The Chair of the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA) and rapporteur on the anti-coercion regulation, Bernd Lange (S&D, German), rallied his colleagues around a series of compromise amendments. His report will be put to the vote on 10 October in the INTA Committee. Overall, MEPs want to broaden the concept of economic coercion and get a clearer and more defined framework for the European Commission to react quickly.
There is broad agreement among the political groups on the draft report he presented in April, according to the compromise amendments EUROPE has viewed (see EUROPE 12940/20). On the functioning and competences, MEPs agree with the Commission’s proposal that it should determine whether there is coercion and decide on the measures to be taken by implementing regulation.
This seems obvious to MEPs, but not to the EU Council. According to two sources, some Member States want the power to decide on the existence of a coercive act and on the countermeasures to be taken.
More emphasis on repairing the damage caused
The European Parliament seems to want to pay more attention to the possibility of reparation for damages. For example, the objective of the consultation and exchange phase with the third country involved in an act of coercion should be not only to stop the coercion, but also to obtain redress, in the European Parliament’s view.
Similarly, a countermeasure put in place by the EU by implementing regulation should only be withdrawn if redress has been made, in addition to the coercion being ended.
A stricter framework for action
To refine the Commission’s mandate, MEPs propose adding definitions for important terms in the regulation, such as coercion or the Union’s interest. They want to ensure that the regulation covers “any form of action, failure to act or threat thereof affecting trade or investment”.
The procedure for finding and remedying coercion is also clarified in the compromise amendments. First, the Commission “must” analyse a potential act of coercion when it receives a “substantial complaint”. MEPs believe this should be an obligation, not just a possibility.
This complaint can come from economic operators and trade unions, as well as the European Parliament and the Member States, say MEPs. They are also calling for a tool to file these complaints.
When notifying its intention to investigate a coercive measure, the Commission must establish a timetable for adopting its decision and this should not exceed 4 months, the groups say.
Then, when it deems that there is an act of coercion and decides to impose countermeasures, the Commission must publish an implementing regulation setting out its response within 6 months. These two deadlines were not specified in the Commission’s proposal and the Parliament wants to be able to count on a reactive instrument.
In the same spirit, once the Commission has notified that it is investigating a measure, it should only consult and try to find a solution with the third country concerned if the latter “acts in good faith” and provided that this does not delay the process.
More generally, the European Parliament also stresses the link with extraterritorial sanctions and the “blocking statute”. This allows European companies to avoid being subject to extraterritorial sanctions from third countries.
Moreover, he wants the European Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO), Didier Redonnet, to be responsible for overseeing the regulation and ensuring consistency with the blocking statute.
The compromise amendments reached between the groups should allow the INTA Committee to adopt Bernd Lange’s report and give the green light for the interinstitutional negotiations on 10 October.
The Czech Presidency of the EU Council is expected to propose a third compromise to Member States on 11 October, according to two sources. (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)