What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report

Removed:EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Removed:Statement on behalf of the Rapporteur

Removed:Birgit Sippel

Removed:Proposal for a

Removed:REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Removed:amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application 2025/0429 (COD)

Removed:The Interim-Derogation was understood as a strictly temporary and exceptional instrument. Its sole purpose was to create a narrowly defined legal bridge, allowing voluntary measures by providers while giving the co-legislators sufficient time to design, negotiate, and adopt a comprehensive and permanent legal framework to prevent and combat online child sexual abuse in full compliance with fundamental rights. It was never intended to become a long-lasting substitute for a proper legislative solution.

Removed:The first prolongation proposal already violated that commitment. Since 2023, the European Parliament has been ready to enter into negotiations on a permanent framework to reach an agreement as swiftly as possible, explicitly with a view to avoiding any further extensions of the Interim-Derogation. Despite our political readiness, the Council has failed to use the available time effectively. As a result, we now find ourselves in the problematic situation where restrictions from core fundamental rights under the ePrivacy Directive risk remaining in force far longer than originally envisaged. This prolonged reliance on an exceptional measure undermines legal certainty and erodes trust in the Union’s commitment to proportionality and necessity.

Removed:In light of the two implementation reports published by the European Commission, and taking into account the incomplete and often inaccurate data provided by Member States and service providers, it is essential to draw the right conclusions. The Commission was unable to distinguish between reports based on voluntary measures in comparison by NGOs, Hot- and Helplines and user-reports.

Removed:The evidence base remains insufficient to justify a broad scope of application. Any further continuation of the Interim-Derogation must therefore be strictly limited to what is demonstrably proportionate and necessary. In particular, activities that risk constituting general monitoring obligations must be excluded. This includes the detection of grooming and the detection of new child sexual abuse material, where the lack of reliable data and clear safeguards raises serious concerns regarding compliance with fundamental rights.

Removed:At the same time, the experience with the Interim-Derogation has exposed a significant enforcement gap. Providers currently dictate the practical terms under which processing takes place, while the Commission, as the designated enforcer, lacks effective tools to ensure compliance. Reporting obligations and transparency requirements remain largely unenforced, leaving policymakers without the reliable information needed to assess effectiveness, proportionality, and necessity. To address this imbalance, it is imperative to equip the Commission with appropriate enforcement instruments, including an effective system of fines. Without credible sanctions, obligations remain largely declaratory, and accountability is weakened.

Removed:Given the explicit commitment to avoid any further extensions of the Interim-Derogation, and relying on the political will to deliver a permanent framework, I am prepared to support a strictly limited extension under clear conditions. Such an extension should be confined exclusively to the detection of known, hashed child sexual abuse material and be limited to a maximum duration of twelve months. Any broader scope would contradict both the temporary nature of the instrument and the conclusions that must be drawn from the available evidence.

Removed:In parallel, the Commission must make full use of all tools at its disposal and prepare an additional implementation report to support the work on the permanent instrument. This report must be delivered within the legally established deadline and must provide a clear and transparent assessment of when, how, and to what extent voluntary scanning has contributed to achieving the stated objectives. Only on the basis of timely, accurate, and comprehensive information can the co-legislators make informed decisions and ensure that the Union’s response to online child sexual abuse is both effective and fully respectful of fundamental rights.