In the midst of the debate about banning fossil-fuel heating systems in the federal government, the European building directive is also suddenly becoming a media sensation. In his analysis, Manuel Berkel shows what goals the EU initiative is pursuing and how it relates to the German debate on building energy legislation.
The trilogue on the Data Act is drawing closer. Today, Parliament will vote on the corresponding ITRE draft. And at the working level of the member states, things are now expected to move very quickly. From a German perspective, there is still room for improvement, among other things, on the issue of trade secrets, reports Corinna Visser.
Top candidates? After the last European elections, this principle was pretty quickly nothing more than pretty campaign folklore. The parties want to revive the principle for the upcoming election in 2024. But who would be eligible? Till Hoppe and Markus Grabitz already sound out the field of possible candidates.
If you enjoy Europe.Table, please feel free to forward this briefing. If this mail was sent to you: Here you can test our briefings for free.
For days, a fierce media dispute has been raging about the European Buildings Directive. “The whole approach is nuts,” FDP MEP Andreas Glück scolded in advance in the German newspaper “Bild“. Today, Parliament votes on its position for the trilogue, where there are 67 amendments to the compromise proposal – many of which came from German MEPs.
In a final plenary debate on Monday night, some parliamentarians took the same line, albeit with more sophisticated words. Angelika Niebler (CSU) said in Strasbourg that the Buildings Directive, as it is to be voted on, is on the wrong track and complained about “forced renovations and bans“. But what is the amendment to the Buildings Directive (EPBD) actually about? An overview:
The Buildings Directive does not prescribe in detail the phase-out of oil and gas heating systems, which is controversial within the German government. However, the amendment to Article 11 creates the basis in European law for national regulations. “Member states may lay down requirements relating to greenhouse gas emissions or the type of fuel used by heat generators, provided that such requirements do not constitute an unjustified market barrier,” the Commission draft states.
Previously, there had been legal uncertainty as to whether such bans were covered by the Ecodesign Directive and the internal market provisions in the European treaties.
According to the compromise draft (Table.Media reported), Parliament even wants to oblige the member states to enact bans on fossil-fuel heating systems. However, it would still be up to the national governments to decide on the details. Parliament has explicitly included the principle of technology neutrality.
The “ideological enforced refurbishment” through the Buildings Directive is an “attack on rural areas“, raged the CDU MEP Markus Pieper in the “Bild” newspaper. At the individual level, renovation obligations have existed in Germany for decades – namely, when major repairs are carried out anyway. What’s new about the EU amendment is mandatory minimum energy performance standards (MEPS), i.e. the energy consumption of buildings. Member states were already required to set such MEPS before, but because they dawdled, the directive is now to lay down concrete targets.
The average of residential buildings forms the efficiency class E – however, according to the consumer advice center, unrenovated single-family houses are typically in the most inefficient classes G or H and consume up to eight times as much energy as economical new buildings in class A. According to Parliament’s compromise draft, all existing buildings are to be renovated to standard E by 2030 and D by 2033. By 2050, however, the building stock in the EU would also have to be climate-neutral.
Binding renovation targets would give the construction industry a reliable framework for creating the necessary training and manufacturing capacities, argued the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) on Monday. MEP Jutta Paulus (Greens) points to the flexibility of EU states in implementing the directive: In France, for example, refurbishment obligations would only take effect upon sale or rental.
According to energy consultants, it doesn’t take a complete renovation to bring a residential building up to efficiency standard D. “One or two renovation measures are usually enough,” says Mark Steiger, board member of GIH Baden-Württemberg. For example, insulating the roof and windows or exterior walls and windows, or switching to renewable heat and photovoltaics.
The DIW even sees the approach of the Buildings Directive, which does not immediately require complete renovation to zero-emission buildings, as a possible burden for homeowners in the long term: “This harbors the risk that two energy renovations will be required on the way to climate neutrality, which is associated with additional costs.” Subsidies should, therefore, only be granted for measures that result in a comprehensive energy renovation.
An additional €275 billion should flow into the renovation of buildings across the EU every year. That’s what the Commission calculated in 2020 for its communication on the renovation wave. At that time, €150 billion in subsidies had already been made available from EU funds, says Jutta Paulus (Greens). In the impact assessment for the directive, the Commission had also called for state support to be concentrated on the most inefficient buildings and low-income households – an approach now also being pursued by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs.
The Commission sees one strategy for lower capital costs in the directive’s obligations to make data available on the energy status of the building stock. This will make it easier for banks to provide loans for renovations.
The EU states had already decided their position on the Buildings Directive last October. The majority wants to prevent obligations for individual residential buildings. Instead, there should be mandatory minimum energy performance requirements from 2033 only for the average of the existing building stock. The member states also want to keep open the option of excluding single-family homes from the calculation. In this case, individual renovation obligations would only apply to sales or new leases.
On the phase-out of oil and gas heating, the Council also does not want a hard obligation and instead wants to follow the Commission’s mild draft.
The German government supported the Commission’s stricter proposals in the Council. “Lowering the minimum energy performance targets cannot be the right response to the current geopolitical crisis and the objectives of the European Green Deal”, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands wrote to the other member states in September 2022.
The federal government also supported the ban on oil and gas heating systems, saying, “We also support regulations to replace fossil fuel heat generators in existing buildings with sustainable alternatives when they need to be upgraded or replaced”.
However, Germany was willing to compromise. The signatories wanted to accept the restriction of the minimum targets to the average of the stock if the EU states can demonstrate target achievement in 2030 and 2040 according to objective criteria.
What was Manfred Weber aiming at when he brought up EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola as a possible top candidate for the Christian Democrats at the end of January? If the EPP party and parliamentary group leader wanted to use the move to deny Ursula von der Leyen the chance to run for a second term, he missed the mark.
Weber no longer mentions Metsola’s name ever since CDU party leader Friedrich Merz called him off in the federal executive committee and signaled his full support for von der Leyen. Even Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, whom Weber considers a close ally, made it clear how absurd he thought the maneuver was.
The first real power struggle in the run-up to the 2024 European elections thus seems to have been decided. Von der Leyen will be the EPP’s candidate – if she wants to be. There are many indications that she will, but the 64-year-old has apparently not yet made up her mind. If she were to run for the European Parliament, she would presumably declare this in the Lower Saxony state association by the summer break.
The EPP would thus drive a first stake. A lot can still happen between now and the election, which is expected to take place at the end of May 2024. But representatives of the other party families concede: There would be few ways past von der Leyen.
In the circle of heads of state and government, she is valued as an energetic leader in times of crisis, and not just among conservative representatives. Emmanuel Macron has already elevated von der Leyen to office in 2019, and he should see little reason to withdraw his support from her. As SPD Vice Chancellor, Olaf Scholz had persuaded Angela Merkel to abstain from voting for von der Leyen in the Council. In the meantime, however, the former cabinet colleagues have a good working relationship, as demonstrated by the Commission President’s invitation to the cabinet retreat in Meseberg.
For the European Parliament, on the other hand, von der Leyen’s election would have the attraction of consolidating the battered top candidate principle. In 2019, the Social Democrats refused to support the winner, Manfred Weber, on the evening of the election, triggering a power struggle that lasted for weeks and at the end of which the Council pulled von der Leyen out of its hat.
In the CDU, however, it is also considered possible that von der Leyen would like to be the top candidate but not seek a seat in the European Parliament. “It would be crucial that 400 million eligible voters in Europe know that von der Leyen is the Christian Democrats’ top candidate,” says a senior European politician. It is not so important whether her name also appears on the ballots of six million eligible voters in Lower Saxony. Especially since the politician would have to give up her mandate immediately if she did not want to resign from her post as Commission President: The election is in May, and the regular term as Commission President runs until December 2024.
On paper at least, most party families support the leading candidate principle, which is supposed to help mobilize voters. At the congress in October, for example, the European Social Democrats decided to “run an election campaign with a common top candidate”. The traffic light coalition parties in Berlin also pledged in their coalition agreement to support a “binding top candidate system”. The parliamentary groups of the SPD, Greens and FDP want to reaffirm this in a statement. They are currently trying to get the CDU and CSU on board.
The Liberals, the third force in the European Parliament, seem to be following the course of the other party families. In 2019, they were still running with a seven-member top team, the reason being that without cross-border election lists there would be no real top candidates.
There are unlikely to be any transnational lists in 2024. However, Stéphane Séjourné, head of the Renew Group in the European Parliament, hinted that he might want to put individual personalities in the race: “I will propose to my political family that they also put forward a candidate for election,” he said during a visit to Madrid. In addition, the Liberals should also nominate potential candidates for the top posts in the European Parliament and the Council. Christian Democrats and Social Democrats would have to “understand that they no longer have a majority”.
In fact, a broad alliance could be needed to gather the necessary votes after the election – which in turn could be explosive. For the traffic light parties, it is clear that the president of the Commission will be whoever can unite the majority. This does not necessarily have to be the candidate of the strongest party – according to today’s polls, probably the EPP again. The head of the SPD MEPs, Jens Geier, therefore warns: “We should be prepared for the day after the election so that the European Parliament does not allow itself to be divided again on the question of the top candidate”.
In the party families, the search for suitable top personnel for the election has long since begun. In the case of the Social Democrats, the new party leader Stefan Löfven from Sweden has been tasked with finding a suitable candidate in the course of the year. The candidate is then to be confirmed at a party congress in January 2024.
While SPD leader Saskia Esken has already proposed Katarina Barley for first place on the German list, the field is still open at the EU level. Barley is also occasionally traded as a top candidate, but would be out of the race if the EPP sent another German politician into the race with von der Leyen.
Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, the top candidate in 2019, is probably leaning more toward The Hague, according to reports in Brussels. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Pérez is said to have ambitions. However, more than a few doubt whether she would have the caliber to head the Commission.
The government experience that García Pérez lacks would be provided by two other personalities traded in Brussels and Strasbourg: Sanna Marin and António Costa. Finnish Prime Minister Marin, known throughout Europe since the debate over her party videos, must stand for election on April 2 – the polls point to a close race. If she loses her office, she might be available for the European elections.
Portuguese head of government Costa has signaled interest in a top European job, albeit more likely that of Council president. Given his government’s declining popularity, however, the Socialist is under pressure to stay in Lisbon until the end of his term in 2026.
There are still no clear favorites among the Liberals. In the FDP, Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager continues to enjoy sympathy, but the Dane’s shining star has descended somewhat in her second term. French Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton hardly conceals his ambitions, but his interventionist policies offend the market liberal camp. There are also doubts among Renaissance deputies about the 68-year-old’s suitability.
Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, on the other hand, is said to be interested in the office of Council President in his home country. The 50-year-old faces a parliamentary election in October. At a “Leaders Summit” on June 29, the liberal heads of state and government, party leaders and MEPs want to discuss the lineup for the European elections.
In the Green Party, the co-chairwoman of the parliamentary group Terry Reintke is considered to have the best prospects for the top female role. It remains to be seen who could be her male counterpart – both across Europe and in Germany. Four deputies have expressed interest in the German top position, Rasmus Andresen, Michael Bloss, Sergey Lagodinsky and Daniel Freund. Lagodinsky is considered the slight favorite.
However, the top candidates would not have the best prospects for the German commissioner post, as is emphasized in party circles. The Greens have secured the right to propose candidates in the coalition negotiations, and the main candidates are government members from Berlin – Franziska Brantner, Sven Giegold and Cem Özdemir, for example. However, Ursula von der Leyen could throw a spanner in the works: The Greens may only send the next commissioner, according to the coalition agreement, “if the commission president is not from Germany”. With Markus Grabitz
Council and Parliament will soon be ready for the Data Act trilogue. Today, Tuesday, in Strasbourg, the Parliament will already vote on the draft of the rapporteur Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP) from the Industry Committee (ITRE). But the member states are probably also close to an agreement in the Council’s Telecommunications Working Group. Observers, however, expect the working group to discuss the issue of trade secrets once again. Germany, at any rate, still sees room for improvement.
Last week, Sweden submitted a sixth compromise paper, which has been made available to Table.Media. The idea is to formally confirm the compromise at the working level in the Council and then prepare it for discussion at the Permanent Representative (Coreper) level, scheduled for March 22. It is expected that the representatives of the member states will agree on a negotiating mandate that will allow the Swedish Presidency to enter into the trilogue with Parliament and the Commission.
If everything goes as planned, the trilogue could start as early as March 28. This is the date Sweden has given for a possible first meeting. Rapporteur del Castillo hopes to be able to conclude the interinstitutional negotiations during the Swedish Council Presidency, i.e. before June 30.
Whether Germany will support the compromise in the Council will probably only be decided in view of the mandate in Coreper. Germany would like to see changes above all – but not only – in the wording on trade secrets and the right of access to data by authorities outside of public emergencies.
Industry is not yet happy on this point either, even if the Council’s sixth compromise had brought improvements. For example, Chapter II now states that the data owner can refuse access to data if there is a “high probability of serious harm” resulting from the disclosure of trade secrets. The data owner must demonstrate this accordingly. The restriction “unlawful use of intellectual property” has been deleted.
“On the positive side, previous ambiguities in the area of conflict between data access and trade secrets have now been defined more precisely,” says Dirk Binding, head of the Digital Economy division at the DIHK. For example, with regard to the specific cases in which manufacturers can refuse to hand over data. The decisive factor now is that the Parliament and Council in the trilogue keep the actual goals of the law – more data use and innovation in Europe – in mind. “To achieve this, it is necessary to significantly reduce the complexity created in many places. Because only then can the law be successfully applied in practice,” Binding said. This also means dispensing with additional regulations that increase liability risks.
The question is whether the wording “high probability” and “serious harm” will actually provide more clarity and thus legal certainty for companies that want to share or use data in the future. In any case, Parliamentarian Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA), the only German shadow rapporteur on the ITRE Committee, fears that the Data Act, as proposed by the Council, will prevent rather than spur data sharing. “Instead of breaking down barriers to data sharing, the Data Act chisels in stone a kind of data ownership for manufacturers that applies even after the product has been sold,” Boeselager criticizes.
Boeselager complains that the negotiations have become a lobbying battle. “Unfortunately, in the debate about the Data Act, almost only one voice was heard in Parliament, the Council and the Commission: that of the large manufacturers, especially those of airplanes, trains and cars,” he states. The arithmetically much larger number of users or owners of networked products, on the other hand, did not speak with one voice. In particular, companies that would only develop business models based on data in the future would naturally have no representation at all.
Boeselager sees one strength of the parliamentary draft for the Data Act as being that users and not just manufacturers can decide independently about sharing or marketing the data from their products. A weakness, he says, is that data holders also have many options here to prevent the sharing of data. Unfortunately, large international manufacturers also exerted their influence during the negotiations in Parliament, Boeselager says. As a result, users or owners of the data lack legal certainty, which hinders data sharing.
In any case, parliamentarians are bracing themselves for intense negotiations in the trilogue – and the Swedes have an ambitious timetable. “I have nothing against speed, but it must then also fit,” Boeselager said. If the parliament was not heard first in the negotiations, “it could also take longer,” Boeselager said. “But basically, in data regulation, I often had the feeling that working together can actually improve texts“.
When it comes to EU climate and environmental policy, Sweden is considered a progressive force. In the past, the country has repeatedly urged EU member states to be more ambitious in climate protection and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, when it comes to its own forestry industry, which is harmful to nature and the climate, Sweden’s ambitions for climate and environmental protection quickly fade into the background. This is currently very clear from Sweden’s position on the amendment to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). In addition to the faster expansion of renewable energies, this also includes regulations for the use of biomass.
So far, the EU subsidizes when forest wood is used as a supposed renewable energy source for power generation. Forests as important carbon reservoirs are thus cleared for burning in power plants. Members of the European Parliament now want to change that. They propose to exclude wood biomass from renewable energy support in order to restore European forests as valuable carbon sinks.
However, the Swedish Council Presidency consistently ignores these proposals. Instead, the country is relying on business as usual and making proposals that sound like something from the forestry industry’s list of demands. Ambitious steps in the direction of climate and nature protection are long overdue in the amendment of the RED. The exemption of wood combustion from the CO2 tax in emissions trading and the RED subsidies make it profitable to burn millions of trees in power plants.
Scientists have long warned that cutting and burning forests harms both biodiversity and climate. Wood burning emits even more CO2 per unit of energy than coal, while increased logging ensures that forests can bind even less CO2 from the air. But it’s not just scientists and associations that are sounding the alarm – the wood-processing industries, which compete with the biomass industry for wood as a valuable material, are also calling for an end to subsidies.
Despite these warnings, relevant decision makers failed to limit wood burning in the last revision of the RED. Instead, sustainability criteria for forest biomass were included, which do almost nothing to protect forests and the climate.
The consequences are now becoming clear: More than half of the wood harvested in the EU is burned for energy production. Since 2018, several member states have effectively lost their forest CO2 sinks, in part due to excessive logging. Among them are Estonia, Latvia, and Finland. Their forests are now sources of climate-damaging CO2. Germany’s forest sink is also increasingly being reduced.
Sweden is also experiencing an alarming decline in the carbon uptake of its forests. Yet the country is trying to impose its industrial forestry model on the rest of the EU. As long as burning trees is considered a renewable energy source, however, EU member states have little incentive to invest in actual low-carbon technologies.
EU policymakers must not give in to pressure from the Swedish Council Presidency now. As Minister for Climate Action, Robert Habeck must lobby the EU Council to limit and phase out incentives for burning wood so that they do not undermine the EU’s climate and biodiversity goals. EU citizens want and deserve a future with clean energy that protects the climate, forests and health – the Swedish EU Presidency has a responsibility to ensure this.
In the midst of the debate about banning fossil-fuel heating systems in the federal government, the European building directive is also suddenly becoming a media sensation. In his analysis, Manuel Berkel shows what goals the EU initiative is pursuing and how it relates to the German debate on building energy legislation.
The trilogue on the Data Act is drawing closer. Today, Parliament will vote on the corresponding ITRE draft. And at the working level of the member states, things are now expected to move very quickly. From a German perspective, there is still room for improvement, among other things, on the issue of trade secrets, reports Corinna Visser.
Top candidates? After the last European elections, this principle was pretty quickly nothing more than pretty campaign folklore. The parties want to revive the principle for the upcoming election in 2024. But who would be eligible? Till Hoppe and Markus Grabitz already sound out the field of possible candidates.
If you enjoy Europe.Table, please feel free to forward this briefing. If this mail was sent to you: Here you can test our briefings for free.
For days, a fierce media dispute has been raging about the European Buildings Directive. “The whole approach is nuts,” FDP MEP Andreas Glück scolded in advance in the German newspaper “Bild“. Today, Parliament votes on its position for the trilogue, where there are 67 amendments to the compromise proposal – many of which came from German MEPs.
In a final plenary debate on Monday night, some parliamentarians took the same line, albeit with more sophisticated words. Angelika Niebler (CSU) said in Strasbourg that the Buildings Directive, as it is to be voted on, is on the wrong track and complained about “forced renovations and bans“. But what is the amendment to the Buildings Directive (EPBD) actually about? An overview:
The Buildings Directive does not prescribe in detail the phase-out of oil and gas heating systems, which is controversial within the German government. However, the amendment to Article 11 creates the basis in European law for national regulations. “Member states may lay down requirements relating to greenhouse gas emissions or the type of fuel used by heat generators, provided that such requirements do not constitute an unjustified market barrier,” the Commission draft states.
Previously, there had been legal uncertainty as to whether such bans were covered by the Ecodesign Directive and the internal market provisions in the European treaties.
According to the compromise draft (Table.Media reported), Parliament even wants to oblige the member states to enact bans on fossil-fuel heating systems. However, it would still be up to the national governments to decide on the details. Parliament has explicitly included the principle of technology neutrality.
The “ideological enforced refurbishment” through the Buildings Directive is an “attack on rural areas“, raged the CDU MEP Markus Pieper in the “Bild” newspaper. At the individual level, renovation obligations have existed in Germany for decades – namely, when major repairs are carried out anyway. What’s new about the EU amendment is mandatory minimum energy performance standards (MEPS), i.e. the energy consumption of buildings. Member states were already required to set such MEPS before, but because they dawdled, the directive is now to lay down concrete targets.
The average of residential buildings forms the efficiency class E – however, according to the consumer advice center, unrenovated single-family houses are typically in the most inefficient classes G or H and consume up to eight times as much energy as economical new buildings in class A. According to Parliament’s compromise draft, all existing buildings are to be renovated to standard E by 2030 and D by 2033. By 2050, however, the building stock in the EU would also have to be climate-neutral.
Binding renovation targets would give the construction industry a reliable framework for creating the necessary training and manufacturing capacities, argued the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) on Monday. MEP Jutta Paulus (Greens) points to the flexibility of EU states in implementing the directive: In France, for example, refurbishment obligations would only take effect upon sale or rental.
According to energy consultants, it doesn’t take a complete renovation to bring a residential building up to efficiency standard D. “One or two renovation measures are usually enough,” says Mark Steiger, board member of GIH Baden-Württemberg. For example, insulating the roof and windows or exterior walls and windows, or switching to renewable heat and photovoltaics.
The DIW even sees the approach of the Buildings Directive, which does not immediately require complete renovation to zero-emission buildings, as a possible burden for homeowners in the long term: “This harbors the risk that two energy renovations will be required on the way to climate neutrality, which is associated with additional costs.” Subsidies should, therefore, only be granted for measures that result in a comprehensive energy renovation.
An additional €275 billion should flow into the renovation of buildings across the EU every year. That’s what the Commission calculated in 2020 for its communication on the renovation wave. At that time, €150 billion in subsidies had already been made available from EU funds, says Jutta Paulus (Greens). In the impact assessment for the directive, the Commission had also called for state support to be concentrated on the most inefficient buildings and low-income households – an approach now also being pursued by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs.
The Commission sees one strategy for lower capital costs in the directive’s obligations to make data available on the energy status of the building stock. This will make it easier for banks to provide loans for renovations.
The EU states had already decided their position on the Buildings Directive last October. The majority wants to prevent obligations for individual residential buildings. Instead, there should be mandatory minimum energy performance requirements from 2033 only for the average of the existing building stock. The member states also want to keep open the option of excluding single-family homes from the calculation. In this case, individual renovation obligations would only apply to sales or new leases.
On the phase-out of oil and gas heating, the Council also does not want a hard obligation and instead wants to follow the Commission’s mild draft.
The German government supported the Commission’s stricter proposals in the Council. “Lowering the minimum energy performance targets cannot be the right response to the current geopolitical crisis and the objectives of the European Green Deal”, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands wrote to the other member states in September 2022.
The federal government also supported the ban on oil and gas heating systems, saying, “We also support regulations to replace fossil fuel heat generators in existing buildings with sustainable alternatives when they need to be upgraded or replaced”.
However, Germany was willing to compromise. The signatories wanted to accept the restriction of the minimum targets to the average of the stock if the EU states can demonstrate target achievement in 2030 and 2040 according to objective criteria.
What was Manfred Weber aiming at when he brought up EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola as a possible top candidate for the Christian Democrats at the end of January? If the EPP party and parliamentary group leader wanted to use the move to deny Ursula von der Leyen the chance to run for a second term, he missed the mark.
Weber no longer mentions Metsola’s name ever since CDU party leader Friedrich Merz called him off in the federal executive committee and signaled his full support for von der Leyen. Even Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, whom Weber considers a close ally, made it clear how absurd he thought the maneuver was.
The first real power struggle in the run-up to the 2024 European elections thus seems to have been decided. Von der Leyen will be the EPP’s candidate – if she wants to be. There are many indications that she will, but the 64-year-old has apparently not yet made up her mind. If she were to run for the European Parliament, she would presumably declare this in the Lower Saxony state association by the summer break.
The EPP would thus drive a first stake. A lot can still happen between now and the election, which is expected to take place at the end of May 2024. But representatives of the other party families concede: There would be few ways past von der Leyen.
In the circle of heads of state and government, she is valued as an energetic leader in times of crisis, and not just among conservative representatives. Emmanuel Macron has already elevated von der Leyen to office in 2019, and he should see little reason to withdraw his support from her. As SPD Vice Chancellor, Olaf Scholz had persuaded Angela Merkel to abstain from voting for von der Leyen in the Council. In the meantime, however, the former cabinet colleagues have a good working relationship, as demonstrated by the Commission President’s invitation to the cabinet retreat in Meseberg.
For the European Parliament, on the other hand, von der Leyen’s election would have the attraction of consolidating the battered top candidate principle. In 2019, the Social Democrats refused to support the winner, Manfred Weber, on the evening of the election, triggering a power struggle that lasted for weeks and at the end of which the Council pulled von der Leyen out of its hat.
In the CDU, however, it is also considered possible that von der Leyen would like to be the top candidate but not seek a seat in the European Parliament. “It would be crucial that 400 million eligible voters in Europe know that von der Leyen is the Christian Democrats’ top candidate,” says a senior European politician. It is not so important whether her name also appears on the ballots of six million eligible voters in Lower Saxony. Especially since the politician would have to give up her mandate immediately if she did not want to resign from her post as Commission President: The election is in May, and the regular term as Commission President runs until December 2024.
On paper at least, most party families support the leading candidate principle, which is supposed to help mobilize voters. At the congress in October, for example, the European Social Democrats decided to “run an election campaign with a common top candidate”. The traffic light coalition parties in Berlin also pledged in their coalition agreement to support a “binding top candidate system”. The parliamentary groups of the SPD, Greens and FDP want to reaffirm this in a statement. They are currently trying to get the CDU and CSU on board.
The Liberals, the third force in the European Parliament, seem to be following the course of the other party families. In 2019, they were still running with a seven-member top team, the reason being that without cross-border election lists there would be no real top candidates.
There are unlikely to be any transnational lists in 2024. However, Stéphane Séjourné, head of the Renew Group in the European Parliament, hinted that he might want to put individual personalities in the race: “I will propose to my political family that they also put forward a candidate for election,” he said during a visit to Madrid. In addition, the Liberals should also nominate potential candidates for the top posts in the European Parliament and the Council. Christian Democrats and Social Democrats would have to “understand that they no longer have a majority”.
In fact, a broad alliance could be needed to gather the necessary votes after the election – which in turn could be explosive. For the traffic light parties, it is clear that the president of the Commission will be whoever can unite the majority. This does not necessarily have to be the candidate of the strongest party – according to today’s polls, probably the EPP again. The head of the SPD MEPs, Jens Geier, therefore warns: “We should be prepared for the day after the election so that the European Parliament does not allow itself to be divided again on the question of the top candidate”.
In the party families, the search for suitable top personnel for the election has long since begun. In the case of the Social Democrats, the new party leader Stefan Löfven from Sweden has been tasked with finding a suitable candidate in the course of the year. The candidate is then to be confirmed at a party congress in January 2024.
While SPD leader Saskia Esken has already proposed Katarina Barley for first place on the German list, the field is still open at the EU level. Barley is also occasionally traded as a top candidate, but would be out of the race if the EPP sent another German politician into the race with von der Leyen.
Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, the top candidate in 2019, is probably leaning more toward The Hague, according to reports in Brussels. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Pérez is said to have ambitions. However, more than a few doubt whether she would have the caliber to head the Commission.
The government experience that García Pérez lacks would be provided by two other personalities traded in Brussels and Strasbourg: Sanna Marin and António Costa. Finnish Prime Minister Marin, known throughout Europe since the debate over her party videos, must stand for election on April 2 – the polls point to a close race. If she loses her office, she might be available for the European elections.
Portuguese head of government Costa has signaled interest in a top European job, albeit more likely that of Council president. Given his government’s declining popularity, however, the Socialist is under pressure to stay in Lisbon until the end of his term in 2026.
There are still no clear favorites among the Liberals. In the FDP, Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager continues to enjoy sympathy, but the Dane’s shining star has descended somewhat in her second term. French Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton hardly conceals his ambitions, but his interventionist policies offend the market liberal camp. There are also doubts among Renaissance deputies about the 68-year-old’s suitability.
Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, on the other hand, is said to be interested in the office of Council President in his home country. The 50-year-old faces a parliamentary election in October. At a “Leaders Summit” on June 29, the liberal heads of state and government, party leaders and MEPs want to discuss the lineup for the European elections.
In the Green Party, the co-chairwoman of the parliamentary group Terry Reintke is considered to have the best prospects for the top female role. It remains to be seen who could be her male counterpart – both across Europe and in Germany. Four deputies have expressed interest in the German top position, Rasmus Andresen, Michael Bloss, Sergey Lagodinsky and Daniel Freund. Lagodinsky is considered the slight favorite.
However, the top candidates would not have the best prospects for the German commissioner post, as is emphasized in party circles. The Greens have secured the right to propose candidates in the coalition negotiations, and the main candidates are government members from Berlin – Franziska Brantner, Sven Giegold and Cem Özdemir, for example. However, Ursula von der Leyen could throw a spanner in the works: The Greens may only send the next commissioner, according to the coalition agreement, “if the commission president is not from Germany”. With Markus Grabitz
Council and Parliament will soon be ready for the Data Act trilogue. Today, Tuesday, in Strasbourg, the Parliament will already vote on the draft of the rapporteur Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP) from the Industry Committee (ITRE). But the member states are probably also close to an agreement in the Council’s Telecommunications Working Group. Observers, however, expect the working group to discuss the issue of trade secrets once again. Germany, at any rate, still sees room for improvement.
Last week, Sweden submitted a sixth compromise paper, which has been made available to Table.Media. The idea is to formally confirm the compromise at the working level in the Council and then prepare it for discussion at the Permanent Representative (Coreper) level, scheduled for March 22. It is expected that the representatives of the member states will agree on a negotiating mandate that will allow the Swedish Presidency to enter into the trilogue with Parliament and the Commission.
If everything goes as planned, the trilogue could start as early as March 28. This is the date Sweden has given for a possible first meeting. Rapporteur del Castillo hopes to be able to conclude the interinstitutional negotiations during the Swedish Council Presidency, i.e. before June 30.
Whether Germany will support the compromise in the Council will probably only be decided in view of the mandate in Coreper. Germany would like to see changes above all – but not only – in the wording on trade secrets and the right of access to data by authorities outside of public emergencies.
Industry is not yet happy on this point either, even if the Council’s sixth compromise had brought improvements. For example, Chapter II now states that the data owner can refuse access to data if there is a “high probability of serious harm” resulting from the disclosure of trade secrets. The data owner must demonstrate this accordingly. The restriction “unlawful use of intellectual property” has been deleted.
“On the positive side, previous ambiguities in the area of conflict between data access and trade secrets have now been defined more precisely,” says Dirk Binding, head of the Digital Economy division at the DIHK. For example, with regard to the specific cases in which manufacturers can refuse to hand over data. The decisive factor now is that the Parliament and Council in the trilogue keep the actual goals of the law – more data use and innovation in Europe – in mind. “To achieve this, it is necessary to significantly reduce the complexity created in many places. Because only then can the law be successfully applied in practice,” Binding said. This also means dispensing with additional regulations that increase liability risks.
The question is whether the wording “high probability” and “serious harm” will actually provide more clarity and thus legal certainty for companies that want to share or use data in the future. In any case, Parliamentarian Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA), the only German shadow rapporteur on the ITRE Committee, fears that the Data Act, as proposed by the Council, will prevent rather than spur data sharing. “Instead of breaking down barriers to data sharing, the Data Act chisels in stone a kind of data ownership for manufacturers that applies even after the product has been sold,” Boeselager criticizes.
Boeselager complains that the negotiations have become a lobbying battle. “Unfortunately, in the debate about the Data Act, almost only one voice was heard in Parliament, the Council and the Commission: that of the large manufacturers, especially those of airplanes, trains and cars,” he states. The arithmetically much larger number of users or owners of networked products, on the other hand, did not speak with one voice. In particular, companies that would only develop business models based on data in the future would naturally have no representation at all.
Boeselager sees one strength of the parliamentary draft for the Data Act as being that users and not just manufacturers can decide independently about sharing or marketing the data from their products. A weakness, he says, is that data holders also have many options here to prevent the sharing of data. Unfortunately, large international manufacturers also exerted their influence during the negotiations in Parliament, Boeselager says. As a result, users or owners of the data lack legal certainty, which hinders data sharing.
In any case, parliamentarians are bracing themselves for intense negotiations in the trilogue – and the Swedes have an ambitious timetable. “I have nothing against speed, but it must then also fit,” Boeselager said. If the parliament was not heard first in the negotiations, “it could also take longer,” Boeselager said. “But basically, in data regulation, I often had the feeling that working together can actually improve texts“.
When it comes to EU climate and environmental policy, Sweden is considered a progressive force. In the past, the country has repeatedly urged EU member states to be more ambitious in climate protection and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, when it comes to its own forestry industry, which is harmful to nature and the climate, Sweden’s ambitions for climate and environmental protection quickly fade into the background. This is currently very clear from Sweden’s position on the amendment to the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). In addition to the faster expansion of renewable energies, this also includes regulations for the use of biomass.
So far, the EU subsidizes when forest wood is used as a supposed renewable energy source for power generation. Forests as important carbon reservoirs are thus cleared for burning in power plants. Members of the European Parliament now want to change that. They propose to exclude wood biomass from renewable energy support in order to restore European forests as valuable carbon sinks.
However, the Swedish Council Presidency consistently ignores these proposals. Instead, the country is relying on business as usual and making proposals that sound like something from the forestry industry’s list of demands. Ambitious steps in the direction of climate and nature protection are long overdue in the amendment of the RED. The exemption of wood combustion from the CO2 tax in emissions trading and the RED subsidies make it profitable to burn millions of trees in power plants.
Scientists have long warned that cutting and burning forests harms both biodiversity and climate. Wood burning emits even more CO2 per unit of energy than coal, while increased logging ensures that forests can bind even less CO2 from the air. But it’s not just scientists and associations that are sounding the alarm – the wood-processing industries, which compete with the biomass industry for wood as a valuable material, are also calling for an end to subsidies.
Despite these warnings, relevant decision makers failed to limit wood burning in the last revision of the RED. Instead, sustainability criteria for forest biomass were included, which do almost nothing to protect forests and the climate.
The consequences are now becoming clear: More than half of the wood harvested in the EU is burned for energy production. Since 2018, several member states have effectively lost their forest CO2 sinks, in part due to excessive logging. Among them are Estonia, Latvia, and Finland. Their forests are now sources of climate-damaging CO2. Germany’s forest sink is also increasingly being reduced.
Sweden is also experiencing an alarming decline in the carbon uptake of its forests. Yet the country is trying to impose its industrial forestry model on the rest of the EU. As long as burning trees is considered a renewable energy source, however, EU member states have little incentive to invest in actual low-carbon technologies.
EU policymakers must not give in to pressure from the Swedish Council Presidency now. As Minister for Climate Action, Robert Habeck must lobby the EU Council to limit and phase out incentives for burning wood so that they do not undermine the EU’s climate and biodiversity goals. EU citizens want and deserve a future with clean energy that protects the climate, forests and health – the Swedish EU Presidency has a responsibility to ensure this.
