Motion for a resolution - B10-0479/2025Motion for a resolution
B10-0479/2025
European Parliament

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed Agreement on Digital Trade between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore

5.11.2025 - (2025/2967(RSP))

pursuant to Rule 117(6) of the Rules of Procedure

Martin Schirdewan, Martin Günther, Pasquale Tridico, Anthony Smith, Isabel Serra Sánchez, Jussi Saramo, Ilaria Salis, Arash Saeidi, Gaetano Pedulla’, Nikos Pappas, Valentina Palmisano, João Oliveira, Carolina Morace, Irene Montero, Catarina Martins, Mimmo Lucano, Rudi Kennes, Hanna Gedin, Estrella Galán, Kathleen Funchion, Emma Fourreau, Nikolas Farantouris, Sebastian Everding, Danilo Della Valle, Per Clausen, Giuseppe Antoci, Li Andersson, Marina Mesure, Elena Kountoura, Giorgos Georgiou, Mario Furore, Özlem Demirel, Leila Chaibi, Damien Carême, Marc Botenga, Pernando Barrena Arza, Manon Aubry, Konstantinos Arvanitis, Lynn Boylan, Luke Ming Flanagan, Dario Tamburrano, Younous Omarjee, Anja Hazekamp, Merja Kyllönen, Jonas Sjöstedt, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Michael Bloss, Saskia Bricmont, Mélissa Camara, Anna Cavazzini, David Cormand, Alexandra Geese, Markéta Gregorová, Cristina Guarda, Sergey Lagodinsky, Katrin Langensiepen, Ignazio Roberto Marino, Erik Marquardt, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Tilly Metz, Ana Miranda Paz, Hannah Neumann, Leoluca Orlando, Diana Riba i Giner, Mounir Satouri, Majdouline Sbai, Benedetta Scuderi, Tineke Strik, Anna Strolenberg, Marie Toussaint, Kim Van Sparrentak, Catarina Vieira, Thomas Waitz, Estelle Ceulemans, Birgit Sippel, Maria Noichl

Procedure : 2025/2967(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
B10-0479/2025
Texts tabled :
B10-0479/2025
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

B10‑0479/2025

European Parliament resolution seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the proposed Agreement on Digital Trade between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore

(2025/2967(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the proposed agreement on Digital Trade between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore,

– having regard to the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on Digital Trade between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore,

– having regard to Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to Article 16(1) and Article169(1) of the TFEU,

– having regard to Articles 7, 8, 11, 38, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the EU Charter),

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)[1],

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (the Digital Markets Act)[2],

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act)[3],

– having regard to the European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion 4/2025 of 21 March 2025 on the Proposals for Council Decisions on the signing and conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Digital Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore,

– having regard to the ‘Horizontal provisions’ for cross-border data flows and for personal data protection (in EU trade and investment agreements) presented by the Commission on 18 May 2018,

– having regard to the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)[4],

– having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2015 in case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (Schrems I)[5], and of 16 July 2020 in case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd, Maximillian Schrems (Schrems II)[6], and of 8 April 2014, in case C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Others[7],

– having regard to the Court of Justice of the European Union Opinion 1/15 of 26 July 2017 on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union concerning Transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to Canada[8], and the Court of Justice of the European Union Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014 on the Draft international agreement of Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[9],

– having regard to the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade of 23 January 2023[10],

– having regard to the common statement of the Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC), European Digital Rights (EDRi) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) of 7 April 2025 on the Digital Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore (the EU-Singapore DTA),

– having regard to Rule 117(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas on 7 May 2025, the European Union and Singapore signed the EU-Singapore DTA, following the Council decision of 14 April 2025 authorising the signing of the agreement; whereas the EU-Singapore DTA will follow the procedures towards ratification by the European Union, which require consent from the European Parliament based on Article 218 (6) TFEU;

B. whereas the EU-Singapore DTA seeks to enhance consumer trust in the digital marketplace by improving access to information, safety, and redress mechanisms, while providing businesses with predictability and legal certainty; whereas, however, certain provisions risk weakening fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection for EU citizens and may constrain the EU’s ability to enforce its digital legislation, thereby creating potential risks for consumers;

C. whereas the EU-Singapore DTA is the first self-standing agreement focusing solely on digital trade; whereas this agreement might serve as a template for future digital trade agreements; whereas no impact assessment has been conducted on how digital trade agreements, including the EU-Singapore DTA, might affect existing regulations and the EU legal order;

D. whereas the European Parliament may seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of an international agreement with the Treaties with a view to preventing complications that might result from legal disputes concerning the compatibility with the Treaties of international agreements that are binding upon the EU;

E. whereas privacy and data protection are distinct but complementary rights under the EU Charter; whereas the omission of privacy from the operative safeguard clause in the EU-Singapore DTA creates legal uncertainty as to whether restrictions aimed at protecting rights enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter, such as limitations on surveillance or metadata access, would be considered legitimate under the EU-Singapore DTA; whereas the safeguard clause in Article 6 (11) of the EU-Singapore DTA applies solely to personal data protection and does not safeguard other rights enshrined in the EU Charter such as privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination, or access to justice, despite their growing relevance in digital regulation;

F. whereas the 2018 ‘Horizontal Provisions’ provide for model provisions for digital trade agreements developed by the Commission and widely consulted with experts aiming to insulate data protection and privacy rules from the cross-border data flow commitments in free trade agreements; whereas in Opinion 4/2025 the European Data Protection Supervisor raised concerns that the absence in the EU-Singapore DTA of legally binding language equivalent to the ‘Horizontal Provisions’ on cross-border data flows, creates legal uncertainty as to the Union’s position on the protection of privacy, personal data and risks creating friction with the EU’s legal framework for data protection;

G. whereas according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the transfer of personal data from the EU to a non-member country is lawful only if there are rules in that country that ensure a level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the EU; whereas to date the Commission has not issued an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(1) GDPR concerning the Republic of Singapore; whereas in absence of such adequacy decision any transfers of personal data can only lawfully take place subject to appropriate safeguards, as listed in Article 46 GDPR;

H. whereas the EU-Singapore DTA is trade driven and raises a question of incompatibility of cross-border personal data flows with fundamental rights; whereas the EU-Singapore DTA introduces exceptions such as Article 5.4 or Article 29 that may be invoked to defend measures adopted to protect fundamental rights; whereas these exceptions differ significantly from the criteria established under Article 52(1) of the EU Charter which raises questions as to the compatibility and proportionality of these exceptions with the Treaties;

I. whereas the EU-Singapore DTA does not provide for a definition of the notion ‘source code of software’; whereas Article 11 of the DTA limits the capacity of EU institutions to require access to source code unless all trade compatibility conditions are met; whereas this limits the ability of the EU to regulate, audit and enforce rules concerning software-based systems, algorithms and artificial intelligence systems; whereas restriction on access to source code may weaken the accountability mechanisms of EU secondary law such as the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the Artificial Intelligence Act and may jeopardise the extensive investigative powers granted to the Commission;

J. whereas restrictions to government access to source code may hinder future regulatory efforts by extending protection beyond traditional software code to cover critical AI components such as training data and model parameters; whereas this would create new intellectual property protections that restrict regulatory access to increasingly complex AI systems;

1. Takes the view that there is legal uncertainty whether the EU-Singapore DTA provides for sufficient safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights in the context of cross-border data flows; in particular, it expresses concerns as to whether Article 5(2), read in connection with Article 6(11) of the EU-Singapore DTA, is compatible with at least, but not limited to, Article 16(1) of the TFEU and Articles 7, 8,11, 47, and 52 of the EU Charter, insofar as it might fail to ensure protection for both privacy and data protection and as it might subject safeguards to external necessity tests not recognised in Union law;

2. Takes the view that the EU-Singapore DTA provisions related to source code raise serious doubts about their compatibility with the regulatory autonomy of the EU; considers, specifically, that there is legal uncertainty whether Article 11 of the EU-Singapore DTA is compatible with EU obligations, such as to ensure a high level of consumer protection according to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 169(1) TFEU, insofar as Article 11 might impose structural constraints on the Union’s ability to regulate, audit, and enforce rules concerning software-based systems, algorithms and artificial intelligence systems, which might conflict not only with the EU Charter but also with the Union’s digital regulatory framework, such as the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the Artificial Intelligence Act;

3. Decides to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the proposed agreement with the Treaties;

4. Instructs its President to take the necessary measures to obtain such an opinion from the Court of Justice and to forward this resolution, for information, to the Council and the Commission.

 

Last updated: 6 November 2025
Legal notice - Privacy policy