AMSTERDAM – European industry representatives and legal experts are worried that the EU Space Act is too slow, too rigid and too bureaucratic.
Speaking at SmallSat Europe, panelists said they did not oppose regulation itself or the idea behind a common European framework. However, the words most frequently used to describe the first and second drafts of the EU Space Act were “monopoly,” “slow,” “rigid” and “micromanaging.”
Chiara Manfletti, CEO of Neuraspace, argued the current draft misunderstands how fast-moving commercial space operates.
“The idea of having an EU Space Act is absolutely good. The problem is the proposal currently on the table,” Manfletti said during a panel. “If it takes 12 months to get a license, that is ancient history for the commercial space sector.”
A recurring concern among panelists was that Europe already moves more slowly than the United States and that the proposed legislation could institutionalize additional delays.
The act harmonizes technical aspects such as sustainability, debris mitigation, cybersecurity and operational safety, but leaves major competitiveness bottlenecks — including licensing timelines, liability, insurance requirements and administrative burdens — at the national level.
Ingo Baumann, partner at BHO Legal, explained that companies may face additional delays before being allowed to operate across the Union.
“You may already have your national license, but still need additional months before being allowed to provide services within the Union,” Baumann said. “If one company waits two years for a license while a competitor needs six months, that company enters the market one and a half years later.”
Another concern is that the Act could favor large incumbent players over startups and smaller companies.
Stewart Marsh, head of satellite and space at Cambridge Consultants, said the legislation could create a disproportionate administrative burden for smaller firms and risk penalizing startups.
“The EU Space Act will definitely be burdensome for smaller companies because there is often a large upfront investment simply to deal with the regulations.”
Baumann further argued that the regulatory philosophy behind the Space Act resembles the French national model developed around major industrial primes rather than emerging commercial ecosystems. This could create a mismatch between mature and emerging space industries across Europe, with startups effectively treated like large established companies such as ArianeGroup or Thales Alenia Space.
“That framework was designed for very large established players, not emerging startups across Europe,” Baumann added.
Several panelists also argued that, in its current form, the proposal risks creating fragmentation within Europe itself.
While the legislation seeks to create a level playing field inside the Union by requiring non-EU operators to comply with the framework, countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom — both deeply integrated into Europe’s space ecosystem — could legally be treated similarly to non-European competitors such as the U.S. or China.
The issue is particularly sensitive because both Norway and the UK are investing heavily in spaceports and launch infrastructure tied to Europe’s launch ambitions. Under the current framework, non-EU European launch providers could face legal uncertainty, potentially affecting broader European cooperation by disadvantaging ESA member states outside the EU.
Tanja Masson, professor at the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University, highlighted the contradiction.
“Norway and the UK are European launch actors, but they will still be treated as third countries,” she said. “The current draft says that preference should be given to EU launchers and launch sites, and that could become a problem.”
“There could be a significant gray area for years regarding whether operators like Isar Aerospace, launching from Andøya, can fulfill existing contracts,” Baumann added, concluding that “the biggest competitiveness effect of the EU Space Act may simply be making market access more difficult for U.S. operators.”
Which could be a temporary relief, but in the long term might strain the the tight and interdependent commercial relationships between Europe and the U.S.
