12 Written explanations of Nikola BARTŮŠEK

I strongly condemn the fact that the 2024 Commissioners-designate hearings did not focus on the professional preparedness and aptitude of the candidates but became the subject of political pacts and back-room deals, this calls into question the credibility and raison d’être of the entire evaluation process. I am concerned that a significant number of Commissioners-designate have been approved despite their poor performance and lack of experience in their respective portfolios, and that this undermines the Commission’s credibility for the next five years. I voted against the European Commission. It perpetuates irrational green policies that harm industry and diminish the standard of living for all of us. It also continues to fall short in addressing the fight against illegal migration. Moreover, many Commissioners lack the necessary experience to tackle the significant challenges we face.

The Republic of Vanuatu is a small archipelago country in Oceania. It has been listed in the Annex II for countries enjoying visa-free travel to the Schengen area since 2015. That means that the citizens of Vanuatu were able to travel free to any Schengen country and stay for 90 days in a 180-day period. However, also since 2015, Vanuatu has been running its citizenship for investment scheme, i.e. a programme whereby for as little as USD 130 000, a person could obtain citizenship, without a proper security check or even physical presence in the country. What is more, a number of Russian citizens used the scheme to bypass EU sanctions. For this reason, the visa-free travel was suspended by the Council in 2022. The present vote will make this suspension permanent by removing Vanuatu from Annex II permanently into Annex I.I have voted in favour of removing Vanuatu from Annex II permanently into Annex I.

The EU Commission proposes mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for a total of EUR 116 031 553 to assist Germany and Italy following devastating floods in 2024.In Germany, a major disaster struck Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in May 2024, with torrential rains causing floods that exceeded historic levels. The disaster resulted in six fatalities, the collapse of several dams and significant infrastructure damage, including disrupted rail networks and a derailed train. Direct damages are estimated at EUR 4.13 billion, exceeding the major disaster threshold of EUR 3.8 billion, qualifying the event under Article 2(2) of the EUSF Regulation. Total amount of aid proposed: EUR 112 071 681.In Italy, regional flooding in Valle d’Aosta in June 2024 caused extensive damage, affecting 58 % of the region’s municipalities and 52 000 inhabitants. The direct damages, estimated at EUR 158.39 million, surpass the regional disaster threshold of EUR 71.05 million, meeting the criteria of Article 2(3) of the EUSF Regulation. Total amount of aid proposed: EUR 3 959 872.This funding aims to address urgent recovery needs in both countries.

The EU Commission proposes mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for a total of EUR 116 031 553 to assist Germany and Italy following devastating floods in 2024.In Germany, a major disaster struck Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg in May 2024, with torrential rains causing floods that exceeded historic levels. The disaster resulted in six fatalities, the collapse of several dams and significant infrastructure damage, including disrupted rail networks and a derailed train. Direct damages are estimated at EUR 4.13 billion, exceeding the major disaster threshold of EUR 3.8 billion, qualifying the event under Article 2(2) of the EUSF Regulation. Total amount of aid proposed: EUR 112 071 681.In Italy, regional flooding in Valle d’Aosta in June 2024 caused extensive damage, affecting 58 % of the region’s municipalities and 52 000 inhabitants. The direct damages, estimated at EUR 158.39 million, surpass the regional disaster threshold of EUR 71.05 million, meeting the criteria of Article 2(3) of the EUSF Regulation. Total amount of aid proposed: EUR 3 959 872.This funding aims to address urgent recovery needs in both countries.

I support the provisional agreement to postpone the application of the Deforestation Regulation by 12 months. This delay gives businesses, especially micro and small enterprises, more time to adapt to the new rules. Large operators will need to comply by 30 December 2025, while smaller businesses have until 30 June 2026.Although the text does not include Parliament's proposals for "zero-risk countries" and the "emergency brake," the European Commission has made written commitments to address these concerns. Specifically, they will evaluate simplified requirements for countries with sustainable forest management practices and ensure the Information System and Risk Classification are ready at least six months before the rules take effect.Given these commitments and the importance of supporting businesses during the transition, I believe this agreement strikes a reasonable balance and warrants my support.

The proposed regulation, submitted under the urgency procedure, as it introduces essential flexibility to European financing mechanisms by allowing up to 10% of ERDF and ESF+ funds to be redirected to aid Member States impacted by natural disasters. This measure ensures a swift and effective response to emergencies, which is a priority.Conversely, I support the European Parliament’s amendment, which aligns with the Council’s proposed text. Although it slightly modifies the Commission’s original proposal, this version ensures that funds can be directed to affected regions without delay. My priority is to guarantee that aid reaches those in need as quickly as possible, enabling an immediate and effective response to natural disasters.

The proposal to be voted by urgent procedure is part of the package of amendments adopted by the Commission on 21 October. This measure introduces targeted financial support for farmers, foresters, and SMEs involved in the processing, marketing, or development of agricultural or forestry products, helping them recover from natural disasters occurring on or after 1 January 2024.The proposal, concerning the EAFRD for the 2014-2022 period, allows Member States to use unspent funds to provide lump-sum compensation of up to EUR 42,000 per beneficiary. While Member States with more advanced EAFRD accounting may have limited capacity to utilize this measure, it is crucial to prioritize solidarity. This measure offers vital support to those Member States that have experienced significant damages from natural disasters and stand to benefit the most.Supporting this proposal reflects a commitment to ensuring swift and effective recovery for affected sectors and regions. I voted in favour to uphold the spirit of solidarity and provide much-needed assistance to those in need.

I voted in favor of the proposal to extend the EU equivalence regime to forest reproductive material of the ‘tested’ category produced in certain third countries under OECD standards. This measure ensures the continuation of imports by updating the existing Council Decision to include labelling provisions and clearly identifying responsible authorities in the country of production.The decision replaces the temporary authorisation granted in 2021, which allowed Member States to independently assess third-country compliance until 31 December 2024. By adopting this proposal through a simplified procedure, we prevent regulatory gaps that could arise once the temporary authorisation expires.Given the technical nature of this measure and its importance in maintaining consistent regulatory standards, I believe it is crucial to support this initiative. It provides legal certainty for the import of forest reproductive material while ensuring it meets EU standards, benefiting both EU Member States and third-country producers. My positive vote reflects the need to avoid disruptions and uphold a harmonized approach within the Union.

I voted in favor of this report as it underscores the significant contributions of the European Ombudsman in 2023 toward enhancing the quality and transparency of EU administration. The report highlights her efforts to improve processes, particularly in relation to the awarding of contracts by the European Commission, ensuring accountability and fairness.By addressing administrative shortcomings and fostering openness, the Ombudsman’s work strengthens public trust in EU institutions. This aligns with the broader objective of promoting good governance and maintaining high standards of integrity in public administration. Supporting this report reflects my commitment to advancing transparency and accountability across EU operations.

I voted against the proposal to transform the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) and the Subcommittee on Public Health (SANT) into standing committees for several reasons. Firstly, the method used to present the proposal was problematic, as it was negotiated behind closed doors by a select few groups (EPP, Renew, and S&D) and finalized without proper consultation with other groups. This lack of transparency undermines democratic decision-making.Substantively, there is no clear need or added value in upgrading these subcommittees. The move appears to signal an unnecessary expansion of EU powers into areas where Member States already hold significant competence, risking over-centralization. Furthermore, creating new standing committees would generate additional public expenses, a concern for fiscal responsibility.Regarding SEDE, the new committee's scope risks overlapping with other committees, such as ITRE, especially in areas like the defence industry. This duplication could lead to inefficiencies and conflicts over responsibilities. As for SANT, its proposed mandate is already well-managed under existing structures, making the change redundant.Overall, the proposal lacks sufficient justification, risks inefficiency and financial waste, and was developed through an undemocratic process. For these reasons, I opposed it.

I voted against the establishment of a special European Democracy Shield committee because the fight against hybrid attacks and disinformation is already effectively addressed by existing committees such as LIBE, AFET, and JURI. These committees possess the expertise and mandate to tackle these critical issues, making the creation of a new committee redundant.Moreover, establishing a new committee, even on a temporary basis of 12 months, would lead to additional expenses for European taxpayers. At a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount, it is essential to prioritize efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts within the European Parliament.This decision aligns with the broader goal of maintaining a streamlined and effective Parliament. Instead of creating new structures, the existing committees should be empowered to fully utilize their mandates and resources to address the challenges of hybrid attacks and disinformation. Strengthening coordination and optimizing the use of current capacities is a more cost-effective and practical solution.For these reasons, I believe the proposal for a special European Democracy Shield committee was unnecessary and fiscally imprudent, and I therefore voted against it.

I voted against the establishment of a parliamentary committee to address housing because it oversteps the competencies assigned to the European Union under the European Treaties. While the housing crisis is a pressing issue for many Member States, housing markets across the EU vary significantly, requiring tailored, localized solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach at the EU level.This is a clear case where the subsidiarity principle should apply, ensuring that decisions are made as closely as possible to the citizens they affect. Member States are better positioned to address their unique housing challenges, and creating an EU-level committee risks unnecessary interference and inefficiency.Moreover, assigning housing to a parliamentary committee contradicts the foundational principles of EU governance and risks diverting resources away from areas where the EU has clear competence. For these reasons, I opposed the proposal.