European consumer group Euroconsumers along with Football Supporters Europe have filed a complaint with the European Commission accusing FIFA of abusing its monopoly over World Cup ticket sales to impose excessive prices and unfair conditions on fans. The complaint, obtained by POLITICO, alleges breaches of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits abuses of a dominant market position. “FIFA has a complete monopoly over World Cup ticket sales,” said Romane Armangau, a spokesperson for Euroconsumers. “They are using that power to charge prices that would not exist in a normal competitive market, while hiding information from buyers and manipulating them into rushed decisions.” The groups point to a range of alleged abusive practices, including limited transparency on ticket categories and seat allocation, a “variable pricing” system that can push prices higher over time, and the actual scarcity of tickets advertised from $60. “When you buy that ticket, you don’t actually know what you’re buying,” Armangau said. “It means attending the 2026 World Cup has become financially out of reach for most ordinary supporters,” she added, pointing to tickets to the final that now start at more than $4,000. Fans can also face additional costs, including resale fees of around 15 percent, according to the complaint. The groups further accuse FIFA of using “dark patterns” — design and marketing tactics that create artificial urgency — to pressure fans into buying tickets. The filing lands as pressure on FIFA is already building in Brussels. In an interview with POLITICO earlier this month, EU Sports Commissioner Glenn Micallef warned of the safety risks for fans travelling to the 2026 World Cup, citing concerns linked to the war in Iran. He said FIFA had yet to provide renewed assurances for supporters, stressing that “since one of the hosts of this biggest sporting event in the world is party to a war, it’s only legitimate that assurances are given.” Micallef also criticized FIFA’s partnership with U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” a body widely seen in Europe as an attempt to sidestep the United Nations. The complaint to the EU leans on a December 2023 Super League court ruling, which said FIFA and UEFA can fall under EU competition law when they organize and market competitions as economic activities. The filing argues that reasoning applies here too, because FIFA is the sole seller of World Cup tickets and is allegedly abusing that dominant position. While Brussels has previously scrutinized sports governing bodies, targeting FIFA’s ticketing and pricing practices would open a new front. Euroconsumers and its partners are urging the European Commission to intervene, including by imposing price caps and forcing greater transparency over ticket sales. “We are asking the Commission to act immediately with interim measures,” Armangau said. “Once those matches are played, the harm to fans cannot be undone.”

Biotechnology is central to modern medicine and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. From cancer and cardiovascular disease to rare conditions, it is driving transformative advances for patients across Europe and beyond . 1         Yet innovation in Europe is increasingly shaped by regulatory fragmentation, procedural complexity and uneven implementation across  m ember s tates. As scientific progress accelerates, policy frameworks must evolve in parallel, supporting the full lifecycle of innovation from research and clinical development to manufacturing and patient access.  The proposed EU Biotech Act seeks to address these challenges. By streamlining regulatory procedures, strengthening coordination  and supporting scale-up and manufacturing, it aims to reinforce Europe’s position in a highly competitive global biotechnology landscape .2       Its success, however, will depend less on ambition than on delivery. Consistent implementation, proportionate oversight and continued global openness will determine whether the  a ct translates into faster patient access, sustained investment and long-term resilience.  Q: Why is biotechnology increasingly seen as a strategic pillar for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience and long-term growth?  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen:  Biotechnology sits at the intersection of health, industrial policy and economic competitiveness. The sector is one of Europe’s strongest strategic assets and a leading contributor to  research and development  growth . 3    At the same time, Europe’s position is under increasing pressure. Over the past two decades, the EU has lost approximately 25  percent of its global share of pharmaceutical investment to other regions, such as the  United States  and China.   The choices made today will shape Europe’s long-term strength in the sector, influencing not only competitiveness and growth, but also how quickly patients can benefit from new treatments.  > Europe stands at a pivotal moment in biotechnology. Our life sciences legacy > is strong, but maintaining global competitiveness requires evolution .” 4   > >  Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Q: What does the EU Biotech Act aim to do  and why is it considered an important step forward for patients and Europe’s innovation ecosystem?  Marrache: The EU Biotech Act represents a timely opportunity to better support biotechnology products from the laboratory to the market. By streamlining medicines’ pathways and improving conditions for scale-up and investment, it can help strengthen Europe’s innovation ecosystem and accelerate patient access to breakthrough therapies. These measures will help anchor biotechnology as a strategic priority for Europe’s future  —  and one that can deliver earlier patient benefit  —  so long as we can make it work in practice.  Q: How does the EU Biotech Act address regulatory fragmentation, and where will effective delivery and coordination be most decisive? Marrache: Regulatory fragmentation has long challenged biotechnology development in Europe, particularly for multinational clinical trials and innovative products. The Biotech Act introduces faster, more coordinated trials, expanded regulatory sandboxes and new investment and industrial capacity instruments.   The proposed EU Health Biotechnology Support Network and a  u nion-level regulatory status repository would strengthen transparency and predictability. Together, these measures would support earlier regulatory dialogue, help de-risk development   and promote more consistent implementation across  m ember  s tates.   They also create an opportunity to address complexities surrounding combination products  —  spanning medicines, devices and diagnostics  —  where overlapping requirements and parallel assessments have added delays.5 This builds on related efforts, such as the COMBINE programme,6 which seeks to streamline the navigation of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation , 7 Clinical Trials Regulation8 and the Medical Device Regulation9 through a single, coordinated assessment process. Continued clarity and coordination will be essential to reduce duplication and accelerate development timelines .10 Q: What conditions will be most critical to support biotech scale-up, manufacturing  and long-term investment in Europe?  Marrache: Europe must strike the right balance between strategic autonomy and openness to global collaboration. Any new instruments under the Biotech Act mechanisms should remain open and supportive of all types of biotech investments, recogni z ing that biotech manufacturing operates through globally integrated and highly speciali z ed value chains.   Q: How can Europe ensure faster and more predictable pathways from scientific discovery to patient access, while maintaining high standards of safety and quality?   Marrache: Faster and more predictable patient access depends on strengthening end-to-end pathways across the lifecycle.  The Biotech Act will help ensure continuity of scientific and regulatory experti z e, from clinical development through post-authori z ation. It will also support stronger alignment with downstream processes, such as health technology assessments, which  are  critical to success.   Moreover, reducing unnecessary delays or duplication in approval processes can set clearer expectations, more predictable development timelines and earlier planning for scale-up.    Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen. Via Amgen. Finally, embedding a limited number of practical tools (procedural, digital or governance-based) and ensuring they are integrated within existing  European Medicines Agency and EU regulatory structures can help achieve faster patient access . 11 Q: What role can stronger regulatory coordination, data use and public - private collaboration play in strengthening Europe’s global position in biotechnology?  Marrache: To unlock biotechnology’s full potential, consistent implementation is essential. Fragmented approaches to secondary data use, divergent  m ember   state interpretations and uncertainty for data holders still limit access to high-quality datasets at scale. The Biotech Act introduces key building blocks to address this.   These include Biotechnology Data Quality Accelerators to improve interoperability, trusted testing environments for advanced innovation, and alignment with the EU AI Act ,12  European Health Data Space13 and wider EU data initiatives. It also foresees AI-specific provisions and clinical trial guidance to provide greater operational clarity.  Crucially, these structures must simplify rather than add further layers of complexity.   Addressing remaining barriers will reduce legal uncertainty for AI deployment, support innovation and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.  > These reforms will create a moderni z ed biotech ecosystem, healthier > societies, sustainable healthcare systems and faster patient access to the > latest breakthroughs in Europe .” 14 > > Gilles Marrache, SVP and regional general manager, Europe, Latin America, > Middle East, Africa and Canada, Amgen.  Q: As technologies evolve and global competition intensifies, how can policymakers ensure the Biotech Act remains flexible and future-proof?  Marrache:  To remain future-proof, the Biotech Act must be designed to evolve alongside scientific progress, market dynamics and patient needs. Clear objectives, risk-based requirements, regular review mechanisms and timely updates to guidance will enhance regulatory agility without creating unnecessary rigidity or administrative burden.  Continuous stakeholder dialogue combined with horizon scanning will be essential to sustaining innovation, resilience and timely patient access over the long term. Preserving regulatory openness and international cooperation will be critical in avoiding fragmentation and maintaining Europe’s credibility as a global biotech hub.  Q: Looking ahead, what two or three priorities should policymakers focus on to ensure the EU Biotech Act delivers meaningful impact in practice?  Marrache: Looking ahead, policymakers should focus on three priorities for the Biotech Act:    First, implementation must deliver real regulatory efficiency, predictability and coordination in practice. Second, Europe must sustain an open and investment-friendly framework that reflects the global nature of biotechnology.  And third, policymakers should ensure a clear and coherent legal framework across the lifecycle of innovative medicines, providing certainty for the use of  artificial intelligence   —  as a key driver of innovation in health biotechnology.  In practical terms, the EU Biotech Act will be judged not by the number of new instruments it creates, but by whether it reduces complexity, increases predictability and shortens the path from scientific discovery to patient benefit. An open, innovation-friendly framework that is competitive at the global level will help sustain investment, strengthen resilient supply chains and deliver better outcomes for patients across Europe and beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/media/press-releases/2025/05/The_EU_Biotech_Act_Unlocking_Europes_Potential 2. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation to establish measures to strengthen the Union’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en 3. EFPIA, The pharmaceutical sector: A catalyst to foster Europe’s competitiveness, February 2026. Retrieved from https://www.efpia.eu/media/zkhfr3kp/10-actions-for-competitiveness-growth-and-security.pdf 4. The Parliament, Investing in healthy societies by boosting biotech competitiveness, November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/investing-in-healthy-societies-by-boosting-biotech-competitiveness#_ftn4 5. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   6. European Commission, combine programme, June 2023. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-topics-interest/combine-programme_en  7. European Commission. Medical Devices – In Vitro Diagnostics, March 2026. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-vitro-diagnostics_en 8. European Commission, Clinical trials – Regulation EU No 536/2014, January 2022. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medicinal-products/clinical-trials/clinical-trials-regulation-eu-no-5362014_en 9. European Commission, Simpler and more effective rules for medical devices – Commission proposal for a targeted revision of the medical devices regulations, December 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/medical-devices-sector/new-regulations_en#mdr 10. Amgen Europe, The EU Biotech Act Unlocking Europe’s Potential, May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.amgen.eu/docs/BiotechPP_final_digital_version_May_2025.pdf   11. AmCham, EU position on the Commission Proposal for an EU Biotech Act 12. European Commission, AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future, June 2024. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai 13. European Commission, European Health Data Space, March 2025. Retrieved from https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en 14. The Parliament, Why Europe needs a Biotech Act, October 2025. Retrieved from https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/why-europe-needs-a-biotech-act -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Amgen Inc * The ultimate controlling entity is Amgen Inc * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on the EU Biotech Act. More information here.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s six largest economies have thrown their weight behind plans to centralize oversight of some of Europe’s biggest financial companies under a single supervisor, according to a document obtained by POLITICO. The finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain — the so-called “E6” group — backed the idea in a six-page letter addressed to the European Commission, the Eurogroup and the Council of the European Union. The letter outlined multiple initiatives and deadlines that Brussels should pursue this year. The goal is to create a deeper financial market to “strengthen Europe’s growth potential, enhance its economic sovereignty and provide a stronger foundation for financing common priorities,” the letter said. Among the most contentious initiatives is introducing EU supervision of “the most systemic, relevant, cross-border financial market infrastructures” amid firm resistance from a group of small countries, led by Ireland and Luxembourg, which rely on their outsized finance sectors and are reluctant to cede control to the EU level. EU leaders are set to discuss how best to speed up Brussels’ decade-long plans to create a U.S-style financial market next week after years of lackluster results amid vying national interests. Ireland has already sounded the alarm of the E6 group, as smaller countries fret that their views will be sidelined if countries club together to integrate their financial markets. In the letter, the E6 ministers said creating a “savings and investments union … has become an urgent strategic necessity” and that they commit to “taking action at European as well as at national level.” Other targets in the letter include reviving the bloc’s market for resold debt, or securitization, minting virtual euro banknotes, and introducing an EU-wide one-stop shop for founding companies, dubbed the 28th regime. There are also calls for greater transparency in stock markets and a push for a legislative package this year to streamline the EU’s financial rules. SEEKING A MAJORITY The idea of a single market watchdog, which would play a role similar to the European Central Bank’s supervisory arm for banking, has long been blocked at EU level due to the opposition of small countries and the lack of Germany’s backing. The support of the major economies is a breakthrough in the likelihood of agreeing to the plan, which the European Commission officially proposed in December but has been informally discussed since the financial crisis. The E6 countries wouldn’t be able to do it alone. They would first have to seek a “qualified majority” across the bloc to pass the proposal. That threshold requires the support of 15 countries that represent at least 65 percent of the EU. Should that fail, nine countries can pursue “enhanced cooperation” together to achieve their aims. The supervision plan would centralize oversight of large, cross-border financial plumbing firms, such as stock exchanges and clearinghouses, under the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority. The six countries stop short of fully endorsing the Commission’s December proposal, instead saying it “provides a solid basis for further discussion and allows us to work out the best possible solutions in the coming weeks.” The ministers call for EU countries to reach a political deal on the Commission’s plan by this summer.

LONDON — Keir Starmer is so often portrayed as a process-obsessed lawyer that a colleague once called him “Mr. Rules.” But Wednesday’s documents release about the prime minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson — a friend of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — to be Britain’s ambassador to Washington provides more evidence of the raw politics that greased the wheels of Downing Street. There is no “smoking gun” that showed Starmer knew everything about the Mandelson-Epstein relationship. That’s because he didn’t, and one was never expected. The question from the PM’s critics has always been whether he should have taken a different course, given what he did know. That means the most difficult revelation for Starmer is that a top Foreign Office official and his most senior foreign policy aide, national security adviser Jonathan Powell, both had concerns about the appointment — even as the PM’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, pushed to get it over the line. In other words: The process was there, but the final call was political — and rested on the PM’s personal judgement. ‘REPUTATIONAL RISK’ Starmer decided to sack Mandelson last September after new revelations about his close historic friendship with Epstein. Mandelson has apologized “unequivocally” for his association with Epstein and “to the women and girls that suffered.” The prime minister said at that time — and often repeats now — that the “depth and extent” of the relationship clearly went further than he had known when he appointed Mandelson. This is true, but the new files show red flags were there nonetheless.  The 147-page cache published by the U.K. government shows Starmer was warned that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was a “reputational risk.” A note to the prime minister from Dec. 11, 2024 provides the receipts for what Starmer recently admitted — that he was warned about reports that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s home after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Aides also flagged to Starmer the fact — which was not public at the time — that Mandelson brokered a meeting between his friend Epstein and former PM Tony Blair in 2002 to talk about “economic and monetary trends.” Separately, Starmer’s national security adviser Powell raised concerns, albeit they only appear in the files after Mandelson’s sacking. The 147-page cache published by the U.K. government shows Starmer was warned that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein was a “reputational risk.” | Lucy North/PA Images via Getty Images Powell’s misgivings are revealed in notes of a “fact-finding” call between Powell and the PM’s General Counsel Mike Ostheimer, the evening after Starmer sacked Mandelson last September. The notes show Powell — who had worked for years with Mandelson in Tony Blair’s Downing Street — raised concerns about Mandelson’s reputation directly with McSweeney.  Powell told Ostheimer he had found the process “unusual” and “weirdly rushed” — and that the most senior civil servant in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Philip Barton, also “had reservations around the appointment.” But Mandelson got the job anyway, and arrangements were made in haste ahead of Donald Trump’s January 2025 inauguration as U.S. president. Mandelson was handed his IT equipment and first set of “official sensitive” level files on Boxing Day. Two previous shortlists in 2024 — one compiled by Starmer’s predecessor as PM Rishi Sunak, and a second by McSweeney’s predecessor as chief of staff Sue Gray — had been torn up before Mandelson strode forward. Starmer made his decision less than a week after receiving the due diligence report. ‘MORGAN’S FINGERPRINTS ARE ALL OVER THIS’ Wednesday’s document dump shows the political relationships that lay behind this process. Two names crop up repeatedly in the files; those of McSweeney and Starmer’s then-Director of Communications Matthew Doyle, who were both political special advisers in No. 10 and personal friends of Mandelson. The documents show that McSweeney and Mandelson spoke to each other repeatedly. At one point on Dec. 20, 2024, shortly after Starmer approved the appointment, it was McSweeney who contacted Mandelson personally to flag the need for him to fill out conflict of interest forms.  When the Epstein friendship was flagged in due diligence, McSweeney had a “back and forth” with Doyle, the former communications chief told Ostheimer in a separate fact-finding call. This back-and-forth resulted in McSweeney asking Mandelson three questions about his links with Epstein.  After this, Doyle was “satisfied” with Mandelson’s responses about his contact with Epstein, according to the note to Starmer on Dec. 11, 2024. Doyle, whom Starmer elevated to the House of Lords, had the Labour whip suspended in February after it emerged he had campaigned for a friend who had been convicted of child sex offenses. (Doyle has previously apologized for this “clear error of judgment.”) The government has yet to publish extensive WhatsApp and email communications between Mandelson and Starmer’s ministers and aides. | Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images One senior Labour MP, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “Matthew Doyle’s understanding of what is appropriate contact with a pedophile is somewhat questionable.”  Crucially, Mandelson’s answers to McSweeney’s three questions have not yet been published. The email chain has been held back at the request of the Metropolitan Police, which is midway through a separate investigation into Mandelson. When this email chain is eventually published, No. 10 aides believe it will support Starmer’s case that Mandelson “lied” to Downing Street about his relationship with Epstein. Mandelson’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment after the documents were released Wednesday. AN OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE There are other elements of the new files that will reassure Starmer’s restive MPs. The most obvious is that McSweeney and Doyle have both already left No. 10. The senior Labour MP quoted above said: “It’s a good thing Morgan’s gone because his fingerprints are all over this. How could he possibly have stayed?” A second Labour MP said it was a relief that McSweeney had left. “He was working against the prime minister’s best interests,” they said. The other factor cheering Labour MPs is what the files say about Mandelson in his own words, fueling his new-found status as a Labour hate figure. The files show Mandelson asked for a £547,201 severance payment after his sacking (he got £75,000), and told the FCDO’s Chief People Officer Mark Power in September that his “chief concern” was arriving back with “maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion.” “[Labour MPs] are more preoccupied with the £500,000,” said a third Labour MP loyal to Starmer. “What kind of person asks for that?” But this is only one step on the road for Starmer’s No. 10, and for possible questions about the prime minister’s judgement. The government has yet to publish extensive WhatsApp and email communications between Mandelson and Starmer’s ministers and aides, not just about his appointment and dismissal but about broader politics, relationships and strategy. Downing Street also announced on Wednesday that it will review the separate national security vetting system. | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images Wednesday’s files show the concern that the breadth of this planned publication — forced in a vote by the opposition Conservative Party — sparked in No. 10. As Starmer prepared to agree to the transparency earlier this year, his private secretary for foreign affairs, Ailsa Terry, told a fellow official there should be a “welfare check” on Mandelson every day. Downing Street also announced on Wednesday that it will review the separate national security vetting system — details of which have not been published in Mandelson’s case — to learn lessons from the former ambassador’s developed vetting. ALL FOR WHAT? The great irony is that Starmer might have avoided all this pain by listening to officialdom. Wednesday’s document release confirmed that two unnamed government officials were found “appointable” for the ambassador job following a recruitment process in April 2024, under Starmer’s predecessor Sunak. Two people with knowledge of the process told POLITICO that the lead candidate was the then-No. 10 national security adviser Tim Barrow, as widely reported at the time. And the runner-up? Christian Turner, the two people said. It is Turner to whom Starmer has now turned for a steadier pair of hands in Washington. Critics might wonder why he didn’t appoint him in the first place. Mason Boycott-Owen contributed to this report.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on Wednesday unveiled a new government AI tool that will rank social media sites based on how much hate speech they host. “If hate is already dangerous, social networks have turned it into a weapon of mass polarization that ends up seeping into everyday life,” Sánchez said at an International Summit against Hate and Digital Harassment. “Today social networks are a failed state,” he said. The new system, known as HODIO, will analyze large volumes of publicly available activity on social media to measure the scale and spread of online hate speech. The data will be used to track how hateful content evolves and spreads on platforms, and will feed into a public ranking comparing how much hate speech circulates on major networks. The European Union has rolled out laws and regulations like the Digital Services Act to crack down on illegal and harmful online content. The rules have drawn the ire of the United States’ administration, which sees them as online censorship. The new Spanish hate speech tool comes as Sanchéz repeatedly clashed with U.S. President Donald Trump last week over the conflict in Iran. The Spanish prime minister said the initiative is aimed at holding platforms accountable for how their algorithms amplify polarizing content, and added that the government plans to introduce a legal offense for “algorithmic amplification” of hate speech. Sánchez launched a broader push for stricter digital regulation last month and wants to ban social media access for users under 16.

LUXEMBOURG — The European Commission didn’t want to reveal which staffers worked on Covid vaccine contract negotiations with pharma companies to avoid them being targeted by “conspiracy theorists,” its lawyers said Wednesday. A “lack of trust” about the contracts meant officials could have been subjected to “physical or psychological” harassment, said Antonios Bouchagiar, a Commission lawyer. “It’s a real risk in this case,” he added in a courtroom in Luxembourg.  The Commission is fighting a 2024 ruling from the EU’s General Court (the bloc’s lower court) that said it should have provided more details about the lucrative contracts — and the people negotiating them — when asked to do so by a group of Green MEPs and members of the public. The court ruled there was sufficient public interest in disclosing that information, saying: “It was only by having the names, surnames and details of the professional or institutional role of the members of the team in question that they could have ascertained whether or not the members of that team had a conflict of interests.” The Commission disagreed with that ruling and the case is now at the bloc’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the EU. The Commission signed six advance purchase agreements with pharma companies at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, promising to buy a certain amount of vaccines for European citizens as part of the EU’s bloc-wide approach to tackling the virus. The Green lawmakers said the public deserved to know more about how those contracts — worth millions of euros — came to be negotiated. When the MEPs made requests for access to documents, the Commission published redacted information. More than 3,000 members of the public, many of them skeptics of the EU’s approach and some hostile to mass vaccination policies, brought a separate legal action against the Commission. Lawyers for both the MEPs and the EU citizens were in court on Wednesday, arguing in front of a packed public gallery that the Commission should uphold the highest standards of transparency. “It is not some abstract aspiration,” said Raluca Gherghinaru, the lawyer for the MEPs, but a “constitutional value.” She added: “In crisis, we might expect leaders to be more accountable.” The Commission’s lawyers said the EU executive has already demonstrated a high level of accountability. Unredacted documents which prove that the negotiating team had no conflict of interest were studied by the European Court of Auditors, the lawyers said, adding that the anti-fraud agency (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) could look into the contracts if they felt that was necessary. Arnaud Durand, the lawyer for the members of the public who brought the case, argued that EPPO isn’t sufficiently independent because its budget is signed off by the Commission.  The Commission’s lawyers disputed that, saying independence is baked into EPPO and OLAF’s rules. The Commission also faced tough questioning from the president of the court, Koen Lenaerts, who asked: “Do you really mean that?” when Commission lawyers said that a request for access to information from a member of the public with a “lack of specific interest” should not automatically have to be complied with. Officials have “the right to work in serenity without having the finger pointed for some policy that they didn’t decide,” Bouchagiar said. But Lenaerts argued that the negotiations do not only take place at the highest political level but also at a technical level, and therefore any potential conflicts of interest of the civil servants involved deserve to be scrutinized. To laughter in the court, Lenaerts repeated the Commission’s argument that disclosing the names of staffers could lead to harassment, “particularly by conspiracy theorists.” Would disclosing those names “not be the best way of combating these conspiracy theorists?” he asked. The next step in the case will be a legal opinion on June 11 by Advocate-General Athanasios Rantos, which will guide the judges on their final ruling. No date has yet been given for that ruling. The EU’s Covid vaccine agreements have become a flashpoint for transparency campaigners, with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen coming under fire for her text messages with the CEO of Pfizer, which secured a multibillion-euro agreement with the Commission.  The Commission’s refusal to release von der Leyen’s messages came to be known as “Pfizergate.” The General Court ruled that the Commission was ultimately wrong not to reveal the messages.

BRUSSELS — Dozens of wannabe EU translators who were forced last year to resit a grueling entry exam because a technical blunder have now been incorrectly disqualified, they said. Some of the nearly 10,000 would-be Eurocrats who did the online test last year and who had to repeat the exercise a few months later because of a “set-up defect” were told they were being disregarded because they hadn’t completed all the exams. They say this was an error and that they’ve done everything that was requested. “I did sit all of them! So I do not understand! How can they be so careless? What do we do?” wrote one applicant on a Facebook group for candidates. Messages in this group and a separate private Whatsapp chat suggest dozens of people are affected. POLITICO has chosen not to name the people who wrote messages because the Facebook group is private. The tests are run by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), an interinstitutional body that organizes recruitment for institutions including the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The exams are a gateway to a career in the EU civil service. “I regret to inform you that your participation [in the process] has come to an end, since you failed to sit at least one of the tests scheduled for the competition,” according to letters sent to two candidates POLITICO spoke to, and screenshotted by several others on the Facebook group for linguist candidates. There are scores of messages from candidates online who received that message and say they did take part in all of the required exams. Some of those candidates say they contacted TestWe, the platform that runs the online tests, which confirmed to them they had completed all of their tests. “This is just SOOOO ridiculous,” wrote another person on Facebook, who said she had also been falsely identified as not completing all of the tests.  Two candidates who were affected told POLITICO they are aware of dozens of people who received the email. “I was already very annoyed when I had to resit the test,” said one candidate who sat the Spanish-language competition last year and asked to remain anonymous. “Now we see all these errors, all these inconsistencies. I have proof of all the exams I sat. I just don’t think it’s fair.” The translator tests include exams on language knowledge and verbal and numerical reasoning. | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images “We had to wait 1 year for this crap,” one frustrated person with an anonymous username wrote on the Facebook group. Another candidate who took part in the Greek language competition, and who asked not to be named because they are considering taking legal action, said: “I took it for granted that this was just a mix up with the emails they sent. But it’s been more than a week now and we don’t have any news.” POLITICO contacted the European Commission about the issue but did not immediately receive a reply to a request for comment. ‘NOW OR NEVER’ The translator tests include exams on language knowledge and verbal and numerical reasoning. Successfully passing those tests and getting onto the EPSO reserve list allows people to apply for specific open positions within the institutions.  The competitions to get on the reserve list only take place once every several years. “You feel that if you lose this chance, most probably, with all the transformations in the industry like AI, it’s now or never for many of the candidates,” said the Greek-language candidate. To complicate things further, the reserve lists featuring the successful candidates for some languages — Dutch, Maltese and Danish — of the most recent competitions have already been published, leading candidates to worry that those people have an advantage for jobs. “The ones who did not have this issue will actually engage in the recruitment process and might have more chances, and that could create an issue as well,” the Greek candidate added. “How is it so difficult to arrange a test?” wrote another anonymous user on the Facebook group.

As European health systems grapple with how to deliver increasingly advanced therapies, rare disease patients in Sweden still face everyday challenges — from securing a diagnosis to accessing appropriate care. Although rights are strong on paper, families often find themselves stitching together services across a decentralized system. Ågrenska is a national competence center in Sweden working to bridge those gaps. It supports people with rare diagnoses and their families in navigating health and social services. “But there’s a limit to what one organization can do,” says Zozan Sewger Kvist, Ågrenska’s CEO. POLITICO Studio spoke with her about where the Swedish system falls short and what must change across Europe to ensure patients are not left behind. POLITICO Studio: From Ågrenska’s experience working with families of rare disease patients across Sweden, where does the system most often break down? Zozan Sewger Kvist: For 25 years the families have been telling us the same thing: the system doesn’t connect. Zozan Sewger Kvist, CEO, Ågrenska The breakdown is most evident in health care, especially when transitioning from pediatric to adult care. But it also happens when patients are transitioning between schools, social services and medical teams. No one is looking at their care from a holistic point of view. Families become their own project managers. They are the ones booking appointments, chasing referrals, explaining the diagnosis again and again. It’s a heavy burden. That’s largely why our organization exists. We provide families with the knowledge, networks and tools to navigate the system and understand their rights. But there’s a limit to what one organization can do. In a perfect world, these functions would already be embedded within public care. > Without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether > families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. PS: Access to rare disease care varies widely within many European countries and Sweden is no exception. In practical terms, what do those regional disparities look like? ZSK: Swedish families have the same rights across the country, but regional priorities differ. That leads to unequal access in practice. For example, areas with university hospitals tend to have stronger specialist networks and rehabilitation services. In more rural parts of the country, especially in the north, it is harder to attract expertise, and families feel that gap directly. In practical terms, that can mean something as basic as access to rehabilitation. In some regions, children receive coordinated physiotherapy, speech therapy and follow-up. In others, families struggle to access rehabilitation at all. And that’s a big issue because a lot of Sweden’s health care runs through rehabilitation — without it, referrals to other services and treatments can stall. PS: Would a comprehensive national rare disease strategy meaningfully change outcomes across regions? ZSK: The problem is compliance, not regulation. Sweden has strong rules but regions have almost full freedom to organize care, which makes consistency difficult. As it stands, without clear national coordination, it becomes much harder to monitor whether families are actually receiving the support they are entitled to. A national rare disease strategy would not solve everything but it would set expectations such as what the minimum level of care should look like, what coordination should include and how outcomes are followed up. A draft national strategy was developed in 2024, and there was real momentum. Patient organizations, health care experts and the government were all involved. Everyone was optimistic the framework would provide guidance and accountability. After some delays, work on the national strategy has resumed, so hopefully we will see it implemented soon. > Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They > describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to > connect the dots. PS: Families often describe a long and fragmented path to diagnosis. Where does that journey tend to go wrong, and what would shorten it most? ZSK: Coordinated multidisciplinary teams would make the biggest difference — teams that can look at the whole condition, not just one symptom at a time. The challenge is that rare diseases often affect multiple organ systems. Several specialists may be involved, but they do not always work together, and it may not be clear who is taking responsibility for the whole case. When no one holds that overview, delays multiply. Sweden also lacks a fully integrated national health record system, so specialists may be looking at different pieces of the same case without seeing the full picture. Families often feel they need to take on a coordinating role themselves. They describe an endless search — calling clinics, repeating their story, trying to connect the dots. PS: Sweden participates in the European Reference Networks, yet you’ve suggested they’re underused. What’s missing in how Sweden leverages that expertise? ZSK: The ERNs are a strong, established framework for connecting specialists across borders. Swedish experts participate, but we are not using that structure to its full potential. Participation often appears project-based rather than long-term. Neighboring countries such as Norway, Denmark and Finland are more proactive in leveraging these collaborations. I would like to see Sweden invest more in turning these networks into durable partnerships that support clinical practice — not just research initiatives. > Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. > Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should > be managing. PS: Sweden often falls behind other EU countries in terms of access to orphan medicines (drugs that treat rare diseases). What needs to change in Sweden’s approach to ensure patients aren’t left behind? ZSK: Families are very aware of how access compares across Europe. They follow these discussions closely, and when a treatment is available in one country but not another, it is difficult for them to understand why. In Sweden, reimbursement decisions often come down to cost-effectiveness calculations. That makes access an ethical as well as an economic question. But for a family, it is hard to accept that a few additional years of life or stability are weighed against a financial threshold. Some families choose to cross borders for treatment. But that can be quite a complex, expensive process, depending on the kind of treatment. I think greater transparency and clearer communication about the criteria and long-term impact — not only the immediate cost — would make difficult outcomes easier to understand. PS: You’ve worked with families for decades. Have things materially improved — and what worries you most if reforms stall? ZSK: Unfortunately, I cannot say that things have materially improved. When I look back at the challenges families described 15 or 20 years ago, many of them are still the same. There have been some positive developments. Digital access means families are more informed and can connect more easily with others in similar situations. That has strengthened their voice. But structurally, many of the underlying gaps remain. Rare disease care needs sustained political and financial follow-through. Without that, families will continue to carry burdens that the system should be managing. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

Zoja Surroi is political advisor to the prime minister of Kosovo. Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s second majority win in Kosovo shows it’s possible to inspire through governance. To understand how he won his second mandate, one has to understand why he won his first — and that is the desire for change. To correct a political course before it becomes irreversible and to move toward something better. At the time, I was filled with such hope, watching the results from the Harvard Kennedy School library, yet to join his cabinet. For decades, Kosovo — like much of the Balkans — had succumbed to the cliches of the region: Corruption was treated as inevitable, stability was prioritized over accountability, and the implicit assumption was that it was naïve to expect more from a post-conflict Balkan state than just free trade. But this felt genuinely new. It seemed Kurti was in politics for the right reasons — and he had the past to prove it. A former political prisoner under Serbian rule, he spent years in opposition as one of the only credible voices speaking for true independence in Kosovo. And the promise he represented was different: prosperity, modernity, non-corruption. The kind of politics that increases turnout and pulls back those who had disengaged. Kosovo had declared independence, but it had never quite received a fresh start — until then. Kosovo became an independent country in the 21st century. Its political identity has never been about settling for the crumbs of the 20th. And Kurti avoided the fate of many first-term reformers because he delivered. Fulfilling the promises you’ve set out for the people that count on you the most isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s also good politics. That mandate wasn’t built on spectacle or shiny mega-projects. It focused on the unglamorous work of governance: building a non-corrupt government, expanding social protection, making public higher education free and strengthening government institutions. These things don’t go viral, but they’re felt: Kosovo’s standing in international transparency indices has markedly improved. The World Bank removed Kosovo from its list of fragile and conflict-affected situations, and projected it as the fastest-growing economy in its region. In Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Kosovo rose 28 places during Kurti’s tenure. However, governing isn’t just about domestic reform, and Serbia remains the main external complication. As Kosovo reached its adulthood as a state this month, continued denial of its sovereignty looks increasingly anachronistic — and yet, it persists. And while Kosovo remains firmly pro-EU, Serbia has leaned in the opposite direction, deepening ties with Russia and tightening internal political control. This dynamic has real consequences: Belgrade’s influence over Kosovo’s Serb minority — roughly 4 percent of the population, one-third of which is concentrated around the north border — has worked against integration in the country. Political pluralism has been constrained, with one party effectively monopolizing the political field. And the dangers of this became brutally clear with the armed attack in Banjska in September of 2023. To that end, Kurti’s most ambitious — and controversial — policy has been his effort to close institutional vacuums in the north by extending the reach of Kosovo’s administrative authority. To some international partners, this appeared hasty, and the EU responded with punitive measures it has now lifted. But for many Kosovars, it was long overdue. Indeed, it’s difficult to convince a Kosovar that the threat Serbia represents is overstated. This is where Kurti’s victory takes on broader meaning. Whether in Kosovo or elsewhere, politics requires the courage to move beyond the center. It rewards those who stand for something — consistently and over time. Kosovo today exceeds many of the expectations once placed upon it. Its success is also the success of the U.S. and the EU, both of which helped shape its post-war institutions and remain deeply popular among its citizens. The question now isn’t if Kosovo belongs in the European project — it’s about Europe’s willingness to uphold its own values.

Europe’s ambition to become climate neutral by 2050 cannot succeed in healthcare unless we fix a basic problem: we do not measure sustainability in the same way across the single market. Currently, measuring Product Carbon Footprints (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) throughout the European Union consists of a patchwork of national methodologies and/or competing frameworks. This fragmentation is not just a technical inconvenience, it actively undermines fair procurement, increases costs, and risks unequal patient access across Europe.[1] Without a single, harmonized methodology or framework, this EU sustainability and competitiveness goal will remain challenging to achieve. Though the lack of harmonizsation may seem technical, its consequences are tangible. PCF and LCA outputs can differ widely depending on the standards and methodologies defined and endorsed by policymakers, the way they are applied by industry, or how existing international standards are interpreted and implemented across member states.[2] The result is that national authorities are effectively speaking different languages. A treatment considered more environmentally responsible in one country may be evaluated entirely differently just across the border. And without harmonized sustainability assessments for medicines, there is a risk that sustainability is given disproportionate weight compared with safety and quality, undermining high-quality medicine development. In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – prevents comparability. [1]  > In short, fragmentation slows progress, weakens trust and, importantly, – > prevents comparability. In practice, the absence of a harmonized standard allows 27 different interpretations of ‘sustainability’ to coexist, which is incompatible with a functioning single market. Fortunately, PAS 2090:2025 offers what the EU has been missing: a single, science-based methodology that allows regulators, procurers, and industry to finally speak the same language. Developed with stakeholders across the healthcare and life sciences sector, PAS 2090:2025 specifies the appropriate methodology for medicines under ISO standards, aligning the playing field for everyone involved. Published by the British Standards Institution in November 2025, it reflects broad technical consensus and strong credibility. PAS 2090:2025 provides the first practical methodology for measuring the environmental performance of pharmaceuticals, establishing a common framework to support comparable environmental reporting, reduce regulatory duplication and provide policymakers with a credible basis to demonstrate progress toward climate neutrality. It also gives industry the predictability needed to invest in sustainable innovation, while ensuring that patients receive consistent assessments of a treatment’s environmental profile, regardless of where it is evaluated. Importantly, this approach reflects principles already embedded in EU policymaking. The European Health Data Space, for example, demonstrates how interoperability and standardized frameworks are essential in making cross-border data meaningful and actionable.[3] Meanwhile, the European Commission has been equally clear: harmonized technical standards and coherent sustainability rules are critical to the effective functioning of the Single Market and ensuring the free movement of goods.[4] This is a shared concern across stakeholder groups. Both the Federation of European Academies of Medicine and European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, representing Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, have similarly highlighted the fact that common standards are essential for transparent procurement and fair competition across therapeutic categories.[5]And the innovative pharmaceutical industry, via the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, has outlined both the challenges caused by the absence of harmonized standards and called for policymakers, regulators and healthcare stakeholders to endorse PAS 2090:2025 as the one, internationally accepted standard for measuring PCA and LCA in the pharmaceutical industry.[6]Europe’s leading academies of medicine and science, the European Commission, and the innovative pharmaceutical sector all point to the same conclusion: without harmonized standards, sustainability policy cannot work. > At Chiesi, we support PAS 2090:2025 not because it is convenient, but because > it makes our environmental performance directly comparable and therefore > accountable.[2]  That is why our teams have laid out ambitious, yet reachable, targets regarding the reduction of Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions. We also know that in order to reach these targets, we need to measure our actions and emissions. Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful difference.[3]  > Measuring what matters is the foundation to making a meaningful > difference.[3]  Our support for PAS 2090:2025 reflects a commitment to transparency, science-based decision-making and long-term sustainability; we use it ourselves because we believe it is the way forward — making it simple to compare products fairly, design transparent tenders, and procure with clarity. Further, industry members will be able to innovate with confidence, knowing that the life-changing efforts will be assessed with science and clear understandings. That said, no single actor can deliver alignment alone. Real progress depends on collaboration between regulators, policymakers, scientific bodies, and industry around a shared approach to measuring and comparing environmental impact. Chiesi stands ready to work with policymakers and partners across the healthcare ecosystem in favor of the adoption of PAS 2090:2025, understanding that achieving true regulatory harmonization is essential for ensuring patient access, maintaining high safety and quality standards, and fostering a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Europe. At the end of the day, the EU does not need another pilot program, framework, or national workaround. It needs a decision. It needs action. Europe must agree on how sustainability in healthcare is measured consistently and credibly across the single market. Measuring what matters, in the same way across Europe, is the only path to a climate-neutral, competitive, and fair European health system. Endorsing PAS 2090:2025 as the reference methodology would turn that principle into practice. Andrea Bonetti Andrea Bonetti is head of the EU office at Chiesi Farmaceutici, where he oversees the company’s public affairs strategy at European level across healthcare, sustainability and planetary health. Since opening Chiesi’s Brussels office in 2020, he has strengthened the company’s engagement with EU institutions, contributed to key policy discussions and supported initiatives to advance awareness on climate and environmental priorities in line with Chiesi’s values. He collaborates closely with cross-functional teams on the development and implementation of Chiesi’s sustainability strategy and represents the company within European and international trade associations. With more than 15 years of experience in health and environmental policy, he supports Chiesi’s external positioning and contributes to sector-wide work on environmental and sustainability frameworks. Disclaimer: POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Chiesi Farmaceutici * The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on EU sustainability and Single Market policy. More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] European Commission. (2023). Annual Single Market Report 2023. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/ASMR%202023.pdf   [2] Healthcare Without Harm. (2022). Report: Procuring for greener pharma. https://europe.noharm.org/media/4639/download?inline=1   [3] European Union. (2025). Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/327 [4] European Commission. (2026). Public procurement. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/public-procurement_en [5] European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) & Federation of European Academies of Medicine (FEAM). (2021). Decarbonisation of the health sector: A commentary by EASAC and FEAM. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Health_Decarb/EASAC_Decarbonisation_of_Health_Sector_Web_9_July_2021.pdf.pdf [6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). (2025). Advancing environmental sustainability assessment of pharmaceuticals through standardisation and harmonisation of product carbon footprint assessment. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/efpia-news/advancing-environmental-sustainability-assessment-of-pharmaceuticals-through-standardisation-and-harmonisation-of-product-carbon-footprint-assessment/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------