Feed aggregator

The next meeting of the Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) is scheduled to take place on Monday, 13 October 2025 from 18.30-21.00 in Brussels (room ANTALL 4Q1).

Further information about the SEDE meeting can be found here.

_______________________

SEDE missions 2025:

• Norway - 27-30 May 2025
• Moldova and Ukraine - 14-17 April 2025
  
• Bosnia and Herzegovina - 24-27 February 2025
• Israel and Palestine - 5-8 February 2025

SEDE missions 2024:

• United Kingdom - 28-30 October 2024
• Ukraine - 25-26 October 2024

SEDE Committee meetings' calendar 2025
EP calendar 2025
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

In today's edition: Ribera defends AI Act, Commission autumn plans

À l’approche de deux sommets européens organisés au Danemark, la Première ministre du pays, Mette Frederiksen, traverse une zone de turbulences politiques. Les récentes incursions de drones au-dessus d’infrastructures sensibles danoises ont pris les autorités par surprise et mis à l’épreuve la réputation de fermeté de la dirigeante.

The post Les incursions de drones ébranlent la dame de fer du Danemark appeared first on Euractiv FR.

BNetzA kontra ACER
Energia
The General Court annuls a decision of ACER concerning the management of electricity markets

BNetzA v ACER
Energy
The General Court annuls a decision of ACER concerning the management of electricity markets

BNetzA / ACER
Énergie
Le Tribunal annule une décision de l’ACER en matière de gestion des marchés de l’électricité

Willkommen bei Rapporteur! Jeden Tag liefern wir Ihnen die wichtigsten Nachrichten und Hintergründe aus der EU- und Europapolitik. Need-to-knows: Kopenhagen: EU-Staats- und Regierungschefs treffen sich zu einem informellen Europäischen Rat, um über die Ukraine und Verteidigung zu beraten Brüssel: Kommission und Parlament geraten wegen „Omnibus“-Paket zum Bürokratieabbau aneinander Gaza: Donald Trumps Friedensplan erschwert Europas Debatte über Sanktionen gegen […]

In today's edition: TrumpRx, CMA timeline, 232 for Medtech

DIW-Themenbericht zum Jahrestag der Deutschen Einheit – Finanz- und Wirtschaftskraft der Länder sehr heterogen – Ostdeutsche Länder weiter schwach, schließen aber zu ärmeren westdeutschen auf – Finanzstarke Länder setzen sich ab – Produktivitätslücke zwischen Ost und West schließt sich – Stattdessen ...

L’initiative phare de la Commission européenne visant à simplifier la législation s’est transformée en une véritable lutte politique, diplomates et fonctionnaires accusant les députés européens de ralentir le processus.

The post À Bruxelles, la bataille pour la simplification législative vire au règlement de comptes appeared first on Euractiv FR.

Bienvenue dans Rapporteur. Je suis Eddy Wax, avec Nicoletta Ionta à Bruxelles. À savoir : Copenhague : les dirigeants de l’UE se réunissent pour un Conseil européen informel afin de discuter de l’Ukraine et de la défense Bruxelles : la Commission et le Parlement s’affrontent sur le paquet « omnibus » visant à réduire les […]

The post Omnibus, omni-blâme appeared first on Euractiv FR.

In today's edition: Seeds rules, origin labelling, animal welfare

In today's edition: climate action, energy policy, power trading

EU agency's cyber-threat report highlights "notable" rise in attacks on public administrations, which accounted for well over a third of those analysed

Plus, negotiators get to the crux of EDIP

Despite growing awareness, the global regulation of facial recognition technology (FRT) remains fragmented, much like the governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). International initiatives from the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and World Economic Forum (WEF) provide guiding principles but fall short of enforceable standards. On 27 July 2025, UN tech chief Doreen Bogdan-Martin warned that the world urgently needs a global approach to AI regulation, as fragmented efforts risk deepening inequalities. 
This policy brief explores how FRT challenges existing governance frameworks due to its rapid development, complexity and ethical implications. Our research shows that delays in regulation are not only caused by the rapid pace of technological change but also by whose voices are included in the debate. In FRT debates, early warnings from civil society about privacy and rights were sidelined until echoed by governments and major tech firms. This lack of representation, as much as the rapid pace of innovation, helps explain why regulation so often lags behind public concerns. To better govern FRT, the policy brief proposes an adaptive and inclusive model that balances flexibility with democratic legitimacy. Adaptive governance, marked
by decentralised decision-making, iterative policy learning, and responsiveness, helps address the uncertainties and evolving risks of narrow AI applications like FRT. Inclusivity is equally critical in legitimising FRT governance. 
We propose three policy recommendations to national regulators, multilateral bodies and regional policymakers for future AI governance: (1) require transparent labelling of AI systems, 
(2) reframe AI as a societal issue, not just a security tool, and (3) embed civil society in AI governance forums. Taken together, these actions would promote a more proactive, equitable and context-sensitive framework for regulating AI globally. These recommendations are particularly timely ahead of the AI Impact Summit, scheduled for February 2026 in Delhi, which will bring global policymakers together to shape an international vision for AI governance that includes FRT.

 

Despite growing awareness, the global regulation of facial recognition technology (FRT) remains fragmented, much like the governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). International initiatives from the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and World Economic Forum (WEF) provide guiding principles but fall short of enforceable standards. On 27 July 2025, UN tech chief Doreen Bogdan-Martin warned that the world urgently needs a global approach to AI regulation, as fragmented efforts risk deepening inequalities. 
This policy brief explores how FRT challenges existing governance frameworks due to its rapid development, complexity and ethical implications. Our research shows that delays in regulation are not only caused by the rapid pace of technological change but also by whose voices are included in the debate. In FRT debates, early warnings from civil society about privacy and rights were sidelined until echoed by governments and major tech firms. This lack of representation, as much as the rapid pace of innovation, helps explain why regulation so often lags behind public concerns. To better govern FRT, the policy brief proposes an adaptive and inclusive model that balances flexibility with democratic legitimacy. Adaptive governance, marked
by decentralised decision-making, iterative policy learning, and responsiveness, helps address the uncertainties and evolving risks of narrow AI applications like FRT. Inclusivity is equally critical in legitimising FRT governance. 
We propose three policy recommendations to national regulators, multilateral bodies and regional policymakers for future AI governance: (1) require transparent labelling of AI systems, 
(2) reframe AI as a societal issue, not just a security tool, and (3) embed civil society in AI governance forums. Taken together, these actions would promote a more proactive, equitable and context-sensitive framework for regulating AI globally. These recommendations are particularly timely ahead of the AI Impact Summit, scheduled for February 2026 in Delhi, which will bring global policymakers together to shape an international vision for AI governance that includes FRT.

 

Despite growing awareness, the global regulation of facial recognition technology (FRT) remains fragmented, much like the governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). International initiatives from the United Nations (UN), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and World Economic Forum (WEF) provide guiding principles but fall short of enforceable standards. On 27 July 2025, UN tech chief Doreen Bogdan-Martin warned that the world urgently needs a global approach to AI regulation, as fragmented efforts risk deepening inequalities. 
This policy brief explores how FRT challenges existing governance frameworks due to its rapid development, complexity and ethical implications. Our research shows that delays in regulation are not only caused by the rapid pace of technological change but also by whose voices are included in the debate. In FRT debates, early warnings from civil society about privacy and rights were sidelined until echoed by governments and major tech firms. This lack of representation, as much as the rapid pace of innovation, helps explain why regulation so often lags behind public concerns. To better govern FRT, the policy brief proposes an adaptive and inclusive model that balances flexibility with democratic legitimacy. Adaptive governance, marked
by decentralised decision-making, iterative policy learning, and responsiveness, helps address the uncertainties and evolving risks of narrow AI applications like FRT. Inclusivity is equally critical in legitimising FRT governance. 
We propose three policy recommendations to national regulators, multilateral bodies and regional policymakers for future AI governance: (1) require transparent labelling of AI systems, 
(2) reframe AI as a societal issue, not just a security tool, and (3) embed civil society in AI governance forums. Taken together, these actions would promote a more proactive, equitable and context-sensitive framework for regulating AI globally. These recommendations are particularly timely ahead of the AI Impact Summit, scheduled for February 2026 in Delhi, which will bring global policymakers together to shape an international vision for AI governance that includes FRT.

 

Written by Alina-Alexandra Georgescu.

Access to culture is a fundamental human right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: cultural rights are indispensable for the dignity and the free development of the personality, and ‘everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, [and] to enjoy the arts’. Despite this legal underpinning, not everyone in the EU has equal access to culture. People with disabilities, and people living in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas, face a complex set of barriers to participation in cultural life: financial, physical, digital, legal and psychological.

Culture plays a vital role in fostering a European sense of belonging and social cohesion. It enhances Europe’s resilience for safeguarding democracy, particularly in today’s increasingly polarised societies. Therefore, barriers to participation in culture should be eliminated. Various studies have identified barriers to accessing culture for people with disabilities and those living in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas, and made recommendations on how such barriers can be removed. The EU has taken various measures to promote participation in culture, together with funding programmes for people with disabilities and people living in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas.

The ambitious framework placing culture at the centre of EU policies, the new Culture Compass for Europe, should ensure that culture becomes more accessible. The European Parliament has played a crucial role in advancing discussions on equal and obstacle-free access to cultural participation for all EU citizens. It has pointed out that any kind of barriers to full participation by individuals and communities in culture impede the development of truly democratic and inclusive societies.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Access to culture for people with disabilities and people living in rural, remote and disadvantaged areas‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

In today’s edition: EU leaders meet in Copenhagen for an informal European Council to discuss Ukraine and defence, the Commission and Parliament clash in Brussels over the ‘omnibus’ package to cut red tape, and Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan complicates Europe’s debate on sanctions against Israel