report parliamentary committee draft, 9 September 2026
On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Space Services Agency and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/696
Document ITRE-PR-792131 · (COM(2026)0152 – C100094/2026 – 2026/0084(COD))
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy · Rapporteur: Christophe Grudler
AI:In short
This is the rapporteur's draft report on the proposed regulation on the European Union Space Services Agency, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/696. It proposes amendments to rename the Agency back to the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and to set out its objectives, tasks, governance and security accreditation rules. The amendments give the Agency tasks including operational security for Positioning, Navigation and Timing and Earth Observation, management of the EOGS infrastructure and pooling mechanism, GOVSATCOM services, IRIS2 governmental infrastructure, the SST Front Desk and space weather services. They also give the Agency a stronger role in promoting use of Union space data and services, demand aggregation and joint procurement of receivers and launch services, and support to the EU Space ISAC on cybersecurity. On governance, the amendments give Parliament two voting members on the Administrative Board, make the Executive Director accountable to that Board and subject to Parliament's confirmation, and require the Board to meet at least quarterly. On security accreditation, the amendments separate programme implementation from independent assessment: Agency support to the Security Accreditation Board is limited to administrative and secretarial services, while technical work is done by a panel of experts designated by Member States. A new Article 17a sets out a continuous accreditation process with a three-month deadline for reasoned decisions, and a new Article 23a requires the Administrative Board to declare a governmental service operational only after accreditation and confirmation of resources.
Position. The rapporteur proposes to amend the Commission proposal to strengthen the Agency's operational role and political accountability, and to separate programme implementation from independent security accreditation by limiting Agency support to administrative and secretarial functions and giving technical assessment to Member State-designated experts.
Key points
- The Agency keeps the name European Union Agency for the Space Programme, reflecting a mandate covering infrastructure operations, security accreditation and implementation of Union space policy.
- The Agency's objectives include ensuring effective implementation of Union space policy, a high degree of safety, security and resilience, and maximising public, strategic and economic benefits of Union space systems and services.
- The Agency is to ensure secure and continuous operation of Union space components, pooling of space and ground capacities, consistent application of Union requirements, market uptake of space data and services, and strengthened strategic autonomy and supply-chain security.
- The Agency is responsible for the operational security of the PNT and EO components, including EOGS, and for security accreditation of all Union space components and subcomponents through the Security Accreditation Board.
- The Agency manages the exploitation of EOGS infrastructure, the EOGS pooling and sharing mechanism, the EU SST Front Desk, GOVSATCOM services and the operational management and security of all IRIS2 governmental infrastructure.
- The Agency supports Copernicus data access through secure and certified data-sharing mechanisms and a unique front desk, and provides space weather services and SST services including relevant service catalogues.
- The Agency promotes integration of Union space data and services across Union policies and strategic sectors, including access for civil protection authorities, and may aggregate demand and jointly procure interoperable receivers, terminals and software.
- The Agency may aggregate and jointly procure launch services for the Union and, on request, for Member States, international organisations and other public entities.
- The Agency supports space operators on cybersecurity, including by providing the secretariat of and supporting the EU Space ISAC and other Union-level secure information-sharing mechanisms.
- The Administrative Board includes one representative per Member State, three Commission representatives and two members designated by Parliament, all with voting rights, and meets at least once every quarter.
- The Executive Director is accountable to the Administrative Board and is appointed only after confirmation by Parliament, following a statement before the competent committee.
- Agency support to the Security Accreditation Board is limited to administrative and secretarial services; independent technical assessments are performed by a panel of experts designated by Member States, and neither the Commission nor the High Representative votes on accreditation decisions.
Who is affected
- The European Union Agency for the Space Programme: gains new tasks, objectives and governance rules, and must retain in-house operational, technical and security expertise.
- Member States: must designate qualified, security-cleared experts for accreditation and ensure sufficient expertise is available by 1 January 2028.
- The Security Accreditation Board: keeps sole responsibility for accreditation decisions, with its independence reinforced and its meetings at least quarterly.
- Contractual operators: must have competency frameworks, succession planning and operational capability for service continuity during crises or extended disruptions.
- The European Union Satellite Centre: works with the Agency under working arrangements defining responsibilities and operational interfaces.
Figures and deadlines
- The Administrative Board must meet at least once every quarter.
- The Security Accreditation Board must meet at least every quarter and the Chairperson must convene an additional meeting within one month of a request.
- The Security Accreditation Board must deliver an opinion within 15 working days where the Commission requests one alongside a proposal for temporary Council authorisation.
- The Council must decide on a Commission proposal for temporary authorisation within 30 working days.
- A temporary Council authorisation for service provision must not exceed 12 months and may be renewed once.
- A coordinated corrective plan for systemic or recurring security deficiencies must be established within three months.
- The Administrative Board must adopt arrangements to implement Article 19 before 1 January 2028.
- The regulation applies from 1 January 2028, while Article 42(4a) applies from the date of entry into force.
Legal basis. Article 294(2) and Article 189(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Written by AI from the full text · every figure comes from the text · ¶ opens the paragraph · 25 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Full text
Jump to an amendment (90)
- Amendment 1
- Amendment 2
- Amendment 3
- Amendment 4
- Amendment 5
- Amendment 6
- Amendment 7
- Amendment 8
- Amendment 9
- Amendment 10
- Amendment 11
- Amendment 12
- Amendment 13
- Amendment 14
- Amendment 15
- Amendment 16
- Amendment 17
- Amendment 18
- Amendment 19
- Amendment 20
- Amendment 21
- Amendment 22
- Amendment 23
- Amendment 24
- Amendment 25
- Amendment 26
- Amendment 27
- Amendment 28
- Amendment 29
- Amendment 30
- Amendment 31
- Amendment 32
- Amendment 33
- Amendment 34
- Amendment 35
- Amendment 36
- Amendment 37
- Amendment 38
- Amendment 39
- Amendment 40
- Amendment 41
- Amendment 42
- Amendment 43
- Amendment 44
- Amendment 45
- Amendment 46
- Amendment 47
- Amendment 48
- Amendment 49
- Amendment 50
- Amendment 51
- Amendment 52
- Amendment 53
- Amendment 54
- Amendment 55
- Amendment 56
- Amendment 57
- Amendment 58
- Amendment 59
- Amendment 60
- Amendment 61
- Amendment 62
- Amendment 63
- Amendment 64
- Amendment 65
- Amendment 66
- Amendment 67
- Amendment 68
- Amendment 69
- Amendment 70
- Amendment 71
- Amendment 72
- Amendment 73
- Amendment 74
- Amendment 75
- Amendment 76
- Amendment 77
- Amendment 78
- Amendment 79
- Amendment 80
- Amendment 81
- Amendment 82
- Amendment 83
- Amendment 84
- Amendment 85
- Amendment 86
- Amendment 87
- Amendment 88
- Amendment 89
- Amendment 90
Draft european parliament legislative resolution 635 paragraphs
(COM(2026)0152 – C100094/2026 – 2026/0084(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
–having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2026)0152),
–having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 189(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C100094/2026),
–having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
–having regard to the budgetary assessment by the Committee on Budgets,
–having regard to Rules 60 and 58 of its Rules of Procedure,
–having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A100000/2026),
1.Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2.Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Read the rest (623 paragraphs)
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Proposal for a | Proposal for a |
| REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL | REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL |
| on the European Union Space Services Agency and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/696 | on the European Union Agency for the Space Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/696 |
| (Text with EEA relevance) | (Text with EEA relevance) |
Or. en
Justification
Return to the existing name of the Agency, which more accurately reflects the Agency’s broad mandate encompassing infrastructure operations, security accreditation, and the implementation of Union space policy beyond service provision.
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Tasks | Objectives and Tasks |
Or. en
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph -1 (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -1. The objectives of the Agency shall be to ensure the effective and coherent implementation of Union space policy and law, ensure a high degree of safety, security and resilience of Union space activities, and maximise the public, strategic and economic benefits of Union space systems and services. |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment clarifies the overarching mission of the Agency.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph -1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| -1a. In particular, the Agency shall ensure: | |
| (a) the secure, resilient and continuous operational implementation of the Union space components, including the reliability and continuity of service delivery and the consistency of system and service evolutions, including end-to-end exploitation, operational security and cybersecurity; | |
| (b) the effective pooling, sharing and use of Union-level space- and ground-based capacities; | |
| (c) the effective and consistent application of Union requirements governing space activities, contributing to a fair, predictable and competitive internal market for space operators; | |
| (d) the user and market uptake, commercialisation and market deployment of information, services and data provided by Union space systems, as well as of related downstream applications, receivers and terminals, across civilian, security and defence domains; | |
| (e) the strengthening of the Union’s strategic autonomy, resilience and competitiveness in the space domain, including by enhancing the security and resilience of strategic Union space supply chains and reducing critical dependencies relating to space- and ground-based infrastructure and critical technologies. |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment clarifies the overarching mission of the Agency.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) to ensure, through the Security Accreditation Board referred to in Article 5(1), point (c) the security accreditation of Union space components in accordance with Article 16; | (a) to ensure, through the Security Accreditation Board referred to in Article 5(1), point (c) the security accreditation of all Union space components and subcomponents in accordance with Article 16; |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify the scope of security accreditation to cover all Union space components and subcomponents.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) when given the responsibility for the exploitation or the operational management of the ‘Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT)’ space component referred to in [Article 58(1) (a) of the ECF Regulation] or the ‘Earth Observation (EO)’ space component or one of its subcomponents referred to in [Article 58(1) (b) of the ECF Regulation], to perform all tasks related to its operational security, which consists of carrying out risk and threat analysis, preparing the relevant accreditation files, and monitoring the security of those components or subcomponents in operations, in particular monitoring their compliance with the respective general security requirements referred to in [Article 77(3) of the ECF Regulation]; | (b) for the ‘Position, Navigation and Timing (PNT)’ space component or any of its sub-components referred to in [Article 58(1)(a) of the ECF Regulation], and for the ‘Earth Observation (EO)’ space component or any of its sub-components, including the ‘Earth Observation Governmental Service (EOGS)’ sub-component, referred to in [Article 58(1)(b) of the ECF Regulation], to perform all tasks related to its operational security, which consists of carrying out risk and threat analysis, preparing the relevant accreditation files, and monitoring the security of those components or subcomponents in operations, in particular monitoring their compliance with the respective general security requirements referred to in [Article 77(3) of the ECF Regulation]; |
Or. en
Justification
The amendment clarifies the Agency’s responsibility for the operational security of PNT and EO, including EOGS
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) to establish and manage a user community network and to provide the analysis on the use or sharing of services for government-authorised users of Union space components or subcomponents as needed; | (d) to establish and manage a user community network and provide analyses of the use and sharing of services provided by Union space components or subcomponents, as needed; |
Or. en
Justification
Extend the Agency’s user community activities beyond government-authorised users to better reflect the diversity of users of Union space services.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point e
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (e) to undertake certain activities relating to user uptake, market development, communication and promotion activities as regards services, data and information offered by Union space components, including the coordination of user needs, technologies and user equipment as needed. This shall not affect the activities performed by other entrusted entities and the Commission; | (e) to undertake activities relating to user uptake, market development, communication and promotion activities as regards services, data and information offered by Union space components, including the coordination of user needs, technologies and user equipment as needed. The Agency shall, in cooperation with the Commission, promote a common Union visual identity for all public-facing services and applications substantially relying on data, information or services provided by Union space components. This shall not affect the activities performed by other entrusted entities and the Commission; |
Or. en
Justification
Strengthen the Agency’s uptake and promotion role and make the Union’s contribution to public-facing space-based services more visible through a common visual identity.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ea) to undertake activities to promote and facilitate the systematic integration and use of Union space data and services across Union policies, programmes, regulatory frameworks and strategic sectors, in cooperation with relevant Union bodies and international organisations, including by enabling civil protection authorities to access those data and services through interoperable interfaces, service platforms and user equipment, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the competent authorities for issuing warnings, activating services and managing emergency response; |
Or. en
Justification
Systematic integration of Union space data and services will improve cross-border cooperation, emergency response, operational continuity and the ability to respond to users’ needs.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point a – point vii a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (viia) technical cooperation, in coordination with the Commission, with other regional or global satellite navigation systems, to facilitate compatibility and interoperability; |
Or. en
Justification
Cooperation with other navigation systems will promote compatibility and interoperability, strengthening the usability and international reach of Union services.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) operational management of the ‘Governmental Satellite Communication’ (GOVSATCOM) Hub referred to in [Article 61 (3) (d) of the ECF Regulation], including operational security; | (b) the operational management of the ‘Governmental Satellite Communication’ (GOVSATCOM) Hub referred to in [Article 61 (3) (d) of the ECF Regulation] and provision of GOVSATCOM services, including operational security; |
Or. en
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) managing the exploitation of EOGS at system and infrastructure level, including the management, operation, maintenance, evolution and protection of its space- and ground-based infrastructure, the management of related contracts and the monitoring of service availability, performance and continuity; |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment assigns clear responsibility for the full system-level exploitation and protection of EOGS, ensuring reliable performance and service continuity.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (bb) the operational management, including operational security, of the EOGS pooling and sharing mechanism at capacity level, including the operation of a secure front desk serving as the capacity-level interface for government-authorised users, the maintenance of a catalogue of available capacities and services, and the technical implementation of the applicable access, allocation and prioritisation rules; |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment assigns clear responsibility for EOGS pooling and sharing mechanism.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (bc) the management and operation of the EU SST Front Desk, including the interface for the provision of SST services, user support, performance monitoring and associated security aspects; |
Or. en
Justification
Addition of a clearly defined operational role for the EU SST Front Desk.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) certain activities related to the development of downstream, integrated applications, data ecosystems, or receivers and terminals based on the data and services of Union space components in the interest of the Union space-based economy. | (c) activities related to the development of downstream, integrated applications, data ecosystems, or receivers and terminals based on the data and services of Union space components in the interest of the Union space-based economy, including, at their request, the aggregation of demand and joint procurement for Union institutions, bodies and Member States of interoperable receivers, terminals and software meeting the applicable security and security-of-supply requirements. |
Or. en
Justification
This amendment enables public demand aggregation and joint procurement for receivers to achieve economies of scale, interoperability, security of supply.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ca) in cooperation with the Commission and relevant Union bodies, provide support to space operators, notably on cybersecurity, including by providing the secretariat of and supporting the operation and coordination of the EU Space ISAC and other Union-level mechanisms for secure information sharing on threats, vulnerabilities and incidents affecting space systems and services. |
Or. en
Justification
Reflects the Agency’s existing role in the EU Space ISAC and provides a clear legal basis for its support to secure cybersecurity information sharing across the Union space sector.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The tasks referred to in paragraph 2, points (ba) and (bb), shall be performed in close cooperation with the European Union Satellite Centre and without prejudice to the tasks entrusted to it, in particular as regards the secure handling of user requests, operational tasking and data-processing workflows, and the generation and secure dissemination of geospatial products and services. The Agency and the European Union Satellite Centre shall establish working arrangements defining their respective responsibilities and operational interfaces, in accordance with their respective mandates and the need-to-know principle. |
Or. en
Justification
The amendment clarifies the tasks between EUSPA and the EU Satellite Centre by defining responsibilities, interfaces and information-sharing arrangements based on the respective mandates and need-to-know principle.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Subject to the operational readiness of the Agency and, where necessary, the establishment of relevant mechanism to ensure service continuity, the Commission shall entrust the following tasks to the Agency: | 3. The Commission shall entrust the following tasks to the Agency and shall, where necessary, put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure service continuity: |
Or. en
Justification
Remove an open-ended readiness condition that could delay task entrustment, while requiring appropriate arrangements to preserve service continuity.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point -a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-a) actions to support Copernicus data access and distribution, including by providing secure and certified data-sharing mechanisms to promote data reuse, interoperability and transparency. Such mechanisms shall ensure the protection, authentication and integrity of Copernicus data and shall be implemented through a unique front desk. |
Or. en
Justification
Facilitate trusted access to and reuse of Copernicus data through a single front desk and secure, interoperable data-sharing mechanisms.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) specific actions to support the security of the ‘Earth Observation Governmental Service (EOGS)’ and Copernicus sub-components of EO. | (a) actions to implement the security of the Copernicus sub-components of EO. |
Or. en
Justification
Already covered in Article 4 (1) (b)
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) management of all or some of the contracts under EOGS after their award or signature; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Included in Article 4(2) (ba)
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) provision of GOVSATCOM services and ‘Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite’ (IRIS2) services, the sub-components of the ‘Secure Connectivity’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(c) of the ECF Regulation], for government-authorised users, in particular through the GOVSATCOM Hub; | (c) the provision, for government-authorised users, of services under the ‘Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite’ (IRIS2) subcomponent of the ‘Secure Connectivity’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(c) of the ECF Regulation], in particular through the GOVSATCOM Hub; |
Or. en
Justification
Provision of GOVSATCOM services moved to Article 4 (2b)
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) management of all or some of the contracts under the Secure Connectivity component, after their award or signature, including where relevant to ensure all or part of the operational management of the governmental infrastructure of IRIS2, or all of part of the operational management of relevant part of IRIS2 governmental infrastructure, including operational security; | (d) management of all contracts under the Secure Connectivity component, after their award or signature; |
Or. en
Justification
Creation below of a separate point on the operational management of the infrastructure.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (da) the operational management of all of the IRIS2 governmental infrastructure, including its operational security; |
Or. en
Justification
Establish unified Agency responsibility for the operational management and security of the entire IRIS² governmental infrastructure.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point g
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (g) the provision of services of ‘Space Weather Events (SWE)’ subcomponent of ‘Space Situational Awareness (SSA)’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58 (1) (d) of the ECF Regulation] to end-users, and activities relating to the evolution of those services; | (g) the operational management and provision to end-users of the services of the ‘Space Weather Events (SWE)’ subcomponent of the ‘Space Situational Awareness (SSA)’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(d) of the ECF Regulation], and activities relating to the evolution of those services; |
Or. en
Justification
EUSPA is the exploitation manager for all services components of the Space Programme.
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point h
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (h) the provision of services of ‘Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST)’ subcomponent of SSA, except the service for government-authorised users, notably through the operational management of the relevant service centres, including associated security aspects, as well as the front desk providing the interface for the provision of services that are not for government-authorised users to end-users, and necessary award procedures; | (h) the provision of services of ‘Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST)’ subcomponent of SSA, except the service for government-authorised users, notably through the operational management of the relevant service centres and catalogues, including associated security aspects, as well as the front desk providing the interface for the provision of services that are not for government-authorised users to end-users, and necessary award procedures; |
Or. en
Justification
The Agency’s operational management of SST services should also cover the relevant service catalogues, ensuring coherent and user-oriented service provision.
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point i
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (i) management of all or part of the agreements with the SST Partnership referred to in [Article 62(3) of the ECF Regulation]; | (i) management of contribution agreements with the SST Partnership referred to in [Article 62(3) of the ECF Regulation]; |
Or. en
Justification
Clarifies the legal nature of the instruments with the SST Partnership
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point k
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (k) specific actions to support the implementation of ‘Access to space’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1) (e) of the ECF Regulation] without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; | (k) actions to support the implementation of the ‘Access to space’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(e) of the ECF Regulation], including the procurement and aggregation of launch services for the needs of the Union and, at their request, the aggregation and joint procurement of launch services for the needs of Member States, international organisations and other public entities, without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; |
Or. en
Justification
Defines a concrete role for EUSPA in aggregating and procuring launch services.
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point l
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (l) specific actions to support the implementation of ‘Space commercialisation and space economy’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(f) of the ECF Regulation], including of the CASSINI initiative without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; | (l) the implementation of actions under the ‘Space commercialisation and space economy’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(f) of the ECF Regulation], including of the CASSINI initiative without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; |
Or. en
Justification
Strengthen the Agency’s implementation role in space commercialisation and CASSINI while preserving the responsibilities of other entities.
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point m
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (m) specific actions to support the implementation of ‘Technological sovereignty, research and innovation’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(g) of the ECF Regulation], without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; | (m) actions to contribute to the implementation of ‘Technological sovereignty, research and innovation’ Union space component referred to in [Article 58(1)(g) of the ECF Regulation], without prejudice to the activities performed by other entities; |
Or. en
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point n
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (n) cooperate with the Commission to support space operators, notably as regards cybersecurity. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Moved to Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 5 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. Where provided for in the relevant contribution agreement, the Agency may entrust the implementation of specific activities to the European Space Agency, other relevant entities or competent national entities, in accordance with their respective mandates and the applicable financial rules. The Agency shall retain overall responsibility for the tasks entrusted to it. |
Or. en
Justification
Clarifies EUSPA possibility to entrust activities to other competent entities for implementation while retaining overall responsibility and complying with contribution agreements and financial rules.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Whenever activities are entrusted to the Agency, appropriate financial, human and administrative resources shall be ensured for their implementation | 6. Whenever activities are to be entrusted to the Agency, appropriate financial, human, technical and administrative resources shall be made available in due time for their preparation and implementation. Those resources shall enable the Agency to retain in-house the core operational, technical and security expertise necessary to exercise effective control over the activities entrusted to it. |
Or. en
Justification
Ensure resources are available early enough to prepare new tasks and retain the in-house expertise needed for effective oversight of entrusted activities.
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The Agency shall ensure that contractual operators have competency frameworks, succession planning and operational capability allowing for continuity of services for government-authorised users during crisis or extended disruptions. This may include arrangements or agreements with hosting authorities to benefit from the support of national authorities and from measures established for ensuring the continuity of service of national critical infrastructure in case of crisis. | 7. The Agency shall ensure that contractual operators have competency frameworks, succession planning and operational capability allowing for continuity of services for government-authorised users, in particular during crisis or extended disruptions. This may include arrangements or agreements with hosting authorities to benefit from the support of national authorities and from measures established for ensuring the continuity of service of national critical infrastructure in case of crisis. |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify that contractual operators must ensure service continuity at all times
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The Administrative Board shall be composed of one representative from each Member State, and three representatives of the Commission, all with voting rights. The Administrative Board shall also include one member designated by the European Parliament, with no voting rights. | 1. The Administrative Board shall be composed of one representative from each Member State, three representatives of the Commission and two members designated by the European Parliament, all with voting rights. |
Or. en
Justification
Strengthen democratic accountability by providing for two voting members designated by the European Parliament on the Administrative Board.
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The Administrative Board shall hold ordinary meetings on a regular basis, at least twice a year. In addition, it shall meet on the initiative of its Chairperson, at the request of at least one third of its members or at the request of the Commission. | 3. The Administrative Board shall hold an ordinary meeting at least once every quarter. In addition, it shall meet on the initiative of its Chairperson, at the request of at least one third of its members or at the request of the Commission. |
Or. en
Justification
Meeting at least four times a year will allow the Administrative Board to exercise timely oversight of an expanding and operationally demanding Agency.
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. By way of exception from Article 11(1), where the deliberations concern the use of sensitive national infrastructure referred to in paragraph 5, only the representatives of Member States which possess such infrastructure and the representatives of the Commission shall have voting rights. | 6. By way of derogation from Article 6(1), where the deliberations concern the use of sensitive national infrastructure referred to in paragraph 5, only the representatives of Member States which possess such infrastructure and the representatives of the Commission shall have voting rights. |
Or. en
Justification
Correction to the good reference.
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point m
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (m) where necessary and on the basis of proposals from the Executive Director, approve the organisational structures referred to in point (l) of Article 13(1); | (m) where necessary and on the basis of proposals from the Executive Director, approve the organisational structures referred to in point (m) of Article 13(1); |
Or. en
Justification
Correct the cross-reference to the Executive Director’s responsibility for proposing the Agency’s organisational structures.
Amendment 39
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (qa) declare a service operational in accordance with Article 23a. |
Or. en
Justification
Assign responsibility for declaring governmental space services operational to the Administrative Board under the safeguards established in Article 23a.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Administrative Board shall delegate to the Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board the powers of the appointing authority with regard to the recruitment, assessment and reclassification of staff involved in the security accreditation activities and the disciplinary measures to be taken with regard to such staff. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Separate security accreditation from Agency staff management by removing the SAB Chair’s appointing powers.
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. Where exceptional circumstances so require, the Administrative Board may decide to temporarily suspend the delegation of powers of the appointing authority to the Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board and exercise them itself or delegate them to another member of the Security Accreditation Board. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Remove a provision that becomes redundant following the abolition of the SAB Chair’s appointing powers.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. The Administrative Board shall adopt the implementing measures of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 110(2) of the Staff Regulations. It shall first consult the Security Accreditation Board and duly take into account its observations with regard to the recruitment, assessment and reclassification of the staff involved in the security accreditation activities and the relevant disciplinary measures to be taken with regard to such staff. | 6. The Administrative Board shall adopt the implementing measures of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 110(2) of the Staff Regulations. |
Or. en
Justification
Align staff implementing rules with the new accreditation support model by removing the SAB’s specific consultation role in Agency personnel matters.
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 7. The Administrative Board shall adopt a decision laying down rules on the secondment of national experts to the Agency. Before adopting that decision, the Administrative Board shall consult the Security Accreditation Board with regard to the secondment of national experts involved in the security accreditation activities and shall duly take account of its observations. | 7. The Administrative Board shall adopt a decision laying down rules on the secondment of national experts to the Agency. |
Or. en
Justification
Preserve general rules on seconded national experts while removing consultation requirements linked to an internal Agency accreditation team.
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. Each representative of the Member States and of the Commission shall have one vote. In the absence of a member with the right to vote, their alternate shall be entitled to exercise their right to vote. Decisions based on Article 9, first paragraph, point (b) except for the section drafted by the Security Accreditation Board, Article 9, first paragraph, point (j) when adopting decisions related to the follow-up to OLAF reports, Article 9, first paragraph, point (n), Article 10, Article 24(8) and decisions related to Chapter 4 shall only be adopted with a favourable vote of the representatives of the Commission. | 2. Each member of the Administrative Board with voting rights shall have one vote. In the absence of a member with the right to vote, their alternate shall be entitled to exercise their right to vote. Decisions based on Article 9, first paragraph, point (b), except for the section drafted by the Security Accreditation Board, Article 9, first paragraph, point (j), when adopting decisions related to the follow-up to OLAF reports, Article 9, first paragraph, point (n), Article 10, and Article 24(8) shall only be adopted with the favourable vote of the representatives of the Commission. |
Or. en
Justification
Align voting rules with Parliament-designated membership and limit the Commission’s favourable vote that should not apply indiscriminately to all staff-related decisions, as this would undermine the organisational autonomy of the security accreditation function.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The Executive Director shall manage the Agency. | 1. The Executive Director shall manage the Agency. The Executive Director shall be accountable to the Administrative Board. |
Or. en
Justification
Explicitly establish the Executive Director’s accountability to the Administrative Board for the management of the Agency.
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. This Article shall not affect the autonomy or independence of the Security Accreditation Board and of the Agency staff under its supervision and the powers granted to the Security Accreditation Board and the Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board by this Regulation. | 2. The Executive Director’s management responsibilities shall be without prejudice to the autonomy and independence of the Security Accreditation Board and the experts assisting it under Article 19(5), and to the powers conferred on the Board and its Chairperson by this Regulation. |
Or. en
Justification
Protect the independence of the SAB and its supporting experts while clarifying the limits of the Executive Director’s management responsibilities.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point m
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (m) determine the organisational structures of the Agency and submit them to the Administrative Board for approval, except for those relating to security accreditation activities; | (m) determine the Agency’s organisational structures and submit them to the Administrative Board for approval, without prejudice to the Security Accreditation Board’s power to establish its panel and expert groups under Article 19(5); |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify responsibility for the Agency’s organisational structures while preserving the SAB’s authority to establish its own expert panel and groups.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point p
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (p) ensure that secretarial services are provided to the Security Accreditation Board; | (p) ensure the provision of administrative and secretarial support to the Security Accreditation Board and its subordinate bodies in accordance with Article 19(2) and (3); |
Or. en
Justification
Make the Executive Director responsible for providing administrative and secretarial support to the SAB and its subordinate bodies under the revised organisational arrangements
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point q
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (q) with the exception of the section of the action plan concerning the activities related to security accreditation, prepare an action plan for ensuring the follow-up of the findings and recommendations of the evaluations of the activities carried out to implement the Union space components and, after having incorporated, without any change, the section drafted by the Security Accreditation Board, submit a progress report to the Commission twice a year, which shall also be submitted to the Administrative Board for information; | (q) with the exception of the section of the action plan concerning the activities related to security accreditation, prepare an action plan for ensuring the follow-up of the findings and recommendations of the evaluations of the activities carried out to implement the Union space components and, after having incorporated, without any change, the section drafted by the Security Accreditation Board, submit a progress report to the Commission twice a year, which shall also be submitted to the Administrative Board for information and discussion; |
Or. en
Justification
The progress report should be discussed by the Administrative Board so that it can exercise meaningful oversight of follow-up actions and recommendations.
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The Security Accreditation Board established within the Agency shall be the security accreditation authority for Union space components. | 1. The Security Accreditation Board established within the Agency shall be the security accreditation authority for all Union space components. |
Or. en
Justification
Confirm the SAB’s role as the security accreditation authority across all Union space components.
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Some meetings of the Security Accreditation Board or parts thereof may take place without the participation of the representative of the Commission only if the Commission has given its prior written consent. The Security Accreditation Board shall provide the Commission with any document and information exchanged during those meetings or any document and information circulated in preparation for or after those meetings. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
The Security Accreditation Board should be able to freely organize its meetings. The access to document is moved to Article 18 (3), for documents used as basis for SAB decisions.
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board may also invite representatives of Union Agencies, third countries or international organisations to attend meetings of the Security Accreditation Board as observers for matters directly related to those Union Agencies, third countries or international organisations, in particular matters concerning the infrastructure belonging to them or established on their territory. Arrangements for the participation of representatives of third countries or international organisations and the condition for such participation shall be laid down in the relevant agreements referred to in Article 39(1) and shall comply with the rules of procedure of the Security Accreditation Board. | 5. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board may also invite representatives of Union Agencies, third countries or international organisations to attend meetings of the Security Accreditation Board as observers for matters directly related to those Union Agencies, third countries or international organisations, in particular matters concerning the infrastructure belonging to them or established on their territory after having informed the board and the Commission of such invitations. Arrangements for the participation of representatives of third countries or international organisations and the condition for such participation shall be laid down in the relevant agreements referred to in Article 39(1) and shall comply with the rules of procedure of the Security Accreditation Board. |
Or. en
Justification
Informing the Board of invitations strengthens transparency while preserving the Chairperson’s ability to involve relevant external observers when necessary.
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. Upon invitation of the Commission, representatives of contractors involved in governmental infrastructure and services for government-authorised users of the Union space components may attend the meetings of the Security Accreditation Board, as observers, for matters directly relating to those contractors. | 6. At the request of the Security Accreditation Board and subject to the agreement of the Commission, representatives of contractors involved in governmental infrastructure and services for government-authorised users of the Union space components may, upon invitation by the Commission, attend meetings of the Security Accreditation Board as observers for matters directly relating to those contractors. |
Or. en
Justification
The accreditation authority is best placed to decide when contractor expertise is needed, while the Commission as Programme manager should give is prior consent.
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6a. The Security Accreditation Board shall meet at least every quarter and whenever necessary for the timely implementation of the accreditation plan. The Commission or the Executive Director may request the Chairperson to convene an additional meeting. The Chairperson shall convene such a meeting within one month of receiving the request or, where the request is refused, shall state the reasons for the refusal. |
Or. en
Justification
More regular meetings and a clear mechanism for additional meetings will help the Board take accreditation decisions in time for programme implementation.
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Union space components or subcomponents subject to the general security requirements referred to in [Article 77(3) of the ECF Regulation] shall undergo an accreditation process, leading to a formal statement by a security accreditation authority that the component or sub-component is approved to operate as established in those general security requirements. | 1. Union space components or subcomponents subject to the general security requirements referred to in [Article 77(3) of the ECF Regulation] shall undergo security accreditation in accordance with Article 17a. A decision granting security accreditation shall constitute the formal statement by the Security Accreditation Board, acting as the Security Accreditation Authority, that the activities concerned are authorised, from a security perspective, at an acceptable level of residual security risk. It shall not, in itself, constitute a declaration of initial or full operational capability or a decision to commence operations or service provision. |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify the SAB’s role as Security Accreditation Authority and the legal effect of accreditation, distinguishing it from operational service declarations while leaving procedural details to Article 17a.
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) security accreditation activities shall be carried out with the use of a risk assessment and management approach, considering risks to the security of the component concerned as well as the impact on cost or schedule of any measure to mitigate the risks, taking into account the objective to not lower the general level of security of that component and taking into consideration the continuity of services and provision of new services; | (c) security accreditation activities shall be carried out using a risk assessment and risk management approach. Security accreditation decisions shall be based exclusively on security considerations relating to the component concerned and shall not lower its overall level of security; |
Or. en
Justification
Ensure accreditation decisions rest exclusively on security considerations, without trade-offs driven by cost, schedule or service-delivery pressures.
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – point d
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (d) security accreditation activities shall be carried out taking into account the schedule for implementation of each relevant component and shall not unduly delay or prejudice this implementation; | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
The issue of delays is addressed more effectively through the precise procedural deadlines and safeguards established in Article 17a.
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Security Accreditation Board shall have the following tasks: | 2. The Security Accreditation Board shall be responsible for independently assessing and providing assurance on the security and resilience of Union space components, subcomponents and services, notably through the review and independent verification of security risk assessments, supporting evidence and risk-mitigation measures. For that purpose, the Security Accreditation Board shall have the following tasks: |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify the SAB’s purpose as an independent assessor of security and resilience through verification of programme evidence, risk assessments and mitigation measures.
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a – point iv
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (iv) an accreditation plan that complies with the phases of Union space components or subcomponents, in particular as regards the deployment of infrastructure, service provision and evolution as established by the Commission; | (iv) the principles governing the security accreditation plan referred to in Article 17a, including its alignment with the development, deployment, operation, service provision, evolution and decommissioning phases of the components and subcomponents concerned; |
Or. en
Justification
Align accreditation strategy and planning with the full system lifecycle and the dedicated procedure established in Article 17a.
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) taking decisions on security accreditation, including on the approval of the security procedures for satellite launch or on the single approval for launches in case of constellations, the authorisation to operate the systems set up under Union space components or subcomponents or the elements of those components or subcomponents in their different configurations and for the various services they provide, up to and including the signal in space, and the authorisation to operate the ground stations; | (b) taking decisions on security accreditation, including on security authorisation for satellite launches or a single security authorisation for launches in the case of constellations, the authorisation to operate the systems set up under Union space components or subcomponents or the elements of those components or subcomponents in their different configurations and for the various services they provide, up to and including the signal in space, and the authorisation to operate the ground stations. |
Or. en
Justification
The decision for launches should be about the authorisation, not the security procedures only.
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (da) advising, within its field of competence, the Commission on the production of draft texts for acts referred to in [Article 77(3) of the ECF Regulation] and Article 8 of Decision No 1104/2011/EU, including for the establishment of security operating procedures, and providing a statement with its concluding position; |
Or. en
Justification
The Board’s technical expertise should inform the Commission’s work on security guidelines. Reintroduce from the existing Space programme.
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point j a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ja) assisting, in close liaison with the Commission, the Council and the High Representative, with the implementation of [Decision (CFSP) XXXX/XXX amending 2021/698] upon a specific request from the Council or the High Representative; |
Or. en
Justification
Preserves the Board’s ability to assist with CFSP space-security measures, while ensuring that such support is provided only following a specific request.
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (a) prepare and approve that part of the multiannual work programme concerning the operational activities related to security accreditation and the financial and human resources needed to accomplish those activities, and submit it to the Administrative Board in good time for it to be incorporated into the multiannual work programme; | (a) prepare and approve the section of the multiannual work programme covering security accreditation activities and the resources required under Article 19, and submit that section to the Administrative Board in time for its incorporation into the multiannual work programme; |
Or. en
Justification
Align multiannual accreditation programming with the revised arrangements for expert, administrative and secretarial support under Article 19.
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3a. The resources programmed or reported under paragraph 3 shall distinguish between expert support provided under Article 19(5) and administrative and secretarial support provided under Article 19(2). Before approving resource requirements under paragraph 3, points (a) and (b), the Security Accreditation Board shall consult the Executive Director on their implications for the Agency’s budget and establishment plan. Any reasoned opinion delivered by the Executive Director shall accompany the relevant sections when submitted to the Administrative Board. |
Or. en
Justification
Distinguish technical expert resources from administrative support and ensure budgetary coordination without giving the Executive Director control over accreditation decisions.
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article17a | |
| Security accreditation process | |
| 1. Security accreditation shall be continuous and iterative throughout the lifecycle of the components and subcomponents referred to in Article 16(1). The entities responsible for their development, implementation, operation or exploitation are referred to in this Article as the ‘responsible entities’. | |
| The Commission and the responsible entities shall, within their respective responsibilities, demonstrate compliance with the applicable security requirements and provide supporting evidence. The responsible entities shall conduct the qualification, validation or readiness reviews required by the security accreditation plan referred to in paragraph 3 and involve the Security Accreditation Board at the stages specified in that plan. The Board shall independently assess the evidence provided and adopt security accreditation decisions. | |
| 2. For each component or subcomponent, the Commission shall ensure the designation of a single responsible programme interface acting as the primary interlocutor of the Security Accreditation Board. Where the Agency is responsible for exploitation or operational management, the Executive Director shall designate that interface in agreement with the Commission. | |
| The interface shall have sufficient authority to coordinate the responsible entities and contractors involved, ensure the timely provision of evidence and follow up accreditation decisions and corrective actions. Its designation shall not alter the responsibilities of the Commission or the responsible entities. | |
| 3. The responsible programme interface shall prepare and update a security accreditation plan in close coordination with the Commission, the responsible entities and the Security Accreditation Board. The plan shall set out: | |
| (a) the accreditation milestones and the decisions required at each stage; | |
| (b) the timetable and allocation of responsibilities; | |
| (c) the evidence to be provided, the entities responsible for its provision and the corresponding deadlines; | |
| (d) the entry and completion criteria for each stage and the conditions for submitting a request for a decision; and | |
| (e) the applicable risk-acceptance criteria, as established in or pursuant to the general security requirements. | |
| The Security Accreditation Board shall approve the plan after obtaining the Commission’s agreement on its milestones, timetable and allocation of responsibilities, on the basis of commitments confirmed by the responsible entities concerned. That agreement shall not affect the applicable security requirements or the independence of the Board’s assessments and decisions. | |
| The Commission, the Board and the responsible entities shall perform the tasks assigned to them within the deadlines set out in the approved plan. | |
| The Commission shall ensure that the corresponding obligations are reflected, where relevant, in the applicable contribution agreements and contracts. | |
| The responsible programme interface shall monitor progress against the plan, including the deadlines for providing evidence and completing reviews. It shall report any actual or anticipated delay, its causes and proposed corrective measures to the Commission and the Board. | |
| Changes to the milestones, timetable, allocation of responsibilities, evidence requirements or criteria set out in the plan shall require the Board’s approval. | |
| Changes affecting the milestones, timetable or allocation of responsibilities shall also require the Commission’s agreement, on the basis of commitments confirmed by the responsible entities concerned. Updates recording progress without changing those elements shall be communicated to the parties concerned without undue delay. | |
| Once the Board has received the notification referred to in paragraph 5, changes to the plan shall neither suspend nor restart the period laid down in paragraph 6. | |
| 4. For each decision sought, the responsible programme interface shall compile the evidence provided under paragraph 1 into an accreditation evidence package and submit it to the Commission within the deadline set out in the plan. | |
| The package shall be proportionate to the scope and stage of accreditation and the level of assurance required and shall include: | |
| (a) the subject and boundaries of accreditation, relevant interconnections and, where applicable, the configuration, classification level, security mode and operational environment; | |
| (b) a statement of compliance with the applicable security requirements, identifying any non-compliance; | |
| (c) the security risk assessment, residual risks, corrective action or risk-treatment plans and, where required by the applicable security rules, a formal statement of acceptance of those risks by the authority designated under those rules; | |
| (d) evidence of the implementation and effectiveness of the relevant technical, physical, organisational and procedural security measures, including test, audit and review results and relevant decisions of national security accreditation authorities. | |
| 5. Where the Commission considers, on the basis of confirmation by the responsible programme interface and the relevant review results, that the evidence package is complete for the decision sought and that the conditions for submitting a request under the plan have been met, it shall, without undue delay, notify the Security Accreditation Board, specifying the decision sought and providing the evidence package. That verification shall not prejudge the Board’s assessment of the evidence. | |
| Receipt of the notification by the Board shall trigger the formal decision phase and the period laid down in paragraph 6. | |
| The Commission shall, together with the notification, inform the Board of any significant implications that delays against the timetable set out in the plan could have for implementation or service continuity. That information shall be provided for planning purposes and shall not form part of the security assessment. | |
| 6. Within three months of receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 5, the Security Accreditation Board shall adopt a reasoned decision granting or refusing security accreditation. | |
| Where consensus cannot be reached, the Chairperson shall submit the matter to a vote in accordance with Article 18(2) in sufficient time for a decision to be adopted before the expiry of that period. | |
| Requests for additional information shall not, in themselves, suspend or restart that period. Any suspension for that purpose shall require the Commission’s agreement, specifying its duration and the resulting deadline for the decision. Failure to adopt a decision within the applicable period shall not constitute security accreditation. | |
| 7. Security accreditation decisions may concern systems or parts thereof, space- and ground-based infrastructure, sites and interconnections, as well as launches, validation activities, operation or service provision, including the signal in space. | |
| Accreditation may be granted on an interim basis pending corrective actions, limited in scope or subject to other security conditions. | |
| 8. Each decision granting accreditation shall specify its scope and boundaries, period of validity and conditions, refer to the associated security risk assessment and any treatment plans, and identify, where applicable, the configuration, maximum classification level, security mode and operational environment. | |
| Interim decisions shall also specify the corrective actions required and the evidence to be provided for renewal or replacement. | |
| Renewal or replacement shall require a new decision. Requests for renewal or replacement shall follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 4 to 6. The deadline for submitting each request shall be set in the plan or the accreditation decision, taking account of the period laid down in paragraph 6. Submission or examination of a request shall not extend the validity of the existing accreditation decision. | |
| A decision refusing accreditation shall state the grounds for refusal, identifying any unmet security requirements or risk-acceptance criteria, any material deficiencies in the evidence, and the conditions for submitting a new request. | |
| 9. The responsible entities shall continuously monitor security and report on the implementation of corrective actions. They shall inform the Security Accreditation Board and the responsible programme interface without undue delay of material security events and planned changes likely to affect the basis, scope or conditions of accreditation. | |
| Where the conditions underlying security accreditation are no longer met, the Board may, in accordance with Article 18(3), adopt a reasoned and proportionate decision amending, restricting, suspending or revoking accreditation. Revocation shall be a measure of last resort in the event of a serious degradation of security where less restrictive measures would be insufficient. | |
| The Board may also require the Commission to submit a new request for security accreditation. Such a request shall follow the procedure laid down in paragraphs 4 to 6. Reassessment shall focus on the aspects affected unless a wider review is necessary on security grounds. |
Or. en
Justification
Formalise and clarify the existing security accreditation process by defining responsibilities, planning requirements and a three-month deadline for explicit, reasoned decisions. This strengthens predictability and accountability while preserving the SAB’s independent security judgement, and ensuring continuous follow-up of risks and corrective actions.
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. If consensus cannot be reached, the Security Accreditation Board shall take decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting, in accordance with Article 16 TEU. The representative of the High Representative shall not vote The representative of the Commission shall not vote except for financial and human resources matters in which case the decisions shall only be adopted with a favourable vote of the representatives of the Commission. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board shall sign, on behalf of the Security Accreditation Board, the decisions adopted by the Security Accreditation Board. | 2. If consensus cannot be reached, the Security Accreditation Board shall take decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting, in accordance with Article 16 TEU. The representative of the High Representative shall not vote. The representative of the Commission shall not vote. The Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board shall sign, on behalf of the Security Accreditation Board, the decisions adopted by the Security Accreditation Board. |
Or. en
Justification
The amendment ensures that neither the Commission nor the High Representative participates in accreditation votes, preserving the Board’s independence and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The Security Accreditation Board shall organise its deliberations in three phases: a discussion on the context and the elements for decision, open to all members and relevant observers; a discussion limited to the representatives of the Member States, aimed at achieving consensus among them; and a discussion on the decision in the presence of all members and relevant observers. The final decision shall be taken only after the latter discussion. |
Or. en
Justification
Combine confidential consensus-building among Member States with inclusive discussions before the SAB adopts its final decision.
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The representative of the Commission and the representative of the High Representative shall be present during all the discussions and deliberations of the Security Accreditation Board except under the conditions referred to in Article 15(3), and shall have access to the Security Accreditation Board draft decisions in due time in order to provide an opinion as to their impact on the proper conduct of Union space components or subcomponents, including in terms of the security of the Union. | 3. The representative of the Commission and the representative of the High Representative shall have access to any information or document related to the decisions of the Security Accreditation Board. |
Or. en
Justification
Access to the underlying information and documents is necessary for the Commission and High Representative to assess accreditation decisions.
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Security Accreditation Board and the Agency staff under its supervision shall perform their work in a manner that it ensures their autonomy and independence in relation to other activities of the Agency, in particular operational activities associated with the exploitation of Union space components or subcomponents. | 2. The Agency’s support to the Security Accreditation Board and its subordinate bodies shall be limited to administrative and secretarial services, including the secure management and circulation of documentation and the organisation of meetings, reviews and workshops. Agency staff shall not perform independent technical assessments or prepare the substance of security accreditation decisions on behalf of the Board. This shall be without prejudice to the Agency’s responsibilities for programme implementation and the provision of accreditation evidence under Article 17a. |
Or. en
Justification
Separate programme implementation from independent accreditation assessment by limiting the Agency’s support to the SAB to administrative and secretarial functions.
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. A member of the Agency’s staff under the supervision of the Security Accreditation Board shall not at the same time be assigned to other tasks within the Agency that may hinder their autonomy and independence in relation to other activities of the Agency. To that end, an effective organisational segregation shall be established within the Agency between the staff involved in activities related to security accreditation and the other staff of the Agency. | 3. The Executive Director shall ensure the timely provision of the support referred to in paragraph 2, taking account of the requirements identified by the Chairperson of the Security Accreditation Board. Staff providing that support shall remain under the authority of the Executive Director. Neither the Executive Director nor those staff shall interfere with the Board’s independent assessments or decisions. Documentation shall be transmitted without alteration and handled in accordance with the applicable security rules. |
Or. en
Justification
Ensure timely and secure secretariat support under the Executive Director’s authority while prohibiting interference with the SAB’s independent assessments and decisions.
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. The Security Accreditation Board shall set up special subordinate groups composed of experts from Member States, acting on its instructions, to deal with specific issues. In particular, while ensuring necessary continuity of work, it shall set up a panel to conduct security analysis reviews and tests and produce the relevant risk reports in order to assist it in preparing its decisions. The Security Accreditation Board may set up and disband expert groups to contribute to the work of the panel. | 5. The Security Accreditation Board shall establish a panel composed of experts designated by the Member States to assist it in conducting independent technical assessments and preparing the substance of security accreditation decisions, including through security analysis, reviews, inspections, audits and tests and the preparation of risk reports. The panel shall act under the Board’s instructions. The Board may establish and disband additional expert groups for specific tasks. Responsibility for security accreditation decisions shall remain with the Board. |
Or. en
Justification
Place technical accreditation support with experts designated by Member States while retaining the SAB’s responsibility for final decisions.
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. The experts referred to in paragraph 5 may include external experts engaged by the Member States. They shall be appropriately qualified and security-cleared and shall act independently of the Commission, the Agency, ESA and the entities responsible for the subject of accreditation. They shall not be employed by or seconded to the Commission, the Agency or ESA, nor have participated in the development, implementation, operation or exploitation of the subject of accreditation. They shall be free of conflicts of interest, including those arising from their employment or contractual relationships. Article 40(1) and (2) shall apply to those experts. Their declarations shall cover direct and indirect interests which might prejudice their independence, including those arising through parent companies, subsidiaries or other affiliated entities, and through links of the experts, their employers or contracting entities with contractors, subcontractors or suppliers at any tier of the relevant supply chain. |
Or. en
Justification
Require qualified, security-cleared experts independent of programme implementation, with conflict-of-interest safeguards applying equally to external experts.
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 5 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5b. Member States shall collectively ensure that sufficient expertise is available to perform the tasks referred to in paragraph 5. Each Member State shall ensure that the experts it designates have the time and resources necessary to fulfil their assignments within the deadlines established in the security accreditation plans. The Board shall identify its expert support needs in the work programmes referred to in Article 17(3). The costs of that support may be financed from the Agency’s budget in accordance with the applicable financial rules, without affecting the independence of the experts. |
Or. en
Justification
Make Member States responsible for supplying sufficient expert capacity to meet accreditation deadlines, with possible financing from the Agency’s budget.
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) cooperate with the Executive Director to help to draw up the draft establishment plan referred to in Article 24(1) and the organisational structures of the Agency’s staff involved in the activities related to security accreditation; | (c) identify the administrative and secretarial support required by the Security Accreditation Board and cooperate with the Executive Director on the corresponding budgetary, staffing and organisational arrangements; |
Or. en
Justification
Refocus the SAB Chair’s staffing role on identifying support needs and coordinating their provision with the Executive Director
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point f
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (f) represent the Security Accreditation Board for the activities and decisions related to security accreditation; | (f) without prejudice to Article 13(1), point (a), represent the Agency, where authorised by the Executive Director, in matters relating to security accreditation; |
Or. en
Justification
Clarify when the SAB Chair may represent the Agency, subject to the Executive Director’s agreement.
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point g
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (g) with regard to the Agency’s staff involved in the activities related to security accreditation, exercise the powers referred to in Article 10(4) . | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Remove the SAB Chair’s remaining personnel powers to ensure consistency with the abolition of the delegation under Article 10(4).
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. The decisions of the Security Accreditation Board shall be addressed to the Commission together with all the information justifying that decision. | 1. Decisions adopted by the Security Accreditation Board under Article 17a shall be addressed to the Commission. The Commission shall transmit them without delay to the responsible programme interface and to the entities responsible for their implementation. |
Or. en
Justification
Ensure accreditation decisions reach the programme interface and implementing entities without delay so that their conditions and corrective actions can be acted upon.
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The decisions of the Security Accreditation Board shall be based on information to which the Commission had access and had the opportunity to provide an opinion as to their impact on the proper conduct of Union space components or subcomponents, including in terms of the security of the Union. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Avoid duplication by consolidating provisions on the Commission’s access to information and consideration of its opinion in Article 18(3).
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. In duly justified cases, the Commission may request the Security Accreditation Board for a decision to be issued within three months. In the absence of decision from the Security Accreditation Board within this timeframe the decision shall be considered affirmative. | deleted |
Or. en
Justification
Security Accreditation process moved to Article 17a
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. Where the Security Accreditation Board identifies systemic or recurring deficiencies affecting the security of one or more Union space components or subcomponents, the Commission, the Agency and the relevant entrusted entities shall, within their respective competences, adopt and implement corrective measures under a coordinated plan established within three months, setting out responsibilities and timelines. Those measures and their implementation shall be reflected, where relevant, in the action plan and progress reporting referred to in Article 13(1), point (q). The Commission shall coordinate the plan, keep the Security Accreditation Board informed of its implementation and inform the European Parliament and the Council without undue delay of any critical deficiency or significant delay. |
Or. en
Justification
A coordinated corrective-action plan ensures that recurring security deficiencies are addressed with clear responsibilities, deadlines and appropriate political oversight.
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6. If the Commission considers that a decision taken by the Security Accreditation Board may have a significant effect on the proper conduct of Union space components or subcomponents in terms of costs, schedule or performance, including in terms of the security of the Union, it shall immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council. Taking into account the views of the European Parliament and of the Council, which shall be expressed within one month, the Commission or the Security Accreditation Board, as relevant, shall adopt any adequate measures. | 6. Where a decision of the Security Accreditation Board may have significant effects on the costs, schedule or performance of a Union space component or subcomponent, on the continuity of the services it provides, or on the security of the Union, the Commission shall immediately inform the European Parliament and the Council. Taking into account the views of the European Parliament and of the Council, which shall be expressed within one month, the Commission shall, without undue delay, within its competences and in cooperation with the entities responsible for implementation and exploitation, take the measures necessary to address the programmatic and operational consequences of that decision. |
| Where corrective actions, additional risk-mitigation measures or other material changes alter the basis of the security assessment, the Commission shall submit a new request for security accreditation in accordance with Article 17a(5). The Security Accreditation Board shall decide on that request in accordance with Article 17a(6). |
Or. en
Justification
Clarifies the Commission’s responsibility for addressing the programmatic and operational consequences of security accreditation decisions and ensures that material changes to the security assessment trigger a new accreditation procedure.
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6a. By way of derogation from Article 23a(2), point (a), where no positive security accreditation decision covering the service concerned has been adopted, the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission, authorise, on a temporary and limited basis, the commencement of provision of that service where its immediate availability is strictly necessary on imperative grounds relating to: | |
| a) the security of the Union of one or more Member States; | |
| b) the continuity of essential services. | |
| Where the Security Accreditation Board has not already adopted a decision, the Commission shall, at the same time as submitting its proposal, request the Board to deliver an opinion within 15 working days. Failure to deliver an opinion within that period shall not prevent the Council from taking a decision. The Council shall decide on the Commission proposal within 30 working days. Any authorisation shall identify the residual security risks, its scope and the applicable risk-mitigation and operational safeguard measures. It shall not exceed 12 months and may be renewed once in accordance with the same procedure. It shall not constitute security accreditation or prejudice any decision of the Security Accreditation Board. The European Parliament shall be informed without delay. |
Or. en
Justification
Creates a strictly limited and temporary Council authorisation for the operation of a service in an urgent security situation without replacing or prejudging formal security accreditation.
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Article 23a | |
| Declaration of operational status | |
| 1. A service provided by a Union space component or subcomponent to government-authorised users shall be declared operational by the Administrative Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director. | |
| 2. The declaration may be adopted only where all of the following conditions are met: | |
| (a) the Security Accreditation Board has adopted a decision granting security accreditation in accordance with Article 17a covering the service concerned; | |
| (b) a service definition document setting out performance, availability, resilience and continuity commitments has been approved; | |
| (c) the Executive Director has confirmed the availability of the financial, human and technical resources and of the arrangements referred to in Article 4(7) necessary to provide the service under all circumstances, including in a situation of crisis. | |
| 3. The declaration shall specify the conditions and any limitations attached to the service and the date from which it is provided. It shall be transmitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. | |
| 4 A decision granting security accreditation shall not in itself entail a declaration of operational status. The suspension, restriction or revocation of security accreditation shall automatically suspend the declaration in respect of the service concerned, to the same extent. |
Or. en
Justification
Separate service entry into operation from security accreditation, requiring Administrative Board approval based on accreditation, service commitments and confirmed operational resources.
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. The Agency’s internal rules, including the rules of procedure of the Administrative Board, the rules of procedure of the Security Accreditation Board, the financial rules applicable to the Agency, the rules implementing the Staff Regulations and the rules for access to documents, shall ensure the autonomy and independence of staff performing the security accreditation activities relative to staff performing the other activities of the Agency. | 3. The Agency’s internal rules shall give effect to the separation of responsibilities established in Article 19 and ensure that the provision of administrative and secretarial support does not compromise the autonomy or independence of the Security Accreditation Board or the experts assisting it. |
Or. en
Justification
Align the Agency’s internal rules with the separation between administrative support and independent technical accreditation assessment.
Amendment 85
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. The Agency’s internal rules shall include crisis management and business continuity provision. | 4. The Agency’s internal rules shall include crisis management and business continuity provision in order to ensure the continuity of the provision of space services. |
Or. en
Justification
Explicitly linking business continuity rules to the continuity of space services strengthens preparedness for crises
Amendment 86
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director shall be appointed by the Administrative Board on grounds of merit and documented administrative and managerial skills, as well as relevant competence and experience, from a list of at least three candidates proposed by the Commission, after an open and transparent selection procedure, following the publication of a call for expressions of interest in the Official Journal of the European Union. | 2. The Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director shall be appointed by the Administrative Board on grounds of merit and documented administrative and managerial skills, as well as relevant competence and experience, from a list of at least three candidates proposed by the Commission following an open and transparent selection procedure, including the publication of a call for expressions of interest in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Executive Director shall be appointed only after the European Parliament has given its confirmation. |
Or. en
Justification
Strengthen democratic accountability by making the Executive Director’s appointment subject to confirmation by the European Parliament.
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Before the European Parliament gives its confirmation pursuant to paragraph 2, the candidate selected by the Administrative Board for the post of Executive Director shall be invited to make a statement before the competent committee of the European Parliament and to answer questions put by its members. |
Or. en
Justification
Enable Parliament to assess the selected candidate’s competence and priorities through a committee hearing before confirming the appointment.
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. Members of the Administrative Board, the Executive Director, external experts participating in ad hoc working groups, and members of the staff of the Agency shall comply with the confidentiality requirements under Article 339 TFEU, even after their duties have ceased. | 3. Members of the Administrative Board, the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, members of the Security Accreditation Board, external experts participating in ad hoc working groups, and members of the staff of the Agency shall comply with the confidentiality requirements under Article 339 TFEU, even after their duties have ceased. |
Or. en
Justification
The confidentiality obligation must cover all officials and experts with access to sensitive accreditation information
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. Before 1 January 2028, the Administrative Board shall, on a proposal from the Executive Director and after consulting the Security Accreditation Board, adopt the arrangements necessary to implement Article 19. Those arrangements shall cover the reassignment of Agency staff, in accordance with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment, and the secure handover of accreditation documentation and technical knowledge to the experts designated by the Member States. Member States shall ensure that the necessary experts are available by that date. | |
| The transition shall preserve the continuity of accreditation activities. It shall not, in itself, affect the validity of existing security accreditation decisions or require completed assessments to be repeated. |
Or. en
Justification
Ensure an orderly transition to Member State-designated accreditation experts while preserving staff rights, technical knowledge, ongoing activities and existing accreditation decisions.
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| It shall apply from 1 January 2028. | It shall apply from 1 January 2028. Article 42(4a) shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. |
Or. en
Justification
Allow transition arrangements to be prepared from entry into force, ahead of the Regulation’s application in 2028.
Explanatory statement 15 paragraphs
The proposed amendments aim to equip the European Union Agency for the Space Programme with the mandate, governance and expertise needed to match the growing scope of the Union’s space activities. As the Agency’s new founding act, this Regulation should establish a future-proof framework for its evolving responsibilities. The guiding objective is to strengthen operational capacity and political accountability while ensuring an independent, effective and timely security accreditation process.
The Agency should retain its existing name, which better reflects responsibilities extending beyond the provision of services. Its objectives would expressly include the secure, resilient and continuous operation of Union space components, the effective pooling of European capacities, the integration of space services into Union policies, and the strengthening of strategic autonomy and security of supply.
The amendments clarify which operational tasks should be performed by the Agency. EUSPA would be responsible for the operational security of Positioning, Navigation and Timing and Earth Observation, including EOGS. It would manage the exploitation, maintenance, evolution and protection of the EOGS infrastructure, as well as the mechanism for pooling and sharing capacities. Working arrangements would clearly separate these responsibilities from those of the EU Satellite Centre, which would retain its role in handling secure requests, operational tasking, data processing and the production of geospatial products.
EUSPA’s responsibilities would also cover the provision of GOVSATCOM services, the operational management and security of the governmental infrastructure of IRIS², the SST Front Desk and relevant service catalogues, and space weather services. For Copernicus, the Agency would support secure and certified data access and distribution through a single front desk and implement security measures for the relevant subcomponents.
The Agency would also be given a stronger role in promoting the use of European space capabilities. This includes integrating space data and services into Union policies and strategic sectors, supporting civil protection users, aggregating public demand, organising joint procurement of interoperable equipment and software, and procuring launch services. A legal basis would also be provided for EUSPA’s support to the EU Space Information Sharing and Analysis Centre and other mechanisms for exchanging cybersecurity information.
These additional tasks must be matched by adequate resources. Financial, human, technical and administrative means should be available early enough to prepare new responsibilities, while the Agency should retain essential expertise in-house. Specific activities could be implemented by other competent entities, but EUSPA would remain responsible for the tasks entrusted to it. Contractual operators would also be required to maintain the skills, succession arrangements and operational capacity necessary to ensure continuity of service during crises.
The amendments reinforce the accountability of the Agency. The European Parliament would designate two voting members of the Administrative Board. The Executive Director would be explicitly accountable to that Board and would be appointed only after confirmation by Parliament, following a hearing before the competent committee. The Administrative Board would meet at least quarterly and would discuss progress reports on the implementation of evaluation findings.
The most sensitive institutional issue concerns the separation between programme implementation and security accreditation. EUSPA is responsible for operating systems and producing accreditation evidence; it should therefore not carry out the independent technical assessment of its own activities. Under the amendments, the Agency’s support to the Security Accreditation Board would be limited to administrative and secretarial functions under the authority of the Executive Director. Agency staff would not prepare the substance of accreditation decisions.
Independent technical work would instead be performed by a panel of qualified and security-cleared experts designated by the Member States. These experts could include external specialists, but they could not be employed by or seconded to the Commission, EUSPA or ESA, nor have participated in the development or operation of the system being assessed. Member States would be collectively responsible for ensuring that sufficient expertise is available. This model is intended to reinforce independence while preserving the Security Accreditation Board’s sole responsibility for final accreditation decisions.
The Security Accreditation Board’s decision-making rules are also clarified. Neither the Commission nor the High Representative would vote on accreditation decisions. Deliberations would include an open discussion, a phase reserved for Member State representatives to seek consensus, and a final discussion before the decision is taken.
The accreditation process itself would become continuous and predictable. For each component, a single programme interface and an agreed accreditation plan would identify the necessary evidence, responsibilities, milestones and deadlines. Once the Commission confirms that the evidence package is complete, the Security Accreditation Board would have three months to adopt a reasoned decision. Requests for additional information would not automatically suspend that period, and the absence of a decision could never be treated as approval. Decisions could be interim, limited or conditional, but accreditation would always require an explicit positive decision based solely on security considerations.
A separate decision would be required before a governmental service could become operational. The Administrative Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, declares a service operational only after security accreditation has been granted, the service commitments have been defined and the necessary operational resources and continuity arrangements have been confirmed. Restriction, suspension or revocation of accreditation would automatically affect the operational declaration. This distinction is important: accreditation determines whether a service is acceptable from a security perspective, while the operational declaration confirms that it is ready and adequately resourced for service provision.
A narrowly defined exception would remain available where a service is urgently required for the security of the Union or the continuity of essential services. In the absence of positive accreditation, the Council could grant a temporary authorisation on a proposal from the Commission. Such an authorisation would be subject to safeguards, limited to twelve months and renewable only once. It would not constitute security accreditation or prejudice the Security Accreditation Board’s subsequent decision.
Finally, the transition to the new accreditation support model would have to be prepared before 1 January 2028. It would include the secure transfer of documentation and technical knowledge to Member State-designated experts, while protecting staff rights, maintaining ongoing accreditation work and preserving the validity of existing decisions.
Taken together, the amendments establish a clearer institutional balance: EUSPA would become a stronger operational integrator of the Union Space Programme, while independent experts and the Security Accreditation Board would provide a distinct and credible security assurance function. This separation is essential to combine effective programme delivery with resilience, accountability and confidence in the security of Europe’s space systems.
Annex: declaration of input 4 paragraphs
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the draft report, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:
| 1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register |
| European Commission |
| EUSPA |
| Security Accreditation Board |
| SGDSN |
| European Space Agency |
| Eurospace |
| Thales Alenia Space |
| 2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies |
| Swiss Confederation |
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur(s).
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.