Main Divergence: The Competitiveness Council meeting on December 8, 2025, saw sharp contrasts between several EU member states regarding the strengthening of EU-level enforcement powers against non-compliant e-commerce products and customs reforms. French and German ministers, alongside Spain, Belgium, and others, advocated for an ambitious EU Market Surveillance Authority with investigative and sanctioning powers, while Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland emphasized prioritizing enforcement of existing rules and avoiding shifting primary responsibilities from economic operators to authorities.
Setting the Scene: This debate unfolded during the Competitiveness Council under the Danish Presidency, focusing largely on the surge of unsafe and non-compliant products imported via e-commerce, mostly from third countries such as China. Ministers examined consumer safety risks, customs inefficiencies, and the reinforcing of enforcement frameworks under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and customs reform, including the contentious removal of the €150 low-value exemption on imports starting early 2026.
Hard Targets Versus Pragmatism: France proposed establishing a European surveillance authority capable of coordinated investigations and EU-wide interventions, topped with a new small-package tax. Germany strongly backed a similar authority wielding sanctioning powers, enhanced platform accountability, and called for an EU transparency database. Spain pushed for sanction-linked platform obligations, while Belgium added AI-based risk assessments and digital interoperability.
Conversely, Sweden and Finland advised caution, preferring optimal execution of current regulations before advancing new laws. Sweden warned against premature legislation, while Finland stressed economic operators must retain primary responsibility for compliance. Lithuania, while open to an EU authority, emphasized respecting liability principles and proportionality to prevent overburdening compliant businesses.
Customs Reform Divide: The Commission and supportive states such as France, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden urged prompt removal of the €150 duty-free threshold to clamp down on low-value shipments. However, the Netherlands underscored WTO compatibility concerns, and Czechia demanded realistic measures for implementation by 2026. Croatia linked reform success to the creation of an EU Customs Authority and Data Hub, highlighting differing national capacities and priorities.
Liability and Platform Accountability: There was consensus on raising platform liability. France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal proposed robust enforcement mechanisms, including quicker removal of non-compliant listings and sanction powers, while Romania and Greece urged enhanced transparency and identity validation measures. Lithuania cautioned against excessive rules hitting honest operators unfairly.
Policy Impacts: For EU consumers, tighter enforcement promises greater safety and fewer counterfeit goods but may marginally raise prices due to increased compliance costs for sellers. EU producers, especially in manufacturing and digital sectors, could benefit from a level playing field but face stricter surveillance and administrative burdens. National authorities might require scaling up resources or cooperatively sharing responsibilities, with some advocating new EU-level agencies easing national workloads. Online platforms face significantly increased compliance duties, enhanced transparency, and potential penalties.
Looking Ahead: The Danish Presidency acknowledged unresolved issues like the SPC reform and Declaration proposals, passing them to the incoming Cypriot Presidency. The customs reform and enforcement framework will test the EU’s resolve, especially with the early 2026 timeline for the €150 exemption removal.
This debate highlights the classic EU tension between deeper integration through centralized agencies and respecting national sovereignty and pragmatism. Whether the EU will move toward a powerful, harmonized surveillance authority or retain a more intergovernmental, cautious approach remains a pivotal question shaping future competitiveness and consumer protection policies.