It is official: Commission has given the green light for the disbursement of €10.2 billion to Hungary. This is around a third of the EU funds for the country, which the EU had blocked due to violations of the rule of law and other EU values. The Hungarian government has now fulfilled the approval requirements for the disbursement of the €10.2 billion. It has put the reforms required by the Commission to restore the independence of the judiciary into law.
However, €21 billion remain frozen. The EU had also blocked these EU funds under the conditionality mechanism, among other things. The background to this is that the government in Budapest has not yet delivered the required reforms for the freedom of universities and asylum procedures.
The Commission’s decision had been looming for days. It is paying out grudgingly. However, its lawyers believe that it had no other choice. Withholding the money despite having completed the reforms would be highly risky and is likely to fail before the ECJ.
The heads of the four largest political groups in the European Parliament take a very different view. In a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, they protested against the release of the billions. It is clearly regulated that legislative changes to remedy shortcomings in the justice system must also be applied. However, this could not be assessed before Jan. 10. The selection process for the National Judicial Council in Hungary will continue until this deadline. The government has already exerted political influence on the filling of these positions in the past.
The letter is addressed to the Commission President personally. It comes from the heads of the parliamentary groups of the informal Von der Leyen coalition plus the Greens. It is remarkable that Christian Democrats, Socialists, and Liberals – the parties with whose votes the Commission President was elected in 2019 – are protesting together against her.
It is astonishing that Hungary, of all countries, is concerned about corruption and the rule of law in Ukraine, one diplomat said sarcastically. Budapest will probably soon also criticize the treatment of the LGBT community in Ukraine. In any case, the tone has been set ahead of the start of the summit on Ukraine and the revision of the EU budget planning.
For the most part, the meeting is likely to be “all against Viktor Orbán”, albeit with some nuances. 26 member states are ready to follow the EU Commission’s recommendation and give the green light for the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine, according to diplomats. This will also determine whether Moldova can start accession negotiations and whether Georgia will be granted candidate status.
Rarely is the situation before a summit as open as it is today. Drama is also expected in the discussion about the increase in the medium-term financial framework, which is necessary with regard to economic and financial aid for Ukraine, among other things. Everything is linked to everything this time. And yet diplomats are cautiously optimistic that an agreement is possible and that the EU will live up to its responsibilities towards Ukraine. There are landing zones, for example in the two-stage process, which the Commission has already proposed with a view to opening accession negotiations with Ukraine.
The summit would send an important political signal to President Volodymyr Zelensky that negotiations can begin in the spring. Kyiv still has to deliver on the reforms by March anyway before the actual accession negotiations with an intergovernmental conference can begin.
This step again requires unanimity, although the decision could be taken at a summit instead of just at ministerial level as a concession to Hungary. The problem is that diplomats in Brussels are puzzling over what exactly Orbán wants. The demand from Budapest that Brussels release all blocked funds amounting to over 30 billion euros as a concession is falling on deaf ears. According to diplomats, this is not legally possible.
In the shadow of Hungary, Austria and Italy have also recently expressed doubts or reservations. The two member states are pushing for Bosnia and Herzegovina to be treated like Ukraine and to be able to start accession negotiations. The Balkan state should not be left behind. Ukraine has fulfilled 80 percent of the conditions, Bosnia only 20 percent, diplomats counter. The countries are therefore not comparable.
According to a diplomat, Italy also only wants to agree to the economic and financial aid of 50 billion euros if there is more in the MFF for migration. Italy wants a “balanced decision” between Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no plan B if Viktor Orbán sticks to his veto: “We are working for plan A and are concentrating on finding a solution”, said a diplomat. The EU owes the decision to President Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people.
There has also recently been movement on the revision of the MFF. The Commission had originally proposed an additional €66 billion in fresh money to cover the costs of migration policy and rising interest on the debts of the reconstruction fund in addition to aid for Ukraine. According to diplomats, the final negotiating box still contains €22.5 billion, reduced by reallocations, savings, and the recycling of unused funds. A compromise is therefore approaching that could be acceptable for net contributors and recipients.
However, the amount is still too high for countries such as the Netherlands or Germany. According to government representatives in Berlin, Germany is only prepared to put more money on the table for Ukraine. “Ukraine now needs predictability and sustainable support”, it was said in government circles. “In this respect, the German government is prepared to provide additional money to fill this facility accordingly,” they added.
Council President Charles Michel appealed to all EU states to show a willingness to compromise. Now is the time to keep the promises made to Ukraine and show the “courage to make the right decisions”, he said in his letter of invitation to the EU summit. An agreement must be reached on the 50 billion euros in financial aid, which is about Ukraine’s long-term financial stability.
Michel himself did not provide any figures for the increase in the MFF. He had taken on board all concerns and priorities and presented his own proposal, the letter continued. The EU Commission also wanted to work on a compromise on Wednesday. Nevertheless, protracted negotiations are expected. The heads of state and government may have to stay until Saturday. In any case, the interpreters have been reserved until the weekend. With Eric Bonse
The first Global Stocktake – the stocktake on the goals of the Paris Agreement – has been adopted. There has been progress in mitigating climate change, adapting to changing climatic conditions, and the means available to implement the Paris goals. However, the 21-page document, to which all 197 signatory states have agreed, states that we are not yet on the right path to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.
In Dubai, the countries have now committed to accelerating measures based on “scientific evidence ” before the end of the decade. What these measures will look like was the most contentious issue at COP28 until the very end, particularly with regard to the role of fossil fuels: the “UAE Consensus”, as COP President Sultan Al Jaber dubbed the paper, provides for this:
This is the first time that fossil fuels as a whole have been included in the final text of a UN climate conference, even if it is not the phase-out of fossil fuels that Germany and the EU had called for. The resistance of some Arab countries around Saudi Arabia was too great, and it was not possible to reach an agreement on the hard end of fossil fuels in Dubai. The phrase “phase-out” had already been politically scuppered by the weeks of discussions. And so an alternative had to be found that Saudi Arabia could also agree to in order to save face.
For many, the current “transition away from fossil fuels” is almost equivalent to a phase-out. Moreover, there is no restriction on the transition away, for example by adding the controversial term “unabated fossil fuels” – often referred to as a synonym for fossil fuels without CCS. Li Shuo, climate expert at the Asia Society Policy Institute think tank, believes that the signal sent out by the Dubai agreement is more important than the exact semantic differentiation of terms.
For German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, the Dubai resolution also “clearly and unambiguously marks the end of fossil fuels”. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra sees this as the “beginning of the phase-out”. Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch, also believes that the agreed wording clearly states the global goal: A future without fossil fuels.
What is particularly important here is the context in which the move away from fossil fuels has been embedded in paragraph 28d. Firstly, there is the chapeau – the introductory sentence of the paragraph. In it, the states recognize that greenhouse gases must be reduced as quickly as possible in order not to exceed 1.5 degrees of global warming. This makes it clear that short-term measures to reduce emissions are necessary – these are Expanding renewables and increasing energy efficiency.
The signatory states also agreed to promote CCS and nuclear energy. However, the move away from fossil fuels is to be accelerated by measures in this “critical decade”. Both CCS and nuclear energy are unlikely to be available on a sufficient scale in this decade to seriously reduce emissions in the energy sector. This means that the short-term goals of the Global Stocktake can only be achieved by drastically reducing the consumption and production of fossil fuels while simultaneously ramping up renewables.
Annalena Baerbock therefore made it clear at the end of COP28: “Anyone who can do the math now knows that investing in fossil fuels is no longer worthwhile in the long term.” While renewables did not feature in the main text of COP21 in Paris in 2015, the world has now made up its mind. “Renewables are the global solution for more climate protection,” said the Foreign Minister.
However, a Paris moment could not be repeated in Dubai. The joy is clouded by the fact that “transition fuels” will continue to play a role in the energy transition. This refers to gas. However, gas is not a bridging technology, but a fossil fuel, clarifies Alden Meyer, Senior Associate and climate policy expert at the think tank E3G. He is therefore not entirely satisfied with the text.
In the closing plenary of the COP, Samoa criticized on behalf of the group of island states that there was only talk of an end to “inefficient” subsidies for fossil fuels, whereby the term “inefficient” is not defined in this context. The Samoan delegate also criticized that the call to reach the global emissions ceiling by 2025 at the latest was not included in the text.
Above all, however, the question of how developing countries will be supported in the energy transition remains unresolved in Dubai. The text also does not specify any obligations for industrialized nations or richer countries to decarbonize faster than others.
The COP may have reached an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, comments Mohamed Adow from Power Shift Africa, but it did not provide a plan for financing. “If rich countries are really interested in phasing out fossil fuels, they need to find creative ways to finance it.” Developing countries would not be able to manage the phase-out, Adow said.
At 7.40 a.m. on Wednesday morning, it was clear: after almost twelve hours of talks, the negotiators in the trilogue on the Platform Work Directive were able to agree on a common line to combat bogus self-employment on the major digital platforms. It would be the world’s first such regulation for these platforms. Among other things, the plan agreed upon in the trilogue provides for a reversal of the burden of proof, meaning that it is not the employees who have to prove that they are in fact employees, but the platforms who have to prove the opposite. The new regulations should also apply to employees who are employed via subcontractors.
After six unsuccessful rounds of negotiations, the agreement in the trialogue was not a matter of course. Lobbying pressure was high. Driving service provider Uber prominently warned that the company would have to pull out of hundreds of cities across the EU and increase prices by up to 40 percent if the regulations came in the form envisaged. There was also a strong political headwind: France, an important EU member state, remained skeptical until the very end, while Germany has so far abstained completely.
The responsible parliamentary rapporteur, Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D), was accordingly delighted on Wednesday: “This is a historic agreement. I did not expect us to reach such a good compromise.” The Commission estimates that around five million platform workers across the EU could actually be employees. As employees, they would be entitled to protection against dismissal, sick pay, the minimum wage, and paid leave.
In order to trigger a presumption of employment, at least two of five suspicion criteria must be met in accordance with the trilogue agreement. This primarily concerns the employer’s right to issue instructions and control, such as:
The member states can add further criteria to the list. However, even if there are more than five indicators, only two need to be fulfilled. The criteria were one of the most controversial points of the negotiations. The Council had called for at least three criteria to be met, which would have raised the hurdle for reclassification. Parliament wanted this presumption of employment to be generally triggered in the event of suspicion, regardless of rigid criteria. One concern was that companies could try to circumvent fixed criteria by making slight changes to their business practices.
If there is such a presumption of employment, the platform must prove that the persons concerned are self-employed after all, in accordance with the reversal of the burden of proof now agreed in the trilogue. This is intended to ease the burden on employees, who have often faced very financially strong and barely tangible employers in lawsuits to date. The compromise also provides for authorities, supervisory bodies, or trade unions to be able to initiate proceedings for employees in the future if they believe that self-employed persons are, in fact, employees.
During the negotiations, however, Parliament had to abandon one point that it considers important: If companies contest the classification, employees should only be considered employees once the procedure has been completed. The new regulation would therefore probably only have a delayed effect on employees. CDU shadow rapporteur Dennis Radtke told Table.Media: “We had to move towards the member states on this point because we cannot intervene in national procedural law.”
As far as the overall package is concerned, Radtke agrees with his parliamentary colleague Gualmini. The compromise is a historic result. “I expect it to improve the lives and working conditions of millions of people in the EU.” After all, the law is also the first in the world to introduce a reversal of the burden of proof. “This is a real game changer,” said Radtke. Radtke also believes that the rules on the use of AI in platforms will point the way for future issues relating to employee protection in an increasingly digitalized world.
With regard to algorithms, the compromise is intended to restrict the ability of companies to monitor the workload and quality of work of employees by electronic means and to sanction them automatically. Until now, companies have been able to block user accounts or dismiss employees in this way.
However, the whole thing is still a provisional political compromise and must be confirmed both in Parliament and in COREPER. And the latter in particular could become not just a simple vote, but a further political hurdle. This is because the Spanish negotiators have certainly moved away from the Council mandate on some points.
The compromise has already been criticized. For example, the MoveEU interest group, which represents Free Now, Bolt, and Uber, has demanded that the member states should not be allowed to approve the text. The main criticism is directed in particular at the number of criteria. They are concerned that the threshold for the introduction of a presumption is “based on the fulfillment of only two of the five indicators”, the association told Table.Media.
Daniel Mitrenga from the association “Die Familienunternehmer” has a passion: he loves economic policy. It all started during his studies, says the 47-year-old: “I studied economics in Cologne and Berlin and did my doctorate at the University of Bayreuth. Even during my studies, I was fascinated by regulatory economics.” He found the basic idea of a free market economy derived from this, which provides a framework for fair competition and social aspects in which entrepreneurship can develop, most strongly among family entrepreneurs.
The main reason why the economist has found a professional home in this association, which represents the economic policy interests of 180,000 German family businesses, for fourteen years. Initially as an economic policy advisor, later as head of basic economic issues, and now as head of the European department and member of the management board.
For Mitrenga, the special thing about his work is the direct contact with the owners. Many of them are strategically and operationally active. They are very knowledgeable about the details needed to enter into discussions with politicians. He then emphasizes: “This makes interest representation credible because you can relate to real challenges that arise in companies every day.”
The economist needs this knowledge for his work. After all, he is one of an estimated 25,000 lobbyists who represent political interests in Brussels. In exchange, he gives MEPs and Commission representatives access to his area of expertise: the business situation and economic expectations of German SMEs. As a lobbyist, Mitrenga travels a lot and moves back and forth between his desks in Berlin and Brussels roughly every two weeks.
Processing information is also part of his day-to-day work: “Our job is to map the most important economic policy facts and developments and to discuss them.” For the economist, this is not just about the business side, but also about strategic foresight: Such as the question of whether common debt in Europe will become a permanent fixture – a budgetary policy that family entrepreneurs are strictly opposed to.
Mitrenga sees the EU as a “promise of peace and prosperity”. He is not only concerned with the national perspective. He is a member of the Management Board of the umbrella organization of “European Family Businesses”. For him, the EU always has opportunities for growth if it sees itself as a “common competitive economic area” and focuses on the “big issues”.
In view of the “so far completely impractical and bureaucratic implementation of the Green Deal” or the “rather dirigiste high subsidization of individual companies and industries”, the Community, however, “urgently needs a change of course”. Gabriele Voßkühler
It is official: Commission has given the green light for the disbursement of €10.2 billion to Hungary. This is around a third of the EU funds for the country, which the EU had blocked due to violations of the rule of law and other EU values. The Hungarian government has now fulfilled the approval requirements for the disbursement of the €10.2 billion. It has put the reforms required by the Commission to restore the independence of the judiciary into law.
However, €21 billion remain frozen. The EU had also blocked these EU funds under the conditionality mechanism, among other things. The background to this is that the government in Budapest has not yet delivered the required reforms for the freedom of universities and asylum procedures.
The Commission’s decision had been looming for days. It is paying out grudgingly. However, its lawyers believe that it had no other choice. Withholding the money despite having completed the reforms would be highly risky and is likely to fail before the ECJ.
The heads of the four largest political groups in the European Parliament take a very different view. In a letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, they protested against the release of the billions. It is clearly regulated that legislative changes to remedy shortcomings in the justice system must also be applied. However, this could not be assessed before Jan. 10. The selection process for the National Judicial Council in Hungary will continue until this deadline. The government has already exerted political influence on the filling of these positions in the past.
The letter is addressed to the Commission President personally. It comes from the heads of the parliamentary groups of the informal Von der Leyen coalition plus the Greens. It is remarkable that Christian Democrats, Socialists, and Liberals – the parties with whose votes the Commission President was elected in 2019 – are protesting together against her.
It is astonishing that Hungary, of all countries, is concerned about corruption and the rule of law in Ukraine, one diplomat said sarcastically. Budapest will probably soon also criticize the treatment of the LGBT community in Ukraine. In any case, the tone has been set ahead of the start of the summit on Ukraine and the revision of the EU budget planning.
For the most part, the meeting is likely to be “all against Viktor Orbán”, albeit with some nuances. 26 member states are ready to follow the EU Commission’s recommendation and give the green light for the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine, according to diplomats. This will also determine whether Moldova can start accession negotiations and whether Georgia will be granted candidate status.
Rarely is the situation before a summit as open as it is today. Drama is also expected in the discussion about the increase in the medium-term financial framework, which is necessary with regard to economic and financial aid for Ukraine, among other things. Everything is linked to everything this time. And yet diplomats are cautiously optimistic that an agreement is possible and that the EU will live up to its responsibilities towards Ukraine. There are landing zones, for example in the two-stage process, which the Commission has already proposed with a view to opening accession negotiations with Ukraine.
The summit would send an important political signal to President Volodymyr Zelensky that negotiations can begin in the spring. Kyiv still has to deliver on the reforms by March anyway before the actual accession negotiations with an intergovernmental conference can begin.
This step again requires unanimity, although the decision could be taken at a summit instead of just at ministerial level as a concession to Hungary. The problem is that diplomats in Brussels are puzzling over what exactly Orbán wants. The demand from Budapest that Brussels release all blocked funds amounting to over 30 billion euros as a concession is falling on deaf ears. According to diplomats, this is not legally possible.
In the shadow of Hungary, Austria and Italy have also recently expressed doubts or reservations. The two member states are pushing for Bosnia and Herzegovina to be treated like Ukraine and to be able to start accession negotiations. The Balkan state should not be left behind. Ukraine has fulfilled 80 percent of the conditions, Bosnia only 20 percent, diplomats counter. The countries are therefore not comparable.
According to a diplomat, Italy also only wants to agree to the economic and financial aid of 50 billion euros if there is more in the MFF for migration. Italy wants a “balanced decision” between Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no plan B if Viktor Orbán sticks to his veto: “We are working for plan A and are concentrating on finding a solution”, said a diplomat. The EU owes the decision to President Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people.
There has also recently been movement on the revision of the MFF. The Commission had originally proposed an additional €66 billion in fresh money to cover the costs of migration policy and rising interest on the debts of the reconstruction fund in addition to aid for Ukraine. According to diplomats, the final negotiating box still contains €22.5 billion, reduced by reallocations, savings, and the recycling of unused funds. A compromise is therefore approaching that could be acceptable for net contributors and recipients.
However, the amount is still too high for countries such as the Netherlands or Germany. According to government representatives in Berlin, Germany is only prepared to put more money on the table for Ukraine. “Ukraine now needs predictability and sustainable support”, it was said in government circles. “In this respect, the German government is prepared to provide additional money to fill this facility accordingly,” they added.
Council President Charles Michel appealed to all EU states to show a willingness to compromise. Now is the time to keep the promises made to Ukraine and show the “courage to make the right decisions”, he said in his letter of invitation to the EU summit. An agreement must be reached on the 50 billion euros in financial aid, which is about Ukraine’s long-term financial stability.
Michel himself did not provide any figures for the increase in the MFF. He had taken on board all concerns and priorities and presented his own proposal, the letter continued. The EU Commission also wanted to work on a compromise on Wednesday. Nevertheless, protracted negotiations are expected. The heads of state and government may have to stay until Saturday. In any case, the interpreters have been reserved until the weekend. With Eric Bonse
The first Global Stocktake – the stocktake on the goals of the Paris Agreement – has been adopted. There has been progress in mitigating climate change, adapting to changing climatic conditions, and the means available to implement the Paris goals. However, the 21-page document, to which all 197 signatory states have agreed, states that we are not yet on the right path to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.
In Dubai, the countries have now committed to accelerating measures based on “scientific evidence ” before the end of the decade. What these measures will look like was the most contentious issue at COP28 until the very end, particularly with regard to the role of fossil fuels: the “UAE Consensus”, as COP President Sultan Al Jaber dubbed the paper, provides for this:
This is the first time that fossil fuels as a whole have been included in the final text of a UN climate conference, even if it is not the phase-out of fossil fuels that Germany and the EU had called for. The resistance of some Arab countries around Saudi Arabia was too great, and it was not possible to reach an agreement on the hard end of fossil fuels in Dubai. The phrase “phase-out” had already been politically scuppered by the weeks of discussions. And so an alternative had to be found that Saudi Arabia could also agree to in order to save face.
For many, the current “transition away from fossil fuels” is almost equivalent to a phase-out. Moreover, there is no restriction on the transition away, for example by adding the controversial term “unabated fossil fuels” – often referred to as a synonym for fossil fuels without CCS. Li Shuo, climate expert at the Asia Society Policy Institute think tank, believes that the signal sent out by the Dubai agreement is more important than the exact semantic differentiation of terms.
For German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, the Dubai resolution also “clearly and unambiguously marks the end of fossil fuels”. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra sees this as the “beginning of the phase-out”. Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch, also believes that the agreed wording clearly states the global goal: A future without fossil fuels.
What is particularly important here is the context in which the move away from fossil fuels has been embedded in paragraph 28d. Firstly, there is the chapeau – the introductory sentence of the paragraph. In it, the states recognize that greenhouse gases must be reduced as quickly as possible in order not to exceed 1.5 degrees of global warming. This makes it clear that short-term measures to reduce emissions are necessary – these are Expanding renewables and increasing energy efficiency.
The signatory states also agreed to promote CCS and nuclear energy. However, the move away from fossil fuels is to be accelerated by measures in this “critical decade”. Both CCS and nuclear energy are unlikely to be available on a sufficient scale in this decade to seriously reduce emissions in the energy sector. This means that the short-term goals of the Global Stocktake can only be achieved by drastically reducing the consumption and production of fossil fuels while simultaneously ramping up renewables.
Annalena Baerbock therefore made it clear at the end of COP28: “Anyone who can do the math now knows that investing in fossil fuels is no longer worthwhile in the long term.” While renewables did not feature in the main text of COP21 in Paris in 2015, the world has now made up its mind. “Renewables are the global solution for more climate protection,” said the Foreign Minister.
However, a Paris moment could not be repeated in Dubai. The joy is clouded by the fact that “transition fuels” will continue to play a role in the energy transition. This refers to gas. However, gas is not a bridging technology, but a fossil fuel, clarifies Alden Meyer, Senior Associate and climate policy expert at the think tank E3G. He is therefore not entirely satisfied with the text.
In the closing plenary of the COP, Samoa criticized on behalf of the group of island states that there was only talk of an end to “inefficient” subsidies for fossil fuels, whereby the term “inefficient” is not defined in this context. The Samoan delegate also criticized that the call to reach the global emissions ceiling by 2025 at the latest was not included in the text.
Above all, however, the question of how developing countries will be supported in the energy transition remains unresolved in Dubai. The text also does not specify any obligations for industrialized nations or richer countries to decarbonize faster than others.
The COP may have reached an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, comments Mohamed Adow from Power Shift Africa, but it did not provide a plan for financing. “If rich countries are really interested in phasing out fossil fuels, they need to find creative ways to finance it.” Developing countries would not be able to manage the phase-out, Adow said.
At 7.40 a.m. on Wednesday morning, it was clear: after almost twelve hours of talks, the negotiators in the trilogue on the Platform Work Directive were able to agree on a common line to combat bogus self-employment on the major digital platforms. It would be the world’s first such regulation for these platforms. Among other things, the plan agreed upon in the trilogue provides for a reversal of the burden of proof, meaning that it is not the employees who have to prove that they are in fact employees, but the platforms who have to prove the opposite. The new regulations should also apply to employees who are employed via subcontractors.
After six unsuccessful rounds of negotiations, the agreement in the trialogue was not a matter of course. Lobbying pressure was high. Driving service provider Uber prominently warned that the company would have to pull out of hundreds of cities across the EU and increase prices by up to 40 percent if the regulations came in the form envisaged. There was also a strong political headwind: France, an important EU member state, remained skeptical until the very end, while Germany has so far abstained completely.
The responsible parliamentary rapporteur, Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D), was accordingly delighted on Wednesday: “This is a historic agreement. I did not expect us to reach such a good compromise.” The Commission estimates that around five million platform workers across the EU could actually be employees. As employees, they would be entitled to protection against dismissal, sick pay, the minimum wage, and paid leave.
In order to trigger a presumption of employment, at least two of five suspicion criteria must be met in accordance with the trilogue agreement. This primarily concerns the employer’s right to issue instructions and control, such as:
The member states can add further criteria to the list. However, even if there are more than five indicators, only two need to be fulfilled. The criteria were one of the most controversial points of the negotiations. The Council had called for at least three criteria to be met, which would have raised the hurdle for reclassification. Parliament wanted this presumption of employment to be generally triggered in the event of suspicion, regardless of rigid criteria. One concern was that companies could try to circumvent fixed criteria by making slight changes to their business practices.
If there is such a presumption of employment, the platform must prove that the persons concerned are self-employed after all, in accordance with the reversal of the burden of proof now agreed in the trilogue. This is intended to ease the burden on employees, who have often faced very financially strong and barely tangible employers in lawsuits to date. The compromise also provides for authorities, supervisory bodies, or trade unions to be able to initiate proceedings for employees in the future if they believe that self-employed persons are, in fact, employees.
During the negotiations, however, Parliament had to abandon one point that it considers important: If companies contest the classification, employees should only be considered employees once the procedure has been completed. The new regulation would therefore probably only have a delayed effect on employees. CDU shadow rapporteur Dennis Radtke told Table.Media: “We had to move towards the member states on this point because we cannot intervene in national procedural law.”
As far as the overall package is concerned, Radtke agrees with his parliamentary colleague Gualmini. The compromise is a historic result. “I expect it to improve the lives and working conditions of millions of people in the EU.” After all, the law is also the first in the world to introduce a reversal of the burden of proof. “This is a real game changer,” said Radtke. Radtke also believes that the rules on the use of AI in platforms will point the way for future issues relating to employee protection in an increasingly digitalized world.
With regard to algorithms, the compromise is intended to restrict the ability of companies to monitor the workload and quality of work of employees by electronic means and to sanction them automatically. Until now, companies have been able to block user accounts or dismiss employees in this way.
However, the whole thing is still a provisional political compromise and must be confirmed both in Parliament and in COREPER. And the latter in particular could become not just a simple vote, but a further political hurdle. This is because the Spanish negotiators have certainly moved away from the Council mandate on some points.
The compromise has already been criticized. For example, the MoveEU interest group, which represents Free Now, Bolt, and Uber, has demanded that the member states should not be allowed to approve the text. The main criticism is directed in particular at the number of criteria. They are concerned that the threshold for the introduction of a presumption is “based on the fulfillment of only two of the five indicators”, the association told Table.Media.
Daniel Mitrenga from the association “Die Familienunternehmer” has a passion: he loves economic policy. It all started during his studies, says the 47-year-old: “I studied economics in Cologne and Berlin and did my doctorate at the University of Bayreuth. Even during my studies, I was fascinated by regulatory economics.” He found the basic idea of a free market economy derived from this, which provides a framework for fair competition and social aspects in which entrepreneurship can develop, most strongly among family entrepreneurs.
The main reason why the economist has found a professional home in this association, which represents the economic policy interests of 180,000 German family businesses, for fourteen years. Initially as an economic policy advisor, later as head of basic economic issues, and now as head of the European department and member of the management board.
For Mitrenga, the special thing about his work is the direct contact with the owners. Many of them are strategically and operationally active. They are very knowledgeable about the details needed to enter into discussions with politicians. He then emphasizes: “This makes interest representation credible because you can relate to real challenges that arise in companies every day.”
The economist needs this knowledge for his work. After all, he is one of an estimated 25,000 lobbyists who represent political interests in Brussels. In exchange, he gives MEPs and Commission representatives access to his area of expertise: the business situation and economic expectations of German SMEs. As a lobbyist, Mitrenga travels a lot and moves back and forth between his desks in Berlin and Brussels roughly every two weeks.
Processing information is also part of his day-to-day work: “Our job is to map the most important economic policy facts and developments and to discuss them.” For the economist, this is not just about the business side, but also about strategic foresight: Such as the question of whether common debt in Europe will become a permanent fixture – a budgetary policy that family entrepreneurs are strictly opposed to.
Mitrenga sees the EU as a “promise of peace and prosperity”. He is not only concerned with the national perspective. He is a member of the Management Board of the umbrella organization of “European Family Businesses”. For him, the EU always has opportunities for growth if it sees itself as a “common competitive economic area” and focuses on the “big issues”.
In view of the “so far completely impractical and bureaucratic implementation of the Green Deal” or the “rather dirigiste high subsidization of individual companies and industries”, the Community, however, “urgently needs a change of course”. Gabriele Voßkühler
