kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
of course this indicator is only intended to measure the restrictiveness of professional regulation and as is pointed out in the report this indicator is not intended to assess whether a restriction can be justified because it pursues a legitimate public interest in a proportionate manner.
they conclude that a modernised legal framework could bring as many as seven hundred zero new jobs to the eu and increase eu gdp by up to.
it is based on a solid analysis of regulation in place in all member states.
they can be disproportionate or the accumulation of layers of rules can lead to an overly restrictive legal framework.
they are based on the restrictiveness indicator combined with a qualitative assessment. they target those instances where regulation is found to be particularly restrictive.
we welcome the efforts by member states since the adoption of the revised qualifications directive to increase the transparency of the regulation and assess the substance of the rules in place.
take. it does not impose an obligation of result it simply proposes a common eu wide framework to conduct a genuine proportionality assessment before a new or amended regulation is proposed.
mutual recognition is at the heart of many aspects of the single market it is what makes the single market unique.
two thousand and sixteen we often hear that restriction is essential but what that really means is we want to stop other europeans from offering services.
from hairdressers to ski instructors we're all aware of frankly ridiculous examples of protectionism that are dressed up as protecting the public. they do no such thing.
we need more honest effort to reduce barriers in professional services which are the biggest global growth area and we need to stop discriminating against eu citizens.
now the uk may not be part of this in the future but europe still needs a true internal market in services to thrive.
consumers pay more and get worse services europeans are denied employment opportunities new businesses never develop and as a continent we struggle to innovate.
yet it is under threat more than anywhere in professional services.
i would like to recall that regulated professions which represent up to twenty two of the labour force in the eu and cover many crucial sectors constitute a significant element in the economy of the member states and rules on regulated professions are usually imposed to ensure the protection of general interest objectives such as public health consumer protection or public security.
however for a regulation to be fair for professionals and to ensure mobility within the european union the latter has to fully respect the principles of non discrimination and proportionality and the member states must be transparent about the rules they put forward.
no other countries other than germany and sweden come anywhere near and there is a very big distance between them. but no one seems to have considered in the european union in the commission the threat posed by four hundred fake universities in china and three hundred in india all of them issuing degrees and other qualifications which are creating real distortions and real threats in the market.
worldwide university rankings consistently put the united kingdom in the top tier.
we must deregulate where restrictions are unjustified and harmonise where they are.
it is equally shocking that member states instead of moving towards harmonised regulations on professionals continue to invent new national barriers to prevent free movement and the equal treatment of all eu citizens.
we cannot continue to allow economic protectionism within the single market.
i am here to tell you that a czech professional is just as good as a german french or any other professional.
because we are all in great humour this morning in the chamber i am going to allow you to ask your question before you speak.
it is clear that we share the common aim of creating an effective legal environment so that we can ensure highquality professional services.
the mutual evaluation exercise was an important first step but it also showed that much work remains to be done.
its entry into force will guarantee that both parties will apply the same level of high standards and will benefit from the new market opportunities.
the digital market constitutes one of the key pillars in the european union's economy particularly in my country the uk.
the eu has made significant progress on legislation with regard to improving transparency.
i was happy to endorse the report.
i particularly support the programme's emphasis on the member states being helped as they continue to adapt to the rapidly changing ageing demographics.
it is therefore imperative that we continue to develop healthcare infrastructures to reflect these demographic changes in our society and as a doctor i was particularly pleased to vote in favour of this report.
in my constituency of london we are quite lucky with thirty four of the population being under the age of twenty four but that is the exception for a young population;
it will not last and the ageing demographic challenge will pose considerable challenges in future for all member states.
europe's ageing population has significantly changed the nature of the population pyramid and this demographic revolution will continue to present member states with significant challenges in terms of public spending and allocation of resources.
mr president i too am happy to endorse the report on the eu action in the field of health programmes which will continue to provide key funding for valuable scientific research whilst also strengthening the framework already in place within our healthcare systems which naturally are generally reserved for the member states but of course there is room for coordination at eu level.
mr nbsp president all workers in civil aviation are burdened with huge responsibility when it comes to guaranteeing and looking after the safety of their own colleagues and that of passengers in general.
among the preconditions for the safety for all passengers therefore are decent working conditions decent working hours and wages as well as health and safety standards and respect for basic trade union rights.
it alleged bullying and intimidation by its own pilots but when it took legal action to have the names revealed of those who had posted critical comments on a website a high court judge in ireland found that the only evidence of bullying was by ryanair itself.
this report gives some additional protection to employees and crew members who report safety incidents in civil aviation.
it will introduce an appeal mechanism for employees who find themselves punished for reporting an incident.
mr president i would like to use this opportunity to again highlight the obstacles being placed on free trade by the national dairy council's farmed in the republic of ireland' labelling campaign in the republic of ireland.
this campaign continues to discriminate against northern ireland dairy produce.
i have previously brought this issue up before parliament and the commission because i feel strongly that country of origin labelling should not be used to create a protectionist policy.
the national dairy campaign is also extremely shortsighted.
by excluding one part of the united kingdom the republic of ireland is jeopardising its largest market great britain.
the very nature of this industry requires countries to cooperate supranationally for the safety of many millions of people who take to the skies every year.
it plainly makes no sense for the rules to be asymmetric or differently implemented across the member states.
his office telephone communications and e mails were under constant surveillance by syrian security forces.
for more than five years he was forbidden to travel.
after weeks of increasing harassment over his role in monitoring the practices of syria's supreme state security court he was in the end arrested by the syrian state security and later charged with several criminal offences all referring to his right to free speech.
the commission through its delegation in damascus together with member states' embassies are discussing how to more effectively and efficiently act in defence of human rights' defenders.
we must continue to support the civil society through our instruments such as the non state actors and the european instrument for democracy and human rights budget lines and give moral support to the families.
our assessment is that the situation has deteriorated over recent months with more arbitrary detentions harassment of human rights defenders and travel bans.
clearly we have to continue calling for actions to protect human rights defenders and to ensure the observation of trials at the supreme state security court.
despite being important these actions are nevertheless insufficient.
syria must observe its international commitments in particular the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights to which syria is a state party.
he played a very important role because he observed all trials before the supreme state security court and made regular evaluations of detention conditions in syria.
international law sets a series of obligations that states have to respect and it is also our responsibility and in particular of the entire eu to ensure that respect thereof enters the association agreement as a way to enforce that further.
we will work in that direction.
thank you for your support for the resolution.
in fact it remains the only vestige now of the once powerful ba'athist party which ruled iraq as well so things like women's rights are advanced. however overall it remains a brutal one party dictatorship.
avms directive. the final wording of the avms directive does not directly establish an obligation to create independent
freedoms. any such restriction must be necessary appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society and a commissioner is not in a position to judge or condemn such national doings nor do i
to activities which fall outside the scope of the
i do not need to explain to you that the issue of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is what is at stake for the commission;
secondly we are talking about a very important issue.
another account says that it fines publications for violating public interest public morals or order'. now these concepts do sound very vague meaningless and therefore dangerous;
however before we cast stones at hungary let us look at the standards and broadcasting media in our own countries.
our party is significant enough to be attacked routinely but not significant enough to be invited on the programmes. in two thousand and six it colluded with the government to trap our chairman into a jail.
mr president one of the accounts of the hungarian press law says that it prescribes balanced coverage' which sounds all right on the face of it.
democracies are built upon the principle of a free and independent media.
crucial issues still unanswered include the composition and time frame of the media authority and of the media council which are politically homogenous and still exert pervasive and centralised governmental judicial and political control on all media.
we must involve civil society and stakeholders to uphold principles of transparency and accountability and to ensure best practice.
we also encourage the implementation of amendments to address the outstanding areas of concern for all of us in this parliament whilst fully embracing the spirit of the european charter of fundamental rights and in particular article eleven which protects the freedom of expression.
please let us know those concessions have been secured.
however it seems clear that negotiations have not fully addressed many other serious concerns of this parliament and of course of our socialist and democrat group.
we would like further answers on whether you believe article eleven has been fulfilled.
commissioner we tabled a resolution for our group because we wanted the concessions that you have already announced but we want more.
was it purely coincidence as you were waiting in the airport as you said or was it the fact that pressure by this parliament has brought forward four key amendments in the four key areas we asked for?
we make no apologies within our group for firmly defending this principle and we will do everything in our power to protect it for hungarians and all eu citizens.
have raised including the concerns raised regarding the charter of fundamental rights.
number one balanced coverage. the amendments agreed would limit the balanced reporting requirements to broadcasting as in other member states and would no longer apply those requirements to on demand audiovisual media services or the written press.
moreover any restrictions on broadcasters would need to respect the principle of proportionality. of course the commission will monitor the way that principle is translated into secondary law.
the second one is the country of origin principle.
the amendments agreed would mean that foreign broadcasters could no longer be fined for breaching the hungarian media law's provisions on protection of minors or incitement to hatred.
instead the hungarian authorities could suspend transmission of such services on hungarian territory which is in line with the avms directive.
it means that broadcasters legally established and authorised in other member states and compliant with the laws of those countries would be free to broadcast to hungary without running the risk of being subject to fines by hungarian authorities.
number three media registration.
the amendments agreed would mean that audiovisual media service providers would have to register only after they begin offering their services and that is in line with the directive.
it means that audiovisual media service providers and publishers would no longer be subject to prior authorisation by the hungarian authorities.
number four offensive content.
a provision of the media law specified very broadly that media content may not cause offence even by implication to individuals minorities or majorities.
the amendments agreed would limit the prohibition to discriminatory treatment. moreover those provisions would no longer apply to media service providers established in other eu countries.
we will continue to monitor the situation but that is quite clear.
needless to say the commission is also verifying the national rules implementing the avms directive in other member states and will raise similar concerns where necessary.
it does not shy away from defending media freedom and pluralism when it is needed and the present case hopefully pre empts and proves that.
i can assure you that the commission acknowledges and shares the concerns that many of you and parts of civil society have about the general state of the media in europe.
the commission not only has a duty but also a sincere interest in facilitating the dialogue amongst stakeholders and policymakers at a european level.
the changing structure of the media landscape in europe causes concern for the future.
it brings opportunities but also wider risks for media pluralism beyond the ownership use.
it is quite clear that we need an approach to measuring media pluralism in a broad sense; one that will bring together legal economic and social aspects rather than treating them quite separately as has often been the case up until now. therefore i intend
to establish a multi stakeholder group and ask them to address the challenges for the media at present and in the future including the situation of media pluralism in europe.
since you know that i value your input very much the european parliament will be represented in the group of experts if you will accept that invitation.
we trust the commission that this is indeed the hungarian position hoping to receive it in writing and we will closely follow the changes.
nevertheless the four areas requested by the commission are only a part of a much bigger picture. other aspects must be changed as well the enormous control powers vested in the hands of a politically appointed person who has been heading two media control authorities for nine years
quite the opposite we are motivated by a genuine interest to see that media freedom is a reality for the benefit of our citizens.
now that is exactly what happened.
i am convinced has been extremely important not only for ourselves but also for the european union as a whole.
as i said already before the law would have been adopted.
i just would like to confirm again our full respect and to testify to this i would just like to let you know that it is our firm intention to incorporate the charter of fundamental rights into the new hungarian constitution.
it will be applicable not only in the areas covered by union law but it will be at the top of the hierarchy of the overall legal system and it will prevail over any other legislation or regulation be it criminal law be it about the media or be it about any other subject.
mr president in the light of the announcement made by the commission today it is clear that this debate has been overtaken by events and that there is no longer any reason whatsoever to proceed with the vote on the resolutions tomorrow.
what i find worrying is that this chamber is increasingly engaging in crusades against individual member states that coincidentally happen to have epp governments before the commission has fully investigated the matter let alone reached its conclusions.
worse than that in this case this was done despite the fact that we had a clear undertaking from the hungarian authorities at the highest level that should the commission raise any concerns about this law they would be prepared to change it as they did.
what exactly was the point of this debate?
what is the point of the resolutions tomorrow if not political instrumentalisation?
however it is not willing to single out individual member states and condemn them summarily before the due process of law has been completed.
when this issue first came up last month i said that politicising this issue was not just attacking a member state but was also undermining the eu presidency.
that cannot be right.
i sincerely appeal to all groups to withdraw the resolutions that are up for vote tomorrow not suspend them not postpone them but withdraw them because there is no longer any basis for proceeding with this vote.
if i feel we do not have enough time for the debate then i do not give the floor.
the freedom of the interpretation services of the institutions to recruit aics according to their needs is a cornerstone of efficient delivery of conference interpretation.
consequently the commission returned to its previous practice.
since two thousand freelance interpreters have been linked to the staff regulations after the decision of the council of ministers that they can pay community tax instead of national taxes on their income from the european institutions.
and then from two thousand and four on they have been covered by article ninety of the conditions of employment of other servants which is why they are now called aics. the age limit of sixty five years is a rule of the staff regulations that covers all categories of personnel working for the institutions be they officials temporary contract or auxiliary staff
as there is no longer a court decision in the matter our reading is that the previous line applies and that the commission has to apply the rules deriving from the council regulation of the year two thousand and stop recruiting at the age of sixty five exactly as for other staff.
this makes it possible to have most regular and predictable demand covered by staff interpreters whilst fluctuating demand and peak situations are catered for by recruiting aics. this tried and tested system has made it possible for the institutions to satisfy requests for interpretation according to demand including making a success of the latest enlargements while keeping costs under strict control. this approach also supports an active policy of training of young conference interpreters. finally i would like to welcome the very positive contacts between parliament and the commission
i therefore hope that the guidelines and recommendations of this report will from now on be taken into consideration by the commission and by the member states since they represent not only our view as elected representatives of eu citizens but also the result of hundreds of hours of consultations with media organisations union representatives and regulatory bodies.
it is of great concern that journalists are more and more frequently the victims of pressure harassment and even violence.
i wish i could say the same for the commission in general but the truth is that the reason this report exists is precisely because this parliament would have liked to see a stronger reaction from the commission and especially from the commissioner for fundamental rights each and every time media freedom has been under threat in any of the member states. article two of the treaty and article eleven of the eu charter on fundamental rights need to be fiercely protected by the commission as the guardian of the treaty.
in this house we have had several debates on the status and role of the media in various member states.
in fact the report we will be voting on tomorrow calls on those member states in which defamation is still a criminal offence to decriminalise it as soon as possible.
an attack against a journalist should be considered an attack against media freedom and against citizens' rights to be informed.
we have to make sure that they can do their job. that is the very bottom line of this report.
we need transparency of media ownership we need to prevent excessive media concentration and we need rules to address the conflicts of interest resulting from the amalgamation of political office and control over media outlets.
there are some reasons to feel pleased but there are also other strong reasons why we should worry a great deal.
basic standards such as journalistic and editorial independence should not be missing from any newsroom. member states in the eu should support and promote investigative journalism and ethical journalism.
after we close the consultation in mid june we will have an even better overview of what exactly we need
a comprehensive report with thirty recommendations some of which are similar to what you propose ms weber in your report.
for instance we are about to allocate a grant to implement the media pluralism monitoring tool in two thousand and thirteen on the basis of a budget allocated by you. this tool will give us a much more coherent overview of where pluralism is under threat across europe. at the same time we are working on implementation of a pilot project for a european centre for press and media freedom.
i could not agree more;
i would like to point out that we are already acting on some of the areas addressed both in the recommendations of the independent high level group and in the weber report.
mr president it goes without saying that one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is freedom of the press.
therefore i hope that we will have the support of this parliament and of the commissioner for the resolution.
i hope it will be clear that different forms of sexuality of sexual orientation of forms of living have been part of all cultures and of all societies and are so in lithuania as well and that hiding facts like that from the public from young people is simply a basis for inciting hatred hate speech and hate crimes. that is something that i think nobody
you know what?
and we were there under the european flag telling everybody this flag protects us lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people and that is true also for lithuania'. now what would happen to us and to lithuanians who next year might go marching in favour of our equal rights in vilnius if this law is adopted in the seimas?
i join sophie in 't veld in calling for an eu road map to combat homophobia and discrimination and i call on everyone across the political spectrum in this house to unite in support of the whole range of human rights.