 My name is Emilian Pavel, I'm a member of the parliament from Romania, from the Libya Committee. I'm delighted to be here today and I thank the organizers and the sponsors for organizing this event. I would also like to congratulate on the subject, on the team that you've chosen. It's a kind of twilight zone that we entered here. I don't think about another issue that has more different opinions on it. Maybe the refugee crisis, but that's in some other directions. Internet liability is one of the trickiest questions of the digital single market strategy. As legislator we have a big responsibility to get it right. That's what is my opinion. It's a topic that affects and concerns several committees in the European Parliament. And as I said, there are different opinions in each of one of them. We have different opinions in the political groups. I don't think about a political group that has just one line in these matters. And the same goes for the different member states. And this is also normal because when we talk about redefining the liability of intermediates, we need to be very careful and try to strike the balance between an open internet and a safe internet. It is vital to ensure that the internet is equitable as possible and we must avoid a situation where the private sector is pushed into voluntary policing efforts. This is very dangerous and I'm a firm believer in the Libyan opinion on the digital single market where I worked as a shadow reporter, has stated the role of intermediaries and online platforms must respect to the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. We also need to bear in mind the legitimate interest of all stakeholders, those of the citizens as I said, those of creators and other right holders who should be able to follow and use their work and get fair remuneration for dissemination, as well as internet IT businesses that need a certain freedom to be able to produce and to create those new technologies that Europe and its citizens need. In the S&D group, we are currently trying to define the way we should tackle this issue and to get it in the good direction and to strike this balance that I mentioned. On the one side, we consider that preserving a safe and open internet is crucial for our society, but on the other side, we need to make sure that we are able to tackle illegal content as efficiently as possible, that we combat online crime and that corporate is respected and creators can benefit fully from their products and from the fruit of their work. We also understand that the concerns of the cultural sector and their needs to have a higher degree of liability for online platforms. But dissemination of work is also important for the cultural sector and we need to make sure that one does not negatively impact the other. We also need to make sure that a certain degree of liability of online platforms does not transform them into private courts and does not end up giving full power of selection of the content that is accessible for people. Perhaps we could start by working together more commission, creative sector and IT businesses, giving incentives to create new business models and develop more creator-friendly systems. The reality is that we have a problem in terms of copyright protection. Businesses are trying to solve it, but I think there is more to be done in this matter. The question is whether the problems could be solved by self-regulation or legislative intervention is needed and this is the biggest question. And if we decide to intervene, we should be active to find a wise intervention. Perhaps a limited form of liability without overburdening of the system could be considered. Not discretionary powers for online platforms in terms of choice of content, but still creating better systems for copyright protection. On the Liby side of things, I am sure you have already the opinion of the digital single market voted by the parliament. I worked as a shadow reporter for the social democratic group and in our opinion we have insisted that on the article 12 of the e-commerce directive, member states shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted on condition that provider does not initiate a transmission, does not select a receiver for the transmission and does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission. We have also reiterated that on article 15 of the e-commerce directive, member states, and this is a topic that is very tough discussed now in my member state in Romania, shall not impose a general obligation on providers of transmission, storage and hosting services to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation activity to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. We reject measures for the active monitoring of almost all users of the service concerned. With all this in mind, I do believe that Europe needs a balanced digital policy to ensure that basic values are respected whilst fostering a fair and innovation friendly online environment. As for the reopening of the e-commerce directive or not, both options need to be balanced and carefully looked at in order to get the best results and not to risk harming European citizens and European businesses.