NewzIntel.com

Category: Business

  • MIL-Evening Report: Thumbs up: good or passive aggressive? How emojis became the most confusing kind of online language

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Ferdinands, Lecturer in Digital Content Creation, Discipline of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

    The Conversation, CC BY

    Emojis, as well as memes and other forms of short-form content, have become central to how we express ourselves and connect online. Yet as meanings shift across different contexts, so too does the potential for misunderstanding.

    A senior colleague of mine recently encountered some commentary about the “slightly smiling” face emoji: 🙂

    They approached me, asking whether it represented joy, as they had assumed, or if it had a more ominous meaning.

    As a chronically-online millennial, who unironically identifies as a gen Z, I bore the news that I, along with most younger internet users, only ever use it sarcastically.

    “It doesn’t actually signify happiness – more so fake happiness, or dry humour,” I explained.

    I also told them how the thumbs up emoji is often interpreted as passive aggressive, and that the only time I’d use the laughing-crying (“face with tears of joy”) emoji is under duress.

    Despite seeming like a universal language – and sometimes they do function that way – emojis can be at once more vague, and more specific, than words. That’s because you can’t separate the meaning of a smiley from the person who sent it, nor from the person receiving it.

    Markers of age and identity

    While emojis were originally developed in the late 1990s by Japanese artist Shigetaka Kurita to add emotional nuance to text-based messaging, their function has since evolved.

    Today, emojis are not just emotional cues; they also operate as cultural symbols and markers of identity.

    Research published last year highlights how these symbols can create subtle communication barriers across age groups. For instance, a study of Chinese-speaking WeChat users found younger and older people differed not only in how frequently they used emojis, but in how they interpreted and aesthetically preferred them.

    One emoji that’s increasingly becoming a distinct marker of age is the previously mentioned laughing-crying emoji (😂). Despite being named Oxford Dictionary’s 2015 word of the year, and frequently topping the most-used emoji charts, this smiley is on the decline among gen Z – who decided in 2020 that it wasn’t cool anymore.

    Instead, they prefer the skull emoji (💀), which is shorthand for the gen Z catch phrase “I’m dead”. This means something is funny (not that they’re literally deceased).

    Such shifts may understandably be perplexing for older generations who are unfamiliar with evolving norms and slang.

    A digital body language

    Emojis can also take on distinct meanings on different platforms. They are embedded within “platform vernaculars”: the ever-evolving styles of communication that are unique to specific digital spaces.

    For example, a thumbs up emoji (👍) from your boss at work is seemingly more acceptable, and less anxiety inducing, than from a romantic interest you’ve just sent a risky text to.

    This dilemma was echoed in a recent viral TikTok by user @kaitlynghull, which prompted thousands to comment about their shared confusion over emoji use in the workplace.

    This reaction highlights a deeper communication issue.

    A survey of 10,000 workers across the US, France, Germany, India and Australia, conducted by YouGov and software company Atlassian, found 65% of workers used emojis to convey tone in the workplace. But while 88% of gen Z workers thought emojis were helpful, this dropped to 49% for baby boomers and gen X.

    The survey concluded some emojis can be interpreted in multiple ways, and these double meanings aren’t always safe for work.

    In with the ‘it’ crowd

    Another example of platform-specific emoji use comes from social media content creators who deploy emojis to curate a certain aesthetic.

    Under the Tiktok tag #emojicombo, you’ll find thousands of videos showcasing emoji combinations that provide aesthetic “inspo”. These combinations are used to represent different online identities or subcultures, such as “that girl”, “clean girl” or “old money”.

    Users may include the combinations in their captions or videos to signal their personal style, or to express the mood or vibe of their online persona. In this way, the emojis help shape how they present themselves on the platform.

    This example of emoji use is also a display of symbolic capital. It signals social alignment, in an environment where a user’s visibility (and popularity) is determined by their platform fluency.

    Emojis, then, aren’t just tools for expression. They are badges of identity that index where a user stands in the online cultural hierarchy.

    There’s a fragmentation in how we relate

    A single emoji might communicate irony, sincerity or sarcasm, depending on who is using it, what platform they’re using it on, and what generation they belong to.

    This gap points to deeper questions around online access and participation, and the systems that shape online cultures.

    And when the meaning of an emoji is platform-dependent and socially stratified, it can become as much about fitting in with a cultural in-group than conveying emotion.

    Brittany Ferdinands does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Thumbs up: good or passive aggressive? How emojis became the most confusing kind of online language – https://theconversation.com/thumbs-up-good-or-passive-aggressive-how-emojis-became-the-most-confusing-kind-of-online-language-259151

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Melatos, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

    GettyImages skynesher/Getty

    Australia’s superannuation regulator has written to Australian superannuation funds raising concerns their spending might not be benefiting members.

    The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is not just concerned with the type of expenses, but with the corporate governance around their approval, evaluation and reporting.

    The letter refers to a “lack of robust governance and oversight of fund expenditure” and funds making “decisions not supported by an expenditure management framework”.

    Concern about funds’ spending and governance has grown since construction industry super fund, CBUS, last year admitted it spent A$387,000 of members’ retirement savings on a 40th birthday bash attended by 750 guests.

    At the same time the fund was being criticised for its links with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union as three of its board members were members. The union was alleged to have been infiltrated by criminal elements.

    Protecting members

    Since July 1 2021, legislation requires regulated superannuation funds – industry and retail funds, but not self-managed funds – to act in the best financial interests of their members. This is referred to as their “best financial interest duty”.

    In the superannuation industry, what economists call the principal-agent problem – in this case, ensuring super fund trustees (agents) protect the financial interests of members (principals) whose retirement savings they manage – is particularly acute.

    Compared to public company shareholders, for example, super fund members have little opportunity to monitor and challenge management decisions. This includes spending decisions that affect their super balance. There is no annual general meeting at which members can vote or question their fund’s trustees.

    Fund members also cannot rely to the same extent as shareholders on the market to optimise the performance of management. The threat of takeover and replacement of executives tends to be lower than for publicly listed companies. Apart from switching funds, the regulator’s oversight and enforcement are the main protection for members against trustee maladministration or malfeasance.

    There is also a significant public interest in ensuring each super fund meets its financial duty obligations. The squandering of a member’s retirement savings increases the likelihood they will need to rely on the public pension, a cost for all taxpayers.

    Can super fund expenses be justified?

    It has been reported that spending under the regulator’s microscope includes “sports sponsorships, travel, conferences and other payments to affiliated unions or employer groups”.

    Whether or not such expenses are compatible with members’ best financial interests is often difficult to judge. That is why funds are being asked to report and justify expenses more transparently.

    For example, a fund’s spending on marketing and travel might be consistent with best financial interest duty if there is scope associated with increased membership and funds under management.

    There are significant fixed administration and regulatory costs associated with running a super fund.

    Core customer service functions, such as processing death benefit claims, require sensitive (and expensive) handling.

    Spreading such costs over more members likely helps reduce fees charged to members and can encourage investment in improved customer service.

    Large super funds are increasingly investing in alternative assets such as private equity and taking direct stakes in bespoke projects (such as airport ownership and apartment construction). While such investments can enhance returns, they usually require access to significant financial firepower.

    Bigger may not always be better

    In short, if size matters, and if, for example, sports sponsorship allows super funds to grow cost-effectively, then marketing and travel expenses may be compatible with best financial interest requirements. That might even include an executive’s travel to the AFL Grand Final to network with potential co-investors.

    Neverthless, there may also be disadvantages associated with increased fund size. Larger funds are likely to find it harder to outperform the market and their peers, at least when investing in listed equities. So spending to grow membership may not always be in members’ interests.

    Whether super fund payments to affiliated unions or employer groups are justifiable is complicated by legislative requirements. While a fund cannot give benefits to an employer or union, it can give benefits to a firm’s employees or a union’s members. This might include preferential death benefits or financial literacy seminars.

    Questionable expenses

    Some fund expenses might reflect the pursuit of “private benefits” by super fund executives or trustees. They might, for example, approve questionable investments that burnish their CVs for their next corporate gig. Or they might approve sponsorship of a football team so they can network with potential future employers or business partners at a game.

    More innocently, but no less perniciously, the executive remuneration consultants super funds hire may define key performance indicators that are inappropriate for super fund executives (for example, membership growth at all costs).

    What can the regulator do?

    The superannuation regulator has broad powers to license and supervise superannuation funds to ensure they “keep the financial promises” made to their members.

    Ultimately, a fund’s trustees are responsible for ensuring the fund is meeting its financial interests obligations.

    One tool at the regulator’s disposal is to seek a court enforceable undertaking from an offending fund. This is a legal promise to address governance and legislative breaches. Failure to deliver can jeopardise a fund’s licence to operate.

    Ultimately, the legal burden of proof in any civil legal action to show they have met their best financial interests responsibilities, now lies with the trustees.

    Now the Prudential Regulation Authority has put super funds on notice to lift their game.

    Mark Melatos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Australia’s superannuation regulator is worried about your fund’s spending. Should you be? – https://theconversation.com/australias-superannuation-regulator-is-worried-about-your-funds-spending-should-you-be-259881

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Mfume, Team Maryland Statement on Administration Attempt to Reprogram FBI Headquarters Funding

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Congressman Kweisi Mfume, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies and Representative Steny Hoyer, Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, along with Governor Wes Moore, Senator Angela Alsobrooks and Representatives Glenn Ivey, Jamie Raskin, Sarah Elfreth, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.), and Prince George’s County Executive Aisha N. Braveboy released the following statement regarding the Administration’s attempt to reprogram funding intended for the new FBI Headquarters in Greenbelt, Md. 

    “The FBI deserves a headquarters that meets their security and mission needs – and following an extensive, thorough, and transparent process, Greenbelt, Maryland, was selected as the site that best meets those requirements. Not only was this decision final, the Congress appropriated funds specifically for the purpose of the new, consolidated campus to be built in Maryland. Now the Administration is attempting to redirect those funds – both undermining Congressional intent and dealing a blow to the men and women of the FBI – since we know that a headquarters located within the District would not satisfy their security needs. Simply moving down the street would ignore the real threats the Bureau faces and further jeopardize the safety of those protecting our communities. That’s why we will be fighting back against this proposal with every tool we have.” 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congressman Mfume, Team Maryland Statement on Administration Attempt to Reprogram FBI Headquarters Funding

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Kweisi Mfume (MD-07)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Congressman Kweisi Mfume, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies and Representative Steny Hoyer, Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, along with Governor Wes Moore, Senator Angela Alsobrooks and Representatives Glenn Ivey, Jamie Raskin, Sarah Elfreth, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.), and Prince George’s County Executive Aisha N. Braveboy released the following statement regarding the Administration’s attempt to reprogram funding intended for the new FBI Headquarters in Greenbelt, Md. 

    “The FBI deserves a headquarters that meets their security and mission needs – and following an extensive, thorough, and transparent process, Greenbelt, Maryland, was selected as the site that best meets those requirements. Not only was this decision final, the Congress appropriated funds specifically for the purpose of the new, consolidated campus to be built in Maryland. Now the Administration is attempting to redirect those funds – both undermining Congressional intent and dealing a blow to the men and women of the FBI – since we know that a headquarters located within the District would not satisfy their security needs. Simply moving down the street would ignore the real threats the Bureau faces and further jeopardize the safety of those protecting our communities. That’s why we will be fighting back against this proposal with every tool we have.” 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Aguilar: The GOP’s One Big Ugly Bill is fundamentally un-American

    Source: US House of Representatives – Democratic Caucus

    The following text contains opinion that is not, or not necessarily, that of MIL-OSI – July 02, 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar joined Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle, Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal, Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone and House Democrats for a press conference on Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill. 

    CHAIRMAN AGUILAR: Donald Trump promised the American people that he would cut costs on day one. Republicans in Congress swore up and down that their policies would fight inflation and make life easier for everyday Americans. More lies. But we’ve all seen under this President, and this Republican majority, the prices continue to rise and the American Dream slipping further from reach. 

    Today marks the culmination of Donald Trump’s betrayal of working people across this country. Because of this bill, your health care is going to go up. Your electric bill is going to be more expensive. The clothes and groceries that you buy are already rising due to his reckless tariffs. The only people who make out in this bill are people who can already afford to pay a little bit more at the checkout line. But that’s not the reality for most people in this country. This bill isn’t for the American people—it’s a reward to the mega-rich campaign donors that bankroll Republican campaigns. 

    Why would Gabe Evans in Colorado vote for this bill? 29,000 people will lose access to health care in his district. 30,000 households will lose access to food nutrition programs, and almost 1,000 energy jobs will be lost. No one asked 17 million people to lose their health insurance. No one asked for hospitals to close or nursing homes to be shuttered because billionaires want more tax breaks. Where I’m from, that’s not big or beautiful. That’s small and ugly. No one asked for food assistance to be taken away from children to give handouts to the same corporations gouging the American people. 

    House Democrats believe that this bill is fundamentally un-American. We are going to fight to make sure billionaires and wealthy corporations pay their fair share, so that we can build an economy that works for everyone. We are going to fight to make America less expensive. And we’re going to fight to give working class people more breathing room and opportunities to get ahead.

    I want to thank my House colleagues for standing with us in this time, against this bill. I want to thank the community members who have joined us as well. And members of the faith-based community as well.

    We’re not here in a partisan exercise. We’re here because the American people don’t deserve this suffering. Now we did take a little bit of liberty when we said, “Hell no.” We didn’t ask them, members of the clergy, but we stand in unison against this dangerous bill. And today, however long it takes, we will continue to vote against this bill. We will do it together, and we will do it with the American people in mind. Thank you so much. 

    Video of the full press conference can be viewed here.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Doctor Arrested for Multimillion-Dollar COVID-19 Insurance Scheme

    Source: US FBI

    The Attorney for the United States, Acting under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, Sean Buckley, and the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia, announced the arrest of ALI RASHAN on charges of health care fraud.  As alleged in a five-count Indictment unsealed on June 25, 2025, RASHAN, a medical doctor, was the CEO and founder of ClearMD, a provider of COVID-19 testing services in New York City which fraudulently billed insurance companies for approximately $24 million for COVID-19 testing and submitted fraudulent medical records in furtherance of this fraudulent scheme.  RASHAN was presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses on June 25 and the case has been assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

    “While New Yorkers were doing their best to get through a public health crisis, Ali Rashan was allegedly cashing in on it,” said Attorney for the United States Sean Buckley.  “Our Office will not tolerate those who exploit the city’s pandemic response for personal profit.”

    “Ali Rashan allegedly facilitated an elaborate scheme using fabricated medical records to steal more than $24 million,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia.  “This defendant allegedly violated his dual authorities as a medical doctor and CEO to receive reimbursement from thousands of illegitimate claims.  The FBI remains dedicated to investigating any individual who selfishly exploits our health care system for their personal benefit.

    According to statements made in court and publicly filed documents in this case:[1]

    From at least 2021 until in or about 2023, RASHAN, the founder and owner of ClearMD, a provider of medical testing services, agreed to submit and caused to be submitted to insurers fraudulent claims that billed for unperformed and unrequested services purportedly provided to patients who sought testing for COVID-19 and fraudulent medical records in support of these fraudulent claims.  For example, RASHAN directed ClearMD to submit or cause the submission of thousands of claims that billed for evaluation and management (“E/M”) services that were never performed.  Furthermore, at times during the relevant period, RASHAN directed ClearMD to submit claims to insurers billing for two to four COVID-19 testing codes, even though ClearMD had administered only a single COVID-19 test to patients.  Thereafter, in response to requests from insurers for documentation supporting its claims for reimbursement, RASHAN instructed ClearMD staff to write a software program to generate false medical records to support ClearMD’s fraudulent billings.  RASHAN directed ClearMD to submit these fabricated medical records to insurers to deceive them about the services that ClearMD had provided and to justify ClearMD’s retention of amounts paid to ClearMD in response to fraudulent claims.  This scheme resulted in losses of at least approximately $24 million.

    *                *                *

    RASHAN, 41, of New York, New York, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of health care fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of conspiracy to make false statements, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; and one count of false statements relating to health care matters, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

    The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

    Mr. Buckley praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI.  Mr. Buckley also thanked the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration for their assistance in this investigation.

    The charges announced today are part of a strategically coordinated, nationwide law enforcement action that resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants for their alleged participation in health care fraud and illegal drug diversion schemes that involved the submission of over $14.6 billion in alleged false billings and over 15.6 million pills of illegally diverted controlled substances.  The defendants allegedly defrauded programs entrusted for the care of the elderly and disabled to line their own pockets.  In connection with this nationwide health care fraud takedown, the Government seized over $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles, and other assets.

    Descriptions of each case involved in today’s enforcement action are available on the Department’s website here.

    This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rushmi Bhaskaran, Timothy Capozzi, and Jaclyn Delligatti are in charge of the prosecution.

    The charges contained in the Indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
     

    [1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Serial Hacker ‘IntelBroker’ Charged for Causing $25 Million in Damages to Victims

    Source: US FBI

    Kai West, a British National, Is Charged With Operating the “IntelBroker” Online Identity, Infiltrating Victim Computer Networks, Stealing Data, Selling It, and Causing Millions in Damages to Dozens of Victims Around the World

    The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jay Clayton, and the Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Christopher G. Raia, announced the unsealing of a four-count criminal Indictment and Complaint charging KAI WEST, a/k/a “IntelBroker,” a/k/a “Kyle Northern,” with a years-long hacking scheme committed through the online identity “IntelBroker.”  WEST, using the IntelBroker identity, conspired with an online group named the CyberN[——], to steal data from a telecommunications company, municipal health care provider, an Internet service provider, and more than 40 other victims.  WEST, and his online co-conspirators, took that stolen data, and offered it for sale online for more than $2 million.  Collectively, WEST, through the “IntelBroker” identity and his online co-conspirators, caused in excess of $25 million in damages to victims.  WEST was arrested in France in February 2025, and the United States is seeking his extradition.  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

    “The IntelBroker alias has caused millions in damages to victims around the world,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.  “This action reflects the FBI’s commitment to pursuing cybercriminals around the world.  New Yorkers are all too often the victims of intentional cyber schemes and our office is committed to bringing these remote actors to justice.”

    “Kai West, an alleged serial hacker, is charged for a nefarious, years-long scheme to steal victim’s data and sell it for millions in illicit funds, causing more than $25 million in damages worldwide,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia.  “Today’s announcement should serve as a warning to anyone thinking they can hide behind a keyboard and commit cyber-crime with impunity; the FBI will find and hold you accountable no matter where you are.”

    As alleged in the Indictment and Complaint:[1]

    “IntelBroker” is the online moniker of WEST, who, in concert with his co-conspirators, compromised victims’ (typically companies) computer systems, exfiltrated data from those systems (e.g. customer lists and company marketing data), and then sold the stolen data for profit.  WEST accomplished his scheme in connection with his leadership of an online hacking group called the “CyberN[——],” which frequented a particular internet forum (“Forum-1”).

    Between approximately 2023 to 2025, WEST offered hacked data for sale approximately 41 times; and offered to distribute hacked data for free (or for Forum-1 credits) approximately 117 times. WEST, and his co-conspirators, have sought to collect at least approximately $2,000,000 by selling the stolen data.  Based on information received from the victims of these breaches, WEST and his co-conspirators have cumulatively caused victim losses of at least $25,000,000.

    Based on a review of WEST’s IntelBroker Forum-1 posts, approximately 158 threads started by WEST offered stolen data for sale, for Forum-1 credit, or for free, since in or about January 2023 through in or about February 2025.  At least 41 of those 158 public messages sell data from companies based in the United States.  Of those 158 messages, approximately 16 provided a specific asking price for the stolen data, which cumulatively totals at least $2,467,000. At least 25 of the 158 public messages invited Forum‑1 users to private message IntelBroker (i.e. WEST) to negotiate a sales price.  The remaining 117 public messages offer hacked data for free to Forum-1 users or in exchange for Forum-1 credits.  At least 46 of the 158 public messages indicate that WEST worked in concert with a particular Forum-1 user (“CC-1”) to obtain the data through a “breach” (i.e. “hack”).  WEST’s public messages (as IntelBroker) indicate that he accepts payment via Monero, which is a cryptocurrency that uses a blockchain with privacy-enhancing technologies to attempt to obfuscate transactions and seek to achieve anonymity and fungibility.

    WEST’s prolific posting (as IntelBroker), and his sales of stolen data, have generated notoriety for the IntelBroker identity within the Forum-1 community. Indeed, from in or about August 2024 through in or about January 2025, “IntelBroker” was identified on Forum-1 as the site’s “owner.”  To further his username’s notoriety, WEST has associated different images with IntelBroker but primarily uses the following image as his calling card:

    WEST’s victims include a U.S.-based telecommunications provider.  WEST, using the IntelBroker moniker, sold data from that telecommunications company, which included information about its customers.  That data was accessed by WEST by illegally accessing a server which was improperly configured.  On or about March 6, 2023, WEST, using the IntelBroker moniker, authored a public message on Forum-1 titled “CyberN[——] [redacted reference to Victim] Database.”  In that post, WEST offered for sale data from a municipal healthcare provider which included patient data such as names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, genders, health plan information, employer information, among other information, from the victim’s patients. 

    *               *                *

    WEST, 25, a British national, is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; accessing a protected computer to obtain information, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

    The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.

    Mr. Clayton praised the outstanding work of the FBI and the Office of International Affairs of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division.  He also thanked the French, Spanish, British, and Dutch authorities for their assistance. 

    The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan B. Finkel is in charge of the prosecution.

    The charges contained in the Indictment and Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
     

    [1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the Complaint, and the descriptions set forth herein, constitutes only allegations, and every fact described therein should be treated as an allegation.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Multiple Eastern North Carolina Health Care Professionals Charged in Connection with 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown

    Source: US FBI

    RALEIGH, N.C. – Today, Acting United States Attorney Daniel P. Bubar announced criminal charges against five individuals and one company, in connection with alleged schemes to defraud and abuse the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and other insurance carriers.  The charges filed in federal court are part of the Department of Justice’s 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown. The charges stem from Medicaid kickbacks to patients in exchange for attending substance abuse services, and from false and fraudulent billings to Medicare for durable medical equipment.

    “Fraud against our healthcare system is not a victimless crime – it threatens patient care, burdens taxpayers, and undermines trust in critical programs,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Daniel P. Bubar. “Today’s charges demonstrate our offices resolve to pursue those who attempt to profit by violating federal law and jeopardizing public resources. We will continue to work with our federal and state law enforcement partners to ensure accountability.”

    “Today’s record-setting Health Care Fraud Takedown sends a crystal-clear message to criminal actors, both foreign and domestic, intent on preying upon our most vulnerable citizens and steal from hardworking American taxpayers: we will find you, we will prosecute you, and we will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Make no mistake – this administration will not tolerate criminals who line their pockets with taxpayer dollars while endangering the health and safety of our communities.”

    All the cases are part of a strategically coordinated, nationwide law enforcement action that resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants for their alleged participation in health care fraud and illegal drug diversion schemes that involved the submission of over $14.6 billion in intended loss and over 15 million pills of illegally diverted controlled substances. The defendants allegedly defrauded programs entrusted for the care of the elderly and disabled to line their own pockets. The United States has seized over $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles and other assets in connection with the takedown.

    The following individuals have been charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina:

    • Kimberly Mable Sims (a lab company owner), Francine Sims Super (an office manager), and Keke Komeko Johnson (a compliance officer), were charged by information in connection with the payment of more than $1 million in illegal remunerations in the form of gift cards to patients of Life Touch, LLC (“Life Touch”), a North Carolina substance abuse treatment company, and in connection with false statements to Medicaid auditors regarding the same. The inducements resulted in more than $25 million in payments from Medicaid to Life Touch. As alleged, over four years, Life Touch, through its compliance officer and managers, routinely paid patients based upon the number of days per week that they received services. Life Touch staff also received kickbacks from a lab company that it utilized for drug testing services. The charging documents further allege that Medicaid auditors were deceived regarding these ongoing practices at Life Touch and the lab company. In addition, Super and Johnson were each charged with failure to file a tax return. Life Touch and Brandon Eugene Sims were previously charged in this case. More than $6 million in assets in the form of cash, real estate and other assets haven been seized. The cases are being prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Tasha Gardner, and Assistant U.S. Attorney William M. Gilmore of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

    • Randal Fenton Wood, 56, of Flagler Beach, Florida, was charged by information with conspiracy to commit health care fraud in connection with a scheme to bill Medicare, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA), and other insurance programs for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment (“DME”). As alleged in the information, Wood and others partnered with purported marketing entities which solicited Medicare beneficiaries to accept durable medical equipment, such as braces and pneumatic compression devices, by illegally waiving copays and pressuring beneficiaries to accept the equipment without verifying that the equipment was medically necessary. The marketing entities sold the beneficiary information and the prefilled orders to Wood and other DME supply companies, who developed and implemented a “doctor chase” model to pressure physicians into signing or altering orders so that they could be billed in full. The DME supply companies owned by or affiliated with Wood received over $39 million in reimbursement from Medicare for DME ordered through this scheme. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David G. Beraka of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

    In addition to the foregoing cases, which were a part of the National Enforcement Action, Acting United States Attorney Bubar today also announces the convictions of the following healthcare and mental health practitioners in connection with an investigation into billing and documentation practices by Medicaid mental health providers Our Treatment Center and Partners Against Sexually Transmitted Diseases, which operated in Raleigh, North Carolina:

    • Dawn Marie Meacham, 61, of Raleigh, a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor (LCMHC) pled guilty to Conspiracy to Make and Use Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.  At sentencing, which remains pending, Meacham faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Kim Jones Kelly, 68, of Greenville, a Licensed Clinical Addiction Specialist (LCAS) pled guilty to Conspiracy to Make and Use Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.  At sentencing, which remains pending, Kelly faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Pius Ondachi, 54, of Raleigh, a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor (LCMHC) pled guilty to Making and Using Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1035(a)(2).  At sentencing, which remains pending, Ondachi faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Tequila Vinson Bogan, 48, of Smithfield, a Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor (LCMHC) pled guilty to Conspiracy to Make and Use Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.  At sentencing, which remains pending, Bogan faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Ifeoma Ezugwu, 56, of Raleigh, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker Associate (LCSWA) pled guilty to Making and Using Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1035(a)(2).  At sentencing, which remains pending, Ezugwu faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Queensly Onuzulike, 49, of Raleigh, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) pled guilty to Conspiracy to Make and Use Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.  At sentencing, which remains pending, Onuzulike faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    • Tamika Rochaelle Autry, 29, of Wilson, a Certified Peer Support Specialist and Qualified Practitioner, pled guilty to Making and Using Materially False Writings and Documents Relating to Health Care Matters, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1035(a)(2).  At sentencing, which remains pending, Autry faces up to 5 years of imprisonment on the charge.

    Special Assistant United States Attorney Tasha C. Gardner, of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office – Medicaid Investigations Division, serves as prosecutor on each of these cases.

    “Individuals and entities that participate in federal healthcare programs are expected to obey the laws meant to preserve the integrity of program funds,” said Kelly J. Blackmon, Special Agent in Charge with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will continue to collaborate with our law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of Medicare and Medicaid fraud.”

    “Healthcare fraud isn’t a crime that only exists on paper. These schemes drain taxpayer-funded government programs designed to assist citizens who may not otherwise be able to afford healthcare. The FBI and our partners work tirelessly to stop people from defrauding the government, protect the integrity of the programs for those who truly need it, and bring offenders to justice,” said FBI Charlotte Acting Special Agent in Charge James C. Barnacle Jr.

    “We remain committed to uncovering misconduct in use of healthcare funds and holding offenders accountable,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Richard Gaskins, Charlotte Field Office, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation. “Our special agents will continue to work alongside our law enforcement partners to pursue individuals who try to exploit federal relief programs for their personal gain.”

    “These people were entrusted to help provide health care and necessary medical tests to patients, but instead they used patients’ information to commit Medicaid fraud,” said North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson. “I’m grateful for the work of our office’s Medicaid Investigations Division to hold these fraudsters accountable, as well as the partnerships with federal and state law enforcement and prosecutors that helped get this done. We’ll make sure anyone who abuses taxpayer dollars is held accountable.”

    “This criminal charge underscores the VA Office of Inspector General’s commitment to vigorously investigate those who would seek to defraud VA healthcare programs,” said Special Agent in Charge Nate Landkammer with the VA Office of Inspector General’s Mid-Atlantic Field Office. “The VA OIG thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and our law enforcement partners for their efforts in this investigation.”

    Principal Assistant Deputy Chief Jacob Foster, Assistant Deputy Chief Rebecca Yuan, Trial Attorney Miriam L. Glaser Dauermann, and Data Analyst Elizabeth Nolte, all of the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, led and coordinated this year’s Takedown. The cases are being prosecuted by the Health Care Fraud Unit’s National Rapid Response, Florida, Gulf Coast, Los Angeles, Midwest, New England, Northeast, and Texas Strike Forces; U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the District of Arizona, Central District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Columbia, District of Connecticut, District of Delaware, Middle District of Florida, Northern District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Georgia, District of Idaho, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Kentucky, Western District of Kentucky, Eastern District of Louisiana, Middle District of Louisiana, District of Maine, District of Massachusetts, Eastern District of Michigan, Western District of Michigan, Northern District of Mississippi, Southern District of Mississippi, District of Montana, District of Nevada, District of New Hampshire, District of New Jersey, Eastern District of New York, Northern District of New York, Southern District of New York, Western District of New York, Eastern District of North Carolina, Western District of North Carolina, District of North Dakota, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District of Ohio, Northern District of Oklahoma, Western District of Oklahoma, District of Oregon, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of South Carolina, Middle District of Tennessee, Western District of Tennessee, Northern District of Texas, Southern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, District of Vermont, Eastern District of Virginia, Western District of Washington, and Northern District of West Virginia; and State Attorneys General’s Offices for California, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The Health Care Fraud Unit’s Data Analytics Team used cutting-edge data analytics to identify and support the investigations that led to these charges.

    The Eastern District of North Carolina, in particular, worked with the following law enforcement organizations to investigate and prosecute the cases filed during the enforcement period: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office – Medicaid Investigations Division (MID), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRSCI), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General.

    The Fraud Section leads the Criminal Division’s efforts to combat health care fraud through the Health Care Fraud Strike Forces. Prior to the charges announced as part of today’s nationwide Takedown and since its inception in March 2007, the Health Care Fraud Strike Force, which operates in 27 districts, charged more than 5,400 defendants who collectively billed Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers more than $27 billion.

    A complaint, information, or indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Public procurement: when Brussels finances Turkish and Iranian companies – E-002575/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002575/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Virginie Joron (PfE)

    Some French people find it difficult to watch their taxes being used to pay for free motorways in Poland, trains in Spain or nursery assistants in Romania. For example, the Commission has earmarked EUR 1.5 billion for the Romanian border[1], EUR 419 million for railway infrastructure in Spain (Almeria)[2] and EUR 448 million for the training of nursery assistants in Romania[3].

    Brussels should ensure a European preference when awarding public contracts.

    In Spain, Romania and Greece, many EU public contracts are awarded or subcontracted to companies from non-EU countries that do not apply reciprocity or are not signatories to the GPA[4]. For example, EU taxpayers finance companies supplying pipes and water pipes manufactured in Türkiye (SMS), China and Iran (Hanyco).

    • 1.How does the Commission ascertain if products used for public contracts benefiting from EU subsidies are made in Europe or in a country with reciprocal access to public contracts?
    • 2.Why does the Commission not publish a list of the countries that have not offered reciprocal access to their public contracts in the last five years?[5]
    • 3.Will the Commission require tenders – regardless of the amount and percentage rule[6] – containing products from third countries that do not apply reciprocity to be excluded, whether or not those countries have signed the GPA?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    • [1] Border-Curtici-Simeria railway line. Total budget (2013-2023): €1 809 360 168.12; EU contribution: €1 537 956 142.91 (85 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3095706.
    • [2] Murcia-Almería railway line. Total budget: €523 966 300.00; EU contribution: €1 419 173 142.91 (80 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3159194.
    • [3] ‘Progress in the quality of alternative childcare’. EU contribution: €448 million out of a budget of €530 million, https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3097484.
    • [4] WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm.
    • [5] Article 86(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (water, energy, transport and postal services), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0025.
    • [6] Article 85(2): any tender submitted may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50 % of the total value of the products.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Public procurement: when Brussels finances Turkish and Iranian companies – E-002575/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002575/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Virginie Joron (PfE)

    Some French people find it difficult to watch their taxes being used to pay for free motorways in Poland, trains in Spain or nursery assistants in Romania. For example, the Commission has earmarked EUR 1.5 billion for the Romanian border[1], EUR 419 million for railway infrastructure in Spain (Almeria)[2] and EUR 448 million for the training of nursery assistants in Romania[3].

    Brussels should ensure a European preference when awarding public contracts.

    In Spain, Romania and Greece, many EU public contracts are awarded or subcontracted to companies from non-EU countries that do not apply reciprocity or are not signatories to the GPA[4]. For example, EU taxpayers finance companies supplying pipes and water pipes manufactured in Türkiye (SMS), China and Iran (Hanyco).

    • 1.How does the Commission ascertain if products used for public contracts benefiting from EU subsidies are made in Europe or in a country with reciprocal access to public contracts?
    • 2.Why does the Commission not publish a list of the countries that have not offered reciprocal access to their public contracts in the last five years?[5]
    • 3.Will the Commission require tenders – regardless of the amount and percentage rule[6] – containing products from third countries that do not apply reciprocity to be excluded, whether or not those countries have signed the GPA?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    • [1] Border-Curtici-Simeria railway line. Total budget (2013-2023): €1 809 360 168.12; EU contribution: €1 537 956 142.91 (85 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3095706.
    • [2] Murcia-Almería railway line. Total budget: €523 966 300.00; EU contribution: €1 419 173 142.91 (80 %), https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3159194.
    • [3] ‘Progress in the quality of alternative childcare’. EU contribution: €448 million out of a budget of €530 million, https://kohesio.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/Q3097484.
    • [4] WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm.
    • [5] Article 86(2) of Directive 2014/25/EU (water, energy, transport and postal services), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0025.
    • [6] Article 85(2): any tender submitted may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50 % of the total value of the products.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports – A10-0133/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports

    (2025/2037(INI))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the report of 31 March 2022 by the Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union entitled ‘Putting More Union in the European Customs: Ten proposals to make the EU Customs Union fit for a Geopolitical Europe’,

    – having regard to its position of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013[1],

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 entitled ‘A comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce’ (COM(2025(0037),

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937[2],

    – having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859[3],

    – having regard to the report of April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market: Speed, Security, Solidarity – Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens’[4],

    – having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A10-0133/2025),

    A. whereas e-commerce has transformed how consumers purchase and engage with businesses worldwide, unlocking unprecedented opportunities; whereas e-commerce presents significant challenges to the EU’s competitiveness and raises concerns over consumer rights and health and safety, particularly as certain product categories raise urgent concerns regarding their impact on vulnerable consumer groups; whereas it has an environmental impact, particularly through increased waste generation and carbon emissions resulting from transportation and logistics; whereas e-commerce has an impact on retailers’ attractiveness and therefore contributes to the hollowing out of city centres; whereas e-commerce also has social implications, particularly concerning working conditions in the warehousing and delivery sector;

    B. whereas over 75 % of EU consumers shop online; whereas the continued growth of e-commerce enhances consumer access, quality and price competition; whereas e-commerce lowers market entry barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs, fosters digital inclusion, supports underserved communities, and contributes to innovation, productivity and economic growth across the single market;

    C. whereas, with the surge in e-commerce imports, mainly coming from China, non-compliant sellers evading regulatory costs and undermining law-abiding businesses through means such as counterfeiting, have intensified unfair competition; whereas there is an urgent need to re-establish a level playing field for all businesses, especially SMEs; whereas it is crucial to ensure that enforcement efforts are adequately funded and equipped at both national and EU level, while avoiding excessive delegation of enforcement responsibilities to private actors;

    D. whereas European companies, namely SMEs, must comply with strict regulations and compete on an unlevel playing field with non-EU e-commerce platforms that avoid these obligations; whereas European companies dedicate material and human resources to ensure regulatory compliance, assuming significant administrative and financial burdens;

    E. whereas certain non-EU companies fail to comply with European data protection regulations, which guarantee a high level of privacy for consumers, by engaging in consumer profiling practices using personal data; whereas enhanced enforcement and cooperation is required to ensure consistent privacy protections for all consumers;

    F. whereas Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in her 2024-2029 political guidelines, referred to the need to tackle challenges with online platforms to ensure that consumers and businesses alike benefit from a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards, and tasked several Executive Vice-Presidents and Commissioners with fulfilling that mission;

    G. whereas the process of adapting the EU acquis to the online environment began several years ago, and numerous laws on products, consumer protection and product safety now include provisions to ensure robust safeguards in the digital landscape; whereas, notwithstanding these efforts, critical shortcomings persist in empowering authorities to hold the full supply chain accountable and ensure consumer protection, which need to be urgently addressed;

    H. whereas the Digital Services Act[5] (DSA), the General Product Safety Regulation[6] (GPSR), the Market Surveillance Regulation[7] (MSR) and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC)[8] contribute to a safer and fair e-commerce environment, if well implemented and enforced; whereas, despite these laws, consumer and other organisations, as well as national authorities, have raised concerns over the large number of unsafe products detected in the EU that fail to comply with EU legislation on product safety and environmental and chemical standards; whereas better funding of and coordination among Member States’ enforcement authorities are essential to address these risks effectively;

    I. whereas e-commerce may significantly impact consumers by providing them with unparalleled convenience, access to diverse products and competitive pricing; whereas e-commerce also exposes consumers to risks such as unsafe products, a lack of transparency and manipulative practices that exploit their vulnerabilities;

    J. whereas the protection of consumers is essential to the functioning of the EU’s internal market, as it ensures trust and fairness in commercial practices, thereby enabling sustainable economic growth and innovation; whereas addressing these concerns is important in promoting transparency, fairness and the responsible development of digital services and e-commerce;

    K. whereas people from more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, including low-income families and children, are more exposed to the risks posed by unsafe products due to their lower prices, aggressive marketing and widespread distribution;

    L. whereas concerns over the suitability of customs procedures under the current Union Customs Code[9] for e-commerce were a significant driver of the Commission’s customs reform package, including the legislative proposals on the revision of the Union Customs Code and establishing an EU Customs Authority (UCC reform), and the removal of the EUR 150 exemption threshold (de minimis) for the payment of customs duties and VAT on imported products;

    M. whereas customs authorities are in need of substantial investments, particularly to ensure a sufficient number of properly trained staff to guarantee the functioning of EU customs systems, which are facing an exponential increase in demand for customs checks; whereas without the necessary investments in staff, digital solutions cannot achieve benefits in terms of efficiency and harmonisation;

    N. whereas advanced screening technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, could significantly enhance the capacity of customs and market surveillance authorities to flag high-risk shipments and automate compliance checks at scale; whereas investment in such technologies remains fragmented and uneven across Member States; whereas increased EU-level funding, coordination and efforts to ensure interoperability are essential to accelerate their deployment and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms;

    O. whereas digital tools, such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, can help track non-compliant products, but must respect consumer privacy and must not lead to the general monitoring of users;

    P. whereas the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, highlights that the volume of e-commerce goods bought by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms is expected to continue growing rapidly, benefiting from the current customs duty exemption for low-value consignments (up to EUR 150);

    The surge in non-compliant goods in e-commerce

    1. Highlights the increasingly high number of purchases being made by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms in business-to-consumer environments and in emerging manufacturer-to-consumer and direct-to-consumer environments; emphasises, as described in the Letta report on the future of the single market[10], that the circulation of harmful products in the single market is escalating and that EU consumers are wasting EUR 19.3 billion per year buying dangerous products that can lead to injuries and that are detrimental to our economies;

    2. Notes that 4.6 billion e-commerce items under the EUR 150 exemption threshold were imported into the EU in 2024, 91 % of which originated from China, amounting to up to 12 million small e-commerce items per day and amounting to almost twice the number recorded in 2023 (2.4 billion) and more than triple the number in 2022 (1.4 billion); notes that this surge has exacerbated compliance challenges, especially in product safety, and that market surveillance authorities and independent investigations have reported alarming non-compliance rates;

    3. Stresses that most unsafe and illegal products are shipped to the EU in large volumes of individual, and often small, parcels sold to EU consumers via online platforms from non-EU countries, in particular China; stresses that such products are difficult to control, in particular for customs authorities at the entry points, which are mostly located at major ports and logistical airports for e-commerce; emphasises that this makes it almost impossible to stop such products from entering the EU and makes it increasingly difficult for market surveillance authorities to detect and remove such products from the internal market and for consumer authorities to do so once the products reach EU consumers;

    4. Stresses that the rapid growth of e-commerce has significant environmental implications due to issues such as a rise in packaging waste, the larger carbon footprint from low-quality and short life cycle products and their shipment, and problems with waste management and non-recyclable materials; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure compliance with environmental legislation and to encourage sustainable ways of consuming;

    5. Stresses that some non-EU online marketplaces are facing allegations regarding the use of forced labour; underlines, in this respect, that Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 prohibits products made with forced labour from entering the EU market, and that it must be effectively enforced after its application, including for online sales;

    6. Notes that, on 1 December 2025, Regulation No 2023/2411[11] on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products will come into force; notes that, if not accompanied by adequate promotion and protection, especially with respect to the markets of non-EU countries, geographical indications risk remaining ineffective; calls, therefore, on the Commission, together with the customs authorities of the Member States, to strengthen checks aimed at intercepting products that violate the rules on geographical indications;

    7. Is concerned that the prevailing business model of certain major non-EU online platforms is based on the rapid, large-scale production and distribution of fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion products, prioritising speed and low cost over sustainability, safety and quality; regrets that many such products do not comply with EU legislation, yet non-compliant sellers frequently evade meaningful enforcement or sanctions; stresses that such practices constitute a form of social and environmental dumping, resulting in a persistent and unfair competitive advantage for these non-EU platforms, exerting disproportionate pressure on European undertakings, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises; emphasises that this hampers the development of the EU’s textile and clothing sector;

    E-commerce crossroads: navigating compliance challenges

    8. Recognises that the EU has established a robust compliance framework, which also applies to products sold online, but that greater efforts are still needed for the full enforcement of the compliance framework; underlines, in this respect, the importance of the DSA, the DMA, the MSR, the GPSR, consumer protection rules and various product and environmental laws; emphasises that market surveillance authorities face challenges in applying these frameworks to online platforms as evidenced by the Commission’s recently published evaluation report on the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and, in particular, in cases where large quantities of a product are sold in small consignments; considers that the thorough implementation of the DSA and other regulatory acquis is necessary to combat unsafe, non-compliant and counterfeit products;

    9. Stresses the need to implement the existing compliance framework and evaluate these measures when considering new legislation, including new obligations for online marketplaces;

    10. Notes that conducting physical tests is particularly impractical for small parcels sent directly to the final consumer and that customs authorities will therefore continue to rely primarily on checking the documentation, rather than inspecting the products themselves;

    11. Highlights the significant enforcement gaps caused by the limited resources and insufficient level of digitalisation of customs and market surveillance authorities, the lack of human resources and harmonised and interoperable technological tools across Member States, and the insufficient data sharing and overall lack of cooperation and coordination between customs authorities, platforms and market surveillance entities; acknowledges that physical inspections are unavoidably and inherently limited given the volume of e-commerce parcels entering the EU;

    12. Considers that mystery shopping exercises by market surveillance authorities, as put forward in the Commission communication on e-commerce, are an important tool to verify compliance for products sold through online platforms; stresses, however, that if sellers are based outside the EU or are not traceable and if fake addresses are used for responsible persons, there is no liable legal entity and it is impossible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement actions;

    13. Considers that EU manufacturers and retailers, particularly SMEs, face unfair competition due to non-EU platforms enabling non-EU manufacturers and their non-compliant products to easily enter the EU market, bypassing applicable regulations and standards; highlights that, while EU manufacturers must comply with strict safety, environmental and quality rules, many low-value products sold through these platforms evade customs and market surveillance checks due to the way they are shipped to the EU; raises concerns that some of these platforms and non-EU traders deliberately exploit this loophole, allowing non-compliant imports to enter the EU single market unchecked, putting European manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers at a disadvantage, weakening their competitiveness and hindering their ability to innovate, which could lead to the closure of many micro-enterprises and small enterprises;

    14. Stresses that EU manufacturers are de facto subject to significantly stricter market surveillance compared to non-EU manufactures that reach EU consumers via e-commerce platforms; deeply regrets the loss of market share and jobs caused by the influx of cheaper products that do not comply with European standards, particularly on safety and quality, as well as other illegal products, shipped from non-EU countries, directly affecting EU SMEs and the strength of EU companies and their capacity to invest and maintain profitability;

    15. Highlights the difference between online platforms acting as intermediaries and those acting as importers; notes, in particular, that the EU e-commerce platforms that act as importers face compliance costs that increase their retail prices up to 40 %, which has an impact on final consumers; underlines that EU-based importers face stricter obligations and higher costs, while intermediary platforms allow non-EU sellers to ship directly to EU consumers without ensuring compliance;

    16. Recognises that e-commerce platforms are subject to various obligations under the DSA and the GPSR and may be held liable under the Product Liability Directive[12] (PLD) in specific circumstances; recalls, in this respect, that online platforms are liable if they do not respect their specific obligations as intermediaries; believes, however, that consumer redress must be ensured in all cases; underlines, in this respect, that where the manufacturer is established outside the EU and no importer, authorised representative, or fulfilment service provider can be identified, online marketplaces should provide adequate and proportionate remedies to consumers where they fail to comply with the DSA, particularly with Articles 30 and 31 or with Article 22 of the GPSR;

    17. Emphasises that online marketplaces are requested to trace their traders (‘know your business customer’) under the DSA, which should discourage traders from selling unsafe or counterfeit goods, and are obliged to comply with the ‘compliance by design’ rules to increase overall traceability; highlights the lack of accountability of online platforms in case of untraceable sellers or sellers based outside the jurisdiction of the EU; notes the considerable level of non-compliance with the ‘know your business customer’ principle and the rise in new selling practices via social media platforms, where this obligation is not effectively applied, allowing non-EU sellers to offer non-compliant goods to EU users directly; stresses, therefore, the need for online platforms to make best efforts to ensure full traceability of sellers and products, preventing listings from appearing without verified product compliance details;

    18. Highlights the fact that the information of a responsible economic operator in the EU under the GPSR, acting on behalf of a non-EU trader or platform, is often wrong or missing; notes that even when this information is available, the responsible person in the EU may not be accountable, particularly when the responsible person is an authorised representative; is concerned that market surveillance authorities report significant difficulties in contacting these non-EU traders and enforcing EU law, and that even when contact is established, enforcing penalties against them is often unfeasible;

    19. Considers that creating a database of the responsible persons in the EU to enable real-time cross-checking for verification, along with establishing an accreditation procedure for them, could enhance transparency and reinforce accountability throughout the e-commerce import supply chain;

    20. Supports research and enforcement actions by consumer organisations and the opening of investigations initiated by consumer authorities in the EU, as part of the CPC network, as well as under the DSA, against non-EU online platforms for potential violations of EU product safety and consumer laws; expresses concern over the slow progress of these investigations and calls for their swift conclusion; underlines the need for enforcement to be a deterrent that includes adequate sanctions to ensure compliance; underlines, in this respect, that particular attention is necessary at national and EU level to address recurrent non-compliance that may have been identified in previous controls of similar products, including via the application of interim measures; stresses that the enforcement and effectiveness of commitments received from online platforms should be closely monitored;

    21. Urges the Commission and CPC authorities to initiate a structured enforcement dialogue with consumer representatives, traders and other stakeholders to identify systemic infringements requiring stronger enforcement;

    22. Notes the complexity for EU authorities to enforce EU laws when the economic operators are established outside the EU; highlights the need for enhanced international cooperation agreements, particularly with major e-commerce exporters;

    Strong enforcement policies to combat non-compliant e-commerce products

    Urgent need for short-term measures

    23. Urges the Member States to increase funding and resources for market surveillance, customs, consumer protection and digital services authorities so that they can better address the challenges posed by unsafe and illicit products; asks the Commission to support stronger cooperation, information sharing and data exchange between competent authorities, including market surveillance and customs authorities, and stresses that cooperation across different sectors should be improved; urges the Member States to ensure effective coordination among different market surveillance authorities in their territories, and to strengthen the powers of the single liaison offices; highlights that the Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that market surveillance and customs authorities are properly resourced, trained and equipped to have the capacity to fulfil their mission, including proper investigative powers;

    24. Calls on market surveillance authorities to invest more resources in joint or coordinated activities with other Member States or relevant authorities and, in particular, to increase the number and the frequency of coordinated enforcement actions such as sweeps, mystery-shopping exercises and peer-reviews; urges relevant authorities to actively participate in these activities and the Commission to make full use of its coordination powers;

    25. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to coordinate the control of customs and market surveillance authorities under priority control areas focused on products from non-EU countries that pose significant safety hazards and a risk of non-compliance; emphasises that this initiative should generate valuable risk profile data, which could be used in further enforcement activities and penalties to non-compliant actors; calls on the Commission to strengthen cooperation within the EU Product Compliance Network and to increase EU funding for customs cooperation under the customs programme and for market surveillance operations under the single market programme; stresses that the lack of adequate resources has hindered the effective deployment of tools, such as the widespread use of mystery shopping activities by market surveillance authorities or the use of trusted flaggers under the DSA; points out to the Commission that, in addition to existing testing facilities for toys and radio equipment, more testing facilities for e-commerce goods are urgently needed, such as for batteries, textiles, cosmetics, electrical appliances and other products; asks the Member States to deploy sufficient resources to guarantee an increased capacity of testing facilities and to increase investments in equipment for the detection of unsafe and illegal goods;

    26. Emphasises that for data and security reasons, Member States should restrict high-risk vendors from operating in their critical infrastructure and border security systems, including for the procurement of security screening and cargo scanning equipment used at airports and ports;

    27. Highlights the fact that, under the GPSR, online marketplaces are obliged to establish a single point of contact, register with the Safety Gate Portal and indicate the information concerning their single contact point on the portal; asks the Commission to effectively enforce this and other obligations of online marketplaces and to support the Member States’ market surveillance authorities in implementing the GPSR and the MSR; notes that the GPSR introduced direct data exchanges between enforcement authorities and e-commerce platforms; believes, however, that in order for the system to work effectively, a direct link with customs authorities should be provided;

    28. Notes that the current system is more reactive than preventive, as authorities intervene only after dangerous products have already been sold to consumers, rather than preventing their distribution; recalls that, under the GPSR, online marketplace providers are encouraged to check products against the Safety Gate Portal before listing them on their interfaces; underlines that random sampling testing can only be efficient if it is conducted regularly;

    29. Emphasises that the swift implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP) for several critical products sold online is essential to strengthen the enforcement of existing legislation; urges the Commission to present the necessary secondary legislation on the DPP as soon as possible, in particular for textiles, toys, cosmetics, electronics and other products with high non-compliance rates and associated risks; calls on the Commission to continuously assess the requirements, technical design and operation of the DPP under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation[13] (ESPR) as a priority; calls on the Commission to support businesses, in particular micro-enterprises and SMEs, in the implementation of the DPP;

    30. Proposes a mandatory DPP with early compliance verification for all products imported via e-commerce, including detailed quality and compliance data, to be integrated directly into the EU customs data hub, allowing authorities to pre-screen information on products before they are placed on the single market;

    31. Urges the Member States to make substantial efforts to increase customs controls and improve risk analysis, as the detection and removal of non-compliant goods can reduce the harm to EU consumers and protect the economic interests of EU businesses; underlines that the introduction in the customs risk analysis of a presumption of non-compliance for goods identical to those already found non-compliant could facilitate controls by customs authorities and improve cost efficiency; stresses the importance of reinforcing customs centres so they are better equipped to handle the large volume of small parcels that are difficult to control using traditional methods, including advanced screening technologies to identify suspicious packages at entry points; asks for more rigorous compliance checks, as well as random checks by the authorities on high-tonnage transport; urges the Member States, furthermore, to significantly increase the level of digitalisation of import procedures in customs authorities in order to implement existing legislation and accelerate customs procedures, especially in view of the high numbers of parcels;

    32. Underlines that businesses, particularly SMEs, urgently require clear guidelines from the Commission for the effective implementation of the GPSR, including clarification on its interplay with overlapping legislation, such as the DSA, the MSR, the PLD, and sector-specific laws on toys, cosmetics and detergents; calls on the Commission to issue these guidelines before the end of the first half of 2025 to facilitate businesses’ compliance; considers that the evaluation report on the interaction of the DSA with other legal acts, which is due on 17 November 2025, should take into account different legislation, in particular on product compliance, the obligations of online marketplaces, enforcement rules and possible future improvements on simplification and implementation; calls on the Commission to assess all possible further actions, including the evaluation of sectoral legislation, which is necessary to ensure legal predictability and that no legal loopholes or enforcement gaps are left when it comes to direct imports from non-EU countries via online marketplaces;

    33. Calls on the relevant national authorities to make full use of the existing and recently adopted enforcement toolbox, especially in relation to provisions on e-commerce set out in the MSR, GPSR and DSA, such as takedown orders, prohibition, restriction on the making available of a product on the market or its removal, recalls and sanctions as measures to counter the rise of illegal and non-compliant imports from non-EU countries;

    34. Underlines that regulatory enforcement measures taken against non-compliant actors should not put disproportionate burdens on compliant actors or cause unintentional harm to the second-hand market;

    35. Stresses the need to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights in the light of the increase in non-European counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms; notes that these practices harm the competitiveness of European companies and pose risks to innovation and the incentives for research and development; calls for stronger measures against the sale of counterfeit goods online; urges the Commission to issue clear guidelines on trusted flaggers and stresses that rights holders should be recognised as eligible trusted flaggers when they meet the criteria outlined in Article 22 of the DSA;

    36. Points out that the Member States should make better use of the available sets of penalties and sanctions against economic operators, as well as other available tools including interim measures, in order to create a deterrent effect to dissuade economic operators from infringing upon the applicable legislation;

    37. Urges the Commission to take effective measures, including legislative measures where legal loopholes are clearly identified, without delay to ensure legal certainty and a level playing field for European companies, placing particular emphasis on SMEs;

    The need for regulatory reforms

    38. Calls for the removal of barriers to enforcing consumer rights, such as legal warranty claims and the right to return items; calls on the Commission to review the CPC Regulation without delay as this will be fundamental for a more effective cross-border enforcement of EU consumer law and the fight against unsafe products; asks the Commission, in this context, to provide for clear measures to further strengthen enforcement powers over non-EU traders and platforms and ensure better coordination of EU and national actions and the exchange of information among authorities, as well as with authorities in non-EU countries; highlights that the structure of the European Competition Network could be used as an example to follow for enforcement and information exchange in the case of suspected violations impacting multiple Member States, especially to combat non-compliant products effectively; stresses the importance of granting the Commission direct powers to investigate and sanction certain high impact breaches of consumer law, thus ensuring more effective, simultaneous and uniform enforcement and sanctions under EU consumer law;

    39. Notes that the CPC Regulation already empowers enforcement authorities to act against non-compliant traders and even gives the possibility for Member States to impose penalties and interim measures such as restricting access to the website; acknowledges, however, that the limitation is that this action must be taken on a country-by-country basis rather than at EU level, with each country applying its own penalties, making the consequences of violations uneven;

    40. Notes that enforcement in the Member States is fragmented, which leads to inefficiencies; calls for better coordination of enforcement and compliance oversight effective information exchange between Member States and for a more uniform application of the EU acquis; calls on the Commission to assess the MSR, particularly the need for an EU Market Surveillance Authority that would ensure consistency and provide operational support to the activities conducted by the relevant national market surveillance authorities and foster cooperation with the new EU Customs Authority (EUCA), as well as the implementation of Article 4 of the MSR, defining the responsible economic operators in the EU for product compliance; stresses that, to date, the designated responsible economic operator often lacks the capacity to provide redress or compensation to consumers, in particular when being an authorised representative;

    41. Supports the Commission’s ambition to swiftly advance the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament and the Council on the UCC reform and the two proposals for Council acts on removing the exemption threshold on customs duties for goods valued under EUR 150; urges, therefore, the Member States to accelerate the negotiation procedure in the Council, recognising the urgency of the customs reform for EU competitiveness and the protection of EU consumers; underlines, however, that removing the threshold is a necessary step but not a stand-alone solution, as customs authorities will still only be able to inspect a limited percentage of parcels; stresses that immediate removal of the customs duty exemption is necessary for high-risk imports from product and consumer safety perspectives; emphasises the need for the customs reform to ensure coherence across regulatory frameworks, particularly avoiding duplication or conflicts with the DSA, and highlights the essential role customs authorities play in detecting non-compliant and unsafe products;

    42. Stresses that the UCC reform will provide the necessary tools for customs authorities to better supervise and control the goods entering the EU, help to strengthen the single market and customs union, improve the detection of unsafe and illicit products, and contribute to a level playing field among economic operators; welcomes, in this respect, the proposal under the UCC Regulation to establish the cooperation mechanism with market surveillance authorities that will improve the effectiveness of product controls; emphasises the importance of enhancing customs infrastructure and staffing to manage e-commerce effectively; highlights the need for simplified compliance processes tailored specifically to SMEs; calls on the Member States to introduce automated, forward-looking customs clearing systems, for instance by obliging platforms to enrol and clear customs automatically at the point of sales;

    43. Is concerned that some non-EU traders are circumventing EU customs checks by clearing goods by customs at the point of origin; stresses that those non-EU trading companies often prefer to pay penalties rather than open packages upon arrival at EU customs, aiming to unload shipments and depart immediately; is deeply concerned that customs authorities find that many packages are either undeclared or incorrectly declared and are sometimes fraudulently labelled; highlights that the UCC reform should also address these aspects;

    44. Takes note of the concern expressed by the ECC network regarding the drop-shipping business model, which raises challenges in consumer protection, product safety and regulatory compliance; regrets that consumers often face misleading practices, difficulties in returning products, and unexpected import duties, while a significant share of drop-shipped products fail to comply with EU safety standards; stresses that drop-shipping complicates enforcement due to untraceable businesses and cross-border complexities, while VAT and data protection compliance remain key concerns; notes that when combined with influencer marketing, drop-shipping may exacerbate transparency issues, reputational risks and inconsistent outcomes; calls on the Commission to assess how to address drop-shipping-related issues;

    45. Highlights the fact that the concept of a ‘deemed importer’ aims to ensure a level playing field for both EU and non-EU online platforms; notes that, in the context of an online sale from outside the EU, this measure would relieve customers of non-EU online platforms from being considered importers, as they are under the current UCC, while a non-EU platform or trader would instead be considered the ‘deemed importer’; believes that ‘deemed importer’ responsibilities should be clearly defined and consistent with the provisions of the DSA; emphasises that platforms being responsible for ensuring that VAT and customs duties are collected at the point of sale, rather than upon entry into the EU, will reduce fraud and tax evasion;

    46. Expresses concern about the optional nature of the Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) scheme for all online operators, which deviates from the original objectives of the VAT in the digital age (ViDA) initiative; underlines the necessity of additional actions to strengthen the system’s robustness and curb potential misuse; urges the Commission to engage closely with stakeholders to establish safeguards for the IOSS against fraudulent practices; recommends that such safeguards be both comprehensive and streamlined to effectively deter fraud while avoiding excessive administrative burdens; stresses the necessity of extending the IOSS applicability to goods beyond the customs duty exemption threshold of EUR 150 to prevent undervaluation and ensure fair competition;

    47. Calls for the establishment of a new EUCA in 2026 to provide expert support to the Member States’ customs authorities; underlines that the EUCA should in its coordination role also map testing and control capabilities of customs and market surveillance authorities in and across the Member States and be mandated to execute unannounced inspections to detect possible unsafe or non-compliant products and issue sanctions in case of non-compliance; notes that the new EU customs data hub will allow for enhanced cooperation between the EUCA and customs and other authorities through data exchange and the interoperability of national IT systems, and thus facilitate coordinated controls and the detection of non-compliant products; considers that it is essential to fully integrate the functionalities of the Customs Single Window into the EU customs data hub; notes in the context of the proposed EUCA, the importance of regularly consulting representatives of various stakeholders to provide early warning to the EUCA;

    48. Stresses that, given the urgency, the entry into force of different obligations planned in the UCC revision should be accelerated, such as the establishment of the EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to immediately start the preparatory work necessary for the establishment of the EU customs data hub, so as to speed up the preparation of its e-commerce functions in 2026;

    49. Urges the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the idea of e-commerce items being shipped to the EU in bulk and, in turn, the establishment of warehouses in the EU by non-EU traders for such goods before they are put into parcels for delivery to customers; recognises that such shipments of e-commerce items in bulk and their storage in warehouses in the EU might increase the oversight of customs and market surveillance authorities and improve their controls and detection of non-compliant goods compared to single parcel shipments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider all possible options to incentivise such practices, including a simplified status for trust and check traders and cost-benefit assessments for incentive schemes; further notes that bulk shipping may not be feasible for all non-EU traders, particularly those operating consumer-to-consumer (C2C) or second-hand models; emphasises that this approach should strike a balance between the compliance advantages and the practical requirements of e-commerce operators, ensuring that it avoids creating logistical bottlenecks or placing an undue burden on varying business models;

    50. Acknowledges that the Commission has released a non-paper outlining the introduction of a non-discriminatory handling fee on e-commerce items, to be charged by customs authorities for goods sold in distance sales with the aim of covering the increased supervisory costs of custom authorities, namely the checking of the data, carrying out risk analysis, performing documentary and physical controls and specifically the financing of the EUCA and the data hub; insists that Member States should avoid unilateral fees to avoid a fragmentation of the customs union; underlines that the proposal suggests a flat EUR 2 rate per item delivered directly to the customer or a smaller 50 cent fee for Trust and Check Traders operating a business model of a customs warehouse for distance sales within the EU; calls on the Commission to conduct a proper evaluation of whether the proposed amount complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and whether it is sufficient and proportionate to reach the objectives; insists that this handling fee not be incurred by the consumer;

    51. Notes the enormous waste management and product destruction cost arising from the huge amount of non-compliant and unsafe products imported via non-EU country e-commerce; underlines that a large share of these products is non-recyclable, environmentally harmful or non-compliant with applicable chemicals legislation, further driving up environmental costs for public authorities; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the necessary measures to mitigate the environmental impact of non-EU countries’ e-commerce activities including the feasibility of a waste management fee on all products sold via non-EU countries’ online marketplaces to ensure that environmental costs are not supported by EU taxpayers;

    52. Stresses that inconsistent penalties and different enforcement strategies for non-compliance in different Member States lead to ‘border shopping’ or ‘customs shopping’; supports the minimum harmonisation of infringements and non-criminal sanctions for non-compliance across the Member States and through the EUCA as this would avoid creating weak entry points in the EU customs territory; stresses that this should entail a common framework for minimum harmonisation to close existing loopholes and thus tackle e-commerce challenges; underlines that Member States can impose additional sanctions tailored to national contexts;

    53. Notes that the Commission is scrutinising certain non-EU online marketplaces for employing manipulative practices, including dark patterns, addictive design features, deceptive influencer marketing, and the dissemination of fake or misleading online reviews; recognises that, according to the Digital Fairness Fitness Check report, unfair commercial practices cost consumers nearly EUR 8 billion annually, and that the use of unfair techniques to pressure consumers, especially vulnerable ones and children, into impulse purchases leads to overconsumption and overspending; calls on the Commission to address these issues in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, unless they are already covered by existing legislation, with a view to effectively tackling unfair practices and closing existing legal loopholes, while staying consistent with existing legal frameworks and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens;

    54. Emphasises the need to ensure that any new initiatives proposed by the Commission in the area of customs enforcement or compliance do not result in additional administrative burdens for European businesses, particularly SMEs;

    55. Stresses the importance of the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the field of cross-border investigations of customs offences, which notably include fraud, for example the illicit undervaluing of the price of products in order to avoid paying the import taxes; emphasises that the large-scale circumvention of customs duties, including fraudulent e-commerce declarations and undervaluation, as well as the avoidance of controls and ‘forum shopping,’ must be effectively combated through criminal law investigations conducted by the EPPO, with the support of customs authorities; stresses that the EPPO’s robust legal framework for cross-border investigations should be leveraged to dismantle the criminal networks behind such operations;

    Additional enforcement actions

    56. Calls on the Commission and the national competent authorities to strongly enforce the DSA with regard to the responsibility of online marketplaces, in particular their obligations in terms of recommender systems, interface design, right to information, the compliance by design rules to increase the overall traceability, and their ‘know your business customer’ obligation; highlights that compliance with these obligations should dissuade non-compliant traders from offering their products in the EU through marketplaces or shopping services of social media falling in this category, and calls on the Commission to provide practical support in tracing traders that do not abide by EU rules; stresses the need for a DSA-based network of trusted flaggers for illegal products and e-commerce to ensure that platforms fulfil their obligations effectively;

    57. Stresses that the enhancement of cooperation and coordination with national competent authorities is crucial; asks for more cooperation among all relevant authorities, such as Member State authorities, customs authorities, and consumer protection authorities, and for stronger coordination among all established expert groups; stresses that, under the DSA, the investigative actions against non-compliant online marketplaces need to yield results and lead to deterrent sanctions in order to prevent the offer of non-compliant products; emphasises the importance of these investigations in addressing systemic risks, compliance failures, illegal content dissemination, addictive design features, dark patterns and the use of influencers for manipulative advertising;

    58. Calls on enforcement authorities to strengthen monitoring and enforcement actions targeting new sales channels; recommends that competent authorities be equipped with adequate resources, technological tools, and cross-border cooperation mechanisms to effectively identify and take action against non-compliant traders operating via social media and other emerging platforms;

    59. Suggests that online marketplace sellers must provide a reshipping address and contact point within the EU to allow consumers to easily return non-compliant goods without undue costs and to allow authorities to inspect goods; believes that online marketplaces should be responsible for checking this and should be held accountable for enforcement;

    60. Calls for an urgent in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the provision of the ‘responsible person for products placed on the Union market’, particularly those of non-EU traders, building on the results of the evaluation report on Article 4 of the MSR; calls on the Commission to consider among its future actions the introduction of a mandatory requirement for non-EU traders to appoint a responsible person in the EU with increased legal and financial liability;

    61. Notes that postal and other delivery services are undergoing significant transformations due to the rapid growth of e-commerce; raises concerns that the Universal Postal Union’s terminal dues system in practice does not apply to e-commerce flows; notes that, as a result, Chinese e-commerce businesses, due to shipment volumes, enter into commercial agreements directly with the EU postal operators for exceptionally attractive delivery rates that are lower than those for goods manufactured within the EU, leading to deeper fragmentation of the single market for postal services; urges the Commission to evaluate the impact of e-commerce on postal services and the internal market, and to consider how postal services can contribute to strengthening the single market and benefiting consumers, and to the overall competitiveness of the EU;

    62. Welcomes the approval of the ViDA reforms, which represent a significant step towards modernising VAT collection in the e-commerce sector; emphasises the importance of the Single VAT ID for online marketplaces and for European manufacturers, enabling them to compete on a level playing field by simplifying VAT compliance across the Member States; highlights that this measure can also facilitate in-bulk importation and the warehousing of goods within the EU, reducing reliance on fragmented cross-border shipments and ensuring that value-added services, such as fulfilment and logistics, take place within the single market; stresses that these reforms will enhance tax compliance, reduce administrative burdens, and improve enforcement while supporting fair competition and strengthening EU supply chains; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of these measures to maximise their benefits for European businesses and consumers;

    63. Calls on the Commission to consider measures aimed at reducing the unnecessary regulatory and administrative compliance burden for EU manufacturers, in particular for SMEs, in order to level the playing field and enable them to better compete with global competitors operating under more efficient compliance standards;

    64. Calls on the Commission to enhance international cooperation with other like-minded countries to exchange best practices, identify common challenges and risks and develop joint actions on e-commerce;

    65. Welcomes, in this regard, the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce; notes that the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses by facilitating cross-border electronic transactions, reducing barriers to digital trade and promoting innovation in e-commerce; underlines, however, that the agreement is only a foundation and encourages the Commission to pursue ambitious trade agreements in negotiations with partners to ensure binding provisions on e-commerce;

    Increased use of IT tools

    66. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is preparing a project to streamline existing databases, including the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, the EU Safety Gate and the Customs Risk Management System, into a common interoperable system gathering all information on the safety of products, counterfeit product tracking and notifications of accidents and to ensure interoperability with the DPP and the future EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to publish information regarding the implementation timeline and the resource requirements of this initiative;

    67. Supports the Commission’s aim to provide market surveillance authorities with the e-Surveillance WebCrawler tool to flag reappearing dangerous products; asks the Commission to make available another web crawler for detecting new listings as soon as possible, in order to flag non-compliant products before they reach consumers;

    68. Supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things for scanning and analysing product listings on e-commerce platforms, automating customs and market surveillance inspections and risk identification and integrating product compliance databases for real-time checks between market surveillance and customs authorities, in line with EU and national laws; notes, however, that the high implementation costs of these technologies remain a barrier; underlines that the full uptake of these technologies will make handling more efficient, especially for low-value goods, and that the high volume of parcels containing many different items faces limited inspection capabilities;

    69. Demands that the Commission and the Member States exchange best practices and find incentives to provide the necessary funding and support for national authorities in order to increase the responsible use of technological solutions; suggests that artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things could be used to scan and analyse product listings on e-commerce platforms, automate inspections and risk profiling, and integrate product compliance databases for real-time checks by several authorities;

    70. Underlines that Member States should reinforce customs checks in particular with low-value shipments by implementing risk-based assessment systems and digital tracking to prevent non-compliant products from bypassing customs controls; calls on the Member States to increase the level of automated processes, such as automated scans of labels when processing parcels at customs;

    71. Recognises that some online marketplaces also use a number of IT tools to detect and remove unsafe and illicit products that are found on their platforms; highlights, however, the fact that online marketplaces need to further invest in and increase their use of these IT tools to effectively avoid the offer and sale of unsafe and illicit products; calls on the Commission to further incentivise the use of IT tools by online marketplaces in this regard, while ensuring full compliance with Article 8 of the DSA, which provides that there is no general obligation to monitor the information that providers of intermediary services transmit or store;

    72. Suggests that, without prejudice to the principle enshrined in the DSA that providers of intermediary services online should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of general nature, online intermediaries engaged in the sale, promotion or distribution of products within the EU market should consider on their own the use of risk-based digital monitoring systems to identify and prevent the presence of illegal content (presentation, description or offering for sale of illegal or dangerous products); stresses the importance of implementing swift response mechanisms to ensure the permanent removal of specific illegal content as soon as providers of intermediary services online have actual knowledge of such illegal content being presented on their interfaces, as well as the necessity for hosting service providers to take all necessary measures to prevent the reappearance of the same or equivalent illegal content on their platform;

    Improvement of consumer awareness and information

    73. Emphasises that EU consumers and European SMEs engaged in importing activities often lack sufficient information on the possible dangers of potentially unsafe products and the harm they can cause; stresses that consumers are increasingly targeted by traders who, despite their legal obligations, often do not inform consumers that their products are made and shipped from outside of the EU; acknowledges that there is demand among EU consumers for cheaper products, which are purchased on non-EU online marketplaces due to their much lower production costs and uncompetitive conditions for EU businesses and online platforms; stresses that online marketplaces may use manipulative design techniques (dark patterns) to influence purchasing decisions; warns against the risks associated with compulsive purchasing behaviours, financial difficulties and the accumulation of unnecessary goods; calls on the Commission and the Member States to organise information and awareness-raising campaigns on the purchase of unsafe products online and their possible health, privacy, environmental and competitiveness consequences, with a special focus on vulnerable consumers and at peak consumption times;

    74. Recommends fostering second-hand consumption as a sustainable approach to addressing EU consumers’ need for affordable goods; stresses the importance of promoting and incentivising the reuse of second-hand products as an important driver for unlocking the potential of the circular economy;

    75. Asks the Commission and the Member States to strictly enforce the ecodesign requirements for textiles and other products under the ESPR, as well as the provisions of the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition[14] in order to make sure that consumers are better informed about sustainability aspects, such as environmental impacts, energy use, reparability and durability of products purchased on online marketplaces;

    76. Considers that consumer authorities, organisations, industry associations and chambers of commerce should be encouraged to conduct large, coordinated awareness-raising campaigns on consumer rights, potential risks, including the possibilities for collective redress, and redress mechanisms when purchasing online, in particular on non-EU online platforms; stresses the need to also raise awareness about the environmental, health and social impacts of unsustainable business practices and to alert consumers about the role of new advertising techniques, such as influencers and digital opinion leaders, in shaping perceptions of product safety and reliability; calls on the Commission to take a coordinating role as mentioned in the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on e-commerce and to explore possibilities to finance cross-border information campaigns developed in cooperation with researchers, civil society and other relevant stakeholders;

    Trade and development considerations

    77. Calls on the Commission to implement its level of ambition in agreements with international partners at the multilateral level, as unsafe products constitute not only a European, but also a global challenge; reiterates that, as set out in Parliament’s position on the UCC revision, the EUCA should establish working arrangements with the authorities of non-EU countries and international organisations; stresses that such arrangements should enable the EUCA to exchange information, including best practices, with non-EU authorities and international organisations, and to carry out joint activities; supports continued engagement in the UN Trade and Development working group on consumer product safety, which plays a crucial role in developing best practices for cross-border enforcement;

    78. Calls on the Commission to step up cooperation with international partners, within forums such as the WTO, the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the G7, to counterbalance China’s influence and ensure reciprocity and rules-based trade; calls on the Commission to explicitly incorporate robust and enforceable obligations addressing forced labour when reviewing and renegotiating current trade and investment agreements; underscores the need for stronger EU-China cooperation mechanisms and transparent certification requirements to ensure compliance;

    79. Highlights the need to consider service and product safety and regulatory compliance provisions when negotiating future EU trade agreements; stresses the importance of specific regulatory dialogues and cooperation through administrative arrangements, improved customs enforcement cooperation, the traceability of shipments to the highest standards and enhanced data-sharing arrangements between customs authorities to effectively tackle non-compliant imports;

    80. Urges the Commission to be proactive and swiftly deploy targeted trade defence instruments, including anti-subsidy investigations, to address the adverse impacts on European businesses; emphasises that such actions must be coordinated closely with key international partners, to ensure effective global enforcement and reciprocal market fairness;

    81. Encourages the Commission to enhance diplomatic efforts and cooperation within international forums, particularly the WTO, the WCO and the G7, to counterbalance China’s strategic expansion into digital governance frameworks, including its Digital Silk Road initiative; stresses the need for open, more transparent and responsible digital trade rules in international standard-setting bodies to prevent internet fragmentation and mitigate the risks posed by restrictive digital governance models;

    82. Welcomes the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce as a vital step towards global digital trade rules; stresses, however, its current limitations, especially regarding customs transparency; urges the Commission to advocate stronger binding provisions to ensure its effective implementation and integration into the WTO legal framework, and to ensure enhanced global compliance standards;

    83. Emphasises the need for international capacity-building initiatives to support the sustainable and compliant participation of developing countries in digital trade; calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with international organisations, especially the WTO, to enhance regulatory frameworks and technical assistance for e-commerce in developing countries;

    °

    ° °

    84. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports – A10-0133/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

    on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports

    (2025/2037(INI))

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the report of 31 March 2022 by the Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union entitled ‘Putting More Union in the European Customs: Ten proposals to make the EU Customs Union fit for a Geopolitical Europe’,

    – having regard to its position of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union Customs Code and the European Union Customs Authority, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013[1],

    – having regard to the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 entitled ‘A comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce’ (COM(2025(0037),

    – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937[2],

    – having regard to Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859[3],

    – having regard to the report of April 2024 by Enrico Letta entitled ‘Much more than a market: Speed, Security, Solidarity – Empowering the Single Market to deliver a sustainable future and prosperity for all EU Citizens’[4],

    – having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on International Trade,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A10-0133/2025),

    A. whereas e-commerce has transformed how consumers purchase and engage with businesses worldwide, unlocking unprecedented opportunities; whereas e-commerce presents significant challenges to the EU’s competitiveness and raises concerns over consumer rights and health and safety, particularly as certain product categories raise urgent concerns regarding their impact on vulnerable consumer groups; whereas it has an environmental impact, particularly through increased waste generation and carbon emissions resulting from transportation and logistics; whereas e-commerce has an impact on retailers’ attractiveness and therefore contributes to the hollowing out of city centres; whereas e-commerce also has social implications, particularly concerning working conditions in the warehousing and delivery sector;

    B. whereas over 75 % of EU consumers shop online; whereas the continued growth of e-commerce enhances consumer access, quality and price competition; whereas e-commerce lowers market entry barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs, fosters digital inclusion, supports underserved communities, and contributes to innovation, productivity and economic growth across the single market;

    C. whereas, with the surge in e-commerce imports, mainly coming from China, non-compliant sellers evading regulatory costs and undermining law-abiding businesses through means such as counterfeiting, have intensified unfair competition; whereas there is an urgent need to re-establish a level playing field for all businesses, especially SMEs; whereas it is crucial to ensure that enforcement efforts are adequately funded and equipped at both national and EU level, while avoiding excessive delegation of enforcement responsibilities to private actors;

    D. whereas European companies, namely SMEs, must comply with strict regulations and compete on an unlevel playing field with non-EU e-commerce platforms that avoid these obligations; whereas European companies dedicate material and human resources to ensure regulatory compliance, assuming significant administrative and financial burdens;

    E. whereas certain non-EU companies fail to comply with European data protection regulations, which guarantee a high level of privacy for consumers, by engaging in consumer profiling practices using personal data; whereas enhanced enforcement and cooperation is required to ensure consistent privacy protections for all consumers;

    F. whereas Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in her 2024-2029 political guidelines, referred to the need to tackle challenges with online platforms to ensure that consumers and businesses alike benefit from a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards, and tasked several Executive Vice-Presidents and Commissioners with fulfilling that mission;

    G. whereas the process of adapting the EU acquis to the online environment began several years ago, and numerous laws on products, consumer protection and product safety now include provisions to ensure robust safeguards in the digital landscape; whereas, notwithstanding these efforts, critical shortcomings persist in empowering authorities to hold the full supply chain accountable and ensure consumer protection, which need to be urgently addressed;

    H. whereas the Digital Services Act[5] (DSA), the General Product Safety Regulation[6] (GPSR), the Market Surveillance Regulation[7] (MSR) and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (CPC)[8] contribute to a safer and fair e-commerce environment, if well implemented and enforced; whereas, despite these laws, consumer and other organisations, as well as national authorities, have raised concerns over the large number of unsafe products detected in the EU that fail to comply with EU legislation on product safety and environmental and chemical standards; whereas better funding of and coordination among Member States’ enforcement authorities are essential to address these risks effectively;

    I. whereas e-commerce may significantly impact consumers by providing them with unparalleled convenience, access to diverse products and competitive pricing; whereas e-commerce also exposes consumers to risks such as unsafe products, a lack of transparency and manipulative practices that exploit their vulnerabilities;

    J. whereas the protection of consumers is essential to the functioning of the EU’s internal market, as it ensures trust and fairness in commercial practices, thereby enabling sustainable economic growth and innovation; whereas addressing these concerns is important in promoting transparency, fairness and the responsible development of digital services and e-commerce;

    K. whereas people from more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, including low-income families and children, are more exposed to the risks posed by unsafe products due to their lower prices, aggressive marketing and widespread distribution;

    L. whereas concerns over the suitability of customs procedures under the current Union Customs Code[9] for e-commerce were a significant driver of the Commission’s customs reform package, including the legislative proposals on the revision of the Union Customs Code and establishing an EU Customs Authority (UCC reform), and the removal of the EUR 150 exemption threshold (de minimis) for the payment of customs duties and VAT on imported products;

    M. whereas customs authorities are in need of substantial investments, particularly to ensure a sufficient number of properly trained staff to guarantee the functioning of EU customs systems, which are facing an exponential increase in demand for customs checks; whereas without the necessary investments in staff, digital solutions cannot achieve benefits in terms of efficiency and harmonisation;

    N. whereas advanced screening technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, could significantly enhance the capacity of customs and market surveillance authorities to flag high-risk shipments and automate compliance checks at scale; whereas investment in such technologies remains fragmented and uneven across Member States; whereas increased EU-level funding, coordination and efforts to ensure interoperability are essential to accelerate their deployment and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms;

    O. whereas digital tools, such as artificial intelligence and the internet of things, can help track non-compliant products, but must respect consumer privacy and must not lead to the general monitoring of users;

    P. whereas the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, highlights that the volume of e-commerce goods bought by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms is expected to continue growing rapidly, benefiting from the current customs duty exemption for low-value consignments (up to EUR 150);

    The surge in non-compliant goods in e-commerce

    1. Highlights the increasingly high number of purchases being made by EU consumers on non-EU online platforms in business-to-consumer environments and in emerging manufacturer-to-consumer and direct-to-consumer environments; emphasises, as described in the Letta report on the future of the single market[10], that the circulation of harmful products in the single market is escalating and that EU consumers are wasting EUR 19.3 billion per year buying dangerous products that can lead to injuries and that are detrimental to our economies;

    2. Notes that 4.6 billion e-commerce items under the EUR 150 exemption threshold were imported into the EU in 2024, 91 % of which originated from China, amounting to up to 12 million small e-commerce items per day and amounting to almost twice the number recorded in 2023 (2.4 billion) and more than triple the number in 2022 (1.4 billion); notes that this surge has exacerbated compliance challenges, especially in product safety, and that market surveillance authorities and independent investigations have reported alarming non-compliance rates;

    3. Stresses that most unsafe and illegal products are shipped to the EU in large volumes of individual, and often small, parcels sold to EU consumers via online platforms from non-EU countries, in particular China; stresses that such products are difficult to control, in particular for customs authorities at the entry points, which are mostly located at major ports and logistical airports for e-commerce; emphasises that this makes it almost impossible to stop such products from entering the EU and makes it increasingly difficult for market surveillance authorities to detect and remove such products from the internal market and for consumer authorities to do so once the products reach EU consumers;

    4. Stresses that the rapid growth of e-commerce has significant environmental implications due to issues such as a rise in packaging waste, the larger carbon footprint from low-quality and short life cycle products and their shipment, and problems with waste management and non-recyclable materials; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure compliance with environmental legislation and to encourage sustainable ways of consuming;

    5. Stresses that some non-EU online marketplaces are facing allegations regarding the use of forced labour; underlines, in this respect, that Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 prohibits products made with forced labour from entering the EU market, and that it must be effectively enforced after its application, including for online sales;

    6. Notes that, on 1 December 2025, Regulation No 2023/2411[11] on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products will come into force; notes that, if not accompanied by adequate promotion and protection, especially with respect to the markets of non-EU countries, geographical indications risk remaining ineffective; calls, therefore, on the Commission, together with the customs authorities of the Member States, to strengthen checks aimed at intercepting products that violate the rules on geographical indications;

    7. Is concerned that the prevailing business model of certain major non-EU online platforms is based on the rapid, large-scale production and distribution of fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion products, prioritising speed and low cost over sustainability, safety and quality; regrets that many such products do not comply with EU legislation, yet non-compliant sellers frequently evade meaningful enforcement or sanctions; stresses that such practices constitute a form of social and environmental dumping, resulting in a persistent and unfair competitive advantage for these non-EU platforms, exerting disproportionate pressure on European undertakings, in particular SMEs and micro-enterprises; emphasises that this hampers the development of the EU’s textile and clothing sector;

    E-commerce crossroads: navigating compliance challenges

    8. Recognises that the EU has established a robust compliance framework, which also applies to products sold online, but that greater efforts are still needed for the full enforcement of the compliance framework; underlines, in this respect, the importance of the DSA, the DMA, the MSR, the GPSR, consumer protection rules and various product and environmental laws; emphasises that market surveillance authorities face challenges in applying these frameworks to online platforms as evidenced by the Commission’s recently published evaluation report on the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and, in particular, in cases where large quantities of a product are sold in small consignments; considers that the thorough implementation of the DSA and other regulatory acquis is necessary to combat unsafe, non-compliant and counterfeit products;

    9. Stresses the need to implement the existing compliance framework and evaluate these measures when considering new legislation, including new obligations for online marketplaces;

    10. Notes that conducting physical tests is particularly impractical for small parcels sent directly to the final consumer and that customs authorities will therefore continue to rely primarily on checking the documentation, rather than inspecting the products themselves;

    11. Highlights the significant enforcement gaps caused by the limited resources and insufficient level of digitalisation of customs and market surveillance authorities, the lack of human resources and harmonised and interoperable technological tools across Member States, and the insufficient data sharing and overall lack of cooperation and coordination between customs authorities, platforms and market surveillance entities; acknowledges that physical inspections are unavoidably and inherently limited given the volume of e-commerce parcels entering the EU;

    12. Considers that mystery shopping exercises by market surveillance authorities, as put forward in the Commission communication on e-commerce, are an important tool to verify compliance for products sold through online platforms; stresses, however, that if sellers are based outside the EU or are not traceable and if fake addresses are used for responsible persons, there is no liable legal entity and it is impossible for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement actions;

    13. Considers that EU manufacturers and retailers, particularly SMEs, face unfair competition due to non-EU platforms enabling non-EU manufacturers and their non-compliant products to easily enter the EU market, bypassing applicable regulations and standards; highlights that, while EU manufacturers must comply with strict safety, environmental and quality rules, many low-value products sold through these platforms evade customs and market surveillance checks due to the way they are shipped to the EU; raises concerns that some of these platforms and non-EU traders deliberately exploit this loophole, allowing non-compliant imports to enter the EU single market unchecked, putting European manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers at a disadvantage, weakening their competitiveness and hindering their ability to innovate, which could lead to the closure of many micro-enterprises and small enterprises;

    14. Stresses that EU manufacturers are de facto subject to significantly stricter market surveillance compared to non-EU manufactures that reach EU consumers via e-commerce platforms; deeply regrets the loss of market share and jobs caused by the influx of cheaper products that do not comply with European standards, particularly on safety and quality, as well as other illegal products, shipped from non-EU countries, directly affecting EU SMEs and the strength of EU companies and their capacity to invest and maintain profitability;

    15. Highlights the difference between online platforms acting as intermediaries and those acting as importers; notes, in particular, that the EU e-commerce platforms that act as importers face compliance costs that increase their retail prices up to 40 %, which has an impact on final consumers; underlines that EU-based importers face stricter obligations and higher costs, while intermediary platforms allow non-EU sellers to ship directly to EU consumers without ensuring compliance;

    16. Recognises that e-commerce platforms are subject to various obligations under the DSA and the GPSR and may be held liable under the Product Liability Directive[12] (PLD) in specific circumstances; recalls, in this respect, that online platforms are liable if they do not respect their specific obligations as intermediaries; believes, however, that consumer redress must be ensured in all cases; underlines, in this respect, that where the manufacturer is established outside the EU and no importer, authorised representative, or fulfilment service provider can be identified, online marketplaces should provide adequate and proportionate remedies to consumers where they fail to comply with the DSA, particularly with Articles 30 and 31 or with Article 22 of the GPSR;

    17. Emphasises that online marketplaces are requested to trace their traders (‘know your business customer’) under the DSA, which should discourage traders from selling unsafe or counterfeit goods, and are obliged to comply with the ‘compliance by design’ rules to increase overall traceability; highlights the lack of accountability of online platforms in case of untraceable sellers or sellers based outside the jurisdiction of the EU; notes the considerable level of non-compliance with the ‘know your business customer’ principle and the rise in new selling practices via social media platforms, where this obligation is not effectively applied, allowing non-EU sellers to offer non-compliant goods to EU users directly; stresses, therefore, the need for online platforms to make best efforts to ensure full traceability of sellers and products, preventing listings from appearing without verified product compliance details;

    18. Highlights the fact that the information of a responsible economic operator in the EU under the GPSR, acting on behalf of a non-EU trader or platform, is often wrong or missing; notes that even when this information is available, the responsible person in the EU may not be accountable, particularly when the responsible person is an authorised representative; is concerned that market surveillance authorities report significant difficulties in contacting these non-EU traders and enforcing EU law, and that even when contact is established, enforcing penalties against them is often unfeasible;

    19. Considers that creating a database of the responsible persons in the EU to enable real-time cross-checking for verification, along with establishing an accreditation procedure for them, could enhance transparency and reinforce accountability throughout the e-commerce import supply chain;

    20. Supports research and enforcement actions by consumer organisations and the opening of investigations initiated by consumer authorities in the EU, as part of the CPC network, as well as under the DSA, against non-EU online platforms for potential violations of EU product safety and consumer laws; expresses concern over the slow progress of these investigations and calls for their swift conclusion; underlines the need for enforcement to be a deterrent that includes adequate sanctions to ensure compliance; underlines, in this respect, that particular attention is necessary at national and EU level to address recurrent non-compliance that may have been identified in previous controls of similar products, including via the application of interim measures; stresses that the enforcement and effectiveness of commitments received from online platforms should be closely monitored;

    21. Urges the Commission and CPC authorities to initiate a structured enforcement dialogue with consumer representatives, traders and other stakeholders to identify systemic infringements requiring stronger enforcement;

    22. Notes the complexity for EU authorities to enforce EU laws when the economic operators are established outside the EU; highlights the need for enhanced international cooperation agreements, particularly with major e-commerce exporters;

    Strong enforcement policies to combat non-compliant e-commerce products

    Urgent need for short-term measures

    23. Urges the Member States to increase funding and resources for market surveillance, customs, consumer protection and digital services authorities so that they can better address the challenges posed by unsafe and illicit products; asks the Commission to support stronger cooperation, information sharing and data exchange between competent authorities, including market surveillance and customs authorities, and stresses that cooperation across different sectors should be improved; urges the Member States to ensure effective coordination among different market surveillance authorities in their territories, and to strengthen the powers of the single liaison offices; highlights that the Member States and the EU have the responsibility to ensure that market surveillance and customs authorities are properly resourced, trained and equipped to have the capacity to fulfil their mission, including proper investigative powers;

    24. Calls on market surveillance authorities to invest more resources in joint or coordinated activities with other Member States or relevant authorities and, in particular, to increase the number and the frequency of coordinated enforcement actions such as sweeps, mystery-shopping exercises and peer-reviews; urges relevant authorities to actively participate in these activities and the Commission to make full use of its coordination powers;

    25. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to coordinate the control of customs and market surveillance authorities under priority control areas focused on products from non-EU countries that pose significant safety hazards and a risk of non-compliance; emphasises that this initiative should generate valuable risk profile data, which could be used in further enforcement activities and penalties to non-compliant actors; calls on the Commission to strengthen cooperation within the EU Product Compliance Network and to increase EU funding for customs cooperation under the customs programme and for market surveillance operations under the single market programme; stresses that the lack of adequate resources has hindered the effective deployment of tools, such as the widespread use of mystery shopping activities by market surveillance authorities or the use of trusted flaggers under the DSA; points out to the Commission that, in addition to existing testing facilities for toys and radio equipment, more testing facilities for e-commerce goods are urgently needed, such as for batteries, textiles, cosmetics, electrical appliances and other products; asks the Member States to deploy sufficient resources to guarantee an increased capacity of testing facilities and to increase investments in equipment for the detection of unsafe and illegal goods;

    26. Emphasises that for data and security reasons, Member States should restrict high-risk vendors from operating in their critical infrastructure and border security systems, including for the procurement of security screening and cargo scanning equipment used at airports and ports;

    27. Highlights the fact that, under the GPSR, online marketplaces are obliged to establish a single point of contact, register with the Safety Gate Portal and indicate the information concerning their single contact point on the portal; asks the Commission to effectively enforce this and other obligations of online marketplaces and to support the Member States’ market surveillance authorities in implementing the GPSR and the MSR; notes that the GPSR introduced direct data exchanges between enforcement authorities and e-commerce platforms; believes, however, that in order for the system to work effectively, a direct link with customs authorities should be provided;

    28. Notes that the current system is more reactive than preventive, as authorities intervene only after dangerous products have already been sold to consumers, rather than preventing their distribution; recalls that, under the GPSR, online marketplace providers are encouraged to check products against the Safety Gate Portal before listing them on their interfaces; underlines that random sampling testing can only be efficient if it is conducted regularly;

    29. Emphasises that the swift implementation of the Digital Product Passport (DPP) for several critical products sold online is essential to strengthen the enforcement of existing legislation; urges the Commission to present the necessary secondary legislation on the DPP as soon as possible, in particular for textiles, toys, cosmetics, electronics and other products with high non-compliance rates and associated risks; calls on the Commission to continuously assess the requirements, technical design and operation of the DPP under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation[13] (ESPR) as a priority; calls on the Commission to support businesses, in particular micro-enterprises and SMEs, in the implementation of the DPP;

    30. Proposes a mandatory DPP with early compliance verification for all products imported via e-commerce, including detailed quality and compliance data, to be integrated directly into the EU customs data hub, allowing authorities to pre-screen information on products before they are placed on the single market;

    31. Urges the Member States to make substantial efforts to increase customs controls and improve risk analysis, as the detection and removal of non-compliant goods can reduce the harm to EU consumers and protect the economic interests of EU businesses; underlines that the introduction in the customs risk analysis of a presumption of non-compliance for goods identical to those already found non-compliant could facilitate controls by customs authorities and improve cost efficiency; stresses the importance of reinforcing customs centres so they are better equipped to handle the large volume of small parcels that are difficult to control using traditional methods, including advanced screening technologies to identify suspicious packages at entry points; asks for more rigorous compliance checks, as well as random checks by the authorities on high-tonnage transport; urges the Member States, furthermore, to significantly increase the level of digitalisation of import procedures in customs authorities in order to implement existing legislation and accelerate customs procedures, especially in view of the high numbers of parcels;

    32. Underlines that businesses, particularly SMEs, urgently require clear guidelines from the Commission for the effective implementation of the GPSR, including clarification on its interplay with overlapping legislation, such as the DSA, the MSR, the PLD, and sector-specific laws on toys, cosmetics and detergents; calls on the Commission to issue these guidelines before the end of the first half of 2025 to facilitate businesses’ compliance; considers that the evaluation report on the interaction of the DSA with other legal acts, which is due on 17 November 2025, should take into account different legislation, in particular on product compliance, the obligations of online marketplaces, enforcement rules and possible future improvements on simplification and implementation; calls on the Commission to assess all possible further actions, including the evaluation of sectoral legislation, which is necessary to ensure legal predictability and that no legal loopholes or enforcement gaps are left when it comes to direct imports from non-EU countries via online marketplaces;

    33. Calls on the relevant national authorities to make full use of the existing and recently adopted enforcement toolbox, especially in relation to provisions on e-commerce set out in the MSR, GPSR and DSA, such as takedown orders, prohibition, restriction on the making available of a product on the market or its removal, recalls and sanctions as measures to counter the rise of illegal and non-compliant imports from non-EU countries;

    34. Underlines that regulatory enforcement measures taken against non-compliant actors should not put disproportionate burdens on compliant actors or cause unintentional harm to the second-hand market;

    35. Stresses the need to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights in the light of the increase in non-European counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms; notes that these practices harm the competitiveness of European companies and pose risks to innovation and the incentives for research and development; calls for stronger measures against the sale of counterfeit goods online; urges the Commission to issue clear guidelines on trusted flaggers and stresses that rights holders should be recognised as eligible trusted flaggers when they meet the criteria outlined in Article 22 of the DSA;

    36. Points out that the Member States should make better use of the available sets of penalties and sanctions against economic operators, as well as other available tools including interim measures, in order to create a deterrent effect to dissuade economic operators from infringing upon the applicable legislation;

    37. Urges the Commission to take effective measures, including legislative measures where legal loopholes are clearly identified, without delay to ensure legal certainty and a level playing field for European companies, placing particular emphasis on SMEs;

    The need for regulatory reforms

    38. Calls for the removal of barriers to enforcing consumer rights, such as legal warranty claims and the right to return items; calls on the Commission to review the CPC Regulation without delay as this will be fundamental for a more effective cross-border enforcement of EU consumer law and the fight against unsafe products; asks the Commission, in this context, to provide for clear measures to further strengthen enforcement powers over non-EU traders and platforms and ensure better coordination of EU and national actions and the exchange of information among authorities, as well as with authorities in non-EU countries; highlights that the structure of the European Competition Network could be used as an example to follow for enforcement and information exchange in the case of suspected violations impacting multiple Member States, especially to combat non-compliant products effectively; stresses the importance of granting the Commission direct powers to investigate and sanction certain high impact breaches of consumer law, thus ensuring more effective, simultaneous and uniform enforcement and sanctions under EU consumer law;

    39. Notes that the CPC Regulation already empowers enforcement authorities to act against non-compliant traders and even gives the possibility for Member States to impose penalties and interim measures such as restricting access to the website; acknowledges, however, that the limitation is that this action must be taken on a country-by-country basis rather than at EU level, with each country applying its own penalties, making the consequences of violations uneven;

    40. Notes that enforcement in the Member States is fragmented, which leads to inefficiencies; calls for better coordination of enforcement and compliance oversight effective information exchange between Member States and for a more uniform application of the EU acquis; calls on the Commission to assess the MSR, particularly the need for an EU Market Surveillance Authority that would ensure consistency and provide operational support to the activities conducted by the relevant national market surveillance authorities and foster cooperation with the new EU Customs Authority (EUCA), as well as the implementation of Article 4 of the MSR, defining the responsible economic operators in the EU for product compliance; stresses that, to date, the designated responsible economic operator often lacks the capacity to provide redress or compensation to consumers, in particular when being an authorised representative;

    41. Supports the Commission’s ambition to swiftly advance the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations with Parliament and the Council on the UCC reform and the two proposals for Council acts on removing the exemption threshold on customs duties for goods valued under EUR 150; urges, therefore, the Member States to accelerate the negotiation procedure in the Council, recognising the urgency of the customs reform for EU competitiveness and the protection of EU consumers; underlines, however, that removing the threshold is a necessary step but not a stand-alone solution, as customs authorities will still only be able to inspect a limited percentage of parcels; stresses that immediate removal of the customs duty exemption is necessary for high-risk imports from product and consumer safety perspectives; emphasises the need for the customs reform to ensure coherence across regulatory frameworks, particularly avoiding duplication or conflicts with the DSA, and highlights the essential role customs authorities play in detecting non-compliant and unsafe products;

    42. Stresses that the UCC reform will provide the necessary tools for customs authorities to better supervise and control the goods entering the EU, help to strengthen the single market and customs union, improve the detection of unsafe and illicit products, and contribute to a level playing field among economic operators; welcomes, in this respect, the proposal under the UCC Regulation to establish the cooperation mechanism with market surveillance authorities that will improve the effectiveness of product controls; emphasises the importance of enhancing customs infrastructure and staffing to manage e-commerce effectively; highlights the need for simplified compliance processes tailored specifically to SMEs; calls on the Member States to introduce automated, forward-looking customs clearing systems, for instance by obliging platforms to enrol and clear customs automatically at the point of sales;

    43. Is concerned that some non-EU traders are circumventing EU customs checks by clearing goods by customs at the point of origin; stresses that those non-EU trading companies often prefer to pay penalties rather than open packages upon arrival at EU customs, aiming to unload shipments and depart immediately; is deeply concerned that customs authorities find that many packages are either undeclared or incorrectly declared and are sometimes fraudulently labelled; highlights that the UCC reform should also address these aspects;

    44. Takes note of the concern expressed by the ECC network regarding the drop-shipping business model, which raises challenges in consumer protection, product safety and regulatory compliance; regrets that consumers often face misleading practices, difficulties in returning products, and unexpected import duties, while a significant share of drop-shipped products fail to comply with EU safety standards; stresses that drop-shipping complicates enforcement due to untraceable businesses and cross-border complexities, while VAT and data protection compliance remain key concerns; notes that when combined with influencer marketing, drop-shipping may exacerbate transparency issues, reputational risks and inconsistent outcomes; calls on the Commission to assess how to address drop-shipping-related issues;

    45. Highlights the fact that the concept of a ‘deemed importer’ aims to ensure a level playing field for both EU and non-EU online platforms; notes that, in the context of an online sale from outside the EU, this measure would relieve customers of non-EU online platforms from being considered importers, as they are under the current UCC, while a non-EU platform or trader would instead be considered the ‘deemed importer’; believes that ‘deemed importer’ responsibilities should be clearly defined and consistent with the provisions of the DSA; emphasises that platforms being responsible for ensuring that VAT and customs duties are collected at the point of sale, rather than upon entry into the EU, will reduce fraud and tax evasion;

    46. Expresses concern about the optional nature of the Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) scheme for all online operators, which deviates from the original objectives of the VAT in the digital age (ViDA) initiative; underlines the necessity of additional actions to strengthen the system’s robustness and curb potential misuse; urges the Commission to engage closely with stakeholders to establish safeguards for the IOSS against fraudulent practices; recommends that such safeguards be both comprehensive and streamlined to effectively deter fraud while avoiding excessive administrative burdens; stresses the necessity of extending the IOSS applicability to goods beyond the customs duty exemption threshold of EUR 150 to prevent undervaluation and ensure fair competition;

    47. Calls for the establishment of a new EUCA in 2026 to provide expert support to the Member States’ customs authorities; underlines that the EUCA should in its coordination role also map testing and control capabilities of customs and market surveillance authorities in and across the Member States and be mandated to execute unannounced inspections to detect possible unsafe or non-compliant products and issue sanctions in case of non-compliance; notes that the new EU customs data hub will allow for enhanced cooperation between the EUCA and customs and other authorities through data exchange and the interoperability of national IT systems, and thus facilitate coordinated controls and the detection of non-compliant products; considers that it is essential to fully integrate the functionalities of the Customs Single Window into the EU customs data hub; notes in the context of the proposed EUCA, the importance of regularly consulting representatives of various stakeholders to provide early warning to the EUCA;

    48. Stresses that, given the urgency, the entry into force of different obligations planned in the UCC revision should be accelerated, such as the establishment of the EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to immediately start the preparatory work necessary for the establishment of the EU customs data hub, so as to speed up the preparation of its e-commerce functions in 2026;

    49. Urges the Commission to carry out an impact assessment regarding the idea of e-commerce items being shipped to the EU in bulk and, in turn, the establishment of warehouses in the EU by non-EU traders for such goods before they are put into parcels for delivery to customers; recognises that such shipments of e-commerce items in bulk and their storage in warehouses in the EU might increase the oversight of customs and market surveillance authorities and improve their controls and detection of non-compliant goods compared to single parcel shipments; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider all possible options to incentivise such practices, including a simplified status for trust and check traders and cost-benefit assessments for incentive schemes; further notes that bulk shipping may not be feasible for all non-EU traders, particularly those operating consumer-to-consumer (C2C) or second-hand models; emphasises that this approach should strike a balance between the compliance advantages and the practical requirements of e-commerce operators, ensuring that it avoids creating logistical bottlenecks or placing an undue burden on varying business models;

    50. Acknowledges that the Commission has released a non-paper outlining the introduction of a non-discriminatory handling fee on e-commerce items, to be charged by customs authorities for goods sold in distance sales with the aim of covering the increased supervisory costs of custom authorities, namely the checking of the data, carrying out risk analysis, performing documentary and physical controls and specifically the financing of the EUCA and the data hub; insists that Member States should avoid unilateral fees to avoid a fragmentation of the customs union; underlines that the proposal suggests a flat EUR 2 rate per item delivered directly to the customer or a smaller 50 cent fee for Trust and Check Traders operating a business model of a customs warehouse for distance sales within the EU; calls on the Commission to conduct a proper evaluation of whether the proposed amount complies with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and whether it is sufficient and proportionate to reach the objectives; insists that this handling fee not be incurred by the consumer;

    51. Notes the enormous waste management and product destruction cost arising from the huge amount of non-compliant and unsafe products imported via non-EU country e-commerce; underlines that a large share of these products is non-recyclable, environmentally harmful or non-compliant with applicable chemicals legislation, further driving up environmental costs for public authorities; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the necessary measures to mitigate the environmental impact of non-EU countries’ e-commerce activities including the feasibility of a waste management fee on all products sold via non-EU countries’ online marketplaces to ensure that environmental costs are not supported by EU taxpayers;

    52. Stresses that inconsistent penalties and different enforcement strategies for non-compliance in different Member States lead to ‘border shopping’ or ‘customs shopping’; supports the minimum harmonisation of infringements and non-criminal sanctions for non-compliance across the Member States and through the EUCA as this would avoid creating weak entry points in the EU customs territory; stresses that this should entail a common framework for minimum harmonisation to close existing loopholes and thus tackle e-commerce challenges; underlines that Member States can impose additional sanctions tailored to national contexts;

    53. Notes that the Commission is scrutinising certain non-EU online marketplaces for employing manipulative practices, including dark patterns, addictive design features, deceptive influencer marketing, and the dissemination of fake or misleading online reviews; recognises that, according to the Digital Fairness Fitness Check report, unfair commercial practices cost consumers nearly EUR 8 billion annually, and that the use of unfair techniques to pressure consumers, especially vulnerable ones and children, into impulse purchases leads to overconsumption and overspending; calls on the Commission to address these issues in the upcoming Digital Fairness Act, unless they are already covered by existing legislation, with a view to effectively tackling unfair practices and closing existing legal loopholes, while staying consistent with existing legal frameworks and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens;

    54. Emphasises the need to ensure that any new initiatives proposed by the Commission in the area of customs enforcement or compliance do not result in additional administrative burdens for European businesses, particularly SMEs;

    55. Stresses the importance of the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) in the field of cross-border investigations of customs offences, which notably include fraud, for example the illicit undervaluing of the price of products in order to avoid paying the import taxes; emphasises that the large-scale circumvention of customs duties, including fraudulent e-commerce declarations and undervaluation, as well as the avoidance of controls and ‘forum shopping,’ must be effectively combated through criminal law investigations conducted by the EPPO, with the support of customs authorities; stresses that the EPPO’s robust legal framework for cross-border investigations should be leveraged to dismantle the criminal networks behind such operations;

    Additional enforcement actions

    56. Calls on the Commission and the national competent authorities to strongly enforce the DSA with regard to the responsibility of online marketplaces, in particular their obligations in terms of recommender systems, interface design, right to information, the compliance by design rules to increase the overall traceability, and their ‘know your business customer’ obligation; highlights that compliance with these obligations should dissuade non-compliant traders from offering their products in the EU through marketplaces or shopping services of social media falling in this category, and calls on the Commission to provide practical support in tracing traders that do not abide by EU rules; stresses the need for a DSA-based network of trusted flaggers for illegal products and e-commerce to ensure that platforms fulfil their obligations effectively;

    57. Stresses that the enhancement of cooperation and coordination with national competent authorities is crucial; asks for more cooperation among all relevant authorities, such as Member State authorities, customs authorities, and consumer protection authorities, and for stronger coordination among all established expert groups; stresses that, under the DSA, the investigative actions against non-compliant online marketplaces need to yield results and lead to deterrent sanctions in order to prevent the offer of non-compliant products; emphasises the importance of these investigations in addressing systemic risks, compliance failures, illegal content dissemination, addictive design features, dark patterns and the use of influencers for manipulative advertising;

    58. Calls on enforcement authorities to strengthen monitoring and enforcement actions targeting new sales channels; recommends that competent authorities be equipped with adequate resources, technological tools, and cross-border cooperation mechanisms to effectively identify and take action against non-compliant traders operating via social media and other emerging platforms;

    59. Suggests that online marketplace sellers must provide a reshipping address and contact point within the EU to allow consumers to easily return non-compliant goods without undue costs and to allow authorities to inspect goods; believes that online marketplaces should be responsible for checking this and should be held accountable for enforcement;

    60. Calls for an urgent in-depth evaluation of the effectiveness of the provision of the ‘responsible person for products placed on the Union market’, particularly those of non-EU traders, building on the results of the evaluation report on Article 4 of the MSR; calls on the Commission to consider among its future actions the introduction of a mandatory requirement for non-EU traders to appoint a responsible person in the EU with increased legal and financial liability;

    61. Notes that postal and other delivery services are undergoing significant transformations due to the rapid growth of e-commerce; raises concerns that the Universal Postal Union’s terminal dues system in practice does not apply to e-commerce flows; notes that, as a result, Chinese e-commerce businesses, due to shipment volumes, enter into commercial agreements directly with the EU postal operators for exceptionally attractive delivery rates that are lower than those for goods manufactured within the EU, leading to deeper fragmentation of the single market for postal services; urges the Commission to evaluate the impact of e-commerce on postal services and the internal market, and to consider how postal services can contribute to strengthening the single market and benefiting consumers, and to the overall competitiveness of the EU;

    62. Welcomes the approval of the ViDA reforms, which represent a significant step towards modernising VAT collection in the e-commerce sector; emphasises the importance of the Single VAT ID for online marketplaces and for European manufacturers, enabling them to compete on a level playing field by simplifying VAT compliance across the Member States; highlights that this measure can also facilitate in-bulk importation and the warehousing of goods within the EU, reducing reliance on fragmented cross-border shipments and ensuring that value-added services, such as fulfilment and logistics, take place within the single market; stresses that these reforms will enhance tax compliance, reduce administrative burdens, and improve enforcement while supporting fair competition and strengthening EU supply chains; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the effective implementation of these measures to maximise their benefits for European businesses and consumers;

    63. Calls on the Commission to consider measures aimed at reducing the unnecessary regulatory and administrative compliance burden for EU manufacturers, in particular for SMEs, in order to level the playing field and enable them to better compete with global competitors operating under more efficient compliance standards;

    64. Calls on the Commission to enhance international cooperation with other like-minded countries to exchange best practices, identify common challenges and risks and develop joint actions on e-commerce;

    65. Welcomes, in this regard, the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce; notes that the agreement will benefit consumers and businesses by facilitating cross-border electronic transactions, reducing barriers to digital trade and promoting innovation in e-commerce; underlines, however, that the agreement is only a foundation and encourages the Commission to pursue ambitious trade agreements in negotiations with partners to ensure binding provisions on e-commerce;

    Increased use of IT tools

    66. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is preparing a project to streamline existing databases, including the Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance, the EU Safety Gate and the Customs Risk Management System, into a common interoperable system gathering all information on the safety of products, counterfeit product tracking and notifications of accidents and to ensure interoperability with the DPP and the future EU customs data hub; calls on the Commission to publish information regarding the implementation timeline and the resource requirements of this initiative;

    67. Supports the Commission’s aim to provide market surveillance authorities with the e-Surveillance WebCrawler tool to flag reappearing dangerous products; asks the Commission to make available another web crawler for detecting new listings as soon as possible, in order to flag non-compliant products before they reach consumers;

    68. Supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things for scanning and analysing product listings on e-commerce platforms, automating customs and market surveillance inspections and risk identification and integrating product compliance databases for real-time checks between market surveillance and customs authorities, in line with EU and national laws; notes, however, that the high implementation costs of these technologies remain a barrier; underlines that the full uptake of these technologies will make handling more efficient, especially for low-value goods, and that the high volume of parcels containing many different items faces limited inspection capabilities;

    69. Demands that the Commission and the Member States exchange best practices and find incentives to provide the necessary funding and support for national authorities in order to increase the responsible use of technological solutions; suggests that artificial intelligence, blockchain and the internet of things could be used to scan and analyse product listings on e-commerce platforms, automate inspections and risk profiling, and integrate product compliance databases for real-time checks by several authorities;

    70. Underlines that Member States should reinforce customs checks in particular with low-value shipments by implementing risk-based assessment systems and digital tracking to prevent non-compliant products from bypassing customs controls; calls on the Member States to increase the level of automated processes, such as automated scans of labels when processing parcels at customs;

    71. Recognises that some online marketplaces also use a number of IT tools to detect and remove unsafe and illicit products that are found on their platforms; highlights, however, the fact that online marketplaces need to further invest in and increase their use of these IT tools to effectively avoid the offer and sale of unsafe and illicit products; calls on the Commission to further incentivise the use of IT tools by online marketplaces in this regard, while ensuring full compliance with Article 8 of the DSA, which provides that there is no general obligation to monitor the information that providers of intermediary services transmit or store;

    72. Suggests that, without prejudice to the principle enshrined in the DSA that providers of intermediary services online should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of general nature, online intermediaries engaged in the sale, promotion or distribution of products within the EU market should consider on their own the use of risk-based digital monitoring systems to identify and prevent the presence of illegal content (presentation, description or offering for sale of illegal or dangerous products); stresses the importance of implementing swift response mechanisms to ensure the permanent removal of specific illegal content as soon as providers of intermediary services online have actual knowledge of such illegal content being presented on their interfaces, as well as the necessity for hosting service providers to take all necessary measures to prevent the reappearance of the same or equivalent illegal content on their platform;

    Improvement of consumer awareness and information

    73. Emphasises that EU consumers and European SMEs engaged in importing activities often lack sufficient information on the possible dangers of potentially unsafe products and the harm they can cause; stresses that consumers are increasingly targeted by traders who, despite their legal obligations, often do not inform consumers that their products are made and shipped from outside of the EU; acknowledges that there is demand among EU consumers for cheaper products, which are purchased on non-EU online marketplaces due to their much lower production costs and uncompetitive conditions for EU businesses and online platforms; stresses that online marketplaces may use manipulative design techniques (dark patterns) to influence purchasing decisions; warns against the risks associated with compulsive purchasing behaviours, financial difficulties and the accumulation of unnecessary goods; calls on the Commission and the Member States to organise information and awareness-raising campaigns on the purchase of unsafe products online and their possible health, privacy, environmental and competitiveness consequences, with a special focus on vulnerable consumers and at peak consumption times;

    74. Recommends fostering second-hand consumption as a sustainable approach to addressing EU consumers’ need for affordable goods; stresses the importance of promoting and incentivising the reuse of second-hand products as an important driver for unlocking the potential of the circular economy;

    75. Asks the Commission and the Member States to strictly enforce the ecodesign requirements for textiles and other products under the ESPR, as well as the provisions of the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition[14] in order to make sure that consumers are better informed about sustainability aspects, such as environmental impacts, energy use, reparability and durability of products purchased on online marketplaces;

    76. Considers that consumer authorities, organisations, industry associations and chambers of commerce should be encouraged to conduct large, coordinated awareness-raising campaigns on consumer rights, potential risks, including the possibilities for collective redress, and redress mechanisms when purchasing online, in particular on non-EU online platforms; stresses the need to also raise awareness about the environmental, health and social impacts of unsustainable business practices and to alert consumers about the role of new advertising techniques, such as influencers and digital opinion leaders, in shaping perceptions of product safety and reliability; calls on the Commission to take a coordinating role as mentioned in the Commission communication of 5 February 2025 on e-commerce and to explore possibilities to finance cross-border information campaigns developed in cooperation with researchers, civil society and other relevant stakeholders;

    Trade and development considerations

    77. Calls on the Commission to implement its level of ambition in agreements with international partners at the multilateral level, as unsafe products constitute not only a European, but also a global challenge; reiterates that, as set out in Parliament’s position on the UCC revision, the EUCA should establish working arrangements with the authorities of non-EU countries and international organisations; stresses that such arrangements should enable the EUCA to exchange information, including best practices, with non-EU authorities and international organisations, and to carry out joint activities; supports continued engagement in the UN Trade and Development working group on consumer product safety, which plays a crucial role in developing best practices for cross-border enforcement;

    78. Calls on the Commission to step up cooperation with international partners, within forums such as the WTO, the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the G7, to counterbalance China’s influence and ensure reciprocity and rules-based trade; calls on the Commission to explicitly incorporate robust and enforceable obligations addressing forced labour when reviewing and renegotiating current trade and investment agreements; underscores the need for stronger EU-China cooperation mechanisms and transparent certification requirements to ensure compliance;

    79. Highlights the need to consider service and product safety and regulatory compliance provisions when negotiating future EU trade agreements; stresses the importance of specific regulatory dialogues and cooperation through administrative arrangements, improved customs enforcement cooperation, the traceability of shipments to the highest standards and enhanced data-sharing arrangements between customs authorities to effectively tackle non-compliant imports;

    80. Urges the Commission to be proactive and swiftly deploy targeted trade defence instruments, including anti-subsidy investigations, to address the adverse impacts on European businesses; emphasises that such actions must be coordinated closely with key international partners, to ensure effective global enforcement and reciprocal market fairness;

    81. Encourages the Commission to enhance diplomatic efforts and cooperation within international forums, particularly the WTO, the WCO and the G7, to counterbalance China’s strategic expansion into digital governance frameworks, including its Digital Silk Road initiative; stresses the need for open, more transparent and responsible digital trade rules in international standard-setting bodies to prevent internet fragmentation and mitigate the risks posed by restrictive digital governance models;

    82. Welcomes the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce as a vital step towards global digital trade rules; stresses, however, its current limitations, especially regarding customs transparency; urges the Commission to advocate stronger binding provisions to ensure its effective implementation and integration into the WTO legal framework, and to ensure enhanced global compliance standards;

    83. Emphasises the need for international capacity-building initiatives to support the sustainable and compliant participation of developing countries in digital trade; calls on the Commission to collaborate closely with international organisations, especially the WTO, to enhance regulatory frameworks and technical assistance for e-commerce in developing countries;

    °

    ° °

    84. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2015/1017, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695 and (EU) 2021/1153 as regards increasing the efficiency of the EU guarantee under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 and simplifying reporting requirements – A10-0117/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2015/1017, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695 and (EU) 2021/1153 as regards increasing the efficiency of the EU guarantee under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 and simplifying reporting requirements

    (COM(2025)0084 – C10‑0036/2025 – 2025/0040(COD))

    (Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

    The European Parliament,

    – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0084),

    – having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 172 and 173, Article 175, third paragraph, Article 182(1), Article 188, second paragraph, and Articles 183 and 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10‑0036/2025),

    – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

    – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 April 2025[1],

    – after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

    – having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs under Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure,

    – having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and of the Committee on Transport and Tourism,

    – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A10-0117/2025),

    1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

    2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

    3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

     

    Amendment  1

    AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT[*]

    to the Commission proposal

    ———————————————————

     

    2025/0040 (COD)

    Proposal for a

    REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

    amending Regulations (EU) 2015/1017, (EU) 2021/523, (EU) 2021/695 and (EU) 2021/1153 as regards increasing the efficiency of the EU guarantee under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 and simplifying reporting requirements

    THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

    Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 172 and Article 173, Article 175, third paragraph, Article 182(1), Article 188, second paragraph, Article 183 and Article 194 thereof,

    Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

    After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

    Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 29 April 2025[2],

    After consulting the Committee of the Regions▌,

    Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

    Whereas:

    (1) The Union faces massive financing needs to deliver on its objectives in the areas of innovation, the green and digital transition, and social investment and skills, while a complex backdrop affecting the Union’s competitiveness and industrial base characterised by changing global dynamics, slow economic growth, accelerated climate change and environmental degradation, technological competition and rising geopolitical tensions needs to be addressed. In that context, enhancing the Union’s autonomy, in particular in the area of energy, by supporting investments that strengthen a renewable-based and clean energy system, is essential to reduce dependencies and safeguard economic and political stability.

    (1a) Additionality and the leveraging effect of the EU guarantee are the foundation of both the EFSI and the InvestEU Programme, enabling especially the scaling up of new and innovative technologies and companies as well as de-risking investment for private investors. It is necessary for the European Parliament to have better oversight over the InvestEU Programme to ensure that the EU guarantee is used in accordance with the programme’s objectives, such as fostering sustainable growth and competitiveness, with genuine additionality compared to private investors.

    (2) The Draghi report assesses the combined additional investment needs in Europe at EUR 750-800 billion per year by 2030, with EUR 450 billion needed for the energy transition alone. This includes a substantial amount for the green and digital transition. Ensuring sufficient public and private investment is critical to boost productivity growth and achieve Union’s goals, leverage private investments with the objective to decarbonise industry, accelerate the production, storage and deployment of clean energy and electrification, strengthen interconnections and grids, advance sustainable and circular business models, foster sustainable building renovation, develop clean tech manufacturing as well as digital technologies and their diffusion across economic sectors.

    (2a) Europe is experiencing an acute housing crisis which consists in two market failures: a shortage of affordable and social housing, and a failure to bridge the energy efficiency gap, with 46 million Europeans living in energy poverty. According to an analysis by the EIB Group, an estimated annual investment of EUR 300 to 400 billion is needed for construction and renovation only. In that regard, the Commission is planning to present a first-ever European Affordable Housing Plan and is partnering with the EIB Group, national promotional banks and international financial institutions to develop a European investment platform for affordable and sustainable housing. Increasing the amount available under the social investment and skills policy window would allow greater support from InvestEU for that key priority. In particular, it is necessary for the Commission and implementing partners to enhance the visibility and accessibility of financing instruments in relation to housing. This would contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

    (2b) In the light of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, increased national and European spending is required to enhance European defence capabilities and to support the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB). On 19 March 2025, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy presented a White Paper for European Defence –Readiness 2030 containing a plan to significantly step up Europe’s spending on security and defence. InvestEU enables financing and investment operations to develop the Union defence industry and military mobility, including financial support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and mid-caps. Increasing the amount available under the relevant windows would allow greater support from InvestEU for this key priority. In particular, it is necessary for the Commission and implementing partners to enhance the visibility and accessibility of financing instruments for SMEs, mid-caps, and start-ups in the defence supply chain.

    (2c) In 2024, the Commission launched, together with the European Investment Fund, an export credit guarantee facility under InvestEU with a view to encouraging Union SMEs to strengthen economic ties with Ukraine and revitalise trade, thereby contributing to Ukraine’s economic recovery and improving the competitiveness of SMEs. It is important that as many European export credit agencies as possible participate in this facility.

    (2d) The Letta and Draghi reports underline the importance of well-functioning transport networks and services to ensure a transition towards a green economy while strengthening the Union’s competitiveness. In that regard, massive strategic investments are needed to complete missing links and to modernise transport infrastructure, where major gaps exist in public and private financing.

    (3) The InvestEU Fund is the main EU-level tool to leverage public and private funding to support a broad range of Union policy priorities. Through its comprehensive network of implementing partners, including the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Investment Fund (EIF), other international financial institutions and national promotional banks and institutions, the InvestEU Fund is delivering much-needed financing through its risk-sharing capacity. The InvestEU interim evaluation highlighted that budgetary guarantees are inherently efficient for the EU budget and confirmed that the programme is well on track to mobilise investment, with a notable expected impact on the real economy. However, approvals of financing and investment operation under InvestEU were heavily frontloaded, and as a result, if no action is taken to address the issue, new approvals for some financial products may cease after 2025.

    (4) The financial capacity of InvestEU Fund should be increased and used even more efficiently in combination with resources that will become available under the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and other legacy instruments (CEF Debt Instrument and InnovFin Debt Facility) implemented by the EIB Group. These combinations potentially reduce the budget revenues from legacy instruments. However, they would also create the possibility for an increased volume of guarantee cover to be provided for strategic investments in key Union priority areas for an additional investment of around EUR 25 billion that can be expected to be mobilised and by leading to an increased diversification of risks and thus not substantially increasing the risks for the Union budget.

    (5) With the EUR 4,5 billion increase of the EU guarantee underpinned by ▌additional reflows of EUR 1,8 billion, and the efficiency measures implemented by combining the capacities of the legacy instruments with the InvestEU Fund, it is expected that around EUR 70 billion in additional investment could be mobilised. The financial contribution of the EIB Group should be proportionally adjusted to the share of the increased EU guarantee allocated to them. The indicative distribution of the EU guarantee between the four policy windows should be increased proportionally to the increase of the EU guarantee.

    (5a) InvestEU advisory services play an important role in the development of a pipeline of projects. Those advisory services are particularly useful in complex areas, such as affordable social housing and defence. It would therefore be appropriate to use EUR 200 million in reflows to increase the amount made available for such services. Furthermore, it is necessary to enhance the interaction between the various components of the InvestEU Programme, in particular between the InvestEU Advisory Hub and the InvestEU Portal.

    (5b) The Commission estimates the amount of provisioning required to cover future life-time losses from the operations supported under the InvestEU Fund with a 95 % confidence level of the value at risk. Taking into account the positive experience with the InvestEU Programme to date and in order to maximise budgetary efficiency while preserving a suitable level of risk management, it would be appropriate for the Commission to assess whether to reduce that level to 90 %, which would be in line with risk-related methodologies in Union external policies and would enable a high volume of financing and investment operations in support of the Union’s strategic priorities.

    (6) In order to enhance the attractiveness of the Member State compartment under the InvestEU Fund, it should be made possible for Member States to contribute also in a fully funded manner through an InvestEU financial instrument in addition to the existing option of contributing to the EU guarantee. The support from InvestEU financial instrument should, to the extent possible, be implemented following the same principles as those of the EU guarantee. Through the InvestEU financial instrument, non-euro Member States could benefit from the InvestEU programme financially more efficiently in their own currency. The InvestEU financial instrument should also provide a further incentive for responsibly increasing the risk appetite of the implementing partners thereby contributing to the crowding-in of private capital.

    (6a) It is possible to combine amounts allocated to the Member State compartment with resources under the EU compartment in a layered structure to achieve a better risk coverage, in particular with a first loss tranche covered by national resources. Member States should further explore that possibility to mobilise more investments in strategic areas. To ensure coherence with the objectives of the InvestEU Programme, such combinations should respect the principles of EU value-added, fair competition, and the integrity of the internal market, and should support cross-border cooperation where relevant.

    (7) In line with an overall objective of simplification so as to alleviate the administrative burden for final recipients, financial intermediaries and implementing partners, reporting requirements, including those relating to key performance and monitoring indicators, should be reduced, where appropriate, in particular those that affect small businesses and small-size operations. Without prejudice to the definition of an SME for the purposes of other Union acts and any future programmes and funds, the application of the definition of an SME for the purposes of the InvestEU Programme should be adjusted to remove complexities to the extent possible, taking account of the possibility for implementing partners to request information on the ownership structure of SMEs for the purpose of calculating the headcount. In that regard, and as noted in Recital 14 of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC[3], enterprises should be permitted to use solemn declarations to certify specific characteristics relevant to their SME status, such as the autonomy of their ownership structures. Specific attention should be paid to social economy enterprises and micro finance institutions.

    (7a) It is appropriate for the Commission to take further non-legislative simplification measures in order to complement this amending Regulation, such as reducing the frequency of progress reports to be submitted by implementing partners. However, it is important that such measures do not compromise the effectiveness of auditing and monitoring mechanisms necessary to ensure alignment with the Union’s policy objectives.

    (7b) It is important that State aid procedures applicable to operations supported under the InvestEU Fund be proportionate, predictable, and streamlined. In that context, it is also important that the Commission explore all available means to simplify and accelerate State aid assessments. This could include making greater use of the principle of market conformity. Furthermore, it is necessary that, where appropriate, the Commission provide timely guidance and further clarify and simplify the application of State aid rules to national financial instruments.

    (8) The frequency and scope of reports should also be reduced for the InvestEU programme and its predecessor, the EFSI programme.

    (9) For the Commission’s accounting, implementing partners should provide for combinations audited financial statements in line with Article 212(4) of the Financial Regulation, clearly delineating the amounts related to the different legal basis.

    (10) Regulations (EU) 2015/1017, (EU) 2021/695 and (EU) 2021/1153 should be amended to allow for combinations of support under those Regulations and the EU guarantee under this Regulation.

    (10a) On 18 April 2019, the Commission declared that ‘without prejudice to the prerogatives of the Council in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), one-off contributions by Member States, either by a Member State or by national promotional banks classified in the general government sector or acting on behalf of a Member State, into thematic or multi-country investment platforms should in principle qualify as one-off measures within the meaning of Articles 5(1) and 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 (13) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 (14). In addition, without prejudice to the prerogatives of the Council in the implementation of the SGP, the Commission will consider to what extent the same treatment as for the EFSI in the context of the Commission communication on flexibility can be applied to the InvestEU Programme as the successor instrument to the EFSI with regard to one-off contributions provided by Member States in cash to finance an additional amount of the EU guarantee for the purposes of the Member State compartment’. Since then, the economic governance framework has changed. In light of this, Member State contributions should still be considered as one-off measures.

    (11) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to address Union-wide and Member State specific market failures and the investment gap within the Union, to accelerate the Union’s green and digital transition, enhance its competitiveness and strengthen its industrial base cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

    (11a) In order to support the European Parliament in exercising its institutional role in overseeing Union funds and ensuring alignment with agreed policy objectives, the independent final evaluation report on the InvestEU Programme referred to in Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/523 should assess the effectiveness and impact of the derogations introduced by this amending Regulation, in particular their role in facilitating access to finance for target groups such as SMEs. It should also consider the overall functioning of the InvestEU Programme in the light of the principles of transparency, accountability and performance monitoring, including an examination of the relevance of financial thresholds applicable to SMEs in the light of economic developments.

    (11b) With a view to reducing administrative complexity and legal uncertainty, the independent final evaluation report on the InvestEU Programme referred to in Article 29(3) of Regulation (EU) 2021/523 should also take into account any regulatory adjustments arising from the projected legislative proposal on a small mid-cap enterprise category. Due attention should be given to the effectiveness of measures aimed at facilitating enterprise development,

     

    HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

    Article 1

    Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/523 [InvestEU Regulation]

    Regulation (EU) 2021/523 is amended as follows:

    (1) In Article 1, the first paragraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘This Regulation establishes the InvestEU Fund, which shall provide for an EU guarantee and an InvestEU financial instrument to support financing and investment operations carried out by the implementing partners that contribute to objectives of the Union’s internal policies.’;

    (2) Article 2 is amended as follows:

    (a) points (3), (4) and (5) are replaced by the following:

    ‘(3) ‘policy window’ means a targeted area for support by the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument as laid down in Article 8(1);’

    (4) ‘compartment’ means a part of the support provided under the InvestEU Fund defined in terms of the origin of the resources backing it;’

    (5) ‘blending operation’ means, under the EU compartment, an operation supported by the Union budget that combines non-repayable forms of support, repayable forms of support, or both, from the Union budget with repayable forms of support from development or other public finance institutions, or from commercial finance institutions and investors; for the purposes of this definition, Union programmes financed from sources other than the Union budget, such as the EU ETS Innovation Fund, may be assimilated to Union programmes financed by the Union budget;’;

    (b) point (8) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(8) ‘contribution agreement’ means a legal instrument whereby the Commission and one or more Member States specify the conditions for the implementation of the contribution under the Member State compartment, as laid down in Articles 10 and 10a, respectively;’;

    (c) points (10) and (11) are replaced by the following:

    ‘(10) ‘financing and investment operations’ or ‘financing or investment operations’ means operations to provide finance directly or indirectly to final recipients through financial products:

    (a) in the context of the EU guarantee, carried out by an implementing partner in its own name, provided by the implementing partner in accordance with its internal rules, policies and procedures and accounted for in the implementing partner’s financial statements or, where applicable, disclosed in the notes to those financial statements;

    (b) in the context of the InvestEU financial instrument, carried out by the implementing partner in its own name or in its own name but on behalf of the Commission, as applicable;

    (11) ‘funds under shared management’ means funds that provide for the possibility of allocating a portion of those funds to the provisioning for a budgetary guarantee or to a financial instrument under the Member State compartment of the InvestEU Fund, namely the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council[4], the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council[5] (the ‘ESF+ Regulation for 2021-2027’), the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) established by Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council[6] and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) established by Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council[7] (the ‘CAP Strategic Plans Regulation’);’;

    (d)  point 12 is replaced by the following:

    ‘(12) ‘guarantee agreement’ means a legal instrument whereby the Commission and an implementing partner specify the conditions for proposing financing and investment operations in order for them to be granted the benefit of the EU guarantee and/or of the InvestEU financial instrument, for providing the EU guarantee or support through the InvestEU financial instrument for those operations and for implementing them in accordance with this Regulation;’;

    (e) point 21 is replaced by the following:

    ‘(21) ‘small and medium-sized enterprise’ (‘SME’) means (a) in case of financial products not conferring advantage in State aid terms, an enterprise which, according to its last annual or consolidated accounts, employs an average number of employees during the financial year of less than 250 and which has an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million and where information relating to the autonomy of its ownership structure for the purpose of calculating those thresholds may be made by way of a solemn declaration by the enterprise, or (b) in case of other types of financial products, a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC[8] or as otherwise defined in the guarantee agreement;’;

    (f) the following point 24 is added:

    ‘(24) ‘InvestEU financial instrument’ means a measure defined in Article 2, point (30), of the Financial Regulation to be implemented under the Member State compartment of the InvestEU Fund.’;

    (3) Article 4 is amended as follows:

    (a) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

    (i) in the first subparagraph, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘The EU guarantee for the purposes of the EU compartment referred to in point (a) of Article 9(1) shall be EUR 30 652 310 073 in current prices.’;

    (ii) the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘An additional amount of the EU guarantee may be provided for the purposes of the Member State compartment referred to in point (b) of Article 9(1) of this Regulation, subject to the allocation by Member States, pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council[9] (the ‘Common Provisions Regulation for 2021-2027’) and Article 81 of the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation, of the corresponding amounts.’;

    (b) in paragraph 2, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘An amount of EUR 15 827 310 073 in current prices of the amount referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be allocated for the objectives referred to in Article 3(2).’;

    (ba) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

    ‘3.  The financial envelope for the implementation of the measures provided for in Chapters VI and VII shall be EUR 630 000 000 in current prices.’

    (4) in Article 6(1), the first sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘The EU guarantee and the InvestEU financial instrument shall be implemented in indirect management with the bodies referred to in points (c)(ii), (c)(iii), (c)(v) and (c)(vi) of Article 62(1) of the Financial Regulation.’;

    (5) Article 7 is amended as follows:

    (a) The title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Combinations’

    (b) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

    ‘Support from the EU guarantee under this Regulation, Union support provided through the financial instruments established by the programmes in the programming period 2014-2020 and Union support from the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 may be combined to support financial products or portfolios implemented or to be implemented by the EIB or the EIF under this Regulation.’;

    (c) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

    ‘Support from the EU guarantee under this Regulation, Union support provided through the guarantee under the financial instruments established by the programmes in the programming period 2014-2020 and released from the operations approved under these instruments and Union support provided through the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 and released from operations approved under that EU guarantee may be combined to support financial products or portfolios containing exclusively financing and investment operations eligible under this Regulation, implemented or to be implemented by the EIB or the EIF under this Regulation.’;

    (d) the following paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 are added:

    ‘5. By derogation from Article 212(3), second subparagraph of the Financial Regulation, the released guarantee under the financial instruments established by the programmes in the programming period 2014-2020 may be used for covering financing and investment operations eligible under this Regulation for the purpose of the combination referred to in paragraph 4.

    6. By derogation from Article 216(4), point (a) of the Financial Regulation, the provisioning corresponding to the released guarantee under the Union support from the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017  may not be taken into account for the purpose of operations  referred to in Article 216(4) of the Financial Regulation and may be used for covering financing and investment operations eligible under this Regulation for the purpose of the combination referred to in paragraph 4.

    7. The release of the guarantee under the financial instruments established by the programmes in the programming period 2014-2020, the transfer of corresponding assets from fiduciary accounts to Common Provisioning Fund and the release of the guarantee under the Union support from the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 referred to in paragraph 4 shall take place by an amendment of the relevant agreements signed between the Commission and the EIB or the EIF. 

    The conditions of the use of the released guarantees referred to in the first subparagraph, to cover financing and investment operations eligible under this Regulation, and where relevant, the transfer of corresponding assets from fiduciary accounts to the Common Provisioning Fund, shall be set out in the guarantee agreement referred to in Article 17.

    The terms and conditions of the financial products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Article and of the portfolios concerned, including the respective pro rata shares of losses, revenues, repayments and recoveries or the respective non pro rata shares in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, shall be set out in the guarantee agreement referred to in Article 17.’;

    (6) In Article 8(8), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The Commission, together with implementing partners, shall seek to ensure that the part of the EU guarantee under the EU compartment used for the sustainable infrastructure policy window is distributed with the aim of achieving a balance between the different areas referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1.’;

    (7) In Article 9(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(b) the Member State compartment shall address specific market failures or suboptimal investment situations in one or several regions or Member States to deliver the policy objectives of the contributing funds under shared management or of the additional amount provided by a Member State under  Article 4(1), third subparagraph, or under Article 10a(1), second subparagraph, in particular to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union by addressing imbalances between its regions.’;

    (8) Article 10 is amended as follows:

    (a) the title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Specific provisions applicable to the EU Guarantee implemented under the Member State compartment’;

    (b) in paragraph 2, the fourth subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The Member State and the Commission shall conclude a contribution agreement or an amendment to it following the Commission Decision approving the Partnership Agreement pursuant to the Common Provisions Regulation for 2021-2027 or the CAP Strategic Plan under the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation or simultaneously to the Commission Decision amending a programme in accordance with the  Common Provisions Regulation for 2021-2027 or a CAP Strategic Plan in accordance with the provisions on the amendment to the CAP Strategic Plan laid down in the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation.’;

    (c) in paragraph 3, point (b) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(b) the Member State strategy, consisting of the type of financing, the target leverage, the geographical coverage, including regional coverage if necessary, types of projects, the investment period and, where applicable, the categories of final recipients and of eligible intermediaries;’;

    (9) The following Article 10a is inserted:

    ‘Article 10a

    Specific provisions applicable to the InvestEU financial instrument implemented under the Member State compartment

    1. A Member State may contribute amounts from the funds under shared management to the Member State compartment of the InvestEU Fund in view of deploying them through the InvestEU financial instrument.

    Member States may also provide additional amounts for the purposes of the InvestEU financial instrument. Such amounts shall constitute an external assigned revenue in accordance with Article 21(5), second sentence of the Financial Regulation.

    Amounts allocated by a Member State on a voluntary basis pursuant to the first and second subparagraph shall be used for supporting financing and investment operations in the Member State concerned. Those amounts shall be used to contribute to the achievement of the policy objectives specified in the Partnership Agreement referred to in Article 11(1)(a) of the Common Provisions Regulation for 2021-2027, in the programmes or in the CAP Strategic Plan which contribute to the InvestEU Programme, in order to implement relevant measures set out in the recovery and resilience plans in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/241 or, in other cases, for the purposes laid down in the contribution agreement, depending on the origin of the amount contributed.

    2.  Contribution to the InvestEU financial instrument shall be subject to the conclusion of a contribution agreement between a Member State and the Commission, which for the contributions from funds under shared management shall be done in accordance with Article 10(2), fourth subparagraph.

    Two or more Member States may conclude a joint contribution agreement with the Commission.

    3. The contribution agreement shall at least contain the amount of the contribution by the Member State and the currency of the financing and investment operations, provisions on the Union remuneration for the InvestEU financial instrument, the elements set out in points (b) to (e) and (g) of Article 10(3) and the treatment of resources generated by or attributable to the amounts contributed to the InvestEU financial instrument.

    4. The contribution agreements shall be implemented through guarantee agreements concluded in accordance with Article 10(4), first subparagraph.

    Where no guarantee agreement has been concluded within 12 months from the conclusion of the contribution agreement, the contribution agreement shall be terminated or prolonged by mutual agreement. Where the amount of a contribution agreement has not been fully committed under one or more guarantee agreements within 12 months from the conclusion of the contribution agreement, that amount shall be amended accordingly. The unused amount of a contribution from funds under shared management delivered through the InvestEU Programme shall be re-used in accordance with the respective Regulations. The unused amount of a contribution by a Member State under paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of this Article shall be paid back to the Member State.

    Where a guarantee agreement has not been duly implemented within the period specified in Article 14(6) of the Common Provisions Regulation for 2021-2027 or Article 81(6) of the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation, or, in the case of a guarantee agreement related to amounts provided in accordance with paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of this Article, in the relevant contribution agreement, the contribution agreement shall be amended. The unused amounts allocated by Member States pursuant to the provisions on the use of the funds under shared management delivered through the InvestEU Programme shall be re-used in accordance with the respective Regulations. The unused amount of an InvestEU financial instrument attributable to the contribution by a Member State under paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of this Article shall be paid back to the Member State.

    Resources generated by or attributable to the amounts contributed to the InvestEU financial instrument pursuant to the provisions on the use of the funds under shared management delivered through the InvestEU Programme shall be re-used in accordance with the respective Regulations. The resources generated by or attributable to the amounts contributed to the InvestEU financial instrument under paragraph 1, second subparagraph, of this Article shall be paid back to the Member State.

    5. Contracts implementing the InvestEU financial instrument between the implementing partner and the final recipient or the financial intermediary or other entity referred to in Article 16(1), point (a), shall be signed by 31 December 2028.’;

    (9a) In Article 11(1), point (d)(i) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(i) be allocated an amount of up to EUR 450 000 000 from the financial envelope referred to in Article 4(3) for the advisory initiatives referred to in Article 25 and the operational tasks referred to in point (ii) of this point;’;

    (10) the title of Chapter IV is replaced by the following:

    ‘EU guarantee and InvestEU financial instrument’;

    (11) in Article 13(4), the first two sentences are replaced by the following:

    ‘75 % of the EU guarantee under the EU compartment as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1), amounting to EUR 22 989 232 555, shall be granted to the EIB Group. The EIB Group shall provide an aggregate financial contribution amounting to EUR 5 747 308 139.’;

    (12) Article 16 is amended as follows:

    (a) in paragraph 1, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The InvestEU financial instrument may be used to provide funding to the implementing partners for the types of financing referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph provided by the implementing partners.

    In order to be covered by the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument, the financing referred to in the first and second subparagraph shall be granted, acquired or issued for the benefit of financing and investment operations referred to in Article 14(1), where the financing by the implementing partner was granted in accordance with a financing agreement or transaction signed or entered into by the implementing partner after the signature of the guarantee agreement and that has not expired or been cancelled.’;

    (b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

    ‘Financing and investment operations through funds or other intermediate structures shall be supported by the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument in accordance with the provisions laid down in the investment guidelines, as applicable, even if such structures invest a minority of their invested amounts outside the Union and in third countries referred to Article 14(2) or invest a minority of their invested amounts into assets other than those eligible under this Regulation.’;

    (13) Article 17 is amended as follows:

    (a) in paragraph 1, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The Commission shall conclude a guarantee agreement with each implementing partner on the granting of the EU guarantee up to an amount to be determined by the Commission or on providing support under the InvestEU financial instrument.’;

    (b) paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

    (i) point (c) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(c)  detailed rules on the provision of the EU guarantee or support under the InvestEU financial instrument in accordance with Article 19, including on the coverage of financing and investment operations or portfolios of specific types of instruments and the respective events that trigger possible calls on the EU guarantee or the use of the InvestEU financial instrument;’;

    (ii) point (f) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(f) the commitment of the implementing partner to accept the decisions by the Commission and the Investment Committee as regards the use of the EU guarantee or of the InvestEU financial instrument for the benefit of a proposed financing or investment operation, without prejudice to the decision-making of the implementing partner in respect of the proposed financing or investment operation without the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument;’;

    (iii) points (h) and (i) are replaced by the following:

    ‘(h)  financial and operational reporting and monitoring of the financing and investment operations under the EU guarantee and the InvestEU financial instrument;

    (i) key performance indicators, in particular as regards the use of the EU guarantee and the InvestEU financial instrument, the fulfilment of the objectives and criteria laid down in Articles 3, 8 and 14, and the mobilisation of private capital;’;

    (ba) the following paragraph is added:

    ‘5a. The Commission shall, upon request, provide to the European Parliament and the Council the names of the implementing partners party to the guarantee agreements and the main content of those agreements, having due regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.’;

    (14) Article 18 is amended as follows:

    (a) the title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Requirements for the use of the EU guarantee and the InvestEU financial instrument’;

    (b) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

    ‘1.  The granting of the EU guarantee and the support from the InvestEU financial instrument shall be subject to the entry into force of the guarantee agreement with the relevant implementing partner.’;

    (c) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

    ‘Financing and investment operations shall be covered by the EU guarantee or be supported through the InvestEU financial instrument only where they fulfil the criteria laid down in this Regulation and, if applicable, in the relevant investment guidelines, and where the Investment Committee has concluded that those operations fulfil the requirements for benefiting from the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument. The implementing partners shall remain responsible for ensuring that the financing and investment operations comply with this Regulation and the relevant investment guidelines.’;

    (d) paragraph 3 is amended as follows:

    (i) the first sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘No administrative costs or fees related to the implementation of financing and investment operations under the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument shall be due to the implementing partner by the Commission unless the nature of the policy objectives targeted by the financial product to be implemented and the affordability for the targeted final recipients or the type of financing provided allow the implementing partner to duly justify to the Commission the need for an exception.’

    (ii) the following second subparagraph is added:

    ‘Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, implementing partners are entitled to appropriate fees in relation to the management of fiduciary accounts relating to the InvestEU financial instrument.’

    (e) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

    ‘In addition, the implementing partner may use the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument to meet the relevant share of any recovery costs in accordance with Article 17(4), unless those costs have been deducted from recovery proceeds.’;

    (15) Article 19 is amended as follows:

    (a) the title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Coverage and terms of the EU guarantee and of the InvestEU financial instrument’;

    (b) paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

    (i) the second sentence of the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The remuneration for the EU guarantee or for the InvestEU financial instrument may be reduced in the duly justified cases referred to in Article 13(2).’;

    (ii) the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

    ‘The implementing partner shall have appropriate exposure at its own risk to financing and investment operations supported by the EU guarantee or by the InvestEU financial instrument, unless exceptionally the policy objectives targeted by the financial product to be implemented are of such nature that the implementing partner could not reasonably contribute its own risk-bearing capacity to it.’;

    (c) in paragraph 2, first subparagraph, point (a), the introductory sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘for debt products referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1):’;

    (d) the following paragraph 2a is inserted:

    ‘2a.  The InvestEU financial instrument shall cover:

    (a)  for debt products consisting of guarantees and counter-guarantees referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1):

    (i) the principal and all interest and amounts due to the implementing partner but not received by it in accordance with the terms of the financing operations prior to the event of default;

    (ii) restructuring losses;

    (iii) losses arising from fluctuations of currencies other than the euro in markets where possibilities for long-term hedging are limited;

    (b)  for other eligible types of financing referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1): the amounts invested or lent by the implementing partner;

    For the purposes of point (a)(i) of the first subparagraph, for subordinated debt a deferral, reduction or required exit shall be considered to be an event of default.

    The Invest EU financial instrument shall cover the entire exposure of the Union with respect to the relevant financing and investment operations.’;

    (16) in Article 22, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

    ‘A scoreboard of indicators (the ‘Scoreboard’) shall be established to ensure that the Investment Committee is able to carry out an independent, transparent and harmonised assessment of requests for the use of the EU guarantee or, as applicable, the InvestEU financial instrument for financing and investment operations proposed by implementing partners.’;

    (17) in Article 23, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

    ‘EIB financing and investment operations that fall within the scope of this Regulation shall not be covered by the EU guarantee or benefit from the InvestEU financial instrument where the Commission delivers an unfavourable opinion within the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 19 of the EIB Statute.’;

    (18) Article 24 is amended as follows:

    (a) in paragraph 1, first subparagraph is amended as follows:

    (i) point (a) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(a)  examine the proposals for financing and investment operations submitted by implementing partners for coverage under the EU guarantee or for support from the InvestEU financial instrument that have passed the policy check referred to in Article 23(1) of this Regulation or that have received a favourable opinion within the framework of the procedure provided for in Article 19 of the EIB Statute;’;

    (ii) point (c) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(c)  check whether the financing and investment operations that would benefit from the support under the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument comply with all relevant requirements.’;

    (b) in paragraph 4, second subparagraph, the last sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘Any project assessment conducted by an implementing partner shall not be binding on the Investment Committee for the purposes of granting a financing or investment operation coverage by the EU guarantee or support from the InvestEU financial instrument.’;

    (c) paragraph 5 is amended as follows:

    (i) in the second subparagraph, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘Conclusions of the Investment Committee approving the coverage of the EU guarantee or support from the InvestEU financial instrument for a financing or investment operation shall be publicly accessible and shall include the rationale for the approval and information on the operation, in particular its description, the identity of the promoters or financial intermediaries, and the objectives of the operation.’;

    (ii) in the fifth subparagraph, the second sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘That submission shall include any decisions rejecting the use of the EU guarantee or support from the InvestEU financial instrument.’;

    (d) in paragraph 6, the first sentence is replaced by the following:

    ‘Where the Investment Committee is requested to approve the use of the EU guarantee or support from the InvestEU financial instrument for a financing or investment operation that is a facility, programme or structure which has underlying sub-projects, that approval shall comprise those underlying sub-projects unless the Investment Committee decides to retain the right to approve them separately.’;

    (19) in Article 25(2), point (c) is replaced by the following:

    ‘(c)  where appropriate, assist project promoters in developing their projects so that they fulfil the objectives set out in Articles 3 and 8 and the eligibility criteria set out in Article 14, and facilitate the development of among others important projects of common European interest and aggregators for small-sized projects, including through investment platforms as referred to in point (f) of this paragraph, provided that such assistance does not prejudge the conclusions of the Investment Committee with respect to the coverage of the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument with respect to such projects;’;

    (20) Article 28 is amended as follows:

    (a) in paragraph 2, the following second subparagraph is added:

    ‘Implementing partners shall be exempt from reporting on key performance and monitoring indicators laid down in Annex III, except those in points 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.2, 6.3 and 7.2, as far as financing or investments operations benefiting final recipients receiving financing or investment supported by the EU guarantee or by the InvestEU financial instrument from an implementing partner or a financial intermediary not exceeding EUR 300 000 are concerned.’;

    (b) paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

    ‘3. The Commission shall report on the implementation of the InvestEU Programme in accordance with Articles 241 and 250 of the Financial Regulation. In accordance with Article 41(5) of the Financial Regulation, the annual report shall provide information on the level of implementation of the Programme with respect to its objectives and performance indicators. For that purpose, each implementing partner shall provide on an annual basis the information necessary to allow the Commission to comply with its reporting obligations, including information on the operation of the EU guarantee or the InvestEU financial instrument.’

    4. Once a year, each implementing partner shall submit a report to the Commission on the financing and investment operations covered by this Regulation, broken down by EU compartment and Member State compartment, as appropriate. Each implementing partner shall also submit information on the Member State compartment to the Member State whose compartment it implements. The report shall include an assessment of compliance with the requirements on the use of the EU guarantee and the Invest EU financial instrument and with the key performance indicators laid down in Annex III to this Regulation. The report shall also include operational, statistical, financial and accounting data on each financing or investment operation and an estimation of expected cash flows, at the level of compartment, policy window and the InvestEU Fund. The report may also include information on barriers to investment encountered when carrying out financing and investment operations covered by this Regulation. The reports shall contain the information the implementing partners have to provide under point (a) of Article 158(1) of the Financial Regulation.’;

    (21) Article 35 is amended as follows:

    (a) the title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Transitional and other provisions’;

    (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following:

    ‘1. By way of derogation from Article 212(3), first and fourth subparagraph, of the Financial Regulation, any revenues, repayments and recoveries from financial instruments established by programmes referred to in Annex IV to this Regulation may be used for the provisioning of the EU guarantee or the implementation of the measures provided for in Chapters VI and VII under this Regulation, taking into account the relevant provisions concerning the budget laid down in the Public Sector Loan Facility Regulation for 2021-2027.

    2. By way of derogation from Article 216(4), point (a), of the Financial Regulation, any surplus of provisions for the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 may be used for the provisioning of the EU guarantee or the implementation of the measures provided for in Chapters VI and VII under this Regulation, taking into account the relevant provisions concerning the budget laid down in the Public Sector Loan Facility Regulation for 2021-2027.

    ▌ By way of derogation from Article 214(4)(d) of the Financial Regulation, any revenues from the EU guarantee established by Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 received in 2027 may be used for the provisioning of the EU guarantee or the implementation of the measures provided for in Chapters VI and VII under this Regulation.’;

    (22) Annex I is replaced by the following:

    ‘ANNEX I

    AMOUNTS OF EU GUARANTEE PER SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE

    The indicative distribution referred to in the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(2) towards financial and investment operations shall be as follows:

    (a) up to EUR 11 589 045 902 for objectives referred to in point (a) of Article 3(2);

    (b) up to EUR 7 707 119 112 for objectives referred to in point (b) of Article 3(2);

    (c) up to EUR 8 095 166 498 for objectives referred to in point (c) of Article 3(2);

    (d) up to EUR 3 260 978 561 for objectives referred to in point (d) of Article 3(2).’;

    (23) In Annex III, the following two paragraphs are added in point 1 below point 1.4:

    ‘By way of derogation from Article 2(40) of the Financial Regulation, when determining the leverage and multiplier effect for financing and investment operations providing performance guarantees, the amount of risk coverage shall be assimilated to the amount of reimbursable financing.

    By way of derogation from Article 222(3) of the Financial Regulation, the financing and investment operations providing performance guarantees shall not be required to achieve multiplier effect.’;

    (24) In Annex V, the following paragraph is added:

    ‘This Annex also applies to the InvestEU financial instrument.’

    Article 2

    Amendments to Regulation 2015/1017 [EFSI Regulation]

    Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 is amended as follows:

    (1) Article 11a is amended as follows:

    (a) the title is replaced by the following:

    ‘Combinations’.

    (b) the following second subparagraph is inserted:

    ‘The EU guarantee may be granted to cover financing and investment operations eligible under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the purposes of combinations referred to in Article 7(4) of that Regulation and it may cover losses in relation to financing and investment operations covered by the combined support.’;

    (2) Article 16 is amended as follows:

    (a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

    ‘1. The EIB, in cooperation with the EIF where appropriate, shall submit once a year a report to the Commission on EIB financing and investment operations covered by this Regulation. The report shall include an assessment of compliance with the requirements on the use of the EU guarantee and with the key performance indicators referred to in Article 4(2), point (f)(iv). The report shall also include statistical, financial and accounting data on each EIB financing and investment operation and on an aggregated basis.’;

    (b) paragraph 2 is deleted;

    (c) in paragraph 3, the following subparagraph is added:

    ‘In relation to the combinations referred to in Article 11a, the EIB and the EIF, respectively, shall provide the Commission annually with the financial statements in accordance with Article 212(4) of the Financial Regulation. Such financial statements shall include accounting data about the support provided by the EU guarantee under this Regulation clearly delineated from the support provided by the EU guarantee under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council.’;

    (3) in Article 22(1), the fifth subparagraph is deleted.

    Article 3

    Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 [CEF]

    In Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1153, the following paragraph is added:

    ‘5. The guarantee supported by the Union budget and provided by the EIB through the CEF Debt Instrument established under Regulation (EU) 1316/2013 may be granted to cover financing and investment operations eligible under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*) for the purpose of combination  referred to in Article 7 of that Regulation and may cover losses in relation to the  financing and investment operations covered by the combined support.’;

     

    (*) Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 (OJ L 107, 26.3.2021, p. 30, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/523/oj)’.

    Article 4

    Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/695 [Horizon Europe]

    In Article 57 of Regulation (EU) 2021/695, the following paragraph is added:

    ‘3. The  guarantee supported by the Union budget and provided by the EIB  through the InnovFin Debt Facility established under Regulations (EU) 1290/2013 and 1291/2013 may be granted to cover financing and investment operations eligible under Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council(*) for the purpose of combination  referred to in Article 7 and may cover losses of the financial product containing the  financing and investment operations and covered by the combined support.’:

     

    (*) Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 (OJ L 107, 26.3.2021, p. 30, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/523/oj)’.

    Article 5

    Entry into force

    This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

    This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

    Done at Brussels,

    For the European Parliament For the Council

    The President The President

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Stennis Engineer Takes Pride in Test Support Work

    Source: NASA

    As a controls engineer at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, Dwayne Lavigne does not just fix problems – he helps put pieces together at America’s largest rocket propulsion test site.
    “There are a lot of interesting problems to solve, and they are never the same,” Lavigne said. “Sometimes, it is like solving a very cool puzzle and can be pretty satisfying.”
    Lavigne programs specialized computers called programmable logic controllers. They are extremely fast and reliable for automating precisely timed operations during rocket engine tests as NASA Stennis supports the agency’s Artemis missions to explore the Moon and build the foundation for the first crewed mission to Mars.
    However, the system will not act unless certain parameters are met in the proper sequence. It can be a complex relationship. Sometimes, 20 or 30 things must be in the correct configuration to perform an operation, such as making a valve open or close, or turning a motor on or off.
    The Picayune, Mississippi, native is responsible for establishing new signal paths between test hardware and the specialized computers.
    He also develops the human machine interface for the controls. The interface is a screen graphic that test engineers use to interact with hardware.
    Lavigne has worked with NASA for more than a decade. One of his proudest work moments came when he contributed to development of an automated test sequencing routine used during all RS-25 engine tests on the Fred Haise Test Stand.
    “We’ve had many successful tests over the years, and each one is a point of pride,” he said.
    When Lavigne works on the test stand, he works with the test hardware and interacts with technicians and engineers who perform different tasks than he does. It provides an appreciation for the group effort it takes to support NASA’s mission.
    “The group of people I work with are driven to get the job done and get it done right,” he said.
    In total, Lavigne has been part of the NASA Stennis federal city for 26 years. He initially worked as a contractor with the Naval Oceanographic Office as a data entry operator and with the Naval Research Laboratory as a software developer.
    September marks 55 years since NASA Stennis became a federal city. NASA, and more than 50 companies, organizations, and agencies located onsite share in operating costs, which allows tenants to direct more of their funding to individual missions. 
    “Stennis has a talented workforce accomplishing many different tasks,” said Lavigne. “The three agencies I’ve worked with at NASA Stennis are all very focused on doing the job correctly and professionally. In all three agencies, people realize that lives could be at risk if mistakes are made or shortcuts are taken.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Gov. Kemp: Shriners Children’s Research Institute Coming to Atlanta

    Source: US State of Georgia

    ATLANTA – Governor Brian P. Kemp today announced that Shriners Children’s, a nonprofit pediatric specialty healthcare system with locations across North America and a global reach, will establish a new pediatric medical research facility in Atlanta. In addition to creating 470 new jobs, Shriners Children’s will invest more than $153 million into the location at Science Square.

    “Shriners Children’s is an incredible addition to Georgia’s growing nonprofit, R&D, and life sciences communities,” said Governor Brian Kemp. “Our commitment to being the Top State for Talent attracts outstanding organizations and partners like this that further life-changing research at our top-ranked research universities across the state. I’m grateful for Shriners Children’s decision to bet on Georgia and our talent to improve lives for generations to come.”

    Shriners Children’s focuses on orthopedic and neuromuscular conditions, burn injuries, spinal cord injury rehabilitation, and cleft lip and palate. Shriners Children’s mission also features a commitment to education and research. A unique pediatric healthcare system founded by members of the Shriners International fraternity in 1922, the organization has brought hope and healing to nearly 2 million patients. Last year, Shriners Children’s served patients from all 50 U.S. states, every province in Canada, and 128 countries.

    “We are thrilled to be establishing this new center for world-class pediatric medical research in Georgia,” said Shriners Children’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees Dr. Leslie D. Stewart. “The opportunities to advance our research through collaborations and partnerships such as the one with Georgia Tech made Atlanta the clear choice.”

    “The Shriners Children’s Research Institute will serve as a multidisciplinary innovation hub to advance the healthcare of children,” said Dr. Marc Lalande, Shriners Children’s Vice President of Research Programs. “The close partnership with the outstanding biomedical engineers and scientists from Georgia Tech and Emory University will accelerate discovery and spearhead new treatments and therapies.”

    The Shriners Children’s Research Institute will have its home in Science Square Labs, strategically located across from Georgia Tech’s North Avenue Research Area. The organization will recruit talent across research fields, including cell and gene therapies, robotics, artificial intelligence, medical devices, biologics, and data informatics, as well as administrative and support roles. Interested individuals can learn more about Shriners Children’s at www.shrinerschildrens.org/en/careers.

    “Shriners Children’s new healthcare research facility represents more than just a strategic investment in Atlanta’s growing healthcare ecosystem — it’s a powerful commitment to healthier futures for children,” said Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens. “This investment will not only create high-quality jobs and drive innovation but also furthers Atlanta’s reputation as a global hub for improving public health through scientific advancement.”

    “Shriners Children’s decision to establish its new Research Institute in Fulton County highlights the strength of our talent pipeline and the region’s growing reputation in life sciences and advanced research,” said Chairman Robb Pitts, Fulton County Board of Commissioners. “Projects like this bring high-quality, high-paying jobs to our residents and reinforce Fulton County’s role as a hub for innovation, collaboration, and economic growth.”

    “Backed by metro Atlanta’s world-class universities and a robust talent pipeline, Shriners Children’s new Research Institute exemplifies the region’s momentum in cutting-edge research and global innovation,” said Katie Kirkpatrick, President & CEO of the Metro Atlanta Chamber. “Their investment strengthens Science Square’s emergence as a hub for AI, data, and life sciences breakthroughs.”

    Project Director Jane Caraway represented the Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD) Global Commerce team on this competitive project in partnership with the Invest Atlanta, Select Fulton, Metro Atlanta Chamber, University System of Georgia, and Georgia Power.

    “Shriners Children’s embodies the kind of investment we strive to attract – a world-class organization that gives back to the community, creates high-quality jobs, and strengthens Georgia’s growing life sciences ecosystem,” said GDEcD Commissioner Pat Wilson. “From the exceptional team effort that brought this project to Georgia to the research partnerships it will inspire, the Shriners Children’s Research Institute is a powerful example of our collaborative approach to economic development and innovation.”

    About Shriners Children’s

    Shriners Children’s is changing lives every day by providing innovative pediatric specialty care, conducting research to improve the quality of lives, and of care, and offering outstanding educational programs for medical professionals. For more information, including the full range of care available, please visit shrinerschildrens.org.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Announces Arrests of Bronx Deed Thieves for Stealing $340,000 Share of Family Home

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced the arrests and indictments of Chenenne Guevarra-Francis, a retired New York City Police Department (NYPD) detective; Merrick Dammar, an attorney; and Barbara Guevarra-Francis, a retired nurse, for stealing a 50 percent ownership stake of a family home in the Bronx worth approximately $340,000. An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) revealed that Chenenne Guevarra-Francis and her mother, Barbara, used a forged deed and other forged documents to steal the ownership stake of a home belonging to Chenenne’s sister and Barbara’s daughter, Charmein. Dammar prepared and notarized these forged documents on the day that Charmein died, allowing Chenenne and Barbara to steal the home out from under Charmein’s husband, who should have inherited his wife’s stake in the home. Chenenne, Barbara, and Dammar were all charged with felonies and arraigned today before a judge in Bronx County Supreme Court. 

    “Deed theft is a heartless crime, and it’s particularly tragic when the thieves are stealing from their own family members,” said Attorney General James. “Charmein Guevarra-Francis’ family used her death to steal her share of the family home from her widowed husband, but today we are bringing them to justice. My office will continue to go after deed theft in all of its forms to keep New Yorkers safe in their homes.” 

    Charmein Guevarra-Samuel split the ownership of a home on Eastchester Road in the Bronx with her mother, Barbara, with each owning a 50 percent stake. Charmein lived in the home for over 15 years with her husband, who stood to inherit her stake upon her death. In July 2020, Charmein suffered cardiac arrest and passed away. Immediately after her death, Barbara and Chenenne used a forged deed and forged property transfer documents to transfer Charmein’s ownership share of the home to themselves, thereby preventing Charmein’s husband from legally inheriting her $340,000 ownership share. Merrick Dammar prepared and notarized these forged documents. 

    The theft was discovered when Charmein’s husband applied for letters of administration for his wife’s estate. In May 2023, Chenenne attempted to evict Charmein’s husband. The OAG successfully blocked this eviction using a new deed theft law advanced by Attorney General James. 

    Chenenne Guevarra-Francis, Barbara Guevarra-Francis, and Merrick Dammar were each charged with:
    •    Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony;
    •    Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree, a class C felony;
    •    Forgery in the Second Degree, a class D felony;
    •    Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, a class D felony; and
    •    Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, a class E felony.

    The maximum sentence on the top count is a sentence of five to 15 years in prison. The charges against the defendants are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.

    The OAG thanks the New York State Police for the criminal referral and its assistance with this investigation and prosecution. The OAG also thanks the New York City Department of Finance for their assistance.

    The case was investigated by Detectives Teresa Russo, Christopher Ryan, and Jennifer Garcia, under the direction of Supervising Detectives Anna Ospanova and Walter Lynch, and all under the supervision of Deputy Chief Juanita Bright, along with Detective Specialist John Collins, under the direction of Supervising Detective Norman Doyle, and all under the supervision of Deputy Chief Investigator Sean Donovan. The Investigations Bureau is led by Chief Oliver Pu-Folkes.

    Assistant Attorneys General Lauren Sass and Joy Kieras are handling the prosecution in this matter under the supervision of the Real Estate Enforcement Unit Section Chief Nicholas John Batsidis, Public Integrity Bureau Chief Gerard Murphy, and Deputy Chief Kiran Heer, with assistance from Legal Support Analyst Alexandra Crespo. Both the Investigations Bureau and the Public Integrity Bureau are part of the Division for Criminal Justice. The Division for Criminal Justice is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General José Maldonado and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy. 
     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: NMP Acquisition Corp. Announces Closing of $100 Million Initial Public Offering

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Palo Alto, California, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NMP Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: NMPAU) (the “Company”) today announced the closing of its previously announced initial public offering of 10,000,000 units (the “Offering”) at an offering price of $10.00 per unit, with each unit consisting of one Class A ordinary share and one right. Each right entitles the holder to receive one-fifth (1/5) of one Class A ordinary share upon consummation of the Company’s initial business combination. The units began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market (“Nasdaq”) under the ticker symbol “NMPAU” on July 1, 2025. Once the securities comprising the units begin separate trading, the Class A ordinary shares and rights are expected to trade on Nasdaq under the symbols “NMP” and “NMPAR,” respectively.

    Maxim Group LLC acted as the sole book-running manager for the Offering.

    The Company has granted the underwriter a 45-day option to purchase up to 1,500,000 additional units at the initial public offering price less the underwriting discount to cover over-allotments, if any.

    A registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-286985) (the “Registration Statement”) relating to the securities to be sold in the Offering, as amended, was declared effective by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on June 30, 2025. The Offering was made only by means of a prospectus. Copies of the prospectus relating to this offering may be obtained from Maxim Group LLC, 300 Park Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Attention: Syndicate Department, by telephone at (212) 895-3745 or by email at syndicate@maximgrp.com, or by accessing the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

    About NMP Acquisition Corp.

    NMP Acquisition Corp. is a blank check company, also commonly referred to as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, amalgamation, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains statements that constitute “forward-looking statements,” including with respect to the Company’s search for an initial business combination. No assurance can be given that the net proceeds of the Offering will be used as indicated. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the Risk Factors section of the Registration Statement and related preliminary prospectus filed in connection with the Offering with the SEC. Copies are available on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law.

    Contact Information

    NMP Acquisition Corp.
    Melanie Figueroa
    CEO
    Attn: Investor Relations
    mailto:ir@nmpspac.com 

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Donegal Group Inc. Announces Release Date for Second Quarter 2025 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MARIETTA, Pa., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Donegal Group Inc. (NASDAQ:DGICA) and (NASDAQ:DGICB) announced today that it plans to release its results for second quarter ended June 30, 2025, on Thursday, July 24, 2025, before the opening of regular trading on the NASDAQ Stock Market. The Company will provide a supplemental investor presentation in the Investors section of its website at investors.donegalgroup.com, concurrently with its earnings press release.

    At approximately 8:30 am ET on Thursday, July 24, 2025, the Company will make available in the Investors section of its website a pre-recorded audio webcast featuring management commentary by Kevin Burke, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jeffrey Miller, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and select members of the senior management team. Management will address questions they receive in advance in their prepared remarks. Questions for consideration should be submitted via e-mail to investors@donegalgroup.com by 5:00 pm ET on Thursday, July 10, 2025.

    About Donegal Group Inc.

    Donegal Group Inc. is an insurance holding company whose insurance subsidiaries and affiliates offer property and casualty lines of insurance in 21 Mid-Atlantic, Midwestern, Southern and Southwestern states. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company and its insurance subsidiaries conduct business together with the insurance subsidiaries of Donegal Group Inc. as the Donegal Insurance Group. The Donegal Insurance Group has an A.M. Best rating of A (Excellent).

    The Class A common stock and Class B common stock of Donegal Group Inc. trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbols DGICA and DGICB, respectively. The Company is focused on several primary strategies, including achieving sustained excellent financial performance, strategically modernizing its operations and processes to transform its business, capitalizing on opportunities to grow profitably and providing superior experiences to its agents, customers and employees.

    Investor Relations Contact

    Karin Daly
    Vice President, The Equity Group Inc.
    Phone: (212) 836-9623
    E-mail: kdaly@equityny.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Coventry Responds to Baseless Lawsuit by Abacus Global Management, Inc.

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Coventry, the leader and creator of the secondary market for life insurance, today released the following statement:

    “Abacus’s lawsuit is its latest misdirection and a transparent ploy designed to delay accountability and deflect attention from serious problems of Abacus’s own making,” said Alan Buerger, Coventry’s Chairman.

    Coventry continues to believe that Lapetus systematically underestimates life expectancies, which directly threatens investor returns. This belief is validated by expert analysis that concluded exactly that. The studies are available at https://www.coventry.com/research/. It is telling that Abacus’s lawsuit does not directly challenge this bottom line finding, just as it is telling that Lapetus is currently litigating to prevent the disclosure of information that could reflect upon the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of its estimates.

    Abacus’s complaint claims that none of its valuations for policies it owns depend on Lapetus’s life expectancy estimates. The complaint also states that Abacus does not use a life expectancy valuation model to value the policies on its balance sheet, instead using “market-based fair value accounting.”

    These claims contradict numerous statements Abacus has made in SEC filings, including that it “utilizes a multitude of inputs to determine the fair value of the policies it holds, which may include life expectancy reports generated by a company in which [Abacus] holds a minority ownership interest”, i.e., Lapetus, and that “[t]he valuation of the life insurance policies will vary depending on the dates of the related mortality estimates and the medical underwriting firms that provide the supporting information.”

    Similarly, a registration statement for Abacus’s new fund offering discloses that it will use Lapetus as its “primary life expectancy provider” and that Lapetus “provides the most conservative (i.e., longest) life expectancy predictions.” Contrary to what Abacus claims in its complaint, the registration statement is clear that “following acquisition” of a life insurance policy, the fund “expects to utilize Lapetus Solutions as its primary life expectancy provider” with respect to policy valuation. Abacus’s SEC filings belie the notion that it does not use life expectancies to value policies post-acquisition.

    Finally, and contrary to Abacus’s claims, Coventry had never heard of Morpheus Research before Morpheus published its initial short report on Abacus, titled “Abacus Global Management: This $740 Million SPAC Is Yet Another Life Settlements Accounting Scheme Manufacturing Fake Revenue By Systematically Underestimating When People Will Die,” and available at https://www.morpheus-research.com/.

    Coventry is confident in the strength and integrity of its position and equally confident that Abacus’s lawsuit has no merit.

    About Coventry

    Coventry is the leader and creator of the secondary market for life insurance. For more than 20 years, we have been driving the industry forward and expanding opportunities for life insurance policyowners. Coventry’s deep experience combined with a fierce commitment to consumer rights makes Coventry the clear market leader, a position we use to raise industry standards and expand consumer choice. To date, we have delivered more than $6 billion to policyowners who no longer have a need for their policies. To learn more about Coventry, please visit Coventry.com.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: The EIB reinforces global partnerships to boost food security and promote rural development, fight hunger and poverty

    Source: European Investment Bank

    • As part of its strategic cooperation with UN agencies, the EIB formalises its partnership with the World Food Programme, paving the way for the implementation of the first EIB-backed climate risk insurance scheme and enhancing EIB’s impact in fragile contexts.
    • The EIB extends its partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to strengthen sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa.
    • Under the Seville Platform for Action, EIB joins the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty in two initiatives to fast-track finance for ending hunger, poverty and climate risk.

    The European Investment Bank (EIB) announced new partnerships and commitments to promote food security and sustainable agriculture around the world and to combat hunger and poverty and. These steps were taken during the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville, Spain.

    The EIB Group is supporting food security and sustainable agriculture across the globe. These partnerships and initiatives with UN institutions and the Global Alliance against hunger and poverty will improve and expand our support to those who need it most,” said EIB Vice-President Ambroise Fayolle. “By leveraging synergies and sharing best practices, we aim to enhance food security and nutrition, empower farmers around the world—particularly women—, support adaptation to climate change, and transform agriculture into a more resilient and sustainable sector.”

    Partnership with World Food Programme

    The EIB formalised a partnership with the World Food Programme (WFP) through a MoU that outlines key areas of cooperation, including climate resilience, food security and nutrition, critical agricultural infrastructure, innovative financing instruments, and inclusive access to finance for agricultural SMEs and smallholder farmers. This partnership has a global scope, with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa and fragile countries.

    In addition, the EIB and WFP have signed a Letter of Understanding, enabling the EIB to directly finance WFP operations and benefit from its advisory and implementation expertise.

    The first joint initiative will be a climate-risk insurance project in Ethiopia. This complements an existing €110 million EIB credit line to the Development Bank of Ethiopia aimed at improving rural access to finance – especially for small-scale farmers and women – and strengthening rural financial institutions.

    “This partnership between the European Investment Bank and the World Food Programme reflects our shared commitment to investing in sustainable solutions that tackle the root causes of hunger, build resilience, and support communities most vulnerable to the impacts of conflict, climate and economic shocks,” said Rania Dagash-Kamara, Assistant Executive Director for Partnerships and Innovation at WFP.

    Extension of memorandum of understanding with FAO

    The EIB and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) renewed their joint commitment to promoting sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa by extending their Memorandum of Understanding – originally signed in 2015 and renewed in 2020 – until 2030.  As part of this strengthened collaboration, the EIB has provided €1.4 million to the FAO for technical assistance in identifying and preparing projects that support sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture.

    This collaboration has already facilitated the preparation of complex operations in Ethiopia and Liberia, including sector studies, feasibility assessments, and evaluations of project promoters’ implementation capacities.

    By leveraging the FAO’s expertise, the EIB aims to expand its agrifood and bioeconomy lending pipeline, contributing to improved food security, increased farmer incomes, women’s empowerment and job creation.

    A particular focus will be on supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in agriculture re and smallholder farmers through financial intermediaries while engaging the public and private sectors in developing agrifood value chains.

    “FAO, through its Investment Centre, is enthusiastic about growing its collaboration with the European Investment Bank (EIB) by signing this MoU, first established in 2015 and regularly renewed as a cornerstone of our shared commitment, said Mohamed Manssouri, Director of the FAO Investment Centre. “Within this framework, the latest agreement signed in 2023 is achieving great results for beneficiary countries, with two approved operations unlocking a EUR 130 million credit line to support local banks lending to smallholders and agri-SMEs across Sub-Saharan Africa, and more investments are under preparation. This partnership directly supports FAO’s vision for Better Production, Better Nutrition, a Better Environment and a Better Life, leaving no one behind,” he added.

    Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty

    In 2024, the EIB joined other financial institutions in the Group of 20 global alliance against hunger and poverty led by Brazil.  In line with its mission to eradicate hunger and extreme poverty, the EIB committed to supporting the alliance’s integrated, multi-level approach combining social protection with access to essential services in education, health, finance and agriculture.

    At FfD4, the EIB joined two initiatives led by the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty through the Seville Action Platform to fast-track finance for ending hunger, poverty and climate risk. These initiatives focus on building better-integrated finance for sustainable development goals (SDGs) 1 and 2 and on scaling up finance for climate-resilient social protection and smallholder agriculture. They aim to accelerate the implementation of large-scale national programs by streamlining financial flows from multiple donors and connecting them directly to on-the-ground needs.

    Background information

    EIB

    The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. It finances investments contributing to EU policy goals. EIB Global carries out the EIB’s operations outside the EU. As a key partner in the EU’s Global Gateway, the EIB aims to support at least €100 billion of investments by 2028, one third of the strategy’s target. Over the 2014–2023 period, EIB lending outside the EU totalled more than €70 billion, with a significant share supporting infrastructure, climate, and food security. With offices across the world, EIB Global is close to local people, firms and institutions, and fosters strong Team Europe partnerships with development finance institutions.

    FAO

    The FAO Investment Centre works to deliver investment and finance solutions that promote inclusive economic growth, better diets and nutrition, greater equity and climate resilience. The Centre provides a full suite of investment support services to FAO Member states, working in over 120 countries. It partners with governments, national and international financing institutions, the private sector, research institutions, academia and producer organizations to help countries achieve lasting impact at scale.

    WFP

    The World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization saving lives in emergencies and using food assistance to build a pathway to peace, stability and prosperity, for people recovering from conflict, disasters and the impact of climate change.

    The Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty

    The Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty was established in 2024 as a proposal from the Brazilian presidency of the G20 to support and accelerate efforts to eradicate hunger and poverty (Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 and 2), while reducing inequalities (SDG 10). The core of the Alliance is the Policy Basket, a menu of rigorously evaluated policy instruments, ensuring that donor investments are directed toward cost effective, high-impact initiatives. Acting as a neutral facilitator, the Alliance builds partnerships and mobilizes financial and knowledge resources to implement these policy instruments.  

    In an innovative approach, the Alliance reduces transaction costs and avoids duplication of efforts by leveraging a unified database, streamlining the identification of knowledge and funding needs and opportunities. The Alliance also differentiates itself by favoring   the pooling of resources and expertise, enabling greater impact and efficiency compared to fragmented individual efforts. This allows the implementation of comprehensive, multisectoral strategies.  

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Incompatibility of Hungarian constitutional amendment with EU law – E-001658/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Equality and respect for human dignity and human rights are core values of the EU, enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    The Charter sets out the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly and association. The Commission is committed to promoting and safeguarding these rights.

    The Commission is concerned about any development that could put at risk the effective implementation of EU law and remains fully committed to addressing inequality and discrimination affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) persons as outlined in the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025[1].

    The Commission is closely monitoring the situation in Hungary. It is thoroughly analysing the 15th Amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law and accompanying legislation and the Law amending Act LV of 2018 on the right of assembly related to the protection of children, and amending the related laws, recently adopted by the Hungarian Parliament from the perspective of EU law.

    In December 2022, the Commission referred Hungary to the Court of Justice of the EU over national rules that discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

    The Commission considers that such rules violate EU law, both single market rules and the fundamental rights of individuals, in particular of LGBTIQ people, as well as the common values at the core of the EU.

    The case is still pending before the Court of Justice. A hearing on this case took place on 19 November 2024 and the Advocate General issued her opinion on 5 June 2025.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0698.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Green taxation in Cyprus – E-001234/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The green taxation reform is a key element of Cyprus’ Recovery and Resilience Plan[1]. It aims to internalise environmental externalities, encouraging more efficient use of resources and incentivising the adoption of renewable energy.

    This is crucial in Cyprus where the green taxation system and municipal waste recycling lag behind the rest of Europe, and water scarcity is a particular issue.

    The green taxation reform includes a carbon tax, which constitutes a transition towards the Emissions Trading System 2 on buildings, road transport and additional sectors (ETS2) applicable from 2027, a levy on water and a charge on landfill waste, both of which will be incrementally increased.

    The reform should precisely set the right incentives for transitioning to climate neutrality, modernising waste and water management and enhancing renewable energy capacity. It is crucial to pass it soon so that this incentivisation happens quickly. The reform will help Cyprus come closer to its climate objectives and the legally binding maximum landfill rate of 10% by 2035.

    Regarding the availability of tools to support Cyprus in closing its infrastructure gaps and mitigating the transition costs for households, on top of e.g. structural and cohesion funds, the Social Climate Fund (SCF) will support a socially fair transition towards climate neutrality by addressing the effects of the EU-wide introduction of carbon pricing in the buildings and road transport sectors applicable from 2027.

    Already as of 2026, the SCF will provide Member States with dedicated funding to support vulnerable groups, with building renovation, decarbonisation of heating, renewable energy as well as sustainability mobility and transport.

    • [1] https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility/country-pages/cyprus-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – US-Ukraine agreement – E-001842/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The United States (US)-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund will be operated solely by Ukraine and the US. Nonetheless, in the preambles of the agreement between the governments of Ukraine and US on the establishment of the fund, the two parties would welcome further investments by EU investors in mining, energy, and related technology in Ukraine.

    Based on the provisions put forward in the agreement between the governments of Ukraine and US on the establishment of the fund, the Commission is conducting a preliminary assessment of any implications on the operations of the Ukraine Facility.

    Specifically, it is noted that the agreement acknowledges Ukraine’s current legal obligations towards the EU, including those taken under the Ukraine Facility.

    Once more details are provided by Ukraine on the development of the fund, the Commission will undertake a more in-depth legal analysis on the subject.

    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Safeguarding European citric acid production against unfair competition from China – E-001942/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    Since 2008, there are anti-dumping measures in place on imports of citric acid from China ranging between 16.3% and 42.7%. These measures were extended for a further five years, in April 2021, following an expiry review[1].

    These measures reflect the levels of dumping found in the context of an investigation conducted in line with World Trade Organisation and EU legislation.

    Measures in place may be reviewed on request by interested parties where there are changed circumstances of a lasting nature. The Commission conducts such reviews where it receives evidence from the European industry that action is warranted. The industries affected are invited to contact the Commission’s trade defence services[2] to explore the options.

    As regards the speed of trade defence investigations, in the modernisation of trade defence in 2018, the length of anti-dumping investigations was shortened by one month. Provisional measures are now imposed eight, and in some cases seven months after initiation.

    Also, since October 2024 the Commission registers imports in all ongoing new investigations to facilitate the retroactive application of measures, i.e. before the date of provisional measures, if the legal conditions allow[3].

    With regard to additional support measures, it should be noted that the Joint European Forum for Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) is currently working on identifying a possible IPCEI candidate in the field of biotechnologies.

    Interested companies are invited to contact their respective national authorities to confirm whether their Member State is involved in this work and to inquire whether they may be included in the national consultation process.

    • [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0607&from=EN.
    • [2] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/contacts/trade-defence-enquiries_en.
    • [3] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-register-imports-all-products-under-trade-defence-investigations-bid-fight-unfair-2024-09-24_en.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: IDB and EIB strengthen partnership to boost development impact

    Source: European Investment Bank

    EIB

    The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) signed a cooperation agreement to increase financing and deliver stronger development impact in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), during the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville.

    The agreement reflects a shared commitment by both institutions to work closer and more effectively as a system to increase resource mobilisation for the financing of sustainable development in LAC. It also strengthens the pipeline of EU-aligned financing under the European Union’s Global Gateway, helping to convert priorities into results on the ground in Latin America and the Caribbean.

    The partnership aims to: 

    • Scale up joint financing – through increased co-financing, including joint sovereign-guaranteed operations such as Results-Based Loans in priority sectors.
    • Mobilise private capital – by streamlining collaboration on non-sovereign operations and scaling financial innovations such as blended finance, de-linked guarantees, and co-guarantees to reduce risk and attract investment.
    • Strengthen system-wide collaboration – by exploring exposure exchange agreements, expanding mutual reliance beyond procurement to include environmental and social standards and results frameworks, and promoting staff exchanges to deepen operational alignment.
    • Align European resources with LAC priorities – by translating Global Gateway objectives into actionable pipelines and maximising the impact of EU funding across LAC.

    “This agreement shows what MDBs can do when we act as a system – aligning tools, mobilising capital and speeding up delivery. Together with the EIB, we’re also strengthening the bridge between Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean, while creating impact on the ground,” said IDB President Ilan Goldfajn.

    “Europe supports Latin America and the Caribbean. This new agreement strengthens our strategic partnership, which is key to developing our projects and having greater impact on the ground,” said EIB Group President Nadia Calviño.

    About the IDB

    The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is devoted to improving lives across Latin America and the Caribbean. Founded in 1959, the IDB works with the region’s public sector to design and enable impactful, innovative solutions for sustainable and inclusive development. Leveraging financing, technical expertise and knowledge, it promotes growth and well-being in 26 countries.

    About EIB Global:

    The European Investment Bank (ElB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by the Member States. It finances investments that pursue EU policy objectives.

    EIB Global is the EIB Group’s specialised arm devoted to increasing the impact of international partnerships and development finance, and a key partner of Global Gateway. It aims to support €100 billion of investment by the end of 2027 – around one-third of the overall target of this EU initiative. Within Team Europe, EIB Global fosters strong, focused partnerships alongside fellow development finance institutions and civil society. EIB Global brings the EIB Group closer to people, companies and institutions through its offices across the world. Photos of EIB headquarters for media use are available here. http://twitter.com/EIB https://www.linkedin.com/company/eib-global/

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Impact of the Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on European goods: impact on the Galician automotive sector – E-001311/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector recognises the challenges of an increasingly volatile geopolitical context and their potential impact on the EU automotive sector.

    Therefore, the Commission has committed on decisive actions to help secure global competitiveness of the EU automotive value chain and maintain a strong European production base.

    In line with the Automotive Action Plan, the Commission has proposed already an amendment to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers Regulation[1], which will extend the support to workers in companies in restructuring processes.

    In addition, the mid-term review of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)[2] will be used to incentivise Member States to reprogramme more money for the automotive sector.

    Trade with the United States represents a source of prosperity and well-paying and quality jobs for the EU automotive value chain. The Commission is assessing the impact of the United States tariffs on EU automotive exports and will also monitor the indirect effects.

    The Commission will continue to seek a negotiated and constructive solution with the United States, while being ready to protect European interests.

    • [1]  COM(2025) 140.
    • [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02021R1057-20241224.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: South Africa looks to global lessons as it sharpens its focus on gender priorities at G20

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    South Africa looks to global lessons as it sharpens its focus on gender priorities at G20

    As the G20 Technical Meetings continue in South Africa, a powerful voice is emerging from within the country’s leadership, calling for bolder and more targeted investments in women, youth, and persons with disabilities. 

    Advocate Joyce Mikateko Maluleke, the Chairperson of the G20 Empowerment Women Working Group (EWWG) and Director-General of the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, told SAnews that South Africa is drawing critical lessons from global partners to respond to some of its most urgent challenges.

    The Third Technical Meeting of the G20 EWWG is currently taking place at the Skukuza Conference Centre at the Kruger National Park in Mpumalanga.   

    “There’s a lot that, as a country, we are learning from other countries. We have three priorities: valuing the care economy – both paid and unpaid; unlocking genuine financial inclusion for women, and eradicating gender-based violence and femicide,” Maluleke said. 

    Maluleke began by addressing the crisis of gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF), which she said continues to tear through the country’s social fabric.

    “Gender-based violence is a crisis in South Africa. It’s really one thing that, as a country, we want to learn from other countries. Other countries have done so many things… for prevention, even regulating access to social media, because one of the biggest challenges is that our children have a lot of unlimited access to the internet at an early age. Other countries shared that they control what young persons have access to,” she explained.

    From controlling explicit media to implementing surveillance technologies that aid in prevention and justice, Maluleke said there is much to learn from. 

    “They have used technology to protect women. For example, you find that there’s a surveillance camera every few meters. It does help because they can follow up… They have invested in prevention,” she said. 

    Investing in strong family support structures, something other countries do well, is an area where South Africa must improve. Maluleke said this is one of the biggest prevention measures that the country needs to adopt.  

    On financial inclusion, Maluleke highlighted the need to replicate successful international models that empower women from the ground up.

    “We’ve learned from them… The support they give to women in businesses starts from their education systems. Countries like Germany have invested in vocational training, and they have elevated artisanship to the same level as those that went to university,” she said. 

    In Germany, Maluleke noted, 60% of learners pursue technical training, while only 40% go to university. 

    “That’s why Germany is so strong in terms of engineering and [technical fields],” she remarked.

    The third priority, which is care work, remains an often-overlooked economic force, Maluleke said.

    “Most countries have indicated that [care work] is a strong, unseen engine of the economy. Women will stay at home to raise children and to look after those who are sick…” she said, urging for an investment in systems that allow for a balance between work and life commitments.

    “Care work, they say, is work of love. Yes, we love our parents, but we must still be able to live,” Maluleke emphasised.

    On prevention strategies for GBVF, the Director-General stressed the urgent need to shift focus and budget accordingly.

    “… [UN Women] said: ‘Preventing gender-based violence is not expensive. Not preventing gender-based violence is expensive.” It costs [a lot to raise] children [whose] families… are not able to [take them] to school, who won’t be able to contribute to the GDP… and who [might] end up getting involved in substance abuse, and to rehabilitate them is expensive,” she said. 

    Towards a stronger declaration and legacy

    As deliberations continue, South Africa is preparing for the signing of a declaration that addresses its three focus areas, namely, care work, financial inclusion and GBVF. 

    Maluleke explained that every working group works on the technical meetings, which will culminate in the declaration that will be signed by Ministers in the G20 when they meet. 

    She emphasised that a key objective is to secure tangible outcomes from the G20 engagement.

    “One of the achievements that we would like to achieve is that the financial sector needs to ensure that when Ministers sign the declaration as a product… they also launch a legacy project,” she added. 

    Indeed, one such legacy project is already in the pipeline.

    “We already have the World Bank… The World Bank will be launching, as a legacy project of the South African G20 Presidency, a financial facility on care work.

    “Women, who are running ECDs [Early Childhood Development Centres], will be able to apply for funding from that fund. They will launch it at the Minister’s meeting,” Maluleke said. 

    Consensus and Positive Masculinity 

    With 21 countries now part of the G20, following the African Union’s recent inclusion, building consensus remains a major hurdle. 

    “All of them must consent to the declaration. That’s why we’re starting the negotiations today… and even tomorrow, we will be negotiating,” Maluleke said. 

    Alongside the declaration, South Africa is preparing another powerful intervention: a conference on positive masculinity.

    “Masculinity shouldn’t destroy. It should protect,” Maluleke said. 

    The event will bring together G20 countries, guest nations, and international organisations, aiming to change the mindset of men and reframe masculinity as a force for protection and empowerment.

    “There are countries that have reduced gender-based violence. They say gender-based violence can be prevented, but you have to invest in that prevention.

    “Gender-based violence doesn’t discriminate… All of us have to make sure that we prevent it so that we protect our girls,” the Director-General said. 

    As negotiations unfold and commitments solidify, South Africa is poised to drive meaningful change – not just at home but across the G20 platform by aligning global best practices with local action, and by ensuring no one is left behind in the fight for dignity, equity and justice. – SAnews.gov.za 

    DikelediM

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: LCQ21: Controlling expenditure on public works projects

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    ​Following is a question by the Hon Chan Siu-hung and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Ms Bernadette Linn, in the Legislative Council today (July 2):

    Question:

    It is learnt that public works expenditures involving infrastructure, healthcare, education, housing, and so on account for a substantial proportion of government spending. However, there are views pointing out that the model of division of labour in which policy bureaux or government departments, as “users”, only need to specify the requirements and functions during the planning stage of a project, leaving the subsequent processes such as design and construction to be spearheaded by technical departments like the Civil Engineering and Development Department or the Architectural Services Department, is prone to result in user departments lacking awareness of project budget control and losing sight of cost-effectiveness, whereas the technical departments may need to adopt more costly building designs, methods, or materials, among others, in a bid to meet the individual requirements of user departments, hence driving up the cost of works even at the inception stage (i.e. the “upstream stage”) of the project. Therefore, various government departments should shift their mindset towards upholding an “awareness of being property owners” to take the lead in formulating a reasonable budget right at the early stage of project planning and strictly monitor its implementation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

    (1) whether it will consider strengthening various government departments’ awareness of being property owners, with a view to exercising stringent control over the estimates of expenditure at the upstream stage of public works projects; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

    (2) of the strategies and specific measures implemented by the Project Strategy and Governance Office under the Development Bureau at various stages (including upstream, midstream and downstream) of public works to reduce project cost; whether an assessment has been conducted on the respective effectiveness of these strategies and measures; and

    (3) whether it has drawn on the cost control measures adopted by the Mainland and various places in the world at the upstream stage of public works; if not, of the reasons for that; if so, the details, including whether such measures encompass a concept similar to the awareness of being property owners?

    Reply:

    President,

    The Development Bureau (DEVB) established the Project Cost Management Office in 2016 and upgraded it to become the Project Strategy and Governance Office (PSGO) in April 2019 for formulating and implementing strategic initiatives and enhancing capabilities in cost surveillance and project governance to public works projects. On monitoring project estimates of public works, there is a set of stringent vetting mechanisms in place. While not compromising the functionality, quality and safety of works, the PSGO, as an independent third party, participates in project cost vetting from project inception stage in accordance with the “fitness-for-purpose and no frills” principle, and will follow up on project development and design optimisation and continuously monitor the performance of the projects during construction stage, and implement suitable measures for cost saving.

    Our responses to the three parts of the question are as follows:

    (1) At different project implementation stages, the works departments have been maintaining communication with the project proponent policy bureaux, providing advice to the project proponent policy bureaux on project planning and design, cost estimation, progress, etc. In addition, senior management of project proponent policy bureaux participated in the project management and leadership development programme under the Centre of Excellence for Major Project Leaders under​ the DEVB to reinforce and strengthen their understanding of project cost management and ensure that public funds are used properly. To further enhance capabilities in cost surveillance and project governance, the DEVB is working with the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to study on optimising the preparatory and conceptual work before project inception, with emphasis on strengthening the review of site selection, usage mix, scale, design, implementation programme, etc, by the project proponent policy bureaux and user departments. This will help the project proponent policy bureaux and user departments to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different implementation proposals with the “ownership” mindset, so as to formulate practical and cost-effective proposals. By planning ahead the overall estimates before project inception, the project cost-effectiveness can be further enhanced. We are currently formulating relevant details and guidelines, with the relevant measures planned to be implemented within this year.

    (2) The PSGO vigorously scrutinises cost estimates of public works projects. During the project inception stage, we also examine the technical feasibility statement submitted by the works departments to establish the technical feasibility of the project and review the preliminary cost estimate and cash flow requirements.

    During the design stage, we liaise with project proponent policy bureaux and user departments to enhance project cost-effectiveness, reduce cost and minimise risk of cost overrun through design optimisation by means of exploring different design options, construction methods and procurement models. We also carry out benchmarking with costs of other similar projects and make reference to the prevailing market situation, to ensure that the project estimates are reasonable. Furthermore, the Government adopts parallel tendering before submitting funding application of the projects to the Legislative Council so as to accurately reflect the tender prices in the approved project estimate for better financial management of the projects to reduce the risk of cost overrun.

    During the construction stage, the DEVB regularly conducts high-level meetings with works departments, complemented with the established Integrated Capital Works Platform, enabling management of different departments to grasp the real-time performance of each project, closely monitor the implementation programme of projects and provide timely intervention so as to mitigate the risks of project cost overrun and delays. At the same time, the PSGO also examines major variations in projects during the construction period and provides independent advice to works departments to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the major variations.

    Since its establishment, the PSGO has scrutinised more than 540 capital works projects, and successfully saved about $190 billion (about 16 per cent) in construction cost out of the original estimate of about $1,200 billion proposed by the project proponent policy bureaux.

    In addition, the overall cost management performance of the Capital Works Programme has all along been well performed. In the past ten years, there were 575 Category A projects approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, and so far only 15 projects required budget increase. Besides, in the past ten years, the total expenditure of the 510 Category A projects with their final accounts settled (including expenditure of the additional funding) was about 90 per cent of the total original approved project estimates.

    The DEVB has completed the strategic study on relatively high construction costs in Hong Kong. We will progressively launch the relevant cost control measures along the following four directions, which includes (i) optimising the project procurement model, (ii) reviewing the design standards and requirements, (iii) applying advanced technologies and construction methods, and (iv) streamlining the approval process, once they are ready so as to reduce the construction costs.

    (3) The Government has been liaising and actively exchanging project management experience with other authorities, including the Mainland, Singapore and the United Kingdom, to enhance the project delivery capabilities and performance. For example, the DEVB signed the Letter of Intent on Strengthening Guangdong-Hong Kong Cooperation in Construction and Related Engineering Sectors with the Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of Guangdong Province to deepen the co-operation in construction and engineering sectors between Guangdong and Hong Kong. We also signed a Memorandum of Understanding each with the Centre for Public Project Management of the Ministry of Finance of Singapore and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, part of the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury of the United Kingdom, in December 2022 and February 2023 respectively. The DEVB also organised the Project Cost Management Forum to allow local and overseas industry leaders to exchange views and share experiences regarding project cost control. Among them, we make reference to the process and experience of implementing projects in the Mainland, as well as their practices for optimising construction programme. In addition, we understand that the Singapore government is involved in the upstream process of project planning to review the scope, design and cost reasonableness of the projects, and enhance the cost-effectiveness of the projects by revising the scope of the projects or optimising the design. We will continue to make reference to the experience of project cost control in different places and formulate comprehensive and systematic measures to manage project costs.

    Ends/Wednesday, July 2, 2025
    Issued at HKT 19:26

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – EU funding of Israeli companies involved in the ongoing genocide in Palestine – E-002540/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002540/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Anthony Smith (The Left), Manon Aubry (The Left), Damien Carême (The Left), Marina Mesure (The Left), Arash Saeidi (The Left), Emma Fourreau (The Left), Rima Hassan (The Left), Younous Omarjee (The Left), Leila Chaibi (The Left)

    Last October, we sent the European Commission Question for written answer E-001930/2024/rev.1[1] on support from the Horizon Europe programme for Israeli companies involved in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. In response, the Commission said it was unaware of such practices and reiterated that the funded projects were closely monitored and conditional on respect for human rights in accordance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

    However, a recent investigation by journalists[2] has revealed that EUR 42 million from the European Defence Fund, as well as funds from seven other European countries, have been allocated to the ACTUS project. EUR 14 million of this funding were provided to a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, Israel’s leading defence company, for building drones. This support is in addition to the millions of euros from the Horizon programme dedicated to military research involving Israeli ministries and military companies[3].

    In light of the above:

    • 1.Does the European Commission intend to condemn participation in the genocide in Gaza by Israeli companies receiving EU funds?
    • 2.Does it plan to stop these companies from receiving EU financial support?
    • 3.Will it propose suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement to the Council, in order to fully respect human rights commitments?

    Submitted: 24.6.2025

    • [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001930_EN.html
    • [2] https://disclose.ngo/fr/article/la-france-et-leurope-financent-sans-le-dire-lindustrie-militaire-israelienne.
    • [3] https://www.lecho.be/economie-politique/europe/general/des-fonds-europeens-de-recherche-financent-la-defense-israelienne/10609758.html.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – A sustainable transport investment plan – 02-07-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    This European Parliamentary Research Service paper aims to inform Members on issues related to a forthcoming Commission initiative. It highlights the main choices that may shape the initiative and which Members may wish to explore ahead of formal European Commission adoption. Based on documentary and other sources, it reflects the information available at the time of writing. For further information on this topic, Members and staff of the European Parliament may contact the author. KEY ISSUES AT STAKE • Transport accounts for around a quarter of EU emissions. More sustainable transport in the EU is therefore crucial to achieving the European Green Deal aim to cut net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, by means of sustainable fuels, modes, and technological solutions. • Uptake of electric vehicles (EV) in the EU has been slow and uneven, due to limited investment in EV charging infrastructure and EV supply issues. Frontrunners, such as the Netherlands, have a better regulatory environment, greater public investment and a more stable and affordable energy market. Business models and value chains are reluctant to adapt before technological solutions are sufficiently developed. • Implementation of initiatives such as the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) and CO2 emission standards for new vehicles is challenging, with progress slowing due to uneven roll-out across EU, state, and regional levels, limited electrical grid capacity, and high sustainable fuel production costs. • The European Commission is expected to issue a sustainable transport investment plan in the third quarter of 2025, outlining measures to support the accelerated roll-out of recharging and refuelling infrastructure, as well as dedicated green trade and investment partnerships with third countries on renewable and low-carbon transport fuels.

    MIL OSI Europe News –