Strasbourg: The EU Space Act still has no European Parliament first-reading position, and in the Council the file is stuck on one question: how far European harmonisation should go. The Commission proposed the regulation on 25 June 2025 to replace what it calls 13 different national approaches to space activities. As of July 2026, according to an IBA analysis, neither the Council nor Parliament had settled its stance.
The Commission built the EU Space Act on three pillars. Safety covers the tracking of space objects and the mitigation of debris, resilience brings tailored cybersecurity and business continuity rules, and sustainability asks operators to assess and cut their environmental impact. The Commission’s EU Space Act page says the rules would apply to EU and non-EU operators that provide space services in Europe, scaled to company size and risk.
Member states have tried twice to find a compromise. The Danish Presidency circulated a text in December 2025, and the Cyprus Presidency revised it in March 2026. The IBA article by Grace Nacimiento of the law firm GvW says neither text is a final Council position, although governments broadly support the aims of the EU Space Act and want a more flexible model than the Commission drew up.
Scope is the central dispute. Some governments question whether full harmonisation is needed where national systems already work, and the debate has moved from single obligations to how far a European regime should reach. Several states also want defence, military, dual-use and national security activities to stay mainly national, and both Presidency texts try to clarify that boundary.
Spaceports and emergencies show the same split. Both compromise texts leave launch facilities with more national discretion and a less harmonised regime, and delegations prefer that national authorities keep operational autonomy in emergencies. Governance is contested as well, because the Commission gave the EU Agency for the Space Programme a substantial role while several states want clearer national authority.
Cybersecurity creates a further overlap. Many delegations and industry groups noted that the resilience pillar of the EU Space Act duplicates parts of the NIS2 Directive, and the Presidency texts try to align the two frameworks so that companies do not face double compliance. The IBA analysis of the Council negotiations gives the fullest public account of these changes.
Space start-ups, small firms and national regulators now wait for clarity. The Commission promises lighter burdens for start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises and small mid-caps, plus a support package for businesses and governments. The sources reviewed give no application dates, no Parliament vote dates and no rapporteur, so any timetable for the EU Space Act remains unconfirmed.
The decisive step is a Council general approach, followed by Parliament’s own vote and trilogue talks. Until then, operators should track how far governments let the EU Space Act reach into launch sites, defence use and cyber rules, because those three questions will shape the final text in 2027.
