15 July 2026 – A recent question to the European Commission on CBAM and steel tariffs caught our attention: “What monetisable compensation does the Commission envisage for downstream producers whose embedded costs originate upstream, and who do not qualify for the decarbonisation fund?” The answer shows what the downstream industry can expect from Brussels. And when it comes to EU steel import quotas, there is nothing new from the Commission.
EU Steel Policy: Big Industry Protected, SMEs Ignored, Commission Silent on Compensation
A written question submitted by Members of the EPP Group in May 2026, E-001826/2026, caught our attention. Not because of everything it asked, since socialism is unfortunately not incompatible with the EPP either, as the German CDU demonstrates, but because of a single question that the Commission simply refuses to answer:
“What monetisable compensation does the Commission envisage for downstream producers whose embedded costs originate upstream, and who do not qualify for the decarbonisation fund?”
The answer from the responsible Commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra, dated 14 July 2026, was silence. Instead, he refers to the Temporary Decarbonisation Fund, which is explicitly aimed at EU ETS installations, meaning large integrated steel producers. The fund “may also decrease associated downstream costs,” the answer then states.
No obligation, no guarantee, no figure. There is no monetisable compensation for downstream SMEs. Period.
The Pattern Repeats Itself
This is not an isolated incident. It is the system. As early as March 2026, an earlier written question, E-001234/2026, raised the same fundamental issues: how does the Commission intend to prevent the double burden of CBAM and steel tariffs? Why were SMEs not exempted despite specific proposals?
At the time, the Commission responded curtly that the measures applied equally to all importers, that there had been no differentiation under the previous safeguard, and that there would be none in the future either.
The same rules for everyone may sound fair. They are not. A corporation with its own compliance team, consolidated procurement, and access to capital markets bears the same formal burden, but the economic impact is entirely different from that faced by a medium-sized company with twenty employees.
Protection for Corporations, Costs for SMEs
The balance sheet is clear: large integrated steel producers are protected several times over through tariffs, quotas, free ETS allowances, and a decarbonisation fund. Import-dependent SMEs and downstream processors, by contrast, face rising procurement costs, CBAM obligations, quota cuts of more than 45%, and an administrative burden that can threaten the very existence of smaller businesses.
The Commission has never presented a cumulative impact assessment of these measures, let alone an SME test.
Thorsten Gerber, CEO of Gerber Group, puts it plainly: “The Commission pursues industrial policy for corporations and calls it a level playing field. SMEs are the backbone of the European economy, but in Brussels they are apparently invisible, at best a nuisance, and at worst they simply want to get rid of us. Anyone who simultaneously raises tariffs, cuts quotas, introduces CBAM, and believes downstream businesses can simply absorb the impact has either failed to think it through or deliberately wants to destroy us.”
Who Protects European SMEs from European Protection Policy?
That is the question raised by both written questions, and Brussels has no answer. Trade protection is becoming an instrument for redistribution in favour of a small number of large producers. And the Commission? It refers businesses to complaint mailboxes and impact assessments postponed until later.
The central problem remains unanswered: who protects European SMEs from the cumulative costs of European protection policy?
Steel Import Quotas: Nothing New from Brussels
In 2026, one might assume that important economic and tax-relevant data, such as current import quota balances, would be published in real time. But not in the European Union.
The steel import quotas, which have been blocked for 14 days, should have been released and updated this morning. You can probably guess the punchline: they have not been. The TRQs still reflect yesterday evening’s status.
According to a response available to us, dated 10 July 2026, from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union to one of our enquiries, it apparently has no intention of updating the TRQs more than once per day in the future, let alone providing real-time data. It does not even wish to recognise the “Total awaiting allocation” figure as legally binding.
The Commission had also answered our question as to the legal basis on which the quotas had been frozen for such a long period:
“The tariff rate quotas (TRQs) established under Regulation (EU) 2026/1457 on steel are currently subject to the blocking period provided for in Article 51(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. In accordance with that provision, a standard blocking period of 10 working days applies following the introduction of new quota measures.”
We will inform you as soon as further information becomes available.
Latest news
- Steel in Germany Now Works Only with Taxpayer Money
- CBAM Certificate Platform: Brussels’ Next Bureaucracy Trap
- EU Steel Giant: Subsidies In, European Jobs Out
We at the Gerber Group have been trading in stainless steel worldwide for over 20 years. We are your experts when it comes to purchasing, import, logistics and services. Information is a vital part of this. Because only then can you and we make the right decisions. Do you have any questions? Contact us now.
Disclaimer: Many things here represent our opinion. Others are information from the Internet. We can therefore never claim to be correct or complete. And never base a business decision solely on the news you receive from us.
