European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Ariane Debyser (1st edition),

© Mike Mareen / Fotolia

On 17 May 2018, the Commission adopted the proposal for a directive amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management. It is part of the third and last ‘Europe on the Move’ package that includes initiatives supporting the transition towards a safe, clean, automated and connected mobility for all.

The revision, consistent with the goals laid down in the 2011 White Paper on Transport and in the Policy Orientations for Road Safety 2011-2020, was presented together with another legislative proposal on vehicle and pedestrian safety and non-legislative initiatives to promote safe mobility.

The general objective of the proposal, which seeks to address the shortcomings of the existing legislation, is to reduce both road fatalities and serious injuries by improving the safety performance of road infrastructure. It proposes key changes to strengthen road infrastructure safety management procedures and extends the scope of the directive beyond the trans-European transport network (TEN-T).

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Road infrastructure safety management‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management Committee responsible: Transport and Tourism (TRAN) COM(2018) 274
17.5.2018 Rapporteur: Daniela Aiuto (EFDD, Italy) 2018/0129 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Claudia Schmidt (EPP, Germany)
Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D, Austria)
Mark Demesmaeker (ECR, Belgium)
Matthijs van Miltenburg (ALDE, The Netherlands)
Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
Michael Cramer (Greens/EFA, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Frederik Scholaert (1st edition),

© vectorfusionart / Fotolia

As part of the next EU budget framework for the 2021-2027 period, the European Commission published its proposal for a regulation on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) on 12 June 2018. The new fund will continue to support the EU common fisheries policy and the Union’s maritime policy. The proposal aims to simplify the delivery of the fund compared to the very complex legal framework in use for the current EMFF. It therefore presents a more flexible architecture: this would allow Member States to use the funds where they see the greatest need, instead of being bound to a list of pre-defined measures and eligibility rules. Small-scale coastal fisheries and outermost regions would receive an increased preferential treatment. It further proposes increased support for international ocean governance and stronger synergies with other EU policies. The fund is also expected to contribute to the development of the blue economy and support the EU’s climate objectives.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 390
12.6.2018 Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato (EPP, Spain) 2018/0210 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D, Germany)
Czesław Hoc (ECR, Poland)
Nils Torvalds (ALDE, Finland)
Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Marco Affronte (Greens/EFA, Italy)
Rosa d’Amato (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Discussion of draft report in committee

 

Written by Gisela Grieger and Roderick Harte,

© Itan1409 / Fotolia

Growing geopolitical rivalry, escalating trade tensions between the United States and China (both big players in Latin America and the Caribbean – LAC) and a US trade policy shifting away from a multilateral towards a bilateral approach based on ‘America First’, have created uncertainty in this part of the world. The ongoing commitment and shift of LAC countries towards multilateralism and free and fair trade provides the EU with a window of opportunity to strengthen its footprint in a region with which it maintains close cooperation and political dialogue on account of its historical, cultural and economic ties. Although the 33 countries forming the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) are together currently the EU’s fifth largest trading partner, the EU has in the past two decades lost market share to the USA and China.

Since the 1990s, the EU has pursued a strategy of promoting sub-regional integration initiatives within LAC and bi-regional integration between the EU and the then existing four sub-regional LAC groupings (the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), Cariforum, the Central America group, and Mercosur) as well as bilateral integration with Chile and Mexico. This has resulted in a number of agreements governing trade relations, including fully fledged agreements with two sub-regional groupings (Cariforum and Central America), a multiparty free trade agreement with three countries of the Andean Community (Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru; Bolivia may join at a later stage) and bilateral agreements with Mexico and Chile. Since November 2017, a new agreement with Cuba, governing trade relations (the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement (PDCA)), has also been provisionally applied (although it is not very comprehensive). In addition, the EU has an inter-regional framework agreement with Mercosur as well as bilateral framework agreements with its founding members (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay). Since 1999, the EU and Mercosur (excluding Venezuela) have been negotiating a fully fledged bi-regional agreement governing trade relations. Negotiations have gained momentum since 2016, with both parties aiming at a political agreement in 2018 (after earlier expectations for such an agreement by the end of 2017 were not met).

Alongside the ongoing EU-Mercosur negotiations, the EU is also in the process of modernising its 2000 Global Agreement with Mexico (negotiations are currently being concluded after an ‘agreement in principle’ was reached in April 2018) as well as its 2003 association agreement with Chile (for which negotiations are ongoing). The trade pillars of both of these existing agreements are less comprehensive and advanced in terms of liberalisation compared with recently negotiated trade agreements such as the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). They lack, among other things, specific provisions on sustainable development (which are covered in softer political dialogue frameworks) and have limited World Trade Organisation plus (WTO+) provisions on intellectual property rights (IPR), services, investment, public procurement and regulatory cooperation.

Overall, the EU’s agreements governing trade relations with Latin America and the Caribbean differ considerably in terms of coverage and methodology, depending on the time at which they were concluded and the context of the negotiations.

Read the complete in-depth analysis on “EU trade with Latin America and the Caribbean: Overview and figures“.

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

The highlight of September’s plenary session was the State of the Union speech by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announcing a number of legislative proposals to come by the end of the Commission’s mandate. The debate on the Future of Europe continued, this time with the Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras. Lebanon’s President, Michel Aoun, addressed Parliament as well as the Prime Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Zoran Zaev. Parliament approved, inter alia, proposals on the European Solidarity Corps, Single Digital Gateway, and countering money laundering. Parliament also voted an amended report on copyright in the digital single market which is now ready to be negotiated with the Council.

State of the EU-US relations

An own-initiative report on the state of EU-US relations was adopted. Despite recent divergences between administrations, Parliament and the US Congress remain committed to working together on issues linked to trade in the framework of WTO rules. The Parliament calls for the EU’s full and definitive exemption from US customs duties on steel and aluminium. Members support a new balanced and mutually beneficial transatlantic trade agreement. They also suggest strengthening the EU-US relationship on cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, the fight against tax fraud, energy, climate change, digital and migration.

European Solidarity Corps

Parliament adopted an agreement negotiated with the Council on the European Solidarity Corps. Parliament has been keen to ensure that this new opportunity for young people to volunteer in education, health, environmental protection, disaster prevention, and the reception and integration of migrants and asylum-seekers, is funded by fresh money, rather than reallocations. Parliament’s negotiators were largely successful in ensuring that the Corps will provide meaningful, non-profit opportunities that help the vulnerable while also improving young people’s job prospects. The budget will provide €375.6 million over the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020. It provides that financial support for solidarity activities should be at an indicative level of 90 % for volunteering projects and 10 % for training courses or jobs, or both, with a maximum of 20 % being allocated to activities limited to national level.

Structural Reform Support Programme

Members adopted the trilogue agreement on the proposal to amend the Structural Reform Support Programme. The Commission had proposed to expand the scope and financing of the programme to cover future euro-area membership preparations. Parliament wanted such requests to be prioritised, and stressed that other cohesion policy priorities should not be impacted.

Copyright in the digital single market

The modern digital environment has changed the way copyright-protected works and content are created, produced, distributed and used in the EU and beyond, rendering current legislation inadequate to deal with the issues thrown up by widespread use of the internet. Members voted (438 votes for, 226 against and 39 abstentions) on the amended Commission proposal, supporting provisions to tackle exceptions to copyright protection in the digital single market for research and education (text and data mining), press publishers’ rights, and the ‘value gap’ created by online sharing. The debate followed the rejection in plenary in July of the Legal Affairs Committee’s agreed mandate to negotiate with the Council on the proposal. The main differences between the European Parliament and the Council are on Article 13, on the exclusion of small and micro-enterprises for the Parliament, and the softening measures backed by the Council. Trilogue negotiations can now start.

Controls on cash entering or leaving the Union

The European Parliament approved, by a large majority, the trilogue agreement reached in May of this year on the proposed regulation aiming to reinforce controls on movements of cash into and out of the EU. This is intended to close the gaps in existing laws that could be exploited for the purposes of money laundering or financing terrorism, specifically by tightening up definitions of ‘cash’.

Countering money laundering through criminal law

Members approved the trilogue agreement on the proposal for a directive concerning the fight against money laundering through criminal law. It provides for a maximum prison sentence of at least four years and a number of alternative sentences for the infringements listed in the directive, such as a temporary or permanent exclusion from access to public funding. Member States will have up to 24 months to transpose the new provisions into their national laws.

Protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies

Parliament debated and voted a compromise text on the protection of personal data processed by the Union institutions and bodies. Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs Committee is keen to see a harmonised regime that also covers the sort of sensitive operational data processed during judicial and police cooperation.

Single Digital Gateway

Parliament debated and voted a compromise text agreed with the Council on the Single Digital Gateway. Digitalisation should make it easier for citizens to obtain information or carry out an administrative procedure throughout the EU. The Commission accordingly made a proposal for a single digital gateway. Member States will now have to provide their most frequently used procedures online, in at least two languages. Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection succeeded in modifying the proposals to ensure the facility is clear, simple, and provides adequate data protection and access for the disabled.

Plastics in a circular economy

Around 2 % to 5 % of plastics produced end up in oceans, damaging coastal and marine ecosystems. While plastic is a cheap, durable and convenient material, poor treatment of plastic waste impacts on nature, the climate and human health. Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has urged the Commission to increase recycling of plastics and curtail the use of single-use plastics by 2020, and following a joint debate on the EU strategy for plastics in a circular economy, Parliament voted a resolution on the Commission’s strategy for plastics in a circular economy.

Amending budget No 4/2018: mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund

Parliament approved Amending Budget No 4 to the 2018 EU budget allowing aid of €34 million to be paid out to support reconstruction efforts in Greece, Poland, Lithuania and Bulgaria, following natural disasters in 2017. This support, under the EU Solidarity Fund, provides for €16.9 million for Lithuania (heavy rain and flooding), €12.2 million for Poland (violent storms) and €2.2 million for Bulgaria (flooding). Greece will receive €2.5 million following an earthquake in 2017 on Kos.

Implementation of pesticides legislation

Parliament voted a report on the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation that expresses concerns regarding misuse of emergency authorisations allowing individual countries to apply derogations.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Ten decisions of parliamentary committees (JURI, IMCO, ITRE, TRAN, EMPL, ECON and LIBE) to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. Only one vote was held, on the LIBE report on listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, and the decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations was approved in that case.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, September 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for young taxpayers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

If you are just starting out in your working life, taxes can seem a bit scary, but they are the price of a modern and fair society. Learning about the basic principles of a modern tax system can prove very useful. Taxes pay for healthcare, education, infrastructure like roads and bridges, and much more. To achieve a more equal and inclusive society in the EU, all citizens need to make a fair contribution. It is important, therefore, to understand why we pay taxes and know how to pay them.

© Syda Productions/ Fotolia

To help you understand what can seem a very complex system, and gain basic financial skills, a pilot European project, TAXEDU, provides a wealth of material on taxation, including a forum where young people are welcome to discuss their experience of the different tax systems that exist in the EU. The project also provides resources for teachers, and several e-learning and microlearning tools. Children can learn what taxes are used for and in which situations they also pay taxes, while teenagers can learn about the basic principles of collective action, why taxation is legitimate and what the different types of tax are. More practically, the project can help young adults learn how to pay taxes as an employee, self-employed person, or as a young entrepreneur.

Further information

• European Union website on TAXEDU, https://europa.eu/taxedu/home_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for small and home producers of alcohol.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Home-made alcohol is a much cherished tradition in many parts of Europe. Beers, wines or spirits produced in small quantities come with a local flavour and preserve precious artisanal traditions, providing consumers with an alternative to industrial production.

To ensure a level playing field for small producers, the European Union adopted flexible rules on excise taxes. According to existing EU legislation, all Member States must collect excise taxes on alcoholic beverages at or above a minimal threshold established by the EU. Small breweries (producing up to 20 million litres of beer per year) or distilleries (producing up to 1 000 litres of pure alcohol per year) can benefit from a reduced rate (up to 50 % off standard duties). Moreover, home-made wines, beers and other fermented beverages, for own consumption, may be fully exempted from excise duties.

© draghicich / Fotolia

The European Commission began a public consultation in 2015 on improving the existing rules and the strong growth of micro-breweries and distilleries is acknowledged in its assessment. Possible changes could be reduced excise rates for small wine producers and no duty on private ethyl alcohol production, but this latter is a divisive issue for national governments. The Commission has yet to decide whether it will make a legislative proposal.

Small producers who export their products or sell them to larger companies for further processing and commercialisation also benefit from EU internal market rules on mutual recognition of products, and from the EU system of geographical indications that protect locally made products.

Further information

• European Commission website on taxation (excise duties),https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/vat-customs/excise-duty/index_en.htm
• European Commission website on excise duties – alcoholic beverages,
  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/excise-duties-alcohol-tobacco-energy/excise-duties-alcohol/excise-duties-alcoholic-beverages_en#revision
• EPRS publication (implementation appraisal) ‘Excise duty on alcohol’, 2017
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/611018/EPRS_BRI(2017)611018_EN.pdf

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

As democracy faces multiple challenges, the EU is stepping up its support

As a community of like-minded states, the EU is based on certain fundamental values, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Union strives to realise these both internally and externally, and they guide all its policies. In line with commitments enshrined in its Treaties to pursue these values, the EU has developed specific policies to support democracy in the world. Moreover, the Union aims to integrate the pursuit of peace and democracy in all its other external actions, such as external trade, development policy, enlargement policy, neighbourhood policy, its common foreign and security policy, as well as its political and diplomatic relations with third countries and multilateral institutions.

The EU has established a strong reputation as an organisation guided by the normative vision of a democratic world, and as en effective actor in supporting democratisation on the European continent and beyond, through its democracy and electoral assistance, its electoral observation missions in the world and many other actions (to find out more about this, see a recent EPRS briefing: Democracy support in EU external policy, March 2018). Strengthening peace and democracy globally has never been an easy task. The EU recognises that it can only play the role of assisting, since the ownership of democratisation is exclusively for domestic forces. Today, EU action takes place in an increasingly difficult environment. Restrictions imposed by authoritarian governments against civil society and human rights defenders, which have been among the EU main partners in matters of democracy, require new ways to support democracy.

The EU has leveraged the special partnerships it has established with various groups of countries such as candidate states for EU accession, countries from its neighbourhood, and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the ACP group) to support democratisation. It has acted mainly through dialogue and assistance, but also imposed sanctions and restricted its development aid in response to major crises that have seriously undermined democracy in third countries. For example, according to an EPRS briefing that analyses EU democracy support to African countries (EU support to democracy and good governance in Africa, November 2017), EU assistance has had a major positive impact, despite the specific challenges and multiple shortcomings of political systems on the African continent.

An important challenge for democracy today in Europe and abroad is how to tackle citizens’ dissatisfaction with democratic systems. Citizens often complain that their voice is not heard, and that they have no meaningful opportunity for political participation. The new digital environment provides plenty of opportunities yet to be exploited that could broaden citizens’ participation in political life and decision-making, such as social media, deliberative software and e-voting systems. According to an EPRS study that explores the potential of digital tools for fostering e-democracy (Prospects for e-democracy in Europe, February 2018), ‘E-participation and in a broader sense e-democracy – the practice of democracy with the support of digital media in political communication and participation – are seen as a possible remedy for democratic shortcomings at European level (as well as at local and national levels)’.

Digital tools can also strengthen citizens’ trust in the electoral process, which is central to the functioning of democracy. The EU is one of the leading organisations conducting electoral observation missions around the world, and the European Parliament plays a central role in these. An EPRS briefing (“Digital technology in elections: Efficiency versus credibility?”, September 2018) analyses the advantages and risks of using digital technologies in elections all over the world. For example, online databases and digital registration of voters hugely facilitate the task of creating and managing accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls, an important challenge in less developed countries, whose citizens often lack reliable identity documents. For some aspects of election management, digitalisation is more controversial. Electronic voting machines count votes quickly and accurately, but the intangible nature of digital processes makes detecting tampering more difficult. Even more controversial is the idea of internet voting. While they could help to reverse a worrying decline in voter turnout across the world, current technology does not allow internet voting systems to be fully secured against cyber-attacks.

The increasing digitalisation of the public sphere not only brings benefits with regard to citizens’ political participation. Forces hostile to liberal democracy use new communication channels to disseminate fake news and disinformation. According to an EPRS briefing (Foreign influence operations in the EU, July 2018), social media today enable potentially disruptive messages to spread instantaneously. Disinformation is an increasingly diverse, hybrid ‘toolbox’ at the disposal of authoritarian state actors. The dissemination of deliberately false information by non-state and state actors can be used to undermine citizens’ faith in democratic systems and in the EU as a democratic organisation (such as Pro-Kremlin information campaigns, or the Brexit campaigns that depicted the EU as an authoritarian structure insensitive to citizens’ concerns). In response, the European Union and the European Parliament are stepping up efforts to tackle online disinformation ahead of the European elections in 2019.

EPRS publications

“Digital technology in elections: Efficiency versus credibility?”, EPRS Briefing, Martin Russel, Ionel Zamfir, September 2018

Democracy in Africa: Power alternation and presidential term limits, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, April 2016

Democracy support in EU external policy, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, March 2018

Disinformation, ‘fake news’ and the EU’s response, EPRS ‘At a glance’ note, Naja Bentzen, May 2018

EU support to democracy and good governance in Africa, EPRS Briefing, Ionel Zamfir, November 2017

Foreign influence operations in the EU, EPRS Briefing, Naja Bentzen, July 2018

Prospects for e-democracy in Europe. Study summary, EPRS STOA External Study, February

 

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© santiago silver / Fotolia

Attempts at influencing or distorting elections in the United States and other countries, including some European Union Member States, have drawn attention to what is commonly referred to as ‘fake news’, or false news posing as factual stories. Although the phenomenon of generating misleading news stories is at least as old as the printing press, the growth of social media has led to a very significant proliferation of this phenomenon. Some outlets use deceitful headlines and content to boost readership, in a search of higher advertising revenue. Other sources, often sponsored by certain state actors, are accused of spreading ‘fake news’ for entirely political ends.

In March 2018, the European Commission published the Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, which proposes ways to combat the phenomenon. In April a Commission communication followed, entitled ‘Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach.’

This note offers links to recent commentaries and reports published by international think tanks on ‘fake news’ and broader related issues.

Les manipulations de l’information, un défi pour nos démocraties
Centre d’analyse, de prévision et de stratégie, September 2018

News use across social media platforms 2018
Pew Research Center, September 2018

EU elections in the era of fake news
Friends of Europe, BEUC, August 2018

Bots in Brazil: The activity of social media bots in Brazilian elections
Wilson Center, August 2018

The legal framework to address “fake news”: Possible policy actions at the EU level
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Trust, misinformation, and the declining use of social media for news: Digital News Report 2018
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, June 2018

Searching for a stronghold in the fight against disinformation
Centre for International Governance Innovation, June 2018

How Sweden is preparing for Russia to hack its election
Carnegie Europe, May 2018

Privatising censorship
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

Russia’s active measures architecture: Task and purpose
German Marshall Fund, May 2018

How Europe and Canada are fighting foreign political ads on social media
Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

The Russian propaganda machine stutters along, blinkered
Wilson Center, May 2018

Russian social media influence: Understanding Russian propaganda in Eastern Europe
Rand Corporation, April 2018

The “European approach” to fighting disinformation: Lessons for the United States
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

It’s not just Facebook: Countering Russia’s social media offensive
German Marshall Fund, April 2018

How can social media companies stop the spread of fake news?
Royal united Services Institute, April 2018

Managing the risk of fake news
Hoover Institute, April 2018

Fighting fake news: Caught between a rock and a hard place
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2018

The science of fake news
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

Ungoverned space: How surveillance capitalism and AI undermine democracy
Centre for International Governance Innovation, March 2018

Is social media replacing journalism?
Carnegie Europe, March 2018

Responsible reporting in an age of irresponsible information
German Marshall Fund, March 2018

The danger of truth decay across Europe
Rand Corporation, March 2018

The dark side of big data
Demos, March 2018

A beginner’s guide to battling fake news: Three approaches to consider before ‘sharing’
Atlantic Council, March 2018

Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, February 2018

Measuring the reach of “fake news” and online disinformation in Europe
Reuters Institute, February 2018

Could Europe’s New Data Protection Regulation curb online disinformation?
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2018

Fake news and what (not) to do about it
Clingendael, February 2018

Gummibäume, fake news und barbusige Proteste
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, January 2017

Online information laundering: The role of social media
German Marshall Fund, January 2018

Social networks are creating a global crisis of democracy
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 2018

The diminishing role of facts in American public life
Rand Corporation, January 2018

Don’t let liberals end opinion diversity under cover of ‘fake news’ campaign
Heritage Foundation, January 2018

Bias, bullshit and lies: Audience perspectives on low trust in the media
Reuters Institute for Journalism Studies, December 2017

In social media broken?
Cato Institute, December 2017

The ‘combination’: An instrument in Russia’s information war in Catalonia
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, November 2017

Countering Russian information operations in the age of social media
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2017

The fake news toolkit
Demos, November 2017

To filter or not to filter: That is the question
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2017

Fakten checken reicht nicht
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, September 2017

The political slant of web portal news and the implications relating to the fake news phenomenon
Korea Development Institute, September 2017

Weeding out fake news: An approach to social media regulation
Wilfried Martens Centre, July 2017

Countering online radicalisation
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2017

Was tun gegen fake news?
Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, June 2017

Fake news is bad enough: But fake science is even more dangerous
Hoover Institute, June 2017

Russian election interference: Europe’s counter to fake news and cyber attacks
Carnegie Europe, May 2017

The cyber-enabled information struggle
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, May 2017

Political communications in the “fake news” Era: Six lessons for Europe
German Marshall Fund, February 2017

Can fake news be beaten?
Carnegie Europe, January 2017

Hacking, fake news, disinformation: Business as usual in the US-Russian relations or a deeper democratic challenge?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, January 2017

How to avoid a post-truth world
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2017

Fake news und Social Bots im Bundestagswahlkampf
Hanns Seidel Stiftung, January 2017

What science tells us about how to combat fake news
Brookings Institution, January 2017

Reporting politics in ‘post-truth’ America
Brookings Institution, December 2016

Fake news is not a technology problem
American Enterprise Institute, December 2016

Read this briefing on ‘‘Fake news’‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ana Claudia Alfieri (1st edition),

© Jérôme Rommé / Fotolia

The common European value added tax (VAT) system was set up in 1967 and reformed to adapt it to the entry into force of the internal market in 1993. Therefore, the existing rules governing intra‑Community trade, which were intended to be transitory, are 25 years old. VAT is an important source of revenue for both national governments and the EU budget, but the current system is ill-adapted to the challenges of a modern economy. It presents such problems as vulnerability to fraud, high compliance costs for businesses, and a heavy administrative burden for national authorities.

As part of the action plan on VAT, the European Commission adopted a new proposal in May 2018. This proposal would amend the VAT Directive (Directive 2006/112/EC) to introduce the detailed technical measures of the definitive VAT system for the intra-EU business to business (B2B) trade of goods. It is part of the action plan on VAT and follows another proposal that sets out the basic features of the reform of the common EU VAT system. Some aspects of the previous proposal were taken out of the negotiations to be examined with this one.

Versions

• September 2018: ‘Detailed technical measures for the definitive VAT system‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the introduction of the detailed technical measures for the operation of the definitive VAT system for the taxation of trade between Member States Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 329
25.5.2018 Rapporteur: Fulvio Martusciello (EPP, Italy) 2018/0164 (CNS) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia)
Thierry Cornillet (ALDE, France)
Molly Scott Cato (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Consultation procedure (CNS) – Parliament adopts a non-binding opinion Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Didier Bourguignon,

© ChrisVanLennepPhoto / Fotolia

Global material use has tripled during the past four decades, in particular as a result of increasing living standards. The use of materials, which need to be extracted from our environment, can pose environmental challenges. It can also be threatened by resource scarcity and price volatility. This is particularly true for Europe, which is strongly dependent on imported materials.

There are a number of ways to consider material use in the European Union (EU). The breakdown of material use by types of materials indicates that non-metallic minerals, which include sand and gravel, account for almost half of the materials used in the EU. Material flows provide an overall picture of how materials enter, are used and finally leave the economy. Some of these materials stay in stocks, which are growing year after year. However, the efficiency of material use, measured through resource productivity, has increased substantially since 2000, in part as a result of the economic crisis.

Material use in the EU is steered by policies related to different areas such as energy, waste and industry. Relevant policy documents include the 2011 roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe, the 2013 seventh Environment Action Programme and the 2015 circular economy action plan.

The EU supports these policies with funding. Funding channels include the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation, which allocated about €635 million between 2014 and 2020 for research on raw-material-related challenges. The European structural and investment funds also support developing more efficient material use practices.

The European Parliament has advocated making the use of harmonised indicators for resource efficiency legally binding in the Member States and setting targets for increasing resource efficiency. Parliament has also supported broadening the scope of eco-design requirements to gradually include all relevant resource-efficiency features in product-design requirements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Material use in the European Union: Towards a circular approach‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martin Russell and Ionel Zamfir,

© Lisa F. Young / Fotolia

Digital technology brings greater efficiency in many walks of life, and elections are no exception. Online databases hugely facilitate the task of creating and managing accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls. In less developed countries, whose citizens often lack reliable identity documents, biometric technology can help to identify voters, thus preventing fraud in the form of multiple voting.

However, for some aspects of election management, digitalisation is more controversial. Electronic voting machines count votes quickly and accurately. First used in the United States, they have spread to several Latin American and Asian countries. However, the intangible nature of digital processes makes detecting tampering more difficult; as a result, most European countries are sticking to tried-and-trusted conventional paper ballots.

Even more controversial is the idea of internet voting. On the one hand, allowing citizens the convenience of casting their vote online without the need to visit polling stations could help to reverse a worrying decline in voter turnout across the world. On the other hand, current technology does not allow internet voting systems to be fully secured against hackers, a major concern given the growing sophistication of cyber-attacks (for example, from Russia). To date, only Estonia gives all voters the option of online voting in national elections.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Digital technology in elections‘.

Countries that use electronic voting

Countries that use internet voting

Written by Tarja Laaninen (1st edition),

© krisana / Fotolia

On 1 February 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a recast of the Directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption (the Drinking Water Directive). The proposal responds to the European Citizens’ Initiative, Right2Water, and builds on a fitness check which concluded that the 20-year old directive is fit for purpose, but needs updating. The main elements of the proposal consist of updating the water quality standards, introducing a risk-based approach to the monitoring of water, improving and streamlining the information provided to consumers, harmonising the standards for products in contact with drinking water, and imposing obligations to improve access to water. In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) considered the draft report on 7 June 2018; the vote in committee is planned for 10 September 2018.

Versions

• September 2018: Revision of the Drinking Water Directive (1st edition)

 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

 

 

 

  Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

Michel Dantin (EPP, France)

Rory Palmer (S&D, United Kingdom)

Jørn Dohrmann (ECR, Denmark)

Ulrike Müller (ALDE, Germany)

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)

Benedek Jávor (Greens/EFA, Hungary)

Eleonora Evi (EFDD, Italy)

Sylvie Goddyn (ENF, France) COM(2017) 0753 of 1.2.2018

2017/0332(COD)

 

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in ENVI committee on draft report

 

 

 

Written by Patrick Kelly (1st edition),

© Goodpics / Fotolia

The food supply chain ensures that food and drink products are delivered to the public. It affects all consumers in the EU. The final price paid by the consumer is impacted by the number of participants in the food supply chain. While the single market has brought benefits to operators in the supply chain through more market opportunities and a larger customer base, it has also brought challenges. Structural changes have occurred, leading to different levels of bargaining power and imbalances between actors in the chain. The abuse of such differences may lead to unfair trading practices.

To strengthen the position of smaller operators (farmers) in the food supply chain, in April 2018 the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on unfair trading practices. In the European Parliament, a report is due to be voted on in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development in October, while in the Council of the EU a revised presidency text is being examined.

Versions

• September 2018: Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (1st edition)

 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain. Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs: 

 

 

 

 

 

  Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI)

Paolo de Castro (S&D, Italy)

Mairead McGuinness (EPP, Ireland),

Anthea McIntyre (ECR, UK),

Elsi Katainen (ALDE, Finland),

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL, Ireland),

Maria Heubuch (Greens/EFA, Germany),

Marco Zullo (EFDD, Italy),

Jacques Colombier, (ENF, France). COM(2018) 173 from 12.4.2018.

2018/0082(COD)

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

©European Union

The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will deliver his last State of the Union address to the European Parliament on Wednesday 12 September, a little more than eight months before the next European elections. In this annual speech in Strasbourg, President Juncker is expected to take stock of the state of play on his ten priorities for the 2014-2019 political cycle and present his remaining initiatives on building a ‘more united, stronger and more democratic Union’. Juncker’s 2017 address was marked by cautious optimism: since then, whilst the European economy has continued to recover, several other challenges have proved persistent.

This note offers a selection of links to commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on the state of the EU and possible reforms. Brexit-related publications can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from July 2018. Papers on migration are available in an earlier edition in this series, published in June. Those on euro-zone reform appear in a previous publication in June.

The EU needs to rethink its approach to liberal order
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Does Europe have an alternative to populism?
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

La Cour de Justice de l’UE et la Pologne: Premiers frémissements
Institut Jacques Delors, August 2018

Flexibility is not the miracle solution
Carnegie Europe, August 2018

Competing visions of Europe are threatening to tear the Union apart
Chatham House, August 2018

The nightmare of the dark: The security fears that keep European awake at night
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2018

PESCO: Un pas vers l’autonomie stratégique
Confrontations Europe, July 2018

In the face of the European Union’s political crisis: The vital cultural struggle over values
Fondation Robert Schuman, July 2018

Europe’s surprising economic success story
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

European young leaders
Friends of Europe, July 2018

EU income inequality decline: Views from an income shares perspective
Bruegel, July 2018

Au gré des ‘vents mauvais’
Institut Jacques Delors, July 2018

L’urgence d’une réforme de la fiscalité en Europe
Confrontations Europe, July 2018

In Europe, the split between open and closed has not replaced traditional politics
Chatham House, June 2018

Mieux vaudrait laisser les gouvernements libres de tenter les politiques de leur choix
Bruegel, June 2018

Système à plusieurs niveaux de l’UE : Renforcer les voix parlementaires
Institut Jacques Delors, June 2018

Is Europe’s problem illiberal majoritarianism or creeping authoritarianism?
Carnegie Europe, June 2018 

Merkel et la réforme de l’UE: Décryptage
Institut Jacques Delors, June 2018

EU Budget: Why the new budget plan should urgently provide European added value
Bertelsmann Stiftung, May 2018

Between Rome and Sibiu: A trajectory for the new European narrative
Egmont, May 2018

A new direction for the EU: Comparing its deficits to concrete progressive proposals
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, April 2018

Can Europe save the world order?
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

Separation anxiety: European influence at the UN after Brexit
European Council on Foreign Relations, May 2018

What European “power”?
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2018

Emmanuel Macron, France and Europe “France is back in Europe”: on which terms?
Fondation Robert Schuman, May 2018

Europe needs a broader discussion of its future
Bruegel, May 2018 

Populism report
Policy Solutions, Foundation for European Progressive Studies, May 2018 

Europe’s populist challenge: Origins, supporters, and responses
Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, May 2018 

The EU must realize that populism is a symptom of real policy failure
Chatham House, May 2018 

The other democratic deficit
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, April 2018

The EU remains unprepared for the next migration crisis
Carnegie Europe, April 2018

Un moment européen
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

The future of the United States and Europe: An irreplaceable partnership
Chatham House, April 2018

The cost of non-Europe, revisited
Centre d’études prospectives et d’informations internationales, April 2018

Models of integration in Europe
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

Involving millennials in politics
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, April 2018

Reprendre le contrôle de la mondialisation: L’intégration européenne comme instrument de souveraineté
Fondation Robert Schuman, April 2018

The rocky road ahead for the Franco-German reform drive
Open Europe, April 2018

The middle class in focus: Priorities for the 2019 elections and beyond
Wilfried Martens Centre, March 2018

EU member states and Russia: National and European debates in an evolving international environment
Finnish Institute of International Relations, March 2018

L’Europe face au défi de l’identité: qui sommes ‘nous’?
Fondation Robert Schuman, March 2018

More initiative for Europe’s citizens
Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2018

For a regional solidarity policy after 2020
Institut Jacques Delors, March 2018

Is there an escape from ‘Ever Closer Union’?
Egmont, February 2018

Crisis and cohesion in the EU: A ten-year review
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2018

How to govern Europe better: Reflections on reform of the European Parliament, Commission and Council
European Policy Centre, February 2018

Reforming the European Parliament
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2018

Reforming the European Union: A political and democratic imperative
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2018

The brown chameleon: Europe’s populism crisis and the re-emergence of the far right
Observer Research Foundation, February 2018 

Europe is back: Economic, financial, social and technological trends in a changing world
European Political Strategy Centre, January 2018 

A more democratic European Union: Propositions and scope for political action
Institut Jacques Delors, January 2018 

Globalization and European integration: Threat or opportunity? Perception, knowledge and policy preferences of European citizens
Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 2018

Inequality in Europe
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, January 2018

 

Download the PDF version of this briefing on ‘The State of the Union‘.

Written by Didier Bourguignon (1st edition),

© allexxandarx / Fotolia

Although freshwater is relatively abundant in the European Union (EU), water stress occurs in many areas, particularly in the Mediterranean region and parts of the Atlantic region, with environmental and economic impacts.

In May 2018, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a regulation setting EU-wide standards that reclaimed water would need to meet in order to be used for agricultural irrigation, with the aim of encouraging greater use of reclaimed water and contributing to alleviating water scarcity. The Commission estimates that the proposal could increase water reuse in agricultural irrigation from 1.7 billion m³ to 6.6 billion m³ per year, thereby reducing water stress by 5 %.

In the European Parliament, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) is considering the proposal. The Environment Council discussed the proposal on 25 June 2018.

Versions

• September 2019: Water reuse: Setting minimum requirements (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse Committee responsible:

Rapporteur:

Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)

Simona Bonafè (S&D, Italy)

Francesc Gambús (EPP, Spain)

Jan Huitema (ALDE, the Netherlands)

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland)

  COM(2018) 337 from 28.5.2018

2018/0169(COD)

 

Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Water use by sector in the EU (2014, hm3)

 

Written by Etienne Bassot and Wolfgang Hiller,

© European Union, 2018; EP – Daina Le Lardic

As the current European Commission enters the final stage of its mandate and with less than nine months to go until the European Parliament elections in May 2019, the immediate period ahead will be crucial for Jean-Claude Juncker and his fellow Commissioners in delivering on the promises and commitments for his five-year term.

What is the state of play of the various legislative and other initiatives announced by the Commission since taking office in 2014? How many of the commitments made have led to formal proposals so far? And how many of those proposals – whether in the form of legislation, other major political initiatives, or international agreements – have been brought to fruition, demonstrating that the EU institutions have collectively ‘delivered’?

This paper takes stock of what the Commission has done – or not done – both with regard to its own commitments and in response to explicit requests for action made by the European Parliament, with both a statistical breakdown and a qualitative evaluation. It forms part of the on-going series of evaluations being issued throughout the 2014-2019 Commission’s period in office.

Our analysis suggests that overall, almost four years after taking office, the Commission has tabled 89 per cent of proposals foreseen (482 out of 543). These have to be discussed by the European Parliament and Council, and negotiations are needed to reach their final adoption and publication, a democratic process which takes time. So far, 40 per cent of Commission proposals have been adopted by the co-legislators (216 out of 543), and another 34 per cent are proceeding well (183 out of 543). Progress varies from one policy field to another. With regard to the tabling of proposals, the rate is high in areas such as international trade, justice and fundamental rights, and the union of democratic change (98, 93 and 100 per cent respectively). However, in the areas of jobs, growth and investment, almost a quarter of the proposals expected (23 per cent) have still not been submitted. As for adoption of proposals by the co-legislators, in some priority areas, such as the digital single market, and justice and fundamental rights, almost half of the proposals submitted have been adopted (46 and 42 per cent respectively); in others, such as jobs, growth and investment, progress is slower (28 per cent). Overall, evidence nevertheless suggests that, step by step, the European institutions are collectively enacting the ‘Juncker plan’, but that work still remains to be done. European institutions are aware that, with less than nine months to go until the next parliamentary elections, they need to show that Europe can deliver for its citizens when and where it matters.

This paper seeks to provide an independent, objective and authoritative tool for Members of the European Parliament and those interested more widely to assess the performance to date of the current Commission. It is both exhaustive – in covering all the ten priority areas that the Commission set itself – and selective – as it focuses, for each priority, on the main initiatives and their latest developments. It aims to be both quantitative and qualitative: for each of the ten priorities, it offers a quantitative snapshot of the various initiatives at the key stages of their adoption, complemented by a qualitative assessment of the situation. These graphs are regularly updated on the ‘Legislative Train Schedule‘ which features on the European Parliament’s website.

In this edition, Section 3 introduces a special feature on the next multiannual budget plan, which it is hoped can be adopted during the course of this parliamentary term.

Read the full study on ‘The Juncker Commission’s ten priorities: State of play in autumn 2018‘.

The Juncker Commission’s ten priorities: Legislative delivery to date (01 August 2018)

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for victims of organ trafficking.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

How would you feel about being forced into donating an organ, such as a kidney or lung, your liver, heart, or pancreas? Did you know that every day somewhere in the world, a person is lured into the illicit organ trade? The World Health Organization estimates that about 10 000 organs are sold on the black market each year, some of which come from trafficked persons.

As a criminal activity, no exact data exists as to how many people are trafficked for the removal of their organs in the EU. However, it is estimated that between 2013 and 2014, 12 % of trafficked persons in the EU were exploited for purposes that include, among others, organ removal.

© Photographee.eu / Fotolia

Victims of human trafficking are at the centre of EU anti-trafficking policy. In 2011, the EU adopted a law on preventing and combating trafficking in persons and protecting its victims, which covers trafficking for the purpose of organ removal. It obliges EU countries to provide help, support and protect victims.

Between 2012 and 2015, the EU financed a project to raise awareness about trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal and to improve enforcement of this crime.

Victims of trafficking and their counsel can find information about their rights in the EU which range from (emergency) assistance and healthcare to labour rights, access to justice and a lawyer, and compensation, available in all EU official languages.

Further information

• Guardian article on the WHO report on organ trafficking, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/27/kidney-trade-illegal-operations-who
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs website, https://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/eu_anti-trafficking_action_2012-2016_at_a_glance.pdf
• European parliament study on trafficking in human organs, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/549055/EXPO_STU%282015%29549055_EN.pdf
• UNODC assessment toolkit on Trafficking in Persons for the Purpose of Organ Removal https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2015/UNODC_Assessment_Toolkit_TIP_for_the_Purpose_of_Organ_Removal.pdf

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for aid workers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

EU development policy seeks to foster the sustainable development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty. Providing over 50 % of all global development aid, the EU and its member countries are collectively the world’s leading donor. For example, development assistance provided by the EU and its members totalled €75.5 billion in 2016.

© Joseph Sohm / Fotolia

If you work or volunteer for an NGO (non-governmental organisation) in the field of development you and your organisation may be benefiting from a number of EU programmes and measures.

For instance, NGOs can get funding via grants and contracts under various humanitarian aid and assistance programmes and initiatives. Grants are direct financial contributions to organisations, or to projects carried out by them. Contracts are meanwhile awarded for the purchase of services, supplies or works.

The European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO) provides funding for NGOs, international organisations and United Nations agencies carrying out humanitarian work on the ground in many countries around the world. In addition, the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), regularly publishes open calls for tender.

The EU Aid Volunteers programme offers people from all over the EU opportunities to become EU aid volunteers in humanitarian projects worldwide. NGOs can also use Erasmus+ to attract young people from around the EU who might be interested in taking part in volunteering projects.

Further information

• EPRS Guide to EU Funding 2014-2020. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/Funding_Guide.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/general_en
• EU Aid Volunteers programme, http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/eu-aid-volunteers_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for fashion shoppers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Do you love shopping for clothes? Even if you are a dedicated follower of fashion, you may not be aware of the impact that EU laws have on the fashion items you buy. The textile and clothing sector plays an important role in European manufacturing, and EU laws ensure the quality standards of products sold on the European market. EU law means that something labelled as pure silk is not a cheap copy, and puts rules place on footwear manufacture, helping to protect your interests as a consumer and making sure the goods you buy aren’t fakes.

© CHEN, PAO-CHIN / Fotolia

EU standards ensure that children’s clothes are safe with regards to cords and drawstrings. The EU is also concerned that fashion goods are produced fairly, and is looking to reduce the impact of fashion on the environment (e.g. reducing textile waste)

The EU also works on various initiatives to strengthen European fashion industry competitiveness, such as measures to protect intellectual property rights that mean that European designers get paid for their work. It also helps small and medium-sized fashion enterprises to access finance, and helps stimulate creativity and innovation. Through its trade agreements, the EU also gives fashion designers and textile companies the opportunity to export to the world.

Further information

• EPRS briefing on Workers’ conditions in the textile and clothing sector: just an Asian affair? Issues at stake after the Rana Plaza tragedy, 2014,
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/538222/EPRS_BRI(2014)538222_REV1_EN.pdf
• EPRS briefing on Benefits of EU international trade agreements, European Added Value in Action, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)603269

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for home owners.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

As a citizen of the European Union, you have the right not only to live, work, study and do business anywhere in the EU, but also to buy property. Two-thirds of Europeans own their own home; some of them are still paying back a loan or mortgage, while others own their home entirely. Those who have finished paying their mortgage spend less on housing, so it is quite understandable to want to buy your own home, not only to live in but also as a means of saving money.

© klublu / Fotolia

The two main difficulties you will face when buying a house in another EU country concern understanding the legal environment for residential property and financing the purchase. The EU is working to make it easier and safer for you to do both by funding initiatives such as CROBECO and IMOLA, which aim to increase transparency around and information about the real estate market and to harmonise land registries. In addition, the Mortgage Credit Directive is helping to open up the mortgage market in the EU.

Once you own your home, you will need to pay property taxes. In the absence of EU-wide tax rules, you will need to make sure with the authorities of both the country where you are tax-resident and the country where you are buying a property which laws apply and what taxes you need to pay, and where. Fortunately, most countries have signed bilateral agreements destined to avoid double taxation, so you will only have to pay the tax once.

Further information

• European Parliament, study ‘Cross Border Acquisitions of Residential Property in the EU: Problems Encountered by Citizens’, 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556936/IPOL_STU(2016)556936_EN.pdf
• Housing statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics