The legal verdict against Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini is expected on Friday. The leader of the Lega has been on trial for three years in Palermo, Sicily. The charges are deprivation of liberty and abuse of office. In August 2019, Salvini, then-Minister of the Interior, refused to allow a ship from the Spanish NGO Open Arms to enter the port of Lampedusa. Up to 147 migrants rescued from the Mediterranean by the crew remained on board for almost three weeks. The public prosecutor’s office is demanding six years in prison.
In August 2019, Salvini played the hardliner and insisted that other EU states provide the NGO ship with a port of call – which did not happen. The crew on board reported on social media about the untenable conditions on board the completely overcrowded ship. Some of the migrants desperately jumped into the water and tried to swim to Lampedusa. The public prosecutor’s office in Agrigento finally lifted the docking ban on humanitarian grounds and ordered the remaining people on the ship to be brought ashore.
The Lega leader had made his decision to detain the migrants on the NGO ship for political reasons, argued the public prosecutor’s office in its plea. Salvini’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, on the other hand, accused the Spanish aid organization of having political intentions: Its actions had been aimed at toppling Salvini as Italy’s interior minister. The Open Arms had been “loitering for days, while the ship could easily have reached a Spanish port in 48 hours,” said Bongiorno.
Salvini himself is using the trial to bring himself and his favorite political topic of migration back into the headlines. “If I am convicted, it would not be a defeat for me, but for Italy and Europe, because protecting the borders is a duty and not a crime,” Salvini writes on X. He has already declared that he will not resign from his current posts as Minister of Transport and Deputy Prime Minister in Giorgia Meloni’s government in the event of a conviction.
Have a good start to the weekend!
Punctual start, early finish: The first EU summit under the leadership of the new permanent Council President Antonio Costa went smoothly and according to plan. “We’ve never had such a constructive discussion,” remarked German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the conclusion of the one-day meeting in Brussels. “It has proven highly effective to focus on political dialogue instead of drafting texts.”
Politically, however, the results were underwhelming. The new leadership emphasizes continuity but has yet to make a distinctive mark on critical issues. On the foremost topic of Ukraine policy, the summit featured steadfast rhetoric and commitments of support. However, it became clear that no consensus exists on potential European security guarantees.
The EU pledged to continue its political, financial, and military assistance to Ukraine “for as long and as intensively as necessary,” according to the summit’s conclusions, which saw little revision from earlier drafts. “Russia must not win,” the statement declared.
Yet, no new aid commitments were made. Chancellor Scholz had urged EU partners at the start of the summit to increase their military support for Ukraine, emphasizing that Germany “is by far the largest contributor.”
The appeal, however, yielded no immediate results. All EU member states were encouraged to bolster their support “especially in the areas of air defense, ammunition, and missiles,” the summit’s conclusions stated. Training programs for Ukrainian soldiers were also identified as an area requiring expansion.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy voiced unusually candid criticism following a multi-hour discussion with EU leaders. He lamented that the EU’s weapons aid fell short and that its soldier training efforts lagged behind promises.
So far, only France and Germany have each trained a Ukrainian brigade, despite commitments to train more than a dozen brigades. Due to a lack of equipment, some Ukrainian brigades are being deployed without adequate resources.
Zelenskiy also stressed the need for enhanced air defense, noting that Ukraine’s military requires at least 19 additional anti-missile systems to fend off Russian attacks on critical energy infrastructure.
Zelenskiy also adopted an unexpectedly critical stance on the possibility of a peace settlement, as floated by incoming US President Donald Trump. He firmly opposed a ceasefire, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin were to attack again after a few months, “everyone would lose.”
The recently discussed European security guarantees for Ukraine were also deemed insufficient by Zelenskiy, who argued that additional backing from NATO or the United States would be essential. “Only together can the US and Europe truly stop Putin and save Ukraine,” he asserted prior to the summit.
Zelenskiy urged European leaders to engage with Trump. “I would very much welcome Trump’s involvement in ending this war,” he said. Meanwhile, Putin declared in Moscow that he was “ready at any time” to meet with Trump, suggesting potential “negotiations and compromises” from Russia.
The role the EU might play in Trump’s plans remains unclear. Possible scenarios were reportedly discussed at an informal meeting the previous evening with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Diplomats described the session as a brainstorming exercise rather than one focused on concrete decisions.
Some leaders cautioned against sending mixed signals by speculating publicly about potential ceasefire scenarios or preempting decisions by the incoming POTUS.
Scholz spoke with Trump on the sidelines of the EU summit. Both leaders agreed that “Russia’s war against Ukraine has gone on far too long and that it is crucial to pave the way for a fair, just, and sustainable peace as soon as possible,” said government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit.
However, this conversation found no reflection in the summit’s conclusions, which merely referenced the two-year-old Ukrainian “peace formula.” In the section titled “EU and the World,” where US relations were also addressed, the document stated only that leaders had held a “strategic discussion.” Trump was not mentioned.
Diplomats expressed concerns that a peace deal dictated by Trump could harm Ukraine and divide the EU. Scholz emphasized that there could be no negotiations without Ukraine’s involvement. Meanwhile, the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, warned of China’s growing support for Russia.
Other topics at the summit included resilience against crises, disasters, and conflicts, as well as migration and the situation in Georgia. Leaders welcomed a report by former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö on resilience, emphasizing the need for better coordination and strengthened civilian and military preparedness, particularly in collaboration with NATO.
On migration, as at the previous summit, an informal meeting was organized by Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Dutch representative Dick Schoof. However, this time it yielded no new initiatives. The controversial deportation centers in third countries were not mentioned in the conclusions.
Regarding Georgia, Brussels issued concerned statements but stopped short of action. The EU regretted the Georgian government’s decision to suspend EU accession talks until 2028. Violence against “peaceful demonstrators, politicians, and media representatives” was explicitly condemned. “All acts of violence must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable,” the conclusions stated. However, sanctions were notably absent from the document.
With Stephan Israel, Brussels
Two days ago, Table.Briefings exclusively reported on a letter from the Federal Ministers of Economic Affairs, Labor, Justice, and Finance to the EU Commission. In it, they call on the EU Commission to postpone the application of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) for companies in the second and third wave by two years. The first phase covers companies that already had to publish sustainability reports in the past and for which nothing should change. In addition, the definition of “large” SMEs is to be changed so that fewer companies fall into this category.
The German government’s initiative is expressly welcomed by the business community: “Politicians urgently need to change their approach to the ecological transformation,” BDI Managing Director Tanja Gönner told Table.Briefings. The new German government must push for simplifications to the CSRD and the associated standards in Brussels: “The scope of reporting must be limited to a few key figures that are relevant to management.”
Steffen Kampeter, Managing Director of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA), agrees: “The EU reporting standards are far too complex and bureaucratic for companies of all sizes.” In order to promote competitiveness and sustainable business models, the Commission must withdraw and revise the current delegated act. In a new position paper, the BDA criticizes the reporting requirements as “excessive”.
However, it is questionable how effective the CSRD would still be after the implementation of the German proposals. Maximilian Müller, Professor of Financial Accounting at the University of Cologne, pointed out on LinkedIn that if the German proposals were implemented, almost 90 percent of all companies affected to date would be excluded from consideration. The aim of the CSRD is to encourage companies to become more sustainable by disclosing comparable data. Investors should also be able to better distinguish sustainable business models from less sustainable ones.
Alexander Bassen is Professor of Capital Markets and Corporate Governance at the University of Hamburg and also a member of the EFRAG Board for Sustainability Reporting. He co-developed the ESRS criteria according to which companies must report. “I find this letter very disappointing,” he told Table.Briefings. The development of the CSRD and the ESRS had been a process lasting several years, in which the German government had been able to get involved at an early stage. “At this point, when it has failed to implement them in good time, I think this is inappropriate.”
Bassen admits that there are aspects of the CSRD that are worth discussing. But: “All of this should have been done much earlier.” He also finds it telling “that the letter was not signed by the head of the Federal Environment Ministry.”
The house of Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) had reportedly expressed reservations to the federal government, which is why the internal coordination process for the paper dragged on. In particular, Federal Finance Minister Jörg Kukies and Chancellery Minister Wolfgang Schmidt (both SPD) had pushed for the initiative.
Minister Robert Habeck was more likely to stand on the brakes, it was said, despite his earlier announcement that he would “fire up the chainsaw” when it came to reporting obligations. However, he ultimately signed the letter. During the election campaign, the SPD and Greens obviously do not want to be accused of doing nothing about the Green Deal regulations, which are often perceived as being oppressive.
It remains to be seen whether European partners will agree to the letter from Berlin. France transposed the CSRD into national law early on. In the short-lived government of Prime Minister Michel Barnier, however, there have recently been voices calling for the CSRD to be reversed and seeking backing from the German government, among others. It is not yet clear how the next government under Prime Minister François Bayrou will position itself.
Matt Christensen, Global Head of Sustainable and Impact Investing at asset manager Allianz Global Investors, believes that 2025 will be an extremely important year. “Given the global attention on Europe, regulators need to avoid creating confusion,” he says. Instead, they should ensure that any changes promote the financing of sustainable companies. This “moment of truth” will determine whether the changes are seen as burdens or drivers.
The legal verdict against Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini is expected on Friday. The leader of the Lega has been on trial for three years in Palermo, Sicily. The charges are deprivation of liberty and abuse of office. In August 2019, Salvini, then-Minister of the Interior, refused to allow a ship from the Spanish NGO Open Arms to enter the port of Lampedusa. Up to 147 migrants rescued from the Mediterranean by the crew remained on board for almost three weeks. The public prosecutor’s office is demanding six years in prison.
In August 2019, Salvini played the hardliner and insisted that other EU states provide the NGO ship with a port of call – which did not happen. The crew on board reported on social media about the untenable conditions on board the completely overcrowded ship. Some of the migrants desperately jumped into the water and tried to swim to Lampedusa. The public prosecutor’s office in Agrigento finally lifted the docking ban on humanitarian grounds and ordered the remaining people on the ship to be brought ashore.
The Lega leader had made his decision to detain the migrants on the NGO ship for political reasons, argued the public prosecutor’s office in its plea. Salvini’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, on the other hand, accused the Spanish aid organization of having political intentions: Its actions had been aimed at toppling Salvini as Italy’s interior minister. The Open Arms had been “loitering for days, while the ship could easily have reached a Spanish port in 48 hours,” said Bongiorno.
Salvini himself is using the trial to bring himself and his favorite political topic of migration back into the headlines. “If I am convicted, it would not be a defeat for me, but for Italy and Europe, because protecting the borders is a duty and not a crime,” Salvini writes on X. He has already declared that he will not resign from his current posts as Minister of Transport and Deputy Prime Minister in Giorgia Meloni’s government in the event of a conviction.
Have a good start to the weekend!
Punctual start, early finish: The first EU summit under the leadership of the new permanent Council President Antonio Costa went smoothly and according to plan. “We’ve never had such a constructive discussion,” remarked German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the conclusion of the one-day meeting in Brussels. “It has proven highly effective to focus on political dialogue instead of drafting texts.”
Politically, however, the results were underwhelming. The new leadership emphasizes continuity but has yet to make a distinctive mark on critical issues. On the foremost topic of Ukraine policy, the summit featured steadfast rhetoric and commitments of support. However, it became clear that no consensus exists on potential European security guarantees.
The EU pledged to continue its political, financial, and military assistance to Ukraine “for as long and as intensively as necessary,” according to the summit’s conclusions, which saw little revision from earlier drafts. “Russia must not win,” the statement declared.
Yet, no new aid commitments were made. Chancellor Scholz had urged EU partners at the start of the summit to increase their military support for Ukraine, emphasizing that Germany “is by far the largest contributor.”
The appeal, however, yielded no immediate results. All EU member states were encouraged to bolster their support “especially in the areas of air defense, ammunition, and missiles,” the summit’s conclusions stated. Training programs for Ukrainian soldiers were also identified as an area requiring expansion.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy voiced unusually candid criticism following a multi-hour discussion with EU leaders. He lamented that the EU’s weapons aid fell short and that its soldier training efforts lagged behind promises.
So far, only France and Germany have each trained a Ukrainian brigade, despite commitments to train more than a dozen brigades. Due to a lack of equipment, some Ukrainian brigades are being deployed without adequate resources.
Zelenskiy also stressed the need for enhanced air defense, noting that Ukraine’s military requires at least 19 additional anti-missile systems to fend off Russian attacks on critical energy infrastructure.
Zelenskiy also adopted an unexpectedly critical stance on the possibility of a peace settlement, as floated by incoming US President Donald Trump. He firmly opposed a ceasefire, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin were to attack again after a few months, “everyone would lose.”
The recently discussed European security guarantees for Ukraine were also deemed insufficient by Zelenskiy, who argued that additional backing from NATO or the United States would be essential. “Only together can the US and Europe truly stop Putin and save Ukraine,” he asserted prior to the summit.
Zelenskiy urged European leaders to engage with Trump. “I would very much welcome Trump’s involvement in ending this war,” he said. Meanwhile, Putin declared in Moscow that he was “ready at any time” to meet with Trump, suggesting potential “negotiations and compromises” from Russia.
The role the EU might play in Trump’s plans remains unclear. Possible scenarios were reportedly discussed at an informal meeting the previous evening with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Diplomats described the session as a brainstorming exercise rather than one focused on concrete decisions.
Some leaders cautioned against sending mixed signals by speculating publicly about potential ceasefire scenarios or preempting decisions by the incoming POTUS.
Scholz spoke with Trump on the sidelines of the EU summit. Both leaders agreed that “Russia’s war against Ukraine has gone on far too long and that it is crucial to pave the way for a fair, just, and sustainable peace as soon as possible,” said government spokesperson Steffen Hebestreit.
However, this conversation found no reflection in the summit’s conclusions, which merely referenced the two-year-old Ukrainian “peace formula.” In the section titled “EU and the World,” where US relations were also addressed, the document stated only that leaders had held a “strategic discussion.” Trump was not mentioned.
Diplomats expressed concerns that a peace deal dictated by Trump could harm Ukraine and divide the EU. Scholz emphasized that there could be no negotiations without Ukraine’s involvement. Meanwhile, the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, warned of China’s growing support for Russia.
Other topics at the summit included resilience against crises, disasters, and conflicts, as well as migration and the situation in Georgia. Leaders welcomed a report by former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö on resilience, emphasizing the need for better coordination and strengthened civilian and military preparedness, particularly in collaboration with NATO.
On migration, as at the previous summit, an informal meeting was organized by Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Dutch representative Dick Schoof. However, this time it yielded no new initiatives. The controversial deportation centers in third countries were not mentioned in the conclusions.
Regarding Georgia, Brussels issued concerned statements but stopped short of action. The EU regretted the Georgian government’s decision to suspend EU accession talks until 2028. Violence against “peaceful demonstrators, politicians, and media representatives” was explicitly condemned. “All acts of violence must be investigated, and those responsible must be held accountable,” the conclusions stated. However, sanctions were notably absent from the document.
With Stephan Israel, Brussels
Two days ago, Table.Briefings exclusively reported on a letter from the Federal Ministers of Economic Affairs, Labor, Justice, and Finance to the EU Commission. In it, they call on the EU Commission to postpone the application of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) for companies in the second and third wave by two years. The first phase covers companies that already had to publish sustainability reports in the past and for which nothing should change. In addition, the definition of “large” SMEs is to be changed so that fewer companies fall into this category.
The German government’s initiative is expressly welcomed by the business community: “Politicians urgently need to change their approach to the ecological transformation,” BDI Managing Director Tanja Gönner told Table.Briefings. The new German government must push for simplifications to the CSRD and the associated standards in Brussels: “The scope of reporting must be limited to a few key figures that are relevant to management.”
Steffen Kampeter, Managing Director of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA), agrees: “The EU reporting standards are far too complex and bureaucratic for companies of all sizes.” In order to promote competitiveness and sustainable business models, the Commission must withdraw and revise the current delegated act. In a new position paper, the BDA criticizes the reporting requirements as “excessive”.
However, it is questionable how effective the CSRD would still be after the implementation of the German proposals. Maximilian Müller, Professor of Financial Accounting at the University of Cologne, pointed out on LinkedIn that if the German proposals were implemented, almost 90 percent of all companies affected to date would be excluded from consideration. The aim of the CSRD is to encourage companies to become more sustainable by disclosing comparable data. Investors should also be able to better distinguish sustainable business models from less sustainable ones.
Alexander Bassen is Professor of Capital Markets and Corporate Governance at the University of Hamburg and also a member of the EFRAG Board for Sustainability Reporting. He co-developed the ESRS criteria according to which companies must report. “I find this letter very disappointing,” he told Table.Briefings. The development of the CSRD and the ESRS had been a process lasting several years, in which the German government had been able to get involved at an early stage. “At this point, when it has failed to implement them in good time, I think this is inappropriate.”
Bassen admits that there are aspects of the CSRD that are worth discussing. But: “All of this should have been done much earlier.” He also finds it telling “that the letter was not signed by the head of the Federal Environment Ministry.”
The house of Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) had reportedly expressed reservations to the federal government, which is why the internal coordination process for the paper dragged on. In particular, Federal Finance Minister Jörg Kukies and Chancellery Minister Wolfgang Schmidt (both SPD) had pushed for the initiative.
Minister Robert Habeck was more likely to stand on the brakes, it was said, despite his earlier announcement that he would “fire up the chainsaw” when it came to reporting obligations. However, he ultimately signed the letter. During the election campaign, the SPD and Greens obviously do not want to be accused of doing nothing about the Green Deal regulations, which are often perceived as being oppressive.
It remains to be seen whether European partners will agree to the letter from Berlin. France transposed the CSRD into national law early on. In the short-lived government of Prime Minister Michel Barnier, however, there have recently been voices calling for the CSRD to be reversed and seeking backing from the German government, among others. It is not yet clear how the next government under Prime Minister François Bayrou will position itself.
Matt Christensen, Global Head of Sustainable and Impact Investing at asset manager Allianz Global Investors, believes that 2025 will be an extremely important year. “Given the global attention on Europe, regulators need to avoid creating confusion,” he says. Instead, they should ensure that any changes promote the financing of sustainable companies. This “moment of truth” will determine whether the changes are seen as burdens or drivers.
