Commission to withdraw greenwashing proposal in new blow to Green Deal
The proposal on Green Claims was initially presented in March 2023 as part of the broader European Green Deal legislative framework.
This move marks the latest in a series of rollbacks of major Green Deal initiatives, after so-called "Omnibus" papers intended to simplify EU legislation effectively narrowed the scope of measures such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
The announcement on the Green Claims Directive came ahead of a final meeting between the Polish EU Council presidency and MEPs scheduled next Monday, which was expected to give the proposal the green light ahead of formal adoption.
Its withdrawal at this late stage has taken many by surprise, including the negotiators. When questioned by reporters, Commission officials declined to provide detailed reasons for the decision, saying only that more information would follow.
According to parliamentary sources close to the file, chief negotiators socialist MEP Delara Burkhardt and liberal MEP Sandro Gozi still intended to proceed with the trilogue negotiations on Monday, noting that the talks were nearing a successful conclusion.
'It is unacceptable that the Commission blatantly interferes with the progress made by co-legislators on this file,' a member of the Parliament's negotiating team told Euronews, expressing frustration at what they see as a unilateral and premature move.
Likewise, Poland's presidency of the EU Council 'is ready to enter constructively into the trilogue and go ahead as planned until there is a clear decision from the Commission [on the withdrawal],' a Polish spokesperson tol Euronews.
It remains unclear whether the decision to withdraw the proposal has been formally adopted by the Commission's College, the weekly meeting of the 26 Commissioners and EU President Ursula von der Leyen.
Beyond the immediate legislative impact, the move raises broader questions about the Commission's authority to retract its own proposals.
While EU treaties do not explicitly grant this power, a 2015 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union affirmed that the Commission may withdraw proposals as part of its right of initiative.
However, the Court also made clear that this power is limited and subject to both substantive and procedural constraints.
The ruling emphasised that withdrawal should only occur in justified cases, such as institutional deadlock or the proposal becoming obsolete.
Neither condition appears to apply in the case of the Green Claims Directive, prompting concerns that the Commission could be overstepping its role and upsetting the institutional balance by exercising a de facto veto over the legislative process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
15 hours ago
- Euronews
Slovenia becomes first EU country to ban weapons trade with Israel
Slovenia will be 'the first European country' to ban weapons trade with Israel in response to Tel Aviv's actions in Gaza, Prime Minister Robert Golob told the country's Press Agency (STA) on Friday. 'At the initiative of Prime Minister Dr. Robert Golob, the government today adopted a decision prohibiting the export and transit of military weapons and equipment from or through the Republic of Slovenia to Israel, as well as the import of such goods from Israel into the Republic of Slovenia,' according to a statement cited by STA and published on the Slovenian government's webpage. The statement added that Golob's decision stems from his promise to 'act independently' against Israel if the EU 'failed to adopt concrete measures by mid-July'. 'Due to internal disagreements and lack of unity, the European Union is currently unable to fulfil this task,' the statement said. EU member states have now repeatedly failed to rally enough support to respond to Israel's ongoing actions in Gaza. Despite a review of the EU-Israel association agreement which revealed that the country's actions in Gaza were violating human rights, the EU 27 couldn't agree on any of the 10 sanctions proposed to them, including a partial suspension of Israel's access to the EU's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. An embargo on arms to Israel was never tabled among options for action at EU level. United Nations and EU rules state that human rights violations and war crimes should give rise to arms sales embargoes. In addition, following the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands have already halted or restricted exports. Israel imports almost 70% of its arsenal from the US, the world's largest arms exporter but Germany is Israel's second supplier. Since 7 October 2023, it has exported €485 millions' worth of weapons. Italy ranks third, supplying less than 1%. Slovenia has been one of the most vocal EU countries calling for EU action against Israel. The country recognised a Palestinian state in June last year and has since repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Gaza and increased aid deliveries to the enclave. It has also declared two far-right Israeli ministers, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as personae non grata.
Euronews
15 hours ago
- Euronews
White House keeps tariff pressure on EU car industry
US President Donald Trump doesn't appear willing to ease the pressure on German carmakers. The US executive order on reciprocal tariffs published just before 1 August stopped short of applying the 15% tariffs agreed by Trump and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to US imports of EU vehicles. Since 2 April, EU cars have been hit with 25% US tariffs under the section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act, which allows the US president to restrict imports of goods threatening US national security. The deal concluded last Sunday with President Ursula von der Leyen was meant to apply the 15% tariffs to EU cars, and to exempt certain strategic products such as aircraft from tariffs, but neither proviso appears in the executive order. The executive order imposes a blanket 15% tariff on EU goods to apply from 8 August. Goods already in transit before that date will enjoy the previous tariff rate of 10% until 5 October, the US order says. Any attempt to circumvent these tariffs will be penalized with a 40% duty on the goods concerned, the order adds. Despite the apparent omissions from the order, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič welcomed 'the first results of the EU–US deal". 'This reinforces stability for businesses as well as trust in the transatlantic economy,' he said on X, adding: 'EU exporters now benefit from a more competitive position.' Šefčovič also said, however, that 'the work continues', referring to ongoing negotiations on a joint statement intended to formalise the political trade agreement reached on July 27. Diverging narratives The Commission and the US administration are struggling to agree on a joint text, and up to now have pushed diverging narratives on the deal. Uncertainty remains over the fate of steel and aluminium, currently hit by 50% US tariffs, which, according to the Commission, are expected to soon be subject to lower tariff-rate quotas. Negotiations are also ongoing over a series of exemptions, as pressure mounts from the EU wine and spirits industry. In a factsheet published on Monday, the US also claimed that the EU committed not to apply telecommunications network usage fees in an upcoming Digital Network Act, which is currently being disputed between EU telecom companies and US tech giants in Brussels. On Thursday the Commission noted that a white paper on digital networks published in February 2024 assessed that imposing a network fee was 'not a viable solution'. 'Such an exemption would not apply to US company only,' a Commission spokesperson said.
France 24
15 hours ago
- France 24
UK top court to rule on multi-billion pound car loan scandal
The loans, made available for 14 years from 2007, incentivised car dealers to offer higher interest rates in return for a bigger commission from banks. The Supreme Court will determine whether to uphold a judgment by the Court of Appeal last year that ruled it was unlawful for car dealers to receive a commission on loans without sufficiently informing borrowers. It is estimated that millions of drivers would be eligible for compensation should the Supreme Court side with borrowers, following its three-day hearing in April. One case involves Marcus Johnson -- who in 2017 bought a Suzuki Swift from a car dealer in Cardiff for £6,500 ($8,560 today) including loan costs -- unaware that interest paid on the loan amount would fund commission of more than £1,600. When the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Johnson, ordering South African lender FirstRand Bank to refund the commission plus interest, it sparked panic across the finance sector. British banks have set aside considerable sums in preparation for the ruling, including Lloyds, which has earmarked nearly £1.2 billion. The total estimated cost for banks varies, but HSBC bank analysts suggested before the trial that it could come to £44 billion. Since then, analysts have revised down the potential exposure of banks, British media reports suggesting a figure of around £11 billion. In the three cases being judged by the Supreme Court, consumers are also facing off against British bank Close Brothers. The Financial Conduct Authority, which banned undisclosed commissions in 2021, could mandate a collective automatic compensation programme should the court sides with borrowers. Analysts said that Britain's Labour government may be concerned about the impact on banks' willingness to provide credit amid economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs and geopolitical unrest.
