There has been absolutely no evidence of any description that would support this testimony.

If we expect victims to provide this testimony, we must guarantee them a minimum of personal security.

The purpose is to end subsidies and restrict them by means of a certificate.

These individuals must be in possession of a certificate issued by a competent national authority.

But also the requirement to provide cultural goods with a certificate of origin has a preventive effect.

The request to annex this certificate to the regulation is superfluous and therefore unacceptable.

If you do not have a certificate then you are not allowed to operate the vehicle.

Firstly, the burden of proof.

We need clear proof of improvement.

Moldova is still living proof of this.

But we have no proof of that.

My second question concerns the burden of proof.

I include in that adequate acknowledgement for minority languages.

An appropriation of parliamentary authority.

That independent authority is important in the agreement.

Only certain matters were regulated by a common authority.

This authority is primarily concerned with food safety.

There is a desire to keep the authority independent.

One of these is certification.

Then there is also national certification.

Then there is also private certification.

However, training and certification are obviously necessary too.

We really do need external inspection and certification agencies.

Firstly he talked about verification.

The amendment requests independent verification of fleet capacity data.

A requirement for verification therefore remains, and this directive should be useful for this purpose.

If we were to approve the motion now, we would be attempting to sanction before verification.

Hence, the relevance of your second question on the effectiveness of the verification system.