How can NATO states ensure that military support for Ukraine is reasonably safe from Donald Trump? This is the central question that the Alliance’s foreign ministers will address at their meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow. According to diplomats, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will present a €100 billion package there. The aim is to put the supply of armaments on a stable footing for the next five years and at the same time slowly bring Ukraine closer to NATO.
Part of the plan is also to gradually transfer the coordination of military support from the US-led Ramstein Coalition to NATO. Currently, coordination is provided on an ad hoc basis by around 300 soldiers from the US armed forces at the European headquarters in Wiesbaden.
Among other things, NATO could take over the coordination of training missions or the various coalitions for procurements. However, the delivery of armaments should continue to take place bilaterally, also out of consideration for skeptics such as Germany. An initial exchange is planned at today’s meeting of foreign ministers. The aim is to reach an agreement by the summit in Washington in July.
Tomorrow’s meeting between the NATO foreign ministers and their counterparts from the four most important Asia-Pacific states (AP4) Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand is also a signal towards Trump and his focus on China. Thursday also marks NATO’s 75th birthday, which will be celebrated with a small ceremony at the headquarters. The new member states of Eastern Europe, for whom the alliance is an even stronger symbol of freedom and sovereignty, will deliberately be in the spotlight.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) platform laws, the Data Act, the Cyber Resilience Act and, last but not least, the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) – the end of the legislative period has brought a whole package of new digital laws. However, the digital decade proclaimed by the EU runs until 2030, so what do digital associations expect from the new Commission in its next mandate?
“Less is more at the moment”, says Oliver Süme, CEO of the German Internet Industry Association Eco. “It was a very intensive legislative period in which we saw a certain tendency towards over-regulation.” This has led to considerable legal uncertainty. The uncertainty led to barriers to investment and innovation. “But it is precisely in these areas that we need to catch up considerably”, says Süme. “I therefore hope that we are now entering a period of evaluation.”
David Adams, EU Public Affairs Officer at Bitkom, also sees a lot of work ahead for companies. “That’s why it’s important that there is political support for implementing these laws properly now“, says Adams. “This is the only way to achieve the associated ambitious goals.” With a view to the new legislative period, this means: “The new Commission should make the proper implementation of the adopted laws a top priority.” The new Digital Commissioner must ensure, for example, that the AI Office works, that the member states create appropriate structures and that standards are formulated in good time.
Take the DSA, for example. There has been confusion about how to comply with the law as long as no supervisory authority has been appointed in Germany. Something like this should not happen again if possible. “Given the scope of the AI Act, which affects an incredible number of products, this would of course be extremely challenging for companies”, warns Adams.
Both associations emphasize how important standards are for companies so that they can comply with the new requirements in a legally compliant manner. “Especially when it comes to AI, we need a uniform interpretation”, emphasizes Süme. Take the GDPR, for example: “We absolutely must avoid what we have seen here: A complete fragmentation of supervisory structures and different approaches in different member states.”
With the new AI Office, it is therefore important that it does not focus primarily on investigations and imposing fines, but rather on introducing standards and creating interpretation aids. “A very important task of the AI Office is also the promotion and creation of codes of practice in the market, as set out in the AI Act”, says Süme. “More centralization at Brussels level would be desirable than the additional supervisory functions of the national authorities.” When he looks at how the individual member states or their authorities are positioning themselves, he fears that the whole thing will once again lead to a very strict and one-sided consumer-oriented interpretation and application. “That’s why I believe that evaluation is the order of the day.”
The focus should be on completing the projects that have been initiated, says Adams. The Data Act and the Data Governance Act have laid the foundation for a legal framework for the data economy. The Commission had announced that this legal framework would also be developed on a sectoral basis. This has now happened in the healthcare sector with the European Health Data Space.
“But other data spaces are to be created. It is therefore important to really leverage the potential offered by the Data Act and the Data Governance Act”, says Adams. Süme from Eco agrees: “There is a clear message that data spaces should be created, access to data should be made easier and data silos should be broken up. We are still a long way from the end.”
The Commission has also set itself the goal of achieving a 90% digitization rate in SMEs by 2030. “According to the Commission, we are currently at 54%, so there is still a lot of room for improvement“, states Süme.
The Commission is already preparing a law that the next Commission will then implement, the Digital Networks Act (DNA), which is intended to provide the necessary infrastructure to achieve the goals of the Digital Decade. “Here too, I would be cautious about the idea of trying to promote these things through new regulations right now,” says Süme. The goal is basically the right one, “because we are still a long way from where we want to be in terms of digital infrastructures“. And of course it is desirable to strengthen European telecommunications companies.
“The fact is that we don’t have the cloud infrastructure in Europe that would be required to train large language models such as GPT4 or others”, Süme reminds us. This is why a regulatory approach such as the AI Act is only half the story. He hopes that the next Commission will “think more about incentives for investment and the concrete promotion of competitiveness, rather than always thinking about where it wants to restrict and where it wants to regulate”.
Bitkom has observed a certain imbalance. In Europe, there is too much talk about risks and too little about opportunities. “We rarely look at how we can succeed in giving European companies the scope to innovate and create digital products and services”, criticizes Adams. Although there is a lot of talk about competitiveness and innovative strength at a political level, this is not reflected enough in the laws. Bitkom’s specific recommendation is therefore that “the new EU Commission should include a new point in its impact assessments, which it has to submit for new laws: it should always check how a law affects the competitiveness of the digital economy“.
Where the money goes is also crucial in the next mandate, says Adams from Bitkom. Horizon Europe is being renegotiated, as is the multi-year financial framework. “These are important decisions that will take place over the next one and a half to two years.” Research into digital technologies under Horizon Europe must continue to be funded. “This is extremely important for Europe as an attractive location for the digital economy.” The same also applies to specific technology funding under the programs that are docked under the multiannual financial framework.
However, Bitkom also sees room for improvement here. “In our view, funding in both the research and technology sectors must be more application-oriented“, says Adams. “We need to get better in Europe at making the transition from good research work to industrial application.”
In recent years, there has been the Green Deal work program with many initiatives, most of which have been implemented. And the political headlines have repeatedly stated that we need to think about digital and sustainability together. “But this was rarely reflected in the actual articles of legislation”, criticizes Adams. “Far too rarely in our view. This means that the potential that digital technologies have for sustainability goals in Europe falls by the wayside.”
Bitkom also has a suggestion for the new Commission when it comes to funding policy. It is certainly nice for the EU to say that it is now promoting technology A and B, and maybe C. “But to actually achieve our goals, we don’t need to promote a technology, but a specific use case“, suggests Adams. For example, using artificial intelligence to control factories more efficiently in order to emit fewer pollutants. “We would like to suggest this shift in the funding programs to the Commission”, says Adams. “What we need now is a Digital Green Deal”.
And now is also the time to think about what should actually happen after the digital decade. What will Europe look like in 2040 or 2050? What are the goals we can set ourselves? “We want to give the Commission and the new Parliament food for thought to take up this debate and, ideally, set concrete goals in a kind of roadmap”, says Adams.
In many European countries, the Green Deal and its agricultural arm, the farm-to-fork strategy, have been in the sights of farmers for weeks. The main reason for the farmers’ discontent lies in the environmental protection requirements, which were originally developed to improve soil quality and biodiversity. Ultimately, the land sector is supposed to make a contribution to climate protection. For Valérie Hayer, who comes from an agricultural family, “the Green Deal must not be played off against agriculture“. This also applies to the next term of office.
The Renew Chairwoman calls for “a more comprehensive and structural reflection” on the future of agriculture in Europe. She recalls that the current term of office began with a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) “to make it greener and bring in more money for farmers“. Today we are in the implementation phase and shortcomings have emerged. That is why derogations for the CAP have been adopted “to meet the needs of farmers”.
The French MEP says that in their decisions, EU legislators have taken into account the political context in agricultural markets, which are potentially destabilized due to the import of Ukrainian products. European legislators have therefore given guarantees to protect farmers.
However, Valérie Hayer is critical of free trade agreements that allow the import of agricultural products from countries that do not have the same environmental requirements as the EU internal market. She believes that the farmers’ anger is justified. “What is at stake here is the question of remuneration and fair competition.” These two aspects must be taken into account and require long-term considerations, emphasizes Hayer.
For this reason, it supports the idea of reciprocal environmental standards, known in Brussels jargon as “mirror clauses”. The idea behind them: Countries that want to import their products into Europe are subject to the same environmental and health standards as European producers. Farmers’ associations see this as a way of preventing unfair competition, as EU standards are often higher than in importing countries. However, WTO rules leave little scope for imposing production standards on third countries.
Valérie Hayer is therefore calling for a “new generation” of trade agreements “based on the Paris climate goals and the principle of reciprocity”. This is a line that French President Emmanuel Macron also supports. Europe is crazy to continue concluding trade agreements like those of 20 years ago, which “hinder the decarbonization of our economies or the fight for biodiversity”, Macron said recently in Brazil.
For these reasons, the French president and his renaissance leader candidate Hayer consider Mercosur to be a “bad agreement”. The agreement recently signed with Chile, on the other hand, is better, according to Hayer. It also includes a chapter on the sustainability of food systems.
For Valérie Hayer, it is therefore important to ensure fair remuneration for farmers and fair competition in the negotiations on future free trade agreements.
“Law and Europe – European Law” is certainly a lifelong theme for him, explains Johannes Laitenberger. Born in Hamburg in 1964, he has worked in EU institutions for almost 30 years. He first spent three years in the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, then from 1999 to 2019 in the Commission, including as Head of Cabinet of José Manuel Barroso and as Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition under EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
In DG Competition, Johannes Laitenberger played a leading role in the state aid dispute with Ireland and Apple, in which the EU Commission ordered Ireland to repay €13 billion in taxes plus interest from Apple in 2016. The dispute is currently before the ECJ after the repayment request was annulled at first instance in 2020 – by the European Court of First Instance (CFI), the very institution at which Laitenberger currently holds his position as a judge.
However, he does not see this as a problem. When he took up his position as a judge, he left the Commission for good. Especially as he is not involved in proceedings that he had to deal with on the administrative side in his previous role: “That is a completely normal part of the rule of law.”
This is not just an expression of the restraint that a judge is obliged to exercise ex officio. Rather, it stems from a deeper conviction. The “astonishing resilience” that the EU has demonstrated since the 2007 financial crisis is not only based on power and political will. It is also based on the fact that legally binding rules create a framework from which the EU can react to future challenges and continue to develop.
His insight into this connection also has biographical reasons, explains Laitenberger. As a teenager, he moved to Portugal with his family shortly after the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and still vividly remembers the political debates that shaped the transition from dictatorship to democracy.
From 1985, he studied law in Bonn and experienced another historical upheaval in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Laitenberger sees having experienced these “experiences of freedom” at first hand as a privilege and an incentive to help ensure that the rule of law remains possible. But always within the limits of the role they play: “When everyone sees their own limits, it becomes easier to deal with others.”
Specifically, this also applies to Laitenberger’s current work at the European Court of First Instance, where he is a member of the management committee in addition to his role as a judge. At the top of the agenda at the moment is the further acceleration of proceedings at the court, without making less thorough decisions as a result.
From the fall, the ECJ is also to take over so-called preliminary rulings for the first time, thereby relieving the burden on the ECJ. In “technically well-defined areas”, for example in questions of VAT and passenger rights, the ECJ will then be able to take over questions from national courts on the interpretation of EU law. Johannes Laitenberger emphasizes that such practical matters are also about upholding the law and the rule of law. Martin Renz
How can NATO states ensure that military support for Ukraine is reasonably safe from Donald Trump? This is the central question that the Alliance’s foreign ministers will address at their meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow. According to diplomats, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will present a €100 billion package there. The aim is to put the supply of armaments on a stable footing for the next five years and at the same time slowly bring Ukraine closer to NATO.
Part of the plan is also to gradually transfer the coordination of military support from the US-led Ramstein Coalition to NATO. Currently, coordination is provided on an ad hoc basis by around 300 soldiers from the US armed forces at the European headquarters in Wiesbaden.
Among other things, NATO could take over the coordination of training missions or the various coalitions for procurements. However, the delivery of armaments should continue to take place bilaterally, also out of consideration for skeptics such as Germany. An initial exchange is planned at today’s meeting of foreign ministers. The aim is to reach an agreement by the summit in Washington in July.
Tomorrow’s meeting between the NATO foreign ministers and their counterparts from the four most important Asia-Pacific states (AP4) Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand is also a signal towards Trump and his focus on China. Thursday also marks NATO’s 75th birthday, which will be celebrated with a small ceremony at the headquarters. The new member states of Eastern Europe, for whom the alliance is an even stronger symbol of freedom and sovereignty, will deliberately be in the spotlight.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) platform laws, the Data Act, the Cyber Resilience Act and, last but not least, the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) – the end of the legislative period has brought a whole package of new digital laws. However, the digital decade proclaimed by the EU runs until 2030, so what do digital associations expect from the new Commission in its next mandate?
“Less is more at the moment”, says Oliver Süme, CEO of the German Internet Industry Association Eco. “It was a very intensive legislative period in which we saw a certain tendency towards over-regulation.” This has led to considerable legal uncertainty. The uncertainty led to barriers to investment and innovation. “But it is precisely in these areas that we need to catch up considerably”, says Süme. “I therefore hope that we are now entering a period of evaluation.”
David Adams, EU Public Affairs Officer at Bitkom, also sees a lot of work ahead for companies. “That’s why it’s important that there is political support for implementing these laws properly now“, says Adams. “This is the only way to achieve the associated ambitious goals.” With a view to the new legislative period, this means: “The new Commission should make the proper implementation of the adopted laws a top priority.” The new Digital Commissioner must ensure, for example, that the AI Office works, that the member states create appropriate structures and that standards are formulated in good time.
Take the DSA, for example. There has been confusion about how to comply with the law as long as no supervisory authority has been appointed in Germany. Something like this should not happen again if possible. “Given the scope of the AI Act, which affects an incredible number of products, this would of course be extremely challenging for companies”, warns Adams.
Both associations emphasize how important standards are for companies so that they can comply with the new requirements in a legally compliant manner. “Especially when it comes to AI, we need a uniform interpretation”, emphasizes Süme. Take the GDPR, for example: “We absolutely must avoid what we have seen here: A complete fragmentation of supervisory structures and different approaches in different member states.”
With the new AI Office, it is therefore important that it does not focus primarily on investigations and imposing fines, but rather on introducing standards and creating interpretation aids. “A very important task of the AI Office is also the promotion and creation of codes of practice in the market, as set out in the AI Act”, says Süme. “More centralization at Brussels level would be desirable than the additional supervisory functions of the national authorities.” When he looks at how the individual member states or their authorities are positioning themselves, he fears that the whole thing will once again lead to a very strict and one-sided consumer-oriented interpretation and application. “That’s why I believe that evaluation is the order of the day.”
The focus should be on completing the projects that have been initiated, says Adams. The Data Act and the Data Governance Act have laid the foundation for a legal framework for the data economy. The Commission had announced that this legal framework would also be developed on a sectoral basis. This has now happened in the healthcare sector with the European Health Data Space.
“But other data spaces are to be created. It is therefore important to really leverage the potential offered by the Data Act and the Data Governance Act”, says Adams. Süme from Eco agrees: “There is a clear message that data spaces should be created, access to data should be made easier and data silos should be broken up. We are still a long way from the end.”
The Commission has also set itself the goal of achieving a 90% digitization rate in SMEs by 2030. “According to the Commission, we are currently at 54%, so there is still a lot of room for improvement“, states Süme.
The Commission is already preparing a law that the next Commission will then implement, the Digital Networks Act (DNA), which is intended to provide the necessary infrastructure to achieve the goals of the Digital Decade. “Here too, I would be cautious about the idea of trying to promote these things through new regulations right now,” says Süme. The goal is basically the right one, “because we are still a long way from where we want to be in terms of digital infrastructures“. And of course it is desirable to strengthen European telecommunications companies.
“The fact is that we don’t have the cloud infrastructure in Europe that would be required to train large language models such as GPT4 or others”, Süme reminds us. This is why a regulatory approach such as the AI Act is only half the story. He hopes that the next Commission will “think more about incentives for investment and the concrete promotion of competitiveness, rather than always thinking about where it wants to restrict and where it wants to regulate”.
Bitkom has observed a certain imbalance. In Europe, there is too much talk about risks and too little about opportunities. “We rarely look at how we can succeed in giving European companies the scope to innovate and create digital products and services”, criticizes Adams. Although there is a lot of talk about competitiveness and innovative strength at a political level, this is not reflected enough in the laws. Bitkom’s specific recommendation is therefore that “the new EU Commission should include a new point in its impact assessments, which it has to submit for new laws: it should always check how a law affects the competitiveness of the digital economy“.
Where the money goes is also crucial in the next mandate, says Adams from Bitkom. Horizon Europe is being renegotiated, as is the multi-year financial framework. “These are important decisions that will take place over the next one and a half to two years.” Research into digital technologies under Horizon Europe must continue to be funded. “This is extremely important for Europe as an attractive location for the digital economy.” The same also applies to specific technology funding under the programs that are docked under the multiannual financial framework.
However, Bitkom also sees room for improvement here. “In our view, funding in both the research and technology sectors must be more application-oriented“, says Adams. “We need to get better in Europe at making the transition from good research work to industrial application.”
In recent years, there has been the Green Deal work program with many initiatives, most of which have been implemented. And the political headlines have repeatedly stated that we need to think about digital and sustainability together. “But this was rarely reflected in the actual articles of legislation”, criticizes Adams. “Far too rarely in our view. This means that the potential that digital technologies have for sustainability goals in Europe falls by the wayside.”
Bitkom also has a suggestion for the new Commission when it comes to funding policy. It is certainly nice for the EU to say that it is now promoting technology A and B, and maybe C. “But to actually achieve our goals, we don’t need to promote a technology, but a specific use case“, suggests Adams. For example, using artificial intelligence to control factories more efficiently in order to emit fewer pollutants. “We would like to suggest this shift in the funding programs to the Commission”, says Adams. “What we need now is a Digital Green Deal”.
And now is also the time to think about what should actually happen after the digital decade. What will Europe look like in 2040 or 2050? What are the goals we can set ourselves? “We want to give the Commission and the new Parliament food for thought to take up this debate and, ideally, set concrete goals in a kind of roadmap”, says Adams.
In many European countries, the Green Deal and its agricultural arm, the farm-to-fork strategy, have been in the sights of farmers for weeks. The main reason for the farmers’ discontent lies in the environmental protection requirements, which were originally developed to improve soil quality and biodiversity. Ultimately, the land sector is supposed to make a contribution to climate protection. For Valérie Hayer, who comes from an agricultural family, “the Green Deal must not be played off against agriculture“. This also applies to the next term of office.
The Renew Chairwoman calls for “a more comprehensive and structural reflection” on the future of agriculture in Europe. She recalls that the current term of office began with a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) “to make it greener and bring in more money for farmers“. Today we are in the implementation phase and shortcomings have emerged. That is why derogations for the CAP have been adopted “to meet the needs of farmers”.
The French MEP says that in their decisions, EU legislators have taken into account the political context in agricultural markets, which are potentially destabilized due to the import of Ukrainian products. European legislators have therefore given guarantees to protect farmers.
However, Valérie Hayer is critical of free trade agreements that allow the import of agricultural products from countries that do not have the same environmental requirements as the EU internal market. She believes that the farmers’ anger is justified. “What is at stake here is the question of remuneration and fair competition.” These two aspects must be taken into account and require long-term considerations, emphasizes Hayer.
For this reason, it supports the idea of reciprocal environmental standards, known in Brussels jargon as “mirror clauses”. The idea behind them: Countries that want to import their products into Europe are subject to the same environmental and health standards as European producers. Farmers’ associations see this as a way of preventing unfair competition, as EU standards are often higher than in importing countries. However, WTO rules leave little scope for imposing production standards on third countries.
Valérie Hayer is therefore calling for a “new generation” of trade agreements “based on the Paris climate goals and the principle of reciprocity”. This is a line that French President Emmanuel Macron also supports. Europe is crazy to continue concluding trade agreements like those of 20 years ago, which “hinder the decarbonization of our economies or the fight for biodiversity”, Macron said recently in Brazil.
For these reasons, the French president and his renaissance leader candidate Hayer consider Mercosur to be a “bad agreement”. The agreement recently signed with Chile, on the other hand, is better, according to Hayer. It also includes a chapter on the sustainability of food systems.
For Valérie Hayer, it is therefore important to ensure fair remuneration for farmers and fair competition in the negotiations on future free trade agreements.
“Law and Europe – European Law” is certainly a lifelong theme for him, explains Johannes Laitenberger. Born in Hamburg in 1964, he has worked in EU institutions for almost 30 years. He first spent three years in the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, then from 1999 to 2019 in the Commission, including as Head of Cabinet of José Manuel Barroso and as Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition under EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
In DG Competition, Johannes Laitenberger played a leading role in the state aid dispute with Ireland and Apple, in which the EU Commission ordered Ireland to repay €13 billion in taxes plus interest from Apple in 2016. The dispute is currently before the ECJ after the repayment request was annulled at first instance in 2020 – by the European Court of First Instance (CFI), the very institution at which Laitenberger currently holds his position as a judge.
However, he does not see this as a problem. When he took up his position as a judge, he left the Commission for good. Especially as he is not involved in proceedings that he had to deal with on the administrative side in his previous role: “That is a completely normal part of the rule of law.”
This is not just an expression of the restraint that a judge is obliged to exercise ex officio. Rather, it stems from a deeper conviction. The “astonishing resilience” that the EU has demonstrated since the 2007 financial crisis is not only based on power and political will. It is also based on the fact that legally binding rules create a framework from which the EU can react to future challenges and continue to develop.
His insight into this connection also has biographical reasons, explains Laitenberger. As a teenager, he moved to Portugal with his family shortly after the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and still vividly remembers the political debates that shaped the transition from dictatorship to democracy.
From 1985, he studied law in Bonn and experienced another historical upheaval in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Laitenberger sees having experienced these “experiences of freedom” at first hand as a privilege and an incentive to help ensure that the rule of law remains possible. But always within the limits of the role they play: “When everyone sees their own limits, it becomes easier to deal with others.”
Specifically, this also applies to Laitenberger’s current work at the European Court of First Instance, where he is a member of the management committee in addition to his role as a judge. At the top of the agenda at the moment is the further acceleration of proceedings at the court, without making less thorough decisions as a result.
From the fall, the ECJ is also to take over so-called preliminary rulings for the first time, thereby relieving the burden on the ECJ. In “technically well-defined areas”, for example in questions of VAT and passenger rights, the ECJ will then be able to take over questions from national courts on the interpretation of EU law. Johannes Laitenberger emphasizes that such practical matters are also about upholding the law and the rule of law. Martin Renz
