Summary No, the Network of Open Source Programme Offices (OSPO Network) established under the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) has no enforcement role. As explicitly defined in Article 44, the Network is a coordination body designed to facilitate cooperation, promote best practices, and exchange information on open-source software among public sector bodies. Its tasks are strictly limited to "facilitation," "promotion," and contributing to guidance on a "voluntary and non-binding basis." The Network possesses no investigative powers, cannot impose penalties, and has no authority to supervise compliance. All enforcement responsibilities, including the power to investigate infringements and impose fines, rest exclusively with the National Competent Authorities designated by Member States under Title IV, Chapter I, Section 4 of the proposal.

Detail

The proposed Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA), COM(2026) 502 final, creates a distinct separation between the administrative support structures for open-source adoption and the regulatory bodies responsible for enforcing the Act's sovereignty and procurement obligations. The OSPO Network is the former; it is not a regulator.

The Statutory Mandate: Facilitation, Not Policing

Article 44 of the proposal establishes the OSPO Network to support the implementation of the open-source chapter (Chapter V of Title IV). The legislative text is precise in limiting the Network's scope to administrative and collaborative functions.

Article 44(1) states that the Commission shall establish the network "to facilitate cooperation on the implementation of the obligations under this Chapter." The word "facilitate" indicates a supportive, rather than supervisory, role.

The specific tasks assigned to the Network in Article 44(3) confirm this non-enforcement status:

  • Facilitating Exchange: The Network facilitates the exchange of information, experience, and best practices between Member States and the Commission, specifically regarding "technical, legal and organisational challenges, including those related to licensing, security, maintenance and procurement of open-source software" (Article 44(3)(a)).
  • Promoting Reuse: It promotes the sharing and reuse of open-source software by public sector bodies (Article 44(3)(b)).
  • Voluntary Guidance: Crucially, the Network contributes, on a "voluntary and non-binding basis," to the development of guidance, templates, or recommendations on the sharing and reuse of open-source software (Article 44(3)(c)).
  • Collaboration: It collaborates on and exchanges open-source projects of common interest to Union entities and public sector bodies (Article 44(3)(d)).

The phrase "voluntary and non-binding basis" in Article 44(3)(c) is the definitive legal marker. It establishes that any guidance, templates, or recommendations produced by the Network do not carry the force of law. Public sector bodies are not legally compelled to adopt these outputs, and the Network has no mechanism to sanction entities for failing to do so.

The Enforcement Gap: National Competent Authorities

To understand the OSPO Network's limited role, it must be contrasted with the bodies that do hold enforcement power under CADA. While the OSPO Network operates under Article 44, enforcement is the exclusive domain of the National Competent Authorities established under Article 25 and empowered by Article 26.

Article 25 requires Member States to designate one or more national competent authorities responsible for enforcing the sovereignty chapter (Title IV, Chapter I). These authorities are granted extensive powers under Article 26, which the OSPO Network lacks entirely:

  • Investigative Powers: Competent authorities can require cloud computing service providers to provide information, carry out inspections of premises, seize information, and ask staff for explanations (Article 26(1)).
  • Enforcement Powers: They can order the cessation of infringements, impose remedies, and impose fines or periodic penalty payments for failure to comply (Article 26(2)).
  • Penalty Framework: Article 24 mandates that Member States lay down rules on penalties that are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive." The OSPO Network plays no role in this framework. It does not assess compliance, receive infringement notifications, or have jurisdiction over cloud providers or public bodies regarding adherence to CADA's sovereignty or procurement rules.

The Commission's Role

While the OSPO Network facilitates cooperation, the European Commission retains a coordinating role. Article 44(4) states that the Commission "shall support and coordinate the OSPO Network," and Article 44(5) requires the Commission to convene and chair meetings of the Network at least twice a year. This reinforces the Network's status as an administrative support structure. The Commission's own enforcement capacities are exercised through its direct investigative powers and in conjunction with National Competent Authorities, not through the OSPO Network.

What this means for you

For in-house counsel, compliance officers, and public procurement teams, distinguishing between the OSPO Network and enforcement authorities is critical for risk management and resource allocation.

1. No Reporting Obligations to the OSPO Network You are not required to report your open-source compliance status, audit results, or infringement incidents to the OSPO Network. There is no regulatory filing obligation directed at this body. Your compliance reporting obligations under CADA are directed toward National Competent Authorities (for sovereignty assurance levels) or the Commission (for specific strategic projects or procurement monitoring).

2. Leverage the Network for Best Practices, Not Legal Certainty While the OSPO Network cannot enforce rules, its outputs are valuable for strategic compliance. The "guidance, templates or recommendations" developed under Article 44(3)(c) may serve as industry benchmarks. Adopting these templates can demonstrate due diligence in your open-source governance, potentially mitigating reputational risk or supporting defenses in procurement disputes. However, relying solely on OSPO Network guidance does not guarantee compliance with CADA or other applicable EU laws (such as the Cyber Resilience Act or GDPR).

3. Focus Enforcement Preparedness on National Authorities Your primary regulatory risk under CADA lies with National Competent Authorities. Ensure your internal controls are designed to withstand the investigative powers outlined in Article 26. This includes maintaining accessible records of subcontractor due diligence, software bills of materials (SBOMs), and audit evidence. The OSPO Network will not be the body requesting these documents during an investigation.

4. Procurement Implications For public sector procurement officers, the OSPO Network may influence the development of "Union added value" criteria (Article 32) or open-source assessment methodologies. While the Network does not enforce procurement rules, its promoted best practices may shape the technical specifications in future tenders. Aligning your open-source strategy with emerging OSPO Network standards may improve your competitiveness in public procurement processes that favor open standards and reuse.

Common misconceptions

Misconception: The OSPO Network issues binding standards for open-source usage. Reality: Article 44(3)(c) explicitly states that the Network contributes to guidance on a "voluntary and non-binding basis." Any templates or recommendations are advisory. They do not create legal obligations, and failure to follow them does not constitute an infringement of CADA.

Misconception: The OSPO Network audits public sector bodies for open-source compliance. Reality: The Network has no audit mandate. It does not assess whether public sector bodies are correctly reusing software or managing open-source licenses. Audit and enforcement functions are reserved for National Competent Authorities (for cloud sovereignty) or other sector-specific regulators.

Misconception: Joining the OSPO Network is mandatory for all public sector bodies. Reality: Article 44(2) states that Open Source Programme Offices "may request from the Commission to join the OSPO Network." Participation is voluntary. Public sector bodies are not automatically members, nor are they penalized for not participating.

Misconception: The OSPO Network can impose fines for non-compliance with open-source obligations. Reality: Only National Competent Authorities (and in some cases, the Commission) have the power to impose fines under CADA (Article 26(2)(b)). The OSPO Network has no punitive powers whatsoever.

Official sources

Related

This is general information about a draft EU regulation, not legal advice.