Overview
This report covers Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and institutional replies published from 04.08.2026 till 09.08.2026. The primary policy areas addressed in this period include the implementation of the AI Act, technology sovereignty initiatives, digital infrastructure sustainability, and the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Institutionally, the Commission adopts a pragmatic, compliance-oriented posture. Its responses consistently frame current efforts around enforcing existing frameworks rather than proposing new legislation, heavily emphasising technological neutrality, reliance on standardisation bodies, and structured evidence-gathering. This regulatory consolidation phase signals to digital-policy professionals that the Commission is shifting its resources from drafting ambitious new frameworks to strictly managing implementation, technical standards, and sovereignty-driven capacity building.
❗ Commission Evaluates AI Training Intersections with Copyright
In Parliamentary Question E-002649/2026, MEPs raised concerns regarding the use of copyright-protected content by AI models for training and output generation. In a response on 6 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen stated that the Commission has launched a call for evidence to assess whether current transparency, licensing, and enforcement measures require strengthening. She framed this assessment strictly within the existing EU acquis, noting that the AI Act and the Copyright Directive already establish baseline transparency obligations and text-and-data-mining exceptions.
❓ Enforcement Against Illegal Content on Telegram
In Parliamentary Question E-003137/2026, submitted on 27 July 2026 and published on 4 August 2026, an inquiry was directed to the Council regarding whether the dissemination of animal torture videos on Telegram constitutes illegal content under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The question probes whether the platform’s active user figures should be verified to reassess its designation as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) and whether formal compliance proceedings should be coordinated with Europol. A response from the institution is pending.
❗ Tech Neutrality and Nuclear Energy in Data Centres
In Parliamentary Question E-002448/2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen responded on 4 August 2026 regarding the inclusion of nuclear power in the data centre rating scheme established under the Energy Efficiency Directive. She confirmed that the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act recognises small modular reactors (SMRs) as a potential energy source for data centres. The Commission maintains a stance of technological neutrality, allowing competent authorities to assess projects based on overall energy performance rather than penalising specific generation technologies.
❗ Mitigating Non-EU Cloud Dependencies via Tech Sovereignty
In Parliamentary Question E-002035/2026, MEPs questioned the vulnerabilities stemming from public administration dependencies on non-EU digital solutions. In a response on 4 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen detailed that the Tech Sovereignty Package and the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act aim to establish a sovereignty framework to help public entities assess service credentials. She emphasised the Open Source Strategy and the European Defence Fund as primary tools to support sovereign alternatives, while declining to comment on individual national procurement decisions.
❗ Confidentiality Protocols for the European Data Centre Database
In Parliamentary Question E-001796/2026, MEPs scrutinised the transparency of the European database on data centres. Responding on 4 August 2026, Commissioner Jørgensen confirmed that the Commission publishes aggregated data via a public dashboard while maintaining confidentiality for specific facility data, a practice he stated is compatible with EU law and the Aarhus Convention. He indicated that decisions on local data disclosure remain the prerogative of Member State authorities.
❗ AI ‘Lie Detectors’ at Borders Classified as High-Risk
In Parliamentary Question E-002623/2026, MEPs queried the funding and potential deployment of AI polygraph systems in border checks. On 6 August 2026, Commissioner Brunner clarified that while EU funds support research into these technologies to understand their limitations, this does not imply operational deployment. He stated that under the Artificial Intelligence Act, such systems are not prohibited but are classified as high-risk, thereby requiring stringent safeguards to protect fundamental rights.
❗ Legal Basis for the Mandatory Acceptance of the Digital Euro
In Parliamentary Question E-002539/2026, questions were raised about the legal foundations of the proposed digital euro. In a response on 7 August 2026, Commissioner Dombrovskis defended the use of Article 133 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. He argued that the mandatory acceptance of the digital euro is a necessary regulatory dimension of monetary policy to ensure a sufficiently uniform level of acceptance across the euro area.
❗ AI and Cybersecurity Standardisation Under the Machinery Regulation
In Parliamentary Question E-002354/2026, MEPs inquired about standardisation delays for industrial machinery. Responding on 6 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Séjourné noted that while harmonised standards for cybersecurity and self-evolving AI components have not yet been delivered by European Standardisation Organisations, preparation is being prioritised. He reminded stakeholders that compliance with Essential Health and Safety Requirements remains mandatory regardless of the availability of specific harmonised standards.
❗ Review of the Interchange Fee Regulation for Digital Payments
In Parliamentary Question E-002493/2026, the impact of the Interchange Fee Regulation on retail payments was examined. On 7 August 2026, Executive Vice-President Ribera confirmed that recent studies conclude the Regulation is functioning well, with caps remaining low compared to other jurisdictions. She indicated that a legislative review is not currently deemed necessary, though the Commission will continue to monitor merchant service charges.
❗ Forthcoming European Research Area Act and Data Federation
In Parliamentary Question E-002190/2026, the Commission was asked about initiatives supporting research and tech scale-ups. On 7 August 2026, Commissioner Zaharieva announced that a legislative proposal for a European Research Area (ERA) Act is targeted for the second half of 2026 to implement the ‘Fifth Freedom’. She also positioned the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) not as a new centralised structure, but as a federated infrastructure designed to address the fragmentation of publicly funded research outputs.
❗ Transparency of Digital Media Observatory Funding
In Parliamentary Question E-001697/2026, MEPs challenged the transparency of funding allocated to the German-Austrian Digital Media Observatory (GADMO). Responding on 4 August 2026, Commissioner Serafin directed MEPs to the Financial Transparency System, noting that the Commission plans to increase data completeness via a Single Gateway for the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. He stressed that funding consortia are formed independently and evaluated by external experts, not by the Commission.
A central theme emerging from this period’s replies is the Commission’s strong pivot toward technological sovereignty and infrastructure control. Through instruments like the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act and the forthcoming ERA Act, the Commission positions itself as building federated, European-controlled digital alternatives. However, it carefully avoids protectionist rhetoric, framing these efforts around evidence-based assessment credentials, open-source integration, and strict adherence to technological neutrality, as evidenced by its willingness to include nuclear-powered data centres in sustainability frameworks.
Furthermore, the responses indicate a definitive preference for steady implementation over new legislative expansion. Whether addressing copyright intersections with AI training, digital payment fees, or machinery cybersecurity, the Commission consistently refers back to the existing acquis. The reliance on independent standardisation bodies—and the acknowledgment of delays in delivering AI-specific standards—highlights a critical bottleneck in the EU’s regulatory architecture.
Ultimately, this material reveals a regulatory apparatus fully engaged in the practical mechanics of enforcement. For public-affairs and advocacy professionals, this suggests that the most impactful engagement windows have shifted away from high-level legislative design toward the technical details of standardisation, compliance guidelines, and the operationalisation of sovereign procurement frameworks.
All Parliamentary Questions and Commission Answers are accessible via Policy-Insider.AI.
