EU Space Act Update: Relationship to NIS 2 Directive, Adjustments to Scope and Practical Simplifications

On 25 June 2025, the European Commission published its proposal for uniform space legislation – the EU Space Act – to harmonise the authorisation, registration and supervision of space activities (European Commission proposes EU Space Act | Gleiss Lutz). The Council of the EU responded in December 2025 with a first set of proposed amendments (link). Less than three months later, on 3 March 2026, the European Parliament issued its own suggested revisions (link). One key focus of the amendment proposals is the relationship between the EU Space Act and Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (the “NIS 2 Directive”), with each institution adopting a different approach. The differences do not stop there, however. While the Council primarily seeks to narrow the EU Space Act’s intended scope of application, the European Parliament prioritises substantive simplifications – including deemed approval where the competent authority fails to issue a decision on an application for authorisation of a space activity within the prescribed time limit.

Background and objectives

Space law within the EU remains incomplete. While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires contracting states to subject national space activities – both public and private – to authorisation and supervision, Germany has yet to fulfil this obligation. At EU level too, space-related provisions, such as those on cybersecurity under the NIS 2 Directive, are few and far between. To close these gaps, the European Commission put forward the proposed EU Space Act. By comprehensively harmonising space law, the Act aims to foster innovation, safeguard the market share of European actors, and create “space readiness” and, therefore, “defence readiness”. The draft Act was published on 25 June 2025 and subsequently negotiated in the Council and the European Parliament. Approximately five months later, on 5 December 2025, the Council presented its initial proposed amendments in the form of a “Presidency compromise text”. The European Parliament’s proposed revisions followed on 3 March 2026. The proposals chiefly focus on the draft Act’s relationship with the NIS 2 Directive, its scope of application and practical simplifications.

Modified relationship with the NIS 2 Directive (Article 75 et seq. EU Space Act)

One focal point of the proposed amendments concerns the relationship between the EU Space Act and the NIS 2 Directive. Adopted in 2022, the NIS 2 Directive replaced Directive (EU) 2016/1148 (the “NIS 1 Directive”) and aims to ensure a high level of cybersecurity throughout the Union. To this end, it requires Member States, among other things, to enhance their cybersecurity capabilities by adopting a cybersecurity strategy and expands the list of affected sectors to include the space industry. Given this, the drafting of the EU Space Act raised the question of how to structure the relationship between these two legal acts.

• Commission proposal: lex specialis approach. Under the Commission proposal, the EU Space Act is positioned as the more specific legal act (lex specialis) with respect to cybersecurity risk-management measures. Affected space operators must therefore comply first and foremost with the requirements of the EU Space Act. Article 75 et seq. EU Space Act accordingly sets out an autonomous regulatory framework on the resilience of space infrastructure, including detailed requirements on risk assessments, encryption, backup management and supply chain security. The Commission’s intention is to ensure the inclusion of Union-owned assets as well as all areas of infrastructure not, or only partly, covered by the NIS 2 Directive.
• Council proposal: synchronisation approach. By contrast, the Council’s approach is based on synchronising requirements under the two legal acts. Under its proposal, the EU Space Act would apply without prejudice to the NIS 2 Directive, meaning that the two would apply in parallel. The Council proposal therefore limits the chapter on the resilience of space infrastructure (Article 75 et seq.) to space operators falling below the ceilings in Article 3 NIS 2 Directive. Large or critical space operators would therefore remain subject to the NIS 2 Directive, whereas operators below the NIS 2 ceilings and those from third countries would fall under the EU Space Act. To avoid legal uncertainty and conflicting requirements, the Council also proposes aligning the obligations under the two legal acts.
• Parliament proposal: integration approach. The European Parliament rejects the lex specialis approach and instead opts for full integration of space activities into the scope of the NIS 2 Directive. Affected operators would therefore be subject to the NIS 2 Directive alone. The Parliament proposal deletes the resilience chapter (Article 75 et seq.) from the EU Space Act and proposes amending or expanding the NIS 2 Directive via a new Article 117a EU Space Act. The Directive would be expressly extended to cover space activities, space services and Union-owned assets. This approach aims to avoid dual regulation and reduce administrative burden.

Narrowing of the scope of application (Article 2 EU Space Act)

The Council and the European Parliament also propose changes to the Act’s scope of application under Article 2.

• Commission proposal: The Commission deliberately adopts a broad approach to defining the entities subject to the EU Space Act, targeting traditional space operators, various types of space services providers and international organisations.
• Council proposal: The Council proposes removing international organisations from the scope of the EU Space Act. Under this approach, such organisations would not have direct obligations under the Act. Instead, the EU Space Act’s applicability would depend on an international agreement concluded between the Union and the international organisation concerned. The Council proposal nonetheless retains a registration requirement and an obligation for international organisations to hold an e-certificate in order to provide space-based data or space services within the Union. Collision avoidance space services providers are excluded from the scope of the EU Space Act entirely.
• Parliament proposal: The European Parliament follows the same general direction as the Council by removing international organisations from the (direct) scope of the EU Space Act and making its applicability contingent upon an international agreement. The Parliament proposal also includes a registration requirement and an obligation to hold an e-certificate.

Aside from the issue of which entities are to fall within the scope of the EU Space Act, the proposed amendments also address the sectoral exemption for defence and national security in Article 2(3)(a) and (b) EU Space Act. The Commission proposal excludes space objects used exclusively for defence or national security purposes, as well as space objects placed temporarily under military control. These exemptions are narrowly framed, such that dual-use space technologies – capable of both civil and military application – would still fall under the Act. The European Parliament proposes broadening the exemption in two respects. First, the exemption would explicitly extend not only to the space objects themselves but also to the space-based data and services they provide. Secondly, the reference to objects placed under “military” control would be replaced with the broader concept of “defence or national security”. In return, the Parliament proposal deletes the sentence in Recital 36 of the Commission draft stating that it is “for each Member State” to determine, “owing to the circumstances of the case”, whether a space object falls under the defence exemption. This change appears to be aimed at preventing excessive Member State discretion and avoiding an overly expansive application of the exemption.

Authorisation and authorisation deemed to have been granted (Article 6 et seq. EU Space Act)

A central element of the EU Space Act is the general authorisation requirement for space activities. The approach to this differs across the three sets of proposals, in some respects substantially:

• Commission proposal: The Commission’s original draft distinguishes between authorisation procedures for Union space operators (Chapter I) and for Union space operators of Union-owned assets (Chapter II). For Union space operators, primary responsibility for granting authorisation for space activities lies with the competent national authority of the Member State in which the applicant is established and, where relevant, the Member State from which it intends to operate or launch. Other Member States are expected to recognise authorisations issued by a competent authority. The competent authority must forward the applicant’s technical documentation to a qualified technical body for space activities (“QTB”), which has six months to verify compliance with the technical requirements in Title IV, Chapters I-V (Articles 58–103) EU Space Act. The Commission sets the competent authority a total decision-making period of twelve months from receipt of the application. For operators of Union-owned assets, the Commission proposal provides for a centralised procedure conducted by the European Commission, based on a technical assessment by the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA). Following EUSPA’s technical review, which must last no longer than six months, the Commission must decide within 30 days whether to grant authorisation (Article 12 EU Space Act).
• Council proposal: The Council proposal deals with the authorisation procedures for all space activities collectively in Chapter I. The chapter clarifies that jurisdiction for general Union space operators lies with the national authority of the Member State in which the applicant has its main place of establishment, while the European Commission is to remain responsible for operators of Union-owned assets. As regards the mutual recognition of Member State authorisations, the Council broadly follows the Commission’s approach but introduces detailed interim procedural steps. The competent authority must forward the application to the QTB without delay, and the QTB must conduct a completeness check within 30 working days. The six-month period for the QTB’s opinion and the overall twelve-month deadline for the authority’s final decision remain unchanged. Member States are also explicitly empowered to conclude agreements on the sharing of authorisation and supervisory responsibilities.
• Parliament proposal: The Parliament proposal retains the same basic allocation of responsibilities but replaces the obligation for authorities to recognise authorisations from other Member States with an obligation to implement a formal recognition procedure. It also seeks substantially faster authorisation procedures, with most deadlines halved. The completeness check by the QTB must be completed within 15 working days, the technical opinion must be issued within three months and the overall decision-making period for the authority is reduced to six months. The most significant innovation is the introduction of deemed authorisation (new Article 7(6a)). Authorisation will automatically be deemed granted if the competent authority does not issue a decision within the six-month deadline. Designed to reduce administrative hurdles, this provision could help to prevent drawn-out procedures and waiting times for applicants by enabling them to proceed once the administrative deadline has expired. However, the Parliament proposal does not clarify whether a deemed authorisation is to have a “legalising effect” if a subsequent review reveals non-compliance with the requirements of the EU Space Act.

Supervision and penalties

The three proposals also diverge in their approach to supervisory powers and penalties.

• Commission proposal: Under the Commission proposal, the Commission has a number of supervisory measures at its disposal for the event of infringement of the provisions of the EU Space Act (Article 55(1) EU Space Act). However, while the Commission may independently investigate potential infringements (Article 54(1)), it may only impose penalties on the basis of a formal proposal from EUSPA (Article 56(1)). The penalty regime applies not only to Union space operators of Union-owned assets but also to third-country space operators and international organisations. Fines may not exceed double the profit gained or double the loss avoided through the infringement. If the profit/loss cannot be calculated, the upper limit is set at 2% of total annual worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year. Periodic penalty payments may be imposed solely to compel the operator concerned to bring the infringement to an end or to submit to investigation.
• Council proposal: Whereas in the Commission proposal the chapter on procedure (Article 53 et seq.) is entitled “Procedure for investigation by the Agency”, the Council renames this “Procedure for investigation by the Commission” and removes the requirement for a formal proposal from EUSPA before the Commission can act. The proposal instead designates the Commission as the central body for initiating and conducting investigations and exercising supervisory powers. The Council proposal also broadens the scope of who may be subject to penalties. Fines may be imposed on any person who infringes the EU Space Act, obstructs an investigation, fails to comply with a request for information under Article 49(1) EU Space Act, or provides incorrect or misleading information in the context of a request for information, an investigation or an on-site inspection.
• Parliament proposal: The Parliament proposal aligns with that of the Council as regards the Commission’s power to impose penalties but proposes a more limited expansion of those who may be penalised. Under its approach, penalties may only be imposed on Union space operators of Union-owned assets, third-country space operators and international organisations. The Parliament draft omits a cap on fines but instead allows the European Commission greater discretion by removing the assessment criteria set out in the Commission proposal and retained by the Council. The Commission is to adopt delegated acts specifying exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and research and education institutions. The purposes for which periodic penalty payments may be imposed mirror those set out in the Commission proposal.

Reduced sustainability requirements (Article 96 et seq. EU Space Act)

The proposed amendments also address the rules on the environmental sustainability of space activities in Chapter III (Article 96 et seq.).

• Commission proposal: The Commission proposal provides for mandatory calculation of the environmental footprint (“EF”) of space activities. Affected operators must hold an EF certificate and submit the underlying calculation. Small-sized enterprises and research and education institutions benefit from an extended transitional period for compliance with these obligations until 31 December 2031.
• Council proposal: The Council likewise proposes mandatory calculation of the EF and an obligation to submit the calculation basis, as well as including the Commission’s suggested facilitations for small-sized enterprises. The EF certificate requirement – i.e. verification of the EF by a QTB – is retained but integrated into the general authorisation procedure.
• Parliament proposal: The Parliament proposal is less strict as regards the methodology for capturing the EF and proposes an obligation to provide an estimate only. The requirements to hold an EF certificate and to submit the calculation basis are removed entirely. The Parliament proposal also widens the scope of the proposed facilitations to include not only small and medium-sized enterprises but also small mid-caps (entities positioned between SMEs and large companies). The proposed transitional period would run for 60 months from the Act’s entry into force.

Extended transitional periods and later date of application (Article 118 et seq. EU Space Act)

Finally, there are also differences in the proposed transitional periods and the date from which the EU Space Act is to apply.

• Commission proposal: Under the Commission proposal, the EU Space Act would apply from 1 January 2030. For authorisations regarding assets planned to be launched after 1 January 2030 and for which the critical design review phase ends twelve months after the date of the Act’s entry into force, the Act is only to apply from 1 January 2032. Assets launched before 1 January 2030 are excluded from the Act.
• Council proposal: The Council proposes that the EU Space Act should apply 36 months after its entry into force. The transitional period is also extended. For authorisations regarding assets planned to be launched three years after the EU Space Act’s date of entry into force and for which the critical design review phase ends 24 months after such entry into force, the Act would only apply eight years after its entry into force. Assets launched earlier than 36 months after the Act’s date of entry into force remain outside the Act’s scope.
• Parliament proposal: The Parliament aligns with the Council regarding the date of application. Its proposal on transitional arrangements combines elements of the other proposals.

Conclusion

The amendments proposed by the Council and the European Parliament are extensive and concern both core regulatory elements of the draft EU Space Act as well as more detailed provisions. Both institutions seek to reduce the burdens on affected companies compared with the Commission’s original proposal – whether through shorter authorisation timelines, extended transitional periods or broader exemptions for SMEs and research and educational institutions. Changes are also proposed in other areas, including the remit of the Compliance Board, the handling of the Union space label, the allocation of competences, and further facilitations for SMEs and research and educational institutions.

Affected companies should monitor the legislative process closely in order to ensure timely compliance and to be able to act promptly once the final version of the EU Space Act is adopted. Key questions – such as the Act’s scope of application, the possible introduction of a presumption of authorisation, the structure of the penalty regime, and the Act’s relationship with the NIS 2 Directive – remain unresolved. Which approach to these EU lawmakers will ultimately take will only become clear as the legislative process progresses.