Mr. Didier Reynders:

First, I will speak again about sanctions because most of the committee members have spoken about them. We need to continue to think about new packages and there are discussions about a ninth package of sanctions but it will be more about listing new individuals and new entities on the lists and there are some other technical issues it will deal with. In the European Commission we try to ensure it will be possible to maintain the unity of member states when we are moving from one package to another. It is maybe not the priority for the coming days but we are working on it. The priority is the enforcement of sanctions because while it is nice to have additional packages all the time, attention needs to be paid to enforcement. As for what to do with member states who do not have a good record about sanctions? What I have tried to do in recent weeks, and maybe we need to do more, is I took the opportunity to have discussions one by one with the different member states, and, as I have said, it was a real success. I did this, first, to gain a better understanding of the sometimes complex situations between the different administrations at national level. We achieved very good figures from Italy and from Spain after those discussions because we had not received the correct information prior to that. We will continue to do this for Poland and for the rest, it will be pressure from their peers. It is important that we will go soon to the European Council with an explanation because at the moment there is hesitation and many actors saying it is better to bring informal pressure but if we do not have a clear evolution after some months, we will have to explain to all the member states what the situation is. It is not a blame game but there needs to be pressure on the way forward because it is abnormal that we have such a low level of assets frozen. It is logical that there are more assets frozen in some states such as Ireland, Luxembourg and in Belgium with Euroclear, as well in large countries like Germany and France, compared to some others but we need a clear explanation as to why there is such a difference. The percentage is difficult to know because it is at a national level but normally they try to be 100% of course because the goal is to reach all of the assets of the individuals and entities on the list. We try to work on it and there are many contestations at national level before the court and tribunals but also before the European Court of Justice about that. Again enforcement is the important element.

With regard to the DSA, and the situation we have now about hate speech, the ethics of journalists and social media, it is true that first there is a role for journalists themselves to organise their profession. You know that you are working with them because it is very important that they have some kind of ethical rules inside the profession. Now we have social media in confrontation with everybody saying that it is possible to become a journalist with one tweet or one page on Facebook. We decided to come up with new regulations on that. First, it was the code of conduct and we continue to work with the major platforms on that code.

The DSA was adopted last month in the European institutions and will enter into application in February 2024, so it is true we have some time, but we saw the life of the GDPR. It is the first time worldwide there is a regulation in such a way. We will engage with the member states and as always with the platforms and big tech to ensure it is possible to have correct enforcement. On that, I insist huge fines are possible. That will be a game-changer, if it is possible to do that, but this is the first time we are coming with rules. To give an example, I do not want to give my personal view on the fact it was possible to remove a US President from a social media platform, but what was very strange was to do that without any rules and just with the decision of the company. Now we have seen it is possible to go the other way due only to a change in ownership of the company. In Europe, we are sure it is better to have some rules and regulation to do that and to see what the criteria are for taking a decision and not just changing the way to decide on important elements due to a change in shareholders.

On the legal system, we are of course open to engaging in a discussion on what the necessary changes are but we already have some indications in the country-specific recommendations when we publish the European semester. More than that now, in terms of different topics in the Rule of Law Report, we have very concrete recommendations on some issues, although it may be possible to develop other kinds. It is true Ireland has a different sort of legal system than on the Continent. I am saying on the Continent because there is Malta in the south, but we are open to engaging in such a discussion on the main issues. There are a lot of recommendations and different documents coming from the Commission.

On the ICC and accountability, we try to inform through the member states and we have periodic information. It is difficult to give more details but we are open to publishing a lot of information because it is more for the ICC to do that.