Category: Europe

  • 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

  • Centre considering ₹100-crore Aqua Park for J&K: Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, on Wednesday said that flagship schemes such as the Blue Revolution, Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) and Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) have significantly strengthened the fisheries ecosystem in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Speaking at a function at the Shalimar Convention Centre, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Singh said the Centre remains committed to supporting the livestock and fisheries sectors as engines of rural income and nutritional security.

    Jammu and Kashmir Minister for Agriculture Production and Panchayati Raj Javid Ahmad Dar, Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Alka Upadhyaya, senior officials and progressive farmers from across the Valley attended the event.

    Singh pointed out that over 10 crore farmers in India depend on livestock for their livelihoods, with small and marginal farmers owning more than 90% of dairy animals. Women account for over 70% of participation in the dairy sector and hold nearly a third of cooperative memberships.

    In Jammu and Kashmir, milk production has increased by 47% over the past decade, rising from 19.5 lakh tonnes in 2014–15 to 28.74 lakh tonnes in 2023–24. Per capita milk availability in the Union Territory stands at 413 grams per day, he said.

    Highlighting efforts to promote trout farming, Singh said the government facilitated the import of 13.4 lakh genetically improved eyed ova of Rainbow and Brown Trout from Denmark, boosting trout production from 650 metric tonnes (MT) in 2020–21 to 2,380 MT in 2023–24 — an increase of 266%.

    Earlier in the day, Singh and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah co-chaired a review meeting of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries sectors at the Civil Secretariat in Srinagar. They also virtually inaugurated a 50,000-litre-per-day Ultra High Temperature (UHT) Milk Processing Plant at Satwari, Jammu.

    Singh said the Centre sees immense untapped potential in J&K’s livestock and fisheries sectors and assured full support for their development. He called for closer collaboration between the Union and UT governments to translate this potential into sustainable rural livelihoods.

    Encouraging youth to take up micro and small-scale ventures in fisheries and livestock, the Union Minister said that key national bodies like the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) would help build strong infrastructure and market linkages.

    He informed that under PMMSY, the Centre has committed ₹852 crore for Himalayan and North Eastern states, including ₹300 crore specifically for J&K, to enhance production, infrastructure, and employment.

    According to Singh, annual fish production in J&K has grown from 20,000 MT in 2013–14 to 29,000 MT in 2024–25, while trout production has surged by over 800% — from 262 MT to 2,380 MT during the same period. Trout seed production has risen from 9 million to 15.2 million, and carp seed production has increased from 40 million to 63.5 million.

    The Minister said that recognising J&K’s potential for cold-water fisheries, the Ministry has designated Anantnag as a Cold-Water Fisheries Cluster, with Kulgam and Shopian as partner districts to develop an integrated value chain for sustainable livelihoods.

    He added that a proposal worth ₹100 crore is under consideration to set up an Integrated Aqua Park in J&K under PMMSY Phase-II to serve as a model for cold-water aquaculture.

    Singh reiterated the Centre’s commitment to holistic rural development, farmer empowerment and the vision of a self-reliant India.

  • Centre considering ₹100-crore Aqua Park for J&K: Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, on Wednesday said that flagship schemes such as the Blue Revolution, Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) and Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) have significantly strengthened the fisheries ecosystem in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Speaking at a function at the Shalimar Convention Centre, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Singh said the Centre remains committed to supporting the livestock and fisheries sectors as engines of rural income and nutritional security.

    Jammu and Kashmir Minister for Agriculture Production and Panchayati Raj Javid Ahmad Dar, Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Alka Upadhyaya, senior officials and progressive farmers from across the Valley attended the event.

    Singh pointed out that over 10 crore farmers in India depend on livestock for their livelihoods, with small and marginal farmers owning more than 90% of dairy animals. Women account for over 70% of participation in the dairy sector and hold nearly a third of cooperative memberships.

    In Jammu and Kashmir, milk production has increased by 47% over the past decade, rising from 19.5 lakh tonnes in 2014–15 to 28.74 lakh tonnes in 2023–24. Per capita milk availability in the Union Territory stands at 413 grams per day, he said.

    Highlighting efforts to promote trout farming, Singh said the government facilitated the import of 13.4 lakh genetically improved eyed ova of Rainbow and Brown Trout from Denmark, boosting trout production from 650 metric tonnes (MT) in 2020–21 to 2,380 MT in 2023–24 — an increase of 266%.

    Earlier in the day, Singh and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah co-chaired a review meeting of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries sectors at the Civil Secretariat in Srinagar. They also virtually inaugurated a 50,000-litre-per-day Ultra High Temperature (UHT) Milk Processing Plant at Satwari, Jammu.

    Singh said the Centre sees immense untapped potential in J&K’s livestock and fisheries sectors and assured full support for their development. He called for closer collaboration between the Union and UT governments to translate this potential into sustainable rural livelihoods.

    Encouraging youth to take up micro and small-scale ventures in fisheries and livestock, the Union Minister said that key national bodies like the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) would help build strong infrastructure and market linkages.

    He informed that under PMMSY, the Centre has committed ₹852 crore for Himalayan and North Eastern states, including ₹300 crore specifically for J&K, to enhance production, infrastructure, and employment.

    According to Singh, annual fish production in J&K has grown from 20,000 MT in 2013–14 to 29,000 MT in 2024–25, while trout production has surged by over 800% — from 262 MT to 2,380 MT during the same period. Trout seed production has risen from 9 million to 15.2 million, and carp seed production has increased from 40 million to 63.5 million.

    The Minister said that recognising J&K’s potential for cold-water fisheries, the Ministry has designated Anantnag as a Cold-Water Fisheries Cluster, with Kulgam and Shopian as partner districts to develop an integrated value chain for sustainable livelihoods.

    He added that a proposal worth ₹100 crore is under consideration to set up an Integrated Aqua Park in J&K under PMMSY Phase-II to serve as a model for cold-water aquaculture.

    Singh reiterated the Centre’s commitment to holistic rural development, farmer empowerment and the vision of a self-reliant India.

  • Centre considering ₹100-crore Aqua Park for J&K: Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, on Wednesday said that flagship schemes such as the Blue Revolution, Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) and Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY) have significantly strengthened the fisheries ecosystem in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Speaking at a function at the Shalimar Convention Centre, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Singh said the Centre remains committed to supporting the livestock and fisheries sectors as engines of rural income and nutritional security.

    Jammu and Kashmir Minister for Agriculture Production and Panchayati Raj Javid Ahmad Dar, Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Alka Upadhyaya, senior officials and progressive farmers from across the Valley attended the event.

    Singh pointed out that over 10 crore farmers in India depend on livestock for their livelihoods, with small and marginal farmers owning more than 90% of dairy animals. Women account for over 70% of participation in the dairy sector and hold nearly a third of cooperative memberships.

    In Jammu and Kashmir, milk production has increased by 47% over the past decade, rising from 19.5 lakh tonnes in 2014–15 to 28.74 lakh tonnes in 2023–24. Per capita milk availability in the Union Territory stands at 413 grams per day, he said.

    Highlighting efforts to promote trout farming, Singh said the government facilitated the import of 13.4 lakh genetically improved eyed ova of Rainbow and Brown Trout from Denmark, boosting trout production from 650 metric tonnes (MT) in 2020–21 to 2,380 MT in 2023–24 — an increase of 266%.

    Earlier in the day, Singh and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah co-chaired a review meeting of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries sectors at the Civil Secretariat in Srinagar. They also virtually inaugurated a 50,000-litre-per-day Ultra High Temperature (UHT) Milk Processing Plant at Satwari, Jammu.

    Singh said the Centre sees immense untapped potential in J&K’s livestock and fisheries sectors and assured full support for their development. He called for closer collaboration between the Union and UT governments to translate this potential into sustainable rural livelihoods.

    Encouraging youth to take up micro and small-scale ventures in fisheries and livestock, the Union Minister said that key national bodies like the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB) would help build strong infrastructure and market linkages.

    He informed that under PMMSY, the Centre has committed ₹852 crore for Himalayan and North Eastern states, including ₹300 crore specifically for J&K, to enhance production, infrastructure, and employment.

    According to Singh, annual fish production in J&K has grown from 20,000 MT in 2013–14 to 29,000 MT in 2024–25, while trout production has surged by over 800% — from 262 MT to 2,380 MT during the same period. Trout seed production has risen from 9 million to 15.2 million, and carp seed production has increased from 40 million to 63.5 million.

    The Minister said that recognising J&K’s potential for cold-water fisheries, the Ministry has designated Anantnag as a Cold-Water Fisheries Cluster, with Kulgam and Shopian as partner districts to develop an integrated value chain for sustainable livelihoods.

    He added that a proposal worth ₹100 crore is under consideration to set up an Integrated Aqua Park in J&K under PMMSY Phase-II to serve as a model for cold-water aquaculture.

    Singh reiterated the Centre’s commitment to holistic rural development, farmer empowerment and the vision of a self-reliant India.

  • MIL-OSI USA: Discovery Alert: Flaring Star, Toasted Planet

    Source: NASA

    A giant planet some 400 light-years away, HIP 67522 b, orbits its parent star so tightly that it appears to cause frequent flares from the star’s surface, heating and inflating the planet’s atmosphere.

    On planet Earth, “space weather” caused by solar flares might disrupt radio communications, or even damage satellites. But Earth’s atmosphere protects us from truly harmful effects, and we orbit the Sun at a respectable distance, out of reach of the flares themselves.
    Not so for planet HIP 67522 b. A gas giant in a young star system – just 17 million years old – the planet takes only seven days to complete one orbit around its star. A “year,” in other words, lasts barely as long as a week on Earth. That places the planet perilously close to the star. Worse, the star is of a type known to flare – especially in their youth.
    In this case, the proximity of the planet appears to result in fairly frequent flaring.

    The star and the planet form a powerful but likely a destructive bond. In a manner not yet fully understood, the planet hooks into the star’s magnetic field, triggering flares on the star’s surface; the flares whiplash energy back to the planet. Combined with other high-energy radiation from the star, the flare-induced heating appears to have increased the already steep inflation of the planet’s atmosphere, giving HIP 67522 b a diameter comparable to our own planet Jupiter despite having just 5% of Jupiter’s mass.
    This might well mean that the planet won’t stay in the Jupiter size-range for long. One effect of being continually pummeled with intense radiation could be a loss of atmosphere over time. In another 100 million years, that could shrink the planet to the status of a “hot Neptune,” or, with a more radical loss of atmosphere, even a “sub-Neptune,” a planet type smaller than Neptune that is common in our galaxy but lacking in our solar system.

    Four hundred light-years is much too far away to capture images of stellar flares striking orbiting planets. So how did a science team led by Netherlands astronomer Ekaterina Ilin discover this was happening? They used space-borne telescopes, NASA’s TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) and the European Space Agency’s CHEOPS (CHaracterising ExoPlanets Telescope), to track flares on the star, and also to trace the path of the planet’s orbit.
    Both telescopes use the “transit” method to determine the diameter of a planet and the time it takes to orbit its star. The transit is a kind of mini-eclipse. As the planet crosses the star’s face, it causes a tiny dip in starlight reaching the telescope. But the same observation method also picks up sudden stabs of brightness from the star – the stellar flares. Combining these observations over five years’ time and applying rigorous statistical analysis, the science team revealed that the planet is zapped with six times more flares than it would be without that magnetic connection.   

    A team of scientists from the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland, led by Ekaterina Ilin of the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, published their paper on the planet-star connection, “Close-in planet induces flares on its host star,” in the journal Nature on July 2, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Discovery Alert: Flaring Star, Toasted Planet

    Source: NASA

    A giant planet some 400 light-years away, HIP 67522 b, orbits its parent star so tightly that it appears to cause frequent flares from the star’s surface, heating and inflating the planet’s atmosphere.

    On planet Earth, “space weather” caused by solar flares might disrupt radio communications, or even damage satellites. But Earth’s atmosphere protects us from truly harmful effects, and we orbit the Sun at a respectable distance, out of reach of the flares themselves.
    Not so for planet HIP 67522 b. A gas giant in a young star system – just 17 million years old – the planet takes only seven days to complete one orbit around its star. A “year,” in other words, lasts barely as long as a week on Earth. That places the planet perilously close to the star. Worse, the star is of a type known to flare – especially in their youth.
    In this case, the proximity of the planet appears to result in fairly frequent flaring.

    The star and the planet form a powerful but likely a destructive bond. In a manner not yet fully understood, the planet hooks into the star’s magnetic field, triggering flares on the star’s surface; the flares whiplash energy back to the planet. Combined with other high-energy radiation from the star, the flare-induced heating appears to have increased the already steep inflation of the planet’s atmosphere, giving HIP 67522 b a diameter comparable to our own planet Jupiter despite having just 5% of Jupiter’s mass.
    This might well mean that the planet won’t stay in the Jupiter size-range for long. One effect of being continually pummeled with intense radiation could be a loss of atmosphere over time. In another 100 million years, that could shrink the planet to the status of a “hot Neptune,” or, with a more radical loss of atmosphere, even a “sub-Neptune,” a planet type smaller than Neptune that is common in our galaxy but lacking in our solar system.

    Four hundred light-years is much too far away to capture images of stellar flares striking orbiting planets. So how did a science team led by Netherlands astronomer Ekaterina Ilin discover this was happening? They used space-borne telescopes, NASA’s TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) and the European Space Agency’s CHEOPS (CHaracterising ExoPlanets Telescope), to track flares on the star, and also to trace the path of the planet’s orbit.
    Both telescopes use the “transit” method to determine the diameter of a planet and the time it takes to orbit its star. The transit is a kind of mini-eclipse. As the planet crosses the star’s face, it causes a tiny dip in starlight reaching the telescope. But the same observation method also picks up sudden stabs of brightness from the star – the stellar flares. Combining these observations over five years’ time and applying rigorous statistical analysis, the science team revealed that the planet is zapped with six times more flares than it would be without that magnetic connection.   

    A team of scientists from the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland, led by Ekaterina Ilin of the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, published their paper on the planet-star connection, “Close-in planet induces flares on its host star,” in the journal Nature on July 2, 2025.

    MIL OSI USA News

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

    Source: US State of Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    About Shriners Children’s

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

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: In Dialogue with Latvia, Experts of the Human Rights Committee Welcome Law Granting Latvian Citizenship to Stateless Children, Raise Questions on Hate Crimes and Access to Elections for Minorities and Non-Citizens

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Latvia on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Committee Experts welcomed the adoption of the 2020 Latvian citizenship law, which granted Latvian citizenship to children who would otherwise be stateless, while raising questions on hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and access to elections for minorities and non-citizens.

    One Committee Expert welcomed the adoption of a 2020 law which automatically granted Latvian citizenship to children of non-citizens who were not nationals of another State, and the recent reduction in the number of non-citizens.

    Another Expert commended the State party for the establishment of a special unit to investigate hate crimes, and on changes in the criminal law addressing motivations for such crimes, including sexual orientation and gender identity.  How were these changes publicised?  Incidents of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons remained underreported, the Expert noted; how was law enforcement trained to facilitate reporting and to recognise and support victims?

    A Committee Expert said the Pre-Election Campaign Law prohibited pre-election campaign materials in any language other than Latvian, except for European Parliament elections. How did the State party ensure that this prohibition did not unduly restrict accessibility and the participation of minorities in elections? Could the State party explain why non-citizen residents, including long-term residents, were excluded from elections?

    Osams Abu Meri, Minister for Health of the Republic of Latvia, introducing the report, said the fact that Latvia was a neighbouring country of Russia, which had invaded parts of Georgia and launched a full-scale military aggression against Ukraine, must not be overlooked.  According to article 89 of the Constitution, the international human rights obligations binding upon Latvia formed an integral part of the domestic legal system. Domestic courts in Latvia had referred to the general comments and opinions issued by the Committee in numerous cases.

    The delegation said work had been done to raise the awareness of those individuals in charge of prosecuting hate crimes, addressing victims’ rights from a broader, human rights-focused framework.  The Ministry of Justice had also disseminated a circular on the interpretation of existing legal frameworks on hate crime and targeting the members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.   As this was a very hot topic for Latvian society, the public broadcaster had also addressed the issue.

    The delegation also said that if someone wanted to be elected or vote in Latvia, they needed to obtain citizenship.  A Constitutional Court decision issued at the beginning of the year stated that the contested legal provisions did not impose a complete ban on the use of foreign languages, and only applied to individual campaigning with voters, hence they were in conformity with the Constitution.  The Court decided that restrictions on fundamental rights were proportional.

    In concluding remarks, Mr. Abu Meri expressed gratitude for the open and constructive dialogue.  Latvia’s experience during these challenging times, as its neighbours Russia and Belarus deployed the full arsenal of hybrid warfare, had a broader relevance.  Latvia would not only withstand these threats but remain steadfast in the rule of law, the principles of human rights and a rule-based law and order.

    Changrok Soh, Committee Chairperson, in concluding remarks, expressed gratitude to all who had contributed to the dialogue.  The Committee commended the State party for progress in several areas, including access to justice and gender equality, however remained concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers and non-residents, among other issues.

    The delegation of Latvia was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Welfare; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Education and Science; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Culture; the Ministry of the Interior; the Ministry for Culture on Cooperation with Non-governmental Organisations; the Ministry of Defence; the Prosecutor General’s Office; the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs; the Internal Security Bureau; the State Police; the State Border Guard; the Cadet Force Centre; and the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-fourth session is being held from 23 June to 17 July 2025.  All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Meeting summary releases can be found here.  The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m., Wednesday 2 July to begin its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Spain (CCPR/C/ESP/7).

    Report 

     

    The Committee has before it the fourth periodic report of Latvia (CCPR/C/LVA/4). 

    Presentation of the Report

    HOSAMS ABU MERI, Minister for Health of the Republic of Latvia, presenting the report, said the situation in Europe had changed significantly since Latvia had last reported to the Committee.  The fact that Latvia was a neighbouring country of Russia which, starting from 2008, had invaded parts of Georgia and acquired military and political control over parts of Ukraine, and on 24 February 2022 launched a full-scale military aggression against Ukraine, must not be overlooked. Because of these events, Latvia increasingly had legitimate reasons to fear for its security, territorial integrity, and democratic order.  These events, along with information and hybrid warfare operations directed against Latvia, had strengthened efforts to defend democracy, national security, and effectively implement the rights and freedoms protected by the Covenant. 

      

    According to Article 89 of the Constitution of Latvia, the international human rights obligations binding upon Latvia formed an integral part of the domestic legal system. To illustrate, domestic courts in Latvia had referred to the General Comments and opinions issued by the Committee in numerous cases.  

      

    The financial resources allocated to domestic courts had steadily and consistently increased.  Moreover, in 2024, the Academy of Justice, a new institution for the professional development of judges, prosecutors, prosecutor assistants, and investigators, was established. The Ombudsperson’s Office of Latvia had consistently received the highest “A” status of accreditation, and continued to operate in accordance with the highest international standards concerning respect for human rights and good governance. In 2022, Latvia ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  The Ombudsperson had been entrusted with the function of the national preventive mechanism, and, as of October 2024, had a new Department on the Prevention of Discrimination.  

      

    Latvia had continued to support the naturalisation of non-citizens; these were not stateless persons, as they enjoyed the right to reside in Latvia, along with a set of rights and obligations that extended beyond those prescribed by the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.  In recent years, Latvia had seen a gradual and steady decline in the number of non-citizens residing in the country.  A significant achievement in reducing the number of non-citizens in Latvia was the enactment of the law on the discontinuation of the non-citizen status for children, which had contributed to a substantial decrease in the number of non-citizens among younger age groups. Since 2020, all children born in non-citizen families had been granted citizenship at birth. 

      

    Between 2024 and 2027, Latvia had identified three priority areas for gender equality: increasing equal rights and opportunities in the labour market and education; reducing negative gender stereotypes; and integrating the principle of gender equality into policy planning.

     

    In respect to combating gender-based violence, Latvia had significantly strengthened legal protections, expanded victim support services, and increased awareness-raising campaigns to challenge societal norms that perpetuate violence. Between 2022 and 2024, the authorities, together with non-governmental organisations, held workshops and discussions for young people on how to build non-violent relationships, based on the principle of gender equality.  

      

    In 2024, Latvia took a significant step forward in recognising diverse family forms by introducing civil partnership legislation.  This legal framework allowed both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register their partnership, granting them a range of rights and protections previously reserved for married couples.  In 2021, the Latvian Parliament enacted amendments to the Criminal Law adding to the list of aggravating circumstances motivation based on “social hatred”, which covered hatred based on sexual orientation.  Additionally, awareness-raising measures were continuously implemented, and investigators, prosecutors, and judges regularly attended trainings on the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.  

     

    Questions by Committee Experts

     

    A Committee Expert noted the various positive developments linked to civil and political rights, asking for additional information on the legal status of the Committee’s views in the national legal framework.  What steps had Latvia taken to inform the public, including persons who did not read Latvian or English, about their rights under the Covenant and the possibility of submitting cases to the Committee under the Optional Protocol?

    The Committee appreciated the rating of the Ombudsman and the increasing material and financial resources allocated to it, and the Expert asked for information on proposals to amend the Ombudsman’s enabling law.  Regarding the implementation of the Corruption Prevention and Combating Action Plan, what mechanisms were in place to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures?  Regarding judicial integrity, were there plans to adopt additional safeguards to prevent undue political influence in the judiciary?

    Another Expert commended the State party for the establishment of a special unit to investigate hate crimes and on changes in the criminal law, adding “social enmity” and “any other characteristic” to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, and asked how these changes were publicised.  Incidents of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons remained underreported, the Expert noted; how was law enforcement trained to facilitate reporting and to recognize and support victims? 

    Could the State party be more specific about the risks to national security posed by individuals with ties to the Russian Federation?  How could fluency in the Latvian language prevent such risks?  The Expert also asked for the number of persons deported so far, their background and to which countries they were deported.  Had there been a state of emergency in parts of the country, in particular the Belarussian border from August 2021 to August 2023, and could the delegation confirm that Latvia did not derogate from its obligations under the Covenant during that period? 

    Regarding the equality of women, and efforts towards narrowing the gender pay gap, another Committee Expert asked what measures had been helpful so far, and what additional measures the government intended to introduce to narrow it further?  Could the State party provide statistical data on gender-based violence and femicide from the last three years? What measures was the government preparing to improve prevention of the concerning occurrence of online violence against women, including against women journalists and women in politics and other leadership positions? 

     

    Regarding the right to life, a Committee Expert asked for disaggregated data on the high numbers of deaths in all places of detention, including psychiatric facilities. Was the definition of torture in line with that of international treaties, and what measures were in place to protect persons complaining of torture in places of detention? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    Responding to the issues raised, the delegation said concerning the status of the Covenant and awareness-raising on submitting complaints, the Constitutional Court of Latvia had explained that the views of the Committee did not have the status of a legally binding instrument.  While the Committee’s decisions did carry the weight of authoritative interpretation, they were not formally binding.  The Committee’s views and opinions were soft-ball instruments, but had been taken into account by the courts over the years.  Regarding awareness-raising on the United Nations human rights treaties, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had published informative material on its website in various languages, including guidance on submitting complaints to various treaty bodies, and ensuring accessible and transparent information for applicants.  This was how Latvia ensured that society was informed about the Committee and the possibility of submitting complaints.

    On training in the armed forces, the delegation said there were education programs which included human rights.  The Ombudsman was appointed after approval by the Parliament.  This aimed to strengthen human rights protection and ensure public awareness of the position.  This approach aligned with the spirit of the Constitution and existing practice, whilst supporting the principles of democratic governance.  On the Department of Discrimination, there was an Anti-Discrimination Unit, consisting of five people.  There was a separation of the powers in Latvia, the delegation said, and there was currently a discussion on the procedure of nomination of the Ombudsman.  There was no influence by political parties on the Ombudsman, and the election was entirely transparent.

    Regarding anti-corruption measures, the Anti-Corruption Action Plan was in place since 2023, and the main reason for lack of fulfilment of its tasks was the lack of funding.  The effectiveness of the Plan itself was usually measured by assessing the percentage of accomplished tasks, as well as feedback from institutions involved in its implementation.  In 2025, six persons were fined in cases relating to corruption, and 2024 data showed that corruption was effectively investigated and sent to prosecution.  On the independence of investigations conducted by the Internal Security Bureau, pre-trial detentions were supervised by a prosecutor.  In accordance with the law, the Minister of the Interior could only supervise the legality and justification of the Bureau’s decisions, and could revoke them if necessary. On transparency of lobbying, work continued on effective implementation of legislation in this regard, and there was no Transparency Register yet.

    The delegation said work had been done to raise the awareness of those individuals in charge of prosecuting hate crimes, addressing victim’s rights from a broader, human rights-focused framework.  A specific hate speech conference event had been held in October 2024, with twenty-two participants who worked on such violations. A training session was also held for judges, prosecutors and investigators, focusing on a victim-centred approach to the justice system.  For the general public, there were two specific web platforms with information about hate speech, hate crime, and related issues, and these were supported by the Ministries of Culture and Education, and the Ombudsman’s Bureau.  The Ministry of Justice had also disseminated a circular on the interpretation of existing legal frameworks on hate crime and targeting the members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community.   As this was a very hot topic for Latvian society, the public broadcaster had also addressed the issue.  The legal framework, which prescribed criminal liability for social, national and ethnic hatred as an aggravating circumstance was sufficient and proportionate to existing needs.  

    Numbers of hate speech and hate crimes were not so large, usually fewer than 10 criminal cases per year, the delegation said, but this did not reflect the priority of the topic, as the Government was working on the issue.  With regard to ethnic tensions, it was important to look at the information space, and how people used and consumed information inside the country.   According to research and statistics, minorities, as well as the general population, found news and entertainment important, and consumed it at the same rates, showing that society was living in the same space.  There were differences of opinion in society, as should be the case in any healthy society.  Latvian society had gone through traumas, and was dealing with them, including by taking care of minorities, legally, but also practically, including through an annual festival celebrating cultural minorities.

    Latvia saw its society as one which facilitated civic participation, and was working to strengthen this.  Even Roma representatives and organisations were finally putting their projects forward, and they were being supported.  Work was also being done on media literacy, as the current greatest threat to human rights was the great mass of information that was available, meaning critical thinking was a critical tool for building a cohesive society.  Latvia had acquired a large number of refugees, including those fleeing from Ukraine, and was providing measures and support for their language acquisition and cultural and societal integration.

    Latvia was working with the Roma strategy at the European Union level and had its own strategic plan for Roma integration.  Unfortunately, the community was one of the most stigmatised, as it was across Europe.  It was important for this stigmatisation to be approached and that communities were approached, with Roma mediators involved in the efforts to end the stigma.  Hate speech had increased in the digital environment, and a plan was being put together to address it.

    The delegation said the issue of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not an ethnic issue: it was an issue of international law, colonialism, and history.  This was how society and the government had treated it.  The government had been very clear that this was an issue that had to unite everybody within the country, no matter the language and ethnicity of the individual.  Research showed that there was an increase of differences of opinion on the issue within the country, but these were not aligned with ethnicity.  The Russian minority was very vocal in its lack of support for the actions of Russia.  On the declaration of a State emergency at the border, there had been a deliberate attempt by Belarus to destabilise European countries, including Latvia, in response to the imposition of sanctions on the Belarus regime.  Actions to protect the external borders must be interpreted in the light of the broader geo-political context and the will to protect the system against abuse, including the instrumentalisation of migrants and refugees.

    The gender pay gap had reduced further in Latvia, the delegation said, and female employment rates were relatively high, but the government needed to look into employment equality further, including encouraging women’s participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  Latvia was one of the rare countries that admitted to having problems in its prisons, and the government had approved an action plan to implement the Committee’s recommendations in this regard, showing its determination to tackle the issue.  Prison staff were instructed and trained on sensitive periods in the life of a prisoner, aiming to limit incidents of self-harm and suicide.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    In follow-up questions, Experts asked for figures on deaths in prisons, and the reconciliation between self-administration prisons and the official system, and whether the former was to the detriment of detainees.  Did psychiatric facilities offer education and therapeutic facilities, and was there sufficient staff?  Another Expert asked for clarification on training in hate crimes and hate speech, asking whether it was mandatory and country-wide, or whether people could opt out.  How was disaggregated data and statistics gathered on hate speech and hate crimes?  There appeared to be a tension between language groups, and the Expert wondered how promoting a culture of human rights education and speech could be of help in resolving these matters.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the Ministry of Justice had prepared a general policy planning document to combat and reduce the effects of informal prison hierarchies in Latvian prisons.  This included building a new prison, and the education of prison guards and administration, including a new education centre, among others.  One of the biggest problems in Latvian prisons was the outdated prison infrastructures, and the construction of the new prison to remedy this would be concluded in September 2025, with prisoners to be relocated in 2026.

    There were 26,132 persons with mental disabilities in the country in 2019, and the situation was roughly the same now.  It was very important today for persons with mental disabilities to have access to independent living, and Latvia had 12 social service homes, with between 50 and 150 places to which persons could be admitted voluntarily and could leave freely.  There was only one long-term facility, with approximately 200 beds, meant for persons with severe mental disorders, and this hospital was also only for voluntary treatment.  Regarding treatment and rehabilitation, nowadays in all treatment centres there were muti-professional teams, and staff workers ensuring integrated healthcare.  Great efforts were made to ensure there were recreational facilities at all hospitals.

    There was no mandatory training for judges, except on children’s rights, and training on hate speech and hate crimes were mostly linked to the specialisation of judges.  In Latvia, the media enjoyed independence, and investigative journalism thrived, holding the government and the judiciary to account.  The most common form of corruption involved the use of administrative resources, the delegation said.

    The delegation said amendments had been made to the Criminal Code in 2024, establishing accountability for acts of violence against immediate family or in partner relationships. The amendments introduced the punishment of imprisonment for up to three years if the perpetrator committed a violent act against a family member, spouse or former spouse.  Cases of spousal rape were considered rape under the Criminal Code, and sanctions were higher if there were aggravating circumstances. It was ensured that these crimes were reviewed by the courts in a timely manner.  More than 13 trainings had been conducted for judges, investigators, prosecutors and those who worked on family violence cases.  Every year, at least 20 women were killed by their partner in Latvia. The State believed that, in many instances, these deaths were preventable.  From 1 July, electronic monitoring of offenders could be applied in criminal proceedings, providing an opportunity to prevent both femicides and homicides.

    The ratification of the Istanbul Convention was a significant step in Latvia and was a cornerstone policy for the country.  Changing societal attitudes towards women and violence and shifting deeply ingrained cultural norms and stereotypes required public awareness campaigns, which took time to yield results.  Real-life stories of survivors had been made accessible to the public to raise awareness of the issue and encourage others to come forward.  Services were accessible and no proof was required to receive help.

    In December 2023, preventive visits had been carried out to two prisons, to assess potential risks of violent behaviour.  Conferences had been held in cooperation with the Ombudsman’s office and non-governmental organizations dedicated to the prevention of violent conduct, attended by representatives of the prison administration.  There had been an increase in crimes committed by prison administration officials in 2025, but this was due to the mandate to increasingly investigate these kinds of crimes.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert asked why Latvia did not systematically collect and publish data on the length and frequency of pretrial detention.  What steps would be taken to address this gap?  Could data be provided on the use of non-custodial alternatives to detention?  How was it ensued that all detainees were fully informed of their rights and access to a lawyer from the outset of detention?  Would the State implement mandatory audiovisual recording of all police interviews with detained persons?  How was it ensured that detainees received timely and effective assistance from qualified lawyers, including during the initial critical hours of detention?

    What specific safeguards existed to prevent undue political influence in the appointment of Supreme Court judges?  How did the State party address reports of politicisation and corruption in the judicial system?  What measures were taken to improve trust in the justice system?  What was the current operational status of the academy of justice? What specific training programmes had been implemented for judges and prosecutors since it opened?  What steps had been taken to ensure timely issuance of judgements?  Could information be provided on the types and lengths of sentences provided to minors? How was it ensured the detention of minors was used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time?

    Another Committee Expert said the overall national referral mechanism had not yet been established; why was this?  How would the State implement the relevant European Parliament directive in time? How did the conflict in Ukraine impact trafficking in Latvia and different categories of victims, including victims of sexual exploitation and child trafficking?  Were training activities organised for law enforcement in this regard?  How did Latvia’s transition from a country of origin to country of transit and destination impact Government prevention efforts?  What measures were being taken to promptly investigate, prosecute and punish all cases of trafficking?  What remedies were provided to victims?  How many cases had been raised against persons involved in human trafficking?

    In mid-2024, the Ministry of Culture launched a study to ensure the safety of journalists in Latvia. What was its progress thus far? How were its recommendations being implemented?  The Government informed the Committee that the criminal proceedings concerning serious bodily injuries inflicted to the journalist and publisher Leonids Jākobsons were terminated on 19 February 2025, as the authorities were unable to find the perpetrators.  How often were similar cases involving infliction of serious bodily injuries terminated because of lack of success in finding perpetrators?  How would the State ensure that similar incidents did not repeat, and that there was no impunity for perpetrators?

    Could the delegation elaborate on the legal basis for the drastic revocation of TV Rain’s broadcasting licence on 6 December 2022, that was challenged before the Administrative Regional Court?  The National Security Concept of 28 September 2023 served to prohibit the production of public television and radio content in Russian. What was the legal basis for this policy, and had there been any legal and administrative actions taken to implement it thus far?

    Another Committee Expert said that in June 2023, Latvia established an enhanced border regime with restrictive measures, which had been extended to the end of 2025. Could the delegation confirm this? How did the State party justify prolonging these restrictions long after the formal state of emergency had ended? Credible reports indicated that from 2021 to 2025, the State border guard had engaged in 28,000 pushbacks to Belarus and other countries, without assessing the risks individuals would face. How did these pushbacks comply with the principle of non-refoulment?  Refugees at the border were reportedly subjected to violence and abuse and left without water and food.  What concrete actions had the State party taken to monitor the State border guard?  How were the border guards trained to prevent ill-treatment of migrants?

    How many official border crossing points were operating today?  What steps were being taken to facilitate applications for persons seeking protection?  What percentage of asylum seekers were detained and for how long?  The Committee was concerned about the detention of children who sought asylum; would Latvia consider a policy of never detaining children for immigration reasons?  The State had a good practice of providing free legal aid to refugees challenging asylum decisions, however reports stated it was not respected in practice.  How did the State party uphold this commitment in practice?

    The Committee welcomed the adoption of a 2020 law which automatically granted Latvian citizenship to children of non-citizens who were not nationals of another State.  The Committee also welcomed the reduction in the number of non-citizens.  Would the State party consider amending its citizenship law to grant nationality to all children born in Latvia who would otherwise be stateless?  Was the State party considering extending political rights to non-citizens?

    The Committee appreciated the measures adopted to safeguard the rights of conscientious objectors following the re-introduction of compulsory military service for men under Law 75 on the State Defence Service.  The Committee also noted that the term of Alternative Civil Service was equal in length to military service, which was an improvement.  Would the State consider allowing the Conscription Control Commission to operate independently of the miliary?  Were conscientious objectors assigned responsibilities in alternative civil services, as opposed to non-combat roles within the military? How would the State party respect the rights of conscientious objectors during emergencies and armed conflicts?

    A Committee Expert said the Committee understood that the Pre-Election Campaign Law prohibited pre-election campaign materials in any language other than Latvian, except for European Parliament elections.  How did the State party ensure that this prohibition did not unduly restrict accessibility and the participation of minorities in elections?

    Could the State party explain why non-citizen residents, including long-term residents, were excluded from elections?  Would the State party be willing to permit their participation in elections?  Where did the State party see the most need for further improvement regarding accessibility for persons with disabilities in elections?  What measures had the State party taken to follow up on treaty body recommendations, including those calling on political parties to introduce quotas to promote women’s representation in political life?

    The Committee had questions regarding the transition to Latvian as the exclusive language of instruction, eliminating Russian as a second language in schools and preschools. While this transition was envisaged a long time ago, its implementation had been rushed.  How does the State party ensure that schools were ready within the limited timeframe, especially schools where many teachers lacked sufficient proficiency in Latvian?  There were serious concerns about the lack of meaningful minority community consultation and participation during the law’s adoption.  How many stakeholders were involved and how was active participation and meaningful dialogue ensured?   The Committee was informed that national minority pupils at pre-school and primary education levels had a right to request education programmes on their language and cultural history.  Did communities have to fund these programmes themselves?  How were people made aware of these programmes and how easy was it to apply for them?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said that while not all police interviews were recorded, this did not affect police investigations.  All interviews with children were recorded.  All interviews were documented in written form.

    Legal aid was provided by the court administration.  There had been just one case where a higher court judge had not been appointed by the parliament.  Reports of corruption in the court system were legally investigated.  The parliament adopted a law establishing a new judicial academy in 2024.  In January this year, the newly established institution officially commenced its operations.  The academy had been admitted as a member of the European Judicial Network.  During this year, 106 events and trainings had already been held at the academy.

    Latvia remained susceptible to labour exploitation, sham marriages, forced begging, as well as sexual exploitation.  This year, just one criminal investigation had been launched so far in this regard. At the beginning of the Ukrainian refugee crisis, a programme was established that strengthened the capacity of State border guards to identify possible victims of human trafficking. All unaccompanied minors had been given legal assistance.  Since 2022, there had been one case of sexual exploitation of a Ukrainian woman.

    Regarding the case of the grievous bodily harm reflected on the journalist Leonids Jākobsons, despite its best efforts, the State had been unable to identify the perpetrator, and the proceedings had been closed.  However, should new information emerge, the criminal proceedings could be reopened, and investigations could resume.  In a 2019 case involving a journalist who had been persecuted and harassed for over a year, the perpetrator was identified and sentenced to prison for two years.  This emphasised that the State recognised the importance of journalists and were committed to ensuring their safety and security. 

    A study had been launched which looked at updating the legal definition of “the media”. Seminars were provided for journalists that helped them to protect themselves.  Meetings were held with the police once a year, to help them support journalists.  Materials were envisaged for judges to help them on cases involving journalists.

    Latvia was a democratic State that promoted the right to a fair trial and access to justice.  A case was ongoing regarding Russian propaganda channels spreading hate speech in Latvia.  The Government could not assess the outcome of the case at this point.

    No languages had been prohibited in Latvia.  Statistics showed that only 54 per cent of Latvian youth knew Russian language.  The official State language was the Latvian language.

    Around 47 to 50 per cent of television programmes and 35 percent of radio programmes were available in Russian language, and 13 per cent of the printed press was in Russian language.   A law was in place which obligated the public broadcaster to broadcast in minority languages.  The public broadcaster independently decided on media content and in which languages it should be broadcast.  Work was being done to promote the inclusion of more minorities.

    The state of emergency situation at the border with Belarus had been ended, but a new “enhanced border protection regime” had been introduced and would be in force until the end of the year.  During legislative amendments, the State had assessed a proportional and law-based solution, considering European Union court rulings in this field.  A lot of work had been done to comply with international obligations and the principle of non-refoulment.  A document had been developed to instruct personnel at the border on how to deal with these cases.

    Significant training had been provided to border staff, with more than 1,000 border guards trained in 2024 on asylum rights.  The State did not have information on 20 deaths registered at the border with Belarus.  There had been a case in 2024 in which a dead body was found on the Latvian border. This year, there had been 63 applications for asylum so far.  As a rule, asylum seekers were not detained in Latvia and were accommodated in open space centres.  However, due to several circumstances, the law on asylum permitted the detention of asylum seekers, such as in the case of security threats.  Each case was individually and thoroughly assessed. Minors under 14 years old were not detained; they were placed in different facilities.  Efforts were taken to accommodate minors with their families when possible.  State-provided legal assistance could be accessed once an asylum decision had been appealed.

    Regarding conscientious objection, no one from the Ministry of Defence had interfered with the Conscription Control Commission, and changes were not considered.  The State defence service law set basic criteria for alternative service.  So far, just three applications had been received, including for religious and health reasons.  Military service was for a fixed period and a solider could choose whether to extend their contract or not.  International regulations set a two-month resignation notice for military service, which the State believed was a reasonable amount of time.  A reserve solider who could not perform military service due to their beliefs could be enrolled in the national armed force reserves. The State was not considering amending paragraph five of the military law.

    Latvia did not consider “non-citizens” to be stateless persons.  All non-citizens had the right to naturalise.  The number of Latvian non-citizens had decreased by around 77 per cent in recent years.  After a change in regulations in 2020, more than 500 children had been automatically registered after birth.  Several campaigns had been carried out on the possibility of acquiring Latvian citizenship.

    If someone wanted to be elected or vote in Latvia, they needed to obtain citizenship.  A Constitutional Court decision issued at the beginning of the year stated that the contested legal provisions did not impose a complete ban on the use of foreign languages, and only applied to individual campaigning with voters, hence they were in conformity with the Constitution.  The Court decided that restrictions on fundamental rights were proportional. Russian language was still widespread in Latvia, justifying the need to strengthen the use of Latvian as the official State language.  The Constitutional Court had taken article 27 of the Covenant into account, which recognised the obligation to ensure minority groups could use their mother tongue. It found amendments in the law complied with article 27.

    The naturalisation procedure was fairly easy.  The path for non-citizens was wide, short and easy to walk. 

    Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts

    The Committee asked follow-up questions regarding actions taken to implement the national security policy before the Constitutional Court; the permanence of the enhanced border regime; ill-treatment of migrants crossing the Belarus/Latvia border between 2021 and 2022; granting citizenship to children born in Latvia who would otherwise be stateless; providing for honourable discharges from military service; the exclusion of non-citizens from all elections; alternative programmes for minority languages in schools; and measures in place to ensure detention of minors was only implemented as a measure of last resort.

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the public broadcaster was bound by media laws.  Currently Belarussian authorities at the border were refusing to cooperate with Latvian authorities.  These non-cooperation issues had brought about an increase in criminal activities across the border, including organised crime.  This year, there had been 186 irregular migration cases across the border.  An investigation had been launched in 2021 and 2022 regarding individuals who had attempted to cross the Belarussian border, which had analysed a significant amount of information.  During the investigation, it was determined that injuries to migrants were not caused by the actions of border officials, but were likely obtained during the journey to cross the border.

    Reasons for terminating a military contract prior to its conclusion were not specified in national laws.  An agreement simply needed to be reached. 

    Only persons with Latvian citizenship had the right to vote.  Using languages other than Latvian during political campaigning in the election period was not prohibited.  The provision about using just the official language applied only to the pre-election period.  Non-citizens who chose to keep their status still had the right to receive healthcare and work in the country.

    Teachers were instructed on teaching methodologies in a linguistically diverse environment, and on how to teach students whose native language was not Latvian.  There were targeted grants supporting minority languages and cultures. 

    As of 25 June this year, there were 27 inmates who were children.  Four of these children were detained, with the rest serving their sentences on probation.  This illustrated that incarceration of children in Latvia was a last resort.

    Closing Statements

    HOSAMS ABU MERI, Minister for Health of the Republic of Latvia, expressed gratitude for the open and constructive dialogue.  A wide range of topics had been addressed, including efforts to combat hate crimes, gender equality, and matters of national security.  Latvia’s experience during these challenging times, as its neighbours Russia and Belarus deployed the full arsenal of hybrid warfare, had a broader relevance.  Latvia would not only withstand these threats but remain steadfast in the rule of law, the principles of human rights and a rule-based law and order.  These circumstances reaffirmed Latvia’s commitment to uphold the rights enshrined in the Covenant.  Latvia appreciated the engagement and interest of the Committee.

    CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, expressed gratitude to all who had contributed to the dialogue.  The Committee commended the State party for progress in several areas, including access to justice and gender equality, however remained concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers and non-residents, among other issues.  Mr. Soh thanked all involved in the dialogue for their engagement and commitment. 

    ___________

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CCPR25.013E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Video: Cyprus, Palestine, Yemen & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (2 July 2025) | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (video statements)

    Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    ———————————

    Highlights:
    Cyprus
    Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Yemen
    Haiti
    South Sudan

    ———————————
    CYPRUS
    Following the informal meeting on Cyprus in a broader format that was held in Geneva on 17-18 March of this year, the Secretary-General will convene on 16 and 17 July, here at UN Headquarters, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, as well as representatives of the guarantor powers of Greece, Türkiye and the United Kingdom, for another informal meeting on Cyprus.
    The meeting will provide an opportunity to continue the dialogue and exchange views on the progress made since March. 

    OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
    Turning to the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that overnight, Israeli authorities issued a new displacement order for two neighbourhoods in Khan Younis, following reported Palestinian rocket fire. Up to 80,000 people are estimated to be living in these neighourhoods. Approximately 85 per cent of Gaza’s territory is currently either under displacement orders or located within militarized zones – which is severely hampering people’s access to essential humanitarian support and the ability of aid workers to reach those in need.
    Our colleagues working on water, sanitation and hygiene also tell us that Al Satar – a key water reservoir – has become inaccessible as a result of the order. The facility serves as the main water distribution hub for Khan Younis and a critical supply point for water coming through the Israeli pipeline in the area.
    Any damage to the reservoir could lead to a collapse of the city’s water distribution system, with grave humanitarian consequences.
    OCHA warns that these displacement orders continue to strain vital services and push people into increasingly smaller swaths of Gaza’s territory. Since the breakdown of the ceasefire in March and as of yesterday, some 714,000 people have been forcibly displaced once more across Gaza, with nearly 29,000 displaced in just 24 hours between Sunday and Monday.
    Many existing shelters are severely overcrowded, with poor hygiene conditions – posing severe risks for public health. Our partners working on health, water, sanitation and hygiene report that across Gaza, rates of acute watery diarrhea have reached 39 per cent among patients receiving health consultations.
    The increase is being driven by insufficient clean drinking and domestic water reaching shelters, worsening the dire hygiene and sanitation conditions. The governorates of Gaza and Khan Younis have the worst levels of acute watery diarrhea, due to severe overcrowding in sites and shelters.
    You will recall that no shelter assistance has entered Gaza in four months, despite the hundreds of thousands of newly displaced people. Our shelter partners say that 97 per cent of the sites surveyed reported displaced people sleeping in the open. OCHA reiterates that an unrestricted flow of supplies through multiple crossing points over a sustained period of time is critical to address people’s needs and prevent the already desperate situation from worsening.
    Meanwhile, the depletion of fuel stocks continues to wreak havoc on aid operations, constraining the UN and our humanitarian partners’ ability to respond.
    Yet again today, an attempt to deliver some of the remaining fuel stocks to the north was denied by Israeli authorities.
    The denial follows a successful delivery yesterday of diesel from the World Health Organization’s remaining stock to Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City to prevent further shutdown of critical services. WHO says the facility is overwhelmed and severely under-resourced. Its beds are full, and patients are once again being treated on the floor.
    Our partners working on emergency telecommunications stress that unless fuel stocks are replenished immediately, Gaza could face a complete communications blackout, severely hindering humanitarian access and coordination, and preventing affected communities from receiving critical information.
    Critical water, sanitation, hygiene and healthcare facilities have already begun shutting down in some areas, including hospital equipment and services, water trucking, and water and sewage pumps. If the fuel crisis isn’t addressed soon, humanitarian responders could be left without the systems and tools necessary to operate safely, manage logistics and distribute humanitarian assistance. This would endanger aid workers and escalate an already dire humanitarian crisis.

    Full Highlights:
    https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=02%20July%202025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsQI3oYzuM

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Video: Cyprus, Palestine, Yemen & other topics – Daily Press Briefing (2 July 2025) | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (video statements)

    Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    ———————————

    Highlights:
    Cyprus
    Occupied Palestinian Territory
    Yemen
    Haiti
    South Sudan

    ———————————
    CYPRUS
    Following the informal meeting on Cyprus in a broader format that was held in Geneva on 17-18 March of this year, the Secretary-General will convene on 16 and 17 July, here at UN Headquarters, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, as well as representatives of the guarantor powers of Greece, Türkiye and the United Kingdom, for another informal meeting on Cyprus.
    The meeting will provide an opportunity to continue the dialogue and exchange views on the progress made since March. 

    OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
    Turning to the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that overnight, Israeli authorities issued a new displacement order for two neighbourhoods in Khan Younis, following reported Palestinian rocket fire. Up to 80,000 people are estimated to be living in these neighourhoods. Approximately 85 per cent of Gaza’s territory is currently either under displacement orders or located within militarized zones – which is severely hampering people’s access to essential humanitarian support and the ability of aid workers to reach those in need.
    Our colleagues working on water, sanitation and hygiene also tell us that Al Satar – a key water reservoir – has become inaccessible as a result of the order. The facility serves as the main water distribution hub for Khan Younis and a critical supply point for water coming through the Israeli pipeline in the area.
    Any damage to the reservoir could lead to a collapse of the city’s water distribution system, with grave humanitarian consequences.
    OCHA warns that these displacement orders continue to strain vital services and push people into increasingly smaller swaths of Gaza’s territory. Since the breakdown of the ceasefire in March and as of yesterday, some 714,000 people have been forcibly displaced once more across Gaza, with nearly 29,000 displaced in just 24 hours between Sunday and Monday.
    Many existing shelters are severely overcrowded, with poor hygiene conditions – posing severe risks for public health. Our partners working on health, water, sanitation and hygiene report that across Gaza, rates of acute watery diarrhea have reached 39 per cent among patients receiving health consultations.
    The increase is being driven by insufficient clean drinking and domestic water reaching shelters, worsening the dire hygiene and sanitation conditions. The governorates of Gaza and Khan Younis have the worst levels of acute watery diarrhea, due to severe overcrowding in sites and shelters.
    You will recall that no shelter assistance has entered Gaza in four months, despite the hundreds of thousands of newly displaced people. Our shelter partners say that 97 per cent of the sites surveyed reported displaced people sleeping in the open. OCHA reiterates that an unrestricted flow of supplies through multiple crossing points over a sustained period of time is critical to address people’s needs and prevent the already desperate situation from worsening.
    Meanwhile, the depletion of fuel stocks continues to wreak havoc on aid operations, constraining the UN and our humanitarian partners’ ability to respond.
    Yet again today, an attempt to deliver some of the remaining fuel stocks to the north was denied by Israeli authorities.
    The denial follows a successful delivery yesterday of diesel from the World Health Organization’s remaining stock to Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City to prevent further shutdown of critical services. WHO says the facility is overwhelmed and severely under-resourced. Its beds are full, and patients are once again being treated on the floor.
    Our partners working on emergency telecommunications stress that unless fuel stocks are replenished immediately, Gaza could face a complete communications blackout, severely hindering humanitarian access and coordination, and preventing affected communities from receiving critical information.
    Critical water, sanitation, hygiene and healthcare facilities have already begun shutting down in some areas, including hospital equipment and services, water trucking, and water and sewage pumps. If the fuel crisis isn’t addressed soon, humanitarian responders could be left without the systems and tools necessary to operate safely, manage logistics and distribute humanitarian assistance. This would endanger aid workers and escalate an already dire humanitarian crisis.

    Full Highlights:
    https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=02%20July%202025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWsQI3oYzuM

    MIL OSI Video

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – The future of ArcelorMittal and the steel industry in the EU – E-000737/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Steel and Metals Action Plan[1] aims to maintain and expand European industrial capacities in the steel and metals sectors . In particular, the Commission announced the adjustment of the existing steel safeguard that entered into force on 1 April 2025 and committed to propose no later than third quarter 2025[2] a trade measure replacing the steel safeguards, providing a highly effective level of protection against negative trade-related effects caused by global overcapacities.

    European electricity market design reform strengthens the role of power purchase agreements and contracts for difference to stabilise electricity prices.

    The action plan for Affordable Energy[3] sets out measures to encourage lower electricity taxation levels and more efficient network charges, and to enhance energy efficiency, renewable energy deployment, accelerating permitting and reducing systems costs. These efforts will help bring down energy costs.

    The Commission adopted a first set of retaliatory measures against the unilateral imposition by the United States (US) administration of new tariffs on EU steel and aluminum imports — initially set at 25% and later increased to 50% — but decided to suspend those measures for 90 days.

    This suspension has created the necessary space for negotiations, which are now underway. S hould these negotiations not result in a mutually beneficial outcome, EU tariffs will automatically enter into force.

    In addition, the Commission has also launched a public consultation on additional US imports which could become subject to EU response and has further prepared other countermeasures possible under EU legislation.

    On 26 February 2025, the Commission adopted its proposal to simplify the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism[4] (CBAM) by exempting importers of under 50 tonnes of iron and steel, aluminum, fertilisers and cement.

    This would exempt about 90% of importers while still covering 99% of emissions, maintaining strong protection against carbon leakage. On 18 June 2025, agreement was reached in trilogues with co-legislators. The proposed exemption was not altered on substance.

    The Commission is also working on solutions for carbon leakage for CBAM goods exported from the EU to third countries, on expanding the CBAM’s scope to certain downstream products and introducing anti-circumvention measures.

    • [1]  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_805.
    • [2]  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/mex_25_872.
    • [3]  https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/action-plan-affordable-energy-unlocking-true-value-our-energy-union-secure-affordable-efficient-and_en.
    • [4]  https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/cbam-new-commission-proposal-will-simplify-and-strengthen-2025-02-26_en#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20this%2C%20the,exemption%20of%2050%20tonnes%20mass.

    MIL OSI Europe News

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

    Source: European Investment Bank

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

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

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

    Partnership with World Food Programme

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

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

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

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

    Extension of memorandum of understanding with FAO

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

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

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

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

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

    Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty

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

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

    Background information

    EIB

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

    FAO

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

    WFP

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

    The Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty

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

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

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Lobbying by services of the European Commission – E-002494/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-002494/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Erik Kaliňák (NI)

    Recently, the media reported that the Commission had been providing annual support to environmental NGOs, allegedly amounting to six-figure sums, to lobby for and promote positions that often run counter to the official positions of the Commission itself. This was reportedly the case with the planned agreement with Mercosur, where the Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment allegedly lobbied against the conclusion of an agreement prepared by another Directorate-General of the same Commission – the Directorate-General for Trade[1].

    In light of this, I would like to ask:

    • 1.Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of the information reported in the media?
    • 2.If so, what legal action has the Commission taken against the officials who mishandled EU citizens’ money in such a way?
    • 3.What measures has the Commission taken to prevent a similar situation from recurring in the future?

    Submitted: 23.6.2025

    • [1] https://table.media/en/europe/feature/secret-ngo-contracts-eu-funds-for-lobbying-against-mercosur/
    Last updated: 2 July 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News