REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fourth Annual Report on the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union
Date: 2024-10-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, activity report, direct investment, financial control, foreign capital, foreign investment, investment policy, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.10.2024  COM(2024) 464 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fourth Annual Report on the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union {SWD(2024) 234 final}  
 
 
INTRODUCTION  

This Report is the fourth Annual Report by the European Commission on the application of the 
EU Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation (the “FDI Screening Regulation”, or 
the “Regulation”).  

The  Report  covers  the  year  2023  and  provides  transparency  around  the  operation  of  FDI 
screening  in  the EU, and developments  in  national  screening  mechanisms. It  contributes to  the 
accountability of the Union in an area where, given the security interests at stake, transparency 
regarding individual transactions is neither possible nor appropriate.  

It is based on reports by the 27 Member States and other sources and consists of four chapters: 

•  Chapter 1 on trends and figures for FDI into the EU;  
•  Chapter 2 on legislative developments in Member States;  
•  Chapter 3 on FDI screening activities by Member States;  
•  Chapter 4 on the EU cooperation mechanism on FDI screening. 

This  Annual  Report  is  an  important  tool  for  strategic  trade  and  investment  controls  to  ensure 
security in the European Union.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1 – FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION 

1.  Overall evolution  

In 2023, net global FDI flows1 declined for second consecutive year, falling below 2021 levels. 
Global inflows totalled just over EUR 1 trillion, down from EUR 1.2 trillion in 2022 (Figure 1), 
implying  a  year-on-year  decrease  of  -15%  in  2023.  Declines  in  net  FDI  inflows  in  2023 
(compared to  2022)  were observed  for other important  FDI  recipients,  such as the US  (-6.2%) 
and China (-8%). In contrast with the global decreasing trend in 2023, the EU27 experienced an 
increase of net FDI inflows in 2023 compared to values observed in the previous year, reversing 
the decreasing trend. Nonetheless, net inflows remained negative: EUR -50 billion, compared to 
EUR -135 billion in 20222.  

Figure 1: World and EU inward net FDI flows3  

Source: OECD data, extracted on 07/05/2024. Data refers to net inward FDI flows. 

The  stock  of  foreign  transactions4  into  the  EU27  displays  an  upward  trend  between  2015  and 
2023 (Figure 2, columns). Even though the economy faced numerous significant challenges, the 
EU27  received  an  average  of  4,761  Foreign  Direct  Investments  (FDIs)  annually  over  the  past 

1 Alternative indicators of FDI activity which are not based on flows, which can present a lot of fluctuations, are 

provided in the Staff Working Document accompanying this Annual Report.  

see 

OECD, 

2  The  2023  EU27  result  was  primarily  driven  by  decreases  of  inward  FDI  in  the  Netherlands  and  again  in 
Luxembourg, 
at: 
https://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/FDI-in-Figures-April-2024.pdf.  Negative  values  of  FDI 
inflows are largely explained by significant disinvestments (due to negative equity and debt components involving 
holding companies) that took place in these two countries in 2023. The Netherlands (recording EUR  -135 billion 
FDI  inflows  in  2023)  contributed  to  this  EU27  negative  net  inflow  in  particular,  since  some  multinationals 
relocated their conduit activities to other countries in Q4 of 2023. 

FIGURES, 

–available 

April 

2024 

FDI 

IN 

3  Note that compared to last year the data was slightly revised by the OECD. 
4  Foreign  direct  investment  can  take  two  different  forms:  greenfield,  and  mergers  and  acquisitions  (M&As). 
International greenfield investments typically involve the creation of a new company or establishment of facilities 
abroad,  while  an  international  merger  or  acquisition  amounts  to  transferring  the  ownership  of  existing  assets 
relating to an economic activity to an owner abroad.   

2 

 
 
 
 
 
five  years.  The  positive  cumulative  trend  confirms  the  openness  of  EU  countries  to  foreign 
investments.  

The cumulative number of FDI transactions increased from an initial figure of 5,430 in 2015 to 
48,231 in 2023. 5 The sharpest year-on-year increases were observed in the years 2017 and 2018 
(with 60% and 44% yearly increases, respectively), followed by a more moderate yearly increase 
of 26% in  2019, before  the pandemic induced slowdown in  2020. Looking at  the two types of 
FDIs  separately,  foreign  M&A  deals  rose  from  2,423  in  2015  to  20,317  in  2023.  Similarly, 
foreign greenfields experienced a cumulative increase from 3,007 projects in 2015 to 27,914 in 
2023. 

 Figure 2: 2015-2023 yearly cumulative number of transactions and flow trends into the EU27  

Source: JRC elaboration based on Bureau van Dijk data, extracted on 11/03/2024 from Orbis M&A and Orbis Crossborder Investment. Data for 
2015 corresponds to the flows of FDI in 2015, while data for the bars in subsequent years correspond to the cumulated sum of yearly flows. The 
data in the initial year (2015) used in the calculation of the cumulative number of transactions corresponds to the flow of transactions observed in 
that year.  

However, the global downward trend in FDI inward flows presented in Figure 1 is also observed 
in the flows based on transaction level data (Figure 2, lines). After a robust post-Covid recovery 
in  2021,  with  transaction  numbers  reaching  those  of  2019  in  this  year,  foreign  acquisitions 
slowed down annually in 2022 compared to 2021 (-5.4%) and again in 2023 (-13%) compared to 
2022.  For  the  case  of  greenfield  investments,  an  equivalent  post-Covid  uptake  in  number  of 
projects  compared  to  2019  numbers  was  not  observed,  and  while  a  7.1%  annual  increase  was 
recorded  in  2022  compared  to  2021,  the  flow  of  projects  into  the  EU  declined  significantly  in 
2023 compared to 2022 (-33%). In 2023, the EU27 received 1 885 foreign deals (down from 2 
156 in 2022), and 1 902 foreign greenfield projects (down from 2 858 in 2022). The downward 

5 Approximated as the cumulated number of foreign transactions, starting from 2015 i.e. the 2015 data is a flow. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
year-on-year  trend  observed  in  2023  is  the  result  of  persisting  and  cumulating  uncertainties6 
affecting the EU economy and a tightening of monetary policy starting from the second half of 
2022.  

2.  Top Origin Countries of Foreign Investors 

A comparison between 2022 and 2023 foreign investments transactions by jurisdiction of origin 
shows  that,  despite  an  overall  decrease  by  24%  in  2023  compared  to  2022,  M&As  from  some 
jurisdictions such as Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs) increased by 26% (Figure 3).  

Figure  3:  Number  of  acquisitions  of  equity  stakes*  (left)  and  greenfield  investments  (right)  in 
2023 and 2022 into the EU – Detail by foreign jurisdiction (top ten investors) 

Source: JRC elaboration based on Bureau van Dijk data, extracted on 11/03/2024 from Orbis M&A and Orbis Crossborder Investment. OFCs: 
Offshore Financial Centres7. RoW: Rest of the World. (*) Acquisitions of equity stakes above 10% of the capital of the EU27 business. 

The US continued to be the main foreign investor into the EU27 in 2023, accounting for 30% of 
all acquisitions (557 deals), and 36% of greenfield investments (687 projects). The US retained 
the first place despite a sharp year-on-year decline in 2023 in both the number of acquisitions (-
20%) and particularly of greenfield projects (-45%). Investors from the UK accounted for 25% 
(465  deals)  of  all  acquisitions  in  2023,  and  21%  (407)  of  greenfield  projects  into  the  EU27, 
placing  second  in  the  ranking  of  foreign  jurisdictions.  In  this  case,  acquisitions  and  greenfield 
projects also declined in 2023 compared to 2022 figures, dropping by -17% and -29% annually, 
respectively for each type of FDI.  

With a share of 7.9% of equity stakes acquisitions, deal making from OFCs increased more than 
26% in 2023 compared to 2022. Foreign deals originating from Japan (+5.1%) and India (+6.1%) 

6 Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine entered its third year in February 2024. Geopolitical tensions and the 

broadening of the Middle East conflict are additional sources of risk. 

7  The  main  offshores  by  number  of  transactions  in  2023  are  (in  alphabetical  order):  Bermuda,  British  Virgins 
Islands,  Cayman  Islands,  Liechtenstein  and  Monaco.  For  the  full  list  of  Offshore  Financial  Centres,  see  e.g., 
Commission Staff Working Document - Following up on the Commission Communication “Welcoming Foreign 
Direct Investment while Protecting Essential Interests” – SWD(2019) 108 final – 13 March 2019. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
also  grew  in  2023.  A  negative  year-on-year  trend  for  M&A  activity  was  observed  for 
Switzerland (-19%), Norway (-6.1%) and China (-9.1%), while foreign transactions from Canada 
remained  stable.  For  the  case  of  greenfield  investments,  all  origin  jurisdictions  in  the  top  ten 
(with  the  only  exception  of  South  Africa)  experienced  generalised  year-on-year  decreases  in 
terms of number of projects in 2023, with annual declines ranging from -0.9% for China to -39% 
for Norway and -31% for OFCs. 

3.  Top Destinations of Foreign Acquisitions 

The  number  of  foreign  transactions  into  the  EU  showed  generally  a  decline  for  most  Member 
States in 2023 compared to 2022 (Figure 4), with few exceptions in the case of acquisitions of 
equity stakes such as Poland, Finland and Ireland.  

Figure  4:  Number  of  acquisitions  of  equity  stakes*  (left)  and  greenfield  investments  (right)  in 
2023 and 2022 – Detail by destination Member State (top ten EU27 recipients) 

Source: JRC elaboration based on Bureau van Dijk data, extracted on 11/03/2024 from Orbis M&A and Orbis Crossborder Investment. RoEU27 
stands for Rest of EU27. (*) Acquisitions of equity stakes above 10% of the capital of the EU27 business. 

Germany  and  Spain  were  the  main  destinations  for  foreign  acquisitions,  grouping  19%  (349 
deals) and 17% (323 deals) of the total amount of deals in 2023, respectively. The two Member 
States  experienced  a  similar  year-on-year  decline  in  the  number  of  foreign  acquisitions  hosted 
(roughly -9%) in 2023. Other relevant EU destinations, by share of M&A, were France (13%), 
Italy  (7.9%)  and  Ireland  (7.6%).  Most  Member  States  experienced  a  decline  in  the  number  of 
deals  in  2023,  with  the  largest  taking  place  in  Italy  (-29%)  and  the  Netherlands  (-40%).  A 
stronger  M&A  activity  was  observed  in  Ireland  (+4.4%),  Poland  (+70%)  and  Finland  (+33%). 
Foreign acquisitions of French companies increased marginally in 2023, compared to 2022. 

Foreign  greenfield  investments  in  2023  were  mainly  destined  to  Spain  and  France,  which 
received  24%  (455  projects)  and  11%  (217  projects)  of  all  projects,  closely  followed  by 
Germany  (with  a  11%  share).  The  year-on-year  decline  in  project  numbers  was  particularly 
noticeable  for  Germany  (-48%),  although  projects  destined  to  Spain  and  France  also  fell  (by 
-9.9% and -29%, respectively).  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Sector Specific Information 

The  top  five  sectoral  categories8  experienced  year-on-year  declines  in  foreign  investments  in 
2023  compared  to  2022,  with  the  exception  of  acquisitions  in  professional,  scientific  and 
technical (PST) activities (Figure 5). 

Figure 5: Number of equity stakes* (left) and greenfield investments (right) in 2023 and 2022 – 
Detail by NACE Rev. 2 sectors (top five categories) 

Source:  JRC  elaboration  based  on  Bureau  van  Dijk  data,  extracted  on  11/03/2024  from  Orbis  M&A  and  Orbis  Crossborder  Investment.  PST 
stands for professional, scientific and technical activities (NACE Rev. 2, section M), it contains among other things R&D facilities. ICT stands 
for Information and Communication (NACE Rev. 2, section J). (*) Acquisitions of equity stakes above 10% of the capital of the EU27 business. 

In 2023, manufacturing, with a 26% share of foreign  acquisitions (496 transactions), surpassed 
ICT (with a 23% share, or 428 deals) as the main sector of dealmaking activity. This is due to a 
continuous  drop  in  foreign  acquisitions  in  the  ICT  sector  (-25%)  in  2023,  compared  to  2022, 
while the decrease in manufacturing was milder (-6.8%) in the same time period. PST activities 
ranked third, with  a 12% share of foreign  deals, followed by  finance (8.5%) and  retail  (7.7%). 
PST activities was the only sectoral category, which experienced a year-on-year increase (+12%) 
in the number of deals in 2023.  

In terms of greenfields,  retail related activities accounted for nearly one third (33%) of foreign 
projects  in  2023  (618  projects).  Manufacturing  became  the  second  most  important  sector  for 
greenfield investments in 2023, replacing the ICT sector, with  a similar share of about 12% of 
projects.  Greenfield  investments  in  the  ICT  sector  also  experienced  the  largest  year-on-year 
decline  in  number  of  projects  (-59%)  compared  to  2022,  while  manufacturing  experienced  the 
smallest decline in number of projects (-10%) in the same period.    

Further details 

More details on the above figures are provided in the accompanying Commission Staff Working 
Document, Section 1. There, additional evidence is  presented on FDI trends per Member State 
and sector, on the origin of foreign investors in the EU27, and on semiconductors. 

8 The categories used refer to the NACE Rev. 2 Broad Structure, see: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2 – LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN MEMBER STATES IN 2023 

The EU FDI Screening Regulation and EU Member States’ FDI screening mechanisms 

To protect the Union against potentially risky foreign investments from third countries, effective 
national  screening  mechanism  in  all  Member  States  is  imperative.  Throughout  2023,  the 
European  Commission  continued  to  encourage  all  Member  States  to  adopt  and  implement 
national FDI screening mechanisms to ensure that the Commission and all Member States have 
appropriate  tools  to  identify  and  address  risky  transactions,  thus  contributing  to  protecting  the 
collective  security  of  the  Union.  This  has  become  particularly  relevant  in  recent  years.  For 
example, in their Joint Communication on a ‘European Economic Security Strategy’, which aims 
at minimising risks arising from certain economic flows in the context of increased geopolitical 
tensions  and  accelerated  technological  shifts,  the  Commission  and  the  High  Representative 
called on all Member States who have not yet implemented national FDI screening mechanisms 
to do so without further delay.9  

Furthermore,  the  European  Commission  also  continued  to  encourage  the  alignment  of  national 
screening  mechanisms  and  screening  practices.  It  assisted  Member  States  with  technical  and 
policy guidance, meetings and information  exchange notably on best  practices. Yet,  noticeable 
divergences  between  national  screening  mechanisms  remained,  notably  regarding  what 
constitutes  a  formal  screening  of  an  FDI  (thus  triggering  the  notification  of  an  FDI  to  the  EU 
cooperation  mechanism),  the  timelines  under  the  national  screening  procedures,  the  sectoral 
coverage  of  national  screening  mechanisms  and  notification  requirements  by  the  transaction 
parties to the national  authorities. Addressing these divergences is one of the rationales for the 
recent legislative proposal of the European Commission further described in Chapter 4. 

Overview of Member States FDI screening activities 

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, challenging geopolitical  context with  ensuing  new 
and  emerging  risks  to  security  have  brought  critical  (advanced)  technologies/sectors  and 
infrastructure  even  more  into  focus.  Consequently,  many  Member  States  have  either  adopted 
new national screening  mechanisms  (7 Member States) or updated and expanded existing ones 
(10 Member States) in reaction to the evolving circumstances.  

In the course of 2023, four Member States without a screening mechanism initiated consultative 
or  legislative  processes  to  establish  a  national  screening  mechanism  and  one  Member  State 
published the evaluation of its existing mechanism. By the end of 2023, 23 EU Member States 
have adopted an FDI screening legislation compared to 14 Member States in 2021 at the time of 
the entry into force of the EU cooperation mechanism. Furthermore, as indicated below since the 

9  European  Commission  (2023),  Joint  communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Council  and  the 

council on “European economic security strategy”, JOIN(2023) 20 final. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
end of year cut-off date, Bulgaria too, has joined the countries with a system in place (see  also 
map below). 

Geographical overview of the legislative situation of EU Member States 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Developments in EU Member States in 2023 – FDI screening mechanisms 

So far, all 27 EU Member States either: 

▪  had a national FDI screening mechanism in place; or 
▪  adopted a new national FDI screening mechanism; or 
▪  amended an existing mechanism; or 
▪ 

initiated a consultative or legislative process expected to result in the adoption of a new 
mechanism or amendments to an existing one. 

The  following  table  gives  an  overview  of  all  27  Member  States’  legislative  situation  and 
developments by 31 March 202410. 

National  FDI  screening  mechanism  in  place  (no 
legislative changes) 

Austria,  Czechia,  Finland,  Lithuania, 
Malta, and Portugal 

Amended an existing mechanism 

Adopted  a  new  national  FDI 
mechanism 

screening 

Had  a  consultative  or 
legislative  process 
expected  to  result  in  the  adoption  of  a  new 
mechanism 

Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Hungary, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Poland,  
Slovenia, and Spain 

Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Estonia, 
Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Romania,  Slovakia,  and 
Sweden 

Croatia, Cyprus, and Greece 

Most  national  legislative  developments  revolved  around  four  main  topics:  adopting  acts  to 
implement  a  recent  legislation  establishing  a  national  FDI  screening  mechanism,  improving 
screening  procedures,  expanding  covered  sectors,  and  prolonging  the  validity  of  temporary 
national mechanisms. 

Adoption process of new FDI screening mechanisms 

In  Belgium,  the  FDI  screening  mechanism  adopted  in  November  2022  became  operational  in 
July 2023. In Bulgaria, a screening mechanism was proposed for consideration in the Parliament 
on 22 June 2023, with  a bill  amending and supplementing  the  Investment  Promotion Act.  The 
proposal was adopted on 22 February 2024 and the new legislation was promulgated on 6 March 
2024. Estonia adopted the Foreign Investment Reliability Assessment Act in January 2023, with 
an entry into force in September 2023. In Ireland, the Screening of Third Country Transactions 
Act was enacted in October 2023 and is expected to become operational during the third quarter 
of 2024. Luxembourg adopted a national screening mechanism in July 2023, which entered into 

10 For more details, please see the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document. 

9 

 
 
 
 
force in September 2023. Slovakia has adopted  a new comprehensive screening mechanism on 
29 November 2022, which came into force in March 2023. In Sweden, the new FDI screening 
mechanism entered into force in December 2023. 

In 2023, Cyprus finalised the draft legislation establishing an FDI screening mechanism, and the 
revised draft law is currently under review by the House of Representatives. In Greece, the draft 
proposal  on  FDI  screening  has  been  amended  to  include  different  thresholds  triggering  a 
screening  procedure  and  notification  requirements.  In  October  2023,  Croatia  has  formed  a 
working  party  charged  with  drafting  a  legislative  proposal  to  establish  an  FDI  screening 
mechanism. 

Updates of existing FDI screening mechanisms 

In  Denmark,  amendments  to  the  FDI  screening  mechanism  introduced  a  new  case  handling 
process  with  two  distinct  phases  and  expanded  the  scope  of  the  legislation  to  tenders  that 
specifically  relate  to  an  “Energy  Island”  project  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  France  prolonged  for  the 
second  time  the  obligation  for  foreign  investors  to  notify  investments  when  acquiring  at  least 
10% of the voting rights of listed companies. Based on the duration and degree of difficulty of 
each case, Germany introduced fees for screening FDI transactions, and progressively imposed 
obligatory online submission (since January 2024) of screening applications. 

In  Hungary,  a  new  Government  Decree  established  the  conditions  in  which  the  national 
screening  mechanism  applies  to  the  sale  of  assets  for  the  purpose  of  continuity  of  Debtor’s 
business operations in a state of emergency. Italy introduced ‘urgent provisions to protect users, 
regarding  economic  and  financial  activities  and  strategic  investments’  and  modified  the 
screening procedure concerning critical technologies. Latvia set an institution responsible for the 
screening  of  FDI  and  further  developed  screening  procedures.  The  Netherlands  adopted  the 
implementing rules of its cross-sectoral screening mechanism (which was adopted in 2022 with 
an entry into force in June 2023) and initiated a sector-specific screening mechanism for offshore 
wind farms. Poland added two entries to its national list of entities where foreign investments are 
subject to mandatory screening. Romania introduced a filing fee for all investors (EU and non-
EU)  and  extended  its  screening  mechanisms  to  intra-EU  investments.  Slovenia  replaced  the 
temporary screening mechanism set up in 2020 by a new permanent one. Spain adopted a Royal 
Decree  establishing  a  specific  procedure,  shortening  deadlines  and  clarifying  the  scope  of  the 
screening  mechanism  on  public  security,  public  order  and  public  health,  and  amended  the 
screening procedures related to national defence activities and weapons and related materials. 

Further  details  on  the  legislative  developments  related  to  Member  States’  national  screening 
mechanisms can be found in the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document. A list of 
notified national screening mechanisms is available on the European Commission’s website11. 

11  The  list  of  screening  mechanisms  notified  by  Member  States  (dated  28  February  2024)  is  available  under:      

https://circabc.europa.eu/rest/download/7e72cdb4-65d4-4eb1-910b-bed119c45d47. 

10 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3 - MEMBER STATES’ FDI SCREENING ACTIVITIES 

The  FDI  Screening  Regulation  allows  Member  States  to  review  FDIs  in  their  territory  on 
grounds of security and public order and to  take measures to  address  specific risks.  It  has also 
created a cooperation mechanism between the Commission and screening authorities of Member 
States  for  individual  FDI  transactions.  This  mechanism  makes  it  possible  to  exchange 
information,  enabling  both  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  to  point  to  possible 
security or public order risks to  other Member States or EU-level  programmes arising  from  an 
FDI  transaction,  allowing  to  assess  and  mitigate  these  risks. Yet,  the  Member  State  where  the 
investment takes place decides which investments to screen, approve, condition, or block.  

This chapter provides aggregated information on national screening activities in 2023 based on 
Member States’ annual reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 5 of the Regulation. All in 
all, Member States handled a total of 1808 requests for authorisation and ex-officio cases12. 56% 
of  these  were  formally  screened  while  about  44%  were  deemed  ineligible  or  did  not  require 
formal screening. 

Figure 6 - Member States’ FDI Screening Activity 

Source: Member States’ reporting. 

A comparison with last year, shows similar picture, with 55% of the cases formally screened and 
45% not requiring formal screening. Out of the cases formally screened in 2023, and for which 
Member  States  have  reported  a  decision,  the  overwhelming  majority  (85%)  was  authorised 
without  conditions.  This  means  that  the  transaction  was  approved  without  any  action  required 
from  the  investor.  Compared  to  the  previous  year,  Member  States  authorised  a  slightly  higher 
share of formally screened transactions without conditions (this figure was 86% in 2022). 

12  Member  States  have  different  screening  procedures.  So,  the  cases  reported  depend  on  the  domestic  procedures 
(scope, eligibility check upfront or later, etc.). For instance, some Member States declared cases ineligible before 
a  formal  screening  procedure  is  carried  out,  while  others  first  formally  screened  cases  and  then  declared  them 
ineligible.  The  graphs  and  numbers  reported  in  this  chapter  aim  at depicting  the  average  behaviour  of  Member 
States’ screening activities and it is based on the reporting of Member States data. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In parallel, 10% of the decisions  involved an approval  with  conditions  or mitigating measures. 
This proportion is a bit higher compared to 2022, where 9% of cases involved authorisation with 
conditions  or  mitigating  measures.  In  these  cases,  national  screening  authorities  have  required 
certain  actions,  assurances,  and  commitments  from  the  investors  before  approving  the  planned 
foreign direct investment.  

Finally, national authorities ultimately blocked transactions in 1% of all decided cases (the same 
as last year). In addition, 4% of the filings was withdrawn by the parties before a formal decision 
was taken. 

Figure 7 – Notified decisions on FDI cases 

Source: Member States’ reporting. 

In summary, the above findings give rise to the following remarks: 

•  The  proportion  of  formally  screened  cases  stood  at  56%  of  all  authorisation  requests 
submitted by the transaction parties to the national authorities and examined by the national 
authorities  at  their  own  initiative.  This  is  a  slight  increase  compared  to  the  previous  year 
(55%).  

•  Most  transactions  where  a  decision  was  reported  were  authorised  without  any  conditions 
(85%), which is a bit lower than in 2022 (86%). This shows that the increase in the number 
of  formally  screened  transactions  has  not  resulted  in  a  more  restrictive  investment  climate, 
but  it  provides  a  greater  awareness  for  Member  States  and  the  Commission  of  potentially 
risky FDI. 

•  As regards authorisations with conditions, the share of cases where mitigating measures were 

imposed (10%) is slightly higher than in 2022 (9%).  

•  The  share  of  transactions  blocked  by  Member  States  remained  around  1%,  which 

corresponds to the average in recent years.  

•  These  numbers  show,  overall,  an  interesting  stability,  which  confirms  that  the  EU  has 
remained  open  to  FDIs  and  Member  States  block  only  those  cases  that  pose  very  serious 
threats to security and public order.  

12 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4 – EU COOPERATION MECHANISM ON FDI SCREENING 

1.  Notifications and other actions taken under the FDI Screening Regulation 

a) Overview of activity in 2023 

In 2023, 18 Member States submitted a total of 488 notifications13, pursuant to Article 6 of the 
FDI  Screening  Regulation,  compared  to  421  notifications  submitted  by  17  Member  States  in 
202214. Seven Member States, namely Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Romania and 
Spain,  were  responsible  for  85%  of  those  notifications  and  four  Member  States  accounted  for 
69%  of  the  notifications.15  The  notified  transactions  varied  greatly  in  terms  of  sectors  of  the 
target  company,  value  of  the  transaction  and  origin  of  the  ultimate  investors,  among  other 
parameters. 

The map below shows the origin of the notifications to the EU cooperation mechanism in 2023. 

              Source: Member States’ reporting. 

13  In  the  same  period,  the  Commission  also  made  use  of  the  cooperation  mechanism  on  FDI  not  undergoing 

screening (Article 7), which is not reflected in the statistics below. 

14 See https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2023)590&lang=en. 
15 In 2022 this share stood at 66%, in 2021 at 70% and in 2020 at 86%. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
The map above indicates the number of FDIs notified by Member States to other Member States 
and the Commission in the framework of the EU cooperation mechanism on FDI Screening. In 
2023, out  of the 18 Member States with  a national  screening  mechanism  in  place, 10 Member 
States submitted more than 10 notifications, two submitted 6-10 notifications and five submitted 
less than 5 notifications. 

Looking  at  past  developments,  there  has  been  a  continuous  increase  in  the  number  of 
notifications per year. In 2021, there have been 414; in 2022 421, and in 2023 488 notifications. 
This  represents  an  increase  of  18%  in  the  2021-2023  period.  Furthermore,  this  increase  is  not 
only  because  the  number  of  Member  States  notifying  to  the  cooperation  mechanism  has 
increased from 14 in 2021 to 18 in 2023. Keeping notifying countries constant, i.e. counting only 
countries where data is available for all three years, the increase in notifications amounts to 8%, 
probably  reflecting  also  the  increase  in  scope  of  the  national  screening  mechanisms  (see 
Chapter 2  and  the  Staff  Working  Document  for  a  description  of  relevant  legislative 
developments in Member States). 

b) Main sectors16 of FDI notified to the cooperation mechanism 

The five sectors with the highest number of transactions in 2023 were Manufacturing17, ICT18, 
Wholesale  and  retail19,  Financial  activities20  and  Professional  activities21,  accounting  for  23%, 
21%, 14%, 11% and 11% of the transactions respectively. This is very similar to last year, when 
the same sectors (Manufacturing, ICT and Whoesale and Retail) occupied the first three places in 
the  same  order.22  Notifications  relating  to  financial  activities  on  the  other  hand  gained  in 
importance.  Finally,  notifications  in  respect  to  the  energy  sector  accounted  for  6%  of  total 
notifications and other sectors23 accounted for 14% in 2023. 

16  According  to  mainstream  approach,  the  primary  sector  of  activity  was  selected  as  the  leading  indicator.  This  is 
also aligned with the information contained in all sectoral charts in the SWD accompanying this annual report.  
17  Manufacturing  encompasses  activities  by  companies  which  are  involved  in  the  transformation  of  materials  into 
new  products. For example, this encompasses the manufacturing of: electrical equipment and motors, industrial 
machinery and equipment, weapons and ammunitions, and pharmaceuticals, etc. 

18 ICT stands for Information and Communication Technologies. It encompasses activities by companies providing 
essential infrastructures and tools for knowledge  creation, sharing and diffusion. For example, this encompasses 
computer programming, software publishing, data processing and hosting, wireless telecommunication activities, 
etc. 

19 Wholesale and Retail includes wholesale and retail activities relating to pharmaceutical goods, chemical products, 
electronic and telecom equipment and supplies,  computers, computer peripheral equipment and software, metals 
and metal ores, etc. 

20 Financial activities encompass activities by holdings, funds or similar actors in the financial sector which aim at 
acquiring  a  specific  (equity)  stake  or  control  in  a  target  company.  For  example,  this  encompasses  fund 
management activities, activities of holding companies, financial services, insurance activities, etc. 

21  Professional  activities  include  activities  by  law  and  accounting  firms,  as  well  as  consultancy  and  engineering 
activities.  For  example,  this  encompasses  activities  of  head  offices,  market  research  and  public  opinion  polling, 
consultancy, research & experimental development on biotechnology, etc. 

22 Note that results are not directly comparable as last year all sectors were counted with equal importance which led 

to higher number of sectors than transactions.  

23 The category ‘other’ encompasses all other sectors below 5%, notably: transport, administrative activities, health, 

real estate etc. 

14 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 - Sectoral breakdown of all notifications in 2023 

Others
14%

Energy
6%

Professional 
activities
11%

Manufacturing
23%

Financial 
activities
11%

Wholesale and retail
14%

ICT
21%

Source: Member States’ notifications.  

c) Value of FDI notified to the cooperation mechanism  
Looking at the transactions’ value, the majority (53%) of notified FDIs had a value24 of less than 
EUR 500 million (49% in 2022). 29% of the transactions involved a value of EUR 500 million 
and more (28% in 2022). 

Figure 9 – Respective value per notified FDI transaction in 202325 

Source: Member States’ notifications. 

d) Procedure and swiftness in closing FDI cases 

In line with the FDI Screening Regulation, FDI transactions notified by the Member States are 
assessed  by  the  Commission  in  two  possible  phases.  All  notified  transactions  undergo  a 
preliminary  assessment  (“Phase  1”),  with  only  a limited  number  proceeding  to  Phase  2,  which 

24 The value, where available, relates to the total value of the transaction of which the notified transaction was part. 
25 N/A includes blanks, not available/not disclosed and not applicable. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
implies a more detailed assessment of cases that could possibly affect security or public order in 
more than one Member State, or create risks to projects or programmes of Union interest. Cases 
in  Phase  2  can  be  concluded  with  an  opinion  of  the  Commission  as  foreseen  in  the  FDI 
Screening Regulation. However, such opinions remain confidential pursuant to Article 10 of the 
Regulation. The opinion may communicate that the Commission considers that the FDI is likely 
to  negatively  affect  security  or  public  order  in  more  than  one  Member  State  or  a  project  or 
programme  of  Union  interest,  and  recommend  appropriate  measures  for  consideration,  or  can 
share relevant information in relation to the FDI undergoing screening to inform the assessment 
and final decision of the notifying Member State.   

In 2023, the Commission closed 92% of the 488 cases in Phase 1 (87% in 2022), the remaining 
8%  of  transactions  proceeded  to  Phase  2  with  additional  information  being  requested  from  the 
notifying  Member  State.  The  Commission  issued  an  opinion  in  less  than  2%  of  the  notified 
transactions.  

Figure 10 – Cases closed in Phases 1 and 2  

8%

92%

Phase I cases

Phase II cases

Source: Member States’ notifications. 

When  opening  Phase  2,  the  Commission  requests  additional  information  from  the  notifying 
Member  State  which  varies,  depending  on  the  transaction  and  details  of  the  information 
submitted with the notification26. This information is requested to better assess the criticality of 
the target company and/or the potential threats posed by the foreign investor. 

In  2023,  Member  States  participated  in  the  cooperation  mechanism  inter  alia  by  issuing 
comments  to  FDI  transactions  occurring  in  another  Member  State.  The  share  of  cases  upon 

26  The  notification  form:  request  for  information  from  an  investor  for  the  purposes  of  notifications  pursuant  to 
Article 6 of the Regulation serves to ensure some degree of uniformity and a minimum level of information about 
the transaction, the investor and the target company provided in the notification under the Regulation. The form is 
available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/investment-screening_en.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
which  Member  States  issued  comments  amounts  to  about  6%  slighly  below  the  2022  share  of 
7%.27  The  share  of  Member  States  issuing  comments  to  other  Member  States  remained 
unchanged at about one third.  

e)  Main  sectors  of  FDI  notified  to  the  cooperation  mechanism  subject  to  the  Commission’s 
detailed security risk assessment (‘Phase 2’)  

The  main  sector  for  Phase  2  was  Manufacturing  accounting  for  39%  of  all  transactions.  The 
second most important sector was ICT grouping almost a quater of all Phase 2 cases (Figure 11). 
Furthermore,  Phase  2  cases  regarding  Professional  activities,  Wholesale  and  retail  as  well  as 
Financial activities were also important, accounting for 10%, 10% and 8% of the phase 2 cases 
respectively. 

Figure 11 – Phase 2 main targeted sectors in 2023 cases 

Source: Member States’ notifications. 

Given  the  importance  of  the  manufactoring  sector,  Figure  12  provides  an  overview  of  the 
factors28  that  were  used  to  assess  the  criticality  of  the  manufacturing  sector  transactions  in 
respect to security and public order. The factor used most often is when the transaction involved 
investment  in  critical  techologies  accounting  for  51%  of  the  total.  The  second  most  important 
factor was when the transaction involved investment in critical infrastructure with 34% followed 
by supply of critical inputs with 13%. Finally, access to sensitive information (including personal 
data) accounted for only 2% of the total. 

27 Please note that several countries can issue a comment  about the same transaction; this was the case for several 

transactions.  

28 These factors are provided in Article 4 of the FDI Screening Regulation. Note that for one transaction there can be 

several factors used to assess the criticality of a given FDI for security and public order.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12 – Factors leading to Phase 2 cases in manufacturing 

Source: Member States’ notifications 

Looking into the notifications related to critical technologies subject to Phase 2 in more detail (as 
depicted by Figure 13), Defence related activities accounted for 26% of these cases, followed by 
Aerospace  with  22%  and  Semiconductors  with  17%.  The  remaining  other  critical  technologies 
accounted  for  35%  of  the  total.  These  included  cybersecurity,  artificial  intelligence,  nuclear 
technologies, bio- and nanotechnologies.  

Figure 13 – Types of critical technologies in Phase 2 cases 

Source: Member States’ notifications 

In 2023, five Member States  accounted  for over  60% of the Phase 2 cases, which represents  a 
decrease  in  the  concentration  compared  to  2022,  when  the  top  five  Member  States  notifying 
cases leading to Phase 2 for the Commission accounted for 91% of the Phase 2 cases. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
f) Origin of ultimate investors in FDI notified to the cooperation mechanism 

Of  the  488  cases  notified  in  2023,  the  six  main jurisdictions  of  origin  were  the  USA,  the  UK, 
United Arab Emirates, China (including Hong Kong), Canada and Japan. Compared to 2022, the 
share of the US as an investor slightly increased from 32% in 2022 to 33% of all transactions in 
2023. Similarly, in terms of notified transactions, UK firms accounted in 2023 for a larger share 
of 11%  compared to  8% in  2022.  Noteworthy  is  the rise of transactions  from  the United Arab 
Emirates, whose share more than doubled in total transactions from 3% in 2022 to 7% in 2023. 
FDIs  from  China  (including  Hong  Kong)  ranked  4th  in  2023  in  terms  of  total  number  of 
transactions with a share of 6% (up slightly from 5,4% in 2022).29 Lastly, investors from Canada 
and Japan had a share of 5% and 4% in total transactions respectively.  
33%30  of  notified  cases  originated  from  jurisdictions  other  than  the  top  six  compared  to  2022 
where this share was 41%. This marks a clear increase in the concentration of origin of the top 
six  ultimate  investors.  This  is  also  reflected  in  the  fact  that  in  2023  the  ultimate  investors 
originated from 43 different jurisdictions, while in 2022 we observed ultimate investors from 52 
countries. 

Figure 14 – Origin of Ultimate Investors in 2023 cases 

Source: Member States’ notifications. 

g) Multi-jurisdiction notifications to the cooperation mechanism and their main sector 

Of  all  cases  notified  in  2023,  36%  of  the  notifications  concerned  transactions  undergoing 
screening  in  several  Member  States  (compared  to  29%,  28%  and  20%  in  the  first,  second  and 

29 Note: when looking into transactions involving investors from China (without Hong Kong), their share remained 

unchanged compared to 2022 with 5% of total transactions. 

30 Countries with non-negligible share among others consist of Cayman Islands, Singapore and Switzerland with a 
share of 2% each. FDI from Russia and Belarus notified to the cooperation mechanism accounted for 1.6% of the 
total remaining at previous year’s levels. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
third annual report)31. The main sectors subject to such notifications were: ICT with a share of 
23%, Manufacturing with a share of 21%, Wholesale and retail with a share of 19%, Professional 
activities  with  a  share  of  13%,  and  Energy  with  a  share  of  5%.  Other  sectors  among  which 
Administrative  activities,  the  Financial,  Health  and  Transport  sector  accounted  for  20%  of  the 
multi-jurisdiction transactions.  

Table – Multi-jurisdiction FDI transactions and main sectors 

ICT 23% 
Manufacturing 21% 
Wholesale and retail 19% 
Professional activities 13% 
Energy 5% 
Others 20% 

Source: Member States’ notifications 

h) Cooperation on FDIs not undergoing screening 

The  FDI  Screening  Regulation  allows  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  exchange 
information  on  FDIs  not  notified  to  the  cooperation  mechanism  and  in  case  security  or  public 
order  risks  are  identified  by  the  other  Member  States  or  the  Commission,  comments  or  an 
opinion may be provided. In 2023, the Commission made use, although in a very limited manner, 
of this procedure to enquire about transactions not undergoing screening.  

Conclusions in respect to the EU cooperation mechanism on FDI screening 

First  and  foremost,  FDI  screening  continued  to  be  an  indispensible  tool  in  contributing  to 
protecting  the  collective  security  of  the  EU  against  potentially  risky  transactions  from  third 
countries.  

Second, the relevance of the EU cooperation on FDI screening continues to increase, especially 
in  the  tense  geopolitical  context.  This  is  also  underpinnned  by  a  growing  number  of  cases 
notified to the cooperation mechanism with 67 more transactions notified by EU Member States 
in  2023  compared  to  2022.  Furthermore,  there  is  an  increase  of  18%  in  notified  cases  in  the 
2021-2023  period.  At  the  same  time,  the  concentration  of  the  origin  of  notifications  remained 
rather  high  with  85%  of  all  notifications  originating  from  seven  Member  States.  It  is  also 
noteworthy  that  not  all  Member  States  with  a  screening  mechanism  notified  at  least  one 
transaction to the cooperation mechanism in 2023.  

Third,  against  the  backdrop  of  the  Union’s  strong  commitment  to  an  open  global  investment 
environment,  the  Commission  continued  using  the  cooperation  mechanism  as  a  limited  and 
targeted tool for exceptional cases where an FDI is likely to negatively affect security or public 
order.  Of  the  488  cases  notified  in  2023,  the  vast  majority  (92%)  were  closed  in  Phase  1,  i.e. 

31  “Multi-jurisdiction  FDI  transactions”  refers  in  this  context  to  FDI  transactions  where  the  target  company  is  a 
corporate group with a presence in more than one Member States (and possibly also third countries), e.g., by way 
of subsidiaries in more than one Member State. Such deals may be notified by more than one Member State if the 
transaction falls under the scope of their screening mechanism and they initiate its formal screening. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
within 15 days following the notification by the screening Member States, with only 8% of the 
notified cases undergoing a detailed security risk assessment by the Commission. This shows an 
increase  in  the  number  and  share  of  notified  cases  that  the  Commission  found  non-critical 
compared to last year (87% of the notifications). In 2023, Commission’s opinions were issued in 
less than 2% of the cases. 

Fourth,  Manufacturing  continues  to  be  the  most important  sector  for  Phase  2  cases  accounting 
for nearly 40% of the notified transactions in  2023. Looking at  the determining  factors behind 
the need for the in-depth Phase 2 security risk assessments, we conclude that the relevance of the 
target for ‘critical technologies’ was the factor triggering further assessment in most of the cases 
(51%). Looking into the notifications related to critical technologies subject to Phase 2 in more 
details,  reveals  that  defence  related  activities  accounted  for  26%  of  these  cases,  followed  by 
aerospace with 22% and semiconductors with 17%.   

Fifth, most investors continued to be from the same top two jurisdictions - the US and the UK - 
whose share in total increased from 32% and 8% in 2022 to 33% and 12% in 2023 respectivelly. 
At the same time there has been more than doubling of the share of investors  originating from 
the United Arab Emirates from 3% in 2022 to 7% in 2023. Lastly, the share of ultimate investors 
originating in China remained constant.  

Finally, we observe a growing number of multi-jurisdiction deals, accounting for more than one 
third  of  all  notifications  in  2023.  The  Commission’s  proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  FDI 
Screening Regulation described in the next section offers, among others, a structural solution to 
the  efficient  assessment  of  multi-jurisdiction  transactions,  compared  to  the  current  ad  hoc 
informal arrangements. 

2.  Recent  steps  in  FDI  screening  and  looking  ahead:  proposed  revision  of  the  FDI 

Screening Regulation 

Following up on the European Economic Security Strategy from June 2023, on 24 January 2024, 
the Commission adopted five initiatives32 to strengthen the EU’s economic security at a time of 
growing  geopolitical  tensions.  One  of  these  initiatives  is  a  legislative  proposal  to  revise  the 
current FDI Screening Regulation. 

This legislative proposal builds on the experience gained by the Commission and Member States 
with reviewing over 1 200 FDI transactions notified by Member States over the previous three 
years  under  the  existing  FDI  Screening  Regulation.  It  also  builds  on  the  results  of  the 
commissioned  OECD  study33,  an extensive  evaluation34 of  the  functioning  of  the  current 
regulation and a special report of the European Court of Auditors35.  

32 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_363  
33 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/framework-for-screening-foreign-direct-investment-into-the-eu_f75ec890-

en.html 

34 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2024)23&lang=en  
35 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/investment-screening_en  

21 

 
 
 
 
The Commission’s evaluation found that the Regulation has had a positive impact on protecting 
security  and  public  order  from  risky  FDI  in  the  EU.  Importantly,  it  also  showed  that  the 
Regulation  has  not  had  chilling  effects  on  the  flow  of  FDI  into  the  EU.  That  said,  several 
shortcomings were identified that result in blind spots in the system (such as the fact that there 
are still Member States without a screening mechanism or that investments by foreign-controlled 
subsidiaries or businesses within the EU fall outside the cooperation mechanism). Furthermore, 
while  the  cooperation  between all national  authorities  and  the  Commission  has played  a  major 
role in raising awareness, identifying, assessing and addressing risky FDI transactions that would 
otherwise  have  been  missed, its  implementation  has  presented  a  number  of  challenges,  such 
as the management of transactions  involving  the  same  business  in  several  Member  States 
(‘multi-jurisdiction notifications’). Screening of these transactions which already make up more 
than  one  third  of  notifications  (2023)  created  an  increased  regulatory  complexity  for  the 
transactions’ parties which called for more synchronised and coordinated handling of these cases 
by  the  national  screening  authorities.  Finally,  existing  differences  in  national  laws  result  in 
regulatory fragmentation as national  screening  mechanisms differ in  respect  to  their scope (the 
types of activities and sectors covered), their procedural  deadlines (duration of assessment and 
decision  by  the  national  authority),  procedural  requirements,  and  the  criteria  applied  for 
assessing security and public order risks. Such fragmentation, which is likely to increase with the 
growing number of Member States maintaining a screening mechanism, can seriously undermine 
the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  cooperation  mechanism,  can  create  obstacles  in  the 
internal market and reduce the attractiveness of the EU to foreign investments. 

Ultimately, these shortcomings undermine the ability of the Commission and Member States to 
identify and address  a potentially wide scope of risky transactions. The legislative proposal  for 
the revision of the Regulation36 aims to address these shortcomings and improve the efficiency of 
the system by: 

▪  Ensuring  that  all  Member  States  have  a  screening  mechanism  in  place,  with  better 
harmonised national rules while leaving room for Member States to take account of their 
unique national security considerations in the design of their screening mechanisms. 

▪ 

Identifying  a  minimum  sectoral  scope  where  all  Member  States  must  screen  foreign 
investments.  This  includes  EU  strategic  assets,  which  are  listed  in  Annex  I  to  the 
proposed regulation as ‘projects and programmes of Union interest’, and certain critical 
goods,  technologies  and  entities  where  a  foreign  investment  may  harm  our  security  or 
public order, which are listed in Annex II to the proposal. 

▪  Extending EU screening to investments by EU investors that are ultimately controlled by 

individuals or businesses from a non-EU country. 

▪  Procedural  improvements  to  the  cooperation  mechanism,  as  well  as  increasing  the 
accountability  of  the  screening  Member  State  vis-à-vis  the  Commission  and  other 
Member States.  

36 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/investment-screening_en  

22 

 
 
 
 
  
Furthermore, the proposal takes into account geopolitical developments that have happened since 
the  current  Regulation  entered  into  force.  For  example,  following  Russia’s  military  aggression 
against Ukraine and ensuing comprehensive set of sanctions against Russia aiming to weaken its 
economic base and deprive of critical technologies, the effectiveness of the sanctions is measured 
only  by  their  successful  implementation  and  non-circumvention.  Therefore,  to  close  any 
potential loopholes in the implementation of sanctions also in the context of the FDI screening 
and  for  greater  vigilance  towards  potentially  risky  investments  from  sanctioned  persons  or 
entities  into  and  within  the  Single  Market,  all  Member  States  would  be  required  to  assess 
whether  the  foreign  investor  is  owned  or  controlled  by,  or  acting  on  behalf  of,  a  sanctioned 
person or entity, or whether the foreign investor is likely to facilitate the development of a third 
country’s military capabilities.  

While these changes would significantly improve the screening of foreign investments in the EU, 
including  the  transparency  and  predictability  of  screening  mechanisms  and  procedures  for 
businesses,  the  key  principles  of  investment  screening  in  the  EU  would  remain  unchanged. 
Firstly, the grounds for screening will remain risks to security and public order, thus investment 
screening  will  remain  a  limited  and  targeted  tool  for  exceptional  cases  where  a  foreign 
investment poses risks to our security or public order. It does not change nor undermine the EU’s 
openness to foreign investments. Secondly, the proposal does not change the current division of 
responsibilities  whereby  the  Member  State  where  the  transaction  takes  place  investigates  and 
decides  on  the  transaction,  and  the  Commission  and  the  other  Member  States  can  flag 
concerns. Thirdly, the main purposes of the cooperation mechanism between Member States and 
the  Commission  will  remain  the  protection  of  EU  strategic  assets  and  the  identification  of 
security or public order risks likely to negatively affect more than one Member State.  

The Council started technical discussions on the proposal in January 2024 and significant work 
has been done under the Belgian Presidency to clarify its key aspects. Following the elections in 
June  2024,  the  incoming  European  Parliament  will  now  start  its  deliberations  on  the  proposal. 
The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 
(CoR) were consulted on the proposal. EESC adopted its opinion on 10th July 202437, while the 
CoR is expected to adopt its opinion in Q4 2024.  

37 https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/screening-foreign-investments-

union 

23