EC Briefing — Tuesday, 31 March 2026

Key Points

• EU mobilizes €21.5 million from agricultural reserve to support farmers in Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary.
• Energy Ministers meeting today to discuss coordinated EU response to Middle East energy situation.
• EU expresses strong opposition to Israel's new death penalty law, citing human rights violations.
• Diplomatic engagement with Israel continues, but no immediate action on association agreement suspension planned.
• EU calls on Israel to uphold its commitment to democratic principles and international law.
• Commissioner emphasizes ongoing dialogue as part of EU's broader diplomatic strategy regarding Israel.

Full Transcript

Opening Statement

Good afternoon and welcome to our midday press briefing. Today is Tuesday the 31st of March, 2026. Before we take your questions, we have a few announcements for you. So let me start by inviting Louise to join me on the podium with some good news on EU support for our farmers.

Hi, good afternoon. Indeed, we have very good news for our farmers in Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary. Throughout 2025, farmers in those member states witnessed significant damage and suffered economic losses due to adverse climatic events and natural disasters. For instance, Bulgaria faced severe droughts and heat waves, which significantly reduced sunflower and maize production. In Estonia, spring frost followed by a cold, wet, and unstable growing season harmed crops. Finally, in Hungary, extreme heat and water shortages between June and August caused major heat stress, also affecting certain crops. So what is the EU doing to support farmers in those countries? Yesterday, member states endorsed the Commission's proposal to mobilize 21.5 million euros from the agricultural reserve for those farmers. This reserve operates with 450 million euros per year to cope with market disruptions or exceptional events affecting production or distribution. This support is essential as we are dealing with increasingly frequent extreme climatic events. You can find more information about this support in our press release, which was published yesterday. Thanks very much, Louise, for this timely reminder of the rock-solid support that the European Commission on behalf of the European Union always, always, always gives to our farmers.

Perhaps I could now draw your attention to the informal meeting of Energy Ministers, which is being held by videoconference today. Commissioner Jönsson is representing the Commission. The Ministers will be discussing a coordinated approach at EU level regarding the energy situation in light of developments in the Middle East. A press conference with Commissioner Jönsson will take place at around 5 p.m. following the meeting. As always, we'd like to ask you to keep your questions on such subjects for that actual press conference. Thank you. Flemish University, Thomas Moore, who are joining us in the press room today, we hope you enjoy your time here in the Commission. We hope you learn loads, and we're very happy to see you. So that's it for our announcements. We can now pass to your questions. Go ahead.

Q: Thank you, Olaf. I have a foreign affairs question regarding the death penalty law that was passed at the Israeli Knesset. Please go ahead. I would like to know, does the EU plan to take any concrete action, for example, with regards pushing for support to suspend the Israel-EU association agreement following the death penalty law that was passed at the Israeli Knesset yesterday? This law can actually be categorized as an appetite death penalty as it explicitly targets Palestinian detainees. So I'd like to hear your words on that. Thank you. Thank you very much for your question. I'll pass the floor to Anwar.

A (Anwar): Good afternoon. The death penalty bill in Israel is very concerning to us in the EU. This is a clear step backwards, the introduction of the death penalty together with the discriminatory nature of the law. We will also note that several voices have been raised in Israel after the adoption of the law and also noting that there is an appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, this is a clear negative trend in terms of Israel's obligation vis-à-vis respect of human rights.

Q: I have a follow-up. What I'm actually asking is, will, for example, the President or the Foreign Minister take concrete action? Because does the EU actually fear that if it does not take concrete action at this stage, does it hear that its image as an institution that upholds human rights and democratic principles may erode?

A (Anwar): Thank you for the question. I think that we have been vocal on this from the start, following the approval of the bill by the Security Committee in the Knesset. So we have been expressing our position loud and clear in line with our principles and our values as European Union. We as EU, we are opposing capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and we have said that from the start in terms of the law before even its adoption in Israel. Why? Because the death penalty is a violation of the right to life and this is a core value to the EU. Let's also recall that Israel has long upheld a de facto moratorium on both executions and capital punishment sentencing, thereby leading by example in the region, despite a complex security environment. That being said, the approval of this law is a grave step backward from this important practice and from position that Israel has itself expressed in the past. We as EU, our position is clear to call on Israel to abide by its previous principled position, its obligation under international law, and its commitment to democratic principles. In terms of our action, we have been engaging with Israel both at HQ level and at the level of our EU delegation in Israel without reach on the ground, including with the authorities, the Knesset, and the civil society, because dialogue is part of diplomacy. And in terms of the HRDP, she has regular contacts with her interlocutors as part of established channels of communication in terms of diplomatic engagement with her Israeli interlocutor. Thank you, Anwar. Do we have other questions on this topic for Anwar? We'll come over here to the back. Behind you, Silvia, yeah. I can't see who it is. It's Diego. Thank you, Diego.

Q (Diego): So no concrete steps regarding the association agreement, no push to suspend it in any way. Thank you.

A: Thank you very much. Thank you. Look, on this, our position has been clear and set from the start, direction of travel from the presence of the European Commission at the last State of the Union with several measures that have been presented. And at present, these measures remain on the table.

Q: Follow-up? Yes, thank you. Yeah, I know that, but it was – the proposal came in a different context. And now that there is new context with a new violation, as you say, of human rights, will you go to the foreign ministers and underline the need to actually take action? Thank you.

A: Look, as I was saying, diplomatic engagement has taken place, is taking place, and will continue to take place. And this is part of our broader engagement, and this is what we do with our regular partners when we don't see developments eye to eye and we're not on the same page in terms of different actions that are taken on both sides. So dialogue is taking place, engagement is taking place, but it's not for me here at this stage today to be prejudging at this stage or to speculate in terms of the next steps that could be actually taken. For now, we have taken a clear position in terms of our disapproval, in terms of the negative trend, and in terms of this grave back – step back in terms of the obligations of Israel vis-a-vis human rights. And I think that our position is quite clear. And at this moment now, let's not again confuse or mix or speculate further at this stage in terms of any future decision or any future action. Thank you, Anwar. That was very clear. I will allow more questions on this, folks, but if it's – if they're getting repetitive, I'm going to shut it down. Anwar has given a very clear answer on where we stand, what may or may not come next, and that's all we have to say on this for the moment. Moshe, go ahead.

Q (Moshe): Thank you, Olaf. Yes, I would like to ask another – a linked question, because what happened now is quite serious, as you said, very concerning. And we know that the EU has also – the Commission has proposed sanctions against those extremist ministers in the Israeli government which have been pushing, for example, death penalty. So I would like to ask you if you think that it is more likely to happen in the way to send a signal to the current Israeli Government that this is unacceptable?

A: Moshe, thank you, but that was a variation of the same question. Anwar has been quite clear and we're not going to go beyond what he has said at this stage. Are there other questions on this topic? If not, are there other questions for Anwar on other foreign affairs topics he covers? Go ahead.

Q (Melika Pala, Anadolu): Hello. Thank you very much. Melika Pala from Anadolu. My question is about occupied West Bank. So there has been a noticeable increase in the violence by Israeli legal settlers in the West Bank, which continues to threaten the fundamental rights of Palestinians. And additionally, last week Israeli authorities prevented the Patriarch from entering East Jerusalem – occupied East Jerusalem during the Christian Holy Week. First of all, I want to ask you the European Commission current position on these developments. And if I may, my second question is going to be about the sanctions targeting Israeli settlers. It's also on the table for a while. We understand that. But so far, EU didn't take any concentrated steps in response to sanctions against these settlers. So in the current – when considering the current situation, the EU is considering any concentrated steps in response of this violence. If yes, what are – the things are under concentration? Thank you very much.

A (Anwar): Thank you. On this, we have been having a longstanding position, quite clear, and I'm by its obligation under international law, and to protect the Palestinian population of the occupied territories. We'll also recall that settlements are illegal under international law. Now, in terms of the settler violence, we have strongly condemned, and we continue to do so, the growing settler violence against Palestinian civilians, including violence against extremist settlers, but we need to have 27 out of 27. On the second angle of your question, because I think that you touched on the holy sites, our position is clear. We call for full preservation and full respect of the status quo of Jerusalem's holy sites, as again amplified by the High Representative over the weekend in her post.

Thank you, Anwar. I just want to, wearing my trades spokesperson hat, compliment what Anwar has said, and that is to remind you, as we've done from the podium before, that the European Union implements a differentiation policy towards Israel and the occupied territories, whereby goods originating from Israeli settlements in occupied territories since June 1967 do not fall within the scope of trade with Israel. What that means is that goods originating from Israeli settlements in territories that came under Israeli administration since June 1967 are not entitled to benefit from any preferential trade or tariff treatment. So I hope that's very clear.

Q: Other questions for Anwar on this topic? Or on the many topics he covers? I don't see case United States is ready to provide security guarantee for Ukraine. I would like to ask about position of EU, what you think should be this condition, should be withdrawing of troops precondition of peace, and could it lead in some way to peace, and from point

A (Anita): When it comes also to the support in the peace context, let me reiterate also once more that upholding Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity is crucial, and I would also like to point you out towards our statement on the fifth year of Russia's war of aggression where we reaffirm our continuing, unwavering support for Ukraine's independence, and we have a statement on Bucha that we have just issued reiterating the need to ensure the territorial integrity within its international recognised borders with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the international law. Thank you, Anita. Other questions for Anita? We're going over here.

Q (Maria Psarra, EFSCENE newspaper Greece): Thank you, Maria Psarra from EFSCENE newspaper Greece. I would like to know about the participants in the meeting today in Kiev. We were told that it is an MFA, so you have the list of participants. Can you please elaborate also about the practicals and the choreography maybe of this meeting? Thank you.

A (Anita): Thank you. I can give you the list that we have now at hand. It is also for the Council because it's a Foreign Affairs informal Council as such. We have several ministers, but indeed not everybody is participating at ministerial level, so we will have to look into this. Thank you, Anita. Follow-up? How many ministers are there? Again I need to check. I have 12 for now counted, but we'll be happy to send you the updated list as soon as I have it. Thanks. We'll find the number for you and come back ASAP, Maria. Go ahead.

Q (Valeriy Pashko, public broadcaster Ukraine): Valeriy Pashko, public broadcaster Ukraine. I'm not sure it's for Anita or not, but it's on Hungary and Russia. Do you have any comments on these latest scandals regarding Minister Sigarto that Hungary and Slovakia demanded that oligarchs Usmanov and Fridman be removed from the sanction list on Russia's demands? You've never commented on that, I guess, so do you have any, I don't know, things to say to us about that? Thanks.

A: Thank you. I'll start also with the principle sanctions are taken in unanimity, so it's not about one country as such. And then on the previous discussion that we had on the

Q (Kisha Hexer, NOS Dutch Public Broadcaster): Thank you. Kisha Hexer for NOS Dutch Public Broadcaster. I was wondering if you have any reaction after the past 24 hours in general regarding the expert mission that has no access to Druze pipeline, and more specific, if you have been able to reach out to the Ukrainian authorities to ask what is holding back the permission? Thank you.

A: Thank you for your question. We have no update to provide at this time. You can also pose this question later at the Energy Council press conference. We encourage you to do so. Other questions for Anita?

Q (Jorge): Hello. Yes, it's following up on what Valeria just said, this new investigation that was published this morning by five European media outlets, because in this investigation, we can actually hear a phone conversation between Sergey Lavrov and Peter Sciarto, where they discussed the potential removal of an individual in the sanctions. In fact, this individual, the sister of an oligarch, was removed at the end from the sanctions. So, do you think the time has ended, seeking for clarifications, and that you finally have proof of this cooperation behind the scenes, and what measures can you take? Thank you.

A: Thank you, Jorge, for that nice presentation of the facts. We're aware of the facts. Anita has given our answer, and we have nothing more to say on that topic for the moment. Other questions for Anita today? Thank you, Anita. Other topics for us today? Dafydd?

Q (Dafydd): It's not on this subject, and it's not on phone tapping of colleagues in Brussels. I'm not going to ask that question. It's on the MSR, you know, ETS and so on. Is that coming out tomorrow, the reforms of the MSR? Can we have a timeline, or at least know that it's not, you know, we don't have to worry about it for tomorrow? Thanks.

A: Thanks for your question, Dafydd. I don't have an update to provide at this time. As soon as I will let you know first, and everyone else know second. Thanks for your patience. I don't know for us today. Please go ahead.

Q (Peter Haag, Politico): Peter Haag, Politico. I had a question around Pax Silica, the US-led initiative around artificial intelligence and chips. Yesterday, US Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, Jacob Helberg, urged Brussels to join the Pax Silica network, and he even hinted somehow that Brussels is holding a progress on the talks. I wanted to know what the latest status of the negotiations, and if you're entering in negotiations with the US on this, what the EU wants to get out of this itself?

A: Thank you, Peter. I'll be disappointing you because I'll be very short. We are engaging with our US counterparts like we always do, and we're exploring all potential options at this stage. Thank you, Tom.

Q: Follow-up? I know that the EU countries also discussed this on Friday. They kind of then blocked the green light for the Commission to enter negotiations because of tech sovereignty concerns. They say that it runs counter the idea that Europe should be more technologically sovereign. What would your response be to them?

A: There again, we're engaging with the US, but also with our member states, obviously. So we're listening carefully, listening to all of them. No decision has been taken on our side for now, but we're exploring all options. Thank you. Razia Akoc.

Q (Razia Akoc): I do have a question for Thomas, but I briefly just want to say I didn't quite like your response to Jorge, Olaf. I think it was a very valid question, considering the content of the phone call. But I'll go to my question to Thomas. I don't think I've seen any information about who this American is meeting. Can you give us, like, who's he meeting in terms of the European Commission and whatnot? Thank you.

A: Thank you. I'm not aware of any meetings I can report for now, but if I have some news, I will definitely get back to both of you, Peter, Raz, and the others. And for my part, Jorge, I only insist when there's nothing more from our side to say. So if my tone caused you offence, I do apologise. And we're only doing our best from this side of the podium, as you're doing your best from your side of the podium.

Q: Other questions for Thomas? I don't see hands in the room or online. Other questions for us today? Go ahead.

Q: The Commission said that it intended to launch an in-depth investigation on public aid in France. And this is for EDF, for nuclear energy facilities. And the investigation is supposed to take place within the industrial imperatives of this site. So could you tell us a bit more? There's a deadline by the end of the year. How long is this investigation likely to take? Are we talking about months or years, given how complex this file is?

A: Yes, thank you very much for that question. The Commission is fully aware of how important this project is, and also the objective of having a final investment decision by the end of 2026 for the benefit of the project promoter. So we will do everything in our power to carry out this investigation as quickly as possible and give our opinion. But an in-depth investigation is a complex process. And the stakeholders involved do have to work closely together, and the Commission has to work closely with the French authorities on a number of issues, issues which are explained in our press release. So clearly, quality is our top priority, and we intend to carry out a full, detailed investigation and all of that as quickly as possible so that we can conclude our assessment as soon as possible. Any other questions for Ricardo? Dafydd.

Q (Dafydd): Yeah, it's about the recent Slovak double pricing of fuels. I was wondering if there's been any follow-up. So I mean, the double pricing, higher pricing for foreigners or non-Slovaks is obviously illegal against EU law. But I mean, when would there be any action from the point of view of the Commission? I suppose it's a level of a formal letter of notice, right? But how long does the procedure take? Thanks.

A: Thanks very much, Dafydd. That's actually a question for Siobhan covering the internal market. So we'll bring her up afterwards. First, I just want to check, are there any other questions for Ricardo on the files he covers? I don't see hands in the room or online. Thanks very much, Ricardo. Come on up, Siobhan, and she will give you the answer, Dafydd.

Thanks, Olaf, and thanks, Dafydd. I think I more or less got the gist of your question about the fuel prices. Indeed, we have taken note that the Slovak government has adopted a measure that imposed a 30-day fuel price cap on diesel refueling in Slovakia that has introduced differentiated diesel pricing for domestic and foreign vehicles, of course, with higher prices for vehicles that have foreign registration plates. And we consider this measure highly discriminatory and against EU law. And of course, we understand the need to support citizens at this time, but measures should not discriminate based on nationality, nor should they, of course, undermine the integrity of the internal market. So the Commission will take appropriate legal action to ensure compliance when we see evidence of citizens being discriminated against. As would appear to be the case here, and this is why we did send a letter to Slovakian authorities last week asking for a reply. And member states, I just want to emphasize that member states can take measures to support their citizens, but these should not be discriminatory. And one of the examples that we have stated clearly is that member states may reduce excise tax on fuel, and some member states have already done so. And the Commission is, of course, supportive of that, any measure that benefits all EU citizens. So as for timelines, there are no strict timelines. We, of course, in any case would seek to be in constructive dialogue with authorities where we see something that is not compatible with EU law. Many thanks, Yvonne. Follow-up, Dafydd?

Q (Dafydd): Sorry, it's just quick, but in terms of follow-up, in legal follow-up, there's no possibility within this energy crisis to actually do stamp down on the double pricing. It would take too long, right? We're months away from any sort of infringement procedure. Thanks for the follow-up, Dafydd. Before Siobhan jumps in, do you have any comments on the

A (Olaf): We're taking action. We're playing our role. There's no defined timelines, but I think we're doing what we're supposed to do. Anything to add to that, Siobhan?

A (Siobhan): No, thanks, Olaf. Indeed, in 2022, there were other cases of member states implementing similar measures and were withdrawn. So I would think in this case that this is a good start to remedying something that is clearly discriminatory as it stands. Indeed. So just to be really clear, we have sent a letter, we are in dialogue with the Member State in question, we will continue our engagement, and we're not going to prejudge next steps from this podium today. Other questions on this topic for Siobhan? Other questions for Siobhan on the many topics she covers? Thank you, Siobhan. Other questions for us today? Maria?

Q (Maria): Hello again. It's for Anna Kajsa. I know there is an Energy Council, but since the Energy

A (Anna Kajsa): Thank you, Maria. So two things. First of all, it is a question for the Energy Council because you're asking questions about a transport issue, but as it relates to energy matters. But the one clarification I can provide, and by the way this is referenced in our daily news just published, what we're saying to Member States is that there are a range of measures they can consider, nothing more. We're not going to go into the details of those now. You can ask that question at the press conference this afternoon if you like. But to be clear, the Commission will never tell Member States to do A, B or C. But exercising our role as the guardian of the treaty and the engine of European integration and the machine trying to keep everything moving forward here, certainly in this case we pointed out to Member States that there are options to them in terms of energy savings as they relate to the transport sector. Nothing more. Other questions for us today? Go ahead.

Q (Anwar): Apologies, I'm afraid I might have to ask Anwar to come back. I want to ask about the UNIFIL soldiers killed in Lebanon. Does the EU have any comment on UNIFIL peacekeepers being killed in Lebanon? And there were also reports that the French contingent of UNIFIL was targeted actually three times by the Israeli army during the weekend. What is your reaction as Israeli attacks continue on Lebanon? Thank you. Thanks for coming back, Anwar. Go ahead.

A (Anwar): Thank you for the question. We as European Union condemn the attacks that have resulted in the death of UNIFIL peacekeepers and others being injured. We also condemn the attacks that have targeted the French contingent in the last few days. We extend our condolences to the families of the victims and we wish prompt recovery to those injured. We call for a thorough investigation to shed light on these grave attacks. These attacks are a grave violation of international law, are totally unacceptable, and must stop immediately. We as EU reiterate our unwavering support to UNIFIL, which is a fundamental force for the stabilization of Lebanon. Thank you, Anwar. As this great man is back on the stage with me, I want to check if there are any other questions for Anwar. No, there are not. Merci, Anwar. Then, do we have other questions today? Tommaso, you've been waiting very patiently. Go ahead.

Q (Tommaso): I'm from the Italian press agency. It's on the energy crisis and budget matters. Now, in Italy, Giancarlo Giugetti, the economy minister, has said that he was hoping that we'd have a suspension of the stability pact to address the energy crisis. Even the vice PM, Matteo Salvini, reiterated that comment. Now, I know the reply before I ask the question, but it would be interesting to have an answer from you, on or off the record. Do you think there's any way we could arrive at that situation? Anyone can reply, and if not, we'll get back to you as quickly as possible after the midday. Thank you for your understanding. David, go ahead.

Q (David Carretta, Radio Radicale): Yes, David Carretta, Radio Radicale. I have a question on the rule of law. Yesterday, the Liberty Organization produced a report which took stock of the annual report from the Commission on the rule of law and the different recommendations. The report is very critical, and it emphasizes that several countries, including Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, are dismantling the rule of law. So, I'd like to know whether the Commission has already taken note of this report. This is the result of a lot of teamwork. It was partly financed by the EU budget. So, what is your reaction to all of this? Yes, I have Guillaume standing next to me. He's filling in for Marcus this week.

A (Guillaume): Yes, thank you very much for that question. Yes, we've read the report. We don't have any specific comments on it. You know what our position is on the rule of law in the Member States. So, we have our rule of law report, which was published some months ago, covering all of that, and this covers all the Member States on an objective basis and equal footing using our usual method, and we feel that this has solidified the commitment of Member States. We've seen that Member States have committed themselves more in recent years in this area. This report is a way of preventing problems and also discuss potential problems. All of this is based on dialogue, and this whole process has been strengthened in recent years with these different rule of law reports and the different reforms that have been introduced. To produce the rule of law reports, the Commission consults very broadly, so we're very keen on contributions from all the main stakeholders. So, for the latest report, for example, for 2025, the Commission analysed around 270 contributions from stakeholders, and the Commission departments had about 650 meetings in all 27 Member States, and also involving the accession candidates. So, a lot of work was put into this. So, we've worked with the national authorities, the courts, civil society organisations, and many other stakeholders. So, the idea is, with this report, to promote the rule of law and to prevent any problems arising or problems worsening. So, this is part of our toolbox for the rule of law. The toolbox comprises infringement procedures, which are aimed at protecting the founding values of the EU, and we also have Article 7 in the TFEU, too. David, do you have a follow-up?

Q (David Carretta, Radio Radicale): Thank you for the opportunity. Now, I know you're doing a lot of work on the form. The problem is that this Liberties report, which is over 800 pages in length, analyses the results of your work in terms of compliance with the recommendations and how much progress has been made on the basis of your recommendations and any backward steps in the area of rule of law, and it seems that 96% of the recommendations are the same, and I think it's a bit of a shame that it shows that really no real results are achieved. That's what Liberties is saying, and they're not the only ones to be claiming that. And as far as we're concerned, the report underlines that you don't use these instruments that you were talking about, the infringement proceedings, Article 7, etc. Some countries are actually taking advantage of these instruments put in at the European Commission to draft this annual report. I wanted to know a bit more about the results of your work, what it leads to.

A (Guillaume): Now, on the results of the work, I've already said what tools we have. And it's important to say that in recent years, we've not hesitated to use the various tools available to us to prevent negative developments in the area of rule of law. And the scope of the rule of law report has grown over the years. We've had recommendations that have been followed, and there have been massive discussions with the member states. We've also used financial instruments, as I mentioned a few moments ago. So a lot's already been done. And I think if you look back at this dialogue on rule of law, we didn't have it a few years ago. And now, thanks to this report, we have this ongoing dialogue with the member states at the level of the Council, and also the Parliament, so that any possible problems are looked at in a transparent manner, are discussed in an honest manner. This work is ongoing, and the Commission remains committed to this. And we've got all those tools that I mentioned, and we won't hesitate to use them. I think it's important to say that this report, and like other reports and other contributions from stakeholders that I mentioned, will be useful in terms of the work that we do in the future, in the work we do on the report, and in terms of other work streams on rule of law. Thank you, Guillaume. Anyone else on this subject? Go ahead, Diego.

Q (Diego): Yes, merci beaucoup. Yes, thank you. Just to continue on the same subject. Yes, thank you. Just to continue on the same subject. This is about the results. Are you happy with the results? We appreciate the amount of work you've done, and we have seen backpedalling on the rule of law in Europe. And are you happy with the results, and if not, what should change in your work methods?

A (Guillaume): Just to come back to the 2025 report, we can see that things have developed positively in most member states, given all the major reforms which have been introduced in the four main areas covered, so justice, a fight against corruption, freedom of the media, and institutional powers. And in many member states, there are problems, admittedly, and in some cases, the problems are more serious than in others. But there is a major process still going on, and we attach great importance to following up on the recommendations that have been made, as I mentioned before. So, this is ongoing work. Just to repeat what I said before, so that's why we have the report. This work is ongoing. It's not going to stop. We're always looking at the rule of law and these different pillars that I referred to. We need to be vigilant, and we need to reinforce the mechanisms that we use, and that's why we have this report at all and why we have this dialogue. Now, I could go into the details of the report, but I've mentioned various points already. I think that the report is well balanced. It does show that there are positive things, areas where we have made progress, but other areas where we still need to do more work. So, this does give us a good overview of the situation, and we intend to continue our work on that basis. Yes, thank you very much for that very comprehensive and clear response. Any other questions for Guillaume? Any further questions? Go ahead.

Q: Yeah, I would like to talk about migration. The Commissioner, Magnus Bernal, said about the Spanish regularization of migrants previously, that this could not be a blank check. Yesterday, Spanish media quoted him. He explicitly said that newly regularized migrants are not said that newly regularized migrants who move to another EU state could be returned to Spain. I would like you to clarify this position, if he was talking even about short stays in other EU countries, or if he was talking about migrants who may seek to stay permanently into another EU states, taking advantage, well, in basis of their new legal situation in Spain. And more generally speaking, if you could detail which are the European Commission concerns about this regularization of migrants in Spain, and if you have raised these concerns directly to the Spanish government. Thank you.

A (Guillaume): Thank you for the question. I will reiterate the position that we have already expressed here some time ago, but I'm happy to do so. So, we can refer you actually to the statement made by Commissioner Brunner in the European Parliament back in February, when he explained our position very clearly. He said that our decisions and policies to regularize the status of illegal staying third country nationals fall under the responsibility of member states. That said, member states need to ensure that these decisions do not affect the correct application of EU migration and asylum system. So, notably, the member states need to ensure that any recipient of the national resident permits, who is found to be illegally staying in another member states, who, or who applies for asylum in another member states, is returned to the member states who issued the residence permit. This is regulated under the return directive and the EU asylum, respectively. Thanks very much, Guillaume. Do we have other questions on this topic for Guillaume? I don't see hands raised in the room or online. Do we have any other questions on other topics today? If not, dear friends, happy Tuesday.

🔔 Starter subscribers: Manage your topic preferences to receive a personalised alert when your topics are mentioned.