EU on the Verge of Giving up Anti-Greenwashing Legislation
But also — Euro, Russian Gas, International Public Procurement
Hello! Today is June 25, and here is your EU news summary for the week. Feel free to share this newsletter with friends and colleagues, and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. This briefing was prepared by European journalist Mathieu Solal.
The Briefing
Will the anti-greenwashing directive (“Green Claims directive”) ever see the light of day? Last Thursday, the question didn't even seem to arise. Today, this piece of legislation is in danger.
GREEN CLAIMS • Until now, the directive aimed at combating greenwashing by requiring companies to have any potential environmental claims independently verified by a third party before placing a product on the market had followed a standard legislative path.
The Council — the institution representing the governments of the 27 Member States — and the European Parliament had each adopted their negotiating positions, and their representatives had already taken part in two constructive interinstitutional meetings (trilogues).
The third meeting, scheduled for Monday, could have marked an interinstitutional agreement, paving the way for the directive’s implementation.
That was without counting on the EPP (European People’s Party), the majority group in Parliament, the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists, to the right of the EPP), and the nationalists of the Patriots for Europe group (to the right of the ECR).
On Thursday, these three right-wing and far-right groups demanded the outright withdrawal of the text, in three separate letters sent to the European Commission.
These letters, sent at the same time, leave little doubt about the coordinated nature of the initiative.
BACKING DOWN • To everyone’s surprise, the European Commission announced the very next day, during its daily press conference, that it wanted to withdraw the directive on environmental claims.
This set off a firestorm among the Social democrat group and the liberal group, Renew.
“The plan of the Commission to respond to this demand, (…) is disgraceful”, reacted Valérie Hayer, president of Renew, on X.
“Last December, the Parliament voted in favour of the mandate for the trilogue negotiations. The Parliament and the Council are both institutionally engaged in this legislative procedure with legitimate, voted mandates”, she added.
It is very rare for the Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal when the latter appears to be on the verge of a final agreement.
While the treaties clearly define the Commission’s power of legislative initiative, they are almost silent on the institution’s power to withdraw a proposal.
The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU leaves some leeway, making the power to withdraw a corollary of the power of legislative initiative, which must be exercised with justification and is subject to judicial review.
INDEPENDENCE • For Renew MEP Sandro Gozi, co-rapporteur of the Parliament on the text, the decision announced the day after the letters from the three right-wing and far-right groups constituted a serious violation of the institutional duty of independence of the President and the College of commissioners.
Beyond the legality or not of this decision, socialists and liberals interpreted it as a shift of the von der Leyen majority towards the right and threatened to withdraw their support for the German Commission President.
On Monday, the Commission attempted to douse the flames through its chief spokesperson, Laura Pinho. She said that one of the Commission's priorities was to reduce the administrative burden for small businesses, particularly for micro-enterprises.
She explained that, during discussions with the co-legislators, an amendment had been introduced which, in the Commission's view, clearly ran counter to that objective and to the broader goal of simplification.
According to her, this amendment would result in 30 million micro-enterprises — representing 96% of all businesses — being covered by the legislation. She argued that this significantly distorted the Commission’s original proposal, which had aimed to support the development of green markets without overburdening businesses.
STRIKE FORCE • The spokesperson thus implied that if this amendment were removed, the Commission would not withdraw the text.
A compromise therefore seemed to be emerging, especially since Parliament also wanted to exclude micro-enterprises from the scope of the text, as later explained by the Parliament’s rapporteurs.
On Monday, around midday, Politico nevertheless reported that Giorgia Meloni’s Italy, taking advantage of the confusion, had withdrawn its support for the text, without further explanation. As a result, the Polish presidency canceled the inter institutional meeting that was to take place Monday afternoon.
Even though this saga may still take further turns, it clearly shows the striking power of the far right allied with the EPP conservatives and their ability to influence the EU’s legislative agenda.
In passing, it is an ambitious text that risks being scrapped, even though 53% of environmental claims provide vague, misleading, or unfounded information, and half of green labels offer weak or non-existent verification, according to European Commission figures.
In Case You Missed It
EURO • While US policy is weakening global confidence in the dollar, Europe has a historic opportunity to establish the euro as a global safe-haven asset.
Christine Lagarde is calling for a “‘global euro’ moment.” But as Martin Sandbu points out in his editorial in the Financial Times, an international currency needs a deep, liquid, and unified bond market.
Yet the EU suffers from a structural lag. It currently issues 30 times less common debt than Washington — far too little to meet the growing demand for safe assets from central banks and private investment institutions.
Recently, economists Blanchard and Ubide proposed replacing up to 25% of GDP in national debt with eurobonds. This pooling would be structural but without shared risk. Each state would repay its share, but Europe would finally create a single, transparent, and credible asset.
Such a market would boost private investment in Europe, lower public financing costs, serve as a benchmark for bond markets, and lay the groundwork for European financial autonomy.
This issue will certainly be on the agenda at the next European Council meeting on June 26–27. But unity is lacking. While some states are pushing to move forward, others remain attached to their budgetary sovereignty.
RUSSIAN GAS • On June 17, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation aiming to completely eliminate imports of Russian gas by the end of 2027.
In 2024, the share of Russian gas in European imports decreased but remains significant: about 19% of the total (11% from pipeline gas, 8% in the form of liquefied natural gas — LNG). For long-term contracts alone, this still accounts for nearly two-thirds of imported volumes. Worse, Russian LNG flows increased by 18% in 2024.
The Commission proposes banning the signing of new gas contracts with Russia starting January 1, 2026, and ending imports under existing contracts by December 31, 2027. European LNG terminals would also have to stop providing services to Russian entities starting in 2028.
Significant disagreements remain among Member States. Spain, bound by contract to Russian company Novatek until 2042 through the firm Naturgy, reportedly insisted on including a suspension clause in the ban in case of threats to supply security.
The clause in question, introduced in Article 15 of the regulation, reads: “In the case of sudden and significant developments, seriously threatening the security of supply of one or more Member States, the Commission may authorise one or more Member States to temporarily suspend the application of Chapter Two of this Regulation, in whole or in part. The Commission decision may contain certain conditions, in particular, to ensure that any suspension is strictly limited to addressing the threat.”
This wording is nonetheless seen as too permissive by several Baltic states. Madrid, Vienna, Budapest, and Bratislava also supported this flexibility.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT • The European Commission is activating its International Procurement Instrument (IPI) for the first time.
Adopted in 2022, the IPI aims to ensure fair rules for European companies in foreign public procurement markets. When a trade partner restricts access to its public contracts, the Commission can impose retaliatory measures on access to European public tenders.
On June 19, the Commission restricted Chinese medical device manufacturers’ access to EU public procurement. Chinese companies are now excluded from public contracts over €5 million. Similarly, new public contracts involving medical equipment cannot include more than 50% Chinese-origin products.
This decision follows the findings of an investigation launched in April 2024 by the Commission. It highlighted the legal and administrative barriers faced by European companies in Chinese public tenders in this sector.
The IPI activation comes amid worsening EU-China trade relations. The EU has imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and recently opened new investigations targeting Chinese companies for unfair practices.
Trade issues are expected to be addressed at the EU-China summit in Beijing at the end of July 2025, which will be attended by the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council.
What We’ve Been Reading
In a brief for Bruegel, Armin Steinbach, Zsolt Darvas, Roel Dom, and Pascal Saint-Amans propose that EU member states that underinvest in defense should contribute more to the EU budget.
This edition was prepared by Augustin Bourleaud, Mathieu Solal, Thomas Veldkamp, Léopold Ringuenet, Solène Cazals, Hana Rajabally, Lucie Rontchevsky and Maxence de La Rochère. Hope you enjoyed the read. See you next week!