The second session of interinstitutional negotiations on ‘country-by-country reporting’ (CBCR), which took place on Friday 23 April, did not result in any major progress, according to several sources. The co-legislators are therefore still looking for a compromise. In the European Parliament, divisions seem to be emerging on what strategy to adopt.
The meeting’s agenda included all the major political issues that divide Parliament and the EU Council, namely the scope, the question of aggregation or disaggregation of information, the safeguard clause, the revision clause, and the content of the tax report that the European companies concerned will have to produce.
On Friday, Evelyn Regner (S&D, Austria), one of Parliament’s chief negotiators, reported on Twitter that a “very productive” meeting had brought everyone’s positions closer together on the text, which would require companies to make public certain accounting data such as their turnover, profits and taxes paid.
According to our information, at the very end of the meeting, Parliament proposed the possibility of easing up on the disaggregation of information in exchange for a shorter safeguard clause than the EU Council wants as well as a revision clause, which would then be strengthened - a strategy that is reportedly not, however, unanimously supported by Parliament’s negotiating team.
Asked by EUROPE on Monday 26 April about the results of this second ‘trilogue’, French MEP Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in Parliament and negotiator on this dossier, said that “aligning with the EU Council’s position as of the second ‘trilogue’ would be a bit weak and would be tantamount to reneging on the European Parliament’s mandate”.
For her group, the disaggregation of information is indeed “the essence of the text”. As an alternative step towards the EU Council, she proposed asking, in a first phase that could last 2 or 4 years, for the publication of information on EU countries and countries that appear on tax haven lists, and then, in a second phase, the addition of the publication of information on other countries under a stronger safeguard clause, which could go up to 6 years - as the EU Council wishes - if necessary.
Another point of tension in Parliament is whether an agreement should be reached at all costs under the Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council or whether the negotiations could be concluded later, under the French Presidency in early 2022, for example.
It should be recalled that the French position on the text came under fire on Friday after revelations about the origin of a position paper which was allegedly partly drafted by MEDEF, the main representative of French businesses (see EUROPE 12705/13).
The document was also discussed during the meeting by the European Parliament. It hopes that the controversy surrounding this note will put pressure on the EU Council to reduce the duration of the safeguard clause and even make France change its position.
The situation remains delicate for the Portuguese Presidency, as its mandate was adopted by a narrow qualified majority of Member States (see EUROPE 12666/8). It did not have a new mandate from the Member States for this second ‘trilogue’, but it is expected to try to find a landing point in the EU Council during May, allowing it to reach a compromise with Parliament.
According to our information, the exact date of the next ‘trilogue’ has not yet been set, but it is expected to take place at the end of May or beginning of June and could well be the last under the Portuguese Presidency of the EU Council. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)