Latest documents

Summary : The purpose of this study is to enhance the evidence base on how organised crime groups (OCGs) have evolved into transnational geopolitical actors, to evaluate the suitability of international legal frameworks for holding them accountable, and to offer policy recommendations to strengthen this accountability. The study finds that international law fails to adequately define or reflect the transformation of OCGs into geopolitical actors. Instead, it relies on outdated conceptions of criminal hierarchies, which confine organised crime to the transnational rather than international legal domain . International law is therefore restricted in its ability to categorise these groups as legal entities, even where their actions resemble crimes against humanity in their intent and scale . This definitional oversight has practical consequences: EU external action efforts generate relatively little information on geopolitical threats tied to OCGs, and the international criminal, humanitarian, and human rights infrastructure is unable to directly confront the actions of these groups. The study calls for the redefinition of OCGs as part of a new Directive, as well as practical measures to refine criminal justice mechanisms, improve cross-border cooperation, update EU external action threat assessments and support existing international legal frameworks to more effectively account for the geopolitical behaviours and impacts of OCGs.

External author : Mark Williams, Joana de Deus Pereira, Elijah Glantz, Jennifer Scotland

Authors : SANDERSKI ANDRZEJ, CROSSFIELD CLARE BABETTE, SERPIERI Margherita

Summary : In December 2025, the European Commission published a communication entitled Strengthening EU economic security as a follow-up to its 2023 economic security strategy. Economic developments – whether related to trade, investment or industry – are increasingly viewed through the lens of security. From a foresight perspective, this development can be analysed as the result of three overlapping and partly reinforcing trends. The first is the weakening of a value-based approach to the economy, as exemplified by fair trade agreements and the EU Green Deal. The second is the rise of geo-economics, which places the interests of countries and regional blocks at the forefront, increasing the need for mitigating policies such as economic security. The third is the growing interaction between defence policy and economic policy, with military security influencing economic decisions and the defence sector growing in importance in the EU economy. This briefing argues that these combined trends are transforming the EU's economic policy and economy, and that the growing prominence of security as a guiding principle of economic and trade policies is bringing the question of EU strategic autonomy back to the centre of EU policy. Although the increasing importance of economic and defence security appears to be mutually reinforcing, with both trends potentially enhancing EU strategic autonomy, synergy between them is not a given. The raw materials and finances needed to reinforce the EU defence industrial base require a strong and open economy. However, concerns about foreign influence require economic decoupling from certain countries (e.g. Russia) and de-risking from others (e.g. China). Moreover, the EU faces unexpectedly difficult choices in its relations with the United States (US), where its dependence on US support in defence and security reduces its capacity to act independently as an economic player and rule-maker.

Authors : DAMEN Mario

Summary : Academic freedom is widely recognised as a fundamental value of contemporary higher education and research, and as a prerequisite for well-functioning democratic societies. However, in recent years, major concerns have been expressed by various stakeholders about the state of academic freedom in the European Union. The European Parliament annual Academic Freedom Monitor aims to improve the promotion and protection of academic freedom in the EU. The 2025 edition is organised in two parts. The first part consists of an update of existing measures of academic freedom in all EU Member States, an updated overview of public debate and studies of the state of academic freedom in four selected EU Member States, and an examination of the EU's state of academic freedom in a global context. The second part contains a thematic analysis of the potential impact of selected trends in academic freedom within the EU, namely political polarisation, recent developments in the US higher education and research system, the commercialisation of academia, and foreign interference. Furthermore, EU-level policy options are proposed for possible legislative and non-legislative initiatives to enhance the support for academic freedom in the EU Member States.

External author : Ceran, Olga; Kosta, Vasiliki; Maassen, Peter A. M.; Martinsen, Dennis; Mattei, Paola; Živanić, Lazar , Živanić, Lazar

Summary : The European Commission drew up seven impact assessments (IAs) in support of 18 programme proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the proposed regulation on a horizontal performance framework. The broad scope of these IAs does not allow individual programme proposals to be assessed in any detail – as is particularly salient in the case of the IA on the national and regional partnership plans, covering nine legislative proposals. All IAs acknowledge a deviation from the scope and depth of a standard IA as defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG). This is justified with Tool #9 of the BR Toolbox, which indicates the specificity of the MFF, but does not define how related IAs should be carried out. As a result, the application of the better regulation principles varies widely across the MFF IAs. They are similar insofar as the Commission chose for all of them a mostly horizontal rather than policy-specific approach and did not include any budgetary considerations and scenarios. These choices affect the quality of key sections of the IAs considerably, albeit to varying extents. The problem definition often lacks specificity and substantiation. Similarly, the IAs' objectives remain largely unspecific, which, in turn, affects the IAs' monitoring and evaluation provisions and risks hampering the future measuring of the objectives' achievement. The description of policy options is in most cases short and vague, which weakens the impact analysis. The depth to which economic, social and environmental impacts are assessed varies across the sampled IAs. The analysis remains predominantly qualitative, with quantification largely lacking. All seven MFF initiatives are deemed relevant for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and are thus listed in the 'SME filter'. The IAs state that they place great emphasis on simplification and burden reduction. None of them is accompanied by a subsidiarity grid, and they discuss subsidiarity, European added value and proportionality rather briefly. While the IAs differ considerably in terms of quality and transparency when it comes to their evidence base and methodology, all of them acknowledge certain limitations and a lack of data (notably quantitative data). Consultation activities were largely limited to open public consultations. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) found significant shortcomings in all seven draft IAs, prompting it, exceptionally, to issue opinions without qualification. The persisting flaws in the final IAs suggest that the RSB recommendations have at best been partially addressed. Altogether, the limited quality of the MFF IAs appears to reflect a missed opportunity to provide policymakers with high-quality and transparent evidence for one of the most important policy packages to be negotiated in the coming months and years.

Authors : ANGLMAYER Irmgard, KRAMER Esther

Summary : This study examines the perpetrators and methods of transnational repression within the European Union (EU) and suggests possible counter-strategies for EU institutions. The study explains how transnational repression relates to associated issues faced by the EU, such as foreign interference, disinformation, abuse of migration frameworks and hybrid threats. Whilst the scale, scope and methods of transnational repression comprise a global phenomenon, this problem is specifically prevalent within the EU. Three case studies feature perpetrator states active inside the EU: Russia, Iran and China. In response, legal frameworks and policy responses have been developed in relevant political contexts, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and various EU Member States. The study concludes by providing recommendations for European institutions to address transnational repression.

External author : Nate Schenkkan, Zselyke Csaky, Emile Dirks, Alexander Dukalskis

Authors : SANDERSKI ANDRZEJ, SERPIERI Margherita

Summary : The proposal for a Global Europe instrument is included in the post-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) package, which aims to be simpler than previous regulations and to provide additional flexibility (over and above MFF ceilings). The new instrument merges the Neighbourhood, Development, International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe; the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, humanitarian aid; the Ukraine Facility, the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans; and the Reform and Growth Facility for Moldova. The impact assessment (IA) focuses on the six corresponding regulations. It falls under the Better Regulation Tool #9 (special case of preparing a new MFF); the scope and depth of analysis are therefore different compared with a non-MFF IA. Although the IA provides an intervention logic and defines the drivers, the problem definition remains vague and unclear. Moreover, the interlinks with objectives and drivers are not detailed in the intervention logic. In accordance with the Better Regulation Requirements, the IA assesses the expected economic, social and environmental impacts for the three policy options. It also compares and rates them against the Better Regulation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Proportionality and subsidiarity are not assessed in the IA, not even in the policy options. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, the IA is limited on data collection methods and on how progress will be measured. The evidence from previous evaluations could have been better integrated in the IA and be used to provide quantitative estimates. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board decided to issue an opinion without qualification given the lack of fundamental elements in this IA. The legislative proposal is aligned with the IA's preferred option.

Authors : CAPDEVILA PENALVA Josefina

Summary : On 21 October 2025, the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate adopted its work programme for 2026 (2026 CWP). In line with the Commission President's political guidelines and letter of intent and highlighting the need for full implementation of Mario Draghi's competitiveness report, the 2026 CWP places a strong emphasis on competitiveness, innovation and collective security. In parallel, the Commission commits to advancing simplification, implementation, and this year, also to strengthening enforcement. These three areas will remain key horizontal priorities for the entire Commission mandate. Just like last year's CWP, the 2026 CWP adheres to the seven headline ambitions put forward in the political guidelines. It is accompanied by a report on implementation, simplification and enforcement, the first of its kind. This new annual report is set to replace the annual burden survey. Annex I of the 2026 CWP puts forward 70 major new legislative and non-legislative initiatives, 44 % of which fall under the competitiveness headline ambition. (Up to) 48 of the new initiatives are legislative, including three sector-specific omnibus packages (on energy product legislation, taxation and citizens). Of the forthcoming legislative initiatives, 67 % are likely revisions of existing legislation, while more than half have a strong simplification dimension. Unlike previous CWPs, the 2026 CWP does not indicate whether a legislative initiative will be accompanied by an impact assessment; this lack of transparency runs counter to the spirit of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. Information on the Commission's 'Have your say' portal shows that, at the time of writing, two thirds of the up to 48 legislative initiatives were expected to be accompanied by an impact assessment (though the final number may be higher). The annual evaluation plan presented in Annex II of the CWP, comprising 20 evaluations, does not appear exhaustive. Finally, the communication on Better Regulation, expected in Q2 2026, may entail a revision of the Better Regulation Guidelines, the first since 2021.

Authors : ANGLMAYER Irmgard, DALLI HUBERT, IOANNIDES Isabelle

Summary : In response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the European Union (EU) has adopted 19 sanctions packages against Russia in close coordination with its Group of Seven partners. As part of these measures, the EU has immobilised around EUR 210 billion of Russia’s sovereign assets and froze around EUR 28 billion of private assets within its jurisdiction, while actively addressing possible utilisation of these funds as reparations owed to Ukraine by Russia under international law. Although significant steps have been taken in terms of private assets and windfall profits, many legal issues concerning the confiscation or management of state assets remain unaddressed. Hence, this paper aims to map current arguments and developments, in order to propose viable options for the use of these three asset types as reparations under EU and international law. At the EU level, proposals under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, especially those relating to the Central Bank of Russia’s (CBR) assets, are hindered by unanimity decision-making processes and the possible use of veto powers by Member States. At the international level, CBR assets are protected by the laws of state immunity. It therefore remains questionable under what circumstances such assets could lawfully be utilised for reparations. This paper argues that currently the most viable legal option, which addresses internal and international challenges, is the establishment of an EU Instrument (Reparations Loan). This could be achieved through carefully designated steps, allowing a qualified majority vote to prolong restrictive measures concerning immobilisation of CBR assets, ensuring temporality and reversibility while connecting this instrument to existing reparations and compensation mechanisms that adjudicate upon Russia’s violations and its obligation to pay reparations or compensation. At an international level, this paper argues that an EU Instrument can be justified in terms of central bank assets’ immunity by offering a new interpretation of the relationship between procedural rules on immunities and secondary rules on countermeasures. Such argumentation does, however, involve important legal risks highlighted throughout the paper.

External author : Maruša T. VEBER

Authors : SANDERSKI ANDRZEJ, SERPIERI Margherita

Summary : This paper analyses the geopolitical implications of the Agreement between the European Union and the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), focusing on its potential for enhanced interregional cooperation. It explores how this agreement aligns with each region’s strategic interests, expanding on opportunities that arise while remaining realistic about the likelihood of implementation. This assessment takes place in a fluid geopolitical context, characterised by the United States of America’s major revision of the post-1945 world order, an increasing assertiveness displayed by China and Russia and a relative decline of Europe and Latin America both in terms of economic output and contributions to global governance. The paper concludes by discussing various ratification scenarios and offering a set of policy recommendations.

External author : Andrés MALAMUD, Luis SCHENONI

Summary : The European Parliament is vested with powers of democratic oversight and political scrutiny vis-à-vis the European Commission. These powers of Parliament enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU as a whole, and help increase the transparency and accountability of the Commission as the EU's executive body. This study examines Parliament's oversight and scrutiny powers over the Commission. It focuses mainly, but not exclusively, on the powers that are enshrined in specific provisions of the EU Treaties. This includes Parliament's role in the Commission's investiture, in motions of censure, parliamentary questions, committees of inquiry and special committees, and in the Commission's obligations to report, consult and inform. It also looks into Parliament's scrutiny over budgetary issues, of delegated acts, in the context of the EU legislative procedure and agenda-setting, of legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and of the EU's external relations. The study builds on a previous EPRS study on parliamentary scrutiny of the Commission, originally requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in 2018. The data presented in this edition focus on the ninth term parliamentary term (2019 to 2024).

Authors : TENHUNEN Susanna, EISELE Katharina, AHAMAD MADATALI HANNAH NAFIZE, JANSEN Talander Hugo

Summary : Commitments made at the confirmation hearings of the Commissioners-designate 2024-2029

Summary : This study explores the role and enhancement of parliamentary capacities in the European Union (EU) enlargement process, focusing on the EU’s evolving accession methodology and its emphasis on the ‘fundamentals’ approach. It examines the European Commission’s criteria for ‘functioning democratic institutions’ in accession countries and evaluates the effectiveness of support measures from EU institutions, Member States, and international organisations. Based on desk research, mapping, and over 90 expert and stakeholder interviews, the study analyses EU democracy support initiatives for parliaments in 10 enlargement countries, namely Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine, and Kosovo. The study highlights best practices and identifies challenges that require increased attention from the European Parliament and the core actors involved in parliamentary capacity-building. While past efforts by the European Parliament, Member States, and international organisations have strengthened parliaments in these countries, ongoing democratic backsliding calls for more coherent and concerted action. The European Parliament and its Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group (DEG) play a crucial role in addressing these challenges.

External author : Joachim A. KOOPS; Simion COSTEA; Gaia PELOSI; Vitalii RISHKO; Alexander STRELKOV; Matthew TENTLER

Summary : This paper provides an overview of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s lending to Ukraine, particularly focusing on the IMF response to the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022, given the challenging macroeconomic circumstances. If further analyses the key elements of the IMF’ Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme for Ukraine, including the evolution of core assumptions, risks, fiscal sustainability and conditionality.

Authors : RAKIC Drazen, HANINA KATERYNA