised their own schools with their own languages, using their own educational process.  It was important to respect the self-determination of these populations. The position of President Lula was to defend indigenous territories and their populations. 

    The right to health was ensured through the universal health care system.  The family health care units consolidated and rolled out public health care in Brazil, and the number of teams caring for vulnerable populations had significantly increased.  Investment in primary health care had been increased to 2.82 billion dollars in 2024.  The national comprehensive childcare policy aimed to promote and check the health of children.  Deaths of children under the age of five had dropped from 16 per 1,000 live births, to 12.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2023.  Brazil still faced many challenges, including regional disparities. 

    The State was increasing funding to the neonatal units and human milk banks, and was setting up proper day clinics to assist Black mothers.  A national movement for vaccination had been launched to combat disinformation.  A National Committee on Breastfeeding had been established.  Around 325 centres in the country were authorised for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.  A national action plan had been developed which outlined more centres to be developed and care to be increased. 

    A health booklet for young people and adolescents was available digitally.  Health professionals were trained to prevent teen pregnancy, with a national week established in this regard, promoting long-term campaigns focused on reproductive health.  As a result, there had been a reduction in teen pregnancies to 12 per cent in 2023.  However, teen pregnancies among girls between the ages of 10 and 13 years in Brazil were still a real concern. 

    “Sinan” was the notification system used to monitor and prevent violence.  It had information disaggregated by race, colour, gender identity, sexual identity and other details, including the place where the violence occurred and the type of violence.  In 2023 in Brazil, there were 37,000 cases reported of sexual violence against children and adolescents.  In seven per cent of cases, these were adolescents and children with disabilities. 

    The Health Ministry recognised underreporting of violence in the health system.  In 2023, there were 419 deaths at the hands of law enforcement.  Efforts had been made to improve the registration of deaths by external cause, through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice.  There had been a rise in the number of suicides recorded in recent decades, which was a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Brazil reaffirmed its commitment to addressing violence affecting young people in the country and recognised that this was a serious issue affecting public health.

    Brazil had a psychosocial care network within the health system, which provided decentralised care in psychosocial care centres and residential care centres.  There were more than 3,000 psychosocial care centres, with more than 300 which were just for young people.  These centres promoted comprehensive mental health care with a focus on deinstitutionalisation and strengthening family links.

    It was not possible to confer that 24 per cent of schools were not upholding the law to teach Afro-Brazilian history.  The State was committed to implementing the law 10639/2023.  In the first year of functioning, 97.3 per cent of municipalities had committed to participating, which did not reflect the 24 per cent suggested.  Public schools aimed to promote Afro-Brazilian teachings and Quilombola culture throughout the school curriculum.  It was ensured that these topics were reflected in teaching materials and throughout the school programme. 

    In August this year, 150,000 basic educational professionals would be trained in ethnic and racial relations.  The indigenous and Quilombola schools were still a challenge for the Federal Government. Since 2012, there had been national guidelines on human rights education, designed for basic and higher education. 

    Poverty and equality were among the key challenging issues in Brazil.  The Bolsa Familia programme was the biggest cash transfer programme which had lifted millions of families out of poverty.  The new design launched in 2023 had brought significant results in combatting hunger.  The programme prioritised women and children and aimed to strengthen the access of families to basic rights such as social assistance.  There were conditionalities to accessing the programme, such as children being required to attend school.

    Brazil had a law which considered the dual vulnerability of teenagers and girls. The State was proud of this law which was popular and well understood throughout the country.  It prevented domestic and family violence against women, aiming to eradicate and punish this scourge.  Brazil had been investing in ongoing training of those who took calls to hotlines, to provide humane treatment and recognise the different kinds of sexual and family violence against girls and women.  Work was being done to monitor misogyny in the online space. 

    Many initiatives had been developed to combat hunger and poverty, with a focus on gender and race. Many of the recipients of the Bolsa Familia programme were headed by women.  The national care policy recognised care as something which needed to be provided by the State, not just women, and recognised care as a fundamental right. 

    Questions by Committee Experts under the Convention 

    FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said it was concerning that there were reports of a high rate of suicide and alienation of indigenous children, and a significant amount of poverty.  Could the work of the National Foundation of Indigenous Persons be clarified?  Was it working for indigenous populations?  Was there a national Ombudsman for children? 

    It was concerning that there were no definitive statistics on how many children were in detention.  The age of criminal responsibility in the State seemed to be from around 10 to 12 years, as children could be sentenced to some form of detention.  This was concerning, as this was not keeping in line with the recommendations of the Committee.  The Committee would recommend that the State ensure the age of criminal responsibility was from the age of 14 and upwards.  Were children who were recruited by criminal gangs assisted and offered rehabilitation support?

    HYND AYOUBI IDRISSI, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said there were several questions, including on deaths of children, teen unions, and allegations of degrading treatment which had not been answered.  The Committee had read substantial information on social educational centres, where there were many allegations of cruel and degrading treatment. Could the delegation comment on these allegations?  What was being done to support intersex children?

    BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, asked if a Black 13-year-old girl became pregnant, did the social protection system automatically become involved?  Did the different agencies responsible collaborate on these cases?  The child interview suites were a positive initiative; did they prevent the revictimisation of child sexual abuse victims? Did the children still have to go to court?  How did these suites work in practice?

    ROSARIA CORREA PULICE, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, said impunity was a major concern.  What happened when complaints were lodged?  Were teen pregnancies under the age of 14 investigated?  There were many issues, including around human trafficking, sexual exploitation in sport, and offences related to extradition, which needed to be clarified.  Were reparations really provided?  If a victim could not be identified in the first place, how could they access services? Was there specialised defence when it came to cases of organised crime? 

    CEPHAS LUMINA, Committee Vice Chair and Country Taskforce Member, said he had heard that a bill had gone through the National Congress this week concerning environmental licensing.  This would represent a reversal, and it was hoped that the Executive would do all it could to ensure that such a bill was not enacted.  What plans did the Government have to translate commitments into tangible outcomes for children? 

    A Committee Expert said Brazil was grappling with how to protect children in the digital environment. A bill was drafted in 2024 mandating companies to provide parental controls.  Was there a definitive date for the enactment of this legislation? What current measures was the Brazilian State taking to ensure children were protected from child labour, gambling and harmful impacts of artificial intelligence?   

    Another Expert expressed concern at the high level of pregnancies of Black teenagers up to the age of 14 years.  Were there measures being taken to reduce this?  Was there a national prevention strategy?  Were there measures being taken to train teachers to ensure access to comprehensive sexual education?  Could teenagers access emergency contraception?  What was stopping teenagers from having access to sexual and reproductive health information?

    A Committee Expert asked what happened to young people who were not imprisoned or institutionalised; there were gaps in the data. 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said all teenagers in Brazil had access to the Primary Healthcare Unit.  The State was trying to invest in sexual and reproductive health education.  Brazil had made significant progress in combatting the issue of sexual exploitation of children.  Integrated care centres offered humanised and multidisciplinary care for victims.  A programme launched this week addressed sexual violence online.  The Secretariat for Media had released a guide on digital devices, based on best international practice.  This highlighted a collective commitment to address sexual exploitation and abuse. It was expected that by 2026, there would be a national policy to address sexual violence. 

    Combatting child labour was a priority for the Federal Government, and a programme and national commission were in place in this regard.  About 40 million children and adolescents in Brazil were exposed to multiple climate and environmental risks.  Guidelines had been established to consider the social and environmental rights of children.  The national plan for climate adaptation would include a specific plan for children, adolescents and young people.  Brazil would host the national conference for children, youth and the environment, which involved 20 million people, with dialogue and meetings, based on critical, participatory and transformative environmental education.  It aimed to ensure that schools could become educational spaces which were resilient.

    Brazilian legislation did not allow for the detention of children under 12; this would be completely unacceptable.  These children were not arrested, but socio-educational measures were applied. There were no cases of overcrowding in prisons.

    The Office of the Public Prosecutor had special offices for children, ensuring they received the care required.  Hearings were regularly held which assessed the deprivation of liberty measures throughout the national territory, ensuring that the views of incarcerated teenagers were upheld.  The presence of an interpreter was obligatory.  Protection measures had been established, including to protect victims from aggressors in the home.

    Rates of illegal adoption were relatively low in Brazil.  The justice system had undertaken a child-friendly paradigm, acting for and with children and teenagers.  The best interests of children were considered a Constitutional priority in Brazil.  A programme had been rolled out to integrate youth and prevent the adverse use of alcohol and drugs, and violence and crime in the context of drug policy.  It provided prevention methodologies in families, schools and communities and allowed studies on organised crime groups and children and adolescents. 

    The Mappia programme of the highway police was created in 2025.  It identified areas where children were at risk of sexual exploitation and planned preventive actions.  The safe paths programme had saved almost 100 children and young people from sexual exploitation.  In 2024, the Federal Police carried out more than 1,000 activities to combat sexual abuse and exploitation on the internet.  A strategy had been developed to strengthen the safety of children and adolescents online, by strengthening the national policy, implementing the national compact on protection, and strengthening police cooperation and protocols to support victims. 

    The Black Youth Alive programme created in 2024 sought to reduce the inequalities and violence experienced by young Black people.  This had 217 activities and was developed through a participatory approach involving around 6,000 young people.  Addressing police violence against Black youth was a priority in public policy. 

    The national and socio-economic data bank had launched the public tender of 26 million dollars to restore indigenous land in the Amazon; this was the biggest land restoration project in the country.  The largest culture budget in history had been granted in Brazil, and signified the State’s commitment to promoting cultural diversity for historically invisible groups.  The Living Culture programme strengthened cultural networks and had a network of over 7,000 cultural focal points, including in indigenous communities. 

    A resolution was published which protected the rights of children and adolescents in the digital environment.

    Closing Remarks

    FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS, Committee Expert and County Taskforce Coordinator, said Brazil’s star was on the rise and the country was fast becoming a world leader in many areas, including agriculture, technology, and research.  However, if the State continued to disengage, disinherit and decimate children of African descent and other ethnic groups, there would be nothing left for anyone to inherit.  Many Black children could not grow up with dignity; they needed rescue and redress in the present.  Brazil needed to urgently invest resources in nurturing all children in the country, not just some of the children.  The Committee was confident this could be done. 

    BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert and Country Taskforce Member, thanked Brazil for the dialogue and the engagement of the country’s civil society organizations with the Committee.  Brazil had challenges and it was hoped these could be overcome.   

    MACAÉ MARIA EVARISTO DOS SANTOS, Minister of Human Rights and Citizenship of Brazil and head of the delegation, said there were 186 investigations underway regarding cases of trafficking.  In the last 10 years, the State had been attentive to the rights of domestic workers, including children.  There were many children being rescued from slavery and domestic servitude.  Brazil was committed to human rights law and policies which placed human dignity at the centre. 

    Ms. Evaristo dos Santos thanked the Committee, her delegation and everyone else who had made the dialogue possible.  Brazil was proud of its recently adopted public policies and believed that these would help young Black people and other marginalised groups achieve their dreams. Measures including the Happy Child programme sought to uphold the rights of young children.  The Government had made efforts to strengthen the health system, the social assistance system, and to combat multi-dimensional poverty.  Inequality remained the main challenge in Brazil, and it was important to ensure that the State’s policies addressed the most vulnerable. The country was determined to build on the progress presented over the past two days.  Children and adolescents needed to be at the heart of the country’s efforts.   

    SOPHIE KILADZE, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation for the dialogue and recognised the political will of Brazil.  The Committee would consider all the points made and do its best to formulate the best recommendations possible.

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CRC25.015E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Building Coastal Resilience Through Early Warnings: Local Leadership in Action

    Source: UNISDR Disaster Risk Reduction

    Venue

    Side Event at the 2025 UN Ocean Conference 

    Time: 12:15-13:30

    As extreme weather events intensify and sea levels rise, coastal communities remain on the frontlines of the climate crisis. aims to ensure that every person is protected from hazardous weather, water, and climate events by 2027 — but achieving this vision requires stronger local action.

    Our side event, co-hosted with and during the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, will spotlight the critical role of mayors, local governments, and community leaders in building coastal resilience. It will explore how cities and municipalities are driving innovative early warning solutions to protect lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems from climate-related hazards.

    Bringing together governments and UN agencies, as well as the private sector and civil society, the session will discuss pathways to strengthen early warning systems through localized leadership, policy innovation, public-private partnerships, and investment in climate adaptation.

    Join us to learn how local action is shaping global progress toward the Early Warnings for All target and why empowering coastal communities is key to protecting our shared future.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney speaks with Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, spoke with the Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre.

    Prime Minister Støre congratulated Prime Minister Carney on his election. The prime ministers discussed deepening trade, commercial, and defence partnerships, including on transatlantic and Arctic security. They also reaffirmed their support for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine that respects its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    The leaders agreed to remain in close contact.

    Associated Link

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Convicted Sex Offender Indicted for Child Pornography Distribution

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Richard G. Frohling, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, announced that on May 13, 2025, a federal grand jury indicted Randy Smith (age: 46) of Kenosha, Wisconsin, on two counts of distribution of child pornography in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2252A(a)(2)(A).  

    The indictment alleges that on November 13, 2023, and again between approximately August 1, 2024, and August 5, 2024, Smith knowingly distributed child pornography using a means and facility of interstate and foreign commerce, that had been mailed, shipped, and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, and which contained material that have been shipped and transported by a means and facility of  interstate and foreign commerce, including by computer. Court records indicate that at the time of his offenses, Smith was a previously convicted sex offender.

    If convicted of either of the distribution charges, Smith faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 40 years’ imprisonment on each count. He also faces up to a $250,000 fine on each of the counts.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006, by the U.S. Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.

    This case was investigated by the Kenosha Police Department, the Racine Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Milwaukee.  It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Megan J. Paulson.  

    An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt.  The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.     

    # # #

    For Additional Information Contact:

    Public Information Officer

    Kenneth.Gales@usdoj.gov

    414-297-1700

    Follow us on Twitter

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Memphis Man Sentenced to Over Three Years of Federal Imprisonment for Possession of a Glock Switch

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Memphis, TN – A federal judge has sentenced Kalen Thompson, 25, to 40 months in federal prison for possession of a machine gun. Joseph C. Murphy, Jr., Interim United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee, announced the sentence today.

    According to the information presented in court, on September 15, 2023, detectives with the Memphis Police Department went to an address in Memphis looking for a robbery suspect. They encountered Thompson under the carport area in possession of a 9mm Glock pistol with a conversion device (“switch”) attached, which made the firearm fully automatic.  Officers ran the serial number of the weapon and determined Thompson had stolen the firearm in January 2023 and added the conversion device.

    In February 2025, Thompson pled guilty to unlawful possession of a machine gun.  On May 22, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman sentenced Thompson to 40 months of federal imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release.  

    There is no parole in the federal system.

    This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.

    This case was investigated by detectives with the Memphis Police Department and Project Safe Neighborhoods.

    Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer Musselwhite prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.

    ###

    For more information, please contact the media relations team at USATNW.Media@usdoj.gov. Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Facebook or on X at @WDTNNews for office news and updates.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: IAEA Finds Commitment to Operational Safety at Borssele Nuclear Power Plant in the Netherlands

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts said the operator of the Borssele Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in the Kingdom of the Netherlands demonstrates a commitment to its operational safety. The team encouraged the plant to continue its operational safety improvement initiatives.

    The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) mission, conducted at the request of the Netherlands, took place from 19 to 23 May. This was a follow-up mission to a 2023 OSART peer review mission to Borssele NPP, which also found the plant to be committed to ensuring operational safety and reliability.

    OSART missions independently assess safety performance against IAEA safety standards. The aim is to advance operational safety by proposing recommendations and, where appropriate, suggestions for improvement.

    Borssele NPP is located on the country’s coast – roughly 165 kilometres south of Amsterdam. Operated by Elektriciteits-Produktiemaatschappij Zuid-Nederland (EPZ) with a net electrical output of 482 MW(e), the plant is a single unit pressurized water reactor. Of the total electricity generation in the country, Borssele NPP contributes 3.2% and was put into commercial operation in 1973. The plant had previously received approval to extend the operational period to 2033, and the plant’s intention – as requested by the Dutch government – is to extend the operation until 2054.

    The mission was conducted by a four-person team consisting of experts from Slovakia and Sweden and two IAEA staff members. The team held discussions with staff from the Borssele NPP and conducted site walkdowns during the review. 

    “The plant has already implemented many actions to enhance worker engagement in safety-related initiatives to achieve excellence in operational performance,” said team leader Yury Martynenko, Senior Nuclear Safety Officer at the IAEA. “We recognize the plant’s defined new actions to continue the way towards a culture of continuous improvement.”

    The team observed that several findings from the 2023 mission were fully addressed and resolved, including:

    • The plant leadership enhanced the engagement of workers through initiatives to achieve excellence in operational performance.
    • The plant promoted the use of operator-supportive aids to prevent the use of non-authorized operating material.
    • The plant improved arrangements to timely address improper behaviours and resolve radiological field deficiencies to ensure these are addressed in a timely manner.

    The team noted areas where satisfactory progress was made, but further efforts are required by the plant to fully implement some actions drawn up after the 2023 mission, including:

    • Strengthening its programmes for system health monitoring and obsolescence to minimize the potential risk of degradation of plant systems and components;
    • Improving the plant’s provisions for protective actions in case of an emergency to ensure timely and efficient emergency response; and,
    • Strengthening the radiation protection practices for contamination control, dose planning and the control of radioactive sources to ensure that the requirements of the radiation protection programme are fully met.

    “I am very pleased with the result and especially the way in which this has been achieved with a lot of engagement of our employees across the whole organization,” said Carlo Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of EPZ. “EPZ is very committed to continue the improvement journey to achieve the highest level of excellence in safe and reliable operations of the power plant.”

    The OSART team provided a draft report of the mission to the plant management. They will have the opportunity to make factual comments on the draft. These comments will be reviewed by the IAEA, and the final report will be submitted to the Netherlands within three months.

    Background

    General information about OSART missions can be found on the IAEA website. An OSART mission is designed as a review of programmes and activities essential to operational safety. It is not a regulatory inspection, nor is it a design review or a substitute for an exhaustive assessment of the plant’s overall safety status.

    Follow-up missions are standard components of the OSART programme and are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission.

    The IAEA Safety Standards provide a robust framework of fundamental principles, requirements, and guidance to ensure safety. They reflect an international consensus and serve as a global reference for protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Members consider China’s request for panel to examine Canadian surtax measures

    Source: World Trade Organization

    The DSB Chair, Ambassador Clare Kelly (New Zealand), announced at the start of the meeting that Canada’s request for a panel in DS636, “China — Additional Import Duties on Certain Agricultural and Fishery Products from Canada”, had been removed from the agenda at the request of Canada.

    DS627: Canada — Measures on Certain Products of Chinese Origin

    China submitted its first request for the establishment of a dispute panel with respect to the surtax measures imposed by Canada on certain products of Chinese origin, including electric vehicles and steel and aluminium products. The request also cites Canada’s alleged decision to impose measures on certain solar products, critical minerals, semiconductors, permanent magnets and natural graphite imported from China. China also cited in its panel request any other Canadian surtax measures on products or materials that originate in China.

    China and Canada held consultations in April 2025 but failed to resolve the dispute, China said, prompting its request for the panel. China said the measures are in direct breach of Canada’s WTO obligations. China said it remains open to working with Canada to resolve the dispute amicably in accordance with WTO rules.

    Canada said it engaged with China in a constructive manner during the consultations. It is unfortunate that China has included in its panel request claims related to certain solar products, critical minerals, semiconductors, permanent magnets and natural graphite imported from China, Canada said, noting that there are no Canadian surtax measures on these products.

    Canada said its surtax measures on electric vehicles, steel and aluminium products are justified under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and that it was fully prepared to defend these measures. In light of this, Canada said it is not ready to accept the establishment of a panel. Canada remains committed to maintaining constructive dialogue with China and to the rules-based multilateral trading system, it added.

    The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to the matter if requested by a member.

    Appellate Body appointments

    Colombia, speaking on behalf of 130 members, introduced for the 87th time the group’s proposal to start the selection processes for filling vacancies on the Appellate Body. The extensive number of members submitting the proposal reflects a common interest in the functioning of the Appellate Body and, more generally, in the functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement system, Colombia said.

    The United States said it does not support the proposal and noted its longstanding concerns with WTO dispute settlement that have persisted across US administrations. The US cited as an example its concern over rulings containing interpretations deviating from the text of WTO agreements and creating precedents. It emphasized that the dispute settlement system was intended to resolve specific disputes rather than create new rules for members. The US reiterated that fundamental reform of WTO dispute settlement is needed and that it will reflect on the extent to which it is possible to achieve such a reformed WTO dispute settlement system.

    More than 20 members took the floor to comment, one speaking on behalf of a group of members. Several members urged others to consider joining the Multi-party interim appeal arrangement (MPIA), a contingent measure to safeguard the right to appeal in the absence of a functioning Appellate Body. A number welcomed the decision of Malaysia and Paraguay to join the MPIA.

    Colombia, on behalf of the 130 members, said it regretted that for the 87th occasion members have not been able to launch the selection processes. Ongoing conversations about reform of the dispute settlement system should not prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully, and members shall comply with their obligation under the Dispute Settlement Understanding to fill the vacancies as they arise, Colombia said for the group.

    Dispute settlement reform

    The DSB Chair said that, as members would recall from the last General Council (GC) meeting on 20-21 May, the GC Chair Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) had informed members about his intention to consult with interested delegations on advancing work in three key areas, including dispute settlement reform. The consultations are now ongoing, the DSB Chair said.

    Surveillance of implementation

    The United States presented status reports with regard to DS184, “US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan”,  DS160, “United States — Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act”, DS464, “United States — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea”, and DS471, “United States — Certain Methodologies and their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China.”

    The European Union presented a status report with regard to DS291, “EC — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products.”

    Indonesia presented its status reports in DS477 and DS478, “Indonesia — Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products.” 

    Next meeting

    The next regular DSB meeting will take place on 23 June 2025.

    Share

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement from VA Secretary Doug Collins regarding Memorial Day

    Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs

    Skip to content

    WASHINGTON –Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins today released the following statement ahead of Memorial Day:

    This Memorial Day and throughout the year, we at the Department of Veterans Affairs honor and remember the brave heroes who gave their lives in defense of our nation. I encourage Americans to join us at VA cemeteries around the nation this weekend to reflect on the tremendous debt we owe these fallen warriors. Their sacrifices have helped make America the greatest nation on Earth, and their legacies of courage and commitment inspire us to reach new heights.”

    Related

    VA to host Memorial Day ceremonies at 130+ national cemeteries

    Reporters and media outlets with questions or comments should contact the Office of Media Relations at vapublicaffairs@va.gov

    Veterans with questions about their health care and benefits (including GI Bill). Questions, updates and documents can be submitted online.

    Contact us online through Ask VA

    Veterans can also use our chatbot to get information about VA benefits and services. The chatbot won’t connect you with a person, but it can show you where to go on VA.gov to find answers to some common questions.

    Learn about our chatbot and ask a question

    Subscribe today to receive these news releases in your inbox.

    Page load link

    Go to Top

    MIL OSI USA News