My question on EU funding for the Egyptian Coast Guard

The commission explained here how it will fund the Egyptian coast guard with â'¬80 million over the next two years to drag people back into the country, even though the human rights situation is catastrophic. The Commission modestly refers to this as "preventing irregular migration by sea".

You can find the request with answers in several languages here.

My request

Commissioner Várhelyi has recently confirmedthat the Commission has pledged long-term and short-term financial support to Egypt amounting to almost EUR 300 million. According to News reports 80 million of the funding for the Egyptian Coast Guard is earmarked for “border protection†and for preventing Egyptians from fleeing. The Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern about the disastrous human rights situation in Egypt.nd since January 2021, 3,500 Egyptians have fled the country by boat to Italywhich makes them the second largest group of people arriving there from Mediterranean countries.

  • Can the Commission provide an overview of all equipment or services supplied to the Egyptian authorities and the Coast Guard, in particular for border protection, and what is the timetable for future distribution?
  • What indicators will the Commission use to ensure that EU-Egypt migration cooperation is in line with Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union, i.e. that human rights are respected and promoted, e.g. by ensuring accountability for possible human rights violations?
  • What human rights impact or risk assessment has been (or will be) carried out on this financial support to ensure that it does not facilitate or be used for human rights abuses?

Answer given by Olivér Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission on 25.08.2022

The Commission stands ready to assist Egypt in maintaining its capacity to prevent irregular migration by sea and in strengthening the control of its border with Libya and Sudan. This is of particular importance given that irregular entries of Egyptian nationals into the EU (over 90 % to Italy, mainly via Libya) increased sixfold in 2021 (to 9219).

Against this background, the Commission is currently developing, in close coordination with the Egyptian authorities, a measure to support border management (search and rescue, land and sea border surveillance). A total budget of EUR 80 million is foreseen, to be implemented in two phases: EUR 23 million in 2022 and EUR 57 million in 2023. As the measure has not yet been adopted, there is no overview at this stage of the equipment or services that will be provided to the Egyptian authorities in this framework.

The measure will be subject to an ex-ante risk assessment and monitoring measures will be in place throughout its duration to ensure that the measure does not jeopardize compliance with international human rights law and the protection of refugees and migrants.

Question: Hydrogen – added value for African partner countries?

Together with the other Green MEPs from the Development Committee, I have put a question to the Commission on the promotion of hydrogen as part of the Global Gateway Strategy. We have our doubts about whether this hydrogen is really green, and we also have doubts about whether using energy to produce hydrogen for export is really appropriate when many millions of people in the partner countries concerned have no access to electrical energy. In its answer, the Commission mentions concrete goals that are supposed to help all parties involved, but unfortunately does not go into how exactly these are to be achieved.

You can find the entire request with answers in several languages also here.

Our request:

Under the Global Gateway strategy, investments in infrastructure development are expected to reach up to EUR 300 billion in the current funding period. According to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP) of 1 December 2021 entitled "Global Gateway" (JOIN(2021)0030), the Commission and the HR/VP will work with partner countries that have the potential to develop their production of hydrogen using renewable energy sources and promote the creation of competitive markets so that this hydrogen produced outside the EU can be traded internationally without export restrictions or price distortions.

  • Given the intention to produce 'green hydrogen' for international trade in partner countries, could the Commission provide concrete data analysis to ensure that the potential of such an investment policy not only serves the EU's energy needs but also adds value to Africa in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals?
  • How will the production of "green hydrogen" for export deal with the major problem of energy poverty in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where 600 million people have no access to electricity? Is the production of hydrogen the best use of renewable energy sources in partner countries?
  • Can the Commission provide further information on the legal basis and the type of EU funding allocated to such investments, as well as the countries concerned and the relevant flagship projects?

Answer given by Kadri Simson on behalf of the European Commission on 19.08.2022

Global Gateway is the EU's contribution to reducing the global investment gap, focusing on energy, transport, digital, health and education. Global Gateway is fully aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda with its Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.

With regard to the energy sector in Africa, Global Gateway is considered part of the EU-Africa Green Energy Initiative which aims to support environmental transformation in Africa by increasing renewable energy capacity, providing more people in Africa with access to affordable and reliable energy, promoting the use of sustainable energy, and supporting market integration and sector reforms. By 2030, the EU-Africa Green Energy Initiative aims to support the creation of at least 50 GW of renewable electricity generation capacity, providing electricity to at least 100 million people.

Africa has the potential for large-scale production of competitively priced renewable hydrogen and derived fuels. This technology can contribute to Africa's sustainable industrialization and development in line with the goals of the African Union's Agenda 2063. Once local demand is met, renewable hydrogen trading could be another way for African countries to build their green economies.

As in the REPowerEU Communication and the accompanying Action Plan. announced, the Commission is working to establish energy partnerships with a number of third countries, including countries in Africa. The private sector will mobilize investment in renewable hydrogen. The Commission will support the development of the renewable hydrogen market, in particular by mobilizing private sector investment through the financial instruments available under the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD+).

Question: EU action plan in response to events in Afghanistan

Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, the Commission suspended most of its agreements with the country and largely ceased cooperation with Afghanistan. Since then, in response to the events in Afghanistan, it has established a Action Plan which was leaked to the media. I asked the following questions about it:

You can find the entire request with answers in several languages also here.

My questions

  • Has the action plan already been adopted? If so, will there be reports on the implementation and will the measures be made publicly available?
  • Is the parliament informed about the implementation of the action plan?
  • Will the Commission disaggregate and communicate its commitment to receive 38,000 vulnerable Afghans by Member State and by program (resettlement, humanitarian reception, etc.) and how many Afghans are currently arriving in Europe through both the official evacuation routes and the programs for Afghans at risk?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 17/08/2022

The Action Plans to strengthen comprehensive migration partnerships with priority countries of origin and transit, including the Action Plan adopted in response to the events in Afghanistan, were jointly developed by the Commission and the European External Action Service in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council of June 2021 and subsequently presented to the Member States at the meetings of the Council Working Group on External Asylum and Migration Policy. These action plans are dynamic documents that will evolve over time. They are intended for internal use by the EU and its Member States and should contribute to the development of a common strategic approach to cooperation with partner countries. The objective of this specific action plan is to strengthen the measures to be taken in support of the Afghan people or together with Afghanistan’s neighbors. Afghanistan is in great need of humanitarian aid, and the country’s own resources are limited. EU humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan is already underway and is being provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

The Commission is determined to continue to keep the European Parliament fully informed on all aspects of migration policy, including its actions in Afghanistan and the region. The Commission will continue to inform the Parliament about the evolution of the humanitarian situation on the ground and the adaptation of the EU humanitarian response.

3. The commitments made by the member states regarding Afghans at risk for the period 2021-2022 are as follows to be taken from the appendix. Member States have reported to the Commission that by April 2022, almost 28,700 persons have been admitted for humanitarian reasons, but resettlement has not yet started.

Question: Report of the Greek Transparency Authority

I asked the EU Commission on 25.05.2022 what it thinks about the fact that the Greek authorities immediately take arriving protection seekers into deportation custody and lock them in a prison that they are not allowed to leave. The Commission responds that it is aware of this practice and that it is also legally justifiable if less drastic measures do not work. These „less restrictive measures“ are not applied, however, and would also have to be subject to a case-by-case review – which they currently are not.

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here.

My request

On May 10, 2022, Greece's National Transparency Authority published an investigative report on suspected refoulements, describing, among other things, the process for managing the flow of asylum seekers reaching Greek territory by land or sea.

  • In the light of Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is the Commission's view of Greece's practice of placing new arrivals in detention pending their transfer to a reception and identification center in the Evros region (p. 23/24)?
  • Taking into account Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive, what is its view of the practice whereby applicants are kept in the facility for up to 25 days from registration during the reception and identification procedures, but are not allowed to leave the facility because they are in detention (p. 29)?
  • How are statistics collected on "prevention" (p. 56) and how many cases of prevention were recorded by the Greek authorities in 2021? Please provide a breakdown by police directorate (Alexandroúpoli, Orestiada, North Aegean and Dodecanese).

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 3.08.2022

The Commission is aware that persons arriving irregularly across the land border with Turkey at Evros are transferred to the Reception and Identification Center in Fylakio, where they are subject to the Reception and Identification Procedure and undergo a medical examination, registration of personal data, fingerprinting and interview, after which they are directed to follow-up procedures (asylum for persons applying for international protection or repatriation of persons who renounce such an application).

With regard to administrative detention during the reception and identification procedure, Article 8(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive provides that[1] in accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[2] an exhaustive list of grounds on which an applicant may be detained when less coercive measures cannot be effectively applied. Among the grounds for detention listed there is the need to establish or verify the identity or nationality of the person. However, such decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and is in dialogue with the Greek authorities. However, it does not collect statistics on 'preventions' and does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.

How much EU money has gone to Greece for migration?

Since 2015, the European Union has provided Greece with a total of €3.38 billion to address migration and border challenges. 2.53€ billion has been drawn down by Greece to date. 

The European Union's support to Greece is provided through three pots: the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), the Internal Security Fund (ISF) and the  Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). The largest pot is the AMIF, through which a total of €328.3 billion has been made available. This budget item supports EU member states for the purpose of efficient management of migration and the implementation and strengthening of the Common European Asylum System. The ISF provides money for the management of visas and entry, control of external borders, but also returns, for example through Frontex. Here, Greece has been allocated €320 million. The ESI provides support for emergencies and gives money for humanitarian aid, the share was 668.9€ million. Most of the regular money from AMIF, ISF and ESI goes to the national authorities, that is, to the Greek authorities dealing with migration and asylum, such as the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum. 


In addition to the regular requirements, funds can also be mobilized from AMIF and ISF for other short-term emergency needs ("Emergency Assistance"). In the case of Greece, the Emergency Assistance funds represent the largest sum of all the funds that have been mobilized. 1,54€ billion. Two thirds of all Emergency Assistance funds have gone to international organizations, the last third to the Greek authorities. It is important to note that a total of €2.06 billion has been made available, but Greece has not drawn down all of it.

Political will for good care is lacking

In fact the Greek authorities received 2,53€ billionto cope with the increased number of arrivals in recent years. In this context, it is particularly important to note that 3.38€ billion awarded were made, but a large part of it was not spent. This clearly shows that the funds available are necessary to provide adequate and dignified care for refugees on the Greek islands and on the mainland, but the political will is missingto implement it in this way. 

Basic requirements of the EU Reception Directive are still not being met in Greece, such as the right to education for children. The provision of food is also still problematic and inadequate. Enough money would actually be available to solve the problems in the long term. Even the European Court of Auditors as the EU's own authority, came in its Annual Report 2019 reached similar conclusions, without explicitly naming them as such. There was no explicit misappropriation of funds, but some funds from Emergency Assistance were misappropriated for longer-term projects and structures, although they may only be used flexibly for short-term emergency needs. In addition, the ACA criticized the inefficient use of the funds and thus the Discrepancy between EU targets and actual results – in other words, the lack of political will. Now, the money is not only going to the Greek authorities, but also to international organisations. But even more money to international organisations is not necessarily helpful if the Greek government does not support their work. blocked and criminalized, as is the case especially on the Greek islands. 

If you would like to take a closer look at the money that has been budgeted and paid out, you will find here is an overview from the European Commission. It also presents how much money went to the different international organization as well as to which Greek authorities. 

Looking at the numbers makes one thing very clear again. The state authorities and organizations actually have enough resources to treat people with dignity. But it seems to be politically not desired.

How the EU helps in Ukraine  

Since the invasion of Russian troops in Ukraine, the EU has significantly increased its financial support to the country, mobilizing around EUR 4.2 billion. Through budget support, macro-financial assistance, emergency aid, crisis response and humanitarian aid, the overall economic, social and financial resilience of Ukraine is to be maintained. Under the European Peace Facility, military assistance measures have also been made available, through which member states can be reimbursed for their in-kind military assistance to Ukraine.

Humanitarian aid and EU Civil Protection Mechanism since 2014

The European Union has not only been involved on the ground since the beginning of the current crisis. Since 2014, the year of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the escalation in eastern Ukraine, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism has been activated and humanitarian aid is being provided. It is estimated that since February, more than 12 million people have been forced to leave their homes, of which about 5 million have sought refuge outside Ukraine. According to UNOCHA, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 15.7 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance, but access for aid organizations in non-government controlled areas is sometimes very difficult. Since the beginning of the year, the EU and its member states have spent â'¬348 million on humanitarian aid, of which â'¬13 million has gone to Moldova to support, among other things, the reception of refugees. The Commission warns that in order to maintain basic services in Ukraine, about 1.4 billion euros may still be needed this year. 

Function of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism can respond to natural or man-made disasters when the affected country requests assistance. The Mechanism aims to improve cooperation between Member States and the 6 additional participating countries in disaster relief, with the Commission playing a key role in coordination and funding. 

The response to the war in Ukraine is the largest operation of the Civil Protection Mechanism since its creation in 2001, millions of relief items such as vehicles, generators, sleeping bags, etc. have been delivered so far. Coordination is handled by the Emergency Response Coordination Centre in Brussels, while the newly created logistical centers in Poland, Romania and Slovakia play an important role in the distribution of relief goods. Medical equipment was also delivered through RescEU, the European Civil Protection Reserve. The EU also coordinates the evacuation of critically ill patients to hospitals within the EU.

International Donor Conference in May 2022

In a Special session of the Council at the end of May, member states noted that part of the support to Ukraine will continue to be provided through humanitarian assistance, also referring to the results of the high-level international donor conferencehosted by Poland and Sweden together with the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, pledging some â'¬6.5 billion in donations. The Commission has pledged to mobilize 200 million euros from the 2022 NDICI Global Europe cushion (âcushionâ) to support the Ukrainian government in caring for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and to increase funding for humanitarian aid.

My classification

The fact is, the solidarity of the EU towards Ukraine is shown not only in the reception of refugees and the activation of the “mass influx†directive, but also in the support of disaster and humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, the resources available in the EU budget are limited. We must not forget other crises that are less in the spotlight. In particular, for the looming food crisis, we will need not only a long-term strategy, but also short-term, flexible resources, and we must have them ready. Also for Ukraine it is important that reconstruction is already planned now – the next step towards this is the reconstruction conference in Lugano in early July. In order to mobilize sufficient resources for these measures, an adjustment of the multi-annual financial framework will also be necessary.   

Frontex – EU Parliament refuses budget discharge

The EU Parliament today refused to approve the 2020 budget discharge for the European border management agency Frontex and postponed the vote. Fabrice Leggeri resigned from his post as director of the agency after the revelation of various scandals, including the involvement of illegal pushbacks by Frontex. The agency still has not met the demands of the EU Parliament's previous discharge report and has continued to support illegal pushbacks and failed to address internal scandals.

My comment as Asylum policy spokesman of the Green Group in the European Parliament on this is:

„Frontex has systematically engaged in serious human rights abuses. The refusal of budgetary discharge is an important call for reform of the border management agency. Crimes at the external borders must finally face consequences again in the EU. The EU and its member states must immediately end external border crimes and pushbacks. The EU Commission has watched for years as Member States break EU law and Frontex covers up the crimes. Unfortunately, the EU Commission supports human rights violations through its inaction. Frontex should uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of people on the run, but by all accounts, the agency has been supporting the systematic abolition of law enforcement at the EU's external borders at the expense of human dignity in recent years."

Commission ignores service directive for pushbacks in Croatia

The Croatian police have received official instructions for pushbacks. In the instruction, which has now become public, Croatian border guards are admonished not to allow themselves to be filmed during pushbacks in the future and to search the surroundings for hidden cameras before carrying out the pushbacks. The pushbacks themselves are to continue as usual. In its response, the Commission refuses to even acknowledge that Croatia systematically conducts pushbacks, despite the fact that they have been documented thousands of times and for over four years. The Commission also maintains its recommendation to allow Croatia to join the Schengen area, even though Croatia's practice at its external borders clearly violates the Schengen Borders Code. Where there are problems, the Commission simply declares itself not responsible. The Commission thus continues to turn a blind eye to the systematic human rights violations.

The whole question with answers in several languages can also be found at here

Our request

Subject: Pushbacks by the Croatian police

As the Croatian portal Index.hr reports, Croatian border guards receive service instructions for pushbacks. Thus, they follow orders and do not perform pushbacks at their own discretion, as the Croatian government has claimed so far. The instruction in question is a reaction to a case filed by the Mirror and the ARD video released in October in which Croatian border guards were filmed engaging in violent pushbacks. In response to the Commission's response to my inquiry regarding the videos, I have been waiting for almost four months.

In the instruction that has now become public, Croatian border guards are admonished not to allow themselves to be filmed during pushbacks in the future and to search the surrounding area for hidden cameras before conducting pushbacks. The pushbacks themselves are to continue as usual.

1. how does the Commission intend to investigate these state-ordered pushbacks, and what significance does it intend to attach to the results of this investigation with regard to the procedure for Croatia's accession to the Schengen area?

2. whether the Commission expects any changes to be made to the 'independent monitoring mechanism' at the external border, given that the Croatian Government is clearly not interested in investigating human rights violations for which it is itself responsible?

3. whether the Commission finds credible the statements by the Croatian Ministry of the Interior to the effect that the Croatian Government had nothing to do with the pushbacks and that it was a matter of misconduct on the part of individual officials?

Answer given by Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 29.4.2022

1. the investigation of alleged criminal acts by national authorities is the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission has consistently asked the Croatian authorities to investigate alleged ill-treatment of migrants. Croatia's full accession to the Schengen area without internal border controls requires a unanimous Council decision, pending adoption. The JHA Council of 9-10 December 2021 concluded that Croatia fulfills the necessary conditions to apply all parts of the Schengen acquis. The Commission considers that Croatia has taken the necessary measures to ensure that all the Requirements for the application
of the Schengen acquis
are fulfilled and remain fulfilled.

2 While the Commission services, in cooperation with the Croatian authorities, seek to ensure that Croatia's "independent monitoring mechanism" functions effectively, the establishment of the mechanism, and in particular its composition, remains in Croatian hands. Under the independent monitoring mechanism, a publicly available mid-year (interim) report was issued in December 2020. The Croatian authorities informed the Commission and the Parliament on how they are implementing the initial recommendations. The Advisory Committee – of which the Commission and relevant stakeholders are members (and which is not part of the Mechanism) – will make recommendations on how to improve the functioning of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will continue to ensure that applicable EU law is respected.

3. the Commission is not in a position to assess the credibility of the remarks to which the Honourable Member refers. However, the Commission's position on fundamental rights is clear: any measures taken by Member States to prevent or deter unauthorised crossing of the EU's external borders must fully comply with relevant EU law, including in particular the Charter
of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union
be in accordance with the law. Any inhuman or degrading treatment is unlawful. Therefore, any misconduct by individual border guards should be subject to investigation by the competent authorities and, if necessary, prosecution.

This is how the scheme by which the EU accepts refugees from Ukraine works

All 27 EU countries are ready to accept refugees from Ukraine. After a meeting of EU interior ministers:inside on 03 March 2022 it was announced that the EU would A guideline which guarantees war refugees from Ukraine protection in the EU - without costly asylum procedures. It is great that Europe is finally sticking together when it comes to taking in refugees. By activating the directive, refugees from Ukraine will be offered protection and perspective without bureaucracy. The directive also clearly states that refugees have a right to work and become self-sufficient. Member states must also ensure that refugees are either provided with adequate housing or given resources to take care of such housing themselves. Medical care and access to the education system must also be guaranteed. 

Current flight movements from Ukraine

Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania have opened their borders and allow all people from Ukraine to enter. The refugees do not need a passport, which many Ukrainians do not have. The non-EU country of Moldova also allows refugees to enter. However, due to the general mobilization, Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 cannot leave Ukraine in most cases. So far, according to UNHCR (as of March 11, 2022), more than 2.5 million people have fled Ukraine, in addition to more than one million internally displaced persons in Ukraine. Putin's war of aggression has led to the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the end of the Second World War.

The legal basis 

The legal basis for this action is the so-called Mass inflow Directive 2001/55/EC. Denmark is the only EU state outside the scope of the directive. The directive provides a mechanism for the EU-wide coordinated reception of large numbers of refugees beyond the individual asylum procedure and beyond the Dublin system. Responsible for determining a "mass influx" is the Council of the European Union. The Parliament is only informed of the decision, but is not allowed to comment on it in advance. 

This law was created to grant protection after the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but has not yet been used. In 2015, it was not applied because it was not foreseeable whether the necessary EU decision would be reached.

Where do we go from here?

In principle, the directive stipulates a minimum period of one year, but this can be extended. The actual implementation of the directive is up to the member states. They must now make commitments about how many refugees they want to take in. The Ukrainian refugees can choose an EU member state in which they will receive protection under this directive.

Unfortunately, the directive leaves one important point open, namely how to deal with third-country nationals. Germany wants to accept all refugees from Ukraine regardless of their nationality. There will also be no upper limit, said Interior Minister Faeser.

Challenges 

Currently, the member states, especially those on the border with Ukraine, are facing very great challenges. So far, there are not enough services for vulnerable groups such as children. The situation at the borders and the initial reception is not good and needs to improve quickly. It is also important that access to state services – schooling, medical care – is guaranteed quickly and easily.  

My demands and proposals 

It is important that the Commission now coordinates that refugees who do not have a specific country of destination are assigned to Member States so that we arrive at a fair distribution. Member States that take in many refugees should receive financial support from the EU in this regard. The most important thing, however, is that the member states implement the directive openly and appropriately and also grant access to third-country nationals and do not screen out those people who have had to flee Ukraine but are not Ukrainian citizens.  

In recent years, refugees from war zones have been turned back again and again, although this was forbidden and inhumane. One can only hope that the current crisis will help the EU states to adhere to the applicable law and quickly implement today's decision. Regardless of the directive and the criteria set, all those seeking protection have the right to access the asylum procedure. There must be no rejections.

As shadow rapporteur, I am committed to improving the scope for action of civil society organizations

Civil society organizations play a central role in democracy and the development of civil society. However, they can only carry out their work effectively if there is no undue interference, intimidation or criminalization. Unfortunately, the spaces for many NGOs have become smaller in recent years. 37 % of local or regional organizations in the EU have indicated that the situation for them has worsened or even significantly worsened in 2020. Unfortunately, attempts are being made in many EU countries to make life difficult for refugees and people who want to help refugees, also through arrests or the abuse of existing laws.. A current example of this is the Court case in Greece against Seán Binder & Sarah Mardini and 22 others who face up to 25 years in prison. The charges are flimsy and are simply about punishing people who saved others from drowning to deter others.

The European Parliament's Home Affairs Committee has requested a so-called own-initiative report (INI), on which I worked as a shadow rapporteur. I want our report to better protect and regulate the spaces of action for civil society organizations in the EU. The INI was adopted by a large majority in this week's plenary session. 

Our demands to the Commission

  • An understandable and concrete strategy for the protection and development of civil society and its organizations. Specifically, an implementation of the already existing instruments, introduction of a monitoring mechanism, elimination of legal loopholes and a real political recognition of the role of civil society organizations.
  • Creation of an EU alert mechanism, through which civil society organizations can report threats and the necessary steps can be taken accordingly. 
  • Establishment of clear criteria for the scope of action of civil society organizations and their significance. These criteria are intended to prevent laws from being enacted that restrict the spaces for action. 
  • Monitoring the implementation of EU law and its compliant application and interpretation. If EU states violate this, infringement proceedings are to be initiated. 
  • Ensure the promotion of civil society organizations so that they can implement the roles and tasks assigned to them in the various sectoral policies. 
  • An EU-wide emergency grant for civil society organizations at risk.
  • Active cooperation with civil society organizations regarding the elaboration of work programs and funding mechanisms to ensure transparency, flexibility and user:friendliness. 
  • Greater involvement and training of civil society organizations regarding monitoring of expenditures through EU funds at the member state level. 
  • Ensure that CSOs are involved in the implementation and monitoring of the national recovery plan and other funds under shared management and verify that national recovery plans meet the needs for CSOs. 
  • Ensure that GONGOs, "NGOs" strongly led by certain states and their interests, are not funded by the EU. 
  • Adopt a set of rules on cross-border donations & harmonization.  
  • EP President to appoint a Vice President for Dialogue with Civil Society Organizations. 

The scope of action of civil society organizations must be better protected. Our INI was adopted by the Home Affairs Committee and will now be forwarded to the Commission. I will keep you updated here as soon as there is news on the topic.

EN