Yesterday’s attack on the European Parliament’s website impressively demonstrated how necessary the planned and already launched new directives and legislation in the cyber security area (NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act) are. While the EP voted on a resolution calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, hackers took down the website. Falk Steiner reports on how parliamentarians view the incident.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán will have to seriously worry about the billions from Brussels that support his economy and power system. His concessions on fighting corruption are not enough for the EU Commission – it will recommend that member states withhold the funds. If the Council approves by a qualified majority, Hungary would be the first EU country to be sanctioned under the new rule of law conditionality. Till Hoppe has the details.
Timo Landenberger looks ahead to the upcoming UN Biodiversity Conference, the CBD COP 15, in Montreal. One central question will be: How can climate protection goals be reconciled with ensuring food security? Because renaturation measures could lead to a decline in production capacities, some fear.
In today’s Profile, we introduce Didier Reynders, EU Commissioner for Justice and the Rule of Law for the past three years. His area of responsibility also includes the current negotiations on the Commission’s disbursements to Hungary.
The EU Commission is expected to come out in favor of withholding funds withheld from Hungary due to flaws in the rule of law. The measures promised by the government in Budapest to fight corruption and nepotism were not sufficient to recommend the release, it was said yesterday in agency circles after consultations among the commissioners involved. The final decision is to be made at the Commission meeting next Wednesday.
After that, it’s up to the member states to decide by Dec. 19. The EU finance ministers will discuss the next steps on Dec. 6. If the Council follows the Commission with a qualified majority, Hungary would have to forgo €7.5 billion from the EU budget that were blocked under the conditionality procedure until further notice. Hungary is the first EU country to face sanctions under the new rule of law conditionality.
The Commission also wants to withhold €5.8 billion reserved for Hungary in the Covid recovery fund. Here, the verdict of the authority is already decisive; the Council has less influence.
It remains to be seen what the majority situation in the Council will look like in the conditionality procedure. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has hardly any allies left in the Council. But much will depend on how conclusively the Commission justifies its recommendation, said an EU diplomat. It will also depend on whether the new right-wing government in Italy sides with Orbán.
The other governments must also weigh the consequences for the EU’s ability to act. Orbán is likely to use his country’s veto in retaliation, for example, to block financial aid to Ukraine or Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO.
Following the signals of rapprochement between Budapest and Brussels in recent weeks, many governments had previously assumed a positive or ambiguous vote by the Commission. In the German government, there were fears that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wanted to pass the buck to the Council. At the General Council last week, Anna Lührmann (Greens), Minister of State for Europe in the Federal Foreign Office, therefore called for “a clear signal” from the Commission.
The authority is now expected to send this signal next week. Representatives of the Berlin traffic light coalition are pleading for intransigence toward Budapest: The EU Commission should not allow itself to be pressured either by “purely cosmetic changes or by Orbán’s attempts at blackmail by vetoing current political decisions,” said the European policy spokesman of the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Michael Link, to Europe.Table.
In order to receive the urgently needed funds from Brussels, Prime Minister Orbán would have to make further improvements, particularly in the fight against corruption. As part of the conditionality procedure, the Commission had demanded a total of 17 concrete measures against corruption and maladministration in the awarding of public contracts. The government then agreed to set up a new anti-corruption agency, among other things.
However, in the view of the Brussels authority, the concrete commitments that Budapest had submitted here by the Nov. 19 deadline do not guarantee the legitimate use of the money from the EU structural funds. The authority says that for three of the measures, Budapest falls short, and for three others, the government has not provided all the required information.
The disbursement of funds from the Reconstruction and Resilience Facility (RRF) is also linked to the fight against corruption. The relevant measures are part of those milestones that Hungary must achieve for the disbursement of the first tranches. Other milestones include measures to strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Hungary.
The European Parliament’s website was attacked on Wednesday with a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. In this attack method, the servers are flooded with requests from many different places. At times, the European Parliament’s website was therefore unavailable on Wednesday afternoon, as confirmed by EP President Roberta Metsola. It was not until shortly before 9 p.m. that EP spokesman Jaume Duch gave the all-clear: Everything was under control again, and further developments were being monitored.
The attack was carried out in close connection with the vote on a resolution of the European Parliament, which describes the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure is cited as justification for this. The text, which was adopted by a large majority, calls on member states to minimize relations with Russia, but legally the resolution has no consequences.
A hacker group considered friendly to the Russian regime claimed responsibility for the attack. By Wednesday evening, however, there was no confirmation of the attack’s authorship.
How serious the incident really was is currently still disputed. Parliament President Roberta Metsola spoke of a complex attack on the EP’s web servers – more technically experienced parliamentarians do not see any major problems other than the temporary downtime of the website. In response to a question from Europe.Table, German MEP Tiemo Wölken (SPD) described the attack as “annoying, but harmless because no data was leaked.
The attack on the EP is roughly comparable to those on Baltic parliaments after votes on Ukraine issues, says Dutch MEP Bart Groothuis (EPP). Groothuis is considered an expert on the subject. Before joining the Dutch Ministry of Defense, he was responsible for cyber defense and most recently negotiated the network security directive for the EP.
But the question arises why the Parliament’s website is not sufficiently protected against DDoS attacks, for example, by a content delivery network, Groothuis says in response to a Europe.Table query. “Is this typical of the state of cybersecurity in the Parliament? From what I’ve seen in the past few years, that’s to be feared,” Groothuis says.
Rasmus Andresen, a Green Party member of Parliament, also interprets the attack as a warning shot. He had campaigned for more resources and higher standards but had not always been able to get his way. But he now hopes for better protection: “It certainly won’t be the last time we fall victim to such attacks.”
The EP Directorate General ITEC, responsible for IT operations, with its Chief Information Security Officer Pascal Paridans, notified the users of the EP intranet about the outage in the afternoon. According to the EP’s Quaestor in charge, Czech Pirate MEP Marcel Kolaja (EFA), ITEC was able to contain the attack – even though it had not ended by the evening. The EU’s Cyber Emergency Response Team (CERT-EU) was notified of the incident; the EU Commission was not affected by the attack.
Only a few days ago, Parliament imposed better protection of critical infrastructures on the member states with the Network and Information Security Directive NIS2. This should also oblige authorities and other public institutions to better protect IT infrastructures.
In addition, further obligations to protect against attacks in the digital space are currently being discussed in the form of the Cyber Resilience Act. Just a few days ago, four EU Commissioners called for a better digital defense capability for the EU. with Corinna Visser/Till Hoppe
“We can do it and we will do it,” said EU Commissioner Margaritas Schinas yesterday in the European Parliament. He was referring to the implementation of the asylum and migration package, which was once again the subject of a parliamentary debate yesterday.
Since the so-called migration crisis in 2015, the Commission has been working on a reform of the European asylum and migration system. At the time, the Juncker Commission proposed several legal acts to better regulate migration flows to Europe. But the negotiations largely came to nothing. Particularly problematic is the reform of the Dublin system, after which the country of arrival is responsible for asylum seekers and the redistribution of asylum seekers within the EU.
This is because the countries along the EU’s external borders are bearing the brunt of the migration wave. Only recently, the so-called MED5 countries Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and Spain asked for more support in migration management.
This year, 90,000 migrants have arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean route, Margaritas Schinas said yesterday: “Twice as many crossings as last year.” That’s not entirely true, however. Last year, there were about 68,000 crossings. In 2020, however, there were only 36,000.
But the pressure on the other migration routes is also increasing. The Western Balkan route is particularly affected: Austria and Hungary, therefore, concluded an agreement with Serbia just last week to push back migrants. Meanwhile, in many EU member states, reception capacities are full. Germany, too, has hardly any room left to take in asylum seekers due to a large number of Ukrainian refugees.
On Friday, the EU interior ministers will discuss the increasing migration pressure in a special meeting. An action plan to improve the situation in the Mediterranean, which the EU Commission presented on Monday, is to serve as a basis. According to the plan, cooperation with third countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya is supposed to be strengthened. There will be no official conclusions. New ad’hoc solutions are therefore not to be expected.
However, all parties express optimism that by the end of the year mandates will be in place on all pieces of legislation. Yesterday’s debate in Strasbourg once again demonstrated how much the EU is going round in circles on the migration issue. Yesterday’s statements hardly differ from the positions that EU representatives and parliamentarians have put forward in numerous discussions since 2015.
Nevertheless, the EU Commission and the Czech presidency are optimistic: The asylum and migration package is to be adopted before the end of this legislative period. In other words, the first trilogues should take place this year. This was promised by the rotating presidencies of France, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Belgium, as well as the EU Parliament in a joint declaration in September. A concept for further action will be presented to the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December.
The reform of European asylum and migration policy has been taking place since 2016 on the basis of 14 laws. So far, there has been agreement on only three of them: the creation of the Asylum Agency (EAAA) and the establishment and expansion of the border management agency Frontex. The latter has fallen into disrepute over the past year, particularly for its involvement in illegal pushbacks: Parliament recently refused to approve Frontex’s budget.
Negotiations of a whole eight legal acts are still pending. Either the Council, Parliament, or both have not yet been able to agree on a mandate. The latter is pushing to start trilogues on the solidarity and resettlement framework, while the Council is pushing for trilogues on screening and Eurodac. All parties express optimism that mandates on all legal acts will be available by the end of the year.
The migration pact is being negotiated using a package approach: In other words, at the end of the day, the entire pact will be voted on, not individual laws.
The question of the redistribution of refugees arriving in Europe is and remains particularly sensitive. The MED5 demand a legal regulation, but this seems unattainable. Among others, the Visegrád states, Austria and Denmark are categorically against it. In the 2020 migration pact, this aspect has already been significantly weakened compared to the Juncker Commission. It proposes an “à la carte” solidarity, according to which the EU-27 can choose between different measures (resettlement, repatriation, financial support …).
In June, 13 EU states, including Germany, concluded an agreement on redistribution, but it is failing in practice. After Italy most recently refused to allow the Ocean Viking rescue boat to dock with it, contrary to its obligations under international law, France suspended the acceptance of asylum seekers under the June agreement.
When the Commission presented its migration package in September 2020, it spoke of a “breath of fresh air” in European migration policy. However, like the Juncker Commission before her, von der Leyen is also relying primarily on restrictive measures and cooperation with third countries to combat migration. There was also clear criticism of the human rights dimension of the EU proposal.
Example: Under certain circumstances, asylum and return procedures are to be linked. The pact places greater emphasis on accelerated asylum procedures and mandatory screening of migrants in transit centers near the border. This will lead to even greater restrictions on the rights of those in need of protection, as, for example, Lucas Rasche of the Jacques Delors Center, warns. “We don’t have a migration crisis. The crisis is the lack of access to protection,” he says.
Particularly problematic: During the mandatory screenings, the asylum seekers are considered not to have entered the country. As a result, they would not be granted the right to non-refoulement. In 2021, the Commission also proposed two legal acts that partially suspend European asylum standards in case of instrumentalization of refugees, as by Belarusian President Lukashenko.
Furthermore, the Commission continues to rely on cooperation with third countries to prevent migrants from traveling to Europe, including authoritarian states and civil war states such as Libya. Yet the systematic human rights violations in militia-controlled refugee camps have long been known: In 2017, the EU Commissioner responsible at the time, Dimitris Avramopoulos, spoke of “appalling conditions”.
Agreements with third countries are mostly made through so-called soft law instruments such as the EU-Turkey agreement. But there is no parliamentary and legal control over these, warn experts in a study commissioned by the LIBE Committee.
The negotiations of the migration pact amount to a tightening of the restrictive approach of the Commission’s proposals, one hears from Parliament and Council circles. That was also the tenor yesterday in Parliament. “We must secure the borders […] and not let the mafia decide who comes to Europe,” said EPP Group Chairman Manfred Weber (CSU), for example.
He then spoke out in favor of setting up reception centers in Africa. The idea dates back to the days of the Juncker Commission, but was abandoned at the time due to legal concerns. Since then, Denmark has been trying to implement such a solution on its own but has not found any African partner states.
Criticism of the pact came mainly from the Greens, the Left and the Socialists. “It’s about the dignity of human lives,” reminded S&D group leader Irtaxe Garcia Perez.
Apparently, no one needs to be convinced of the necessity anymore. “We support the goal of preserving biodiversity” is the virtually unanimous message in Brussels when the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is mentioned. This was also the case at the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council. “But …”.
With the proposed legislation on the agenda, the EU delegation wants to set a good example at the UN Conference on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 15), which is taking place in Montreal from Dec. 7 to 19. But the debates surrounding competition for land, measurability and bureaucracy, and funding provide an impressive foretaste of what can also be expected at the global level in terms of nature conservation negotiations.
In times of multiple crises and high food prices, there is great concern among EU countries that measures to protect the environment would lead to the loss of agricultural production land and thus jeopardize food security. In fact, it seems contradictory that in practically the same breath, the Commission presents a nature conservation package as well as ways to subsidize the chemical fertilizer industry and the management of set-aside land actually intended for species protection.
But these are short-term measures, he said. For long-term security of supply and strategic autonomy, including on fertilizer, it is crucial to build more resilient ecosystems and thus sustainable agriculture and forestry, said EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius. “We cannot wait any longer. The crises are ongoing and if ecosystems collapse, so will production.”
As a kind of overarching goal, the NRL, therefore, calls for renaturation measures to be implemented on 20 percent of the EU’s total land and sea area by 2030. To this end, countries are to develop national plans to restore at least 30 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2030, at least 60 percent by 2040, and at least 90 percent by 2050. It is unclear so far how exactly “damaged ecosystems” are defined. In any case, according to the Commission, 80 percent of all habitats are in poor condition.
The authority emphasizes that the draft does not contain any direct restrictions for agriculture and that cultivation is still possible in renaturated areas in accordance with the objectives. De facto, however, the measures would lead to a decline in production capacities, counters agricultural politician Christine Schneider, NRL rapporteur for the EPP. “We lack an impact assessment in terms of food security. If it comes to a shift of agricultural production abroad, then we create new dependencies and achieve nothing for biodiversity or climate protection.”
Jutta Paulus, rapporteur for the Greens, does not accept this “as long as we throw away a third of our food. And if you stringently pursue the recurring argument of relocating production abroad because the requirements are too high, then you would also have to legalize child labor in Europe again”.
In addition to higher standards, for example, in the use of pesticides or chemical fertilizers, the debate revolves primarily around the rewetting of peatlands. This is because peatlands are not only a habitat for plants and animals, but also an important CO2 reservoir. In Germany, the potential is just as great as the sinkage of the entire forest area, according to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL).
In drained peatlands, however, CO2 is released again. According to the BMEL, 7.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions currently come from the decomposition of peatland soils as a result of drainage measures and peat use. Across the EU, the figure is around four percent.
With its peatland strategy, the German government aims to reverse the trend, reduce annual emissions by at least five million metric tons of CO2 equivalents and thus anticipate the EU’s renaturation law. This provides for the rewetting of 30 percent of the affected areas by 2030, 50 percent by 2040 and 70 percent by 2050.
But raising the water level is costly. In addition, most of the drained moorland is now used for agriculture – an important production factor. 50 percent rewetting could lead to a loss of 350,000 hectares of cultivated land in Germany alone, says Christine Schneider. An alternative is needed for farmers.
In general, many of the measures are to be based on voluntarism and economic incentives. In the Agriculture Council, several countries expressed concern that this would otherwise interfere too much with landowners’ property rights. The bureaucratic burden on national administrations was also criticized, particularly with regard to reporting requirements. It was questionable whether an interval of only three years was at all meaningful for progress in soil carbon content or the condition of forest ecosystems.
Christine Schneider: “We do not have consistent data from the member states on their protected areas and the status of ecosystems and populations. In addition, we still lack scientifically sound indicators and thus instruments to measure the status of ecosystems so that we can also verify progress in a consistent manner.”
Jutta Paulus speaks of a “lack of governance”. She says that while member states must develop national strategies, the Commission has no leverage to force implementation. “We end up with infringement proceedings years later. But that’s not the point.”
The question of funding also remains open. It is true that, according to the Commission’s calculations, every euro invested in restoring nature brings a return of at least €8 thanks to the strengthened ecosystems. Nevertheless, the sums to finance the measures must first be raised. “And how is a poorer country supposed to do that if we can’t even manage it reasonably in Germany?” says Paulus. One possibility: a total of €100 billion euros should be earmarked in the multi-year financial framework up to 2027.
The private sector should also be held more accountable, for example, through the EU taxonomy. But disclosing the impact of corporate activities on biodiversity is much more complicated than the energy efficiency of a company or its CO2 emissions.
The draft of the renaturation law was presented by the Commission in June. Currently, there is a dispute in Parliament about who is responsible for what. The Environment Committee is in charge, but the Agriculture Committee is also insisting on having a say. Negotiator Cesar Luena (S&D) apparently wants to present his report this year. Numerous amendments are expected.
Didier Reynders keeps chatting in the backseat of his limousine during the video interview – the 64-year-old Belgian is currently on his way from Brussels to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Reynders has a lot to talk about. He already had a long career as a minister in Belgium before becoming Ursula von der Leyen’s man for the European rule of law mechanism and the enforcement of sanctions against Russia as EU Commissioner for Justice and the Rule of Law three years ago.
A law graduate from Liège, he has been involved in various cabinets since 1999, including a long time as finance and foreign minister. He is a member of the Mouvement Réformateur, the French-speaking Liberals, and chaired the party for many years.
But Reynders says he would have preferred to be a swimmer. “Until I was 16 years old, I spent three or four hours a day in swim training,” he says. So instead, a career in top politics that he has never regretted. “What drives me is how an idea can become law.”
One of his most successful ideas was Belgian film subsidies. Tax breaks have allowed more Belgian films to be made since 2003. “We’ve had some success at Cannes as a result,” he says, a proud smile on his face.
Similarly, he promoted the country’s football. As a small country, he said, Belgium could not compete. That’s why he granted tax incentives to investors who set up football schools for children. Reynders’ method seems to be working: Until the beginning of this year, the “Red Devils” led the Fifa world rankings for three years in a row.
He sees his origins as an advantage. Belgium, which consists of three regions and languages, relies on compromise. “To be honest, it’s quite easy for a Belgian politician with some experience to find a way.”
Arriving in Strasbourg, Reynders will defend the Commission’s position in the rule of law case against Hungary before the EU Parliament. At stake is €7.5 billion from the Structural Funds, which the Commission wants to disburse only in exchange for reforms. The majority in Parliament wants to block the funds because the reforms do not go far enough. “We will pay out the EU funds if we think the reforms have been implemented and the independence of the judiciary has been ensured,” Reynders will tell MEPs.
In the interview, he says, “It turns out that the financial pressure on Hungary is very high and efficient.” He praises the pressure exerted by Parliament on Viktor Orbán but calls for an equal commitment from governments as well. “Rule of law is not a matter of compromise. It’s about applying the rules and values.”
His next trip will take him to Berlin at the beginning of next week for the G7 meeting of justice ministers. The topic: sanctions against Russia and coming to terms with war crimes. “I want us to be able not only to freeze assets but also to confiscate them,” he says.
In addition, the G7 will discuss whether there should be a new war tribunal alongside the International Criminal Court, in which Ukrainian judges can participate. “We are ready to discuss this additional possibility, for the crime of aggression.” Tom Schmidtgen
Yesterday’s attack on the European Parliament’s website impressively demonstrated how necessary the planned and already launched new directives and legislation in the cyber security area (NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act) are. While the EP voted on a resolution calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, hackers took down the website. Falk Steiner reports on how parliamentarians view the incident.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán will have to seriously worry about the billions from Brussels that support his economy and power system. His concessions on fighting corruption are not enough for the EU Commission – it will recommend that member states withhold the funds. If the Council approves by a qualified majority, Hungary would be the first EU country to be sanctioned under the new rule of law conditionality. Till Hoppe has the details.
Timo Landenberger looks ahead to the upcoming UN Biodiversity Conference, the CBD COP 15, in Montreal. One central question will be: How can climate protection goals be reconciled with ensuring food security? Because renaturation measures could lead to a decline in production capacities, some fear.
In today’s Profile, we introduce Didier Reynders, EU Commissioner for Justice and the Rule of Law for the past three years. His area of responsibility also includes the current negotiations on the Commission’s disbursements to Hungary.
The EU Commission is expected to come out in favor of withholding funds withheld from Hungary due to flaws in the rule of law. The measures promised by the government in Budapest to fight corruption and nepotism were not sufficient to recommend the release, it was said yesterday in agency circles after consultations among the commissioners involved. The final decision is to be made at the Commission meeting next Wednesday.
After that, it’s up to the member states to decide by Dec. 19. The EU finance ministers will discuss the next steps on Dec. 6. If the Council follows the Commission with a qualified majority, Hungary would have to forgo €7.5 billion from the EU budget that were blocked under the conditionality procedure until further notice. Hungary is the first EU country to face sanctions under the new rule of law conditionality.
The Commission also wants to withhold €5.8 billion reserved for Hungary in the Covid recovery fund. Here, the verdict of the authority is already decisive; the Council has less influence.
It remains to be seen what the majority situation in the Council will look like in the conditionality procedure. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has hardly any allies left in the Council. But much will depend on how conclusively the Commission justifies its recommendation, said an EU diplomat. It will also depend on whether the new right-wing government in Italy sides with Orbán.
The other governments must also weigh the consequences for the EU’s ability to act. Orbán is likely to use his country’s veto in retaliation, for example, to block financial aid to Ukraine or Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO.
Following the signals of rapprochement between Budapest and Brussels in recent weeks, many governments had previously assumed a positive or ambiguous vote by the Commission. In the German government, there were fears that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wanted to pass the buck to the Council. At the General Council last week, Anna Lührmann (Greens), Minister of State for Europe in the Federal Foreign Office, therefore called for “a clear signal” from the Commission.
The authority is now expected to send this signal next week. Representatives of the Berlin traffic light coalition are pleading for intransigence toward Budapest: The EU Commission should not allow itself to be pressured either by “purely cosmetic changes or by Orbán’s attempts at blackmail by vetoing current political decisions,” said the European policy spokesman of the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag, Michael Link, to Europe.Table.
In order to receive the urgently needed funds from Brussels, Prime Minister Orbán would have to make further improvements, particularly in the fight against corruption. As part of the conditionality procedure, the Commission had demanded a total of 17 concrete measures against corruption and maladministration in the awarding of public contracts. The government then agreed to set up a new anti-corruption agency, among other things.
However, in the view of the Brussels authority, the concrete commitments that Budapest had submitted here by the Nov. 19 deadline do not guarantee the legitimate use of the money from the EU structural funds. The authority says that for three of the measures, Budapest falls short, and for three others, the government has not provided all the required information.
The disbursement of funds from the Reconstruction and Resilience Facility (RRF) is also linked to the fight against corruption. The relevant measures are part of those milestones that Hungary must achieve for the disbursement of the first tranches. Other milestones include measures to strengthen the independence of the judiciary in Hungary.
The European Parliament’s website was attacked on Wednesday with a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. In this attack method, the servers are flooded with requests from many different places. At times, the European Parliament’s website was therefore unavailable on Wednesday afternoon, as confirmed by EP President Roberta Metsola. It was not until shortly before 9 p.m. that EP spokesman Jaume Duch gave the all-clear: Everything was under control again, and further developments were being monitored.
The attack was carried out in close connection with the vote on a resolution of the European Parliament, which describes the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure is cited as justification for this. The text, which was adopted by a large majority, calls on member states to minimize relations with Russia, but legally the resolution has no consequences.
A hacker group considered friendly to the Russian regime claimed responsibility for the attack. By Wednesday evening, however, there was no confirmation of the attack’s authorship.
How serious the incident really was is currently still disputed. Parliament President Roberta Metsola spoke of a complex attack on the EP’s web servers – more technically experienced parliamentarians do not see any major problems other than the temporary downtime of the website. In response to a question from Europe.Table, German MEP Tiemo Wölken (SPD) described the attack as “annoying, but harmless because no data was leaked.
The attack on the EP is roughly comparable to those on Baltic parliaments after votes on Ukraine issues, says Dutch MEP Bart Groothuis (EPP). Groothuis is considered an expert on the subject. Before joining the Dutch Ministry of Defense, he was responsible for cyber defense and most recently negotiated the network security directive for the EP.
But the question arises why the Parliament’s website is not sufficiently protected against DDoS attacks, for example, by a content delivery network, Groothuis says in response to a Europe.Table query. “Is this typical of the state of cybersecurity in the Parliament? From what I’ve seen in the past few years, that’s to be feared,” Groothuis says.
Rasmus Andresen, a Green Party member of Parliament, also interprets the attack as a warning shot. He had campaigned for more resources and higher standards but had not always been able to get his way. But he now hopes for better protection: “It certainly won’t be the last time we fall victim to such attacks.”
The EP Directorate General ITEC, responsible for IT operations, with its Chief Information Security Officer Pascal Paridans, notified the users of the EP intranet about the outage in the afternoon. According to the EP’s Quaestor in charge, Czech Pirate MEP Marcel Kolaja (EFA), ITEC was able to contain the attack – even though it had not ended by the evening. The EU’s Cyber Emergency Response Team (CERT-EU) was notified of the incident; the EU Commission was not affected by the attack.
Only a few days ago, Parliament imposed better protection of critical infrastructures on the member states with the Network and Information Security Directive NIS2. This should also oblige authorities and other public institutions to better protect IT infrastructures.
In addition, further obligations to protect against attacks in the digital space are currently being discussed in the form of the Cyber Resilience Act. Just a few days ago, four EU Commissioners called for a better digital defense capability for the EU. with Corinna Visser/Till Hoppe
“We can do it and we will do it,” said EU Commissioner Margaritas Schinas yesterday in the European Parliament. He was referring to the implementation of the asylum and migration package, which was once again the subject of a parliamentary debate yesterday.
Since the so-called migration crisis in 2015, the Commission has been working on a reform of the European asylum and migration system. At the time, the Juncker Commission proposed several legal acts to better regulate migration flows to Europe. But the negotiations largely came to nothing. Particularly problematic is the reform of the Dublin system, after which the country of arrival is responsible for asylum seekers and the redistribution of asylum seekers within the EU.
This is because the countries along the EU’s external borders are bearing the brunt of the migration wave. Only recently, the so-called MED5 countries Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and Spain asked for more support in migration management.
This year, 90,000 migrants have arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean route, Margaritas Schinas said yesterday: “Twice as many crossings as last year.” That’s not entirely true, however. Last year, there were about 68,000 crossings. In 2020, however, there were only 36,000.
But the pressure on the other migration routes is also increasing. The Western Balkan route is particularly affected: Austria and Hungary, therefore, concluded an agreement with Serbia just last week to push back migrants. Meanwhile, in many EU member states, reception capacities are full. Germany, too, has hardly any room left to take in asylum seekers due to a large number of Ukrainian refugees.
On Friday, the EU interior ministers will discuss the increasing migration pressure in a special meeting. An action plan to improve the situation in the Mediterranean, which the EU Commission presented on Monday, is to serve as a basis. According to the plan, cooperation with third countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya is supposed to be strengthened. There will be no official conclusions. New ad’hoc solutions are therefore not to be expected.
However, all parties express optimism that by the end of the year mandates will be in place on all pieces of legislation. Yesterday’s debate in Strasbourg once again demonstrated how much the EU is going round in circles on the migration issue. Yesterday’s statements hardly differ from the positions that EU representatives and parliamentarians have put forward in numerous discussions since 2015.
Nevertheless, the EU Commission and the Czech presidency are optimistic: The asylum and migration package is to be adopted before the end of this legislative period. In other words, the first trilogues should take place this year. This was promised by the rotating presidencies of France, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Belgium, as well as the EU Parliament in a joint declaration in September. A concept for further action will be presented to the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December.
The reform of European asylum and migration policy has been taking place since 2016 on the basis of 14 laws. So far, there has been agreement on only three of them: the creation of the Asylum Agency (EAAA) and the establishment and expansion of the border management agency Frontex. The latter has fallen into disrepute over the past year, particularly for its involvement in illegal pushbacks: Parliament recently refused to approve Frontex’s budget.
Negotiations of a whole eight legal acts are still pending. Either the Council, Parliament, or both have not yet been able to agree on a mandate. The latter is pushing to start trilogues on the solidarity and resettlement framework, while the Council is pushing for trilogues on screening and Eurodac. All parties express optimism that mandates on all legal acts will be available by the end of the year.
The migration pact is being negotiated using a package approach: In other words, at the end of the day, the entire pact will be voted on, not individual laws.
The question of the redistribution of refugees arriving in Europe is and remains particularly sensitive. The MED5 demand a legal regulation, but this seems unattainable. Among others, the Visegrád states, Austria and Denmark are categorically against it. In the 2020 migration pact, this aspect has already been significantly weakened compared to the Juncker Commission. It proposes an “à la carte” solidarity, according to which the EU-27 can choose between different measures (resettlement, repatriation, financial support …).
In June, 13 EU states, including Germany, concluded an agreement on redistribution, but it is failing in practice. After Italy most recently refused to allow the Ocean Viking rescue boat to dock with it, contrary to its obligations under international law, France suspended the acceptance of asylum seekers under the June agreement.
When the Commission presented its migration package in September 2020, it spoke of a “breath of fresh air” in European migration policy. However, like the Juncker Commission before her, von der Leyen is also relying primarily on restrictive measures and cooperation with third countries to combat migration. There was also clear criticism of the human rights dimension of the EU proposal.
Example: Under certain circumstances, asylum and return procedures are to be linked. The pact places greater emphasis on accelerated asylum procedures and mandatory screening of migrants in transit centers near the border. This will lead to even greater restrictions on the rights of those in need of protection, as, for example, Lucas Rasche of the Jacques Delors Center, warns. “We don’t have a migration crisis. The crisis is the lack of access to protection,” he says.
Particularly problematic: During the mandatory screenings, the asylum seekers are considered not to have entered the country. As a result, they would not be granted the right to non-refoulement. In 2021, the Commission also proposed two legal acts that partially suspend European asylum standards in case of instrumentalization of refugees, as by Belarusian President Lukashenko.
Furthermore, the Commission continues to rely on cooperation with third countries to prevent migrants from traveling to Europe, including authoritarian states and civil war states such as Libya. Yet the systematic human rights violations in militia-controlled refugee camps have long been known: In 2017, the EU Commissioner responsible at the time, Dimitris Avramopoulos, spoke of “appalling conditions”.
Agreements with third countries are mostly made through so-called soft law instruments such as the EU-Turkey agreement. But there is no parliamentary and legal control over these, warn experts in a study commissioned by the LIBE Committee.
The negotiations of the migration pact amount to a tightening of the restrictive approach of the Commission’s proposals, one hears from Parliament and Council circles. That was also the tenor yesterday in Parliament. “We must secure the borders […] and not let the mafia decide who comes to Europe,” said EPP Group Chairman Manfred Weber (CSU), for example.
He then spoke out in favor of setting up reception centers in Africa. The idea dates back to the days of the Juncker Commission, but was abandoned at the time due to legal concerns. Since then, Denmark has been trying to implement such a solution on its own but has not found any African partner states.
Criticism of the pact came mainly from the Greens, the Left and the Socialists. “It’s about the dignity of human lives,” reminded S&D group leader Irtaxe Garcia Perez.
Apparently, no one needs to be convinced of the necessity anymore. “We support the goal of preserving biodiversity” is the virtually unanimous message in Brussels when the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is mentioned. This was also the case at the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council. “But …”.
With the proposed legislation on the agenda, the EU delegation wants to set a good example at the UN Conference on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 15), which is taking place in Montreal from Dec. 7 to 19. But the debates surrounding competition for land, measurability and bureaucracy, and funding provide an impressive foretaste of what can also be expected at the global level in terms of nature conservation negotiations.
In times of multiple crises and high food prices, there is great concern among EU countries that measures to protect the environment would lead to the loss of agricultural production land and thus jeopardize food security. In fact, it seems contradictory that in practically the same breath, the Commission presents a nature conservation package as well as ways to subsidize the chemical fertilizer industry and the management of set-aside land actually intended for species protection.
But these are short-term measures, he said. For long-term security of supply and strategic autonomy, including on fertilizer, it is crucial to build more resilient ecosystems and thus sustainable agriculture and forestry, said EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius. “We cannot wait any longer. The crises are ongoing and if ecosystems collapse, so will production.”
As a kind of overarching goal, the NRL, therefore, calls for renaturation measures to be implemented on 20 percent of the EU’s total land and sea area by 2030. To this end, countries are to develop national plans to restore at least 30 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2030, at least 60 percent by 2040, and at least 90 percent by 2050. It is unclear so far how exactly “damaged ecosystems” are defined. In any case, according to the Commission, 80 percent of all habitats are in poor condition.
The authority emphasizes that the draft does not contain any direct restrictions for agriculture and that cultivation is still possible in renaturated areas in accordance with the objectives. De facto, however, the measures would lead to a decline in production capacities, counters agricultural politician Christine Schneider, NRL rapporteur for the EPP. “We lack an impact assessment in terms of food security. If it comes to a shift of agricultural production abroad, then we create new dependencies and achieve nothing for biodiversity or climate protection.”
Jutta Paulus, rapporteur for the Greens, does not accept this “as long as we throw away a third of our food. And if you stringently pursue the recurring argument of relocating production abroad because the requirements are too high, then you would also have to legalize child labor in Europe again”.
In addition to higher standards, for example, in the use of pesticides or chemical fertilizers, the debate revolves primarily around the rewetting of peatlands. This is because peatlands are not only a habitat for plants and animals, but also an important CO2 reservoir. In Germany, the potential is just as great as the sinkage of the entire forest area, according to the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL).
In drained peatlands, however, CO2 is released again. According to the BMEL, 7.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions currently come from the decomposition of peatland soils as a result of drainage measures and peat use. Across the EU, the figure is around four percent.
With its peatland strategy, the German government aims to reverse the trend, reduce annual emissions by at least five million metric tons of CO2 equivalents and thus anticipate the EU’s renaturation law. This provides for the rewetting of 30 percent of the affected areas by 2030, 50 percent by 2040 and 70 percent by 2050.
But raising the water level is costly. In addition, most of the drained moorland is now used for agriculture – an important production factor. 50 percent rewetting could lead to a loss of 350,000 hectares of cultivated land in Germany alone, says Christine Schneider. An alternative is needed for farmers.
In general, many of the measures are to be based on voluntarism and economic incentives. In the Agriculture Council, several countries expressed concern that this would otherwise interfere too much with landowners’ property rights. The bureaucratic burden on national administrations was also criticized, particularly with regard to reporting requirements. It was questionable whether an interval of only three years was at all meaningful for progress in soil carbon content or the condition of forest ecosystems.
Christine Schneider: “We do not have consistent data from the member states on their protected areas and the status of ecosystems and populations. In addition, we still lack scientifically sound indicators and thus instruments to measure the status of ecosystems so that we can also verify progress in a consistent manner.”
Jutta Paulus speaks of a “lack of governance”. She says that while member states must develop national strategies, the Commission has no leverage to force implementation. “We end up with infringement proceedings years later. But that’s not the point.”
The question of funding also remains open. It is true that, according to the Commission’s calculations, every euro invested in restoring nature brings a return of at least €8 thanks to the strengthened ecosystems. Nevertheless, the sums to finance the measures must first be raised. “And how is a poorer country supposed to do that if we can’t even manage it reasonably in Germany?” says Paulus. One possibility: a total of €100 billion euros should be earmarked in the multi-year financial framework up to 2027.
The private sector should also be held more accountable, for example, through the EU taxonomy. But disclosing the impact of corporate activities on biodiversity is much more complicated than the energy efficiency of a company or its CO2 emissions.
The draft of the renaturation law was presented by the Commission in June. Currently, there is a dispute in Parliament about who is responsible for what. The Environment Committee is in charge, but the Agriculture Committee is also insisting on having a say. Negotiator Cesar Luena (S&D) apparently wants to present his report this year. Numerous amendments are expected.
Didier Reynders keeps chatting in the backseat of his limousine during the video interview – the 64-year-old Belgian is currently on his way from Brussels to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Reynders has a lot to talk about. He already had a long career as a minister in Belgium before becoming Ursula von der Leyen’s man for the European rule of law mechanism and the enforcement of sanctions against Russia as EU Commissioner for Justice and the Rule of Law three years ago.
A law graduate from Liège, he has been involved in various cabinets since 1999, including a long time as finance and foreign minister. He is a member of the Mouvement Réformateur, the French-speaking Liberals, and chaired the party for many years.
But Reynders says he would have preferred to be a swimmer. “Until I was 16 years old, I spent three or four hours a day in swim training,” he says. So instead, a career in top politics that he has never regretted. “What drives me is how an idea can become law.”
One of his most successful ideas was Belgian film subsidies. Tax breaks have allowed more Belgian films to be made since 2003. “We’ve had some success at Cannes as a result,” he says, a proud smile on his face.
Similarly, he promoted the country’s football. As a small country, he said, Belgium could not compete. That’s why he granted tax incentives to investors who set up football schools for children. Reynders’ method seems to be working: Until the beginning of this year, the “Red Devils” led the Fifa world rankings for three years in a row.
He sees his origins as an advantage. Belgium, which consists of three regions and languages, relies on compromise. “To be honest, it’s quite easy for a Belgian politician with some experience to find a way.”
Arriving in Strasbourg, Reynders will defend the Commission’s position in the rule of law case against Hungary before the EU Parliament. At stake is €7.5 billion from the Structural Funds, which the Commission wants to disburse only in exchange for reforms. The majority in Parliament wants to block the funds because the reforms do not go far enough. “We will pay out the EU funds if we think the reforms have been implemented and the independence of the judiciary has been ensured,” Reynders will tell MEPs.
In the interview, he says, “It turns out that the financial pressure on Hungary is very high and efficient.” He praises the pressure exerted by Parliament on Viktor Orbán but calls for an equal commitment from governments as well. “Rule of law is not a matter of compromise. It’s about applying the rules and values.”
His next trip will take him to Berlin at the beginning of next week for the G7 meeting of justice ministers. The topic: sanctions against Russia and coming to terms with war crimes. “I want us to be able not only to freeze assets but also to confiscate them,” he says.
In addition, the G7 will discuss whether there should be a new war tribunal alongside the International Criminal Court, in which Ukrainian judges can participate. “We are ready to discuss this additional possibility, for the crime of aggression.” Tom Schmidtgen
