European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Gregor Erbach,

© sergei_fish13 / Adobe Stock

Measures to contain the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) pandemic have led to a dramatic reduction in travel and economic activity. In consequence, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions have fallen sharply. This in turn had an impact on the prices of energy commodities and emissions allowances, which have also dropped rapidly. Thanks to lessons learned after the 2009 economic crisis, which caused a massive surplus of carbon emission allowances in the EU Emission Trading System, a market stability reserve was put in place in 2019 to automatically adjust the supply of allowances to actual demand and prevent a collapse of the carbon price.

The handling of the COVID-19 crisis had already led to an economic downturn, reduced tax receipts and increased government spending to support companies and citizens. Stimulus programmes are considered necessary to relaunch the economy after the crisis. While some governments consider that ambitious programmes like the European Green Deal will hinder economic recovery after the crisis, the European Commission and others maintain that the European Green Deal is the growth strategy that can help Europe’s economic recovery while at the same time addressing the global climate emergency.

The restrictions on travel and large-scale gatherings may also slow down legislative activity related to the European Green Deal, as EU institutions change their calendars, agendas and priorities. Decision-making under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization are also affected by the cancellation and postponement of important meetings and conferences.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Impact of the coronavirus crisis on climate action and the European Green Deal‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Development of COVID-19 cases and deaths, oil prices, carbon prices and the euro-area stock market index, January-March 2020.

Written by Niombo Lomba with Annika Stjernquist,

© Adobe Stock

Diseases do not recognise borders; vaccination is required to fight them effectively.

Collaboration and transparency is key in the fight against vaccine hesitancy and disinformation.

Both rapid action and lasting approaches are required when it comes to vaccines against diseases of pandemic potential.

EU actions to deal with new and ongoing challenges

Vaccines have revolutionised modern medicine and have helped to reduce the spread of – and in some cases even eradicate – deadly diseases. As the main tool for the primary prevention of communicable diseases, vaccines are amongst the most efficient and cost-effective measures in the fight against such illnesses.

New challenges are constantly arising in the field of vaccination, with the current COVID-19 pandemic – and the urgent need to produce a vaccine against the disease – exemplifying this. In addition to these new challenges, numerous challenges still remain with respect to existing vaccines. In recent years, several EU countries have faced unprecedented outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. The European Parliament, Commission and other experts have highlighted a decline in public confidence on vaccination and insufficient vaccination coverage rates. While this briefing concentrates on vaccination, for more on broader EU action on coronavirus-related issues, see ‘COVID-19 – Novel coronavirus outbreak in Europe and the EU response’.)

Vaccination: facts and figures

Each year seasonal flu vaccination prevents around 2 million people in Europe from contracting the flu.

Member States have signed the joint procurement agreement.

The EU has some of the lowest levels of public confidence regarding the safety, effectiveness and importance of vaccination in the world (safety 82.1 %, effectiveness 86.5 %, importance 90 %)

In the cases of measles, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, a 95 % coverage rate is required to protect the whole community.

Vaccination programmes have led to the eradication of smallpox, the near eradication of polio, and an estimated 74 % reduction in measles deaths over the last 10 years.

For more, see: Lomba N., The benefit of EU action in health policy: The record to date, EPRS, European Parliament, March 2019.

Key EU contributions towards vaccine policy

Although public health, and thereby vaccination, is the responsibility of Member States, the cross-border threats posed by low vaccination levels have led to it appearing on the EU agenda. Considerable European added value has already been achieved thanks to cooperation between Member States and relevant stakeholders, as shown by the study ‘The benefit of EU action in health policy: The record to date’. Surveillance, coordination and networking, procurement and funding are helping to create economies of scale and address cross-border health threats. The European Commission supports EU Member States in coordinating policies and programmes, with vaccination falling under the objective to ‘Protect Union citizens from serious cross-border health threats’ of the Third EU Health Programme (2014-2020).

Member States have to implement EU legislation on communicable diseases, reinforce risk assessment and strengthen the capability of their healthcare systems to address health threats. The Commission also assists Member States in their efforts to offer, promote and warrant immunisation to all children and seasonal flu vaccination to at-risk groups, as well as to develop strategies against pandemic influenzas. These EU measures play an important role in ensuring access to vaccines, controlling vaccines in order to maintain vaccine safety and fostering research in the field. An important example is the European joint action on vaccination (EU-JAV) launched in September 2018.

Diseases and disinformation constitute cross-border threats

Figure 1: Vaccination coverage

All EU Member States have effective immunisation programmes. Nevertheless, in recent years, we have seen a decline in vaccination coverage in some parts of the EU. In 2018, the number of measles cases recorded by the WHO in the European region exceeded 80 000, bringing vaccination to the forefront of the EU health policy agenda. Meanwhile, the recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus has brought attention to those diseases that it is not yet possible to protect people from.

Two possible explanations for declining immunisation levels are vaccine hesitancy and the fading memory of severe health threats posed by vaccine preventable diseases. For example, protection against measles, made possible through vaccination, is now largely taken for granted, whilst the increased use of social media has fuelled a rise in the prominence of vaccine-related disinformation, leading to an increase in vaccine hesitancy. Diseases, vaccine hesitancy and disinformation do not stop at borders, and as people move freely, the threat posed by a potential disease outbreak is no longer a local problem, but a regional one.

European added value concerning vaccination

The Council, and a study by EPRS, clearly highlight the added value in strengthening cooperation amongst Member States in all relevant sectors at EU level. They identify numerous examples of European added value that have already been achieved, such as economies of scale due to joint actions, procurement and funding, the targeting of cross-border health threats through surveillance and coordination and networking effects.

Table1: Vaccination – Examples of European added value achieved

 

Period Official reason 1. Economies of scale • Saving resources with synchronised (vaccine) pharmacovigilance activities
• Joint funding for the validation and implementation of standards and guidance 2. Free movement of persons • EU-wide health insurance cards
• Coordination and review of immunisation programmes in Member States 3. Cross border threats • EU-wide coordination of the surveillance of human and veterinary diseases with pandemic potential
• Emergency protocols with a clear allocation of resources and synchronised responses 4. Promotion of best practices • Development, coordination and monitoring of the implementation of best vaccination practices and policies by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and European Medicines Agency (EMA).
• Collaboration with stakeholders to develop uniform criteria and methodologies for immunisation practice and policy 5. Networking • Expert panels convened by the Commission, DG SANTE, Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea) and consortia to address specific challenges
• Connecting scientists in EU-wide research consortia on vaccines and immunisation 6. Benchmarking for decision making • Collation of data and know-how from EU Member States
• Evaluation of available evidence to harmonise vaccination schedules 7. Unlocking the potential of innovation • Funding programmes promoting collaborative research, supported by Chafea/DG SANTE, Horizon 2020/DG Research
• Special role played by EMA concerning new vaccines and new immunisation platforms and devices 8. Implementing EU legislation • The joint action on immunisation
• Joint procurement agreements

Source: Lomba N.,The benefit of EU action in health policy: The record to date, EPRS, European Parliament,March 2019.

Room for further joint action at EU level

In the EU, effective immunisation programmes are mostly already in place. Nevertheless, immunisation levels have recently begun to decline, mainly due to vaccine hesitancy. In some countries, lack of funding can also make it difficult to reach sufficient immunisation levels.

Another challenge is the existence of known pathogens that cause diseases for which no vaccine yet exists, such as HIV, Zika and the coronaviruses causing SARS and MERS. After the outbreak of SARS in 2003, researchers were close to finding a vaccine, however as the situation became less urgent, momentum was lost and funding for the development of a vaccine was reduced. Because of this, no coronavirus vaccine is currently available, despite the fact that coronaviruses have been causing severe diseases throughout the past 20 years.

This leads us to yet another challenge. We have known for a long time that pathogens (known or unknown) can suddenly soar and cause an epidemic outbreak, but what we do not know is which pathogen is going to cause this, as well as where and when this will happen, a problem that has been exemplified by the current COVID-19 outbreak.

Thanks to analyses conducted before the COVID-19 outbreak, we are able to identify both a set of needs and a subsequent set of actions that can help to target and address areas where the EU could do more regarding the subject of vaccination, both in general terms and in the current crisis.

Further EU action that could address the gaps and barriers identified

A forthcoming Cost of Non-Europe report identifies possible additional action at EU level, such as:

• Investment in research and infrastructure
  • Improving and developing vaccines against diseases of pandemic potential
  • Improving vaccinology training and education for healthcare workers
  • Investing in vaccine protection and preparedness infrastructure
  • Enforcing and leveraging the benefits of immunisation information systems
• Information and communication activities
  • Improving vaccine risk communication
  • Improving access to vaccine consultation
  • Enabling the general public to access key scientific information
• Increased understanding of the economic impact of not vaccinating
  • Studying the economic impact of vaccination in the EU
• Addressing inequalities
  • Addressing inequalities regarding access to public health information
  • Understanding the role that vaccines play in achieving greater equity in public health
  • Balancing vaccine access and policies amongst EU Member States

Main references

• European Commission Vaccination, as at March 2020.
• Lomba N., The benefit of EU action in health policy: The record to date, EPRS, European Parliament, 2019.
• Cost of Non-Europe report on vaccination, EPRS, European Parliament, (forthcoming).

Read this briefing on ‘Towards a joint European approach on vaccination‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Niestadt,

The coronavirus outbreak has paralysed the tourism industry, leaving travellers scrambling to return home and devastating economies that are largely dependent on tourism. The European Union (EU) has acted quickly to help the sector, for instance, by offering financial support to businesses, among them numerous small and medium-sized enterprises. At its 26 March extraordinary session, the European Parliament approved three initial measures in response to the crisis, which would, inter alia, benefit businesses and workers in tourism.

State of play

© thanakorn / Adobe Stock

The EU tourism industry, which employs around 13 million people, is estimated to be losing around €1 billion in revenue per month as a result of the outbreak of COVID-19. In many otherwise popular tourist destinations, hotels have been deserted and restaurants, bars, tourist attractions, theme parks and museums closed. Trade fairs, congresses and cultural events have been cancelled or postponed. Sporting events, such as the Euro 2020 football championship and the Olympic Games, have been postponed until 2021. Ski resorts have ended the winter season early. Major cruise companies have halted operations; cruise ships have been stranded at sea, as more and more ports have temporarily refused them entry. Many countries have reintroduced border controls or banned certain travellers from entering their territory, leaving them struggling to return home. The situation is particularly difficult in several EU countries that are key tourist destinations, such as Italy (see Figure 1), Spain and France. According to estimates by the Italian Tourism Federation, Assoturismo, Italy stands to lose around 60 % of its tourists this year.

Considering the evolving nature of the situation, it is too early to estimate the full impact of COVID-19 on global tourism. According to United Nations World Tourism Organization estimates, global international tourist arrivals could decline 20-30 % in 2020 as compared to 2019. This could translate into a loss of US$300-450 billion (€270-407 billion) in spending by international visitors (international tourism receipts). In comparison, the SARS outbreak of 2003 led to a decline of just 0.4 % that year. The Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development says the implied shock could bring a ’45-70 % decline in the international tourism economy in 2020′. The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) predicts that in 2020, the travel and tourism market could lose 75 million jobs worldwide and 6.4 million jobs in the EU. The WTTC managing director believes that ‘once the outbreak is under control, it would take up to 10 months for the tourism sector to return to its normal levels’.

Figure 1 – Estimated impact of COVID-19 on tourism revenues in Italy for 2020 (€ billion)

Air travel has been hit particularly hard. Some airlines, such as low-cost Flybe, have ceased operations, while others have temporarily cancelled all flights. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) says global air travel could lose more than US$252 billion (€228 billion) in 2020. Two million passenger flights have been cancelled until 30 June. Airlines are going through a liquidity crisis: according to the IATA, the typical airline had no more than two months’ worth of cash at the beginning of 2020. Airports Council International says that European airports would lose 700 million passengers (-28 %) and €14 billion in revenue in 2020. Some airports – such as Brussels South Charleroi – have temporarily shut down.

Within the hospitality sector, which is also facing a severe crisis, small and medium-sized enterprises have been particularly badly hit. Many hotels have decided to close due to the drop in demand. In France, the hotel occupancy rate was as low as 3.3 % on 17 March (compared to 65.3 % on 26 February). By 30 March, restaurants and bars had closed in almost all EU Member States, with the exception of Sweden. Many hotels, restaurants and bars have laid off thousands of workers permanently or temporarily. However some hotels and Airbnb hosts have offered medical workers free accommodation to help them avoid infecting their families. Some hotels are also being turned into temporary hospitals.

Initial measures at EU level

The EU is working on many levels to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the European Commission is helping to coordinate the Member States’ national responses, while also supporting national healthcare systems, the research and development of a vaccine, and treatment. Furthermore, the Commission is ensuring the uninterrupted cross-border flow of supplies. In addition, it is working on mobilising all available resources under the EU budget to support Member States in handling the outbreak. This includes advancing payments, redirecting funds and ensuring that Member States take advantage of the maximum flexibility that the EU fiscal rules afford. Yet again, the Commission has proposed earmarking €37 billion for addressing the crisis under its Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative aimed, among other things, at providing liquidity for businesses and support to people who have lost their jobs. Those in the tourism sector who have been laid off could also get support from sources such as the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

The EU Treaties give the EU limited competences with regard to the tourism sector; that is, the EU can only support, coordinate or supplement Member States’ actions in this area. Applying this in practice, the Commission has been in constant contact with ministries responsible for tourism, specialised international organisations and the EU tourism industry. The Commission has also provided legal analysis and is setting up a network of European tourism and travel industry associations.

As regards specific tourism-related sectors, the Commission has proposed to suspend the rules obliging airlines to use their allocated slots at EU airports. The Commission has also given guidelines on EU passenger rights and border checks. Those related to border checks include a recommendation to the Member States to impose a restriction on non-essential travel to the EU for 30 days. Furthermore, the Commission has helped to repatriate EU travellers.

The European Parliament debated the COVID-19 outbreak at its 10 and 26 March plenary sessions (the latter an extraordinary one). Among other issues, they stressed the need for establishing common rules on entering the Schengen area. At its plenary session of 26 March, the Parliament debated how to speed up the implementation of measures responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. It adopted, almost unanimously, its position on three legislative proposals: i) launching the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative; ii) extending the EU Solidarity Fund to cover public health emergencies; and iii) temporarily suspending airport slot rules. Subsequently, these measures were formally adopted and put into force. In a letter dated 24 March and addressed to several European Commissioners, Parliament’s Tourism Task Force called for ‘a tourism rescue action plan, with concrete short and medium term measures’.

Initial measures at Member State level

Most EU Member States have announced they are introducing economic assistance packages that would also cover tourism sectors. Measures include tax moratoriums, extended deadlines for payments of social charges, and wage subsidies, loans and guarantees for workers. Italy has implemented a tourism-specific support package. Some countries have re-nationalised coronavirus-hit companies. For instance, Italy has taken full ownership of Alitalia; the United Kingdom has partially nationalised its railways. France has modified the conditions for cancellations of travel bookings. Sweden has offered credit guarantees for airlines. Many of these measures are a form of State aid that usually requires the Commission’s approval. The Commission has stated that it ‘will make sure that State aid can flow to companies that need it’. As of 27 March, the Commission had approved 22 State aid plans.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘COVID-19 and the tourism sector‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The situation in Syria has been the subject of many debates and resolutions of the European Parliament.

© Zerophoto / Adobe Stock

In a resolution adopted on 15 March 2018, the European Parliament strongly condemned ‘… the widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed during the conflict, and in particular the acts perpetrated by forces of the Assad regime, including with the support of its allies Russia and Iran, as well as by the UN-listed terrorist organisations’. Furthermore, it deeply regretted ‘the failure of repeated regional and international attempts to end the war’, and urged ‘renewed and intensive global cooperation to achieve a peaceful and sustainable solution to the conflict’.

Turkish military operation

The Turkish military operation launched in north-east Syria on 9 October 2019 led to multiple reactions from the European Union (plenary debate in the European Parliament, declaration of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, adoption of conclusions by the Foreign Affairs Council and by the European Council).

Following a plenary debate on 23 October 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, in which it strongly condemned the unilateral Turkish military intervention in north-east Syria. It also urged ‘Turkey to put an immediate and definitive end to its military operation in north-east Syria and withdraw all of its forces from Syrian territory’, and demanded ‘full respect for humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians, and for local and international humanitarian organisations to be permitted unhindered access’.

Although the European Parliament recognised ‘the fact that Turkey has legitimate security concerns’, it insisted ‘that they be addressed by political and diplomatic means, and not military action, in accordance with international law, including humanitarian law’.

It called on the Council ‘to introduce a series of targeted sanctions’, ‘to consider adopting appropriate and targeted economic measures against Turkey’, and ‘to consider, for the purposes of a deterrent to prevent a further escalation in north-eastern Syria, the suspension of the trade preferences under the agreement on agricultural products and, as a last resort, the suspension of the EU–Turkey customs union’.

Children’s rights

The European Parliament has always been a defender of children’s rights. In a resolution adopted on 26 November 2019, it expressed ‘its gravest concern regarding the humanitarian situation of children of foreign fighters held in north-east Syria’, and urged EU countries ‘to repatriate all European children, taking into account their specific family situations and the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, and to provide the necessary support for their rehabilitation and reintegration’.

Parliamentary delegations

The European Parliament has a delegation for the relations with the Mashreq countries, including Syria, as well as a delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean.

European Neighbourhood Policy

The European Neighbourhood Policy covers bilateral relations between the European Union and its neighbouring countries.

Through this policy, the European Union seeks to strengthen the prosperity, stability and security of its neighbours, based on a mutual commitment to common values (democracy and human rights, the rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development). These values and the principle of good neighbourliness are established in the Treaty on European Union and are applied in the context of the external action of the European Union (Title V of the Treaty).

Syria is one of the 16 countries covered by the Neighbourhood Policy. The assistance provided in the context of that policy aims to directly support the Syrian population, both inside Syria and in its neighbouring countries.

Council’s response

The crisis in Syria led to a humanitarian response from the European Union in the form of financial aid agreed by leaders in the European Council, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian crisis, also called the ‘Madad Fund’.

In parallel, the Council put in place restrictive measures against the Syrian regime and its supporters in 2013, most recently extended until 1 June 2020. Sanctions include investment and export restrictions, a freeze of assets and an oil embargo.

Further information

• European Parliament’s press release, 24 October 2019
• EU-Turkey relations in light of the Syrian conflict and refugee crisis, European Parliamentary Research Service, 9 March 2020
• Turkey’s military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU, European Parliamentary Research Service, 11 November 2019
• Delegation of the European Union to Syria, European External Action Service
• Syria: Council response to the crisis, European Council

Keep sending your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)! We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us!

Written by Naja Bentzen,

© metamorworks / Shutterstock

The global health crisis sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic – which is currently hitting EU Member States, not least Italy and Spain, particularly hard – raises concern that a combination of disinformation and heavily promoted health diplomacy, echoed by local proxies in Europe, could potentially pave the way for wider influence in other sectors in the wake of the crisis.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) initially concealed information about the spread of the virus. Research suggests that they thereby delayed measures to alleviate the spread of the disease. At the same time, the CCP launched far-reaching efforts to silence domestic criticism.

The CCP’s efforts to restore Beijing’s tainted image both at home and abroad include attempts to export the blame for the virus via a wave of conspiracy theories, in a move that seems to be inspired by the Kremlin’s well-known tactics. At the same time, Beijing has launched a highly visible global aid offensive, providing expertise, test kits and other essential medical equipment – not all of it for free, contrary to the CCP’s media offensive – to a number of countries, including in Europe.

EU Coronavirus Response

Both Moscow and Beijing seem to be driving parallel information campaigns, conveying the overall message that democratic state actors are failing and that European citizens cannot trust their health systems, whereas their authoritarian systems can save the world.

Meanwhile, the EU – which has taken significant steps to help citizens both in the EU and beyond – has acknowledged the geopolitical components in what has been dubbed the ‘politics of generosity’, and is preparing to protect Europe against the next stage in these influence operations.

Read the complete briefing on ‘COVID-19 foreign influence campaigns: Europe and the global battle of narratives‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Examples of false narratives trending on social media

Written by Issam Hallak,

© Rawf8 / Adobe Stock

The United Kingdom (UK) withdrew from the European Union (EU) on 1 February 2020, and moved into the agreed transition period, running until 31 December 2020. The EU and UK have launched negotiations towards a free trade agreement (FTA) that will shape their future trade relationship. Both parties expressed a preference for reducing ‘trade frictions’ to the extent possible, and rules of origin will play a role in that regard.

Rules of origin (RoO) are provisions in FTAs that govern the conditions under which an imported good is recognised to ‘originate’ from the FTA partner country and becomes eligible for preferential trade. These conditions are restrictive – implying trade ‘frictions’ – to various degrees and designed product-by-product, following operation- and/or value creation-based rules. Importantly, the EU’s RoO admit the ‘cumulation’ of preferential origin across other existing FTAs signed by both parties. As RoO thus create incentives for manufacturers to allocate production and sourcing across countries, they are an important trade instrument.

The European Commission and European Parliament favour RoO provisions in the EU-UK FTA that are consistent with the EU template and protect the EU’s interest; the UK government has declared that it is seeking ‘appropriate and modern’ RoO, providing for cumulation across common FTA partners. The EU and UK positions therefore converge in favour of unrestrictive RoO. Nevertheless, the geographical distance between the EU and UK is short and the resulting shipping costs low. In this context, should the UK unilaterally lower its production costs after the transition period – through, for instance, lower labour and environmental standards, and State aid – less restrictive RoO will provide manufacturers with incentives to increase the UK share in the production chain, penalising the EU. This explains the call in the Political Declaration for frictionless trade ‘and’ the alignment of standards. Indeed, protecting EU interests implies that RoO are likely to be restrictive, unless the UK commits to aligning standards.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Future EU-UK trade relationship: Rules of origin‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Klaus Müller,

© Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic is affecting all 27 European Union (EU) Member States, but not all to the same extent, although the impact could spill over onto those Member States not (yet) badly hit.

A common European unemployment insurance scheme has been considered as one potential response to the lack of stabilisation instruments under economic and monetary union (EMU). Short-time work schemes could provide such a stabilisation instrument, as well as a starting point for the implementation of a Europea n unemployment insurance scheme.

During the financial crisis, ‘short-time work’ (STW) schemes in Member States allowed firms to temporaril y reduce working time and to receive support from government or public employment services (PES) for the hours not worked. This instrument stabilised employment levels, by avoiding dismissals (even in cases where working time was reduced to zero), sharing the burden and retaining the skilled workforce.

A common STW scheme for the EU-27 could reinforce existing national schemes, and support them in the countries most affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The proposal fully respects the principle of subsidiarity.

Short-time working schemes in Member States

A majority of EU Member States have STW schemes, which differ in the way they are implemented:

• Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal have relatively large (in Belgium, Germany and Italy) and well-established schemes.

• In Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain, support for employees on short-time work is provided through ‘partial unemployment benefits’.
• Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Sweden can also activate STW schemes (for Bulgaria, specific funding is needed).

Today, Member States without STW schemes in place, including Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Greece, the Netherlands and Slovenia, are taking measures to avoid dismissals, and granting support to workers and companies.

Existing STW schemes can be used if external events (bad weather conditions in the construction or agricultural sector and incidences of force majeure), affect economic activity. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, many Member States have now qualified the situation as a case of force majeure.

Short-time work schemes generally cover all employees, irrespective of their type of contract (full-time or part-time, temporary or permanent). Furthermore, in many Member States, apprentices and temporary agency workers are excluded. As a response to the current situation, Member States have extended the coverage of their STW schemes, e.g. to temporary agency workers in Germany. In Spain, employees can receive support regardless of the period for which they have contributed to unemployment insurance.

The use of short-time work is limited in time. The limits can vary, depending on whether work is fully suspended (i.e. 0 hours), or only partially reduced (e.g. from full-time to part-time). For a partial suspension of work, the maximum duration can range from three months (Belgium) to up to two years (Italy). In case of a full suspension of work, the maximum duration is generally shorter.

Evaluation

A Europe-wide evaluation of STW schemes 1 concluded that there are advantages in adopting such measures. However, only countries with pre-existing STW schemes would be ‘able to fully exploit the benefits of STW’, and ‘the effect of STW is strongest when GDP growth is deeply negative’. An STW scheme has to be boosted at the beginning of a recession and results indicate that STW is most effective when used as a fast-responding automatic stabiliser.

A short-time work scheme for the EU-27

A common STW scheme for the EU 27 could reinforce the existing national STW schemes. Such a scheme would limit severe economic crisis through its stabilising effect on disposable income and aggregate demand. It could ensure a stabilisation function, because the insurance scheme would intervene in areas where the economic impact is higher. It could also reduce the pressure on social policies and complement national schemes, when the level of current support is too low.

A growing number of workers are temporary agency workers, external collaborators, project-based workers, task-based workers, and workers identified as (but not actually) ‘self-employed’, for instance, platform-based workers. A European scheme could provide more universal cover than national schemes, and could also enhance protection for people facing a high risk of poverty, thereby strengthening the social dimension of the EU-27 and demonstrating European solidarity. Analysis estimates the costs of such a system (under four ‘shock scenarios’), to amount to between 0.6 and 0.8 % of the GDP of participating countries per year, with an estimated 20 % stabilisation effect.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament considers that ensuring compensation during a downturn has significant macro-economic stabilisation potential, as demonstrated by previous experience in the EU and the United States of America. A second important benefit is that this type of expenditure goes where it is most needed: to the countries most concerned and to support the capacity of households whose labour income is going to be reduced; it gives the economies affected greater space to invest where it is needed for long-term sustainable recovery.

In its resolution of February 2017 on the budgetary capacity of the euro area, the Parliament expressed the view that an EMU-wide basic unemployment benefit scheme would contribute directly to stabilising household income. Short-time working schemes could have more sustainable results, because they avoid dismissals. The workers would remain ’employed’.

Commission and Council responses to date

In May 2018, the Commission presented, within the proposals for the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), a regulation on the establishment of a European Investment Stabilis atio n Function (EISF). This regulation envisages support for Member States hit by an asymmetric shock and/or increase in the unemployment rate.4

In June 2018, France and Germany decided to examine the issue of a European Unemployment Stabilisation Fund, for the case of severe economic crises, without transfers. While the intention was to set up a working group with a view to making concrete proposals by the European Council meeting of December 2018, there has been no result to date.

On 1 April 2020, the Commission made a proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of a European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE) following the coronavirus outbreak.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘EU-27 support for national short-time work schemes‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© NicoElNino / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic continues to spread around the world. Governments have adopted preventive measures of varying degrees of severity. Analysts and commentators continue to call for a more coordinated response to the disease, notably at European Union level, without always agreeing on what the precise response should be. Meanwhile, some are beginning to try to envisage how the world will have changed once the virus is finally contained.

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in the previous edition item in this series, published by EPRS on 26 March.

Monitoring Covid-19 contagion growth in Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Pulling through the coronavirus together: European and international solutions to the pandemic
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Europe needs a Covid-19 recovery programme
Bruegel, March 2020

International order and the European Project in times of COVID19
Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 2020

The multilateral system still cannot get its act together on COVID-19
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

China, Italy and COVID-19: Benevolent support or strategic surge?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus pandemic
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Covid-19 and European solidarity: The fight for who we are
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic: The EU must think and act globally
Centre for European Reform, March 2020

EU: Strongly united for health; Deeply divided on the economy
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Is Coronavirus good for our sick planet?
Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 2020

Coronavirus and power: The impact on international politics
Egmont, March 2020

Why the EU will play a greater global role post-Corona
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Creating an EU ‘Corona Panel’
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Coronavirus and transatlantic security: Implications for defense planning
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Route de la soie de la santé : Comment la Chine entend profiter de la pandémie pour promouvoir sa diplomatie sanitaire
Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, March 2020

Extending the MFF: The need for an ‘emergency’ 2021 budget
European Policy Centre, March 2020

COVID-19 Fiscal response: What are the options for the EU Council?
Bruegel, March 2020

Yes, medical gear depends on global supply chains: Here’s how to keep them moving
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

This time is different
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

In a COVID-19 World, Russia sticks to international distancing
Chatham House, March 2020

The fiscal response to the economic fallout from the coronavirus
Bruegel, March 2020

Leadership in a time of contagion
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Winning the peace against coronavirus
European Policy Centre, March 2020

After the pandemic: Why Europe must restore its economic and social safety margins
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

From G7 to G20: Passing three hot potatoes
Bruegel, March 2020

How leaders can stop Corona from undermining the EU
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, March 2020

How the coronavirus threatens a geopolitical Europe
zertyuiop
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

What the EU should do and not do on trade in medical equipment
Bruegel, March 2020

‘Whatever it takes’: Getting into the specifics of fiscal policy to fight COVID-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The COVID-19 crisis and reflections on systems transformation
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Does COVID-19 pose a threat to the EU’s climate neutrality efforts?
European Policy Centre, March 2020

Coronavirus and the politics of a common fiscal instrument
Bruegel, March 2020

Polling shows Americans see COVID-19 as a crisis, don’t think US is overreacting
Brookings Institution, March 2020

The Coronavirus killed the revolution
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Let’s emerge from COVID-19 with stronger health systems
Chatham House, March 2020

Wrong tools, wrong time: Food export bans in the time of COVID-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The covid-19 crisis: A crash test for EU energy and climate policies
Centre on Regulation in Europe

The G20’s pandemic moment
Chatham House, March 2020

Five steps to combat the infodemic
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

Cybersecurity in the time of COVID-19
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Will European defence survive Coronavirus?
Real Instituto Elcano, March 2020

Campaign foreign policy roundup: Campaigning amid a pandemic
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Unmasking differing U.S. and South Korean approaches to COVID-19
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Viktor Orbán’s Hungary: A new risk to the EU from Coronavirus
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, March 2020

Transatlantic take 360: Too early to say nationalists are winners of the Coronavirus crisis
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

Coronavirus: The world’s first digital pandemic
Cingendael, March 2020

The EU needs a more comprehensive vision to tackle pandemic
Carnegie Europe, March 2020

The multilateral system still cannot get its act together on COVID-19
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

COVID 19’s next target: Fragile states and emerging markets
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Here’s how to fight Coronavirus misinformation
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Is China winning the coronavirus response narrative in the EU
Atlantic Council, March 2020

L’exode sanitaire: Nouvelle manifestation de la sécession des catégories supérieures
Fondation Jean Jaurès, March 2020

Five steps to combat the infodemic
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: What should policy-makers do?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias and Carla Stamegna,

© Adobe Stock

The idea of issuing joint debt instruments, in particular between euro-area countries, is far from new. It has long been linked in various ways to the Union’s financial integration process and in particular to the implementation of economic and monetary union. In the first decade of the euro, the rationale for creating joint bonds was to reduce market fragmentation and thus obtain efficiency gains. Following the financial and sovereign debt crises, further reasons included managing the crises and preventing future sovereign debt crises, reinforcing financial stability in the euro area, facilitating transmission of monetary policy, breaking the sovereign-bank nexus and enhancing the international role of the euro.

While joint debt instruments present considerable potential advantages, they also present challenges. These include coordination issues and reduced flexibility for Member States in issuing debt, the potential to undermine fiscal discipline by removing incentives for sound budgetary policies, and the fact that adoption of joint debt instruments would eventually entail the difficult political choice of transferring sovereignty from the national to the EU level.

In the context of the current crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, joint debt instruments have once more come to the fore as a potential medium-term solution to help Member States rebuild their economies following the crisis. In Eurogroup and European Council meetings, the solution is not favoured by all Member States and alternative – possibly complementary – approaches have been proposed, such as a credit line through the European Stability Mechanism.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Joint debt instruments: A recurrent proposal to strengthen economic and monetary union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martina Prpic,

Graphics: Giulio Sabbati

© fizkes / Adobe Stock

According to official estimates, the COVID-19 crisis has left more than 200 000 EU citizens stranded outside the borders of the EU. EU Member States have been making great efforts to retrieve them, often with the help of the EU. The priority has been to return EU citizens by using commercial flights, but as the conditions continue to worsen, other resources have had to be utilised.

EU Member States can activate the EU Civil Protection Mechanism to facilitate the repatriation of their and other EU citizens, if the Emergency Crisis Response Centre assesses that there is no better way. So far, at least 15 countries are reported to have requested the help of the Civil Protection Mechanism, using it to organise flights co-funded with EU funds, and so far repatriating 4 382 EU citizens (and 550 others), first from China, and then from a wide range of countries, including Cape Verde, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Japan, Morocco, the Philippines, Tunisia, the USA and Vietnam. More flights are scheduled to bring people back from other locations.

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism has been used more than 300 times to respond to disasters since its establishment in 2001. All the EU Member States, together with Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, participate in the Mechanism, but it can also be activated by any country in the world and by certain international organisations. Once the Mechanism is activated, a number of steps follow. The Emergency Crisis Response Centre, as part of the Mechanism, decides on the best response and coordinates it. The EU funds up to 75 % of the costs of the deployment of resources. The 2019 upgrade of the Mechanism boosted the joint capacity for responding to disasters, including medical emergencies. It created rescEU, a reserve of capacities, which has now been augmented to include a stockpile of medical equipment for the COVID-19 response, 90 % of which is funded by the EU. On 27 March 2020, the Commission proposed to further boost the budget for repatriation and for the rescEU stockpile.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Repatriation of EU citizens during the COVID-19 crisis: The role of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

EU citizens repatriated under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, to 30 March 2020

Written by Elena Lazarou,

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of COVID-19 to be a pandemic, confirming the global impact of the disease. Across the world, regional and global international organisations are stepping up coordination to confront the medical crisis and mitigate its effects on economies, societies and individuals.

Background

© cassis / Adobe Stock

Having characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic, the first ever to be caused by a coronavirus, the World Health Organization (WHO) urged countries to ‘detect, test, treat, isolate, trace and mobilise their people’ and to demonstrate international solidarity in the face of the global health crisis. In its most basic definition, a pandemic refers to the global spread of a new disease. According to epidemiology researchers at Harvard University, 20 to 60 % of the global population could eventually be infected. At the time of writing, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, there have been over 860 000 confirmed cases of COVID‑19 in the world and over 42 000 deaths, assuming that the data provided by governments around the world is accurate, a fact that has been questioned. Large-scale epidemics pose a severe threat to human lives and constitute an enormous challenge to economies and to public health systems, testing the limits of governments’ capacity and requiring a delicate balance between respect for international human rights norms and the need to implement restrictions.

Owing to the highly interconnected nature of the world, experts and international organisations, including the United Nations, the EU and the European Parliament, have called for coordinated responses at regional and global levels. The EU has, within the limits of its powers, responded to the virus by ensuring medical equipment is available, ramping up the search for a vaccine and helping Member States to withstand the social and economic impact. The G7 and G20 are continuing to coordinate their joint approach. While the extent to which regional organisations around the world are coordinating their responses to the pandemic varies, overall leaders have recognised the need to coordinate and cooperate in the face of the medical and public health emergency; to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on regional and global economies; to manage the movement of people for repatriation or epidemic containment reasons; to fight online disinformation regarding the virus; and to pool resources for the development of vaccines and treatments.

Global: G7/G20 action

On 16 March, the leaders of the G7 committed to work together in the face of the global health crisis, by: coordinating action on necessary public health measures to protect people at risk from COVID-19; restoring confidence and growth, and protecting jobs; supporting global trade and investment; and encouraging science, research, and technology cooperation. They also agreed to call on the G20 to ‘support and amplify’ these efforts. The statement meanwhile urged the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group and other international organisations to further support countries worldwide. G7 health ministers were asked to coordinate on a weekly basis.

On 26 March, the G20 heads of state or government met in a virtual summit dedicated to addressing the coronavirus pandemic. In their ensuing statement, the heads of the world’s twenty leading economies committed to working with all relevant international organisations, including the WHO and the IMF, to confront the humanitarian, economic and social challenges posed by the pandemic. Some of the key points of the statement refer to: sharing scientific, and research and development information; expanding manufacturing capacity for medical supplies and ensuring availability to those in need; closing the financing gap in the WHO Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan; facilitating trade and ensuring the flow of vital supplies and goods; and conducting ‘bold and large scale’ fiscal support. The leaders tasked the relevant officials with coordinating proportionate border-management measures in accordance with national regulations and providing assistance for repatriation. The statement echoed several of the main points put forward by the EU. Neither of the statements following the G7 and G20 summits addressed the issue of online disinformation regarding the virus however, in spite of senior officials having stated that the issue was discussed, at least within the G7. The EU’s Rapid Alert System has been used to share knowledge with G7 partners on disinformation. Jointly the G20 are injecting over US$5 trillion into the global economy as part of the measures to counteract the social, economic and financial impacts of the pandemic.

Regional organisations: Initial meetings and decisions Asia

On 10 March, the ASEAN finance ministers issued a statement on strengthening ASEAN’s economic resilience in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus. On 13 March, ASEAN senior health officials agreed to sustain and further enhance a strong collective regional response to the pandemic. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Disaster Management Center launched a website to provide information about COVID-19. On 15 March, leaders and representatives of member countries held a video-conference to discuss containment measures for the virus.

Middle East and north Africa

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) held meetings at the level of finance ministers (23 March) and undersecretaries of health ministries (21 March) to discuss the issues relevant to the respective ministries. The finance ministries agreed to exchange information via reports on a weekly basis. Apart from cancelling the March 2020 Arab summit, the Arab League does not appear to have taken any joint action at the time of writing. Experts attribute the League’s inability to address the coronavirus crisis to its design, which focuses on the preservation of sovereignty through unanimity.

Africa

In cooperation with the African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), on 20 March the African Union (AU) issued the Africa continental strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to prevent severe illness and death, and to minimise social and financial disruption, by coordinating the efforts of states, AU agencies, the WHO and other partners; and by promoting evidence-based public health practice for the surveillance, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and control of COVID-19. The AU continent-wide approach was launched in coordination with other African regional economic communities. Health ministers from the ECOWAS countries agreed to harmonise regional preparedness strategies for prevention, early detection and control of the coronavirus outbreak in coordination with the West African Health Organization. In the south, health ministers of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) exchanged information on the spread of the virus and agreed to coordinate preparedness and response.

Latin America

On 19 March, the Presidents of the Mercosur countries decided to coordinate and facilitate the return of nationals of member states to their countries of origin; to ensure the circulation of goods and services across borders; to consider the specific needs of communities in border regions; to consider the possibility of reducing tariffs on essential products and equipment; to share information and best practices and to coordinate with regional credit institutions (such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Latin American Development Bank) with regard to the economic challenges generated by the health crisis. The statement echoed the declaration of the newly founded Prosul. The Prosul declaration also made reference to adopting measures to fight disinformation and fake news, and coordination of the joint procurement of medical equipment, within the framework of the Pan-American Health Organization.

Eurasia

On 19 February, members of the Council of Heads of Authorized Bodies in the Field of Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) States’ Population agreed to exchange information on the spread of the pandemic. Following the expansion of the virus in the region, on 17 March the Council, as well as representatives from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, considered anti-epidemic measures, including strengthening sanitary and quarantine controls, restricting movement of people across the border, restricting air traffic and monitoring people arriving from countries with adverse coronavirus situations. The importance of the supply of Russian laboratory diagnostic tools was emphasised.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Global and regional governance: Initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

When we hear the word ‘social’, we typically think of social security, social protection or employment policies. But the European Union goes much further in the ‘what’ and in the ‘how’.

The social dimension also covers education, health, and cohesion policies. In addition, even the environment, justice, agriculture, trade, and the economy.

The social dimension extends to the processes the European Union puts in place for people to come together, take part, express their demands and look for solutions together through projects and programmes. Through supporting transformation and innovation, the EU can trigger a change of systems.

Listen to Nora Milotay, an EPRS policy analyst, explaining the issues in 3 key questions on the potential of Social Europe.

Or read more in our publications:

• Social governance in the European Union: Governing complex systems
• Collective intelligence at EU level
• Measuring social impact in the EU

Written by Nora Milotay and Gianluca Sgueo,

© Astibuag / Adobe Stock

Humans are among the many living species capable of collaborative and imaginative thinking. While it is widely agreed among scholars that this capacity has contributed to making humans the dominant species, other crucial questions remain open to debate. Is it possible to encourage large groups of people to engage in collective thinking? Is it possible to coordinate citizens to find solutions to address global challenges? Some scholars claim that large groups of independent, motivated, and well-informed people can, collectively, make better decisions than isolated individuals can – what is known as ‘collective intelligence.’

The social dimension of collective intelligence mainly relates to social aspects of the economy and of innovation. It shows that a holistic approach to innovation – one that includes not only technological but also social aspects – can greatly contribute to the EU’s goal of promoting a just transition for everyone to a sustainable and green economy in the digital age. The EU has been taking concrete action to promote social innovation by supporting the development of its theory and practice. Mainly through funding programmes, it helps to seek new types of partners and build new capacity – and thus shape the future of local and national innovations aimed at societal needs.

The democratic dimension suggests that the power of the collective can be leveraged so as to improve public decision-making systems. Supported by technology, policy-makers can harness the ‘civic surplus’ of citizens – thus providing smarter solutions to regulatory challenges. This is particularly relevant at EU level in view of the planned Conference on the Future of Europe, aimed at engaging communities at large and making EU decision-making more inclusive and participatory.

The current coronavirus crisis is likely to change society and our economy in ways as yet too early to predict, but recovery after the crisis will require new ways of thinking and acting to overcome common challenges, and thus making use of our collective intelligence should be more urgent than ever. In the longer term, in order to mobilise collective intelligence across the EU and to fully exploit its innovative potential, the EU needs to strengthen its education policies and promote a shared understanding of a holistic approach to innovation and of collective intelligence – and thus become a ‘global brain,’ with a solid institutional set-up at the centre of a subsidised experimentation process that meets the challenges imposed by modern-day transformations.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Collective intelligence at EU level: Social and democratic dimensions‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg,

© European Union 2020

On 1 December 2019, Charles Michel, previously prime minister of Belgium, became the third President of the European Council. He began his term in dynamic mode, aiming to make his mark in foreign affairs and develop the EU’s interinstitutional relations. While pursuing his predecessors’ efforts to secure unity between EU leaders, Michel has applied his own style, visible notably in his discourse, social media presence and transparency efforts. An analysis of the President’s Twitter activities shows his strong focus on EU-Africa relations, climate and, most recently, COVID-19.

Background

In July 2019, Charles Michel was elected by the European Council as its third permanent President. He took over the post on 1 December, chairing his first European Council meeting on 12-13 December. Analysts often assess the performance of a political leader after his or her first 100 days in office. While it is too early to make an in-depth analysis comparing the three office-holders, now – after just over 100 days and in the light of the current context of the COVID-19 crisis – could be a good time to recap on the role of the President of the European Council and take stock of Charles Michel’s activities to date.

Although the European Council has no Treaty-based crisis-management role, its first two Presidents seem to be remembered – and their terms in office defined – by the crises through which they had to steer the EU. Herman Van Rompuy had to face the economic and financial crisis and Donald Tusk was confronted by the migration crisis. Just like his predecessors, Charles Michel is facing a substantial crisis at the very beginning of his mandate; the way he manages the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to shape the approach and substance of his first mandate at the helm of the European Council (see EPRS: The European Council as COVID-19 crisis manager: A comparison with previous crises). Before the COVID-19 outbreak reached the EU, Charles Michel was already starting to put his own stamp on the office of President, carrying out the tasks envisaged for this office in the Treaties.

Figure1 – Presidents of the European Council and their mandates

Presidents of the European Council and their mandates

Role of the President of the European Council

The Lisbon Treaty introduced the office of full-time President of the European Council in 2009. The full-time president replaced the previous rotating presidency of the European Council, held by the Head of State or Government of the Member State holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers), who continues to chair most Council formations.[i] The office of President was created, among other reasons, to bring more continuity and coherence to the work of the European Council.

The office of President of the European Council is described in Articles 15(5) and 15(6) TEU, and the term of office is limited to two and a half years, with the possibility of the same person being re-elected, but only once (see EPRS: The choice of the President of the European Council). The Treaty clearly states that the President of the European Council ‘shall not hold a national office’ (Article 15(6) TEU); however, it does not specify that it is forbidden to hold another EU office. He or she is elected by EU leaders by a qualified majority vote (QMV).

The tasks of the President are set out in Article 15(6) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and further described in the European Council’s rules of procedure (RoP) of 2 December 2009. According to the Lisbon Treaty and the RoP, the President of the European Council:

• chairs the European Council and drives its work forward;
• ensures the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the president of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
• endeavours to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
• presents a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council;
• ensures the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy (CFSP), without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy.

Charles Michel’s action so far

Right from the start of his mandate, Charles Michel has been very active, in particular regarding foreign affairs issues and in identifying the priorities of the EU Heads of State or Government.

Focus on foreign affairs

Regarding foreign affairs, Charles Michel has concentrated on external crises, such as those in Libya and Syria, and on relations with Turkey, with the Arab world and with Africa. He has also developed a good working relationship with the High Representative, Josep Borrell. They met as early as July 2019, days after their respective nominations, to discuss future cooperation. The frequency of their meetings increased in the early days of their mandates. In certain cases, they have attended international events together (e.g. the Berlin Conference on Libya on 19 January 2020). At that event, Michel stated that work ‘to support the conclusion of a ceasefire and for the relaunch of the peace process’ was a joint effort with the High Representative.

The COVID-19 crisis might force Michel to scale down certain external activities and place others in the spotlight, including attention to bilateral relations with China. Despite concentrating attention on the COVID-19 crisis, Charles Michel is continuing to work on foreign relations issues, notably commenting on developments regarding the Western Balkans.

Taking the pulse of the EU Heads of State or Government

After his election, and before taking office, Charles Michel visited all the EU Heads of State or Government to consider their views on the work of the European Council for the coming months. This exercise was repeated in late 2019 and early 2020 in the specific context of the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF), with Charles Michel holding a series of bilateral meetings with most members of the European Council with the aim of identifying room for compromise and the red lines of the different Member States. As part of the European Council’s COVID-19 crisis management activities, he also consulted with the individual members of the European Council before convening meetings to decide on a common approach.

Enhanced interinstitutional cooperation

With the new institutional cycle and the new leadership of the EU institutions, there have been renewed efforts to strengthen cooperation between the EU institutions. In his first report to the Parliament’s plenary as President of the European Council, Charles Michel extended his hand ‘to the European Parliament hoping that together we can play a useful role in the future of the European project’. The incoming president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, voiced her wish ‘to strengthen the Commission’s partnership with the European Parliament. Likewise, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, in his inaugural speech, called on the EU institutions ‘to rethink their roles and ensure that they are no longer viewed as an impediment to a more united Europe’, assuring the Council and the Commission that Parliament would ‘work with them very closely’.

A first practical example of this closer cooperation came with the Presidents’ retreat at the Jean Monnet House (owned by the European Parliament) at Houjarray, outside Paris, on 31 January 2020, during which they jointly declared the need ‘to look to the future and build a new partnership between enduring friends’, committing their three institutions to ‘do everything in their power to make it a success’.

So far, Charles Michel has complied with his reporting duties to the Parliament. He reported following both the 12-13 December European Council and the special European Council meeting on 20-21 February 2020. In the past, Presidents of the European Council have not always reported to the European Parliament following special or extraordinary meetings. During the COVID-19 crisis and resulting reduction of physical meetings in favour of video conferences, it will be necessary to find alternative ways of reporting the results of European Council deliberations to Parliament. Moreover, the other main element of the relationship between the European Council and the European Parliament, namely the statement by the European Parliament president at the beginning of European Council meetings, has been adapted to the new format of European Council meetings by video conference. At the third video conference meeting of the European Council regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, on 26 March, David Sassoli gave an opening statement, just like at traditional meetings of the European Council (see EPRS: Outcome of the video-conference of the European Council, 26 March 2020).

Charles Michel’s willingness to step up cooperation with Parliament has also been evident regarding the negotiations on the 2021-2027 MFF. When reporting to Parliament on 18 December 2019 on the outcome of the European Council meeting the previous week, the President stressed the ‘institutional role, based on the Treaties, of the European Parliament in the context of this decision-making process’ and expressed his ‘full respect and desire to develop this good cooperation with the European Parliament’. This approach has been welcomed by MEPs involved in the MFF negotiations. Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, reported ‘a very constructive dialogue on Parliament’s priorities’ and the negotiating team’s appreciation for ‘President Michel’s openness’.

Unfortunately, at the end of the special European Council meeting on 20-21 February 2020 dedicated to the 2021-2027 MFF, EU Heads of State or Government failed to overcome their differences and reach an agreement on the long-term budget. Achieving this during the COVID-19 crisis, at a time when capacity to act is needed more than ever, will be even more difficult. This is due, on the one hand, to the focus on other issues and on the other, to the fact that video conferences are not ideal for negotiations that traditionally rely heavily on break-out sessions between individual actors or groups in order to reach an agreement.

An early example of EU interinstitutional cooperation during the COVID-19 crisis was the statement by Presidents Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen with the Croatian Presidency on the COVID‑19-related US travel ban.

Style and discourse

At the handover ceremony, on 28 November 2019, Charles Michel stressed that he would ‘take a common-sense approach to problem solving with innovation and efficiency’. Echoing his predecessors, he has also underlined the importance of ‘greater European unity’, stressing that, as President of the European Council, he will ‘encourage an unshakeable unity between EU leaders’. However, he intends to maintain his own style by being ‘open for dialogue and committed to building bridges’ though ‘perhaps more cautious’ with his tweets, ‘at least at the beginning’. Areas in which Michel’s own style have been observed include i) his discourse, ii) his social media presence, iii) his efforts at transparency, iv) his use of informal meetings, and v) his work plan.

Discourse

Based on the initial data, Charles Michel appears to be more communicative than his predecessors. For example, when reporting to Parliament after his first two European Council meetings, his statements were two to three times longer than those of Donald Tusk.

Social media presence

Whereas Herman Van Rompuy was a reluctant social media user as President of the European Council, Donald Tusk did pass messages via Twitter and Instagram. Charles Michel has further expanded the use of Twitter as a communication tool for the President of the European Council. Michel’s Twitter output since becoming President clearly reflects his own priorities and the major topics and events arising during his term in office so far.

Figure 2 – Political focus of Charles Michel’s tweets since 1 December 2019

Political focus of Charles Michel’s tweets since 1 December 2019

Figure 2 shows that Charles Michel has taken on an important communication role during the COVID-19 crisis. His attention to external relations, in particular to the African Union and climate issues reflect both his personal priorities and those of the European Council’s 2019-2024 Strategic Agenda. His attention to the Turkey/migration issue and to Auschwitz and the Shoah reflect his focus on current affairs.

The ‘other’ category includes small numbers of various types of tweet, such as congratulations expressed to newly appointed Heads of State or Government, or statements on the future of Europe or on natural or man-made disasters.

Transparency efforts

In a novel move, Charles Michel also publishes readouts from his telephone calls and meetings with international leaders, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Informal meetings

An EPRS analysis looking at the activities of the previous two Presidents of the European Council shows that, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the use by the President of informal meetings to discuss with EU Heads of State or Government. This trend is expected to continue, as Charles Michel has already indicated that he would like to see ‘more informal moments with and among leaders’. Although during the COVID-19 crisis all meetings have taken the form of video-conferences and been ‘informal’ in legal terms, this is not the same kind of informality that might be encountered at traditional informal meetings, notably those taking place in the country of the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU.

Work plan

At the 12-13 December 2019 European Council, Charles Michel explained his vision for the future work of the European Council, and presented European Council members with an ‘indicative agenda’ for its work over the coming years. In the days prior to the meeting, he identified climate change, the economy and the EU’s global role as priorities for the future. He stressed that a concerted agenda, coordinated between the institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament), was key to advancing the European project. Despite this initial intention to produce an agenda, the COVID 19 outbreak may lead to a crisis-driven agenda and the lack of a work programme during the first year of Michel’s mandate. This would place him on an equal footing with both of his predecessors, who, as a result of the urgent nature of the crises they faced, did not produce a long-term work plan during their first mandates.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Charles Michel as President of the European Council: The first 100+ days‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg with Emily Phillips,

© Quatrox Production / Adobe Stock

On 26 March, EU Heads of State or Government continued their joint coordination efforts to address the COVID-19 outbreak and held a six hour-long video-conference meeting on this subject. They followed up on the priorities defined at the previous video-conferences on 10 and 17 March 2020, and outlined additional coordinated measures aimed at overcoming the crisis in a joint statement.

While EU leaders claimed ‘to do everything necessary to meet this challenge in a spirit of solidarity’, at this stage they could not agree on appropriate financing instruments to help countries in fiscal difficulty due to the crisis, with some countries pleading for the introduction of joint ‘corona bonds’, whilst others preferred the use of existing EU instruments, notably the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, participated for the first time at the start of a video-conference meeting. As at ordinary European Council meetings, he gave an opening statement, and subsequently underlined that he ‘expected a stronger assumption of responsibility from national leaders’.

Looking beyond the immediate priorities, EU leaders asked the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council to start working on a roadmap, accompanied by an action plan, to prepare an exit strategy and a comprehensive recovery plan, including unprecedented investment. Additionally, EU Heads of State or Government also used the meeting to address EU enlargement, the earthquake in Croatia and the situation at the EU’s external borders.

1. Discussions on the COVID-19 outbreak Limiting the spread of the virus

EU Heads of State or Government discussed their joint and national actions to contain and slow the spread of the virus. Concerning the reinforcement of EU external border controls following the European Council’s agreement on 17 March to apply a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU for a period of 30 days, EU leaders decided to ‘evaluate the situation in due time and decide whether or not to prolong these measures’.

Regarding temporary internal border controls, EU leaders agreed to ‘ensure smooth border management for persons and goods and preserve the functioning of the Single Market’. Concerning EU citizens blocked at internal EU borders and prevented from returning to their homes, as well as ensuring the supply of goods and essential services, EU leaders pledged to address the remaining problems urgently, with the assistance of the Commission. The latter was asked to report on the situation before the European Council’s next video-conference meeting.

Differing from previous crises (see The European Council as COVID-19 crisis manager), the COVID‑19 outbreak is accompanied by an increased spread of disinformation. EU leaders aim at fighting this phenomenon with transparent, timely and fact-based communication, with the full involvement of the Commission and the High Representative/Vice-President, who will report on the joint efforts to the Council. Moreover, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Commission structures active in the cybersecurity field will reinforce their activities to fight disinformation.

Providing medical equipment

Member States were invited to coordinate and provide reliable data to the Commission on the provision of medical equipment throughout the EU. The Commission, in cooperation with industry, is to monitor the available stocks and take action to improve supply. It will continue to pursue joint procurement initiatives for protective equipment as well as ventilators and testing supplies, whilst seeking to speed up procedures in this respect.

On 19 March 2020, the Commission announced the creation of a stockpile of medical equipment, including for intensive care, vaccines and therapeutics, under the rescEU initiative, which is part of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. In this respect, EU leaders have underlined the need to increase, as necessary, the budget allocated for the rescEU stockpile. In light of World Health Organization recommendations, the European Council stressed that testing capacity in Member States must be increased as a matter of urgency, inviting Member States to report to the Commission accordingly.

Promoting research

The European Council highlighted its commitment to do everything possible to support research efforts within the European scientific and research community. The development of a vaccine in the shortest time possible, available to all, is an absolute priority, as underlined by the EU leaders. Some 17 research projects, involving 136 teams worldwide, have already been shortlisted following the Commission call launched on 30 January 2020. EU leaders welcomed the initiatives taken by the Commission, the European Innovation Council and the European Investment Bank Group to provide financial support for the clinical and public health response to COVID-19.

Tackling socio-economic consequences

In their statement, EU Heads of State and Government acknowledged the developments achieved by the Eurogroup and called upon the latter to suggest proposals within two weeks, which should consider the exceptional challenges posed by the COVID-19 shock. On 24 March, EU finance ministers agreed to coordinate their actions as a means of providing stimulus packages and protecting citizens and companies across the EU. Subsequently, Eurogroup President Mario Centeno stated that there was ‘broad support to consider a pandemic crisis support safeguard based on an existing ESM precautionary instrument, such as the Enhanced Conditions Credit Line’. President Centeno further stressed the latter proposal in a letter addressed to the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, praising leaders for their efforts to establish a Pandemic Crisis Support Instrument and to set the ESM to finance fiscal spending equal to 2 % of Member States’ GDP.

Regarding the European Central Bank’s fiscal response to the economic consequences of the coronavirus within the euro area, EU Heads of State and Government unanimously welcomed the launch of the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) of public and private-sector securities, unveiled on 18 March; an ambitious policy measure that includes an overall envelope of €750 billion. On 19 March, the European Commission presented the Temporary Framework for State Aid to help companies and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) facing economic difficulties in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was commended as ‘a major step forward’ by the European Council. EU leaders also voiced support for other significant tools made available by the Commission, such as the general escape clause under the Stability and Growth Pact. Concerning the European Investment Bank’s reaction to the pandemic, leaders endorsed the decision to deploy loans and liquidity lines to banks in support of SMEs.

Despite wide agreement in adopting the above-mentioned measures, disagreement persists amongst Member States on a long-term response, and in particular on the most appropriate financial instruments to help countries facing fiscal difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Some countries have expressed their preference for the use of existing EU instruments, notably the ESM, whilst others, including France, Italy and Spain, called for special eurobonds or ‘corona bonds’ to be issued, with the aim of facilitating ‘the transmission of euro-area monetary policy and boost[ing] efficiency in the bond market and in the broader euro-area financial system’. Subsequently, nine EU Heads of State or Government[i] wrote a joint letter urging the establishment of a common European debt instrument against the economic threat posed by the coronavirus outbreak. At their video-conference on 26 March, EU leaders failed to reach agreement on the way forward, with, as only outcome, the commitment to return to the debate in two weeks’ time on the basis of proposals from the Eurogroup. In this context, Charles Michel nonetheless offered reassurance that the European Council ‘will continue all its efforts and will do everything it takes to find the right solution’, whilst Commission President von der Leyen stressed that ‘the room is still open to discuss other possibilities that might be on the table’. The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, strongly criticised the results of the European Council and ‘the short-sightedness and selfishness of some governments’, stressing that Europe is ‘more than just national governments. Countries must be able to spend all they need to spend. To do this we need a common tool to guarantee debt’.

Citizens stranded in third countries

EU leaders reaffirmed their commitment to coordinate the repatriation of EU citizens from third countries through the Union’s Civil Protection Mechanism. The High Representative/Vice-President, Josep Borrell, and the newly established Consular Task Force in the European External Action Service (EEAS) will continue to support these efforts and cooperate closely with the Commission, including its specialised agencies, and the Member States. To ensure rapid and swift repatriation of EU citizens, Borrell stepped up contacts with his counterparts from both Asian and Latin American countries. As an intra-EU measure facilitating the return of EU citizens, the Commission is expected to put ‘forward an addendum to the border management guidelines to facilitate transit arrangements’.

Cooperation with the international community

EU leaders pledged to cooperate with the international community and the EU’s external partners in combating the global pandemic. Just prior to the video-conference of the members of the European Council, G20 leaders held an extraordinary video-conference to coordinate their macroeconomic policies to mitigate the economic downturn, support workers and the companies most affected. At the G20 video-conference, Presidents Michel and von der Leyen underlined that ‘the European Union is committed to international cooperation in tackling this pandemic and will continue to assist vulnerable countries and communities around the world, especially in Africa’. They used the occasion to recall the need also to ‘keep trade flows and supply chains open’.

2. Exit strategy and lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis

While the priorities outlined above aim at fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and its immediate consequences, EU Heads of State or Government agreed on the need to start preparing a coordinated exit strategy. This includes ‘the measures necessary to get back to a normal functioning of our societies and economies and to sustainable growth, integrating inter alia the green transition and the digital transformation, and drawing all lessons from the crisis’. Moreover, they agreed on the need for a comprehensive recovery plan and unprecedented investment.

To that end, the European Council invited the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, in consultation with other institutions, especially the European Central Bank, to start work on a roadmap accompanied by an action plan for that purpose. Following the video-conference, Ursula von der Leyen specified that the Commission would now develop an exit strategy, built on a science-based protocol, which would propose when and how to move away from containment measures, such as social distancing.

EU leaders agreed that they had to draw lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and called for ‘a more ambitious and wide-ranging crisis management system within the EU’, inviting the Commission to make proposals in that respect.

3. Other topics

EU leaders used the opportunity of the video-conference meeting to discuss other pressing issues.

Enlargement

EU leaders endorsed the 25 March 2020 General Affairs Council conclusions on enlargement and stabilisation and association agreements, confirming the Council’s decision to open accession negotiations, under stricter conditionality rules, in line with the accession methodology presented by the Commission in February, with both Albania and North Macedonia. President Michel spoke of ‘an important step for both countries which sends a strong signal to the whole region in these times’.

Earthquake in Croatia

EU Heads of State or Government expressed their fullest sympathy with the Croatian Presidency and people, and declared that they ‘stand ready to assist them in coping with the effects of the recent earthquake’.

Situation at the EU’s external borders

The European Council stated its concerns over the situation at the Greek-Turkish border and affirmed its full solidarity with Greece, as well as with Bulgaria and Cyprus and other Member States affected in their efforts to manage the EU’s external borders.

Multiannual financial framework

While not included in the Joint Statement, President von der Leyen, addressed the negotiations on the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework during the press conference following the video-conference meeting. In her view, the COVID-19 crisis shows the importance of an EU budget that can deal with complex crises. An ambitious new EU budget is thus needed, helping the EU economy to recover and to rebound as soon as possible. EU leaders will have to come back to this issue in the next weeks. On 28 March, she announced that the Commission will shortly put forward an amended MFF proposal, including a stimulus package for the recovery.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of European Council video-conference of 26 March 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© oxinoxi / Adobe Stock

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages calling on the EU to adopt a clear and humane migration and external border policy.

See below for the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English, German, Greek, Spanish, French and Italian).

Reply in English

The Presidents of the EU institutions (European Parliament, European Council and European Commission) immediately accepted the invitation of the Bulgarian and Greek Prime Ministers to visit the borders and to see the situation for themselves. This visit took place on Tuesday, 3 March 2020.

The Presidents of the EU institutions made statements of support to the Bulgarian and Greek citizens and authorities which are available here: statement of Mr Sassoli, statement of Mr Charles Michel, President of the European Council, statement of Ms Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.

After the visit, Mr Sassoli stated: ‘We urgently call on the Turkish authorities to respect the agreement with the European Union and we remain open for dialogue.’ He also called upon ‘European leaders to work constructively with us in order to find a solution for the fair redistribution of people in need. This is the only way to live up to our values and make Europe a global leader in the defence of human rights.’

On Wednesday 4 March 2020, Mr Michel and Mr Josep Borrell, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, met with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara, Turkey. A press release on this meeting is available here.

On the same day, the EU Ministers of Home Affairs took part in an extraordinary meeting in Brussels at which they agreed, inter alia, that: ‘All Member States, the European Commission and EU Agencies stand ready to strengthen their support to areas under pressure, including through the deployment of FRONTEX’s rapid border intervention and additional technical assistance. Member States will swiftly provide the support necessary to ensure the immediate deployment of the relevant teams and assets. The Commission will play an active role in coordinating Member States’ support.’

The European Parliament held a debate on the situation during its session in Brussels on Tuesday 10 March 2020.

Reply in German

Die Präsidenten der EU-Organe (Europäisches Parlament, Europäischer Rat und Europäische Kommission) nahmen sogleich die Einladung des bulgarischen und des griechischen Premierministers an, die Grenzen zu besuchen und sich selbst ein Bild von der Lage vor Ort zu machen. Dieser Besuch fand am Dienstag, den 3. März 2020, statt.

Die Präsidenten der drei EU-Organe gaben bei der Gelegenheit Erklärungen zur Unterstützung der Bürger und Behörden von Bulgarien und Griechenland ab, die hier (in englischer Sprache) abgerufen werden können: Erklärung von David Sassoli, Erklärung von Charles Michel, Präsident des Europäischen Rates, Erklärung von Ursula von der Leyen, Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission.

Nach dem Treffen sagte David Sassoli: „Wir fordern die türkischen Behörden nachdrücklich auf, das Abkommen mit der Europäischen Union einzuhalten, und wir bleiben offen für den Dialog.“ Er forderte außerdem die europäischen Staats- und Regierungschefs auf, „konstruktiv mit uns zusammenzuarbeiten, um eine Lösung für die gerechte Umverteilung von Menschen in Not zu finden. Nur so können wir unseren Werten gerecht werden und Europa weltweit zu einer führenden Kraft bei der Verteidigung der Menschenrechte machen“.

Am Mittwoch, den 4. März 2020, trafen sich Charles Michel und Josep Borrell, Hoher Vertreter für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und Vizepräsident der Europäischen Kommission, mit dem türkischen Präsidenten Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in der türkischen Hauptstadt Ankara. Eine Pressemitteilung zu diesem Treffen ist (in englischer Sprache) hier verfügbar.

Am selben Tag nahmen die Innenminister der EU an einer außerordentlichen Sitzung in Brüssel teil, bei der sie unter anderem folgendes vereinbarten: „Alle Mitgliedstaaten, die Europäische Kommission und die EU-Agenturen sind bereit, ihre Unterstützung für Gebiete, die einem besonderen Druck ausgesetzt sind, zu verstärken, und zwar unter anderem durch den Soforteinsatz zu Grenzsicherungszwecken von Frontex und durch zusätzliche technische Hilfe. Die Mitgliedstaaten werden rasch die erforderliche Unterstützung leisten, um die sofortige Entsendung der entsprechenden Teams und die Bereitstellung der Mittel zu gewährleisten. Die Kommission wird eine aktive Rolle bei der Koordinierung der Unterstützungsmaßnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten einnehmen.“

Das Europäische Parlament hat während seiner Tagung in Brüssel am Dienstag, den 10. März 2020, eine Debatte über die Lage an den EU-Außengrenzen mit der Türkei geführt.

Reply in Greek

Οι Πρόεδροι των θεσμικών οργάνων της ΕΕ (Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο και Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή) αποδέχθηκαν αμέσως την πρόσκληση των πρωθυπουργών της Βουλγαρίας και της Ελλάδας να επισκεφθούν τα σύνορα και να δουν την κατάσταση οι ίδιοι. Η επίσκεψη πραγματοποιήθηκε την Τρίτη 3 Μαρτίου 2020.

Οι Πρόεδροι των θεσμικών οργάνων της ΕΕ προέβησαν σε δηλώσεις υποστήριξης προς τους πολίτες και τις αρχές της Βουλγαρίας και της Ελλάδας, δηλώσεις οι οποίες είναι διαθέσιμες εδώ: Δήλωση του κ. Sassoli , δήλωση του κ. Charles Michel, Προέδρου του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου , δήλωση της κ. Ursula von der Leyen, Προέδρου της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής .

Μετά την επίσκεψη, ο κ. Sassoli δήλωσε: «Καλούμε επειγόντως τις τουρκικές αρχές να σεβαστούν τη συμφωνία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και να παραμείνουν ανοικτές στον διάλογο». Κάλεσε επίσης τους «Ευρωπαίους ηγέτες να εργαστούν εποικοδομητικά μαζί μας προκειμένου να εξευρεθεί λύση για τη δίκαιη ανακατανομή των ανθρώπων που έχουν ανάγκη. Αυτός είναι ο μόνος τρόπος να ανταποκριθούμε στις αξίες μας και να αναδείξουμε την Ευρώπη σε παγκόσμια ηγέτιδα δύναμη στον τομέα της υπεράσπισης των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.»

Την Τετάρτη 4 Μαρτίου 2020, ο κ. Michel και ο κ. Josep Borrell, Ύπατος Εκπρόσωπος για θέματα εξωτερικής πολιτικής και πολιτικής ασφαλείας/Αντιπρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, συναντήθηκαν με τον Πρόεδρο κ. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan στην Άγκυρα της Τουρκίας. Δελτίο τύπου για τη συνάντηση αυτή είναι διαθέσιμο εδώ.

Την ίδια ημέρα, οι υπουργοί Εσωτερικών της ΕΕ συμμετείχαν σε έκτακτη συνεδρίαση στις Βρυξέλλες, στην οποία συμφώνησαν, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι: «Όλα τα κράτη μέλη, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και οι οργανισμοί της ΕΕ είναι έτοιμα να ενισχύσουν τη στήριξή τους στις περιοχές που δέχονται πίεση, μεταξύ άλλων μέσω της ανάπτυξης της ταχείας επέμβασης του FRONTEX και της πρόσθετης τεχνικής βοήθειας. Τα κράτη μέλη θα προσφέρουν ταχέως την αναγκαία υποστήριξη για να εξασφαλιστεί η άμεση ανάπτυξη των σχετικών ομάδων και πόρων. Η Επιτροπή θα διαδραματίσει ενεργό ρόλο στον συντονισμό της στήριξης των κρατών μελών».

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο πραγματοποίησε συζήτηση σχετικά με την κατάσταση κατά τη σύνοδό του στις Βρυξέλλες την Τρίτη 10 Μαρτίου 2020.

Reply in Spanish

Los Presidentes de las instituciones de la UE (Parlamento Europeo, Consejo Europeo y Comisión Europea) aceptaron inmediatamente la invitación de los Primeros Ministros búlgaro y griego a que visitaran las fronteras y vieran la situación por sí mismos. Esta visita tuvo lugar el martes 3 de marzo de 2020.

Los Presidentes de las instituciones de la UE hicieron declaraciones de apoyo a los ciudadanos y a las autoridades de Bulgaria y Grecia. Puede consultar estas declaraciones siguiendo los siguientes enlaces: declaración de David Maria Sassoli; declaración de Charles Michel, Presidente del Consejo Europeo; declaración Ursula von der Leyen, Presidenta de la Comisión Europea.

Después de la visita, el Presidente David Maria Sassoli declaró: «Pedimos urgentemente a las autoridades turcas que respeten el acuerdo con la Unión Europea y seguimos abiertos al diálogo». También pidió a los dirigentes europeos que «trabajen con nosotros de modo constructivo para encontrar una solución encaminada a una redistribución equitativa de las personas que lo necesitan, ya que es la única forma de estar a la altura de nuestros valores y de poner a Europa a la vanguardia de la defensa de los derechos humanos».

El miércoles 4 de marzo, Charles Michel y Josep Borrell, Alto Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad y Vicepresidente de la Comisión Europea, se reunieron con el Presidente Recep Tayyip Erdoğan en Ankara (Turquía). A través de este enlace puede consultar el comunicado de prensa relativo a dicha reunión.

Ese mismo día, los Ministros de Interior de la UE participaron en una reunión extraordinaria celebrada en Bruselas en la que acordaron, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente: «Todos los Estados miembros, la Comisión Europea y las agencias de la UE están dispuestos a reforzar su apoyo a las zonas sometidas a presión, en particular mediante el despliegue de la intervención rápida en las fronteras de Frontex y asistencia técnica adicional. Los Estados miembros facilitarán diligentemente el apoyo necesario para garantizar el despliegue inmediato de los equipos y medios pertinentes. La Comisión desempeñará un papel activo en la coordinación del apoyo de los Estados miembros».

El Parlamento Europeo celebró un debate sobre esta situación en su sesión del martes 10 de marzo de 2020 en Bruselas.

Reply in French

Les présidents des institutions de l’Union européenne (Parlement européen, Conseil européen et Commission européenne) ont immédiatement accepté l’invitation des premiers ministres bulgare et grec à se rendre sur les frontières et à juger par eux-mêmes de la situation. Cette visite a eu lieu le mardi 3 mars 2020.

Les présidents des institutions de l’Union européenne ont fait des déclarations dans lesquelles ils apportaient leur soutien aux citoyens et autorités bulgares et grecs. Elles se trouvent aux adresses suivantes: déclaration de M. Sassoli, déclaration de M. Charles Michel, Président du Conseil européen, déclaration de Mme Ursula von der Leyen, Présidente de la Commission européenne.

Après la visite, M. Sassoli a fait la déclaration suivante: «Nous demandons instamment aux autorités turques de respecter l’accord conclu avec l’Union européenne et nous restons ouverts au dialogue». Il a également invité les responsables européens à «travailler de manière constructive avec nous afin de trouver une solution pour la répartition équitable des personnes qui sont dans le besoin. C’est la seule manière d’être fidèles à nos valeurs et de faire de l’Europe un chef de file mondial dans la défense des droits de l’homme».

Le mercredi 4 mars 2020, M. Michel et M. Josep Borrell, Haut Représentant pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité / Vice-Président de la Commission européenne, ont rencontré le Président Recep Tayyip Erdogan à Ankara (Turquie). Un communiqué de presse relatif à cette rencontre est disponible ici.

Le même jour, les ministres de l’intérieur de l’Union européenne ont participé à une réunion extraordinaire à Bruxelles au cours de laquelle ils ont convenu, entre autres, que: «L’ensemble des États membres, la Commission européenne et les agences de l’UE sont prêts à renforcer leur soutien aux régions sous pression, y compris par le déploiement de l’intervention rapide de Frontex aux frontières et une assistance technique supplémentaire. Les États membres fourniront rapidement le soutien nécessaire pour assurer le déploiement immédiat des équipes et des moyens d’intervention concernés. La Commission jouera un rôle actif dans la coordination du soutien apporté par les États membres.

Le Parlement européen a organisé un débat sur la situation pendant sa période de session à Bruxelles le mardi 10 mars 2020.

Reply in Italian

I presidenti delle istituzioni dell’UE (Parlamento europeo, Consiglio europeo e Commissione europea) hanno immediatamente accettato l’invito dei primi ministri bulgaro e greco a visitare le frontiere e a verificare di persona la situazione. La visita si è svolta martedì 3 marzo 2020.

I presidenti delle istituzioni dell’UE hanno rilasciato dichiarazioni di sostegno ai cittadini e alle autorità bulgare e greche che sono disponibili al seguente indirizzo: dichiarazione dellꞌon. Sassoli, dichiarazione di Charles Michel, Presidente del Consiglio europeo, dichiarazione di Ursula von der Leyen, Presidente della Commissione europea.

Dopo la visita, l’on. Sassoli ha dichiarato: “Chiediamo urgentemente alle autorità turche di rispettare l’accordo con l’Unione europea e restiamo aperti al dialogo.” Ha altresì invitato “i leader europei a lavorare in modo costruttivo con noi affinché si trovi una soluzione per unꞌequa ridistribuzione delle persone bisognose. Questo è lꞌunico modo per essere all’altezza dei nostri valori e rendere lꞌEuropa un leader globale nella difesa dei diritti umani”.

Mercoledì 4 marzo 2020 Charles Michel e Josep Borrell, alto rappresentante per la politica estera e di sicurezza/vicepresidente della Commissione europea, hanno incontrato il Presidente Recep Tayyip Erdogan ad Ankara, Turchia. Un comunicato stampa relativo a questo incontro è disponibile qui.

Lo stesso giorno i ministri dell’Interno dell’UE hanno partecipato a una riunione straordinaria a Bruxelles in cui hanno convenuto, tra l’altro, che: “Tutti gli Stati membri, la Commissione europea e le agenzie dell’UE sono pronti a rafforzare il loro sostegno alle zone sotto pressione, anche attraverso lo spiegamento del rapido intervento di Frontex alle frontiere e un’ulteriore assistenza tecnica. Gli Stati membri forniranno rapidamente il sostegno necessario per assicurare l’invio immediato delle squadre e delle risorse pertinenti. La Commissione svolgerà un ruolo attivo nel coordinare il sostegno degli Stati membri”.

Il Parlamento europeo ha tenuto una discussione sulla situazione durante la sua tornata a Bruxelles martedì 10 marzo 2020.

Written by Suzana Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg,

© Kheng Guan Toh / Adobe Stock

The COVID-19 outbreak confronts the European Union with a severe crisis, affecting both individual EU citizens’ lives and society as a whole. Due to its role and centrality in the EU’s institutional framework, the European Council is once again called upon to exercise its crisis-management role. Similarities can be drawn with past crises as regards both short and long-term responses. The main difference to previous crises, for instance, in the economy or on migration, which impacted a limited number of EU policies, is that the COVID-19 crisis touches the entire spectrum of policies at both European and national level, making a common response more challenging, as competences are divided between the different strata of the EU’s multi-level governance system. Ultimately, this crisis has the potential to reshape EU policies, leading to increased cross-policy cooperation and possibly a centrally coordinated response mechanism.

European Council’s crisis-management role

The European Council’s crisis-management role developed over time, outside the Treaty framework, as a result of successive EU crises in the past decade. Although not Treaty-based, both academics and practitioners consider crisis management as the European Council’s main role. Between 2009 and 2016, the European Council has had to respond to several severe crises – economic, migration or foreign policy related – and has been operating de facto in a ‘permanent state of crisis’. Sometimes, as in the case of the migration and Ukrainian crises, it has had to address multiple crises simultaneously. These various emergencies are diverse in both their cause and impact on the EU’s development. Jointly however, they have resulted in the consolidation of the centrality of the European Council at the heart of the EU institutional system. They have also shown that there are cases, such as the economic governance and Ukraine crises, when only the Heads of State or Government can swiftly and efficiently reach political agreement on highly sensitive matters.

European Council response to the COVID-19 outbreak

A disease first reported in China in December 2019, COVID-19 presents the European Council with a crisis on a far larger scale than ever before. Its rapid worldwide spread, causing mild to severe respiratory distress, led the World Health Organization (WHO) to raise the contamination risk to ‘very high’ on 28 February 2020, characterise the outbreak as a pandemic from 11 March 2020, and encourage governments worldwide to step up their individual and collective response.

However, the European Council only returned to crisis mode to discuss COVID-19 on 10 March 2020, when the situation in Italy was already extremely difficult and other Member States, including Spain and France, faced rising infection rates. This tardy reaction shows the nature of the crisis and its impact on the EU as a whole has been under-estimated. It also illustrates the failure to anticipate the size of the crisis and its implications at individual, societal, healthcare system and economy levels.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Council as COVID-19 crisis manager: A comparison with previous crises‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso and Velina Lilyanova,

© European Union 2020, EPRS

The European Council of 20-21 February 2020 failed to reach agreement on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework (MFF) at the level of EU Heads of State or Government. Although the date of the next European Council meeting devoted to the topic has not yet been decided, with the ongoing coronavirus crisis occupying leaders’ attention, the shape and function of the post-2020 MFF is still an urgent issue, since the current framework comes to an end in December. Many points remain open for discussion. As a contribution to the ongoing debate, EPRS has published three papers on the EU budget and the related negotiations, drafted by external specialists for an EPRS expert seminar organised ahead of the February European Council meeting.

As highlighted by Anthony Teasdale, Director General of EPRS, the expert seminar ‘EU Budget 2021-2027: challenges and opportunities’ aimed to facilitate and stimulate an open discussion on the next MFF as an important milestone for the future of the EU. At this event, EPRS and the Budgetary Policies Unit of the Members’ Research Service had the privilege to host the European Parliament’s entire MFF negotiating team, namely: Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), Chair of the Committee on Budgets; Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland), MFF co-rapporteur; Margarida Marques (S&D, Portugal), vice-chair of the BUDG Committee and MFF co-rapporteur; José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal), Own Resources co-rapporteur; Valérie Hayer (Renew, France), Own Resources co-rapporteur; and Rasmus Andresen (Greens/EFA, Germany). Each Member of the negotiating team provided insightful assessments of the key issues at stake both on the expenditure and revenue sides of the EU budget. Held under the Chatham House rule, the seminar triggered a very engaged and lively discussion, which kept the room full for the entire duration of the event.

Three well-known experts in the budgetary field participated as external speakers: Giacomo Benedetto, Jean Monnet Chair in EU Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London; Jorge Núñez Ferrer, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS); and Eulalia Rubio, Senior Research Fellow at Jacques Delors Institute in Paris. Giacomo Benedetto focused on a possible new package for finance and expenditure in the EU budget, analysing the challenges that the net-balances logic poses to reform. Jorge Núñez Ferrer examined how the EU budget can allow Member States to save at national level, but stressed the need for a broader perspective since the benefits of the EU budget are not limited to savings. Looking at the usefulness of flexibility in the budgetary framework, Eulalia Rubio explored ways of enhancing it in the next MFF, while not neglecting the possible costs and implications. Their three papers are available at the end of this blog post.

In addition, the debate, moderated by Sidonia Mazur, EPRS policy analyst, also benefited from internal expertise. Richard Crowe, from Parliament’s Legal Service, analysed the legal challenges related to the process of negotiating the MFF and shared insights on several aspects, including the steps needed in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario. Alessandro D’Alfonso, EPRS policy analyst, examined the major role that climate action might have in defining the next MFF, including through its mainstreaming across the EU budget, which he examined in a recent paper. Magdalena Sapala, also an EPRS policy analyst, delved into flexibility, presenting her recent paper on such instruments in the MFF. She underlined in particular how flexibility is crucial for ensuring efficiency.

In brief, the expert seminar showed that the EU finds itself at a turning point, where many things have to be defined at the start of a new institutional cycle, and identified key issues at stake. Far from being an accounting exercise, the decision on the next MFF is highly political and will be crucial in determining the level of ambition of the EU as regards jointly tackling common challenges and objectives. Parliament’s negotiators made it clear that the European Parliament is united and resolved to secure a good MFF that benefits all EU citizens. In addition, they recalled that Parliament’s consent to the MFF will be conditional on a satisfactory reform of own resources. Following the February European Council and disappointed with its failure, Parliament’s negotiating team reiterated this position, stressing the need for a political vision and calling for an ambitious compromise based on agreed common objectives for a stronger Europe.

In a debate on the MFF in the March I plenary session, Members of the European Parliament strongly criticised the cuts envisaged in the compromise put forward by the European Council President in February 2020, including in view of the current coronavirus crisis and of recent tensions at the Greek-Turkish border. Against the background of the delay in finding an agreement, they again urged the Commission to present a contingency plan to protect beneficiaries of EU funding, and demanded that the next MFF be endowed with an appropriate level of resources.

Read the papers:

External contributions

• Benedetto, A new package for finance and expenditure in the EU budget, 2020.
• Núñez Ferrer, Spending at EU level saves at national level … and more, 2020.
• Rubio, Benefits outweigh costs of flexibility in EU multiannual financial framework, 2020.

EPRS in-depth analyses

• D’Alfonso, Mainstreaming of climate action in the EU budget: Impact of a political objective, 2019.
• Sapała, How flexible is the EU budget? Flexibility instruments and mechanisms in the multiannual financial framework (MFF), 2020.

Written by Izabela Cristina Bacian,

© Blue Planet Studio / Adobe Stock

The European Council (of EU Heads of State or Government) has been active in its response to the coronavirus crisis. So far it has held three video-conference calls of national leaders on the subject, with a view to seeking to develop a coordinated response both among the Member States and collectively at EU level. This note sketches the context, describes some of the instruments available to the Union, and compares responses to the outbreak s of Ebola in the past and COVID-19 today.

EU competence on health policy

The European Union (EU) has limited competence in the area of health, as set out in Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 168 states, inter alia, that a high level of human health protection is to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all EU-level policies and activities. The Article further provides that action at EU level is to complement national policies, including through monitoring, early warning of and combatting serious cross-border threats to health. Member States are, in liaison with the European Commission, to coordinate their policies and programmes in the areas covered by EU-level action within the domain of public health. The main responsibility lies with the Member States when it comes to defining their health policy; organising, managing and delivering health services and medical care; and allocating the resources assigned to them. In addition, following several rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU can pursue public health objectives through the integration of the internal market, having Article 114 (TFEU) as its legal basis.

Tackling cross-border threats to health

The EU relies on a number of EU agencies and mechanisms to launch and coordinate an EU wide response.
Decis ion 1082/2013/EU of the Parliament and Council provides the framework for dealing with serious cross-border threats to health in the EU. Following the adoption of that decision, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) put in place an Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) and a Health Security Committee (HSC), the latter composed of Member States’ representatives. An alert through the EWRS leads to the preparation of a risk assessment by ECDC or other competent agencies, depending on the nature of the threat. Members States then consult each other within the HSC and with the Commission, in order to coordinate their responses.

Moreover, Council Implementing Decis io n 2018/1993 established the EU Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) Arrangements. The ICPR mechanism supports the Council presidency, Coreper and the Council, by providing tools and creating a platform for sharing information and coordinating crisis responses at political level. These include: 1) roundtable discussions with key players, including the Commission, the European External Action Service, the office of the European Council President, EU agencies, affected Member States and experts; 2) analytical reports; 3) a web platform; and 4) a 24/7 contact point ensuring contact among the key players. Article 13 of Decision 2018/1993 provides for a specific role for the European Council: notably, staff of the President of the European Council can be invited to participate fully in the IPCR from the moment of its activation and on preparedness activities.

Decision 1313/2013/EU of the Parliament and Council established the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), which enhances cooperation between Member States/participating states, with a view to improving prevention, preparedness and response to disasters. The UCPM was strengthened in 2019.

Health policy discussions in the European Council

Whilst health policy issues are not generally addressed at European Council meetings, Heads of State or Government did meet in 2014 to coordinate the EU response to the Ebola virus outbreak in west Africa, and are currently doing so to steer management of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. On both occasions, the Heads of State or Government intervened following the designation of the virus outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization. While the Ebola outbreak was limited to the African continent, the WHO stated on 11 March that the COVID-19 outbreak is a pandemic. The approach of the European Council to these two health crises has consequently been different. The Ebola crisis affected a number of countries in Africa, in particular Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea; whilst it was the worst outbreak since the discovery of the Ebola virus (1976), very few cases were detected in the EU, in just two countries, Spain and the UK. The COVID-19 outbreak, on the contrary, currently covers more than 150 countries with an increasing number of infections in all EU Member States.

The European Council met on two occasions to discuss the Ebola outbreak, on 30 August 2014, in a special meeting to discuss a range of issues, such as the conflict in Ukraine and high-level appointments; and in a regular meetin on 23-24 October 2014. Regarding the overall coordination of that crisis, the European Council invited the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission to develop a package of measures addressing the wider political, security and economic implications of the Ebola crisis in west Africa. The European Council furthermore appointed an EU Ebola Response Coordinator to bring together the Member States, the EU institutions and all international partners concerned. The objective was to boost the countries’ capacity to address the crisis, which included deployment of medical staff, equipment and medical evacuation of health workers through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. The EU and its Member States provided more than €1 billion to fight the epidemic. The development of a vaccine was also launched at the time, and it was supported by two projects from the Innovative Medicines Initiative funded by the EU’s research and innovation programme, Horizon 2020. On 11 November 2019, the Commission granted the first-ever marketing authorisation to the company Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. for a vaccine against Ebola.

Regarding the current COVID-19 outbreak, following the detection of the first cases of infection in the EU on 24 January 2020, the Croatian Council Presidency activated the IPCR in information-sharing mode four days later, and escalated it to full mode on 2 March. Three video-conference calls have taken place to date – on 10 March, 17 March and 26 March, with the 27 Heads of State or Government, the High Representative, and the presidents of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup. EU leaders identified five priorities: 1) limiting the spread of the virus; 2) ensuring the provision of medical equipment; 3) promoting research, including the development of a vaccine; 4) tackling the socio-economic consequences; and 5) coordinating the orderly repatriation of EU citizens stranded in third countries.

On 13 March, the Commission set out a coordinated EU-level response, envisaging: a more flexible application of EU State aid rules to help businesses facing economic difficulties; the use of specific clauses in the Stability and Growth Pact to allow for exceptional expenditure; the redirection of €1 billion from the EU budget as guarantee for the European Investment Fund to incentivise banks to provide businesses with liquidity; and action to alleviate the impact on employment by accelerating the procedure on the proposal for a European unemployment reinsurance scheme. The Commission is to release €37 billion in liquidity under a Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative, with two urgent legislative proposals approved by the European Parliament on 26 March.

Following the introduction of border controls by some Member States, EU leaders agreed on the need to ‘ensure the passage of medicines, food and goods’ and to enable citizens to travel to their home countries.
Moreover, to limit the spread of the virus, they also approved a temporary 30-day ban on non-essential travel to the EU, as announced  by the Commission on 16 March 2020. With over 100 000 EU citizens stranded in third countries, the High Representative has announced that the EEAS would help Member States to coordinate consular assistance for their repatriation.

The supply of protective equipment is also being ensured by means of placing a requirement that exports of such equipment outside the EU are subject to prior authorisation. Furthermore, the development of a vaccine is currently under way, with up to €80 million of financial support being granted to CureVac, an innovative vaccine developer. EU Heads of State or Government have also supported the Commission’s efforts to engage with industry, run joint public procurement to provide sufficient protective equipment, and purchase protective equipment through the civil protection framework. The Commission has been asked to speed up the procedures in that respect and to increase, as needed, the initial budget for the strategic rescEU stock pile of medical equipment. EU leaders have called on Member States to increase testing as a matter of urgency. The European Council has called for a ‘coordinated exit strategy, a comprehensive recovery plan and unprecedented investment’ to fight the pandemic.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘The European Council, health policy and pandemics‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

© sharafmaksumov / Adobe Stock

The President of the European Parliament sometimes receives large numbers of identical messages on a given topic. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) is asked to reply to these campaign messages. Replies to campaigns are also published on the EPRS blog.

The President of the European Parliament has received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to revoke its resolution on the fundamental rights of people of African descent in Europe.

See below for the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English and German).

Reply in English

The European Parliament adopted the resolution on fundamental rights of people of African descent in Europe  on 26 March 2019. You can find the video recording of the relevant debate here.

The resolution was adopted by 535 votes to 80 with 44 abstentions (p. 11 of the annex ‘Results of votes‘). You will find the result of the roll-call vote under item 31 of the relevant annex, B8-0212/2019 – Resolution, pp. 68-69.

As you can see from the procedure file, the motion for a resolution was tabled on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Reply in German

Das Europäische Parlament hat die Entschließung zu den Grundrechten von Menschen afrikanischer Abstammung in Europa am 26. März 2019 angenommen. Die Videoaufnahme der diesbezüglichen Debatte können Sie hier finden.

Die Entschließung wurde mit 535 Stimmen dafür, 80 Stimmen dagegen und 44 Enthaltungen angenommen (S. 12 der Anlage „Ergebnisse der Abstimmungen“). Die Ergebnisse der namentlichen Abstimmung finden Sie in dem entsprechenden Protokoll, unter Punkt 31. B8-0212/2019 – Entschließung, S. 68-69.

Wie Sie dem Verfahrensmerkblatt entnehmen können, wurde der Entschließungsantrag im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres (LIBE) eingereicht.