British parliamentarians, former ministers, researchers and security experts gathered at the House of Lords in London for the sixth TRENDS Annual Forum on Political Islam, focusing on Muslim Brotherhood networks in Europe, education, funding and digital influence.

The London meeting opened the first part of the forum, organized by TRENDS Global and TRENDS Research & Advisory. Proceedings will continue on September 10 at the French Senate in Paris, with a focus on legislative responses and cooperation between European and partner countries.

Opening the event, Dr. Mohammed Abdullah Al Ali, Chairman of Trends Group, argued that political Islamist movements operate across borders and can exploit the openness of democratic societies to build influence in education, media, business and the digital sphere. He stressed the distinction between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political ideology seeking power and influence.

Dr. Khalifa Mubarak Al Dhaheri, Director of Mohammed Bin Zayed University for Humanities, focused on Britain, describing it as a longstanding centre for individuals and networks associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam. He said the organization should not be treated as representative of Muslims in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and warned that ideological loyalties placed above citizenship can create “societies within societies.”

From Education to Funding

The first session examined the Brotherhood’s ideological structures and its influence on education and younger generations. Participants also discussed the Gaza Children’s Village, established in July 2025 by Palestinian-American neurosurgeon Dr. David Hassan in cooperation with IMPACT-se, as an alternative educational model to counter incitement and extremism.

The second session turned to legislation, prevention and enforcement. Lord Walney, who moderated the discussion, urged a review of existing legal tools and warned of a “blind spot” allowing some networks and think tanks to penetrate charities and the education sector. He also advocated greater intelligence sharing and international cooperation.

Baroness Foster of Oxton addressed financial oversight, arguing for tighter scrutiny of charities, their funding and tax benefits. Former MP Daniel Kawczynski urged the Home Office to respond to parliamentary demands to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and designate it as a terrorist organization. Lady Olga Maitland warned that “soft extremism” and structures targeting young people require updated legislation.

Matthew J. Leavitt of the Labour Party described the Brotherhood as a “multi-headed beast” and urged Britain to examine evidence gathered in Austria, Germany and France. Major Jason Olson, a U.S. Navy officer and former counter-extremism official, argued that prevention should begin in schools.

Markus Sheff, CEO of IMPACT-se, identified education as the first line of defence against digital extremism, advocating critical thinking and digital literacy in school curricula.

Pressure for a UK Response

Sir Oliver Dowden, former Deputy Prime Minister and Chair of the UK-UAE Parliamentary Friendship Group, addressed the Brotherhood and its links to extremism, noting growing attention to the issue among British parliamentarians and the need for institutions to better assess potential threats to the United Kingdom.

Tom Wilson, Chairman of the Counter Extremism Group, and Dr. Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of the Henry Jackson Society, highlighted the legal and media difficulties involved in exposing front organizations. They announced the “Ban the Brotherhood” campaign and proposed using parliamentary privilege to bring evidence into the public domain.

Professor Andrew Davies of the University of Birmingham advocated carefully targeted bans on organizations that threaten social cohesion and religious pluralism. Professor David Abrahams, Senior Adviser at the Arab Global Network and former Deputy Chairman of RUSI, described political Islam as an “existential threat” while stressing the need to protect religious freedom and pluralism.

Alessandro Bertoldi, Executive Director of Italy’s Milton Friedman Institute, questioned whether a ban alone would be sufficient without confronting the Brotherhood’s operational tools. He also raised the need to monitor the use of artificial intelligence to spread its messaging.

Phil Rosenberg, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, advocated an international alliance against extremist ideology, noting that Muslims themselves are among its largest victims. Imam Mohammed Tawhidi, counter-extremism adviser at TRENDS, described the Brotherhood as the “parent company” of organizations including al-Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas, while stressing that the vast majority of Western Muslims reject this approach.

Measuring the Brotherhood’s Reach

TRENDS researcher Hamad Al Hosani argued that the Brotherhood increasingly operates through flexible networks and community institutions able to exploit democratic freedoms. Any response, he said, should protect national security without collectively stigmatizing Muslim communities.

Badriya Al Riyami presented figures from the 2025 Global Brotherhood Power Index. Europe ranked fourth at 17.0%, behind the Americas at 24.8%, Asia at 22.5% and Africa at 20.2%. She described Europe as an important political and media base for the organization.

Participants recommended moving beyond procedural bans by addressing networks and ideological structures, strengthening educational programs and improving capabilities to track extremist content spread through digital platforms and artificial intelligence. Citizenship and tolerance education were identified as key preventive tools.

The meeting drew a broad parliamentary and political audience, including Richard Tice, Sir Robert John Blackman, Baroness Deech, Baroness Foster of Oxton, Nadhim Zahawi, Lord Howard of Lympne, Lord Austin of Dudley, Lord Eric Pickles, Sir Michael Ellis and Sir Oliver Dowden.

Journalists attending included Marcus Donaldson of GB News, Camilla Turner of the Sunday Telegraph and Natalie Lisbona of the Daily Mail.

The forum now moves from Westminster to the French Senate, where its second part will examine legislative responses, research cooperation and measures to counter Brotherhood-linked networks while protecting religious freedom and equal citizenship.

The European Commission wants to cut the EU’s public procurement rulebook from around 900 pages to 200, in a sweeping reform that aims to simplify tendering while giving governments greater scope to favour European economic and security interests, writes Catherine Feore.

Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held up the existing body of rules alongside its much slimmer replacement, to illustrate his point. 

“These here are the European rules which currently govern public procurement in Europe: 900 pages,” he said. “And this is what we are proposing today… down to 200 pages.”

The proposed Public Procurement Act would replace three EU procurement directives with a single regulation, with a view to simplifying procurement provisions spread across 26 sectoral laws and cutting the number of procedures from five to three.

The Commission estimates the changes could save businesses and public authorities €650 million a year in administrative costs.

The reform matters because of Europe’s massive purchasing power involved. EU public procurement exceeds €2.5 trillion annually, around 15% of EU GDP, covering everything from trains and hospitals to energy infrastructure, schools and IT systems.

From lowest price to strategic purchasing

The proposal is not just about cutting red tape. Brussels wants governments to use their purchasing power more strategically.

The Best Price-Quality Ratio would become the standard method for awarding contracts, with quality normally accounting for at least 30% of the assessment and 50% for labour-intensive contracts. Authorities could consider environmental and social performance, innovation, security and resilience alongside price.

The commitment to a so-called European preference has been tempered by the EU’s international commitments, but access can be restricted when a country doesn’t reciprocate market access. Restrictions could also be imposed where reliance on foreign suppliers creates security-of-supply dependencies or threatens EU economic security.

“European public money should, wherever possible, create jobs, investment and opportunities in Europe rather than filling the order books of our competitors,” Séjourné said.

Five procurement procedures would become three: open, dynamic and innovation procedures. Each would allow negotiation between buyers and bidders.

The Commission also plans an integrated EU digital procurement marketplace connecting national e-procurement platforms. A company registered through one connected system should be able to bid elsewhere in Europe without repeatedly submitting the same documentation. This is intended to reduce bureaucracy and tackle one of the current system's weaknesses: too little competition, particularly from SMEs and companies bidding across borders.

National, regional and local priorities may appreciate this flexibility in theory, but constrained budgets often mean that price will remain the bottom line for many. This legislation offers greater freedom in determining needs, but it remains to be seen what its impact will be.

PHOTO CREDIT: European Commission Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné says the rules reduced from 900 pages to 200 pages © European Union

A European Parliament compromise on reforming the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) has opened a politically sensitive dispute over whether entire industries should be excluded from sustainable investment — with fossil fuels offered a conditional transition route while tobacco remains outside.

The revision of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, better known as SFDR, is emerging as a key political battleground over the future boundaries of sustainable finance in the European Union.

Although formally concerned with disclosure requirements and the categorisation of financial products, the dispute now goes considerably further. At stake is a fundamental question: should entire sectors be excluded from sustainable and transition finance because of the nature of their business, or should companies be judged primarily on their actual environmental performance, investment plans and capacity to transition?

That distinction has potentially significant consequences for companies, investors and access to capital.

The file is currently under consideration in the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, ECON, where a compromise has been reached between political groups ahead of the committee vote.

Under the emerging agreement, sectoral exclusions remain within the proposed framework. Tobacco cultivation and production, as well as controversial weapons, remain outside the relevant sustainable investment categories.

Fossil-fuel companies, however, have been given a potential route into the proposed transition category where specified conditions are met.

The result is an unusual regulatory distinction.

An oil or gas company may potentially demonstrate that it is directing sufficient capital towards sustainable activities and implementing a credible emissions transition. A tobacco business, however substantial its environmental improvements, would remain excluded because of the sector in which it operates.

Crucially, however, the EPP’s decision not to challenge the tobacco exclusion should not be read as an endorsement of blanket sectoral exclusions.

Markus Ferber, the EPP’s ECON coordinator, has told EU Reporter that the decision was driven by parliamentary arithmetic and the need to assemble a stable majority for the overall compromise.

In other words, the EPP did not abandon its reservations about blanket exclusions because it had become convinced that such exclusions were the right policy. It accepted the compromise because, in Ferber’s assessment, there was no realistic parliamentary majority for an alternative amendment that would have created a performance-based pathway for tobacco.

That distinction is politically important.

It means the tobacco exclusion survives not because the EPP has embraced the principle behind it, but because the group concluded that challenging it would jeopardise the broader compromise.

Ferber: transition should matter more than sector

Ferber made clear that his underlying policy position remains strongly performance-based.

“Per se, EPP does not like blanket sectoral exclusions, but unfortunately it is not only the EPP’s position that determines the final outcome of negotiations and we had to strike compromises with other political groups to achieve a stable majority,” he told EU Reporter.

Asked whether sustainable-finance rules should judge companies according to the sector in which they operate or according to their measurable environmental progress, Ferber was unequivocal.

“In my view, the objective should be to finance the transition,” he said. “Hence, environmental performance and credible transition plans should matter more than the sector.”

That comment goes to the heart of the controversy surrounding tobacco.

The sector remains excluded irrespective of whether individual companies reduce emissions, restructure production, invest in Taxonomy-aligned activities or adopt measurable transition plans.

Fossil-fuel companies, by contrast, are being offered a conditional route into the transition category.

The tobacco exclusion survived because of the numbers

Ferber’s most significant intervention concerns why the EPP did not attempt to overturn the tobacco exclusion through an alternative compromise amendment.

Asked directly why he was not tabling such an amendment, despite previously opposing blanket exclusions affecting tobacco, Ferber replied:

“We have assessed all options for a stable majority in the Parliament and were not convinced that tabling alternative compromises would yield such a majority.”

That answer makes the political calculus unusually clear.

The tobacco exclusion was not retained because Ferber or the EPP ECON leadership had positively embraced the underlying principle. It remained because the EPP judged that there were insufficient votes to replace it while preserving the wider agreement.

The distinction matters because it changes the interpretation of the compromise.

Rather than representing an ideological conversion by the EPP towards sector-based sustainable-finance rules, it represents a tactical concession made in the context of difficult parliamentary mathematics.

Ferber reinforced that point when discussing the wider negotiations.

“I am not enthusiastic about the compromise,” he said, “but it reflects what is politically possible in light of difficult majorities and a rapporteur that has pursued a hard-left line from the beginning.”

The Parliament’s lead rapporteur on the file is Dutch Renew Europe MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy.

Ferber’s description of Gerbrandy’s approach as “hard-left” is his own political characterisation, but his remarks underline how far the SFDR revision has moved beyond a purely technical debate over disclosure rules.

EPP reservations remain

The EPP has repeatedly positioned itself as an opponent of unnecessary blanket exclusions and an advocate of competitiveness, regulatory simplification and performance-based rules.

A number of centre-right amendments tabled during the ECON process sought to remove or narrow the exclusion provisions.

The material submitted to EU Reporter notes that among the amendments tabled in committee, several concerning exclusions were proposed by EPP, ECR and other centre-right lawmakers.

Asked whether significant numbers of EPP members would have preferred the exclusions to be removed or narrowed, Ferber acknowledged that different views existed within the group.

“In a large and diverse political group, you always have different positions to reconcile,” he said.

He added that EPP shadow rapporteur Luděk Niedermayer had “checked back frequently to ensure that he has sufficient backing within our group.

Luděk Niedermayer said "There were different priorities from different political groups and differences are even above different MEPs from same group. The current text reflects the agreement reached as a compromise. 

Asked how much room did the EPP have to negotiate changes to Article 7, and what
concessions did the Group obtain in return for accepting the final package?  he said :

"As with every file, each political group has its own priorities. For the EPP, one of the key
priorities was Article 7, where we managed to secure a text that is acceptable to the Group
and which, in my view, better reflects the nature and purpose of the transition category than
the Commission proposal."

Ferber therefore rejects the suggestion that the final compromise amounts to Niedermayer departing from an agreed EPP line.

Asked directly whether there had been a disagreement between the two men over the treatment of tobacco and sectoral exclusions, he replied:

“No, our shadow rapporteur has faithfully defended the line agreed within our group, but it has always been clear that in compromise negotiations the EPP would not get 100% of its wishes. That is the nature of a compromise.”

Niedermayer said " Maintaining a limited set of exclusions helps preserve the credibility of products marketed as sustainable without extending blanket exclusions more broadly. Furthermore, energy and utility companies are more likely to follow a credible transition pathway than the sectors mentioned above. Consistency between SFDR and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1818 under the Benchmark Regulation is also a strong argument for such an approach.

Tobacco as the test case

The tobacco issue exposes the central philosophical question running through the SFDR revision.

Under a blanket exclusion, the decisive question is: what does this company produce?

Under a performance-based model, the question becomes: what is this company actually doing to transition?

The distinction matters because an automatic exclusion can remove the regulatory benefit of environmental improvement.

A company that reduces emissions, changes production methods, invests heavily in renewable energy or directs substantial capital expenditure towards EU Taxonomy-aligned activities may still receive exactly the same treatment as one making no transition effort at all.

That is the fundamental criticism of blanket exclusions contained in the material examined by EU Reporter.

The fossil-fuel exception makes the question more acute.

If an oil or gas company can potentially qualify for the transition category by demonstrating credible investment and emissions reductions, opponents of the tobacco exclusion ask why businesses in another lawful sector should not at least be permitted to make the same case.

Ferber’s own words strengthen that argument: environmental performance and credible transition plans, he says, should matter more than the sector itself.

Why fossil fuels are treated differently

Ferber nevertheless argued that there is a rationale for distinguishing between some industries.

“One can make an argument that energy companies engaged in fossil fuel projects today are likely to ultimately change their business model towards more sustainable projects, while a controversial weapons manufacturer is likely to still manufacture deadly weapons in the future,” he said.

“So, the transition case is weaker.”

That explanation addresses controversial weapons more directly than tobacco, however.

For tobacco, the unresolved policy question remains whether environmental transition should be assessed separately from the social and health characteristics of the product being manufactured.

That is precisely where the SFDR debate is becoming politically significant.

The issue is no longer merely whether tobacco is socially desirable. It is whether a sustainable-finance regulation should use sector identity as an automatic barrier to recognising environmental transition.

The Green Deal legacy

The controversy also reaches into the EPP’s wider political argument that the EU needs to move away from parts of the regulatory philosophy associated with the previous Commission and the European Green Deal.

Asked whether retaining blanket exclusions amounted to accepting part of that earlier approach, Ferber was sharply critical of the sustainable-finance framework as a whole.

“The whole sustainable finance framework is a legacy product from the previous two terms,” he said.

“In my personal view, it contains some fundamental flaws, that are difficult to change with targeted reviews of individual files.”

“We have done the best we could to fix some mistakes within the SFDR. That does not mean it is perfect. If I was given a blank slate, I would design the framework differently.”

His comments underline the political paradox.

The EPP remains sceptical of the principle behind some sectoral exclusions, yet has accepted a compromise that preserves them.

The explanation, according to its ECON coordinator, is not policy conversion but political necessity.

That is likely to become one of the most important distinctions in the debate as the file moves towards its committee vote and later parliamentary stages.

Two different approaches inside EU sustainable finance?

The controversy also raises questions of regulatory coherence.

The EU Taxonomy measures environmental sustainability using economic indicators including turnover, capital expenditure and operational expenditure associated with qualifying activities.

The SFDR compromise can operate differently by establishing a sectoral gateway before a company’s environmental performance is assessed.

The material examined by EU Reporter argues that this risks creating two different regulatory philosophies: the Taxonomy assesses measurable activity, while SFDR can exclude by sector identity.

That matters at a time when Brussels has promised simpler and more coherent regulation.

If transition finance is supposed to encourage companies to change behaviour, critics argue that the system needs to explain why measurable transition is sufficient for one sector but irrelevant for another.

Growers and SMEs watch closely

The impact is not confined to multinational tobacco manufacturers.

European tobacco growers and processors have warned MEPs that exclusion from sustainable-finance frameworks could have consequences for agricultural communities and smaller businesses.

Ten thousands of family farms would be potentially affected, alongside thousands of SMEs, many of them located in economically vulnerable agricultural regions.

The broader economic figures advanced by industry organisations should be treated as industry estimates, but the principle being argued by growers is more straightforward.

They are not asking for tobacco automatically to be labelled sustainable.

They are asking to be allowed to demonstrate transition against objective criteria.

In that respect, the fossil-fuel derogation has become politically significant.

If Europe is prepared to recognise transition in one of the world’s most carbon-intensive sectors, tobacco industry stakeholders ask why no equivalent environmental-performance test should exist for their own.

No change expected before the vote

Despite his reservations, Ferber told EU Reporter that he does not expect the compromise to be altered before the ECON vote.

“I do not anticipate any changes to the text that was agreed ahead of the vote,” he said.

The immediate political battle may therefore already have been settled.

But the wider argument is unlikely to disappear.

The SFDR revision was intended to simplify sustainable finance and make it clearer for investors.

Instead, it has exposed a fundamental policy choice over whether sustainable finance should reward measurable transition or exclude entire sectors in advance.

And in the case of tobacco, the EPP’s position is now particularly clear: the exclusion remains not because its ECON leadership endorses blanket sectoral exclusions, but because it concluded that Parliament did not contain the votes necessary to remove it without jeopardising the wider SFDR compromise.

That distinction is now stated in the introduction, given its own section, and repeated in the conclusion, so it becomes the central political takeaway rather than being buried inside the Ferber interview.

The election of Mahnaz Maimanat (pictured) to lead the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran highlights more than three decades of continuous female leadership within one of Iran’s principal organised opposition movements. An important development has taken place within the Iranian democratic opposition. On 6 September, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the principal organized component of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), elected Mahnaz Maimanat as its new Secretary-General, at the beginning of the organisation’s 62nd year.

The election took place through three successive rounds involving PMOI members in seven countries — France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Albania. In the first round, Maimanat received 56% of the votes, ahead of Badri Pourtabbakh and Narges Azdanlou. The position is for a two-year term and may be renewed by the PMOI’s Central Council. Born in Tehran in 1959, Maimanat has spent most of her adult life in the movement.

She became acquainted with the PMOI as a university student and participated in demonstrations against the Shah’s dictatorship. She joined the organization following the 1979 revolution and went on to assume a succession of senior responsibilities: she became a member of the Executive Committee in 1989, the Leadership Council in 1993, the Central Council in 2014, and co-Secretary-General in 2021. Her personal history also reflects the heavy price paid by many PMOI families under the clerical regime. Her mother, Akhtar Mowlavi, a teacher, was killed by the Revolutionary Guards in 1988.

One of her brothers, Massoud, was executed in Evin Prison at the age of 19 after months of imprisonment and torture. Another brother, Mahmoud, an architecture student, was executed during the 1988 massacre of political prisoners. The significance of the election, however, goes well beyond a change of office-holder. Mahnaz Maimanat is the tenth woman to serve as Secretary-General of the PMOI. Maryam Rajavi became the first woman to hold the organisation’s top leadership position in 1989, and for more than three decades every PMOI Secretary-General has been a woman.

Eight women succeeded Mrs Rajavi before Maimanat. This is particularly significant in the Iranian context. Within the PMOI, women’s leadership is not simply a matter of ceremonial representation or political imagery. Its female Secretaries-General have exercised real executive and organisational authority, often during extraordinarily difficult periods involving clandestine activity inside Iran, severe repression, imprisonment and executions, attacks on PMOI members, displacement from Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding of the organisation.

After assuming responsibility for leading the National Council of Resistance of Iran in 1993, Maryam Rajavi ceased to hold a formal organisational position within the PMOI. Nevertheless, she remains the most prominent political figure of the Iranian Resistance and, for many Iranians, particularly women, has become a symbol of resistance to religious fundamentalism and a pioneer of women’s equality and political leadership. This model of female leadership has also had important consequences inside Iran. Women have increasingly assumed leading responsibilities within the PMOI’s underground Resistance Units, which the movement says have played an active role in successive uprisings against the regime, including the nationwide protests of January 2026.

For young Iranian women confronting compulsory veiling, institutional discrimination and a political system that treats women as second-class citizens, the sight of women exercising genuine authority within an organised opposition movement carries considerable political and cultural significance. It also helps explain the intensity of the attacks directed against the PMOI’s leadership by the Iranian regime and, increasingly, by hardline monarchist circles. Both have devoted considerable efforts to portraying the PMOI, and particularly its female leadership, as illegitimate.

Yet the central issue is that the PMOI remains a highly organised democratic opposition movement with an extensive network inside Iran and therefore represents a serious challenge to the survival of the ruling theocracy. The election of its tenth female Secretary-General should therefore be viewed in a broader perspective. It represents more than three decades of continuous female leadership and constitutes a profound ideological and cultural challenge to Islamic fundamentalism: not simply women demanding equality, but women assuming responsibility, exercising authority and leading an organised struggle against a system built upon their discrimination and subordination.

The Yara Sluiskil plant, the largest commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Europe has started its operations in Sluikil, a village in the Zeeland province of the Netherlands.

The CO₂ will be transported by ship and permanently stored under the Norwegian North Sea at the Northern Lights facility, funded by the EU under the Connecting Europe Facility. The industrial ammonia and fertiliser facility is expected to capture and liquefy up to 800 000 tons of CO₂ annually from ammonia production.

This cross-border project is a direct result of the EU-Norway Green Alliance signed in 2023 – a powerful example of the benefits of European cooperation, combining private investment and public support and bringing together industry, the EU, its Member States, and Norway. Today's inauguration ceremony, attended by Commissioner for Climate, Net-Zero and Clean Growth, Wopke Hoekstra, reflected this partnership with the presence of Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten and President and CEO of Yara International, Svein Tore Holsether.

Yara's Sluiskil plant is a strategic investment in Europe's industrial decarbonisation and competitiveness. It is expected to capture and store around 12 million tons of CO₂ over the next 15 years. It will promote the reduction of emissions from energy intensive industries like fertilisers and ammonia. It will foster innovation, the creation of a strong industrial base and the development of this clean technology, as underlined in the Clean Industrial Deal and the recent proposal for the EU Emissions Trading System review. 

In his keynote speech at the opening ceremony, Commissioner Hoekstra (pictured) said:

"Europe needs practical climate solutions that deliver real emissions reductions while strengthening industrial competitiveness. The carbon capture and storage project at Sluiskil shows what is possible when innovation and cross-border cooperation come together. This is exactly the kind of project Europe needs to combine climate ambition with a strong and resilient industrial base."

You can follow the speech of the Commissioner on EBS.

Related links

• Industrial carbon management
• EU-Norway energy co-operation

From illicit production to smuggling, the illicit tobacco trade continues to pose a serious problem for the EU, as it negatively impacts its finances, public health and security, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). Although the European Commission and EU countries have made efforts to combat this global criminal phenomenon, their action is not robust enough. Illicit production across the EU is increasing, smuggling methods are getting more sophisticated, and new tobacco products are on the rise. Against this backdrop, the auditors criticise poor cross-country cooperation, which suffers from persistent gaps and lacks a concerted EU-wide approach.

The illicit tobacco trade has changed significantly in recent years. Organised crime groups have strategically relocated production from Ukraine to the EU in order to shorten supply chains and access consumers more directly. Although smuggling remains a problem, illicit manufacturing sites have been detected in almost all EU countries, and illicit production has grown across the EU. For instance, in a large-scale illicit cigarette production factory in Belgium, each machine was capable of producing around a million cigarettes per hour. In the largest illicit cigarette factory dismantled in Spain, three million packets of counterfeit cigarettes were seized, i.e. 56 times the height of Mount Everest if the cigarettes were stacked horizontally.

“The EU cannot afford to let its fight against the scourge of illicit tobacco go up in smoke,” said Petri Sarvamaa, the ECA Member leading the audit. “If we are serious about safeguarding citizens’ health, wallets and security, the Commission and member states must up their game to fight criminal activity head-on.”

The illicit tobacco trade deprives EU and member state budgets of €13 billion a year, according to the Commission’s estimate. However, this figure should be treated with caution, as it is based on external studies. The fact remains that the Commission lacks a reliable and independent EU-wide estimate of the illicit tobacco market, its structure and its economic impact, e.g. in terms of lost tax revenues. Such data, however, are crucial for determining the magnitude of the problem and designing an effective response. As it stands, the Commission’s reporting is largely based on seizures, and so does not provide a full picture of the situation.

Over the past decade, the EU and its member states have taken measures to combat the illicit tobacco trade. However, EU law is not harmonised, and member states’ efforts are uneven. For example, key production inputs such as raw tobacco and production machinery, and new types of products such as heated tobacco products and liquids for e-cigarettes, are not treated in the same way across the EU. At the same time, the EU regulatory framework gives member states a free hand in choosing counter-measures, thus leading to enforcement gaps that organised crime groups can exploit. In particular, as national control systems and enforcement approaches differ, such as in the definition of offences and the severity of penalties, this can encourage criminal activities to relocate to laxer jurisdictions. Furthermore, EU countries are inconsistent in the way they exchange information.

In the EU, responsibility for combating the illicit tobacco trade is shared between several stakeholders. However, no single entity has a clear coordinating role, meaning that initiatives are fragmented. The auditors thus call on the Commission to assume a more active role in combating the illicit trade in tobacco products.

Background information

Although overall tobacco consumption has continued to fall, the quantity of illicit tobacco products in the EU has risen in recent years. In 2023, the Commission estimated that the quantity of illicit tobacco products was 8.8 % of total cigarette consumption. Excluding cigarettes, the illicit tobacco market amounts to nearly 21 000 tonnes in the EU. According to estimates, these new products make up 13 % of the market value of tobacco products sold in the EU, and attract younger consumers.

Illicit tobacco products are very attractive for organised crime groups due to their high profitability and comparatively low risk (penalties have traditionally been light and detection rates low). Such illegal activity not only provides a significant source of income for criminals but, by offering cheaper tobacco products, also undermines efforts to reduce tobacco consumption. Ultimately, it leads to losses in terms of customs duties, value-added tax and national excise duties.

The audit assesses the effectiveness of the action taken by the Commission and the member states. The auditors carried out field visits in Belgium, Spain, Poland and Romania, and include examples of illicit manufacturing sites in their report. ECA special report 23/2026 “Combating the illicit trade in tobacco in the EU: Fragmented efforts and persistent gaps” is available in 24 EU languages on the ECA website.

Public records show that businesses associated with Tavira have undergone changes to their custody operations following regulatory intervention in Dubai and Monaco. Separately, Tavira Monaco is a defendant in English civil proceedings concerning shares provided as collateral for a stock-backed loan.

The civil allegations remain disputed, and the public judgments reviewed for this article do not establish that Tavira knowingly participated in fraud. Neither Tavira nor its founder, Eliot Goodfellow, is charged in the related United States criminal case.

An international financial group

Tavira was founded in London in 2005 as Tavira Securities. It has since expanded into areas including agency brokerage, asset management, corporate broking and custody.

The group has operated through regulated businesses in several jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Monaco, Dubai, Australia and the United States.

Goodfellow remains Tavira Financial Limited’s controlling shareholder. Companies House records state that he owns at least 75 per cent of its shares and voting rights and has the right to appoint or remove directors.

Tavira Financial’s accounts for the year ending 31 March 2025 reported increased revenue alongside a wider annual loss. The accounts also referred to the closure of its contracts-for-difference business and restructuring of its custody activities as the group concentrated on agency brokerage, asset management and corporate broking.

The Salinas civil proceedings

Tavira Monaco is one of six defendants in English civil proceedings brought by Mexican businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego and Corporacion RBS.

According to the claimants’ case, as summarised in a 2024 High Court judgment, Salinas transferred Grupo Elektra shares worth more than $400 million to two custodians, Weiser Global Capital Markets and Tavira Monaco. The shares were provided as security for loans under a stock-loan agreement concluded in July 2021.

The claimants allege that they entered the transaction after being led to believe that the lender was associated with the prominent American Astor family and that the shares would not be sold unless an event of default occurred.

They further allege that Vladimir Sklarov, who used the name “Gregory Mitchell” in connection with the transaction, caused the shares to be transferred and sold without their authority and used part of the proceeds to fund the loans themselves.

Financial Mail reported in June 2025, citing trading logs reviewed by Salinas’s team, that some of the disputed shares were sold through transactions involving Morgan Stanley, BBVA and Merrill Lynch. The report did not allege that those banks knew of or participated in the alleged fraud. Their appearance in a transaction chain does not, by itself, establish misconduct or knowledge of any underlying dispute.

These remain allegations in continuing civil litigation. In the interlocutory proceedings, the Sklarov defendants maintained that the transaction documents entitled them to trade the collateral and that Salinas’s advisers had been told this. The public decisions reviewed for this article do not amount to a final determination of Tavira Monaco’s liability.

The High Court granted freezing and proprietary injunctions in August 2024. An application by the Sklarov defendants to discharge those injunctions was rejected in October 2024. Later appellate proceedings concerned procedural and evidential issues rather than a final trial of the underlying claims. Tavira Monaco was not involved in the most recent appeal.

Separate US criminal case

A US federal indictment filed on 30 April 2026 and unsealed in May charges Sklarov with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleges that Sklarov operated an entity presented as an established stock-backed lender associated with the Astor family. Prosecutors allege that he used aliases and false representations to obtain control of shares worth approximately $450 million.

Sklarov has not been convicted in that case. The charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The publicly available indictment charges Sklarov, not Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco, Goodfellow, Morgan Stanley, BBVA or Merrill Lynch. The existence of the criminal case should therefore not be taken as establishing criminal conduct by any of those companies or individuals.

Restrictions in Dubai

On 10 September 2024, the Dubai Financial Services Authority imposed restrictions on Tavira Financial Limited’s Dubai branch.

According to the DFSA public register, the firm was restricted from soliciting or conducting specified regulated financial-services business with new clients. It was also restricted from soliciting or onboarding new clients in connection with financial promotions.

The public register does not state the reason for the restrictions and does not connect them to the Salinas litigation.

Tavira’s accounts subsequently referred to a decision to close the Dubai branch’s custody operation and to restructure custody activities across the group. The DFSA register nevertheless continues to list Tavira Financial as an authorised firm, subject to the published restrictions.

Companies House records show that Goodfellow ceased to be a Tavira Financial director on 13 September 2024, three days after the restrictions were imposed. Neither the DFSA entry nor the Companies House filing gives a reason for his departure or establishes that it was connected to the restrictions or the Salinas proceedings.

Monaco sanction suspended pending challenge

Tavira Monaco has also been the subject of regulatory action.

On 12 February 2026, Monaco’s Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières ordered the withdrawal of Tavira Monaco’s authorisation after upholding four regulatory breaches.

The published CCAF decision found that the company had failed to submit required accounts, activity reports and auditors’ reports within statutory deadlines. It also found that the company had not continuously maintained two people responsible for its strategic direction and management, had lacked a bank account in its own name with a Monaco credit institution since July 2023, and had lacked sufficient human and technical resources since 2023.

Tavira Monaco challenged the decision. On 21 May 2026, the President of Monaco’s Supreme Court suspended its execution. According to the CCAF’s current case notice, Tavira Monaco’s application to annul the decision remains pending.

The withdrawal decision should therefore not be described as presently effective without also reporting the suspension and continuing challenge.

Questions about custody controls

The Dubai restrictions, restructuring of custody operations and Monaco proceedings raise legitimate questions about governance and operational controls. They do not, by themselves, prove any connection to the alleged misconduct in the Salinas transaction.

The English civil case raises separate, disputed questions about the instructions received by Tavira Monaco, the authority it understood the relevant parties to possess, the movement of the collateral and the custody records maintained during the transaction. Those matters remain for determination in the civil proceedings.

Right of reply

EU Reporter sent Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco and Eliot Goodfellow a detailed summary of the matters in this article and asked for their responses concerning the civil allegations, regulatory decisions, custody restructuring and Goodfellow’s departure from the board. EU Reporter has received no replies from Tavira Financial, Tavira Monaco and Eliot Goodfellow

EU Reporter also asked Morgan Stanley, BBVA and Bank of America, the parent company of Merrill Lynch, whether they could confirm the reported transactions and whether they wished to comment.  Morgan Stanley replied, saying “no comment”. The others,  BBVA and Bank of America, the parent company of Merrill Lynch, have not replied at all.

The European Commission has approved a €30 million state aid scheme for agricultural, fishery and aquaculture companies facing increased fuel and fertiliser prices due to the Middle East crisis.

The scheme was approved under the Middle East Crisis Temporary State Aid Framework (METSAF) adopted by the Commission on 29 April 2026.

The Portuguese scheme

Portugal notified to the Commission a €30 million scheme to support companies active in the primary production of agricultural, fishery and aquaculture products. The scheme, which will run until 31 December 2026, aims to mitigate the impact of the increase in agricultural fuel and fertiliser prices.

The aid will take the form of direct grants. The scheme concerns the grant of a limited amount of aid calibrated on the increase of the prices of fuel and fertilisers with a maximum of €50,000 per company. For the agricultural sector, the aid for fertilisers is based on a fixed amount depending on the number of hectares of agricultural surface and the animals of the company. The aid for fuel costs consists of €0.10 per litre of agricultural or marine diesel consumed from 1 April to 30 June 2026.

The Commission assessed the scheme under EU state aid rules, in particular Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which enables member states to support the development of certain economic activities subject to certain conditions, as well as Sections 1 and 2.1 of the METSAF.

The Commission found that the scheme is in line with the conditions set out in the METSAF. In particular, the aid will be granted based on a scheme with a clear estimated budget and will be provided to temporarily support the development of companies active in the primary production of agricultural, fishery and aquaculture products. The Commission concluded that the scheme is necessary, appropriate and proportionate to facilitate the development of an economic activity and does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

On this basis, the Commission approved the Portuguese scheme under EU state aid rules.

Find out more 

The three co-rapporteurs, including Renew Europe’s Christophe Grudler (ITRE), outline the priorities in Parliament’s draft report on the Industrial Accelerating Act, (IAA), as they finished their draft report this week. For Liberals and Democrats, the IAA report is seen as pivotal in boosting EU competitiveness and industrial resilience as a response to mounting global insecurity. During the drafting process, MEP Grudler has ensured that European taxpayer money prioritises businesses, jobs, and innovation in the EU, marking a pivotal shift in the EU’s approach to public procurement and economic sovereignty.

Key measures include: - Raising the threshold for Made in Europe and low-carbon products in strategic sectors to 50 percent by 2036, ensuring that public funds support domestic industries and sustainability. - Expanding strategic materials to include plastic for construction, in addition to steel, aluminium, and cement. - Increasing EU content in net-zero technologies, such as wind turbines, solar panels, heat pumps, and nuclear power plants, to strengthen Europe’s industrial capacity and leadership in the green transition.

The era of unconditional openness is over. Renew Europe is pushing for true reciprocity, ensuring that European markets open only to countries that effectively do so in the same conditions. To ensure fairness and prevent loopholes, clear safeguards, including stricter definitions and component requirements that will close the door on circumvention and guarantee that public funds truly benefit European industries, are also introduced.

Christophe Grudler, co-rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), said: “It is time to put an end to a wait-and-see approach and a certain naivety. Facing fierce global competition, we must build and consolidate the value chains of our strategic sectors in Europe: from steel and aluminium to the automotive industry and clean technologies. European taxpayers’ money must be used as a lever to achieve this: to support those who produce, innovate and create jobs here, within the Union. But greater ambition must not mean greater complexity. We are proposing simple, clear and applicable rules, without unnecessary administrative burdens for businesses and local authorities. This is the ambition we are setting out in this draft report. The work begins now: I will fight to ensure that the Accelerator rises to the challenge of the current industrial emergency.”

The Kazakh Government has announced the formation of a pool of 215 investment projects totaling 78.6 billion US dollars, marking the start of a new investment cycle, Qazinform News Agency cites the government’s press service.

Kazakhstan is launching a new investment cycle with a strong focus on manufacturing, deep processing, high-tech industries, and localization.

The country has a three-tier investment attraction system in place, where regions compile priority projects and conduct targeted investor searches.

Fast Track procedures were launched to accelerate approvals along with the National Digital Investment Platform.

The next step is to develop Kazakhstan Investment House on the basis of Kazakh Invest, following a “one-stop shop” principle.

66 investment agreements worth 17.8 trillion tenge in investments have been signed. 

Since early 2026, 25 agreements worth 4.4 trillion tenge were concluded in pharma, energy, metallurgy, agriculture, infrastructure, and healthcare. Capital investment rose to 23.5 trillion tenge, nearly doubling since 2019.

In manufacturing, investments tripled to 3 trillion tenge, now accounting for 12.7% of total investment.

Foreign direct investments reached 20.5 billion US dollars in 2025, up 14.4%, with capital increasingly directed to non-resource sectors like manufacturing, finance, and communications.

173 billion US dollars invested in four new projects to localize 356 medicines and expand domestic production.

To note, agro-industrial projects by Dalian Hesheng Holdings, Fufeng Group, and Tiryaki Agro focus on deep processing of wheat, corn, and legumes for food, pharma, and biotech.

In Ekibastuz, a Data Center Valley is being developed near GRES-1, with 30 billion US dollars in planned investment and energy capacity from 300 MW to 1 GW. The project will integrate infrastructure for cloud services, processing capacities, and AI.

Earlier Qazinform reported Kazakhstan and Germany aim to implement new joint investment and industrial projects.

Government of Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Economy
Pharmaceuticals
Agro-industrial complex development
Wheat
Digital Kazakhstan
Energy
Investments

On her visit to Nuuk, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen announced a €200 million Global Gateway Partnership Package, to be invested in and with Greenland this year and the next. The EU, Greenland and Denmark have also reinforced their partnership with a new Joint Declaration, signed in Nuuk by the President, Premier of Greenland Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen.

President von der Leyen said: “Greenland can count on the EU. That was my message during my last visit. Today, I am back to deliver the real results of our close cooperation. With a new EU-Greenland Partnership package, worth €200 million. This will create new opportunities and a strong and engaged EU in both Greenland and the Arctic. Because Greenland is a strategic ally and a trusted friend.”

The Declaration and the investment package deepen the EU-Greenland cooperation across the board – from traditional areas, such as education and fisheries, to better satellite and cable connectivity, hydropower and critical raw materials. The package also focuses on investments that improve everyday life in the country: better housing, sustainable tourism and stronger support for small businesses.

• A renewed Joint Declaration between the EU, Greenland and Denmark

The EU, Greenland and Denmark co-signed a new Joint Declaration on relations between the EU and Greenland to strengthen the common investment agenda, political dialogue and people-to-people exchanges, reaffirming a partnership grounded in shared values and interests.

Building on the previous Declaration from 2015, the new Joint Declaration recognizes Greenland's growing strategic importance and further strengthens and expands the partnership in areas of mutual interest. These include, among others, education and training, infrastructure development, sustainable raw materials, clean energy production, digital connectivity, sustainable tourism, housing, research and innovation, civil protection, resilience and security, fisheries, environment and climate action.

• A new Global Gateway Partnership Package

 The EU is mobilising a partnership package of €200 million for investments in Greenland. It will create new economic opportunities for the local population, while contributing to a sustainable, prosperous and peaceful Arctic region. A first set of Global Gateway projects in several priority sectors have already been agreed with Greenland, and we are working together on exploring a number of new investments:

Digital connectivity

• Through the Enhanced Satellite Connectivity project for Greenland, the EU is partnering with Tusass to support the expansion of satellite capacities across Greenland through European providers over the next five years. This will improve the reliability, speed and resilience of digital connections, benefiting remote settlements, schools and businesses.
• This builds on the EU's ongoing support for the strengthening of digital connectivity on Greenland's west coast.
• In parallel, the EU is supporting feasibility work to assess whether data centres could become a viable opportunity for Greenland as the necessary energy and digital infrastructure develops.

Sustainable raw materials

• The EU and Greenland will advance sustainable mining projects with a link to the European industry. Support will be provided through technical analysis and investor matchmaking and will contribute to stronger and more integrated and resilient value chains. This will build up on successful existing investments, such as the one in the Malmbjerg mining project.
• The GreenRoc's Amitsoq graphite project is another concrete example of this mutually beneficial partnership. As an EU Strategic Project under the Critical Raw Materials Act, it shows the potential for integrated Greenland–EU value chains, strengthening security of supply and supporting investment.

Sustainable energy

• The EU will support a programme led by Greenland's national energy utility company, Nukissiorfiit, to modernise and decarbonise energy supply in remote settlements. Through the deployment of hybrid renewable energy systems in towns and settlements, the programme will strengthen the reliability of electricity supply while expanding the use of renewable energy.
• The EU and Greenland are also exploring support for the expansion of the Buksefjord hydropower plant, Greenland's main hydropower facility, to respond to rising electricity demand in Nuuk.

Capacity building

• The EU will support the Government of Greenland in strengthening its institutional capacity through the establishment of a Programme Management Unit, to ensure effective delivery of relevant policy priorities as well as EU-backed programmes under the EU-Greenland Partnership.

Jobs and quality of life

• The EU and Greenland agreed to use the remaining funding to advance preparations for several additional programmes in priority areas, notably tourism and housing.
• Sustainable tourism has been identified as one of the most immediate and promising opportunities for economic diversification, private sector development and job creation across Greenland.
• Housing is also essential to address Greenland's ageing housing stock, improve public health and the conditions for sustainable growth.

Background

Greenland is the largest recipient of EU support per capita among the Overseas Countries and Territories. The EU has earmarked €225 million for the period 2021-2027, with 90% dedicated to education and 10% to green growth. The Commission has proposed €530 million for Greenland under the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, more than doubling the current level of support.

The EU's partnership with Greenland is also underpinned by the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement. As a central pillar of Greenland's economy and a key area of cooperation, the EU provides €17.3 million to Greenland each year under the current fisheries protocol, including €3.2 million to support its national strategy for sustainable fisheries. The Agreement promotes the sustainable management of fish stocks, strengthens fisheries governance and contributes to economic stability in coastal communities. (will be available shortly)

In addition, Greenland remains eligible for EU horizontal programmes, such as Horizon Europe, the Connecting Europe Facility, Erasmus+, Creative Europe and InvestEU.

For more information

Statement by President von der Leyen

Greenland partnership

Greenland and the EU – Creating opportunities together

Factsheet on EU-Greenland Partnership

Joint Declaration

The Commission has just confirmed that it is suspending certain payments under Cohesion funding and the European Regional Development Fund to the Czech Prime Minister’s company Agrofert, due to the apparent conflict of interest surrounding Andrej Babiš' (pictured) role as PM and his business holdings. The Czech Prime Minister is the owner of the massive agribusiness, for which he set up a ‘trust’ ahead of becoming Prime Minister for the second time. The Greens/EFA Group have long highlighted the conflict of interests surrounding the Czech Prime Minister.  

Daniel Freund MEP, Greens/EFA Group Coordinator in the Budgetary Control Committee said:  “The Commission has recognized that Czech PM Andrej Babiš is likely in conflict of interest and we applaud that the Commission has finally taken action here. It is totally unacceptable for a prime minister to be negotiating the EU’s next long term budget, when he decides how large a chunk of that money could end up in his own pockets. The trust fund that Babiš set up in no way is enough to prevent a conflict of interest and it’s welcome that the Commission has acknowledged this.  “However, the Czech people should not have to suffer due to the dodgy dealings of their prime minister. It is time that the Commission and Council forces Czechia to ensure that Babiš is not involved in any negotiations around the EU’s long term budget, which may benefit him or his family directly. Either Babiš is head of Agrofert or he’s Czech PM, he can’t have it both ways.” 

Markéta Gregorová, Greens/EFA MEP and Czech Pirate Member of the Committee on International Trade said: “I am glad that the European Commission has finally started addressing Andrej Babiš’ conflict of interest, as it promised in its response to my inquiry. This confirms that we were right to raise the alarm: Babiš has not resolved his conflict of interest, and, frankly, he never genuinely intended to do so. The Commission must now ensure that the rules are enforced and that European taxpayers’ money is protected from any misuse.”

The EU will not be able to take on tech juggernauts like the US and China if it relies solely on Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam and Stockholm. It must start treating Eastern Europe as a strategic partner if it wants to become a global technological power, writes Cristian Gherasim.

The image of a global superpower is no longer synonymous with swarms of soldiers armed to the teeth. Modern wars are fought as much online as they are on the battlefield. Nations that will have a say in tomorrow’s world now must keep innovation might at the top of their priorities.

Draghi’s warnings

The 2024 report by former ECB president Mario Draghi on EU’s economic competitiveness included warnings directed at Europe’s tech ambitions. Mario Draghi’s report highlights the need to grow digital connectivity and reduce the gaps between Europe and the world’s tech powerhouses.

The European Union has been in a less than flattering position, even when it comes to the most basic infrastructure. A few years back, the European Court of Auditors said EU members should step up efforts to deploy 5G, given how the next big leap in mobile networking has been lagging in some member states. Though improvements have been made, there is still a long way to go. The Commission reacted with its Competitiveness Compass – which places tech infrastructure as the cornerstone of future economic development.

In order to meet the digital target for 2030, Brussels needs to revamp the old infrastructure and, more importantly, create a better and newer one.

Eastern Europe’s ignored strength

Rich countries no longer hold the monopoly over connectivity and innovation. Eastern Europe – though economically not yet on par with its Western counterparts - has put technology front and center, building its communication infrastructure at great speed.

Romania demonstrates that top connectivity is not limited to Europe’s Western economies. Today, almost nine in ten Romanian households have internet. The country ranks high among the world’s fastest countries for broadband speeds, according to Ookla. Over a ten year period (2025 versus 2015), Romania saw a 28% increase in household access to the internet. The country is becoming one of Europe’s most vital internet hubs, which also explains Romania’s growing importance as a cybersecurity player on the continent. Romania hosts the European Cybersecurity Competence Centre, crucial to Europe’s defense. Countries in Eastern Europe have gained significant firsthand expertise in dealing with such threats.

Further north, Estonia is also a clear example of Eastern Europe’s technological influence. The country built one of Europe’s most advanced digital public sectors, whose technological clout far exceeds its population size and geography. Estonia offers the rest of the European Union valuable lessons in digital government, cybersecurity and online public services.

Poland – a former Warsaw Pact member - gives yet another example of Eastern Europe’s growing technological influence. Poland has been tackling hate speech and disinformation on the internet and with the help of its AI companies it has aggressively been monitoring social media content.

The country is positioning itself as Central and Eastern Europe’s leading AI hub, investing heavily in the tech sector. The Polish digital economy market is currently estimated to be around 40 billion EUR and expected to develop exponentially over the coming years.

Digital Networks Act

Strength lies in unity, hence a unified telecom market would help Europe grow its tech influence relative to that of China and the US. This unified EU digital market should unmistakably include the Eastern European nations. The Digital Networks Act looks to reduce market fragmentation, encourage fiber and 5G investment. It remains to be seen whether Europe’s nations can form a single digital market.

That is where the Digital Decade comes in. The program is set up by the European Union to improve digital skills, upgrade digital infrastructure and get more businesses and public services online. If the EU is to build a unified digital market, investments and the decision making process should not exclude Eastern Europe.

Europe needs to learn how to pool resources from every member state just as much as it needs to unify its regulations and make long term infrastructure investments a must.

Cybersecurity and digital sovereignty

The past few years have shown that making Europe digitally strong is a matter of security and survival. Mobile communications, fiber networks and data centers are now seen as essential infrastructure, alongside energy grids and transport networks.

Cyber attackers have been targeting Europe’s critical infrastructure. Countries on the eastern flank of EU and NATO such as Romania have become important digital security actors. Sitting in Russia’s crosshairs, their resilient communication infrastructure is now essential for Europe’s wider defense.

Eastern Europe brings not only cybersecurity expertise to the table, but also infrastructure and human resources that will help the EU compete globally.

Digital sovereignty should not bring about isolation. Europe needs to keep on working with the US on matters of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence instead of being at odds with each other. At the same time, the EU should be strengthening its own infrastructure, investing heavily in research and development and creating a single digital market.

Europe’s digital future will not be built exclusively in Western Europe. It will also be built in Bucharest, Warsaw, Tallinn and across EU’s eastern frontier.

If Brussels is indeed serious about closing the gap with the US and China, it can’t leave its eastern member states out. Romania and Eastern Europe are no longer part of Europe's digital periphery, and their infrastructure is there to prove it. Now what they need is a seat at the table.

Sovereign wealth is typically measured by the size of reserves that allow a country to weather periods of crisis. However, for future generations, it is not only the amount left in financial accounts that matters. Of equal importance is the state of the country they inherit alongside these savings: the quality of its schools and hospitals, the condition of utility networks, roads, energy, and other core infrastructure.

For Kazakhstan, this question holds special significance. Revenues from natural resources enable the country to build a substantial financial cushion. The National Fund accumulates a portion of commodity revenues and serves two primary functions: a savings function aimed at preserving assets for future generations, and a stabilization function designed to reduce the state budget's vulnerability to fluctuations in global commodity markets. It should be noted that by mid-2026, the fund's foreign-currency assets reached $65.5 billion. (1)

Sovereign wealth operates differently

There is no single global model for managing sovereign wealth funds. States strike different balances between intergenerational savings, fiscal stabilization, and deploying accumulated capital for development. However, international experience demonstrates that these goals are not inherently contradictory.

Norway adheres to one of the most disciplined models of sovereign wealth management. Its fiscal rule aligns withdrawals with the expected real return of the Government Pension Fund, while preserving the flexibility to use fiscal policy in response to major economic shocks. (2)

The stabilization function is even more pronounced in Chile. Funds from the Economic and Social Stabilization Fund have been drawn upon repeatedly during periods of economic stress. In 2009, withdrawals reached nearly $9.28 billion, with significant funds also deployed in 2019–2021. (3)

Other countries also utilize commodity revenues not only as a source of long-term savings, but as a catalyst for economic development. The experience of Kuwait is illustrative, where these responsibilities are divided between the Future Generations Fund, focused on preserving capital for future generations, and the General Reserve Fund, whose investment portfolio encompasses energy, industry, transport and logistics, healthcare, and infrastructure. This model allows Kuwait to preserve a portion of national wealth for upcoming generations while transforming another portion into assets that expand the country's economic potential today and build the foundation for long-term growth. (4)

Azerbaijan, whose sovereign wealth origins closely mirror Kazakhstan's, has utilized resources from the State Oil Fund to finance major projects of national importance, including the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway, the Oguz–Gabala–Baku water supply system, and equity participation in major oil and gas transport initiatives. (5)

None of these models can be mechanically copied by another country. Together, however, they demonstrate that sovereign wealth management does not boil down to a binary choice between "saving" and "spending." What matters far more is the form in which national capital can deliver the greatest long-term return for the nation.

From financial capital to national capital

Savings from the National Fund are already being utilized directly in the interests of future generations. Since 2024, Kazakhstan has operated the "National Fund for Children" program: every young citizen of Kazakhstan is annually allocated a portion of the fund's investment income, and upon reaching 18 years of age, the accumulated funds can be used for education or housing improvement. This program has already entered the phase of practical asset utilization. Between February 2024 and August 1, 2026, payouts were received by more than 338,000 young Kazakhstanis, totaling approximately $67.8 million. Meanwhile, the funds belonging to minors remain within the National Fund's assets and continue to be invested until they reach adulthood. (6)

At the same time, Kazakhstan faces a challenge familiar to many economies that have accumulated significant revenues from natural resources: what portion of national wealth should remain in financial assets, and what portion makes sense to convert into capital working domestically.

Soon, Kazakhstan plans to deploy a portion of the National Fund's assets to finance major infrastructure projects of nationwide significance. In 2027, over $4 billion is planned for these purposes, followed by slightly over $3 billion annually in 2028 and 2029 (7).

According to several experts, the economic rationale for such a decision extends beyond mere financing. When funds are directed into long-term social and engineering infrastructure, national wealth does not disappear. The form in which it exists simply changes.

Money allocated to current consumption expires alongside the budget cycle. A school, hospital, utility network, road, or energy facility remains in the economy and operates for decades.

This is precisely why infrastructure investments differ fundamentally from covering operational expenses. A portion of financial capital is effectively transformed into physical and human capital within the country.

Such an approach yields economic benefits right from the project implementation stage. Construction generates demand for materials, equipment, transport, design, and installation work, providing orders for domestic enterprises and creating added value within the country. Once facilities are operational, another, far more sustained effect begins. Modernizing heating and water supply systems increases their reliability, reduces losses, and diminishes the need for costly emergency repairs. Roads enhance regional connectivity. Energy infrastructure removes bottlenecks for expanding existing production and launching new industrial capacity.

Investments in healthcare and education occupy a special place. Modern hospitals, clinics, and educational institutions represent both social infrastructure and direct investments in human capital. The accessibility of medical care, public health status, quality of education, and workforce qualifications are directly tied to labor productivity and the long-term potential of the economy. All social infrastructure is as much an element of national capital as transport or energy infrastructure, and its returns and effectiveness extend far beyond the construction timeline of any individual project.

The cost of deferred development

Utilizing accumulated capital carries an opportunity cost. However, delaying investments carries an opportunity cost as well. Insufficient capacity of transport networks, energy shortages, worn-out utility systems, and a deficit of schools or medical facilities impose costs today. The longer modernization is postponed, the longer the economy and population bear these costs.

Therefore, the pace of infrastructure development carries clear economic value. If a necessary facility opens today rather than ten years from now, the country gains additional years of its economic and social returns.

Moreover, the social and economic effects of infrastructure are largely inseparable. Reliable utility networks, modern healthcare, education, transport, and energy simultaneously elevate the quality of life and create an environment in which private economic activity can thrive.

A reserve that has already worked

Using the National Fund's resources to address strategic priorities is not a new practice for Kazakhstan. The fund's ability to provide supplementary resources when the economy needs them most has repeatedly served as a key factor in the country's economic resilience.

During the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, $10 billion was directed to stabilize the financial sector, support real estate, small and medium enterprises, and the agribusiness sector (8). In 2015–2017, an additional $9 billion was withdrawn (9). During the pandemic in 2020–2021, transfers from the National Fund helped preserve economic stability and support citizens. Thus, having an accumulated reserve allowed the state to act proactively—promptly directing additional resources where they were required to prevent more severe economic repercussions.

The existence of a large financial reserve enabled Kazakhstan to navigate periods of external shocks with an additional funding source without relying exclusively on current budget revenues.

Today, it is not the principle of using the fund that is changing, but the nature of the task. Previously, accumulated resources primarily served to mitigate the impact of global shocks. Now, a portion of the capital is intended to eliminate infrastructural bottlenecks that could constrain long-term development.

This expands the sovereign fund's role: resources accumulated during favorable periods are used not only after a crisis arises, but also to build assets that enhance the resilience and potential of the economy for years to come.

The account of future generations

Ultimately, the success of this strategy will be measured not by the volume of funds withdrawn from the National Fund, but by the value of the assets created with them and the overall effect they deliver to the economy and citizens.

This fundamentally shifts the evaluation criteria. If a financial asset worth one dollar is transformed into infrastructure that enhances productivity, lowers business costs, elevates human capital quality, and fosters conditions for new private investment over decades, the very structure of national wealth undergoes a qualitative transformation.

Therefore, the central question for the coming years is not whether to utilize National Fund resources, but the quality of the assets Kazakhstan creates in return. For future generations, this exact balance between preserved financial capital and the value of the domestic economy built in its place will stand as the primary legacy of today's decisions.

1. National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Report to the President dated June 4, 2026: Foreign Currency Assets and Investment Income for 2025.

2. AI-CIO, "Norway to Withdraw Record Amount from Sovereign Wealth Fund": https://www.ai-cio.com/news/norway-withdraw-record-amount-sovereign-wealth-fund/

3. The Market Value of the Economic and Social Stabilization Fund (ESSF): https://www.hacienda.cl/english/work-areas/international-finance/sovereign-wealth-funds/economic-and-social-stabilization-fund/financial-situation/market-value

4. Kuwait Investment Authority, "Investments" (General Reserve Fund and Future Generations Fund overview): https://www.kia.gov.kw/investments/

5. oilfund.az, State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan - Question and Answer (mandate); naturalgasworld.com, "SOFAZ financing Azerbaijan's share in TANAP project": https://oilfund.az/en/fund/press-room/question-and-answer
   
6. Target Savings Payments under the "National Fund for Children" Program: https://www.enpf.kz/ru/press-center/news/282547/
   
   Foreign-Currency Assets of the National Fund to Increase to USD 70.6 Billion by 2029: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/economy/press/news/details/1279482?lang=en
   
   Concept of Formation and Use of Resources of the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Decree of the President of RK dated Dec 8, 2016, No. 385): https://cdb.kz/sistema/pravovaya-baza/o-kontseptsii-formirovaniya-i-ispolzovaniya-sredstv-natsionalnogo-fonda-respubliki-kazakhstan/
   
   Concept of Formation and Use of Resources of the National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U1600000385
   

Six months into the US-Iran war, and as Europe grapples with finding a solution to a crisis that has spread across the region, Iranian activists across the Islamic Republic risked their lives last week by taking part in demonstrations, impromptu parades and acts of disobedience to mark the 62nd anniversary of the founding of Iran’s leading pro-democracy opposition group. What makes this particularly relevant for Brussels is that Europe is examining ways not only to contain the immediate crisis, but also to address the broader question of what political forces inside Iran could ultimately shape the country’s future. Meanwhile, members of the same movement in exile held an election to choose a new occupant of the organisation’s highest office.

The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) was originally established to promote revolution against the hereditary dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But after that revolution came about in 1979, it quickly stood up against the theocratic faction that seized power in its wake and began cultivating a reputation as the primary voice for a democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic. It has since been targeted for annihilation by the regime on several occasions but has invariably rebounded and assumed leading roles in major, collective challenges to the regime’s hold on power.

Those challenges include independent media campaigns, mass protests and an armed assault in February on Tehran’s Motahari Complex, which contains offices belonging to several leading officials and institutions, including that of the supreme leader. That incident threatened to decapitate the regime just days before the United States began the bombing campaign that has left it mired in a grinding war with the Islamic Republic more than six months later.

The PMOI has also been credited with leading roles in each of four successive uprisings that spread across the entire country in 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2026. The last of these, which took place mostly in January, was ruthlessly suppressed, with the death toll reaching into the thousands. This was soon followed by a new escalation in Iran’s world-leading use of the death penalty, particularly against political detainees.

Since the start of the Iranian calendar year in March, 40 such prisoners have been hanged, many of them for participating in the January uprising or for affiliation with the PMOI. The trend has led many of the organisation’s supporters to warn that the regime could be setting the stage for a massacre akin to that which took place in the summer of 1988, primarily targeting the PMOI, when 30,000 political prisoners, the overwhelming majority of them affiliated with the PMOI, were massacred within a few months.

Those warnings, and that history, illustrate the danger that Iranian activists were taking on when they coordinated demonstrations last week with the express purpose of promoting the PMOI. This, in turn, points to the resilience that the Iranian people have demonstrated both in the early days of the Islamic Republic and in recent clashes between protesters and regime authorities.

That resilience is arguably reflected in the PMOI’s choice of Mahnaz Maimanat (pictured) as its new Secretary General on Sunday (6 September). Like most of her colleagues, Maimanat has suffered great personal losses in her fight against the ruling system. Her brother Massoud was killed by firing squad in 1983, and her brother Mahmoud was hanged during the 1988 massacre, the same year that their mother was killed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Since joining the PMOI at the age of 20 in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, Maimanat has remained steadfastly committed to the organisation, joining its Leadership Council in 1993 and its Central Council in 2014, before becoming co-Secretary General in 2021. After she secured 56 percent of the votes from fellow members of the Central Council, a statement from the PMOI described Maimanat’s election as a means for the organisation to declare “its firm determination to topple the ruling religious fascism.”

The statement also quoted Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political coalition of which the PMOI is a member organisation, as saying that Maimanat “has combined dynamism and a defiant spirit with an even deeper sense of commitment and responsibility for the freedom of the Iranian people and her homeland.”

Rajavi has been designated by the NCRI to oversee a transition to democratic governance following the mullahs’ overthrow. She has also authored a Ten-Point Plan for Iran’s future in the wake of that transition, guaranteeing free and fair elections, separation of religion from the state, equal rights for women and minorities, and peaceful relations with neighbouring countries and the West, backed by the dismantling of the outgoing regime’s nuclear weapons programme.

In recent years, thousands of lawmakers across Europe and North America, including cross-party members of the European Parliament, have openly endorsed that plan while also recognising the NCRI as a viable, democratic alternative to the current ruling system.

Commission adopts EU Guidelines on exclusionary abuses of dominance

New figures from member states show that businesses are increasingly using the simplified VAT rules for cross-border e-commerce.

New figures from member states show that businesses continue to make increasing use of the simplified VAT rules for online sales. Five years after the EU’s VAT e-commerce rules entered into force, the latest figures also show continued growth in VAT declared through the One Stop Shop (OSS) and Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) schemes.

The VAT e-commerce package, which entered into force on 1 July 2021, marked a major step in modernising the EU VAT framework. Since then, member states have collected more than €125 billion in VAT revenue through the EU’s VAT e-commerce schemes.

In 2025 alone, more than €38 billion in VAT revenue was collected, an increase of 17% compared with the previous year. The number of businesses using the EU’s simplified VAT schemes has also continued to grow. By the end of 2025, more than 193,000 businesses have registered to account for VAT on online sales through the schemes, reflecting the continued uptake of the EU’s VAT reforms, which help simplify VAT compliance, reduce red tape, and ensure VAT collection. 

E-commerce VAT reform: Progress and future direction

With the continued rapid growth in e-commerce activity and an increasingly digital global marketplace, the EU’s VAT rules for online transactions have continued to evolve to meet the needs of cross-border trade.

As we move into the next phase of reforms under the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package, the EU is on track towards a fairer and more efficient VAT framework.

Following the adoption of the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package in 2025, its phased implementation over the coming years is expected to build further on the success of the e-commerce VAT reforms. By expanding the scope of the OSS to cover more business-to-consumer transactions and introducing a new special scheme for the transfers of own goods, the ViDA package is likely to lead to even greater uptake of the OSS schemes, moving towards a single VAT registration in the EU. 

More information

Through a single registration in one member state, the One Stop Shop (OSS) and Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) schemes allow businesses to declare and remit VAT for cross-border sales of goods and services within the EU, as well as for imports of low-value goods.

This report is the latest in a series of annual reports on the application of the e-commerce package and is based on 2025 statistics from member states. It sets out details of the total number of registrations in all three One-Stop Shop (OSS) schemes, namely, the Union OSS, the non-Union OSS and the Import OSS, as of 31 December 2025. It also provides details on the total amount of VAT declared in each of these schemes in 2025. In addition, it describes how these registrations and declaration figures have evolved since the introduction of the VAT e-commerce rules in July 2021.

• Read the 2025 Report on the Application of the EU’s VAT E-Commerce Package 
• VAT for e-commerce 
• VAT in the Digital Age 

The EU energy label, as provided for by Regulation (EU) 2017/1369, aims at promoting the uptake of more efficient energy-related products. It aims to help consumers make informed choices by facilitating comparisons of product alternatives with different features. The label focuses on the energy efficiency of the product during the use phase, but can also include other environment-related aspects.

View more 

• Publication details

• Published: 2026
• Corporate author(s): Directorate-General for Energy (European Commission) , Centerdata , Ipsos NV
• Themes: Energy policy
• Subject: computer equipment , consumer information , energy consumption , energy efficiency , EU energy label , EU energy policy , maintenance , product life , regulation (EU)

• Released on EU publications website: 2026-09-03

View more

Document viewer

https://op.europa.eu/flexpaper/common/split_document.jsp?doc=c83f07c0-a806-11f1-b25c-01aa75ed71a1.en.PDF.pdf&userId=&systemId=Portal2012&documentId=c83f07c0-a806-11f1-b25c-01aa75ed71a1&documentTitle=Study+assessing+consumer+understanding+of+a+draft+energy+label+for+computers&documentPublishingDate=&localeDirectory=%2Fflexpaper%2Flocale%2F&localeChain=en_US&fitWidth=true&documentLanguage=en&share=

Did you know that after login you can annotate your document and share your annotations?

You may also like

• Study on consumer understanding of the EU energy labels applied since 2021
  ENER/B3/FV2024-438 under Framework Contract no 2021/OP/0004/ENER/B3/FWC 2020-708 : final reportThis study evaluates two pillars of the EU Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369: the rescaled A–G energy labels in...
  • Published: 2026
• Study assessing consumer understanding of tyre labels
  Final reportThe new proposed Regulation updates the tyre label design by aligning it more closely to the EU energy label, as provide...
  • Published: 2023
• Study on consumer understanding of the EU tyre label applied since 1 May 2021
  ENER/B3/FV2024-438 under Framework Contract no 2021/OP/0004/ENER/B3/FWC 2020-708 : final reportThis study, commissioned by the European Commission, examines how the revised EU tyre label — in force since 1 May 2021 ...
  • Published: 2026
• More similar publications 

As families across Nepal face the human toll of one of the country's deadliest floods in decades, the EU is adding to the relief effort led by Nepalese authorities and humanitarian partners. A first EU humanitarian air bridge flight is delivering 82 tonnes of essential supplies, while the European Commission is providing a further €500,000 for response and coordinating further help offered by European countries.

Organized with UNICEF, the Air Bridge flight has landed this morning carrying supplies for nutrition, health, water and sanitation, shelter, education and protection from EU stocks. The additional €500,000 will be channelled through the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' disaster response emergency fund, allowing local teams to cover urgent needs. Separately, through the EU civil protection mechanism, Luxembourg, Germany, Latvia and Norway are sending equipment including life jackets, hygiene and kitchen kits, blankets, medical supplies, protective equipment and emergency energy equipment.

This further assistance builds on the EU response already underway. On 28 August, the Commission allocated €2 million in emergency humanitarian aid, on top of almost €3 million already allocated to Nepal in 2026 for disaster preparedness. EU-funded partners have been providing assistance on the ground, while Copernicus emergency satellite mapping has been activated and the EU Rapid Response and Logistic Coordinators for Asia are deployed.

Crisis Management Commissioner Hadja Lahbib said: 

"In a single night, rivers of mud and water swept away what generations had built: homes, schools, entire communities. Nepal has suffered a devastating loss of life, and thousands of families are facing the unimaginable. The grief is only beginning to sink in. Europe stands with the Nepalese people. We are supporting emergency responders and getting emergency aid to those who need it: clean water, medicine for hospitals, shelter for families sleeping in the open, and psychological support for the grieving. European solidarity crosses oceans. We will help Nepal not just survive this tragedy, but rebuild. Stronger and never alone."

Background

The European Commission's emergency response co-ordination centre operates 24/7; it ensures rapid deployment of emergency support and acts as a coordination hub between all EU member states, the 10 additional participating states, the affected country, and civil protection and humanitarian aid experts.

On 4 September, the Commission proposed extending the annual winter closure in the Bay of Biscay into winter 2027 for fishing vessels over eight metres to help prevent catches of common dolphins and other small cetaceans - which are strictly protected species under the EU Habitats Directive. For the fourth consecutive year, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain have requested this closure, making use of the regionalised approach under the common fisheries policy. 

The Delegated Act will now be sent to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU for scrutiny before entering into force  

As proposed by the group of EU member states, the closure should run for a period of 30 consecutive days, to be taken between 15 January and 27 February 2027. Fishers will be able to notify their preferred closure period to their national authorities. 

This proposed new closure aims to increase operational flexibility for the fishing sector and reduce its economic impacts, while protecting dolphins during the period when bycatch risk is higher. This new flexible approach responds to a direct request from the fishing sector to better align the timing of the closure with fishing activities. 

In the absence of notification about their preferred dates to their national authorities, fishing vessels will be subject to the fixed closure period running from 22 January until 20 February 2027.   

Efforts to reduce common dolphin bycatch should continue, as advised by science and required under the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in line with the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the European Ocean Pact.  

Success in reducing dolphin mortality   

Since 2024, fishing closures in the Bay of Biscay have been effective in reducing incidental catches of dolphins. According to a report from the French observatory PELAGIS, dolphin mortality due to incidental catches in 2025 appeared significantly lower than those estimated prior to the closure (2017-2023).  

Financial support for fishing vessels  

Around 300 EU vessels are expected to be impacted by the proposed closure. Financial compensation is available through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) or through state aid by member states. The EU offers financial support to fishers to acknowledge their efforts towards marine conservation and to protect their livelihoods, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future for both ecosystems and fishing communities.  

Measures to reduce incidental catches  

During the selected closure period, vessels - pelagic and demersal trawls, seiners and netters - will be required to remain in port to avoid incidental catches of common dolphins and other small cetaceans. Scientists have identified this period as a high-risk for bycatches (unintentional capture of dolphins during fishing operations).  

Background  

All cetaceans, including common dolphins, are strictly protected under the Habitats Directive. Member states must establish a system to monitor their incidental capture and killing. Considering the information gathered, they must take further research or conservation measures to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned.   

The EU Biodiversity strategy for 2030 aims to eliminate or minimise by-catch so as not to threaten the conservation status of protected species. In line with these objectives, the European Ocean Pact sets out the Commission's commitment to support member states in protecting and restoring marine ecosystems. 

Winter strandings of dolphins and small cetaceans on the coasts of the Bay of Biscay have been a recurring challenge for the fishing sector and marine ecosystems. Contributing factors to these strandings include incidental catches in fishing nets, natural mortality, diseases, and disorientation.  

As part of efforts to reduce interactions between small cetaceans and fishing vessels, the fishing sector and Member States are investing in research and technical trials to develop and test new devices. Ongoing research projects on new devices and interaction with cetaceans include PIFIL, DolphinFree, Licado, Delmoges, iNOVPESCA and VaradaC.