Spain and France have been complaining for some time now, but now the energy price crisis is also hitting Germany with force. Many industrial companies are suffering, and millions of households are receiving mail from their power and gas suppliers: prices are rising drastically. Those who moved into a new home or have their contract canceled by their supplier now even have to fear that they will have to pay double or triple. German Federal Minister of Finance is now considering to aid those who have been hit particularly hard. At the EU level, the German government has so far staunchly refused to intervene in the power markets. I’m curious to see how long this will hold true when the discussion back home are beginning to heat up. You’ll find more on this in our news section.
The debate about the EU Commission’s plan to classify nuclear energy and nuclear power as sustainable, at least for the time being, has been heated. In today’s interview, Luxembourg’s Minister of Environment Carole Dieschbourg spoke with Charlotte Wirth and explains why she considers the draft taxonomy to be a “clumsy attempt at greenwashing”. And she announces: Luxembourg will join a lawsuit by Austria if the taxonomy is adopted in this form.
The unbelievable events in Poland have received little attention in Germany: In the neighboring country, opposition politicians and a prosecutor were spied on with the help of Pegasus spy software. Who is behind it? Just imagine if spy software previously procured by the German government was found on the cell phones of CDU or Left Party members of parliament. The worst thing is that the PiS government could be behind it. And what is the EU Commission doing? Falk Steiner reports on the current state of affairs.
Undine Ruge will have considerable influence on how the German government deals with this and other problems: the former deputy to Uwe Corsepius is moving up to head the European Department in the Federal Chancellery, we have learned. She will report to Joerg Kukies, for whom Chancellor Olaf Scholz has created the new post of State Secretary for Economic Affairs, Finance, and Europe. In view of Kukies’s many responsibilities, the civil servant is likely to be given some room for maneuver.
As I already announced before Christmas: We are expanding our range of topics. So far, Europe.Table has mainly informed you about Green Deal projects and EU digital policy. In 2022, we will also be focusing on European health policy. For a long time, this policy field was a purely national matter, but that is no longer true. In this issue, Eugenie Ankowitsch gives you an overview of which health policy initiatives are coming up in the coming months.
Ms. Dieschbourg, the taxonomy draft shortly before midnight on December 31 was certainly not a pleasant gift.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. The Commission did not send a good signal when it launched the taxonomy procedure on New Year’s Eve. Yes, Ms. von der Leyen promised that she wanted to deliver by the end of the year, and of course, we prepared for that. But the timing was not clear until the very end.
Its content certainly wasn’t pleasant either: You have fought hard to ensure that at least nuclear power is not included in the taxonomy.
No, and I think it’s democratically problematic when nuclear and gas is bundled. This is a purely power-political decision by the Commission, which is only concerned with gaining the necessary majority. For us, it is clear: nuclear power is not a solution to fight climate change. The development of new technologies alone is far too slow. Just look at the Flamanville reactor in France. It was supposed to be online by 2012. Now it is expected to be in 2023. Meanwhile, the costs have exploded. Nuclear energy is an incredibly expensive power source, and those countries that opt for nuclear power are not just concerned with power policy. There are also geopolitical considerations at play.
So will Luxembourg join an Austrian lawsuit?
The draft legislation cannot be legally challenged until the Commission adopts the text. Until then, we will analyze the draft point by point. The question is whether a delegated act is the right instrument. After all, the draft deals with substantive issues. There are also some questions about the content that needs to be reviewed from a legal point of view. Politically, however, we are already saying quite clearly that this taxonomy is a no-go. The entire Luxembourg government is on the same page on this.
There is not much time left. The Commission plans to formally adopt the paper this month.
There are a few elements that we still need to examine. On the one hand, the precautionary principle, and on the other, the question of whether nuclear power can make any contribution at all to fight climate change, precisely because it is too expensive and too slow. In this sense, nuclear power is also not a “transitional solution,” as the legal act states. This is a very clumsy approach on the part of the Commission to greenwashing via the taxonomy. In the legal action, for example, the Commission sets high standards with regard to waste but ignores the fact that the problem of storage and disposal of radioactive waste has been unsolved for decades. You have an ecotoxicity over hundreds of thousands of years. Such a thing is absolutely not in line with the principle of Do No Significant Harm.
Gas is no different. It is fossil energy that is ultimately unsustainable.
Exactly. That’s where the Commission is now trying to work with stricter standards from 2030. That, too, is far too late. For us, neither nuclear nor gas is green. We have just come from a world climate conference where we committed to delivering solutions in the next ten years. The taxonomy proposal does not fit with that intent. The purpose of this instrument is to provide a detailed breakdown of which investments can be classified as climate-friendly. Including fossil fuels and nuclear power makes the entire instrument pointless.
Is there a risk that investments will then flow into nuclear and gas instead of renewable energies?
The lobbies, at any rate, will be delighted. After all, important financial injections are at stake. In this respect, classifying nuclear power as “green” is tragic. Here, funds are being blocked that we urgently need to combat climate change and expand renewable energies. Actually, the EU wanted to be a pioneer here and set an example of which investments are truly sustainable. In that sense, the taxonomy also has implications for other economies. We want to set an example in terms of climate policy and are presenting a taxonomy that is absolutely inconclusive.
But then the question arises why a possible lawsuit is limited only to nuclear power? Shouldn’t a lawsuit filed against both? Luxembourg’s Minister of Energy Claude Turmes recently said in an interview that it was a “provocation” that gas and nuclear were bundled. But the fundamental problem of sustainability arises just as much with gas.
Yes, but with different arguments in each case. Dealing with both together is, as I said, a power play by the Commission to achieve the necessary majority. After all, it is clear that a number of EU states would oppose nuclear if gas were not also at issue. By the way, the technical expert group on sustainable finance originally did not want to classify either gas or nuclear as green. The Commission’s draft is the result of political lobbying, for example by France. We have to counter this politically and show that there are voices in Europe that say quite clearly: “This instrument will be perverted if fossil energies and nuclear power are incorporated”.
… So even gas?
Austria and Luxembourg have always criticized both. Other countries cannot position themselves so openly and clearly because of domestic political decisions. That’s exactly why I’m talking about a democratic deficit: the Commission should have separated the technologies. But there are still qualitative differences between gas and nuclear, for example in terms of the severity of the effects, aftercare, and environmental impact. Nuclear waste will be with us for centuries to come.
Did you hope that Germany would join the lawsuit? It’s no secret that it won’t because of its gas policy. Won’t that mean losing a strong partner?
We are not at the end yet. On January 12th, the experts will give their opinion and there are still a few stages to come.
You have already mentioned that. The Commission surely has a certain ulterior motive when it bundles gas and nuclear power. The lack of clarity in the content, such as references to outdated legal texts, also gives the impression that the intention is to push this through now. Who is putting the pressure on, von der Leyen or Breton?
(laughs) I can’t really comment on the Commission internals. However, there was pressure from the political side, from the very beginning, through all channels. The result is that the Commission is now presenting this legal act. That’s why we have to take a clear position now. It is not only Luxembourg and Austria that are outraged by this text. But a delegated act is very difficult to overturn. The Commission knows that very well.
What is surprising about the content of the delegated act is that standards are set for technologies that are not even on the market yet. There is talk of accident-tolerant fuel or deep geological disposal. However, these do not yet exist anywhere in the world. What is your take on this?
This is precisely what our lawyers are currently analyzing. Can such norms and standards be laid down in a delegated act? Also, on the one hand, nuclear power is classified here as a transitional solution, but on the other hand, technologies are mentioned that do not exist and for which there is still no legal basis at all. This is a clumsy attempt at greenwashing, which also serves to gloss over the waste problem. If you want better standards, there are more suitable instruments than taxonomy. The solutions are simply not there yet, and we have been researching them for decades.
The Commission repeatedly emphasizes that the taxonomy is merely a tool to create transparency for investments. It is not about power policy. Do they see it the same way?
No. For me, it’s clearly about power policy. Yes, it is a transparency tool. But if gas and nuclear are classified as “green,” you give a clear signal to all funds, banks, and the private sector that you can calmly invest in these technologies. And if you give that signal, how are we going to justify excluding those technologies from other decisions? After all, this is about coherence. The taxonomy shapes every other discussion around the design of the energy transition – about funds, about European money, at the national and international level, and ultimately about how public money is invested.
As you have already said, it is difficult to overturn a delegated act. A reverse qualified majority is needed in the Council and a simple majority in the Parliament. Would you have hoped that there would be more consensus, at least among the European Greens? In Scandinavian countries, in particular, the Greens have no problems with nuclear power.
When you are in alliances, you have certain limitations. In Luxembourg, at least on this issue, we have the fortunate case that we have a broad political majority against nuclear power. In other countries, it’s different. Depending on which coalitions you are in, it is more difficult to take a position. Accordingly, some may be more critical of gas, others of nuclear power. But we try to coordinate as best we can.
The spyware Pegasus by controversial Israeli provider NSO Group is causing more and more allegations of abuse of power among EU states. Three cases in Poland, in particular, are currently raising many questions for its government.
The suspicion: Polish authorities may have used the powerful spyware illegally against undesirable actors. Watergate on the Vistula? Representatives of the Polish government have so far denied any unlawful use of the Israeli software. However, its controversial manufacturer, the NSO Group, recently removed Poland and Hungary from the list of countries whose intelligence and investigative agencies would be permitted as customers.
The opposition in the Polish Sejm wants to call for an investigation committee to clarify what happened. Since Gazeta Wyborcza was able to report that invoices proved that the Ministry of Justice had purchased Pegasus with a budget that was actually earmarked for victims of violence, the government’s use of the software can hardly be denied. For the time being, however, it remains to be seen whether the government is also responsible for the three cases and whether the use of the software was unlawful.
The prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek had published the suspicion herself on Twitter after a warning by Apple at the end of November and asked Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro for explanations. Wrzosek is well-known in Poland: She has been fighting for the independence of the prosecutor’s office for years and does not shy away from conflict with the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party. On several occasions, she has been seconded from her office to remote places of activity, and several disciplinary actions have been initiated against her. Wrzosek is one of the active members of the organization Lex Super Omnia, which aims to ensure the independence of the department of public prosecution.
The second person allegedly affected is a long-time politician and currently a lawyer: Roman Giertych. Earlier in the homophobic League of Polish Families, he was even Minister of Education for a time under PiS Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński. But Giertych also defended Donald Tusk as a lawyer and is in constant dispute with representatives of the PiS government. Most recently, in 2020, he was the subject of an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which was declared insubstantial in court and is mentioned in the EU Commission’s Rule of Law Report. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has particularly far-reaching rights in this regard and may even use intelligence resources.
Krzysztof Brejza, a member of the Polish Senate since 2019, is the third person allegedly affected. Previously, he was also a member of parliament, the Sejm, and campaign manager for Civic Platform leader Tusk. During this time, Pegasus was allegedly active on his phone.
Three opponents of the PiS government, all three hacked with the same software, software made available exclusively to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is hard to believe that this is a coincidence. But was it a planned action by the government in Warsaw? Or were over-motivated supporters in authorities operating?
These questions cannot yet be answered. But after some PiS representatives dismissed the accusations as nonsense at Christmas, there are now indications that this debate will further inflame Poland. This is not least because prosecutors, lawyers, and members of parliament are also subject to special protection in the country’s eastern neighbor, and the political dispute is being fought out in a way that is hardly imaginable in other European countries. But the EU is leaving the investigation to the member state for the time being.
In response to a request from Europe.Table, the EU Commission is calling for a domestic investigation into the allegations: “Any attempt by national security agencies to illegally access data of citizens, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable.” Member states must supervise and monitor their intelligence services to ensure that they treat fundamental rights with full respect. This includes the protection of personal data, the commission said. The Commission expects national agencies to investigate such incidents. Internal security, however, is the responsibility of member states.
For Sophie in ‘t Veld, European MEP, the reference to the authority of member states is unacceptable: The Commission, like the Council, is shirking its responsibility, said the Dutch MEP (D66/Renew). The Commission has an obligation to enforce treaties, but prefers to hide behind legal arguments, she said. “Democracy and the rule of law are broken in Poland and Hungary, Article 2 of the EU Treaty is being trampled on.”
The Commission must act, for example by means of the rule of law conditionality mechanism, in ‘t Veld said. The Council also has sufficient options with Article 7 of the EU Treaty, she added. She sees the reaction of the EU institutions as part of a dramatic development: “This continued apathy of the Council and the Commission is fostering corrupt would-be autocrats in Europe who are holding the rest of the continent hostage.”
In her first State of the Union address, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that she wanted to create a “stronger European health union“. Last year, things began to take form. The focus was on crisis prevention and response, especially the revision and expansion of the mandates of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Both regulations still need to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council, but this is merely a formality as a political agreement has already been reached. The situation is different for many other projects that are likely to generate plenty of discussion in the new year.
Here’s what it’s all about:
On September 16th, 2021, the Commission established the European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Agency (HERA). It is to ensure the “development, production and distribution of medicines, vaccines and other medical countermeasures” in the event of a crisis. Outside of times of crisis, for example, it is to analyze hazards, develop countermeasures, eliminate bottlenecks in supply chains, and increase stockpiling capacities.
As a legal basis for HERA’s work, the Commission presented a regulation on the emergency framework for medical countermeasures. This caused a dispute between the Commission and the Council at the end of 2021. While all member states generally supported the founding of the authority, they demanded an extensive say in HERA’s decisions. At the end of December, the EU member states agreed on a common line.
Next steps:
Based on the political agreement in December, the final draft is expected to be adopted by the Council in the first months of 2022. However, this will only take place after the conclusion of the negotiation on the EU regulation on serious cross-border health threats.
What its about:
The Commission wants to strengthen the EU’s ability to respond more effectively to cross-border health threats. The current legal basis (the decision on serious cross-border health threats) will be replaced by the proposed regulation, which the Commission presented on November 11th, 2020. The objectives:
Next steps:
Following an initial trilogue in November and two technical trilogue negotiations in December, negotiations are to continue in the coming weeks. The aim is to reach an agreement before the end of the first quarter.
What its about:
A European Health Data Space is intended to ensure efficient exchange and direct access to different health data across Europe. This includes, for example, electronic patient records, genomics data, and information from patient registries, not only in healthcare itself (primary use), but also in health research and health policy (secondary use). The data space is to be based on three pillars:
The Commission intends to present a corresponding regulatory proposal at the beginning of Q2 2022.
The French Council Presidency then wants to pick up the ball. The program states that a balance must be struck between improving the interoperability of European healthcare systems and ensuring a high level of protection for sensitive healthcare data.
“The Health Data Space has to walk a particularly difficult tightrope,” emphasizes MEP Tiemo Woelken. On the one hand, there is huge potential in sharing health data for research, prevention and combating diseases. On the other hand, health data is often highly sensitive, personal data that requires special protection.
In the context of the European Health Data Space, the Data Governance Act and the Data Act, among others, become important. While the Data Governance Act is intended to regulate data exchanges, the Data Act is aimed at lawful access and use of data. The Data Act bill was last scheduled for December 1, 2021, but fell through at the Regulatory Oversight Committee due to many outstanding issues (Europe.Table reported). The next attempt is scheduled for Febuary 23rd, 2022. The Data Governance Act now only lacks formal approval from the Council of Member States and the EU Parliament.
Next steps:
The EU Commission plans to present a proposal for a regulation to create the Health Data Space on April 5th, 2022. In the run-up to this, according to the program of the French Council Presidency, a ministerial conference on citizenship, ethics, and health data will be held on February 2nd, 2022.
What its about:
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have long been used in healthcare, and their importance is expected to grow in the coming years. In April 2021, the Commission presented a proposal to regulate and promote AI at the European level. The proposal will also have far-reaching consequences for the healthcare sector.
The Commission is pursuing a risk-based approach: Different requirements are to apply depending on the potential risk posed by AI to health, safety, and fundamental rights, for example.
AI systems that are simultaneously a product within the meaning of the Medical Devices Regulation and in vitro diagnostics are considered high risk. This means that a large proportion of AI applications in healthcare are likely to be considered high-risk AI systems, which means they will have to meet strict requirements, including undergoing a conformity assessment procedure, for example. This will test data quality, documentation, transparency, and traceability, human oversight, robustness, accuracy, and safety.
Next steps:
Although the EU Commission presented the preliminary draft in April 2021, the Council is only at the beginning of the negotiations. The Parliament has also only named rapporteurs for the time being. In its program, the French Council Presidency announced that it would make the development of “trustworthy artificial intelligence at the service of people” one of its priorities, but without naming any specific timeframes. It simply states that the review of the regulation will continue in order to “create a balanced legal framework that ensures increased innovation momentum and, at the same time, adequate protection of fundamental rights.”
Like digitization, global trade is a process that is always in flux. This is precisely why there are many overlapping dimensions between the two factors, says Bernd Lange. He has been Chairman of the Committee on International Trade in the European Parliament since 2014 and is also a rapporteur for trade relations between the EU and the USA.
He first sat for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament from 1994 to 2004 and has done so again since 2009. He has been in the SPD since 1974, originally joining to save a youth center in his college town of Göttingen, where he studied political science and Protestant theology from 1974 to 1981.
According to Lange, there are three main aspects to the interplay between digitization and international trade. The first is the free movement of data. The second aspect is transparency and the simplification of supply chains and their structures. Distributed ledger technologies such as blockchain and the use of artificial intelligence will provide technical support for this transparency. The third aspect is the security and confidentiality of trade relationships.
That trade will change is very likely, he says. “In the future, there will be more and more trade in data and intellectual property, but also in services,” predicts Lange. The relevance of trade will increase rather than decrease. After all, it already accounts for a third of the EU’s value-added, making it one of its most important economic factors. This is why concrete legislative projects such as a European supply chain law that can guarantee fair trade are important.
Rules are also needed regarding the aspect of digital sovereignty, says Lange. For example, data agreements that must exist for every bilateral trade agreement. The EU-US Privacy Shield agreement, which came into force in 2016 as the successor to Safe Harbor and was declared insufficient by the European Court of Justice in 2020, just as Safe Harbor was before it, is an exemplary case in point.
Whether the Social Democrats will play an important role in changing the concept of trade? Bernd Lange smiles as he assures, “The SPD is actively writing the trade chapter, and that was particularly evident in the coalition negotiations.” He sounds confident. And although his goals are very different today than they were in 1974, you can still recognize in his optimism the young man who was able to save a youth center. Anouk Schlung
Spain and France have been complaining for some time now, but now the energy price crisis is also hitting Germany with force. Many industrial companies are suffering, and millions of households are receiving mail from their power and gas suppliers: prices are rising drastically. Those who moved into a new home or have their contract canceled by their supplier now even have to fear that they will have to pay double or triple. German Federal Minister of Finance is now considering to aid those who have been hit particularly hard. At the EU level, the German government has so far staunchly refused to intervene in the power markets. I’m curious to see how long this will hold true when the discussion back home are beginning to heat up. You’ll find more on this in our news section.
The debate about the EU Commission’s plan to classify nuclear energy and nuclear power as sustainable, at least for the time being, has been heated. In today’s interview, Luxembourg’s Minister of Environment Carole Dieschbourg spoke with Charlotte Wirth and explains why she considers the draft taxonomy to be a “clumsy attempt at greenwashing”. And she announces: Luxembourg will join a lawsuit by Austria if the taxonomy is adopted in this form.
The unbelievable events in Poland have received little attention in Germany: In the neighboring country, opposition politicians and a prosecutor were spied on with the help of Pegasus spy software. Who is behind it? Just imagine if spy software previously procured by the German government was found on the cell phones of CDU or Left Party members of parliament. The worst thing is that the PiS government could be behind it. And what is the EU Commission doing? Falk Steiner reports on the current state of affairs.
Undine Ruge will have considerable influence on how the German government deals with this and other problems: the former deputy to Uwe Corsepius is moving up to head the European Department in the Federal Chancellery, we have learned. She will report to Joerg Kukies, for whom Chancellor Olaf Scholz has created the new post of State Secretary for Economic Affairs, Finance, and Europe. In view of Kukies’s many responsibilities, the civil servant is likely to be given some room for maneuver.
As I already announced before Christmas: We are expanding our range of topics. So far, Europe.Table has mainly informed you about Green Deal projects and EU digital policy. In 2022, we will also be focusing on European health policy. For a long time, this policy field was a purely national matter, but that is no longer true. In this issue, Eugenie Ankowitsch gives you an overview of which health policy initiatives are coming up in the coming months.
Ms. Dieschbourg, the taxonomy draft shortly before midnight on December 31 was certainly not a pleasant gift.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. The Commission did not send a good signal when it launched the taxonomy procedure on New Year’s Eve. Yes, Ms. von der Leyen promised that she wanted to deliver by the end of the year, and of course, we prepared for that. But the timing was not clear until the very end.
Its content certainly wasn’t pleasant either: You have fought hard to ensure that at least nuclear power is not included in the taxonomy.
No, and I think it’s democratically problematic when nuclear and gas is bundled. This is a purely power-political decision by the Commission, which is only concerned with gaining the necessary majority. For us, it is clear: nuclear power is not a solution to fight climate change. The development of new technologies alone is far too slow. Just look at the Flamanville reactor in France. It was supposed to be online by 2012. Now it is expected to be in 2023. Meanwhile, the costs have exploded. Nuclear energy is an incredibly expensive power source, and those countries that opt for nuclear power are not just concerned with power policy. There are also geopolitical considerations at play.
So will Luxembourg join an Austrian lawsuit?
The draft legislation cannot be legally challenged until the Commission adopts the text. Until then, we will analyze the draft point by point. The question is whether a delegated act is the right instrument. After all, the draft deals with substantive issues. There are also some questions about the content that needs to be reviewed from a legal point of view. Politically, however, we are already saying quite clearly that this taxonomy is a no-go. The entire Luxembourg government is on the same page on this.
There is not much time left. The Commission plans to formally adopt the paper this month.
There are a few elements that we still need to examine. On the one hand, the precautionary principle, and on the other, the question of whether nuclear power can make any contribution at all to fight climate change, precisely because it is too expensive and too slow. In this sense, nuclear power is also not a “transitional solution,” as the legal act states. This is a very clumsy approach on the part of the Commission to greenwashing via the taxonomy. In the legal action, for example, the Commission sets high standards with regard to waste but ignores the fact that the problem of storage and disposal of radioactive waste has been unsolved for decades. You have an ecotoxicity over hundreds of thousands of years. Such a thing is absolutely not in line with the principle of Do No Significant Harm.
Gas is no different. It is fossil energy that is ultimately unsustainable.
Exactly. That’s where the Commission is now trying to work with stricter standards from 2030. That, too, is far too late. For us, neither nuclear nor gas is green. We have just come from a world climate conference where we committed to delivering solutions in the next ten years. The taxonomy proposal does not fit with that intent. The purpose of this instrument is to provide a detailed breakdown of which investments can be classified as climate-friendly. Including fossil fuels and nuclear power makes the entire instrument pointless.
Is there a risk that investments will then flow into nuclear and gas instead of renewable energies?
The lobbies, at any rate, will be delighted. After all, important financial injections are at stake. In this respect, classifying nuclear power as “green” is tragic. Here, funds are being blocked that we urgently need to combat climate change and expand renewable energies. Actually, the EU wanted to be a pioneer here and set an example of which investments are truly sustainable. In that sense, the taxonomy also has implications for other economies. We want to set an example in terms of climate policy and are presenting a taxonomy that is absolutely inconclusive.
But then the question arises why a possible lawsuit is limited only to nuclear power? Shouldn’t a lawsuit filed against both? Luxembourg’s Minister of Energy Claude Turmes recently said in an interview that it was a “provocation” that gas and nuclear were bundled. But the fundamental problem of sustainability arises just as much with gas.
Yes, but with different arguments in each case. Dealing with both together is, as I said, a power play by the Commission to achieve the necessary majority. After all, it is clear that a number of EU states would oppose nuclear if gas were not also at issue. By the way, the technical expert group on sustainable finance originally did not want to classify either gas or nuclear as green. The Commission’s draft is the result of political lobbying, for example by France. We have to counter this politically and show that there are voices in Europe that say quite clearly: “This instrument will be perverted if fossil energies and nuclear power are incorporated”.
… So even gas?
Austria and Luxembourg have always criticized both. Other countries cannot position themselves so openly and clearly because of domestic political decisions. That’s exactly why I’m talking about a democratic deficit: the Commission should have separated the technologies. But there are still qualitative differences between gas and nuclear, for example in terms of the severity of the effects, aftercare, and environmental impact. Nuclear waste will be with us for centuries to come.
Did you hope that Germany would join the lawsuit? It’s no secret that it won’t because of its gas policy. Won’t that mean losing a strong partner?
We are not at the end yet. On January 12th, the experts will give their opinion and there are still a few stages to come.
You have already mentioned that. The Commission surely has a certain ulterior motive when it bundles gas and nuclear power. The lack of clarity in the content, such as references to outdated legal texts, also gives the impression that the intention is to push this through now. Who is putting the pressure on, von der Leyen or Breton?
(laughs) I can’t really comment on the Commission internals. However, there was pressure from the political side, from the very beginning, through all channels. The result is that the Commission is now presenting this legal act. That’s why we have to take a clear position now. It is not only Luxembourg and Austria that are outraged by this text. But a delegated act is very difficult to overturn. The Commission knows that very well.
What is surprising about the content of the delegated act is that standards are set for technologies that are not even on the market yet. There is talk of accident-tolerant fuel or deep geological disposal. However, these do not yet exist anywhere in the world. What is your take on this?
This is precisely what our lawyers are currently analyzing. Can such norms and standards be laid down in a delegated act? Also, on the one hand, nuclear power is classified here as a transitional solution, but on the other hand, technologies are mentioned that do not exist and for which there is still no legal basis at all. This is a clumsy attempt at greenwashing, which also serves to gloss over the waste problem. If you want better standards, there are more suitable instruments than taxonomy. The solutions are simply not there yet, and we have been researching them for decades.
The Commission repeatedly emphasizes that the taxonomy is merely a tool to create transparency for investments. It is not about power policy. Do they see it the same way?
No. For me, it’s clearly about power policy. Yes, it is a transparency tool. But if gas and nuclear are classified as “green,” you give a clear signal to all funds, banks, and the private sector that you can calmly invest in these technologies. And if you give that signal, how are we going to justify excluding those technologies from other decisions? After all, this is about coherence. The taxonomy shapes every other discussion around the design of the energy transition – about funds, about European money, at the national and international level, and ultimately about how public money is invested.
As you have already said, it is difficult to overturn a delegated act. A reverse qualified majority is needed in the Council and a simple majority in the Parliament. Would you have hoped that there would be more consensus, at least among the European Greens? In Scandinavian countries, in particular, the Greens have no problems with nuclear power.
When you are in alliances, you have certain limitations. In Luxembourg, at least on this issue, we have the fortunate case that we have a broad political majority against nuclear power. In other countries, it’s different. Depending on which coalitions you are in, it is more difficult to take a position. Accordingly, some may be more critical of gas, others of nuclear power. But we try to coordinate as best we can.
The spyware Pegasus by controversial Israeli provider NSO Group is causing more and more allegations of abuse of power among EU states. Three cases in Poland, in particular, are currently raising many questions for its government.
The suspicion: Polish authorities may have used the powerful spyware illegally against undesirable actors. Watergate on the Vistula? Representatives of the Polish government have so far denied any unlawful use of the Israeli software. However, its controversial manufacturer, the NSO Group, recently removed Poland and Hungary from the list of countries whose intelligence and investigative agencies would be permitted as customers.
The opposition in the Polish Sejm wants to call for an investigation committee to clarify what happened. Since Gazeta Wyborcza was able to report that invoices proved that the Ministry of Justice had purchased Pegasus with a budget that was actually earmarked for victims of violence, the government’s use of the software can hardly be denied. For the time being, however, it remains to be seen whether the government is also responsible for the three cases and whether the use of the software was unlawful.
The prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek had published the suspicion herself on Twitter after a warning by Apple at the end of November and asked Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro for explanations. Wrzosek is well-known in Poland: She has been fighting for the independence of the prosecutor’s office for years and does not shy away from conflict with the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party. On several occasions, she has been seconded from her office to remote places of activity, and several disciplinary actions have been initiated against her. Wrzosek is one of the active members of the organization Lex Super Omnia, which aims to ensure the independence of the department of public prosecution.
The second person allegedly affected is a long-time politician and currently a lawyer: Roman Giertych. Earlier in the homophobic League of Polish Families, he was even Minister of Education for a time under PiS Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński. But Giertych also defended Donald Tusk as a lawyer and is in constant dispute with representatives of the PiS government. Most recently, in 2020, he was the subject of an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which was declared insubstantial in court and is mentioned in the EU Commission’s Rule of Law Report. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office has particularly far-reaching rights in this regard and may even use intelligence resources.
Krzysztof Brejza, a member of the Polish Senate since 2019, is the third person allegedly affected. Previously, he was also a member of parliament, the Sejm, and campaign manager for Civic Platform leader Tusk. During this time, Pegasus was allegedly active on his phone.
Three opponents of the PiS government, all three hacked with the same software, software made available exclusively to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is hard to believe that this is a coincidence. But was it a planned action by the government in Warsaw? Or were over-motivated supporters in authorities operating?
These questions cannot yet be answered. But after some PiS representatives dismissed the accusations as nonsense at Christmas, there are now indications that this debate will further inflame Poland. This is not least because prosecutors, lawyers, and members of parliament are also subject to special protection in the country’s eastern neighbor, and the political dispute is being fought out in a way that is hardly imaginable in other European countries. But the EU is leaving the investigation to the member state for the time being.
In response to a request from Europe.Table, the EU Commission is calling for a domestic investigation into the allegations: “Any attempt by national security agencies to illegally access data of citizens, including journalists and political opponents, is unacceptable.” Member states must supervise and monitor their intelligence services to ensure that they treat fundamental rights with full respect. This includes the protection of personal data, the commission said. The Commission expects national agencies to investigate such incidents. Internal security, however, is the responsibility of member states.
For Sophie in ‘t Veld, European MEP, the reference to the authority of member states is unacceptable: The Commission, like the Council, is shirking its responsibility, said the Dutch MEP (D66/Renew). The Commission has an obligation to enforce treaties, but prefers to hide behind legal arguments, she said. “Democracy and the rule of law are broken in Poland and Hungary, Article 2 of the EU Treaty is being trampled on.”
The Commission must act, for example by means of the rule of law conditionality mechanism, in ‘t Veld said. The Council also has sufficient options with Article 7 of the EU Treaty, she added. She sees the reaction of the EU institutions as part of a dramatic development: “This continued apathy of the Council and the Commission is fostering corrupt would-be autocrats in Europe who are holding the rest of the continent hostage.”
In her first State of the Union address, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that she wanted to create a “stronger European health union“. Last year, things began to take form. The focus was on crisis prevention and response, especially the revision and expansion of the mandates of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Both regulations still need to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council, but this is merely a formality as a political agreement has already been reached. The situation is different for many other projects that are likely to generate plenty of discussion in the new year.
Here’s what it’s all about:
On September 16th, 2021, the Commission established the European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Agency (HERA). It is to ensure the “development, production and distribution of medicines, vaccines and other medical countermeasures” in the event of a crisis. Outside of times of crisis, for example, it is to analyze hazards, develop countermeasures, eliminate bottlenecks in supply chains, and increase stockpiling capacities.
As a legal basis for HERA’s work, the Commission presented a regulation on the emergency framework for medical countermeasures. This caused a dispute between the Commission and the Council at the end of 2021. While all member states generally supported the founding of the authority, they demanded an extensive say in HERA’s decisions. At the end of December, the EU member states agreed on a common line.
Next steps:
Based on the political agreement in December, the final draft is expected to be adopted by the Council in the first months of 2022. However, this will only take place after the conclusion of the negotiation on the EU regulation on serious cross-border health threats.
What its about:
The Commission wants to strengthen the EU’s ability to respond more effectively to cross-border health threats. The current legal basis (the decision on serious cross-border health threats) will be replaced by the proposed regulation, which the Commission presented on November 11th, 2020. The objectives:
Next steps:
Following an initial trilogue in November and two technical trilogue negotiations in December, negotiations are to continue in the coming weeks. The aim is to reach an agreement before the end of the first quarter.
What its about:
A European Health Data Space is intended to ensure efficient exchange and direct access to different health data across Europe. This includes, for example, electronic patient records, genomics data, and information from patient registries, not only in healthcare itself (primary use), but also in health research and health policy (secondary use). The data space is to be based on three pillars:
The Commission intends to present a corresponding regulatory proposal at the beginning of Q2 2022.
The French Council Presidency then wants to pick up the ball. The program states that a balance must be struck between improving the interoperability of European healthcare systems and ensuring a high level of protection for sensitive healthcare data.
“The Health Data Space has to walk a particularly difficult tightrope,” emphasizes MEP Tiemo Woelken. On the one hand, there is huge potential in sharing health data for research, prevention and combating diseases. On the other hand, health data is often highly sensitive, personal data that requires special protection.
In the context of the European Health Data Space, the Data Governance Act and the Data Act, among others, become important. While the Data Governance Act is intended to regulate data exchanges, the Data Act is aimed at lawful access and use of data. The Data Act bill was last scheduled for December 1, 2021, but fell through at the Regulatory Oversight Committee due to many outstanding issues (Europe.Table reported). The next attempt is scheduled for Febuary 23rd, 2022. The Data Governance Act now only lacks formal approval from the Council of Member States and the EU Parliament.
Next steps:
The EU Commission plans to present a proposal for a regulation to create the Health Data Space on April 5th, 2022. In the run-up to this, according to the program of the French Council Presidency, a ministerial conference on citizenship, ethics, and health data will be held on February 2nd, 2022.
What its about:
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have long been used in healthcare, and their importance is expected to grow in the coming years. In April 2021, the Commission presented a proposal to regulate and promote AI at the European level. The proposal will also have far-reaching consequences for the healthcare sector.
The Commission is pursuing a risk-based approach: Different requirements are to apply depending on the potential risk posed by AI to health, safety, and fundamental rights, for example.
AI systems that are simultaneously a product within the meaning of the Medical Devices Regulation and in vitro diagnostics are considered high risk. This means that a large proportion of AI applications in healthcare are likely to be considered high-risk AI systems, which means they will have to meet strict requirements, including undergoing a conformity assessment procedure, for example. This will test data quality, documentation, transparency, and traceability, human oversight, robustness, accuracy, and safety.
Next steps:
Although the EU Commission presented the preliminary draft in April 2021, the Council is only at the beginning of the negotiations. The Parliament has also only named rapporteurs for the time being. In its program, the French Council Presidency announced that it would make the development of “trustworthy artificial intelligence at the service of people” one of its priorities, but without naming any specific timeframes. It simply states that the review of the regulation will continue in order to “create a balanced legal framework that ensures increased innovation momentum and, at the same time, adequate protection of fundamental rights.”
Like digitization, global trade is a process that is always in flux. This is precisely why there are many overlapping dimensions between the two factors, says Bernd Lange. He has been Chairman of the Committee on International Trade in the European Parliament since 2014 and is also a rapporteur for trade relations between the EU and the USA.
He first sat for the Socialist Group in the European Parliament from 1994 to 2004 and has done so again since 2009. He has been in the SPD since 1974, originally joining to save a youth center in his college town of Göttingen, where he studied political science and Protestant theology from 1974 to 1981.
According to Lange, there are three main aspects to the interplay between digitization and international trade. The first is the free movement of data. The second aspect is transparency and the simplification of supply chains and their structures. Distributed ledger technologies such as blockchain and the use of artificial intelligence will provide technical support for this transparency. The third aspect is the security and confidentiality of trade relationships.
That trade will change is very likely, he says. “In the future, there will be more and more trade in data and intellectual property, but also in services,” predicts Lange. The relevance of trade will increase rather than decrease. After all, it already accounts for a third of the EU’s value-added, making it one of its most important economic factors. This is why concrete legislative projects such as a European supply chain law that can guarantee fair trade are important.
Rules are also needed regarding the aspect of digital sovereignty, says Lange. For example, data agreements that must exist for every bilateral trade agreement. The EU-US Privacy Shield agreement, which came into force in 2016 as the successor to Safe Harbor and was declared insufficient by the European Court of Justice in 2020, just as Safe Harbor was before it, is an exemplary case in point.
Whether the Social Democrats will play an important role in changing the concept of trade? Bernd Lange smiles as he assures, “The SPD is actively writing the trade chapter, and that was particularly evident in the coalition negotiations.” He sounds confident. And although his goals are very different today than they were in 1974, you can still recognize in his optimism the young man who was able to save a youth center. Anouk Schlung
