07-17-2025 Article

“Reaching Wide”: EU Space Act (2) – Perspective of Third-Country Space Operators

A notable feature of the European Commission’s proposal for the EU Space Act (EUSA), published on 25 June 2025, is its extraterritorial scope. The EUSA applies to both, space operators established within the EU as well as third-country providers offering space services or space-based data to the Union’s internal market. Both typically require regulatory approval, resulting in registration in the Union Register for Space Operators (URSO) and the issuance of an e-certificate, prior to being permitted to provide space services within the EU. The procedures and detailed requirements for this “approval”, however, vary.

Besides, the general approach regarding application of the regulation to third-country stakeholders is overall similar to that of the GDPR, in particular as it regards the possibility of equivalence decisions leading to a simplified approval procedure.

In a nutshell:

Third Country – Who is a Third-Country Operator?

Whether or not an operator is “established” in the EU determines the applicable procedure: EU-established operators follow the standard Union procedures, while others are subject to third-country stakeholder rules
The term “established” is not defined in the EUSA; it may be argued that, beyond clear-cut cases such as EU registered entities, the interpretation of the term “established” may align with that under the General Data Protection Regulation (REG (EU) 2016/679 – (GDPR))
Under the GDPR, even “…the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements…“ may suffice to constitute an EU establishment (and not only as a third-country stakeholder) (Recital 22 to the GDPR)
Legal precedents under the GDPR demonstrate that ambiguities surrounding “establishment” can give rise to litigation; the EUSA would benefit from further legislative clarification to avoid similar uncertainties in its application to third-country space operators

Addressees – When is a Third-Country Space Operator Addressed by the EUSA?

The EUSA applies to third-country operators if they provide either: a) space services to Union space operators or in relation to Union-owned assets; or b) services related to space assets operated by a public authority or a private entity established in a Member State
The same applies to research and education institutions, as well as international organisations and institutions, if they provide space services
Even third-country stakeholders not directly engaged in space activities may be indirectly impacted; this is because both Union and non-Union operators are required to impose contractual obligations on their suppliers for example, to provide data regarding ecological impact and support resilience across the supply chain

Procedures/Requirements – What are the Main Features for Third-Country Operators?

Third-country space operators must, in addition to any applicable “home-country licences”, must obtain registration in the URSO and receive an EUSA e-certificate prior to offering space services within the EU
To be registered, third-country space operators must submit an application to the European Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA)
The application must demonstrate compliance with a specific subset of the EUSA provisions, which varies depending on the type of space services provided
If the Commission adopts an “equivalence decision” confirming that a third-country’s legal and supervisory framework meets EUSA standards, operators from that country will be presumed compliant
As an exception to the aforementioned compliance requirements, a Member State may request that the Commission register a third-country launch service provider even if it does not fully meet EUSA requirements, where justified by public interest and strategic necessity
Registration in URSO triggers the automatic issuance of an e-certificate by EUSPA, which must be appended to certain contracts to verify EUSA-compliant space-based data sources
In case of an EUSA-defined emergency or crisis, the Commission may, as a wider reaching exception, even allow specific space services by a third-country operator without any URSO registration (and e-certificate)
Third-country space operators must designate a legal representative in the Union to facilitate cooperation with the authorities
The Commission and EUSPA may exercise investigative and enforcement powers, including revocation of registration, in relation to third-country space operators

Space Services – Which Activities of Third-Country Space Operators are Affected?

Operation and control of a space object
Launch services, and services related to the operation and maintenance of launch sites
Services provided by a primary provider of space-based data (i.e., providers of electronic communication services and space services providers responsible for the initial processing of observation data), as well as providers of services to such primary providers
In-space services and operations (ISOS)
Collision avoidance space services

Differences – What are the Differences Compared to Union Operators?

Third-country operators apply to EUSPA for registration in URSO, with EUSPA preparing a decision that is ultimately adopted by the Commission. In contrast, Union operators apply for authorization to their respective national competent authorities, which register the applicants in URSO after completing the procedure
The timeframe for EUSPA to submit its proposal to the Commission is five months, while no specific deadline is set for the Commission’s decision; in contrast, the authorization process for Union operators can take up to a maximum of twelve months from application to final decision
Exclusively for third-country launch service providers, the EUSA foresees the possibility of granting a derogation from its requirements; additionally, in cases of emergency, third-country operators may be allowed to provide services even before/without registration in URSO; these exceptions are, according to – current – EUSA wording and systematics, not available to Union operators
Even when a third-country operator is required to obtain a license from a Member State for matters not covered by the EUSA, it must still apply separately to the EU Commission for registration, even if the Member State could assess the EUSA-regulated matters
Based on the foregoing, it appears from the current status of EUSA, third-country operators may, in certain cases, be required to obtain at least three separate licenses through different processes: one from their home country, one from the EU via URSO registration, and possibly a third or more from individual Member States if the service requires additional licenses governed by national law rather than by EUSA

In more detail:

I. Third-Country Operators

Space service providers planning to operate in the Union market (with the exception of collision avoidance service providers – CA), must in general be registered in the URSO and possess the e-certificate before providing space services or space-based data in the Union for the first time after EUSA becomes applicable (Article 26(1)).

These requirements apply to both Union and third-country space services providers. The detailed procedures and some of the requirements, however, are different for third-country space operators.

The EUSA defines third-country space operators as space operators “established” in a third-country, carrying out any of the following (Art. 5, point 19):

providing space services to Union space operators or Union space assets; or
acting as a primary provider of space-based data; or
providing services to primary providers of space-based data

Accordingly, the “establishment” of an operator is decisive in determining whether it qualifies as an EU or a third-country stakeholder. However, the term “establishment”, is not yet defined in the EUSA itself.

Regarding the EUSA’s extraterritorial intent, the GDPR may offer a point of reference. Under the GDPR, “establishment” refers to “the effective and real exercise of activity through stable arrangements”, irrespective of legal form (Recital 22 of the GDPR).

The GDPR adopts a broad interpretation and does not require the activity to be economic or commercial in nature. In essence, “establishment” under the GDPR implies the actual and effective conduct of activity through a fixed place of business. The legal form is irrelevant, and neither legal personality nor formal registration is required.

However, it remains unclear whether the GDPR definition is an adequate point of reference to the EUSA, and how it would apply to more complex corporate structures involving parent and subsidiary companies which are only partly involved. Overall, the EUSA currently lacks clarity as to how borderline cases should be classified as Union or third-country space operators.

II. Requirements Applicable to Third-Country Space Operators

Third-country space operators may provide space services to Union space operators or certain space assets only if they are (Article 14(1)):

registered in URSO (Article 17), and
in possession of the e-certificate issued by EUSPA (Article 25(1))

Specifically with respect to space-based data, primary providers of such data shall provide it within the Union only if it has been generated by space objects that are themselves registered in URSO (Article 27). A primary provider of space-based data is a provider that initiates the first processing of space-based data in a technically sufficient manner to enable any subsequent provision. Examples include providers of electronic communication services and space services providers ensuring the first processing of observation data (Article 5(1), point 22)).

A separate procedure applied to third-country public entities (Article 20 draft EUSA).

1. Need for Additional Member State and Home State Licences

Although the draft EUSA does not explicitly state this, it is reasonable to assume that compliance with, or equivalence to, EUSA standards and registration in URSO alone is insufficient to authorize the provision of all types of space services within the Union in all cases.

URSO registration only demonstrates compliance with the EUSA’s provisions, which focus exclusively on safety, resilience, and sustainability. However, individual Member States’ space laws may cover additional matters, such as liability, insurance, and recourse and could even impose stricter requirements than those established by the EUSA’s three pillars, provided (i) such measures are objectively necessary and (ii) the proposed space activity has a nexus to the Member State in question (Article 3(2)).

The authorizations granted to a Union space operators by one Member State may not be recognized by a state with higher or additional standards along the line of the foregoing. A separate national authorization may therefore be required in such a case. While Article 3(2) currently refers only to Union space service providers, it would be surprising if, in the final version of the EUSA, the possibility of stricter requirements related to safety, resilience, and sustainability were limited only to Union stakeholders.

As a result, at a minimum, for areas not covered by the draft EUSA, space service providers, regardless of where they are established, may require additional authorizations under applicable national space legislation. This may result in a need for three separate authorizations: one from the home state, one from the EU (via URSO), and potentially another from a Member State. Whereas currently only two authorizations were necessary, under the EUSA there could be three.

From the Member States’ perspective, this would mean that decisions on matters covered by the EUSA would be removed from their jurisdiction as of EUSA’s entering into force.

2. Registration in URSO

Article 24(1) of the EUSA mandates that the EUSPA establish a Union Register for Space Objects (URSO) to register Union space operators as well as third-country space operators, and international organisations.

Third-country space operators are registered in URSO upon successful completion of the application process outlined in Article 17(1), (3)– (7) EUSA. As a condition for registration, operators must demonstrate compliance with the relevant EUSA requirements.

However, the EUSA also provides for an exemption from the regular requirements for registration for third-country launch service providers via a derogation procedure (Article 19) and for an emergency authorisation without registration (Article 21).

a) General Requirements

In general, a third-country operator must demonstrate compliance with each applicable provision on a case-by-case basis.

However, if the operator is based in a third-country for which the European Commission has adopted an equivalence decision under Article 105 of the draft EUSA, the EUSA provides a presumption of compliance with the applicable EUSA provisions (Article 16).

b) Regular Application Procedure for Third-Country Space Operators

Third-country space operators seeking registration in the Union Register for Space Objects (URSO) must submit an application to EUSPA.

The application must include all necessary evidence demonstrating compliance with the requirements set out in Title IV of the EUSA, either:

through the detailed assessment (Article 15 – individual applicable rules) or,
by relying on an existing equivalence decision adopted by the EU Commission (Article 16), if available.

Upon receiving the application, EUSPA conducts a preliminary assessment and notifies the applicant of the outcome. The applicant is then given the opportunity to respond, providing a reasoned statement and additional explanations or supporting evidence.

Following this assessment, EUSPA shall lodge a proposal for the European Commission, recommending either approval or rejection of the registration. This proposal must be submitted by EUSPA within a maximum of five months from the date the original application was received. This timeline, according to the wording, appears to be absolute and does not restart with the submission of any additional information by the applicant.

The Commission shall then adopt a final decision and informs the applicant accordingly. For this step, no timeframe is set within the draft EUSA. If the decision is positive, EUSPA shall proceed to register the third-country space operator in URSO.

c) Equivalence Decision

If an “equivalence decision” has been adopted by the European Commission regarding the home jurisdiction of the third-country space operator, compliance with the EUSA requirements is generally presumed and not subject to another detailed assessment.

The possibility of adopting equivalence decisions is stipulated in Article 105 of the EUSA draft, which requires at least that

space operators are subject to authorisation, supervision and effective enforcement on an ongoing basis in the respective third-country; and
space operators are subject to legally binding rules equivalent to the applicable EUSA requirements; and
the legal and supervisory framework of that third-country provides for an equivalent system of recognition of space services providers authorised under other legal regimes

The EUSA wording does not specify who may initiate the procedure for adopting an equivalence decision. The system, however, may be similar to that of the GDPR, where the adoption of adequacy decisions under Article 45(3) can be initiated by Member States, but the Commission may also act on its own initiative.

If an equivalence decision applies, EUSPA only needs to verify that the applicant holds a valid authorization from its home country and is subject to ongoing supervision there, before registering the applicant in URSO.

d) Derogation Procedure for Certain Third-Country Launch Operators

Under certain conditions, third-country launch operators may even be registered in URSO without fulfilling all standard requirements of Article 15(2) of the EUSA.

This is possible through a derogation procedure that can be initiated by a Member State or, in the case of planned operation of Union-owned assets, by the Commission acting on its own initiative.

A derogation is possible if the public interest condition is met. This is the case if

no realistic alternative exists within the EU for the required launch services, and
the services promote technological capabilities of strategic importance to the Union or the requesting Member State.

Most interestingly, according to the draft EUSA’s wording and systematics, derogations are only foreseen (so far) for third-country launch services operators, but not for Union launch services operators. This raises the question of whether this can be justified by the subject matter itself, since launch services are in demand regardless of whether they are provided by Union or third-country operators. It will be interesting to see how this evolves in the next steps of the legislation process.

Member States must submit a derogation application to the Commission. This application must identify the third-country launch operator for which a derogation is requested and outline the necessary technical details regarding the space mission concerned. The application also has to specify which of the requirements under Article 15(2) are subject to the derogation request and, where feasible, propose alternative mitigation measures.

Upon receiving the application, the Commission shall then forward it to the EUSPA. EUSPA then issues a technical assessment within one month, evaluating compliance with those Article 15(2) requirements that are not part of the derogation request.

Based on this assessment, the Commission has two months to decide whether to grant the derogation. In making this decision, the Commission also evaluates whether the public interest condition is met. The decision is adopted as an implementing act following the examination procedure outlined in Article 114(2) of the draft EUSA.

If the derogation is granted, the Commission also issues a corresponding derogation to the Union space operator intending to use the third-country launch services. As a result, the third-country launch operator is registered in URSO without needing to comply with the conditions set out in Article 15.

3. E-Certificate

After having been registered in URSO, the EUSPA shall issue and deliver an e-certificate to the respective space services provider, except if it is a collision avoidance space service provider for which an e-certificate is generally not foreseen (Article 25 (1)).

The e-certificate identifies the space mission(s) and space object(s) and attests the conformity of such space objects with the requirements of the EUSA. The e-certificate is to be annexed to certain contracts in order to prove that the space-based data which are the subject of the contract, are based on the use and operation of space objects compliant with the EUSA. Therefore, the certificate shall be designed in a way that it is possible to determine the following information:

in the case of space-based data, it shall be ascertainable that the respective data is generated through the use of a clearly identified space mission and space object
in the case of observation data, it shall allow the tracking of the flow of space-based data, from its generation by a given space object, to its incorporation into the first space service making use of that space-based data

Issuance of the e-certificate is foreseen to occur automatically after registration in URSO and will be affected by the EUSPA without the need for a further application.

4. Suspension or Withdrawal of Registration

The registration of a third-country space operator in URSO, can be suspended or withdrawn:

if the operator no longer complies with the requirements of the EUSA laid down, as set out in Article 15 or 16, or
if the relevant third-country supervisory authority has suspended or withdrawn the authorisation it had previously granted to the space services provider concerned (Article 22(1) EUSA)

5. Exceptions in Case of Emergency or Crisis

In the event of an emergency or crisis within a Member State, the Commission may even permit the use of space-based data or space services by providers not registered in URSO (Article 21 of the draft EUSA).

Although this is not explicitly stated in the wording of EUSA, the systematic position of Article 21 within the chapter addressing third-country space operators suggests that the exemption may also be intended for third-country space service providers only. However, leaving aside the obvious question of whether there is a valid justification for such a difference, this would, once again, appear to result in easements not “available” to Union stakeholders. As with the derogation procedures, this would be “very interesting.”

III. Collaboration between Union-Based and Third-Country Space Operators

The EUSA also contains rules governing collaborations between Union-based and third-country space operators.

If a Union space operator intends to collaborate with a third-country space operator, it needs to demonstrate, in the application for authorisation, the registration in URSO of such third-country space operator. If the registration has not been effected, the Union space operator, the third-country space operator, the relevant national competent authorities (NCAs) and the Agency are required under the EUSA to “coordinate closely”.

Where collaboration becomes necessary after an authorisation has already been granted for instance, in the context of in-space operations and services (ISOS), the Union space operator shall, without delay, inform the competent authority and provide proof of the third-country space operator’s registration in URSO (Article 6(6)).

IV. Applicable Requirements for Types of Space Services

The detailed set of requirements applicable to a third-country space operator is dependent upon the type of operation services provided.

A distinction must be drawn between:

spacecraft operators
launch and launch site operators
ISOS providers, and
collision avoidance space services providers

1. Requirements for Spacecraft Operators

According to Article 15(1) draft EUSA, third-country spacecraft operators are subject to the following provisions applicable also to Union spacecraft operators:

a) With respect to safety:

Research and education spacecraft: a special regime is available under which exemptions from certain requirements may be granted on a case-by-case basis (Article 62)
Orbits with an apogee above 400 km: spacecraft must be manoeuvrable enough to respond to high-interest event alerts by performing collision avoidance manoeuvres and to ensure proper end-of-life disposal (Article 66)
Reporting: operators shall report to EUSPA the contact details of the staff responsible for collision avoidance and re-entry activities; This information is used to populate a contact list database for high interest event alerts to be established by EUSPA (Article 67)
Choice of orbit: to be based on an analysis that takes into account existing spacecraft and debris, and must be justified by the operator prior to launch (Article 69)
Space debris mitigation: operators must limit debris and the risk of accidental fragmentation, ensure end-of-life disposal, implement a failure response plan, ensure design reliability, and establish operational procedures for quality and reliability control (Article 70(1)); in addition, they must provide a debris mitigation plan, an end-of-life disposal plan, and a failure response plan (Article 70(2))
Mission extension: extensions require an application to either EUSPA or the Commission (EUSA’s wording only speaks of the “competent authority”), which shall grant the extension if the requirements for space debris mitigation continue to be met (Article 71)
Measures to limit light/radio pollution: operators must establish a mitigation plan (Article 72)
Operation of a constellation: operators must comply with additional safety measures, which scale in proportion to the size of the constellation (Article 73)

b) With respect to resilience:

Interaction with NIS 2 and CER Directives: for risk management, only EUSA provisions apply, and not those of NIS 2, while CER provisions apply complementarily (Article 75)
Risk management: to ensure resilience throughout the lifecycle of space assets, third-country space services providers must take comprehensive measures to manage risks for the security of network and information systems and the security of the physical infrastructure and environment, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (Article 76)
Organisational aspects: third-country space services providers must ensure that personnel understand and commit to security responsibilities; HR policies must include vetting and checks during hiring; management is accountable for implementing measures to comply with resilience requirements (Article 77)
Risk assessments: operators will also have to perform risk assessments throughout the life cycle of space missions to identify and assess, on a continuous basis, all sources of risks, and will have to regularly review identified risks (Article 78)
Simplified risk management framework: available to small enterprises and research and education institutions (Article 79)
Information management: space operators shall also establish, maintain and update comprehensive policies for the categorization and management of information and assets of space infrastructure (Article 80)
Access control: logical and physical access, including remote access, to systems and assets is to be controlled based on the principles of ‘need to know’ and ‘the least privilege’ (Article 81)
Physical resilience: to be ensured on at least an equivalent level as that referred to in the CER Directive (Article 82)
Incident monitoring: continuous monitoring of anomalies and incidents is required and spacecraft and ground segments shall generate security events to be directed to a security monitoring subsystem (Article 83)
Risk prevention: the risks identified in the security risk assessment shall be mitigated by measures concerning the cybersecurity of spacecraft and ground segment tailored to the specific needs of the space mission (Article 84)
Cryptography: a cryptographic concept is to be defined to ensure the cybersecurity of space missions, including end-to-end authentication between ground and space segments, encryption of telecommands, and a lifecycle management policy for cryptographic keys ensuring their availability (Article 85)
Backups and redundancies: a comprehensive backup management policy to enable restoration of network and information systems with minimum downtime, limited disruption or loss recovery is to be established as well as sufficient redundancies (Article 86)
Business continuity policy: incident and crisis management measures shall be put in place and be structured into a business continuity policy (Article 87)
Testing programme: for the network and information systems a testing programme is to be established, maintained and reviewed, including threat led penetration testing (Article 88)
Staff training: staff shall have the required security skills and be provided with appropriate training (Article 89)
Crisis communication strategy: to responsibly disclose significant incidents a crisis communication strategy shall be put in place (Article 90)
Incident handling: an incident management process to promptly detect, identify, handle and respond to incidents shall be established and implemented (Article 91)
Supply chain risk management: a framework to tackle supply chain risks is to be established (Article 92)

c) With respect to sustainability:

Operators will have to comply with the complete EUSA Chapter on sustainability (Article 96 to 100).

That means they will be obliged to submit an environmental footprint declaration (EFD) as part of their application for authorisation, together with further studies and data, which need to be verified through a certificate issued by a qualified technical body for space activities. In order to produce the required EFD, space operators will also be obliged to require by contract all relevant data from their suppliers which indirectly pulls such suppliers into the application of obligations under the EUSA.

Additionally, third-country space operators shall:

subscribe to a collision avoidance space services provider that has the technical means to assess the collision avoidance and complies with the requirements laid down in point 1 of Annex IV
notify to EUSPA, in the application for registration in URSO, the name and details of the collision avoidance space services provider so that the Agency can add the information in the Union contact list database (Article 67(1)).

2. Launch and Launch Site Operators

The obligations that third-country launch and launch site operators must comply with, are set out in detail Article 15(2) of the draft EU Space Act (EUSA).

There is some uncertainty as to whether such third-country launch operators are in addition, also subject to the rules for spacecraft operators. Since components of the launch system are explicitly defined as “space objects” under Article )5, point 2 of the EUSA, it appears not to be too far-fetched to consider that a launch operator would, in most cases, also qualify as a spacecraft operator. However, the structure of the EUSA draws a distinction between launch and spacecraft provisions, which suggests that applying both sets of obligations to launchers may not have been intended. Overall, this question remains unresolved at present.

Third-country launch operators and launch site operators are required to mitigate space debris by (Article 61(1)):

limiting the planned release of debris during normal operations,
implementing measures to prevent accidental fragmentation, and
ensuring appropriate end-of-life disposal.

Additionally, they must submit both a debris mitigation plan and an end-of-life disposal plan (Article 61(2)). The specific content of these plans, as well as of the measures prescribed in accordance with Article 61(1), is partly detailed in Annex II of the EUSA.

However, further, presumably very detailed, requirements will be defined by the Commission through further implementing acts (Article 61(3)).

With respect to resilience and sustainability, third-country launch operators and launch site operators shall have to adhere to the same subset of EUSA’s provisions as third-country space operators.

3. In-Space Operations and Services (ISOS) Providers

The provisions applicable to ISOS providers are stipulated in Article 15(3) of the EUSA.

However, it remains unclear whether ISOS providers are also subject to the obligations applicable to spacecraft operators (same as above), given that ISOS spacecraft should also be required to comply with regulations on collision avoidance and space debris mitigation. In fact, an ISOS configuration may even present an increased risk of serious incidents due to the close proximity in which client and ISOS providing spacecraft operate.

Notably, the EUSA obligations for ISOS providers will apply only from 1 January 2034.

The requirements for ISOS that would be applicable to third-country ISOS providers would entail in particular:

Dedicated contract: ISOS operations may commence only after a dedicated contract has been concluded between the ISOS provider and client, and both have unequivocally consented to start carrying out the agreed operation (Article 101, in connection with point 1.1 of Annex VIII)
Safety by design: ISOS spacecraft must be designed and manufactured in a way to limit risk of collision (Article 101, in connection with point 1.1 of Annex VIII)
Coordination of control centres: the servicers and client’s control centres must coordinate to ensure safety of operations (Article 101, in connection with point 1.2 of Annex VIII)
Spacecraft compatibility: servicer and client spacecraft need to be compatible (Article 101, in connection with point 2.1 of Annex VIII)
Impact assessment: due diligence must be carried out to assess potential impacts on third parties (Article 101, in connection with point 2.2 of Annex VIII)
Overall safety: ISOS operations must ensure mission safety (Article 101, in connection with point 2.3 of Annex VIII)
Testing: The system and servicing concept must be qualified through testing before engaging in the first service operation (Article 101, in connection with point 2.4 of Annex VIII)

4. Collision Avoidance Service Providers

Third-country stakeholders may also provide collision avoidance (CA) services within the Union.

However, since Union space services providers are required to subscribe to the Union CA services Provider, potential customers of such a third-country CA can only be third-country operators. This distinction results in a somewhat unusual difference in treatment between Union and third-country operators.

Third-country collision avoidance (CA) service providers are obliged to (Article 15(4):

upon request by a competent authority, provide it with up-to-date information about spacecraft (Article 102)
adhere to the requirements set out in Article 103 for their proposed collision avoidance manoeuvres

In contrast to launch service and ISOS service providers, the provisions applicable to spacecraft operators under Articles 62, 66, 67, 69 to 73, 75 to 92, and 96 to 100, do not generally apply to pure CA providers, as these providers may operate solely from the ground without involving any space assets.

V. Legal Representative in the Union

Each third-country space operator shall designate, in writing, one or more legal persons established in a Member State to act as its legal representative. The designated representative shall possess all necessary powers and resources to ensure efficient and timely cooperation with the national competent authorities, the Commission and EUSPA (Article 23 draft EUSA).

VI. Powers of the Commission and EUSPA Regarding Third-Country Space Services Providers

Supervision of third-country space operators with respect to compliance with the relevant EUSA requirements shall be exercised by the Commission, supported and assisted by EUSPA (Article 48(1)).

In order to carry out the technical assessments enabling the Commission to take decisions regarding the registration and ongoing supervision of third-country operators, EUSPA shall have the following powers:

request information, including business documents, audits or incident reports, or information on outsourced activities (Article 49)
power to carry out investigations (Article 50)
conduct on-site inspections in the Union (Article 51) and, subject to the conditions that (i) the concerned space services provider consents to the conduct of an inspection and (ii) the relevant third-country authority has been officially notified by EUSPA and raised no objection thereto, outside of the Union (Article 52)

To facilitate the conduct of on-site inspections outside of the Union, EUSPA may conclude administrative cooperation arrangements with the relevant third-country authorities (Article 48(4)-(5)).

VII. Indirect Effects

Third-country parties may also be impacted by the EUSA regulations, even if they do not directly provide space services in the Union.

This situation may arise, for example, when an industry actor serves as a supplier to an entity, whether based within the EU or outside, that is subject to compliance with EUSA requirements. In such cases, entities bound by EUSA are obliged to request specific information from their suppliers, such as data necessary to calculate the environmental footprint of a space mission. This ensures that environmental considerations are integrated throughout the entire supply chain, extending the reach of EUSA beyond direct service providers to include indirect contributors involved in space activities.

Similarly, the resilience requirements related to security-by-design may have an impact along the supply chain, even though the EUSA does not explicitly require these obligations to be contractually passed on to suppliers.

VIII. Union Space Label Framework

The EUSA also provides for the creation of a Union Space Label Framework to encourage voluntary adherence to standards that exceed the mandatory requirements set by EUSA. According to the EUSA, this label will be awarded to any space operator, including third-country operators, who submits an application to EUSPA and meets the criteria outlined in the labelling scheme.

However, it remains unclear whether the benefits associated with the label, which still have to be further detailed in future implementing acts, particularly in procurement processes within individual Member States, will also be available to stakeholders from non-Union countries.

IX. Some Remarks

It appears that concerns frequently raised by industry and experts that Union stakeholders should not be disadvantaged by an EU Space Act compared to international stakeholders, have generally been taken into account by the Commission as it concerns the internal Union market. Whether the “impact” of the EUSA is fully compensated by its benefits for the competition on the global market is a different question.

Nonetheless, further clarification regarding the meaning of “establishment” would be welcome to avoid ambiguities in relation to the question of being a third-country or a Union space operator, similar to the questions which have arisen under the GDPR.

Two further general remarks may be highlighted here:

The EUSA draft appears to introduce exemptions and easements which are only foreseen for third-party stakeholders. For instance, the scope of derogation and emergency exceptions are both foreseen only in the chapter for third party space operators (Article 19, 21). Based on wording and / or systematics, it appears that these exceptions may only apply to third party space operators / third-country launch operators. The rationale for this distinction is not entirely clear to us in both cases.

Further, where the third-country space operator has a nexus to specific Member State, national licensing requirements may apply in parallel to the EUSA. However, for the EUSA requirements, the third-country stakeholder would in addition, need to go through the EUSPA process. Thus, if a licencing process is initiated in a Member State, there is the requirement of an additional EUSPA process even if the respective Member State could also accommodate for the assessment of the EUSA requirements and would do so for EU stakeholders. The justification for this duplicative procedure, even in cases where an equivalence decision has already been adopted, remains unclear.

There are surely more questions than we have detected in this walk through.

Please give us your view!

This article was created in collaboration with our research assistant Daniel Budke.

Download as PDF

Share this article