Summary As proposed in the Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA), the EuroCloud Federation would involve two distinct and separate fees. First, under Article 36, members of the EuroCloud Federation would jointly finance the European Commission's work in running the federation, through fees levied by the Commission. Second, under Article 35(5), where one member shares a service with another, the sharing entity may charge the using entity a fee — but only up to the costs it incurs in relation to the sharing. The two fees serve different purposes, are paid to different recipients, and rest on different parts of the proposed text. The precise amount of the administration fee is not fixed in the proposal; it would be set later by Commission implementing acts under Article 36(4).
Detail
The Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA), formally COM(2026) 502 final, is a proposal and is not yet in force. Among other things, it would establish the EuroCloud Federation as a framework for sharing data centre and cloud computing services. To pay for this without turning the federation into a commercial marketplace, the proposal would set up two separate fee mechanisms. The most important thing to understand is that they are genuinely different fees: one flows from all members to the Commission, the other flows from one member to another. Confusing them is the most common source of misunderstanding, so this article treats each in turn before comparing them directly.
1. Administration fees: members jointly finance the Commission (Article 36)
Under the proposal, the Commission would carry out a range of activities to run the federation — for example, assessing requests to join and establishing a platform. These activities cost money, and Article 36 would set out how that money is raised.
Who would pay, and to whom? Article 36(1) provides that "the costs arising from the activities carried out by the Commission pursuant to this Chapter shall be jointly financed by the members of the EuroCloud Federation through fees levied by the Commission." In plain terms, every member would contribute to the cost of running the federation, and the Commission would collect those contributions. This is a cost-recovery model: the fees would be there to cover the Commission's actual costs, not to generate a surplus.
What the fees would cover. Article 36(3) would treat the fee revenues as internal assigned revenues within the meaning of Article 21(3)(a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509. They would be assigned to cover the Commission's Chapter activities, "including assessing request to join the EuroCloud Federation and the establishment of the platform referred to in Article 34(3)." Any remainder would be entered into the general Union budget.
What if costs come first, before fees are collected? Establishing the federation may require spending before the membership and its fees are fully in place. Article 36(2) anticipates this: where costs are initially borne by the general Union budget, they would be "reimbursed by the EuroCloud members over a period not exceeding three years from the date on which the costs were borne by the Union." So even where the Union budget fronts the money, the design is that members repay it within three years.
How would the amount be set? This is where the original draft of this article went wrong, and it is worth being precise. The proposal does not fix a figure for the administration fee. Instead, Article 36(4) provides that "the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down detailed rules for determining the estimated costs, the individual amount of the fees, and the manner and conditions under which the fees are to be paid." Those implementing acts would be adopted under the examination procedure referred to in Article 46(2). Until they exist, the actual amount any member would pay is simply not knowable from the text — there is no per-member figure, no schedule, and no statement in the verified source that fees would shrink as membership grows. Anyone budgeting today should treat the amount as to-be-determined.
2. Service-sharing fees: cost recovery between members (Article 35(5))
The second fee is entirely separate. It does not involve the Commission at all. It arises between two members: a sharing entity that provides a service, and a using entity that consumes it.
The operative rule. Article 35(5) provides that "the sharing entity may charge a fee to the using entity. The amount of the fee shall be limited to the costs that the sharing entity incurs in relation to the sharing of the service and shall not constitute a pecuniary interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2014/24/EU and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509."
Two things follow. First, charging is optional ("may charge"). Second, if a fee is charged, it is capped at the costs of sharing — it is a reimbursement of costs, not a price. The clause that the fee "shall not constitute a pecuniary interest" within the meaning of the cited public procurement instruments is the legally significant part: it signals that these cost-recovery transactions are not commercial contracts.
Which costs may be recovered? The list of recoverable costs is found in Recital 73, not in the operative text of Article 35(5). Recital 73 describes costs such as allocating and isolating resources, managing access, integration and interoperability, ensuring compliance with Union law, and managing the sharing relationship. Recital 73 also explains that such cost-recovery fees do not constitute a pecuniary interest or a public contract, and that the sharing "should not fall under Union public procurement rules." It is important to attribute this point correctly: the operative cap and the "pecuniary interest" wording are Article 35(5); the itemised cost list and the public-procurement explanation are Recital 73.
3. The two fees side by side
| Feature | Administration fees (Article 36) | Service-sharing fees (Article 35(5)) |
|---|---|---|
| Who pays | All EuroCloud Federation members | The using entity |
| Who receives | The Commission (treated as internal assigned revenue) | The sharing entity |
| Purpose | Finance the Commission's work running the federation, including assessing join requests and the Article 34(3) platform | Recover the costs the sharing entity incurs in relation to sharing the service |
| Cap / basis | Cost recovery; amount set by implementing acts under Article 36(4) | Limited to the costs incurred in relation to the sharing |
| Amount known today | No — to be set by implementing acts | No fixed figure; depends on the sharing entity's actual costs |
| Procurement status | A federation operating cost | Not a pecuniary interest; per Recital 73, should not fall under Union public procurement rules |
What this means for you
If you work in a public sector body considering the EuroCloud Federation, the practical takeaways are these.
Two budget lines, not one. You would need to account separately for the administration fee payable to the Commission and for any service-sharing fee payable to another member when you use its capacity. They are not the same money and they do not go to the same place.
Do not budget a specific administration-fee figure yet. The proposal does not state one. The amount would be determined by implementing acts under Article 36(4), following the examination procedure in Article 46(2). Any euro figure circulating before those acts are adopted is not grounded in the proposal.
Expect cost recovery, not market pricing, for shared services. Under Article 35(5), a sharing entity's fee would be limited to the costs it incurs in relation to the sharing. You would not be paying a commercial rate for the underlying compute; you would be reimbursing the sharing entity's costs.
Note the procurement signal. Because a service-sharing fee "shall not constitute a pecuniary interest" (Article 35(5)), and because Recital 73 indicates such sharing should not fall under Union public procurement rules, these arrangements are framed as public cooperation rather than commercial contracts. This is a proposal, so this should be checked against the final text and any guidance once adopted.
Common misconceptions
Misconception 1: The administration fee is roughly a fixed amount per member. Reality: The proposal sets no figure. Article 36(4) would leave the individual amount, the estimated costs, and the payment conditions to implementing acts. There is no per-member number, and nothing in the verified text says the fee shrinks as membership grows.
Misconception 2: The two fees are basically the same charge. Reality: They are different. The administration fee (Article 36) is paid by all members to the Commission to run the federation. The service-sharing fee (Article 35(5)) is paid by one using member to one sharing member to reimburse the costs of a specific shared service.
Misconception 3: Members can charge market rates for shared services. Reality: No. Article 35(5) would limit any fee to the costs incurred in relation to the sharing and provides it "shall not constitute a pecuniary interest." Recital 73 lists the kinds of recoverable costs and indicates the sharing should not fall under Union public procurement rules.
Misconception 4: The Union budget simply pays for the federation. Reality: Article 36(1) provides that the Commission's costs are jointly financed by members through fees. Where costs are initially borne by the general Union budget, Article 36(2) provides they would be reimbursed by members within a period not exceeding three years.
Related
- CADA EuroCloud Federation: Article 35 Sharing Fees vs. Article 36 Administration Fees
- EuroCloud Federation: Implementing Acts, Procedures and Fees under CADA
- EuroCloud Federation fees: What can a sharing entity charge?
- EuroCloud Federation: Legal obligations, fees and security duties for public bodies
- Why was the EuroCloud Federation created? CADA's public-sector cloud strategy
This is general information about a draft EU regulation, not legal advice.