European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Rebecca Torpey.

The European Council meeting on 27–28 June 2024 has a full agenda. As the current EU institutional cycle draws to a close, it marks a critical moment in launching the new cycle. EU leaders will discuss, and likely agree on, high-level appointments to EU institutions, including on the proposed candidate for European Commission President. They are also set to adopt the Strategic Agenda 2024-2029, outlining the EU’s political priorities for the coming five years. They will also discuss Ukraine, security and defence, Middle East, competitiveness, migration and Georgia.

General

The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola will make the customary opening address. As leader of the country currently holding the six-month EU Council presidency, the Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, is expected to provide an overview of the results of the Belgian Presidency. This could be the last European Council meeting for long-time Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, whose successor, Dick Schoof, is expected to be sworn in on 2 July 2024.

European Council meeting Next institutional cycle

Following initial discussions at their informal meeting of 17 June, EU leaders will seek to reach two crucial agreements at their meeting on 27–28 June 2024. The first on high-level appointments to EU institutions, and the second on the Strategic Agenda 2024-2029. These agreements will mark the start of the new EU institutional cycle.

High-level appointments

The aim is to find political agreement on the candidate for the next European Commission President, on the nominee for High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Commission Vice-President (HR/VP), with the agreement of the candidate for Commission President, and on the European Council President.

Most European Council decisions, including on its conclusions, are taken by consensus, as specified in its rules of procedure. However, this is not the case for decisions on high-level appointments. If a vote on the candidate for Commission President, for other posts, or on the whole package, is necessary, a ‘reinforced’ qualified majority’ would be required. According to Article 238(3)b TFEU, the candidate would need the support of at least 72 % of the Member States, representing 65 % of the EU population. A vote took place for previous European Council decisions on top jobs, such as the election of Jean‑Claude Juncker as Commission President and the re-election of Donald Tusk as European Council President, with some Heads of State or Government voting against the decision.

Since the informal dinner, European Council President Charles Michel has consulted Member States and met the leadership of the European Parliament, while the European political parties have also discussed the appointments within and between each other.

Based on the party political balance in the European Council and the European Parliament, it is expected that the high-level positions will be shared between the European People’s Party, the Party of European Socialists and the liberal family (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)/Renew Europe). While last-minute changes cannot be excluded, it is thought Ursula von der Leyen will be proposed for a second mandate as European Commission President; the former Portuguese prime minister, António Costa, will be elected as next European Council President and the current Prime Minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, nominated as HR/VP.

2024–2029 strategic agenda

EU leaders are also expected to adopt the Strategic Agenda 2024-2029, setting the political priorities for the EU’s next institutional cycle. The main priorities are likely to be: 1) ‘A free and democratic Europe’, 2) ‘A strong and secure Europe’, and 3) ‘A prosperous and competitive Europe’. A noteworthy development is the shift of the ‘free and democratic Europe’ priority, placed last in previous drafts, to the number-one priority.

The European Council is also expected to adopt conclusions on a roadmap for future work on internal EU reform.

Ukraine

The European Council is set to highlight its previous conclusions in support of Ukraine and Moldova. The main focus regarding Ukraine will be on ways to support its right to self-defence in Russia’s war, which has included attacks against civilian and energy infrastructure (with arms imported from Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). EU leaders may also: 1) discuss acting against those providing direct military support to Russia; 2) demand effective enforcement of sanctions and anti-circumvention measures; and 3) welcome the 14th package of sanctions. The 14th package includes a ban on the re-export of Russian liquefied natural gas. The package was reportedly delayed due to reservations from some Member States, such as Germany and Hungary, regarding different aspects of the package.

Moreover, the European Council is scheduled to welcome the agreement on utilising extraordinary revenues from frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s self-defence and reconstruction. It is also set to welcome bilateral security agreements between Ukraine and a number of Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden) and with partners Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom. In addition, EU leaders may welcome the Ukraine Plan (Ukraine’s comprehensive reform and investment strategy for the next four years) and discuss the outcome of the June Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin.

The meeting is expected to take stock of the military support provided by the Ukraine Assistance Fund and Member State initiatives to supply ammunition, missiles, fighter jets, air defence and training.

An important point for discussion concerns restrictions on Ukraine’s use of weapons delivered by EU countries to strike targets inside Russian territory. The Member States hold varying stances on the issue. According to the Latvian President, Edgars Rinkēvičs, this restriction should be removed in July at the NATO Summit in Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron stated that French weapons sent to Ukraine, including long-range missiles, could be used to target bases inside Russia. Conversely, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said any weapons supplied by Italy should not be used on Russian territory. EU leaders are also set to discuss the outcome of the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland in June, which resulted in a majority of the attending states signing a communiqué on a Peace Framework. Reportedly, a second summit, hosted by Saudi Arabia, may take place.

With a busy agenda, EU leaders may not have time to hold a full discussion on the European path for Ukraine and Moldova. However, important developments have taken place since EU leaders’ last discussion. In June, the Commission announced that Ukraine and Moldova had met the criteria required to begin accession negotiations. On 14 June, EU ambassadors agreed in principle to the negotiating frameworks for accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. On 25 June, the Belgian Presidency called the first Intergovernmental Conferences with Ukraine and Moldova.

Security and defence

EU security and defence is a recurring agenda point since February 2022. At this meeting, EU leaders are expected to focus more specifically on ways to fund the EU defence industry. Put forward in March 2024, the European Defence Industry Programme is intended to support the EU defence industry, by providing €1.5 billion over three years. It is likely that EU leaders will reiterate their demand for work on the proposal to continue. In March, EU leaders requested that the Council and Commission present a report examining all options for mobilising funds for the EU defence industry; this report is due to be presented at this European Council meeting. Ahead of the March European Council meeting, 14 Member States had written to the European Investment Bank (EIB) calling for a policy change on defence investment. The 21–22 March 2024 European Council conclusions invited the EIB to adapt its lending policy to the defence industry. It can be expected that EU leaders may reiterate their demands for the EIB to improve defence industry access to finance.

Middle East

EU leaders have clearly signalled their support for a lasting peace based on a two-state solution in the Middle East, and are likely to restate this. This is also the first formal European Council meeting since US mediators tabled the three-phase peace proposal. Some aspects of the plan reflect previous European Council conclusions, such as the calls for: 1) ceasefire; 2) release of hostages; 3) provision of humanitarian aid for Gaza; and 4) reconstruction of Gaza. EU leaders are likely to reiterate these demands.

Since the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, EU leaders have been consistently keen to prevent further escalation in the region. Nevertheless, strikes between Hezbollah and Israel across the Israel-Lebanon border are ongoing. On 18 June, in response to threats against Haifa, the Israeli Foreign Minister warned that the state of Israel was very close to a decision on a war with Hezbollah: ‘In an all-out war, Hezbollah will be destroyed and Lebanon will be severely hit’. On 19 June, the leader of Hezbollah issued a warning to Cyprus, stating that if Cypriot airfields and bases were used by Israel to target Lebanon, this would be considered an act of war and be treated as such. The Cypriot President responded by stating that Cyprus is not involved in the conflict. The Commission’s spokesperson said that ‘any threat against one of our Member States is a threat against the European Union’. As the situation remains tense, EU leaders will again warn against the ignition of a broader regional conflict.

Competitiveness

This part of the meeting is expected mainly to follow up on the April meeting, which discussed a new European competitiveness deal. Discussion may centre on deepening the capital markets union and mobilising private funding to support EU priority investments, with EU leaders likely to review progress since April and to announce ‘additional steps’.

Former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi is currently preparing a report on EU competitiveness. Despite expectation that the final text would be presented at this meeting, this has not been confirmed, and publication in July seems to be more likely. Draghi outlined some of his ideas in speeches in Belgium on 16 April and Spain on 14 June, calling for an industrial strategy for Europe and for ‘radical change’ more generally. At the April European Council meeting, at which former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta’s report on the future of the single market was presented, EU leaders said they ‘look forward to the presentation of the upcoming report on Europe’s competitiveness’.

Due to the new economic governance framework, 2024 is a transitional year in EU fiscal policy coordination. The European Semester spring package was published on 19 June. The European Council usually discusses the country-specific recommendations in June, to allow the conclusion of the European Semester. However, this year it is likely the topic will be postponed to a later meeting. According to Hungary’s newly published EU Council Presidency programme, an informal European Council meeting will take place on 8 November in Budapest, focused on competitiveness, which the Hungarian Presidency expects to result in a ‘Budapest Declaration’.

Other items Migration

While no detailed discussion is anticipated, the European Council could adopt conclusions outlining the state of play on migration. EU leaders might take note of the Council’s negotiating mandate for a regulation strengthening Europol’s role in supporting Member States in their fight against migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings. Agreeing on joint conclusions on migration is no small achievement, as in the recent past, EU leaders have failed several times to agree conclusions or statements on the issue. An individual leader might express their dissatisfaction with other European Council decisions, notably the high-level appointments, by blocking migration-specific conclusions.

Georgia

In response to the adoption of the law on transparency of foreign influence in the Georgian Parliament, EU leaders are set to discuss the situation in Georgia. The law is a step backwards on Georgia’s European path, according to Charles Michel and the Foreign Affairs Council. Large-scale protests against the law have recently taken place in the country.

Leaders are expected to invite the Commission and the High Representative to prepare a communication aimed at developing an EU strategic approach for the Black Sea. The EU’s current approach to the Black Sea is based on the Black Sea Synergy initiative, launched in 2007. The United States developed its own Black Sea security strategy in late 2023.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the European Council meeting on 27‑28 June 2024‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marin Mileusnic.

The European Union’s research and innovation (R&I) policy has become central in the attempt to safeguard the EU’s technological sovereignty, ensure prosperity, and advance social, economic and environmental sustainability. Various challenges persist nevertheless, from ageing populations and health hazards to (economic) security and the climate crisis. In addition, underinvestment in R&I is a shared concern across Member States, although to varying degrees.

To reach the EU’s spending target for R&I of 3 % of the EU’s annual gross domestic product, the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument and its main spending tool, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), could play a vital role in providing additional funding to Member States. To emerge stronger from the COVID-19 crisis and benefit from these resources (channelled partly into R&I ecosystems), countries have drawn up individual national recovery and resilience plans (NRRPs). As a funding condition, Member States needed to address at least a significant subset of the European Semester’s country-specific recommendations and foster the green and digital transitions, by achieving the milestones and targets linked to the measures agreed in their NRRPs. The RRF is financing over €47 billion worth of R&I measures in the NRRPs, but the focus on R&I investment differs across the plans.

In this briefing, six case studies (either investment or reform measures) in R&I from individual recovery plans have been analysed. These measures range from investing in sustainable agriculture (Portugal), to reforming and integrating research, development and innovation organisations in the European Research Area (Romania). Each of the assessed case studies has been linked to one of the six R&I policy guidelines developed by the European Commission.

The briefing also touches on other financing opportunities for R&I under the traditional multiannual financial framework. Experts point out that NGEU might contribute to closing the innovation and underinvestment gap between Member States and the EU’s 3 % target. The European Parliament supports an ambitious EU-wide R&I policy, and continues to ensure transparency and democratic scrutiny in the implementation of the NGEU recovery instrument.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Research and innovation in the national recovery and resilience plans‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Anja Radjenovic.

According to United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) estimates, the number of migrant children increased from 24 million in the 1990–2000 period to 36 million in 2020. In 2022 alone, some 35 200 children arrived in southern European countries. Of them, some 23 500 (67 %) were unaccompanied or had been separated from family members during the journey. A child may be unaccompanied or get separated for various reasons, including persecution of the child or parents; international conflict and civil war; human trafficking and smuggling, including sale by parents; accidental separation from parents during the journey; and a search for better economic opportunities.

There is a comprehensive international legal framework on children’s rights and their protection in place, yet irregular migrant children, especially those unaccompanied or separated from their parents during their journey, face numerous obstacles and challenges during and after migration. These include a heightened risk of sexual exploitation and abuse, military recruitment, child labour (including for foster families) or detention. In many countries, children are routinely denied entry or detained by border or immigration officials. In other cases, they are admitted but denied access to asylum procedures, or their asylum claims are not handled in an age- or gender-sensitive manner.

The vulnerable situation of unaccompanied and separated children worldwide, and the threats they face, need to be addressed, particularly in view of the constant rise in their numbers. Applying the ‘best interests of the child’ principle, EU asylum law offers special protection to such children, and the EU has adopted numerous instruments and identified key actions for the protection of all children in migration, including those who are unaccompanied or who have been separated from their parents.

This is an update of a 2021 briefing.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Vulnerability of unaccompanied and separated
child migrants‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Age structure of of migrants across the world (in millions) Child migrants and young migrants as a share of the migrant population in host regions in 2020 Asylum applicants considered to be unaccompanied children (EU-27 countries)

Written by Rafał Mańko.

The roles of the EU institutions in negotiating and concluding international agreements, and the procedural steps, are set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Parliament’s role corresponds to its law-making competences under the Treaties. If an international agreement falls exclusively within common and foreign security policy (CFSP), Parliament has no active role, but must still be informed at all stages by the Council, the European Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. If an international agreement does not fall exclusively within the CFSP, Parliament’s specific powers depend on whether the agreement’s substantive legal basis corresponds to an area of competence covered by the ordinary legislative procedure or special legislative procedure (SLP) with consent; if so, Parliament has the power to give or refuse consent to the conclusion of the agreement. If the agreement falls within the scope of an SLP where Parliament does not need to give consent, its role is limited to giving an opinion. Parliament is also entitled to call on the Court of Justice to verify ex ante whether an envisaged agreement is compatible with the EU Treaties.

The 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission was a key step in developing Parliament’s role in the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements. The agreement provides for Parliament to be informed from an early stage of negotiations on an international agreement, and for Members of Parliament to participate as observers in negotiations. The Commission undertook to keep Parliament informed on the entire negotiation process, with particular emphasis on agreements that fall within Parliament’s power of consent. Parliament’s Rules of Procedure lay down detailed procedural arrangements for the exercise of Parliament’s competences in concluding international agreements, in particular for verification of the legal basis of an envisaged agreement that impacts Parliament’s powers.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Parliament’s role in concluding international agreements‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nera Kuljanic.

Exposure to ‘forever chemicals’, air pollution, stress and many other factors depends on where a person lives and their lifestyle choices. These exposures combine over the course of a lifetime, affecting human biology and health. The ‘exposome’ concept offers a framework for understanding and analysing this complex reality, and ultimately for informing the shaping of evidence-based policy on chemicals, food and the workplace, as well as on pollution, public health and the environment more generally.

Many chronic diseases result from the complex interplay between a person’s genetic predisposition for developing a disease and ‘outside’ factors linked to lifestyle and/or the environment. The totality of environmental exposures that a person experiences over their lifetime, the interaction between those exposures, and the way these relate to health can be referred to as the ‘exposome‘. Chemicals – whether naturally occurring or anthropogenic – are an obvious example of problematic exposure, from sources such as polluted air or water, diet, lifestyle and the workplace.

However, the exposome is more than that. It comprises numerous very diverse factors that can be categorised into three interlinked clusters. ‘Internal’ factors include, for example, metabolic processes, inflammation, endogenous hormones, oxidative stress and gut microflora. ‘Specific external exposures’ include infectious agents, chemicals and other environmental contaminants, diet and lifestyle factors. A ‘general external category’ includes socioeconomic and psychological influences.

Exposome science is about understanding the effects of the complex interactions between environmental exposures and genetics on a person from conception to death, and how those exposures affect that person’s biology and health. It is closely related to exposure science, which studies ‘the contact between stressors and receptors, and the associated sources, pathways and processes potentially leading to impacts on human health and the natural and built environment’. Exposome-based thinking, supported by innovative data collection and analysis, biomonitoring tools, high-throughput ‘omics‘ technologies and enhanced computational and analytical capacities, allows for more comprehensive and faster data collection and analysis of exposures and their associated biological responses. This improves understanding of diseases’ cause, development, prevention and treatment. The huge potential that artificial intelligence and advanced analytics offer when it comes to untangling the vast amount of exposome-related data has given rise to the term ‘exposome intelligence‘.

Potential impacts and developments

Understanding the exposome is important for advancing scientific research to address the challenges posed by environmental and other exposures on human health. It can provide a valuable framework for informing risk assessment and regulation, and for developing effective intervention strategies to promote health, ensuring they are based on comprehensive data on exposure and health outcomes.

Exposome research can help identify risk factors – including previously unknown factors – that contribute to the development of certain diseases, such as cancers, neurological disorders, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular diseases and obesity. These factors also offer new lenses through which to study sensitive population groups or critical life periods such as childhood. Research can explore the link between the exposome, epigenetic changes (i.e. reversible changes in gene expression that do not involve modifying the DNA sequence) and individuals’ biological adaptive capacity. Exposome research can detect soft outcomes such as environmental exposures resulting in detectable molecular changes in a body that could be linked to a disease onset later in life. It can also lead to an understanding of time sequence in a disease onset, or of complex, multiple or simultaneous exposures. This knowledge can lead to better disease prevention, and to strategies – both targeted ones and strategies aimed at the general population – to reduce harmful exposures and promote healthier living and working conditions. It can provide evidence for the regulation of environmental pollutants and toxins, influencing policies relating to air and water quality, chemicals, pollution, the safety of products such as toys, and occupational health and safety.

There are also considerable limitations and challenges.The human exposome is incredibly complex, which makes it challenging to quantify and analyse all exposures comprehensively, despite advanced technological capabilities. Problems relate to data quality, consistency and the lack of established standards for exposome research. This includes the identification and interpretation of the most relevant biomarkers for specific health outcomes, which can lead to varying approaches and hinder comparability between studies. The exposome approach may also struggle to account for variability between individuals and its impact on health outcomes: unique individual patterns of environmental exposures (including historical ones) based on factors such as occupation, lifestyle and geography can make it difficult to isolate the direct effects of individual exposures. Furthermore, the collection and use of extensive personal environmental and health data raise ethical and privacy concerns.

Conducting exposome research requires significant resources, including funding, expertise and infrastructure for data collection, analysis and interpretation. Translating research findings into actionable interventions and strategies is not straightforward, given the complexity of exposures and their interactions. Addressing these challenges will be crucial to further advancing exposome research and realising its potential to inform public policies and personalised healthcare interventions.

Anticipatory policymaking

In both public policy and research, the interactions between the environment and health are increasingly recognised as a critical area of focus. On a global level, seeking to protect health, address challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance and food safety, and promote the health and integrity of ecosystems, the One Health initiative acknowledges that the health of humans, animals, plants and the wider environment are intertwined. The EU has developed a comprehensive framework of thematic programmes, strategic objectives and regulatory actions relating to the environment and health, such as those for chemicals (including endocrine disruptors), pollution (including microplastics) and health and safety at work. However, the legislation is often focused on individual factors of concern.

For exposome science to deliver on its ambitious potential to inform evidence-based policies, a dedicated scientific capacity is needed to advance the research and produce conclusive evidence. This means creating educational opportunities such as degree programmes, earmarking funding for exposome research and setting up calls for research projects. Examples include the EU-funded Human Exposome Network (EHEN), the world’s largest network of projects studying the impact of environmental exposure on human health, and the International Human Exposome Network (IHEN), which aims to put in place longer-term, multi-sectoral collaboration to improve global research and cooperation on the exposome.

The development of standards for producing strong evidence is crucial. This relates to methods, techniques and practices for data collection, analysis and reporting. The research results need to be translated to policy by, for example, linking them to existing institutional structures and encouraging interdisciplinarity in policy development. Ultimately, exposome-informed policies could include new ‘protective’ legislation to prevent harm to the environment, human health and safety, to update standards or to change monitoring practices.

Read this ‘at a glance note’ on ‘What if focusing on the system, not just the symptoms, were key to health?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to podcast ‘What if focusing on the system, not just the symptoms, were key to health?‘ on YouTube.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

Written by Ralf Drachenberg.

On 17 June, the European Council members met for an informal dinner to discuss the results of the 2024 European Parliament elections and possible candidates for the leadership positions in the coming EU institutional cycle. The Heads of State or Government did not come to any decision on the appointments, and indeed they were not due to take any formal decision at this stage in the procedure. High-level discussions will now take place between the European Council and the European Parliament, as well as between the political families. The EU leaders are expected to agree on the package of high-level EU posts, and on the political priorities for the next 5 years, at the formal European Council meeting on 27‑28 June 2024.

Start of the meeting

As usual at the start of the meeting, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, addressed the members of the European Council. While emphasising that the 2024 European elections had seen the ‘highest voter turnout in over 30 years’, she stressed that the main takeaway from the elections was that ‘the constructive pro-European centre holds’. This view was supported by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, ahead of the meeting, who underlined that the elections had brought a stable majority of the political forces that had traditionally worked closely together in the European Parliament (the European People’s Party – EPP, the Socialists and Democrats – S&D, and the Liberal family – Renew Europe). Moreover, Metsola informed the EU leaders that the majority of political groups in Parliament supported the ‘lead candidate’ process and, in view of the results of the elections, agreed that the EPP was once again the largest political group in the European Parliament. Metsola’s address was followed by a statement by Ursula von der Leyen, the current European Commission President and EPP lead candidate for the post in the coming term. She presented her views on the future of the European Union.

As flagged up in the EPRS outlook, the purpose of this meeting was not to take a decision. This point was also stressed by some Heads of State or Government before the meeting, notably the Irish Taoiseach, Simon Harris, and reiterated by the European Council President, Charles Michel, after the meeting. The objective was to reflect on the election results and begin discussions on possible candidates for the EU top jobs ahead of the formal European Council meeting on 27-28 June.

Senior EU institutional posts to be filled

In 2024, the appointments to be made include three high-level EU positions: the presidents of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Commission Vice-President (HR/VP). Several EU leaders, notably Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, stressed that the decisions on these positions would be taken as a ‘package’. Harris called for ‘a balanced package reflecting the results of the European elections, geography and size of Member States’.

Another high-level post – that of European Parliament President – must also be filled at the start of the new institutional cycle. The European Council has no legal involvement in this case, as underlined by Metsola. However, Parliament does not make this choice in a vacuum and has to consider the wider context, notably the election results and the other high-level appointments. On 17 June, Metsola put forward her own candidacy to continue in the post of European Parliament President.

Party political balance in the EU institutions when filling senior posts

The allocation of high-level EU positions has a strong political party dimension (see EPRS briefing on European political parties and the European Council). Michel confirmed this when stating that ‘the political parties are playing a role and that is natural in such a political moment’; he also indicated that the European political families had made proposals for the EU institutional leadership posts.

NB Figure 1 represents the party political balance on 18 June 2024. For Parliament, this is based on preliminary election results. The membership of the European Council changes on average every 2 months and could be different at the next meeting.

As Figure 1 shows, in June 2024 the party political balance, in both the European Council and the European Parliament, differs from the situation after the 2019 elections. While the share of EPP-affiliated members in the European Council increased from 29 to 41 per cent from 2019 to 2024, the Liberal members’ share shrank from 29 to 19 per cent. Similarly, Socialist family leaders now account for only 15 per cent of European Council members compared with 25 per cent in 2019. This shift is also seen in the European Parliament.

Next steps: The formal European Council meeting of 27-28 June

Charles Michel stressed that it was important to have a transparent decision-making process, with all EU leaders having the same level of information; for him, the dinner on 17 June served that purpose.

The President of the European Council will now continue his consultations, notably with the European Parliament – the two institutions being ‘jointly responsible for the smooth running of the process leading to the election of the President of the European Commission’ (Declaration 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). In that context, Metsola pointed out that Michel had been invited to attend Parliament’s Conference of Presidents, to discuss with the political group leaders, on 20 June, and again on 26 June.

At the same time, the European political parties will continue their internal discussions and their talks with other political families. The ‘negotiators‘ for the political families, who met initially ahead of the informal dinner, are: Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the EPP, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for the PES, and French President Emmanuel Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte for ALDE/Renew Europe. An important point in the discussions will be whether there is again an understanding that the person appointed European Council President should see their 2.5-year mandate automatically renewed for the second half of the institutional cycle or whether another person from a different political family could take over at that point.

As various Heads of State or Government, such as Macron and Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, have mentioned, the European Council is expected to reach a political agreement on the EU’s new leadership positions at its next formal meeting, on 27-28 June. Michel also noted that another important decision was to be taken at that meeting: the adoption of the new political priorities for the European Union, in the form of the Strategic Agenda 2024-2029. Both of these decisions will then shape the coming EU institutional cycle (see EPRS briefing, The European Council’s role at the start of the new EU institutional cycle). In that context, Michel expressed the view that it was the European Council’s collective responsibility to take a decision on both these matters by the end of June.

Read this ‘at a glance note’ on ‘Outcome of the informal dinner of EU leaders of 17 June 2024‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Anita Orav.

In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly designated 20 June as World Refugee Day, to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Geneva Convention on to the Status of Refugees. It is a day to honour the courage of people who have been forced to flee their homes to escape conflict or persecution.

A refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, receives international protection from another state on its territory.

A call for solidarity with refugees

According to United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates, 130.8 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced or are stateless in 2024, with over 32 million of them refugees. With growing numbers of people being forced to flee their homes, the international day serves as a reminder that refugees need support more than ever. This year, World Refugee Day is focusing on solidarity with refugees and creating a world where refugees are welcome. There are many ways to express solidarity, starting with an open and empathetic approach towards refugees, making them feel welcome and included. It also involves seeking solutions to end the conflicts causing their plight, providing them with opportunities to integrate and thrive in host societies, even temporarily, and ensuring adequate support for host countries and regions in their reception and integration efforts.

Looking for protection in the European Union

Many displaced people around the world seek protection in the European Union (EU). After a peak in migrant arrivals in 2015 and 2016, followed by a decrease due to the pandemic, arrival numbers began rising again in 2021. In 2023, over a million first-time asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU, up 20 % from 2022 and the highest number since the peak in the 2015 to 2016 period. Additionally, there are nearly 6 million Ukrainians in the EU receiving support under the Temporary Protection Directive.

In addition to asylum-seekers arriving at EU borders, the EU has set up a system for all EU countries to receive refugees directly from countries outside the EU – such as Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan – that are currently hosting large numbers. This scheme is based largely on EU cooperation with the UNHCR, which helps resettle refugees directly from refugee camps. For the 2024-2025 period, 14 EU Member States have pledged more than 60 735 places for resettlement and humanitarian admission.

Solidarity and inclusion in the EU

The European Parliament has consistently called for solidarity with refugees. In its 2016 resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, Parliament emphasised that hosting Member States ‘must offer refugees support and opportunities to integrate and build a life in their new society’. It also noted that respect for the EU’s founding values, as well as respect for the fundamental rights of refugees, must be integral to the integration process.

While the responsibility for integration policies lies primarily with the Member States, the EU has established its guiding principles in the EU action plan on integration and inclusion (2021-2027) to support national, regional and local authorities and civil society. To help bring together innovation, good practice and analysis on migrant integration at both EU and country levels, the European Commission launched the European website on integration (EWSI). The site currently lists over 1 440 successful practices from across the EU Member States.

Read this ‘at a glance note’ on ‘World Refugee Day 2024‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marketa Pape.

Algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) are changing the way people live and work. Depending on how AI technologies are used and what purpose they serve, they can drive progress and benefit the whole of society, but they also raise ethical concerns and may cause harm. When introduced to the world of work, their transformative potential runs into complex national and EU rules. Existing labour laws, put in place before AI systems came on the scene, do not appear fit to provide meaningful guiderails.

As with any new technologies, tensions arise between two opposing regulatory approaches: strict regulation to safeguard society from potential hazards and minimum regulation to promote the technology’s deployment and innovation. For employers who invest in AI systems, the main motivation is better workplace organisation, increased productivity, and competitiveness. Workers, on the other hand, may fear losing their jobs, and also want to have a say in how AI and algorithms are to become part of their daily lives.

Focusing on workplace deployment of AI, this briefing looks at the state of play of algorithmic management in the workplace and some issues relating to the data that algorithms use and generate. It offers an overview of the current top-down EU legislative approach, of insights brought by the European Parliament, and of advances in collective bargaining, demonstrating the potential of a bottom-up approach to complement AI deployment.    

The briefing looks at the potential use of sleeping clauses in the existing EU legal framework and – taking note of the views of both employers and trade unions – highlights the many open questions that remain.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Addressing AI risks in the workplace: Workers and algorithms‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Lasse Boehm with David Kläffling.

The European Union’s (EU) climate policies, part of the European Green Deal put forward by the von der Leyen Commission, will have profound consequences for other policy areas. During the 2019-2024 legislative term of the European Parliament, the EU adopted an overarching objective to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This entails changing the way energy is produced and consumed in the EU, with knock-on effects for individual citizens, households, and businesses.

This briefing explores and maps out some of the social consequences of the Green Deal, focusing in particular on the effect the green transition will have on labour markets. It also touches briefly on the housing and transport sectors. The briefing’s purpose is to offer an overview of the most important impacts in these areas, without pretending to be a full study. For reasons of brevity, it leaves out or touches only briefly on other important dimensions, such as education and gender.

While insufficient action in the face of climate change would lead to significant costs as well as severe consequences for human life and the natural environment, the design of climate policies poses distributional challenges for individuals, and at a systemic level for different regions and industrial sectors. While studies on the Green Deal’s labour market consequences are often limited to the aggregate level, this ‘macro’ perspective can hide significant regional and sectoral diversity.

Existing EU funds and instruments have been designed to buffer against negative social consequences, particularly by providing upskilling opportunities, but their scope and size is limited. As the EU has only relatively limited competences in the area of social policy, significant policy action at national and regional level is unavoidable. The convergence and coordination of policy and funding instruments is crucial. Success or failure of regional, national, and European responses will be determined by the ability of policymakers to set up an integrated policy framework comprising social, labour market and industrial policy elements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Social and labour market impactof the green transition‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg.

The European Union’s institutional cycle begins anew every five years with the elections to the European Parliament. This is a crucial moment, as it updates both the hardware (the institutional leadership) and the software (the political priorities) of the EU. The European Council, composed of the Heads of State or Government of the EU Member States, plays a significant role in both processes. Not only is it directly or indirectly involved in the choice of who fills most of the top EU positions, it also establishes the EU’s long-term political priorities through setting its Strategic Agenda.

This briefing outlines the EU’s institutional cycle and highlights the European Council’s role in this cycle in institutional terms. It also describes the processes involved in the allocation of EU top institutional jobs and the adoption of the EU’s long-term priorities.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Council’s role at the start of the new EU institutional cycle‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

EU institutional cycle

Written by Anja Radjenovic.

Secondary movements occur when refugees or asylum-seekers move from the country in which they first arrived, to seek protection or for permanent resettlement elsewhere. While most asylum-seekers seek protection in countries close to their countries of origin, some are compelled or choose to move onwards (often in an irregular manner) from or through countries in which they have already, or could have sought, international protection, to other countries, where they may request such protection. Many different factors may influence these movements and the decision to settle in a particular country.

While asylum-seekers in the EU may have very legitimate reasons for seeking asylum in a Member State other that responsible for examining their asylum application, secondary movements are seen as a challenge for migration management in the EU. Although no genuine data are available that would provide reliable information about the scale of the phenomenon at the level of EU countries, some of the existing databases can give an indication of the travel routes relating to asylum-seekers’ secondary movements.

The aim of the common European asylum system’s current instruments has been to limit secondary movements of applicants for international protection between EU Member States. However, the increased inflow of asylum-seekers to Europe in the past decade has shown that the system has been unable to discourage secondary movements. For this purpose, among others, in 2016 and 2020 the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform in order to harmonise asylum rules and introduce a range of new measures on asylum policy that would address such movements.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Secondary movements of asylum-seekers in the
EU asylum system‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Eurodac hits Member States (MS) with the highest share of foreign hits for each type of query

As a taxpayer, you want your money to be well spent. The European Union’s spending is based on a seven-year plan, the multiannual financial framework (MFF), and reflects the political priorities set by European leaders. The current long-term budget was agreed at the end of 2020, when the EU was addressing the dire economic and social consequences of the pandemic. With the Member States’ economies in bad shape, EU budgetary policy focused on means for recovery, in particular through the establishment of the temporary instrument Next Generation EU (NGEU). The 2021-2027 MFF and NGEU together form the largest budget ever financed in the EU.

With its power to decide on the EU budget, the European Parliament has always defended effective financing of the EU’s commitments and priorities and of EU citizens’ interests. Parliament secured budgetary reinforcements totalling €15 billion for 10 of the EU’s flagship programmes, including research, health, Erasmus+ and border protection. Parliament also enhanced the budget’s flexibility with €1 billion to cope with urgent needs, and established respect for the rule of law as a necessary condition for receiving EU financing.

As co-legislator, Parliament helped frame a legally binding plan to reform the EU’s financing system. This reform was one of the conditions set by Parliament for giving its consent to the 2021‑2027 MFF. Parliament successfully insisted on setting out a roadmap for the introduction of new own resources to finance additional expenditure for NGEU.

In December 2022, Parliament and the Council adopted the EU Conditionality Regulation, which allows the EU to take measures if breaches of the rule of law principle affect or risk affecting the EU’s financial interests. The effects of the strengthened rule of law mechanism are beginning to show. Both Member States and candidate countries have made significant improvements according to the most recent ‘Rule of Law Index‘.

From the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Parliament has insisted on credible, predictable and adequate EU funding for Ukraine in line with the country’s needs. In February 2024, an agreement on the first ever revision of the EU’s long-term budget was reachedafter Parliament’s repeated demands. The revision secured crucial financial resources for Ukraine, with €17 billion from the EU budget and €33 billion in loans, and further enhanced funding of €4 billion for migration-related challenges and to allow for some budget flexibility.

This scrutiny activity shows how Parliament used its law-making powers as well as its influence over the budget to protect EU citizens’ interests in the long-term EU budget. Parliament’s powers fall broadly into six, often overlapping, domains: law-making, the budget, scrutiny of the executive, external relations, and, to a lesser extent, constitutional affairs and agenda-setting. This graphic shows more examples of areas where Parliament used one or more of its different powers to influence legislation:

Mapping the European Parliament’s powers in different areas

For a fuller picture of the European Parliament’s activity over the past five years, take a look at our publication Examples of Parliament’s impact: 2019 to 2024: Illustrating the powers of the European Parliament, from which this case is drawn.

Written by Philippe Perchoc (updated on 05.07.2022).

Simone Veil, the first President of the directly elected European Parliament in 1979, and the first woman to hold the office, died on 30 June 2017, at the age of 89. A prominent French public figure beyond her years in office, she leaves an important and enduring legacy.

First President of the directly elected European Parliament © European Communities – EP, 17 July 1979

On 17 July 1979, Simone Veil was elected President of the European Parliament by her peers. She became the first female President of the Parliament, which had for the first time been elected directly by the citizens. In her first speech as President, she declared: ‘Our Parliament must also be a motive force in European integration. This is particularly true at a time when, as I already have mentioned, Europe’s prime need is a further measure of solidarity. This new Parliament will make it possible for the views of all Community citizens to be voiced at European level, and will at the same time more effectively impress upon every sector of society the need for a solidarity transcending immediate concerns, however legitimate, which must never be allowed to mask the fundamental interests of the Community’.

Indeed, the 1979 election was a turning point in the history of the European Parliament, as the newly directly elected assembly started to discuss possible reform of the European institutions. Altiero Spinelli launched a productive dialogue with Veil, President of the Parliament, on these issues as early as 1981. After her presidency, Simone Veil remained an active MEP until 1993, and the Parliament later decided to give her name to the agora, located in front of the Spinelli building, at the heart of its Brussels campus, as a symbolic way to encourage the continuation of this dialogue.

Defender of women’s rights

In France, Simone Veil is also known as a defender of human rights, in her capacity of judge working in the field of penitentiary policies. Known for her courage, she was nominated minister of health by the then newly elected President, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who tasked her with decriminalising abortion in France in 1975. After four years as a minister, she carried on her human rights work in the European Parliament until 1993. After a further brief period as a minister, she continued her respected legal career as a member of the French Constitutional Council from 1998 until 2007.

A tragic family history

During the Second World War, Simone Veil was arrested in the street in Nice, and in 1944 her family was deported to concentration camps because of their Jewish background. She was freed from Bobrek and returned to France in 1945, but neither her parents nor her brother returned. Throughout her life, Simone Veil battled to make sure the Holocaust is never forgotten. In 2018, she was buried in the Panthéon in Paris, where those whom the French state honours have been laid to rest ever since the French Revolution.

Read this At a glance on ‘Simone Veil, European political pioneer‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Years later, we are all still experiencing the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic, as EU countries recover from the severe economic downturn that followed the 2020 outbreak. The EU Recovery Instrument – Next Generation EU (NGEU) was specifically created to help Member States address these challenges. It has a strong focus on the twin green and digital transitions – key priorities backed by the European Parliament and a total budget for recovery initiatives of €806.9 billion, financed through EU borrowing on the markets, which has to be paid out by the end of 2026.

While the Council established the NGEU, Parliament co-legislated the rules for its implementation, adopting the regulation on the NGEU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) in February 2021. The RRF distributes 90 % of the NGEU allocation to the Member States, financing reforms and investments specified in their national recovery and resilience plans (NRRPs). Parliament wanted to ensure the RRF is managed transparently, that it stimulates progress in the green, digital and energy sectors, supports children, young people and women, and that respect for the rule of law is among the key prerequisites for receiving funding.

The European Commission has to update Parliament on RRF implementation progress, and present annual, mid-term and ex-post reports. To ensure it receives timely and detailed information, and to enable an exchange of views with other institutions, Parliament insisted on a bi-monthly meeting between Members of its Committees on Economic and Monetary Affairs and on Budgets and the European Commission representatives in charge. In addition, Parliament set up a special standing working group for RRF scrutiny, to discuss the quality of NRRP measures and progress on their implementation.

Parliament has also adopted a number of resolutions on these topics. Members have called, for example, for a thorough assessment of the plans and payment requests, stressed the importance of sound execution of the RRF objectives, and demanded that respect for the rule of law be a pre-condition for disbursements.

Since 2022, Members have looked very closely at RRF expenditure through the annual budgetary discharge procedure. RRF-related issues are prominent in the work of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT), and were included in a dedicated chapter of the decision granting budget discharge to the European Commission. This procedure applies only to RRF grants, however; the loans are beyond Parliament’s scrutiny. Implementation of the RRF entered a decisive stage in 2024, as the 2026 deadline for payment execution approaches. To closely monitor NGEU allocation Parliament, thus used both its powers over the budget and on oversight and scrutiny. Parliament’s powers fall broadly into six, often overlapping, domains: law-making, the budget, scrutiny of the executive, external relations, and, to a lesser extent, constitutional affairs and agenda-setting. This graphic shows more examples of areas where Parliament used one or more of its different powers to influence legislation:

Mapping the European Parliament’s powers in different areas

For a fuller picture of the European Parliament’s activity over the past five years, take a look at our publication Examples of Parliament’s impact: 2019 to 2024: Illustrating the powers of the European Parliament, from which this case is drawn.

Written by Vasco Guedes Ferreira.

How can the EU develop an innovation ecosystem involving our seas, oceans, and inland waters? And what about the effects of climate-related dynamics, biodiversity, energy efficiency, food, renewable energy and industrial competitiveness on the water, marine and maritime sectors? These questions were posed and answered at a European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) workshop organised on 17 April 2024.

Christian Ehler (EPP, Germany), the STOA Chair, was joined by STOA Member Pernille Weiss (EPP, Denmark) in welcoming the participants, and setting the stage for a comprehensive discussion on a future Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC), proposed in the European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT) Strategic Innovation Agenda for 2021‑2027. According to Christian Ehler, the EIT is the right EU-level instrument to create an innovation and education ecosystem in the water, marine, and maritime sectors. Establishing a KIC (usually referred to as the ‘Water KIC’) would aim to strengthen innovation ecosystems and accelerate the uptake of new technologies. This pan-European, multi-disciplinary community would promote the global competitiveness of European fresh water, marine and maritime science and technology, bringing innovative projects to market that address urgent societal and sustainability challenges.

External experts Siri Granum Carson and Sveinung Sægrov from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and Richard Sempere from Aix-Marseille University presented the findings of an ongoing STOA study into the role of technology and innovation in the fields of water and oceans and on the usefulness and establishment of a ‘Water KIC’. They underscored the need for sustainable and coherent political initiatives at all levels to tackle the challenges in these sectors. The experts emphasised the importance of a more innovative public-private and cross-sector cooperation, with innovation, education and training playing a critical role in scarcity and safety, water efficiency, ocean conservation, water utility operations, monitoring and treatment, maritime sector data and analytics.

The workshop featured two panels with key stakeholders. The goal was to gather feedback on the preliminary study findings and collect additional insights for its finalisation.

The first panel focused on ‘Building innovation ecosystems’. The panellists included Manuel Irun Molina, EIT Liaison Officer, Luca Perego, Head of Unit ‘Innovation and EIT’ at the European Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture, and Richard Zaltzman, CEO of EIT Food. The panel discussion highlighted the importance of building robust innovation ecosystems to address the major economic, environmental, and societal challenges in the water, marine, and maritime sectors. Luca Perego presented the current state of play of the ongoing ex-ante analysis evaluating the relevance of the ‘Water KIC’. Manuel Irun Molina of EIT reinforced the support provided for the launch of new KICs, and the best practice and coordination initiatives between the different communities already established. Richard Zaltzman from EIT Food reinforced the idea of exploiting synergies between KICs, while underpinning the need to focus on specific key priority areas to ensure effective management of the day-to-day activities of KICs.

The second panel focused on ‘Attracting private investment for education and innovation’. The panellists included Durk Krol, Executive Director of Water Europe, Kestutis Sadauskas, European Commission Deputy Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in charge of Mission Ocean, Margherita Cappelletto, Coordinator of the Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership, and Joaquim Poças Martins – entrepreneur and Professor of the University of Porto. The panel discussion emphasised the importance of attracting private investment to foster education and innovation in the water, marine, and maritime sectors. Durk Krol linked current EU industrial initiatives on chips and hydrogen with significant water needs, and consequently competing uses for water. Joaquim Poças Martins talked about two areas where a Water KIC could have considerable impact: water utilities and hydrogen production. Kestutis Sadauskas highlighted the current underfunding of the blue economy goals, and the importance of attracting private funding and the efforts and different instruments the European Commission is using to advance innovation in these sectors. He launched some ideas for consideration in the next political cycle – blue bonds, for example.

The workshop concluded with closing remarks from Pernille Weiss, reinforcing the case for strengthening the network of stakeholders active in these fields and ultimately contributing to the Commission’s ongoing work and the implementation of the EIT strategic agenda.

The workshop was a significant step towards understanding the potential strategic value of a ‘Water KIC’ and its role in addressing the major economic, environmental, and societal challenges in the water, marine, and maritime sectors. It underscored the importance of building robust innovation ecosystems and attracting private investment to foster education and innovation in these sectors, and will contribute to the finalisation of the ongoing STOA study.

Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu.

Event recording:

https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/panel-for-future-of-science-and-technology_20240417-1400-SPECIAL-STOA

© European Union 2024 – Source : EP© European Union 2024 – Source : EP© European Union 2024 – Source : EP© European Union 2024 – Source : EP© European Union 2024 – Source : EP© European Union 2024 – Source : EP

Written by Giulio Sabbati.

Updated on 04.06.2024.

This briefing, published by the European Parliamentary Research Service, aims to provide a broad range of key facts and figures about the European Parliament. Its many graphics offer a picture of the Parliament’s Members and the institution’s structures and activity in the current parliamentary term (July 2019 to June 2024) and in previous five-year terms since direct elections were introduced in June 1979.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Accept YouTube Content

Interactive infographic: European Parliament: Facts and figures

The seven political groups in the current Parliament, in order of size, are:

• Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP),
• Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D),
• Renew Europe Group,
• Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA),
• European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR),
• Identity and Democracy Group (ID),
• The Left Group in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL.
  In addition, some MEPs sit as non-attached Members (‘Non-inscrits’ – NI).

The briefing is updated regularly, but for an up-to-date picture of the facts and figures on Members of the European Parliament today, as well as in each term since 1979, see our interactive infographic:
https://facts-and-figures.europarl.europa.eu/

Versions

• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: April 2024
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: May 2023
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: March 2022
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: October 2021
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: October 2019
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: April 2019 (available in ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, NL and PL)
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: April 2018 (available in ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, NL and PL)
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: March 2017 (available in ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, NL and PL)
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: March 2016 (available in ES, DE, EN, FR, IT, NL and PL)
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: April 2015 (available in ES, DE, EN, FR, IT and PL)
• European Parliament: Facts and Figures: November 2014

Download images from the Graphics Warehouse.

Size of political group Conference of Presidents The bureau President of the European Parliament Number of legislative and own-initiative reports Number of trilogues per year and per committee Co-decision procedure Ordinary legislative procedure / co-decision European Parliament legislative activity, 2004-2023 Inter-parliamentary delegations Share of committee chairs by political group (April 2024) Parliamentary committees Activity in European Parliament plenary sessions in the ninth term so far (July 2019 – December 2023) Electoral threshold Minimum age of candidates Voting methods for citizens resident abroad Voting system and number of MEPs National parties and political groups in the European Parliament Strengths of the political groups in each parliamentary term Women MEPs by Member State Women in the European Parliament and EU national parliaments Proportion of men and women in the European Parliament Age of MEPs Age of MEPs Age distribution of MEPs Size of political groups in the European Parliament by Member State (as of 1 April 2024) Proportion of Members in each political group

Written by Hendrik Mildebrath.

Traditionally, political parties and electoral administrations in the European Union have been slow to adopt campaign and election technologies. However, there is now a noticeable shift among European actors towards leveraging key technologies to enhance political communication and voting procedures. Authorities in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France and one district in Portugal have already used electronic voting methods. Additionally, political parties are widely adopting data-driven campaign technology throughout Europe, including in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Norway and the Netherlands. Experts anticipate that political parties will further harness artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance their communication strategies.

Outlining the risks and opportunities associated with these technologies, this briefing examines how the recently updated legal framework governs content management tools utilised by political parties for the creation and dissemination of content. More specifically, it shows that political parties, intermediary services and providers of content creation solutions are subject to a range of data processing restrictions, transparency obligations and risk management requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the e-Privacy Directive (e-PD), and the Digital Services Act (DSA). These obligations will become more stringent once the Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) become applicable after the 2024 European Parliament elections.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The arrival of e-voting and campaign technologies in Europe: Promise, perils and preparedness‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Velina Lilyanova.

To protect the EU’s financial interests and detect fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest, it is necessary to know who benefits from EU funds. However, publicly available data are currently fragmented and often incomplete, complicating the process of identifying the final beneficiaries of EU funding. The European Parliament and its Committee on Budgetary Control have consistently called for transparency in the allocation and use of EU funds. The ultimate goal is to enable the tracing of funds, and ensure targeted and effective EU spending. When it comes to the EU’s Next Generation EU recovery instrument and its main component, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), Parliament has maintained its focus on ensuring transparency.

The RRF is a temporary instrument designed to release substantial financial support to EU Member States within a limited time (December 2026 at the latest). It is performance-based: unlike other EU spending programmes, RRF payments to Member States are not linked to the eligibility of a beneficiary, project, and declared costs, but to the satisfactory achievement of predefined milestones and targets. Funds enter the national budget and are further distributed within the Member State. Because of these characteristics, as well as its size and the timing and purpose of the instrument’s creation (amid the COVID-19 pandemic), public interest in how RRF funds are spent is high. Parliament has thus sought to increase the transparency of RRF implementation by introducing the requirement for Member States to report regularly on the 100 largest final beneficiaries of RRF funds, and publish the data on dedicated national online portals. Information as to where and on what RRF funds are spent is meant to increase the transparency of how the EU helps address common challenges, and improve its credibility. This is especially important as alleged cases of fraud emerge in the media and are reported by the European Public Prosecutors Office.

Since 2023, data on the top 100 recipients has been accessible on the European Commission’s Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. Member States are expected to continue updating the data twice a year. While all have complied, there is some concern that in practice the definition of ‘final recipient’ used in the RRF Regulation does not guarantee the desired level of transparency.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The 100 largest recipients of Recovery and Resilience Facility funds‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tarja Laaninen.

As social media has become the main gateway to information for many young people, how will it influence the youth vote in the 2024 European elections? The turnout among young people in the 2019 European elections was relatively high, and many hope for a repeat performance in June this year. But ahead of the 2024 elections, the main European institutions have largely ‘excluded’ themselves from one of the most popular video-sharing platforms among young people – TikTok – over data security concerns. Social media in itself is a difficult phenomenon to study, as recommendation algorithms mean that everyone sees different content.

Social media as a new campaign front in elections

According to Eurostat, 84 % of young people in the EU used the internet to participate in social media networks during 2022. Social media platforms have thus become a significant channel for political campaigning. As an example, the spring 2023 parliamentary elections in Finland were dubbed the ‘first TikTok elections‘, with some of the young candidates gaining publicity – and a seat in the parliament – quite possibly thanks to their visibility in the social media used by teens and young adults. Back then, some 70 % of 18-21 year-olds said they had seen political advertising on TikTok. Social media platforms are also the dominant news sources for 16-24 year-olds. TikTok, as the 24/7 news channel for many young people, has surged in popularity in recent years in Europe, particularly against rivals such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat. Fact-checking services have found that social media platforms’ recommendation systems have a ‘funnelling effect‘, promoting a narrow selection of videos and narrowing the range of views to which users are exposed. There are concerns, but not yet enough research, as to whether social media and its recommendation algorithms are pushing users into bubbles, echo chambers with like-minded users, or even to ‘rabbit holes’ towards increasingly extreme content.

Young people’s participation in European elections and their media habits

The European Youth Forum has been campaigning to lower the voting age to 16; this is a national competence, however, and is therefore for the Member States to decide. In the 2024 European elections, four Member States (Belgium, Germany, Malta and Austria) will allow their citizens to vote from the age of 16, and in Greece the voting age is 17.

After declining ever since the first European elections in 1979, electoral turnout in the 2019 elections rose by 8 percentage points compared with 2014, reaching 50.6 %. This increase was driven by a surge in youth participation. The results of a Eurobarometer survey on youth and democracy published on 13 May 2024 show that 64 % of young people (aged 15 to 30) plan to vote in the upcoming European elections. However, 19 % of young people say they are not interested in politics and 13 % say they are not interested in voting. Although voting was considered the most effective action for making their voices heard by decision-makers, ‘engaging in social media’ came in second place, selected by 32 % of the young respondents.

A 2023 European Parliament study highlights that ‘young people have never withdrawn from politics or become inactive, but engage in various forms’. Social media is the preferred channel for young people’s online political engagement, offering the possibility to mobilise a massive number of people, at an incredible speed, across borders. On social media, young people inform themselves about politics and current affairs that they consider relevant to them.

The Eurobarometer News & Media Survey 2023 showed that, while older respondents have a preference for using the website of the news source (of a newspaper etc.) to access news, younger respondents are more likely read articles or posts that appear in their online social networks, or content shared by friends on messaging apps. Compared with the previous survey conducted in 2022, the use of TikTok as an online social media platform had increased across all age groups.

Examples of EU policies affecting social media ahead of the elections

In its meeting of 15 May 2024, the European Commission discussed the danger of disinformation accelerating ahead of the June elections. ‘Disinformation is on the rise, cheaper to produce with artificial intelligence and more widely distributed through social media’, Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová warned. The Commission had identified narratives that are pushed to undermine trust in media and election processes, and warned about deepfake video or audio clips trying to discredit candidates shortly before the elections.

In February 2023, the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council banned their staff from using TikTok on their devices using work-related apps, owing to cyber security concerns. The Parliament also blocks the app on its internal Wi-Fi. However, during the winter and spring of 2024, ahead of the European elections, many of the candidates and the Parliament finally went back on the app, considering their presence on TikTok to be essential if they want to reach young voters.

The Commission has taken numerous actions regarding social platforms under the recent Digital Services Act – for example, requesting more information from X on its content moderation activities, in particular curtailing its team of content moderators and reducing linguistic coverage from eleven EU languages to seven. The Commission has also opened probes into Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok. Although critical voices in the fact-checking community point out that these probes are too late to make a change ahead of the European elections, they will be useful for the future.

A strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation, signed by 44 companies – including Google, Meta and TikTok – was set up in 2022. The signatories committed to taking action in several areas to combat disinformation, inter alia setting up a rapid response system to ensure swift cooperation during election periods. Originally among the signatories, X later withdrew from the code in May 2023.

A year ahead of the elections, the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) established a Task Force on the 2024 European Elections. The EDMO fact-checking network, covering all 27 EU Member States, has been publishing daily, weekly and monthly reports analysing disinformation narratives and trends linked to the European elections at national, regional and European level, as well as investigations to counter disinformation. Examples of disinformation circulating ahead of the elections include the EU ‘forcing people to eat insect food‘ against their will, and various themes linked to the Green Deal, such as the EU wanting to ban repairing cars older than 15 years. In Germany, false stories about how to use voting ballots have been circulating that would actually make the vote invalid.

On 21 May 2024, the Council approved conclusions on safeguarding elections from foreign interference, providing an overview of the various mechanisms that the EU has at its disposal. On 10 May, Eurostat also launched a temporary fact-checking service for the election period.

Possible future steps

According to the 2023 News & Media Eurobarometer, 79 % of young Europeans (aged between 15 and 24) follow influencers – content creators who post content on social media and video-sharing platforms – while only 14 % of those aged over 55 do so. In the meeting of Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Ministers on 14 May 2024, the Council adopted conclusions on the rise of influencers as part of the EU’s media ecosystem, noting that influencers are having an increasing impact on the online content and information that people consume on a daily basis in the EU. While this impact is often positive, it can potentially be harmful, both to individuals’ mental health and at a societal level in areas such as democracy. The Council conclusions stress that influencers need media literacy skills to understand the potential negative impact of sharing mis- and disinformation, online hate speech, cyberbullying and other illegal or harmful content.

Among the recommendations proposed by the EU Youth Conference – held in March 2024 in Ghent, Belgium, as part of the 10th cycle of the EU Youth Dialogue – is a proposal to implement critical thinking workshops in schools, enabling youngsters to gain long-term critical thinking and media literacy skills. The youth representatives also proposed that the EU should, in cooperation with the Member States, establish a campaign for young people on how to identify quality information and fight disinformation.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Youth, social media and the European elections‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

You probably use your phone or laptop every day, so you surely want to know your data is stored safely. In 2021, media organisations broke the story that several EU and non-EU governments had used Pegasus commercial spyware against journalists, politicians, diplomats, law enforcement officials, lawyers, business people and civil society actors. Pegasus is designed to breach mobile phones and extract vast amounts of data, including text messages, call interceptions, passwords, locations, microphone and camera recordings, and information from installed apps.

While other institutions shied away from action, the European Parliament responded immediately. It set up a Committee of Inquiry (the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware – PEGA) to investigate the use of Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware. During its mandate, the committee interviewed over 215 interlocutors, commissioned studies, held hearings with experts and people who had been targeted, and organised fact-finding visits to Israel, Poland, Greece, Cyprus, Hungary and Spain. In March 2023, PEGA adopted a 145‑page report with the results of its investigation; Parliament adopted its final recommendation in June 2023.

Parliament found that both EU and non-EU countries had used Pegasus and similar spyware for political and even criminal purposes. Parliament was concerned that some Member States had spied on targets under the pretext of ‘national security’ to escape EU oversight. It concluded that Greek and, in particular, Polish and Hungarian legal frameworks and practices violated Union law and did not offer citizens sufficient protection. Parliament also made specific recommendations for Spain and Cyprus. Parliament envisaged stronger institutional and legal safeguards to ensure fundamental rights-compliant use of spyware, such as conditions for ordering, authorising, executing, and overseeing spyware operations. It also advocated a clear definition of ‘national security’. Parliament called on the European Commission to enforce existing laws more stringently and to follow up on possible abuses. It also tasked the Commission with drafting new laws, such as common EU standards for the use of spyware and a regulation on commercial spyware on the EU market.

Although the PEGA committee terminated on 9 June 2023, the chair and rapporteur announced that Parliament would continue working on the topic, for instance, within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Parliament used its powers of oversight and scrutiny to immediately take action to protect European citizens. Parliament’s powers fall broadly into six, often overlapping, domains: law-making, the budget, scrutiny of the executive, external relations, and, to a lesser extent, constitutional affairs and agenda-setting. This graphic shows more examples of areas where Parliament used one or more of its different powers to influence legislation:

Mapping the European Parliament’s powers in different areas

For a fuller picture of the European Parliament’s activity over the past five years, take a look at our publication Examples of Parliament’s impact: 2019 to 2024: Illustrating the powers of the European Parliament, from which this case is drawn.