Category: DJF

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: UK: Banning Palestine Action ‘a disturbing legal overreach’ by UK Government, Amnesty International UK Chief Executive warns

    Source: Amnesty International –

    The House of Commons has voted to proscribe direct action group Palestine Action.

    ‘Instead of taking draconian measures to [proscribe Palestine Action], the Government should be taking immediate and unequivocal action to put a stop to Israel’s genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it’ – Sacha Deshmukh 

    Responding to news that the House of Commons has voted in support of the Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a “terrorist organisation”, Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s Chief Executive, said:  

    “Amnesty International condemns the Government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, as an unprecedented legal overreach. 

    “The UK has a deeply flawed and overly broad definition of terrorism which human rights monitors including Amnesty International have been warning about for years. This latest disturbing move only serves to highlight that those warnings were justified. 

    “Terrorism legislation hands the authorities massive powers to arrest and detain people, suppress speech and reporting, conduct surveillance and take other measures that would never be permitted in other circumstances. Using them against a direct-action protest group is an egregious abuse of what they were created for.       

    “Whatever MPs may think about whether Palestine Action’s tactics are appropriate or not, existing criminal laws, accompanied by human rights protections, were more than capable of responding to them. Instead of taking draconian measures to shut down direct action protesters and criminalise anyone who expresses support for their actions, the Government should be taking immediate and unequivocal action to put a stop to Israel’s genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.” 

    Proscribing Palestine Action: An abuse of counter-terrorism powers  

    Today (Wednesday 2 July), Westminster MPs voted 385 – 26 in support of a Government motion to proscribe Palestine Action under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that it is ‘an organisation concerned with terrorism’. The House of Lords will vote on the same motion tomorrow. If that vote goes through, the ban is expected to come into force on Saturday (5 July). 

    Counter-terrorism laws must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint, as they exist to authorise interference with due process and other fundamental human rights protections. 

    However, the Terrorism Act 2000 contains a deeply flawed definition of terrorism, which has been criticised by domestic and international human rights monitors for many years. These criticisms are based on the breadth of its wording, which goes well beyond international comparators and recognised best practice and potentially permits disproportionate and unnecessary terrorism designations.  

    Today’s step closer to the proscription of Palestine Action is a clear example of that concern coming to fruition.  

    There is already ample existing criminal law capable of responding to a direct-action protest networks like Palestine Action.  

    A terrorism designation is a major escalation beyond mere criminalisation of direct-action protest activity. Proscription will have major adverse consequences for the freedom of expression rights of others, with implications for respect for the rule of law. As such, the proscription of Palestine Action would breach the UK’s international human rights obligations to use its counter-terrorism powers in a proportionate way and only when strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. 

    Banning Palestine Action not only makes membership of the organisation a criminal offence – through broadly worded speech offences such as ‘expression of support’ and ‘glorification’ – it also puts at risk the free speech rights of many other activists who are deeply concerned about the plight of Palestinians in the context of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

    ENDS 

    Media contact: Rachel Reilly 

    07909533106 || rachel.reilly@amnesty.org.uk || 

    Out-of-hours: 07721 398984 

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: UK: Amnesty International urges UK Government to use the opportunity provided by the Timms Review to establish an independent social security commission

    Source: Amnesty International –

    In response to the Government’s welfare bill passing its second reading in Parliament tonight, Jen Clark, Amnesty International UK’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Lead, said

    “The legislative process surrounding this welfare bill has been incredibly harmful to disabled people who depend on social security. It is disappointing that the bill advanced despite the dedicated efforts of campaigners and supportive MPs to abolish it. The rushed timeline restricts proper scrutiny of its remaining elements, particularly those that discriminate against individuals with fluctuating conditions, falling short of international standards.

    “While we are cautiously relieved that some of the most harmful aspects of the bill, specifically the changes to PIP, have been paused, the overwhelming lack of public support for these changes is undeniable. Recent polling by Savanta, commissioned by Amnesty, shows that 75% of respondents believe that removing PIP from people in need is cruel. Although the Government’s concession on this issue is welcome, serious questions still need to be addressed.

    “We are waiting for key details about the Timms review, which must not serve as a smokescreen to evade accountability or scrutiny through statutory consultation. This review presents a vital opportunity to realign social security with its fundamental purpose: ensuring that no one has to live in poverty

    “Amnesty International calls on the UK government to establish a Social Security Commission with statutory powers, drawing inspiration from the Beveridge Report and past Royal Commissions. This Commission should carry out an independent inquiry into the UK social security system, driving comprehensive reform to ensure that all individuals have an adequate standard of living grounded in dignity and human rights.”

    Rick Burgess Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People added, “Kier Starmer has marked his first year in parliament by betraying disabled people. Our lives have been traded through a shambolic, farcical parliamentary process. They have won a small battle but we’ll keep fighting. There’s no peace because there’s no justice.” 

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News in Brief: Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MCM USV)

    Source: United States Navy

    Designated on Oct. 8, 2018 as an ACAT II Program of Record, the Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MCM USV) is a long endurance, semi-autonomous, diesel-powered, all-aluminum surface craft that supports the employment of various MCM payloads.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News in Brief: Littoral Combat Ships – Mine Countermeasures Mission Package

    Source: United States Navy

    The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a fast, agile and networked surface combatant optimized for operating in the littorals. The primary missions for the LCS include countering submarine, surface and mine threats to assure maritime access for joint forces.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – E-001693/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission fully supports the need for a high level of protection of the environment and human health. Gender equality and vulnerable groups receive particular attention during scientific assessments.

    Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)[1] ensures a high level of protection from chemical substances.

    If a substance poses a risk to consumers, such as in menstrual products, a restriction dossier that considers this risk is prepared. For instance, an existing restriction under REACH bans the use of certain hazardous substances (e.g. dioctyltin compounds), in female hygiene products.

    As regards per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a restriction dossier is currently under assessment by the European Chemicals Agency[2].

    The Scientific Committees of the Agency must finalise their opinions before the Commission can decide on restricting PFAS. The Commission aims to tackle PFAS pollution and protect citizens’ health, and the Commission is in favour of banning PFAS in consumer articles.

    Moreover, i n 2023, criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) were added to the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures[3].

    Therefore, industry shall classify substances as EDs, where needed. Furthermore, PFAS and EDs are restricted under the EU Ecolabel criteria for products like absorbent hygiene products and reusable menstrual cups[4].

    Several Horizon 2020[5] and Horizon Europe[6] projects are addressing PFAS pollution through monitoring, detection, and remediation.

    Complementing these efforts, the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals[7] funded by Horizon Europe will launch a pilot project focused on monitoring PFAS and EDs.

    • [1] Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
    • [2] See https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b.
    • [3] Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008.
    • [4] Commission Decision (EU) 2023/1809 of 14 September 2023 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for absorbent hygiene products and for reusable menstrual cups, OJ L 234, 22.99.2023.
    • [5] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.
    • [6] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en.
    • [7] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101057014.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – E-001693/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission fully supports the need for a high level of protection of the environment and human health. Gender equality and vulnerable groups receive particular attention during scientific assessments.

    Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)[1] ensures a high level of protection from chemical substances.

    If a substance poses a risk to consumers, such as in menstrual products, a restriction dossier that considers this risk is prepared. For instance, an existing restriction under REACH bans the use of certain hazardous substances (e.g. dioctyltin compounds), in female hygiene products.

    As regards per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a restriction dossier is currently under assessment by the European Chemicals Agency[2].

    The Scientific Committees of the Agency must finalise their opinions before the Commission can decide on restricting PFAS. The Commission aims to tackle PFAS pollution and protect citizens’ health, and the Commission is in favour of banning PFAS in consumer articles.

    Moreover, i n 2023, criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) were added to the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures[3].

    Therefore, industry shall classify substances as EDs, where needed. Furthermore, PFAS and EDs are restricted under the EU Ecolabel criteria for products like absorbent hygiene products and reusable menstrual cups[4].

    Several Horizon 2020[5] and Horizon Europe[6] projects are addressing PFAS pollution through monitoring, detection, and remediation.

    Complementing these efforts, the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals[7] funded by Horizon Europe will launch a pilot project focused on monitoring PFAS and EDs.

    • [1] Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
    • [2] See https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b.
    • [3] Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008.
    • [4] Commission Decision (EU) 2023/1809 of 14 September 2023 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for absorbent hygiene products and for reusable menstrual cups, OJ L 234, 22.99.2023.
    • [5] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.
    • [6] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en.
    • [7] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101057014.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – E-001693/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission fully supports the need for a high level of protection of the environment and human health. Gender equality and vulnerable groups receive particular attention during scientific assessments.

    Regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH)[1] ensures a high level of protection from chemical substances.

    If a substance poses a risk to consumers, such as in menstrual products, a restriction dossier that considers this risk is prepared. For instance, an existing restriction under REACH bans the use of certain hazardous substances (e.g. dioctyltin compounds), in female hygiene products.

    As regards per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a restriction dossier is currently under assessment by the European Chemicals Agency[2].

    The Scientific Committees of the Agency must finalise their opinions before the Commission can decide on restricting PFAS. The Commission aims to tackle PFAS pollution and protect citizens’ health, and the Commission is in favour of banning PFAS in consumer articles.

    Moreover, i n 2023, criteria to identify endocrine disruptors (EDs) were added to the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures[3].

    Therefore, industry shall classify substances as EDs, where needed. Furthermore, PFAS and EDs are restricted under the EU Ecolabel criteria for products like absorbent hygiene products and reusable menstrual cups[4].

    Several Horizon 2020[5] and Horizon Europe[6] projects are addressing PFAS pollution through monitoring, detection, and remediation.

    Complementing these efforts, the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals[7] funded by Horizon Europe will launch a pilot project focused on monitoring PFAS and EDs.

    • [1] Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006.
    • [2] See https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18663449b.
    • [3] Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 353, 31.12.2008.
    • [4] Commission Decision (EU) 2023/1809 of 14 September 2023 establishing the EU Ecolabel criteria for absorbent hygiene products and for reusable menstrual cups, OJ L 234, 22.99.2023.
    • [5] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en.
    • [6] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en.
    • [7] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101057014.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Brussels’ use of targeted anti-Marine Le Pen advertising during the Dutch election campaign in 2023 – E-001329/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission did not run corporate communication campaigns in 2024 before the European elections. In general, corporate communication campaigns conducted by the Commission are designed to inform and raise awareness among European citizens, without interfering in any electoral process.

    An advertising campaign, launched by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs to communicate on the proposal for a regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse submitted in May 2022[1], ran from 15 to 28 September 2023.

    The total amount spent on the advertising campaign, which ran in eight Member States, was EUR 7 496.89 with cost per view of EUR 0.008.

    These advertising expenses were not declared to election authorities. This campaign was unrelated to any national or European elections.

    • [1] COM/2022/209 final.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Brussels’ use of targeted anti-Marine Le Pen advertising during the Dutch election campaign in 2023 – E-001329/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission did not run corporate communication campaigns in 2024 before the European elections. In general, corporate communication campaigns conducted by the Commission are designed to inform and raise awareness among European citizens, without interfering in any electoral process.

    An advertising campaign, launched by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs to communicate on the proposal for a regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse submitted in May 2022[1], ran from 15 to 28 September 2023.

    The total amount spent on the advertising campaign, which ran in eight Member States, was EUR 7 496.89 with cost per view of EUR 0.008.

    These advertising expenses were not declared to election authorities. This campaign was unrelated to any national or European elections.

    • [1] COM/2022/209 final.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Comprehensive overview of EU legislation on the manufacturing and importation of medicines – P-001402/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    As regards the regulatory requirements for the manufacturing and importation of medicinal products for human use the main legal acts are: Directive 2001/83/EC[1] on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, Commission Directive (EU) 2017/1572[2] on the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human use, and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1252/2014[3] on principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for active substances for medicinal products for human use.

    Specific manufacturing rules for investigational medicinal products are established in Regulation (EU) 536/2014[4] on clinical trials and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569[5] on good manufacturing practices for investigational medicinal products.

    All these legal acts are complemented by guidelines on good manufacturing practice for medicinal products and active substances, published by the Commission on its website (Eudralex volume IV)[6].

    • [1] Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.
    • [2] Commission Directive (EU) 2017/1572 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for medicinal products for human use.
    • [3] Delegated regulation (EU) No 1252/2014 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice for active substances for medicinal products for human use.
    • [4] Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC.
    • [5] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1569 of 23 May 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council by specifying principles of and the guidelines for good manufacturing practice for investigational medicinal products for human use and arrangements for inspections.
    • [6] EudraLex — Volume 4: https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/eudralex/eudralex-volume-4_en.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Institutional communication of the Commission and the situation in Türkiye – P-001397/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    During the High-Level Economic Dialogue between the EU and Türkiye, the Commissioner for Enlargement stressed that adhering to the rule of law and high democratic standards were essential for Türkiye as a candidate country and expressed concerns about recent political developments.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement made clear that while Türkiye is a key partner of the EU and enhancing economic cooperation is a joint ambition, only a relationship based on clear commitments to democratic values and freedoms will unfold its full potential.

    The EU is carefully considering engagement with Türkiye and recalibrate as necessary depending on political developments. This is in line with the November 2023 Joint Communication[1], calling for a progressive, proportionate and reversible approach, which underlines that Türkiye’s own constructive engagement will be instrumental in advancing the various areas of cooperation.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement raised EU concerns bilaterally and cancelled a visit to the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, planned for 11-13 April 2025, as well as a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement will continue to raise matters of concern related to the rule of law, as reconfirmed in a speech at the European Parliament’s Plenary on 6 May 2025[2].

    • [1] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/joint-communication-european-council-state-play-eu-turkiye-political-economic-and-trade-relations-0_en.
    • [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2025-05-06-ITM-014_EN.html.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Institutional communication of the Commission and the situation in Türkiye – P-001397/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    During the High-Level Economic Dialogue between the EU and Türkiye, the Commissioner for Enlargement stressed that adhering to the rule of law and high democratic standards were essential for Türkiye as a candidate country and expressed concerns about recent political developments.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement made clear that while Türkiye is a key partner of the EU and enhancing economic cooperation is a joint ambition, only a relationship based on clear commitments to democratic values and freedoms will unfold its full potential.

    The EU is carefully considering engagement with Türkiye and recalibrate as necessary depending on political developments. This is in line with the November 2023 Joint Communication[1], calling for a progressive, proportionate and reversible approach, which underlines that Türkiye’s own constructive engagement will be instrumental in advancing the various areas of cooperation.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement raised EU concerns bilaterally and cancelled a visit to the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, planned for 11-13 April 2025, as well as a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement will continue to raise matters of concern related to the rule of law, as reconfirmed in a speech at the European Parliament’s Plenary on 6 May 2025[2].

    • [1] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/joint-communication-european-council-state-play-eu-turkiye-political-economic-and-trade-relations-0_en.
    • [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2025-05-06-ITM-014_EN.html.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Institutional communication of the Commission and the situation in Türkiye – P-001397/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    During the High-Level Economic Dialogue between the EU and Türkiye, the Commissioner for Enlargement stressed that adhering to the rule of law and high democratic standards were essential for Türkiye as a candidate country and expressed concerns about recent political developments.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement made clear that while Türkiye is a key partner of the EU and enhancing economic cooperation is a joint ambition, only a relationship based on clear commitments to democratic values and freedoms will unfold its full potential.

    The EU is carefully considering engagement with Türkiye and recalibrate as necessary depending on political developments. This is in line with the November 2023 Joint Communication[1], calling for a progressive, proportionate and reversible approach, which underlines that Türkiye’s own constructive engagement will be instrumental in advancing the various areas of cooperation.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement raised EU concerns bilaterally and cancelled a visit to the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, planned for 11-13 April 2025, as well as a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

    The Commissioner for Enlargement will continue to raise matters of concern related to the rule of law, as reconfirmed in a speech at the European Parliament’s Plenary on 6 May 2025[2].

    • [1] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/joint-communication-european-council-state-play-eu-turkiye-political-economic-and-trade-relations-0_en.
    • [2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2025-05-06-ITM-014_EN.html.
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Clarifications on the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 in relation to the clean-up of the Crotone site of national interest – P-002598/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Priority question for written answer  P-002598/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Denis Nesci (ECR)

    During the inter-departmental conference of 24 October 2019 at the Ministry of the Environment, in the presence of Syndial S.p.A. (now ENI Rewind), the Calabria Region, the Municipality of Crotone and other bodies, it was decided that hazardous waste – both technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) and non-TENORM – resulting from the clean-up of the Crotone-Cassano-Cerchiaro site of national interest (SIN) must be disposed of outside Calabria, also as required by the single regional authorisation procedure (PAUR), in order to avoid new environmental risks and the construction of new landfills in Calabria.

    On 16 June 2025, digging work for the SIN area clean-up started, with 40 000 tonnes of waste destined for the Kumla landfill site in Sweden.

    However, ENI Rewind claims that, from May 2026, Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 would make it impossible to ship hazardous waste to other Member States, hampering completion of the clean-up.

    This seems to be a narrow interpretation, as the Regulation aims to strengthen controls and traceability, not prohibit shipments, if they are safe and transparent.

    In light of the above:

    • 1.Does the Commission confirm that the Regulation prohibits such shipments from 2026?
    • 2.Does it believe that the rules could prevent clean-ups that have already been approved?
    • 3.Will it adopt interpretative clarifications to ensure the environment is protected and the law is upheld in local communities?

    Submitted: 26.6.2025

    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Clarifications on the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 in relation to the clean-up of the Crotone site of national interest – P-002598/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Priority question for written answer  P-002598/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Denis Nesci (ECR)

    During the inter-departmental conference of 24 October 2019 at the Ministry of the Environment, in the presence of Syndial S.p.A. (now ENI Rewind), the Calabria Region, the Municipality of Crotone and other bodies, it was decided that hazardous waste – both technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) and non-TENORM – resulting from the clean-up of the Crotone-Cassano-Cerchiaro site of national interest (SIN) must be disposed of outside Calabria, also as required by the single regional authorisation procedure (PAUR), in order to avoid new environmental risks and the construction of new landfills in Calabria.

    On 16 June 2025, digging work for the SIN area clean-up started, with 40 000 tonnes of waste destined for the Kumla landfill site in Sweden.

    However, ENI Rewind claims that, from May 2026, Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 would make it impossible to ship hazardous waste to other Member States, hampering completion of the clean-up.

    This seems to be a narrow interpretation, as the Regulation aims to strengthen controls and traceability, not prohibit shipments, if they are safe and transparent.

    In light of the above:

    • 1.Does the Commission confirm that the Regulation prohibits such shipments from 2026?
    • 2.Does it believe that the rules could prevent clean-ups that have already been approved?
    • 3.Will it adopt interpretative clarifications to ensure the environment is protected and the law is upheld in local communities?

    Submitted: 26.6.2025

    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Enhancing EU efforts to combat abuses in online commerce – E-001749/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission has been aware of the challenges posed by the new market entrants and the evolving nature of e-commerce to the effective enforcement of the EU digital rules.

    In order to address these challenges, it adopted in February the communication on a Comprehensive EU Toolbox for Safe and Sustainable E-commerce[1].

    It proposes a series of measures to address challenges posed by e-commerce aiming to bring a level playing field based on effective customs, tax and safety controls and sustainability standards and proper enforcement of EU legislation through a coordinated approach.

    To strengthen the efficiency of the enforcement actions with respect to EU e-commerce rules, the Commission closely cooperates with national authorities as evidenced by the coordinated actions carried out by the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, under consumer protection rules.[2]

    The enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA)[3] in the area of ecommerce is of high priority for the Commission. In this regard, the Commission initiated proceedings against AliExpress (on 14 March 2024)[4] and Temu (on 31 October 2024).[5]

    The proceedings have developed and on 16 June 2025 the Commission accepted and made binding a series of commitments offered by AliExpress to settle a number of concerns, such as the platform’s transparency on advertising and recommender systems.

    Simultaneously, the Commission preliminarily found AliExpress in breach of its obligation to assess and mitigate risks related to the dissemination of illegal products under the DSA.

    In parallel, the Commission is supervising whether providers of other very large online marketplaces, such as Amazon and Shein, are complying with their obligations under the DSA.

    • [1] COM/2025/37 final.
    • [2] Commission urges Temu to respect EU consumer protection laws.
    • [3] Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.
    • [4] DSA: Commission opens formal proceedings against AliExpress.
    • [5] Commission opens formal proceedings against Temu under the Digital Services Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future.
    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: 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 – Hundreds of jobs at risk as a result of sugar factory closure in Spain – E-002549/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002549/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE)

    On 27 May 2025, AB Azucarera Iberia S.L. announced a collective redundancy plan which will affect 251 employees across all its sites in Spain. The plan involves closing the La Bañeza (León) sugar factory and converting the Miranda de Ebro (Burgos) sugar factory into a cane sugar refinery.

    The sugar beet sector in Europe – and in Spain in particular – has been in profound crisis since 2018. High production costs, price volatility, imports and stagnation of sugar production and content as a result of reduced active substances are driving sugar production towards dire straits.

    Considering the above:

    • 1.Will the Commission change its current plant health policy in order to restore productivity and the sugar yield per hectare of sugar beet?
    • 2.Does the Commission intend to improve the safety net and risk management under the common market organisation to avoid a market crisis like the one in 2017-2020?
    • 3.Does the Commission intend to substantially change the preferential quotas under the future EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement to help stabilise the markets?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Finland’s derogation for mink fur farming and the ban on fur farming throughout the EU – E-002603/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002603/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Maria Ohisalo (Verts/ALE)

    The Commission has added the American mink to the EU list of invasive alien species.[1]However, Finland wants to continue mink fur farming and is therefore going to apply for a derogation to do this.

    To obtain a derogation, it must be demonstrated that there are compelling reasons of public interest for mink fur farming. However, public interest does not come into play in this case because fur farming in Finland is not economically viable, nor is it important for the country’s economy. Fur farming actually poses huge problems in terms of animal rights[2] and pandemic risk[3].

    The vast majority of EU Member States have already banned fur farming either partially or completely. Significant fur farming activities now only take place in Finland, Poland, Greece and Lithuania.

    The European Citizens’ Initiative on a fur-free Europe, which calls for an EU-wide ban on fur farming, has garnered over 1.5 million validated signatures and has been referred to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s response to the initiative is due by March 2026.[4]

    • 1.Why is the Commission granting problematic derogations to a list of invasive alien species that has already been drawn up on the basis of scientific assessment?
    • 2.Is the Commission planning to propose an EU-wide ban on fur farming?

    Submitted: 27.6.2025

    • [1] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/invasive-alien-species_en
    • [2] https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/new-scientific-report-fur-farming-animal-welfare-needs-cannot-be-met
    • [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09007-w
    • [4] https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2022/000002_en
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – EUR 415 million fine for OPEKEPE’s administrative failures: who ultimately pays the price? – E-002554/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002554/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Galato Alexandraki (ECR)

    The European Commission has fined Greece EUR 415 million for systematic administrative failures in the management of agricultural aid in the period 2009-2023. As the Ministry of Rural Development itself acknowledges, this is not a matter of producer fraud, but rather the result of inadequate checks, a lack of cross-checks with the IAPR, shortcomings in the land register, pasture maps, technical errors by private individuals and numerous years of institutional inaction.

    Although the blame is being attributed to administrative or political persons, not a single charge has been initiated. Meanwhile, the fine is already set to be covered by the state budget. This means that ordinary taxpayers and honest farmers are bearing the consequences of scandals in which they had no part.

    In view of this, can the Commission say:

    • 1.How does it assess the failure of the Greek authorities to identify and punish those actually responsible?
    • 2.Does it intend to request specific names of natural or legal persons responsible for the infringements?
    • 3.Does it consider it fair to impose the fine on farmers and citizens who bear no responsibility for the management collapse of the competent bodies?

    Submitted: 25.6.2025

    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Protection of EU citizens’ right to privacy – E-002538/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002538/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Renew)

    In its Digital Rights Ireland judgment, the CJEU stated that the general and indiscriminate retention of communication data is a breach of the rights to privacy and data protection.

    What is more, the CJEU has ruled in a number of its decisions – specifically the Prokuratuur and La Quadrature du Net cases – that citizens’ communications data can only be accessed under strict proportionality and legality conditions established in the ePrivacy Directive.

    The Commission’s ‘Impact assessment on retention of data by service providers for criminal proceedings’ initiative, which is currently under public consultation, and the high-level group on access to data for effective law enforcement have raised serious concerns among EU citizens about the safeguarding of rights and freedoms in the European Union, such as privacy, data protection and civil liberties.

    In the light of the above:

    • 1.Does the Commission intend to submit any legislative proposal that involves general and indiscriminate retention of communication data at EU level?
    • 2.Does the Commission intend to submit any legislative proposal to amend the ePrivacy Directive to change the conditions for accessing citizens’ communication data?

    Submitted: 24.6.2025

    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 Europe: Newsletters – ENVI News – Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

    Source: European Parliament


    ENVI News | Newsletters | Home | ENVI | Committees | European Parliament


















    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Newsletters – ENVI News – Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

    Source: European Parliament


    ENVI News | Newsletters | Home | ENVI | Committees | European Parliament


















    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Norma Torres Leads Letter from Former Mayors in Urging Speaker Johnson to Halt Harmful Big Ugly Reconciliation Bill

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

    July 02, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Norma J. Torres (CA-35), along with other former Mayors serving in Congress, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, sounding the alarm on the devastating impacts of the House Republican-led Big Ugly reconciliation package. In the letter, the signers—all of whom have firsthand experience managing city budgets and responding to local community needs—warn that the bill’s drastic cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and job-creating tax credits would be catastrophic for local governments and working families alike.

    “As a former mayor, I know the real consequences of decisions made in Washington,” said Rep. Norma Torres, who previously served as Mayor of Pomona, California. “This bill is not beautiful—it is brutal. It guts healthcare, slashes food assistance, and pulls the rug out from under job-creating programs, all to finance massive tax giveaways to the ultra-wealthy. Our cities and constituents will pay the price.”

    The letter outlines the projected consequences of the proposed legislation:

    • The largest Medicaid cut in U.S. history—a $1 trillion reduction in coverage, stripping healthcare from 17 million Americans and putting rural hospitals and city health systems under immense strain. Medicaid is known as Medi-Cal in California.

    • Drastic cuts to SNAP and child nutrition programs, which feed 42 million Americans—including 1 in 5 children—while shifting costs to already-overburdened states and cities. SNAP is known as CalFresh in California

    • Threats to infrastructure, energy, and clean manufacturing jobs, risking nearly 2 million American jobs, and weakening energy independence in favor of foreign competitors.

    “This bill is a job-killer, a healthcare wrecker, and a hunger-inducer,” Torres continued. “It is nothing more than a cynical effort to rob working families in our cities and towns in order to further enrich those at the very top. There’s still time to stop this and get it right. Our cities deserve better. Our people deserve better.”

    The letter, grounded in the shared experiences of former mayors, urges Speaker Johnson to reconsider the partisan path of the current reconciliation process and instead work across the aisle on a proposal that supports—not sacrifices—American families.

    The letter from former Mayors was signed by the following Members of Congress:

    • Rep. Norma Torres (CA-35), former Mayor of Pomona, CA. 

    • Rep. Nanette Barragán (CA-44), former Mayor of Hermosa Beach, CA.

    • Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28), former Mayor of Monterey Park, CA. 

    • Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), former Mayor of Kansas City, MO.

    • Rep. Laura Friedman (CA-30), former Mayor of Glendale, CA.

    • Rep. Robert Garcia (CA-42), former Mayor of Long Beach, CA.

    • Rep. Sam Liccardo (CA-16), former Mayor of San Jose, CA.

    • Rep. Kevin Mullin (CA-15), former Mayor of South San Francisco, CA.

    • Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-04), former Mayor of Phoenix, AZ.

    • Rep. Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), former Mayor of Tacoma, WA. 

    • Rep. Thomas Suozzi (NY-03), former Mayor of Glen Cove, NY.

    Full letter

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: WATCH: Ahead of Vote, Pressley Implores House to Reject Big, Ugly Bill That Rips Food & Healthcare from Millions

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07)

    “Let’s be clear: Republicans are ramming this bill through Congress so they can move us closer to their dark, dystopian vision of Donald Trump’s America.”

    “Behind each number and statistic is a family. A parent, a child, an elder, a loved one. And as much as JD Vance may call them ‘immaterial,’ these are people’s lives and livelihoods.”

    WASHINGTON – At a press conference on Capitol Hill today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) implored the House of Representatives to reject Trump and Republicans’ Big, Ugly Bill that would rip healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people, including in Massachusetts, and push reproductive healthcare further out of reach nationwide, just to pay for more tax breaks for billionaires.

    The press conference, which was hosted by Congresswoman Delia Ramirez, came as the House debates the bill and ahead of a possible vote on it today.

    The full transcript of her remarks as delivered is available below, and the video is available here.

    Transcript: Ahead of Vote, Pressley Implores House to Reject Big, Ugly Bill That Rips Food & Healthcare from Millions
    U.S. Capitol
    July 2, 2025

    You know, a moment ago there were some hecklers here, and they were cheering on every time we invoked Donald Trump and JD Vance’s name. They were cheering them on and clapping for them. 

    I wish they were still here so that I could tell them “I will pray for you.” And myself and my colleagues are fighting hard to defend you.

    You have been deeply betrayed. The only thing that the occupant of the Oval Office, this fascist dictator, white supremacist-in-chief is doing is equal opportunity harm.

    Nothing will save anyone from the harm that is coming if this bill becomes law. 

    Rural communities, yeah, Meemaw, papaw, jumbug. Urban communities, big momma, all our cousins.

    Everyone will feel this, in urban, rural and suburban communities. And I want them to know that we are fighting hard to defend everyone from this harm, because this will be a tsunami of hurt. 

    Thank you to my sister-in-service Congresswoman Delia Ramirez for convening us today and to our colleagues for speaking out in this somber moment.

    I’m reminded often of the words of Coretta Scott King who said that “starving a child is violence. Neglecting schoolchildren is violence. Ignoring medical need is violence. Contempt for those living in poverty is violence.”

    And let me be clear: Republicans’ big, ugly, betrayal of a bill is violence.

    It is an assault. It is an assault on working families and on every person who calls this nation home.

    It would rip healthcare away from over 17 million people.

    It would deny food to hungry elders and babies. 

    It would destroy Medicaid for babies in the NICU and parents with chronic illnesses, gut services like prenatal care and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, and push critical reproductive healthcare even further out of reach.

    And for what?

    To give billionaires even more money they do not need.

    Republicans are so desperate to line the pockets of their ultra-wealthy donors that they are willing to make millions of people, millions of their own constituents, poorer, sicker, hungrier and more vulnerable—and strip them of basic bodily autonomy.

    This is an anti-freedom agenda supposedly wrapped in the flag and so-called faith.

    It is shameful, and they are shameless.

    At this point, I’m running out of words to describe the harm of this bill.

    It is cruel. It is callous. And it is completely clueless.

    Clueless about the lives of everyday people—real people with real struggles and real needs.

    Republicans claim to be the party of God. But I don’t know what God these people serve. It must be god with a lowercase “g.”

    Because as someone who grew up at the knee of my grandfather of a Baptist preacher of a small store-front church, who spent my summers in the south of vacation Bible school, I have yet to find a Psalm that says “Thou shalt make people poorer, hungrier, and sicker.” 

    But that’s exactly what this bill would do if it becomes law.

    And we must do everything in our power to ensure that it does not.

    In addition to slashing resources that help people make ends meet, this bill would also shamefully fund Donald Trump’s unlawful mass deportation agenda—pouring more money into ICE to terrorize our immigrant neighbors.

    The cruelty is the point.

    Let’s be clear: Republicans are ramming this bill through Congress so they can move us closer to their dark, dystopian vision of Donald Trump’s America.

    An America where billionaires thrive and everyone else suffers.

    An America where families are criminalized for needing food or healthcare.

    Where patients are denied the care they need.

    And where the poor are punished simply for being poor.

    I represent the Massachusetts 7th, one of the most vibrant, diverse, and dynamic districts in the country, but also one of the most unequal.

    A district home to one of the highest concentration of community health centers, which provide life-saving care to 1 in 3 of my constituents.

    A district where hospitals have already closed, and where others would be at risk of closure if this bill becomes law.

    Across the Commonwealth, over 320,000 people would lose health insurance. At least 103,000 could lose food assistance.

    Over 11,000 manufacturing & energy jobs would be cut, ACA premiums would skyrocket, and energy bills would go up.

    Behind each number and statistic is a family. A parent, a child, an elder, a loved one. 

    And as much as JD Vance may call them “immaterial” – these are people’s lives and livelihoods.

    Republicans in both chambers rushed this bill through under the cloak of night. They’re hiding, like they always do, because they still have some semblance of shame.

    Enough to run and hide. But they still have time to reverse course.

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. 

    You can change this.  This legislation is NOT inevitable.

    And we will continue to resist, to obstruct, and to fight with every tool to stop it in its tracks.

    Because as our late movement sibling, the great Cecile Richards once said before she transitioned, “the question will be asked when everything was at stake for the country, what did you do? And the only acceptable answer will be everything that I could.”

    Congresswoman Pressley has been an outspoken critic of this harmful legislation since its inception.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • ENG vs IND, 2nd Test: Gill slams hard-fought second hundred as captain, takes India past 300

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Shubman Gill was at his determined best, scoring a hard-fought seventh Test hundred — his second as India’s captain — as the visitors reached 310/5 in 85 overs at stumps on Day One of the second Test of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy series against England at Edgbaston on Wednesday.

    Under sunny blue skies, England opted to bowl first, with India facing criticism for resting Jasprit Bumrah and packing the side with three all-rounders instead of including another genuine wicket-taker like Kuldeep Yadav. But Gill, coming off a knock of 147 at Headingley, showed immense responsibility and patience, playing with determination to finish unbeaten on 114 off 216 deliveries, laced with 12 boundaries.

    During his unbeaten knock — his fourth Test hundred against England — Gill became only the second Indian captain after Mohammad Azharuddin to score centuries in consecutive Tests in England.

    He is also the third Indian captain to score hundreds in consecutive Tests against England, after Azharuddin (Lord’s and Old Trafford in 1990) and Vijay Hazare (Delhi and Brabourne in 1951/52). After Yashasvi Jaiswal struck an enterprising 87, Gill and Ravindra Jadeja, who ended the day on 41 not out, shared an unbroken 99-run stand for the sixth wicket to help India recover from 211/5.

    For England, local lad Chris Woakes was the standout bowler with two wickets and could easily have had at least a couple more if DRS calls had gone in his favour. Brydon Carse, Ben Stokes, and Shoaib Bashir claimed a wicket each.

    In the morning, Woakes was rewarded for his perseverance with the new ball when KL Rahul chopped on to his stumps for just two. He could have removed both Jaiswal and Karun Nair, who came in at No. 3 in place of the omitted B. Sai Sudharsan, lbw if not for the umpire’s call.

    Nair displayed pristine timing on his drives and flicked Ben Stokes through the gap between mid-on and mid-wicket. With Josh Tongue being wayward, Jaiswal freed his arms for some elegant drives and cuts, hitting three boundaries in the 16th over and repeating the feat in the 22nd over, with a hook and a slash taking him to his 11th Test fifty.

    It was a knock in which Jaiswal, despite little movement on offer, endured a tough examination — at one point he was 16 off 34 balls — and came through with flying colours. Carse then caught the shoulder edge of Nair’s bat, and the outside edge carried to second slip, ending an 80-run stand for the second wicket on the stroke of lunch.

    Post-lunch, old-fashioned attritional cricket took centre stage as India made 84 runs in 28 overs. Though Jaiswal fell 13 short of his sixth Test hundred, Gill continued to hold fort.

    At the start, Gill and Jaiswal picked up singles whenever possible. Jaiswal sliced over the slips for a boundary, while Gill got his boundaries off edges through gully twice, being severely tested on playing around his front pad.

    Woakes continued to probe Gill around the middle stump line, hoping to get him playing across the front pad. But the Indian skipper, batting outside the crease, handled it well with a sturdy, tight forward defence. With Tongue and Bashir in the attack, Jaiswal and Gill picked up a boundary each as they brought up the fifty of their partnership.

    But Stokes once again produced a crucial breakthrough, as Jaiswal tried to cut one away outside off and edged behind to keeper Jamie Smith, with the England skipper celebrating ecstatically.

    While Gill continued to pick off singles on both sides of the wicket, Rishabh Pant took his time, respecting some good bowling before dancing down the pitch to smack a half-volley from Bashir over long-on for six. The pair knocked off singles in the final two overs before the tea break.

    The final session began sedately before a ball change was made after it got stuck in the gauge. Gill then used his feet nicely to take a four each off Woakes and Bashir — the second of which brought up his fifty in 125 balls.

    But Bashir struck in the 61st over, teasing Pant — who had earlier lapped him for four — into playing a big shot on a slower, flighted delivery. Pant fell into the trap, holing out to long-on for 25. One wicket brought two, as Nitish Kumar Reddy shouldered arms to a delivery from Woakes that jagged back in to knock over his off-stump.

    After those quick breakthroughs, England brought back Carse, but a solid Gill drove him crisply through extra cover and point for a pair of fours. Gill and Jadeja took a boundary each off Stokes, who tried to unsettle them with a barrage of bouncers. But it didn’t pay off as the duo brought up a fifty partnership for the sixth wicket.

    While Jadeja found boundaries off Bashir and Tongue, Gill cut the pacer for four, then swept Root for consecutive boundaries to bring up his seventh Test hundred off 199 deliveries, celebrating with a trademark roar and a gentle bow. After the second new ball was taken, Gill and Jadeja added a boundary each before a solid day of Test cricket came to an end.

    Brief scores:
    India 310/5 in 85 overs (Shubman Gill 114*; Yashasvi Jaiswal 87; Chris Woakes 2/59, Brydon Carse 1/49) vs England

    —IANS