European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Maria Niestadt (1st edition).

In November 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (the interoperable Europe act). The initiative seeks to ensure a consistent, human-centric EU approach to interoperability, create an interoperability governance structure that helps public administrations and the private sector to work together, and establish an ecosystem of interoperability solutions for the EU’s public sector. The proposal should also cut red tape for citizens and businesses.

The European Parliament and the Council have started working on the file. In Parliament, the file has been assigned to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and in the Council to the working party on telecommunications and information society. Parliament’s rapporteur, Ivars Ijabs (Renew Europe, Latvia) published his draft report in March 2023. The next step is for the European Parliament and Council to adopt their negotiating positions ahead of trilogue negotiations

Versions

• April 2023: Interoperable Europe act (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (interoperable Europe act) Committee responsible:Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)COM(2022) 720
18.11.2022Rapporteur:Ivars Ijabs (Renew Europe, Latvia)2022/0379(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Gheorghe Falcă (EPP, Romania)
Josianne Cutajar (S&D, Malta)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing
– formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Committee vote on draft report

Written by Stefano De Luca.

With the current pace of technological innovation, it is clear that the volume of data being exchanged is larger than ever and will only continue growing. The EU’s ambitious connectivity targets are pushing policymakers to take a more forward-thinking approach to the telecoms sector. One question EU decision-makers must answer is whether the main digital players, who generate huge volumes of traffic and revenue using the EU’s telecoms infrastructure, should contribute to the cost of network roll-out and, if so, whether that would be ‘fair’.

Background

The revival of the debate on the European network cost contribution – or ‘fair contribution‘ – stems from the idea recently re-introduced by the large European telecom operators (fixed and mobile) that market actors fuelling large volumes of data traffic (large online traffic generators such as Google and Netflix) should contribute to telecom operators’ network costs.

Large telecoms operators (telcos) suggest that a few large traffic generators are taking advantage of the network investment needed to support such data volumes without bearing the roll-out costs; in other words, they are ‘free-riding’.

Large traffic generators, meanwhile, argue that they contribute to the internet ecosystem too by investing heavily in infrastructure, such as data centres, undersea cables and satellites, and by creating attractive internet content, which is one of the reasons customers pay telecoms operators to carry data or decide to upgrade their subscriptions.

Finally, there is a fierce debate over whether or not a mechanism to extract a fair contribution from large traffic generators could undermine the net neutrality principle embedded both in the Open Internet Regulation and the declaration on digital rights and principles for the digital decade. The Commission has stated that any process of exploring a mechanism to secure a fair contribution to the costs of network infrastructure would take care to uphold the EU’s net neutrality rules.

Interconnection market: ‘Bill and keep’ versus ‘sending party network pays’ charging systems
The fair contribution debate is not entirely new. The European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) proposed to introduce a kind of sending party network pays (SPNP) charging system back in 2012. The idea of this system is that large traffic generators should pay a fee to telcos for ‘delivering’ their data traffic (e.g. video streaming) to the end user’s network. At present, internet interconnection is largely unregulated and done on the basis of transit and peering agreements. The SPNP approach collides with the dominant bill and keep approach of interconnection, where data transport for internet services over telecoms networks is included in the end user price at retail level and each network agrees to terminate connections from the other network without any charge.
The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published reports on the internet interconnection market in 2012 and 2017, concluding that there were no competition issues requiring regulatory intervention. In its 2022 preliminary assessment of the fair contribution mechanism, BEREC rejected many arguments raised by ETNO. For instance, BEREC reports that there is no evidence that large traffic generators are free-riding on telecoms networks, that such providers also invest in network infrastructure, and that the SPNP charging system could cause significant harm to the internet ecosystem.
Rebutting this preliminary assessment, ETNO notes that the EU fair contribution debate has now moved beyond the telco industry proposal, beyond analysis of the internet interconnection market and beyond Europe, (referring to the fair contribution act debate in the United States). European Commission public consultation

The European declaration on digital rights and principles for the digital decade fuelled the debate on whether large traffic generators should contribute financially to telcos’ deployment of very high capacity networks (VHCNs) such as optical fibre and 5G. The declaration commits to develop ‘adequate frameworks so that all market actors benefiting from the digital transformation assume their social responsibilities and make a fair and proportionate contribution to the costs of … infrastructures, for the benefit of all Europeans’. Although not legally binding, it provides a framework for meeting the EU’s digital decade targets, including the connectivity ones of having all EU households covered by a fixed gigabit network (1Gbps) and all populated areas covered by 5G by 2030. An upcoming Commission study costs the infrastructure investment needed to achieve these targets at around €174 billion.

Along with its gigabit infrastructure act proposal and the draft gigabit recommendation, the Commission has launched a consultation on ‘the future of the connectivity sector and its infrastructure’, including a section on the fair contribution; this is running from 23 February to 19 May 2023. Focusing on the fair contribution concept, the Commission asks respondents to quantify their planned investment in network infrastructure capable of optimising internet data traffic. It also asks telcos to explain any obstacles to charging digital players for increased data traffic and whether such players should contribute fairly to finance network deployment. On this last point, the Commission also asks for views on the potential contribution mechanism structure (for instance mandatory direct payments to finance networks deployments or an EU or national digital fund).

Stakeholders’ and experts’ point of views

There are different positions on whether and how large traffic generators should contribute to the roll-out of the future-proof European telecoms network. Among the most controversial points:

Investment for upgrades in capacity and future network roll out: studies conducted for telecoms operators have estimated that data traffic driven by large traffic generators could generate costs relating to managing and deploying the networks conveying the traffic of €36 to 40 billion a year for EU telcos. BEREC points out that it has not seen such costs reflected in telcos’ financial statements or loss warnings. Other studies and reports stress that large traffic generators also invest in the internet ecosystem and that content and application providers invested €183 billion in Europe’s internet infrastructure between 2011 and 2021.

Double payment for data transport services: associations and experts demanding a careful impact assessment or against the fair contribution argue that telcos are already remunerated by their own customers through an internet subscription. In addition, there are concerns that a potential fee on large traffic generators would be passed on to consumers through higher prices for content or more advertising. Telcos argue that large traffic generators are not like individual internet users and should contribute to the costs of the traffic conveyance they benefit from and help achieve the digital decade goals.

Fair contribution mechanism: a report funded by the Computer & Communications Industry Association questions the compatibility of a fair contribution with global tax reforms on big tech, considering the lack of evidence on internet market failure or inefficiency. An expert commentator underlines the importance of clarifying who will be the final beneficiary of a potential ‘fair contribution’ fee on large traffic generators. A fee of this kind, if introduced, should be earmarked to finance investments in new very high capacity networks and not for other purposes (for instance to increase telcos’ dividends). This article also suggests that ‘the fee should be collected by public authorities and then distributed as public funds’.

South Korea: First experiment with a fair contribution to network financing
South Korea is the only country to have initiated a form of ‘fair contribution’ for large traffic generators, deviating from the ‘bill and keep’ principle and introducing the SPNP charging mechanism by law. Content providers with an average daily number of users of over 1 million or generating data accounting for over 1 % of total internet traffic are obliged to pay fees to telcos for terminating traffic on their networks. Reports and expert views, with some exceptions, tend to agree that the South Korean experiment is failing and leading to: reduced diversity of online content, slower digital transformation, higher prices for end users buying internet content, a decline in internet service quality and a decrease of investment in network infrastructure. A number of civil society organisations and academics have called on the government of South Korea to repeal the legal framework.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Network cost contribution debate‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Guillaune Ragonnaud (1st edition).

Most goods require packaging at several stages of their product life. Today, the diversity of packaging items and materials is considerable. Between 2009 and 2020, the total mass of packaging waste generated in the EU rose by 20 %. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD – Directive 94/62/EC) lays down measures to prevent the production of packaging waste, and to promote reuse of packaging and recycling and other forms of recovering packaging waste. It also sets out the requirements that all packaging placed on the EU market must meet. These provisions are designed to reduce the disposal of packaging waste and to promote a more circular economy.

As part of the European Green Deal and the new circular economy action plan, the Commission put forward a revision of the PPWD in November 2022. The initiative’s objective is to ensure that all packaging is reusable or recyclable in an economically feasible way by 2030. The aim is to reinforce the essential requirements for packaging to ensure its reuse and recycling, boost the uptake of recycled content, and improve the requirements’ enforceability. Measures are also envisaged to tackle over-packaging and reduce packaging waste.

The proposal is now in the hands of the co-legislators. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) is responsible for the file.

Versions

• March 2023: Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC Committee responsible:Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)COM(2022) 677
30.11.2022Rapporteurs:Frédérique Ries (Renew, Belgium)
Massimiliano Salini (EPP, Italy)2022/0396(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Delara Burkhardt (S&D, Germany)
Grace O’Sullivan (Greens/EFA, Ireland)
Silvia Sardone (ID, Italy)
Pietro Fiocchi (ECR, Italy)
João Pimenta Lopes (The Left, Portugal)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing
– formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report Recycling and recovery rates of packaging waste in the EU (%)

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka with Rebecca Fredrick.

The highlight of the March II plenary session was the debate on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 23-24 March 2023. In a formal ceremony held to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, the Presidents of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, the European Council, Charles Michel, and the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, each underlined the significance of the 1998 Agreement and the importance of ensuring reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Members debated several legislative files, including on fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances, safety of products and equal pay for men and women. In a further debate, Members considered the 2022 rule of law report from the European Commission.

Fluorinated gases and ozone depleting substances

In a joint debate, Members considered two reports from the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee on fluorinated gases and ozone-depleting substances, and subsequently adopted positions for trilogue negotiations on the two proposals. The proposed revision of the Ozone Regulation will update current rules on ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to reduce administrative burden, facilitate monitoring, and further reduce ODS emissions. The second proposed regulation concerns fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases), a particularly strong – although non-ozone-depleting – category of greenhouse gases (GHG). EU rules on F‑gases have been in place since 2006 and have led to significant reductions in GHG emissions. Among the ENVI committee’s proposed changes to the Commission’s proposal are a prohibition on the use of F-gases in sectors where alternatives are technologically and economically feasible, steeper product phase-down trajectories, firmer deadlines after which certain F‑gases will not be allowed to be placed on the market, and the introduction of minimum fines for non-compliance.

General product safety regulation

Members debated and adopted a provisional agreement, endorsed by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), on the proposed regulation on general product safety, which would replace existing legislation that has lost effectiveness as a result of digitalisation, supply chain evolution and changes in consumer behaviour. The text agreed in trilogue takes into account Parliament’s call that product safety assessments must consider the consumers targeted (for example, children and older people), as well as its stance on consumers’ right to remedy in the event of a product recall.

Equal pay for equal work between men and women

Parliament also debated and adopted the provisional agreement on equal pay for equal work between men and women, reached after five trilogue meetings. Despite the right to equal pay being enshrined in the EU Treaties since 1992, the gender pay gap currently sits at 12.7 %. The European Parliament has for years been calling for stronger measures on equal pay. The proposal will increase transparency around pay and access to justice for victims of pay discrimination. Notably, the legislation requires all companies – regardless of size – to make available to employees their criteria for determining remuneration as well as a breakdown of remuneration in the company.

Rule of law

Members debated a European Commission statement on its third annual rule of law report. Members voted on a motion for a resolution on the report, tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). In its 2022 report, the Commission took into account Parliament’s call for the inclusion of specific recommendations directed at each Member State. While the resolution acknowledges this addition, it expresses concern that many of the recommendations lack specificity. (Members also debated separate Commission statements on the rule of law in Greece, Spain and Malta, resolutions on which are expected to be voted during the April plenary session.)

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Two committees’ decisions to enter into interinstitutional negotiations were approved without a vote: from the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee on the proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, and from the Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Committee on the proposal for a regulation on the conversion of the Farm Accountancy Data Network into a Farm Sustainability Data Network.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – March II 2023‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tambiama Madiega.

General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as ChatGPT, are quickly transforming the way AI systems are built and deployed. While these technologies are expected to bring huge benefits in the coming years, spurring innovation in many sectors, their disruptive nature raises policy questions around privacy and intellectual property rights, liability and accountability, and concerns about their potential to spread disinformation and misinformation. EU lawmakers need to strike a delicate balance between fostering the deployment of these technologies while making sure adequate safeguards are in place.

Notion of general-purpose AI (foundation models)

While there is no globally agreed definition of artificial intelligence, scientists largely share the view that technically speaking there are two broad categories of AI technologies: ‘artificial narrow intelligence’ (ANI) and ‘artificial general intelligence’ (AGI). ANI technologies, such as image and speech recognition systems, also called weak AI, are trained on well-labelled datasets to perform specific tasks and operate within a predefined environment. By contrast, AGI technologies, also referred to as strong AI, are machines designed to perform a wide range of intelligent tasks, think abstractly and adapt to new situations. While only a few years ago AGI development seemed moderate, quick-paced technological breakthroughs, including the use of large language model (LLM) techniques have since radically changed the potential of these technologies. A new wave of AGI technologies with generative capabilities – referred to as ‘general purpose AI’ or ‘foundation models‘ – are being trained on a broad set of unlabelled data that can be used for different tasks with minimal fine-tuning. These underlying models are made accessible to downstream developers through application programming interface (API) and open-source access, and are used today as infrastructure by many companies to provide end users with downstream services.

Applications: Chat GPT and other general-purpose AI tools

In 2020, research laboratory OpenAI – which has since entered into a commercial partnership with Microsoft – released GPT-3, a language model trained on large internet datasets that is able to perform a wide range of natural language processing tasks (including language translation, summarisation and question answering). In 2021, OpenAI released DALL-E, a deep-learning model that can generate digital images from natural language descriptions. In December 2022, it launched its chatbot ChatGPT, based on GPT-3 and trained on machine learning models using internet data to generate any type of text. Launched in March 2023, GPT-4, the newest general-purpose AI tool, is expected to have even more applications in areas such as creative writing, art generation and computer coding.

General-purpose AI tools are now reaching the general public. In March 2023, Microsoft launched a new AI‑powered Bing search engine and Edge browser incorporating a chat function that brings more context to search results. It also released a GPT-4 platform allowing businesses to build their own applications (for instance for summarising long-form content and helping write software). Google and its subsidiary DeepMind are also developing general-purpose AI tools; examples include the conversational AI service, Bard. Google unveiled a range of generative AI tools in March 2023, giving businesses and governments the ability to generate text, images, code, videos, audio, and to build their own applications. Developers are using these ‘foundation models‘ to roll out and offer a flurry of new AI services to end users.

General-purpose AI tools have the potential to transform many areas, for example by creating new search engine architectures or personalised therapy bots, or assisting developers in their programming tasks. According to a Gartner study, investments in generative AI solutions are now worth over US$1.7 billion. The study predicts that in the coming years generative AI will have a strong impact on the health, manufacturing, automotive, aerospace and defence sectors, among others. Generative AI can be used in medical education and potentially in clinical decision-making or in the design of new drugs and materials. It could even become a key source of information in developing countries to address shortages of expertise.

Concerns and calls for regulation

The key characteristics identified in general-purpose AI models – their large size, opacity and potential to develop unexpected capabilities beyond those intended by their producers – raise a host of questions. Studies have documented that large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, present ethical and social risks. They can discriminate unfairly and perpetuate stereotypes and social biases, use toxic language (for instance inciting hate or violence), present a risk for personal and sensitive information, provide false or misleading information, increase the efficacy of disinformation campaigns, and cause a range of human-computer interaction harms (such as leading users to overestimate the capabilities of AI and use it in unsafe ways). Despite engineers’ attempts to mitigate those risks, LLMs, such as GPT-4, still pose challenges to users’ safety and fundamental rights (for instance by producing convincing text that is subtly false, or showing increased adeptness at providing illicit advice), and can generate harmful and criminal content.

Since general-purpose AI models are trained by scraping, analysing and processing publicly available data from the internet, privacy experts stress that privacy issues arise around plagiarism, transparency, consent and lawful grounds for data processing. These models represent a challenge for education systems and for common-pool resources such as public repositories. Furthermore, the emergence of LLMs raises many questions, including as regards intellectual property rights infringement and distribution of copyrighted materials without permission. Some experts warn that AI-generated creativity could significantly disrupt the creative industries (in areas such as graphic design or music composition for instance). They are calling for incentives to bolster innovation and the commercialisation of AI-generated creativity on the one hand, and for measures to protect the value of human creativity on the other. The question of what liability regime should be used when general-purpose AI systems cause damage has also been raised. These models are also expected to have a significant impact on the labour market, including in terms of work tasks.

Against this backdrop, experts argue that there is a strong need to govern the diffusion of general-purpose AI tools, given their impact on society and the economy. They are also calling for oversight and monitoring of LLMs through evaluation and testing mechanisms, stressing the danger of allowing these tools to stay in the hands of just a few companies and governments, and highlighting the need to assess the complex dependencies between companies developing and companies deploying general-purpose AI tools. AI experts are also calling for a 6-month pause, at least, in the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT‑4.

General-purpose AI (foundation models) in the proposed EU AI act

EU lawmakers are currently engaged in protracted negotiations to define an EU regulatory framework for AI that would subject ‘high-risk’ AI systems to a set of requirements and obligations in the EU. The exact scope of a proposed artificial intelligence act (AI act) is a bone of contention. While the European Commission’s original proposal did not contain any specific provisions on general-purpose AI technologies, the Council has proposed that they should be considered. Scientists have meanwhile warned that any approach classifying AI systems as high-risk or not depending on their intended purpose would create a loophole for general purpose systems, since the future AI act would regulate the specific uses of an AI application but not its underlying foundation models.

In this context, a number of stakeholders, such as the Future of Life Institute, have called for general-purpose AI to be included in the scope of the AI act. Some academics favouring this approach have suggested modifying the proposal accordingly. Helberger and Diakopoulos propose to consider creating a separate risk category for general-purpose AI systems. These would be subject to legal obligations and requirements that fit their characteristics, and to a systemic risk monitoring system similar to the one under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Hacker, Engel and Mauer argue that the AI act should focus on specific high-risk applications of general-purpose AI and include obligations regarding transparency, risk management and non-discrimination; the DSA’s content moderation rules (for instance notice and action mechanisms, and trusted flaggers) should be expanded to cover such general-purpose AI. Küspert, Moës and Dunlop call for the general-purpose AI regulation to be made future-proof, inter alia, by addressing the complexity of the value chain, taking into account open-source strategies and adapting compliance and policy enforcement to different business models. For Engler and Renda, the act should discourage API access for general-purpose AI use in high-risk AI systems, introduce soft commitments for general-purpose AI system providers (such as a voluntary code of conduct) and clarify players’ responsibilities along value chains.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘General-purpose artificial intelligence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Agnieszka Widuto and Stephanie Pradier.

The ongoing energy crisis and its related challenges of energy security concerns and high energy prices have put the spotlight on the EU’s domestic production and use of energy in general and renewables in particular. The 2018 Renewable Energy Directive (RED) requires the EU to achieve a 32 % share of renewable energy sources (RES) in gross final energy consumption by 2030. The Commission has since proposed a revision of the renewables target to 40 % as part of the ‘fit for 55’ package, in the context of the new EU climate goals under the European Green Deal, and a further increase to 45 % under the REPowerEU plan to phase out Russian energy imports.The EU exceeded its 2020 target of 20 %, achieving a 22.1 % renewables share of energy consumed. However, possibly because of the economic rebound after the COVID-19 lockdowns, the percentage of renewables consumed has since dropped to 21.8 %.

Read this infographic on ‘Renewable energy in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Sources of renewable energy in EU electricity consumption, 2021 Share of energy sources in EU production of primary energy, 2021 Share of renewable energy in three key sectors, 2021 Share of energy from renewable sources in final energy consumption, EU and Member States, 2021

Written by Enrico D’Ambrogio.

EU integration represents an inspiring example of conflict resolution. Some 30 years of violent sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland was brought to an end in 1998, with the signature of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. At the time, both the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were Member States of the European Union, having both joined the European Communities on 1 January 1973.

The EU’s engagement in the Northern Ireland peace process materialised first through support for the International Fund for Ireland. As part of its cohesion policy, the EU then directed significant investment to Northern Ireland through building specific cohesion programmes into the framework of the UK’s allocations. From 1995, EU funding was channelled through successive PEACE programmes, supporting peace and reconciliation and promoting economic and social stability in Northern Ireland and the six border counties of Ireland. The European territorial cooperation programme (Interreg) was a further EU cohesion policy tool playing a role in Northern Ireland.

Since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on 1 February 2020, the PEACE PLUS programme, the largest ever cross-border cooperation programme on the island of Ireland, has been agreed, and it will continue to support the process towards peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

The European Parliament’s support for the EU’s financial contribution to the peace process has been constant, and Parliament expressed concern for the continuity and stability of this support after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. MEPs have also called for efforts to increase general awareness, and to raise the profile of the impact and necessity of EU funding in Northern Ireland.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU cohesion policy support to 25 years of peace in Northern Ireland‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Luisa Antunes.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global, multidimensional phenomenon occurring in humans, animals, and environmental ecosystems. It is the ability of microbes, e.g. bacteria, viruses, fungi and protozoa, to survive in the presence of medicines designed to kill or inactivate them (antimicrobials: antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals and antiprotozoals). At patient level, AMR hampers the effective treatment of microbial infections, leading to prolonged, severe disease and, in some cases, death. At community level, it amplifies the risk of infection outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics.

AMR is a growing problem, predicted to cause millions of deaths worldwide in the coming decades. The research and development pipeline for new antimicrobials has dried up, partly because of an oligopolistic market structure in a research area considered to give a low return on investment. Concerted EU and Member State action has led to an overall decrease in antimicrobial consumption; however, the relative use of both broad-spectrum and last-resort antimicrobials continues to grow. The lack of investment in prevention, diagnostics and adequate healthcare infrastructure is further driving the preventive prescription of antimicrobials.

Under-investment in good-quality healthcare is one of the main drivers of AMR. Tackling the socioeconomic determinants of health – such as reducing overall poverty and economic inequality, ensuring basic standards of living, education, and health – is imperative to reduce the burden of infection and the spread of AMR. Addressing the causes of AMR requires a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach, involving not only the health sector but also other sectors, such as agriculture, environment and trade. The forthcoming revision of the pharmaceuticals package will be a chance for the EU to drive forward policies to ensure equitable access to safe, effective and affordable pharmaceuticals for unmet medical needs, and to define strategies for incentives to promote research into innovative antimicrobials.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content Introduction

Penicillin, first discovered in 1928, contributed to the success of Allied troops in the Second World War and ushered in a new era for medicine. The period between the 1940s and 1960s witnessed a ‘golden age‘ of antimicrobial development, where the impact of serious conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and diarrhoea could finally be mitigated, thus contributing to an increase in quality of health and global life expectancy.

However, the abuse and misuse in consumption of wide-spectrum antimicrobials has led to a progressive increase in antimicrobial-resistant infections, with 35 000 deaths in the EU each year (more than HIV/AIDS and malaria deaths combined), and €1.1 billion worth of losses to healthcare systems. The past 20 years have seen the emergence of microbes resistant to all available antimicrobial classes.[i] By 2050, AMR could cause 10 million deaths worldwide, surpassing cancer as the second largest killer; it could also cause up to 3.8 % of global gross domestic product (GDP) to be lost.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Tackling antimicrobial resistance: From science to pharmaceuticals policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content

Written by Clément Evroux.

The magnitude of current global challenges, such as the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, stresses the relevance of joining forces worldwide and pooling human and financial resources to facilitate the creation and dissemination of knowledge and innovative solutions for EU research.

In 2021, the European Commission adopted a communication on a global approach to research and innovation – the new European strategy for international cooperation. In 2022, the European Parliament and the EU Member States responded to the communication with respectively a resolution and a declaration tabled by the Council presidency. Acknowledging the effects of the current geopolitical tensions, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they outlined how to ensure that Europe’s openness to the world will safeguard EU strategic autonomy, interests and values.

Following the launch of Horizon Europe in 2021, the EU is expected to intensify international cooperation, including by extending association to the programme to new partners such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Singapore and New Zealand.

The participation of stakeholders in international cooperation activities is key to Europe’s capacity to expand its scientific and technological leadership – thus far established in the domain of joint exploratory scientific activities, including transdisciplinary initiatives – to also cover technological development and standardisation. European research and innovation players are unambiguously supporting international cooperation for global goods, such as knowledge, the environment and global health. They also express hopes that the United Kingdom will swiftly join Horizon Europe as an associated country.

The first data available on non-EU-based legal entities’ participation in Horizon Europe confirm a significant improvement: as of 21 February 2023, they take part in 42.17 % of the 5 200 grant agreements that have been signed since the programme was launched in 2021.

This updates a briefing published in June 2022.

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

Written by Aidan Christie with Rebecca Fredrick.

This week, Members hold their second March plenary session, this time in Brussels. The agenda is full, with debates scheduled on the rule of law in EU countries and on two environmental files – but the planned vote on measures to help ensure equal pay for equal work is likely to attract the most attention.

Before moving to the legislative work, on Wednesday, Parliament will hold a ceremony to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, which brought an end to three decades of violent conflict in Northern Ireland. The EU has done much to support the peace process, even before the Agreement was reached in 1998, in particular through targeting funding on measures to foster cross-community reconciliation and economic development. In the same spirit, the recently agreed Windsor Framework to facilitate the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the UK’s EU withdrawal Agreement seeks to prevent the need for a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, safeguarding both the all-island economy and the EU single market.

Parliament is also due to hear statements on Wednesday from the European Council and Commission on the conclusions of the 23-24 March European Council meeting.

A key moment of the second March plenary session will be Thursday’s vote on adoption of the provisional agreement on equal pay for equal work between men and women, reached after five long trilogue meetings. Despite the right to equal pay being enshrined in the EU Treaties since 1992, the gender pay gap currently sits at 12.7 %. The European Parliament has for years been calling for stronger measures on equal pay. If adopted, the present proposal would increase transparency around pay and access to justice for victims of pay discrimination. Notably, the legislation requires all companies – regardless of size – to make available to employees their criteria for determining remuneration as well as a breakdown of remuneration in the company. The burden of proof on pay-related issues will shift from worker to employer, and companies with over 100 employees will be obliged to publish their gender pay gap, and to conduct a joint assessment with their employees if it exceeds 5 %.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content EPRS Policy Podcast on equal pay for equal work

Following the equal pay debate, Members are set to debate a European Commission statement on its third annual rule of law report on Thursday morning, and subsequently vote on a motion for a resolution on the report, tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). This year, the Commission took into account Parliament’s call for the inclusion in the report of specific recommendations directed at each Member State. While the LIBE motion acknowledges this addition, it expresses concern that many of the recommendations lack specificity. Additionally, it calls on the Commission to address in their entirety other requests which Parliament has previously made, namely, establishing an advisory panel of independent experts, including fundamental rights in the scope of the report, and providing implementation deadlines for country-specific recommendations.

Turning to the environment, in a joint debate scheduled for Wednesday afternoon Members are due to discuss two reports tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), with the aim of fixing Parliament’s position for trilogue negotiations with the Council. The reports concern proposals that aim to bring existing legislation into alignment with EU climate goals and with the Montreal Protocol.

The proposed revision of the Ozone Regulation would update current rules on ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to reduce administrative burden, facilitate monitoring, and further reduce ODS emissions. Parliament seeks to establish a rolling review mechanism by which the Commission would be required to assess every 2.5 years (beginning in January 2025) the availability of alternatives to ODS prohibited by the Montreal Protocol but whose use is permitted in the EU in certain applications. The ultimate aim is to phase out such exemptions. The second proposed regulation concerns fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases), a particularly strong – although non-ozone-depleting – category of greenhouse gases (GHG). EU rules on F-gases have been in place since 2006 and have led to significant reductions in GHG emissions. However, in light of the EU’s goals of 55 % GHG reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, Parliament is pushing further. Among the ENVI committee’s proposed changes to the Commission’s proposal are a prohibition on the use of F-gases in sectors where alternatives are technologically and economically feasible, steeper product phase-down trajectories, firmer deadlines after which certain F-gases will not be allowed to be placed on the market, and the introduction of minimum fines for non-compliance.

Before the end of the Wednesday evening sitting, Members are expected to debate a provisional agreement, endorsed by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), on the proposed regulation on general product safety. If adopted, the regulation would replace existing legislation which has become less effective as a result of digitalisation, supply chain evolution and changes in consumer behaviour. The text agreed in trilogue has taken into account Parliament’s demand that product safety assessments must consider the consumers targeted (for example, children and older people), as well as its stance on consumers’ right to remedy in the event of a product recall.

• Plenary session agenda
• Review of the F-gas Regulation
• Revision of the Ozone Regulation
• EU general product safety regulation
• Equal pay for equal work between men and women
• European Commission’s third rule of law report
• The Windsor Framework
• EU cohesion policy support to 25 years of peace in Northern Ireland
• Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders of 23-24 March 2023

Written by Andrés García with Clemens Weichert.

Investigative journalists recently brought to light extensive spying operations in Europe, using the powerful Pegasus spyware. European Union governments and the European institutions set up their own investigations have been seeking ways to improve data protection in the EU. On 2 March 2023 the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) brought together experts on cybersecurity and data protection during a workshop entitled ‘Pegasus affair: the end of privacy and cybersecurity?’.

STOA Vice-Chair Ivo Hristov (S&D; Bulgaria) set the scene by describing the new technologies that make it possible for private and state actors to monitor private communications. These technologies endanger individual rights and challenge democracy by infringing on citizens’ privacy in a way they cannot defend themselves against as individuals. The EU has therefore undertaken to regulate and restrict the use of spyware.

Moderating the workshop, Fanny Hidvegi (Europe Policy and Advocacy Director at Accessnow), highlighted that members of marginalised communities fall disproportionately victim to spyware attacks, meaning that those affected often belong to the most vulnerable groups in society. Although Pegasus is not unique, it constitutes an egregious example of commercially available spyware that can be used both against institutions and private individuals, even granting retroactive access to data stored on a phone. It poses an unprecedented threat to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). She then introduced the workshop discussion panels: the first on threats and challenges posed by software like Pegasus, and the second on the future of spyware legislation.

On the first panel, Professor Bart Preneel presented the technological aspects of the case and its effects on international politics. To protect citizens’ digital privacy, the EU will need strong supervision of its digital sector, as well as considerable investment to keep pace with developments in the United States and China. Civil rights activist Chloé Berthélémy (European Digital Rights, EDRi) then took the floor to advocate EU use of its market power to ban this ‘market of vulnerability’. This would set an important precedent on the international stage.

Fanny Hidvegi introduced the second panel with a reminder that reform of the E-Privacy Directive is long blocked by disagreements between EU governments about the extent of national security exemptions. This, she argued, is a political rather than legal issue. European Data Protection Supervisor, Wojciech Wiewiórowski took the floor to push for a European solution, within the framework of the Treaties. He pointed out that the exceptions currently in place allow EU Member States to justify extensive spying operations by invoking national security. In the future, these exceptions should be revised, if European legislation is to have an impact on EU countries’ operations in the digital field. The rule of law is key in this debate, the Supervisor argued, since European legislation is worthless if Member States’ secret services do not follow their own laws.

Olivier Micol, Head of Unit for Data Protection at the European Commission, pointed out that, even though spyware can be bought and sold privately, using it for illegal purposes is already punishable. Not only private companies, but also ‘if you work for law enforcement, for criminal purposes, the EU law applies; and with EU law you have all the checks and balances, the oversight up to the European Court of Justice’. In a similar vein, Member States cannot simply claim to act in the interest of national security in their spying operations; they have to prove it to profit from legal exceptions.

Opinions differed on the topic of a general ban on spyware. On the one hand, it poses a severe interference in people’s rights and freedoms; on the other hand, if banned in Europe, spyware may be bought and sold on the black market and to foreign governments. Some speakers advocated tighter regulation of both the scope and capabilities of spyware, as well as its use, with Mr Wiewiórowski highlighting the need for certain spying operations to counter Russian cyberattacks

The open discussion touched on topics such as the outsized influence that a few large corporations play in the sector, and the dangers and possibilities of cloud storage services. Mr Wiewiórowski took the opportunity to launch a plea for European citizens not to normalise spying and not to get used to being spied upon, but rather to see it as the infringement on individual rights it is.

With the work of the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware (PEGA) coming to an end, these conclusions will inform future European Parliament debate. This STOA workshop, and the work of the PEGA committee, aim at taking further steps to protecting EU citizens’ privacy.

A webstream of the event is available on our website. Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via and follow us on Twitter at @EP_ScienceTech.

Written by Annastiina Papunen and Rebecca Torpey.

Discussions at the European Council meeting of 23 March concentrated on Europe’s long-term strategy for economic competitiveness, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and energy. Other topics mentioned in the European Council conclusions include migration, the donors’ conference in support of the victims of the recent earthquake in Türkiye and Syria, the agreement on the path to normalisation of relations between Kosovo[1] and Serbia, the sentencing of Belarusian democratic opposition leaders, and the Windsor Framework aimed at resetting EU-UK relations.

With recent turbulence in the banking sector as the backdrop, EU leaders discussed the situation in the euro area during a Euro Summit meeting in inclusive format on 24 March, issuing a short statement underling their commitment to close coordination of economic policies.

In addition, the new President of Cyprus, Nikos Christodoulides, outlined his proposal aimed at relaunching negotiations on the Cyprus issue. While not formally on the agenda nor discussed in the meeting itself, according to the Commission President, EU leaders also raised and commented – on the margins of the meeting – on the last-minute opposition by a group of Member States, led by Germany, to the politically agreed phasing out of vehicles with combustion engines by 2035.

1. General aspects

The European Council meeting, which lasted just one day, started with the customary address from the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. Her remarks focused on the need to strengthen EU solidarity with Ukraine and on measures aimed at boosting investment and EU economic competitiveness. She stressed that the EU ‘must continue to act in unison and deliver on more Europe where it matters’. As indicated in the President, Charles Michel’s, invitation letter, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, joined the European Council as guest for a joint discussion on key geopolitical issues and global challenges, in particular food security.

Ahead of the meeting, on 22 March. Charles Michel and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with the European social partners (i.e. European employers’ and trade union organisations) for the tripartite social summit, discussing the challenges to the EU’s competitiveness.

The 23 March European Council meeting was the third in a row to finish within one calendar day. While the December 2022 meeting was planned as a one day event from the start, the February and March meetings were both initially planned to stretch over two calendar days. Also worth mentioning, a new indicative Leaders’ agenda for the coming months in 2023 was published ahead of this latest meeting. Whilst originally aimed at providing a concrete work programme to guide EU action in the medium term, and offer an overview of EU leaders’ meetings for a period of at least a year, this document has become shorter and shorter since its inception in 2017.

2. European Council meeting Competitiveness, single market and the economy

The European Council outlined a number of challenges facing the EU economy, and discussed ways of ensuring long-term economic prosperity and competiveness in the context of shifting geopolitical dynamics. EU leaders underlined the need for a comprehensive approach covering the single market, industrial, agricultural and trade policies, which would aim at increasing the productivity and competitiveness of the EU’s economic base. To be able to assess the progress achieved in the medium term, the Council has been tasked, with the input of the Commission, with providing an annual report to the European Council. At the same time, EU leaders invited the Council and Commission to provide a report in advance of the June European Council meeting to take stock of work carried out to facilitate financing, make energy affordable, reduce strategic dependencies, develop skills, and prepare the EU economic, industrial and technological base for the twin transitions.

The single market, arguably one of the EU’s biggest success stories, is celebrating its 30th anniversary. Based on the Commission’s ‘the Single Market at 30’ communication, EU leaders took stock of the achievements and remaining challenges. The recent years of polycrisis have exposed Europe’s vulnerabilities, which EU leaders are keen on fixing. They thus reiterated their long-term goal of completing the single market, in particular the digital and services markets, as well as their call for the full enforcement of single market rules and the removal of existing barriers. Accounting for 99 % of EU companies and more than half of EU gross domestic product (GDP), SMEs are to receive ‘special focus’ in the efforts to further strengthen the single market.

The long- and short-term performance and competitiveness of the EU economy has been a regular item on EU leaders’ agenda lately, as a result of a series of crises requiring strong economic answers at EU level. At its December 2022 meeting, the European Council asked the Commission to deliver ‘in early 2023, a strategy at EU level to boost competitiveness and productivity’. This is noteworthy insofar as the EU had developed similar growth strategies in the past, namely the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy, both of which were the subject of thorough preparation processes and stakeholder involvement. However, this approach was not taken forward after 2020.

Following the Commission’s communication ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU looking beyond 2030′, EU leaders are calling for measures in six areas: i) regulatory environment, ii) investment, iii) research and innovation, iv) digitalisation, v) skills, and vi) circularity. They reiterated their call for a simpler regulatory environment and reduced administrative burdens for EU businesses. EU leaders also highlighted possible tools to support simplification efforts, in particular the use of digital solutions, the easing of reporting requirements, the introduction of competitiveness checks for legislative proposals, regulatory convergence, and the removal of barriers for cross-border business.

Providing support to EU companies in their investment needs was addressed at previous meetings. But this time around, EU leaders set a deadline for the co-legislators: to finalise work on the legislative proposals aimed at completing the capital markets union before the 2024 European elections. Flexibility in the use of current EU funding and the need to mobilise all available EU funds to support strategic sectors was underlined. In that context, EU leaders took note of the Commission’s plan to make a proposal for a European sovereignty fund before summer 2023. Furthermore, ‘secure, stable and sustainable supply chains’ were discussed in response to heavy disruption during the COVID crisis and current geopolitical tensions. Improving connectivity and infrastructure for both transport and energy was also mentioned under the investment heading.

EU leaders also took a strong stance in support of innovation, and stated that public and private research and development investment, which in 2021 stood at 2.27 % of GDP, should be increased to meet the 3 % target. They also want to get innovative products and services, especially those with high growth potential, onto the market quicker, and indicated that regulatory sandboxes could be used for that purpose. EU leaders also underlined the opportunities offered by data, and the necessity of the EU staying in the forefront of key digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microelectronics and web 4.0. Cybersecurity was also mentioned; that reference is partly linked to the current geopolitical situation and also partly to the rapid development of new technologies, which make organising attacks on key actors and infrastructure easier than before.

EU leaders reiterated their February 2023 call for the development of skills to address a number of challenges facing the EU economy, including demography, labour shortages and specific challenges linked to the twin digital and green transitions. Von der Leyen described skills as the ‘make it or break it of the single market and our economic success’. EU leaders also asked for work to be taken forward on the Commission’s net zero industry act proposal, which aims at helping EU industries move towards clean-tech and clean-energy, as well as on the critical raw materials act, designed to secure the provision of the much needed raw materials for digital and green transitions. The circular economy could also contribute to making EU industry more sustainable and to reducing dependencies and materials costs.

As anticipated, the European Council held a strategic discussion on trade, with some EU leaders stressing the importance of trade in achieving strategic goals, spreading EU values and boosting the economy. While EU leaders took note of the temporary crisis and transition framework for State aid, the challenge will however be to get all 27 on the same page in terms of negotiating, agreeing and ratifying trade agreements with strategic partners, notably for agreements aimed at ensuring access to critical raw materials. 

Finally, EU leaders discussed the European Semester. In the process of developing national reform programmes and stability or convergence programmes, Member States are required to take into account the priorities of the 2023 annual sustainable growth survey. EU leaders also endorsed the draft Council recommendation on euro-area economic policy as well as the 14 March Council conclusions on the economic governance review.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: On competitiveness, Roberta Metsola highlighted that ‘the European Union’s twin transition can happen, with the commitment of our people, but only if we create favourable conditions for that transition to occur. We need to explain that going green will pay-off for people, businesses and their families.’

Ukraine

EU leaders took stock of the situation in Ukraine, adopting lengthy conclusions, largely reiterating previous messages, including the Union’s ‘resolute condemnation of Russia’s war of aggression’, support for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity, and support for President Zelenskyy’s peace plan. Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed EU leaders by video-link once again, stressing that the supply of military aid was a fight against the clock, recalling the importance of each hour on the battlefield, and saluting the Polish and Slovak decisions on supplying MiG fighter jets to Ukraine. 

EU leaders focussed on accountability, military assistance, sanctions and food security, among a wider range of Ukraine-related topics flagged up in the EPRS outlook. They condemned child deportation and took note of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in connection with this war crime. President von der Leyen called the Ukrainian child abductions a ‘horrible reminder of the darkest times of our history’. She stressed that 16 200 children have been deported, of whom only 300 had returned, and announced that the Commission would, together with Poland, organise a conference to launch an international cooperation process to establish the ‘whereabouts’ of these children.

Artillery ammunition was central to the military assistance debate. EU leaders welcomed the Council’s agreement to provide 1 million rounds of artillery ammunition to Ukraine through the European Peace Facility over the next 12 months. Von der Leyen stressed that European ammunition-production capacities need ramping up, and that the Commission would put forward a specific legal proposal, exploring the possible use of the EU budget for that purpose. As regards sanctions, the focus was on ensuring implementation and countering their circumvention. Whilst further sanctions could be envisaged, EU leaders stressed their commitment ‘to continue working on the oil price cap together with partners’. On food security, EU leaders noted the extension of the UN Black Sea Grain Initiative and stressed the importance of the EU Solidarity Lanes in allowing Ukraine to export its grain. Von der Leyen noted that €56 million to date had been allocated to help EU farmers in frontline countries cope with internal market distortions resulting from the war.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: President Metsola stressed that the joint procurement of ammunition agreement ‘represents a landmark moment’. She praised Moldova’s resilience, and called for support to democratic forces in Georgia.

Energy

Energy was less prominent in the debate than at previous meetings. EU leaders took stock of actions taken to achieve the energy-related objectives set out in earlier conclusions, in particular reducing prices, decreasing demand, enhancing security of supply, and phasing out Russian fossil fuels. They also considered restocking efforts in view of the upcoming winter, urged the co-legislators to agree quickly on proposals that would speed up the green transition, and called for work on the proposal on the internal electricity market design revision to be finalised by the end of 2023.  

Migration

The Swedish Council Presidency and the Commission briefed EU leaders on progress in the implementation of the 9 February 2023 European Council conclusions on migration. EU leaders called for speedy progress and reiterated their previous commitment to ‘revert to the matter on a regular basis’. As Michel noted, the next progress report is due for the June 2023 meeting.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: President Metsola indicated that the European Parliament would play its part, but asked EU leaders to deliver on the proposed regulations on asylum and migration management, and on crisis and force majeure.

3. Euro Summit

The Euro Summit convened in inclusive format, for only the second time since December 2021. Both European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and Eurogroup President Paschal Donohoe were in attendance, to discuss the current issues impacting the euro area and ways of increasing euro stability and EMU resilience. EU leaders stated: ‘our economies entered 2023 on a healthier footing than previously expected, despite high inflation and energy prices’, and asked the Eurogroup to monitor developments. Ongoing work on economic governance was discussed, as was the need for strong EU economic architecture, which requires the completion of the capital markets union and banking union. Work on the latter is especially pertinent in the context of recent turbulence in the banking sector following the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank and the Credit Suisse takeover.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders of 23-24 March 2023‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Citizens regularly comment to the European Parliament on the changing of the clocks. The clocks have gone forward recently, but how long will this periodic change continue?

The European Parliament voted to abolish seasonal time changes in 2019. However, the governments of EU countries have not yet been able to reach an agreement. 

Current situation

Under EU rules adopted in 2000, clocks in all EU countries are put forward by one hour on the last Sunday in March, and put back by one hour on the last Sunday in October.

However, a growing number of citizens have expressed a desire to stop these seasonal clock changes. In a resolution adopted in February 2018, the European Parliament called on the Commission to conduct a thorough assessment of the summer-time arrangements and, if necessary, to come up with a proposal for their revision.

Proposal to scrap changing the clock

In September 2018, following a public consultation, the European Commission put forward a legislative proposal to stop applying seasonal changes in EU countries.

This proposal was put forward for adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure, in which the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which represents EU countries, take decisions on an equal footing. 

European Parliament in favour of scrapping clock changes

In a legislative resolution of March 2019, the European Parliament supported the Commission proposal to discontinue seasonal changes of time. More information and links can be found in a press release. The video recording of the plenary debate can be watched here (start 19.42, end 20.49). 

Blocked since no agreement among EU countries

Under the initial proposal, the new rules were due to apply as from 1 April 2021. However, since EU countries have not been able to reach a position, the rules have yet to be updated. As a result, seasonal clocks changes continue twice a year.

You can find more information about this legislative procedure in the procedure file published by the European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory.

Question from Members of the European Parliament

Several Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have written parliamentary questions on this topic, for example a question to the European Commission in June 2022, entitled ‘Status of the seasonal time changes proposal and the outlook for its adoption’. In its reply from September 2022, the Commission underlines that any change is still blocked by EU countries.

Further information

• Discontinuing seasonal changes of time, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, March 2019
• Directive discontinuing seasonal change of time, European Parliamentary Research Service, Legislative Train Schedule
• EU summer-time arrangements under Directive 2000/84/EC, Ex-post impact assessment study, European Parliamentary Research Service, October 2017
• Seasonal changes of time, European Parliament’s Legislative Observatory
• State of the Union 2018: Q&A on the Commission’s proposal to put an end to seasonal clock changes, European Commission
• Seasonal clock change in the EU, Mobility and Transport – European Commission

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

Written by Etienne Bassot.

To say that the geo-political climate has been stormy since the beginning of this European Commission’s mandate would be an under-statement. COVID-19 emerged just as Ursula von der Leyen was starting her tenure as president, and the epidemic was declared a pandemic within her first 100 days. The year 2020 was marked by the outbreak of the pandemic, and 2021 by its continuing impact. The year 2022 will be remembered as the year Russia launched its war on Ukraine. These two major challenges – the pandemic and war on the European continent – combined with further major challenges such as climate change and many others, transformed the conditions in which the Commission had expected to navigate when it began its mandate and set its course in autumn 2019. The pandemic and the war are common threads throughout the different sections of this publication: they have affected all policies, sometimes forcing progress, at other times slowing it down, and at yet others imposing a change of course and the implementation of previously unanticipated measures. The overwhelming importance of the latest challenge, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, is reflected in the choice of photograph on the front cover: the Commission President speaking in the European Parliament’s plenary session in a key debate on the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

Against this backdrop, when assessing how the European Commission has delivered over the past 6 months against its commitments and announcements, it is striking how much the institutional throughput has remained steady. Previous editions of this EPRS analysis have already highlighted that neither the coronavirus pandemic nor the war on Ukraine had hindered progress on the main priorities. As the pandemic enters its fourth year and the war its second, the Commission’s pace and volume of delivery remains very close to the level of 6 months ago, when assessed on the eve of the 2022 State of the Union address.

The European Commission is sailing a steady course in terms of the number of new initiatives it is producing for each priority, balanced with the number of announced initiatives still to come. The co-legislators’ work on the legislative initiatives also continues to progress at a steady rate.

That the rate of progress has remained largely unchanged is to the credit of the European institutions: the Commission in tabling the initiatives, and the European Parliament and Council for their work on the legislative proposals, through to adoption. At a time when building compromise and reaching majorities is a challenge, as seen in the Member States of the European Union (EU) as well as in other democracies across the globe, this is an achievement worth noting, especially with just over a year to go before the next European elections.

This is an important achievement for the European institutions and all parties involved in EU policy-making, and it is also important for observers reading this EPRS assessment of the Commission’s delivery against the latter’s own announcements. Ultimately, it is important for citizens, who want to know what the EU is doing and how much of the programme they favoured when they elected their representatives in 2019 has been translated into legislation and action. It is also important for institutions in other countries in the world that look to the EU as an example. Among them is the Ukrainian Parliament, for whom this edition of our analysis, along with a selection of other EPRS publications, is exceptionally being translated into Ukrainian.

So the European Commission has delivered on its initial programme and successive updates. The question now is whether that is enough.

Surely but slowly? With just over a year to go before the European Parliament is dissolved for the elections, is it enough that two thirds of the initiatives announced have been submitted to the co‑legislators – in other words that one third are still to be tabled? Is it enough that only half of the initiatives submitted have been adopted – in other words, that most of the other half still require substantial work from the co-legislators to find agreement enabling their adoption?

This analysis monitors all six of the Commission’s priorities. It combines a two-page presentation of each priority and a single-page infographic (page 3) illustrating the degree of progress – both overall and under each of the six priorities.

According to this EPRS analysis, of the nearly 600 initiatives announced (597), two thirds (66 %, 379) have now been submitted and, in the case of the legislative proposals, the co-legislators have started work. It is worth noting that almost one in five of the Commission’s initiatives are non-legislative, for instance strategies, action plans and other communications. Of the 379 initiatives that have been submitted, half (50 %) have already been adopted (188) – by the legislators in the case of the legislative proposals, or simply by the Commission in the case of the non-legislative initiatives – while the vast majority of the other half are either proceeding normally through the legislative process (129, or 67 %) or are close to adoption (28, or 15 %). Conversely, a certain number are proceeding very slowly or are currently blocked (34, or 18 %).

With a focus on each of the six policy priorities, this assessment shows how the European Commission is performing in tabling the proposals and initiatives it has announced, and how the three institutions are progressing in negotiating and adopting legislation. The European Green Deal ranks highest in terms of the number of initiatives planned (148), but the executive has tabled only just over half of them (or 56 %), with fewer than a quarter being adopted by the co-legislators so far (24 %). The third priority, ‘An economy that works for people’, comes next (126), but more initiatives have been tabled (65 %) and a third of them adopted (30 %). The digital priority totals 103 initiatives planned, 55 % of which have already been submitted (57), and 28 adopted (27 %). For ‘A stronger Europe in the world’, an area with relatively few legislative initiatives by definition, and in contrast to the majority of the Commission’s priorities, almost nine out of ten (88 %) initiatives have already been tabled (see Section 4) and three in five adopted. A fair amount of work remains to be done for the other priorities: 40 % of the proposals have still to be submitted for ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’, 28 % for ‘Promoting our European way of life’ and 45 % for ‘A new push for democracy’ (see Sections 2, 5 and 6). This latter priority comes lowest in terms of number of initiatives announced (60).

This publication and the next will continue to monitor this Commission’s delivery in the final year of this legislative term, before the 2024 European elections. For more information on how the von der Leyen Commission’s agenda is proceeding, a proposal-by-proposal assessment is available on the European Parliament’s ‘Legislative Train Schedule‘ website, developed by EPRS.

A European Green Deal A Europe fit for the digital age An economy that works for people A stronger Europe in the world Promoting the European way of life A new push for European democracy

Read the complete in-depth analysis on ‘The six policy priorities of the von der Leyen Commission: State of play in spring 2023‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Stefano Spinaci and Mar Negreiro.

The European Youth Event will bring together thousands of young people in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, on 9 and 10 June 2023, to share ideas about the future of Europe. This introduction to one of the major topics to be discussed during the EYE event is one of 11 prepared by the Parliament’s Research Service (EPRS). It offers an overview of the main lines of EU action and policy in the area concerned, and aims to act as a starting point for discussions during the event. You can find them all on this link.

Driven by recent economic and other crises, the switch to digital has transformed the European Union (EU) economy and the jobs being created. Platform work and teleworking are among the most visible signs of the increasing digitalisation of work and the growing demand for innovative ways to address our work-life balance. You may already be among the millions of Europeans receiving income as a platform worker, or teleworking for your employer or as a freelancer. The EU is keen to address concerns about your rights as a worker, and has many relevant pieces of legislation and initiatives in the works. A fair digital transition can deliver benefits for society, and transform the EU economy to be fit for future challenges while staying aligned with European values.

Digital transition

The digital revolution is redefining the world at unprecedented speed, transforming our personal and working lives, and affecting many sectors of the economy. Digital technologies are changing how people connect and exchange information, and how businesses operate and interact with customers. Digitalisation is changing the way we work, breaking new ground for innovative work arrangements where people can provide services via online platforms. Spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing portion of the workforce are now working (partly) remotely, sometimes – but not always – by choice, as part of a wider trend to seek better work-life balance,.

Digitalisation, automation and increased use of artificial intelligence are driving the future of work, with new jobs appearing as others become obsolete. The growing use of industrial robots will bring further job automation to many workplaces. As the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development points out, although the digital transformation may create many new opportunities, it will also make a growing number of current workers’ tasks redundant and will require substantial restructuring of workplaces. In parallel, on the labour market, non-standard forms of employment are on the rise, with atypical work patterns progressively replacing traditional full-time and part-time employment. These trends may make job losses and employment changes a more frequent occurrence for many workers, increasing the need for income- and re-deployment support.

Platform work

The growth of the platform economy presents new job opportunities, but also new challenges linked to the de-structuring of the work relationship between workers and companies. In platform work, tasks are offered, assigned and performed through an online platform, often functioning across borders and time zones. Online platform work allows workers to carry out tasks (for example, data entry, writing and editing, creative and multimedia work) on their electronic devices from any suitable location. On‑location platform work involves workers carrying out tasks in a specific physical location (for example, food delivery and transportation services), although they are still matched with their customers online.

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content Improving the working conditions of platform workers

EU employment law does not set rules on the working conditions and social rights of platform workers, who often fall into non-standard forms of employment. Even if you work mostly for one employer, as a platform worker you will likely be classified as ‘self-employed’, rather than as an employee. The situation also differs depending on which EU country you live in. As a result, many people working through digital labour platforms are in a precarious situation, facing poor working conditions and inadequate access to social protection. Platform workers often receive vague information about their working conditions, and may not be covered by national social security systems in cases of sickness, accident, redundancy or retirement. Some argue that businesses that save on social contribution costs by employing platform workers are competing unfairly, damaging the social safety net for everyone. Another concern is the digital control exercised by platforms (and other employers) over workers, using algorithms to assign tasks, and also to monitor, supervise, evaluate and impose sanctions. Often, such employers control every aspect of the work, without giving employees rights to employment benefits such as paid sick leave, annual leave or pensions.

Teleworking

A more recent – and massive – trend in the digital transition is teleworking. Previously used primarily by freelancers, teleworking underwent significant expansion during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The result was an unprecedented social experiment: according to one survey, 37 % of the EU population was teleworking in April 2020, compared with 5 % in 2017. During the pandemic, telework ensured continuity for many sectors and saved many people’s jobs. However, the rise of teleworking has accentuated existing digital divides between, for example, people whose jobs can and cannot be done remotely, workers with higher and lower digital skill levels, and between people living in rural and urban areas. While this new way of working can be welcome to workers trying to balance home and work life, it can also have undesirable effects on workers in terms of both workload and stress levels. New technologies enable workers to work anytime and anywhere, and this hyper-connectivity can lead to or exacerbate anxiety, fatigue, sleep deprivation, technology or work addiction, isolation, and burnout – symptoms referred to collectively as ‘technostress‘. Another problem is the tracking of employee presence and performance during working hours through digital software and applications. Such monitoring raises questions about how to balance legitimate business interests and the digital privacy of employees.

What is the EU doing?

Platform workers. In December 2021, the European Commission published a proposal for a new law to improve the working conditions of platform workers. The law aims to ensure people are granted the correct employment status, thus increasing access to workers’ benefits and rights. It also seeks to ensure transparency in the algorithms that platforms use to manage their workers. If adopted, the legislation should enhance transparency, traceability and awareness of developments in platform work, and improve enforcement of the applicable rules for everyone working through platforms, including those operating across EU national borders. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Council.

Teleworkers. In January 2021, the European Parliament called on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal securing workers the right to disconnect. The aim is to improve worker health and work‑life balance by setting minimum requirements to limit the use of digital tools for professional purposes outside standard working hours. In June 2021, European Council conclusions on telework called on EU countries to consider developing national action plans to address the opportunities and risks relating to telework – including taking into account the issues teleworking poses to gender equality. They also recommended that countries establish or reinforce initiatives to strengthen workplace health and safety standards and inspections in view of the risks arising from telework.

Digital skills. The EU has developed a range of policies and initiatives to increase citizens’ digital skills. The new European skills agenda, adopted in July 2020, includes actions that will support the green and digital transitions. The agenda will also support individuals in their lifelong learning pathways by promoting upskilling, reskilling and increased recognition of skills by employers. The aims of the digital education action plan (2021-2027) include updating the European digital competence framework to include artificial intelligence and data-related skills, developing a European digital skills certificate, and creating a European digital education hub.

The way forward

Innovation will continue to speed up the process of digitalisation of our society and economy. An increasing number of connected devices, new kinds of digital interaction and new business models will drive the future of work. A 2021 European Commission communication suggests ways to harness the benefits of digitalisation, such as greater flexibility, while guaranteeing fair working conditions and respect for workers’ rights. EU national governments, regional and local authorities and social partners should work together to provide advice and guidance for platform workers, so that everyone has access to a clear set of rules that can be put in place across the EU.

Written by Costica Dumbrava.

The effective management of the EU’s external borders is a prerequisite for creating the EU area of freedom, security and justice. In response to an unprecedented influx of refugees and immigrants into Europe in the 2015-2016 period, the EU took steps to strengthen the management of its external borders, and to reform the common European asylum system.

Several major challenges have affected the EU’s external borders in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed Member States to adopt extraordinary border measures, including temporary restrictions of non-essential travel into the EU. The pandemic also affected efforts to implement key EU measures aiming to strengthen the external borders, including the strengthening of Frontex and the expansion of EU-wide information systems for borders and security. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine generated a new wave of refugees and revealed new vulnerabilities concerning EU borders. In the aftermath of the pandemic, the surge in the number of asylum seekers and irregular migrants has put new pressure on the EU’s external borders. Attempts by third countries to instrumentalise irregular migrants in order to put pressure on the EU has meanwhile created additional hurdles.

Faced with these multiple and overlapping challenges, the EU has intensified its efforts to reform its migration and asylum policies, notably by slowly working through the proposals included in the new pact on migration and asylum. It has also continued to implement measures that have already been agreed on to make up for delays caused by the pandemic.

This briefing discusses key recent trends and figures and provides an overview of EU policy developments relating to the management of the EU’s external borders.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The EU’s external borders: Key trends and developments‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Luisa Antunes

On 17 February 2023, a STOA delegation made up of two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), Christian EHLER (EPP, Germany) and Ivo HRISTOV (S&D, Bulgaria), visited Science City Bahrenfeld, in Hamburg. The visit aimed to showcase the city’s science and research capabilities, and its contribution to the European Union’s research and innovation landscape. The delegation visited several institutions, including Universität Hamburg, DESY (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron), CSSB (Centre for Structural Systems Biology), and start-up labs.

The day started with a welcome to HARBOR, the Hamburg Advanced Research Centre for Bioorganic Chemistry, by Prof. Dr Arwen Pearson. Then Prof. Dr Hauke Heekeren and a representative from DESY spoke about their institutions’ roles as central players in Science City Hamburg Bahrenfeld.

The delegation then visited Light & Schools, where Prof. Dr Erika Garutti and Prof. Dr Klaus Sengstock welcomed the MEPs. The STOA delegation was given an overview of the physics programme at Universität Hamburg’s School Lab. Dr Eva Gümbel, State Councillor for Science, Research and Gender Equality, then formally welcomed the delegation to Hamburg.

The afternoon session began with a visit to CSSB, where the delegation was received by Prof. Dr Kay Grünewald, who gave a presentation on investigating the molecular mechanisms of infections. A lunch at CSSB was attended by guests from the University, DESY, BWFGB – the Hamburg state authority for science, research, equality and districts, and others, including CSSB and European XFEL (X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Facility).

The STOA delegation then took a tour of DESY’s PETRA III, receiving a short introduction to the facility before visiting the P11 beamline for molecular infection research and the P03 beamline for experiments with sustainable materials and energy. The delegation was also briefed on PETRA IV, a new era for the facility.

The visit concluded with a trip to Start-up Labs Bahrenfeld, an incubator for deep-tech start-ups. Science City Hamburg Bahrenfeld was presented as a driver for innovation. The STOA delegation held informal discussions and met with young entrepreneurs and start-up founders, as well as key scientists and European Research Council (ERC) grant-holders.

The visit was also an opportunity to establish collaboration with the institutions, with a view to supporting cutting-edge research, fostering the development of highly skilled researchers, and driving progress in fields ranging from physics and mathematics to molecular biology and infectious diseases. In this context, Christian Ehler gave an overview of the various financing tools available through Horizon Europe, which will help support a new era of scientific discovery and innovation across Europe.

Horizon Europe is the European Union’s framework programme for research and innovation for the 2021-2027 period, and it represents one of the most significant investments in research and innovation ever made by the EU. With a budget of over €95 billion, Horizon Europe provides a wide range of financing tools that can support collaborative research projects across Europe.  

One of the most significant financing tools available through Horizon Europe is the European Research Council (ERC), which provides funding for innovative, high-risk research projects. The ERC is an independent organisation that operates under the auspices of the European Commission, and it supports cutting-edge research in a wide range of fields, from physics and mathematics to social sciences and humanities.

Another key financing tool under Horizon Europe is the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), which support the training and career development of researchers at all stages of their careers. MSCA provide funding for individual fellowships, research networks, and doctoral training programmes, and aim to foster the development of highly skilled and mobile researchers across Europe.

By establishing connections between the European Parliament and Science City Hamburg Bahrenfeld, we can ensure that these funding opportunities are accessible to researchers across Europe and that they are effectively leveraged to support the next generation of scientific leaders and the most innovative and ambitious research projects across Europe. Promoting research partnerships with industry, supporting research infrastructure development and promoting international cooperation will be essential to ensuring the EU’s scientific leadership worldwide. In conclusion, the visit was an excellent opportunity for the European Parliament delegation to learn about Science City Hamburg Bahrenfeld’s research infrastructure and its contribution to research and innovation in the EU. The importance of establishing collaborations between the European Parliament and Science City Hamburg Bahrenfeld cannot be overstated. Through these collaborations, we can leverage the strengths of EU’s cutting-edge research, foster the development of highly skilled researchers, and drive progress in fields ranging from physics and mathematics to social sciences and humanities. With the financing tools available through Horizon Europe, these collaborations can help to support a new era of scientific discovery and innovation across Europe. The STOA delegation greatly appreciated the warm welcome and hospitality extended to them by the institutions they visited.  

Written by Marcin Grajewski.

The recent launches of artificial intelligence (AI) tools capable of generating direct textual answers to questions, notably the chatbot ChatGPT, and the development of general-purpose AI technologies, are expected to revolutionise the application of AI in society and the economy. New AI tools in general offer massive potential for developments in industry, agriculture, health, education and other areas. However, many scientists and politicians are calling for the establishment of a legal and ethical framework to avoid potentially detrimental impacts from the use of such technologies.

The EU’s approach to artificial intelligence centres on excellence and trust, aimed at boosting research and industrial capacity while ensuring safety and fundamental rights. In 2021, the European Commission proposed the AI Act to regulate this area, but that regulation is still being debated. According to European Parliament recommendations from May 2022, AI has huge potential to boost capital and labour productivity, innovation, growth and job creation. However, its development could also pave the way for potential mass surveillance and other detrimental impacts on fundamental rights and values.

This note gathers links to the recent publications and commentaries from many international think tanks on artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2022
Stanford University, 2023

AI inventions: Policy options and a path forward
Brookings Institution, March 2023

A high-level view of the impact of AI on the workforce
Bruegel, March 2023

Artificial intelligence adoption in the public sector: A case study
Bruegel, March 2023

Artificial intelligence: How to get the most from the labour-productivity boost
Bruegel, March 2023

The convergence of new technologies endangering human agency
Friends of Europe, March 2023

Artificial intelligence, diplomacy and democracy: from divergence to convergence
Friends of Europe, March 2023

The end of privacy? From danger to democracy to endangered personal autonomy
Friends of Europe, March 2023

Challenges to U.S. national security and competitiveness posed by AI
Rand Corporation, March 2023

Artificial intelligence and cities: The global race to regulate algorithms
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, February 2023

NIST’s AI risk management framework plants a flag in the AI debate
Brookings Institution, February 2023

Early thoughts on regulating generative AI like ChatGPT
Brookings Institution, February 2023

Artificial Intelligence and automation in retail
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, February 2023

Software-defined defence: Algorithms at war
International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2023

Global technology trends: What to watch for in 2023
Real Instituto Elcano, February 2023

Europe against the machine
European Centre for International Political Economy, January 2023

Towards strengthening the Transatlantic tech diplomacy: Trustworthy AI in the EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council
Transatlantic Technology and Trade Forum, January 2023

Artificial Intelligence for sustainable finance
Centre for European Policy Studies, December 2022

The Artificial Intelligence Act and the skills crisis
Lisbon Council, December 2022

Artificial Intelligence: Threats and opportunities for Europeans
Wilfried Martens Centre, December 2022

Strategic partnership for a secure and digital Europe
European
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2022

From post-truth to post-reality: The future of disinformation
Friends of Europe, November 2022

Help where it’s most needed: How leading administrations are aiding citizens
Lisbon Council, November 2022

The Artificial Intelligence and cybersecurity nexus: Taking stock of the European Union’s approach
Carnegie Europe, September 2022

Reconciling the AI value chain with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence act
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2022

Refugee protection in the artificial intelligence era
Chatham House, September 2022

The EU’s attempt to regulate open-source AI is counterproductive
Brookings Institution, August 2022

The importance of international norms in Artificial Intelligence ethics
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2022

Artificial Intelligence and democratic values: Next steps for the United States
Council on Foreign Relations, August 2022

The impact of artificial intelligence on the nature and quality of jobs
Bruegel, July 2022

Intelligence is dead: Long live Artificial Intelligence
Chatham House, July 2022

Artificial Intelligence’s environmental costs and promise
Council on Foreign Relations, July 2022

Role of Artificial Intelligence in intra-sectoral wage inequality in an open economy: A finite change approach
IfO Institute, July 2022

6 ways AI is helping us learn more about our past – and future
World Economic Forum, July 2022

Artificial Intelligence White Paper
Center for Security and Emerging Technology, June 2022

La transition numérique: L’UE dans la quatrième révolution industrielle
Confrontations Europe, June 2022

International competition over artificial intelligence
International Institute for Strategic Studies, June 2022

Read this briefing on ‘Artificial intelligence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tarja Laaninen and Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass.

The European Youth Event will bring together thousands of young people in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, on 9 and 10 June 2023, to share ideas about the future of Europe. This introduction to one of the major topics to be discussed during the EYE event is one of 11 prepared by the Parliament’s Research Service (EPRS). It offers an overview of the main lines of EU action and policy in the area concerned, and aims to act as a starting point for discussions during the event. You can find them all on this link.

Each EU member country is responsible for its own cultural policy. However, under the EU Treaties, the EU is obliged to support their efforts to preserve cultural diversity and cultural heritage. One pillar of our democracy – an independent media – plays an important role in our culture. It helps to shape public opinion and hold those in power to account. Innovative proposals to boost media freedom and pluralism in the EU are expected in 2023.

Culture is a European issue

Culture – from artistic output to customs, language and religion – plays a fundamental role in human life as a source of identity. It also makes a significant contribution to the EU economy. The arts, culture and creative sectors accounted for 4.4 % of EU gross domestic product in 2019. In 2021, the culture sector employed 3.6 % of the total EU workforce, with twice as many self-employed people as the EU average.

Each EU country decides its own cultural policy. However, under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the EU must support (including financially), supplement and coordinate EU countries’ efforts to preserve cultural diversity and cultural heritage across the EU. This support aims at helping the culture and creative sectors face challenges including increasing digitisation, market fragmentation along language barriers, global competition, and difficult access to funding for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises.

The EU supports culture through a variety of initiatives, including the European Capitals of Culture scheme and various prizes in film, architecture, literature and music. The Music Moves Europe Awards, a prize for popular and contemporary music, are co-organised by the Eurosonic and Reeperbahn Music Festivals. Previous winners of the European Border Breakers Awards include Stromae, Dua Lipa and Adele, among many other young European talents. The Creative Europe and Horizon Europe programmes, and the New European Bauhaus initiative offer funding or support for cultural projects. In addition, regional policy funds support cultural events, cultural tourism, regeneration of cultural sites, preservation of cultural heritage, and cultural and creative sector businesses. They help local and regional authorities support their cultural life and community participation, make their regions more attractive to visitors and investors, and help regional economies do better, thanks to well-developed culture and creative sectors.

Digitisation has transformed every aspect of the cultural sector: creation, production, dissemination/distribution, exhibition/reception, and consumption/participation. Culture and artistic creation have gone digital, and technology has given rise to new art forms, including video games. Technology is key to democratic access to these cultural goods and services. Digital content travels faster than traditional media, and increases and potentially diversifies the cultural works on offer. However, while it empowers public access, digitisation nevertheless favours dominant players in the market. It can also widen the gap between privileged groups and the individuals, social groups, regions and countries who have less easy access to the internet or equipment, or who have lower levels of digital skills.

A wealth of digital cultural content is available online for free, for a fee, or in pirated versions. This abundance of cultural content and the various ways to consult it online bring new challenges to attract our attention and direct it to specific content, monetise content, and ensure creators get fair pay for their work.

Algorithms that steer us to content that is similar to what we have already consumed, or that others have liked, can seem to be the only way to navigate the profusion of online content from all over the world. However, such algorithm-driven (social) media services, can lead to us becoming vulnerable to deliberate disinformation. Boosting our media literacy is an important counter to such negative effects. The use of algorithms also means audiences may not get the same opportunities or information. It can lead to a lack of diversity in the audiovisual content we consume, and undermine local content. Moreover, when linguistic minorities do not feature online or do not promote their language, there is a risk of ‘digital extinction’, because algorithms do not have enough good quality data to feature the content. On the other hand, the internet can be a powerful tool for language revitalisation connecting diaspora communities. Creation supported by artificial intelligence also raises concerns regarding European artists’ digital skills, and copyright issues.

Media – Watchdog or politicians’ ‘poodle’?

To make sound political choices, we often turn to the media for information. However, the media play other important roles – providing independent analysis of what is happening in the world, and acting as the ‘watchdogs’ of our democracies by holding our representatives to account.  

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content European media freedom act [Policy podcast]

Media freedom and pluralism are part of the rights and principles enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive provides EU-wide media content standards for both traditional television broadcasts and on-demand services, as well as for video-sharing platforms.

With the 2024 European elections on the horizon, in 2023 the EU is set to adopt new laws to protect media freedom and pluralism in our democracies. These include a proposal, known as the anti-SLAPPs directive, to protect journalists, as well as anyone else exercising their right to freedom of expression, from abusive lawsuits. A particular form of harassment, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are used primarily to stop journalists and human rights defenders reporting on matters of public interest, such as corruption. The proposed law provides the courts and people targeted by SLAPPs with the tools to fight back against baseless or abusive court proceedings. The European Commission’s proposal is currently under discussion in Parliament and the Council.

The proposed European media freedom act aims at protecting our independent media from the threat of government pressure, such as being forced to repeat propaganda or spy on journalists. The proposed law is under discussion in the Parliament and the Council. If adopted, the media freedom act would set rules protecting media pluralism and independence in the EU, including safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions. It would also address transparency in media ownership. To ensure that media outlets that provide government-friendly views are not subsidised covertly, public authorities would have to inform us of their advertising expenditure. The EU rules would better protect journalistic sources, and spying on journalists would become more difficult.

These new proposed laws are part of the ongoing European democracy action plan, designed to empower citizens and build resilient democracies across the EU, by promoting free and fair elections, strengthening media freedom and countering disinformation.

Written by Anita Orav.

The European Youth Event will bring together thousands of young people in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, on 9 and 10 June 2023, to share ideas about the future of Europe. This introduction to one of the major topics to be discussed during the EYE event is one of 11 prepared by the Parliament’s Research Service (EPRS). It offers an overview of the main lines of EU action and policy in the area concerned, and aims to act as a starting point for discussions during the event. You can find them all on this link.

The European Union shares responsibility for migration policy with the national governments of its member countries, who have agreed on common standards on legal migration and receiving asylum-seekers in a fair and dignified manner. However, the EU is still in the process of reforming its asylum and migration policy.

Migration to the EU

Migration to Europe from non-EU countries has been substantial over recent decades, as Europe was historically considered a continent of relative economic prosperity and political stability. In January 2021, 23.7 million nationals of non-EU countries were resident in the EU, representing 5.3 % of the total EU population. Most migrants, approximately 2.25‑3 million per year, arrive in the EU through legal channels. However, wars and instability in neighbouring countries have also forced people to leave their countries; increasing arrivals of migrants through irregular channels as people continue to flee countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Venezuela. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a new wave of displaced people reached the EU seeking protection.

Legal migration and labour market

Many people arrive in the EU to work, study, or join family members. The EU legal migration framework covers these movements of non-EU (or ‘third-country’) nationals. Legal migration is part of a balanced common EU migration policy, which aims to benefit migrants, their countries of origin and the countries of destination. Welcoming migrant workers can also be beneficial to the EU’s economy, not least because the European population is ageing and its economy increasingly depends on high-skilled jobs. The EU is in the process of reforming the legal migration framework, which should reduce the incentive to use irregular channels.

Seeking international protection in the EU

International protection – asylum – is a fundamental right and an international obligation, as recognised in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees, which currently binds 149 states globally, including all EU countries. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees to a country where their life or freedom is at risk, is a key element.

In the EU – an area of freedom of movement without internal borders – national authorities share the international responsibility for receiving asylum-seekers in a fair and dignified manner. While EU countries are in charge of processing asylum applications in accordance with their national laws, together they have set common EU standards under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Within this system, the central element is the Dublin Regulation, which establishes the country responsible for processing an asylum application. By default, it is the first country in the EU which the person entered. Understandably, after increased refugee flows in 2015‑2016, countries at the EU’s external borders became overburdened, straining their national asylum systems and resulting in poor conditions for asylum-seekers and lower recognition of asylum claims. Consequently, many asylum-seekers travelled on to other EU countries, where they believed they would find better conditions and a higher chance of a successful application. This created a situation where only a few of the 27 EU countries received the bulk of all asylum applications. Taking action to overcome these problems is all the more important as the numbers of asylum-seekers are growing again: in 2022, EU+ countries (27 European Union Member States, plus Norway and Switzerland) received some 966 000 applications for asylum, up more than 50 % from 2021, and the largest number since 2016.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU – for the first time ever – activated the Temporary Protection Directive to help people fleeing the war. This support includes direct humanitarian aid, emergency civil protection assistance, support at the border, as well as a clear legal status for Ukrainians in the EU. The measures also allow national authorities to manage the influx of people and reduce the immediate impact on their asylum systems. According to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), by February 2023, more than 4.8 million refugees from Ukraine had registered for temporary protection or similar national protection schemes in Europe. This is a higher number than all the inhabitants of the city of Rome in Italy, for example. Europeans’ readiness to welcome Ukrainians can be seen as one way of showing resistance to Putin’s tactics. Interactive infographic: Protecting irregular migrant children Irregular migration

In addition to asylum-seekers, the migratory flows include irregular migrants – those trying to escape poverty in their country or to find better prospects for the future. After a relative fall in the number of people trying to cross the EU’s external borders irregularly in recent years, the numbers began to climb again after 2021. According to Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, about 330 000 irregular entries were detected at the EU’s external borders in 2022, the highest number since 2016.

Attempts to enter the EU irregularly by sea often have tragic consequences for migrants. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), 26 085 people have gone missing in the Mediterranean Sea since 2014. In 2022, on average five people died per day trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. Thanks to EU operations, between 2015 and 2022, 632 455 people were rescued in the Mediterranean and western African routes. Moreover, civil society search and rescue (SAR) vessels have rescued a significant number of migrants in distress at sea, despite experiencing difficulties in disembarking the migrants in safe ports.

The mixed flows of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants also complicate border authorities’ work: while asylum-seekers must be allowed entry at the borders to seek protection, irregular migrants who do not have the right to enter and stay in the EU should be returned to their country of origin or transit. According to Eurostat, only about one third of the people who receive a return decision leave the EU. Of the 4 million people ordered to leave in 2013‑2021, only 1.3 million left.

The EU has taken resolute steps to strengthen its external borders. In 2019, the European Border and Coast Guard was established, and the architecture of EU-wide information systems for border management and security was revised and expanded. Efforts to develop European integrated border management and to reform the Schengen rules are ongoing.

Ongoing asylum and migration reform

After the arrival of unprecedented numbers of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants in the EU in 2015‑2016, the European Commission proposed a package of reforms to the Common European Asylum System. In June 2018, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU reached broad agreement on several proposals. However, EU governments did not all agree and the reform stalled due to continued disagreement on how to apply the principle of solidarity in practice and to share asylum responsibilities fairly. In September 2020, the European Commission sought to revive the reform by putting forward a new pact on migration and asylum offering a comprehensive approach aimed at strengthening and integrating key EU policies on migration, asylum and border management. The pact builds on and amends the previous reform proposals. Discussions are still ongoing. The European Parliament has continued to call for the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, condemning reports of pushbacks at different EU borders, and insisting on the need to guarantee decent reception conditions for people seeking international protection in the EU. In September 2022, the European Parliament and the forthcoming rotating presidencies of the Council agreed on a joint roadmap to adopt the pending legislative proposals on asylum and migration management by February 2024.