European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

© stanciuc / 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 reject, if submitted for a vote, an ‘Anti-Extremism Directive’.

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

Reply in English

As regards your reference to the European Citizens’ Initiative Stop Extremism, we would like to draw your attention to the relevant European Commission website. There you will find information about the progress the initiative has made.

We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the ‘draft act’ (‘Rechtsaktentwurf‘) mentioned on the website referred to by the European Parliament can in no way be regarded as an official European Commission proposal for a directive.

In overall terms, a citizens’ initiative puts a topic on the political agenda in a way that commits the Commission to address citizens’ concerns properly, although the Commission is not obliged to follow the initiative. If it decides not to act, however, it will give clear reasons.

Should the Commission decide to adopt a legislative proposal on a citizens’ initiative, that proposal will be dealt with under the ordinary legislative procedure and must therefore be considered and, if appropriate, adopted by the co-legislators (in general by the European Parliament and the Council; in some cases only by the Council).

The relevant deliberations and decisions in the parliamentary procedure are to be held by the Members of the European Parliament in the exercise of their independent mandate (Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament).

Reply in German

Insoweit Sie sich auf die Europäische Bürgerinitiative Stop Extremism beziehen, möchten wir Sie auf die einschlägige Website der Europäischen Kommission aufmerksam machen. Dort finden Sie Informationen zum aktuellen Bearbeitungsstand dieser Bürgerinitiative.

Ergänzend weisen wir darauf hin, dass es sich bei dem auf der erwähnten Website angeführten „Rechtsaktentwurf“ keineswegs um einen dem Europäischen Parlament vorliegenden offiziellen Richtlinienvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission handelt.

Insgesamt ist festzuhalten, dass mit einer Bürgerinitiative ein Thema auf die politische Tagesordnung gebracht wird, das die Kommission dazu verpflichtet, sich ernsthaft mit den Anliegen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger auseinanderzusetzen, aber sie ist nicht dazu verpflichtet, der Initiative Folge zu leisten. Allerdings wird die Kommission in einem solchen Fall ihre Gründe für die Ablehnung klar und eindeutig darlegen.

Sollte die Kommission allerdings beschließen, auf eine Bürgerinitiative hin einen Vorschlag für eine Rechtsvorschrift anzunehmen, so durchläuft dieser das übliche Gesetzgebungsverfahren und muss daher von den gesetzgebenden Organen (im Allgemeinen dem Europäischen Parlament und dem Rat oder in einigen Fällen nur vom Rat) geprüft und gegebenenfalls angenommen werden.

Die entsprechenden Beratungen und Beschlussfassungen im parlamentarischen Verfahren sind von den Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments im Rahmen ihres freien Mandates (Artikel 2 der Geschäftsordnung des Europäischen Parlaments) durchzuführen.

Reply in Italian

Per quanto riguarda l’iniziativa dei cittadini europei Stop Extremism, richiamiamo la vostra attenzione sul pertinente sito web della Commissione europea. Vi troverete non solo informazioni sullo stato attuale di tale iniziativa, ma anche sulle prossime fasi procedurali previste.

A titolo integrativo, vi facciamo presente che il “progetto di atto giuridico” citato nella pagina web menzionata non costituisce assolutamente una proposta ufficiale di direttiva della Commissione europea presentata al Parlamento europeo.

In generale va chiarito che un’iniziativa dei cittadini inserisce nell’agenda politica un tema che impegna la Commissione ad occuparsi seriamente dell’interesse delle cittadine e dei cittadini, senza obbligarla per questo a dar seguito all’iniziativa. In questo caso, comunque, la Commissione deve illustrare in termini chiari e univoci i motivi del rifiuto.

Qualora la Commissione dovesse invece decidere di adottare un progetto di atto giuridico sulla base di un’iniziativa dei cittadini, esso è sottoposto alla procedura legislativa usuale e deve quindi essere esaminato ed eventualmente adottato dagli organi legislativi (in generale il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio o in alcuni casi solo il Consiglio).

Le pertinenti deliberazioni e decisioni nel quadro della procedura parlamentare dovranno essere adottate dai deputati al Parlamento europeo nell’esercizio del loro libero mandato (articolo 2 del Regolamento del Parlamento europeo).

Written by Costica Dumbrava and Giulio Sabbati,

The Schengen Area

The Schengen Area consists of 26 countries that have agreed to remove regular checks at their internal borders in order to facilitate the free and unrestricted movement of people: 22 EU Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden), and 4 associated countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). The Schengen Borders Code lays down the common rules governing the management of internal and external EU borders, including rules and procedures concerning the exceptional introduction of border checks at internal borders. According to the Code, Member States can introduce temporary border checks at their internal borders in cases of a foreseeable threat (e.g. a special event), an immediate threat or in the situation of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external borders.

In March 2020, the coronavirus outbreak has pushed many Member States to reintroduce border controls at internal borders on the grounds of an immediate threat to public policy. According to Article 28 of the Code, the duration of such exceptional measure must be limited to no more than ten days, with the possibility to extend them by renewable periods of 20 days, up to a maximum of two months. Member States must notify the Commission and the other Member States before taking action, specifying the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. This information must be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council too. The Commission is supposed to issue an opinion after consulting the other Member States.

In order to ensure the free circulation of goods and services in the single market during the ongoing health crisis, the European Commission put forward guidelines for border management measures. On 17 March, the members of the European Council accepted the Commission’s proposal to introduce a coordinated restriction of non-essential travel into the EU for a period of 30 days. The travel restriction provides for exemptions for nationals of all EU Member States and Schengen Associated States (UK nationals will be treated in the same way as EU citizens due to the current transition period), for the purposes of returning to their homes and for travellers with an essential function or need. As of 24 March, all Member States except Ireland (due to its common travel area with the UK) have implemented the temporary restriction.

The European Parliament has consistently defended the Schengen Area and condemned the unjustified reintroduction of internal borders. On 16 March, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, the Chair of the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE), called for a coordinated approach and urged Member States to take measures that fully respect the Schengen rules and the principles of proportionality, solidarity among Member States, and non-discrimination.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The impact of coronavirus on Schengen borders‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source: EP / Philippe BUISSIN

The need to observe strict sanitary measures, in view of the COVID-19 contagion, requires a flexible response from everyone. Consequently, the European Parliament organised and conducted its March II plenary session with new precautionary measures, allowing it to act rapidly to carry out its essential legislative function during the crisis. Parliament’s Bureau put in place an alternative voting procedure for the 26 March extraordinary plenary session. The new procedure meant that all Members – with most unable to be present in Brussels – could vote from a distance, sending their voting papers to Parliament’s Secretariat by e-mail. Parliament has adjusted its calendar, replacing the regular plenary part-sessions with shortened sessions until the summer. The temporary voting procedure will be available until 31 July 2020, unless extended by Bureau decision. Moreover, the Secretariat is working to put in place a more advanced remote voting system, which would enable more complex votes to be held among Members, in both committee and plenary, thus ensuring Parliament can carry out its essential budgetary and legislative functions throughout the ongoing public health crisis.

The session focused on three urgent legislative proposals responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Parliament adopted its positions on temporary suspension of EU rules on airport slots, creation of a Corona Response Investment Initiative and extension of the EU Solidarity Fund, almost unanimously, less than two weeks after the European Commission tabled its proposals. With the Council also agreed on the three texts, the measures can now be adopted in the coming days. Members also heard from the Commission and Council on the coordination of the European response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Allocation of slots at airports in the EU: Common rules

The Parliament adopted a proposal seeking to amend the common rules on allocation of slots at EU airports. The Commission proposed to temporarily suspend rules obliging airlines to use their slots. The suspension until October 2020, with retroactive effect from 1 March 2020, will ensure legal certainty for air carriers, given the grounding of aircraft due to the drop in demand for flights and widespread travel restrictions. It will also end unnecessary emissions from near-empty (‘ghost’) flights that carriers might have been tempted to operate to maintain their rights. Under the current regime, known as the ‘use it or lose it’ rule, airlines must use their slots at least 80 % of the time during the period for which they are allocated, or see the slots, which are a valuable resource, allocated to others.

Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative

Parliament adopted an initiative introducing specific measures mobilising a total of €37 billion of cohesion fund investment in Member States’ healthcare systems, as well as initiatives to provide support to SMEs in the form of working capital, and to specific mutual funds supporting fishermen. The Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative will reallocate unused cash reserves available under the European structural and investment funds. The Commission will now use unspent 2019 advance payments to Member States to release €8 billion of investment liquidity to kick-start the initiative, with expenditure on crisis-response capacity eligible for funding retrospectively from 1 February 2020.

Extension of the EU Solidarity Fund

Members adopted the proposal extending the scope of financial assistance already available to Member States and accession candidate countries under the EU Solidarity Fund. The Fund intervenes to help countries hit by major natural disasters. The Parliament agreed that EU-level intervention under the Fund is also justified in the case of a major public health emergency, such as the COVID-19 outbreak, including medical assistance, as well as measures to prevent, monitor or control the spread of diseases. Disbursement will now be speeded up, and advance payments raised to 25 % of the expected EUSF contribution (limited to €100 million) for countries seriously affected by the crisis.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – Brussels, March II 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© Maxx-Studio / Shutterstock

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 for the European Parliament to reject a Commission proposal to amend the rules concerning lead concentration in PVC.

You can find below, in English, Italian, German and French, the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter.

Reply in English

We would inform you that on 12 February 2020, the European Parliament rejected the Commission proposal to amend the rules concerning lead concentration in PVC. The resolution was adopted by 394 votes to 241, with 13 abstentions.

As a result, the draft measure will not be adopted by the Commission. It may however either submit an amended draft or present a new one.

Further information is available in the press release.

Parliament has long held the position that recycling PVC must not perpetuate the problem of heavy metals. Lead in PVC has been phased out in the EU since 2015, thanks to the EU PVC industry’s voluntary commitment, however lead in PVC can continue to enter the EU via imported PVC products.

Further information on PVC in the EU is available on the Commission’s dedicated webpage.

Additional material on chemicals and EU policies is available from the EP Think Tank, for instance a briefing on Chemicals and the circular economy.

Reply in Italian

La informiamo che il 12 febbraio 2020 il Parlamento europeo ha respinto la proposta della Commissione volta a modificare le norme relative alla concentrazione di piombo nel PVC. La risoluzione è stata adottata con 394 voti favorevoli, 241 contrari e 13 astensioni.

Di conseguenza, il progetto di misura non sarà adottato dalla Commissione. Potrà tuttavia presentare una bozza modificata o presentare una nuova proposta.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili nel comunicato stampa.

Il Parlamento sostiene da tempo che il riciclaggio del PVC non deve perpetuare il problema dei metalli pesanti. Il piombo nel PVC è stato gradualmente eliminato nell’UE dal 2015 grazie all’impegno volontario dell’industria del PVC nell’UE, ma il piombo nel PVC può continuare a entrare nell’UE attraverso i prodotti in PVC importati.

Ulteriori informazioni sul PVC nell’UE sono disponibili sulla pagina web dedicata della Commissione.

È disponibile materiale supplementare sulle sostanze chimiche e le politiche dell’UE presso il gruppo di riflessione del PE, ad esempio il briefing sulle sostanze chimiche e dell’economia circolare.

Reply in German

Wir möchten Ihnen hiermit mitteilen, dass das Europäische Parlament am 12. Februar 2020 den Vorschlag der Kommission zur Änderung der Vorschriften über den Bleigehalt in PVC abgelehnt hat. Die Entschließung wurde mit 394 Ja-Stimmen bei 241 Nein-Stimmen und 13 Enthaltungen angenommen.

Die Kommission wird diesen Entwurf einer Maßnahme dementsprechend nicht annehmen. Sie kann allerdings einen geänderten oder einen neuen Entwurf vorlegen.

Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der entsprechenden Pressemitteilung.

Das Parlament ist seit langem der Ansicht, dass das Recycling von PVC nicht zu einem Stillstand beim Problem der Schwermetalle führen darf. Die PVC-Industrie in der EU verzichtet seit 2015 freiwillig auf die Verwendung von Blei in PVC, aber es dürfen nach wie vor PVC-Erzeugnisse mit Bleigehalt in die EU eingeführt werden.

Auf der Website der Kommission sind weitere Informationen über PVC in der EU verfügbar.

Weiteres Material über Chemikalien und politische Maßnahmen der EU sind beim Think Tank des EP verfügbar, beispielsweise ein Briefing über Chemikalien im Zusammenhang mit der Kreislaufwirtschaft.

Reply in French

Nous souhaitons vous informer que le 12 février 2020, le Parlement européen a rejeté la proposition de la Commission visant à modifier les règles concernant la concentration de plomb dans le PVC. La résolution en question a été adoptée par 394 voix pour, 241 contre et 13 abstentions.

Il s’ensuit que ce projet de mesure ne sera pas adopté par la Commission. Cette dernière peut néanmoins présenter un projet modifié ou un nouveau projet.

D’autres informations sont disponibles dans le communiqué de presse.

Le Parlement estime depuis longtemps que le recyclage du PVC ne doit pas perpétuer le problème des métaux lourds. Depuis 2015, le plomb présent dans le PVC est éliminé progressivement grâce à un engagement volontaire de l’industrie européenne du PVC, mais il peut continuer d’entrer dans l’Union via des produits en PVC importés.

Pour de plus amples informations sur le PVC dans l’Union, veuillez consulter la page web de la Commission consacrée à ce thème.

D’autres documents sur les produits chimiques et les politiques de l’Union en la matière sont disponibles sur le Think Tank du Parlement européen, comme la note d’information intitulée «Chemicals and the circular economy» (les produits chimiques et l’économie circulaire).

Written by François Théron (1st edition),

© fotolia

Dissemination of terrorist content is one of the most widespread and most dangerous forms of misuse of online services in the field of internal security. In line with the 2015 European agenda on security and taking into account the impact of this propaganda on the radicalisation, recruitment and training of terrorists, the European Commission launched a voluntary system for tackling terrorism online, based on guidelines and recommendations. However, given the limitations of the method, on 12 September 2018 the Commission then adopted a proposal for a regulation preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. While the Council rapidly reached a position on the proposal, in December 2018, the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position in April 2019. Following the European elections, interinstitutional trilogue negotiations then began in autumn 2019, with a new rapporteur.

Versions

• March 2020:  ‘Terrorist content online: Tackling online terrorist propaganda‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2018) 640
12.9.2018 Rapporteurs: Patryk Jaki (ECR, Poland) 2018/0331(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Javier Zarzalejos (EPP, Spain)
Marina Kaljurand (S&D, Estonia)
Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Patrick Breyer (Greens/EFA, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Conclusion of trilogue negotiations

Listen to policy podcast ‘Tackling online terrorist propaganda‘ on YouTube.

 

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© wladimir1804 / Adobe Stock

Governments around the world are introducing increasingly harsh measures to contain the highly contagious coronavirus, which causes the often lethal COVID-19 disease. Borders in many countries have been shut, schools, restaurants and non-food shops closed, and a ban on public and sometimes private meetings has been introduced. According to news media reports, confirmed coronavirus cases around the world exceeded 377,000 across 194 countries and territories as of 24 March, with more than 16,500 of them having been fatal.

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 item in the series, published on 18 March.

How Brussels could get crisis management right this time
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

The culture and politics of the coronavirus
Clingendael, March 2020

Coronavirus: Why the EU needs to unleash the ECB
Chatham House, March 2020

CureVac, covid-19, and economic statecraft: Lessons for Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

We should re-launch the G-20 as a global rescue mechanism
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Resilience before reinvention: The EU’s role in the Covid-19 crisis
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Covid-19: A trigger for global transformation? Political distancing, global decoupling and growing distrust in health governance
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, March 2020

The Coronavirus is a test for the West
Carnegie Europe, March 2020

European elections in a time of coronavirus
Brooking Institution, March 2020

Europe under siege
European Policy Centre, March 2020

Six proactive steps in a smart trade approach to fighting COVID-19
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

EU limits on medical gear exports put poor countries and Europeans at risk
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The Coronavirus pandemic should end Europe’s comfort zone
Carnegie Europe, March 2020

The EU needs to step up its response to the COVID-19 outbreak
Centre for European Reform, March 2020

How is the Fed dealing with the Coronavirus crisis?
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Seven early lessons from the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

How the indiscriminate virus reinforced our inequalities and the lessons we can draw from this when it is all over
Egmont, March 2020

Big data versus COVID-19: Opportunities and privacy challenges
Bruegel, March 2020

Three scenarios for a Covid-19 world: We can still make the right choices
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Le COVID-19 met l’Europe au pied du mur
Confrontation Europe, March 2020

Italy’s Coronavirus experience and the challenge of extreme crises to liberal democracies
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

The Coronavirus pandemic lets China score a win in Serbia
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

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

Why $1 trillion is not enough
Brooking Institution, March 2020

Coronavirus: Britain on the brink
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Infected: The impact of the coronavirus on the Middle East and north Africa
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Containing the economic nationalist virus through global coordination
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

Poland: Politics in a time of corona
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Drastische Maßnahmen im Kampf gegen das Coronavirus
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, March 2020

The EU, coronavirus and crisis management: Is ‘solidarity’ real or just a prop?
Real Instituto Elcano, March 2020

COVID-19 and broken Collusion: The oil price collapse is one more warning for Russia
Bruegel, March 2020

COVID-19 Emergency: Europe needs a vaccine
Instituto Affari Internazionali, March 2020

COVID-19: A moment for unity
Brooking Institution, March 2020

Will modernity survive the corona infection?
Clingendael, March 2020

The European coronavirus response must be a solution, not more stigma
Bruegel, March 2020

The Coronavirus is Iran’s perfect storm
Brooking Institution, March 2020

Be bold now: Coronavirus, the Eurogroup and fiscal safety nets
Bruegel, March 2020

The economy and policy in the coronavirus crisis to date
Brooking Institution, March 2020

A letter to Santa, the G7
Bruegel, March 2020

State of denial: How the coronavirus caught the West off guard
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Caught unprepared by pandemic, Europe must relearn tough lessons
Carnegie Europe, March 2020

La planète à l’heure du coronavirus : Un monde affolé qui bascule dans l’inconnu
Institut Thomas More, March 2020

Frankreich: Eingesperrt und alleingelassen
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, March 2020

The social distancing economy
Rand Corporations, March 2020

Covid-19: l’Union européenne et le défi de la résilience
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2020

Sans-abri et épidémie: Que faire?
Fondation Jean Jaurès, March 2020

Transatlantic take 360: Responses to COVID-19
German Marshall Fund, March 2020

China is not a Coronavirus role model
Hudson Institute, March 2020

L’Inde à l’heure du coronavirus: Une bombe à retardement globale?
Institut Montaigne, March 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Impact and reaction‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christian Kurrer,

© Shutterstock

The recent outbreak of respiratory diseases triggered by the new coronavirus poses a challenge to public health worldwide. As governments evaluate how to stop further contagion, what role could smartphone apps play in the overall effort? Can tracking data recorded by smartphones help better understand and stop the spread of the virus?

From its first appearance in Wuhan in December 2019, the new coronavirus has spread to a majority of countries in the world, including most EU Member States.

The outbreak of this new respiratory ailment poses challenges to our medical systems – and society at large – at many different levels.

On one hand, there is the issue of dealing with individual patients, helping them to recover as quickly as possible, while searching for drugs that can help the recovery process and possibly a vaccine that can protect people at risk in the future.

On the other hand, there is the challenge of slowing the spread of the virus into those parts of the population it has not yet reached. This includes getting a better understanding of where and how the virus is actually being transmitted. Appealing to the wider population to increase their personal hygiene effort (washing hands, sneezing into the elbow, etc.) is helpful, as are targeted measures to cancel large gatherings, sporting events, school classes or restrict travel, extending to various levels of confinement. While all these measures can undoubtedly help contain the virus, they are, however, rather unspecific, in the sense that they impose a heavy burden on a large group of people, while possibly not being sufficiently restrictive on those who actually, although unknowingly, are carrying the virus.

In view of halting the further spread of the virus as efficiently as possible, without imposing unnecessary restrictions and disruption on the wider population, it is therefore of key importance for health authorities to quickly identify all possible contact persons with whom an infected person might have interacted recently, to test those contact persons, and focus monitoring and effective quarantine measures on the contact persons identified.

Potential impacts and developments

At the early stages of the outbreak, health authorities therefore focussed much of their energy on this process of identification of contact persons. Those who test positive for the coronavirus seem to have generally cooperated well with the authorities, and this made it possible to identify and isolate additional carriers of the virus quickly, preventing them from further spreading the virus. This process of interviewing every single carrier of the virus, and reaching out to all possible contact persons, is, however, time and labour intensive, and carriers might not always remember in great detail all the contacts they have had over the past few days.

What if we used smartphones to make this process faster and more efficient?

In recent years, smartphones have increasingly attracted attention as a key tool in emergency and disaster situations. Almost all smartphones today are equipped with GPS sensors, and most of them track the location of their owners – places they visited and the times – in great detail. This tracking can be switched off by individual users, but many users keep tracking enabled, to allow the smartphone to deliver a range of useful location services, such as recommending best travel routes and interesting nearby restaurants, or providing feedback on the number of steps walked and other health parameters.

Infected patients who share their location history on their smartphones with public health authorities can help them quickly identify the restaurants, cinemas, parks or other places the patient had frequented, where they could possibly have been infected, or where they may have transmitted the virus to other people. However, it would remain a challenge to identify all the other persons who have recently visited the same places in order to test them for a possible infection.

This is where big data could play a crucial role: comparing the location history of infected individuals with the location history of all other smartphone users (tested positive or not yet tested) could help health authorities gain a much better understanding of where the transmission might have occurred, and who else should be tested urgently. At the same time, individual smartphone users could obtain an instant assessment of how close they have recently been to potential infection sources, whether they should take measures urgently, or whether there is less reason to worry.

Comparing location histories using such a system could dramatically simplify the task of halting the spread of the novel coronavirus. At the same time, it would also raise a host of serious questions about possible data privacy and digital self-determination issues that merit careful consideration.

Anticipatory policy-making

Many people feel uncomfortable about sharing their location history, even in the context of a health emergency. It is unlikely that citizens would appreciate being identified as a potentially infected person through online media. They would, however, probably value a system that helps them to better understand the extent of their personal risk of having contracted the virus during a recent holiday or at an event they attended. Citizens would also appreciate more precise information about places they should refrain from visiting to avoid infection.

Individual infected users might not mind if close relatives and friends get automated warnings about the infection, but would not want that information needlessly divulged to the general public in a personalised form. They might understand the need to share their data with public health authorities, but might be worried to what degree this makes their personal lives transparent to public authorities in general (despite many people seeming less worried about sharing data with companies that make profits from that data). Citizens might appreciate having access to a better picture of their own risk status, but would be uncomfortable with this being shared in the future with insurance companies, employers, or for other commercial purposes. Ultimately, policy-makers will have to decide how transparent such a system is to the individual user, the provider collecting the data on the smartphone, and to public authorities.

Generalising the use of big data to assess the individual risk profiles of a large number of people certainly infringes the right to privacy and informational self-determination, but not using this technology and instead imposing more indiscriminate measures on the populations of whole regions or countries also comes with a cost in terms of personal freedoms. The challenge is to reach a broad societal consensus on the right balance between maximising the benefit we can derive in terms of containing the spread and gaining a better understanding of the disease, while minimising the possible infringement of individual rights. China and South Korea were swift to use smartphone technology in the current crisis, with some problematic implications. What lessons can we learn from the experience in those countries as applications begin to be developed in the EU, the United Kingdom and the United States of America?

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘What if smartphones could help contain COVID-19?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union – Source : EP

Responding to the novel coronavirus outbreak demands flexibility from everyone, and the European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, are no exceptions. However, there is a vital balance to strike between stopping the spread of the virus and maintaining the vital functions of our society. President David Sassoli therefore indicated that Parliament ‘must remain open, because a virus cannot bring down democracy’. As an interim solution, and respecting all necessary quarantine measures, an extraordinary plenary part-session on 26 March, in Brussels, will formally replace the session planned for 1‑2 April. As most Members are unable to travel, those not in Belgium will be able to participate via videoconference, and vote by email under a new procedure decided by Parliaments Bureau to enable this week’s session to go ahead. The agenda focuses on three urgent legislative proposals responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Use of the urgent procedure means that there are no reports on the proposals from the committees responsible, with the Commission’s proposals passing directly to the plenary, however it will be possible to table amendments to the proposals.

The first of the proposals seeks to amend the common rules on allocation of slots at EU airports. The Commission proposes to temporarily suspend rules obliging airlines to use their slots at EU airports, retroactively from 13 March 2020. This will ensure legal certainty for air carriers given the grounding of planes due to the drop in demand for flights and widespread travel restrictions. It will also end unnecessary emissions from near-empty (‘ghost’) flights that carriers might have been tempted to operate to maintain their rights. Under the current regime, known as the ‘use it or lose it’ rule, airlines must use their slots at least 80 % of the time during the period they are allocated, or see the slots, which are a valuable resource, allocated to others.

The second proposal seeks to institute specific measures to mobilise €37 billion from the cohesion funds for investment in Member States’ healthcare systems and to inject much-needed liquidity in other sectors, where businesses need to pay workers and overheads. The Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative will reallocate unused cash reserves available under the European structural and investment funds. The Commission proposes to use unspent 2019 advance payments to Member States to release €8 billion of investment liquidity to kick-start the initiative, with expenditure on crisis-response capacity eligible for funding retrospectively from 1 February 2020.

Finally, Parliament is expected to vote on a proposal to extend the scope of financial assistance already available to Member States and accession candidate countries under the EU Solidarity Fund. The Fund intervenes to help countries hit by major natural disasters. The Commission proposes that EU-level intervention under the Fund should also be justified in the case of a major public health emergency, such as the COVID-19 outbreak. The proposal seeks to speed up disbursement, and raise advance payments to 25 % of the expected EUSF contribution (limited to €100 million) to countries seriously affected by the crisis. However, under EU law, Parliament must agree before countries can receive assistance from the Fund.

Parliament will also hear statements from the Council and Commission on the coordinated European response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Read all EPRS publications on the coronavirus outbreak

Written by Anja Radjenovic,

© M-SUR / Shutterstock.com

The unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the EU in 2015 exposed a number of deficiencies in EU external border, asylum and migration policy, sparking EU action through various legal and policy instruments. While the EU has been relatively successful in securing external borders, curbing irregular migrant arrivals and increasing cooperation with third countries, Member States are still reluctant to show solidarity and do more to share responsibility for asylum-seekers.

International cooperation and solidarity is key in helping to manage migration to and between states. Under international law, countries have certain legal obligations to assist and protect refugees that they accept on their territory, but the legal duties of other states to help and share that responsibility are less clear.

At EU level, the principle of solidarity is set out in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), however there is currently no consensus on whether it can be used as a stand-alone or joint legal basis for secondary legislation. Furthermore, the notions of ‘solidarity’ and ‘fair sharing of responsibilities’ for refugees or asylum-seekers are not defined in EU law. This has prompted EU institutions, academics and other stakeholders to propose different ways to resolve the issue, such as sharing out relevant tasks and pooling resources at EU level, compensating frontline Member States financially and through other contributions – such as flexible solidarity – and changing the focus of the European Court of Justice when interpreting EU asylum law.

In recent years, the EU has provided the Member States most affected by migrant arrivals with significant financial and practical support, notably through the EU budget and the deployment of personnel and equipment. Nevertheless, the continued failure to reform the EU asylum system, as well as the implementation of temporary solidarity measures based on ad-hoc solutions, has exposed a crisis of solidarity that shows no signs of being resolved. The von der Leyen Commission has made it clear that the new EU asylum system ‘should include finding new forms of solidarity and should ensure that all Member States make meaningful contributions to support those countries under the most pressure’.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Solidarity in EU asylum policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

Spreading swiftly from the initial November 2019 outbreak in China to pandemic proportions in just a few short months, COVID-19 has led to a need for stringent emergency public health measures to save lives across the world. Organising and providing healthcare in the European Union (EU) is a Member State prerogative and responsibility. However within the limits of its powers, the EU has nevertheless acted quickly to help limit the spread of the virus, ensure medical equipment is available, boost the search for a vaccine and aid Member States to withstand the social and economic impact.

Priorities

Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States underlined the need for solidarity in the EU approach to the coronavirus pandemic during their first videoconference to discuss COVID‑19 on 10 March. Four priorities for action were established and reaffirmed at a 17 March meeting:

• Limiting the spread of the virus, including assessing the risk and closing external borders so that internal borders can remain open, allowing the single market to function.
• Ensuring the provision of medical equipment by ramping up production of medical devices, issuing calls for production of medical equipment, and negotiating new supplies.
• Helping researchers to find a vaccine quickly, through existing research funding.
• Aiding EU Member States to weather the social and economic impact of the pandemic.

EU-level action

The European Commission immediately set up a coronavirus response team to coordinate a common European response to the outbreak of COVID-19 and to provide objective information. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is providing rapid risk assessments and epidemiological updates on the outbreak. The EU Health Security Committee has been reinforced and meets to discuss travel issues and medical countermeasures such as equipment and laboratory and diagnostic capacity in the EU. On 17 March 2020, an advisory panel on COVID-19 was launched to formulate guidelines on risk management.

Limiting the spread of the virus: A 16 March Commission communication aims to coordinate temporary restrictions by Member States on non-essential travel to the EU, although citizens and residents of Member States must be allowed to return home. Under Commission guidelines for border management measures to protect health and ensure the availability of goods and essential services, Member States may also temporarily reinstate internal borders should this be necessary for public health or internal security. The measures seek to maintain the balance between slowing transmission of the virus while ensuring necessary medical and vital supplies circulate in the single market. On 18 March, the Commission published recommendations for community measures to limit contagion and on testing strategies.

Medical equipment: Ensuring countries can quickly obtain the medical equipment they need, an initial EU budget of €50 million (€40 million of which is subject to the approval of the budgetary authorities), will be available from 20 March 2020. All Member States will have access to the first ever rescEU stockpile of medical equipment, such as ventilators and protective masks, under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

The existing EU Cross-border Health Threat Decision provides for joint procurement of medical countermeasures to ensure access to fairly priced and distributed medical supplies. A voluntary Joint Procurement Agreement allows 26 participating Member States to make joint purchases, such as equipment, vaccines and antivirals. In response to the current outbreak, these measures enabled a 28 February call for tender for personal protective equipment (evaluation under way), and a 17 March tender for ventilators, both of which should be concluded in April 2020.

On 15 March, the Commission moved to protect the availability of supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), with an emergency implementing act requiring that exports of such equipment outside the EU are subject to export authorisation by Member States.

Boosting research: In support of European and global research efforts, the Commission announced €47.5 million in Horizon 2020 programme funding for 17 shortlisted research projects to advance understanding of COVID-19, improve clinical management of infected patients and public health preparedness. A further call for proposals is under way for therapeutics and diagnostics to tackle current and future coronavirus outbreaks, worth €45 million, under the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Alleviating the socio-economic impact: The pandemic is a major, albeit temporary, shock to the global and European economy. A 13 March Commission communication on a coordinated economic response to the COVID-19 outbreak sets out the need for a common approach to tackle the economic fall-out from the disruption caused by the disease. To help national governments support their economies, the Commission has approved a Temporary Framework allowing them to derogate from State aid rules until at least December 2020. It also considers the conditions to activate the general escape clause on fiscal rules under the Stability and Growth Pact to have been met, and asks the Council to endorse this measure. The Commission has made three urgent legislative proposals on funding and relief measures in response to the outbreak (see ‘European Parliament’ below).

Other possibilities to mitigate the economic impact include funding from the €179 million that remains available under the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who lose their jobs. To help farmers, the Commission allows Member States to extend the application deadline for common agricultural policy payments to 15 June 2020.

It is also to be expected that the effects of COVID-19 will be taken into account when the time comes for negotiations to recommence on the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

Support to the financial system

As of 19 March, the European Central Bank has committed to providing a €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme to relieve government debt during the crisis, as well as €120 billion in quantitative easing measures and €20 billion in debt purchases. Mobilising a further €500 billion from the European Stability Mechanism, as proposed by some, could result in a total financial intervention of close to €2 trillion.

European Parliament

Parliament discussed the novel coronavirus outbreak during its plenary session on 10 March. Members praised the efforts of health workers fighting the virus, and reiterated the need for solidarity between countries, EU production of medical equipment and funding for research for a vaccine.

As the virus also impacts Parliament’s functioning, an extraordinary plenary session on 26 March, in Brussels, will formally replace the session planned for 1-2 April. President David Sassoli indicated that Parliament ‘must remain open, because a virus cannot bring down democracy’. With most Members unable to travel, specific measures will be instituted for this session to ensure that they can vote remotely. Members are expected to vote on the three urgent legislative proposals aimed at tackling the effects of the pandemic:

• To make a further €37 billion available to Member States from the Cohesion Funds to address the consequences of the crisis, the Commission proposes a Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative. Parliament may amend or adopt the proposal, which reallocates funding available under the current EU budget, but as yet unused (2020/0043(COD)).
• The EU Solidarity Fund supports Member States and accession countries hit by major natural disasters. The Commission proposes to extend its scope to allow financial assistance for those seriously affected by COVID-19, as the outbreak constitutes a major public health emergency, where EU-level intervention is justified. This must first be agreed by Parliament before countries can request assistance from the Fund. The aim is to speed disbursement, and raise advance payments to 25 % of the expected EUSF contribution (limited to €100 million) (2020/0044(COD)).
• Parliament is also expected to scrutinise a proposal aiming to end unnecessary emissions and help the aviation industry adjust their capacity in view of the fall in demand for flights. The Commission proposes to temporarily suspend rules obliging airlines to use their slots at EU airports from 13 March 2020 (2020/0044(COD)).

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘European Union response to coronavirus threat‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Shutterstock

‘The EU is facing a serious and exceptional crisis, in terms of magnitude and nature’. This was the main message from the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, after EU leaders held a three-hour-long video-conference to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak. The EU Heads of State or Government followed up on the four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease agreed at their video-meeting on 10 March, and discussed in more depth the EU’s external and internal border management. Charles Michel stressed that the absolute priority for the EU was to mobilise its efforts to protect the health of EU citizens and tackle the crisis, including the economic and social consequences. EU leaders will be discussing developments regularly via video-conference.

Video-conference of EU Heads of State or Government on17 March

On 17 March, the members of the European Council held a video-conference on the measures taken to fight the COVID-19 outbreak. European leaders underlined the need for a coordinated approach, as individual Member States have unilaterally introduced a variety of measures, including the reintroduction of border checks and, in some cases, the closure of borders with other Member States.

This meeting was the second video-conference on the COVID-19 outbreak held by the members of the European Council within a week, following the first on 10 March. At that meeting, the following four priorities were identified: 1) limiting the spread of the virus; 2) providing medical equipment; 3) promoting research, including the development of a vaccine; and 4) tackling the socio-economic consequences of the outbreak. Other participants in the discussion on 17 March were the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, the President of the Eurogroup, Mário Centeno, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP), Josep Borrell. The President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, was not invited to be heard by the EU Heads of State or Government at the opening of the video-conference meeting in accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, as the meeting was considered to be an informal one.

Conclusions by the President of the European Council

Similarly, as a video-conference is not technically a formal meeting, the conclusions were those of the President of the European Council and not, as they would normally be, the conclusions of the European Council. The Heads of State or Government followed up on the four previously identified priorities, and raised a fifth issue, which is help for EU citizens stranded in third countries.

1. Limiting the spread of the virus

Following the three-hour video call, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, reported that the aim was to slow down and push back the threat of the virus. Therefore, EU leaders discussed internal and external aspects of EU border management.

Concerning the EU’s internal borders, over the previous week, many Member States had already temporarily reintroduced border controls to stop the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19). Some were able to use border controls previously introduced for other reasons to the same effect (see Table 1).

Table 1: New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Country Period Official reason Borders Austria 11-21 March 2020

 

14-24 March 2020 COVID-19 Land border with Italy

Land borders with Switzerland and Liechtenstein Czechia 14 March – 4 April 2020 COVID-19 Land borders with Austria and Germany, air borders

Denmark

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

Terrorist threats, organised criminality from Sweden

All internal borders

Estonia 17-27 March 2020 COVID-19 Land borders with Latvia, air borders, sea borders France 31 October 2019 –
30 April 2020 Persistent terrorist threat, upcoming high profile political event in Paris, secondary movements

All internal borders

Germany

16-26 March 2020

 

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

COVID-19

 

Secondary movements, situation at the external borders

Land borders with Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland and Austria

Land border with Austria

Hungary

12-22 March 2020

COVID-19

Land borders with Austria and Slovenia

Lithuania

14-24 March 2020

COVID-19

All internal borders

Poland

15-24 March 2020

COVID-19

Land borders with Czechia, Slovakia, Germany, Lithuania, sea borders, air borders

Sweden

12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020

Terrorist threats, shortcomings at the external borders

To be determined but may concern all internal borders

Source: EPRS based on information from the European Commission.

The Schengen Borders Code specifies the conditions under which Member States can introduce temporary checks at their internal borders (see EPRS Temporary border controls in the Schengen area). A Member State can reintroduce exceptional border controls at all or specific parts of its internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, but must notify the Commission and the other Member States immediately, providing information about the reasons, scope and duration of the measures.

Given that one consequence of the border closures and renewed border controls was that many people were stranded in the European Union and were having problems getting home, Ursula von der Leyen stressed that it was ‘absolutely essential to unblock the situation’. 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. Adequate solutions for cross-border workers would also have to be found.

Regarding the external dimension, EU Heads of State or Government endorsed the guidelines proposed by the Commission on border management and agreed to ‘reinforce the external borders by applying a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU for a period of 30 days’. At its meeting on 13 March 2020, the Justice and Home Affairs Council noted that decisions taken at Member States’ borders were national decisions, and the competence of the respective Member State. Consequently, all the European Council could do was offer political support to proposed measures by endorsing them. President von der Leyen stressed that it was now up to the Member States to implement those measures.

Main messages from the European Parliament President:

In a video statement released following the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, stated that ‘Europe is correcting the selfishness and lack of coordination between national governments in the face of the COVID-19 crisis’. He added that ‘finally, we are showing a real sense of solidarity: preferential lanes for the passage of medical equipment, defending the free movement of goods in the EU, and the first important economic support for our families and businesses’. He stressed that Parliament was ‘ready to do its part to protect the lives and livelihoods of all our people. We will not give up living as Europeans’.

2. Providing medical equipment

EU leaders ‘welcomed the decision taken by the Commission to adopt a prior authorisation for export of medical equipment’. On 14 March, the European Commission published an implementing regulation to this effect, which prohibits all exports of personal protective equipment, notably without an export authorisation. EU Heads of State or Government also backed the Commission’s efforts to engage with industry, run joint public procurements to provide sufficient protective equipment, and to purchase protective equipment through the civil protection framework.

3. Promoting research

EU leaders welcomed the efforts being made to support research, including the Advisory Group on COVID-19. They underlined that developing a vaccine and offering it to all those in need was very important, and that research information should be shared to fight the virus. European companies had an essential role to play in this work, and the EU leaders said that they would support them in their efforts. In response to the previous week’s controversy over the issue of vaccines following press reports that the Trump administration had tried to secure exclusive access to a vaccine currently being developed by the German company CureVac, on 16 March, the Commission offered the company up to €80 million in funding to help with the vaccine’s development and production.

4. Tackling socio-economic consequences

Given the speed at which the situation is evolving, it is currently hard to predict precisely the socio-economic consequences of COVID-19; a number of countries are in lockdown and many companies have had to limit their operations or even halt them completely. Moreover, it is not yet known how long it will take for the situation to get back to normal. The Heads of State or Government endorsed the Eurogroup statement of 16 March and asked finance ministers to keep monitoring the situation, while taking appropriate action without delay. EU leaders also voiced support for the measures the Commission had already taken to counter the economic impact of the coronavirus, such as adapting the State aid rules to the ongoing situation and using the flexibility offered by the stability and growth pact.

The Eurogroup held a video-conference meeting on 16 March in an inclusive format (with all EU Member States) to discuss the challenges to EU economies posed by COVID-19. In its statement, the Eurogroup welcomed the measures already taken by the Member States and the Commission, and agreed on the need for ‘an immediate, ambitious and coordinated policy response’. The EU finance ministers put together a set of national and European measures, and decided on fiscal measures amounting to about 1 % of GDP and committed to liquidity facilities of at least 10 % of GDP.

On 13 March, the European Commission set out a coordinated response at EU level, envisaging: more flexible application of EU State aid rules to allow EU Member States to take measures to support businesses facing economic difficulties; the use of specific clauses in the stability and growth pact to allow for exceptional expenditures; the redirection of €1 billion from the EU budget as a guarantee for the European Investment Fund to incentivise banks to provide businesses with liquidity; and action to alleviate the impact on employment, in particular by accelerating the procedure on the proposal for the European unemployment reinsurance scheme. The Commission also announced that it would release €37 billion in liquidity under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative, an increase from the initial planned envelope (€25 billion). On 18 March, EU ambassadors agreed the Council’s position on two legislative proposals in this respect. The next step will be for Parliament to finalise its position.

5. Helping citizens stranded in third countries

In addition to the previously agreed four lines of action to contain the spread of the disease, EU leaders discussed ways of helping citizens stranded in third countries. They undertook to coordinate action between the EU’s and Member States’ diplomatic networks in third countries so as to ensure the orderly repatriation of EU citizens. They agreed that the Union civil protection mechanism, first activated in the context of the COVID-19 crisis on 28 January 2020 at the request of France, was key in enabling the swift repatriation of EU citizens. Civil protection had already been discussed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 March, with specific emphasis on:

• lessons learned thus far in tackling the COVID-19 outbreak;
• possible additional preparedness and response measures for the EU civil protection mechanism;
• increased information-sharing, using the integrated political crisis response (IPCR) toolbox; and,
• additional support from Member States.

The HR/VP, Josep Borrell, and the European External Action Service (EEAS) would support these coordination efforts. Following the meeting, the HR/VP announced that the EEAS would help Member States to coordinate consular assistance for the repatriation of thousands of EU citizens currently in third countries and wishing to return home. He also stressed that the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council on 23 March in video-conference format would consider the geopolitical implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Next steps

The EU Heads of State or Government agreed that the Member States and institutions would follow up on the decisions made at all levels immediately. They agreed to revisit the measures being taken in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak at another video-conference the following week. The regular European Council meeting scheduled for 26-27 March would be postponed until a later date.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the video-conference call of EU Heads of State or Government on 17 March 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ariane Dyser,

On 13 March 2020, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to amend Regulation 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at EU airports. The proposal responds to the rapid spread of cases of Covid-19, caused by a novel coronavirus, that has led to a substantial drop in the number of flights and forward bookings. It seeks to support airlines by temporarily suspending slot usage rules.

Background

© Tanathip Rattanatum / Shutterstock.com

Under current rules, airport slots are allocated by independent coordinators, for summer or winter scheduling seasons. To keep their slots and retain them in the next corresponding season, air carriers are compelled to use them at least 80 % of the time over the scheduling period for which they have been allocated (a convention known variously as ‘historical slots’, ‘grandfather rights’ or the ’80-20 rule’). Otherwise, the slots go back into the slot pool for allocation, with the slots which are under-used by air carriers then reallocated (known as the ‘use it or lose it’ rule).

The spread of Covid-19 around the world has already had severe implications for the air transport sector. The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) indicated there was a 10 % decrease in the number of flights for the first two weeks of March 2020 compared to 2019, and European airports predict a loss of 67 million passengers in the first quarter of 2020. Moreover, according to the International Air Transport Association International (IATA), air carriers were reporting large falls in forward bookings. The putting in place of travel restrictions, notably the coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU for a period of 30 days, in order to contain the spread of the virus globally, has meant the numbers of flights being operated has fallen dramatically.

As slots are an essential economic resource for airlines, air carriers may initially have been inclined to operate flights with very low load factors (or ‘ghost flights’), to protect their ‘grandfather rights’, thus increasing financial losses and the adverse impact on the environment. Hence, the importance of temporarily neutralising the ‘use it or lose it’ rule, to mitigate the impact of the crisis and provide legal certainty to air carriers. Temporary suspensions have been used in the past: in 2002 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks; in 2003, following the Iraq war and the SARS epidemic, and in 2009 in response to the economic crisis.

European Commission proposal and next steps

The objective of the legislative proposal adopted by the Commission is to suspend the ‘use it or lose it’ rule for slot allocation. The main provision of the proposal is that coordinators would consider slots allocated for the period from 1 March 2020 until 30 June 2020 as having been operated by the air carrier to which they had initially been allocated. In other words, the non-utilisation of slots allocated for this period should not cause air carriers to lose the historic precedence they would otherwise enjoy. The same approach would apply to slots used for flights between the EU and the People’s Republic of China or between the EU and Hong Kong, for the additional period from 23 January 2020 until 29 February 2020. The proposal would empower the Commission to extend the period during which the measures would apply, by way of delegated acts, for which an urgent procedure would be used.

The proposal, which will have retroactive impact, needs now to be adopted urgently by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Defined in the initial 1993 Regulation (amended several times) as ‘the scheduled time of arrival or departure available or allocated to an aircraft movement on a specific date at an airport coordinated under the terms of this Regulation’, an airport ‘slot’ means permission to use runways and terminals to operate a flight to or from a congested airport on a specific date and at a specific time.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Suspension of EU rules on airport slot allocation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

David SASSOLI, EP President, meets with a Vietnamese delegation © European Union 2020 – Source : EP

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 on the import and transport of wildlife into Vietnam.

You can find below, in English and Dutch, the reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter.

Reply in English

On 12 February 2020, the European Parliament adopted a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

MEPs in the resolution welcome the provisions for cooperation on animal welfare, including technical assistance and capacity-building for the development of high animal welfare standards, and encourages the Parties to make full use of them’.

MEPs further ‘urge the Parties to develop an action plan for cooperation on animal welfare as soon as possible, including a programme for training, capacity-building and assistance in the framework of the agreement, with a view to safeguarding animal welfare at the time of killing and better protecting animals on farms and during transport in Vietnam’.

More information is available in the European Parliament press release on the EU-Vietnam free trade and investment protection deals.

Concerning cats and dogs specifically, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution on protecting the EU’s internal market and consumer rights against the negative implications of the illegal trade in companion animals on 12 February 2020. In the resolution, Members highlight ‘that Member States should ensure that staff at borders are adequately trained in the procedures and rules that apply to the importation of companion animals from listed and unlisted third countries and that they are enforcing these rules’.

More widely, you may find information of interest to you via the Delegation of the European Union to Vietnam.

Reply in Dutch

Op 12 februari 2020 heeft het Europees Parlement een niet-wetgevingsresolutie aangenomen over het ontwerp van besluit van de Raad betreffende de sluiting van de vrijhandelsovereenkomst tussen de Europese Unie en de Socialistische Republiek Vietnam.

In deze resolutie stelt het Parlement dat het “ingenomen [is] met de bepalingen inzake samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn, met inbegrip van technische bijstand en capaciteitsopbouw voor de ontwikkeling van hoge dierenwelzijnsnormen, en de partijen [verzoekt] deze ten volle te benutten.”

Het Parlement dringt er voorts bij de partijen op aan “zo snel mogelijk een actieplan voor samenwerking op het gebied van dierenwelzijn te ontwikkelen, met inbegrip van een programma voor opleiding, capaciteitsopbouw en bijstand in het kader van de overeenkomst om het dierenwelzijn te waarborgen op het moment van het doden en dieren beter te beschermen op landbouwbedrijven en tijdens transport in Vietnam.”

Meer informatie is te vinden in het persbericht van het Europees Parlement over de vrijhandels- en investeringsbeschermingsovereenkomst tussen de EU en Vietnam.

Ten aanzien van katten en honden heeft het Europees Parlement op 12 februari 2020 ook een resolutie aangenomen over het beschermen van de interne markt van de EU en van de rechten van consumenten tegen de negatieve gevolgen van de illegale handel in gezelschapsdieren. In deze resolutie benadrukt het Parlement “dat de lidstaten ervoor moeten zorgen dat het personeel bij grensovergangen voldoende geschoold is in de procedures en voorschriften voor de invoer van gezelschapsdieren uit derde landen die al dan niet op de lijst staan van landen waaruit invoer is toegestaan, en dat het deze voorschriften ook daadwerkelijk handhaaft.”

De Delegatie van de Europese Unie in Vietnam kan ook een interessante bron zijn voor verdere informatie.

Transport of piglets by road.

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 for a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in scientific research.

The reply sent to citizens who wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this matter is given below in English and French.

Reply in English

We would inform you that the EU rules on this issue are laid down in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The directive is based on the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement of the use of animals in procedures (also known as the ‘Three Rs’ principle).

We would also inform you that during the eighth Parliamentary term (2014‑2019) on 3 May 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics, in which Members reiterated ‘that animal testing can no longer be justified for cosmetics and asks EU and national public authorities to uphold the public’s opposition to cosmetics testing and support the advancement of innovative, humane testing methods’.

Further to the ban on animal testing for cosmetic purposes Members have tabled questions to the Commission – among others – on animal testing and clarifications on REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation, to which the Commission reply stated that ‘The promotion of alternative methods to animal testing is one of the main objectives of the REACH Regulation’.

On 3 March 2015, a European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Stop Vivisection‘ was submitted to the European Commission, the goal of which was ‘ to abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and put forward a new proposal aimed at phasing out the practice of animal experimentation, making compulsory the use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data directly relevant for the human species’.

The initiative was discussed during a public hearing hosted by the European Parliament on 11 May 2015, to provide a platform for debate for Members, the general public, the European Citizens’ Initiative supporters and experts in the field.

In its communication setting out its actions in response to the initiative, the Commission welcomed the mobilisation of citizens in support of animal welfare and stated that the EU shares the initiative’s conviction that animal testing should be phased out, which is also the main aim of EU legislation.

Numerous petitions have been submitted to the European Parliament on the issue of animal testing and vivisection. Information regarding the right of petition to the European Parliament, including details on the procedures for submitting and supporting a petition and the conditions of admissibility (competence, form, presentation), or inadmissibility thereof, is available on the Petitions Web Portal.

Further information on animal testing is available in the summary of EU legislation on the protection of laboratory animals and the Commission’s webpage on ‘animals used for scientific purposes‘, which also provides details of EU action to identify alternative approaches.

The following websites and publications may also be of interest.

EU Reference Laboratory for alternatives to animal testing (EURL CVAM), the science and knowledge service of the European Commission.

The EURL ECVAM status report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches.

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, a voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European trade associations, and companies from eight industry sectors ‘committed to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development, validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to animal testing’.

Alternatives to animal testing, the European Food Safety Authority website.

Reply in French

Nous vous informons que la question de l’expérimentation animale est réglementée au niveau de l’Union par la Directive 2010/63/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2010 relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques. La directive s’appuie sur l’application des principes dits de remplacement, de réduction et de raffinement (ou «règle des trois R») de l’utilisation d’animaux dans le cadre de ces procédures.

Nous vous informons également qu’au cours de la huitième législature (2014‑2019), le 3 mai 2018, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution sur l’interdiction totale de l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques, dans laquelle il «réaffirme que l’expérimentation animale ne peut plus être justifiée pour les cosmétiques et demande à l’Union et aux pouvoirs publics nationaux de soutenir l’opposition des citoyens à l’expérimentation animale pour les cosmétiques et le développement de méthodes d’expérimentation novatrices et humaines».

Dans le droit fil de l’interdiction de l’expérimentation animale dans le domaine des produits cosmétiques, plusieurs députés ont adressé des questions à la Commission concernant, entre autres, l’expérimentation animale et des éclaircissements sur REACH et le règlement sur les produits cosmétiques, ce à quoi la Commission a répondu en déclarant que «la promotion de méthodes alternatives à l’expérimentation animale est l’un des principaux objectifs du règlement REACH».

Le 3 mars 2015, une initiative citoyenne européenne intitulée Stop Vivisection a été présentée à la Commission, en vue de demander à cette dernière «d’abroger la Directive 2010/63/UE relative à la protection des animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques et de présenter à la place une nouvelle proposition de directive visant à mettre fin à l’expérimentation animale et de rendre obligatoire, pour la recherche biomédicale et toxicologique, l’utilisation de données pertinentes pour l’espèce humaine».

L’initiative a été examinée lors d’une audition publique, organisée par le Parlement européen le 11 mai 2015, pour permettre aux députés, au grand public, aux signataires de l’initiative citoyenne européenne et aux experts du domaine d’échanger sur ces questions.

Dans sa communication exposant ce qu’elle compte faire pour répondre à l’initiative, la Commission salue la mobilisation des citoyens en faveur du bien-être des animaux et déclare que l’Union européenne partage la conviction qui est celle de l’initiative citoyenne, à savoir que les essais sur les animaux devraient être progressivement supprimés, ce qui est aussi la finalité ultime de la législation européenne dans ce domaine.

Un grand nombre de pétitions ont été présentées au Parlement européen sur la question de l’expérimentation animale et de la vivisection. Les informations concernant le droit de pétition auprès du Parlement européen, y compris des précisions sur les procédures à suivre pour présenter et soutenir une pétition et sur les conditions de recevabilité (compétence, forme, présentation), sont disponibles sur le portail des pétitions du Parlement européen.

Davantage d’informations sont disponibles dans la synthèse publiée sur EUR-Lex concernant la protection des animaux de laboratoire ainsi que sur la page web que la Commission consacre aux animaux utilisés à des fins scientifiques, qui précise également les mesures prises par l’Union pour recenser les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale.

Les sites et publications suivants pourraient également vous intéresser.

Laboratoire de référence de l’Union pour les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale (EURL CVAM), le service de la Commission européenne pour la science et la connaissance.

Le rapport de l’EURL EVCAM sur la mise au point, la validation et l’acceptation réglementaire de méthodes et techniques de substitution.

Le partenariat européen visant à promouvoir les méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale, une collaboration volontaire entre la Commission européenne, des associations professionnelles européennes et des entreprises de huit secteurs industriels «qui se sont engagées à mettre en commun leurs connaissances et leurs ressources pour accélérer le développement, la validation et l’acceptation de méthodes de substitution à l’expérimentation animale».

Alternatives à l’expérimentation animale, le site web de l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA).”

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP

As the coronavirus crisis develops, and the European Union and its Member States take ever-more stringent action, the European Parliamentary Research Service is continuing to publish papers on the various aspects of the crisis and response to it.

The swift spread of a novel coronavirus from an initial outbreak in Wuhan, China in November 2019 to pandemic proportions in just a few short months, has led to a need for emergency public health measures to save lives across the world. In the European Union (EU), healthcare organisation and provision are Member State prerogatives and responsibilities, with the EU having limited scope to act. However, referring to World Health Organization guidelines, the European Union has stepped in to play a coordinating role, complementing national policies to help countries face the common challenge.

Following a special meeting by videoconference of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States, also attended (virtually) by the European Commission, European Central Bank and Eurogroup Presidents, as well as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, four priorities were agreed. Welcoming the proposals to act decisively to help national governments face the challenges posed by the spread of the virus, European Parliament President David Sassoli commented that ‘Parliament is ready to do its part to protect the lives and livelihoods of all our people. We will not give up living as Europeans.’ A second videoconference took place on 17 March, at which the leaders reaffirmed the need to act on the four areas. The regular European Council meeting planned for 26 March has now been postponed, with a further videoconference on the coronavirus response taking its place. As of 19 March, the ECB has committed to providing €750 billion to relieve government debt during the crisis, as well as €120 billion in quantitative easing measures and €20 billion in debt purchases.

The four priority areas in the EU’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak are:

1. Limiting the spread of the virus, including assessing the risk and closing external borders so that internal borders can remain open to allow the single market to function.
2. Ensuring the provision of medical equipment by ramping up production of medical devices, issuing calls for production of medical equipment, and negotiating new supplies.
3. Helping researchers to find a vaccine quickly, through existing research programmes
4. Aiding EU Member States to weather the social and economic impact of the pandemic.

At the same time, EU citizens need to be able to trust the information they receive on such a vital issue. Support has been strengthened for the Health Security Committee to provide aligned information throughout the EU on the virus. While an ‘infodemic’ of manipulated information has accompanied the the COVID-19 outbreak, the EU continues with its efforts to tackle such harmful disinformation.

EPRS publications on the topic include:

• What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?
• Economic impact of epidemics and pandemics
• Temporary border controls in the Schengen area
• What if we could fight coronavirus with artificial intelligence?
• Addressing health inequalities in the European Union: Concepts, action, state of play
• Treatment optimisation in drug development

• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• What Think Tanks are thinking: Coronavirus: The latest

• ESMH Press Review, special edition on coronavirus
• Misinformation in science: How false medical news on social media miseducates our society
• How to spot when news is fake
• European Science Media Hub interviews
• European Science Media Hub articles

Written by Mar Negreiro,

© 3DDock / Shutterstock.com

Sales in the EU still predominantly take place offline – in bricks and mortar shops – and purchases are still predominantly made with cash. However, thanks to the level of convenience they offer, both online shopping and cashless electronic payments are booming and are among the key drivers of the digital transformation taking place in our economy and society. The real-time accessibility of e commerce products and their availability 24 hours a day, together with the ease of making electronic payments, are disrupting many aspects of traditional consumer shopping behaviour, which is also increasingly driven by widespread use of mobile devices and apps.

Online sales hit a record high in 2019. At the international level, China is leading in both e-commerce transactions and mobile cashless payments. However, the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has put countries across the world, starting with China, into extraordinary conditions, with citizens staying at home; and some sellers trying to extract the highest profit possible from the situation.

In the EU, a large majority of internet users, particularly those under the age of 45, shop online. Clothes, sports goods, travel and online content such as games, videos and music are among the most popular items.

This trend is also driven by the increase in cashless payments, which have become very popular in some countries. The numerous different cashless payment methods in existence are often highly localised. One such example, the e-wallet, is gaining particular importance, driven by the over 2 billion users it enjoyed in 2019.

On the other hand, e-commerce and the cashless society are facing a host of challenges related to cybercrime, fraud, privacy, the digital divide and pollution, among others. The coronavirus outbreak is also posing various challenges to e-commerce supply chains, many of which are based in the hardest-hit countries. However, the opportunities that e-commerce and cashless transactions afford in terms of convenience, efficiency and affordability will help them gain further ground in the years to come; their popularity among younger generations and strong EU-level policy support for digital transformation are also helping boost their prospects.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The rise of e-commerce and the cashless society‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© Alfa Photo / Shutterstock.com

The digitalisation of the economy and society poses new tax policy challenges. One of the main questions is how to correctly capture value and tax businesses characterised by a reliance on intangible assets, no or insignificant physical presence in the tax jurisdictions where commercial activities are carried out (scale without mass), and a considerable user role in value creation. Current tax rules are struggling to cope with the emerging realities of these new economic models.

The European Union (EU) and other international bodies have been discussing these issues for some time. In March 2018, the EU introduced a ‘fair taxation of the digital economy’ package. It contained proposals for an interim and long-term digital tax. The European Parliament supported both proposals, widening their scope and coverage and backing integration of digital tax into the proposed Council framework on corporate taxation. However, there was no immediate political agreement in the Council. As finding a global solution at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) level or a coordinated EU approach was not yet feasible, some Member States started implementing or designing national digital taxes. As an indication of difficulties around this issue, the introduction of these taxes in France heightened trade tensions between the EU and the United States of America, with the latter favouring a ‘voluntary’ tax system – a position which may prevent a global agreement.

Over the last few years, the OECD has nevertheless made progress on developing a global solution and proposed a two-pillar system: while the first pillar (unified approach) would grant new taxation rights and review the current profit allocation and business location-taxation rules, the second (GloBE) aims to mitigate risks stemming from the practices of profit-shifting to jurisdictions where they can be subjected to no, or very low, taxation. The EU is committed to supporting the OECD’s work, but if no solution is found by the end of 2020, it will again make a proposal for its own digital tax.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital taxation: State of play and way forward‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© MintArt / Shutterstock

The world is currently facing the fastest-spreading pandemic since the Spanish flu (in the aftermath of the First World War), prompting governments to take unprecedented decisions to contain this highly contagious coronavirus, which leads to COVID-19 infection. The measures taken include closing borders in some countries, encouraging telework as much as possible, and shutting schools, universities, restaurants and many other facilities, except for shops selling groceries, supermarkets and pharmacies. People are urged to stay at home and avoid physical contact with others. In a growing number of countries, confinement is being enforced.

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 item in the series, published on 11 March.

Coronavirus: Global response urgently needed
Chatham House, March 2020

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

Bold policies needed to counter the coronavirus recession
Centre for European Reform, March 2020

‘Whatever it takes’ must be EU member states’ Covid-19 pledge
Friends of Europe, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Trade policy and the fight against coronavirus
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2020

Corona Crisis: Italy needs European solidarity – now
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, March 2020

Coronavirus: All citizens need an income support
Chatham House, March 2020

The economic policy response to COVID-19: What comes next?
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Tracking Coronavirus in countries with and without travel bans
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Trump’s trade policy is hampering the US fight against COVID-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

The Coronavirus can make or break the Union
European Policy Centre, March 2020

Coronavirus has shattered many long-held myths about globalisation
Friends of Europe, March 2020

Europe braces for Coronavirus spread
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

The coronavirus recession deepens financial market turmoil
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Estimates of COVID-19’s fatality rate might change: And then change again
Rand Corporation, March 2020

What you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Addressing the coronavirus ‘infodemic’
Atlantic Council, March 2020

Designing an effective US policy response to Coronavirus
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2020

What the Coronavirus emergency means for the US-Iran conflict
Atlantic Council, March 2020

International cooperation for the Coronavirus combat: Results, lessons, and way ahead
Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, March 2020

Coronavirus: The view from Italy, China, Singapore, India, and the UK
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Responding to the coronavirus outbreak
Clingendael, March 2020

Global macroeconomics of coronavirus
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The Coronavirus outbreak could disrupt the U.S. drug supply
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Coronavirus, campaigns, and connectivity
Brookings Institution, March 2020

Covid-19 & OPEC+ collapse: Preliminary assessment of implications for energy markets, policies and geopolitical balances
Institut français des relations internationales, March 2020

The World Health Organization
Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Le coronavirus, une géopolitique des peurs
Institut Montaigne, March 2020

COVID-19 is a reminder that interconnectivity is unavoidable
Brookings Institution, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Uncharted territory: Italy’s response to the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Only the coronavirus can convince Trump of the virtues of international cooperation
Bruegel, March 2020

An effective economic response to the Coronavirus in Europe
Bruegel, March 2020

What if the rest of Europe follows Italy’s coronavirus fate?
Bruegel, March 2020

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19
Bruegel, March 2020

Ill will: Populism and the coronavirus
European Council on Foreign Relation, March 2020

Coronavirus forces colleges online: Will learning ever be the same?
Rand Corporation, March 2020

Coronavirus and the labor market
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, March 2020

Coronavirus outbreak intensifies: Q&A with RAND experts
Rand Corporation, March 2020

The consequences of the Coronavirus epidemic for the EU economy
Polish Institute for International Affairs, March 2020

Will China learn from the COVID-19 epidemic?
East Asia Forum, March 2020

Coronavirus, telemedicine, and dustbusters
Rand Corporation, March 2020

How Europe should manage the Coronavirus-induced crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2020

Pour une Europe de la santé. Chronique d’une épidémie, crise sanitaire, perturbant fortement l’économie
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: The latest‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nicole Scholz, Angelos Delivorias and Marianna Pari,

© Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Alleviating the human effects of the crisis is paramount, but repercussions are being felt across many sectors. European Union institutions are unanimous in calling for solidarity among Member States, and for Europe to offer support, within its remit, to its Member States in their response to the common challenge.

On 10 March 2020, Heads of State or Government of the EU countries held a videoconference on COVID-19, to discuss how to coordinate the EU-level response. EU leaders stressed the need for a joint European approach and close coordination with the European Commission. Priorities were identified, to be followed up on ‘at all levels immediately’. The measures that are – or could be – envisaged range across different policy areas. As an immediate response, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen formed a coronavirus response team. Further measures were announced in a European coronavirus response on 13 March 2020.

Planned – and potential – health and preparedness measures include reinforcing the EU’s role in joint procurement, bolstering cooperation in disease management and control, and potentially widening the remit of the European reference networks. Greater controls on people crossing external EU borders are also proposed. Monetary, budgetary and macroeconomic measures include, for instance, those taken to ease the impact of the coronavirus emergency on the aviation industry. Moreover, the EU and the Member States, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund can also take steps to help people and firms. The EU budget has been mobilised to provide funds to reinforce preparedness and containment measures, as well as research into the virus. Furthermore, cross-border health threats, such as that posed by COVID‑19, could be taken into account when shaping the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What can the EU do to alleviate the impact of the coronavirus crisis?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Costica Dumbrava,

© M-SUR/shutterstock

Free movement across internal borders is one of the EU’s most important achievements, with important benefits for EU citizens. The Schengen Borders Code (or Schengen Code) specifies the conditions under which Member States can introduce temporary checks at their internal borders in cases of serious threats to public policy or internal security. The Code was revised in 2017 in order to strengthen the EU’s external borders and to help cope with unprecedented migratory pressure and cross-border security threats. A Commission legislative proposal to further update the Schengen Code in order to tighten up the rules on temporary border controls is currently with the co-legislators. The recent coronavirus outbreak has pushed several Member States to reintroduce border controls at some of the EU’s internal borders in an attempt to contain the spread of the virus.

The Schengen Code

The Schengen Code lays down the common rules governing the management of internal and external EU borders, including rules and procedures concerning the exceptional introduction of border checks at internal borders. There are currently three cases in which Member States can introduce temporary border checks at their internal borders on grounds of a serious threat to public policy or internal security: (1) in the case of a foreseeable threat (e.g. a special event such as a sporting competition); (2) in the case of an immediate threat; and (3) in the situation of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external borders.

Foreseeable threat to public policy or internal security

According to Article 25 of the Schengen Code, a Member State can reintroduce exceptional border controls at all or specific parts of its internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. Any such measures should be exceptional, temporary and proportionate. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security in the Member State concerned persists, the period can be prolonged by renewable periods of 30 days, up to a maximum six months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States at least four weeks before taking action, unless the circumstances giving rise to the measures arise within a shorter timeframe. The notification must specify the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The information must also be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission is supposed to issue an opinion after consulting the other Member States.

Immediate threat to public policy or internal security

Under Article 28 of the Code, a Member State can introduce immediate border controls at internal borders if there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. This measure must be exceptional and is to be limited to up to ten days. If the serious threat to public policy or internal security persists, the period may be prolonged by renewable periods of 20 days, up to maximum of two months. The Member State concerned must notify the Commission and the other Member States immediately, providing information about the reasons, scope and duration of the measures. The Commission must inform the European Parliament immediately and, after consulting the other Member States, should issue an opinion.

Persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control

Under Article 29 of the Code, a Member State may introduce temporary border checks at internal borders when there are persistent serious deficiencies in the external border management of a Member State, as demonstrated during a Schengen evaluation. This period could be prolonged up to three times if the exceptional circumstances persist, up to a limit of maximum two years. Acting on a proposal from the Commission, the Council can issue a recommendation for one or more Member States to reintroduce border controls at all or specific parts of their borders. The Member State(s) concerned must then notify the other Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission before reintroducing border controls, or inform the Commission in writing of their reasons for not implementing the Council’s recommendation. The Commission must present the European Parliament and the Council with a report on the functioning of the area without internal border controls at least once a year. This report must include a list of all decisions taken to reintroduce border controls at internal borders during the relevant year.

Cases of border checks reinstated at internal borders

The unprecedented inflow of migrants and asylum-seekers that peaked in 2015 put great strain on the EU’s external borders, leading a number of Members States to reintroduce controls along some of their borders with other Member States. While justified by the need to cope with an exceptional situation, these measures have disrupted the functioning of the Schengen area, generating significant economic, social and political costs. According to an EPRS study from 2016, the economic cost for a two-year suspension of Schengen by all participating states would range from €25 billion to €50 billion, while indefinite suspension of Schengen would cost between €100 billion and €230 billion over 10 years.  Currently there are six Schengen Member States that have temporarily reintroduced border controls along parts of their borders with other Member States in connection with foreseeable threats to public policy or internal security (mainly terrorism threats, secondary movements by irregular migrants and special events).

Following the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19), a number of Member States have adopted exceptional measures aimed at containing the spreadof the virus, including measures to reintroduce border checks or close their borders with other Member States. To prevent disruption of the supply of essential goods and medical staff in the EU, the European Commission has adopted an export authorisation scheme for protective equipment and has presented Member States with guidelines on border measures.

Current cases of internal border controls (for foreseeable events)
Norway (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Sweden (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Denmark (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Germany (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
Austria (12 November 2019 – 12 May 2020)
France (31 October 2019 – 30 April 2020) Revision of the Schengen Code

The Schengen Code was revised in 2017 in the context of measures to strengthen external borders to allow for mandatory systematic checks on all people crossing the EU’s external borders, including the verification of biometric information in the relevant databases.

In September 2017, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation to amend the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders, aiming to adapt the maximum periods for these measures in order to enable Member States to respond adequately to serious threats to public policy or internal security. The proposal also introduces further procedural safeguards (e.g. an obligation to conduct ‘assessments’) to ensure that the use of internal border checks remains exceptional and proportionate, thus encouraging Member States to use police checks and cooperation instead of internal border controls.

European Parliament position

The European Parliament has constantly reiterated its commitment to safeguarding the Schengen area. In its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, it condemned ‘the continued reintroduction of internal border checks as this undermines the basic principles of the Schengen area’, and called for the establishment of substantial procedural safeguards, in particular to maintain a strict time limit on the reintroduction of checks at internal borders.

In its legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border control, adopted in April 2019, Parliament reiterated that the Schengen area is one of the Union’s main achievements and stressed the need for a common response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of the Schengen area. Parliament maintained that the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders should occur only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort. While it agreed with the Commission that in the event of a long-term threat there should be a possibility to prolong internal border controls beyond six months, on an exceptional basis, the European Parliament maintained that the prolongation must not lead to a further extension of temporary border controls beyond one year (the Commission proposed a two-year maximum). Having adopted its position at first reading, Parliament is now waiting for Council to set out its position.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘Temporary border controls in the Schengen area‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.