Latest news with #JURI
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Key Dates To Watch In EU Debate On Sustainability Reporting
European Union flags in front of the blurred European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium The requirements for sustainability reporting in the European Union are on the verge of being reduced as legislators consider sweeping changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The Commission proposed reforms in the Omnibus Simplification Package. Now, those proposals are being debated in the Parliament and Council in anticipation of final approval by the end of 2025. However, with so many moving parts, it is difficult to keep track of when important votes may happen. Reforms to the CSDDD, also known as the CS3D, and the CSRD were proposed by the Commission in February, then sent to the Council and the Parliament for approval. The Council's deliberations are mostly behind closed doors. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. The Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. However, related committees will draft opinions to be considered during the process. Both the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, posted amendments proposed by their respective members. ECON received 514 proposed amendments while ENVI received 473. Other committees that will be drafting opinions are Foreign Affairs, known as AFET, International Trade, known as INTA, and Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL. While AFET and INTA have not released any documents, EMPL has posted their draft opinion with 49 proposed amendments. Below are important dates to watch in the legislative process. The most important committee to follow will be JURI. June 3 - 5: Committee meetings for JURI, ECON, ENVI, EMPL, and AFET. For now, the Omnibus is not on the agenda for JURI. However, June 4 is the anticipated date for JURI to release the amendments proposed by committee members. EMPL will meet and vote on their draft opinion on June 4. EMPL members have until June 3 to offer amendments. ECON will meet and vote on their proposed amendments on June 4. With 514 proposed amendments, it is unclear how the committee will approach the opinion. The agendas for AFET, ECON, and ENVI do not include the omnibus. June 23 - 26: Committee meetings for JURI, ECON, ENVI, EMPL, AFET, INTA. June 27: Deadline for political groups to offer amendments. Following the deadline for amendments, the Parliament will enter into intergroup negotiations. These are 'informal exchanges' organized by the chairs of the political groups to allow MEPs to discuss proposals. July 14 - 15, September 1, and September 22 - 23: JURI Committee meetings. October 13: This is final regular JURI Committee meeting and the anticipated date that the Parliament will make their final vote on the Omnibus. October - December: Trilogue. Following the vote of the Parliament, designated representatives from the Parliament, Council, and Commission will enter into "trilogue" negotiations. The proposals from each of the three bodies will vary. The trilogue will negotiate the differences to produce a final directive. That directive will be sent to the Council and Parliament for a final vote. October 31: EFRAG will submit revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards to the Commission. These standards will be adopted by the Commission after the final passage of the omnibus. December: Final vote in Council and Parliament. The Commission is pushing hard for the Omnibus Simplification Package to be adopted by the end of 2025. However, there is a possibility it spills over into early 2026.
Euronews
09-04-2025
- Business
- Euronews
EU Tech Commissioner defends scrapping of AI Liability rules
ADVERTISEMENT The AI Liability Directive would not have led to one set of uniform rules across the EU, Henna Virkkunen, the EU Commissioner responsible for tech, told members of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee (JURI) on Wednesday. 'With a directive, member states implement the rules in different ways,' Virkkunen said. 'I favour more regulations to make sure we have one single market,' she added, referring to the legal instrument that is equally binding across all member states. The committee members had ask ed the Commission why it withdrew the AI Liability Directive after the EU executive said it saw 'no foreseeable agreement' on the proposal in its 2025 work program published in February. The rules were intended to offer consumers a harmonised means of redress when they experience harm arising from AI products or services. They were proposed in 2022 but no significant progress has been made since. 'We need to fully implement the AI Act before we propose new rules – in the last years the European Commission has proposed a lot of digital rules and we need to simplify them before presenting something new,' Virkkunen said. Related EU Commission presents plans to boost AI uptake, protect critical sectors EU Commission to launch consultation on grand AI strategy Lawmakers have been divided over the need for the rules. The rapporteur in JURI Axel Voss (Germany/EPP), wants to keep working on the dossier. His counterpart in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee (IMCO), Kosma Złotowski (Poland/ECR), said in his draft opinion published in January that the 'adoption of an AI Liability Directive at this stage is premature and unnecessary.' Voss said in the JURI hearing on Wednesday that simplification is a trend 'but liability rules are needed anyway to create a true digital single market'. Sergey Lagodinsky (Germany/Greens) said he was 'very puzzled' about the reasons for withdrawal and said that co-legislators needed to be consulted. On the other hand, both Diego Solier (Spain/ECR) and Svenja Hahn (Germany/Renew) – members of the IMCO committee -- spoke out in favour of the Commission decision. Hahn said that the existing product liability laws and national tort laws are enough and that consumers have enough opportunities to file claims. In a letter to Virkkunen sent earlier this week, civil society and consumer groups called upon the Commission to work on new AI liability rules to fill 'legal gaps'. The Commission has until August to make a final decision on the matter.
