COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres
Date: 2021-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, computer crime, data protection, digital single market, information security, operation of the Institutions, research and development, technology

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.5.2021  COM(2021) 225 final 2018/0328 (COD)  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  concerning the position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres  
 
2018/0328 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and 
of the Council establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and 
Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres 

1. 

BACKGROUND  

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
to the Council (document COM/2018/630 final – 2018/0328(COD) 

12 September 2018 

Date of Council agreement on a negotiation mandate 

13 March 2019 

Date of trilogue 1 

Date of trilogue 2 

13 March 2019 

20 March 2019 

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading  

17 April 2019 

Date of Council agreement on a revised negotiation mandate 

3 June 2020  

Date of trilogue 3 

25 June 2020 

Date of Council agreement on a revised negotiation mandate 

22 July 2020  

Date of trilogue 4 

29 October 2020 

Date of Council agreement on a revised negotiation mandate 

9 December 2020  

Dates of the trilogue 5 (final) 

Date  of  political  agreement  in  the  Committee  of  Permanent 
Representatives  

11 December 2020 

16 December 2020  

Date  of  the  ITRE  Committee  of  the  European  Parliament  voted  to 
endorse the compromise agreement  

14 January 2021 

Date of adoption of the Council first reading position 

20 April 2021 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION 

The  Commission  proposal  on  the  European  Cybersecurity  Industrial,  Technology  and 
Research  Competence  Centre  by  (‘hereinafter  ‘the  Centre’)and  the  Network  of  National 
Coordination  Centres  (‘hereinafter  ‘the  Network’),  was  aimed  at  strengthening  European 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
cybersecurity  capacities,  shielding  our  economy  and  society  from  cyberattacks,  maintaining 
research excellence and reinforcing the competitiveness of the Union’s industry in this field. 
It  foresaw  that  the  Centre  would  be  managing  the  funds  for  cybersecurity  under  the  next 
Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  for  2021-2027,  and  implement  funding  from  both  the 
Digital Europe Programme and the Horizon Europe Programme, as well as contributions from 
Member States. 

The proposal aimed for the Centre and the Network to help the Union and Member States take 
a  proactive,  longer-term  and  strategic  perspective  to  cybersecurity  industrial  policy,  going 
beyond  research  and  development.  This  approach  should  help  not  only  to  come  up  with 
breakthrough solutions to the cybersecurity challenges that the private and public sectors are 
facing,  but  also  to  support  effective  deployment  of  these  solutions.  The  Network  and  the 
Centre  together  were  foreseen  enhance  our  technological  sovereignty  through  large-scale 
cybersecurity projects. 

Furthermore,  the  proposal  aimed  to  allow  relevant  research  and  industrial  communities  and 
public  authorities  to  gain  access  to  key  capacities  such  as  testing  and  experimentation 
facilities,  which  are  often  beyond  the  reach  of  individual  Member  States due  to  insufficient 
financial and human resources.  

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL 

The  Council's  position  reflects  the  agreement  reached  in  the  trilogues.  The  most  important 
changes to the Commission’s proposal include:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Seat: the seat of the Centre is Bucharest, as stated in a recital. 

Objectives and tasks: the objectives and tasks of the Centre are laid down in separate 
articles. A distinction is made between strategic and implementation tasks. 

Civilian-military  synergies  and  dual  use:  no  explicit  reference  is  made  to  the 
European Defence Fund. 

National  Coordination  Centres  (NCCs):  a  positive  Commission  assessment  of  the 
entities  nominated  by  Member  States  is  no  longer  a  requirement  for  becoming  an 
NCC. However, in order for an NCC to be eligible for direct Union financial support, 
a positive Commission assessment remains necessary.  

Strategic  “Agenda”:  the  Centre  is  adopt  an  “Agenda”,  i.e.  “a  comprehensive  and 
sustainable cybersecurity industrial, technology and research strategy which sets out 
strategic  recommendations  for  the  (…)  sector  and  strategic  priorities  for  the 
Competence Centre’s activities (…)” 

Voting: all Member States have one vote in the Governing Board. The Commission 
has a blocking minority for all decisions directly affecting the allocation of EU funds 
and  administration,  with  the  exception  of  the  Agenda.  In  the  case  of  the  Agenda  a 
safeguard was added stating that the Agenda is not binding with respect to decisions 
to be taken on the annual work programmes. For decisions not directly affecting the 
allocation of EU funds and administration, the Commission has one vote. The only 
exception to the rule that all Member States have one vote in the Governing Board 
concerns the Governing Board task of adopting decisions regarding the description of 
Joint Actions. For such decisions, Member States and the Union hold voting rights in 
proportion to their relevant contribution to the joint action in question. 

– 

Co-financing:  the  Member  States’  contribution  to  the  Centre’s  activities  is  not 
quantified in the Regulation, and it has been given a voluntary nature. Accordingly, 

EN 

2 

  EN 

the  text  provides  that  as  far  as  Horizon  Europe  is  concerned,  the  Union  will  only 
contribute as much as Member States commit to contributing on an annual basis.  

The  Commission  issued  the  following  statement  on  this  subject:  ‘The  Commission 
takes note of the agreement of the European Parliament and the Council on the co-
financing by Member States. While the Commission can accept that Member States’ 
contributions are not specified as part of the Regulation, the Commission regrets the 
inclusion in the political agreement of the notion of “voluntary” contributions from 
Member  States  to  the  extent  that  this  does  not  demonstrate  the  long-term 
commitment of all involved parties.  

The  success  of  the  Centre  lies  in  the  effective  contribution  by  Member  States, 
without which its mission would not be accomplishable. 

The  Commission  clarifies  that  the  Union  will  contribute  with  funding  from  the 
Horizon Europe programme only as much as Member States are ready to commit on 
an annual basis. Furthermore, the Commission wishes to stress that once one or more 
Member States commit, such a commitment will be binding.’ 

– 

Staff: the human resources needs of the Centre are to be met in the first instance by 
redeployment of staff or posts from Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, 
and additional human resources through recruitment. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  agreement  reached  preserves  the  objectives  of  the 
Commission’s original proposal.  

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The Commission accepts the position taken by the Council. 

EN 

3 

  EN