Five European governments have called on EU countries to align their pharmaceutical pricing policies and avoid fragmented measures in response to growing pressure over medicine costs.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria and Ireland — members of the “Beneluxa” initiative — said in a joint statement on Wednesday that they support cooperation in addressing “shared structural challenges” and warned against “uncoordinated individual national measures.”

The statement comes as the United States and pharmaceutical companies intensify pressure on EU countries over drug prices, which in Germany are roughly three times lower than in the United States.

The Trump administration is demanding that Europe pay higher prices for medicines while pursuing lower prices domestically.

US embassies across Europe have been tasked with negotiating national pharmaceutical pricing agreements similar to the deal reached with the United Kingdom.

The UK is now paying more for medicines in exchange for a temporary exemption from US tariffs.

Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla, together with the chief executives of 30 other pharmaceutical companies, has requested an urgent meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Germany’s pharmaceutical industry lobby has acknowledged being “somewhat jealous” of the UK-US agreement.

According to reports, Bourla told Merz that his government’s plans to reduce drug prices had prompted Pfizer to reconsider its investments in Germany.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim have already paused investments in Germany.

US government officials are holding meetings with their counterparts in Berlin to discuss pharmaceutical pricing.

The Beneluxa group, however, warned against a fragmented European response even on pricing, an area that remains a national competence.

The countries said:

“In a geopolitically turbulent period, we believe that current developments in the pharmaceutical system require unity and coordination. Simplifying pricing and reimbursement procedures on the basis of mutual agreement and cooperation must ultimately lead to a more unified European approach to the pricing and reimbursement of new treatments.”

Health policy falls under the authority of individual member states rather than EU institutions, making collective action on pharmaceuticals more difficult.

Nevertheless, the five countries said EU governments share “a common objective to safeguard Europe’s solidarity-based systems” and should consider “deeper cooperation.”

“We must ensure that our pharmaceutical expenditure remains sustainable in order to preserve patients’ access to medicines, both now and in the future,” they added.

EU ministers are set to discuss pressures on pharmaceutical pricing at a meeting in Luxembourg on June 16, though member states appear divided into competing camps.

A government spokesperson told POLITICO that Sweden has invited “around 10” ministers to a breakfast meeting aimed at coordinating a response to geopolitical challenges facing the pharmaceutical sector.

Later that day, the entire bloc will gather for a working lunch on “strengthening Europe’s pharmaceutical resilience and autonomy” at the invitation of the Cypriot presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Meanwhile, the generic medicines industry argues that its products could help the EU withstand pressure from the United States and the pharmaceutical sector to pay higher prices for medicines.

A Medicines for Europe briefing obtained by POLITICO and shared with the European Commission and EU governments urges the bloc to accelerate the adoption of off-patent medicines that offer alternatives to expensive biological treatments. According to the document, the strategy could free up €10 billion in pharmaceutical spending.

The Beneluxa statement also said incentives for the sector would only “partially address our innovation challenges.”

While referring to “several potential” incentives under discussion, the statement did not endorse any specific proposal, arguing that such measures require “productive, collaborative and critical scrutiny” before being advanced as EU policy.

The European Commission has proposed extending patent protections for certain biotechnology medicines on the condition that they are manufactured in Europe.

Public insurers, patient groups and the generic medicines industry have warned that the plan would increase medicine costs.

Members of the European Parliament have also objected to the Commission presenting the proposal without conducting the formal impact assessment that normally accompanies new legislation.

Last month, the EU executive published an analysis estimating that the measure would cost public insurers €70 million per medicine annually.

The European Parliament, however, is conducting its own study into how heavily the proposal could burden national healthcare budgets.

Toyota and Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) have warned that proposed “Made in Europe” production requirements could jeopardize investment and employment while making European-built vehicles more expensive than Chinese-made competitors.

Under current European Union proposals, corporate fleet vehicles and small electric vehicles would need to be assembled within the bloc to qualify for public procurement contracts and subsidies.

The proposals have triggered a strong backlash from global automakers that export vehicles to Europe from countries including the United Kingdom, Türkiye and Morocco.

As part of the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), the EU is also proposing a 70% local-content threshold for vehicle components, excluding batteries, as a condition for eligibility for subsidies or public procurement contracts.

JLR, which is owned by India’s Tata Motors, said the proposals would increase costs for manufacturers that would be required to provide evidence of where their components are sourced.

Executives from other automakers have also said that compiling customs documentation to verify the origin of components supplied by smaller suppliers would be difficult.

“The IAA imposes additional costs on manufacturers and makes European vehicles more expensive. It does nothing to address the fundamental structural differences that make European manufacturing less competitive than China,” JLR said.

Speaking at an Automotive News event in Brussels on Wednesday, Yoshihiro Nakata, head of Toyota’s European operations, warned that excluding key international partners from the “Made in Europe” rules could “undermine future investment, jobs and technology transfer.”

The world’s largest automaker, which operates eight factories across Europe and the United Kingdom and employs 25,000 people in the region, called for vehicles manufactured in Japan, the United Kingdom and Türkiye to remain eligible for IAA subsidies.

“Europe’s resilience depends not only on local production but also on working with partners to create regional scale and shared success. By working together, we are all stronger,” Nakata said.

JLR also urged the EU to assess manufacturers’ overall contribution to European economies — including through exports from the bloc — rather than focusing solely on where vehicles are assembled.

The company warned that excluding the United Kingdom from the framework would have serious consequences across the industry.

“Replacing UK content with EU content could destabilize both the UK automotive supply chain and the EU supply chain because of their interdependence.”

Nissan, one of the United Kingdom’s largest automotive employers, has previously warned that it would close its flagship Sunderland plant if the policy were implemented.

Such job losses would run counter to the objectives of the IAA, which was proposed in March by French Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné as part of Brussels’ effort to reverse the bloc’s industrial decline.

The legislation aims to increase manufacturing’s share of the EU economy from 14.3% in 2024 to 20% by 2035.

The proposal already allows manufacturers in other clean-technology sectors located in countries that have free trade agreements with the EU to benefit from “Made in Europe” status.

There are indications that member states and lawmakers will seek to amend the legislation to include UK-based automotive production.

French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier told the Financial Times two weeks ago that Brussels needed to resolve the “problem” of the United Kingdom’s exclusion from the programme, while a European Commission official acknowledged that member states, including Germany, also support UK participation.

A senior member of the European Parliament familiar with the negotiations said the Parliament could also review the proposal’s geographic scope in order to fully include the United Kingdom.

However, the current proposal is supported by other automakers, including Volkswagen and Stellantis, as well as many automotive parts manufacturers.

Benjamin Krieger, secretary-general of auto supplier association Clepa, said the group supports extending the programme to the United Kingdom and other free-trade partners but would oppose any dilution of the requirement that 70% of vehicle content be produced in Europe.

“We need to stop the bleeding. If you import everything, vehicles will of course become cheaper, but we would sacrifice manufacturing in Europe,” Krieger said.

The European Commission said its proposals on corporate fleets and small electric vehicles are “key initiatives supporting our green transition” and that these objectives should also translate into “growth and manufacturing activity” within the EU supply chain.

The European Commission has proposed keeping the price cap on Russian oil at its current level until January, seeking to avoid a mandatory increase under the European Union’s review mechanism amid a rise in global oil prices following the war in the Middle East.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the proposal while presenting the EU’s 21st sanctions package against Russia.

The price cap for Russian oil was set at $44.1 per barrel in January. Under the mechanism, the cap is recalculated every six months at a level 15% below the market price of Russia’s Urals crude.

Von der Leyen said the system “was not designed for market shocks of the kind caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

“We propose freezing the adjustment until January next year. This will maintain pressure on Russia’s revenues while giving oil markets time to regain stability,” she said.

Brent crude has traded below $100 a barrel since the end of May. Prices fell to as low as $91 on Tuesday.

By contrast, according to Argus Media data, Urals crude has recently been shipped from Black Sea and Baltic Sea ports at an average price of around $73.5 per barrel.

Western companies seeking to comply with EU sanctions may purchase Russian oil only within the limits of the established price cap. However, most Russian oil is transported by shadow fleet tankers, many of which are themselves subject to sanctions.

As part of the 21st sanctions package, the European Commission has proposed imposing sanctions on an additional 30 vessels linked to that fleet.

The package also calls for a ban on the sale of ships that could be used to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Russia, mirroring restrictions previously imposed on oil tankers.

In addition, the Commission plans to introduce sanctions targeting the fishing sector for the first time. It also said it had prepared what it described as the most comprehensive package of restrictions yet aimed at banks and financial companies, including those operating in third countries.

The proposed sanctions require the approval of all European Union member states before they can enter into force.