Breaking news

Inside The Compensation Structure Of European Parliament Members

Overview Of Compensation And Allowances

Debate over the pay and allowances of Members of the European Parliament regularly resurfaces, particularly during periods of scrutiny over EU spending. The remuneration structure, taxation rules, and work-related budgets allocated to MEPs remain a frequent subject of public and political discussion.

Base Salary And Deductions

Since July 2009, all MEPs have been paid under a unified system designed to ensure equal treatment across the Parliament’s 720 members. Under a decision of the European Court of Justice, parliamentary salaries correspond to 38.5% of the basic judicial remuneration.

The current gross monthly salary stands at €11,255.26. After EU tax and social security deductions, the net monthly amount is approximately €8,772.70. Salaries are paid directly from the European Parliament budget, although member states may apply additional national taxation.

Daily Allowance And Attendance Requirements

MEPs receive a daily allowance of €359 (2026 rate) for attending official plenary sessions in Strasbourg or Brussels, provided they sign the attendance register. If a member participates in fewer than half of roll-call votes on a voting day, the allowance is reduced by half.

For sessions outside the EU, the daily allowance falls to €179.50, with accommodation reimbursed separately. During the monthly Green Week, MEPs work in their constituencies and do not receive attendance-based allowances for committee meetings. Average consolidated net monthly income is estimated at around €10,000, although many members incur additional accommodation costs in Brussels or Strasbourg.

General Expense Allowance And Travel Reimbursements

MEPs also receive a monthly allowance of €4,950 (2025 rate) to cover office operations, equipment, administrative expenses, and official representation. The amount is reduced by 50% if an MEP is unjustifiably absent from at least half of the plenary sessions during the parliamentary year.

Travel costs are reimbursed based on actual expenses within defined limits: business-class airfare, first-class rail travel, or €0.59 per kilometre by car (up to 720 km per trip and 60,000 km annually). Additional travel-related costs, including tolls and booking fees, may also be reimbursed. For official duties within the member’s home country, expenses are covered up to annual limits, while activities abroad are reimbursed up to €5,638 per year.

Staffing And Personal Assistance Budget

MEPs may hire their own assistants under Parliament rules. In 2016, each member was allocated up to €32,072 per month for staffing costs, covering salaries, fees, and social contributions. The allocation is identical for all members, with contracts administered by payment agents to ensure compliance with EU and national regulations. The budget may also cover assistants’ travel costs for official duties.

Pension And Ethical Standards

Former MEPs are eligible for a pension from age 63, calculated at 3.5% of the basic salary per full year of service, plus proportional amounts for additional months, capped at 70% of salary. Pension payments are financed through the EU budget.

MEPs are required to follow a code of conduct introduced in 2012 and updated in 2023. The framework addresses conflicts of interest, financial transparency, and disclosure obligations, including gifts exceeding €150 in value. Members must also declare instances where travel or accommodation is financed by external parties. Violations may lead to sanctions imposed by the President of the European Parliament, with penalties published publicly.

Context And Implications

The compensation system aims to balance fair remuneration with accountability and transparency. While allowances are justified as necessary for parliamentary work across multiple locations, they remain under continuous public scrutiny. Understanding the structure of these payments is essential for assessing how EU institutions operate and allocate public funds.

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Uol
eCredo
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Aretilaw firm

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter