It is not the Commission or the Parliament that is in the spotlight in Strasbourg today, but the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It will deliver its judgment on three climate complaints. The outcome of the proceedings could also influence German climate policy – although Portugal, France and Switzerland filed the complaints in question.
Lawsuit no. 1: Portuguese young people want to oblige all member states of the Council of Europe to adopt a more ambitious climate policy. Because they have not exhausted the domestic legal process – which they would have had to follow in 32 countries – their chances of success appear slim. However, if the court rules in favor of the Portuguese young people, Germany will also be obliged to step up its climate protection measures.
Complaint no. 2: Damien Carême, a green European politician from France and former mayor of Grande-Synthe, complains about the increasing risk of flooding in his hometown.
Complaint no. 3: Hundreds of women of retirement age from Switzerland are demanding a stricter climate policy from their country because, as older people, they suffer particularly badly from the consequences of global warming, such as heat waves.
The complaints from Carême and the Swiss senior citizens will also have a difficult time, as they will have to convince the court that the effects of inadequate climate protection affect them personally – and many complaints fail on this point. Only then will the ECtHR examine whether the defendant state has violated its duty to protect its citizens.
This is extremely difficult to prove, says Christian Calliess, environmental and European law expert. “Most countries have signed the Paris Climate Agreement and are pursuing some kind of climate policy. Whether it is sufficient is a completely different question. But so far, the ECtHR has always emphasized the member states’ margin of discretion.”
On Monday (April 8), Bruno Le Maire, Robert Habeck and Adolfo Urso met in Paris for the third trilateral meeting in this composition to discuss an economic strategy for Europe. In a detailed joint statement, they call for concrete steps to reduce bureaucracy and protect European industry. They also call for more funding at the EU level.
The three ministers also emphasized that they are largely in agreement despite belonging to different party families. At least when it comes to the priorities that should shape European economic policy in the coming years, the Green from Germany, the Liberal from France and the Conservative from Italy speak in similar terms.
In their joint statement, the economics ministers call for more funding for EU industrial policy. “Private and public investment will have to increase,” they write in their joint statement. Private money is to be attracted through an ambitious agenda for the creation of a capital markets union. However, given the slow progress of this process so far, the economics ministers cannot rely on this alone.
This is why most of the points concern promoting investment through public funds. For example, the ministers of the three major economies are calling for the relaxation of state aid rules to be extended. The state aid rules are currently relaxed until the end of 2025. Many smaller countries want the state aid rules to be tightened again as soon as possible, as the big and financially strong have the upper hand in the intra-European subsidy race.
A confrontation between large and small could perhaps be defused if more financial aid and investment were to take place at the European rather than the national levels. In this respect, the paper by the three economics ministers meets the needs of those who fear a fragmentation of the internal market through national unilateral action. European funding for EU-wide public goods is to be strengthened. The EU is to use a “broad mix of new EU own resources” to repay NGEU loans and finance innovation projects, particularly in the areas of clean technologies and artificial intelligence.
This demand for more EU own resources will likely cause tensions within the German government. “For EU budget policy, we call for restraint in the creation of new own resources,” says the FDP’s European election program, for example.
The three ministers are also in favor of eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic burdens for companies, especially small and medium-sized ones. Berlin and Paris had already submitted a series of proposals to Brussels last fall, without any tangible results to date. With Italy, they are now bringing the third major industrialized country on board.
For example, the EU Commission should consistently apply the SME test in the impact assessments for its legislative initiatives. The three ministers are also urging the authority to adjust the turnover thresholds in the legal definition of SMEs to inflation and to propose a new category for small “mid-caps” with 250 to 500 employees.
Until now, companies with fewer than 250 employees and an annual turnover of no more than €50 million have been defined as SMEs, accompanied by relief in many legal acts. Business associations such as the DIHK have long been pushing for an extension of the definition, but the Commission has so far seen no need for action.
The three ministers are also urging the Brussels authority to do more in other areas: the Commission should eliminate “far more” than the 25 percent of reporting obligations that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had set as a target. However, not much has been heard from the initiatives since an initial launch last fall
In Paris, Le Mair, Habeck and Urso also called for a rethink in dealing with international competitors, especially from China. In their joint statement, the ministers agreed on the word “resilience.” Regarding the important technologies of the future and the green transformation, the EU must pay attention to its resilience. In addition to sustainability criteria, resilience criteria should also be applied in public procurement.
The choice of the somewhat vague term “resilience” reveals that Habeck and Le Maire, for all their enthusiasm for the new era of EU industrial policy, do not yet agree on everything. They openly addressed their differences at the press conference on Monday.
For example, Le Maire would like to see explicit “Buy European” criteria in public procurement. Anyone who benefits from public contracts in the EU should be able to demonstrate a European production share of at least fifty percent.
For Habeck, this goes too far. Instead, he is focusing on a stronger weighting of resilience and sustainability criteria in public procurement. Depending on how these criteria are defined, they can de facto lead to a higher proportion of European production.
Habeck called on the Commission to make a proposal before the EU elections on how such criteria can be better used for European procurement policy.
Since the expert hearing in the Bundestag’s Agriculture Committee last November, little was heard of the amendment to the fertilizer law. The amendments, with which the Federal Government intends to implement EU law, optimize the Material Flow Balance Ordinance and introduce an ordinance on monitoring the Fertilizer Ordinance, should have been discussed in the plenary session at the second and third reading long ago. However, the legislative amendments have not been on the agenda for weeks.
One reason for the delay, as is so often the case: differences within the traffic light coalition. The amendment to the fertilizer law has been in the Bundestag for around six months, where the governing parties have been discussing it – so far without any results. The talks are going slowly, according to the parliamentary groups. But time is running out. After all, the German government has committed to implementing the EU Commission’s requirements for settling the infringement proceedings against Germany due to its long non-compliance with the EU Nitrates Directive with the planned fertilizer law.
That it is so difficult to reach a common denominator within the traffic light system despite this time pressure is probably also due to the fact that the political climate has changed since the coalition introduced the amendment to the fertilizer law in August 2023. In times of farmer protests, announced relief for farmers and a reduction in bureaucracy, tightening up the material flow balance and introducing monitoring seem to some parts of the traffic light coalition to be the wrong approach.
“After the farmers’ protests and the coalition partners’ promises to provide relief, it would be a fatal signal to introduce a further burden as a first measure,” warns Gero Hocker, agricultural policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag. According to him, the law threatens “more data collection, more bureaucracy and, as a result, a politically induced lower hourly wage.” According to Hocker, the FDP could not agree without appropriate adjustments.
Hocker does not let himself be pressured by possible reactions from Brussels. “The Commission would also be willing to talk if we could prove that the requirements can be met in other ways,” says the FDP MEP. For him, it is much more important that resolutions provide a reliable perspective for farmers to be exempt from restrictions if they have complied with all requirements.
The SPD parliamentary group also wants to ease the burden on those who adhere to the current rules. According to its rapporteur for the Fertilizer Act, Sylvia Lehmann, the material flow balance in particular should help with this. In order to ensure the polluter pays principle, an individual farm approach is required, which can only be realized via the material flow balance, Lehmann states. “This makes it possible to exempt farms from requirements that have a positive material flow balance and therefore introduce fewer nutrients into the soil.”
However, Lehmann also believes it is necessary to reduce regulations and bureaucratic requirements for farmers. She says that the proposals of the current agricultural dialogue should be taken into account in the discussions on the fertilizer law. Unlike Hocker, Lehmann believes there is time pressure, particularly concerning the monitoring regulation, intended to monitor nutrient inputs into groundwater. “The EU has a very critical view of Germany on this issue. In other words, we need the fertilizer law with monitoring and material flow balance as quickly as possible,” said the SPD politician.
However, the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), among others, has been campaigning against a stricter material flow balance for months. In its demands paper from mid-March on reducing bureaucracy and easing burdens, the DBV once again calls for the material flow balance to be scrapped altogether and for “demonstrably water-conserving farms to be exempt from the additional strict requirements of the Fertilizer Regulation.”
The Kiel agricultural scientist Friedhelm Taube, a sought-after expert in the field, believes this is the wrong approach. “If we really want to reduce bureaucracy, we need to enforce the material flow balance,” he says. Every good business outside of agriculture does not call this bureaucracy, but controlling – to know what nutrients enter the business based on receipts and what is exported again via the products. The accounting offices have this data and would only have to transmit it. The fertilizer regulation, with its high level of bureaucracy, would then no longer be needed. Taube is convinced that good regulatory law would protect the good and force the bad to adapt.
According to Taube, the fact that many stakeholders are still opposed to the material flow balance is also due to their fear of transparency. “Farm managers keep telling me that there are many opportunities for manipulation with the current system,” says Taube. This is why the material flow balance is feared because it makes the actual nutrient flows transparent.
Among other things, phosphorus regulation is being re-implemented through the Material Flow Balance Ordinance, notes the agricultural scientist. Phosphorus is a bigger problem than nitrate in many regions of north-western Germany. In the area of phosphorus, farmers can currently do almost anything they want in terms of over-fertilization due to too much liquid manure, says Taube. His conclusion: “What the FDP is doing in the Bundestag is denying transparency under the guise of reducing bureaucracy.”
Taube believes there is a real risk of the EU Commission issuing another warning to Germany if the traffic light coalition does not finalize the amendments to the law soon. Although the Material Flow Balance Ordinance is not part of the suspension of the EU infringement proceedings, “you shouldn’t rely on a suspension working.” After all, the EU Water Framework Directive also needs to be implemented, Taube points out.
A spokesperson for the EU Commission told Table.Briefings that the Commission is monitoring the situation and is in close contact with the German authorities. “We trust that the German authorities will take the necessary measures in accordance with EU law,” the spokesperson continued.
As long as the traffic light factions cannot agree on a uniform line, the entry into force of the new fertilizer law – originally targeted by the BMEL for the beginning of the year – is moving further and further into the distance. What’s more, for Gero Hocker, a parliamentary reservation is already unavoidable for future decisions under the fertilizer law. However, Sylvia Lehmann points out that this is not only unusual but also prolongs and complicates the discussion.
Before Xi Jinping’s trip to France, Trade Minister Wang Wentao met with representatives from the worlds of business and politics in Paris. At the meeting with Wang, he emphasized the need for balanced trade relations, wrote Franck Riester, France’s Assistant Minister for Foreign Trade, on X on Monday. These would offer opportunities for companies in both countries.
According to media reports, Wang also met representatives of the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) in Paris to discuss a Chinese investigation into French subsidies for cognac. For the investigation, the Chinese authorities have named Martell, a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard, Jas Hennessy of the luxury group LVMH and E. Remy Martin from Rémy Cointreau.
China initiated the cognac investigation after the EU Commission announced its investigation into state subsidies for Chinese EVs. The EU Commission has been investigating Chinese subsidy practices since October. The outcome will determine whether tariffs will be imposed.
Chinese car manufacturers are not dependent on subsidies to gain a competitive advantage, Wang emphasized. Furthermore, accusations by the USA and the EU that there is overcapacity are unfounded, Wang said in a statement issued by the ministry on Monday. The minister made his statements at a round of talks with Chinese companies in Paris, where he wanted to discuss China’s exports of electric vehicles to the European market, among other things.
Representatives from more than ten companies took part in the meeting. “China’s electric vehicle companies rely on continuous technological innovation, perfect production and supply chain system and full market competition for rapid development, not relying on subsidies to gain competitive advantages,” Wang said. China’s Minister of Commerce was joined by the heads of BYD, Geely and SAIC, among others.
On Sunday, Wang met representatives of the Association of European Automobile Manufacturers and the CEO of Renault, Luca de Meo. According to the news agency Reuters, de Meo emphasized the importance of the principle of reciprocity between the two countries and pleaded for joint development programs for future technologies. Wang is also said to have met representatives of the French cosmetics industry, including Hermès and L’Oréal.
The Chinese minister’s visit precedes President Xi’s visit to Paris in May as part of the 60th anniversary of Franco-Chinese diplomatic relations. So far, there are different dates for the travel time. According to the Reuters news agency, Wang will travel to an economic forum in Verona this week in the presence of Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. ari
It is not the Commission or the Parliament that is in the spotlight in Strasbourg today, but the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It will deliver its judgment on three climate complaints. The outcome of the proceedings could also influence German climate policy – although Portugal, France and Switzerland filed the complaints in question.
Lawsuit no. 1: Portuguese young people want to oblige all member states of the Council of Europe to adopt a more ambitious climate policy. Because they have not exhausted the domestic legal process – which they would have had to follow in 32 countries – their chances of success appear slim. However, if the court rules in favor of the Portuguese young people, Germany will also be obliged to step up its climate protection measures.
Complaint no. 2: Damien Carême, a green European politician from France and former mayor of Grande-Synthe, complains about the increasing risk of flooding in his hometown.
Complaint no. 3: Hundreds of women of retirement age from Switzerland are demanding a stricter climate policy from their country because, as older people, they suffer particularly badly from the consequences of global warming, such as heat waves.
The complaints from Carême and the Swiss senior citizens will also have a difficult time, as they will have to convince the court that the effects of inadequate climate protection affect them personally – and many complaints fail on this point. Only then will the ECtHR examine whether the defendant state has violated its duty to protect its citizens.
This is extremely difficult to prove, says Christian Calliess, environmental and European law expert. “Most countries have signed the Paris Climate Agreement and are pursuing some kind of climate policy. Whether it is sufficient is a completely different question. But so far, the ECtHR has always emphasized the member states’ margin of discretion.”
On Monday (April 8), Bruno Le Maire, Robert Habeck and Adolfo Urso met in Paris for the third trilateral meeting in this composition to discuss an economic strategy for Europe. In a detailed joint statement, they call for concrete steps to reduce bureaucracy and protect European industry. They also call for more funding at the EU level.
The three ministers also emphasized that they are largely in agreement despite belonging to different party families. At least when it comes to the priorities that should shape European economic policy in the coming years, the Green from Germany, the Liberal from France and the Conservative from Italy speak in similar terms.
In their joint statement, the economics ministers call for more funding for EU industrial policy. “Private and public investment will have to increase,” they write in their joint statement. Private money is to be attracted through an ambitious agenda for the creation of a capital markets union. However, given the slow progress of this process so far, the economics ministers cannot rely on this alone.
This is why most of the points concern promoting investment through public funds. For example, the ministers of the three major economies are calling for the relaxation of state aid rules to be extended. The state aid rules are currently relaxed until the end of 2025. Many smaller countries want the state aid rules to be tightened again as soon as possible, as the big and financially strong have the upper hand in the intra-European subsidy race.
A confrontation between large and small could perhaps be defused if more financial aid and investment were to take place at the European rather than the national levels. In this respect, the paper by the three economics ministers meets the needs of those who fear a fragmentation of the internal market through national unilateral action. European funding for EU-wide public goods is to be strengthened. The EU is to use a “broad mix of new EU own resources” to repay NGEU loans and finance innovation projects, particularly in the areas of clean technologies and artificial intelligence.
This demand for more EU own resources will likely cause tensions within the German government. “For EU budget policy, we call for restraint in the creation of new own resources,” says the FDP’s European election program, for example.
The three ministers are also in favor of eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic burdens for companies, especially small and medium-sized ones. Berlin and Paris had already submitted a series of proposals to Brussels last fall, without any tangible results to date. With Italy, they are now bringing the third major industrialized country on board.
For example, the EU Commission should consistently apply the SME test in the impact assessments for its legislative initiatives. The three ministers are also urging the authority to adjust the turnover thresholds in the legal definition of SMEs to inflation and to propose a new category for small “mid-caps” with 250 to 500 employees.
Until now, companies with fewer than 250 employees and an annual turnover of no more than €50 million have been defined as SMEs, accompanied by relief in many legal acts. Business associations such as the DIHK have long been pushing for an extension of the definition, but the Commission has so far seen no need for action.
The three ministers are also urging the Brussels authority to do more in other areas: the Commission should eliminate “far more” than the 25 percent of reporting obligations that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had set as a target. However, not much has been heard from the initiatives since an initial launch last fall
In Paris, Le Mair, Habeck and Urso also called for a rethink in dealing with international competitors, especially from China. In their joint statement, the ministers agreed on the word “resilience.” Regarding the important technologies of the future and the green transformation, the EU must pay attention to its resilience. In addition to sustainability criteria, resilience criteria should also be applied in public procurement.
The choice of the somewhat vague term “resilience” reveals that Habeck and Le Maire, for all their enthusiasm for the new era of EU industrial policy, do not yet agree on everything. They openly addressed their differences at the press conference on Monday.
For example, Le Maire would like to see explicit “Buy European” criteria in public procurement. Anyone who benefits from public contracts in the EU should be able to demonstrate a European production share of at least fifty percent.
For Habeck, this goes too far. Instead, he is focusing on a stronger weighting of resilience and sustainability criteria in public procurement. Depending on how these criteria are defined, they can de facto lead to a higher proportion of European production.
Habeck called on the Commission to make a proposal before the EU elections on how such criteria can be better used for European procurement policy.
Since the expert hearing in the Bundestag’s Agriculture Committee last November, little was heard of the amendment to the fertilizer law. The amendments, with which the Federal Government intends to implement EU law, optimize the Material Flow Balance Ordinance and introduce an ordinance on monitoring the Fertilizer Ordinance, should have been discussed in the plenary session at the second and third reading long ago. However, the legislative amendments have not been on the agenda for weeks.
One reason for the delay, as is so often the case: differences within the traffic light coalition. The amendment to the fertilizer law has been in the Bundestag for around six months, where the governing parties have been discussing it – so far without any results. The talks are going slowly, according to the parliamentary groups. But time is running out. After all, the German government has committed to implementing the EU Commission’s requirements for settling the infringement proceedings against Germany due to its long non-compliance with the EU Nitrates Directive with the planned fertilizer law.
That it is so difficult to reach a common denominator within the traffic light system despite this time pressure is probably also due to the fact that the political climate has changed since the coalition introduced the amendment to the fertilizer law in August 2023. In times of farmer protests, announced relief for farmers and a reduction in bureaucracy, tightening up the material flow balance and introducing monitoring seem to some parts of the traffic light coalition to be the wrong approach.
“After the farmers’ protests and the coalition partners’ promises to provide relief, it would be a fatal signal to introduce a further burden as a first measure,” warns Gero Hocker, agricultural policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group in the Bundestag. According to him, the law threatens “more data collection, more bureaucracy and, as a result, a politically induced lower hourly wage.” According to Hocker, the FDP could not agree without appropriate adjustments.
Hocker does not let himself be pressured by possible reactions from Brussels. “The Commission would also be willing to talk if we could prove that the requirements can be met in other ways,” says the FDP MEP. For him, it is much more important that resolutions provide a reliable perspective for farmers to be exempt from restrictions if they have complied with all requirements.
The SPD parliamentary group also wants to ease the burden on those who adhere to the current rules. According to its rapporteur for the Fertilizer Act, Sylvia Lehmann, the material flow balance in particular should help with this. In order to ensure the polluter pays principle, an individual farm approach is required, which can only be realized via the material flow balance, Lehmann states. “This makes it possible to exempt farms from requirements that have a positive material flow balance and therefore introduce fewer nutrients into the soil.”
However, Lehmann also believes it is necessary to reduce regulations and bureaucratic requirements for farmers. She says that the proposals of the current agricultural dialogue should be taken into account in the discussions on the fertilizer law. Unlike Hocker, Lehmann believes there is time pressure, particularly concerning the monitoring regulation, intended to monitor nutrient inputs into groundwater. “The EU has a very critical view of Germany on this issue. In other words, we need the fertilizer law with monitoring and material flow balance as quickly as possible,” said the SPD politician.
However, the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), among others, has been campaigning against a stricter material flow balance for months. In its demands paper from mid-March on reducing bureaucracy and easing burdens, the DBV once again calls for the material flow balance to be scrapped altogether and for “demonstrably water-conserving farms to be exempt from the additional strict requirements of the Fertilizer Regulation.”
The Kiel agricultural scientist Friedhelm Taube, a sought-after expert in the field, believes this is the wrong approach. “If we really want to reduce bureaucracy, we need to enforce the material flow balance,” he says. Every good business outside of agriculture does not call this bureaucracy, but controlling – to know what nutrients enter the business based on receipts and what is exported again via the products. The accounting offices have this data and would only have to transmit it. The fertilizer regulation, with its high level of bureaucracy, would then no longer be needed. Taube is convinced that good regulatory law would protect the good and force the bad to adapt.
According to Taube, the fact that many stakeholders are still opposed to the material flow balance is also due to their fear of transparency. “Farm managers keep telling me that there are many opportunities for manipulation with the current system,” says Taube. This is why the material flow balance is feared because it makes the actual nutrient flows transparent.
Among other things, phosphorus regulation is being re-implemented through the Material Flow Balance Ordinance, notes the agricultural scientist. Phosphorus is a bigger problem than nitrate in many regions of north-western Germany. In the area of phosphorus, farmers can currently do almost anything they want in terms of over-fertilization due to too much liquid manure, says Taube. His conclusion: “What the FDP is doing in the Bundestag is denying transparency under the guise of reducing bureaucracy.”
Taube believes there is a real risk of the EU Commission issuing another warning to Germany if the traffic light coalition does not finalize the amendments to the law soon. Although the Material Flow Balance Ordinance is not part of the suspension of the EU infringement proceedings, “you shouldn’t rely on a suspension working.” After all, the EU Water Framework Directive also needs to be implemented, Taube points out.
A spokesperson for the EU Commission told Table.Briefings that the Commission is monitoring the situation and is in close contact with the German authorities. “We trust that the German authorities will take the necessary measures in accordance with EU law,” the spokesperson continued.
As long as the traffic light factions cannot agree on a uniform line, the entry into force of the new fertilizer law – originally targeted by the BMEL for the beginning of the year – is moving further and further into the distance. What’s more, for Gero Hocker, a parliamentary reservation is already unavoidable for future decisions under the fertilizer law. However, Sylvia Lehmann points out that this is not only unusual but also prolongs and complicates the discussion.
Before Xi Jinping’s trip to France, Trade Minister Wang Wentao met with representatives from the worlds of business and politics in Paris. At the meeting with Wang, he emphasized the need for balanced trade relations, wrote Franck Riester, France’s Assistant Minister for Foreign Trade, on X on Monday. These would offer opportunities for companies in both countries.
According to media reports, Wang also met representatives of the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) in Paris to discuss a Chinese investigation into French subsidies for cognac. For the investigation, the Chinese authorities have named Martell, a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard, Jas Hennessy of the luxury group LVMH and E. Remy Martin from Rémy Cointreau.
China initiated the cognac investigation after the EU Commission announced its investigation into state subsidies for Chinese EVs. The EU Commission has been investigating Chinese subsidy practices since October. The outcome will determine whether tariffs will be imposed.
Chinese car manufacturers are not dependent on subsidies to gain a competitive advantage, Wang emphasized. Furthermore, accusations by the USA and the EU that there is overcapacity are unfounded, Wang said in a statement issued by the ministry on Monday. The minister made his statements at a round of talks with Chinese companies in Paris, where he wanted to discuss China’s exports of electric vehicles to the European market, among other things.
Representatives from more than ten companies took part in the meeting. “China’s electric vehicle companies rely on continuous technological innovation, perfect production and supply chain system and full market competition for rapid development, not relying on subsidies to gain competitive advantages,” Wang said. China’s Minister of Commerce was joined by the heads of BYD, Geely and SAIC, among others.
On Sunday, Wang met representatives of the Association of European Automobile Manufacturers and the CEO of Renault, Luca de Meo. According to the news agency Reuters, de Meo emphasized the importance of the principle of reciprocity between the two countries and pleaded for joint development programs for future technologies. Wang is also said to have met representatives of the French cosmetics industry, including Hermès and L’Oréal.
The Chinese minister’s visit precedes President Xi’s visit to Paris in May as part of the 60th anniversary of Franco-Chinese diplomatic relations. So far, there are different dates for the travel time. According to the Reuters news agency, Wang will travel to an economic forum in Verona this week in the presence of Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani. ari
