Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Brussels was jolted this week by dawn raids and an alleged fraud probe involving current and former senior EU diplomats. Host Sarah Wheaton speaks with Zoya Sheftalovich — a longtime Brussels Playbook editor who has just returned from Australia to begin her new role as POLITICO’s chief EU correspondent — and with Max Griera, our European Parliament reporter, to unpack what we know so far, what’s at stake for Ursula von der Leyen, and where the investigation may head next. Then, with Zoya staying in the studio, we’re joined by Senior Climate Correspondent Karl Mathiesen, Trade and Competition Editor Doug Busvine and Defense Editor Jan Cienski to take stock of the Commission’s first year — marked by this very bumpy week. We look at competitiveness, climate, defense and the fast-shifting global landscape — and our panel delivers its score for von der Leyen’s team.

The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee on Wednesday voted against lifting the immunity of an Italian Socialist lawmaker accused of being involved in the Qatargate scandal, on the grounds that Belgian prosecutors did not provide enough evidence. The committee did vote to lift the immunity of a second Italian Socialist MEP, according to three officials, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations, as were others quoted in this piece. Both decisions need to be ratified by the entire Parliament at a plenary session on Dec. 15. The Socialists and Democrats group has maintained that the alleged wrongdoing claimed by Belgian prosecutors did not match the level of evidence provided in the immunity waiver request. The European People’s Party and Renew agreed with the S&D in the case of Elisabetta Gualmini, but decided the accusations against Alessandra Moretti were strong enough to lift her immunity.  The S&D group on Tuesday night lobbied other groups to protect both lawmakers, according to two officials, and called a secret vote to allow individual lawmakers to break party lines and shield Moretti. However, that push was in vain. Gualmini allegedly received help from other Qatargate suspects to get the job of S&D group vice chair and use her influence to manipulate discussions and decisions on Qatar within the group, while Moretti is being investigated for allegedly receiving benefits in exchange for speaking favorably about Qatar, according to an internal note from the legal affairs committee seen by POLITICO. Both MEPs deny wrongdoing. The S&D can still try to overturn the decision in plenary if they can convince enough MEPs to break ranks and shield Moretti. Gualmini and Moretti did not reply to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the S&D did not reply to a request for comment. PARLIAMENT VS. BELGIUM The Parliament has increasingly been wary of Belgian prosecutors, with MEPs arguing that police often do not provide enough evidence to justify their investigations.  Belgian authorities can be “a bit exaggerated,” argued an EPP MEP. “The relationship between Belgian prosecutors and the Parliament is in such a bad state,” argued a second centrist MEP. “Belgian authorities come too early with little evidence, while other prosecutors come later on in the process with tighter cases built.”  Although the Parliament is not concerned in this week’s fraud probe involving the EU’s foreign service, the scars from Qatargate and the Huawei cash-for-influence affair are still fresh. On Qatar, many MEPs are sore that, after three years of investigation, there is still no judgment. They’re afraid that the whole case could fall through at a hearing in December after the defendants challenged the legality of the proceedings.   On Huawei, resentment in Parliament flared up in May when Belgian prosecutors made headlines for asking that an MEP’s legal immunity be lifted over alleged bribery, only to withdraw the request hours later as the politician wasn’t in office at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Lawmakers blasted the move as “sloppy.”  The authorities’ actions even prompted Parliament President Roberta Metsola to publicly call out Belgium — and other countries — for “tarnishing” MEPs’ reputations without “a solid basis.” In June, Metsola said Parliament would require a much higher standard of evidence for requests to lift immunity.  “A letter was sent to all permanent representations in September to remind them about the information that would need to accompany a request for immunity,” Metsola’s spokesperson, Jüri Laas, told POLITICO.  The constitutional affairs committee has started the process of reviewing the rules on lifting MEPs’ immunity to ensure a certain level of information is sent by prosecutors before the request can be made public in plenary, committee chair Sven Simon said Wednesday.

BRUSSELS — Huawei was rushed back into the EU’s most influential solar panel lobby after threatening legal action in reaction to its earlier expulsion over its alleged involvement in a bribery and corruption scandal.   That’s outraging other solar power companies, worried that creating a special membership category for Huawei could undermine the ability of SolarPower Europe to effectively represent the industry in Brussels.  “The conduct reported … specifically the handling of Huawei’s membership has seriously undermined both my personal confidence and that of our organization in the governance of SPE,” Elisabeth Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß, CEO of Austrian company Fronius, wrote in a letter to SPE, which was obtained by POLITICO.  Lawyers for Huawei and SolarPower Europe met at the end of May for negotiations, an industry insider told POLITICO, which culminated in SPE sending a final agreement to the Chinese company at the beginning of September.   Huawei argued that the European Commission’s decision to ban its lobbyists from any meetings with the executive or the European Parliament was unlawful and did not warrant a full expulsion from SPE, said the insider, who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity over fears of retaliation for speaking out.  The ban on Huawei lobbyists was put in place in March after Belgian authorities accused the company of conducting a cash-for-influence scheme and bribing MEPs to ensure their support of Huawei’s interests.  At the time, Huawei maintained it has a “zero-tolerance stance against corruption.”  During the Sept. 29 meeting to reinstate Huawei’s membership, SPE told its board of directors that the organization wanted to avoid a lawsuit and a potentially costly trial.  Instead, SPE proposed making Huawei a passive member that would not actively participate in the group’s workstreams — an option the board accepted, POLITICO reported earlier this month.   Huawei did not respond to a request for comment about its legal threat.  SPE acknowledged the threat in a letter to Fronius, one of its board members, on Thursday. “Based on legal advice and with the assistance of external lawyers, SolarPower Europe held discussions with Huawei with a view to avoiding litigation and protracted legal uncertainty regarding Huawei’s membership status, while preserving SolarPower Europe’s uninterrupted and unrestricted access to the EU Institutions and other relevant stakeholders,” reads the letter obtained by POLITICO.  The SPE’s letter was a response to an Oct. 20 letter from the Austrian solar panel manufacturer sent to the lobby after POLITICO’s story was published on Oct. 9. Fronius called for full transparency over the reinstatement of Huawei and action against any appearance of corruption.  The Austrian company’s concern is that SPE will be “unable to effectively represent” the sector given the EU’s ban on direct contact with Huawei or groups that lobby on its behalf, Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß told POLITICO in an email.   Fronius is also raising questions about whether SPE can designate a company as a passive member — a status that does not exist in the organization’s bylaws.  “To our knowledge, SPE’s status do not include such a membership category,” Fronius’s letter to SPE reads. “We request a clear explanation of what this form of membership is based on.”  SPE did not raise the issue of member status in its response to Fronius.   The lobbying practices of Huawei and other Chinese companies are under a microscope over concerns around the influence they wield over crucial technologies, including renewable energy and 5G mobile data networks.  While it is better known as a telecom giant, Huawei is also a leader in manufacturing inverters, which turn solar panels’ electricity into current that flows into the energy grid.  Cybersecurity experts warn inverters offer a back door for bad actors to hack into the grid and tamper with or shut it down through remote access.  Two members of the European Parliament sent a letter to the European Commission earlier this month warning of such risks and urging the executive to restrict high-risk vendors like Huawei from investing in Europe’s critical infrastructure.  “Inverters are the brain of a [solar panel] system, connected to the internet and must be remotely controllable for updates. This applies regardless of who the manufacturer is,” Engelbrechtsmüller-Strauß said. “If European legislation does not address the ‘manufacturer risk,’ then energy security in Europe will be jeopardized, which I consider critical.” 

BRUSSELS — The EU’s most influential solar panel lobbying group reinstated Huawei’s membership just months after it expelled the Chinese company over its alleged involvement in a bribery and corruption scandal.  As part of the reinstatement, SolarPower Europe’s top executive insisted that Huawei would not be allowed to “actively participate” in the lobbying group’s activities to not run afoul of the EU’s ban on meeting with Huawei lobbyists.  The conditions were imposed on Huawei to “ensure that SPE maintains unrestricted access to authorities and other stakeholders and can conduct its activities without limitation,” SolarPower Europe CEO Walburga Hemetsberger said in an email to SPE’s members that was seen by POLITICO. “This includes not participating in SPE workstreams or the Advocacy Committee,” which sets the lobby’s key policies. But at the same contentious Sept. 29 meeting during which Huawei was reinstated, SPE’s board of directors also failed to adopt an externally written position paper recommending the European Union limit Huawei’s access to the bloc’s energy grid, according to two current and one former official working for separate solar panel manufacturers who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity over fears of retaliation for speaking out.  Hemetsberger told POLITICO that Huawei was reinstated “following further clarifications provided by the European Commission and Huawei,” adding the company is now a “passive member.”  The Commission did not respond to a request for comment ahead of publication on whether these restrictions create enough distance to continue meeting with SPE amid the ban on Huawei lobbyists.  The lobby denied the energy grid position paper was rejected, saying that the board instead reconfirmed its support for an internally produced report on the cybersecurity risks to Europe’s grid.  However, that report did not include any mention of China in its executive summary, while an earlier draft seen by POLITICO laid out risks the country and its companies are said to pose to the energy grid.  The conflict over Huawei’s lobbying role in Brussels is part of a much broader concern about the influence that Chinese companies — and the Chinese government — wield over crucial technologies like renewable energy, 5G telecom infrastructure, electric vehicle batteries and more. The EU has been trying to limit that influence, particularly after the United States blacklisted Huawei and designated it a national security threat.  Huawei did not respond to a request for comment ahead of publication.   In March, Huawei was banned from the European Parliament and from meeting with the European Commission after Belgian authorities accused the company of conducting a cash-for-influence scheme, bribing MEPs with gifts, luxurious trips and cash to ensure the policymakers would support Huawei’s interests as it faced pushback across the continent.  As part of the investigation, authorities raided 21 addresses in March and charged four people on counts of corruption and criminal organization.  Huawei maintained it has a “zero-tolerance stance against corruption” and fired two employees over their alleged involvement in the bribery investigation.  A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT While Huawei is best known for its work in the telecommunication sector, it’s also a leader in manufacturing inverters, which transform variable electricity current from solar panels into alternating current that can be fed into the grid. Researchers estimate that Chinese companies control 65 percent of the EU’s solar power, with Huawei holding the biggest market share.  Cybersecurity experts and European manufacturers say Huawei and others could use the devices to hack into Europe’s power grid — and potentially turn it off.  “The Chinese have remote access to all these devices. And remote access means they can completely control the device remotely from China, and they can shut it down,” Erika Langerová, the head of cybersecurity research at the Prague-based UCEEB energy institute with the Czech Technical University, said in a media briefing hosted by the U.S. Mission to the EU in September.  By introducing malicious firmware, a company could disable safety protections or cooling fans and other measures, Langerová said.  NEW SECTOR, OLD TRICKS Huawei was a regular fixture in Brussels’ lobbying circles for over a decade, throwing lavish parties, and was seen as a friendly entity in European policy circles. That changed in 2019, when Huawei came under the microscope over security and espionage concerns in its 5G mobile networks.   To counter the shifting attitudes, Huawei offered six-figure salaries to lure in journalists and politicians to lobby on its behalf, but failed to stop the Commission from taking a more cautious approach to using Huawei’s 5G equipment.  Huawei hit back against the move, saying there is no evidence its equipment poses a security threat.  As part of the fallout from the cash-for-influence allegations, the Commission announced in April that it would no longer meet with organizations lobbying on Huawei’s behalf, leading to the company’s expulsion from SolarPower Europe.  CONTINUED ACCESS In September, SPE’s board moved to readmit the company, but set guidelines for its role in the lobby.  While Huawei is not actively participating in the group’s work, one of the manufacturing officials said minutes are created and disseminated after every meeting with the Commission and other policymakers, which remain available to Huawei.  “They have full access to the reports,” the person said, adding that other companies that are distributors for the Chinese firm are still allowed to participate and advocate for Huawei’s interests.  SPE said in a response to POLITICO that Huawei “will not be entitled to receive any documents or other information prepared for or exchanged during meetings with representatives of any European Institution.”  During the Sept. 29 meeting, a group of Western solar panel manufacturers and distributors put forward the external position paper, seen by POLITICO, they had written that included a call for Europe to duplicate the 5G “toolbox” — measures to stop the 5G telecom networks from being hacked — for the solar industry “to reduce China’s influence in the electricity grid.”   The European Commission is currently reviewing the EU energy security framework to tackle hacking and other cyber risks in the energy grid and is soliciting feedback until Oct. 13. The Western manufacturers wanted the position paper to be included in SolarPower Europe’s consultation with the Commission.  The SPE’s decision to not adopt the position paper on risks to the energy grid wasn’t the first time the lobby’s actions favored the powerful Chinese company.  SPE also commissioned a study on the solar industry’s cybersecurity risks. An earlier draft of that report, seen by POLITICO, lays out the close ties between companies and the Chinese government, with the firms acting at the behest of government officials, including in carrying out cyberattacks. The draft warned that just one compromised company connected to Europe’s grid could turn off a sizeable portion of the EU’s power.  The final report removed all mention of China in the executive summary.  The second manufacturing official said the solar cybersecurity report was “helpful in pointing to the general problem,” but the “interpretation and framing of it was politically watered down by the board to not point at China as the main problem.”   The solar lobby maintains Huawei has no influence over its policy positions.  SPE’s board of directors include European companies that have partnerships with Huawei, companies that count China as their largest market or are distributors of Huawei’s inverters.   Of SPE’s 20 directors, eight have direct connections with Huawei or close Chinese ties. One board member is the director of Chinese solar panel manufacturer TrinaSolar.   As one of three top-tier members of SPE, Huawei pays €60,000 a year in membership fees. But that’s not the only money it spends.  It can funnel money “through the sponsorship of events organized by SolarPower Europe,” the third manufacturing official said. “So they have clout through funding.” 

The European Parliament will limit the access of journalists, lobbyists and diplomats to its premises starting next week. A colored badge, issued to outsiders, will no longer allow them to freely roam buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg. The new system is based on the Parliament’s calendar, where each week is marked with a color: red for plenary sessions, blue for political group meetings, pink for committee meetings, and white for quiet weeks during summer recess or Christmas break, Euronews reported. For example, during white weeks, those interested in visiting the Parliament buildings will only be allowed in if they have an invitation signed by an MEP. In Brussels such invitations will also be needed if an outsider wants to visit a building other than the main Altiero Spinelli and József Antall blocks, regardless of what week it is. In Strasbourg invitations will be required to access premises outside plenary sessions or to enter the area where lawmakers’ offices are located. “The changes introduced to the rules … are part of a broader reform aligning with Parliament’s commitment to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust,” the institution told Euronews. The rules will take effect Sept. 1. Several lobbyists have complained the rules will be counterproductive, and that they will tend to target small NGOs rather than large corporations. “Who loses the most? Grassroots organizations, NGOs and independent experts, the very voices that already face structural disadvantages compared to well-funded corporate lobbies,” said Isabella Sofia De Gregorio, executive director of EDUXO Italia, a non-profit educational association, in a post on LinkedIn. The founder of consultancy UNGovern, Jakub Zientala, called the move “another bureaucratic hurdle in Brussels.” “One more barrier for transparent dialogue between policymakers and stakeholders. Instead of encouraging openness, the Parliament adds layers of bureaucracy that mainly hurt smaller organizations, NGOs, and independent experts — the very voices that struggle most to be heard,” Zientala said. The rules are the latest response to scandals like Qatargate and Huaweigate, which have rocked the European Parliament in recent years and have called its transparency and the influence of lobbyists on MEPs into question. In May the Parliament made it mandatory for lobbyists to activate their badges on every visit and to state the purpose of that visit. The European Parliament did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.