kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
as rightly pointed out in your report the implementation of the internal security strategy and the eu policy cycle on serious and organised crime allowed progress on strategic objectives as well as concrete measures on everything from protecting children to support for trafficked persons making the online environment more secure and providing tools for civil society to better prevent violent extremism. but challenges remain and we need to do more. therefore the european parliament the member states and the commission should work together to draw up an updated version of the internal security strategy.
we propose to further consolidate and make more credible our policy on irregular migration and return.
while a detailed and prescriptive five year plan might have been needed in the pioneer phase of previous years we now need to have a strategic approach for the future in order to move towards a fully functioning european area of justice.
we will implement what we have agreed and monitor and evaluate our policies on a regular basis so that we can adjust and target future action.
during our discussions there has been a clear call for a european migration policy supporting growth and competitiveness.
the effective implementation of the recently agreed changes to the schengen governance is another key priority.
on visas our goal must be to facilitate travel opportunities for legitimate travellers and make the schengen area a more attractive destination while maintaining a high level of security.
we have as vice president reding said accomplished a lot and now the focus needs to be on implementation.
europe needs to be a place where people can come to seek protection and that protection needs to be given by all countries in a responsible way showing solidarity.
i think most of us agree that in the area of home affairs issues related to migration asylum borders and organised crime it is obvious to most of us including citizens that we really need to work together. it makes no sense to have twenty eight different policies on all these areas if we want to do something good for our societies.
it also has a very clear added european value. as has been said today we have achieved a lot.
in the eu justice agenda for two thousand and twenty the commission also underlines the need for better training of legal practitioners.
trust mobility and growth.
growth eu justice policy should continue to make a contribution to economic recovery and tackling unemployment.
we all know that obstacles remain.
and in this context new initiatives to complement existing instruments may be envisaged if they are appropriate.
and i appreciate in this respect the full support of this parliament for the eu justice scoreboard and its specific contribution to the european semester. eu justice policy should focus on consolidating what has already been achieved codifying
about what the future will bring and how we should shape the area of freedom security and justice for the years to come. in this context the european council will adopt its strategy guidelines for this area in june. the commission has already adopted two communications in which we set out our ideas on the political priorities of these policies.
the eu has laid the foundations for promotion of this trust but this needs to be further strengthened to ensure citizens legal practitioners and judges within the eu fully trust judicial decisions irrespective of the member states where they have been taken.
we were building on the new treaty of lisbon and were working together the european institutions all together and both commissioner malmstrm and i would like to use this occasion to express our sincere appreciation to parliament because it has put great efforts into many important files we have been dealing with over the last years.
years. and it should therefore be capable of responding to changing realities and evolving expectations from both citizens and businesses.
law. the adoption of this communication on the same day as the eu justice agenda for two thousand and twenty shows that respect for the rule of law is an essential and key component of the whole justice policy.
of certain parts of existing legislation in the justice area and of the relevant case law of the court of justice. codifying means streamlining existing legislation or practices into one single instrument for more clarity and for more legal certainty. and we all know that justice is a dynamic policy
on eleven march the commission presented its new eu framework to strengthen the rule of
training legal practitioners in eu law is of utmost importance to ensure that the law is implemented and applied correctly to build trust in each others judicial systems and to enable those systems to work together across borders. we will also have to explore the need for codification
eu law and practice and when necessary and appropriate complementing the existing framework with new initiatives.
mobility eu citizens and businesses are rightly taking advantage of the free movement rights conferred upon them by the treaty but we all know that challenges remain.
area. we have experienced that in the last month in the last
structural reforms need to be pursued to ensure that justice systems are capable of delivering swift reliable and trustworthy justice thereby supporting the effectiveness of all other eu policies.
when eu law is at stake and we are also convinced that mutual trust remains the cornerstone of a common european judicial and law enforcement culture. while looking forward towards the future of eu justice policy we have identified three main challenges
despite significant progress achieved in this respect citizens still experience practical and legal difficulties when trying to enjoy their rights and parliament rightly demanded that more needs to be done in this context.
the need and the added value of such complementary initiatives will have to be carefully assessed in the light of the diversity of national legal systems and traditions.
it also shows that the commission is determined to play fully its role as guardian of the unions values.
trust is the bedrock on which eu justice policy is built and trust cannot be done by decree. it needs constant efforts by all participants.
stand on a wide range of issues.
the smart border initiative is now moving forward with the objective of reaching agreement by mid.
the priority now must be to consolidate and implement the existing framework.
we now need to build on the success of the stockholm programme learn from experience and draw lessons for the future.
we therefore continue to hope for your
we have also made progress in related areas such as legal migration and integration.
this is particularly important given the link between migration and economic growth.
with increasing attention being given to individual citizens and to respect for their basic rights.
the stockholm programme has been successful in laying the foundations in many areas.
this requires a greater commitment to the exchange of information between eu institutions and the member states.
two thousand and sixteen security issues remain of very significant concern to our citizens.
closely related to this we also share similar views on the importance of evaluation whether this is looking backwards or forwards.
to protect ourselves britain must leave the european union.
this report euphemistically refers to the various so called imbalances within the emerging eu system.
madam president the stockholm programme includes the objective of constructing an eu system of criminal law. it is laughable that the eu should presume to create an area of so called freedom security and justice in england. the english already did that for themselves over the last eight hundred years and it served as a model for much of the civilised world.
that system is now being subverted because of our subordination to an inferior continental system.
these imbalances are caused by the idiotic doctrine of mutual recognition which states that all eu member states police judicial and penal systems are of equal value. this is absolute nonsense and is causing a growing number of cases of gross injustice.
the procedural rights package the european investigation order the schengen governance package europol and the anti money laundering directive are all important steps in protecting the rights and safety of eu citizens across europe.
but sadly this parliament has also found itself repeatedly sidetracked by self appointed committees investigations and own initiative activity.
so in the past five years my opinion of this programme has not changed.
i still believe that we should do less but do it better.
this review should have been about increasing cooperation and efficiency and ensuring consolidation and compliance throughout the eu with existing measures bringing much needed trust in each others judicial systems.
rather than being an exercise in stocktaking this has instead become another exercise in stockpiling.
remember five years ago europe was not fully equipped to act in the interests of the citizens in the area of justice and fundamental rights and citizenship.
the opinions of the representatives of eu citizens were given little importance and were quickly dismissed. international agreements were negotiated and signed in closed chambers.
legislation and international agreements were based on emotional responses to the latest scare rather than on evidence.
justice was neglected and europe often disappointed the expectations of citizens.
thanks to the work of parliament we have brought tangible benefits to our citizens.
together we have re oriented european policies putting justice first. together we have delivered in protecting the personal data of eu citizens;
in strengthening the right to free movement;
in ensuring that suspected persons have a clear set of rights all over europe;
in ensuring that victims are protected from offenders;
i think we can be proud of what we have achieved together in these past five years.
over the last years we have taken a number of small steps that seen together today constitute a giant leap forward on the road towards a true european area of justice.
but the journey is not over.
we need to build more trust promote more mobility and contribute better to growth.
and so for the next parliamentary term i look forward to seeing the consolidation of an eu system of justice built on trust;
bringing together national justice systems;
and making sure citizens and businesses get objective reliable independent effective justice.
on the twin principles that the patient must always come first and that patient choice should be determined by needs and not by means. for the last ten years european citizens have been going to the courts to fight for their right to go to another member state for treatment.
they should not have to go to court in order to achieve
fair. we must make sure that they know how much they will be charged what quality and safety standards they can expect and what rights they have if something goes
now is the time for us as politicians to take our responsibility and to replace the need for the judges who have gone before by creating legal certainty ourselves. most people will always want to be treated close to
let me be clear that this right for patients should in no way be detrimental to member states' ability to provide quality health care for all their citizens.
it does not dictate what quality of care they should provide. in fact it builds in safeguards for member states to help protect their own national health systems for example by choosing a system of prior authorisation in certain circumstances.
choice. indeed the increased availability of cross border health care should in turn help stimulate national systems to provide increasingly better standards of health care themselves.
however such prior authorisation must not be used to limit patient
this report does not tell member states how they should organise their own health systems.
home. however there will always be patients who wish to travel to another member state for treatment for whatever reason. if patients do choose this option we must make sure that the terms under which they do so are transparent and
wrong. this report addresses all these issues.
it is clear that patients want this right and that they deserve this right and are entitled to this right.
it. the proposal before us now is our chance to make this a reality.
i fully agree and very much hope that this ambition will be confirmed.
that is why we were cautious to limit the financial impact of cross border health care on national health systems and sickness insurance funds.
we have proposed to define the concept of hospital care through a community list based on the shared understanding of experts who would take account of the development of technologies.
here we need to agree on practical solutions which also respect a number of key principles such as the right to personal data protection and the presumption of innocence.
i have therefore asked experts in the commission to look into this question to see how organ allocation could be dealt with in a different context.
indeed this is an important and most valid point.
it would be up to the member states to reconcile them as far as possible to the benefit of the patients in particular those with modest revenues.
it and that they would be the very few informed patients.
it is important to assess this issue in the light of the evolution of the text in order to decide what the appropriate legal basis
now that we are just a matter of weeks away from the next european elections allow me to pay tribute to this parliament and to its administration for all the efforts made to make this vote today possible for which i thank you
i understand the concerns raised regarding the difficulty of getting clear information on health professionals when seeking health care abroad.
therefore there is no need to construct unnecessary barriers for patients.
member states have to ensure that patients from other member states are not discriminated against. any form of control of incoming patients would have to be assessed as to whether it would amount to an acceptable exception to the principle of non discrimination on the basis of nationality set out in the eu treaty.
therefore in order to bring the benefits of european cooperation to patients with rare diseases they really need to be included in this directive on patients' rights in cross border health care.
eight secondly it would not be appropriate to go beyond such provisions with a looser or indeed unconditional system of prior authorisation legally or de facto generalised in all member states. we all know that patient mobility will remain a very limited phenomenon. this means that its budgetary impact will
as i have said mobility of patients is a limited phenomenon and we do not expect this to change.
regarding prior authorisation for hospital care the proposed provisions are based on two kinds of consideration.
it will require a significant and coordinated effort from the eu and the member states at all levels.
i would therefore urge you to keep rare diseases in the scope of the directive. regarding the proposed exclusion of organ transplantation i simply cannot agree.
if parliament wants this to be clear in the text i can only welcome it.
some of you are calling for national lists to be drawn up independently and most member states are calling for that as well.
reference was made to amendment sixty seven on relaxation of the rule for affiliations to social security systems.
transplantation is a medical procedure and it is difficult to justify why patients should not have the right to benefit from it as cross border health care as ruled by the court.
this issue has to be addressed.
i am concerned at the suggestion regarding the definition of hospital care.
i think that there is broad agreement on the need for european cooperation on centres of reference for rare diseases for example.
its discussions add a great deal to the commission's initiative and the amendments on which it is to vote will also constitute a most valuable input on a number of key aspects. on patients' rights to quality and safe health care many of you have confirmed the fundamental importance of securing clarity and assurances.
unfortunately this cannot be accepted.
however the issue of organ allocation is a different matter.
however reducing such inequalities is a difficult challenge and even more difficult against the backdrop of the current economic crisis.
it has to be crystal clear that this means the tariffs of the regulation shall apply so that patients can benefit from the most advantageous system.
ninety five i understand that this is an important issue for some of the political groups but it is difficult to have definite views at this stage of the examination of the directive.
i understand that the rationale behind this suggestion was not to achieve such an outcome but believe that this would actually restrict patients' rights as defined by the court.
as you know for these conditions quick diagnosis and access to treatment are complex and not always possible or available at home.
regarding patients suffering from rare diseases i understand that you are looking for the best approach in order for them to benefit from the health care they need but sometimes the best is the enemy of the good.
this is simply a question of patient safety.
therefore it would be simply disproportionate to give carte blanche to member states to take measures to refuse patients in order to control inflows.
on the question of assumption of the costs of treatment abroad clear concerns have been expressed about the inability of a significant number of patients to afford cross border health care.
i am sure that common ground can be found on the basis of your preliminary suggestions.
regarding the relationship of this directive with the social security regulation we agree i believe on the need for clear articulation which would mean that once prior authorisation is requested by a patient and if the conditions of the regulation are fulfilled
on the contrary i believe that under this directive we are giving the opportunity and the right to every single patient before he or she leaves home to be fully informed in order to be able to make an informed choice.
prior authorisation is the reason patients went to the european court in the first place and the court's judgments are the reason we are here today with a directive.
now we are back where we started death by geography will remain the rule.
i know many fears have been expressed but this legislation will not impose changes in the organisation and financing of national health systems.
patients are at the very heart of this draft law which also fully respects the diversity of health systems across europe.
in doing so we acknowledged the growing role of patients in health care and recognised the importance of patients having both confidence and knowledge about the care they receive.
this is important.
this right should not only be for patients who have access to information that is not publicly available and who can afford a lawyer. therefore after in depth reflection and broad consultation the commission adopted on two july last year its proposal for a directive.
we have the opportunity this morning to take a major step forward towards building a europe for patients for each and every european citizen that you honourable members represent.
however if the rulings were clear for the individuals concerned the question of how they apply to all other cases was obscure.
and third to foster european cooperation among health care systems. on the basis of these three pillars much can be done for our citizens primarily for those who want to seek cross border health care but beyond this for all patients across europe.
let me thank and congratulate you all for your interesting and often challenging debates and for a very efficient process.
allow me to recall briefly the rationale behind this proposed directive as well as its main objectives and principles.
and also health and happiness after so many years of excellent service to european citizens.
therefore the need for a legislative framework became apparent so that all patients in europe can exercise their right to reimbursement of cross border health care.
first i must say that i very much appreciate the hard work undertaken by parliament on the examination of the proposal for a directive on patients' rights in cross border health care which will shortly be submitted to your vote.
yesterday here in strasbourg we celebrated european patients' rights day.
first and foremost its overall aim is to provide patients with better opportunities and access to health care across europe.
the central question in this context is what can the european union do for patients?
let me be clear on this.
second to give assurance about the quality and safety of care throughout europe;
however when circumstances dictate it can be beneficial to receive health care in another eu country notably in border regions whereby the nearest health facility for example may be in another country or where there is more expertise available for example in the case of rare diseases or a particular care or treatment could possibly be provided faster in another country.
one stop shop equivalent sources of patient information will be essential in every member state to allow informed choices by patients and the provision of mutual recognition of prescriptions i think will be a very important add on to this piece of legislation and must follow on quickly.
this report on the back of the draft proposal from the commissioner clarifies how to apply the principles set out in those ecj cases.
patients will always prefer to receive health care close to where they live.
let us keep this in perspective.
currently only one percent of our budgets are spent on cross border health care.
while health services were initially included in the draft proposal of the bolkestein cross border services proposal it quickly became apparent that a stand alone directive on this most important issue of health which has ramifications for all aspects of health care in our twenty seven member states was needed.
i welcome john bowis's excellent report and his skilful resolution of the many legitimate concerns that were with the original draft proposal.
the definitions of hospital care and prior authorisation have been discussed and i understand agreed with council and commission. quality standards will remain a member state competence while safety standards a european wide one.
like all reports this one is based on compromises and it is not always possible for everybody to agree on everything.
i recognise and respect the fact that there are still some difficulties for some political groups and indeed some delegations and so there are still a number of amendments to be decided in plenary later this morning.
i should therefore like to thank the commissioner in particular for her concluding comments which hopefully will make it easier for some colleagues in other groups to decide how to vote.
i sincerely hope that as a result of those comments the overall report will receive widespread positive support across and within political groups because making patient needs a priority should surely be above party politics.
i recognise that any agreement today will come too late for a formal first reading agreement during the czech presidency but i understand that there is already substantial political agreement within the council in principle thanks to the work the presidency has already done and i wish to thank it for that.
i know that john would wish this agreement to be translated into action sooner rather than later and so indeed would many patients across the eu who have already waited long enough.
on behalf of the rapporteur i call on the commission the incoming council presidency and indeed on the incoming meps in the next mandate to make an early second reading a real priority in the second half of this year so that any remaining difficulties can be rapidly resolved.