Cancer is currently the second leading cause of mortality in the EU, after cardiovascular diseases. In 2024, around 2.7 million people were diagnosed with cancer in the EU and around 1.27 million died. EU action focuses on prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment; and quality of life for cancer patients, survivors and carers. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) form the backbone of the EU’s economy, accounting for 99% of its businesses. EU programmes to support SMEs have focused on improving their competitiveness, access to finance and their ability to innovate. Recent initiatives have sought to help SMEs navigate challenges such as the digital transition, carbon neutrality, and economic recovery in the face of geopolitical developments. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Audiovisual policy in the EU is governed by Articles 167 and 173 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The key piece of legislation in this field is the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The main EU instrument to help the industry is the MEDIA strand of the Creative Europe programme. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union demands respect for ‘the freedom and pluralism of the media’. The European Media Freedom Act establishes a common framework for media services in the internal market. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Water is essential for human, animal and plant life and for the economy. Its protection and management transcend national boundaries. The EU’s water policy plays a key role in preserving the environment, supported by legislation that safeguards water sources and both freshwater and marine ecosystems. These laws also ensure the cleanliness of drinking and bathing water. The EU Water Framework Directive establishes a legal framework to protect and restore clean water and to ensure its long-term sustainable use. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The Strategic Compass, adopted by the 27 EU Member States in March 2022 – only weeks after the onset of Russia's unjustified and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine – emphasised the need for robust partnerships in order for the EU to be able to achieve its objectives in the area of security and defence. Alongside 'acting' (operations), 'securing' (resilience) and 'investing', 'partnering' is one of the four main pillars of the Compass. The document itself outlines specific targets and deadlines against which to measure progress in this area. While the EU has partnered with other security and defence actors (essentially states and international organisations) in the past, a new model of tailored security and defence partnership was launched shortly after the adoption of the Compass, as a reinforced framework for enhanced partnership. To date, the EU has signed eight such partnerships – with (by date of signature) Moldova, Norway, Japan, South Korea, North Macedonia, Albania, the United Kingdom and Canada, and more are envisaged. While the partnerships vary in content, depending on the assessed mutual interests of the EU and each individual partner, around 10 areas of cooperation are common to all eight. The European Parliament has highlighted the significance of the Strategic Compass's partnership dimension and, in particular, the value of security and defence dialogues with partners from the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership, as well as with key partners in strategic maritime areas such as the Southern Neighbourhood and the Indo-Pacific. Parliament has underlined that cooperation with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Ukraine, Georgia, Western Balkan countries, Japan, Australia and certain African countries serves as a key element of the common security and defence policy. In 2023, it called for deeper military and defence cooperation with Japan and South Korea, and for closer cooperation with partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. This briefing updates an earlier one from January 2025. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Nuclear energy is a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels and accounts for around 25% of the electricity produced in the EU. However, in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 catastrophe in Fukushima, nuclear energy has become highly controversial. While Member States can decide whether to include nuclear power in their energy mix, EU legislation aims at improving the safety standards of nuclear power stations and ensuring that nuclear waste is safely handled and disposed of. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Equality between women and men is one of the objectives of the European Union. Over time, legislation, case-law and changes to the Treaties have helped consolidate this principle and its implementation in the EU. The European Parliament has always been a fervent defender of the principle of equality between men and women. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Medicines and medical devices have a direct impact on people’s health and are subject to the rules of the single market. A robust legal framework is in place to protect public health and guarantee the safety of these products. An adequate and affordable supply of medicines, the fight against antimicrobial resistance, the ethical conduct of clinical trials, the use of artificial intelligence in medical devices and incentives for research and development are just some of the key issues the EU deals with in this field. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Public authorities across the EU use public procurement to award contracts for works, services and supplies that account for approximately 14% of the EU’s GDP (more than EUR 3 trillion annually), making public procurement a major driver of economic growth, job creation and innovation within the EU single market. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, education policies are decided at the level of the individual Member States. The role of the EU is therefore mainly a supporting and coordinating one. The main objectives of Union action in the field of education include encouraging mobility of students and staff, fostering mutual recognition of diplomas and periods of study, and promoting cooperation between higher education institutions[1]. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This European implementation assessment supports the European Parliament's implementation report on the EU Youth Strategy (EUYS) 2019-2027 prepared by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). Part I of this study examines recent European Commission developments on the EUYS, Parliament's oversight of the EUYS, and the results of consultations. Part II of the study examines EUYS implementation at the EU level and in six selected Member States, drawing on the most recent evidence from a literature review, stakeholder interviews, and a survey. It analyses the 11 European Youth Goals and their implementation and relevance, before assessing the extent to which the EUYS has promoted youth mainstreaming across policy areas. It further explores youth participation, focusing on social inclusion, equality and young people with fewer opportunities (case study 1), and examines the EUYS's role in improving access to quality education and training (case study 2). It concludes with recommendations to enhance the EUYS, thereby informing its update and future implementation beyond 2027. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This European implementation assessment supports the European Parliament's implementation report on the EU Youth Strategy (EUYS) 2019-2027 prepared by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). Part I of this study examines recent European Commission developments on the EUYS, Parliament's oversight of the EUYS, and the results of consultations. Part II of the study examines EUYS implementation at the EU level and in six selected Member States, drawing on the most recent evidence from a literature review, stakeholder interviews, and a survey. It analyses the 11 European Youth Goals and their implementation and relevance, before assessing the extent to which the EUYS has promoted youth mainstreaming across policy areas. It further explores youth participation, focusing on social inclusion, equality and young people with fewer opportunities (case study 1), and examines the EUYS's role in improving access to quality education and training (case study 2). It concludes with recommendations to enhance the EUYS, thereby informing its update and future implementation beyond 2027. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The 'datafication' of everyday life and various data scandals have made the protection of personal data an increasingly important social, legal and political topic for the European Union (EU). Privacy and data protection are recognised as fundamental rights in EU law and were strengthened when the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, giving the EU a stronger legal basis for updating its data protection and privacy system. In 2012, the European Commission began reforming the outdated framework. This led to the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive, along with updates to EU institutional data protection rules, in 2016 and 2018. The European Parliament played a key role in these reforms, both as co-legislator and author of own initiative reports and resolutions, seeking to guarantee a high level of data protection for EU citizens. The Court of Justice of the EU further developed the EU data protection framework through case law. Nevertheless, new concerns have emerged under the updated data protection framework. These relate to shortcomings in GDPR enforcement, tensions between compliance and competitiveness, difficulties in reconciling security-related data access with privacy protection, and the risk of overburdening small and medium-sized enterprises with compliance requirements. In response, EU lawmakers adopted GDPR procedural rules for cross-border cases, and introduced a temporary derogation from the e-Privacy Directive to combat online child sexual abuse. Meanwhile, the Commission has proposed a permanent framework intended to replace the temporary rules, and a digital omnibus regulation easing certain data protection requirements in support of competitiveness and artificial intelligence development. It also appears to be preparing a legislative initiative on data retention. This is a further updated edition of a briefing originally written in 2020 by Sofija Voronova and previously updated most recently in 2025. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was established in 1993 and has been strengthened by subsequent treaties. Today, Parliament regularly contributes to the development of the CFSP, in particular by scrutinising the activities of its institutional actors and bodies: the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who also serves as Vice-President of the European Commission; the European External Action Service (EEAS); the EU Special Representatives (EUSRs) and the EU delegations. Parliament’s budgetary powers can also shape the scale and scope of the CFSP. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The EU gained responsibilities for sport under the Treaty of Lisbon, which came into effect in December 2009. Since then, it has been responsible for developing evidence-based policy, fostering cooperation and managing initiatives to support physical activity and sport across Europe. Dedicated specific funding for sport was introduced for the first time under the first Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) and has been continued under subsequent iterations of the programme. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

EU public health policy is under continuous development. While several measures were triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU delivered by addressing both immediate and future health concerns, building resilience against cross-border health threats, implementing Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (better screening and preventive measures), advancing the pharmaceutical strategy for Europe (making sure EU patients have timely and equitable access to medicines) and enhancing the digitalisation of health systems. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

As the institution charged with promoting the general interest of the EU, the Commission holds a quasi-exclusive right of legislative initiative and acts as the EU’s principal executive body. It proposes legislation, enforces EU laws as the guardian of the Treaties, manages policies and the budget, negotiates international agreements, exercises sanctioning powers in areas such as competition and oversees day-to-day operations. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The circular economy aims to break away from the traditional linear 'take make use dispose' model by keeping resources in circulation for as long as possible. Its goal is twofold: to lower environmental pressures and increase economic resilience by reducing reliance on virgin materials and unstable global supply chains. Against this backdrop, the planned circular economy act (CEA) must address several structural challenges currently at the centre of the EU policy debate. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

In June 2025, EU Member States that are members of NATO committed to a significant increase in spending on defence to 5% of GDP to be reached withing a decade. 3.5% of GDP would be spent on core defence items, 1.5% on defence-related items. Obviously, such commitments come on top of already tight public finances in most of the economies concerned. Against this background, in autumn 2025, the ECON Committee requested external expertise to better understand the potential synergies and tensions between security-oriented measures and competitiveness objectives, with a view to fostering effective policy scrutiny in light of the European Parliament's economic oversight responsibilities. The experts were asked to examine the economic implications of reducing dependencies in critical supply chains—including raw materials, energy, semiconductors, and defence—identifying where security-motivated investments can simultaneously enhance innovation and productivity. They were further tasked with evaluating policy frameworks to maximise positive spillovers between resilience-building and competitiveness, assessing innovative approaches to industrial policy, and providing concrete recommendations for policy design that leverages synergies whilst offering pragmatic solutions for managing unavoidable tensions. Three papers have been received: one by Maria DEMERTZIS, Alejandro FIORITO and Konstantinos PANITSAS for The Conference Board Europe and European University Institute, one by Erik JONES and Richard YOUNGS for Carnegie Europe and the Robert Schuman Centre, and one by Stefan THURNER and Peter KLIMEK for the Complexity Science Hub and Supply Chain Intelligence Institute Austria (for a comparative overview and links to the papers see the table at the end of this briefing). This briefing offers an overview of all three papers with key takeaways. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

According to international standards, children without parental care should grow up in a setting as close as possible to a family or in a small group. After serious concerns had been raised about residential care for children and youths, several EU countries started to transition from institutional to family-based care. In parallel, residential care in small units may still be seen as part of a continuum of services for children and youths with varying needs. In the EU, care for children and youths is a Member State competence, while the EU supports them with guidance and funding. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The highlight of the first plenary session of 2026 was the celebration of the 40th anniversary of Spain and Portugal's accession to the European Union, marked with a formal sitting addressed by His Majesty Felipe VI, King of Spain, and His Excellency Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, President of the Republic of Portugal. Members debated with the European Council and European Commission on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 18 December 2025 and the geopolitical tensions currently facing Europe. Parliament also heard and debated a presentation of the Cyprus Council Presidency's programme of activities. Several debates on external issues were held with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, including: on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark and the need for a united EU response to the United States, the situation in Venezuela following the extraction of Maduro and the need to ensure a peaceful democratic transition, and Iran's brutal repression of protesters. Further debates were held following Council and Commission statements on: preparations for the EU-India Summit; tackling AI deepfakes and sexual exploitation on social media through full use of the EU’s digital rules; the pending approval of the Hungarian national plan for Security Action for Europe (SAFE) funding; the attempted takeover of Lithuania’s public broadcaster and the threat to democracy in Lithuania; online piracy of sports and other live events; and the proposed cybersecurity and digital networks acts. Finally, Members rejected a motion of censure against the European Commission, and adopted a resolution requesting an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility of the proposed EU–Mercosur Partnership Agreement (EMPA) and Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) with the EU Treaties. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Expansion and modernisation of the energy infrastructure in Member States is one of the key challenges of the ongoing energy transition in the EU. The electricity grids need to develop in order to ensure the security of energy supply, increase the resilience of Europe's energy system, and integrate the rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources, particularly at the distribution level. Given the peristent challenges relating to permit-granting procedures and delays in grid connection approvals at the national level, on 10 December 2025 the European Commission published the European grids package. Along with the Commission proposal to introduce a new framework on the trans-European energy infrastructure guidelines, the proposal on acceleration of permit-granting procedures forms the core part of the grids package. It seeks to introduce a coherent regulatory framework at the EU level that addresses key challenges to a timely and cost-efficient development and upgrade of the transmission and distribution grids, storage, recharging stations and renewable energy projects. Major hurdles addressed in the proposal are incoherent administrative systems, lack of resources in national competent authorities, the complex nature of environmental impact assesments, the lack of public acceptance, the limited digitalisation of the procedures and data availability, as well as various judicial challenges. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Timely, cost-efficient expansion and modernisation of the European energy infrastructure is one of the key challenges in the EU's ongoing energy transition. Grid development is needed to ensure energy supply security, increase the resilience of Europe's energy system and integrate the rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources. Cross border infrastructure plays a vital role in connecting national energy networks. Meeting the 2030 interconnection targets is particularly important for completing the energy union and reaching European Union energy and climate goals. Given the scale of investment required, the persistent governance challenges around cross border projects and the need to enhance the robustness of the scenarios on which they are based, the European Commission has put forward a proposal to revise the TEN-E regulation, as part of the European grids package published on 10 December 2025. The proposal is one of two legislative initiatives forming the core of the package (the other is on accelerating permit granting procedures). Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as laid down in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). To ensure that these values are respected, Article 7 TEU provides for an EU mechanism to determine the existence of, and possibly sanction, serious and persistent breaches of EU values by a Member State. The EU is further bound by its Charter of Fundamental Rights and is committed to acceding to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Following the emergence of threats to EU values in some Member States, the EU institutions are strengthening their toolbox to counter democratic backsliding and protect democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights, equality and minorities across the EU. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is a consultative body of the European Union, based in Brussels. It is composed of 329 members. Its opinions are required on the basis of a mandatory consultation in the fields established by the Treaties or a voluntary consultation by the Commission, the Council or Parliament. It may also issue opinions on its own initiative. Its members are not bound by any instructions. They must be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the EU’s general interest. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This fact sheet explains what the EU budget is and the aims of the budgetary procedure, the legal basis of the budgetary procedure, the main stages of the budgetary procedure, the evolution of the EU budgetary procedure since the 1970s, Parliament’s role in shaping the budget, and the structured frameworks and coordination involved in managing the EU budget. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

• The European Commission intends to make a proposal to harmonise the definitions, classifications and penalties of firearms offences to place further pressure on illegal markets. • Addressing the availability of illicit firearms has been an aim within the EU for some time. Denying firearms and explosives to terrorists and criminals enhances the safety and security of EU citizens. In the EU 2020-2025 action plan on trafficking in firearms, the Commission noted the challenges that existed in minimising the threat of illegal firearms in an area without internal borders. Following a study into how national legislation was applied across the Member States, it emerged that cross-border cooperation was affected by inconsistent interpretation of firearms measures in Member States' national legislation. • The threat from illicit firearms continues across the Union. The availability of firearms to terrorist groups and organised criminal gangs poses a real threat to society. In international conventions and EU legislation a desire exists to address the problem of illegal firearms at all levels. Law enforcement agencies continue to monitor and tackle the issue on the front lines, and it is important that the legislation that underpins their work continues to keep pace with technological advances and close any gaps which terrorists and other criminals exploit. • The Commission believes that strong national legislation is required to enable the successful prosecution of acts that contravene the Firearms Directive, the Firearms Regulation and the UN Firearms Protocol and to have appropriate and consistent penalties. The Commission believes that disjointed and incomplete national criminal legislation among Member States in relation to firearms offences can impede cross-border cooperation in combating this type of offences. Criminals can and do take advantage of inconsistencies or loopholes in Member States' legislation, allowing them to maximise these differences for their criminal operations. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This study examines the perpetrators and methods of transnational repression within the European Union (EU) and suggests possible counter-strategies for EU institutions. The study explains how transnational repression relates to associated issues faced by the EU, such as foreign interference, disinformation, abuse of migration frameworks and hybrid threats. Whilst the scale, scope and methods of transnational repression comprise a global phenomenon, this problem is specifically prevalent within the EU. Three case studies feature perpetrator states active inside the EU: Russia, Iran and China. In response, legal frameworks and policy responses have been developed in relevant political contexts, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and various EU Member States. The study concludes by providing recommendations for European institutions to address transnational repression. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This study examines how the European Commission and the European Investment Bank measure the impact of their external action programmes and investments on decent and sustainable job creation in Sub Saharan Africa, with particular attention to the Global Gateway. This paper summarises current employment impact assessment practices, recognising their capacity to capture high level direct and indirect employment effects while also identifying clear limitations, especially in harmonising job quality metrics. The paper identifies solid foundations alongside clear shortcomings in the EC and EIB appraisal, monitoring and evaluation systems for measuring decent jobs impacts. It finds that shifts under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe have underscored the importance of adopting robust job creation metrics and for embedding these systematically across EU external action. Finally, the paper showcases good practices in EU programmes and partner multilateral development banks and development finance institutions that have strengthened clarity and commitment to monitoring decent job impacts through country jobs diagnostics, adopting employment markers, reinforcing environmental, social and governance due diligence frameworks and policies promoting responsible business conduct. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This study examines transparency in the context of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, with a particular focus on data and information availability, quality, granularity, accessibility, comparability and comprehensibility. Lessons learnt are drawn from the positive examples and shortcomings in transparency identified across National Resilience and Recovery Plans and at EU level. The study puts forward some recommendations, including the adoption of an accessible, consistent and interoperable transparency ecosystem, to enhance the accountability of future EU funding instruments. This document was provided by the Economic Governance and EMU Scrutiny Unit at the request of the ECON Committee. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The RRF has promoted investments and reforms in nearly any area of domestic policy. The legal framework governing the RRF is broad and undefined, with little practical guidance, leaving the Commission wide discretion to negotiate fund allocation with national governments. In practice, this has led to large amounts of EU funding being directed to national projects without clear EU-level impact. The RRF’s wide scope and strict confidentiality regime, combined with the performance-based delivery mode, enable its implementation to escape scrutiny and make rigorous assessment of value for money nearly impossible. The main risk to the financial interests of Union is not fraud or irregularities, but EU money financing projects that have little relevance for European priorities. - The implementation of the RRF relies on the ability to define milestones and targets and measure performance in a sensible manner. This is particularly hard for reforms, which are difficult to pin down to milestones and targets. Funds have often been disbursed on the basis of procedural milestones that bear little relation to actual performance. - Based on the RRF experience, 27 national plans are not an efficient tool for promoting European priorities that are global and Europe-wide. EU priorities need to be incorporated in the forthcoming legal framework in a clear and operational manner, so as to effectively limit and frame Commission and Member State discretion in drawing up the plan. - The Commission’s MFF package fails to address the core problems of the RRF model. It does not define EU priorities. The legislative framework provides no actual ‘requirements’ that would effectively steer national plans. It leaves too much discretion for the national governments to propose, and the Commission to approve, in a confidential setting, nearly any national project that in their determination seems worthy of funding. - The shift to performance-based funding fundamentally alters what ‘management’ of EU funds consists of, creating new risks to the financial interests of the Union Measured error rates may go down because what constitutes ‘management’ in the new system is less demanding. Costing/pricing takes place at a point where only the outlines of the measures are known. At the point of disbursement, the value of each milestone is calculated with a methodology that bears little connection either to real or estimated costs. The eventual actual national cofinancing rates may end up being far from the numbers required in the regulation. - ⁠Trying to make up for these problems through oversight arrangements in the Parliament or Council is unlikely to succeed. Instead, EU legislators need to maintain control over EU priorities and set clearer limits on what EU funding can be spent on, reconsider the central status given to national plans, and address the deep information asymmetries built into the RRF model. Using EU funds requires appropriate accountability structures at EU level, aimed at ensuring that money is effectively steered to policies with EU-wide interest. Funding national policy measures requires strong involvement of national parliaments and civil society. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

The Commission’s NRPP proposal seeks to preserve core features of the Cohesion Policy Funds (regional and local authority involvement under shared management) while drawing on RRF innovations (integration of reforms and investments, performance-based disbursement linked to milestones and targets). • The proposed governance model and oversight regime is a potentially credible hybrid. But some modifications are needed to ensure fairness and comparability in Commission assessments of national Plans, secure meaningful stakeholder participation throughout the policy cycle, and develop effective monitoring systems that support learning and adaptability without imposing excessive administrative burdens. • The Commission's proposals address many criticisms of the RRF and CPF through explicit assessment criteria for milestone and target fulfilment; ex-ante payout values per milestone and target; clarified provisions for recovering unjustified payments; and stakeholder-based Monitoring Committees to review implementation and approve amendments to operations. • But major unresolved problems remain, notably: the absence of a definition of what constitutes addressing 'all or a significant subset' of EU recommendations to Member States; the effectiveness of the proposed 'regional test' in ensuring genuine stakeholder participation; ensuring Monitoring Committees’ capacity to oversee national and regional Plans effectively; and ensuring that performance indicators are genuinely useful in monitoring NRPPs in real time. • The NRPPs are more flexible than the RRF and the CPF, featuring smoother disbursement systems; easier Plan revisions based on 'reasoned requests' without requiring demonstration of changes in 'objective circumstances'; a Mid-Term Review leading to mandatory submission of amended Plans; a new EU Facility to support rapid responses to crises and emerging Union priorities. • Verifiability and auditability are strengthened compared to the RRF through clarified assessment criteria and transparent ex-ante payout values. But the multi-tiered Single Audit approach creates new challenges that will require national audit authorities, the Commission, and the European Parliament to develop expertise in assessing performance information alongside traditional cost-based audits. • The 500+ mandatory common indicators proposed by the Commission are unlikely to provide a satisfactory solution, since most are primarily output-focused and do not provide evidence of intervention effects. Effective ‘diagnostic monitoring’, aimed at detecting and correcting problems in real time, would require a more robust set of programme- and project-specific indicators reflecting intervention logics and expected outcomes. • The NRPPs enhance inclusiveness compared to the RRF through the structural embedding of the partnership principle and the involvement of local actors in Plan design, implementation, monitoring, and revision. Yet inclusiveness could be enhanced, for example, by requiring Member States to publish outline proposals for stakeholder involvement in the Plans at each stage of the process. • The proposed governance model and oversight regime has the potential to improve transparency and accountability by enabling the European Parliament to build on the Commission’s oversight of national audit authorities, ECA investigations, and extensive mandatory information provision on the Plans and their implementation. But transparency could be further enhanced by requiring publication of Monitoring Committee discussions and reports of annual review meetings. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

This study examines the extent to which the EU’s legal framework and Member States’ practices on dual-use export controls align with their respective legal obligations, particularly as they relate to conflict-affected regions. There is a lack of high-quality data on EU trade in dual-use goods. While the EU’s annual report has improved in recent years, it continues to lack granularity regarding what is actually exported. Some Member States produce annual reports, including a few that offer a good level of data granularity. Customs trade data including from Eurostat COMEXT is also examined. However, the limited correlation between this data and specific dual-use goods means that it does not significantly close the gap. Despite this, the current dual-use Regulation 2021/821 does provide Member States with a sufficient basis to implement their international commitments for listed items. The situation is different for non-listed items. Many conflict-affected countries are not subject to UN or EU arms embargoes. While sanctions issues are usually considered separately from dual-use export control issues, there is an important provision in Regulation 2021/821 which allows for the control of non-listed goods to military end uses which is only available to Member States when the country is subject to an arms embargo. The study concludes that the EU should improve reporting so that trade in dual-use goods with conflict-affected regions can be monitored, should discourage the use of open and general licences for conflict-affected regions, should solidify its ability to add items to the EU list outside of the multilateral export control regimes, and should issue additional guidance on interpreting licensing criteria when assessing exports to conflict-affected regions, including how to integrate IHL considerations. Overall, the EU should shift to a more proactive approach to risks associated with dual-use trade with conflict-affected regions. Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP