According to information from Commission circles, the Commission is preparing a strategic dialog on the future of the automotive industry. The aim is to identify ways in which the automotive industry can emerge from the crisis and solve Europe’s problems within a few months.
A high-ranking panel of experts is to deal comprehensively with key issues: Will the fines for manufacturers for failing to meet the 2025 climate targets remain in place? Should the CO2 fleet limits be adjusted in 2030 and 2035? Should the 2035 phase-out of combustion engines for cars and light commercial vehicles be maintained? The development of the charging infrastructure and the use of data generated during driving could also become an issue.
The strategic dialogue on the future of the automotive industry is to be organized along the lines of the strategic dialog on agriculture. Under the leadership of Peter Strohschneider, experts, industry representatives and NGOs developed a vision for the industry within seven months. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had signaled that she would implement the recommendations. According to reports, the commission is still looking for a person who can moderate the dialog with the automotive industry.
Von der Leyen has met with the CEOs of the German car manufacturers in Strasbourg over the past few days: Oliver Blume from VW, Ola Källenius from Mercedes and Oliver Zipse from BMW. There had been no such meetings during her first term of office.
The CEOs are still trying to achieve changes to the countervailing duties on electric cars produced in China, which are due to take effect at the end of October. When it comes to CO2 regulation, the interests of the company bosses are diverging: while VW is calling for the suspension of penalties under the CO2 fleet legislation, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse is arguing against this. BMW has invested a lot to meet the targets. VW will foreseeably miss the targets and must expect fines in the billions. Zipse demands openness to technology for the 2030 and 2035 targets. Blume is in favor of sticking with the phase-out of the combustion engine.
In Berlin, VW has already submitted customized proposals to solve its own sales problems with EVs: VW is calling for an EV premium of €4000 euros up to a purchase price of €65,000, a premium of €2500 for used e-cars and a reduced VAT rate on EVs for two years. Competitors are disconcerted and the lobbying battle is in full swing.
Your Markus Grabitz
Feature
New framework agreement: EU Parliament wants to curb summary proceedings
The European Parliament is urging the EU Commission to respect MEPs’ right to have a say in the legislative process. According to the Parliament, the Commission should commit itself to a new framework agreement to only launch new projects in urgent procedures in absolutely exceptional cases – and to have to justify this legally in individual cases. Parliament also wants to be able to set up committees of inquiry more easily in order to be able to investigate scandals such as cataracts.
In recent years, the Commission and Council have increasingly adopted crisis measures on the basis of the “emergency article” 122 TFEU, such as the joint procurement of vaccines and financial aid from Next Generation EU and SURE during the coronavirus pandemic. The European Parliament is largely left out of these procedures, unlike in the regular legislative process.
‘Legislation must be transparent and democratic’
SPD MEP Bernd Lange warns that this practice must not be allowed to continue. “Especially in difficult times, it is important that legislation is transparent and democratic”, the chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairmen told Table.Briefings. Lange will lead the upcoming negotiations together with the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, Sven Simon (CDU). On the Commission side, Executive Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič is responsible.
The Commission has so far stalled MEPs with a date for the first meeting and also left our question unanswered. Lange and Simon want to conclude the new framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission before the new Commission takes up its work. However, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen needs Parliament’s approval for her new college for the planned start at the beginning of December. The two EP negotiators want to use this as a means of putting pressure on her to make promises.
‘The mountain of legislation continues to grow’
The current framework agreement dates backto 2010. Simon believes that the new agreement is an aid: “Basically, the entire legislative process needs to be revised, but we would have to change the EU treaties to achieve this.” The European Parliament has been fighting in vain for a long time to obtain the right of initiative for new legislative proposals. So far, this has been reserved for the Commission.
At the same time, this means that MPs cannot change or abolish laws that have been passed on their initiative. “This is problematic because it means that the mountain of legislation continues to grow”, says Simon. The new framework agreement should therefore contain a kind of voluntary commitment on the part of the Commission: “It should have to justify why it wants to adhere to individual existing legal acts.”
Concern about legal action by the Council
The Christian Democrats have made relieving companies of EU bureaucracy and reporting obligations one of their main priorities for the new legislative period. The EPP had also insisted that the framework agreement should include a significant strengthening of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in the Commission. This independent body acts as a kind of internal standards control council, checking the quality of impact assessments for new legislative initiatives.
However, the Social Democrats did not want to support the demands. Lange refers to legal concerns: the framework agreement could be challenged by the Council before the European Court of Justice if it encroaches too deeply on the Commission’s executive powers.
New agreement to reduce bureaucracy
It is therefore up to von der Leyen alone how she organizes the fight against excessive regulation in the Commission. The CDU politician has tasked the new Commissioner-designate for Economic Affairs, Valdis Dombrovskis, with reviewing the existing EU acquis and deleting unnecessary reporting obligations.
The Latvian is also to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement with the Council and Parliament. This should also oblige the other two EU institutions to carry out impact assessments if they want far-reaching changes to the Commission’s legislative proposals. It is not yet clear when this interinstitutional agreement will be negotiated. It will run separately from the bilateral framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission.
In any case, it remains to be seen how effective such an agreement can be: in the most recent interinstitutional agreement from 2016, the three institutions had already committed to “simplifying legislation and reducing burdens”. Simon also doubts that the new framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission can be a cure for bureaucracy. “Unfortunately, parts of Parliament already lack the necessary awareness of the problem“, he criticizes. “The over-regulation of the last legislature is a massive burden on acceptance of the EU.”
Europapolitik
EVP
Sustainability reporting: Why streamlining is hardly possible in the short term
In addition to her teaching activities, Karina Sopp also works as an author and consultant.
Ms. Sopp, the number of critical voices on the EU Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is increasing. Companies, associations, the government, the opposition and the Federal Council say that the regulation is too comprehensive and too complex. Do you share this view? Although companies can theoretically implement the requirements of the CSRD as it stands – with the exception of specific issues – I agree that the reporting obligations demand a lot of resources from them, both human and financial. It would therefore be advisable to streamline them.
Economics Minister Robert Habeck even spoke out last week in favor of abolishing the reporting obligations. In return, companies should take on more responsibility again and then be subject to strict controls. This is similar to the model we had before the CSRD. That was the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), which defined non-financial reporting obligations for a limited group of companies. Within this framework, companies were much more flexible in their choice of topics to be reported on, the scope and the level of detail. However, this flexibility meant that the reports were hardly comparable. Some companies reported very little. At the same time, from the companies’ point of view, it must be added that the political requirements at the time were non-binding and vague. The low informative value of the non-financial statements was therefore also due to the lack of standardization.
The EU has responded to this with the CSRD? The EU has formulated the goal of channeling capital flows into more sustainable economic activities. To achieve this, investors must be informed in greater detail about the sustainability performance of companies. For this reason, in particular, the measures have been formulated much more strictly.
How could the effort involved in reporting be reduced again? The effort is not only determined by the scope of the data but by the entire process. This starts with the double materiality analysis, in which you have to filter out which topics are important for the companies and their stakeholders. The entire process is complex, partly due to the specified stakeholder involvement, and could certainly be simplified. Another point is the level of detail. What data can be collected at all? Suppliers, for example, are unwilling or unable to provide certain information because they are based in countries where data on labor or the environment is not available. Or can only be provided with a delay, with recourse to information from public bodies.
The German government has announced that it will lobby the EU Commission to reduce the burden. However, some member states have already transposed the CSRD into national law. How much can still be changed? At EU level, it will not be possible to change anything in the short term that would be relevant for the first users who have to report for reporting years from 2024. There is also little room for maneuver at national level in the short term. This is because the details defined by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) are not determined by the individual member states. However, adjustments could be made on the basis of the first CSRD evaluations, which would have an impact in the medium and long term.
Is the German criticism of the CSRD actually shared in other European countries? In other member states, too, the effort involved is perceived as great. This is why the CSRD is only being implemented with great delay in some cases. It is to be feared that there will still be no EU-wide legal certainty by the end of the year.
How does this fit in with the aim of creating a level playing field across the EU? The capital market-oriented companies that will be required to report in 2024 were already obliged to provide non-financial reporting under the NFRD. These companies are much better prepared for the new reporting requirements than those required to report for the first time. The changeover is greater for corporations that have to provide information for the first time for reporting years from 2025 onwards. However, if the reporting obligation is now exercised differently in the respective EU states, this will lead to unequal treatment. And the problem continues, for example with the so-called group privilege. This means that subsidiaries do not actually have to report separately. However, this privilege cannot be used if the parent company is based in an EU country in which the CSRD has not yet been implemented.
Do companies themselves have any leeway to reduce their costs? In principle, what is prescribed by law must be applied. However, the intensity with which the rules are implemented can certainly vary. How much or in what form a company involves stakeholders, i.e. employees, customers, or interested members of the public, is based on its own assessment. Especially as the external review of the reports is handled less strictly in the first phase.
Do you assume that the reporting effort for companies can be reduced and that the EU can maintain the objectives of its Green Deal at the same time? I think it is quite conceivable that the EU objectives, for example on decarbonization, can be achieved even with adjusted requirements. Furthermore, I do not believe that the key points of standardization or external auditing that have now been established need to be abandoned to simplify reporting. The effort could be reduced simply by providing the legal requirements with more lead time and formulating them more clearly. In addition, information that many companies need and that has to be compiled via different databases or is hardly available should be provided centrally. One example of this is emission reduction factors for different regions and use cases. The necessary granularity of the data to be disclosed in one place or another is also debatable.
Professor Karina Sopp holds the Chair of Entrepreneurship and Business Taxation at the Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg. Sustainability reporting is one of the focal points of her work.
Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung
News
Von der Leyen roasts Orbán
Ursula von der Leyen has never been so clear in her criticism of Viktor Orbán. Step by step, the Commission President took apart the presentation by Hungary’s head of government, who had previously presented the agenda for Hungary’s EU Council Presidency. For example on the topic of competitiveness, the focus of the informal summit on Nov. 8 in Budapest: barriers must be removed so that companies can grow across borders, warned Ursula von der Leyen. However, a government in the EU is heading in exactly the opposite direction and drifting away from the single market: “How can a government attract more European investment if it simultaneously discriminates against European companies by taxing them more heavily than others?”
Violations of the internal market and competition law
The EU Commission was recently criticized by the EU Parliament for not clearly denouncing Hungary’s violations of internal market rules and competition law. This time, however, Ursula von der Leyen stated the deficits unequivocally. How could a country attract more companies if the government imposed export restrictions overnight? And how could European companies have confidence if a government controlled them arbitrarily, blocked their permits and public contracts repeatedly went to a small group of beneficiaries? This creates uncertainty and undermines investor confidence. This is at a time when Hungary’s Central European neighbors are outperforming it in terms of GDP per capita.
Viktor Orbán himself was comparatively tame during his presentation and repeatedly referred to Mario Draghi’sreport on competitiveness or French President Emmanuel Macron for his criticism of the status quo. The Draghi report calls for a joint plan for decarbonization and growth, von der Leyen said in turn towards Hungary: However, there are still governments that want to hold on to dirty Russian fossil fuels. Instead of looking for alternative energy sources, one member state in particular is only looking for alternative ways to buy fossil fuels from Russia. Yet Russia has long since proven that it is not a reliable supplier.
Misguided migration policy
The Commission President was similarly clear about the contradictions in migration policy. Orbán had said that Hungary was protecting its borders and locking up criminals: “I just wonder how this statement fits in with the fact that its authorities released convicted smugglers and human traffickers last year before they had served their sentences.” Hungary’s authorities allegedly released around 1,500 convicted human traffickers early last year due to overcrowded prisons. Hungary’s head of government had only thrown the problems to the neighbors “over the fence”, explained the head of the Commission. Combating illegal migration looks different.
She also spoke plainly about Ukraine, where Hungary is delaying or blocking support for the country in its defensive struggle at every opportunity. The world is witness to Russia’s atrocities in this war, but there are still some who do not blame the aggressor for this war, but the aggressed, Ursula von der Leyen made clear. No one would blame the Hungarians for the Soviet invasion of 1956, the Commission President alluded to statements made by Viktor Orbán’s political advisor. He had said that his country had learned from the bloody suppression of the revolution back then that resistance was not worthwhile.
Parliamentarians criticize corruption in Hungary
There was a similar echo of criticism across the political groups in the EU Parliament, with the exception of the far-right Patriots’ Group. He had difficulty understanding that Viktor Orbán was colluding with the aggressor, said EPP group leader Manfred Weber, alluding to the Hungarian’s visits to Moscow. This was not a “peace mission”, but a pure propaganda show that prolonged Russia’s war. During Hungary’s last EU Council Presidency in 2011, Viktor Orbán was at the center of Europe, but today nobody wants to see Hungary’s head of government: “Today you are alone, marginalized.” Corruption is also destroying the country; 400,000 Hungarians have had enough of it and have turned their backs on their homeland.
The Green Party’s Daniel Freund also denounced Viktor Orbán as the “most corrupt politician” in the EU. €14 billion of European taxpayers’ money had been lost during the head of government’s time in office.
Viktor Orbán reacted visibly annoyed. The EU Parliament was apparently not interested in Hungary’s plans for the Council presidency and had instead organized a “political intifada”. Orbán spoke of propaganda and “left-wing lies”. He felt personally insulted. He rejected Ursula von der Leyen’s criticism. And complained that, unlike in the past, the EU Commission was no longer a neutral guardian of the treaties, but a political body. sti
Dekarbonisierung
Europapolitik
Fossile Brennstoffe
MFF reform: Rapporteur Mureşan urges caution
Over the past few days, a leaked presentation from the EU Commission has triggered a heated debate about a possible reform of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The presentation showed a scenario in which the more than 500 programs within the MFF would be abolished. The money would flow directly to the member states, as is currently the case with the Corona Rescue Fund (NGEU). In return, they would commit to reforms and investments.
Interest groups from agriculture, research and the regions that benefit from the current structure of the MFF have expressed their alarm. However, the European Parliament’s MFF rapporteur, Siegfried Mureşan (EPP), is reassuring. The discussions are currently only taking place at a technical level in the Commission’s services, he told Table Briefings. “They are not ideas that we need to take seriously politically right now.” The Commission could only seriously start preparing the new MFF once the new Commissioners were in office.
NGEU model makes budgetary control more difficult
For him, it is clear that a simplification of the MFF will be necessary and that the EU must better coordinate the priorities in its budget. The current structure with more than 500 programs is too complicated. At the same time, important budget items such as cohesion policy and support for agriculture cannot simply be merged into a large budget item for competitiveness.
“The principle of local participation must be guaranteed”, said Mureşan with regard to cohesion policy, whose funds are currently managed by the regions. A complete switch to the way the rescue fund works would violate the principles of EU budget management in several ways. As the final beneficiaries of EU funds could not be identified in such a model, parliamentary budgetary control would be impossible. In addition, Europeans would not see what exactly happens to EU money.
Court of Auditors criticizes rising error rate in EU spending
The annual report of the European Court of Auditors, which is to be published today, Thursday, also points to the problems of budgetary control. It criticizes an increasing error rate in expenditure. The Court of Auditors estimates the error rate for EU expenditure in 2023 at 5.6%. This is a significant increase compared to 2022 (4.2 percent) and 2021 (3.0 percent).
According to the Court of Auditors, this development is mainly due to a sharp increase in the error rate for cohesion spending, where the Court of Auditors estimates an error rate of 9.3% for 2023 (2022: 6.4%). The Court of Auditors also criticizes the fact that the outstanding commitments in the 2023 EU budget have reached a record level of 543 billion euros, which points to continued significant absorption difficulties at member state level.
ACA President calls the leaked scenario ‘extremely radical’
At a press conference prior to the publication of the report, the President of the Court of Auditors, Tony Murphy, also commented on the debate on the possible MFF reform. He called the leaked scenario “extremely radical”. “It is important for us to be able to track the money”, said Murphy.
Even if the Commission’s proposal is ultimately not likely to be as radical as in the Commission’s presentation, the need for reforms is hardly controversial in view of the Court of Auditors’ warnings. Mureşan will prepare an own-initiative parliamentary report on the new MFF in the first half of 2025. He wants to use this to influence the Commission’s official proposal, which is expected in late summer or fall 2025. jaa
GAP
Affordable housing: Schinas wants rapid measures against energy poverty
Acting Commission Vice-President Margaritis Schinas has announced ambitious and swift reforms to promote affordable and green housing. “It’s time for change. It is time to help those who need it most“, Schinas told the European Parliament. He announced a “holistic action plan”.
This requires more investment or a reform of the state aid rules for the promotion of housing, said Schinas. The instruments are already known from the political guidelines of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. However, Schinas also made a commitment to the social aspects of housing: he emphasized the fight against homelessness and the importance of the Union’s poverty strategy, which is to be introduced in the new legislative period.
Schinas explicitly addressed the problem of energy poverty: “New efforts to reduce energy prices are crucial.” Corresponding plans must be “drawn up and implemented quickly and effectively”, said the outgoing Commissioner.
More and ‘right’ investments
The ideas of the political groups could hardly be more different as to how the Union, with its limited competencies in the field, could achieve more affordable housing. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Pérez, for example, wants a “permanent, additional investment of €50 billion a year”.
Kim van Sparrentak, who was responsible for the own initiative report on access to adequate and affordable housing for all for the Greens/EFA group in the last legislative period, also emphasized: “We need investment in housing, but the right kind. In Berlin, we can see that investments of over €40 billion have led to a city that was once one of the most affordable in Europe now becoming unaffordable.” Speculative investments should be curbed, she believes.
Fewer regulations for residential construction
“Housing must not be a luxury”, Markus Ferber (CSU) also added. He wants the EU to tackle the equity regulations. “These rules date back to the times of the financial crises”, said Ferber. Another key lever in his view: removing unnecessary standards that make housing construction more expensive. “Other regions of the world are far ahead of us in this respect.”
The Patriots for Europe and members of the far-right ESN parliamentary group want to abolish expensive standards, especially those in the energy and climate sectors. Their main concern: That the Buildings Directiveis withdrawn. lei
Europäisches Parlament
Habeck emphasizes the advantages of LkSG regulation for German companies
At the presentation of the autumn projection on Wednesday, Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeckemphasizedthe importance of environmental and human rights standards such as those set out in the German Supply Chain Sustainability Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG). “As citizens of this country or this world, we cannot want products to be produced at the expense of people or the environment and for the companies that comply with the worst standards to have an advantage.”
These standards would also be beneficial for the local economy: it would ultimately weaken it “if we were to enter into dumping competition because others are always dumping more than we are”. At the same time, however, he once againspoke outin favor of reducing reporting obligations in connection with the German government’s efforts to reduce bureaucracy.
Steering committee calls for legal certainty
“It is good that Minister Habeck has not repeated his unacceptable statements from last week and has committed himself to the Supply Chain Act”, said Armin Paasch (Misereor) on behalf of the steering committee of the Supply Chain Act Initiative. However, his statements remained “too vague”. The minister must end all speculation about a suspension of the Supply Chain Act or the suspension of sanctions in order to create legal certainty.
The civil society alliance is also calling on Habeck to make a “clear commitment to the effective implementation of the EU Supply Chain Directive in accordance with EU law”. In particular, the directive prohibits regression compared to the current level of protection under the LkSG. “The reduction of the number of companies to which the Supply Chain Act applies to one-third, as announced in the growth initiative, is not compatible with this.”
Criticism from party colleague Anna Cavazzini
Last week, Habeck declared at the Business Day of the German Foreign Trade Association (BGA)that politicians had taken a “completely wrong turn with the LkSG, despite good intentions”. With a view to reporting obligations, he called for “the chainsaw to be fired up and the whole thing cut down“. This earned him a round of applause at the event.
Afterward, his party colleague Anna Cavazzini, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection in the EU Parliament, voiced harsh criticism. The Minister for Economic Affairs did not represent the position of the Greens or the Green Group in the European Parliament at this point. The politician had campaigned for the European Supply Chain Act.
At the annual meeting of the German Council for Sustainable Development on Tuesday, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz alsospoke out in favor of changing the reporting obligations. The reporting obligations had “gotten out of hand”. It was not a “good idea to take a chainsaw to the reporting obligations“, said RNE Chairman Reiner Hoffmann. cd
Sorgfaltspflichten
CCS in Europe: Up to €140 billion in subsidies needed
The construction and operation of CCS projects planned in Europe could require up to €140 billion in subsidies. This is the conclusion of a study by the think tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which is to be published today. The study found that most planned CCS projects are too expensive, making commercial operation impossible. According to the IEEFA, the costs are likely to rise even further due to recurring problems in the operation of CCS projects.
“If Europe relies on CCS as a solution to the problem of climate change, European governments will be forced to introduce horrendous subsidies for a technology that has already failed in the past,” says Andrew Reid, energy finance expert at IEEFA. Just a few days ago, the UK pledged more than £21 billion in subsidies for three CCS projects and infrastructure.
Europe’s timetable ‘too optimistic’
The IEEFA warns:
For Europe to achieve its climate targets, 90 of the 200 CCS projects planned in Europe would have to be completed by 2030. Only three CCS projects are currently in operation in the EU. “Over 90 percent of the proposed emissions capture is from projects that are only at the prototype or demonstration stage,” the analysis states, labeling the timeline too optimistic.
The necessary laws and standards on which many CCS applications depend are still not in place.
The planned CCS applications are based on an “exceptionally complex value chain that relies on many technically and economically challenging individual projects to work simultaneously in project clusters.” Any problems in a single project would affect many other aspects of the CCS value chain (capture, transportation, storage).
The IEEFA analysis urges the EU not to rely on CCS as a climate solution. If CCS fails, “it may be too late to change track and mitigate or reduce emissions through alternative measures”, says Reid. nib
carbon capture
CCS
Climate & Environment
CO2-Speicher
EU climate policy
Europe
Klimaziele
Subsidies
Europe’s digital sovereignty: Study highlights the importance of data centers
Data centers play a central role in the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. The current lack of data center capacity often forces European companies to rely on computing resources in the USA. This impairs control over sensitive data and jeopardizes technological independence, according to a new study conducted by the German Economic Institute (IW) on behalf of the German Internet Industry Association (Eco).
According to the study, the expansion of data center capacities in Germany could generate an additional gross value of €250 billion. Data centers are considered an important prerequisite for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and for innovations in various industries. The study shows that companies that rely on cloud services and data centers can increase their innovative strength and productivity, which in turn helps to strengthen their competitiveness.
Cloud and AI as a booster for innovation
Innovative companies that use AI generate 32% of their turnover with new products or services, the authors write. The ecosystem of digital infrastructures serves as a particular driver here. If the AI tools are used in the cloud, the share of new products and services in turnover is around 40 percent. In contrast, companies that do not use data centers only generate eight percent of their turnover with innovations.
In this context, the Alliance for Strengthening Digital Infrastructures under the umbrella of the Eco Association is calling for planning and approval procedures for the construction of new data centers to be accelerated. This would enable Germany and the EU to reduce their dependence on infrastructure located outside Europe and fully exploit the benefits of digital transformation.
Commission launches consultation on securitizations
Yesterday, Wednesday, the EU Commission launched a call for consultation on the current framework for securitizations in the EU. The Commission is hoping that financial market players in particular will provide insights into the problems and obstacles they are currently encountering in the market.
The information from market participants should help the Commission to soon present a legislative proposal that improves the framework conditions for the securitization market. The Commission hopes that a stronger securitization market will result in a more powerful capital market and greater credit capacity for banks. If they can securitize their loans and sell them on the market, they will have more scope to grant further loans. In this way, a stronger securitization market should lead to better investment conditions in the real economy.
Critics see risks to the stability of the financial market
In a press release, the German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomed the Commission’s swift action. “Insurers would like to invest more in securitization, but so far there are a number of hurdles in the way”, said GDV Managing Director Jörg Asmussen.
Strengthening the securitization market is one of the few aspects of the Capital Markets Union whose implementation is not currently hindered by any strong interests of the member states. However, critics warn that strong securitization activity also increases the risks to financial stability.
Interested parties can submit their opinions and experiences to the Commission via an online form by Dec. 4. jaa
Finanzmarkt
EU-US Data Privacy Framework: Commission confirms progress
Following an initial review of the new data protection framework between the EU and the US (EU-US Data Privacy Framework, DPF), the Commission has determined that the US authorities have met the essential requirements. The DPF regulates the transfer of personal data from the EU to US companies. The measures implemented include safeguards that limit access by US intelligence services to a necessary and proportionate level, as well as the establishment of an independent and impartial redress mechanism for EU citizens.
According to the Commission, the review report is based on input from civil society organizations, trade associations, data protection authorities, and feedback from the public. In addition, findings from a review meeting in Washington in July 2024, which was attended by EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders and US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, among others, were also included.
The report also contains recommendations to further improve cooperation between the US authorities and the EU data protection authorities to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the framework. The Commission plans to continue to monitor developments and report regularly on progress. vis
Didier Reynders
Heads
Jozef Síkela – EU Commissioner for Global Gateway
Jozef Síkela has already proven himself at EU level during the Czech Council Presidency.
Jozef Síkela (57), currently Czech Minister for Industry and Trade, had been considered for all possible portfolios in the new EU Commission: migration, energy, and most recently trade. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala had expressed his desire for a “strong economic portfolio” for his country. He was counting on Brussels to remember how skillfully Síkela had brought the member states onto a common course against Putin’s gas war during the Czech EU Council Presidency in the second half of 2022.
It did not help. The opposition in Prague and the country’s media were disappointed that the country had been “fobbed off” with a “rather uninfluential, vague portfolio” such as that of the Commissioner for International Partnerships. The magazine Reflex wrote: “We have once again lost the battle for a really strong economic portfolio. This has been happening for 20 years, ever since we joined the EU. It has once again shown that our influence within the EU is limited.”
Prime Minister Fiala, who is primarily blamed for this, talked up Síkela’s future role: “He will manage the largest budget ever managed by a Czech commissioner, he will decide on investments in the Global Gateway program of up to €300 billion”, he wrote on X. However, the €300 billion is a highly dubious sum, as it comprises the entire investment volume that the program is supposed to “mobilize”, including capital from private individuals and national development banks.
Trade and investment partnerships
Jozef Síkela himself said that the portfolio of Commissioner for International Partnerships “will give me the opportunity to focus on strengthening economic security, diversifying our suppliers of critical raw materials and opening up new markets for European companies”. Essentially, he will have to ensure that Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)in particular faces real competition from the EU. So far, the infrastructure initiative from Brussels still lacks momentum.
Síkela recently emphasized at a conference in Prague that Europe must reduce its dependence on raw materials such as gas, oil, nuclear fuel, lithium, and cutting-edge technologies such as chips. “Deepening cooperation with trustworthy countries through trade agreements will help us achieve this.”
In order to reduce this dependency – mostly on China – von der Leyen wants to focus on “Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships”, which Síkela is to implement together with the designated Trade CommissionerMaroš Šefčovič. Given the more difficult environment for new trade agreements, the Commission wants to focus more on targeted partnerships.
Market opening through such partnerships should be limited to just a few sectors, but should be accompanied by European investment in partner countries. In this way, partner countries rich in raw materials should be able to keep a larger share of the value added in their own country and the EU should be able to reduce its dependency on China at the same time. Because of the EU’s great dependence on many raw materials, the need for investment is likely to be very high.
Experience in the financial sector
Assuming that the EU also supports its resilience goals with the necessary funds, Síkela’s dossier is likely to gain in importance. He will also benefit from his experience in the financial sector.
He worked for several years at Österreichische Creditanstalt, Bank Austria and Erste Bank. After the successful consolidation of Erste Bank in Ukraine, he led the Slovak Savings Bank to the top as CEO, achieved record results with it and was honored as Banker of the Year. Síkela, who speaks German, English and Russian, later became a member of the Management Board of Erste Group Bank AG.
Whether Jozef Síkela can also turn the Global Gateway project into a kind of European economic development bank will depend on how much funds the governments of the member states will entrust to it. Hans-Jörg Schmidt
According to information from Commission circles, the Commission is preparing a strategic dialog on the future of the automotive industry. The aim is to identify ways in which the automotive industry can emerge from the crisis and solve Europe’s problems within a few months.
A high-ranking panel of experts is to deal comprehensively with key issues: Will the fines for manufacturers for failing to meet the 2025 climate targets remain in place? Should the CO2 fleet limits be adjusted in 2030 and 2035? Should the 2035 phase-out of combustion engines for cars and light commercial vehicles be maintained? The development of the charging infrastructure and the use of data generated during driving could also become an issue.
The strategic dialogue on the future of the automotive industry is to be organized along the lines of the strategic dialog on agriculture. Under the leadership of Peter Strohschneider, experts, industry representatives and NGOs developed a vision for the industry within seven months. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had signaled that she would implement the recommendations. According to reports, the commission is still looking for a person who can moderate the dialog with the automotive industry.
Von der Leyen has met with the CEOs of the German car manufacturers in Strasbourg over the past few days: Oliver Blume from VW, Ola Källenius from Mercedes and Oliver Zipse from BMW. There had been no such meetings during her first term of office.
The CEOs are still trying to achieve changes to the countervailing duties on electric cars produced in China, which are due to take effect at the end of October. When it comes to CO2 regulation, the interests of the company bosses are diverging: while VW is calling for the suspension of penalties under the CO2 fleet legislation, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse is arguing against this. BMW has invested a lot to meet the targets. VW will foreseeably miss the targets and must expect fines in the billions. Zipse demands openness to technology for the 2030 and 2035 targets. Blume is in favor of sticking with the phase-out of the combustion engine.
In Berlin, VW has already submitted customized proposals to solve its own sales problems with EVs: VW is calling for an EV premium of €4000 euros up to a purchase price of €65,000, a premium of €2500 for used e-cars and a reduced VAT rate on EVs for two years. Competitors are disconcerted and the lobbying battle is in full swing.
Your Markus Grabitz
Feature
New framework agreement: EU Parliament wants to curb summary proceedings
The European Parliament is urging the EU Commission to respect MEPs’ right to have a say in the legislative process. According to the Parliament, the Commission should commit itself to a new framework agreement to only launch new projects in urgent procedures in absolutely exceptional cases – and to have to justify this legally in individual cases. Parliament also wants to be able to set up committees of inquiry more easily in order to be able to investigate scandals such as cataracts.
In recent years, the Commission and Council have increasingly adopted crisis measures on the basis of the “emergency article” 122 TFEU, such as the joint procurement of vaccines and financial aid from Next Generation EU and SURE during the coronavirus pandemic. The European Parliament is largely left out of these procedures, unlike in the regular legislative process.
‘Legislation must be transparent and democratic’
SPD MEP Bernd Lange warns that this practice must not be allowed to continue. “Especially in difficult times, it is important that legislation is transparent and democratic”, the chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairmen told Table.Briefings. Lange will lead the upcoming negotiations together with the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, Sven Simon (CDU). On the Commission side, Executive Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič is responsible.
The Commission has so far stalled MEPs with a date for the first meeting and also left our question unanswered. Lange and Simon want to conclude the new framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission before the new Commission takes up its work. However, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen needs Parliament’s approval for her new college for the planned start at the beginning of December. The two EP negotiators want to use this as a means of putting pressure on her to make promises.
‘The mountain of legislation continues to grow’
The current framework agreement dates backto 2010. Simon believes that the new agreement is an aid: “Basically, the entire legislative process needs to be revised, but we would have to change the EU treaties to achieve this.” The European Parliament has been fighting in vain for a long time to obtain the right of initiative for new legislative proposals. So far, this has been reserved for the Commission.
At the same time, this means that MPs cannot change or abolish laws that have been passed on their initiative. “This is problematic because it means that the mountain of legislation continues to grow”, says Simon. The new framework agreement should therefore contain a kind of voluntary commitment on the part of the Commission: “It should have to justify why it wants to adhere to individual existing legal acts.”
Concern about legal action by the Council
The Christian Democrats have made relieving companies of EU bureaucracy and reporting obligations one of their main priorities for the new legislative period. The EPP had also insisted that the framework agreement should include a significant strengthening of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in the Commission. This independent body acts as a kind of internal standards control council, checking the quality of impact assessments for new legislative initiatives.
However, the Social Democrats did not want to support the demands. Lange refers to legal concerns: the framework agreement could be challenged by the Council before the European Court of Justice if it encroaches too deeply on the Commission’s executive powers.
New agreement to reduce bureaucracy
It is therefore up to von der Leyen alone how she organizes the fight against excessive regulation in the Commission. The CDU politician has tasked the new Commissioner-designate for Economic Affairs, Valdis Dombrovskis, with reviewing the existing EU acquis and deleting unnecessary reporting obligations.
The Latvian is also to negotiate a new interinstitutional agreement with the Council and Parliament. This should also oblige the other two EU institutions to carry out impact assessments if they want far-reaching changes to the Commission’s legislative proposals. It is not yet clear when this interinstitutional agreement will be negotiated. It will run separately from the bilateral framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission.
In any case, it remains to be seen how effective such an agreement can be: in the most recent interinstitutional agreement from 2016, the three institutions had already committed to “simplifying legislation and reducing burdens”. Simon also doubts that the new framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission can be a cure for bureaucracy. “Unfortunately, parts of Parliament already lack the necessary awareness of the problem“, he criticizes. “The over-regulation of the last legislature is a massive burden on acceptance of the EU.”
Europapolitik
EVP
Sustainability reporting: Why streamlining is hardly possible in the short term
In addition to her teaching activities, Karina Sopp also works as an author and consultant.
Ms. Sopp, the number of critical voices on the EU Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is increasing. Companies, associations, the government, the opposition and the Federal Council say that the regulation is too comprehensive and too complex. Do you share this view? Although companies can theoretically implement the requirements of the CSRD as it stands – with the exception of specific issues – I agree that the reporting obligations demand a lot of resources from them, both human and financial. It would therefore be advisable to streamline them.
Economics Minister Robert Habeck even spoke out last week in favor of abolishing the reporting obligations. In return, companies should take on more responsibility again and then be subject to strict controls. This is similar to the model we had before the CSRD. That was the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), which defined non-financial reporting obligations for a limited group of companies. Within this framework, companies were much more flexible in their choice of topics to be reported on, the scope and the level of detail. However, this flexibility meant that the reports were hardly comparable. Some companies reported very little. At the same time, from the companies’ point of view, it must be added that the political requirements at the time were non-binding and vague. The low informative value of the non-financial statements was therefore also due to the lack of standardization.
The EU has responded to this with the CSRD? The EU has formulated the goal of channeling capital flows into more sustainable economic activities. To achieve this, investors must be informed in greater detail about the sustainability performance of companies. For this reason, in particular, the measures have been formulated much more strictly.
How could the effort involved in reporting be reduced again? The effort is not only determined by the scope of the data but by the entire process. This starts with the double materiality analysis, in which you have to filter out which topics are important for the companies and their stakeholders. The entire process is complex, partly due to the specified stakeholder involvement, and could certainly be simplified. Another point is the level of detail. What data can be collected at all? Suppliers, for example, are unwilling or unable to provide certain information because they are based in countries where data on labor or the environment is not available. Or can only be provided with a delay, with recourse to information from public bodies.
The German government has announced that it will lobby the EU Commission to reduce the burden. However, some member states have already transposed the CSRD into national law. How much can still be changed? At EU level, it will not be possible to change anything in the short term that would be relevant for the first users who have to report for reporting years from 2024. There is also little room for maneuver at national level in the short term. This is because the details defined by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) are not determined by the individual member states. However, adjustments could be made on the basis of the first CSRD evaluations, which would have an impact in the medium and long term.
Is the German criticism of the CSRD actually shared in other European countries? In other member states, too, the effort involved is perceived as great. This is why the CSRD is only being implemented with great delay in some cases. It is to be feared that there will still be no EU-wide legal certainty by the end of the year.
How does this fit in with the aim of creating a level playing field across the EU? The capital market-oriented companies that will be required to report in 2024 were already obliged to provide non-financial reporting under the NFRD. These companies are much better prepared for the new reporting requirements than those required to report for the first time. The changeover is greater for corporations that have to provide information for the first time for reporting years from 2025 onwards. However, if the reporting obligation is now exercised differently in the respective EU states, this will lead to unequal treatment. And the problem continues, for example with the so-called group privilege. This means that subsidiaries do not actually have to report separately. However, this privilege cannot be used if the parent company is based in an EU country in which the CSRD has not yet been implemented.
Do companies themselves have any leeway to reduce their costs? In principle, what is prescribed by law must be applied. However, the intensity with which the rules are implemented can certainly vary. How much or in what form a company involves stakeholders, i.e. employees, customers, or interested members of the public, is based on its own assessment. Especially as the external review of the reports is handled less strictly in the first phase.
Do you assume that the reporting effort for companies can be reduced and that the EU can maintain the objectives of its Green Deal at the same time? I think it is quite conceivable that the EU objectives, for example on decarbonization, can be achieved even with adjusted requirements. Furthermore, I do not believe that the key points of standardization or external auditing that have now been established need to be abandoned to simplify reporting. The effort could be reduced simply by providing the legal requirements with more lead time and formulating them more clearly. In addition, information that many companies need and that has to be compiled via different databases or is hardly available should be provided centrally. One example of this is emission reduction factors for different regions and use cases. The necessary granularity of the data to be disclosed in one place or another is also debatable.
Professor Karina Sopp holds the Chair of Entrepreneurship and Business Taxation at the Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg. Sustainability reporting is one of the focal points of her work.
Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung
News
Von der Leyen roasts Orbán
Ursula von der Leyen has never been so clear in her criticism of Viktor Orbán. Step by step, the Commission President took apart the presentation by Hungary’s head of government, who had previously presented the agenda for Hungary’s EU Council Presidency. For example on the topic of competitiveness, the focus of the informal summit on Nov. 8 in Budapest: barriers must be removed so that companies can grow across borders, warned Ursula von der Leyen. However, a government in the EU is heading in exactly the opposite direction and drifting away from the single market: “How can a government attract more European investment if it simultaneously discriminates against European companies by taxing them more heavily than others?”
Violations of the internal market and competition law
The EU Commission was recently criticized by the EU Parliament for not clearly denouncing Hungary’s violations of internal market rules and competition law. This time, however, Ursula von der Leyen stated the deficits unequivocally. How could a country attract more companies if the government imposed export restrictions overnight? And how could European companies have confidence if a government controlled them arbitrarily, blocked their permits and public contracts repeatedly went to a small group of beneficiaries? This creates uncertainty and undermines investor confidence. This is at a time when Hungary’s Central European neighbors are outperforming it in terms of GDP per capita.
Viktor Orbán himself was comparatively tame during his presentation and repeatedly referred to Mario Draghi’sreport on competitiveness or French President Emmanuel Macron for his criticism of the status quo. The Draghi report calls for a joint plan for decarbonization and growth, von der Leyen said in turn towards Hungary: However, there are still governments that want to hold on to dirty Russian fossil fuels. Instead of looking for alternative energy sources, one member state in particular is only looking for alternative ways to buy fossil fuels from Russia. Yet Russia has long since proven that it is not a reliable supplier.
Misguided migration policy
The Commission President was similarly clear about the contradictions in migration policy. Orbán had said that Hungary was protecting its borders and locking up criminals: “I just wonder how this statement fits in with the fact that its authorities released convicted smugglers and human traffickers last year before they had served their sentences.” Hungary’s authorities allegedly released around 1,500 convicted human traffickers early last year due to overcrowded prisons. Hungary’s head of government had only thrown the problems to the neighbors “over the fence”, explained the head of the Commission. Combating illegal migration looks different.
She also spoke plainly about Ukraine, where Hungary is delaying or blocking support for the country in its defensive struggle at every opportunity. The world is witness to Russia’s atrocities in this war, but there are still some who do not blame the aggressor for this war, but the aggressed, Ursula von der Leyen made clear. No one would blame the Hungarians for the Soviet invasion of 1956, the Commission President alluded to statements made by Viktor Orbán’s political advisor. He had said that his country had learned from the bloody suppression of the revolution back then that resistance was not worthwhile.
Parliamentarians criticize corruption in Hungary
There was a similar echo of criticism across the political groups in the EU Parliament, with the exception of the far-right Patriots’ Group. He had difficulty understanding that Viktor Orbán was colluding with the aggressor, said EPP group leader Manfred Weber, alluding to the Hungarian’s visits to Moscow. This was not a “peace mission”, but a pure propaganda show that prolonged Russia’s war. During Hungary’s last EU Council Presidency in 2011, Viktor Orbán was at the center of Europe, but today nobody wants to see Hungary’s head of government: “Today you are alone, marginalized.” Corruption is also destroying the country; 400,000 Hungarians have had enough of it and have turned their backs on their homeland.
The Green Party’s Daniel Freund also denounced Viktor Orbán as the “most corrupt politician” in the EU. €14 billion of European taxpayers’ money had been lost during the head of government’s time in office.
Viktor Orbán reacted visibly annoyed. The EU Parliament was apparently not interested in Hungary’s plans for the Council presidency and had instead organized a “political intifada”. Orbán spoke of propaganda and “left-wing lies”. He felt personally insulted. He rejected Ursula von der Leyen’s criticism. And complained that, unlike in the past, the EU Commission was no longer a neutral guardian of the treaties, but a political body. sti
Dekarbonisierung
Europapolitik
Fossile Brennstoffe
MFF reform: Rapporteur Mureşan urges caution
Over the past few days, a leaked presentation from the EU Commission has triggered a heated debate about a possible reform of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The presentation showed a scenario in which the more than 500 programs within the MFF would be abolished. The money would flow directly to the member states, as is currently the case with the Corona Rescue Fund (NGEU). In return, they would commit to reforms and investments.
Interest groups from agriculture, research and the regions that benefit from the current structure of the MFF have expressed their alarm. However, the European Parliament’s MFF rapporteur, Siegfried Mureşan (EPP), is reassuring. The discussions are currently only taking place at a technical level in the Commission’s services, he told Table Briefings. “They are not ideas that we need to take seriously politically right now.” The Commission could only seriously start preparing the new MFF once the new Commissioners were in office.
NGEU model makes budgetary control more difficult
For him, it is clear that a simplification of the MFF will be necessary and that the EU must better coordinate the priorities in its budget. The current structure with more than 500 programs is too complicated. At the same time, important budget items such as cohesion policy and support for agriculture cannot simply be merged into a large budget item for competitiveness.
“The principle of local participation must be guaranteed”, said Mureşan with regard to cohesion policy, whose funds are currently managed by the regions. A complete switch to the way the rescue fund works would violate the principles of EU budget management in several ways. As the final beneficiaries of EU funds could not be identified in such a model, parliamentary budgetary control would be impossible. In addition, Europeans would not see what exactly happens to EU money.
Court of Auditors criticizes rising error rate in EU spending
The annual report of the European Court of Auditors, which is to be published today, Thursday, also points to the problems of budgetary control. It criticizes an increasing error rate in expenditure. The Court of Auditors estimates the error rate for EU expenditure in 2023 at 5.6%. This is a significant increase compared to 2022 (4.2 percent) and 2021 (3.0 percent).
According to the Court of Auditors, this development is mainly due to a sharp increase in the error rate for cohesion spending, where the Court of Auditors estimates an error rate of 9.3% for 2023 (2022: 6.4%). The Court of Auditors also criticizes the fact that the outstanding commitments in the 2023 EU budget have reached a record level of 543 billion euros, which points to continued significant absorption difficulties at member state level.
ACA President calls the leaked scenario ‘extremely radical’
At a press conference prior to the publication of the report, the President of the Court of Auditors, Tony Murphy, also commented on the debate on the possible MFF reform. He called the leaked scenario “extremely radical”. “It is important for us to be able to track the money”, said Murphy.
Even if the Commission’s proposal is ultimately not likely to be as radical as in the Commission’s presentation, the need for reforms is hardly controversial in view of the Court of Auditors’ warnings. Mureşan will prepare an own-initiative parliamentary report on the new MFF in the first half of 2025. He wants to use this to influence the Commission’s official proposal, which is expected in late summer or fall 2025. jaa
GAP
Affordable housing: Schinas wants rapid measures against energy poverty
Acting Commission Vice-President Margaritis Schinas has announced ambitious and swift reforms to promote affordable and green housing. “It’s time for change. It is time to help those who need it most“, Schinas told the European Parliament. He announced a “holistic action plan”.
This requires more investment or a reform of the state aid rules for the promotion of housing, said Schinas. The instruments are already known from the political guidelines of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. However, Schinas also made a commitment to the social aspects of housing: he emphasized the fight against homelessness and the importance of the Union’s poverty strategy, which is to be introduced in the new legislative period.
Schinas explicitly addressed the problem of energy poverty: “New efforts to reduce energy prices are crucial.” Corresponding plans must be “drawn up and implemented quickly and effectively”, said the outgoing Commissioner.
More and ‘right’ investments
The ideas of the political groups could hardly be more different as to how the Union, with its limited competencies in the field, could achieve more affordable housing. S&D Group leader Iratxe García Pérez, for example, wants a “permanent, additional investment of €50 billion a year”.
Kim van Sparrentak, who was responsible for the own initiative report on access to adequate and affordable housing for all for the Greens/EFA group in the last legislative period, also emphasized: “We need investment in housing, but the right kind. In Berlin, we can see that investments of over €40 billion have led to a city that was once one of the most affordable in Europe now becoming unaffordable.” Speculative investments should be curbed, she believes.
Fewer regulations for residential construction
“Housing must not be a luxury”, Markus Ferber (CSU) also added. He wants the EU to tackle the equity regulations. “These rules date back to the times of the financial crises”, said Ferber. Another key lever in his view: removing unnecessary standards that make housing construction more expensive. “Other regions of the world are far ahead of us in this respect.”
The Patriots for Europe and members of the far-right ESN parliamentary group want to abolish expensive standards, especially those in the energy and climate sectors. Their main concern: That the Buildings Directiveis withdrawn. lei
Europäisches Parlament
Habeck emphasizes the advantages of LkSG regulation for German companies
At the presentation of the autumn projection on Wednesday, Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeckemphasizedthe importance of environmental and human rights standards such as those set out in the German Supply Chain Sustainability Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG). “As citizens of this country or this world, we cannot want products to be produced at the expense of people or the environment and for the companies that comply with the worst standards to have an advantage.”
These standards would also be beneficial for the local economy: it would ultimately weaken it “if we were to enter into dumping competition because others are always dumping more than we are”. At the same time, however, he once againspoke outin favor of reducing reporting obligations in connection with the German government’s efforts to reduce bureaucracy.
Steering committee calls for legal certainty
“It is good that Minister Habeck has not repeated his unacceptable statements from last week and has committed himself to the Supply Chain Act”, said Armin Paasch (Misereor) on behalf of the steering committee of the Supply Chain Act Initiative. However, his statements remained “too vague”. The minister must end all speculation about a suspension of the Supply Chain Act or the suspension of sanctions in order to create legal certainty.
The civil society alliance is also calling on Habeck to make a “clear commitment to the effective implementation of the EU Supply Chain Directive in accordance with EU law”. In particular, the directive prohibits regression compared to the current level of protection under the LkSG. “The reduction of the number of companies to which the Supply Chain Act applies to one-third, as announced in the growth initiative, is not compatible with this.”
Criticism from party colleague Anna Cavazzini
Last week, Habeck declared at the Business Day of the German Foreign Trade Association (BGA)that politicians had taken a “completely wrong turn with the LkSG, despite good intentions”. With a view to reporting obligations, he called for “the chainsaw to be fired up and the whole thing cut down“. This earned him a round of applause at the event.
Afterward, his party colleague Anna Cavazzini, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection in the EU Parliament, voiced harsh criticism. The Minister for Economic Affairs did not represent the position of the Greens or the Green Group in the European Parliament at this point. The politician had campaigned for the European Supply Chain Act.
At the annual meeting of the German Council for Sustainable Development on Tuesday, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz alsospoke out in favor of changing the reporting obligations. The reporting obligations had “gotten out of hand”. It was not a “good idea to take a chainsaw to the reporting obligations“, said RNE Chairman Reiner Hoffmann. cd
Sorgfaltspflichten
CCS in Europe: Up to €140 billion in subsidies needed
The construction and operation of CCS projects planned in Europe could require up to €140 billion in subsidies. This is the conclusion of a study by the think tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which is to be published today. The study found that most planned CCS projects are too expensive, making commercial operation impossible. According to the IEEFA, the costs are likely to rise even further due to recurring problems in the operation of CCS projects.
“If Europe relies on CCS as a solution to the problem of climate change, European governments will be forced to introduce horrendous subsidies for a technology that has already failed in the past,” says Andrew Reid, energy finance expert at IEEFA. Just a few days ago, the UK pledged more than £21 billion in subsidies for three CCS projects and infrastructure.
Europe’s timetable ‘too optimistic’
The IEEFA warns:
For Europe to achieve its climate targets, 90 of the 200 CCS projects planned in Europe would have to be completed by 2030. Only three CCS projects are currently in operation in the EU. “Over 90 percent of the proposed emissions capture is from projects that are only at the prototype or demonstration stage,” the analysis states, labeling the timeline too optimistic.
The necessary laws and standards on which many CCS applications depend are still not in place.
The planned CCS applications are based on an “exceptionally complex value chain that relies on many technically and economically challenging individual projects to work simultaneously in project clusters.” Any problems in a single project would affect many other aspects of the CCS value chain (capture, transportation, storage).
The IEEFA analysis urges the EU not to rely on CCS as a climate solution. If CCS fails, “it may be too late to change track and mitigate or reduce emissions through alternative measures”, says Reid. nib
carbon capture
CCS
Climate & Environment
CO2-Speicher
EU climate policy
Europe
Klimaziele
Subsidies
Europe’s digital sovereignty: Study highlights the importance of data centers
Data centers play a central role in the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. The current lack of data center capacity often forces European companies to rely on computing resources in the USA. This impairs control over sensitive data and jeopardizes technological independence, according to a new study conducted by the German Economic Institute (IW) on behalf of the German Internet Industry Association (Eco).
According to the study, the expansion of data center capacities in Germany could generate an additional gross value of €250 billion. Data centers are considered an important prerequisite for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and for innovations in various industries. The study shows that companies that rely on cloud services and data centers can increase their innovative strength and productivity, which in turn helps to strengthen their competitiveness.
Cloud and AI as a booster for innovation
Innovative companies that use AI generate 32% of their turnover with new products or services, the authors write. The ecosystem of digital infrastructures serves as a particular driver here. If the AI tools are used in the cloud, the share of new products and services in turnover is around 40 percent. In contrast, companies that do not use data centers only generate eight percent of their turnover with innovations.
In this context, the Alliance for Strengthening Digital Infrastructures under the umbrella of the Eco Association is calling for planning and approval procedures for the construction of new data centers to be accelerated. This would enable Germany and the EU to reduce their dependence on infrastructure located outside Europe and fully exploit the benefits of digital transformation.
Commission launches consultation on securitizations
Yesterday, Wednesday, the EU Commission launched a call for consultation on the current framework for securitizations in the EU. The Commission is hoping that financial market players in particular will provide insights into the problems and obstacles they are currently encountering in the market.
The information from market participants should help the Commission to soon present a legislative proposal that improves the framework conditions for the securitization market. The Commission hopes that a stronger securitization market will result in a more powerful capital market and greater credit capacity for banks. If they can securitize their loans and sell them on the market, they will have more scope to grant further loans. In this way, a stronger securitization market should lead to better investment conditions in the real economy.
Critics see risks to the stability of the financial market
In a press release, the German Insurance Association (GDV) welcomed the Commission’s swift action. “Insurers would like to invest more in securitization, but so far there are a number of hurdles in the way”, said GDV Managing Director Jörg Asmussen.
Strengthening the securitization market is one of the few aspects of the Capital Markets Union whose implementation is not currently hindered by any strong interests of the member states. However, critics warn that strong securitization activity also increases the risks to financial stability.
Interested parties can submit their opinions and experiences to the Commission via an online form by Dec. 4. jaa
Finanzmarkt
EU-US Data Privacy Framework: Commission confirms progress
Following an initial review of the new data protection framework between the EU and the US (EU-US Data Privacy Framework, DPF), the Commission has determined that the US authorities have met the essential requirements. The DPF regulates the transfer of personal data from the EU to US companies. The measures implemented include safeguards that limit access by US intelligence services to a necessary and proportionate level, as well as the establishment of an independent and impartial redress mechanism for EU citizens.
According to the Commission, the review report is based on input from civil society organizations, trade associations, data protection authorities, and feedback from the public. In addition, findings from a review meeting in Washington in July 2024, which was attended by EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders and US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, among others, were also included.
The report also contains recommendations to further improve cooperation between the US authorities and the EU data protection authorities to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the framework. The Commission plans to continue to monitor developments and report regularly on progress. vis
Didier Reynders
Heads
Jozef Síkela – EU Commissioner for Global Gateway
Jozef Síkela has already proven himself at EU level during the Czech Council Presidency.
Jozef Síkela (57), currently Czech Minister for Industry and Trade, had been considered for all possible portfolios in the new EU Commission: migration, energy, and most recently trade. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala had expressed his desire for a “strong economic portfolio” for his country. He was counting on Brussels to remember how skillfully Síkela had brought the member states onto a common course against Putin’s gas war during the Czech EU Council Presidency in the second half of 2022.
It did not help. The opposition in Prague and the country’s media were disappointed that the country had been “fobbed off” with a “rather uninfluential, vague portfolio” such as that of the Commissioner for International Partnerships. The magazine Reflex wrote: “We have once again lost the battle for a really strong economic portfolio. This has been happening for 20 years, ever since we joined the EU. It has once again shown that our influence within the EU is limited.”
Prime Minister Fiala, who is primarily blamed for this, talked up Síkela’s future role: “He will manage the largest budget ever managed by a Czech commissioner, he will decide on investments in the Global Gateway program of up to €300 billion”, he wrote on X. However, the €300 billion is a highly dubious sum, as it comprises the entire investment volume that the program is supposed to “mobilize”, including capital from private individuals and national development banks.
Trade and investment partnerships
Jozef Síkela himself said that the portfolio of Commissioner for International Partnerships “will give me the opportunity to focus on strengthening economic security, diversifying our suppliers of critical raw materials and opening up new markets for European companies”. Essentially, he will have to ensure that Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)in particular faces real competition from the EU. So far, the infrastructure initiative from Brussels still lacks momentum.
Síkela recently emphasized at a conference in Prague that Europe must reduce its dependence on raw materials such as gas, oil, nuclear fuel, lithium, and cutting-edge technologies such as chips. “Deepening cooperation with trustworthy countries through trade agreements will help us achieve this.”
In order to reduce this dependency – mostly on China – von der Leyen wants to focus on “Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships”, which Síkela is to implement together with the designated Trade CommissionerMaroš Šefčovič. Given the more difficult environment for new trade agreements, the Commission wants to focus more on targeted partnerships.
Market opening through such partnerships should be limited to just a few sectors, but should be accompanied by European investment in partner countries. In this way, partner countries rich in raw materials should be able to keep a larger share of the value added in their own country and the EU should be able to reduce its dependency on China at the same time. Because of the EU’s great dependence on many raw materials, the need for investment is likely to be very high.
Experience in the financial sector
Assuming that the EU also supports its resilience goals with the necessary funds, Síkela’s dossier is likely to gain in importance. He will also benefit from his experience in the financial sector.
He worked for several years at Österreichische Creditanstalt, Bank Austria and Erste Bank. After the successful consolidation of Erste Bank in Ukraine, he led the Slovak Savings Bank to the top as CEO, achieved record results with it and was honored as Banker of the Year. Síkela, who speaks German, English and Russian, later became a member of the Management Board of Erste Group Bank AG.
Whether Jozef Síkela can also turn the Global Gateway project into a kind of European economic development bank will depend on how much funds the governments of the member states will entrust to it. Hans-Jörg Schmidt
