The EU Council in Competitiveness format, to be held on Thursday 28 and Friday 29 November in Brussels, promises to be particularly busy for Ministers, with the possibility of adopting a series of general approaches on the country-by-country reporting Directive, the consumer actions Directive and the Euratom programme Regulation.
On Thursday 28 November, the EU Council will thus consider the very thorny issue of country by country reporting (CBCR). Here, European Ministers will publicly debate the proposal, which would require companies to disclose certain accounting data such as their revenues, and will be invited to reach political agreement in principle (‘general approach’).
“We believe that the text is far enough along to be adopted”, a diplomatic source said on Monday 25 November, hoping that the EU Council's deadlock, which has persisted for years, could finally end. The new compromise text on the table contains some changes. In particular, it extends the period during which a company may omit information (‘business secrecy’) to 6 years instead of 4 years. Some countries such as France would even have liked a period of 10 years, according to our information.
However, the future of the text remains uncertain, even if the positions are shifting. Ahead of the EU Council, some ten Member States - including France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia - were in favour of the text. On the other hand, Greece's position, which had always been in favour of the text, would be more uncertain with the election of the right-wing government.
A few dozen Member States were against, including Cyprus. However, in recent days, Poland, Portugal and Croatia have reportedly adopted a more accommodating position. Germany, for its part, will stick to the sidelines and should abstain, according to our information (see EUROPE 12374/22). This would be like voting no.
In essence, the governments opposed to the text invoke the argument that the proposal should be negotiated as a taxation text in the Economic and Financial Affairs Council by unanimity and simply by consulting the European Parliament.
By submitting the dossier to a public debate, the Finnish Presidency of the EU Council would like to force the highest political level to take a position to avoid letting the legislative text “die” at the level of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper). The Finnish approach would have annoyed some delegations at the highest level.
Collective redress, unambitious agreement in sight
On the same day, the responsible Ministers will be invited by the Finnish Presidency of the EU Council to adopt a position on the Directive on representative actions for consumers. Here, the text would be “secure”, although several Member States regretted the EU Council's lack of ambition.
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovakia presented a joint statement in which they regret that the European Commission's proposal “has been significantly weakened”. For the signatories to this declaration, there is a significant lack of clarity in the EU Council's position on the issue of cross-border collective redress, particularly since Member States would still be able to apply their own admissibility criteria and procedures in addition to the provisions of the Directive. Although the compromise text provides for detailed and strict eligibility criteria, there is a lack of mutual recognition of qualified entities between Member States, which, in their view, creates legal uncertainty for all parties concerned.
If it were to remain as it is, the EU Council's position would thus be significantly different from that of the European Parliament, adopted at the end of March this year (see EUROPE 12222/11).
Research: nuclear in question
The next day, the Research Ministers will focus on another difficult subject: the question of the Euratom research programme to complement the Horizon Europe framework programme. The subject promises to be all the more difficult as the decision is taken unanimously. However, Luxembourg and Austria would be fiercely opposed to any possibility of financing nuclear research to replace fossil resources. Germany, known for its vast nuclear phase-out programme, reserves its position.
The general approach will not cover a wide range of positions, including the participation of non-Member States, nor the financial issues related to the negotiation box on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027.
As a reminder, the Commission presented its proposal in June 2018 in connection with the Horizon Europe Framework Programme and proposes that the new Euratom Programme should continue the main research activities of the current programme (nuclear safety, security, safeguards, safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, decommissioning, radiation protection and fusion energy) and continue to encourage the mobility of nuclear researchers as part of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions under the Horizon Europe Programme. In addition, the proposal suggests extending the duration of the programme to bring it into line with the MFF via a 5+2 system.
Ministers will adopt their position on the Regulation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and a partial approach on the Horizon Europe Framework Programme on Annex IV dedicated to synergies with other European programmes and funds. It should be noted that the points related to the Euratom programme still remain in brackets.
Space. Space will also be in the spotlight on Friday 29 November, the date on which the responsible Ministers will adopt conclusions on space solutions for a sustainable Arctic, a subject dear to the Finnish EU Council Presidency. Ministers will hold a policy debate on how to foster a sustainable space economy to combat space debris, including orbital congestion. These topics will echo the European Space Agency's triennial Ministerial Council, which will be held the day before, Thursday 28 November (see EUROPE 12376/15).
It should be noted that at the end of the Competitiveness Council, Ministers will adopt conclusions on the updated EU strategy for the bio-economy. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens and Marion Fontana)