EC Briefing — Friday, 8 May 2026

The Read-Out

— 31 min read

Key Points

  • President von der Leyen will address the return of Ukrainian children in a video message on Monday.
  • A new Eurobarometer survey shows 75% of Europeans feel their country benefits from EU membership.
  • The Commission has adopted guidance to support the transport and tourism sector affected by the Middle East crisis.
  • The EU Aviation Safety Agency issued a safety bulletin on the use of Jet A aviation fuel in Europe.
  • Tomorrow, Europe Day will celebrate the 76th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration and 40 years of EU membership for Spain and Portugal.
  • The Commission is working to improve trust in EU institutions, currently at 51% according to the latest survey.

Full Transcript

Transcribed automatically from EbS (Europe by Satellite) · English audio track · AI-generated · May contain errors · Verify before quoting

Opening Statement

Good afternoon and welcome to our midday briefing.

It is Friday, the 8th of May, 2026. We have a number of announcements for you before we take your questions.

As every Friday, we'll start off with the agenda for President von der Leyen next week. On Monday afternoon, the President will give a video message during the high-level meeting on the return of Ukrainian children. On Tuesday morning, she will provide a keynote speech at the European Summit on Artificial Intelligence and Children in Copenhagen. In the afternoon, she will receive the President of the European Economic and Social Committee, Seamus Boland, back in Brussels. On Wednesday, she will chair the meeting of the College of Commissioners, which will also be in Brussels. Finally, on Thursday, President von der Leyen will be in Aachen, where she will participate in the prize-giving ceremony for the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen 2026, which is awarded to Mario Draghi. So that is the President's agenda.... announcements each year.

Tomorrow, 9th of May, Europeans will celebrate Europe Day. We will also mark the 76th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, which forged an unprecedented era of peace, democracy, prosperity, integration, and cooperation across the continent. In 2026, Europe Day also marks two additional milestones – 40 years since Portugal and Spain joined the EU, and 40 years since the first official Europe Day celebrations. In a rapidly changing and challenging world, this will be a very good moment to reiterate the importance of our sense of community and purpose, working to protect democracy, boost prosperity, and strengthen security. This is matched by Europeans' views. And ahead of Europe Day, we are releasing today a new Eurobarometer survey that shows that nearly three-quarters of Europeans believe that their country has benefited from being a member of the European Union. Seventy-five per cent say they feel they are citizens of the European Union, matching the highest level ever recorded in spring 2025. And last element on this, 73 per cent of Europeans view the EU as a stabilising force. You have a press release with all the details on this in case you are interested.

In addition, as every year, the Commission, along with the other European institutions and bodies, will be opening its doors tomorrow for a series of events offering information about their activities. Our very own Berlaymont will be open as of 10 o'clock tomorrow, giving all visitors a chance to learn more about the work we do here, and also to visit our press room. There will be many events, illuminations, and other symbolic actions that will happen across the member states and around the world to commemorate Europe Day. We hope you will be able to participate and enjoy these events. There's also a daily news item on this, so in case you're interested, check it out.

And now I would like to invite Anna Kaiser to join me on the podium for news that will be of interest to the transport and tourist industries in particular.

Good afternoon. We have today adopted new guidance to support the EU transport and tourism sector that is affected by the Middle East crisis. The guidance focuses on aviation. It addresses the impacts of potential jet fuel scarcity should the conflict continue. It also clarifies existing EU rules on air passenger rights, airport slots, fuel uplift obligations, fuel surcharges, and public service obligations. Aviation and fuel stakeholders are reviewing the feasibility of using jet fuels sourced from other regions of the world. In addition to this, the EU Aviation Safety Agency has also today issued a safety information bulletin about the safe usage of Jet A aviation fuel in Europe. You find more information in our daily news, which also links to the guidance that we adopted today, as well as on the EASA website. Thank you, Anna Kajsa.

Finally, I would like to welcome a group of young changemakers from the Middle East and North Africa who are joining us in our press room today on a visit organized by Digimena. We hope you enjoy your time in the institutions and, of course, especially here in the Berlin Mon. Acht lang, was, acht lang. That concludes our announcements. Do you have any questions for us today? Let's start here with Camille.

Q (AFP): Hi, Camille Conduchier from AFP. It's actually about the Eurobarometer. I was going through it and I saw that the number of people who have a negative opinion of the United States has risen sharply, up by 14%. I was just wondering how do you explain that? Thanks.

Spokesperson: I'm afraid that's not the purpose of the Eurobarometer. The Eurobarometer takes a snapshot of the perception that citizens have, of course, based on surveys on a number of elements. The explanation of this would have to be asked to the citizens. You know that the US is an important partner for us and we work with them constructively on all the topics of common interest we have with them. Other questions on the Eurobarometer? Let's stay focused on that for the time being. David, I think it's you.

Q (Eurodemocracy and Schuman.info): Thank you, Harry. David Price, Eurodemocracy and Schuman.info. Yeah, the Eurobarometer says that only one in two of European citizens have trust in the European institutions. So I had two questions. Basically, one question is from last week, which I didn't get an answer to. It was in the discussions with the European Parliament and the agreement which was made, was there any discussion or movement forward about how the European Parliament should be elected on the basis of one person, one vote? Second question is related to that. I would be grateful if you could explain to me how the posters which are outside on the Berlimont, which say democracy, how do these slogans get decided? Who decides them and what sort of committee decides on what slogans are put on these panels? Some of them are a bit bizarre in the past, so I'd like to know how the system works.

Spokesperson: So let's take it from the start. The Eurobarometer indeed has an element on trust in the European Union. It says that indeed 51% of citizens have trust in the European Union, which is actually three percentage points higher than in the latest survey of the autumn. You have also the details per member state if you're interested. Of course, we work day in and day out to increase the trust that European citizens have in the European institution, especially for what the Commission is concerned. For your question on the framework agreement with the Parliament, that is an agreement that has been signed to improve the working relationships we have with the Parliament. I am not aware if specifically this aspect was discussed. I don't think so, but if we have a confirmation in this sense, my colleagues that follow inter-institutional relations will add eventually bilaterally. For what concerns the posters, this is part of our democracy campaign. We had announcements here in the press room. if needed. And this is part of an internal reflection to identify the messages that we want to promote in this context. So it is internal processes within the Commission. And I think this answers all. If no other questions on the Eurobarometer, we can change topic. I see Vincenzo Genovese from remote and then I'll come back to the press room. Nick and Shandor noted.

Q: No, good morning. It's not on Eurobarometer. It's okay. You can go on, Vincenzo. We changed topic.

Spokesperson: Great. Thank you. It's on the guidelines for the transport sector, for the aviation sector. I'm reading that it seems that the Commission says that charging additional fees retroactively such as fuel surcharges is not allowed as there are some reports that some airlines are doing this already. And I would like to understand if these guidelines are binding and how the Commission hopes to enforce this provision. Thank you very much. To clarify, the guidelines explain the existing legislation. So the provisions on surcharges are already included in the legislation and this guideline is not bringing anything new. It's just merely explaining how to interpret these rules in the current situation. So under our air services regulation, anyone selling air tickets must always display the final price that the passenger will pay. This includes all unavoidable and foreseeable taxes, fees and charges. At present, meaning at the moment and as of several weeks, high fuel prices are entirely foreseeable. High fuel prices are entirely foreseeable. So airlines may adapt their published fares to the situation. But adding a fuel surcharge to a ticket after it has been bought cannot be justified. If airlines adjust the price of a ticket after booking has been made, this can raise issues under the EU's unfair commercial practices. And these directives that govern this particular issue are enforced by national authorities. And on top of that, they require a case-by-case assessment. But as it says in the guidelines, high fuel prices are currently entirely foreseeable. And the consumer, the passenger, the customer needs to see the final price of the ticket at the time of paying it. Thanks. A question on this. Go ahead, if it's on this.

Airline cancellations and fuel costs

Q: We've seen several airlines cancelling lots of routes now because they apparently become economically unfeasible with the cost of fuel. Can you explain to us, I mean, you all assume that there will be kerosene in summer, but it will likely be much more expensive than now. What happens if an airline decides that a flight doesn't make economic sense anymore, and it simply cancels the flight in summer? What's the consumer's situation there? You book a flight now for your holidays, it gets cancelled. What happens then? Would it be force majeure? Of course, if there's no kerosene, well, then they can't fly. But is there a threshold for you where you say, well, up to this point, it's understandable they do it, and here it becomes a practice that is against consumers' rights?

Spokesperson: Okay, there are several elements in your question. So the one is airlines cancelling flights. These are decisions for the airlines to make. They run a commercial operation, they run a business, so it is for them to decide what makes good business and what doesn't. So cancelling flights is entirely up to the airlines. And currently what we are seeing in the current situation, all the cancellations around that have been announced for the time being are due to jet fuel prices, not due to shortages. And as I said in my previous reply, high jet fuel prices are entirely foreseeable for the time being. It is still the right, the sovereign right, the absolute right for any business to decide how they conduct business. But then we get to the point of, if these cancellations occur, where does it leave the passengers? There is a threshold how the airlines have to inform passengers. I think it's two weeks. It's also in the guidelines that they have to inform the passenger of cancelled flights, and there needs to be rerouting or – mainly rerouting or other options that are made available for the passenger. But the passenger needs to know well in advance. And on the extraordinary circumstances that you refer to, or force majeure rather, this obviously relates to passenger rights. So the main aim of EU air passenger rights is to get the passenger from point A to point B while providing information, care and assistance. This is the main point. Compensation, financial compensation is not the main purpose of passenger rights. It is taking care that the passenger gets to go where the passenger is supposed to be going and wants to go. So our air passenger rights continue to apply in full. In any event, airlines are obliged to assist passengers. So in case of cancellation, passengers are entitled to reimbursement, rerouting or return. And assistance at the airport and compensation for last-minute cancellations, for last-minute cancellations. So airlines are only exempt from paying compensation if they can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances, such as no fuel. And we do not – to repeat, we do not consider high fuel prices to be an extraordinary circumstance. Thanks, Anna Kajsa. Nick on this. If it's on this, go ahead. And then Susanna from remote.

Q: Thank you so much, Nicholas Komae for your active on the guidance. The guidance refers to the use of Jet A as a temporary and pragmatic measure. EASA in a bulletin today pointed out significant operational airworthiness and human factor risks. So does that mean we'll get to fly this summer, but it will be somewhat less safe? And secondly, my question would be, given the – does the commission already have a view on how much U.S.-produced jet fuel the EU is importing? We're seeing record numbers of inflows, and I understand that there's a jet fuel observatory in the making.

Spokesperson: To your first question, whether this in any way risks passenger safety, absolutely not. European aircrafts already use Type A jet fuel, which is the one that is used in the United States. When a plane leaves or departs from Europe on transatlantic flights, it lands somewhere in the United States, for example, they need to refuel, so they are already using Type A when they return – when the plane returns to Europe. So there's no safety concern in this. And then you asked about how much the U.S. produces jet fuel. This figure I do not have at hand, but I will educate myself on that. Thanks. Let's go to Susanna, if it's still on the guidelines, and then Tomasa from remote.

Q: Thank you. Still on these extraordinary circumstances, so if I understand correctly what you just said, for the time being the airline companies, they cannot argue or they cannot escape last-minute cancellations, they cannot escape compensation. But the guidelines also say that the Commission sees or the Commission view is that a local fuel shortage preventing the operation of a flight may be considered an extraordinary circumstance. So my question is, in case such a shortage happens, will the Commission say that from now on the airlines can use this argument, or it's going to be for the airlines to say, well, this is or something that is not extraordinary circumstances as high prices? Because this is important to understand.

Spokesperson: Exactly, so there is a difference between high jet fuel prices and shortage of fuel. And high fuel prices, in our view, cannot be considered an extraordinary circumstance. It is for the airlines to manage price volatility, generally speaking. And for the time being, and as I said in my previous reply, this is entirely foreseeable at the moment, high jet fuel prices, it is very clear. But then if we get into a situation of jet fuel shortages, which we are, and for the time being, at this moment we are not seeing any concrete evidence of jet fuel shortages. So if it gets to the point that airport or airline is experiencing jet fuel shortage, that can, in our opinion, in our view, it can be considered an extraordinary circumstance. But this is all about the interpretation of current EU law that is in force. But this guideline is just explaining what can and cannot be, for the time being, considered as extraordinary circumstance. High prices, no. No fuel, yes. Thank you, Anna Kajsa. Let's go to Tommaso, and then I come back to the press room.

Q: Yes, hi, thank you for the floor. I also have a question about the U.S. made Jet A. In particular, the IAZA in this document basically say that the jet fuel grades, the fact that jet fuel grades are interchangeable is a wrong assumption, and set out a number of technical requirements to be respected in order to introduce Jet A in the European aviation. So I was wondering, how is the commission going to make sure that all these requirements are respected? And you say, basically, that this guidance don't change a comma of the EU regulation. Are you already thinking about a follow-up with potential legislative proposals? Thank you.

Spokesperson: The safety aspects of jet fuels is for IAZA, for the safety authority. And it is for them to oversee as well that airlines do comply with their recommendations. They are the one issuing this recommendation, and the specifics, and they are the ones who are giving the specifics and the details of the various kinds of fuels. So for us, for the time being, we do, at the moment, in the situation where we are now, our current existing legislation that is in force provides for flexibilities for the sector to sustain the situation as it is now. But of course, no one knows. No one knows how long this will continue and how long it will take the markets to absorb to the situation. So obviously, we work very, very closely also with airlines. We have weekly meetings on oil coordination where industries also represent it. We have extremely close cooperation to have a full understanding at all times where we are. So to your question, whether we are now preparing some new measures or something, we need to have this coordination first to be able to have a full understanding of what might be needed, and then we will take action as it's required. Go ahead. And then Mira.

Q: Hello, Maria Psarout, FC newspaper and Star TV Greece. I have a question back on the cancellations for extraordinary circumstances. You said, Anakaisa, just now that you have weekly meetings with the companies, et cetera, and close cooperation. But does the commission have an estimation of how much fuel have the companies? I'm asking this to go to the next question, which is, if now, for example, a company cancels a flight last minute and says that it is because of the shortage of fuel, would the commission accept this excuse? Can you explain to us what is in the justification that the company needs to give to the commission for this cancellation? And the final question, are you planning to make a new assessment of the situation? And when do you expect this to be? Because the situation in the Middle East is evolving, and any time you can have new indications for the shortages, thank you.

Spokesperson: Thanks, I'll start with your first question, which is that how do we know how much fuels the companies have? Oil markets are unregulated, so there is no existing standard process for collecting data in an extraordinary situation where we are now, in a crisis situation where we are now. So there is lack of transparency overall on the evolution of stocks from different actors, especially in oil products, and obviously, jet fuels are an oil product. So the current geopolitical situation which changes every day is not making this much easier. But at the same time, we do have full overview of where our member states are as regards fuel. And as I said, we're meeting on a weekly basis with our member states, with the International Energy Agency as well as the industry to take stock. So regarding commercial stocks, because you are referring when you ask that how much do the companies have, then in that case, we are talking about commercial stocks of fuel. So we receive this information from the airlines and other relevant ac

Spokesperson: tors. And the airlines are not obliged to share this information to us, but they are taking part in our coordination, overall coordination effort, given the current situation. So it is not for the commission to make any announcements of how much jet fuels our companies have. We have to respect the commercial confidentiality of these contracts. We do not have access to individual contracts for companies buying jet fuels. So then, and then there's the other question of the strategic stocks, but that's a separate thing you asked about the companies. On the shortage of fuel, this is of course, and this is what it says in the guidance as well, obviously, there has to be proof. And then as regards assessment, we are continuously assessing the situation and we will take action as soon as it looks like that there are changes or that further action is required. This is also stated in the guidelines, but we continuously, continuously monitor the situation very, very closely with the industry, as well as with the member states. Thank you, Ana Kajsa. Are there other questions on the guidelines? I see a couple of hands raised from remote, but I understand it's different topics. It's not on the guidelines. No, is it on the guidelines? Yeah, then go ahead. It seems so.

Q (AFP): Hello, Adrian Calon, AFP News Agency. Just a question about type A fuel. Do you recommend a massive use of a type A fuel or do you recommend a massive use of this kind of fuel considering the situation here after a Middle East crisis? Sorry, what was that? Do we recommend? Do you recommend a massive use of this kind of fuel considering the crisis in the Middle East?

Spokesperson: This is not us recommending airlines what they should be using. This is us giving guidelines how it would be possible for them to increase the use of type A. Thank you. On the guidelines? Okay, go ahead then.

Q (German TV): Stefan Schluchtlich, German TV. Just a question for understanding. You said you're sitting with the industry, you're sitting with the air companies, but they are not obliged to share the information about jet fuel with you. How does the commission get a general overview if these informations are private informations? Thank you.

Spokesperson: What I said was that the airlines and companies are generally speaking not obliged to share this kind of contractual information with us, but as I said, they are still. current situation. Otherwise, it will be impossible for us to have an overview. We do have an overview and especially on the strategic stock that member states keep and then the commercial stock, which per definition is for the airlines and for the operators to manage. So they're sharing the information, if I understood you correctly, they share the information on a voluntary basis. They're not obliged to, but they do. Correct. Still on the guidelines, not the case. Thank you. Other questions for us today? Let's go to Shandor. But on the guidelines. Sorry. Apologies. You're right. Thank you for helping me, Chair. Still for Anna Kajsa. Let's go to Niklas. Sorry,

Electricity interconnectors in EU

Q (Euractiv): Niklas Komar for Euractiv. Sweden's Eva Busch has just said, I quote, the EU should not be allowed to take the Swedish electricity revenues and has announced a full stop to all new electricity cross-border cables. Is this in line with the EU's electricity regulation? I understand that there is at least an indicative target for countries to build out interconnectors. Do you have a comment on that or will you take it forward in some other form?

Spokesperson: We also saw the post of the minister. We now obviously look into it. What exactly would that mean? I do not have any comment to make to that at this stage, but we'll be able to probably give something later and probably also the commissioner. But overall, the grids package is being negotiated by the co-legislators at the moment, and we have been hoping for a swift adoption. We all know how important it is to have it done. This has been repeated at political level as well many, many times. But on the particular post by Minister Busch, I do not have a comment to make at this moment. Thank you. And as Nik rightly reminded me on how to share other questions for Anna Kajsa, I forgot. No, not the case as far as I see. Thank you, Anna Kajsa. Let's go back to Sandor that I had given the floor to before. Sorry.

Hungarian spy case investigation

Q: Thanks for the floor. I would like to have an update about the internal investigation in the so-called Hungarian spy case, because last October a couple of newspapers published allegations that the Hungarian permanent representation targeted European Commission employees. Do you have the findings of this internal investigation? Thank you.

Spokesperson: Good afternoon. Indeed, so we launched an investigation back in October last year following the media reports that you have been referring to. And indeed, I can provide you with an update. So the relevant commission services have now finalized the investigation. And on this basis, the commission has concluded that no serious security breach could be identified in relation to the allegations appearing in the media. Now, in other words, on the basis of the information gathered during this investigation and with the tools that we have at our disposal within the commission, it is not possible to attribute individual responsibility or involvement beyond that of the intelligence officers themselves. And if I may add, we, of course, have informed the European Parliament as well of the findings of this investigation. You have a follow-up. Go ahead.

Q: Yes, so this means actually that no European Commission employees have been recruited, if I understand correctly. And what about the possible involvement of Commissioner Oliver Varhey, who was permanent representative at that time when this spy ring operated? Did you discuss his role?

Spokesperson: So what this means is what I said. So on the one hand, no serious security breach could be identified in relation to the allegations. And on the other hand, it is not possible to attribute any individual responsibility or involvement. And regarding the content of the investigation, of course, I cannot get into the depth of it, given that we are in the realm of internal operational security. But I would say that all the relevant aspects were looked at over the course of the past seven months. Other questions for Balazs on the various files he covers. Tommaso. Yes, good afternoon.

Q (Dinkronos): Tommaso Gallavotti, Adnkronos, Italy. Just a question. On Italy, because I have read that Commissioner Dombrowski said to the newspaper La Stampa that it is theoretically possible that Italy might exit the excessive deficit procedure this autumn if the numbers add up, I mean, if the deficit goes below 3%. Is it technically possible? And may you explain exactly why? Many thanks.

Spokesperson: Okay, I want to take it step by step. So what we have now is the figure for 2025 for Italy, which was submitted to Eurostat. I think this figure is public. And it is on this basis that the Commission is going to assess the Italian EDP situation in the context of the spring package, which will be presented to you on the 3rd of June. So I would leave any further conclusion to be drawn at that point in time. Other questions? Tommaso, you have a follow up.

Q (Dinkronos): Apologies, but is that which is the things that Commissioner Dombrowski said, are they correct? Because he said that it is theoretically possible. And if the numbers add up, also in autumn, you could reconsider your position. Is it correct or not?

Spokesperson: I assume that the Commissioner knows what he's talking about. He surely knows better than I do. Listen, so I think what is important here is the data which is submitted by the Italian authorities. That's what we are looking at in our analysis. Now, should there be a change in the data, for example, if it's revised, then that could lead the Commission to different conclusions. And then we have the spring package on the 3rd of June. We also have the autumn package later in the year, which gives us another opportunity to reassess the situation. So I think this is what I can say at the moment. I see no other hands raised for Balazs. Is it for Balazs? No. Okay, then thank you, Balazs. Let's change topic. I have Mira waiting for a while online. Thank you.

Venezuela sanctions discussion

Q: Thank you for the question. My question is on Venezuela. Is there any news about Venezuela? Commissioner Várhelyi said last week in the plenary session in the Parliament in Strasbourg that the High Rep would be putting the lifting of sanctions up for discussion. Is this happening? Is this happening this week? Thank you. Question for Anwar.

Spokesperson: Thank you for the question. The file, Venezuela, is not on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council if that was your question. So on that perspective, no. But let me recall here our sanctions policy in general vis-à-vis Venezuela, but also in general terms. Our sanctions, EU sanctions on Venezuelan individuals are not an end in themselves, but a tool to encourage respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Their application is reviewed regularly, taking into account tangible and verifiable progress in these areas. That's what I can say on the matter. But if you have any specific angle, I'm happy to take it either here or bilaterally. Other questions for Anwar on foreign affairs? Yes, go ahead.

Q: Thank you. It's still on Venezuela. I know it's not on the agenda, but at some point, I think it was in February, Spain said they wanted to propose the lifting of sanctions for Delcy Rodríguez, and the high representative said she would propose something on this. So why? Is there a reason? I know there are exemptions, so she could eventually, because she might be traveling to Spain by the end of the year for a summit, so she could, even if she's sanctioned, as she did in July 2023 for the CELAC summit here. But I'm just on the gesture. Why has there been no proposal? Is there a reasoning for that? Thank you, Sylvia. This is not what has been said, and allow me to go further into specifics. Indeed,

Spokesperson: the High Representative proposed a revision of the current sanctions with the aim of initiating discussions and building consensus among EU member states. As you all know, any decision is to be made by member states, and this by unanimity. Exchanges are ongoing at the level of the Council. Other questions for Anwar? Yes, go ahead, if it's for Anwar.

EU negotiations on Ukraine war

Q (Financial Times): Thank you, Ian Johnstone, Financial Times. A question about comments by Antonio Costa saying that the EU has the potential to negotiate with Putin the war in Ukraine. What has changed to enable that, and are there discussions with leaders as to who would be a good interlocutor for those potential negotiations?

Spokesperson: Sorry, I wasn't sure who would reply first. First of all, let me frame it by recalling a message that the President has posted on social media. I believe yesterday evening I will read it out. She has written on social media, for Orthodox Easter, Russia proposed a ceasefire only to intensify its brutal attacks on Ukraine. Almost 8,000 violations of the ceasefire they proposed. Now, a ceasefire proposed only to guarantee a pause for the Red Square celebrations. Today's – well, that was yesterday's – airstrikes on Ukraine once again show Russia is not serious when it talks of ceasefire or peace. The only way to stop human suffering and allow space for meaningful peace talks is to stop the killing immediately and agree on a long-term ceasefire. So this is the framing. We have Russia that is demonstrating by the fact that it has other intentions, unfortunately, than reaching a peace agreement. And of course, what we're aiming at is a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. Now, on your specific question, perhaps what I can say is that, of course, we are involved in negotiations, and Anwar can confirm from his side the negotiations are taking place in different formats, in different places, and different levels involving heads of state and government, ministers, senior diplomats, and officials. We can see the merit of having one single figure speaking on behalf of the 27. Of course, we need to see Russia's willingness to engage in serious peace talks. Anwar, you're welcome to contribute to this. Thank you.

Spokesperson: Thank you very much. Thank you, Arianna. Indeed, I will add from my side also referring to the press public remarks by the High Representative that she delivered today in Kisinau in the context of her visit to Moldova because she touched on the issue. In addition to that, let also us be quite clear, Putin's appalling war of aggression against Ukraine excludes business as usual. Its HVP position, and this is something that she has been very vocal on, is that we need to get Russia from a position where Russia pretends to negotiate to where they need to actually negotiate. As to us, the EU, we fully support the US-led peace efforts, and we hope that they will lead to Russia accepting negotiations on peace instead of continuing aggression on Ukraine. What have we seen? We have seen that Moscow has not changed its goal nor its actions. Thank you. Other questions for Anwar? Not the case as far as I can see. Thanks, Anwar. Other questions for us today on different matters? I have a number of hands raised. Let's go here in the press room.

Schengen visas for Russian tourists

Q (DW): Thanks, Billy Duncan for DW. It's a question from Marcus. How concerned is the Commission by the fact the number of Schengen tourist visas granted to Russians has increased in the last year? Thanks.

Spokesperson: Marcus, indeed. Hi, Finlay. Thanks for the question. Since Russia's full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, the European Union has taken unprecedented action for Russia to stop this unjust and unprovoked aggression. Let me remind you that already in 2022, we fully suspended the visa facilitation agreement with Russia. Also in 2022, we adopted clear guidelines for member states to deprioritize visa for Russians and to focus on security and border controls. And last year, you will also remember, in November 2025, we adopted stricter visa rules so that Russians can in principle no longer receive multi-entry visas. And now we see clear results. Schengen visas issued to Russian nationals dropped significantly since 2022. We were at 4 million at this time before the war, and we are now at a little bit more than half a million in all the past years. So now what the Commission is doing, we are monitoring the implementation of the guidelines and we are working with member states to promote their consistent implementation. It may be important for context also, so the issuance of visa is a member state competence. Every visa application is assessed by member state authorities on a case-by-case basis. Always important to remember. In addition, what I can say is what we're doing now is that we're exploring the possibility to introduce targeted restrictive visa measures in consultation with member states to further address security risks stemming from hostile actions by third countries. That's something that we've already said in our visa strategy earlier this year. You have a quick follow-up. I have so many hands raised and about 10 minutes left together. So if it's very quick and then I'll move on to the topic.

Q (DW): Are you specifically pressuring the countries that are still granting these? Because many countries have obviously reduced it to zero, but some have in the last year increased the number they're granting. So is there very specific pressure being put on the countries that are increasing the number? Thanks.

Spokesperson: Well, as I've said, we're continuously monitoring the implementation of the guidelines and we're encouraging member states to do that. Okay, still for Marcus, since he's here with me. Markus, go with a quick one because I want to try to give the floor to everyone.

Migration Pact implementation issues

Q: Thank you. The Commission just released its report on the state of play on the implementation of the Migration Pact and Hungary repeatedly appears as an outlier and also frankly shows some Hungarian shortcomings, has not requested assigned pact-related allocations, has not submitted a national contingency plan, did not pledge to join the solidarity pool, and is also among the countries with unresolved issues in different areas. So my questions are, what concrete tools does the Commission have to ensure the compliance? Secondly, what point would a non-implementation become an actual infringement issue? And then finally, it doesn't really seem that Marcus will change his approach to Hungarian migration politics, so what will you do? Thanks, Markus.

Spokesperson: Well, that's a bunch of questions at once. Let me start with the general questions. So what's happened today is that the Commission has indeed issued its report on the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum. You will remember the pact was adopted in May 2024 and it totally overhauls the EU's migration and asylum framework, opening a new chapter in European migration management. So now we have for the first time a common European framework, we have stronger external borders, we have fair and firm asylum rules, and we have a fair balance between solidarity and responsibility. Now, implementing this complex set of reforms requires, of course, significant legal and operational work from all sides. We're talking here about ten legislative acts which have to be implemented and, most importantly, operationalised. What we can see today, roughly one month before the pact will become applicable – that's in June – is that overall implementation is well on track, with considerable progress made on all fronts. Member states have significantly advanced in implementing the pact. The key pillars of the new system are now in place. However – this is the however – continuous efforts are now needed to finalise the work on all building blocks, and member states are on a good path of doing so. Again, what we need to underline is that the full application from June is an important step, but it is not the end of the process. It's not the end of the process. This is a marathon, it's not a sprint. Sustained efforts will be needed also beyond June to operationalise the pact on migration and asylum. But, again, we see positive results and we also have positive results overall. The pact is part of our bigger, comprehensive approach on migration. You know the figures are down. I think we are down 55 per cent in illegal arrivals over the past two years, and we are further working on further strengthening the pact. Now I'm coming to your other questions, maybe before the follow-up comes, Magnus. We will be working with the new government once it's in place, and we will also do so on…

Spokesperson: And of course we will not be speculating on actions of an incoming government that has yet to start. More questions for Markus? Not the case as far as I can see. Let's go to Jose from Remote. He has been waiting for a long time.

Q: Okay, again, it happened yesterday that my video camera wasn't working. Can I still ask it? No, I'm so sorry. It's the rules of our press room. It's for the video purposes, for the interpreters and apologies about that. I will come back to you though if you ask. Now? Now, you see? Miracles happen. Go ahead then.

Chinese car manufacturer in Europe

Q: Yeah, thank you. I wanted to ask about the plans for the Chinese-owned car manufacturer MG to make their first plant in Europe. Right now it is being heavily rumoured that it will be located in Ferrol, a city in northwest Spain that has been economically and demographically declined for quite some decades. I would like to ask how does the Commission value this project and how does it fit into the Commission's industrial plans, the caution that it exists currently with China, especially for energy and industrial purposes, and its impact on European areas such as cohesion or regional development. Thank you.

Spokesperson: Thank you. I am afraid we don't have a specific reply to this project. I'm looking at my colleagues. If anyone has something, they might reach out to you bilaterally later. Without knowing about the specific initiative, let me be clear about one thing. I think we have always been very transparent on the fact that Europe is open for business to everyone worldwide. What is important for us is this is done at fair terms, competing equally with our own companies. So, of course, we have a set of rules and measures to ensure that this is the case. But, indeed, we encourage investments done at fair conditions that attract good projects to our European countries. This can also be done in the context of cohesion funds. I think it has some specifics. But, as I said, I am not aware of this case in particular, so I'll ask my team to look into it later, and they will refer it back to you if they have something on it specifically. Okay. With that, Maximilian from Remote.

AI omnibus negotiations update

Q (EURACTIV): Thanks very much. Can you see and hear me well? Yes. We see you and hear you. Maximilian Henning from EURACTIV. There is a question for Thomas on the AI omnibus negotiations that concluded yesterday. I would have asked the question yesterday, but I was busy recovering some sleep, so that's why I'm doing it now. Specifically, the text concluded by Council and Parliament puts some new obligations on the Commission to put out guidelines, to put out delegated acts. The Commission is already late in delivering several key documents under the original AI Act, specifically, for example, on classifying systems as high-risk, which is quite important for people, companies, organizations falling under those rules. Do you think the Commission will be able to deliver these new obligations on time? Is there anything you could wish for to maybe help you with delivering those documents, maybe more budget for the AI office? Thank you.

Spokesperson: Thanks, Maximilian. Let me start with the beginning. We definitely welcome the political agreement reached two days ago on the AI omnibus. Now, what will this bring? Predictability, clear rules. You're referring to timelines. We will have a clear timeline also now for high-risk models. Definitely, this gives us now some breathing space to implement what has to be implemented to come up with the necessary guidelines and delegated acts and everything you're referring to, definitely. So we are now working on it at full speed and also to allow for the standards to be ready ahead of the enforcement of the rules for high-risk models. So good political outcome, good political agreement, and we'll take it from there. Thank you, Thomas. Other questions for Thomas on digital matters? Yeah. Let's come to this side. Is it me? I'm sorry. The glasses are there. Gian Marco Puzzelli, Bloomberg News.

Q (Bloomberg News): I just actually, this question rekindles some fond memories about all things AI, and I was wondering whether there was any update regarding when the Commission will publish its call for bids for the AI gigafactories.

Spokesperson: No update. Work is ongoing indeed. We need a solid call, giving everyone a chance. We're still finalizing this, but it should come soon. You have a follow-up. Go ahead. Can you define soon? This question is trending. I'm afraid we can't define more specifically, but Thomas, if you want to add. No, I don't have a better definition of soon than the previous ones that were given from this podium. Soon is soon. Okay. We stick with that. Other questions for Thomas on digital? Yeah. Go ahead.

DMA case against Google

Q: Hi. Thank you. My question is about the DMA case against Google. You mentioned it yesterday, saying that the technical work was still ongoing. It is my understanding of the DMA that the decision to move on from technical work to a political decision at the college is in the hands of the two commissioners, EVP Zirconen and EVP Arribara. It's not the first time that there's been media reports of disagreements within the Commission, between commissioners, on the decision to issue noncompliance decisions. So could you confirm that the relevant and competent commissioners are in agreement on the stage at which this investigation is at when you are speaking on this podium and saying that it's still a technical work? Who are you speaking on behalf of? Are you speaking on behalf of the whole Commission, of President van der Leyen, EVP Zirconen, EVP Arribara? Is everybody agreeing in the room? Thank you.

Spokesperson: Thank you. We are spokesperson of the Commission, so we speak on behalf of the Commission. Files in this case are complex. They require extensive preparatory work. The internal processes involve services, cabinets, also the legal service. So there's a lot of actors that are involved, and a decision is finalized once all the various elements are completed, and the internal procedure actually improves these decisions. It's decisions that are of extreme relevance and need to withstand the proof of the courts. We want to have solid cases and can stand the rightful possible investigations by the courts if the parties consider so. And this is where we are. We are in the process of making sure that the decisions on the various cases are as solid as they can be, and in the process they are improved by all actors involved. On the specific case, Thomas, if you want to add. Yes, maybe just to add one or two elements on the specific case. Locleo simply issuing a fine formalizes the infringement without solving the issue at hand. This doesn't improve the functioning of the European market. It's not in the interest of European businesses nor of our citizens. What stage are we currently in? Google is engaging with the Commission to defend itself and in order to offer a solution that really addresses the concerns that were raised in the case and in the preliminary findings. Reality for now, that solution is simply not strong enough. So we're giving Google a bit more time to keep engaging with the Commission to offer a solution that really addresses the concerns in the interest of European businesses and European citizens, but we will also not wait for ages. We have shown that when it comes to DSA and DMA enforcement, the Commission is serious. If that option does not materialize, the Commission will have to move to the next steps.

Q: Quick follow-up. We're reaching the one-hour mark. We need to close this midday briefing. Thank you, Thomas. I think you've read the same press reports as I did. Apparently, not everybody shares that analysis. Some people within the Commission seem to think that the case is ready to move on to that next step of issuing a non-compliance decision, a non-compliance fine. So who in the end is making that decision to move on to the political level and to say, well, the case is ready and let's move on to a non-compliance decision? Who is taking this decision?

Spokesperson: The final decisions are college decisions. The final decisions are college decisions. We're not going to comment on internal procedures like our usual practice, so you're not going to get a specific answer on that one. It's internal processes. With this, one hour reached. Thank you for having participated to this midday press briefing. We will be back on Monday with our next meeting. Goodbye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

🔔 Starter subscribers: Manage your topic preferences to receive a personalised alert when your topics are mentioned.

Read more