Brussels clashes with Rome over UniCredit's Banco BPM takeover
ROME - The European Commission has raised serious concerns about Italy's use of its 'golden power' mechanism in UniCredit's €10 billion acquisition of Banco BPM, warning that Rome's conditions may breach EU law.
According to a statement by a European Commission spokesperson, the Commission has sent a letter to Rome cautioning that the Italian government's move could violate Article 21 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), which limits national interventions in corporate mergers to narrowly defined, proportionate, and justified 'legitimate interests.'
The details, the spokesperson said, remain confidential.
While the Commission approved the merger last month and does not contest the deal itself, it is challenging the Italian government's decision to impose special powers over the transaction.
These include veto rights over corporate resolutions and the ability to block share purchases - enforced via an emergency decree.
The Commission argues that Italy failed to notify the decree in advance and has not sufficiently justified the restrictions. Its preliminary assessment also suggests the move could violate EU rules on capital mobility and encroach on the supervisory role of the European Central Bank.
The rebuke adds pressure on Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's government, already facing scrutiny for blocking UniCredit's bid for Germany's Commerzbank.
Italy now has the chance to respond before Brussels decides on further steps. But Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini dismissed the concerns, accusing the EU of meddling in national affairs instead of focusing on 'serious matters' like US relations.
Meloni's office, meanwhile, said it would respond 'collaboratively and constructively,' insisting that the government's actions are legally justified.
(cs)
(Alessia Peretti)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
4 hours ago
- Euractiv
Fighting for the margins: Climate diplomacy may be the only front to engage China
Cecilia Trasi works at Bruegel as an Energy and Climate Research Analyst. Prior to joining Bruegel, she held positions at the European Commission and the OECD. She holds a BSc in Economics at Università Cattolica in Milan and a Master's in Public Policy at the Hertie School in Berlin. With COP30 in Belém on the horizon, global climate diplomacy is drifting. The last climate conference confirmed that delivery of climate commitments is lagging just as ambition must rise. So far, 173 countries – including China, India and the EU – have yet to submit their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with pledges for 2035. The United States, for its part, has again pulled out of the Paris Agreement, slashed international climate finance and embraced a 'fossil fuel first' agenda. In this fragmented landscape, China stands out. It dominates clean technology supply chains, is scaling up renewables at home, and it is a force in climate diplomacy and finance to countries in the Global South. But this is not multilateral leadership in the traditional sense. China's climate engagement is strategic, domestically rooted, and tightly woven into its industrial and geopolitical ambitions. At the same time, the recently enacted Energy Law explicitly recognises coal as a 'basic safeguard and system regulator' in the national energy system. Coal still dominates its fuel mix, accounting for more than 70% of the overall fuel combustion CO2 emissions, over half of which comes from its power sector. This dual trajectory of expanding both renewables and coal is not an accident of policy: It is the policy. And it reflects a fundamental calculus: Climate policy in China must be consistent with domestic economic and political stability. Beijing expands green industries for competitiveness, scales fossil fuels for stability, and uses climate cooperation selectively to shape its external relationships. Climate policy in China is about domestic continuity first – and the external message is clear: It will decarbonise at its own pace, on its own terms. In this context, the July 2025 EU–China High-Level Dialogue offered little in substance – but important signals nonetheless. At a time of growing EU-China economic tension and sharp divergence in trade policy, both sides reaffirmed the value of structured climate engagement and the need to raise ambition ahead of COP30. Vice Premier Ding reiterated China's intention to submit a comprehensive NDC this fall, while EVP Ribera called for urgent progress from both sides. This mutual recognition underscores that climate diplomacy remains one of the areas where dialogue is functioning: not to affirm shared values, but to shape outcomes where interests align. Instead of hoping for breakthroughs, the EU should target cooperation in areas where concrete progress is possible: carbon markets, methane reduction, and adaptation finance. Continued technical dialogue on China's emissions trading system could enhance monitoring and verification, while laying groundwork for future interoperability. Methane mitigation (especially in coal and agriculture) offers quick, low-cost cuts, even without China joining the Global Methane Pledge. But, above all, adaptation offers a less politicised and more promising path forward. China has called for joint support to developing countries in their green transitions. While the motivations are strategic, the opportunity is real. Both sides are ramping up investments in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Aligning efforts, even loosely, on resilience infrastructure, early warning systems, and climate risk planning would allow the EU and China to deliver meaningful outcomes without requiring normative convergence. Structured coordination through platforms like the High-Level Dialogue can help ensure initiatives reinforce rather than duplicate each other. Still, the EU must remain clear-eyed. Brussels has urged China to commit to a declining emissions pathway by 2035. But without yet a target of its own, and with persistent tensions over trade instruments like CBAM, the bloc's leverage is limited. Instead of relying on moral authority, the EU should work through coalitions – with vulnerable states, emerging economies, and finance institutions. By raising the diplomatic cost of inaction while offering off-ramps for cooperation, the EU can help bend global ambition upwards. Europe must engage with this reality, without any illusions. Structured dialogue with China will not erase tensions and it is not about shared principles. But it can influence choices on the margins. And in the fight against climate change, margins matter.
Euractiv
5 hours ago
- Euractiv
As the AI Act falls short on protecting copyright, creatives eye licensing reform
Copyright holders are turning their attention towards a potential licensing framework, after being left disappointed by the AI Act's transparency obligations and Code of Practice for general-purpose AIs (GPAIs). The Commission released Thursday much-anticipated template for AI developers to summarise the data used to train their models. However, the measure has been met with scepticism from creators, who believe that transparency alone is not enough to safeguard their copyrights. By nature, GPAI models – the technology that underpins the likes of ChatGPT, Le Chat, or Midjourney – require vast amounts of data to produce outputs that are more accurate and less likely to be biased. But the provenance of the data is often opaque, and creatives and artists worry that they have no way of knowing whether their work was used to train AI systems – and therefore no way to object to its use. Transparency as a first step The EU's landmark Artificial Intelligence Act is intended to bring greater transparency to AI systems and enable creators to assert their copyright claims. The law requires developers of GPAI models to produce summaries of the data used for training, and to implement systems allowing right holders to "opt out" of having their content used for model development. On Thursday, the Commission published the template it expects AI developers to use for these summaries of training data. This aspect of the AI Act faced intense lobbying by copyright holders, who wanted the templates to be as granular as possible, and AI companies, who worried too much detail could reveal trade secrets. But industry is not convinced by the Commission's implementation. "It falls short of safeguarding the creative sector and, if not corrected, risks undermining Europe's AI Act and copyright framework in favour of a few global tech companies," Burak Özgen, deputy general manager of GESAC, the authors and composers' lobby, told Euractiv. A Code of Practice for GPAIs was also negotiated between experts, lobbyists and civil society over several months to further flesh out compliance around key issues such as copyright. But for rights holders, the final text also fell short. The improvements in the final version of the Code are " certainly insufficient", said Özgen, arguing that it lacks "concrete" detail which would make it "actionable". His blunt summary is that the Code does "nothing useful to help exercising and enforcing the rights of authors". Copyright rules fit for GenAI At the core of the disagreement between right holders and AI developers is how copyright rules apply to generative AI tools – and what should come next. The EU's Copyright Directive allows the use of software that crawls the internet, on lawfully accessed websites and databases, to collect copyrighted text and images for data analytics or research – aka text and data mining (TDM) – unless copyright holders have actively opted out of having their work scraped. For the tech lobby CCIA, the TDM exception is essential to support AI innovation. The rules were " carefully designed to strike a vital balance between fostering innovation and protecting intellectual property," CCIA Europe's Senior Policy Manager, Boniface de Champris, told Euractiv. However, a study ordered by the Parliament's legal affairs committee takes a very different view, finding that the TDM rules were not intended for generative AI – and "do not provide legal certainty, transparency, or effective rights control", as the report puts it. The two camps remain divided over this issue, which may be why right holders are now turning their attention towards a potential dedicated framework for licensing agreements. Finding a way to be appropriately compensated for use of their works to train AI remains a central concern for them, especially as GenAI uptake accelerates. A draft Parliament report led by MEP Axel Voss – who also negotiated the EU's existing Copyright Directive – makes the case for a new framework to enable licensing deals to be concluded. The report must still be amended by other MEPs before it can represent the Parliament's official position. But the composer and songwriters lobby ECSA was happy that Voss' draft report " rejects the application of the TDM exceptions to Generative AI, and calls to ensure fair remuneration," as Helienne Lindvall, its president, told Euractiv. The ball is now in the Commission's court. It must decide whether to respond to the rise of GenAI by revising the EU's copyright framework – with the Copyright Directive up for review in 2026 – and, if so, figure out how to ensure that any new rules strike the right balance between support for AI innovation and protecting human creativity. (nl, aw)
Euractiv
5 hours ago
- Euractiv
Turkey races to beat China in EU food status war amid kebab scrap with Germany
Ankara is ramping up its push to secure EU recognition for its iconic foods, edging closer to dethroning China – but the fate of its beloved döner kebab is still in limbo. When Brussels launched the EU's system to register names for high-quality foods in the 1990s – a sort of 'passport' for traditional recipes – it was intended mainly as a way to protect local producers' savoir faire in an era of growing globalisation. But the geographical indications (GIs) system has become increasingly globalised itself. Besides featuring in every trade deal negotiated by the Commission, it is now attracting a growing number of applications from third countries. Today, it's not just Italy's Parmigiano or France's Roquefort that enjoy protection. China's Anji white tea and Panjin rice are also shielded from imitations within the EU. The same goes for Turkey's pistachio-filled pastry, Antep Baklavası, and its Malatya dried apricots. These countries currently rank first and second on the list of non-EU designations of origin – with the EU's eastern neighbour now eyeing China's top spot. 'It's clear that Turkey is seeking to move closer to Europe by establishing a strong position in the quality products market, leveraging its geographic proximity and tourism potential,' Mauro Rosati, director of the Siena-based Qualivita Foundation, told Italy's newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore . According to Qualivita, which tracks the GI economy and legislation, Ankara is behind three out of four applications currently under review in Brussels. Turkey is clearly stepping up its game, but it still has ground to cover. While the country has 36 EU-registered food products, China holds a commanding lead with 99 foods, seven wines, and four spirits protected. Yet Ankara's quest for EU recognition is not without roadblocks. It is now eagerly awaiting Brussels's decision on whether to grant protection to the iconic meat dish "döner kebab " , with Berlin leading efforts to block the bid. Who owns the Döner? In 2022, Turkey applied for "döner " to be granted Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) status — a scheme that, unlike GIs, protects a food's recipe rather than its geographic origin. Ankara wants to set rules on how "döner" is made to preserve its authenticity – from the thickness of the meat slices to the hours of marination. Germany says: hands off the rotating meat. 'For the sake of the many fans in Germany, the döner kebab should remain the way it's enjoyed here,' said the German Agriculture Ministry earlier this year. A cultural symbol of Turkish immigration, the döner kebab has become a German street staple – sometimes even outshining currywurst in popularity. Former German farm minister Cem Özdemir, himself of Turkish descent, weighed in after the EU published Ankara's application in 2024. 'The doner kebab is a German tradition. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves how it is prepared and eaten here. There's no need for regulations from Ankara,' he said in a social media post. Smiling in the photo, a banner beside him read: 'Döner makes you beautiful'. Turkey and the opponents to its bid – including Germany and Austria – recently ended months of bilateral talks without an agreement. The fate of the döner now rests with the European Commission, with no timeline yet announced. A Commission spokesperson told Euractiv that the decision will be taken 'in due time'. Jeremias Lin contributed to this reporting. (adm, aw)
