The team around the new Budget Director General Stéphanie Riso, currently poring over the figures, is small. The group’s discussions are largely shielded, even within the EU Commission. As a result, few details have been leaked so far about the changes to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) that the Commission intends to propose in just over two weeks – reportedly with a package of new own resources. What is clear, however: it will not be a big supplement.
The Commission is also aware that it cannot make high additional demands on the member states, according to Brussels. There is little willingness in the Council to make additional contributions from national budgets to close foreseeable gaps in the EU budget at the halfway point of the 2021 to 2027 financial period. According to EU diplomats, this does not only apply to countries that traditionally do not like to spend much, such as Austria or the Netherlands. The German government also shows little willingness to transfer more money to Brussels – especially as the pressure to save is growing in Berlin. Other finance ministers simply lack the fiscal leeway, they say.
There would also be little support in the Council for a new debt-financed EU pot à la the Next Generation EU. As a result, the European Sovereignty Fund, which the Commission intends to present with the MFF review on June 20, will be significantly smaller than its proponents around Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton had hoped. The exact function and structure of the fund are still the subject of intensive negotiations within the authority.
The Commission will thus probably propose to raise the required funds primarily through reallocations, especially from the cohesion funds or also from InvestEU. Moritz Körner, the FDP budget politician in the European Parliament, believes this to be the right approach: “It would make sense to reallocate funds from the Cohesion Fund that are only flowing out slowly, for example, to continue support of Ukraine and Moldova.”
Hardly anyone disputes that the financial requirements at the EU level have increased significantly since the budget framework was finalized after a marathon summit in 2019. Several factors mean that the MFF is likely to reach its upper limits:
“The framework is very tight – we have to use almost all the flexibility tools in the budget to absorb the increased interest costs alone,” Körner says. Diplomats say there is some willingness in the Council to offset the increased costs of interest and officials’ compensation. The Commission wants to stabilize aid to Ukraine, but presumably still through instruments outside the EU budget proper, such as the European Peace Facility.
In addition, there is the sovereignty fund announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last fall. The Commission wants to raise the money for the fund as part of the MFF review. Internally, Vice President Margrethe Vestager in particular is fighting for the fund to be used as a risk buffer for private investors who want to invest in innovative technologies. The Dane expects this to be a quickly deployable instrument to serve the high investment needs for the green transformation of the economy. Her colleague Frans Timmermans, on the other hand, is in favor of strengthening the social balance within the framework of the Green Deal, according to reports in Brussels. The outcome of the discussion is still largely open.
In the German government, Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) has greater sympathy for the Sovereignty Fund than Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP). For months, the federal government has been hiding behind the formulation that the Commission should first present an analysis of the financial requirements. According to a statement in Berlin, the proposal will be examined when available. Lindner, however, will seek political debate less about the sovereignty fund than in the negotiations on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact.
However, the upcoming discussions are likely to be challenging anyway: The negotiations on the MFF review are likely to be linked to those on the EU budget for the coming year, according to EU sources. The Commission intends to present the draft budget for 2024 as early as Wednesday. Mixing these two processes with the sovereignty fund “is likely to lead to complex negotiations,” EU diplomats warn.
US pharmaceutical company Pfizer is refusing to provide information about an agreement to newly regulate a controversial, multibillion-dollar EU vaccine purchase from 2021. Instead of responding to questions from MPs on the COVI special committee looking into the Covid-19 crisis, the company sent a list of questions and refused to allow access to files. According to the Parliament, this is unacceptable.
The agreement with Pfizer and the German company Biontech was reached by the EU Commission at the end of May. According to the Brussels-based agency, the goal was to “better reflect the Member States’ assessment of the changing need for Covid-19 vaccines.” Details were not provided. Even when asked by Table.Media, the Commission would not provide figures on the agreement. Large sums are apparently at stake.
According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the agreement with Pfizer, which was negotiated behind closed doors, results in high “cancellation fees.” Germany alone would have to pay “several hundred million euros” because it was buying fewer vaccine doses than originally agreed on. If the information is correct, all 27 EU countries will have to pay several billion euros. However, the parties involved have not yet commented.
The European Parliament is also in the dark. The COVI Committee had asked the EU Commission to disclose the original contracts with Pfizer in order to examine the basis for the renegotiations that have now taken place. However, the Brussels authority did not follow the request – but, according to information from the Parliament, turned to its contractual partner Pfizer with a permission request to inspect the files.
The US company reacted in an unusual way. Instead of granting permission, Pfizer sent a list of questions. The members of Parliament were asked to explain why they wanted to see the unedited versions of the 2021 contracts – after all, they had already been given access to the edited versions. However, these are partially blacked out. Pfizer also wants to know whether the texts would be published – and what the Parliament intends to do about “unauthorized leaks.”
In the view of the MEPs, this is unacceptable. It is “difficult to understand that a private company that has benefited massively financially from the pandemic and has received public funds to develop a vaccine can refuse to share the contracts concluded with the EU with MEPs,” said MEP Tilly Metz. After all, it is about health and building trust in EU procedures, she said.
The Luxembourg Green sits on the COVI committee and is not alone in her criticism. Several MEPs had already complained about the secrecy and called on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to make a personal statement in Parliament. It was “self-evident” that von der Leyen would face the Committee, Parliament Vice President Katarina Barley told FOCUS. Von der Leyen (CDU) should not refuse, the SPD politician said. After all, “a lot of tax money” is at stake.
In total, the matter is about up to 1.8 billion vaccine doses and an estimated business volume of €35 billion. However, the EU Commission and the US company have refused from the outset to disclose the details of the deal that von der Leyen negotiated with Pfizer CEO Alfred Bourla in 2021. They cited trade secrets and safeguarding the vaccine supply as reasons.
However, the end of the Covid crisis has created a new situation: Fewer vaccine doses are needed. It is standard that there are fees, says the European Parliament. However, it is unacceptable that such clauses are negotiated without public scrutiny – and that even MEPs are denied full access to the negotiated text, they say. “That certain fees may be incurred in a commercial contract if fewer goods than planned are taken, is a standard commercial concept,” Metz said.
However, this is not an average contract between any trading partners. “It is about agreements concluded in the name of the European public with powerful private companies,” explains the MEP.
According to the COVI committee, the blockade will have repercussions. The deputies have no legal recourse. However, they are working on their final report on the Covid crisis, which is to be presented to the plenum before the summer break. In it, they could reprimand Pfizer, the EU Commission, and its president – for lack of transparency and cooperation.
EU institutions do not have a particularly good reputation when it comes to transparency: rigid procedures, opaque processes, hardly any insight. For almost ten years, Emily O’Reilly has been working to change that. As the European Ombudswoman, she holds EU institutions to account by investigating complaints from individuals, businesses and organizations about maladministration in EU bodies. “The EU already has relatively good administrative standards,” said O’Reilly. “But it is precisely such an institution that is obliged to always strive for the best possible procedures and to do so for the benefit of all Europeans.”
The office of the European Ombudsman is elected every five years by the European Parliament. If the Ombudsman uncovers an instance of maladministration in the EU, EU institutions are also obliged to take a position on the matter within three months.
One of the grievances O’Reilly is addressing right now is a problem with the EU’s provision of public documents. It takes too long. “Especially when it comes to journalists who are reporting very topically on events in the EU and need timely access to documents, this is a problem,” the ombudswoman stresses. “Delayed access is thus also denied access at the same time.” And since public documents will be requested increasingly in the future, she says the EU needs to work as quickly as possible to get a handle on this problem.
The work of journalists is particularly close to the 65-year-old Irishwoman’s heart, as she worked as a journalist in her home country for more than 20 years. “You always bring a piece of your personality and your past into your career,” O’Reilly says. “And my work as a journalist prepared me well for the job of ombudswoman.” She also said that with the press, she has been a link between citizens and the government, paying close attention to the way politicians interact with the public.
That she was already extremely successful as a journalist is reflected, among other things, in her awards: In both 1986 and 1994, she won the award for best journalist of the year in Ireland. The European Ombudswoman still uses her eye for the essentials, which she has honed over the years, and her extensive experience in the field of political journalism in her work today.
After years of writing about Irish politics and authoring three books on the politics of her home country, O’Reilly’s path led her right there – into Irish politics. “After so many years as a journalist, it really appealed to me to take an active role in politics, rather than always an observing one.” Then, she said, she took a deep breath and ventured into politics. And with success.
From 2003 to 2013, she took on the role of Ireland’s Ombudswoman and Data Protection Commissioner, the first woman ever to hold the post. In 2007, she also became Environmental Information Commissioner. “Working as an Ombudswoman in Ireland was about 75 percent the same as working as an EU commissioner today,” O’Reilly says. When she receives a complaint, she listens to both sides of the story, requests relevant documents and, after getting a picture of the situation, tries to resolve the issue with all parties involved.
However, what makes the job of European Ombudswoman significantly different from the work in Ireland is the cultural aspect, says O’Reilly. Scandinavian countries, for example, are extremely transparent and offer a wealth of freely accessible documents. “Germany, on the other hand, places a very high value on data protection regulations and has a very different philosophy when it comes to transparency of their citizens.”
So one of her most difficult tasks, she says, is to find just the right middle ground between such cultural differences at the European level. “We have to find standards for Europe that, on the one hand, are not so low that they are basically useless and, on the other hand, are not so high that nobody agrees to follow them.”
All in all, Emily O’Reilly is very pleased with her powers as European Ombudswoman. “We realize that in our role as ombudsmen, we’re more of a soft power,” she admits. “But if we do our job right, we can have a really big impact on how individuals interact with the EU.” And that is how that all-important trust in the EU as an institution is created. Gregor Scheu
Plastic beverage bottle lids are among the single-use plastic items “most commonly found as litter on Union beaches.” That is what EU Directive 2019/904 says. So far, so bad. That is where environmentally conscious lawmakers can start to react and regulate.
In response, Brussels has come up with a very clever idea in the form of this directive: Manufacturers are to ensure that the lids “remain attached to the containers during the product’s intended use stage.” This sounds great because once the little plastic part is attached, it ideally ends up in the trash along with the bottle instead of in the sea.
Attentive supermarket customers may have noticed that some manufacturers are already implementing the directive. Quite exemplary, actually. However, the implementation is not always really practical. For example, the lid attached to the Coke bottle is a nuisance when drinking or pouring. You soil yourself or the coffee counter.
My preferred reaction: Tear off the lid somehow. But I often can’t get the damaged lid back on the bottle properly, depending on the manufacturer. The result: an open container. The bottle is thus neither transportable nor is the content long-lasting. In addition, the sense of the attached lids is completely superfluous. (Even if I dutifully ALWAYS throw the lid into the yellow garbage can).
But there is hope. The directive will not be mandatory until mid-2024. Until then, manufacturers and consumers can try different solutions and gain important experience. Surely a resourceful designer will come up with something better soon.
Until then, I’ll practice drinking and pouring and vow patience and forbearance in testing different variants of the environmentally friendly attached plastic lid. To be continued… Lukas Scheid
The team around the new Budget Director General Stéphanie Riso, currently poring over the figures, is small. The group’s discussions are largely shielded, even within the EU Commission. As a result, few details have been leaked so far about the changes to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) that the Commission intends to propose in just over two weeks – reportedly with a package of new own resources. What is clear, however: it will not be a big supplement.
The Commission is also aware that it cannot make high additional demands on the member states, according to Brussels. There is little willingness in the Council to make additional contributions from national budgets to close foreseeable gaps in the EU budget at the halfway point of the 2021 to 2027 financial period. According to EU diplomats, this does not only apply to countries that traditionally do not like to spend much, such as Austria or the Netherlands. The German government also shows little willingness to transfer more money to Brussels – especially as the pressure to save is growing in Berlin. Other finance ministers simply lack the fiscal leeway, they say.
There would also be little support in the Council for a new debt-financed EU pot à la the Next Generation EU. As a result, the European Sovereignty Fund, which the Commission intends to present with the MFF review on June 20, will be significantly smaller than its proponents around Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton had hoped. The exact function and structure of the fund are still the subject of intensive negotiations within the authority.
The Commission will thus probably propose to raise the required funds primarily through reallocations, especially from the cohesion funds or also from InvestEU. Moritz Körner, the FDP budget politician in the European Parliament, believes this to be the right approach: “It would make sense to reallocate funds from the Cohesion Fund that are only flowing out slowly, for example, to continue support of Ukraine and Moldova.”
Hardly anyone disputes that the financial requirements at the EU level have increased significantly since the budget framework was finalized after a marathon summit in 2019. Several factors mean that the MFF is likely to reach its upper limits:
“The framework is very tight – we have to use almost all the flexibility tools in the budget to absorb the increased interest costs alone,” Körner says. Diplomats say there is some willingness in the Council to offset the increased costs of interest and officials’ compensation. The Commission wants to stabilize aid to Ukraine, but presumably still through instruments outside the EU budget proper, such as the European Peace Facility.
In addition, there is the sovereignty fund announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last fall. The Commission wants to raise the money for the fund as part of the MFF review. Internally, Vice President Margrethe Vestager in particular is fighting for the fund to be used as a risk buffer for private investors who want to invest in innovative technologies. The Dane expects this to be a quickly deployable instrument to serve the high investment needs for the green transformation of the economy. Her colleague Frans Timmermans, on the other hand, is in favor of strengthening the social balance within the framework of the Green Deal, according to reports in Brussels. The outcome of the discussion is still largely open.
In the German government, Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) has greater sympathy for the Sovereignty Fund than Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP). For months, the federal government has been hiding behind the formulation that the Commission should first present an analysis of the financial requirements. According to a statement in Berlin, the proposal will be examined when available. Lindner, however, will seek political debate less about the sovereignty fund than in the negotiations on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact.
However, the upcoming discussions are likely to be challenging anyway: The negotiations on the MFF review are likely to be linked to those on the EU budget for the coming year, according to EU sources. The Commission intends to present the draft budget for 2024 as early as Wednesday. Mixing these two processes with the sovereignty fund “is likely to lead to complex negotiations,” EU diplomats warn.
US pharmaceutical company Pfizer is refusing to provide information about an agreement to newly regulate a controversial, multibillion-dollar EU vaccine purchase from 2021. Instead of responding to questions from MPs on the COVI special committee looking into the Covid-19 crisis, the company sent a list of questions and refused to allow access to files. According to the Parliament, this is unacceptable.
The agreement with Pfizer and the German company Biontech was reached by the EU Commission at the end of May. According to the Brussels-based agency, the goal was to “better reflect the Member States’ assessment of the changing need for Covid-19 vaccines.” Details were not provided. Even when asked by Table.Media, the Commission would not provide figures on the agreement. Large sums are apparently at stake.
According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the agreement with Pfizer, which was negotiated behind closed doors, results in high “cancellation fees.” Germany alone would have to pay “several hundred million euros” because it was buying fewer vaccine doses than originally agreed on. If the information is correct, all 27 EU countries will have to pay several billion euros. However, the parties involved have not yet commented.
The European Parliament is also in the dark. The COVI Committee had asked the EU Commission to disclose the original contracts with Pfizer in order to examine the basis for the renegotiations that have now taken place. However, the Brussels authority did not follow the request – but, according to information from the Parliament, turned to its contractual partner Pfizer with a permission request to inspect the files.
The US company reacted in an unusual way. Instead of granting permission, Pfizer sent a list of questions. The members of Parliament were asked to explain why they wanted to see the unedited versions of the 2021 contracts – after all, they had already been given access to the edited versions. However, these are partially blacked out. Pfizer also wants to know whether the texts would be published – and what the Parliament intends to do about “unauthorized leaks.”
In the view of the MEPs, this is unacceptable. It is “difficult to understand that a private company that has benefited massively financially from the pandemic and has received public funds to develop a vaccine can refuse to share the contracts concluded with the EU with MEPs,” said MEP Tilly Metz. After all, it is about health and building trust in EU procedures, she said.
The Luxembourg Green sits on the COVI committee and is not alone in her criticism. Several MEPs had already complained about the secrecy and called on Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to make a personal statement in Parliament. It was “self-evident” that von der Leyen would face the Committee, Parliament Vice President Katarina Barley told FOCUS. Von der Leyen (CDU) should not refuse, the SPD politician said. After all, “a lot of tax money” is at stake.
In total, the matter is about up to 1.8 billion vaccine doses and an estimated business volume of €35 billion. However, the EU Commission and the US company have refused from the outset to disclose the details of the deal that von der Leyen negotiated with Pfizer CEO Alfred Bourla in 2021. They cited trade secrets and safeguarding the vaccine supply as reasons.
However, the end of the Covid crisis has created a new situation: Fewer vaccine doses are needed. It is standard that there are fees, says the European Parliament. However, it is unacceptable that such clauses are negotiated without public scrutiny – and that even MEPs are denied full access to the negotiated text, they say. “That certain fees may be incurred in a commercial contract if fewer goods than planned are taken, is a standard commercial concept,” Metz said.
However, this is not an average contract between any trading partners. “It is about agreements concluded in the name of the European public with powerful private companies,” explains the MEP.
According to the COVI committee, the blockade will have repercussions. The deputies have no legal recourse. However, they are working on their final report on the Covid crisis, which is to be presented to the plenum before the summer break. In it, they could reprimand Pfizer, the EU Commission, and its president – for lack of transparency and cooperation.
EU institutions do not have a particularly good reputation when it comes to transparency: rigid procedures, opaque processes, hardly any insight. For almost ten years, Emily O’Reilly has been working to change that. As the European Ombudswoman, she holds EU institutions to account by investigating complaints from individuals, businesses and organizations about maladministration in EU bodies. “The EU already has relatively good administrative standards,” said O’Reilly. “But it is precisely such an institution that is obliged to always strive for the best possible procedures and to do so for the benefit of all Europeans.”
The office of the European Ombudsman is elected every five years by the European Parliament. If the Ombudsman uncovers an instance of maladministration in the EU, EU institutions are also obliged to take a position on the matter within three months.
One of the grievances O’Reilly is addressing right now is a problem with the EU’s provision of public documents. It takes too long. “Especially when it comes to journalists who are reporting very topically on events in the EU and need timely access to documents, this is a problem,” the ombudswoman stresses. “Delayed access is thus also denied access at the same time.” And since public documents will be requested increasingly in the future, she says the EU needs to work as quickly as possible to get a handle on this problem.
The work of journalists is particularly close to the 65-year-old Irishwoman’s heart, as she worked as a journalist in her home country for more than 20 years. “You always bring a piece of your personality and your past into your career,” O’Reilly says. “And my work as a journalist prepared me well for the job of ombudswoman.” She also said that with the press, she has been a link between citizens and the government, paying close attention to the way politicians interact with the public.
That she was already extremely successful as a journalist is reflected, among other things, in her awards: In both 1986 and 1994, she won the award for best journalist of the year in Ireland. The European Ombudswoman still uses her eye for the essentials, which she has honed over the years, and her extensive experience in the field of political journalism in her work today.
After years of writing about Irish politics and authoring three books on the politics of her home country, O’Reilly’s path led her right there – into Irish politics. “After so many years as a journalist, it really appealed to me to take an active role in politics, rather than always an observing one.” Then, she said, she took a deep breath and ventured into politics. And with success.
From 2003 to 2013, she took on the role of Ireland’s Ombudswoman and Data Protection Commissioner, the first woman ever to hold the post. In 2007, she also became Environmental Information Commissioner. “Working as an Ombudswoman in Ireland was about 75 percent the same as working as an EU commissioner today,” O’Reilly says. When she receives a complaint, she listens to both sides of the story, requests relevant documents and, after getting a picture of the situation, tries to resolve the issue with all parties involved.
However, what makes the job of European Ombudswoman significantly different from the work in Ireland is the cultural aspect, says O’Reilly. Scandinavian countries, for example, are extremely transparent and offer a wealth of freely accessible documents. “Germany, on the other hand, places a very high value on data protection regulations and has a very different philosophy when it comes to transparency of their citizens.”
So one of her most difficult tasks, she says, is to find just the right middle ground between such cultural differences at the European level. “We have to find standards for Europe that, on the one hand, are not so low that they are basically useless and, on the other hand, are not so high that nobody agrees to follow them.”
All in all, Emily O’Reilly is very pleased with her powers as European Ombudswoman. “We realize that in our role as ombudsmen, we’re more of a soft power,” she admits. “But if we do our job right, we can have a really big impact on how individuals interact with the EU.” And that is how that all-important trust in the EU as an institution is created. Gregor Scheu
Plastic beverage bottle lids are among the single-use plastic items “most commonly found as litter on Union beaches.” That is what EU Directive 2019/904 says. So far, so bad. That is where environmentally conscious lawmakers can start to react and regulate.
In response, Brussels has come up with a very clever idea in the form of this directive: Manufacturers are to ensure that the lids “remain attached to the containers during the product’s intended use stage.” This sounds great because once the little plastic part is attached, it ideally ends up in the trash along with the bottle instead of in the sea.
Attentive supermarket customers may have noticed that some manufacturers are already implementing the directive. Quite exemplary, actually. However, the implementation is not always really practical. For example, the lid attached to the Coke bottle is a nuisance when drinking or pouring. You soil yourself or the coffee counter.
My preferred reaction: Tear off the lid somehow. But I often can’t get the damaged lid back on the bottle properly, depending on the manufacturer. The result: an open container. The bottle is thus neither transportable nor is the content long-lasting. In addition, the sense of the attached lids is completely superfluous. (Even if I dutifully ALWAYS throw the lid into the yellow garbage can).
But there is hope. The directive will not be mandatory until mid-2024. Until then, manufacturers and consumers can try different solutions and gain important experience. Surely a resourceful designer will come up with something better soon.
Until then, I’ll practice drinking and pouring and vow patience and forbearance in testing different variants of the environmentally friendly attached plastic lid. To be continued… Lukas Scheid
