European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Rosamund Shreeves.

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

Facts and figures

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

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

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

Commitments and action to combat FGM

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

Instruments and action at international level

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

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

EU legislation, policy and funding

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

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

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

National-level instruments against FGM

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

European Parliament position

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

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

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

Written by Ralf Drachenberg with Christoffer Nielsen.

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

1.     General

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

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

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

2.     European Council meeting Multiannual financial framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine

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

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

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

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

Other issues Middle East

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

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

Security and defence

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

Agriculture

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

Treaty change

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

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

Written by Eszter Fay.

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

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

#EP4AcademicFreedom

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

The EP Academic Freedom Monitor

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

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

European Commission action in favour of academic freedom

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

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

Researchers at risk

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

Democratic responsibility for academic freedom

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

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

Legal protection of academic freedom in the EU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Versions

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

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

Written by Marie Lecerf (1st edition).

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

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

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

Complete version

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

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

Written by Clare Ferguson with Sara Van Tooren.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FURTHER READING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube privacy policy

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

Accept YouTube Content

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

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

English Reasons for the proposal

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

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

Definition of parenthood

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

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

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

Consideration of the proposal in the European Parliament

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

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

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

More information can be found in the press release.

Next steps in the process

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

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

German Beweggründe für den Vorschlag

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

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

Definition der Elternschaft

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

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

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

Behandlung des Vorschlags im Europäischen Parlament

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

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

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

Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Pressemitteilung.

Das weitere Verfahren

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

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

Background

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

Written by Anita Orav (1st edition).

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

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

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

Versions

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

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

Written by Maria Niestadt with Jasmin Reichert.

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Marc Jütten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Hendrik Mildebrath (1st edition).

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

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

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

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

Versions

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

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

In 2023, people from across the European Union (EU) and elsewhere in the world turned to the European Parliament and its President, Roberta Metsola to request information, call for action to be taken, express their opinions, or suggest ideas on a wide range of topics. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP) replied in the 24 EU official languages.

© European Parliament -Ask EP

People wrote to us on many topics, notably democracy, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, seasonal time changes, corruption, Iran, the political situation in Spain and many others. Ask EP also received questions related to the European Parliament and its Members, its traineeship offers and how to visit Parliament. In 2023, Ask EP received 13 467 individual messages and 69 911 campaign enquiries.

Most frequent topics in individual enquiries in 2023

The most frequently addressed topic in 2023 was issues concerning the EU area of freedom, security and justice. People made comments and asked questions on various topics, such as the death penalty, amnesty for Catalan politicians, the rule of law, migration and freedom of movement, amounting to more than 3 040 enquiries.

The second most frequent topic on which people contacted Ask EP last year related to the European Parliament itself, with over 2 040 enquiries. Citizens expressed interest in the Members of European Parliament and their activities, enquired about traineeship and job opportunities and the possibilities to visit Parliament. They also requested information on topics such as parliamentary questions, committee meetings and the right to petition the Parliament.

© European Parliament -Ask EP

Moreover, Parliament replied to approximately 970 enquiries concerning democracy. Citizens made comments, asked questions and raised concerns about the state of democracy in the EU and around the world, for example the Reichsbürger issue in Germany.

Many citizens also contacted Ask EP last year on issues related to foreign affairs, with over 930 enquiries. In particular, people voiced their concerns about the wars taking place in Ukraine and Gaza and their consequences.

Finally, the European Parliament received many enquiries about citizens’ personal situations with requests for assistance to help them solve problems (financial support, legal aid, cross-border administrative issues, cases of discrimination, etc.). Although neither the European Parliament nor its President are able to resolve many of these types of requests directly, the Ask EP service provided citizens with a contact point and sources of information whenever possible.

Campaign messages sent to the European Parliament in 2023

As a response to political, humanitarian and economic events, citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament, expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. These messages may sometimes be identical, as part of wider public campaigns.

© European Parliament -Ask EP

Between September and December 2023, the European Parliament received a large number of messages – over 39 100 and Ask EP’s largest campaign ever – from citizens expressing concern regarding the proposal to revise EU rules on driving licences. Citizens called on the Parliament to reject the ideas put forward by the lead Member of the European Parliament on the file, which would introduce new driving licence rules, including medical examinations for elderly drivers, set new restrictions on novice drivers and make changes to the maximum weight for vehicles that can be driven with a category B driving licence.

In the reply to the campaign, we pointed out that this represented the rapporteur’s position and did not reflect the position of the European Parliament as a whole.

In March 2023, the President received over 10 100 messages calling on the Parliament to vote against the European Commission’s new legislative proposal to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. Citizens expressed their concerns that this new legislation would breach data protection and privacy rights.

In its proposal, the Commission wanted to make it mandatory for online service providers to detect, report and remove child sexual abuse material on their services. According to the Commission, investigation of suspicious content would follow strict rules and conditions; it would not entail general monitoring of individuals’ communications.

At the start of 2023, the President continued to receive a large number of messages – around 7 500 – about a pro-life conference, which took place in the European Parliament in November 2022. Citizens called on the President to take measures against Members and staff who, they claimed, tried to intimidate the participants.

In the reply to the campaign, we stressed that the demonstrators were invited into the room by the organisers, provided that they did not disrupt the meeting. The meeting took place without incident.

The President also received over 5 200 enquiries from citizens calling on Parliament to support those protesting in Iran. Parliament condemned the killing of Mahsa Amini, as well as the widespread and disproportionate use of force by Iranian security forces against protesting citizens. Parliament called on the Iranian authorities to immediately release and drop any charges against demonstrators.

A separate campaign, which sent around 2 140 messages, called on the President to act to fight biodiversity loss and climate change and urged her to support a European law on nature restoration.

Are you curious about our answers to other campaign messages in 2023? You can find replies to campaigns on the EPRS blog. A selection of answers to questions frequently posed to the European Parliament can also be found on the blog.

If you wish, you can put your questions and/or comments to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP), using our contact form, the Citizens’ app, or by post. We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us.

We look forward to your enquiries in 2024 and beyond!

Your Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass with Alexander Tyssen.

‘Auschwitz didn’t appear from nowhere’, remarked Marian Turski, Holocaust survivor and child prisoner in the Auschwitz death camp, in January 2020 at the solemn ceremony on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The former Auschwitz prisoner described the path from tiny hardships in everyday life and growing discrimination and persecution laws, to the genocide of Jews, the Holocaust. The consecutive stages of shrinking freedom can be summarised as 10 stages of genocide, in a process that could happen anywhere, with perpetrators potentially from all walks of life and ethnicities. However, anyone with enough courage can stop it at any stage.

Every year in January, the EU institutions honour the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and pay tribute to the survivors, of whom fewer and fewer remain to bear witness to the horrors of the Nazi persecutions. The EU bears a responsibility to keep the painful memory of those darkest days in Europe’s history alive. Repeating ‘Never again’ is not enough, and that is why the EU, which emerged from the ashes of World War Two, and is based on the principles of peace, freedom, human dignity and fundamental rights, has a duty to protect minorities, the Jewish minority in particular, from discrimination, hate speech and violence.

The EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life, the nomination of the coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life, European Parliament resolutions condemning growing antisemitism and warning against neo-Nazi organisations making their come back across the EU, all demonstrate the EU’s awareness of these dangerous phenomena and its determination to halt them.

Read the complete briefing on ‘International Holocaust Remembrance Day: The fragility of freedom‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochacka.

The first January 2024 plenary session opened with a statement by Parliament’s President, Roberta Metsola, commemorating Jacques Delors, the former Commission President, who passed away on 27 December. The highlight of the session was the presentation by Prime Minister Alexander De Croo of the programme of activities of the Belgian Presidency of the Council. There was also a debate on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 14-15 December 2023 and on the preparation of the special European Council meeting on 1 February, together with the situation in Hungary and frozen EU funds.

Further debates took place on the review of the economic governance framework; the recent ecological catastrophe involving plastic pellets lost off a ship and its impact on micro-plastic pollution in the maritime and coastal habitats; addressing urgent skills shortages and finding the right talents to boost job creation; improving the socio-economic situation of farmers and rural areas; ensuring fair incomes, food security and a just transition; the revision of the European Labour Authority’s mandate; and the fight against the resurgence of neo-fascism in Europe, in particular following the parade that took place in Rome on 7 January. Several debates were held on international issues: keeping commitments and delivering military assistance to Ukraine; the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the need to reach a ceasefire and the risks of regional escalation; the need for an EU and international response to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and for continued support to the Yemeni peace process; the state of emergency in Ecuador; and Norway’s recent decision to advance seabed mining in the Arctic.

Finally, Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew, Germany) was elected a Vice-President of Parliament, replacing Nicola Beer.

Gas emissions

Although the Ozone Regulation is working to cut emissions from ozone-depleting substances (ODS), old products containing ODS remain a source of emissions. Parliament debated and adopted an agreed text, endorsed by its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), to amend the current regulation. The text sets out how EU countries should deal with traders who do not comply with the rules. It commits the European Commission to maintaining a list of processes for which ODS use is banned, and to assess the availability of alternatives. It also extends the substances that must be recovered and destroyed, recycled or reclaimed to all those found in air conditioning, heat pumps and fire protection.

Because fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-gases) emissions also have big global warming potential, the EU has been regulating them since 2006. A Commission proposal seeks to reduce emissions even further by reducing the supply of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), banning F-gases in specific applications, and updating rules on implementing best practice. Parliament debated and adopted the provisional agreement reached between Parliament and the Council, which the ENVI committee had earlier endorsed. The text sets deadlines for phasing out altogether the placing of HFCs on the market (2050) and phasing down their production (2036), and allows room for additional quotas. However, the text does not include the minimum administrative fines Parliament proposed.

Empowering consumers for the green transition

Parliament debated and adopted a provisional agreement with the Council on a proposal that amends two key directives to protect consumers against misleading environmental claims, endorsed by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). The text includes several of Parliament’s demands, updated definitions, and sets rules for traders making environmental claims regarding goods, including digital components. It introduces a commercial guarantee of durability to improve consumer access to information on the sustainability and reparability of the things they buy, including the duration of the availability of software updates. The legislation will also cover claims made using audiovisual media.

Debt–equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA)

Corporate debt rose to 110 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021, risking insolvencies and possibly even longer-term economic instability. When a company takes out a loan to boost business, this is often tax-deductible, but the same does not apply to investment. To encourage greater investment in European companies and reduce debt levels, Members voted on a report from the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON), under the consultation procedure, on addressing the debt–equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA). Largely in favour of the proposal, the committee nevertheless seeks to ensure the impact on tax revenue is limited, given the current economic climate. The committee would reduce equity allowances from 10 to 7 years for large company groups and postpone the stricter interest deduction rules to 2027. The Council must now vote unanimously on the proposal.

EU-India relations

The EU and India have been strategic partners since 2004, cooperating in fields such as climate change, maritime security, digitalisation and health. The EU is India’s largest trading partner and its second largest export destination. Parliament held a debate and adopted the report of its Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) on EU-India relations. The report recommends strengthening the strategic partnership, based on democratic governance and international law, and calls for shared action and leadership, while recognising the importance of security and defence policy. It also expresses concern at India’s deteriorating human rights situation, inviting India to work with the EU on democratic and human rights.

Activities of the European Ombudsman: 2022 annual report

In the presence of Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman, Members considered and adopted the Committee on Petitions (PETI) report on the 2022 annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities. The PETI committee endorses the report, congratulating Emily O’Reilly on her efforts to improve administrative practices and to promote the accountability and full transparency of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. The Ombudsman’s report discusses ethical concerns, including conflicts of interest due to external employment of high-level officials once they have left, interactions with lobbyists, and the inquiry into Frontex.

Fisheries package

It is now 10 years since the last major reform of the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP). In response to the Commission’s fisheries package, Members debated and adopted three own-initiative reports from the Committee on Fisheries (PECH). The first looks at the CFP’s execution and future perspectives, in the light of the European Commission’s decision not to propose further reform. The second considers the 2013 revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation for fisheries and aquaculture products. The third report largely criticises the Commission’s proposed marine action plan. Here, the PECH committee regrets in particular the lack of a socio-economic study into the effects of the plan. The report also considers the blanket ban on bottom trawling in all marine protected areas to be ‘simplistic’.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

One decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations from the Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Committee, on the European Disability Card, was approved without vote, another from the Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee, on effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance, was approved in a vote.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – January 2024‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański.

While efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) both globally and in the United States intensify, the prospects for broad Congress-passed legislation remain doubtful. In October 2023, President Biden issued a wide-reaching executive order on safe, secure and trustworthy AI. It is a positive step, but implementation will be challenging.

Current global artificial intelligence policy landscape

According to the September 2023 Global AI Legislation Tracker, ‘countries worldwide are designing and implementing AI governance legislation commensurate to the velocity and variety of proliferating AI‑powered technologies. Legislative efforts include the development of comprehensive legislation, focused legislation for specific use cases, and voluntary guidelines and standards’. Stanford University has reported a massive increase in the number of countries with laws containing term ‘AI’ – growing from 25 countries in 2022 to 127 in 2023. While these individual jurisdictions, including the EU, advance with their own frameworks and approaches, multilateral efforts to coordinate them are also intensifying, be it through uptake of the AI principles of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or discussions in the United Nations and G7. The Centre for Strategic & International Studies explains that in essence these unilateral and multilateral laws and guidelines focus on the need to ‘balance the potential risk of AI systems against the risk of losing the economic and social benefits the new technology can bring’.

Developments in the United States

Against this background, the United States (US) has also been taking steps to regulate AI. The first federal laws on AI have been enacted over the past few Congresses, either as standalone legislation or as AI-related provisions and clauses placed in broader acts. Worth particular mention is the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (H.R. 6216), which established an American AI Initiative and guidance on AI research, development and evaluation activities at federal science agencies. Other acts have obliged certain agencies to drive AI programmes and policies across the federal government – such as the AI in Government Act (H.R. 2575) and the Advancing American AI Act (S.1353). Altogether, in the 117th Congress, at least 75 bills were introduced that focused on either AI and machine learning or related provisions. Six of those were enacted. The 118th Congress, as of June 2023, had introduced at least 40 AI-relevant bills, none of which has been enacted. Altogether, since 2015 nine bills have been passed. In November 2023, as many as 33 legislative pieces were still pending for consideration by US lawmakers. In January 2023 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy published its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and the National Institute of Standards and Technology released an AI Risk Management Framework. In the summer of 2023 two more broad policy frameworks, SAFE Innovation Framework for AI Policy and Blumental & Hawley Comprehensive AI Framework, seeking bipartisan support, were announced to guide the Congress in developing future AI legislation. Furthermore, in April 2023 – in a joint statement – four federal agencies underlined that their enforcement powers applied to AI and that advanced technology should not be an excuse for breaking the law. At state level, Stanford University reports that, between 2016 and 2022, 14 states passed legislation, the leader being Maryland with seven AI-related bills, followed by California with six, and Massachusetts and Washington with five.

President Biden’s executive order on AI

In an increasingly dense legislative environment, US President Joe Biden issued an executive order (EO) on the ‘Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI’ on 30 October 2023. It builds on earlier work, such as an EO directing agencies to combat algorithmic discrimination and the securing of voluntary commitments from major US companies (such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI) to drive safe, secure, and trustworthy AI development. The order covers eight policy fields.

First, it focuses on new standards for AI safety and security. For instance, it requires developers of the most powerful AI systems to share their safety test results and other critical information with the US government. Government agencies are tasked with developing standards, tools and tests to help ensure AI systems are safe, secure, and trustworthy. New standards will also be set to protect against the risks of using AI to engineer dangerous biological materials and protect US citizens from AI-enabled fraud and deception. The administration is due to establish an advanced cybersecurity programme to develop AI tools that find and fix vulnerabilities in critical software. The National Security Council and White House Chief of Staff have been tasked with developing a national security memorandum to direct further action on AI and security.

To protect citizens’ privacy from AI-related risks, the order prioritises federal support to accelerate the development and use of privacy-preserving techniques; it strengthens relevant research and technologies, requires evaluation of how agencies collect and use commercially available data, and calls for the development of guidelines for federal agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of privacy-preserving techniques. To advance equity and civil rights, the EO calls for clear guidance for landlords, federal benefits programmes and federal contractors, and measures to address logarithmic discrimination and fairness certainty throughout the criminal justice system by developing best practice on AI use. To protect consumers, patients and students, the order calls for measures to advance the responsible use of AI in healthcare and shape its potential to transform education.

To support workers, the EO calls for the development of principles and best practice to mitigate harm and maximise the benefits of AI, and for a report on AI’s potential labour-market impacts and on ways to mitigate them through stronger federal support. To promote innovation and competition, the order seeks to catalyse research across the US and calls for new measures to support fair, open, and competitive AI ecosystems, and for efforts to attract highly skilled immigrants and non-immigrants with expertise in critical areas to study, stay and work in the US. To advance US leadership abroad, the EO requires the expansion of bilateral and multilateral AI engagements, accelerated development and implementation of vital AI standards, and promotion of the safe, responsible, and rights-affirming development and deployment of AI abroad to address global challenges.

Finally, to ensure responsible and effective government use of AI, the EO seeks new guidance for agencies using AI, more efficient and rapid contracting to acquire AI products and services, and government-wide acceleration in hiring AI experts. The EO was followed by detailed implementation guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

Reactions

Most observers have characterised the EO using terms such as ‘landmark’ and ‘sweeping’. The polling of both Democrat and Republican supporters revealed that there is strong bipartisan support for its main provisions. While some commentators have also hailed the ‘rare example of bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill’, the EO did not entirely escape criticism from the Republicans for lacking a ‘light touch and market-driven approach’, placing ‘regulatory burdens that could hinder the development of … technology’ and based on an unlikely timetable. Conversely, the Democrats hailed the EO’s ambitious scope. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) sees the EO as confirmation that the US will not follow the EU risk classification embedded in the AI Act. The CSIS also sees a limit to what an EO can achieve unless Congress passes broad legislation, which it deems unlikely. It assesses that, unlike in the EU, the most likely outcome over the next few years ‘is a bottom-up patchwork quilt of executive branch actions’. The Brookings Institution considers that the EO sends a strong signal to the international community that the US is finally taking a stance on AI. It argues, however, that data privacy legislation is necessary to create effective and resilient AI. Industry has largely welcomed the EO, with some reservations concerning its heavy-handedness. Many experts consider it a good first step entailing major implementation challenges.

The EU and the US cooperate on AI under the Trade and Technology Council (TTC). They are implementing a joint roadmap on evaluation and measurement tools for trustworthy AI and risk management. The TTC expert groups have listed 65 key AI terms essential to understanding risk-based approaches to AI, accompanied by their EU and US interpretations and shared EU-US definitions. They have also mapped the respective involvement of both the EU and the US in standardisation activities, aiming to identify relevant AI-related standards of mutual interest. They are compiling a catalogue of existing and emerging risks, including an understanding of the challenges posed by generative AI. In January 2023, the EU and the US signed an administrative arrangement on ‘AI for the Public Good‘, aimed at boosting AI research collaboration.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘United States approach to artificial intelligence‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson with Sara Van Tooren.

It’s a new year, a new EU Council Presidency and as we move into the final months of the current legislative term, Members of the European Parliament have limited time in which to achieve their goals before campaigning begins for the European elections in June. To kick off the year, the agenda for the first plenary session of this month features a presentation of the programme of activities of the Belgian Presidency. Members will also discuss the outcome of the December European Council meeting and look ahead to the special meeting on 1 February. A statement by the President commemorating Jacques Delors will open the week’s session.

One of the 10 things our team has identified to watch in 2024 is India’s rise on the global stage. The EU and India have been strategic partners since 2004, cooperating in fields such as climate change, maritime security, digitalisation and health. The EU is India’s largest trading partner and its second largest export destination. On Tuesday, Parliament is expected to consider the report of its Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) on EU-India relations. The report recommends strengthening the strategic partnership, based on democratic governance and international law, and calls for shared action and leadership, while recognising the importance of security and defence policy. It also expresses concern at India’s deteriorating human rights situation, inviting India to work with the EU on democratic and human rights.

It is now 10 years since the last major reform of the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP). In response to the Commission’s fisheries package, Members are due to debate three own-initiative reports from the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) on Thursday morning. The first looks at the CFP’s execution and future perspectives, in the light of the European Commission’s proposal for no further reform. The second considers the 2013 revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation for fisheries and aquaculture products. The third report largely criticises the Commission’s proposed marine action plan. Here, the PECH committee regrets in particular the lack of a socio-economic study into the effects of the plan. The report also considers the blanket ban on bottom trawling in all marine protected areas to be ‘simplistic’.

On Tuesday afternoon, Parliament is expected to debate a draft agreement that would amend two key directives to protect consumers against misleading environmental claims, endorsed by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO). The text includes several of Parliament’s demands, updated definitions, and sets rules for traders making environmental claims regarding goods, including digital components. It introduces a commercial guarantee of durability to improve consumer access to information on the sustainability and reparability of the things they buy, including the duration of the availability of software updates. The legislation will also cover claims made using audiovisual media.

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbfjhVFhcw&list=PLPPfzoqPUImURKm2ymnZgpoEXdEezdwlV&index=39

Although the Ozone Regulation is working to cut emissions from ozone-depleting substances (ODS), old products containing ODS remain a source of emissions. On Monday, therefore, Parliament is due to consider an agreed text, endorsed by its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), to amend the current regulation. The text sets out how EU countries should deal with traders who do not comply with the rules. It commits the European Commission to maintaining a list of processes for which ODS use is banned and to assess the availability of alternatives. It also extends the substances that must be recovered and destroyed, recycled or reclaimed to all those found in air conditioning, heat pumps and fire protection (among other things).

Because fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-gases) emissions also have big global warming potential, the EU has been regulating them since 2006. A new proposal seeks to reduce emissions even further by reducing the supply of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), banning F-gases in specific applications, and updating rules on implementing best practice. Parliament’s ENVI committee endorsed the provisional agreement reached between Parliament and the Council, which Parliament is set to consider on Monday. The text sets deadlines for phasing out placing HFCs on the market altogether (2050) and phasing down their production (2036), and allows room for additional quotas. However, the text does not include the minimum administrative fines Parliament proposed.

Corporate debt rose to 110 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021, risking insolvencies and possibly even longer-term economic instability. When a company takes out a loan to boost business, this is often tax-deductible, but the same does not apply to investment. To encourage greater investment in European companies and reduce debt levels, Members are therefore set to consider a report from the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) on addressing the debt–equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA) on Tuesday. Largely in favour of the proposal, the committee nevertheless seeks to ensure the impact on tax revenue is limited, given the current economic climate. The committee would reduce equity allowances from 10 to 7 years for large company groups and postpone the stricter interest deduction rules to 2027. Should Members agree, the report will set Parliament’s non-binding position, on which the Council must vote unanimously.

In the presence of Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman, on Tuesday afternoon, Members are expected to consider the Committee on Petitions (PETI) report on the 2022 annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities. The PETI committee endorses the report, congratulating Emily O’Reilly on her efforts to improve administrative practices and to promote the accountability and full transparency of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. The Ombudsman’s report discusses ethical concerns, including conflicts of interest due to external employment of high-level officials once they have left, interactions with lobbyists, and the inquiry into Frontex.

FURTHER READING

• Agenda – European Parliament Plenary Session January I 2024
• Priority dossiers under the Belgian EU Council Presidency
• Outcome of the European Council meeting of 14-15 December 2023
• Jacques Delors: Architect of the modern European Union
• Parliament’s response to the fisheries package
• 10 Issues to watch
• EU-India relations
• Empowering consumers for the green transition
• Revision of the Ozone Regulation
• Review of the F-gas Regulation
• Debt–equity bias reduction allowance (DEBRA)Activities of the European Ombudsman: 2022 annual report

Written by Angelos Delivorias. Graphics: Györgyi Mácsai.

India was among the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community in 1962. Following the EU-India 1994 Cooperation Agreement, the parties built a multi-tiered institutional architecture of cooperation, and eventually upgraded their relationship to a ‘Strategic Partnership’ in 2004. During the same period, trade between the two partners grew significantly, reaching €115.4 billion in 2022. As a result, the parties began negotiations on a broad-based bilateral trade and investment agreement in 2007. However, after 15 rounds of negotiations, talks between the parties stalled in 2013, due to diverging ambitions between the counterparts. On 8 May 2021, the EU and Indian leaders agreed to resume negotiations for a ‘balanced, ambitious, comprehensive and mutually beneficial’ trade agreement, and to launch separate negotiations on an investment protection agreement and an agreement on geographical indications. The Commission and India aim to finalise the negotiations before the Indian elections in 2024. In addition, they decided in April 2022 to launch an EU-India Trade and Technology Council.

In its 5 July 2022 resolution on EU-India future trade and investment cooperation, Parliament encouraged the negotiators to achieve a comprehensive and mutually beneficial free trade agreement, giving priority to areas conducive to sustainable growth and addressing inequalities and the digital and green just transitions. They invited the Commission to ensure that the core principles of the ILO are applied in the future trade agreement and that the agreement is in line with the European Green Deal, the ‘farm to fork’ strategy and COP26. Lastly, they welcomed the willingness to negotiate an independent investment protection agreement, and urged negotiators to agree on the creation of a multilateral investment court and a specific EU-India investment court.

Free trade agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and India, of the other partother partCommittee responsible:International Trade (INTA)2021/2177(INI)Rapporteur:Geert Bourgeois (ECR, Belgium)

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU-India free trade agreement‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Trade in services with India India’s top EU trade partners (2022)

Written by Polona Car.

Cyberattack numbers have surged in recent years, leading to the formation of entities at all levels to prevent attacks or mitigate the harm they may cause. An efficient EU-level response requires coordination and the timely exchange of information. Several bodies and networks have been set up to this end; this paper explains their respective roles.

Introduction

Nowadays, cybersecurity is embedded in public and private sector organisations to protect their vital interests and offer strategies to mitigate possible cyberattacks. Whereas national security, including cybersecurity, remains a national government prerogative, the potential cross-border impact of cyber incidents implies the need for cooperation and a common EU response. This need is increasingly reflected in EU legal acts defining new entities – at both EU and national level – to analyse threats and respond to cyber incidents. On top of that, Member States have been taking their own initiatives for cooperation at supranational level, both inside the EU and beyond (for instance within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and bilaterally, for example with the US). In view of the extent and speed of these legislative and organisational developments, this publication outlines the main actors at EU level and illustrates the complexity of the EU cyber landscape.

European Commission agencies and bodies

Several agencies are working with the European Commission and its directorates-general to build up EU cybersecurity capabilities and cooperation. Since 2004, the EU has had a dedicated agency for cybersecurity (ENISA). ENISA was strengthened by the EU cybersecurity act, which gave it a permanent mandate, more responsibilities and more resources to improve its ability to help achieve a high common level of cybersecurity across Europe. The agency’s role is to support and ensure a framework for operational cooperation, in particular in preparation for significant cross-border cyberattacks, to assist Member States with ad hoc cybersecurity-related issues, and to implement the relevant legislation. A number of EU legislative acts that are currently pending – such as the cyber resilience act –will enhance ENISA’s role and give the agency new responsibilities.

The European Cybersecurity Competence Centre (ECCC), established in 2021, is responsible for EU cybersecurity capacity building and competitiveness. The centre, which became operational in May 2023, aims to improve technological sovereignty through strategic cybersecurity investments; it works together with the network of national coordination centres. Its work is powered by artificial intelligence and complemented by the EU supercomputing infrastructure developed under the European high-performance computing joint undertaking.

CERT-EU is the computer security incident response team for all the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. It was set up in 2011 and formally established through an interinstitutional agreement in 2018. CERT-EU’s role is to prevent, detect, mitigate and respond to cyberattacks against EU institutions, bodies and agencies. It also serves as a hub for cybersecurity information exchange for its constituents.

The European Cybercrime Centre(EC3) was set up by Europol in 2013 to strengthen the law enforcement response to cybercrime in the EU. Since its establishment, it has helped to fight cybercrime and thus protect European citizens, businesses and governments.

Structured cooperation between Member States: European cyber networks

The directive on measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (referred to as the NIS Directive) established the Network and Information Systems (NIS) Cooperation Group to ensure strategic cooperation and information exchange between Member States and contribute to the development of trust and confidence. The group is composed of representatives of the Member States, the European Commission and ENISA. Among other things, it carries out coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains, discusses cases and requests from Member States for mutual assistance, provides strategic guidance for the activities of the computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) Network and the European Cyber Crises Liaison Organisation Network (EU-CyCLONe), and provides guidance and exchanges information and best practices on issues falling within its remit.

The NIS Directive established (and the NIS2 Directive later strengthened) the CSIRTs Network to promote effective operational cooperation on specific cybersecurity incidents and the sharing of information on cybersecurity risks. The network is composed of Member State-appointed CSIRTs, CERT-EU, and the European Commission as an observer, with ENISA providing the secretariat and support as needed.

The NIS2 Directive formally established EU-CyCLONe, which was launched in 2020. EU-CyCLONe is a cooperation network for Member States’ national authorities in charge of cyber crisis management. Supported by ENISA, the network aims to collaborate and develop timely information sharing and situational awareness, and to intervene in the event of large-scale cybersecurity incidents and crises; it supports the coordination and management and assesses the impacts of such incidents. As such, it provides a bridge between the technical (in the form of the CSIRTs Network) and political levels, which is tested through regular exercises. It cooperates with the CSIRTs Network on the basis of procedural agreements.

The prosecution of cyber criminals and enforcement of cyber legislation is crucial in the fight against cybercrime. Therefore, the European Judicial Cybercrime Network (EJCN) was established in 2016 to promote cooperation among cybercrime professionals and contribute to swifter prosecution of cybercrime offences. On the enforcement side, the European Union Cybercrime Task Force (EUCTF) was established in 2010 within Europol. EUCTF is a network – composed of the heads of Member States’ national cybercrime units and representatives from Europol, the Commission, the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL). It provides a forum in which to identify, discuss and prioritise the key challenges and actions in the fight against cybercrime. Detection and prevention of any form of cybercrime is its first objective.

Council and European External Action Service (EEAS) tools and defence cooperation

As the EU’s diplomatic service, the EEAS steers the EU’s cyber diplomacy and strategic communication. The Strategic Compass provides a plan of action for strengthening the EU’s security and defence policy by 2030. In 2022, the High Representative, in line with the objectives of the Strategic Compass, established the EEAS crisis response centre (CRC) as a permanent crisis response capability and the single entry point on all crisis-related issues in the EEAS. The CRC brings together diplomatic, security and intelligence capabilities to increase the EU’s capability to respond to security and consular crises abroad.

The Council has several information sharing and coordination bodies. These include the Horizontal Working Party on Cyber Issues, which coordinates the Council’s cyber policy and legislative activities. In the event of a major incident, however, a fast and collective response is crucial to reassure citizens and international partners. The Integrated Political Crisis Response Mechanism (IPCR) provides the necessary protocols and procedures for rapid and coordinated decision-making by the EU and is the Council Presidencies’ tool to coordinate the political response to major crises. The IPCR works in close cooperation with the EEAS CRC to ensure a coherent and coordinated EU approach and response to crises. The cyber diplomacy toolbox provides a framework for a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities and a legal framework for sanctions against cyberattacks. The revised implementing guidelines of the cyber diplomacy toolbox define the practical implementation of the toolbox in a step-by-step process. Today, cyber threats are just as threatening to national security as physical ones. It goes without saying that the defence community has intensified its efforts to fight them, and the European Defence Agency (EDA) supports Member States in developing cyber resilience. In 2017, the Council established a framework for permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) to boost cooperation on defence among participating Member States. The EDA and EEAS are both part of the PESCO secretariat. Countries participating in PESCO have established several projects dedicated to cyber defence: cyber rapid response teams (CRRTs), the Cyber Ranges Federation (CRF) and the Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform (CTIRISP), to name just a few. Projects include a varying number of Member States that participate in PESCO, and are coordinated by one or more of these countries.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘Cybersecurity actors in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias.

The EU-India Trade and Technology Council was announced by the European Commission in April 2022, and launched in February 2023. It is the EU’s second such endeavour after the one with the United States, and its aims are broadly similar, i.e. to increase bilateral cooperation, to boost bilateral trade and investment (in the same context as the free trade agreement under negotiation between the two parties), and to capitalise on both parties’ strengths to ensure their technological and industrial leadership while preserving their shared values.

Introduction

The decision to establish an EU-India Trade and Technology Council (TTC) was first announced by the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, in April 2022. After the TTC’s formal launch in February 2023, its first ministerial meeting was held in May 2023, alongside the FTA negotiations. The ministerial meeting was co-chaired by Commission Executive Vice-Presidents Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis on the EU side, and by the Minister of External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar; the Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal; and the Minister of State for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and Electronics and Information Technology, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, on the Indian side. They were joined by the High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell, as well as the Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton.

The TTC is the second such bilateral forum for the EU, after the one launched with the United States (US) in June 2021, while being the first for India. For the EU, its TTC with India complements a series of partnerships it signed with Asian countries in 2022 and 2023, including Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to address issues related to the digital divide and to strengthen ‘a fair, inclusive and equal digital environment for all‘. It also builds on other EU initiatives, such as the Joint Commitment to Digital Transformation in the EU-Africa Joint Vision for 2030, and the EU-Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Digital Alliance. These partnerships also form part of the EU’s idea of working with like-minded partners to promote a ‘positive and human-centric vision of the digital economy and society’ as envisioned in its 2030 Digital Compass (long-term strategy for the digital transformation of the EU).

India, for its part, has been actively participating in various platforms and initiatives aimed at strategic recalibration of trade and technology. These include the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad, comprisingAustralia, India Japan and the US) working group on emerging and critical technology, whose goal is to foster collaboration on setting standards and frameworks for emerging technology such as 5G/6G networks, AI, digitalisation and quantum computing. Together with Japan and Australia, India launched the supply chain resilience initiative in 2021, to share best practices and promote inclusive growth. India and the US also launched an initiative on critical and emerging technology (iCET) in May 2022, to expand the strategic technology partnership and defence industrial cooperation between the two countries.

Experts note that the TTC is part of a joint effort to steer the EU and India closer towards strategic autonomy by reducing the EU’s dependence on China, and India’s reliance on Russia. In this context, a January 2023 report by the Netherlands Institute for International Relations highlights some opportunities for the counterparts to enhance their cooperation on military technologies, technology and data governance, and other critical technologies (such as semiconductors, batteries, data), as well as on the restructuring of India’s and the EU’s supply chains. In the same vein, a September 2023 article notes that the EU, the US and India should focus on the resilience of the semiconductor supply chain and specifically increase India’s presence in semiconductor packaging (at present the industry is concentrated in China). They should also focus on quantum information science and technology (QIST). Here the authors see the potential in using the EU’s experience in managing and linking quantum projects across Member States (e.g. the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking and the European Quantum Communication Infrastructure). Lastly, they should cooperate on digital infrastructure, especially next-generation wireless networks such as 6G.

The EU-India TTC working groups

In its current configuration, the TTC has three working groups that focus on i) strategic technologies, digital governance and digital connectivity, ii) green and clean energy technologies, and iii) resilient value chains, trade and investment. Following the May meeting, several initiatives have been highlighted.

The first working group has launched three initiatives. The first involves coordination within the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence(GPAI), a multi-stakeholder initiative announced in 2018 and launched in 2020, to bridge the gap between theory and practice on AI through research and applied activities. This enhanced coordination is happening in the context of the EU’s forthcoming artificial intelligence act, expected to be adopted early in 2024, India’s national programme on AI (adopted in March 2022) and its draft national data governance framework policy (July 2022).

The second initiative focuses on policy coordination in the semiconductorsector. India and the EU have sought to reduce vulnerabilities in their supply chains in this sector. In this context, the EU implemented its Chips Act in September 2023, to strengthen manufacturing and reduce critical dependencies. The Indian government has also stepped up its efforts by offering a production-linked incentive of US$10 billion for manufacturers to set up and invest in a manufacturing value chain for semiconductors. Multilaterally, India is working with its partners in the Quad semiconductor supply chain initiative. On 23 November 2023, the EU and India finalised a memorandum of understanding on semiconductors, committing to further deepen cooperation on the semiconductor ecosystem, its supply chain and innovation.

The third initiative involves work towards increasing interoperability between India’s and the EU’s digital public infrastructure (DPI) and towards promoting credible solutions for developing countries. India is a global leader in the development of DPI, where it has put in place an ecosystem for the implementation and adaptation of three critical aspects of DPI, also known as the ‘India stack‘: digital identity, digital payments and data-sharing. Under the Indian presidency of the G20, the 2023 G20 Leaders’ Declaration welcomed the ‘G20 Framework for Systems of Digital Public Infrastructure’, recognising the role of DPI in the delivery of services for the whole of society. The EU has also worked on these areas under its Digital Decade policy programme 2030 and its Global Gateway, which focuses on digital technology and infrastructure to promote inclusive growth and sustainable development.

In the area of green and clean energy technologies (second working group), the parties reiterated their commitments to net-zero goals and identified three areas of cooperation: renewable and low-carbon hydrogen, batteries for electric vehicles, and standards. India and the EU have cooperated with each other on clean energy and climate matters since 2016. Their cooperation expanded further under the 2020 EU-India strategic partnership, and following the joint statement released after the 2021 India-EU Summit. As part of this cooperation, India and the EU will start implementing joint wastewater treatment and management projects to facilitate their market uptake. They will also work on wastewater to energy and on waste to hydrogen. Another important deliverable is a gap analysis on how to tackle marine plastic litter and pollution. The counterparts will also share knowledge on circularity aspects of batteries and the possibility to recover raw materials. They have also pledged to develop standards that can ensure interoperability, including for renewable and low-carbon hydrogen.

Lastly, in the context of the third working group, the parties have agreed to work towards establishing principles on cooperation by identifying specific supply chains and mechanisms for the screening of foreign direct investment (FDI). To this end, the two sides intend, in the years to come, to focus on four areas. First, they will agree on broad principles for cooperation and then work towards establishing mutual interest for resilient value chains. They aim to identify and resolve market access issues in order to jointly remove identified trade barriers. They will also work on the exchange of information regarding each other’s mechanisms for FDI screening, to enhance mutual understanding about these mechanisms.

In the context of bilateral trade, it is noteworthy that remaining and possibly new challenges exist between the two parties. These include a dispute at the WTO level regarding New Delhi’s import duties on specific information and technology products, as well as India’s concerns over the implementation of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

The next meeting of the co-chairs is scheduled for early 2024 in India, when the parties will take stock of the progress achieved and decide on further action.

Read this ‘at a glance’ note on ‘EU-India Trade and Technology Council‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.