Digital euro negotiations enter technical phase as trilogues begin
Negotiations on the Digital Euro Regulation have entered a new phase, with the first trilogue discussions now underway between the European Parliament and the Council. The latest negotiating text indicates that discussions are increasingly centred on the practical implementation of the framework rather than its underlying objectives. While important policy choices remain to be agreed, the negotiations place growing emphasis on operational arrangements, governance, implementation timelines and market preparedness ahead of the potential introduction of a digital euro.
Digital Euro negotiations: Where do the institutions converge?
Broad convergence | Key issues still under discussion |
Digital euro should complement, not replace, cash | Pilot testing before first issuance |
ECB to issue the digital euro and play a central operational role | Roll-out timetable and transition period |
Payment Service Providers (PSPs) will distribute and manage digital euro services | Governance arrangements and implementing powers |
Digital euro should remain widely accessible and support financial inclusion | Operational readiness and liability framework |
Strong emphasis on security, resilience and consumer accessibility | Technical implementation of holding limits |
Digital euro intended to strengthen the resilience of the EU payments ecosystem | Commercial arrangements, including compensation mechanisms |
Source: Based on the latest Digital Euro trilogue negotiating text (European Parliament–Council), July 2026.
A key feature of the latest negotiating text is the increased focus on operational preparedness. The European Parliament proposes additional safeguards before the first issuance of the digital euro, including public communication of the envisaged launch date, preparatory work on the rulebook and infrastructure, pilot testing in real-life conditions and a roll-out period of at least 24 months to allow payment service providers, merchants and users to prepare. The text also introduces new provisions on governance, liability and transparency, reflecting an increasing focus on how the digital euro would function in practice.
The Council's position likewise provides greater operational clarity on the role of payment service providers in distributing and managing digital euro accounts and services, while maintaining the ECB's central responsibility for issuing the digital euro. Taken together, the latest negotiating text suggests that the remaining discussions are increasingly centred on implementation choices, governance arrangements and operational design rather than the overall objective of establishing a digital euro framework.
Differences remain over fees, merchant compensation and governance, but these increasingly concern the design and operation of the framework rather than the objective of establishing a digital euro itself.
With further trilogue meetings scheduled for 10 and 30 September, negotiations are expected to focus on refining these technical aspects ahead of a final political agreement. While important issues remain unresolved, the current state of play points to gradual convergence between the institutions on the core architecture of the digital euro.
What it means for CEE markets
For Central and Eastern Europe, the negotiations highlight a broader trend that extends well beyond the digital euro itself: the EU is increasingly redesigning its payments architecture around common European infrastructure. Together with initiatives such as the Instant Payments Regulation and the Financial Data Access (FiDA) framework, the digital euro forms part of a wider strategy to create a more integrated, resilient and strategically autonomous European payments ecosystem. Even for non-euro-area Member States, these reforms are likely to shape future investment decisions by banks, fintechs and payment service providers as interoperability with euro-area infrastructure becomes increasingly important.
The negotiations also underline that implementation capacity could become an important competitive differentiator across the region. Larger banking groups and internationally active payment providers are generally better placed to absorb the operational and technology investments required to support the digital euro, while smaller domestic institutions may face proportionately higher costs. This means that, for many CEE markets, the commercial design of the framework - including the distribution model, compensation arrangements and the allocation of responsibilities between the ECB and payment service providers - may ultimately prove more significant than the introduction of the digital euro itself. As the legislative process progresses, these operational details will determine whether the reform strengthens competition across the Single Market or reinforces the advantages of larger cross-border financial institutions.
ECON rapporteur reshapes PEPP review around consumer trust and market uptake
The European Parliament's rapporteur, Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew) published her draft report on the review of the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP), proposing a noticeably different approach from the European Commission in several key areas. While supporting the objective of making PEPPs a more attractive cross-border retirement savings product, the draft places greater emphasis on strengthening consumer confidence, improving transparency and creating a stronger European identity for the product, rather than introducing new supervisory requirements.
One of the most significant changes is the removal of the Commission's proposed value-for-money framework. Rather than requiring providers to demonstrate value for money before a PEPP can be registered, the rapporteur proposes strengthening existing product oversight and governance requirements and aligning them with the Retail Investment Strategy framework. The draft also introduces a new "EuroPension Product" label for the Basic PEPP, aiming to create a clear and recognisable EU-wide brand that could increase consumer trust and improve the product's visibility across Member States.
The report also proposes several measures to improve accessibility and cross-border uptake. These include transforming EIOPA's public register into a consumer-facing digital platform, making digital advice the default option for Basic PEPPs while preserving access to face-to-face advice, expanding transfer possibilities between PEPPs and national personal pension products, and introducing a more cautious approach to tax incentives centred on non-discrimination rather than harmonisation. The draft further clarifies that workplace PEPP auto-enrolment should complement, rather than replace, existing second-pillar occupational pension schemes, reinforcing PEPP's role as a third-pillar retirement savings product.
The deadline for amendments is 21 September 2026. The draft report will be discussed in the ECON Committee on 2 September and 15 October, with committee adoption and a decision on opening interinstitutional negotiations expected on 1 December 2026.
What it means for CEE markets
The draft report is particularly relevant for Central and Eastern Europe, where voluntary retirement savings markets remain unevenly developed and cross-border pension products have so far seen limited uptake. By shifting the focus from additional regulatory requirements towards consumer trust, digital accessibility and greater product visibility, the rapporteur appears to be addressing some of the practical barriers that have limited the commercial success of PEPP since its introduction. A stronger emphasis on portability, digital distribution and a recognisable EU-wide "EuroPension Product" brand could make the framework more attractive in Member States where domestic third-pillar pension markets are still relatively small or fragmented.
At the same time, the draft reinforces the complementary nature of PEPP within national pension systems. By limiting workplace auto-enrolment arrangements to situations where no second-pillar occupational pension scheme exists, the report seeks to avoid competition with established occupational pension systems while preserving flexibility for Member States with less developed workplace pension coverage. For CEE countries, where pension systems differ considerably in terms of funded pillars and voluntary savings, this approach provides greater scope to adapt the PEPP framework to national circumstances while supporting the broader objective of expanding long-term retirement savings.


