European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Issam Hallak.

The capital markets union (CMU) is an EU political project aimed at ‘de-fragmenting’ the markets for corporate financing. The primary objective is to ensure that firms with comparable characteristics obtain comparable financing conditions – especially as regards costs and volumes – regardless of the Member State in which they are located. The objective to de-fragment capital markets is influenced by the context of European monetary union and the single market for goods and services; fragmented financial markets have adverse effects on the conduct of euro monetary policy, as well as on fair competition between EU firms – the level-playing field. The second major objective of the CMU is to expand the financial means and instruments available to EU corporations through wider de-fragmented EU capital markets offered to EU companies, as well as regulatory intervention. This aspect is of greater relevance to the financing of innovation and would be reflected in the ‘attractiveness’ of the EU capital markets to both firms seeking funding and investors.

The first major CMU policy action agenda was set out in 2015, and the second in 2020. Actions address a wide range of aspects of EU capital markets, and seek three objectives: a) transparency and centralisation of information, b) removal of cross-border obstacles for investment within the EU, and c) regulatory tools to expand financing resources and financial instruments.

Steps towards an effectively integrated EU capital market are therefore being taken one by one, taking Member States’ specificities into consideration. In the meantime, the incompletely integrated EU capital markets maintain economic discrepancies and divergences between EU Member States, while EU firms with significant innovation and growth potential may continue to lack the financial investment they need from the private sector.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Capital markets union: Overview and state of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Pieter Baert.

EU Member States’ public finances have been under considerable strain owing to both the COVID-19 pandemic and the twin energy-cost-of-living crisis. To bolster EU economies in the wake of these challenging times, various initiatives were taken forward at EU level to simplify tax compliance for businesses operating across borders, and to ensure that taxpayers were paying their fair share. As the current Commission’s mandate approaches its conclusion, this briefing looks at some notable achievements and anticipates potential future action in the field of taxation.

Accomplishments and ongoing work

Despite facing significant economic challenges, the fiscal stability of EU Member States has demonstrated resilience in recent years. National tax administrations have responded rapidly to constantly changing circumstances and have been quick to install tax benefits for the poorest households or to provide tax relief for struggling businesses. Fortified by a strong economic rebound, tax revenue as a percentage of EU gross domestic product returned to its pre-pandemic average in 2022 (41 %). To support the European economy’s rebound, the European Commission put forward a ‘package for fair and simple taxation‘ in July 2020, listing 25 distinct (soft or hard law) initiatives the Commission would undertake in the area of taxation during its mandate. One year later, this was followed up by a communication on ‘business taxation for the 21st century‘, listing a number of additional potential legislative proposals. With these initiatives, the Commission aimed to reduce tax obstacles for businesses in the single market, and help Member States enforce existing tax rules and fight tax fraud and aggressive tax planning.

The key milestone was the 2021 OECD/Inclusive Framework agreement on a two-pillar solution to reform international corporate tax rules, supported by nearly 140 countries, including all EU Member States. The subsequent adoption of the global minimum corporate tax (‘Pillar Two’) in the EU has ensured that large multinationals operating in the EU are today subject to a tax burden of at least 15 %. While there has been some delay, a multilateral convention to implement the other half of the global tax deal (‘Pillar One’, concerning taxing rights on profits made by very large multinationals) will be open for signature soon, with the new rules entering into force in 2025.

Another important achievement was the agreement to broaden the information exchange between tax authorities (DAC8): from 2026, tax administrations will have a better overview of the crypto-asset transactions made and proceeds gained by EU customers, thereby reducing the risk of tax evasion. Agreements were also reached on public country-by-country reporting (requiring multinationals to reveal publicly how much corporate tax is paid per EU country they are operating in) and the modernisation of rules for value added tax (VAT) rates (for example, phasing out reduced VAT rates on fossil fuels). Meanwhile, some EU countries undertook measures against aggressive tax planning as part of their national recovery plans under the NextGenerationEU mechanism.

Today’s globalised economy also requires close cooperation with third countries to achieve EU tax policy objectives. The UK-EU economic partnership agreement, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, includes a protocol oncombating VAT fraud together. The EU’s process of listing third countries that fail to comply with international good governance tax standards has served as an incentive for many of these countries to improve their practices.

Meanwhile, the legislative process on some of the European Commission’s other tax initiatives is still ongoing, such as the proposals to create a harmonised corporate tax base and to update energy taxation rules (see Table 1). The Belgian presidency of the Council will continue to work on these files and is aiming to finalise agreements on both the ‘FASTER’ proposal – for faster and safer relief of excess withholding taxes – and on the proposal on ‘VAT rules for the digital age’, in particular before the European elections.

Legislative proposalAimEuropean Parliament (non-binding opinion)Energy taxationAlign taxation of energy products and electricity with EU Green Deal objectivesAwaiting Committee decisionUnshellCounter shell companies when they are used for abusive tax purposesOpinionVAT in the digital ageReduce need for multiple VAT registrations, harmonise VAT reporting standards and fight fraudOpinionDebt-equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA)Reduce debt-equity bias in corporate tax, encourage the re-equitisation of companies and strengthen capital markets unionOpinionFaster and safer tax excess relief (FASTER)Simplify, digitalise, accelerate withholding tax relief and strengthen capital markets unionAwaiting Parliament’s voteBusiness in Europe: Framework for income taxation (BEFIT)Harmonise corporate tax base, lower business compliance costs and increase tax certaintyAwaiting Committee decisionHead office tax system (HOT)Lower tax compliance costs of small businesses operating across bordersAwaiting Committee decisionTransfer pricingEnshrine transfer pricing principles within EU law, increase tax certainty and prevent double taxationAwaiting Committee decisionTable 1 – Ongoing initiatives in the Council in the area of taxation (non-exhaustive) What might the future bring?

The European Commission did not put forward a charter on taxpayer’s rights – initially planned for 2021. This charter was intended to pinpoint lingering tax barriers within the single market and recommend best practices drawn from across the EU to enhance taxpayers’ experiences, addressing issues such as the speed of VAT refunds. Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni envisaged this initiative being taken forward ‘at a later point in time’. One key concern has been the tax difficulties faced by cross-border teleworkers, and both the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee have called on the Commission to take action in this area.

Given the great number of initiatives taken in the past few years to fight tax avoidance, the Commission is currently assessing ‘the effectiveness, efficiency and continued relevance’ of the directive on administrative cooperation (through which national tax authorities share an increasing amount of tax-related information with their EU counterparts). The European Parliament and Court of Auditors have already suggested several improvements.

The European Commission has also started preparatory work on potential future legislative initiatives. For example, a VAT and tourism package is being developed. This would modernise VAT rules for travel agencies but may also review VAT exemptions in international air and maritime transport in the context of the Green Deal. Additionally, the VAT exemption for financial and insurance services is under evaluation.

Other challenges on the horizon may be the future implementation of Pillar One, as concerns continue to grow over the potential non-participation of the United States. MEPs have called on the EU to come forward with a unilateral measure – a digital levy on digital companies or similar – in case there is a clear lack of progress on Pillar One; this levy could feed into the EU budget.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘EU tax achievements: Looking back (and forward)‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) will hold its 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi from 26 to 29 February 2024. Priority items on the MC13 agenda are likely to include the reform of the WTO’s dispute settlement function; new disciplines to eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing and overcapacity, to complement the multilateral Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies adopted at MC12 in June 2022 and currently under ratification; the integration of the plurilateral Investment Facilitation Agreement into the WTO legal architecture; and the extension of the e-commerce moratorium. WTO members are set to endorse formally the WTO accession of Comoros and Timor-Leste, increasing the organisation’s membership to 166.

Restoring a fully and properly functioning WTO dispute settlement system

Since December 2019, the Appellate Body – the second instance of the WTO’s dispute settlement body – has been paralysed, after the United States (US) repeatedly blocked the nomination of new judges to review appeals of first-instance panel reports. In line with the MC12 mandate to restore a functioning dispute settlement system by 2024, WTO members have held informal negotiations on two separate tracks: one that has led to a draft consolidated text on issues other than the appeal mechanism, and another for the debate on the appeal mechanism that as of January 2024 was still focused on ‘the identification of certain concepts that could offer a solution to this critical issue’. Speaking for the Appellate Body’s main critics, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, at the G20 Summit in India in August 2023, stated that the ongoing new and constructive process of reforming the WTO’s dispute settlement function ‘requires a fundamental rethink’ with a view to ending ‘the practice of judicial rulemaking’, among other things. She emphasised that the US had tabled 30 ideas, including on the appeal mechanism. At a US think-tank event in September 2023, she specified key points of the US position, e.g. the need for appropriate alternatives to litigation (leading by example, the US recently resolved all its trade disputes with India through methods other than litigation), an end to ‘judicial overreach’, for WTO members’ policy space to be restored, to allow them to regulate on climate-change issues and non-market practices, and for members to remain free in their legitimate national-security judgements. Some commentators do not expect a breakthrough at MC13, since the 2024 deadline coincides with the US presidential election year, in which repairing a system that in the US is perceived by both Democrats and Republicans as having allowed the ‘China shock‘ that eliminated millions of US jobs would politically be very challenging for the Biden administration.

Complementing the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

MC12 ended with the adoption of a multilateral Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies that prohibits support for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, bans support for fishing overfished stocks, and ends subsidies for fishing on the unregulated high seas. WTO members have since negotiated a ‘second wave‘ of disciplines eliminating fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. In January 2024, they held a ‘Fish month’ based on the latest endorsed draft text, with the aim of transmitting a clean text to ministers at MC13. Experts have stressed that WTO members continue to diverge on a wide range of topics, including on the details of exemptions for developing countries. Acceptances from two-thirds of WTO members are required for the Agreement to enter into force. By January 2024, 55 WTO members, i.e. roughly one-third of the WTO membership, had transmitted their instruments of acceptance.

Incorporating the Investment Facilitation Agreement into WTO legal architecture

In July 2023, a subset of more than 110 WTO members finalised negotiations on a plurilateral Investment Facilitation Agreement aimed at eliminating red tape that hampers investment. They opted for a plurilateral negotiating format to develop new WTO rules as a way of overcoming deadlock if consensus is elusive. The talks were launched under a 2017 Joint Statement Initiative after the failure of multilateral trade negotiations on a range of topics under the 2001 Doha Development Round. The 118 countries have since sought to incorporate the agreement, whose benefits would accrue to all WTO members under the most-favoured nation principle, into the WTO legal architecture as an ‘Annex 4 agreement‘. This requires consensus from all 164 current WTO members, some of which, including India and South Africa, are strongly opposed to such a move. They argue that only rules negotiated by all WTO members should be added to the WTO rulebook. Only 9 % of WTO members have never participated in a WTO plurilateral deal.

Extending the e-commerce moratorium

Since MC2 in 1998, WTO members have regularly extended the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties to electronic transmissions as part of the work programme on e-commerce, while the definition of ‘electronic transmissions’ as well as the moratorium’s scope and impact have remained controversial. Absent an MC13 decision to extend it, the moratorium will expire automatically in March 2024. The related debate at MC13 could yet again pit developed countries such as the EU and the US, which support the moratorium, against developing countries such as India and South Africa, which call for ending it. The latter have long claimed that, adding to the growing digital divide between developed and developing countries, the moratorium prevents developing countries from taking advantage of the growing imports of electronic transmissions. However, the US has argued that, as some studies have shown, a decrease in digital trade resulting from ending the moratorium would lead to a bigger economic loss for developing countries than potential foregone customs revenue. According to a 2023 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study, the cost of terminating the moratorium would be considerable. A 2023 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report emphasises other methods of revenue collection resulting from digital trade. As of December 2023, differences among WTO members on the moratorium’s future persist, ‘including the need for more discussions on its definition, scope and impact’.

Extending the TRIPS waiver for COVID-19 vaccines to diagnostics and therapeutics

At MC12, WTO members endorsed a five-year waiver for intellectual property (IP) protection under the WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS), to enable developing countries to manufacture and distribute COVID-19 vaccines. WTO members also mandated a decision within six months on a potential extension of this waiver to the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, as requested by India, South Africa and some 63 other WTO members. The debate in the WTO seems to have entered an impasse. US lobby groups as well as lawmakers have pressed the Biden administration to oppose a waiver extension. The former are concerned that the extension could stifle medical research, the latter that it ‘could outsource to foreign countries advanced manufacturing and research jobs that should exist in the United States’. A 2023 US International Trade Commission report states that ‘the wide disparity among countries in their ability to access COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics is the result of multiple factors, including access to IP, prices and affordability, regulatory approvals, healthcare infrastructure, and the healthcare priorities of governments’. The EU’s December 2023 statement to the WTO General Council on the follow-up to MC12 issues notes ‘that little progress has been made in this complex discussion and the positions of Members remain far apart’.

In February 2023, the European Commission submitted its most recent reform proposals to the WTO. They target three key areas for focused deliberation at MC13, namely trade policy and state intervention to support industries; trade and global environmental challenges; and trade and inclusiveness. In its resolutions, the European Parliament has been calling for WTO reform since 2008. In its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the crisis of the WTO Appellate Body, Parliament notably urged WTO members to preserve an independent two-tier WTO Appellate Body. Parliament has regularly adopted its position ahead of WTO ministerial conferences, such as MC12. In view of the forthcoming MC13, Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) on 24 January 2024 adopted a motion for a resolution by co-rapporteurs Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany) and Jörgen Warborn (EPP, Sweden). The draft resolution identifies revitalising a functioning WTO Appellate Body as a top-priority MC13 deliverable. Members also call on the WTO membership to ratify the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, to conclude its second phase, and to find a ‘fair and permanent’ solution for the e-commerce moratorium, emphasising the considerable dynamics in digital trade that [by 2020] accounted for 25 % of global trade. During the first February 2024 plenary session, Members are set to hold a debate on the forthcoming MC13 following a statement from the Commission, and to vote the resolution. A delegation of Members, led by INTA Chair Bernd Lange, is set to travel to Abu Dhabi at the end of February for the Parliamentary Conference session on the WTO.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Preview of the World Trade Organization’s 2024 Ministerial Conference‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański.

The EU and the UK are key automotive trading partners. After the UK left the EU, the two parties concluded a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, committing them among other things to a progressive increase in the EU and UK content in the electric vehicles (EVs) and EV batteries they trade, to avoid tariffs. As the European EV batteries sector is not sufficiently developed, the parties have agreed to extend the current rules until 2027.

EU and UK car markets Share of UK EV market in 2022 Data source: ACEA Factsheet, 2023.

In 2022, the United Kingdom (UK) was the EU’s second biggest export destination for cars, accounting for 17 % of total exports, halfway between the United States (23 %) and China (15 %). Between 2002 and 2022, the EU had a surplus in its car trade with the UK; this surplus peaked at €26 billion in 2015, falling to €17 billion in 2022. The EU is the UK’s largest market for total vehicle imports and exports (see chart).

Importantly, both parties have legal commitments not to sell new cars with combustion engines from 2035 onwards. The volume of trade in EVs is already significant. In 2022, the UK exported more than 47 000 EVs to the EU with a total value of €1.2 billion. In the same year, the EU exported nearly 140 000 new EVs to the UK, worth €5.1 billion. In 2022, there was a total of 642 000 EVs in the UK, compared with over 1 million in Germany and a total of 3 million in the EU as a whole.

Post-Brexit EV trade framework

Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the two parties signed a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) laying down the rules governing trade between them, with effect from 1 May 2021. Annex 5 of the TCA contains transitional product-specific rules for electric batteries and EVs. These include provisions on rules of origin – the criteria for establishing that a product is of EU or UK origin and therefore qualifies for the preferential trade regime under the TCA. For EV battery packs or battery cells to be recognised as being of EU or UK origin – and therefore eligible for zero tariffs – certain percentages of their value must originate in either the EU or the UK. These thresholds were set to increase progressively over the years, so as to phase in a full rules-of-origin regime from 1 January 2027 (see Table 1). Vehicles and batteries that do not meet the requirements face a 10 % tariff at either the EU or the UK border.

1 May 2021 to 31 December 20231 January 2024 to 31 December 2026From 1 January 2027Vehicle value40 %45 %55 %Battery pack30 %60 %70 %Battery cell30 %50 %60 % Major developments since 2020

The rationale behind the rules was to incentivise investment in domestic battery manufacturing capacity. However, the rules were agreed prior to the emergence of major social and economic developments that had a strong disruptive effect on the EU and UK supply chains and automotive sectors. Disruptions started with the COVID-19 pandemic and were further exacerbated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. The resulting shortages (in particular of semiconductors) and shocks to both demand and supply caused problems for both the EU and the UK automotive sectors. More recently, these sectors have faced increased competition as a result of a number of new external subsidy support schemes, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act, diverting investment in battery ecosystems away from the EU and the UK. Prices of raw materials have also soared owing to shortages coupled with rising global demand.

China has given massive support to its EV industry with a mix of under-priced loans, equity injections, purchase subsidies and government contracts. Experts accuse the country of disregarding global trade rules and applying forced technology transfers. The EU has recently launched an anti-subsidy investigation into imports of Chinese EVs. The global market share of Chinese EVs is growing: in the EU, it has recently risen to 8 % and may reach 15 % by 2025. In the UK, it has soared from 1.7 % in 2019 to nearly 32 % in 2022.

According to the European Commission, these factors have ‘led to a situation where the scaling-up of the European battery ecosystem has been slower than initially anticipated’.

European Parliament

In a 23 November 2023 report on the implementation of the EU-UK TCA, MEPs called for reasonable solutions to be found for EV rules of origin, given the difficulties encountered by EU manufacturers in sourcing parts, in particular batteries, from within the EU. It pointed out that any exception would risk shifting investment away from the EU and should be assessed in the light of the European economic security strategy. The Parliament also encouraged the UK to consider re-joining the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (PEM Convention). The convention, signed by the EU and 21 countries, facilitates trade by making rules of origin simpler and more flexible.

Extension of the original rules

Under the EU-UK TCA, the first increase in thresholds for domestic content were supposed to apply from 1 January 2024. In the run-up to the deadline, EU and UK carmakers issued numerous warnings signalling that they could not meet the heightened requirements. The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) estimated that a 10 % tariff could cost the industry €4.3 billion, potentially reducing EV production by nearly 500 000 units. Higher EV prices (as much as €4 100 per vehicle) would likely benefit China, which despite paying the 10 % tariff has steadily increased its market share in both the EU and the UK by offering cheaper cars. Market analysts also pointed out that the EU is growing increasingly dependent on imports of cheap Chinese EV batteries, with the Chinese battery companies’ EU market share set to increase from 30 % to 50 % between 2023 and 2027. ACEA argued that EU and UK EV supply chains were not ready to fit within the thresholds.

On 6 December 2021, having listened to the views of industry and the UK government, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council with a number of palliative measures. One of these was a one-off extension – until 31 December 2026 – of the first set of rules of origin featuring the lowest thresholds (left column in Table 1). From 1 December 2027, the final, most stringent rules of origin would apply as originally set (right column in Table 1). The effect of the extension would be the removal of the 1 January 2024 tariff cliff edge. Another measure was the introduction of a lock-in mechanism to prevent any further changes from being made before 2032. To help industry prepare for the higher requirements applicable from 2027, a third measure involved setting up a dedicated instrument for the battery value chain under the Innovation Fund, with a financial envelope of up to €3 billion. After the Council approved the proposal on 21 December 2023, it was adopted by the TCA Partnership Council on the same day.

Views and outlook

The extension of the current rules was met with overwhelming approval from the automotive industry in both the EU and the UK. The UK in Changing Europe research consortium stated that 3 years was a limited time window that might not be enough to scale up the EV industry sufficiently. Michael Gasiorek from the University of Sussex Business School argued that PEM Convention membership would be beneficial for the UK automotive industry, particularly in light of the tariffs, while not serving as a silver bullet capable of removing post-Brexit trade obstacles. Niall Moran from Dublin City University stressed that the shortage of raw materials facing both EU and UK battery makers presented a strong case for integrating their supply chains. It is however unclear whether such a rapprochement is possible, or if EU-UK relations are to remain indefinitely within the limits of the TCA.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘EU – UK rules of origin for electric vehicles and batteries‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clément Evroux (1st edition).

On 29 November 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a directive amending Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, to improve protection for travellers and simplify and clarify certain aspects of the current directive. The Commission announced in a 2020 communication on a new consumer agenda that it would look into revising the directive following the turmoil caused by the mass cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The proposal is the result of two years of stakeholder consultations and a reassessment of the current rules. The main changes focus on securing travellers’ rights and improving insolvency protection. Other key changes include extending the directive’s scope to lay down rules on contracts between package organisers and service providers.

In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). A rapporteur was appointed on 8 January 2024.

Complete version

• February 2024: ‘Package travel and linked travel arrangements: Improving protection for travellers‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive amending Directive(EU) 2015/2302 to make the protection of travellers more effective and to simplify and clarify certain aspects of the DirectiveCommittee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)COM(2023) 905
29.11.2023Rapporteur:Alex Agius Saliba (S&D, Malta)2023/0435(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Nikolina Šajn (1st edition).

On 5 July 2023, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation on the production and marketing of forest reproductive material (FRM) to replace the current FRM Council Directive. The proposal would widen the scope of the current legislation to include not only FRM intended for forestry purposes, but also FRM intended for biodiversity conservation, restoration of forest ecosystems and climate adaptation and mitigation. The proposal would specify the rules for the production and marketing of FRM intended for conserving forest genetic resources and would for the first time require that potential buyers be provided with information on the suitability of FRM for current and future climatic and ecological conditions. Member States would have to establish contingency plans to ensure a sufficient supply of FRM in cases of extreme weather events, wildfires and disease and pest outbreaks.

In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, where discussions on the rapporteur’s draft report are ongoing. In the Council, the proposal is being examined by the working party on genetic resources and innovation in agriculture.

Complete version

• February 2024: ‘Forest reproductive material‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the production and marketing of forest reproductive material, amending Regulations (EU) 2016/2031 and 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 1999/105/EC (Regulation on forest reproductive material)Committee responsible:Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)COM(2023) 415
5.7.2023Rapporteur:Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italy)2023/0228(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Isabel Carvalhais (S&D, Portugal)
Irène Tolleret (Renew, France)
Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Ivan David (ID, Czechia)
Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR, Netherlands)
Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Vote in committee on draft report

Forest area in Europe by number of tree species in 2015

Written by Clément Evroux (1st edition).

On 17 October 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for consumer disputes, as well as Directive 2015/2302/EU on package travels, Directive 2019/2161/EU on better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules, and Directive 2020/1828 EU on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. ADR is defined as settling a complaint out of court with the assistance of an impartial dispute resolution body.

The Commission’s proposal covers the situation where a relationship between a consumer and a trader gives rise to a complaint from the consumer. Since 2013, the share of e-commerce has increased significantly in the EU economy, up from 2 % to 4 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP). Each year, around 300 000 eligible disputes between consumers and traders are examined by the ADR entities, with resolution rates ranging from 17 % to 100 % across the Member States.

The proposal pursues three objectives: adapting the ADR legislative framework to digital markets; facilitating the use of ADR in cross-border disputes; and simplifying ADR procedures. In Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.

Complete version

• February 2024: ‘Alternative dispute resolution‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161, and (EU) 2020/1828)Committee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO)COM(2023) 649
17.10.2023Rapporteur:Laura Ballarin Cereza (S&D, Spain)2023/0376(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Katrin Langensiepen (Greens, Germany)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Adoption of the draft report

State of play in the use of ADRs across Member States In 2023, the Commission published the second report on the implementation of Directive 2013/11/EU, pursuant to Article 26 of the Directive (the first report was published in 2019). Overall, the report confirms that Member States successfully established the framework required for ADR entities to operate. It is estimated that, among around 430 such entities notified to the Commission by the national competent authorities, 64 % deliver non-binding outcomes and 20 % deliver outcomes that are binding on both parties, while the remaining outcomes are binding only upon traders. Among the 23 Member States which provided data, around 300 000 eligible disputes are presented on an annual basis, with an average resolution rate above 50 %. Average duration of an ADR dispute in the EEA (in days)

Written by Branislav Staníček.

On 17 December 2023, Serbia held snap parliamentary elections, just 20 months after the last ones. President Aleksandar Vučić had called early elections after what had been an adverse year for his ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), marked by two mass shootings in May 2023 and a clash between Serb paramilitaries and the Kosovo police near the Banjska Monastery in northern Kosovo on 24 September 2023. The elections brought the SNS a larger-than-expected victory. While alleged electoral irregularities sparked a protest movement led by a coalition of opposition parties, Serbia against Violence, the SNS’s strong performance will boost its chances of staying ahead of the opposition in the spring round of local elections as well.

Background

On 1 November 2023, the Serbian President, Aleksandar Vučić, dissolved the parliament and scheduled early parliamentary elections for 17 December, citing demands from the opposition for snap elections. These were the third parliamentary elections in less than 4 years. Preliminary results confirmed the strong popularity of both the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and of Vučić, who is at its helm, with the SNS having won some 46.72 % of the vote compared with 44.3 % in April 2022. The ruling party also came first in the Belgrade local elections, although with a more modest 39.3 %. On 3 January 2024, Serbia’s Election Commission published the official results after it became clear that the repeated vote in eight polling stations had not changed the outcome. The ruling SNS won 46.75 % of the votes, while the largest opposition coalition, Serbia against Violence (SPN), won 23.66 %. The SNS’s junior partner, the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS), won 6.55 %. Two right-wing opposition lists also passed the threshold: the coalition NADA (Hope), led by the New Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), with 5 %, and the populist list We – Voice of the People, headed by a well-known pulmonologist and COVID-vaccination sceptic Branimir Nestorović, with 4.69 %. Freedom House rates Serbia as ‘partly free’, ranking it 60th out of 100 countries in 2023.

Concerns following the elections

The elections raised some concerns, both among international observers and opposition parties. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), which led an inter-institutional electoral observation mission, published its preliminary findings and conclusions on 18 December. It stated that ‘though technically well-administered and offering voters a choice of political alternatives, [early parliamentary elections] were dominated by the decisive involvement of the President which[,] together with the ruling party’s systemic advantages[,] created unjust conditions’. The same day, one of the SPN coalition leaders, Marinika Tepić, started a hunger strike in support of the protest movement requesting the annulment of the vote. The SPN emerged as a result of the protests following the May 2023 mass shootings in a Belgrade elementary school and in the villages of Mladenovac and Smederevo. As recalled in the European Commission’s 2023 annual report on Serbia, the parliament constituted in August 2022 included the opposition parties that boycotted the 2020 elections. ‘Political polarisation remained in evidence during 2023 and has further deepened following the tragic mass shootings in early May 2023’, the report stresses.

Analysts believe that the democratic credentials of the electoral process were marred by the SNS’s advantage in resources and media dominance, and by their vote-buying, intimidation and pre-election budgetary handouts. According to Radio Free Europe, the SNS appears to have brought busloads of people – who had only recently been registered on Belgrade’s electoral roll – into the city. Irregularities have often been reported in Serbian elections. Furthermore, Serbian politics remains marked by a strong political divide and by the opposition parties boycotting the parliamentary debate and work. At the same time, experts from Oxford Analytica see no evidence that machinations were more excessive than usual or that they alone accounted for the SNS’s strong performance. Instead, the machinations employed appear to have improved the SNS’s overall results largely at the expense of the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS).

International reactions

In a 19 December joint statement on the parliamentary elections, the EU’s High Representative, Josep Borrell, and the Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement, Olivér Várhelyi, took note of the preliminary findings and conclusions of the ODIHR observers. They highlighted that ‘credible reports of irregularities [should be] followed up in a transparent manner by the competent national authorities. This includes also allegations related to the local elections in Belgrade and other municipalities’.

Stewart Dickson, the spokesperson on observation of local and regional elections of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, expressed grave concern over the serious irregularities reported by the Congress’s partners in their joint International Election Observation Mission during Serbia’s early parliamentary elections. ‘The reported instances of intimidation and pressure on voters, including vote-buying … are very worrying allegations that could seriously infringe citizens’ right to vote and undermine their trust in the democratic electoral process at all levels of government’, he remarked.

The US State Department said it was reviewing the findings of the OSCE observer mission. The State Department urged Serbia to work with the OSCE to address ‘unjust conditions’ surrounding the electoral process.

EU-Serbia relations

After Serbia applied for EU membership on 22 December 2009, its accession negotiations began in 2014. Some 18 out of the 35 acquis chapters have been opened, including all those in cluster 1 on the fundamentals. Two chapters have been provisionally closed. Pre‑accession support for Serbia and other candidate countries amounts to €12.9 billion for the 2021‑2027 period (Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, IPA III).

Serbia and Kosovo have been engaged in EU-mediated dialogue since 2011, following the adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution 64/298 in 2010. Serbia would need to implement the agreement made in Ohrid in March 2023 as part of the requirements under Chapter 35 (‘Other Issues’) of the country’s EU accession negotiations, which include, among other things, normalisation of relations with Kosovo. The geopolitical dimension of the EU’s enlargement policy gained in significance in 2022, following Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. The European Council in December 2023 decided to endorse the EU’s enlargement policy reforms and reiterated its support for the integration of the Western Balkans into the EU.

The war in Ukraine also exposed the considerable extent of Russian political and economic interference in the Balkans. Russia remains Serbia’s biggest arms supplier, although it is facing increasing competition from China. Responding to this challenge, the EU decided to step up its enlargement policy efforts, and investment in the accession countries through the growth plan for the Western Balkans, which has a budget of €6 billion in grants and loans to be spent on accelerating economic convergence with the EU.

European Parliament’s position

Five Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) observed the December 2023 elections as part of the OSCE/ODIHR-led International Election Observation Mission. The MEPs noted, in line with the preliminary OSCE/ODIHR report, that overall, the elections had been conducted and managed well from a technical standpoint, but that unjust conditions had persisted and irregularities had been reported.

On 23 January 2024, the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) discussed the Serbian elections with two European Commission and European External Action Service (EEAS) representatives, both of whom said that Serbian authorities had expressed readiness to address the OSCE/ODIHR’s recommendations once the final report was published (so far, only the preliminary findings have been published). Many MEPs reiterated their calls for the holding of an investigation into the alleged electoral irregularities. The OSCE/ODIHR final report will serve as a valuable tool for improving electoral conditions in Serbia. Most recently, the European Parliament discussed Serbia’s December 2023 elections during its January plenary session. A resolution is expected to be voted during the February I plenary session.

The European Parliament adopted its resolution on the 2022 Commission report on Serbia in May 2023, underlining that progress on the rule of law and fundamental rights and the functioning of democratic institutions is fundamental in determining the dynamics of the country’s accession process.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Situation in Serbia following the 2023 elections‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves.

As part of broader efforts to combat all forms of violence against women and girls, the European Union (EU) is committed to working collectively to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM) and to supporting its Member States’ efforts in this field. The European Commission assesses EU measures to combat FGM every year, on or around 6 February – the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

Facts and figures

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes all procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical purposes. FGM is carried out for cultural, religious and/or social reasons, mostly on young girls between infancy and the age of 15. It has no health benefits and can have serious immediate and long-term effects on health and wellbeing, as well as considerable healthcare costs.

The exact number of girls and women affected by FGM is not known, but the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that, worldwide, at least 200 million women and girls have been ‘cut’, while around 4 million girls are at risk of undergoing FGM every year. The practice, which is most common in 28 African countries, is also prevalent in parts of the Middle East and Asia, and is reported to a lesser extent elsewhere. Analysis and modelling by UNICEF and the UN Population Fund shows that prevalence has fallen in some regions, but progress could be neutralised by population growth in high-risk areas and ‘stagnating efforts’ to combat FGM. Since the coronavirus pandemic, multiple crises have blocked progress, putting more girls at risk of FGM and disrupting prevention efforts and access to support services. Clinics and hospitals practicing FGM, contrary to medical ethics, is a growing challenge.

Official EU-wide data on the prevalence of FGM in Europe are lacking. Four studies to map FGM, conducted by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) between 2012 and 2020, found that there are victims (or potential victims) in at least 16 EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The European End FGM network estimates that over 600 000 FGM survivors live in Europe and 180 000 girls are at risk in 13 countries alone. Around 20 000 women and girls from FGM-practising countries seek asylum in the EU every year, with an estimated 1 000 asylum claims relating directly to FGM. This number has grown steadily since 2008.

Commitments and action to combat FGM

FGM is a form of child abuse and gender-based violence, and is recognised internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity; the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the right to life in cases where the procedure results in death. Measures have been adopted at international, EU and national level to prevent FGM and to protect FGM victims.

Instruments and action at international level

At international level, United Nations (UN), African Union and Council of Europe standards are benchmarks for work to combat FGM. Key treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Geneva Convention, all cover FGM indirectly, with specific guidance on protection and asylum for victims. In Africa, the 15 parties to the Maputo Protocol have committed to eliminate FGM (Article V). The Council of Europe’s Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), is the first treaty to recognise that FGM exists in Europe (Article 38), and sets out specific obligations on preventing and combating the practice and providing support for victims and those at risk.

The UN’s longstanding efforts to end the practice culminated in its first specific resolution on FGM in 2012, calling for the adoption of national action plans and comprehensive strategies to eliminate it. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development identifies FGM as a harmful practice, to be eliminated by 2030 (Goal 5). The UN has named 6 February the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM, and the European Commission takes stock annually, around that day, of EU efforts to combat FGM.

EU legislation, policy and funding

The EU currently has no binding instrument designed to protect women from violence, but certain aspects come within the scope of existing EU law. The Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights affirm the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination, guaranteeing the right to dignity and including provisions on the right to physical and mental integrity. The Directive on Victims’ Rights (2012) requires provision of support services for victims of FGM, which would be strengthened by a proposed revision. The current asylum directives (2013) are relevant for asylum seekers affected by or at risk of FGM. The revised reception conditions and qualification directives, due to be formally adopted in 2024, should enhance protection for FGM victims. The Commission has also proposed a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which would criminalise FGM across the EU, set a maximum prison sentence of at least five years for perpetrators and improve support for victims. The EU became a party to the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention in October 2023; one aim of the directive is to implement the Convention’s objectives in areas of EU competence, including judicial cooperation in criminal matters and asylum policy.

Combating gender-based violence, including FGM, is one of the priorities of the EU’s external action and its internal strategies on children’s rights and gender equality. In 2013, the EU recognised the need to adopt a coordinated approach to combating FGM, setting a framework for mainstreaming across the fields of justice, police, health, social services, child protection, education, immigration and asylum and external action. The objectives include developing reliable EU-level data, improving access to support and justice for victims, raising awareness among relevant professionals and communities, ensuring that EU asylum and victim protection legislation is implemented effectively and promoting the elimination of FGM worldwide. To supplement this framework, the Commission will issue a recommendation on preventing and combating FGM and other harmful practices; initially scheduled for 2022, it is now expected in 2024.

Funding for tackling FGM is provided through the joint EU-UN Spotlight Initiative and EU funding programmes, notably the longstanding Daphne strand, which continues under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme for 2021-2027. The Commission has accepted the need for more effective tracking of the Spotlight Initiative funding allocated to fighting FGM. It has also recognised that, in pursuit of SDG Goal 5, further action is needed to raise awareness in the communities concerned within the EU.

National-level instruments against FGM

Many of the actions needed to end FGM now lie within the competences of the Member States. FGM is a prosecutable offence under national law in all Member States, either as a specific criminal act or as an act of bodily harm or injury. However, very few cases are brought to court. A number of Member States have also developed national action plans on FGM. Continuing issues of concern include barriers to reporting and successful prosecution, victim support, and ways to ensure long-term, sustainable cultural change.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament has played an important role in raising awareness and pushing for firm action on FGM, including through the work of its Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). Parliament adopted resolutions on FGM in 2001, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2018, calling on the Commission and Member States to provide the legal and other means required to raise awareness, protect and support victims and ensure that offenders are prosecuted. Parliament has called for appropriate protection for women and girls seeking asylum on grounds of FGM. In 2020, it set out its own recommendations for an EU strategy to put an end to FGM around the world and, in 2021, called for coordination of external and internal action. Parliament welcomes the planned recommendation and demands stronger provisions on accessible specialist support for FGM victims in the proposed directive on combating violence against women.

This publication is a further update of an ‘at a glance’ note originally published in January 2015.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Zero tolerance for female genital mutilation‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg with Christoffer Nielsen.

EU leaders reached a swift and unanimous decision on the long-term EU budget at the special European Council meeting of 1 February, sending a strong and united message on the EU’s continued support for Ukraine. Altogether, the European Council agreed to reinforce new priorities by €64.6 billion in a revised EU multiannual financial framework (MFF). Next to the MFF, leaders discussed the EU’s military support to Ukraine, calling on the Council to agree to a European Peace Facility top-up by March 2024, and welcomed the agreement on the use of profits from frozen Russian assets to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. Leaders also discussed the situation in the Middle East, but again no conclusions were issued.

1.     General

The special European Council meeting was preceded by an informal dinner organised by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, on 31 January, which was attended by around 20 participants.

The European Council meeting itself began with the customary address by the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. The attendance of the President at the start of the European Council meeting and her exchange with EU Heads of State or Government is one of the main interactions between the European Council and the European Parliament, which has developed significantly over time.

The topics discussed with the President after her speech to the European Council included disinformation and foreign influence on voters’ behaviour ahead of elections, the alleged foreign interference with an MEP from Latvia, and agriculture. In their conclusions, EU leaders also paid homage to former Commission President Jacques Delors, who passed away on 27 December 2023.

2.     European Council meeting Multiannual financial framework

Following  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s veto of the revision of the 2021-2027 MFF at the December 2023 European Council meeting, and his statements in the run-up to the 1 February special meeting, the rapid unanimous agreement of EU leaders came as something of a surprise. The German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, indicated that this was probably the shortest European Council meeting in recent times.

The agreement was facilitated by a breakfast meeting between a small group of EU leaders ahead of the meeting proper. In the 10 pages of MFF conclusions, the European Council agreed to reinforce new priorities by €64.6 billion, of which €33 billion will be loans and €10.6 billion will be redeployments, i.e. money taken from other priorities in the 2021-2027 MFF (see Table 1). Charles Michel reiterated that the role of the European Council was to be the guardian of ‘European unity’, which was not always easy, and expressed his satisfaction with the MFF agreement at 27. The Commission President welcomed the result, which included 80 % of the additional funds originally asked for by the Commission in its proposal for this first-ever revision of an MFF.

Policy areaIncrease or decreaseUkraine+ €50 billion (€17 billion grants and €33 billion loans)Migration and Border management+ €2 billionNeighbourhood and the World+ €7.6 billionEuropean Defence Fund (EDF) under the new instrument STEP (Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform)+ €1.5 billionFlexibility Instrument+ €2 billionSolidarity and Aid Reserve+ €1.5 billionHorizon Europe– €2.1 billionBrexit Adjustment Reserve– €0.6 billionEuropean Globalisation Adjustment Fund– €1.3 billionCAP and Cohesion funds– €1.1 billionEU4Health programme– €1.1 billionTable 1 – Increase or decrease in MFF funding, by policy area

On support for Ukraine for the 2024-2027 period, for which a specific Facility would be set up, the European Council decided to hold a debate every year on its implementation, on the basis of an annual report by the Commission. If needed, in two years the European Council would invite the Commission to make a proposal for a review in the context of the new MFF. While this framework gives Orbán the desired annual review, there is no annual veto possibility.

The message from various EU leaders, including Scholz, Michel and von der Leyen, was that no concessions were made to convince Orbán to give up his veto. Nevertheless, a sentence was added to the European Council conclusions, which refers to EU leaders’ ‘December 2020 conclusions on the application of the conditionality mechanism’. Charles Michel explained that the reference stresses ‘the responsibility of the Commission to allocate the funds, and that EU leaders trust in the European Commission to carry out the necessary assessments on the basis of progress made’. Scholz stated that the conclusions reflect the view that all Member States should uphold the rule of law.

EU leaders also agreed to continue to work towards the introduction of new own resources, a topic that is particularly important for the European Parliament, since they would be used for the early repayment of borrowing in the framework of Next Generation EU.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: President Metsola, while ‘welcom[ing] the deal that we have just reached on Ukraine’ and taking note of the MFF agreement, stressed that Parliament still needed to scrutinise the details. She nevertheless criticised the European Council’s reduction of funding for important programmes for EU citizens, notably the European Health Union and Horizon Europe, and told EU leaders that funding in these areas ‘should be boosted not reduced’. She emphasised the importance of having an agreement at 27 and the support for Ukraine included in the EU budget. She reiterated the Parliament’s role as budgetary authority and called for an EU budget that is ‘fit for purpose’.

Ukraine

Next to the economic support to Ukraine addressed by the MFF revision, Charles Michel had underlined the need to ‘urgently address‘ military assistance to Ukraine during the summit. Ahead of the meeting, the leaders of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Czechia and Estonia issued a letter calling for the EU to increase its military support and arms deliveries to Ukraine, both in the short and long term, a call applauded by other leaders – for instance, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. Likewise, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed the EU’s need to support Ukraine with ‘whatever it takes‘, amid concerns of changes in America’s support. Back in March 2023, EU leaders had committed to delivering one million artillery rounds of standard 155mm calibre to the Ukrainian military by March 2024. However, ahead of the meeting. High Representative/VP Josep Borrell announced that that goal would not be met, with only around 500 000 pieces expected to be delivered by that date. Thus, EU leaders stressed the need to speed up the delivery of ammunition and for the Member States to examine different ways of achieving this.

An agreement still needs to be found in the Council on the High Representative’s proposal for an additional Ukraine Assistance Fund within the European Peace Facility, which the Ukrainian President also emphasised as a key priority in his address to the EU leaders. As Charles Michel stressed after the meeting, ‘we refer in the conclusions to the proposal on the table … €5 billion on a yearly basis and €20 billion in total, and call for an agreement by March 2024′. At the press conference, the Commission President stated that, since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the EU and its Member States had supported the Ukrainian army with military equipment worth €28 billion.

Furthermore, EU leaders welcomed the first agreement on the use of profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, which were highlighted as a potential financial source for the Ukraine Reserve and, as Charles Michel underlined, will be further explored. Michel also stressed the need to ensure the effectiveness of EU sanctions on Russia, and to avoid circumvention.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: President Metsola welcomed the work aimed at increasing defence industrial capacity and the provision of one million ammunition rounds for Ukraine. Furthermore, she urged the Member States to agree on the new Ukraine Assistance Fund within the European Peace Facility, to ensure that Ukraine’s needs are met.

Other issues Middle East

As envisaged by Charles Michel in his invitation letter, EU leaders exchanged views on the evolving situation in the Middle East, but did not adopt conclusions on the matter. The discussion took place just days after the preliminary ruling by the International Criminal Court, and amid an increasingly critical situation in the Red Sea. Reporting on the discussions, Michel said that EU leaders had underlined the need to avoid regional escalation, including in the Red Sea, and called for the unconditional release of the hostages, the provision of humanitarian aid to the civilians in Gaza, and the need to relaunch diplomatic negotiations on a two-state solution. During the meeting, the High Representative had briefed the European Council on EU foreign ministers’ discussions with regional actors the previous week and on his diplomatic efforts, including towards a future peace conference called for at the 26-27 October 2023 European Council meeting. The Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, had hoped to obtain EU support for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and underlined the need for diplomatic measures to end the conflict.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: President Metsola urged EU leaders to agree on a common position so that the EU can talk with one voice, and to support calls for a ceasefire, the unconditional release of the hostages and the need for a two-state solution.  

Security and defence

Security and defence was not discussed at length, but leaders underlined the need to increase the EU’s overall defence readiness. This point was also raised by the Estonian and Latvian prime ministers ahead of the meeting, while the Commission President referred to progress on the expansion of production capacity during the post-meeting press conference. EU leaders will return to the issue of defence readiness and the development of the EU’s defence technological and industrial base at length at the March 2024 European Council meeting. On that occasion, the High Representative will present a European defence industrial strategy prepared together with the European Defence Agency and the European Commission following the European Council’s request from December 2023.

Agriculture

Against the backdrop of farmers’ and agricultural producers’ demonstrations in Brussels and elsewhere ahead of the European Council meeting, the topic was added to the agenda as a last-minute item. Charles Michel reported that the European Council discussed the current situation and reaffirmed the importance of the European common agricultural policy as one of the pillars of the European Union. The Commission President outlined a number of initial short-term measures for the agricultural sector, and informed EU leaders of her plan to bring together relevant stakeholders to hear their concerns, so as to integrate their views in the EU’s future priorities. President von der Leyen also announced her intention to address the issue of high administrative burden, with a specific proposal to be presented ahead of the next Agriculture Council meeting. She added that the reiteration by stakeholders in this sector, when meeting the Commission, of their commitment to the objective of climate neutrality by 2050 had reassured her. She indicated that the question of how to reach these goals would be part of a strategic dialogue which will feed into the long-term priorities of the next Commission. The European Council stated that it will keep the situation under review.

Treaty change

A topic that was missing again from the agenda of the European Council was the revision of the EU Treaties. On 22 November 2023, Parliament adopted a resolution asking the European Council to call a convention for the revision of the Treaties, with a view to giving citizens a stronger say and creating a more effective European Union. During the plenary debate on the resolution, the representative of the Spanish Council Presidency had indicated that the Presidency would submit the document to the General Affairs Council (GAC) so that it could be submitted, in turn, to the European Council. However, the topic had not been added to the agenda of the 12 December GAC in time for the European Council meeting of 14-15 December. Adopted at the 18 December Environment Council meeting without discussion, it could now be forwarded to EU leaders.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the special European Council meeting of 1 February 2024‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Eszter Fay.

Academic freedom is widely accepted as a fundamental value in higher education systems and a prerequisite for well‑functioning democratic societies. Indicators show that academic freedom is under pressure across the EU and the world. This fundamental value goes to the heart of the European project, and should be defended as such. It is clear that we need to do more in Europe – but what, and how?

Politicians, experts and academics discussed this question and more at the STOA high‑level conference on academic freedom held on 29 November 2023 in the European Parliament Library. Read on for highlights from the conference.

#EP4AcademicFreedom

The European Parliament Forum for Academic Freedom (‘EP4AcademicFreedom’), initiated by STOA Chair Christian Ehler (EPP, Germany), was launched last year by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola. This year, the President called for a better defence of academic freedom in her opening address. As she explained, “it is only when academics and researchers are free to pursue their own initiatives that the result of their work is truly groundbreaking and innovative”. Without academic freedom, President Metsola continued, we deny societal progress for humanity. According to EU Commissioner Iliana Ivanova, the forum is a unique venue for discussing how we can strengthen this core EU principle.

The EP Academic Freedom Monitor

One session at the conference was dedicated to presenting and discussing the latest edition of the EP Academic Freedom Monitor. The Monitor is a series of independent reports on the state of academic freedom in the EU. Commissioned by STOA and carried out by European researchers and academics, these reports contribute to strengthening the protection of academic freedom as a fundamental right in the EU.

Christian Ehler highlighted that, while threats from new sources (such as social media and institutional leadership) have emerged, traditional threats remain the main source of erosion of academic freedom. Key amongst these: threats stemming from state and political interference in academia.

European Commission action in favour of academic freedom

The European Commission is working on a mechanism that will monitor freedom of research within the European Research Area. The Commission also plans to create a digital platform that, from mid‑2024 onwards, will serve as a ‘one stop shop’ for information empowering researchers and institutions to counter foreign interference.

The Commission is also working on elaborating a policy framework based on Member State cooperation in the framework of the Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research.

Researchers at risk

Researchers and experts also debated how the EU could support researchers at risk. In a series of video interviews, experts and academics expressed their views on the importance of academic freedom. Whether they had been directly affected by restrictions on academic freedom or were engaged in defending it, they explained why this right is crucial to society.

Democratic responsibility for academic freedom

STOA Vice-Chair Ivars Ijabs (Renew, Latvia) stated that threats often first target fields in the humanities and social sciences related to political power (e.g. Holocaust, gender and climate studies). He explained that in some countries, reform of research and higher education systems is used to limit academic freedom. He suggested that the next EU research framework programme promoting research and innovation system reform be linked to standards and monitoring of academic freedom.

Sabine Döring, State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, clarified the difference between the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of research. The latter, she explained, does not mean that academic statements can be unfounded judgements or mere opinions; they should instead be based on qualified reasoning. Additionally, academic freedom does not simply mean that academics in Europe are guaranteed certain rights. It must go further than that; academic institutions must also respect and promote these rights.

Legal protection of academic freedom in the EU

The League of European Research Universities paper on Academic Freedom as a Fundamental Right states that Article 13 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which puts forward the right to conduct scientific research, allows for the European Commission to take action on academic freedom vis‑à‑vis some EU Member States. Christian Ehler expressed concern that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case on the government’s pressure on the Central European University in Budapest could not be ruled on the basis of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. He argued, there is therefore a need for EU Treaty change. ECJ Advocate-General Juliane Kokott noted that the case was based on Hungary’s violation of the World Trade Organization’s binding treaty obligations.

The European Parliament’s #EP4AcademicFreedom continues its activities to protect academic freedom in Europe, together with its stakeholders. Stay tuned!

A web stream recording of the event is available on STOA website.

Your opinion matters to us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu and follow us on X at @EP_ScienceTech.

Written by Hendrik Mildebrath with Hugo Carmona Bas (1st edition).

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a resilient healthcare system but also for quick access to inventions and technologies in challenging situations. To address this need, in April 2023 the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation on compulsory licensing for crisis management. The aim is to secure the rapid deployment of patent-protected inventions in times of crisis or emergency, without eroding patent protection as an incentive to innovate. The proposal lays down rules and procedures for granting Union compulsory licences and supervising the law’s implementation. The envisaged law would empower the Commission to grant licences of EU-wide validity for patents, patent applications, supplementary protection certificates and utility models. Additionally, the Commission could take (vaguely defined) ‘additional measures complementing the Union compulsory licence to ensure it achieves its objective’.

Views on the proposal diverge. Civil society organisations support a broad application of the compulsory licensing scheme, whereas industry organisations advocate narrow application. Opinions differ on 1) the need for legislative intervention; 2) the events authorising the use of compulsory licences; 3) whether compulsory licensing should be conditional on failed prior negotiations for voluntary licences; 4) whether the disclosure of know-how or trade secrets is warranted under certain circumstances; 5) at what level remuneration and sanctions should be capped; 6) how advisory bodies should be composed; 7) which role potential licensees should play in initiating and engaging in the compulsory licensing procedure.

Versions

• February 2024: ‘Compulsory licensing of patents for crisis management‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on compulsory licensing for crisis management and amending Regulation (EC) 816/2006residents (recast)Committee responsible:Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)COM(2023) 224 final
27.4.2023Rapporteur:Adrián Vázquez Lázara (Renew, Spain)2023/0129(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Geoffroy Didier (EPP, France)
Tiemo Wölken (S&D, Germany)
Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland)
Emmanuel Maurel (The Left, France)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Committee vote

Written by Marie Lecerf (1st edition).

One in four people in the European Union has some form of disability. Over time, the EU has paid more attention to the issue of free movement for persons with disabilities, and in February 2016 launched a European disability card scheme as a pilot project in eight Member States.

Based on the experience and assessment of the EU disability card pilot project and the European parking card for persons with disabilities, the European Commission launched a legislative initiative on 6 September 2023 to create a European disability card, to be recognised in all Member States. On 31 October 2023, the Commission put forward a second proposal for a directive extending the cards to third-country nationals (the ‘follow-up proposal’). On 27 November 2023, the Council agreed its general approach.

On 11 January 2024, the Employment and Social Affairs Committee (EMPL) adopted its report and a decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations based on that report. The Parliament mandate was endorsed in plenary during the January 2024 session and interinstitutional negotiations were launched on 17 January. The first trilogue took place on 25 January 2024 at the Council.

Complete version

• February 2024: ‘The European disability card and European parking card‘ (1st edition)

Establishing the European disability card and the European parking card for persons with disabilitiesCommittee responsible:Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL)COM(2023) 0512
04.10.2023Rapporteur:Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová (Renew, Slovakia)2023/0311(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:David Casa (EPP, Malta)
João Albuquerque (S&D, Portugal)
Katrin Langensiepen (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Elena Lizzi (ID, Italy)
Elżbieta Rafalska (ECR, Poland)
José Gusmão (GUE/NGL, Portugal)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Trilogue

Written by Clare Ferguson with Sara Van Tooren.

Parliament’s sitting of 5-8 February 2024 takes place with the elections looming ever closer on the horizon. Members are expected to hear statements on Tuesday from the European Council and European Commission on the conclusions of the special European Council meeting, held against a background of farmers’ protests in Brussels on 1 February 2024. As we approach the second anniversary of Russia launching its war on Ukraine, the European Council finally agreed on additional funding for Ukraine, and Members will also debate the need for unwavering EU support for the country. There will also be statements on recent allegations of Russian interference in EU democratic processes on Wednesday. The Commission will make a statement on its expected communication on the EU2040 climate target on Tuesday, while both Commission and Council are expected to make statements on empowering farmers and rural communities on Wednesday. The President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, is due to attend the plenary to take part in the latest ‘This is Europe’ debate on Wednesday.

Plant breeding has changed greatly in the two decades since the EU adopted its rules on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), with advances in biotechnology allowing new ways to introduce genetic changes. Such ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) can help secure enough food for everyone and reduce waste, for instance by producing bananas that do not go brown. The EU is therefore proposing new rules to protect farmers and consumers. Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) wants them to include a ban on companies taking out patents on such plants. The proposal categorises the plants as NGT1 (equivalent to conventional plants) and NG2 – which would be subject to EU GMO legislation. The committee’s report proposes to strengthen the rules on what can be considered an NGT1 plant, guarantee seed traceability, and create a public database of NGT1 plants. It agrees to maintain GMO requirements for NG2 plants, including compulsory labelling. ENVI introduces a fast-track risk assessment procedure and insists on respect of the ‘precautionary principle’. The rules would also ban use of NGT plants in organic agriculture. If agreed, following a debate set for Tuesday, the ENVI report will form Parliament’s position for negotiations with the Council.

Lead is highly toxic to human health. Many materials used in construction, motor vehicle and furniture manufacturing also contain diisocyanates, which can cause asthma and skin disease. Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) recently endorsed a provisional agreement that would update lead exposure rules for the first time in 40 years, limit exposure values for diisocyanates for the first time and better protect female workers. To safeguard people who have to work with these chemicals, Parliament is due to vote on the final text of the proposals to lower the permitted exposure levels on Tuesday.

Parliament is due to vote on formal adoption of a provisional agreement on amending the legislation on waste from electrical and electronic equipment to avoid imposing a retroactive obligation on producers (mainly of solar panels) on Tuesday. During interinstitutional negotiations, Parliament’s ENVI committee succeeded in amending the proposal to ensure an assessment by the end of 2026, among other things.

The EU’s Prüm framework allows EU law enforcement authorities to exchange data on DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle registration. While this has greatly enhanced police cooperation, challenges persist. On Wednesday, Members are set to consider an interinstitutional compromise on a new ‘Prüm II’ regulation, recently endorsed by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). The scope of data searches will be extended to facial images of suspects and convicted persons, police records (on a voluntary basis), data allowing human remains to be identified and for missing person searches. Parliament has insisted that data matches undergo human review and a proportionality check, to ensure respect of fundamental rights.

To allow us to make secure instant payments in euro, without paying large fees, the Commission has proposed new rules that should also help to fight financial crime. On Monday, Parliament is set to consider a provisional political agreement reached between Parliament and Council that would oblige payment service providers to offer instant credit transfers, processed within seconds, apply standard charges and undertake a number of checks to ensure the money is not used for criminal activities.

As a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which regulates tuna fisheries, the EU played an important role in deciding new measures to reduce sea turtle bycatch and restrict recreational albacore fishing. On Tuesday, Parliament is due to vote on a provisional agreement (based on a report from its Committee on Fisheries – PECH), on transposing new ICCAT binding provisions into EU law. The agreed text would transpose the 2022 decisions in addition to the 2006, 2016-2019 and 2021 decisions. The agreement amends the Regulation on a Bluefin tuna management plan, seeks to clarify language and to ensure a level playing field between EU and non-EU operators.

FURTHER READING

• European Parliament Plenary Session February I 2024 – Agenda
• Transposing Atlantic tuna fisheries measures
• Protection of workers: Limit values for lead and diisocyanates
• Automated data exchange for police cooperation
• Plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques
• Waste from electrical and electronic equipmentInstant payments in euro

This study has been written by Ernesto Gambao (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid/UPM) at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament..

In recent years, collaborative robots, or ‘cobots’ have burst onto the scene. This technology allows for human-robot interaction – sometimes even with physical contact. The EU has led the development of collaborative robotics, and the growth of this technology has been spectacular. However, it is necessary to analyse the risks and opportunities of cobots, and their possible social, economic and ethical impacts.

Industrial robotics is a growing and clearly consolidated sector. The EU has led the development of this technology, as one of the keys to ‘Industry 4.0’. Although still a small subfield, collaborative robotics has been growing rapidly in recent years. Collaborative robotics have the potential to increase safety and improve working conditions in the manufacturing sector. They can also improve productivity and, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), increase competitiveness by reducing production costs. However, current EU legislation limits development, compared to other countries such as the United States and China. The European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) recently published ‘Analysis exploring risks and opportunities linked to the use of collaborative industrial robots in Europe‘. This study presents the current state of collaborative robotics, and its benefits and its disadvantages, with an emphasis on aspects such as safety and ethics. It presents possible policy options to enable the EU to remain at the forefront of this technology by taking advantage of opportunities and avoiding potential risks.

The deployment of robotics is closely related to business development, as their use increases productivity and accuracy. In recent years, technology has evolved to allow direct human‑robot collaboration, sometimes even with physical contact. Europe is the second largest market in the world for industrial robots. However, it trails far behind Asia, and has significantly lower growth. It is therefore relevant to explore the robotics/business development link further, to highlight the potential gains for European companies and society that come with the use of robots and/or cobots in EU industry.

The objective of collaborative robots is to combine the precision, endurance, and power of industrial robots with the individual skills and ability inherent to humans that cannot be replicated. Cobots are designed to assist the human operator; the machine does not replace the human, but complements their capabilities and relieves the worker of arduous tasks. Compared to traditional industrial robots, collaborative robots cost less, are more flexible, easier to install and reposition, and provide improved ergonomics at workstations. Cobots relieve workers’ physical workloads and can help reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders, stress and fatigue. They can also help eliminate the physical barriers (related to strength, height, physical condition, dexterity, etc.) that effectively bar certain people from employment in the productive sector. And as they complement – rather than replace – human operators, collaborative robots can have a significant influence on maintaining employment, giving this technology a friendly image in the eyes of society.

Most collaborative robots in use today can be found in the electronics and automotive industries. They are particularly effective in increasing flexibility and reducing changeover times in those industrial sectors that are moving to high-mix low-volume production. However, increased human-robot collaboration brings increased need to guarantee workers’ safety. Although cobots have been designed to be safe (and the industry has made concerted efforts to stress this), legislators still need to make further detailed and impartial assessment.

Despite the benefits of collaborative robotics technology, many challenges remain. The security necessary in human-robot collaboration limits cobot development and their impact compared to traditional industrial robots. Advances in key aspects such as detection of humans and security are needed. Existing legislation and standards are complex and also limit development with respect to countries outside the EU. The EU continues to make a notable effort to promote lines of research and development on collaborative robotics, to improve the EU’s industrial competitiveness, create new jobs and retain existing ones.

Read the full STOA study and the Options Brief to find out more. The study was presented to the STOA Panel at its meeting on 11 May 2023.

Listen to podcast ‘Use of collaborative industrial robots in Europe‘ on YouTube.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

Citizens have expressed concerns about a legislative proposal regulating the recognition of parenthood across European Union countries. Many citizens have written to the European Parliament on this subject since January 2024, urging Members to vote against the European Commission’s proposal. In their messages, citizens claimed that the proposal interferes with the legislative powers of EU countries and alleged that it will legalise surrogacy and same-sex parenthood through the backdoor.

We replied to the citizens who took the time to write to the European Parliament (in German):

English Reasons for the proposal

Under European Union (EU) law, no child may be discriminated against. Therefore, the proposal seeks to strengthen the rights of children without discriminating against them due to the way they were conceived, or born, or by the nature of their family.

Recognition of parenthood across EU countries is necessary because citizens in the EU are increasingly mobile. Millions of EU citizens have family members in another EU country, travel within the EU, move to another EU country or acquire property there for work or for family reasons.

Definition of parenthood

Parenthood can be established biologically or genetically, by adoption or by law. For the purposes of this proposed legislation, parenthood should be the parent-child relationship established by law.

This prevents, for example, adopted children or children of same-sex parents from being discriminated against.

The proposed law does not interfere with the right of EU countries to prohibit or accept the practice of surrogacy.

Consideration of the proposal in the European Parliament

The legislative proposal will follow the consultation procedure in which Parliament’s role in the project is limited to delivering an opinion.

The legislation is adopted by the Council of the European Union (i.e. by the governments of the EU countries). The Council is not bound by Parliament’s opinion.

Parliament adopted its opinion on the proposal on 14 December 2023. In doing so, it proposed certain amendments to the text. Among others, one proposed amendment stressed that the law does not oblige an EU country to accept the practice of surrogacy.

More information can be found in the press release.

Next steps in the process

Now that Parliament has been consulted, EU governments will decide on the final version of the rules. This requires unanimity.

You can follow this file on Parliament’s Legislative Train website.

German Beweggründe für den Vorschlag

Nach dem Recht der Europäischen Union (EU) darf kein Kind diskriminiert werden. Deshalb sollen mit dem Vorschlag die Rechte von Kindern gestärkt werden, ohne dass sie aufgrund der Art, wie sie gezeugt oder geboren wurden, oder aufgrund der Art ihrer Familie diskriminiert werden.

Die Anerkennung der Elternschaft zwischen den EU-Ländern ist notwendig, weil die Bürger in der EU zunehmend mobil sind: Millionen haben Familienangehörige in einem anderen EU-Land, verreisen innerhalb der EU, ziehen wegen Beruf oder Familie in ein anderes EU-Land oder erwerben dort Immobilien.

Definition der Elternschaft

Elternschaft kann biologisch bzw. genetisch, durch Adoption oder kraft Gesetzes begründet werden. Für die Zwecke dieser Verordnung sollte Elternschaft das gesetzlich festgelegte Eltern-Kind-Verhältnis sein.

So wird verhindert, dass beispielsweise adoptierte Kinder oder Kinder gleichgeschlechtlicher Eltern diskriminiert werden.

Die geplante Verordnung greift nicht in das Recht der EU-Länder ein, die Praxis der Leihmutterschaft zu verbieten oder zu akzeptieren.

Behandlung des Vorschlags im Europäischen Parlament

Der Gesetzgebungsvorschlag wird im Konsultationsverfahren behandelt: Die Rolle des Parlaments bei diesem Vorhaben ist darauf beschränkt, eine Stellungnahme abzugeben.

Die Verordnung wird vom Rat der Europäischen Union (also von den Regierungen der EU-Länder) erlassen. Der Rat ist dabei nicht an die Stellungnahme des Parlaments gebunden.

Das Parlament hat seine Stellungnahme zu dem Vorschlag am 14. Dezember 2023 angenommen. Dabei hat es Vorschläge unterbreitet, wie der Gesetzestext geändert werden sollte. Unter anderem hat es betont, dass die Verordnung kein EU-Land verpflichten darf, die Praxis der Leihmutterschaft zu akzeptieren.

Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Pressemitteilung.

Das weitere Verfahren

Nachdem das Parlament konsultiert wurde, werden die EU-Regierungen nun über die endgültige Fassung der Regeln entscheiden. Dafür ist Einstimmigkeit erforderlich.

Über das Datenblatt zum Verfahren können Sie den genauen Ablauf des Gesetzgebungsverfahrens verfolgen.

Background

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament or to the institution as such expressing their views and/or requesting action. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) replies to these messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

Written by Anita Orav (1st edition).

Directive 2003/109/EC sets out the rights of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the EU, the areas in which they can be granted equal treatment with EU citizens, and the conditions for moving to another EU Member State. It aims to facilitate the attainment of the EU internal market and the integration of migrants in host societies.

As assessed in implementation reports, the EU long-term resident status is currently under-used, and third-country nationals lack information about the status and the rights attached to it. There is also competition between the EU and national permits.

To address these shortcomings, the European Commission on 27 April 2022 presented a proposal to recast the Directive 2003/109/EC, as part of its legal migration policy reform. The European Parliament and the Council have each adopted their negotiating mandates and have entered into interinstitutional negotiations.

Versions

• January 2024: ‘Recast of Directive 2003/109/EC: Status of third-country nationals who are long term residents in the EU‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (recast)Committee responsible:Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)COM(2022) 650
27.4.2022Rapporteur:Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA, Germany)2022/0134(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Lena Düpont (EPP, Germany)
Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D, Spain)
Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew, Sweden)
Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR, Spain)
Konstantinos Arvanitis (The Left, Greece)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council
on equal footing –
formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Maria Niestadt with Jasmin Reichert.

The EU’s approach to digital transformation is rooted in protecting fundamental rights, sustainability, ethics and fairness. With this human‑centric vision of the digital economy and society, the EU seeks to empower citizens and businesses, regardless of their size. In the EU’s view, the internet should remain open, fair, inclusive and focused on people. Digital technologies should work for citizens and help them to engage in society. Companies should be able to compete on equal terms, and consumers should be confident that their rights are respected.

The European Commission has published a number of strategies and action plans recently that outline the EU’s vision for the digital future and set concrete targets for achieving it. The Commission has also proposed several digital regulations, including the artificial intelligence act, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. These regulations are intended to ensure a safe online environment and fair and open digital markets, strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, improve algorithmic transparency and give citizens better control over how they share their personal data.

Although some of these regulations have not yet been adopted, and others have been in force for only a short time, they are expected to have impact not only in the EU but also beyond its borders. For instance, several regulations target businesses – regardless of where they are based – that offer services to EU citizens or businesses. In addition, through the phenomenon known as ‘the Brussels effect’, these rules may influence tech business practices and national legislation around the world.

The EU is an active participant in developing global digital cooperation and global governance frameworks for specific areas. Various international organisations are developing instruments to ensure that people and businesses can take advantage of artificial intelligence’s benefits and limit negative consequences. In these global negotiations, the EU promotes respect for various fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as compatibility with EU law.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The global reach of the EU’s approach to digital ‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marc Jütten.

Digital trade has become a key element in the EU’s trade policy. Every modern trade agreement that the EU has concluded contains a dedicated digital trade chapter. The digital trade provisions in EU trade agreements have evolved over time, which reflects the increasing role digital trade plays today in the world economy. While there is no clear measurement of digital trade yet, the OECD estimates nevertheless that digital trade represents around 25 % (in 2020) of total trade.

The EU, as the world’s largest exporter and importer of digitally deliverable services, has a strong market position. Therefore, the development towards more digital trade provides opportunities for European consumers and the economy. In order to exploit the full potential of digital trade, it is essential to overcome fragmentation and set international standards and common digital trade rules. The EU aims to shape digital trade rules at the WTO and through free trade agreements.

Moreover, the EU’s digital trade policy is an important instrument for its green and digital transition. The European Commission stated in its 2021 ‘Trade Policy Review – An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’ that the Union’s (multilateral and bilateral) trade policy – as a priority – should support Europe’s green and digital agenda and pursue the objective of ensuring a leading position for the EU in digital trade.

The key difference between digital trade and traditional trade is the prominence of cross-border data flows. The free flow of data is key for economic growth and can increase the benefits from digital trade. However, certain data are considered ‘sensitive’ and require protection and/or specific processing conditions. The absence of comprehensive, binding multilateral rules specifically for cross-border data flows and privacy is challenging. That is why 87 WTO Members, including EU Member States, are currently engaged in e-commerce negotiations at the WTO.

Most recently, the EU started to strengthen its digital ties with like-minded partners. In April 2023, the Council of the EU authorised the Commission to open negotiations on digital trade principles with Singapore and the Republic of Korea.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The EU’s digital trade policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Hendrik Mildebrath (1st edition).

Ever since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became applicable in May 2018, the European Parliament and civil society organisations have been flagging deficits in its enforcement and pushing for better implementation, but little has changed. To address the situation, in July 2023 the Commission tabled a proposal aimed at improving GDPR enforcement.

The proposal seeks to support the smooth functioning and timely completion of enforcement procedures in cases of cross-border processing. To this end, the Commission suggests harmonising parties’ procedural rights, streamlining and frontloading cooperation among supervisory authorities, and detailing the GDPR’s dispute resolution mechanism.

Views on the Commission proposal diverge. Digital rights organisations advocate for enhanced complainant rights, an equal say for the lead supervisory authority and the supervisory authorities concerned on the substance of enforcement decisions, a stronger role for the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), new mechanisms to facilitate cross-country enforcement, and stricter deadlines. Industry and allied organisations favour increased transparency for the parties under investigation, a stronger role for the lead supervisory authority and lesser roles for the supervisory authorities concerned and the EDPB.

The Parliament and the Council are in the process of assessing whether the Commission’s proposal presents an adequate response and are working on their respective positions.

Versions

• January 2024: ‘Newly proposed rules to strengthen GDPR enforcement in cross-border cases‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on wasteCommittee responsible:Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)COM(2023) 348
4.7.2023Rapporteur:Sergey Lagodinsky (Greens/EFA, Germany)2023/0202(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Axel Voss (EPP, Germany)
Petar Vitanov (S&D, Bulgaria)
Yana Toom (Renew, Estonia)
Beata Kempa (ECR, Poland)
Clare Daly (The Left, Ireland)Ordinary legislative
procedure (COD) (Parliament
and Council on equal footing
– formerly ‘co-decision’)Next steps expected: Committee vote